Terraform Moon With Earths Excess Co2

[Cyclonebuster]

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. If the 1/6 gravity of the moon can hold the Co2 to the Surface then an atmosphere can be formed and then seeds,water and nutrients can be added to start growing plants to make oxygen.

 

My link

Edited December 28, 2010 by Cyclonebuster

[Moontanman]

I can see at least three if not more problems with this idea, first shooting anything from the Earth to the moon as you propose is very difficult if not impossible. Second, there is not enough CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere to provide enough gas pressure on the moon to allow plants to live. Third the moons gravity is not strong enough to hold CO2 long term.

 

Oh yeah, plants need more than just CO2 to survive, they need oxygen at night just like animals do...

[Cyclonebuster]

I can see at least three if not more problems with this idea, first shooting anything from the Earth to the moon as you propose is very difficult if not impossible. Second, there is not enough CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere to provide enough gas pressure on the moon to allow plants to live. Third the moons gravity is not strong enough to hold CO2 long term.

 

Oh yeah, plants need more than just CO2 to survive, they need oxygen at night just like animals do...

 

I think I read somewhere that a trillion tons would last a million years on the moon and that is how much we need to get rid of to reverse global warming. This can bring Co2 to 250ppm in our atmosphere which would return Earth to pre-industrial revolution temperatures. That isn't a short time scale since man can barely live 100 years if he is lucky. Wouldn't the plant life create Oxygen if it were to grow?

[Moontanman]

I think I read somewhere that a trillion tons would last a million years on the moon and that is how much we need to get rid of to reverse global warming. This can bring Co2 to 250ppm in our atmosphere which would return Earth to pre-industrial revolution temperatures. That isn't a short time scale since man can barely live 100 years if he is lucky. Wouldn't the plant life create Oxygen if it were to grow?

 

 

Ok, how much gas pressure would a trillion tons of CO2 provide on the moon? Enough to keep water as a liquid? That is doubtful. Then what do the plants do for oxygen before it builds up to a level high enough for plants? The days nights on the moon are 14 "Earth" days long, during the day temps would soar to above 200 degrees F and the nights would be far below zero. Where would the plants get nitrogen? Plants need both oxygen and nitrogen neither of which are present on the moon in sufficient quantities.

 

Moving that much CO2 to the moon present a very big problem, I'm not sure we could generate enough electricity to do that with a rail gun, then you have the problem of the earth 's atmosphere, shooting through it would be very difficult, any projectiles would be heated tremendously by the trip through the air.

[alpha2cen]

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. If the 1/6 gravity of the moon can hold the Co2 to the Surface then an atmosphere can be formed and then seeds,water and nutrients can be added to start growing plants to make oxygen.

 

My link

 

The total amount of CO2 in the earth is no problem. The problem is the accumulated amount of CO2 in the air. So good solution is to reduce the CO2 emission.

CO2 has been circulated in the Earth without problem from the beginning or the Earth. But resent culture requires much more energy per person. If we moved the CO2 to the Moon, we should emit much more CO2 than before.

How can we make the rocket and other instruments for sending CO2 to the Moon without CO2 emission!

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, if the railguns used to shoot the dry ice up to the moon run on our current energy sources, I think your suggestion would contribute to global warming instead of reducing it. What we need to do is get rid of coal, oil, and gas power plants, and we need to do that before your suggestion would be of any use.

[Cyclonebuster]

Well, if the railguns used to shoot the dry ice up to the moon run on our current energy sources, I think your suggestion would contribute to global warming instead of reducing it. What we need to do is get rid of coal, oil, and gas power plants, and we need to do that before your suggestion would be of any use.

 

Of course we would need the suns energy or the Kinetic energy in the Gulfstream to power the rail guns.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Cyclonebuster

[Moontanman]

Planting a few million trees would be a better idea i think and work faster...

[Cyclonebuster]

Planting a few million trees would be a better idea i think and work faster...

 

They need the Co2 to live.

[Moontanman]

They need the Co2 to live.

 

 

Yes trees do, they are made up of carbon and a few million trees would take a few billions tons of CO2 out of the Earths atmosphere, no need to shoot the CO2 to the moon. plant more trees than we cut down and CO2 would go down. It might take a many years but with cutting back on CO2 output and planting trees would lower CO2 levels much faster than we could by shooting it to the moon.

[Cyclonebuster]

Yes trees do, they are made up of carbon and a few million trees would take a few billions tons of CO2 out of the Earths atmosphere, no need to shoot the CO2 to the moon. plant more trees than we cut down and CO2 would go down. It might take a many years but with cutting back on CO2 output and planting trees would lower CO2 levels much faster than we could by shooting it to the moon.

 

Ain't no way that is going to happen the worlds population is going to be 9 billion by 2050. We need more homes to build. You know how much fossil fuel is going to be needed then also?

[Moontanman]

Ain't no way that is going to happen the worlds population is going to be 9 billion by 2050. We need more homes to build.

 

The good thing about lumber is that we can use it with out returning the CO2 back into the atmosphere, houses might stand for centuries and trees can be cut down and bury them in wet ground, a great was to store trees. We use trees dug up out of the swap that have been here for several hundred years and the trees were in great and made some of the most beautiful lumber i have seen.

 

 

You know how much fossil fuel is going to be needed then also?

 

I know that if we are using resources to shoot CO2 pellets woulf take immense amounts energy we just don't have. If you want to do something constructive plant a tree, if every one on the planet had a tree planted it would draw down the CO2 quickly... Plant the trees, it's the best and fastest way to sequester CO2, bury the trees in a swampy area so they will be perserved for hudreds of years.

[Cyclonebuster]

The good thing about lumber is that we can use it with out returning the CO2 back into the atmosphere, houses might stand for centuries and trees can be cut down and bury them in wet ground, a great was to store trees. We use trees dug up out of the swap that have been here for several hundred years and the trees were in great and made some of the most beautiful lumber i have seen.

 

 

 

 

I know that if we are using resources to shoot CO2 pellets woulf take immense amounts energy we just don't have. If you want to do something constructive plant a tree, if every one on the planet had a tree planted it would draw down the CO2 quickly... Plant the trees, it's the best and fastest way to sequester CO2, bury the trees in a swampy area so they will be perserved for hudreds of years.

 

 

The Sun and Gulf stream have plenty of energy to do the job and do it quick.

[physicist danny]

no magnetic field on the moon everything would be killed by radiation

[CaptainPanic]

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. If the 1/6 gravity of the moon can hold the Co2 to the Surface then an atmosphere can be formed and then seeds,water and nutrients can be added to start growing plants to make oxygen.

 

My link

I think that it costs less energy to convert CO2 back to some hydrocarbon and oxygen than to shoot it to the moon.

 

Proof:

1 kg of CO2 needs to go 11.2 km/s (escape velocity of the earth).

Kinetic energy required: E = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*1*11200^2 = 62 MJ/kg CO2

And that's underestimating it... because you need to carry more weight up: the space craft (space container).

 

Heat of combustion of gasoline is 47 MJ/kg gasoline (but 1 kg gasoline forms about 3 kg of CO2, so if we assume the reaction to be reversible, the heat of the reverse reaction is about 16 MJ/kg CO2.

 

Which means that you should not do this to rid the earth of CO2... but only to create a biosphere on the moon.

And in all fairness... I think there is plenty of oxygen on the moon... just not enough carbon. Why not use the oxygen which is there already?

[Cyclonebuster]

no magnetic field on the moon everything would be killed by radiation

 

Roaches do pretty good in radiation.

 

I think that it costs less energy to convert CO2 back to some hydrocarbon and oxygen than to shoot it to the moon.

 

Proof:

1 kg of CO2 needs to go 11.2 km/s (escape velocity of the earth).

Kinetic energy required: E = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*1*11200^2 = 62 MJ/kg CO2

And that's underestimating it... because you need to carry more weight up: the space craft (space container).

 

Heat of combustion of gasoline is 47 MJ/kg gasoline (but 1 kg gasoline forms about 3 kg of CO2, so if we assume the reaction to be reversible, the heat of the reverse reaction is about 16 MJ/kg CO2.

 

Which means that you should not do this to rid the earth of CO2... but only to create a biosphere on the moon.

And in all fairness... I think there is plenty of oxygen on the moon... just not enough carbon. Why not use the oxygen which is there already?

 

A biosphere sounds good how big of a one can we make with that much Co2?

[Moontanman]

Roaches do pretty good in radiation.

 

Only compared to humans, radiation will indeed kill cockroaches too.

 

A biosphere sounds good how big of a one can we make with that much Co2?

 

None, a trillion tons of CO2 would not provide enough pressure on the moon to allow water to be a liquid.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Moontanman

[insane_alien]

None, a trillion tons of CO2 would not provide enough pressure on the moon to allow water to be a liquid.

 

largely because the CO2 would float away. you might get some deposits of CO2 ice on the night side but these would be gone within a few lunar rotations. probably one.

[Moontanman]

I think that it costs less energy to convert CO2 back to some hydrocarbon and oxygen than to shoot it to the moon.

 

Proof:

1 kg of CO2 needs to go 11.2 km/s (escape velocity of the earth).

Kinetic energy required: E = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*1*11200^2 = 62 MJ/kg CO2

And that's underestimating it... because you need to carry more weight up: the space craft (space container).

 

Heat of combustion of gasoline is 47 MJ/kg gasoline (but 1 kg gasoline forms about 3 kg of CO2, so if we assume the reaction to be reversible, the heat of the reverse reaction is about 16 MJ/kg CO2.

 

Agreed, it takes far too much energy to make it practical.

 

Which means that you should not do this to rid the earth of CO2... but only to create a biosphere on the moon.

 

How many tons of CO2 would it take to provide atmospheric pressure great enough to allow water to be a liquid? I'm betting far more CO2 than the earth has in it's atmosphere.

 

 

And in all fairness... I think there is plenty of oxygen on the moon... just not enough carbon. Why not use the oxygen which is there already?

 

And where would that oxygen be? Locked up in the rocks of the moon? Good luck with extracting enough of that oxygen fast enough to maintain a partial pressure large enough to allow plants to grow.

 

largely because the CO2 would float away. you might get some deposits of CO2 ice on the night side but these would be gone within a few lunar rotations. probably one.

 

If you could somehow provide the moon with an instant atmosphere the same as the earths, it would last a million years or so but providing that instant atmosphere would be difficult I would think...

 

The Sun and Gulf stream have plenty of energy to do the job and do it quick.

 

Do you have some way of estimating the energy needed to shoot a trillion tons of anything to the moon vs the energy output of the gulf stream vs the environmental damage disrupting the gulf stream would do?

[insane_alien]

If you could somehow provide the moon with an instant atmosphere the same as the earths, it would last a million years or so but providing that instant atmosphere would be difficult I would think...

 

i'm going to have to ask for some source on that. the moon just simply doesn't have a big enough gravitational field to hold on to the molecules of gas. they would regularly exceed escape velocity which is only 2.38km/s (in comparison with earths 11.2km/s) and it is more exposed to the solar wind.

 

wolfram alpha is being finicky with the units but http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28611.73Pa+*+surface+area+of+the+moon%29%2Fsurface+gravity+of+moon%29 is equal to http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8.88%C3%9710^12+mile+second+squared+pascals&lk=1

 

0.0028 of the earths atmosphere by mass. CO2 makes up 0.00039

 

i used the triple point of water in the calculations as this is the bare minimum for achieving liquid water.

[Cyclonebuster]

Only compared to humans, radiation will indeed kill cockroaches too.

 

 

 

None, a trillion tons of CO2 would not provide enough pressure on the moon to allow water to be a liquid.

 

A biosphere is different than a atmosphere!

[insane_alien]

true, but a biosphere is dependant on an atmosphere

[Cyclonebuster]

i'm going to have to ask for some source on that. the moon just simply doesn't have a big enough gravitational field to hold on to the molecules of gas. they would regularly exceed escape velocity which is only 2.38km/s (in comparison with earths 11.2km/s) and it is more exposed to the solar wind.

 

wolfram alpha is being finicky with the units but http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28611.73Pa+*+surface+area+of+the+moon%29%2Fsurface+gravity+of+moon%29 is equal to http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8.88%C3%9710^12+mile+second+squared+pascals&lk=1

 

0.0028 of the earths atmosphere by mass. CO2 makes up 0.00039

 

i used the triple point of water in the calculations as this is the bare minimum for achieving liquid water.

 

 

 

 

Isn't Co2 much more heavy than H2O?

[insane_alien]

yes, but that doesn't matter.

 

to have liquid water be a possibility you need certain conditions. the bare minimum conditions for liquid water are its triple point which is 0*C and 611Pa

 

so you need that sort of pressure before liquid water is possible.

[Moontanman]

i'm going to have to ask for some source on that. the moon just simply doesn't have a big enough gravitational field to hold on to the molecules of gas. they would regularly exceed escape velocity which is only 2.38km/s (in comparison with earths 11.2km/s) and it is more exposed to the solar wind.

 

There used to be a site I could go to that would let me pug in the variables and give me the half life of an atmosphere on a given object. But that site is long gone, here is the best info i could find.

 

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r37125q1mx351t60&size=largest

 

http://www.geoffreylandis.com/moonair.html