Terraforming Luna

[3488]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">I assure you, there are several of we space junkies who will be tuned in for the blow by blow information!!Right Andrew??? <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</font></DIV><br /><br /><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>Too damn right Wayne,</strong></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>I'll be there.</strong></font> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>I intend taking that day off work (it will be&nbsp;Monday before the first pics' etc are down here, though IIRC it will still be Sunday where you are when the first decent stuff is returned).</strong></font></p><p><strong><font size="2">I was part of the campaign to get Phoenix approved, so needless to say, I will be following developments very closely.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Andrew Brown.</font></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[Sinistral]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me and my curiosity!What challenges and is it even fesable to Terraform Luna?&nbsp; I know gas retention in an artificial atmosphere would be one of the greatest challenges, but there are some mighty bright minds here that I suspect could drum up some interesting possibilities.&nbsp; <br />Posted by bearack</DIV><br /><br />I would like to see a Lunar Telescope in place. The challeneges of transporting the material and then building the telescope might help understand how we could&nbsp;then begin&nbsp;terraforming on other planets.&nbsp;It may answer&nbsp;what materials would work and what kind of spacecraft could carry the material and how people would construct it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" style="margin-top:5px"><tbody><tr><td class="sqtdq" colspan="2"><font class="sqq"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" style="margin-top:5px"><tbody><tr><td class="sqtdq" colspan="2"> 

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would like to see a Lunar Telescope in place. The challeneges of transporting the material and then building the telescope might help understand how we could&nbsp;then begin&nbsp;terraforming on other planets.&nbsp;It may answer&nbsp;what materials would work and what kind of spacecraft could carry the material and how people would construct it. <br />Posted by Sinistral</DIV></p><p>Why build a telescope on the moon rather than placing it in orbit?&nbsp; It takes only about half the lift capability to put something into low earth orbit as it does to raise it to geo or beyond.&nbsp; And if you land on the moon you&nbsp;need additional capability to come back.&nbsp;An object in LEO can be reached and serviced if need be with a similar lift capability, and to come back you only have to control the fall a bit.&nbsp; One doesn't need the level of new infrastructue that would be required for a lunar base, dramatically increasing the required lift requirements.</p><p>The challenges of moving a lot of material that far and using it at the other end are certainly there.&nbsp; That comment would apply to any plan to build a significant structure on the moon, for any purpose.&nbsp; But, I don't see how the&nbsp;challenges&nbsp;relate materially to "terraforming".&nbsp; I don't think we have a clue how to "terraform" as that term is usually used.</p><p>If we were to place a manned station on the moon, I think that some mission other than observation with an optical telescope would be appropriate.&nbsp; It seems to me that there are better places to place such an instrument.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>Mars has plenty of CO2 on the ground that could be released nuking it from the orbit. But would this raise the temperature enough for the CO2 to not freeze again and fall back to the ground?</p><p>In this case we'd need to repeat the cycle for as many times as the level of CO2 in the athmosphere is enough to start the greenhouse effect.</p><p>Somebody might already have the numbers of how much CO2 is frozen on the ground and what would liberating it in the athmosphere achieve.</p><p>To my opinion Mars has everything to support a human colony except warm temperatures and shelter for radiation. Which are major obstacles, ofcourse.&nbsp;</p>

 

[neilsox]

<p><font size="3">Large scale artificial gravity (very improbable) could possibly produce one g on the lunar surface, perhaps even a faster rotation for a 24 hiour day, and retaining an atmosphere.</font></p><p><font size="3">Mars may be marginally terriformable with immense amounts of technology already within our grasp. We're stuck with the 0.38g unless we develop fabulous and very unlikely artificial gravity.</font></p><p><font size="3">Venus already has about 0.9g which is a big plus. If we can block the sunlight the carbon dioxide will freeze out as dry ice, with a bit of sulpheric acid. About a trillion rockets could haul the dry ice to somewhere it would not return to Venus. We now need&nbsp; ten billion rockets to deliver water and oxygen from somewhere. We now have a one bar (instead of 90 bar atmosphere when we let in enough sunlight for 20 degrees c. We can make water, carbon, supher&nbsp;and oxygen out of the bit of acid and carbon dioxide that we missed shipping out. We will still have night that last about&nbsp;2/3 of an Earth year, but some giant mirrors can partially solve that problem. If our giant sun shades fail, even the poles will quickly become too hot for humans, otherwise I agree Venus is best. On another thread, last year, I detailed a much less anbitious plan for terriforming (sort of) about 5% of Venus near the North pole.&nbsp;&nbsp; Neil</font></p>

 

[aphh]

<p>On Mars you could simulate the higher Earth 1G by strapping extra weight to your body and limbs. Ofcourse the extra weight would weigh less on Mars, but I think it would still be doable. You would dress up in the G-suit each morning.</p><p>On Sundays kids would have a day off, when they would not be required to wear the extra weight. They would play Superman, ofcourse. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> </p>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why build a telescope on the moon rather than placing it in orbit?&nbsp;... &nbsp;I think that some mission other than observation with an optical telescope would be appropriate.&nbsp; It seems to me that there are better places to place such an instrument. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Hi DrRocket. As I understand it there are two main advantages. Firstly people usually are talking about radio telescopes instead of optical. In this case building on the far side of the moon allows us to screen out radio chatter from earth. Radiowaves tend to bend around smaller objects. Secondly, people are&nbsp;often talking about telescopes that cover a very wide area, and often consist of many elements. In orbit, it would be very hard to keep them all in formation. Without expending fuel, they would drift. On the moon they would stay exactly where you put them.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>

 

[bearack]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;<font size="2">As far as preserving the moon, why?<span>&nbsp; </span>And especially why, if you want to terraform another heavenly body?<span>&nbsp; </span>The moon has no life to protect so that means it has no habitat to preserve.<span>&nbsp; </span>And if the moon can offer us a reliable energy source why not?&nbsp;<span>&nbsp;</span></font></DIV></p><p>Well, I can list 4 pretty good reasons.</p><p>1st - Distance to Earth.&nbsp; If something occurs that require emergency evac, astronauts only have a short wait for assistance.</p><p>2nd - Distance to Earth. Cost is a primary factor and is exacerbated the further you get from mother Earth.&nbsp; </p><p>3rd - Distance to Earth.&nbsp; Not knowing exactly what we would need and with technology changing constantly, it would only take a matter of days to get upgrade devices to the moon.</p><p>4th - It would be cool to see a green moon up there </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[danhezee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, I can list 4 pretty good reasons.1st - Distance to Earth.&nbsp; If something occurs that require emergency evac, astronauts only have a short wait for assistance.2nd - Distance to Earth. Cost is a primary factor and is exacerbated the further you get from mother Earth.&nbsp; 3rd - Distance to Earth.&nbsp; Not knowing exactly what we would need and with technology changing constantly, it would only take a matter of days to get upgrade devices to the moon.4th - It would be cool to see a green moon up there &nbsp; <br /> Posted by bearack</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%">Those are reasons to exploit the moon, and I am all for it. Sadly, there are people who don&rsquo;t want that to happen, they want to leave the moon alone </span><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cry.gif" border="0" alt="Cry" title="Cry" /><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%">. And then there are some who want to leave the moon alone but go to other places to exploit. </span><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" /></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[eburacum45]

<p>Actually you could terraform the Moon, but not permanently. An Earth-like atmosphere would remain on the Moon for tens of thousands of years- it would take a long time to lose such an atmosphere, particularly as it would have a considerable scale height so would require more actual gas than you might think at first. But this would be a waste of valuable volatiles to acheive a few thousand years of breathable atmosphere.</p><p>&nbsp;So I would suggest we&nbsp;paraterraform our satellite.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming#Paraterraforming</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com  http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">Hi DrRocket. As I understand it there are two main advantages. Firstly people usually are talking about radio telescopes instead of optical. In this case building on the far side of the moon allows us to screen out radio chatter from earth. Radiowaves tend to bend around smaller objects. Secondly, people are&nbsp;often talking about telescopes that cover a very wide area, and often consist of many elements. In orbit, it would be very hard to keep them all in formation. Without expending fuel, they would drift. On the moon they would stay exactly where you put them.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kelvinzero</font></p><p>In addition to that, the moon is very stable as a platform. There would be no need to constantly station keep a telescope based in space. Sation keep to the accuracy required to say, image an extrasolar world. The moon also offers two weeks continuous night time observation from most locations on the surface.</p><p>Imagine a deep field type image continuously exposed for two weeks, getting the faintest possible light sources.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On Mars you could simulate the higher Earth 1G by strapping extra weight to your body and limbs. Ofcourse the extra weight would weigh less on Mars, but I think it would still be doable. You would dress up in the G-suit each morning.On Sundays kids would have a day off, when they would not be required to wear the extra weight. They would play Superman, ofcourse. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>An impractical solution. &nbsp;Such a suit would be bulky, even if it used lead ballast, so it would be difficult to move around in. &nbsp;And all that lead would retain every bit of inertia it would normally have on Earth.....try turning a corner quickly in such a suit and watch the comical results!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An impractical solution. &nbsp;Such a suit would be bulky, even if it used lead ballast, so it would be difficult to move around in. &nbsp;And all that lead would retain every bit of inertia it would normally have on Earth.....try turning a corner quickly in such a suit and watch the comical results! <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV><br /><br />And it wouldn't really help the prime issue, which is 1G pulling down on your body all the time.</p><p>That's a lot different than having weights strapped to you limbs; just ask your heart and blood pressure regulation system.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>Paraterraforming just sounds like a futile attempt to wean the terraformers off the notion that the way to get on with nature is to bash it with big rocks till it glows. </p><p>&nbsp;We would live underground. It is not only the only solution if you wish to avoid the radiation and the long day, It is also a better solution even if living as a thin scum on the surface was an option.</p><p>The sort of architecture we could eventually build in the moons low gravity will be different and better than trying to recreate the earth. Imagine an apartment that opens onto a five mile deep&nbsp;shaft half a mile across, suffused with light, hanging gardens and water falls. You could probably leap from the very top and&nbsp;drift to the bottom unhurt. The 'sun' might rise every morning as some sort of arc-light&nbsp;chandiler winched&nbsp;up the&nbsp;axis of the shaft.</p><p>These sorts of spaces are not extravagant, just a useful&nbsp;side effect of a couple of &nbsp;centuries of largely automated mining.&nbsp;Including these caverns it could eventually have far more surface area to live in than the earth.</p>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And it wouldn't really help the prime issue, which is 1G pulling down on your body all the time.That's a lot different than having weights strapped to you limbs; just ask your heart and blood pressure regulation system. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Are the problems of zero-gee just that? needing exercise for the heart and impacts for the bones and to avoid gallstones? Maybe the solution to keeping a society healthy in low gravity is really a social one. Once bases get bigger and more robust (and not the sort of thing you can put your foot through by accident) what you need is a society that seeks out high impact exercise. A half hour of competitive sport three times a day. A race of pushers and shovers </p><p>Or if you need a medical solution, how about inserting small chips near nerves that give you a bone ache if you dont get your daily dose of impacts. Our nervous system already tells us we have to breath and eat, and to move occasionally to avoid stiffness. This is really just the same thing as needing to stretch in the morning, just amplified.</p>

 

[mithridates]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Terraforming Venus would be a toughy, not much Nitrogen or Oxygen.&nbsp; Temperatures of 840*F would make any terrestrial based projectimpossible, no plants could survive....except maybe those new bacteria found in the hydrothermal vents at the bottem of our ocean. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It is also believed that most of the Hydrogen was lost to space too since most of the landers did not any, so no water.&nbsp; Oh yea theres also the clouds of sulfric acid to deal with.&nbsp;I suppose we could get rid of some of the CO2 by throwing Calcium at the planet. But you still need water, and Nitrogen.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Maybe a nifty disc to block the suns rays, cool down the planet a bit and see if that makes it more managable.&nbsp;&nbsp; ofcourse that disc would need to revolve around the sun with the Venus. &nbsp; oh well, least if fun to dream a bit.&nbsp;Oh and I think we should keep the moon untarnished and made in to a reserve; need to keep Moon rocks in their natural habitat! <br /> Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>I seem to remember reading that the actual amount of N and O on Venus is about the same as here, and that it works out to a low percentage simply due to the atmosphere being so massive in comparison.</p><p>Yep, here's the link:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.imcce.fr/vt2004/en/fiches/fiche_n13_eng.html </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Edit: That's just for nitrogen. Water vapor is only 20 ppm. If 3.5% of the atmosphere on Venus = 78% of the atmosphere here in mass, then all the water vapor in a theoretical Earth-sized atmosphere would be 445 ppm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[neuvik]

<p>You are correct, heres another basic link with roughly the same explanation you gave.&nbsp;&nbsp; http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Venus/atmosphere.html</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So now we still need to solve the C02 problem, find a way to dissasociate the H2, from the h2SO4 and combine it with O2 for water. &nbsp; And maybe a few other easier on paper type of things hah.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[eburacum45]

<p>Once we have terraformed (or perhaps preferably, paraterraormed) Luna, I have the perfect calendar for the inhabitants here</p><p>http://www.orionsarm.com/civ/Tranquility_Calendar.html</p><p>Originally devised by Jeff Siggins in July 1989 (20 A.T.) and reproduced with permission.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com  http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

<p>I like the 'guided comet' idea. Lets bombard Venus with billions of tons of water-ice comets and see what happens. Maybe it will cool it down, water it up, and get some interesting atmosperic processes going. As for Mars, peppering and splashing it with comets will hydrate it further&nbsp;along than it is, and the collisions will help <em>heat</em> it up! I like this approach better because by simply redirecting comets using robotic rockets would be alot cheaper than even more grandiose engineering endeavors.</p><p>Of course we're all dreaming here, but its a cool thought experiment. It just seems to me that if you throw a bunch of H2o at the situation something interesting will happen.</p><p>And the Moon? Yeah forget it as far as terraforming is concerned. How can we stay on the Moon indefinetly with only 1/6 G? We'd all be spindly weak-boned lunaroids within a year or two lol.</p><p>But the Moon will certainly be a perfect waystation, testing ground, and launchpad for further missions.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Large scale artificial gravity (very improbable) could possibly produce one g on the lunar surface, perhaps even a faster rotation for a 24 hiour day, and retaining an atmosphere.Mars may be marginally terriformable with immense amounts of technology already within our grasp. We're stuck with the 0.38g unless we develop fabulous and very unlikely artificial gravity.Venus already has about 0.9g which is a big plus. If we can block the sunlight the carbon dioxide will freeze out as dry ice, with a bit of sulpheric acid. About a trillion rockets could haul the dry ice to somewhere it would not return to Venus. We now need&nbsp; ten billion rockets to deliver water and oxygen from somewhere. We now have a one bar (instead of 90 bar atmosphere when we let in enough sunlight for 20 degrees c. We can make water, carbon, supher&nbsp;and oxygen out of the bit of acid and carbon dioxide that we missed shipping out. We will still have night that last about&nbsp;2/3 of an Earth year, but some giant mirrors can partially solve that problem. If our giant sun shades fail, even the poles will quickly become too hot for humans, otherwise I agree Venus is best. On another thread, last year, I detailed a much less anbitious plan for terriforming (sort of) about 5% of Venus near the North pole.&nbsp;&nbsp; Neil <br />Posted by neilsox</DIV><br /><br />I agree that the whole large scale artificial gravity concept is <em>very</em> improbable. But what would increasing the Moon's gravity by six times do to the Moon? Would it self-implode? I'm no physicist, but the Moon lacks a heavy, molten iron core to act as a foundation for such pressure as 1 g would cause on its innards. And isn't it true that the tidally locked Moon stabilizes Earth's rotation and regulates the tidal system that we're accustomed to? What would giving the Moon a big 'spin' do to the body, and more importantly, how would a rotating moon effect the Earth? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>

 

[eburacum45]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IAnd the Moon? Yeah forget it as far as terraforming is concerned. How can we stay on the Moon indefinetly with only 1/6 G? We'd all be spindly weak-boned lunaroids within a year or two lol.</DIV> We'll have to get used to low gravity; almost all of the objects in the Solar System have got a lower gravity than the Moon, so we will probably think of the Moon as a fairly high gee environment once the colonization of the system starts in earnest.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>---------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>http://orionsarm.com  http://thestarlark.blogspot.com/</p> </div>

 

[flameholder]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We'll have to get used to low gravity; almost all of the objects in the Solar System have got a lower gravity than the Moon, so we will probably think of the Moon as a fairly high gee environment once the colonization of the system starts in earnest. <br /> Posted by eburacum45</DIV><br />&nbsp;First of all, this is a very old discussion, but it is one of the few places on the net wehere people speak about terraforming Luna. </p><p>&nbsp;Back to the topic. We do not have to get used to low gravity. We can build centrifuges on the Moon as living quarters. Old technology.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I also think that atmosphere is not so much of a concern. Titan has very dense atmosphere. Maybe we could mitigate the problem of magnetic field buy constructing to Helmholzt coils on the Moon and powering them with solar energy. This should be as simple as laying two powerlines and running DC current in them.&nbsp; One would have to calculate how much current is needed to generate reasonable magnetic field and what shall be the diamaters of the cables to conduct the current.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;But, one question remains, what would be benefist of that? We can actually benefit from vacuum e.g. in nanofabrication process. Also, mining operations on Moon might be easier with no water to mess around. Also, we could conduct robotic mining operations and robots do not care about lack of air. I was actually thinking that it would be cool to use a low energy transfer to move a little&nbsp; robotic dozer, a robotic excavator and a robotic lab, to the Moon to explore more possibilites of lunar surface mining. There is supposedly lot's of Titanium compounds on the Moon. Titanium is expensive. Who want's to go into the bussines with me? We just need the guy who is expert on low energy transfers, so we do not get killed by fuel costs. </p>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>Welcome to space.com </p><p>Have you checked out http://www.moonsociety.org/ ?</p>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;First of all, this is a very old discussion, but it is one of the few places on the net wehere people speak about terraforming Luna. &nbsp;Back to the topic. We do not have to get used to low gravity. We can build centrifuges on the Moon as living quarters. Old technology. </DIV></p><p>Are you suggesting we build entire cities on the moon inside of massive rotating centrifuges? &nbsp;Or just specific buildings? &nbsp;It seems improbable, if not impossible, that we could spend ALL of our time inside such a habitat, so one way or another, we would have to get used to spending a considerable amount of time in a lunar-normal gravity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I also think that atmosphere is not so much of a concern. Titan has very dense atmosphere. Maybe we could mitigate the problem of magnetic field buy constructing to Helmholzt coils on the Moon and powering them with solar energy. This should be as simple as laying two powerlines and running DC current in them.&nbsp; One would have to calculate how much current is needed to generate reasonable magnetic field and what shall be the diamaters of the cables to conduct the current.</DIV></p><p>The difference between Titan and our moon is that Titan can retain a thick atmosphere because it's COLD out near Saturn. &nbsp;No magnetic field is going to prevent an artificial lunar atmosphere from being driven off by the heat of the sun.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But, one question remains, what would be benefist of that? We can actually benefit from vacuum e.g. in nanofabrication process. Also, mining operations on Moon might be easier with no water to mess around. Also, we could conduct robotic mining operations and robots do not care about lack of air. I was actually thinking that it would be cool to use a low energy transfer to move a little&nbsp; robotic dozer, a robotic excavator and a robotic lab, to the Moon to explore more possibilites of lunar surface mining. There is supposedly lot's of Titanium compounds on the Moon. Titanium is expensive. Who want's to go into the bussines with me? We just need the guy who is expert on low energy transfers, so we do not get killed by fuel costs. <br /> Posted by flameholder</DIV></p><p>I think the moon is much more useful to us just the way it is.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>