TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

Why not the moon?

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by Cosmacelf, Aug 30, 2014.

Tags:
  1. ivog

    ivog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Has anyone watched "Man vs Universe part 3" aired on sci-fi channel aug 27th? It's about Mars and I think Elon is interviewed. I seem to be unable to find it online. Its available on Amazon but it looks like it's not available for the netherlands.
     
  2. donv

    donv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    599
    Location:
    Lake Jeanclia, OR
    There is also a pretty decent case to be made for Venus. No, not the surface, but rather the upper atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere of Venus, the temperature and pressure are very close to what we have on Earth. Even better, breathable air is a lifting gas on Venus, so it's not that hard to stay in the upper atmosphere.
     
  3. flashflood

    flashflood Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Location:
    Los Altos Hills, CA
    I can't help wonder whether Venus is a better candidate for terraforming than Mars. Anything we sent to Mars would just die. But if we sprayed a whole boatload of plankton, various critters that live near hydrothermal vents, and Deinococcus radiodurans at Venus, would some handful of them land in a survivable niche, evolve, and colonize the planet, gradually turning CO2 and sulfuric acid into oxygen and water and other happy things? I don't have any specific theory, just the observation that microbial life on Earth seems remarkably robust and adaptable.
     
  4. Skotty

    Skotty 2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,422
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    I've wondered that myself. What would it take to terraform Venus? You can build pressurized habitats on Mars, but you're not a super cool galactic species unless you can terraform it to make it liveable. From that viewpoint, might it be easier to remove atmosphere from Venus than it is to add atmosphere to Mars? And might it be more maintainable once it' done? I can't help but wonder what hidden potential Venus may hold. It's closer to Earth size and might would have reasonable temperatures if the atmosphere was significantly modified. I dare would bet it has better resources too.

    Of course, before we go terraforming planets, we probably need a one world organization or ... dare I say ... governing body ... to make such decisions at the solar system level.
     
  5. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    That would guarantee it would never get done. Eg. Space shuttle versus private company SpaceX. No, it takes hordes of entrepreneurs to do big things, not bureaucrats.
     
  6. ElSupreme

    ElSupreme Model S 03182

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,303
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    It is a lot easier to add heat energy to a system, than to pull it out. I mean the Sun is pretty good energy source. There aren't very many good heat sinks lying around.
     
  7. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    Maine
    Not to mention that Venus' atmosphere is extremely high pressure and cloudy, which makes construction and solar power rather challenging.

    Venus might have better absolute potential, but the process itself would be harder.
     
  8. Johan

    Johan Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,426
    Location:
    Drammen, Norway
    How impossible would it be to gradually move Venus from it's current orbit to a more earth-like orbit? I'm talking over time, perhaps using future technologies that may be able to extract large ammounts of energy with low cost, such as fusion or other yet-to-be discovered energy technologies.
     
  9. Skotty

    Skotty 2014 S P85 | 2020 3 P19"

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,422
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    I don't think the orbit of Venus is the problem. It's the atmosphere. Venus needs some serious atmospheric processing.
     
  10. Doug_G

    Doug_G Lead Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    17,876
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    That would be mind-bogglingly, ridiculously, absurdly, can't-come-up-with-sufficient-superlative impossible.
     
  11. Johan

    Johan Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,426
    Location:
    Drammen, Norway
    Cool. So maybe wait a bit with that then :)
     
  12. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    10,212
    Location:
    Maine
    Yes. It's a gradual process. Small asteroid, large asteroid, Mercury, Mars, Venus. Put everything back, and then repeat in a single shot for effect.
     
  13. rabar10

    rabar10 Model 3 >> Focus Electric

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,455
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    We've gone off the orbital-mechanics rails here...

    Here's an article published a bit over a year ago that addresses the original question: Mars versus the Moon (Issue #19) | Mars Society Education Forum

    It touches on energy production methods, and several of the ISRU (in-situ resource utilization i.e. availability of water, oxygen, other raw materials) differences.

    One it doesn't touch on is the availability of fuel with which to fuel rockets for return journeys. Methane has been detected in a few different location on Mars -- and it's surmised that this is one of several reasons that SpaceX is pursuing a methane-based architecture for its next generation of rocket engines.
     
  14. ElSupreme

    ElSupreme Model S 03182

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,303
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #54 ElSupreme, Sep 11, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    I think this should be a good estimate. I am corsely rounding some numbers

    Given (all from wikipedia):
    Venus mass: 4.8676×10^24 kg
    Sun mass: 1.98855×10^30 kg
    Venus orbit: 108,000,000 km
    Venus orbit velocity: 35.02 km/s
    Earth orbit: 148,000,000 km (rough average)
    Earth orbit velocity: 29.78 km/s
    G: 6.674x10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-1

    g: G * (ms)/r^2

    KE= 1/2 m v^2
    PE (energy needed to escape gravity)= G (m1*m2) / (-r)


    Current kinetic energy in Venus orbit:
    0.5 * 4.9E24 * (35,000)^2 = 3.0x10^33 J (kg m^2/s^2)

    Energy needed to escape Sun orbit from Venus elevation:
    6x10^33 J (note this is double the KE of the orbit)

    New kinetic energy in Earth orbit:
    0.5 * 4.9E24 * (30,000)^2 = 2.2x10^33 J (kg m^2/s^2)

    Energy needed to escape Sun orbit from earth elevation:
    4.4x10^33 J (note this is double the KE of the orbit)


    So at least 8E32 J of kinetic energy can be converted to the elevation.
    But we need at least 1.6E33 J to raise the mass of Venus.
    Net total energy input required to raise Venus orbit is 8x10^32 J. Or roughly 1/15th of the Sun's total yearly output.


    EDIT: I did!

    EDIT 2:

    And most likely we wouldn't be able to conserve the Kinetic energy, so it would likely take ~2.4x10^33 J to actually perform the maneuver. Or 3 times the previous estimate, which is 1/5 the Sun's total yearly output.
     
  15. Johan

    Johan Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,426
    Location:
    Drammen, Norway
  16. flashflood

    flashflood Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Location:
    Los Altos Hills, CA
    Other than, you know, the entire universe, which is a vacuum at near absolute zero. Blackbody radiation is pretty efficient, as evidenced by Earth's failure to boil away after 4.5 billion years of solar cooking.

    In the grand scheme of things, energy is much harder to come by. That's why Mars is so hopeless: it just isn't warm enough to sustain an atmosphere given its paltry gravity and distance from the Sun. Mars is like GM: you can keep it alive, but only by throwing massive external resources at it. It is not fundamentally self-sustaining, and won't ever be.

    Venus, by comparison, is much closer to habitable. Only biology can achieve planet-scale terraforming, and biology works better and faster with an abundance of energy.

    It turns out that people with actual official brains have considered this too. Check out Terraforming of Venus as a starting point.
     
  17. adiggs

    adiggs Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,172
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Fun link 'flash. Got me wondering:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

    And there's more - Europa. I be somewhere we could find a similar scale discussion for our moon.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon

    Good stuff :)
     
  18. woof

    woof Fluffy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,573
    What a simile! But I wonder what it means for Elon's "Occupy Mars" T-Shirt if you substitute GM for Mars?
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC