Gardens On The Moon

[Harold Squared]

Yes, long suffering colleagues, Harold is at it again, with another carbon sequestration scheme. Some years back the NASA spacecraft "Clementine" determined that water ice has been located at the poles of the Moon.

 

Using statite technology it should be relatively simple to illuminate such areas with reflected sunlight, inducing a wobble to approximate the 24 hour diurnal cycle.

 

With water and light, the only remaining requirement for photosynthesis is carbon dioxide, more specifically carbon, since we can save on mass transportation costs by using lunar oxygen, abundant in the lunar rocks. It is likely that facilities for the extraction of this oxygen will be of high priority in development for this and other reasons, respiratory reserves, rocket fuel, etc.

 

Green plants are important in space both for morale and for life support as documented in the literature.

[fiveworlds]

The problem is that gasses tend not to stay on the moon. You would need to make some way of keeping the gas in like an ecosphere. But that would be expensive to produce. Also we don't use all of the earth for gardening. It would be cheaper and better for the planet to reclaim desert land rather than farm the moon

Edited July 3, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Harold Squared]

Fair enough, I should have specified that said gardens would be for the benefit of lunar colonists. While there are extraterrestrial resources including carbon, exporting carbon from this planet would isolate it from circulation in the atmosphere and prevent whatever chaos and mayhem might result.

 

A "twofer" benefit, if you will.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Harold Squared

[fiveworlds]

exporting carbon from this planet would isolate it from circulation in the atmosphere and prevent whatever chaos and mayhem might result.

 

Or we could just plant more trees most carbon on this planet is in non-gaseous form. It was only when we started using lots of this and destroying trees that it ever became a problem. Also it wasn't just carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that was the problem it was the pollutants we added to the atmosphere such as cfcs which contributed massively to the problem. The us environmental protection agency published a list of some known pollutants http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classone.html http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classtwo.html

Edited July 3, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Harold Squared]

A part of the problem as we are told. Have you ever seen the documentary, "Charcoal People"? In Brazil heartbreakingly poor people burn native forests and eucalyptus plantations to produce charcoal for the steel industry. The technology they use is medieval with living conditions to match.

 

Off topic, but of interest regarding your comment on reclaiming deserts, adequate levels of carbon dioxide help plants in arid climates adapt. The leaf stomata close more and so less water vapor is lost to transpiration.

 

Returning to the topic, it would be easier to extract coal from the ground for export to the moon than to isolate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Sorcerer]

Fair enough, I should have specified that said gardens would be for the benefit of lunar colonists. While there are extraterrestrial resources including carbon, exporting carbon from this planet would isolate it from circulation in the atmosphere and prevent whatever chaos and mayhem might result.

 

A "twofer" benefit, if you will.

The problem with shipping carbon off planet is that we would again be imblanacing the carbon cycle here on earth. In the attempt to tip the balance back from excess CO₂ in the atmosphere we would be preventing the stage of the cycle where carbonate rocks form. This is probably the wrong way to go about it. If you can sequester carbon here on earth and ship it to the moon, it's better to simply store it here so it can return to the cycle.

 

I'm not sure if that's clear enough, so more simply put: Anthropogenic CO₂ from excess use of fossil fuels, tips the balance of the carbon cycle, this changes the environment faster than without us. If our solution is to try to tip the balance back by returning that CO₂ to carbon and shipping it off world, we must not make the same mistake. Because then we would permanently be altering the cycle, which in the long run may be worse.

 

Also it's arse backwards to burn fossil fuels for energy, then use energy to sequester carbon. Simply solution find an alternative source of energy.

[Harold Squared]

Good Lord, will you people make up your collective minds?

 

Okay, tell me what the optimum carbon dioxide level should be and why and we will then see what should be done about it.

 

We will use carbonaceous chondrites for the lunar horticulture. No pesticides or herbicides required and every year can be a vintage year for the grapes.

 

Vino, anyone?

 

The Moon represents a vast pile of building materials ready to be assembled into human habitations by teleoperated machinery. Setting up the biological aspect of these bases will come later in the process of development, naturally.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Harold Squared

[imatfaal]

Ok - so think of this suggestion in terms of energy.

 

1. to get a kg of anything into space and the sort of distance you are proposing requires an absolute minimum of order 10^7-10^8 joules - this is just the change in gravitational potential energy so is a massive underestimate for a real world transportation

2. We would need to get that energy from somewhere. The fuel we consume ranges from about 25 to about 55 MJ/kg. that is about 10^7 joules per kilo. So we would need between one and ten kilos

3. So to get a kg of stuff up into space - just to balance the added grav pot energy - we would need to utilise about 1-10 kg of fuel.

4. 1 kg of fuel gives off about 3 kg of co2 when perfectly combusted.

 

And if you are thinking that in step 2 we could use a clean fuel that does not produce co2 then the argument still stands as I would suggest that we could then use this clean co2-less mega joule of energy as part of our normal consumption instead of one of our dirty co2-rich mega joules - we would come out well in front of the game. Whilst we are still burning fossil fuels it will never be efficient to put co2 into distant space

[3blake7]

I don't know if you saw this post. I've updated it since originally posting and now terraform the Moon as well just for the heck of it. I used the Haber process to make Urea and kept the Schreibersite I got from mining M-Type asteroids for iron and nickel for steel. That allows me to fertilize the planets I terraformed.

 

Also, being a hydroponic grower. Plants will do really weird things if they don't have exactly the right range of frequencies and strengths of those frequencies. I've recently switched to a 10-band LED grow light and my lettuce was SO WEIRD! It grew branches and wasn't like a head of lettuce at all. The rest of the plants, are growing EXTREMELY thick, like a hundred leaves per branch where there would have only been like 20. They get so heavy with leaves the branches snap. It's like the frequency of light that regulates how tall and how many leaves they get is more intense, causing them to grow all weird.

 

On another note, most plants can grow 3 times as fast with 3 times current carbon dioxide concentrations. With hydroponics you can increase the growing seasons from 1 a year to like 3 or 4. LED grow lights are being perfected and power will probably be cheaper. I think your best bet would be to do just that. The raw materials exist on the moon to produce lots of solar panels.

Edited July 6, 2015 by 3blake7

[Endy0816]

Also, being a hydroponic grower. Plants will do really weird things if they don't have exactly the right range of frequencies and strengths of those frequencies. I've recently switched to a 10-band LED grow light and my lettuce was SO WEIRD! It grew branches and wasn't like a head of lettuce at all. The rest of the plants, are growing EXTREMELY thick, like a hundred leaves per branch where there would have only been like 20. They get so heavy with leaves the branches snap. It's like the frequency of light that regulates how tall and how many leaves they get is more intense, causing them to grow all weird.

 

Too much red?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131119101108.htm

 

 

[Harold Squared]

We are talking about saving the planet here, and the carbon has to come from somewhere. The Moon is deficient in this substance, it isn't like we are shipping it to Newcastle. If the quantity involved is small, depending on optimum level yet to be determined, at least it is more readily located on our planet than another body.

 

But okay, I admit the plan, like all truly great plans, relies on cheap access to space, most likely a fixed structure of some kind from surface to orbit. Chemical rockets are miserable in performance and people get all jittery about nuclear rockets in the atmosphere, so, process of elimination dictates such a choice. Minor point, best specific impulse and therefore preferred chemical rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen reaction, principal for both Saturn V and Shuttle main engines, a carbon free reaction as you are no doubt aware. Thank you for your response. EDIT: THIS MORNING something was bugging me, my memory kicked in and told me first stage fuel for Saturn V was RP1, AKA kerosene. Also it would be unfair to omit the exhaust of solid rocket boosters in the STS Shuttle system. Nevertheless it is perfectly feasible to get into orbit with chemical rockets with no carbon penalty in theory, though the noted deficiencies of such remain.

I don't know if you saw this post. I've updated it since originally posting and now terraform the Moon as well just for the heck of it. I used the Haber process to make Urea and kept the Schreibersite I got from mining M-Type asteroids for iron and nickel for steel. That allows me to fertilize the planets I terraformed.

 

Also, being a hydroponic grower. Plants will do really weird things if they don't have exactly the right range of frequencies and strengths of those frequencies. I've recently switched to a 10-band LED grow light and my lettuce was SO WEIRD! It grew branches and wasn't like a head of lettuce at all. The rest of the plants, are growing EXTREMELY thick, like a hundred leaves per branch where there would have only been like 20. They get so heavy with leaves the branches snap. It's like the frequency of light that regulates how tall and how many leaves they get is more intense, causing them to grow all weird.

 

On another note, most plants can grow 3 times as fast with 3 times current carbon dioxide concentrations. With hydroponics you can increase the growing seasons from 1 a year to like 3 or 4. LED grow lights are being perfected and power will probably be cheaper. I think your best bet would be to do just that. The raw materials exist on the moon to produce lots of solar panels.

Hello, my good friend, welcome to the party, thank you for your contribution!

 

Too much red?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131119101108.htm

 

 

I had always considered natural sunlight reflected by mirrors but such an approach would certainly have applications in space. A most interesting article, thank you.

 

As the gardeners among us know, nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus are all important elements for plant growth as well. Your thoughts on such requirements would be equally welcome of course. I see that 3blake7 has already done some research along these lines.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Harold Squared

[3blake7]

If we sent it to the moon.. We produce 33 petagrams a year. That is like 32 thousand Empire State buildings worth of liquid CO2. If we had 400 StarTrams capable of 400 megagrams each, that's only 1.4 petagrams a year.

 

Moving it into space is a problem. Even sequestering it on Earth is a problem.

 

We could use the CO2 for other things.

 

Like polycarbonate. We produce 0.245 petagrams of plastic per year. Not enough CO2 would be used.

Like Urea. We currently produce 0.190 petagrams of Nitrogen fertilizer per year. Not enough CO2 would be used..

 

What do we do with it all? Some are suggesting pumping it underground into like empty natural gas and oil tables.

 

We produce 80 million barrels of oil a day, each barrel is 185 liters. That is 5.4 trillion liters a year or 5400 gigaliters.

We produce 3479 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year. That is 3.4 million gigaliters..

 

Now that could work.

Edited July 6, 2015 by 3blake7

[Harold Squared]

Agreed. And we have a pretty robust infrastructure for dealing with this fuel in place. There is some concern about current extraction technology for tapping naturally sequestered deposits of gas, i. e., "fracking", so we could leave those in place.

 

Industrial trivia: the original household "gas" was synthesis gas derived from coal, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The latter was what poisoned people who put their head in the oven to commit suicide. Natural gas as we know it was an obviously safer alternative to say the least and caught on in a big way for this and other reasons.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Minor point, best specific impulse and therefore preferred chemical rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen reaction, principal for both Saturn V and Shuttle main engines, a carbon free reaction as you are no doubt aware.

 

There's a hidden cost to this. How much CO2 do you produce in making the H₂ and liquifying the gases? H2 is not an energy source, it's a storage medium. (i.e. it's analogous to a battery)

[Harold Squared]

 

There's a hidden cost to this. How much CO2 do you produce in making the H₂ and liquifying the gases? H2 is not an energy source, it's a storage medium. (i.e. it's analogous to a battery)

Very true, thank you for pointing this out, there are no hydrogen mines.

 

The method most familiar to me is electrolysis of water, the classic high-school demonstration, and the electricity can in principle come from any source, even pitiful, low voltage solar photovoltaic. There is also the thermal decomposition and various thermochemical routes of water decomposition and methods involving methane gas.

 

Welcome to the discussion, sir.

 

In fairness, locations which favor solar furnaces would be as effective at thermal decomposition of water as any other source of heat. Such an application might be superior in practice to direct production of electricity by the same means as it would be more tolerant of various interruptions.

 

Whatever the source of our hydrogen, this gas is problematic in its pure form as far as storage and transportation due to its diffuse nature and its tendency to embrittle metals which are exposed to it.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Very true, thank you for pointing this out, there are no hydrogen mines.

 

The method most familiar to me is electrolysis of water, the classic high-school demonstration, and the electricity can in principle come from any source, even pitiful, low voltage solar photovoltaic.

 

Which you aren't building because you've put all your eggs in the basket of moronic space solar, remember?

[Harold Squared]

But to clarify, the application of terrestrial resources to lunar settlement was never meant to be a comprehensive solution to our planetary woes and it would be vastly preferable to have resources more convenient to the proposed site. That is why the water ice found by Clementine is so encouraging.

 

Which you aren't building because you've put all your eggs in the basket of moronic space solar, remember?

Good heavens no, as I recall my objection to terrestrial photovoltaic applications is due principally to daily and seasonal interruptions and diminished performance at high latitudes, plus vulnerability to extreme weather events such as tornadoes.

 

Serious contemplation of a lunar colony implies, to me at least, inexpensive and reliable access to space and space solar energy is a logical or even inevitable consequence.

 

The seed sprouts, the stem reaches upward, stabilized by the root, and the leaves develop- it is a proven model.

 

But forgive the digression.

 

Commonly the settlements on the moon are visualized under a transparent dome but it may be preferable to have them deeper below the surface, with sunlight transmitted via mirrors in a periscope-like manner. I should think an apartment in the wall of a lunar cavern looking over the green commons would be highly appreciated.

 

Also, in the lower gravity plants should exhibit some interesting adaptations.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Harold Squared

[fiveworlds]

A part of the problem as we are told. Have you ever seen the documentary, "Charcoal People"? In Brazil heartbreakingly poor people burn native forests and eucalyptus plantations to produce charcoal for the steel industry. The technology they use is medieval with living conditions to match.

 

Which isn't as bad as http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.htmlthe digital dumping ground with kids burning electronics. Which is a problem easy solved with an incinerator.

[Harold Squared]

 

Which you aren't building because you've put all your eggs in the basket of moronic space solar, remember?

It is incorrect to state that I have put all metaphorical "eggs" in any similar "basket" moreover, as you are no doubt aware by now, Harold is a nuclear power advocate as well. Trimodal nuclear thermal rockets can get people and supplies to the Moon in 24 hours, minimizing exposure to the hazards of space travel.

[Moontanman]

It is incorrect to state that I have put all metaphorical "eggs" in any similar "basket" moreover, as you are no doubt aware by now, Harold is a nuclear power advocate as well. Trimodal nuclear thermal rockets can get people and supplies to the Moon in 24 hours, minimizing exposure to the hazards of space travel.

 

 

I'd be willing to bet that there is not enough uranium in the Earth's crust to move a significant amount of CO2 to the moon...

[Harold Squared]

 

 

I'd be willing to bet that there is not enough uranium in the Earth's crust to move a significant amount of CO2 to the moon...

An interesting question. We will have to define our terms better first. To begin with we can ignore the "dioxide" bit since oxygen is most convenient on the Moon and does not require transportation thither. The volume of terrestrial carbon required to establish an independent biosphere on the Moon is dependent upon the requirements of the colonists and visitors. In all probability to begin with it would be quite modest but very effectively sequestered from the Earth biosphere.

 

Thank you for your interest.

[swansont]

Trimodal nuclear thermal rockets can get people and supplies to the Moon in 24 hours, minimizing exposure to the hazards of space travel.

"Can" in that they've never done it. Never even flown. How many unproven technologies is this? I've lost count.

[Moontanman]

An interesting question. We will have to define our terms better first. To begin with we can ignore the "dioxide" bit since oxygen is most convenient on the Moon and does not require transportation thither. The volume of terrestrial carbon required to establish an independent biosphere on the Moon is dependent upon the requirements of the colonists and visitors. In all probability to begin with it would be quite modest but very effectively sequestered from the Earth biosphere.

 

Thank you for your interest.

 

 

I seriously doubt that taking the weight of the oxygen away will make a significant difference...

[Harold Squared]

"Can" in that they've never done it. Never even flown. How many unproven technologies is this? I've lost count.

Take off your shoes and you will have another ten digits at your service. Back in the sixties chemical rockets went to the Moon and nuclear rocket engines were built and proven to work. Why they were not put to good use is a political rather than a technical question.

 

How have you been, it is nice to see you again, my most acerbic friend.

 

 

I seriously doubt that taking the weight of the oxygen away will make a significant difference...

Last time I checked, two oxygen atoms outweighed one carbon atom. And there's that word again, "significant". What would you define it as?

 

Again, your interest is most welcome.

[swansont]

Take off your shoes and you will have another ten digits at your service. Back in the sixties chemical rockets went to the Moon and nuclear rocket engines were built and proven to work. Why they were not put to good use is a political rather than a technical question.

 

 

"To date, no nuclear thermal rocket has flown"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket