Natural Habitats on Moon/Mars

[paleo]

"the cooling of Mars may have been hastened by undersea rifting and subsequent circulation of icewater through nearby magma chambers."<br /><br /> No it wasn't. The scales of geology are so different as to be laughable. It would be like puting out a forest fire covering half of Montana with a water pistol....that's if (and it wouldn't) the water could reach the core and 'if' (and they aren't) the laws of thermodynamics could be set aside.

 

[marcel_leonard]

All the planets in our solar system were formed at the same time; the only reason that Mars core cooled down faster than the Earth is due to it's size. In other words it all boils down to mass... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

Steve says "Confirmation of the hypothesis on the (presence of water on the?) surface or near surface of Mars needs to be done"<br /><br />As I've stated before, get with the program. The evidence is in and the meteor amongst a myriad of other (rather obvious) evidence confirms that water did exist on the surface whether you like it or not. Sorry to quash your beliefs. If yours is an example of critical thinking and logic, best put your training pants on again.

 

[chew_on_this]

I can see there is no point argueing with you, as many others have stated here, you know it all.

 

[douglas_clark]

stevehw33,<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />I was reading your post about Earths' future, and I think I can understand that. Although I don't understand the process you mention "<font color="yellow">It's the heat of the earth's core which makes the water bubble out into the surface as water vapor.</font>. Could you do an idiots guide to how that works? I'd have thought that gravity would have taken the water back to the core in that case, and I'm not aware of an exchange mechanism, for water, between the core and us, or vice versa. The idiot you would be guiding is me <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /><br />Going back to Mars, does that mean that we'd expect water, or ice, deep inside the planet?<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Douglas

 

[nexium]

Hi douglas_clark: Several people including me have said the heat of the interior of Earth keeps some of the water on the surface. Intuitively that seems correct near the surface as steam under standard conditions has only 1/1000 the density of water. At the critical pressure and temperature, however the density is about one, I think, so water/steam has less tendecy to rise to the surface of a planet. At the critical pressure, far below the critical temperature, I think the density is about two, which is about half the density of rock at that depth. Also at that presure the voids tend to collapse to about the dimenions of a water molecule, preventing the water from moving upward. Tentitive conclusion: water does not escape rock under very high presure unless the temperature is high enough to melt the rock inspite of the very high pressure; thus both Earth and Mars average perhaps 1% (by mass) water all the way to the core, perhaps all the way to the center. Please comment, refute and/or embellish. Neil

 

[douglas_clark]

nexium,<br /><br />Hi<br /><br />Thanks for replying to my post. I am really not qualified or knowledgeable enough to debate this stuff with anyone. I'm just trying to understand, (i) whether the scientific consensus is now that there was liquid water on the surface of Mars, and I've followed Akex Blackwells links to NASA where the lead investigator says there was once water on the Martian surface. As exobiologists are convinced that water is required to allow life to develop, that would be a very important finding. I'm trying to get a view of the scientific consensus on NASA's findings. (ii) I was asking on here about the mechanism that opreates on Earth to process water from the core to the surface, and whether or not these mechanisms are still active. Point is I don't understand how that would work. ( Volcanoes, tectonic plate movement, vents? I just don't know) Your post, and thank you for it, makes me think that the process is kind of like very dense distillation, with the lighter molecules rising to the surface, unless prevented by physical barriers ( so nothing like distillation really <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ).<br /><br />My interest also ran to whether we could expect water subsurface on Mars, even in the form of ice. And I could see how stevehw33 could say that when there was no longer internal heating the water would simply sink into the surface.<br /><br />My though was that we have two snapshots of solid planet development within the Goldilocks zone. The Earth model is the younger and the Mars model is the older.<br /><br />My interest in Martian water is to do with the possibility that there really could have been an independent flourishing of life.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Douglas

 

[marcel_leonard]

I here all this talk about developing habitats on the surface of the Moon/Mars; but wouldn't underground environments be more sutiable for protection from meteors, radiation, and such? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

I'm confused, are you talking about the early formation of the solar system when the majority of the terrestrial planets were still warm?

 

[nexium]

Apparently the interior of Earth is almost as hot as it was 4 billion years ago. This is a a bit of a mystery, as radio active isotopes should be down by half and most of the foscil heat long gone.The moon would have generated more tidel heat 4 billion years ago, as Earth and moon both turned faster on their axis and the moon was likely closer than now. I expect we will find another mechanism that produces heat in some planet interiors, such as a low mass black hole. A shrinking black hole explodes when it shrinks to a mass of a few tons, possibly explaining why planets some times explode, if planets ever explode.<br /> There are several reasons why Mars might have cooled a bit faster, but it is not unreasonable to suppose Mars lost most of it's air and water in the last ten million years. Neil

 

[silylene old]

Hendon's hypothesis of "Earth's nuclear heart" is interesting in this respect. There isn't much data supporting this hypothesis; but nor is there much data contradicting it either.<br /><br />New Scientist in Nov 2004 had an interesting article reviewing this subject.<br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03k.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>During a Leonid shower some years ago, the seismometers left on the surface of the moon recorded some really interesting bangs, hits and other seismic events, presumably heavy meteor impacts on the lunar surface during the meteor storm.</i><p>You don't happen to have any links to this? I can't say I've ever heard about this, it sounds interesting. Or do you remember what year it was, might help narrow it down.</p>

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Yes. About 1 m. of lunar regolith would give far better radiation protection against cosmic rays and other solar radiation than we have on earth. AGainst really big meteors, tho, we dont' know. During a Leonid shower some years ago, the seismometers left on the surface of the moon recorded some really interesting bangs, hits and other seismic events, presumably heavy meteor impacts on the lunar surface during the meteor storm. <br /><br />So, time will tell. But against the usual space radiation, as lunar regolith is pretty well depleted in heavy metals, which create much of the background radiation on the earth, particularly in granite, underground living is a good idea on the moon, or anywhere, from the surface of the moon to asteroids. </font><br /><br />I'm wondering if we couldn't create air type caves and mines using the same mining technology we use here on the Earth? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Perhaps we could send up some automated self-propelled construction trailers? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

I think if we ever can figure out the whole cheap space delivery thing, and the finally start to build a lunar base the peice of buisness that I would send is the German built Trude TBM

 

[dragon04]

A TBM would certainly be able to do the job, but you're talking about lifting hundreds of tons of TBM and all the necessary equipment to run it.<br /><br />Not to mention the ability to generate copious amounts of electricity to run it.<br /><br />Neither of these obstacles are insurmountable, but the cost would be astronomical. No pun intended <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Malapart Mountain, TBM, and convert water ice into hydrogen for power/fuel. The crater next to Malapart Mountain in the south pole region of the Earth's Moon has ample water ice to construct and sustain a underground base/biosphere. You shouls only need airlocks on hte enterances and pressure values to depressure the chamber, if o2/co2 ratio needs tweaking. Anyway, a biosphere is self sustaining for the most part. Soil production and sunlight might be tuff to crack on hte Moon, but not on Mars.<br /><br />--- Jatslo

 

[quasar2]

bump <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I would think a number of garden of Eden Biospheres connected by TBM constructed tunnels would do the trick for both the Moon/Mars. The bottom line is this until we learn how to harvest the land; just like or caveman ancestors we can forget about living on the surface of the Moon/Mars for awhile. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[jatslo]

Your right about living on the surfaces, and that is why drilling and blasting cavern biospheres sounds more likely than living on the surface.<br /><br />We could utilize the materials that are blasted and drilled for surface structures, i.e. Observatories, Power Plants, Launch Pads, Hangers, Chemical Plants, Etc.<br /><br />I'd rather take 1000 tons of TBM's, Dozers, Back Hoe's, and related equipment to the Earth's Moon, instead of the traditional surface habitats. The workers could temporarily stay inside a percentage of shipping containers, and then recycle the rest for transporting precious minerals from the Earth's Moon to Earth to help fund the mission. A lot of minerals on the Earth’s Moon are worth a pretty penny here on Earth.<br /><br />I’d love to take my Gold Pan, Metal Detector, and slues box to Mars on a commercial shuttle. Hell, I’d even pay for a ticket!<br /><br />I think learning the elements of the Moon are irrelevant, we have to do this, regardless, because humanity must colonize space in order to survive, so we might as well get started now. If it turns out that we can save money along the way by utilizing planetary resources then that is a work in progress adjustment, and not a necessity.<br /><br />You are suggesting that if the composition is not friendly, then we should not go? I think we really do not have a choice, and that we have to go regardless ;o) <br /><br />--- Jatslo<br />

 

[yevaud]

A much simpler way to accomplish this. If there's anything the moon receives in abundance, it's sunlight. You build large parabolic mirrors (very thin material, really, so almost no weight). Focus the sunlight on, say, the side wall of a crater, and melt your way in. <br /><br />There's always explosives too... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

This sounds plausible, but I have never heard of boring with lasers, or at least not tunnel boring. I did see lasers at work in the movie AVP, where the aliens used a laser to drill 2000 feet of tunnel to a subterranean cavern that played host to a pyramid, but that was water ice and not rock. You would need a huge amount of heat to vaporize rock, and the temperature would depend on the mineral composition. You would destroy the precious minerals though, but it would be worth it, if you could drill 1000 feet a day.<br /><br />The TBM hold the 24-hour drill record, I don’t remember the footage or mineral composition though. I think it was 1400 ft, but I could be guessing.<br /><br />Science Fiction, or do you have evidence?<br /><br />--- Jatslo<br />

 

[yevaud]

Not SF at all. This very idea has been considered before, in the context of using the mirrors to smelt things on the moon's surface, should we build a permanent station there.<br /><br />The only difference is, instead of smelting, you're using it to bore a hole. But with constant solar insolation, no atmosphere, etc, sure, it's possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

The following is good tunneling source:<br /><br />http://www.portlandonline.com/cso/index.cfm?c=31569

 

[spayss]

I don't think I'd want to live underground on the Moon...let alone on Earth. Can't say I'd want to live in a 'crate' until my 'hole' is ready. The infrastructure needed to keep more than a couple astronauts alive (and sane!) would be monumental. We have a hard enough time supplying 2 humans in LEO with dependability.<br /><br /> The key to any type of minimal base on the Moon always comes back to the development of a launch vehicle that is relatively inexpensive and efficient.