Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
132
-
53
-
52
-
42
-
34
-
27
-
25
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE:
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 5-10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
20
-
15
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE:
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 5-10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: and that's a damn good answer
Below is the same answer I gave elsewhere. The difference is your only looking at dealing with what goes into the atmosphere each year, when there's already a massive amount in the atmosphere that needs removing.
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z I'd try and explain the reasons why people like you are so ignorant and wrong and stupid but its not worth it. But for anyone else interested here's some basic engineering and a bit of math.
There's an oddish subject in aerospace I call planetary mechanics. I was introduced to it by a NASA engineer who visited our university one day. He'd done a project on what it would take to terraform Mars. He explained you just start with something basic like how much air do you need and what would you need to heat it up to a reasonable temperature considering Mars is cold. -60C on Mars is a warm day.
Planetary mechanics is just the basic mechanics of what's needed (nuts and bolts). Its not the complex gas & water cycles that change and shift with seasons or the effects of the planets rotation and inclination or any of the other time related things. I call that stuff planetary dynamics as it involves things that move and change and cycle with time.
To keep the math practical and get a basic estimate of what the task is, we do an approximation. I use the idea of a 1km think layer of breathable air because it makes the math understandable. I approximate the volume but just covering the planet in 1km cubes of air. Yes there's gaps between the cubes but its just an approximation and its within 1%. I also ignore things like gravity, solar wind, etc, BECAUSE I am just trying to demonstrate the size of the task.
The surface of Mars is 144,000,000 km. That equates to 144,000,000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 cubic meters of air and at 1.2kg for a cubic meter of air, that's 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air.
To raise that much air from -60 to +20 ℃ engineers use the basic equation: E = Cp x M x ΔT
Energy Required (kilojoules) = 1.006 kJ/kg.C x mass of air in kg x temperature difference in ℃
We then get 13,906,944,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy required.
So how much energy is that?
It's the equivalent of 220,745,143 Hiroshima bombs which had 63 Terajoules of energy.
Its also equivalent to about 64,683 Tzar Bombs the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.
Lets not forget we still need to find or create that 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air and work out how to keep it attached to Mars because Mars only has 1/3rd of Earths gravity. Then there's the task of making the gas and water cycles work.
This is why aerospace engineers don't talk about this stuff much because once you realise the basic scope of terraforming the numbers get so massive so quickly the scope confuses people.
Half the problem is the idiocy of Hollywood. Remember the film Aliens? The one with the giant nuclear reactor that would convert the asteroid into a liveable planet in about 20 years. BULLSH1T If they had a few 1000 of those reactors running for a couple of centuries they might start to make a difference.
Simple rule if it involves Hollywood and technology its 99.9% scientifically FALSE, WRONG or plain BULLSH1T. Don't get me wrong I still love sci-fi, its just I know what's fiction and what's NOT.
If you have time and do want to learn about energy systems then I recommend the Illinois Energyprof channel here on YouTube. I can't say its exciting but it is informative.
Disclaimer: I did my degree at U. Illinois, but have never met David Ruzic. I graduated before his time there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonnyhatter35 No problems mate.
Here's a slightly longer version of the subject.
I did aerospace engineering and back in college we had an alum who worked at NASA visit and do a special lecture one Friday. He'd just done a project where they assessed the viability of terraforming Mars.
He introduced us to what I call planetary mechanics - the basics numbers of what you need to do. The making it all work as a functioning atmosphere is what I call planetary dynamics because that's about dynamic systems as things that move rather than just the basic numbers.
So in planetary mechanics you look at things like size of the planet and how much air you need if you want a breathable atmosphere. The numbers are massive because planets are massive.
If we go to an air conditioning company they'll ask how many cubic meters the house or building has and we'd be talking maybe a few hundred or a few 1000 for an office block. The quick way to estimate that is to look at the floor space of your house and multiply by 2.5 because most rooms are about 2.5 meters heigh. So if your apartment has 200m2 of floorspace you have about 500m3 of volume. For an office block with 5,000m2 its about 12,500m3.
But the Earth has 500,000 square kilometers of floor space that's 500,000,000,000 square meters. So just for the first kilometer of air around us its 500,000,000,000,000m3 (500 trillion). At about 1.2kg/m3 that's about 600 billion metric tons of air. That's just the first kilometer above sea level and there's a lot more above that.
Its one of the main reasons its so hard for engineers and scientists to communicate what we've actually done to our planet. The numbers are so large most people can't get their heads around it. How do you get average citizens to consider 600billion tons of air when for their basic daily life air weighs nothing?
I can do this because I met the right guy back when who introduced this subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm Australian and we have similar issues with our corporations that have been privatised.
I have heard stories from other places.
I'm an engineer and started looking into economics and why they do what they do. It came from frustration of clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects.
One of the best people to explain what's wrong with economics is a Brit by the name of Gary Stevenson. He's from a working class background but rose through to become Citibank's top trader in the world. He is one of a group of maverick economists, across the world, now trying to enlighten people to how economists think and operate and why things like this are going on.
Because economics has a common curriculum across the developed world the problems are very common no matter where you look. Almost all the text books economic students have are published by Harvard, Yale, Oxford, LSE,... or they are written by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, LSE,...
Its one of the huge issues that's resulting in this stuff and why people like Gary are speaking out. He has a channel here on YT called GarysEconomics: https://www.youtube.com/@GarysEconomics
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1