Question Moon atmosphere

Nov 25, 2019
76
42
560
Visit site
I would like to first explain where I am coming from... I am a 50 something male with a deep and long enduring fascination with all things space - and space science -related.
However, without the backing of a formal science education, I lack the scientific knowledge that is prerequisite in answering my 'thought experiments'. In other words my questions may either come across as childlike, or worse as 'duh, well everyone knows....'
The answers I seek are hopefully informative but not too harsh or dismissive!
My question I suppose would be in the category of terraforming. Would it ever be possible - if only in theory, to provide the moon with an (albeit temporary) atmosphere.?
So, the artificial introduction of Nitrogen and oxygen etc,
Even given that the reduced gravity in comparison to earth would not sustain it, is it not possible?
(putting aside money, and physical constraints)
Is it that it would just float away into space?

Andrew
 
Jan 6, 2020
15
13
15
Visit site
The moon could contain air if someone put it there, it has a gravity field atmosphere that could contain air but it would require a lot in order to accomplish.

Actually, the Moon has an atmosphere, but it is very slight. The entire mass of the atmosphere is about 22,000 lbs. It has a density of ~100 molecules per cc, compared to the ~100 Quintillion molecules per cc on Earth at sea level. The weak gravity, combined with the lack of a significant magnetic field, and the extreme temperature changes, precludes the Moon ever being able to retain any significant atmosphere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Craftsman X and rod
Jan 7, 2020
105
39
110
Visit site
Actually, the Moon has an atmosphere, but it is very slight. The entire mass of the atmosphere is about 22,000 lbs. It has a density of ~100 molecules per cc, compared to the ~100 Quintillion molecules per cc on Earth at sea level. The weak gravity, combined with the lack of a significant magnetic field, and the extreme temperature changes, precludes the Moon ever being able to retain any significant atmosphere.
Agreed, except gravity has nothing to do with it. Look at the mass of some moons, asteroids and even planets with very thin atmospheres and it will become apparent that gravity is not the answer. When the moon passes directly between the earth and sun, the sun exerts either 2x the force of the gravity of the earth. How do we have a moon? Gravity does not appear to be very important to an atmosphere. The lack of large magnetic field is something shared by the moon and Mars, both of which have weak atmospheres.
 
Jan 6, 2020
15
13
15
Visit site
Agreed, except gravity has nothing to do with it.

Gravity is a factor with an atmosphere. Gravity determines how far from the surface the atmosphere will extend. The further out the atmosphere extends, the more surface area it presents to the solar wind which strips it away. The magnetosphere is a major factor, but gravity, along with other factors, figures in.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
39
110
Visit site
Gravity is a factor with an atmosphere. Gravity determines how far from the surface the atmosphere will extend. The further out the atmosphere extends, the more surface area it presents to the solar wind which strips it away. The magnetosphere is a major factor, but gravity, along with other factors, figures in.
I oversimplified and was incorrect as a result. Gravity is not tied to mass in the same way that is suggested with the idea of the constant G. It does not look like mass is the defining factor in gravity, as we have seen things with atmospheres that should not have them. By assigning a value to G based on the rate things fall compared to earth gravity is determined. With some of the masses we have seen with atmospheres, certain features on earth should have their own effect on gravity, but they do not. Gravity is not a constant on earth and actually fluxuates by location, even based on depth of the probe or altitude of the probe.
 
Jan 6, 2020
15
13
15
Visit site
Gravity is not a constant on earth and actually fluxuates by location, even based on depth of the probe or altitude of the probe.

This is getting a bit off topic. However, it is interesting to note that back in the early days of surveying this Continent, many of the measurements were off slightly because the plumb bobs of the surveying instruments were affected by the gravity of nearby mountains.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
39
110
Visit site
This is getting a bit off topic. However, it is interesting to note that back in the early days of surveying this Continent, many of the measurements were off slightly because the plumb bobs of the surveying instruments were affected by the gravity of nearby mountains.
I like the EU Theory, as I have not found anything wrong with it and Wal Thornhill did a really good presentation on gravity. I like to recommend lectures due to the fact that if someone has already explained it well, then don't reinvent the wheel. Also, I have time on my hands so listening to lectures is a good way to spend it.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uf4IJtxULr14MQ3_a4s_GoC&index=6&t=0s
 
Jan 9, 2020
25
4
35
Visit site
The problem is that the moon for all intents is geologically dead at this point. We can't locate any plate tectonics that are say making new minerals & it is not getting blasted by meteorites or asteroids to create such explosions to manufacture new elements. So at this point I can't see an atmosphere building block in place. There is no active volcanism going on or weather which would be 2 building blocks to possibly give rise to nitrogen compounds or carbon compounds. Then the next block would be some kind of bacteria that would utilize one of these elements while spitting another as metabolici waste.
 
Jan 10, 2020
86
44
4,560
Visit site
I understand that it is now believed that the moon did have a substantial atmosphere very early in it's existence. This was lost fairly quickly, in part due to lack of sufficient magnetic field. Have no idea what it was composed of.
 
Jan 6, 2020
15
13
15
Visit site
I understand that it is now believed that the moon did have a substantial atmosphere very early in it's existence. This was lost fairly quickly, in part due to lack of sufficient magnetic field. Have no idea what it was composed of.
The estimates seem to indicate that it may have been about 1.5 times denser than the current atmosphere of Mars, which made it about 1.4% of Earth atmosphere at sea level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Craftsman X
Jan 9, 2020
25
4
35
Visit site
We don't have a perfect theory on moon formation but the accepted one is some great object slammed into earth & that was the debris blown out. Other theory has to do with simultaneous formation with the earth-they do share a lot of the same materials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Craftsman X
Jan 10, 2020
86
44
4,560
Visit site
At one time the impact theory of moon formation was supported by the fact that asteroid water has a higher percentage of deutronium than earth water. If earth water did not come from Asteroid impacts then it had to have come from elsewhere, maybe an planet that migrated inward from beyond the ice zone boundary. Recent evidence has indicated that high levels of deutronium are only on the outer surface of the asteroids studied (interior water like earth water), giving more credence to the simultaneous earth/moon theory.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Craftsman X (Andrew)

Why do you need to terraform the Moon (which is probably the end result of your question?

If you want to colonize the Moon, why not builds smaller habitations inside domes?

BUT, contrary to what I saw suggested above, there is no atmosphere to protect the Moon from a constant barrage of 'meteorites' of unlimited size. However, it is easier to build smaller habitations than create an atmosphere for a celestial body of that size. Just check the weight of Earth's atmosphere and work out where you will find and transport that much gas (for a body the size of the Moon).

Cat :)
 
Jan 22, 2020
35
6
535
Visit site
[redacted]
If the moon were green and luscious it would be much more readily habitable. Please do not make erroneous assumptions. It is not the atmosphere that protects the moon. It is the lack of extended force field which is limited to very little projection as a result of its solidified interior. Underground would be better for protection from the meteor bombardment and cosmic ejections. Some very hardened necessary above surface construction. The less mass might be something of beneficial but our equipment structurally could handle it easily, just another main source of power, probably electrical from solar and/or hybrid mix of various sources including some internal combustion closed systems. Some of the subsurface and surface systems we currently utilize could be transformed sufficiently. We terraform the earth in many ways continuously with current procedures, just a little more feasible with the overall environmental surroundings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
David777

I take pleasure in going out of my way to be pleasant to people, and not jumping in with both feet, so I will very politely say to you that I think you may have missed my point.

It seems a reasonable assumption, and hardly erroneous, that if you suggest terraforming the Moon it is to make it habitable. Otherwise, a lot of effort for what purpose?

Whilst it may be very pretty to transfer your hills and dales to the Lunar environment, one has to look at the practicality of moving that much atmosphere (obtained from where?) and, if I understand you correctly, an extended force field to boot. Providing such an atmosphere, even if it could be sustained, would not seem a cost effective exercise in protection against miscellaneous objects arriving with considerable kinetic energy.

If your objective is to promote a 'second home' against the danger of overpopulation, or for any other reason, then a smaller, compact dwelling with the necessary amenities, and one more easily protected, would seem to be a good start.

I am very happy to continue this discussion in a polite and positive way and hope that you will take up this suggestion so that we may all better understand your point of view, which I am sure will have considerable merit.

Best wishes

Catastrophe
 
Jan 22, 2020
35
6
535
Visit site
[redacted]
You have still missed the point . You are talking about terraforming as though it means in entirety. What you speak of is terraforming within pods. We attenuate the earth atmosphere and surface , and have done so for decades, on a broad scale daily, hourly, minute by minute in a plethora of ways otherwise it would be messy and uncomfortable to the extreme esp. in many inhabited areas.
[redacted]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
David777

I shall continue to be polite and, where possible, helpful in all my communications here.
I count it a privilege to be allowed the membership of this board and ask all others to spend their time here being as friendly as befits the grant of this excellent facility.

With best wishes

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zzroom
Jan 22, 2020
35
6
535
Visit site
Sounds good. You probably live in a pod. I do. Most call it a house, apartment, duplex, etc., and work in one as well. These modify our environment. Then we travel in some form of pod , auto, bus, subway, elevated rail, etc.with varying means of point connections. Upgrades of these seem most likely with some extensive mods or new opportunities for creation with efficient results. Probably solar electric and assorted mix for propulsion. Would think oceanic systems would be quite helpful, more self contained and already in existence requiring less modification and new genesis. If not for local substructure about as easy to inhabit the moon as living on or in water. Underground with heavily reinforced ports/pods of entry for high pressure particle protection and smaller meteor shelter. Energy collectors above ground and extensive self contained systems for individual and surface navigation. H2O, O2, and food procurement would need immense recycling accumulation and transfer. We are already doing these things on the rock we inhabit, just tremendous development upgrades.. That's why I say it would have been so much better if we had looked over at the Moon and it had been green and lucious (understand ,not that we need to terraform the Moon and planets in their entirety but just as we constantly terraform the Earth in limited amts. and locals so that our enviros are more livable and, in many cases, not deadly, but alas we fail in that attempt at times) and the same for Mars , Mercury, Venus, etc.,etc. instead of all these more benevolent beasts to overcome, but then there are some really cataclysmic beasts in the distance, like supernovas, colliding neutron stars, black masses(holes), etc all rather necessary to produce the pressure gradients for life patterns and sequences to exist at least in our observable Universe with its physics principles. Have a good one. So good to be alive now as well as the foreseeable future.
I think we have individual technological immortality in our realm of possible accomplishments-have had for 2-3 decades. Just not focused to produce as of yet. Will be imperfect at first, but we already have materials procured from our science and tech. that are far superior to what we are constructed from. This will be much like our flight modes versus those of birds. Eventually we will understand the pressure gradients/subatomic densities with associative patterns and sequences as their results but as of now many of our potential materials are DISEASE FREE and we do not need total memory to comprise personality just a correlated vocal synthesis/personality software package based on past experiences mimicking actual characteristics and a laptop for STARTERS. The more physical but superior attributes are already available but could always benefit from generational upgrade. These developments enhance dramatically this planetary expansion with retained expertise, operational capacity in unsurvivable surroundings, and expanded required "human" resources.
 
Last edited:
It is not the atmosphere that protects the moon. It is the lack of extended force field which is limited to very little projection as a result of its solidified interior.
An atmosphere serves to protect a planet from impacts by meteorites. Even the thin atmosphere of Mars stops smaller meteorites by burning them up before they impact the surface. The negligible atmosphere of the Moon allows even the small particles to impact the surface. At the velocities most would be traveling relative to the Moon, they could penetrate most proposed domes and any spacesuit.
There is no such thing as a “force field”.

A magnetosphere protects a planet from radiation and the Solar Wind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jan 22, 2020
35
6
535
Visit site
The magnetic (gravity) extended by the heavy elements(neutron proton dense)being not solidified as with the Earth prevents the loss of the lighter elements which make up the atmosphere resulting in the diminished protection of incineration which you speak.

Both the Moon and Mars have solidified interiors-dramatically reducing their extended force fields compared to the much greater Earths. The less mass of either is also detrimental to atmospheric retention and more hyper solar ejections. The retained atmosphere is significant in smaller object destruction but the magnetic/gravity force field is the reason for that greater atmospheric density/pressure gradient on entry. Neither protects from larger objects of a catastrophic nature. For these reasons and others, emphasis on subsurface development with surface left to necessary esp. as progression ensues.

More self sufficient sub oceanic systems would seem to be a helpful especially with surface/subsurface, and natural local geographic features(caverns, temperature, elements, etc.) to facilitate.


































9gravity)
 

Latest posts