OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Im wondering here, in my RP's im running the Taera as CO2 breathing races - how good would these fare on the classical oxygen planet, like Earth is? Do they need complete enviromental outfit or would breathing enchancers be enough? What do you think? because im at loss

[ July 18, 2003, 00:42: Message edited by: Taera ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

When I was a kid, I was excited to hear that Mars has oxygen in its atmosphere. I thought people could live there without a pressure suit. Unfortuneately, the atmosphere on Mars is real thin. And Earth's atmosphere is only fraction of a percent of CO2. The Taera are going to need spacesuits.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

You know I've been thinking that we don't really know what a real CO2 breathing species would be like. After all, even plants aren't real CO2 breathing species are they? They create energy through photosynthesis sure, but they still burn it up with oxygen.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Suffocation isn't the only risk. Unlike the effect carbon dioxide has on you, displaces oxygen and is more or less inert, oxygen (O2) is a caustic substance and fire hazard. If your CO2 race is not from a planet with large amounts of oxygen their equipment will need special treatment, their skin may become irritated, begin breaking down in a messy leprous goo, or simply burst into flames. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Like any hazardous environment suit a positive pressure would need to be maintained in the suit. This will keep the potentially toxic outside gases from getting at the skin of mucous membranes of the subject. Additionally, some amount of exo-skeletal support may be required to deal with higher gravity.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank God for domed colonies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Edit: Then another question for you atmosphere experts: What would happen to an Oxygen breather in a Hydrogen-Atmosphere or a Methane-Atmosphere planet that has the same gravity as earth and atmosphere pressure as earth?

[ July 15, 2003, 14:04: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

It's difficult to hypothesize since the Se4 planetary descriptions aren't very realistic to begin with. Earth isn't really an oxygen atmosphere planet, it's mostly nitrogen. To truly model alien lifeforms we need more complex planetary types. Is a Hydrogen world primarily hydrogen? Or is it mostly some inert gas and 20% hydrogen the way our atmosphere is nitrogen/oxygen? Could a biological process be even theorized that would use hydrogen or methane as it's gas for breathing? I don't really know enough about it to say.

Perhaps creatures on such a world wouldn't really breath the Hydrogen, but survive on the trace gases, or not breath at all. They wouldn't be the same as vacuum lifeforms because they would be acclimated to the pressures on their homeworld. And perhaps the Hydrogen would be neccesary becaue their bodies might react with other gases that would be toxic to their systems.

It's intersting to think about though.
I think you could pretty much make up whatever you want and it would mostly be plausible since we really don't know.

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2003, 14:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Methane will basically just displace the oxygen and the oxy-breather will suffocate. Dumb kids out in the country will sometimes bottle certain methane-producing substances (messy) and inhale the gases sealed in the container to get high. This is an oxy-dep high and is more easily reproduced by breathing into and form a balloon, but I guess the kids don't know that.

(Note: neither nitrous nor paint fumes are simply an oxy-dep high. These experiences are doing more than just depriving you of oxygen.)

Hydrogen, on the other hand hurts! (Personal experience.) Do not try to breathe this stuff, it is bad for you and any other oxygen breather.

Basically O2 and H2 are very reactive, while CO2 and CH4 are not so reactive. CH4 and H2 environmental suits have the additional issue that, while in an O2 environment, leaks are mixing highly combustible gases. Neither H2 nor CH4 will burn quite so hot (single bond breakages) and large masses (dome breakages) will burn relatively slowly (the Hindenburg burned so fast because of the chemicals with which the skin of the dirigible was treated), but there is great destructive potential here. Basically because the two gases are on either side of the combustive process you would see burning, but not so many outright explosions.

[ July 15, 2003, 14:59: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Getting back to the CO2 atmosphere : it could mean any one of a number of things, but these are the more interesting possibilities :

- CO2 with some oxygen; depending on the oxygen level, CO2 'breathers' (who might actually breathe oxygen) and oxygen breathers would have few compatibility problems.
- CO2, nitrogen and other inert gases; both species would need breathers / gas tanks to survive in the other environment. The CO2 species might need an environmental suit (an insectoid species might not need a suit, if it had a resistant, airtight exoskeleton).

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

CO2 breathers could be carbon cycle just like us. But evolving in a atmosphere with a high concentration of CO2 would have given them the ability to break the CO2 down into CO an O, and then use the oxygen and turn it back into CO or CO2 blowing off the excess carbon in the process. There is some evidence that long term heavy smokers do some of this on a small inefficient scale. Pulling off one of the oxygen molecules and polluting their blood with the CO, which takes a long time to blow off.

[ July 15, 2003, 16:54: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Interesting link: Exobiology background & theories

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

The background to my question is the fact that in my current RP my Taeran bugs are creating a close alliance with oxygen-breathers.

Thermodyne: No. Completely no. You're trying to reason with it the normal way. Not all living creatures have to use oxygen - if we cant explain it it doesnt mean it cant be.

Loser: Yep, my bugs didnt have much oxygen there, but they had some - i doubt the mere existance of the gas would cause equipment failure. Still an interesting note to remember.

Erax: Your completely right, unlike humans or mammals in general insectoids do not breathe with their skin - first of all because of the lack of such http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif they have tough natural carpace and have multiple breathing orifices, usually along their thorax or legs.

So considering the exoskeleton is airtight and the only places that receive outside air are treated with a breather, and of course pressure and gravity are in reasonable limits, my bugs should be able to survive on an oxygen or even on a methane atmosphere right?

BTW, regarding Earth not being an Oxygen planet, technically this is true but i think it depends what the planet's flora and fauna uses, plus the atmosphere layers composition (for all i know atmosphere has plenty of H20, 03 and 02 in it) rules that the planet is, after all, an oxygen planet.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem is that there are no other substances that can perform all of the roles of oxygen in complex organisms. All organisms on Earth that are more than a simple cell rely on oxygen for all parts of energy generation (not necessarily storage, as for plants, but the molecules they store it in still rely on oxygen). This is because oxygen is a very unique substance that has just the right combination of electronegativity, molecular mass, size, charge, ionization, etc. to work as it does in organisms. Complex alien organisms that do not rely on oxygen could not rely on a single gas; they would have to use several things to fulfill all of the roles of oxygen. And yes, they all need to be fulfilled, because they are too fundamental to be ignored (all relating to energy transmission within the organism and releasing the energy to be used).

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

As long as the pressure and temperature are reasonable, a breather should do for short periods or moderate emergencies.
You'll need something like a diving drysuit if the chemical composition is physically harmful or toxic (eg chlorine, mercury)

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

I.F., most likely you are correct. In fact I'll not bet a peny against a 1M of pounds that you are wrong. However, there is no much difference between, for example, yeasts and humans - 60% genome similarity ! We know of the extreme habitats of anaerobic bacteria. There is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent the evolution of more complex organisms there too. Yes, it is unlikely, I agree with you, but it is still inside boundares of the serious science.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Anaerobic respiration (releasing energy from glucose and such without the use of oxygen) is too innefficient for it to work for complex organisms. It can only be used continuously for very simple single celled organisms. It is done in complex organisms such as humans as an extreme backup (such as during very heavy, prolonged excercise), but it is not effective for very long.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When life was getting started on earth, it was not an O2 planet. Life created the excess 02.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Say what?
I think you mean "during short bursts of heavy activity" such as sprinting and weight lifting.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

i repeat myself, if we do not know it exists it doesnt mean it cannot exist. Perharps there are gases we do not know. Perharps there are other ways of extracting energy, say, from splitting the C atoms or whatever. In here im not limiting myself to known science. Yes, i know that what your saying is true, im just not blindly agreeing it is the only truth.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

There are no natural elements that we do not know (unless one of those ~180 proton (or was it 240?) theoretical elements somehow formed in some place in the universe, but it would certainly not be conducive to life). There are only so many ways elements can bond together, and I think every possibility (or at least eveyr possibility that has a remote chance of being useful to any sort of organism) has been seen in nature or made in laboratories.

Splitting atoms releases so much energy that a naturally evolved lifeform would certainly not be able to handle it.

Of course there are other ways of extracting energy from molecules (and atoms, but atomic energy is a bit much for natural organisms). Most of them are either too innefficient to sustain complex organisms, or they are too destructive (such as splitting atoms).

Matter is fundamentally ordered (in some ways). All pieces of matter with X protons share identical properties. They take on variations, such as isotopes (different decay rates, different masses) and ions (different charges). But, their fundamental properties are still essentially the same. Carbon 14 is nearly identical to Carbon 12, with only relatively minor differences. This is why there is no such thing as "different gases" and "different matter". It is the same everywhere in the universe, barring anti-matter, which we do not know if it even exists in nature. Any statements about it beyond the basics of what antimatter is (according to theory, I do not know if any has yet been made in labs) would be pure speculation.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Say what?
I think you mean "during short bursts of heavy activity" such as sprinting and weight lifting.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is what I meant, yes.

[ July 16, 2003, 07:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

you're speaking of earth's chemistry and physics. You cannot claim that next solar system's physics arent different and that there are no other kinds of particles/elements there. there is a little too much "cannot" here because humans had not explored much outside the Earth. If realy, how can you know we wont find some unique element even deep in mars, in the asteroid belt or on Pluton?

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they do make antimatter in labs - often accidentally; when two sufficiently high-energy photons collide, they produce a particle and its matching antiparticle. However, it's made in single particle quantities with the standard Version right next to it, and so (with modern methods), antimatter is both difficult to capture and nearly impossible to produce in any meaningful quantity.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Jack - this fact is what had allowed you to post in this forum http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif meaning, for all of us to exist untill now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif you never, though, know what they can come up with in the labs... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

edit: realized its a complete pointless post... ohwell, ill let it live

[ July 16, 2003, 10:20: Message edited by: Taera ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Earth life is so dependant on oxygen that some scientists say, as Fyron mentions, that oxygen is the only substance with just the right characteristics for (complex) life. The question is whether this is realy the case or caused by the fact that life has adapted during millions of years of evolution in such a way that it perfectly exploits the characteristics of oxygen, which may make it seem perfect.

If not oxygen but another molecule, that can generate sufficient amounts of energy in biological processes, was used in evolution, then life would have adapted to this situation, and proteins and other processes would have developed that would exploit this resource, making this molecule look "just perfect". Maybe then we would have laughed at the thought of oxygen-dependent life. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 16, 2003, 11:33: Message edited by: henk brouwer ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the problem with relying on multiple things is what, exactly?

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because there are no more elements to be discovered (none that would be useful for this thread, anyway), and we know there can't be.

Here's how:
An element is a "type" of atom. All atoms are made up of neutrons, protons and electrons.

The thing that makes one element (say, hydrogen) different to another (say, helium) is the number of protons they contain. For example, a hydrogen atom has one proton. To put it another way, any atom with only one proton is Hydrogen. Any atom with 2 protons is helium, any atom with 3 protons is {insert element name here}, and so on up to >200 protons. There might be a few more up the top there yet to be discovered, but they can't exist in nature- they could only be made in labs and would self-destruct almost immediately after creation. This makes them pretty much useless when you're considering things like natural biology.

The point is, you can't have 1.5 protons, it's either 1 or 2. You can't have 2.4 protons, it's either 2 or it's 3, and so on. This means that just about every atom in the entire universe is of a type we have already discovered.

By the time you eliminate the ones that can only exist in a proton accelerator/ the centre of a star/ supernova/ black hole etc, you find that there are only about 100 or so elements actually available to Mother Nature for making life. We know the properties of all of those elements, and so we can make some pretty good assumptions about what aliens will be made of.

===============

Disclaimer: I'm no scientist, aIdpooTV. Doubtless there are loads of glaring errors in the above, but I'm pretty sure it's getting the right general message across.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Sorry to double post, but I have a mostly on-topic question for my own sci-fi writing purposes, and this post has nothing to do with my Last.

I know Mars has a thin CO2 atmosphere. If we were to build a domed ecosystem on Mars, I imagine we could use photosynthesis or some chemical process to extract all the oxygen we needed from this CO2.

However, as has already been stated in this thread, our own atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, and that is also important to us. (Nitrates in the soil for plants etc)

Does anyone know if there is any useful amount of nitrogen present in the martian atmosphere, or is it all CO2? If there is none, would we be able to extract the required nitrogen from other nearby resources (rocks, asteroids etc)?

Finally, would an artificial atmosphere made up in this way (say ~75% nitrogen, ~15% oxygen, ~10% CO2) be viable for a human ecosystem, or would we need to import/ locally source all the other trace elements in our own atmosphere?

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><threadhijack>
This thread reminds me of a series I'm just about finished reading, concerning a large space based multi-species hospital called Sector General.

James White is the author; unfortunately many of them are out of print now, although there are two or three compendiums available that contain the earlier volumes, if anyone is interested. </threadhijack>

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, pure O2 would be a bad idea for several reasons. Nitrogen would be crucial if you planned to have any plant life (which you would need for food, oxygen, medication, fabrics and more) because it is required in the soil. I seem to remember from school something about a "nitrogen cycle", which involved nitrogen going from the air to the soil or something. I guess I ought to look it up.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I'm not talking about doming the entire planet, just a few limited domes. Also, the atmosphere doesn't have to be thin inside the dome- you can keep pumping CO2 in until you reach an Earth-like pressure, dump a load of plants and soil in there, then wait. Once the plants have done their job, you bottle the oxygen for use in inhabitted domes, lather, rinse and repeat.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I've read "White Mars" by someone or other (it was terrible) and also an excellent book by Clarke about the possibilities for terraforming. Personally I think terraforming on Mars is a bad idea, unless you can do something to prevent the atmosphere being stripped away again by the solar winds. Mars is something of an obsession of mine.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well for a permanent colony, I should think it would be important to have air pressure and content as close to Earth's as possible for morale and health reasons. However it seems as though O2 and N2 are the only important ones for humans, and CO2 will be required for any plant life. Maybe the pressure could be maintained at one earth atmosphere, with a mix of (say) 70% N2, ~26% O2, ~4% CO2. A balanced excess of CO2 could counter any ill-effects caused by the excess of oxygen. Maintaining that balance would be hard, what with all those life-forms on there respiring away, but there would be ways and means.

So my main question remains: Would nitrogen be available on Mars? If it's not iin the air, is it likely to be found in rocks, soil etc?

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

[quote]Originally posted by dogscoff:

Quote:

So my main question remains: Would nitrogen be available on Mars? If it's not iin the air, is it likely to be found in rocks, soil etc?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Going strictly from my fractured memory, isn't Nitrogen supposed to be the second most abundant element in the universe after Hydrogen? I may be wrong about that, but if I am right then I think we ought to be able to find some significant quantaties in some form on Mars.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Nope, guess I was wrong. Looks like Nitrogen is fifth behind Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen and Neon. Oh well. Guess I should look that stuff up before posting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I did find an interesting and relevant link.
(click on the quote to go to the source)

Quote:

Oddly enough, nitrogen is the limiting gas species for plant life on Mars. There is more than enough CO2 for photosynthesis, nearly enough oxygen for respiration and the atmospheric pressure is close to the lower limit. In fact in some regions, the atmospheric pressure reaches 9 or 10 millibars and some hardy terrestrial plants could be found to survive such conditions. However, there is too little N2 for nitrogen fixation for some plants by a factor of 5. Nitrogen must also be found in the soil for plants to thrive. Currently, the N2 levels in the Martian soil are unknown. If these are later found to be low, Robert Zubrin [Zubrin & Wagner, 1996] suggests we may be able to make fertilizer out of the atmosphere.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ July 16, 2003, 16:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is dangerously close to a lethal atmosphere. Your colonists would suffer greatly, and casualties would be high.
Drop that CO2 concentration by at least an order or two of magnitude.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is dangerously close to a lethal atmosphere. Your colonists would suffer greatly, and casualties would be high.
Drop that CO2 concentration by at least an order or two of magnitude.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One important thing to remmeber is that CO2 is heavy. It will collect at the ground, where your people are trying to breathe.

Also, it is a 'greenhouse gas'. Too much or too litte of certain gases at certain distances from stars producing certain levels of heat will lead to planets too hot or too cold for life.

CO2 levels need to be low. There needs to be some, but not much. Not much at all.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

i cant name the source but i remember reading that Mars has some nitrogen - in frozen state however, i think on the poles. Also plants alone cannot strive outside the nitrogen cycle as i think you also require animal/bacterial life for completing the cycle and that is a whole different issue.

I also think they found not-so-thin layer of CO2 which they said would be sufficient to maintain plant life. that is, /methinks.

If realy, why bother with mars? I've never understood it. Whats special about it? is it the closest planet to earth's conditions or what.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes it is.

You-all ever hear about land probes on Venus? No? Well I'll tell you why.

I don't think U.S. has put anything over there, but the U.S.S.R. did. The best one Lasted a couple hours. The atmosphere is so caustic that it eats up whatever we drop over there.

Mercury is too dang hot, way to dang hot.

Luna is dead, dead, dead. And dry and just about useless.

Everything else is just too far away, though compared to terraforming Mars, getting to the Jovian satellites is no that big a deal.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

how about Planet X? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif we dont know that
but yea, i know than nothing before earth is any good, but if realy i know very little of the later planets in the solar system

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The outer planets are just too cold. No terraforming options out there.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because matter is fundamentally ordered. It can not exist in bizarre new combinations, for all stable combinations exist on earth (naturally or in labs). Except, of course, those theorized stable 180 proton elements (anything past 118 or so (or is it 124?) is highly unstable and collapses within fractions of a second when produced in a lab), which are very unlikely to exist anywhere in nature.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the problem with relying on multiple things is what, exactly?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The more things that have to be relied on when life is evolving, the less likely it is that it will evolve in that manner. I did not say it was impossible for such a thing to happen, just less likely.

Henk:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but what molecule would that be? It is all fine and well to make statements like that, but without any examples, it is meaningless.

DS:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly.

Oleg:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I forget exactly how it benefits us, but nitrogen is used by some bacteria that live in our lungs to produce some proteins or somesuch that are vital to us. These substances can of course be ingested artificially.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The outer planets are just too cold. No terraforming options out there.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Giant orbiting mirrors!
Lots of fusion reactors running off the H2 from the gas giants!
Move the planet! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The outer planets are just too cold. No terraforming options out there.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Giant orbiting mirrors!
Lots of fusion reactors running off the H2 from the gas giants!
Move the planet! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Better off terraforming Luna. Mars is still the easiest.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Nitrogen as it exists in our atmosphere - N2 - is too stable to be usable by most life forms, except a few bacteria. Other life forms require nitrogen in other forms - as ammonia, NH4+, nitrates or amines. The process by which N2 is converted to ammonia is called fixation.

Nitrogen is present in all amino acids, which are called that because they are both amines and organic acids. Life as we know it would be impossible without nitrogen, because there would be no amino acids and therefore no proteins.

Follow this link for an extensive treaty on the nitrogen cycle and how it is important to life on Earth.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

[quote]Originally posted by dogscoff:

Quote:

By the time you eliminate the ones that can only exist in a proton accelerator/ the centre of a star/ supernova/ black hole etc, you find that there are only about 100 or so elements actually available to Mother Nature for making life. We know the properties of all of those elements, and so we can make some pretty good assumptions about what aliens will be made of.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well dang. That makes a lot of sense teh way you put it there, but it's kind of depressing. It makes it seem like we are closer to the end of knowing pretty much everything then to the begining. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by dogscoff:

Quote:

By the time you eliminate the ones that can only exist in a proton accelerator/ the centre of a star/ supernova/ black hole etc, you find that there are only about 100 or so elements actually available to Mother Nature for making life. We know the properties of all of those elements, and so we can make some pretty good assumptions about what aliens will be made of.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well dang. That makes a lot of sense teh way you put it there, but it's kind of depressing. It makes it seem like we are closer to the end of knowing pretty much everything then to the begining. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. For example the known matter makes only 10% or even less of Universe. The rest is "dark matter". Or how about cosmological constant ? It is not proven yet but it appears to be not zero. But what is its nature ?

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

Has anybody read the book Rare Earth? I think it bears directly on the discussion here re: the viability of non-oxygen based life-forms (and other conclusions even more depressing to avid sciffers).

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is mostly CO2 with some water vapor. N2 is not important for us to breath, Appolo astronauts used pure oxygen. Proved to be very dangerous though - Appolo 1.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not so sure there's quite that much. And the thinness of the atmosphere is going to slow down the conVersion. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A good source for terraforming Mars is one particular sci-fi series: Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars. I would recommend these, if you don't mind the excessive sex sci-fi authors feel they need to include to get their work of the juvi-fic rack. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On Earth it's about 70% N2, 22%O2, 4% Argon, and the remaining 4% everything else (very small amount of CO2). But it's not the percentage of Oxygen that's important, it's the amount of O2 molecules per Liter of 'air'. So at lower pressures it's important to have a greater percentage of O2 and at higher pressures it's not only important to have a lower percentage of O2, but also to have less N2 or no N2. A high enough pressures N2 will act as an intoxicant, so an inert gas, such as He (elemental Helium), is used.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

how can you claim we know all particles in the universe? perharps somewhere there are atoms that have gravitons orbiting electrons and thats it for the atom. and dont start telling me there are no gravitons, its not proven. Or perharps atoms with quadraple cores? and how you know its impossible to have 1/2 of a particle? if we cant do it it doesnt mean its impossible. You cant go at the speed of light - who said its impossible?

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, no. There probably are som wierd and wonderful particles out there to be discovered, but they would have to be damned rare and only exist under certain (life-unfriendly) conditions- otherwise we would have encountered them in our own solar system.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Einstein.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

You can make up all the fancy particles you like, but they do not exist in reality. There are only so many sub-atomic particles, and we know what they are. There are sub-sub-atomic particles and such, but they can not form anything comparable to atoms, just sub-atomic particles.

You can not have half a particle because half a particle results in either a fairly large explosion or simply in the pieces floating off. Matter is only stable in very rigid and specific patterns. And, the sub-atomic particles are made of 3 smaller particles anyways, so 1/2 is not even a valid fraction. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But joking aside, those smaller particles can not form any larger particles other than the ones we know about already. There are only so many ways matter can combine, and we have seen or modeled them all.

I am not sure what you mean by quadruple cores, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me. The only possibilities for the core of an atom are protons and neutrons (except for antimatter, which has identical particles except that they have opposing charges and spins, so they are essentially the same anyways). What gives a piece of matter almost all of its properties is the number of protons in the nucleus. Change that, you get entirely different matter.

IF (and that is a big if) gravity is found to be particle like in nature (in addition to wave-like), like light is (photons), then these "gravitons" would be no more able to form new types of matter than photons are (which they are not). If they exist, they would have a similar interaction with electrons to that of photons with electrons. I am not sure what precisely this interaction would be, but it most certainly would not be to form new types of matter with the electrons. They would have to be immensely smaller than photons anyways, as we have never been able to detect or see the evidence of any such gravitons.

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Einstein.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Einstein was not right about everything. He refused to believe the findings of his pupil, Heisenburg (I hope I remember the right name...) that particles have wave-like properties. He only believed that waves have particle-like properties (which is true, solar sail anyone?). Of course, it was later proven that particles do have wave-like properties (atoms in molecules are a distance apart that is exactly equal to the sum of the lengths of the matter-waves of the electrons in them, for example).

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

if it's smaller than an electron, i don't see how we can be sure it's there. least until we have something that can see smaller than an electron. yes, i know there's mathamatical models. but think about this:

cells - 1 remove. can be seen with a Version 1 light microscope. i think there's one that can be seen with just the naked eye.

molecules - 2 removed. not sure if you could prove, conclusivily, that those atoms are linked. could you even watch individual atoms? i mean 100%, not 99.5%

atoms - 3 removed. can only be seen and poorly, with an electron microscope. no idea how extensive that is...can you watch them move? but they can be proved to exist

quarks - theorized by mathematical model.

so, i can't accept quarks as more than a theory. yes, i know if i investigated the math i might agree. but, i have trouble picking through math models. it's not that i don't understand it, it's that i'm like a turtle with physics as math - steady, but slow. so, in order for me to accept this, i'd like some pretty picture and words. english words, to. and so would, probably, the general public.

[ July 17, 2003, 08:33: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks. Most of that article goes over my head, but I get the basics and it has some pretty pictures ;-)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK... the exact proportions don't really matter, just as long as a breathable atmosphere could be produced from local materials. Next question: How much variation in these proportions of gasses could we withstand? a few percent? A few fractions of a percent?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here are some reasons to go to Mars:

1> The first is the distance from the sun, which has already been mentioned. It's close enough to gain trap some of the suns energy. Solar panels would be viable there, and plants could probably get enough sunlight to survive (if they were kept under glass)

2> Mars is interesting. I want to go there to check out the possibility of martian (ex-)life and the amazing terrain: Olympus Mons is the largest "mountain" in the solar system, making Everest look like a molehill. There are some other cool geographical features that ppl would like to see. We could also settle all that cydonia nonsense once and for all.

3> Although Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere, it *does* have an atmosphere, which would offer at least some protection against meteor strikes and the sun's radiation.

4> As we've already discussed, Mars has some good raw materials to work with: A thin CO2 atmosphere, some ice (probably) lots of iron (that's why the landscape is all red), a couple of small moons that may come in handy one day and no doubt lots of other useful things.

5>Although Mars is much smaller and less dense than Earth, it's bigger and denser than the moon and the Jovian satellites. That means gravity there would be closer to that of Earth. The effects of living long-term in low gravity are as yet unknown. Some of them probably would be good- because the reduced gravity means less energy spent and less "wear and tear" on the body. however there are bound to be negative effects as well. All these effects are likely to be multiplied for children born and raised on low-grav worlds, so to start with it would be best to colonise the most Earth-like gravity available.

6>Mars has a 25-hour day, which would be easy for colonists to adjust to.

Of course, the other likely candidates for colonisation are the asteroids. Plenty of raw materials to work with, and maybe even export. They're further out than Mars, but still closer than Jupiter, and the low-gravity problem could probably be overcome by messing with an asteroid's rotation or something. (?) Mars' moons (Phobos and Deimos- Fear and Panic=-) are nothing more than asteroids, really, so they might be a good place to start.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know, I was just being facetious. I don't really know enough about science to discuss it in more than vague terms. I was mostly right about all that atomic makeup stuff though, wasn't I?