Terraform Moon With Earths Excess Co2

[cyclonebuster]

Yet, your solution presumes there will be no need to do this. Around in circles we go.

 

 

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect" :phones:

 

~modest

 

Fact is the kinetic energy in the gulf stream can do both. It can give us the energy we need to get us off fossil fuel or charcoal to reduce Co2 and to get the excess Co2 off the Earth where the EXCESS Co2 is not wanted while at the same time build a biosphere on the moon in order to let life have a niche to thrive in. Looks like a great trade off to me.

[modest]

Fact is the kinetic energy in the gulf stream can do both. It can give us the energy we need to get us off fossil fuel or charcoal to reduce Co2 and to get the excess Co2 off the Earth where the EXCESS Co2 is not wanted while at the same time build a biosphere on the moon in order to let life have a niche to thrive in. Looks like a great trade off to me.

 

Yeah, I was going to say earlier: the real reason we'd be shooting all this carbon to the moon is simply that we have an abundance of energy and an excessive amount of time on our hands. :shrug:

 

The reason is *not* that it solves any kind of problem.

 

As for the assumption that reducing CO2 from around 400 to around 250 ppm is enough to build a viable biosphere on the moon... I rather doubt this.

 

The maximum thermal velocity of CO2 at 400 K (the max temp on the moon) is right around the escape velocity of the moon which means most of the CO2 delivered to the moon will not be gravitationally bound there—it will fly off into space. A significant portion of the rest will remain frozen doing nothing toward building an atmosphere. Not to mention there just isn't enough carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to build... Well.. let me work out some numbers...

 

Earth's atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10¹⁸ kg. 250 ppm of this is 1.28700 x 10¹⁵. That's how much CO2 your plan wants us to put on the moon. The surface area is 3.793 × 10¹³ m². This means that your plan results in, at most, 33.9 kilograms of carbon dioxide sitting on top of every square meter. This is mass / surface area.

 

The acceleration of gravity on the moon is 1.6 m/s^2 meaning the weight exerted on one square meter is (m x g) 54.24 kg-m/s^s. This means that the pressure on the moon accomplished by your plan is 54.24 newtons per square meter or 0.0009869% of earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level.

 

So, yeah, there's just not enough carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere to build an atmosphere on the moon. Even if you put 250 ppm of earth's current atmosphere on the moon, this would result in an atmospheric pressure on the moon of only 0.000009869 atmospheres—essentially, not an atmosphere at all. And, this is not even considering that most of the CO2 you hit the moon with will not go toward an atmosphere.

 

Your premise that we can "at the same time build a biosphere on the moon" is mistaken.

 

~modest

[cyclonebuster]

Yeah, I was going to say earlier: the real reason we'd be shooting all this carbon to the moon is simply that we have an abundance of energy and an excessive amount of time on our hands. :shrug:

 

The reason is *not* that it solves any kind of problem.

 

As for the assumption that reducing CO2 from around 400 to around 250 ppm is enough to build a viable biosphere on the moon... I rather doubt this.

 

The maximum thermal velocity of CO2 at 400 K (the max temp on the moon) is right around the escape velocity of the moon which means most of the CO2 delivered to the moon will not be gravitationally bound there—it will fly off into space. A significant portion of the rest will remain frozen doing nothing toward building an atmosphere. Not to mention there just isn't enough carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to build... Well.. let me work out some numbers...

 

Earth's atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10¹⁸ kg. 250 ppm of this is 1.28700 x 10¹⁵. That's how much CO2 your plan wants us to put on the moon. The surface area is 3.793 × 10¹³ m². This means that your plan results in, at most, 33.9 kilograms of carbon dioxide sitting on top of every square meter. This is mass / surface area.

 

The acceleration of gravity on the moon is 1.6 m/s^2 meaning the weight exerted on one square meter is (m x g) 54.24 kg-m/s^s. This means that the pressure on the moon accomplished by your plan is 54.24 newtons per square meter or 0.0009869% of earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level.

 

So, yeah, there's just not enough carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere to build an atmosphere on the moon. Even if you put 250 ppm of earth's current atmosphere on the moon, this would result in an atmospheric pressure on the moon of only 0.000009869 atmospheres—essentially, not an atmosphere at all. And, this is not even considering that most of the CO2 you hit the moon with will not go toward an atmosphere.

 

Your premise that we can "at the same time build a biosphere on the moon" is mistaken.

 

~modest

 

Or an extra 75 lbs per square meter. Does this increase lunar mass and therefore gravity?

[modest]

Or an extra 75 lbs per square meter. Does this increase lunar mass and therefore gravity?

 

Sorry, no, the lunar mass is in the order of 10^24 kg and adding 75 lbs per square meter adds in the order of 10^15 kilograms. It does not increase the mass or gravity appreciably.

 

I'm quite certain of the conclusion. Adding even the full compliment of Earth's atmospheric CO2 to the moon would not make an appreciable atmosphere on the moon. It would make an atmosphere of about 0.000009 times the pressure of earth's atmosphere.

 

~modest

[madmadmax]

We need to find a planet with a mass equal to the mass of our earth. The bigger the mass the bigger the gravity the less human the planets inhabitants become after a few generations.

[cyclonebuster]

Life may already be here on our moon,the extra Co2 may help it along. Ever hear of Methane eating bacteria here on earth?

 

Lunar Impact Uncovered More Than Just Moon Water

Edited January 4, 2011 by Qfwfq
No need to repeat entire text.

[JMJones0424]

This thread has long passed the ludicrous stage.

 

In your opening post, you make the assertion that moving a portion of Earth's atmospheric CO₂ to the moon would be an effective way to reduce the CO₂ portion of the Earth's atmosphere and to also begin terraforming the moon.

 

Shoot dry ice inside projectiles to the Moon with Rail Gun Technology to lower atmospheric Co2 on Earth to that of pre- industrial revolution values of 250ppm. If the 1/6 gravity of the moon can hold the Co2 to the Surface then an atmosphere can be formed and then seeds,water and nutrients can be added to start growing plants to make oxygen.

 

As has been pointed out, every feature of this proposal is either a ridiculously inefficient way to attack the problem, or impossible. Since you refuse to accept this, let me refocus your effort. The (imagined?) possibility of life already existing on the moon is both utterly irrelevant and in no way supported by the press release you linked.

 

For your proposal to be more than just idle fancy, you need to answer the following questions:

1) What is required to isolate CO₂ from the atmosphere at concentrations of 400ppm and remove enough of it to bring concentrations down to 250ppm?

 

2) What is required to store CO₂ in solid form, both during collection and during the launch (or shot) through our atmosphere to the moon?

 

3 What is required to build and power a rail gun to launch projectiles through our atmosphere at a velocity high enough to impact the moon? How many projectiles would be needed to launch 1 trillion tons of CO₂?

 

If you haven't already realized the lunacy (hehe), now we get to the impossible part.

4) Given the moon's low gravity, day/night length, high/low temp, and relatively non-existent atmosphere, even after supplying 1 trillion tons of CO₂, what plants do you propose to grow on the moon under the conditions you have provided?

 

5) What more would need to be done to "terraform" the moon for colonization of terrestrial plants rather than just building climate controlled environments on (or in) portions of the moon? What impact would that have on the Earth?

 

If you need help with those questions, or if you feel other questions need to be added to the list, then feel free to ask. I am sure that you are likely to find people here at hypography that are both capable of answering some of them and willing to help you in trying to find an answer. I do not think that the goals of reducing CO₂ concentrations on Earth or making the moon habitable are impossible or unworthy, I just think your approach is incorrect. And, I think it is important for you to realize why.

[cyclonebuster]

This thread has long passed the ludicrous stage.

 

In your opening post, you make the assertion that moving a portion of Earth's atmospheric CO₂ to the moon would be an effective way to reduce the CO₂ portion of the Earth's atmosphere and to also begin terraforming the moon.

 

 

 

As has been pointed out, every feature of this proposal is either a ridiculously inefficient way to attack the problem, or impossible. Since you refuse to accept this, let me refocus your effort. The (imagined?) possibility of life already existing on the moon is both utterly irrelevant and in no way supported by the press release you linked.

 

For your proposal to be more than just idle fancy, you need to answer the following questions:

1) What is required to isolate CO₂ from the atmosphere at concentrations of 400ppm and remove enough of it to bring concentrations down to 250ppm?

 

2) What is required to store CO₂ in solid form, both during collection and during the launch (or shot) through our atmosphere to the moon?

 

3 What is required to build and power a rail gun to launch projectiles through our atmosphere at a velocity high enough to impact the moon? How many projectiles would be needed to launch 1 trillion tons of CO₂?

 

If you haven't already realized the lunacy (hehe), now we get to the impossible part.

4) Given the moon's low gravity, day/night length, high/low temp, and relatively non-existent atmosphere, even after supplying 1 trillion tons of CO₂, what plants do you propose to grow on the moon under the conditions you have provided?

 

5) What more would need to be done to "terraform" the moon for colonization of terrestrial plants rather than just building climate controlled environments on (or in) portions of the moon? What impact would that have on the Earth?

 

If you need help with those questions, or if you feel other questions need to be added to the list, then feel free to ask. I am sure that you are likely to find people here at hypography that are both capable of answering some of them and willing to help you in trying to find an answer. I do not think that the goals of reducing CO₂ concentrations on Earth or making the moon habitable are impossible or unworthy, I just think your approach is incorrect. And, I think it is important for you to realize why.

 

"The (imagined?) possibility of life already existing on the moon is both utterly irrelevant and in no way supported by the press release you linked."

 

Perhaps not that press release but it is by this one!

 

Tiny bacteria hiding out in a witches' brew of bubbling mud not only thrive in the searing-hot slurry but also chow down on its methane.

 

Two papers published online this week in the journal Nature describe these mud-loving microbes, the hardiest bacteria identified to date.

 

Found living in mud volcanoes and other geothermal hideouts, the bacteria feast on methane, considered the second most abundant greenhouse gas behind carbon dioxide.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311742,00.html

[JMJones0424]

From your source-

Found living in mud volcanoes and other geothermal hideouts, the bacteria feast on methane, considered the second most abundant greenhouse gas behind carbon dioxide.

 

So now you are asserting that there is an active volcanic cycle on the moon? That life exists on Earth should be obvious. That life is likely impossible on the moon is what we are trying to show you. That none of this has any bearing on the feasibility of your original proposal is what I would like you to see.

 

Have you given any thought to the questions I posed above, or are we just talking past each other?

[cyclonebuster]

From your source-

 

 

So now you are asserting that there is an active volcanic cycle on the moon? That life exists on Earth should be obvious. That life is likely impossible on the moon is what we are trying to show you. That none of this has any bearing on the feasibility of your original proposal is what I would like you to see.

 

Have you given any thought to the questions I posed above, or are we just talking past each other?

 

Not that there is an active volcanic cycle on the moon but there is another source of heat called the sun to heat the regolith to certain depth. The bacteria may not care where the heat source comes from so it may reproduce and find its niche just as our Northern Arctic Ice in summer doesn't care what the source of heat is that melts it.

[cyclonebuster]

"1) What is required to isolate CO2 from the atmosphere at concentrations of 400ppm and remove enough of it to bring concentrations down to 250ppm?"

How Carbon Capture Works

 

Carbon capture involves trapping the carbon dioxide at its emission source, transporting it to a storage location (usually deep underground) and isolating it. This means we could potentially grab excess CO2 right from the power plant, creating greener energy.

 

In this article, we'll look at some of the existing and emerging carbon capture and storage methods. How could a device snatch CO2 out of the air? And where in the world is it stored? Keep reading to find out.

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-capture.htm

 

"2) What is required to store CO2 in solid form, both during collection and during the launch (or shot) through our atmosphere to the moon?"

 

Once contained in the projectile it can be shot via rail gun.

 

Manufacture

 

Dry ice is easily manufactured.[12][13] There are common steps taken in producing dry ice. First, gases containing a high concentration of carbon dioxide are produced. Such gases can be a byproduct of some other process, such as producing ammonia from nitrogen and natural gas, or large-scale fermentation.[13] Second, carbon dioxide-rich gas is pressurized and refrigerated until it changes into its liquid form. Next, the pressure is reduced. When this occurs some liquid carbon dioxide vaporizes, and this causes a rapid lowering of temperature of the remaining liquid carbon dioxide. As a result, the extreme cold causes the liquid to solidify into a snow-like consistency. Finally, the snow-like solid carbon dioxide is compressed into either small pellets or larger blocks of dry ice.[14]

 

Dry ice is typically produced in two standard forms: blocks and cylindrical pellets. A standard block weighing approximately 30 kg is most common. These are commonly used in shipping, because they sublimate slowly due to a relatively small surface area. Pellets are around 1 cm (0.4 in) in diameter and can be bagged easily. This form is suited to small scale use, for example at grocery stores and laboratories

 

"3 What is required to build and power a rail gun to launch projectiles through our atmosphere at a velocity high enough to impact the moon? How many projectiles would be needed to launch 1 trillion tons of CO2?"

 

This depends on how powerful the rail guns need to be ,the rate of fire of rail guns ,the number of rails guns needed and the number of the projectiles needed The gulf stream has plenty of kinetic energy to the job perhaps in 2.5 years once calculated.

 

"If you haven't already realized the lunacy (hehe), now we get to the impossible part.

4) Given the moon's low gravity, day/night length, high/low temp, and relatively non-existent atmosphere, even after supplying 1 trillion tons of CO2, what plants do you propose to grow on the moon under the conditions you have provided?"

 

If plants don't grow then perhaps bacteria will grow first then plants later on as Co2 and methane concentrations increase as the bacteria die and new bacteria grows. This is what happens on Earth also who's to say it can't happen on the moon also? How long will it take for all that Co2 shot on the moon to dissipate to current levels? A million years two million years? Seems like plenty of time to gain a niche.

 

 

 

"5) What more would need to be done to "terraform" the moon for colonization of terrestrial plants rather than just building climate controlled environments on (or in) portions of the moon? What impact would that have on the Earth?"

 

A Bacteria breeding ground below the regolith so when they die off they out gas Co2 and methane.

[JMJones0424]

I am beginning to get the impression that I am putting more thought into this than you. As I find your solution absurd, this will be my last reply, unless I detect a more concerted effort on your part.

 

You responded to my five questions, yet answered none of them.

 

In question one, you gave a link to a proposal to reduce point emissions, which does nothing to reduce current concentrations as your original proposal aimed to do. In question 2, you gave a link to a source for creating dry ice from natural gas, which again does not accomplish your goals. You failed to consider the energy and material requirements for storing a trillion tons of dry ice in projectiles and preventing those projectiles from exploding while accelerating and passing through our atmosphere. You didn't even attempt to answer question 3. On question 4, and repeatedly elsewhere, you choose to ignore the very real differences between the Earth and the moon and presume that biological processes that occur on the Earth would likely also occur on the moon. Never once have you shown that the conditions for life actually exist on the moon, rather you take one or two existing elements and extrapolate that because life exists on Earth, it must also exist on the moon. You have not shown that the moon has warm zones under the regolith. You have not shown that the moon anywhere has liquid water, which is as far as we know the one common requirement to all life (though other solvent based life has been theorized, you haven't shown an alternative solvent to exist on the moon either). On question 5, you entirely missed the direction I was going, but that may have been my fault. Because of the moon's relatively low mass, the only way for a biosphere including an atmosphere to exist on the moon would be for the atmosphere to be artificially contained, as has already been shown by modest and promptly ignored by you. In order to "terraform" the moon, one would need to substantially increase the mass of the moon so that the molecules making up the atmosphere would not reach escape velocity on their own. I think it would be obvious that increasing the mass of the moon two or three fold would have detrimental effects on Earth, but I don't know exactly how much more massive the moon would need to be, and how its orbit would need to change, and therefore the direct effects on the Earth's tides and crust.

[cyclonebuster]

I am beginning to get the impression that I am putting more thought into this than you. As I find your solution absurd, this will be my last reply, unless I detect a more concerted effort on your part.

 

You responded to my five questions, yet answered none of them.

 

In question one, you gave a link to a proposal to reduce point emissions, which does nothing to reduce current concentrations as your original proposal aimed to do. In question 2, you gave a link to a source for creating dry ice from natural gas, which again does not accomplish your goals. You failed to consider the energy and material requirements for storing a trillion tons of dry ice in projectiles and preventing those projectiles from exploding while accelerating and passing through our atmosphere. You didn't even attempt to answer question 3. On question 4, and repeatedly elsewhere, you choose to ignore the very real differences between the Earth and the moon and presume that biological processes that occur on the Earth would likely also occur on the moon. Never once have you shown that the conditions for life actually exist on the moon, rather you take one or two existing elements and extrapolate that because life exists on Earth, it must also exist on the moon. You have not shown that the moon has warm zones under the regolith. You have not shown that the moon anywhere has liquid water, which is as far as we know the one common requirement to all life (though other solvent based life has been theorized, you haven't shown an alternative solvent to exist on the moon either). On question 5, you entirely missed the direction I was going, but that may have been my fault. Because of the moon's relatively low mass, the only way for a biosphere including an atmosphere to exist on the moon would be for the atmosphere to be artificially contained, as has already been shown by modest and promptly ignored by you. In order to "terraform" the moon, one would need to substantially increase the mass of the moon so that the molecules making up the atmosphere would not reach escape velocity on their own. I think it would be obvious that increasing the mass of the moon two or three fold would have detrimental effects on Earth, but I don't know exactly how much more massive the moon would need to be, and how its orbit would need to change, and therefore the direct effects on the Earth's tides and crust.

 

Are you kidding me you didn't understand what I posted? WOW!

[Moontanman]

Are you kidding me you didn't understand what I posted? WOW!

 

 

Are you kidding us? Do you not understand that the excess CO2 in the Earths atmosphere is no where near enough to terraform the earth's moon? Not even close!

[dduckwessel]

Shoot dry ice inside projectiles to the Moon with Rail Gun Technology to lower atmospheric Co2 on Earth to that of pre- industrial revolution values of 250ppm. If the 1/6 gravity of the moon can hold the Co2 to the Surface then an atmosphere can be formed and then seeds,water and nutrients can be added to start growing plants to make oxygen.

 

 

My link

 

 

Is it even possible to start small, with a Co2 filled plexi-glass bubble big enough for a few staff quarters and some space to grow vegetables, gradually adding other bubbles?

[Moontanman]

Is it even possible to start small, with a Co2 filled plexi-glass bubble big enough for a few staff quarters and some space to grow vegetables, gradually adding other bubbles?

 

I see no reason what so ever why this could not be done on a small scale if you had the funds to do it. You would almost certainly have to do it under ground, natural sunlight is on for 14 days at a time and micrometeorites and solar radiation would make under ground much safer and we can use nuclear power to make electricity 24/7 and light our tunnels and underground farms any way we like...