Jump to content
Science Forums

Terraform Moon With Earths Excess Co2


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Life may already be here on our moon,the extra Co2 may help it along. Ever hear of Methane eating bacteria here on earth?   Lunar Impact Uncovered More Than Just Moon Water

No. It's moot though. No project like that would even be considered. We have lots to do here on Earth and our resources are better spent fixing things here rather than trying to terraform a gravitatio

Easy? In your thread on this subject, many valid objections were raised both to the engineering challenges, costs, and the potential affect on the environment. http://scienceforums...post__p__202697  

Yes, and the staple crops that we feed ourselves with may not be able to cope, leading to wide spread starvation of our species. So, your premise of sending CO2 to the moon will likely have a detrimental effect to the life you believe may exist there.

 

It could but it may also be waiting for it to arrive so it can prosper and find a niche.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and the staple crops that we feed ourselves with may not be able to cope, leading to wide spread starvation of our species. So, your premise of sending CO2 to the moon will likely have a detrimental effect to the life you believe may exist there.

 

It could but it may also be waiting for it to arrive so it can prosper and find a niche. Sort of like one mans trash is another mans treasure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could but it may also be waiting for it to arrive so it can prosper and find a niche. Sort of like one mans trash is another mans treasure.

A whole lot of conjecture and "what if" talk going on here about organisms that we currently have no proof even exist.

 

Shall we spend billions of dollars to shoot carbon dioxide to the moon just on the off chance that an organism might live below the moons surface and might find said carbon dioxide beneficial?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole lot of conjecture and "what if" talk going on here about organisms that we currently have no proof even exist.

 

Shall we spend billions of dollars to shoot carbon dioxide to the moon just on the off chance that an organism might live below the moons surface and might find said carbon dioxide beneficial?

At least it gets it off Earth where it is harmful at current levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole lot of conjecture and "what if" talk going on here about organisms that we currently have no proof even exist.

 

Shall we spend billions of dollars to shoot carbon dioxide to the moon just on the off chance that an organism might live below the moons surface and might find said carbon dioxide beneficial?

 

No. It's moot though. No project like that would even be considered. We have lots to do here on Earth and our resources are better spent fixing things here rather than trying to terraform a gravitationally challenged space rock.

 

But let's say we did try to do this, how would we get that much CO2 to the moon? The OP mentioned rail guns, but we don't even have a rail gun capable of that right now, that I know of. How would you contain the CO2?

 

The engineering challenges are fun to think about, at least. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's moot though. No project like that would even be considered. We have lots to do here on Earth and our resources are better spent fixing things here rather than trying to terraform a gravitationally challenged space rock.

 

But let's say we did try to do this, how would we get that much CO2 to the moon? The OP mentioned rail guns, but we don't even have a rail gun capable of that right now, that I know of. How would you contain the CO2?

 

Yeah :agree: I would call this...

 

Shoot dry ice inside projectiles to the Moon with Rail Gun Technology to lower atmospheric Co2 on Earth to that of pre- industrial revolution values of 250ppm.

 

somewhat nonsensical, because... To sequester CO2, freeze it, make a capsule for it, and launch it to the moon will of course require an enormous amount of energy. In using that energy we would be creating far, far more atmospheric CO2 than is being removed via the payload. We'd have to use some form of clean energy to make the whole system work (nuclear or solar or whatnot). In other words, we'd have to first solve the global CO2 energy crisis before we implement this plan which purports to solve that very same problem.

 

It is a complication rather than a solution. It would be an added step of inefficiency to any genuine solution.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah :agree: I would call this...

 

 

 

somewhat nonsensical, because... To sequester CO2, freeze it, make a capsule for it, and launch it to the moon will of course require an enormous amount of energy. In using that energy we would be creating far, far more atmospheric CO2 than is being removed via the payload. We'd have to use some form of clean energy to make the whole system work (nuclear or solar or whatnot). In other words, we'd have to first solve the global CO2 energy crisis before we implement this plan which purports to solve that very same problem.

 

It is a complication rather than a solution. It would be an added step of inefficiency to any genuine solution.

 

~modest

 

Gulf Stream Kinetic Energy can do it easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gulf Stream Kinetic Energy can do it easy.

 

Easy?

In your thread on this subject, many valid objections were raised both to the engineering challenges, costs, and the potential affect on the environment.

http://scienceforums...post__p__202697

 

If the end goal is to lower atmospheric co2, then there are far easier, and cheaper, options, such as charcoal in the soil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...nuclear or solar or whatnot...

 

...Gulf Stream Kinetic Energy can do it...

 

No bother with the point I was making then?

 

It doesn't matter what form of clean energy you propose. It could be solar, nuclear, or something to do with sharks coming up with the gulf stream... it doesn't matter. No matter what provides the energy, your idea of exporting the CO2 to the moon is a complication and an unneeded step of inefficiency.

 

Your idea assumes, as a starting point, that the fossil fuel problem is solved. How else would you accomplish the task at hand? In other words, the real solution you are proposing is clean energy from some source (the gulf or whatever) that has nothing to do with the moon. Why, then, are you proposing some kind of Jules Verne scenario to solve something which you've already assumed is fixed?

 

If you think the gulf can provide clean energy to accomplish monolithic things then certainly there will be no need to solve the CO2 problem again by bleeding CO2 from the earth. What you propose is an added step of inefficiency. Under no circumstance does it make logical sense.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

No bother with the point I was making then?

 

It doesn't matter what form of clean energy you propose. It could be solar, nuclear, or something to do with sharks coming up with the gulf stream... it doesn't matter. No matter what provides the energy, your idea of exporting the CO2 to the moon is a complication and an unneeded step of inefficiency.

 

Your idea assumes, as a starting point, that the fossil fuel problem is solved. How else would you accomplish the task at hand? In other words, the real solution you are proposing is clean energy from some source (the gulf or whatever) that has nothing to do with the moon. Why, then, are you proposing some kind of Jules Verne scenario to solve something which you've already assumed is fixed?

 

If you think the gulf can provide clean energy to accomplish monolithic things then certainly there will be no need to solve the CO2 problem again by bleeding CO2 from the earth. What you propose is an added step of inefficiency. Under no circumstance does it make logical sense.

 

~modest

 

Sure it does because it is going to take thousands of years for the Co2 to be removed from Earths atmosphere. This way we can remove it in a few years. You know how many trillions of dollars Co2 is projected to cost us by the year 2050?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it does because it is going to take thousands of years for the Co2 to be removed from Earths atmosphere. This way we can remove it in a few years.

Freeztar just told you that there are easier (faster and less energy intensive) ways to sequester CO2 than to launch it to the moon. Like I said, under no circumstance does your plan make logical sense.

 

Once clean energy is as abundant as needed and CO2 can be sequestered into a solid form (both of which are prerequisites before your plan enters the space gun stage) it would only slow down the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to start launching it to the moon. It is, like I've said, an added step of inefficiency—which means, it is unhelpful. It hurts, slows down, and complicates any solution to the thing it is trying to fix.

 

You know how many trillions of dollars Co2 is projected to cost us by the year 2050?

 

Then we should avoid your plan which would hurt any genuine effort toward fixing that problem.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeztar just told you that there are easier (faster and less energy intensive) ways to sequester CO2 than to launch it to the moon. Like I said, under no circumstance does your plan make logical sense.

 

Once clean energy is as abundant as needed and CO2 can be sequestered into a solid form (both of which are prerequisites before your plan enters the space gun stage) it would only slow down the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to start launching it to the moon. It is, like I've said, an added step of inefficiency—which means, it is unhelpful. It hurts, slows down, and complicates any solution to the thing it is trying to fix.

 

 

 

Then we should avoid your plan which would hurt any genuine effort toward fixing that problem.

 

~modest

 

Really tell me the faster and less energy intensive ways to sequester Co2 without keeping it here on Earth? Why would we want to keep this extra Co2 on this planet which is bound to cause more harm than good?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really tell me the faster and less energy intensive ways to sequester Co2 without keeping it here on Earth? Why would we want to keep this extra Co2 on this planet which is bound to cause more harm than good?

 

To sequester CO2 into the ground means turning it into calcium carbonate or some such. It is not dangerous or "bound to cause more harm than good" to have such things on earth.

 

It is easier to do this than to ship the stuff to the moon, so of course, this is the better solution. I really think you would do best in supporting your own cause to recognize this. Whether or not you recognize it, I hope you realize it.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really tell me the faster and less energy intensive ways to sequester Co2 without keeping it here on Earth? Why would we want to keep this extra Co2 on this planet which is bound to cause more harm than good?

 

There is nothing wrong with keeping the [ce]CO2[/ce] here on Earth, in fact, it's a good thing! We need it!

 

The main problem with [ce]CO2[/ce] is that we're digging up carbon that was buried a long time ago and burning it, which creates [ce]CO2[/ce], among many other things.

The best solution, imho, is to do the opposite and bury the carbon, again. By turning living plants into charcoal and burying the carbon, we are essentially reversing the process. And as a bonus, it turns out that plants benefit greatly from the addition of charcoal to the soil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with keeping the [ce]CO2[/ce] here on Earth, in fact, it's a good thing! We need it!

 

The main problem with [ce]CO2[/ce] is that we're digging up carbon that was buried a long time ago and burning it, which creates [ce]CO2[/ce], among many other things.

The best solution, imho, is to do the opposite and bury the carbon, again. By turning living plants into charcoal and burying the carbon, we are essentially reversing the process. And as a bonus, it turns out that plants benefit greatly from the addition of charcoal to the soil.

 

That ain't gonna happen because we would just dig up the charcoal for energy again when we run out of fossil fuel. It's a viscous cycle here on Earth. Get rid of it on the moon where it will do Earth some good by getting us back to 250ppm Co2 like at the start of the industrial revolution which will bring back the North Arctic Ice cap in the summer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...