On the martian poles, there are vast quantities of frozes CO2. This frozen CO2 exerts a certain "vapor pressure" - in other words, a certain partial pressure of gaseous CO2.

Now, if we convert this CO2 into O2 by removing the carbon out of it, the concentration of O2 in the atmosphere increases. And therefore, the concentration (and partial pressure) of CO2 decreases.

But since the frozen CO2 on the poles causes a certain partial pressure of CO2, a bit of the frozen CO2 will go into gaseous phase to refill the CO2 partial pressure.

So, by converting CO2 into O2, the concentration of O2 increases, but the concentration of CO2 stays approximately the same. As such, the total pressure (and density) of the atmosphere increases. This would happen if large-scale biological photosynthesis/growth took place.

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] randompasta 5 points 3 months ago

I don't think that vapor pressure is necessarily relevant when the atmospheric pressure is 610 pascals (0.6% of Earth's).

[–] ByteMe@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But don't we need something to keep it together?

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Probably yeah, doesn't help that mars has no magnetic field anymore.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I've seen arguments made that if things got going well enough, the rate of loss would be negligible enough to be replaceable by new materials bright in via asteroids, if things ever get that far in the first place.

However, the same arguments said that the real problem with the lack of magnetic field is the lack of protection given for pretty much anything the sun sends that way

Mind your, these arguments were made the same way both of these comments have been, just random internet people talking, so take it with a grain of Martian salt

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

the concern of radiation protection is not just from random internet people talking. that’s a very real concern for long term settling of Mars or anywhere without a magnetosphere.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

take it with a grain of Martian salt

I'd prefer to keep my perchlorate consumption to a minimum, thank you very much.

[–] ByteMe@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Well, your loss

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Some people just aren't adventurous eaters

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, if we ever try to live on Mars, it will most likely be underground, baring some major breakthrough in shielding.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The wikipedia article mentions the idea of superconducting rings build around mars surface. They could also be used for energy transport. This is basically already possible with current technology.

Maybe it's also possible to somehow extract energy from the solar wind but that is only speculation on my part.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That is purely science fiction. I'm talking about current technology living on mars.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Well yeah, then underground in lava tubes. But then the moon would be much easier for building habitats to live in.

There is a sort of paradox. To do any of this in any scale would be much more likely with automation. And automation, like robots being able to build robots and then factories and anything else is coming especially with the recent advances in AI and computer vision etc. And then such megaprojects won't be unthinkeable any more. But then it would probably also be easier to build a mega space habitats mining the moon. Without automation, it might never be worth it to actually colonize there so it's better to wait a few more decades.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Do you know anything about engineering? This is a much harder problem to solve than you're making it out to be.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not making fun of you, or trying to belittle you. I'm an engineer myself, so I'm asking bcz automation, and design are really hard problems, even when we've already solved a problem.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I dabble a little (3D printers, composites). I'm thinking more about 30-100 years for actually living on moon or mars like a real self sufficient colony instead of missions.

I do believe mechanical engineering can be represented in a way that is accessible to AI. It doesn't need general knowledge or sentience. Not just the generative stuff we have now in CAD, but more like the AI that can generate images. Ways to generate infinitely complex "nonsense" machines isn't hard, but AI can then learn of how to work more intuitive.

At some point we'll have an AI that can design, supervise manufacture / CNC and robots to assemble and then control all the machines we need for this. Of course the design would have lots of human input at start. But robotics are improving and deep AI is able to do remarkable things already. Eventually we would feed all the existing CAD designs and function and physical laws and material science into an AI as a lot of data and then suddenly you can bootstrap an entire industrial society fully automated. But every step and progress towards that goal would make it that much cheaper and easier to do.

Of course that's sci-fi but so is the idea of living on mars :)

[–] nikaaa@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So, the major issue with settling moon is resource availability: water (!), carbon, fertile soil, and energy.

On the moon you have none of that. Maybe, with a lot of luck, you find water somewhere. Then you need carbon, energy during the long moon nights, and soil that isn't razor sharp particles.

On Mars, you have all of them: low concentrations of water in the atmosphere, carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, soil that isn't razor sharp (thanks to erosion), and the nights are short enough that you can make it through them.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

True, and you have more gravity. On the other hand you have perchlorides. Obviously you need water but I thought they did find some already near the south pole on the moon? (EDIT: Yes but apparently little and not very concentrated). I didn't know there was so little carbon though.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You'd probably need to grab ice balls rich in nitrogen ice from the kuiper belt and somehow hurl them on a curse to impact mars. And do that a lot. Or maybe build a railgun on Triton to shoot nitrogen bullets at mars