Atmospheres that don't mix

[Icosahedron]

Terraforming is never the easier option.

It'll be easier to go to higher altitudes where the pressure is lower (think about it. To add gas to a dense atmosphere, you'd need a hell of a lot more of it than you would in a thinner atmosphere to raise the percentages).

It'll be even easier to pressurise the ships that are coming into land up to the higher local pressure. The crew can then decompress while they're in jump or in space after leaving the planet.

I didn't suggest that terraforming would be easier than a non-terraforming option, I suggested that if you wanted to terraform a world, changing the mix of gases might be easier than removing gases.

Moving to higher ground presumes that there is higher ground available that will make sufficient difference to pressure.

I'd already stated a scenario presumption that ships could explode if they entered vacuum whilst over-pressured.

Whilst domes and floating cities might support a small colony for as long as you ferry in supplies, the payoff of terraforming is that you make the entire planet hospitable, forever. It's the difference between renting an allotment or buying a country. Sure the bigger option is much more expensive, but the potential is huge.

 

[fusor]

Nobody posted here that terraforming is cheap, or easy, or the 'best' solution in all cases. But, that sure doesn't mean it can 'never' be. Sorry, that is an unsustainable assertion.

And, likewise -

Again, an absolute statement that is unsustainable.

If, in your setting, you can economically and politically justify the effort and expense and resources required for terraforming versus shorter-term solutions then sure, I guess that saying terraforming is "never the easier option" is an 'unsustainable assertion'.

I disagree with that though. I can't think of any situation (short of magical Star Trek style "Genesis devices") where terraforming is faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive than building a roof over one's head or moving to higher ground.

 

[BytePro]

If, in your setting, you can economically and politically justify the effort and expense and resources required for terraforming versus shorter-term solutions then sure, I guess that saying terraforming is "never the easier option" is an 'unsustainable assertion'.

I disagree with that though. I can't think of any situation (short of magical Star Trek style "Genesis devices") where terraforming is faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive than building a roof over one's head or moving to higher ground.

Well - 'easier' is not at all the same as saying 'faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive'.

Bear in mind, 'moving to higher ground' for atmospheric density, one could easily be talking miles of altitude. Even allowing for a fantasy sci-fi setting element like gravitics, that would not necessarily seem 'faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive' for any reasonably populated world.

As for 'building a roof over one's head', this requires an enclosed atmosphere for regulation of pressure - which also means dealing with gas mixtures related to biological processes. Other than a few space stations, submarines and a few terrestrial experiments - this has not* been accomplished for more than a relatively short period of an average lifespan (maybe 2 years max) and the merest fraction of this world's population. And all at enormous expenses of time, money and other resources. Extrapolating that to a population of even a fraction of a billion and a time span of even one generation and one could easily be more expensive and resource intensive than changing atmospheric gases.

(*I would be tempted to use the word 'never', but I won't discount people having lived all their lives in 'bubbles' for health reasons, though I don't believe the pressure issues are transferable to that problem domain.)

As to globally changing atmospheric gases - we at least have managed to do that, without additional 'effort', if all evidence to the contrary isn't blatantly ignored or convoluted.

Another aspect, I didn't bring up to shorten my typically long winded posts - a 'thicker' atmosphere doesn't mandate that the gases provide sufficient radiation protection for inhabitants. In our case, strip away the ozone and we are in trouble, despite the proper pressure and breathable atmosphere.

This means a 'shelter' would need to do so as well, and possibly require the use of full time artificial lighting. In addition to maintaining the 'roof' (in the event of material breakdown from UV exposure or simply erosion) there are these added, ongoing, costs. Something to bear in mind in the context of 'faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive' when one is talking planetary populations.

Not trying to say anything as a general case here (generally I would not see terraforming as the way to go) - only not to discount possibilities for biases that on the surface seem more 'realistic'. By definition, all of this is fantasy (regardless of any science that is used as rationalization to make things more believable) - even living a normal lifespan in an artificially pressurized environment.

Just giving some things to 'think about'.

 

[fusor]

Well - 'easier' is not at all the same as saying 'faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive'.

For all practical purposes, I think it is actually the same as saying that. People will generally go for the path of least resistance - the one that involves less expense, less hassle, and less resources.

Bear in mind, 'moving to higher ground' for atmospheric density, one could easily be talking miles of altitude. Even allowing for a fantasy sci-fi setting element like gravitics, that would not necessarily seem 'faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive' for any reasonably populated world.

You seem to be assuming that this world with a thick atmosphere is already densely populated. I'm not assuming that though; I'm assuming that when people first arrive on the world to colonize it, they will seek out the highest altitudes (because that's where the pressure is lowest and most amenable to colonization) and start building settlements there.

Thus, nobody's "moving" anywhere; they're already living at the best spots for colonization.

As for 'building a roof over one's head', this requires an enclosed atmosphere for regulation of pressure - which also means dealing with gas mixtures related to biological processes. Other than a few space stations, submarines and a few terrestrial experiments - this has not* been accomplished for more than a relatively short period of an average lifespan (maybe 2 years max) and the merest fraction of this world's population. And all at enormous expenses of time, money and other resources. Extrapolating that to a population of even a fraction of a billion and a time span of even one generation and one could easily be more expensive and resource intensive than changing atmospheric gases.

I don't even follow your logic here at all. Are you seriously claiming that just because we don't have people living in enclosed atmospheres here on a regular basis today that it's very difficult and expensive to do it in the future? And you think that'd be more expensive to do than to spend decades changing the atmospheric content of a whole planet?

It is far, far easier and cheaper to build a sealed habitat.

As to globally changing atmospheric gases - we at least have managed to do that, without additional 'effort', if all evidence to the contrary isn't blatantly ignored or convoluted.

We've managed to do that out of complete ignorance, and to a thinner atmosphere; and repairing the damage is going to take many more decades too (if the will is there to change it). And changing at thicker atmosphere requires much more effort since there's more gas there too.

Another aspect, I didn't bring up to shorten my typically long winded posts - a 'thicker' atmosphere doesn't mandate that the gases provide sufficient radiation protection for inhabitants. In our case, strip away the ozone and we are in trouble, despite the proper pressure and breathable atmosphere.

Since we're talking about dense breathable atmospheres, one can assume that ozone is present (derived from the oxygen).

This means a 'shelter' would need to do so as well, and possibly require the use of full time artificial lighting. In addition to maintaining the 'roof' (in the event of material breakdown from UV exposure or simply erosion) there are these added, ongoing, costs. Something to bear in mind in the context of 'faster, cheaper, and less resource-intensive' when one is talking planetary populations.

I don't know what you're basing this on. UV doesn't break down metals that would be used for habitats - it usually breaks down things like volatiles and organic compunds. Also, if you really needed extra shelter from radiation (unlikely, since the atmosphere is thick) then there's always the option of building underground (or even under a thin layer of dirt).

Not trying to say anything as a general case here (generally I would not see terraforming as the way to go) - only not to discount possibilities for biases that on the surface seem more 'realistic'.

I think my "biases" are quite realistic actually...

 

[aramis]

Long-term ecosphere habs HAVE proven surprisingly difficult. All 4 attempts I'm aware of have failed, utterly.

Heck, even terraria have major issues and require frequent adjustments.

 

[fusor]

Long-term ecosphere habs HAVE proven surprisingly difficult. All 4 attempts I'm aware of have failed, utterly.

Heck, even terraria have major issues and require frequent adjustments.

Then I'll ask you the same question: are you claiming that a higher TL society wouldn't be able to overcome those problems?

This isn't rocket science. If you believe that sealed habitats are not practical or too difficult, then that rules out anybody living anywhere that isn't a perfect garden world. There would be no habitation on borderline worlds, or vacuum worlds, or space stations, or orbitals or anything else like that. That would make for a rather boring SF setting, IMO.

 

[aramis]

Then I'll ask you the same question: are you claiming that a higher TL society wouldn't be able to overcome those problems?

This isn't rocket science. If you believe that sealed habitats are not practical or too difficult, then that rules out anybody living anywhere that isn't a perfect garden world. There would be no habitation on borderline worlds, or vacuum worlds, or space stations, or orbitals or anything else like that. That would make for a rather boring SF setting, IMO.

You just can't see the middle, can you?

I LIVE in a borderline area... Alaska can only support on local ecosphere about 200K people; I live in a city of double that.

A closed ecosphere colony is unlikely to ever be preferable to even a marginally habitable open-air environment (such as Nome or Bethel).

People need 4 things to live: correct temps for resting, food, potable water and breathable air. Much of alaska provides only 1 of those...

If they can get resources by living in places they can't grow food in, and trade for food, they tend to...

Hell, people live in the Andes, even tho' it shortens their lives by 10-20 years, and in NY, SF, and LA... because there's work to be had there.

 

[BytePro]

...
People need 4 things to live: correct temps for resting, food, potable water and breathable air. Much of alaska provides only 1 of those...

Hey, wait a minute, I missed RPGs in that list - that's a necessity right? (One could drop the resting... or breathe shallowly I suppose)

I had a world setting where folks lived in 'igloo' style ('ice' based, well with additives) buildings and used 'O2 concentrators*' when moving about along with off-world imported compounds that released oxygen in their buildings (chemical O2 generators - like potassium superoxide). For emergencies, they all had Oxygen Candles - which also provide heat.

The later was an actively useful plot element, since they not only burn at over 1,000 degrees F, IIRC, but can easily be utilized for improvised weapons...

The need to import chemicals for O2 generation - including iron, sodium and potassium chlorates, along with chemicals for igniters - also factored into the plot (and 'fun' things to have PCs transport) :devil:

[Wish I had kept all these homebrew adventures ]

* - like a RW 'oxygen machine' that uses a simple pump and valve setup along with a 'rock' to separate N and O2.

Then I'll ask you the same question: are you claiming that a higher TL society wouldn't be able to overcome those problems?

This isn't rocket science. If you believe that sealed habitats are not practical or too difficult,...

Making up irrational claims to associate with my responses in order to deflect from the actual factual and logical information is hardly novel.

Belief? Beliefs have no common or middle ground - 'never' being an operative word. As stated - unsustainable.

In no post have I stated a belief such as that terraforming is or isn't possible, cheaper, easier, quicker etc. or made any other unsustainable 'claim' or silly illogical claims - only that it could be, is possible, and even conceivable given a very specific contexts and known science in a fictional setting. 'Never' doesn't allow for such.

I'm no rocket scientist (that would be my Dad's co-workers ), though I have worked with several over the years. However, I am familiar with chemistry and gas processing - indeed, I would encourage anyone who can, to visit refining plants (authorized and supervised, of course) to see first hand how man can change the chemical nature of his environment. At the least, your local waste water treatment plants (many municipalities will give tours). Over the decades, I have been fortunate enough (well, maybe not exposure wise) to have worked in a diversity of such environments - so have first hand knowledge of the realities of how such technology works, including R&D, NDI field testing for materials and process failures, SCADA control systems replacement, repair and installations in both conventional and non-conventional facilities.

None of what we have discussed is 'realistic' - no one has ever lived a normal lifespan in an artificial pressure environment, nor have we intentionally changed a global environment of the type being discussed. The 'ease' of doing either is an intractable unknown at this point in time and without specific qualifications. As such, categorical declarations of absolute statements are unsustainable. I've given examples - anyone is free to believe whatever they want - for some, the information may prove entertaining and/or enlightening.

 

[fusor]

I LIVE in a borderline area... Alaska can only support on local ecosphere about 200K people; I live in a city of double that.

There's a difference between "living in a slightly uncomfortable area on a habitable planet" and "living in a denser atmosphere with a different gas mix that can kill you". Alaska is peanuts, as is pretty much anywhere else on Earth, because ultimately the atmosphere is still breathable here almost everywhere you go (smog in L.A. notwithstanding ).

The closest equivalent to the hostile environments being discussed here are the villages in Nepal or Tibet that are so high up that the air is very hard to breathe without a lot of acclimatization (and even then the inhabitants suffer health problems), and cooking fires don't even burn properly because there's so little oxygen up there.

Anyway, I don't really see the big deal about me saying "never" here - based on what I've seen and what I know about science (and I know enough), I think my assertions about terraforming are fairly justified. Maybe others have seen things to convince them differently, but I haven't seen anything here to change my opinion on the subject. I just don't believe for a second that it'd be preferable to terraform a whole planet unless, as I said, there are magical "Genesis Devices" that can do that instantaneously. It's just going to be easier to move people, build habitats, or even genetically adapt people to the environment than to change the entire atmosphere over generations.

At this point I bow out of the discussion. We're off topic anyway, and if you still want to argue about this then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[saundby]

Back to the OP, the time spent in transit in a standard atmosphere would eliminate the prior planet's potentially dangerous additives.

But in a less human-centric universe you might consider the implications of the hydrazine-breathing Phuleron delegation debarking from their spacecraft on the home planet of the red fuming nitric acid breathing Oxxidizitter race. Instant Diplomatic Incident. :rofl:

 

[E.D.Quibell]

The closest equivalent to the hostile environments being discussed here are the villages in Nepal or Tibet that are so high up that the air is very hard to breathe without a lot of acclimatization (and even then the inhabitants suffer health problems), and cooking fires don't even burn properly because there's so little oxygen up there.

The Nepalise have evolved a slightly different cappilary system in order to be able to utalise and deliver what oxyagen is available to them throughout their body.

Best regards,

Ewan