Mars colonists could create a carbon dioxide plasma in order to supply oxygen to their settlement(s):
The atmosphere on Mars is 96 per cent carbon dioxide, says Vasco Guerra at the University of Lisbon in Portugal. This can be split to extract breathable oxygen and carbon monoxide, a fuel that could give us a "gas station on the Red Planet", he says. He and his team calculate that creating a carbon dioxide plasma — a mush of ions made by passing an electric current through a gas — could split carbon dioxide from oxygen more easily on Mars than on Earth.
The lower atmospheric pressure on Mars would allow us to create plasmas without the vacuum pumps or compressors necessary on Earth. Also, the temperature of around -60°C is just right to let the plasma more easily break one of the chemical bonds that keeps carbon and oxygen tightly bound, while preventing the carbon dioxide from re-forming.
For now, this is largely theoretical, but they say such a system needing only 150 to 200 Watts for 4 hours each 25-hour Mars day could produce 8 to 16 kilograms of oxygen. "The International Space Station currently consumes oxygen in the range of 2 to 5 kilograms per day, so this would be enough to support a small settlement," says Guerra.
The case for in situ resource utilisation for oxygen production on Mars by nonequilibrium plasmas (open, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6595) (DX)
Related Stories
The presence of large quantities of oxygen ions may be able to distinguish habitable exoplanets with life from barren exoplanets in the habitable zone (resembling Venus or Mars):
Like Earth, Venus and Mars are small rocky planets; they have permanent atmospheres like Earth, and their atmospheres are exposed to the same solar radiation as Earth's. Data from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter and the Viking descent probe on Mars show that they have very similar ionospheres to each other—which don't contain a lot of atomic O+ ions. Know what else Venus and Mars are missing? Photosynthesis.
[Astronomy PhD candidate Paul] Dalba's contention is that photosynthesis on a planet's surface, which generates a surfeit of molecular oxygen, is the only thing that can account for these atomic O+ ions in a planet's ionosphere. The mere existence of life throws a planet's atmosphere out of chemical balance. O+ would be a neat biomarker because there isn't a numerical cutoff required—just the dominance of O+ among the ionic species in the upper atmosphere would indicate "thriving global biological activity" on the planet below.
Dalba claims that Venus and Mars act as negative controls, demonstrating that planets like Earth but lacking life don't have this O+ layer. Some may think that continuous volcanic activity on the surface could also generate enough oxygen, but Dalba doesn't. Chemistry involving water and UV light [open, DOI: 10.1038/srep13977] [DX] can also release oxygen. But the amount of water on Earth is insufficient to account for the requisite oxygen content, so he thinks that the presence of water on other planets wouldn't make enough oxygen there either.
Atomic oxygen ions as ionospheric biomarkers on exoplanets (DOI: 10.1038/s41550-017-0375-y) (DX)
Related: Nitrogen in Ancient Rocks a Sign of Early Life
Oxygen Ions From Earth Escape to the Moon
Researchers Suffocate Hopes of Life Support in Red Dwarf "Habitable Zones"
Seven Earth-Sized Exoplanets, Including Three Potentially Habitable, Identified Around TRAPPIST-1
Cosmic Methyl Chloride Detection Complicates the Search for Life on Exoplanets
Mars Colonists Could Produce Oxygen by Making a Plasma Out of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Analysis of Microfossils Finds that Microbial Life Existed at Least 3.5 Billion Years Ago
To Detect Life on Other Planets, Look for Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and an Absence of Carbon Monoxide
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @01:05PM (6 children)
> This can be split to extract breathable oxygen and carbon monoxide, a fuel that could give us a "gas station on the Red Planet"
and when that CO is burnt for power it will need the O that was liberated for breathing
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @01:23PM (2 children)
It may be possible to "burn" the CO with something more readily available on Mars? Perhaps some fluorine compounds?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tara Li on Friday October 27 2017, @01:41PM (1 child)
Actually, the CO might be able to be fed into a variation of a Sabatier Process reactor (the Sabatier Process uses CO2 & hydrogen to make methane and water - CO2 + 4 H2O -> CH4 + H2O, so you'd need to switch to CO + 3H2 -> CH4 + H2O - seems doable...)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @04:23PM
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Friday October 27 2017, @02:07PM
Why burn the CO at all? Use electric vehicles.
Oh, wait. Nevermind. Mars will only allow such vehicles to be sold through dealerships.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @02:40PM (1 child)
Not necessarily.
You can use excess CO for reduction of ample iron ore on The Red Planet, to get pure metal as raw material, and at the same time replenish amount of CO2 you started with.
Effectively, starting with energy, iron ore and CO2, you get pure iron and breathable air.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 27 2017, @08:52PM
Yup. Fess up. You saw that in this Total Recall scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqYHK8CeKzU [youtube.com]
Just after we build the mother of all nuclear generation plants on Mars, you plunge those electrodes into the soil, and instant atmosphere.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Friday October 27 2017, @01:11PM (11 children)
Explosive oxidation gas out of this tube.
Invisible, odourless asphyxiative killer out of the other.
What could go wrong?
That said, I imagine their energy numbers are largely nonsense. You'd need more energy than that to separate 16kg of oxygen from carbon dioxide. They're suggesting, what... less than a KWh? 10p of electricity? If we could make even 8kg of oxygen for that, I think pure oxygen would be much cheaper to buy bottled than it currently is. Especially if all you need do is compress / heat carbon dioxide to get it and the waste product can be made inert quite easily.
I can't do the maths any more but maybe someone else can. This seems a good reference:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b07026 [acs.org]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday October 27 2017, @01:52PM
I know, brilliant, right? This is really the most practical "How To Get Oxygen To Breathe Or Whatever On Mars" that I have ever seen.
But you know, political squabbles over whether Earth or the Martian colonists own the oxygen and/or energy from the reactions, petty bickering among staff isolated and far from home reducing effectiveness and efficiency, even distraction on Mars stemming from the lack of available romantic partners compared to "back home"; so, there are lots of things that could go wrong, and things could blow up. Sigh. We are only human.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @02:11PM (5 children)
Or bring plants to convert CO2 into oxygen, which can also provide food, store energy and has a positive effect on the psyche of the people in the station. No need to handle toxins and dangerous situations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @02:38PM (2 children)
I don't think "toxin" covers it for me when I think about CO.
I think of "toxin" as something where I shouldn't spill it or it will burn my skin.
if a CO container is broken, it means you lose many red-blood cells with every breath (and I'm not sure how many breaths you can take untill you lose all of them). and you need time to make others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)
Right, and this is where we get to the basics of toxicology. Doses is important in toxicity of a substance (solid, liquid or gas). 5 beers might give you a head ache the day after, someone shoving 1 litre of 70% ethanol through your throat could very well kill you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 27 2017, @03:28PM
Using a shovel on my throat will likely kill me no matter what it's loaded with.
Unless, of course, they'll be using only a small dose of that shovel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 27 2017, @08:55PM
Bring plants? None of ours are designed to survive -60c.
Maybe we better cultivate martian plants.
Oh wait...
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @10:14PM
Plants do NOT convert CO2 to oxygen. They combine CO2 with water to make starches, with a release of oxygen from the water ... as confirmed by radioactive isotope tracing of the reaction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @02:49PM
Given that there is a plasma involved, I wonder how much ozone (O3) this process is going to make as a by-product?
I suppose if there was a way to separate O2 out from O3, there is the (minuscule) beginnings of making an ozone layer to protect the Martian surface from UV.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 27 2017, @05:44PM (2 children)
Explosive oxidation gas out of this tube. Invisible, odourless asphyxiative killer out of the other.
The same is true of my natural gas stove and yet we survive.
I think they can afford a couple CO sensors...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Friday October 27 2017, @07:13PM (1 child)
You aren't running you're natural gas stove in an airtight enclosed space with no method of escape, and no medical assistance for several million miles, are you?
Additionally, your gas line will have odour added for safety.
Also, it's required to vent to the outside air and tampering with the system is illegal (at least in my country) because of how dangerous it is.
Using that as the only source of your life-giving oxygen sounds like it might be a really bad idea in comparison.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:24AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday October 27 2017, @02:55PM (3 children)
Let's take the numbers for the lowest efficiency conversion.
200W x 4 x 3600 = 2.88 MJ generates 8kg=250mol O2 (O2 - 32g/mol)
--
Now, suppose we use that O2 to burn CO (generates 283.0 kJ/mol - google for "carbon monoxide combustion enthalpy").
Each 1 mol O2 requires 2mol CO to burn, so we'll be burning those 500mol of CO that we split using the "martian-conditions marvellous plasma".
So, we'll be generating 500 x 283 kJ = 141.5MJ.
That's so exciting guys, the physics on Mars doesn't only allow supraunity efficiency, it allows it in the 50-something range
it's likely I'm wrong but, if so, where??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @04:58PM (2 children)
I only got as far as two errors and don't care to look further.
1. Splitting CO2 will give you 1mol CO and .5mol O2. So you need 4X more oxygen than you get from this process.
2. Your numbers are for CO2 at 1 atmosphere, not Martian pressures. standard enthalpy change of combustion [wikipedia.org]
Aside from those, we are learning a lot about the intersection of quantum mechanics and materials science. That said, your 2.88 MJ -> 141.5 JM is a pretty big gap to cross, even running the same process to get the missing oxygen would only shift the cost to 12ish MJ. Kinetic energy is pretty linearly dependent on temperature, so Mars temps drastically lower the total energy in the system.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Friday October 27 2017, @08:57PM
No wonder nobody likes to go to the movies with you.
And you thought it was because you ate all the popcorn!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday October 27 2017, @10:24PM
Thanks.
Point 1 doesn't show an error. you have 4kg of O2 = 250mol you need 500 mol of CO2 to get that oxygen and you'll obtain 500 mol of CO as result.
Point 2 is valid. The difference 2.88->141.5MJ is the energy required to compress the gases to 1atm and heat them for -60C to 0C.
At least for oxygen, one will need to do both if that oxygen is meant for breathing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Taibhsear on Friday October 27 2017, @03:00PM (10 children)
If only there was some naturally occurring process that could easily use carbon dioxide and convert it to breathable oxygen with no awful biproducts or maybe even biproducts that could be used as a resource or possibly even eaten... Oh well guess we'll have to use asstons of energy to make hazardous compounds instead...
.
.
.
I'm talking about plants in case my sarcasm was too thick.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 27 2017, @03:29PM (3 children)
Yeah, we had a discussion some time back, about bringing plants to Mars. At least half of our Soylentils liked that idea.
Here, we recognize the beginnings of a vicious cycle - no one is ever going to produce enough O and CO to satisfy energy needs and desires. Sounds to me like serious colonists are going to send some c̶o̶w̶b̶o̶y̶s̶ ROBOTS to the asteroids to lasso some ice balls. Oooooh, looky!! Bring back some oxygen, some hydrogen, mix it up with some of that carbon, add some plant seeds, and HOLY CRAP!! INSTANT JUNGLE!! Add some mosquitoes and the humans will feel right at home.
Sure, it may be slow collecting those snowballs, but they could set up those robots to just keep slinging snowballs at Mars. Given a couple millenia, Mars can have water in it's "canals".
That story ought to sound vaguely familiar, if you've read or watched 'The Expanse'. Only difference here, is I'm using robots to do some of the drudge work. That will help to prevent what's-his-name from banging hell out of that cute chick in the movie.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 27 2017, @05:21PM (2 children)
That scenario sounds plausible to me.
Wouldn't it make more sense to try those things out via telepresence, first, to make sure that the oxygen generator or plant dome produce enough air to keep a settlement viable? Otherwise we're setting ourselves up for needless tragedy. It was one thing for the explorers of yesteryear to risk their lives to settle new places, but with the state of technology now it doesn't seem required anymore.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @08:09PM (1 child)
I believe the plants would need some kind of animal life to maintain CO2 levels. Probably easily done with bacteria or expendable livestock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @05:10AM
The atmosphere of Mars is 96% carbon dioxide, and there are deposits of solid carbon dioxide at the poles.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2017, @04:26PM (5 children)
Couple of points. Plants need light so we'll have to dump power into LED grow lights, and you need a lot of plants to support one human's oxygen use. We don't know for sure how well plants will do on Mars, and if they suddenly die off then colonists would be totally screwed.
I don't know the numbers, but having a machine process for oxygen production is a must have for Mars. If they've found a more efficient method then great!
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday October 27 2017, @08:15PM (3 children)
"Plants need light" isn't entirely true, and with modern bioengineering we could probably improve low-light growth, although that may not be necessary, as humans require much the same amount of light. Lots of plants would be necessary regardless, as food must be produced somehow, and lifting tons of food out of a gravity well isn't going to be economical anytime soon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:19AM
Not economically viable? Don't forget me!
They said it's because I'm over educated and under skilled, or maybe its the other way around, I get confused about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:02AM (1 child)
>"Plants need light" isn't entirely true
Are you thinking of fungi as plants? Photosynthesis needs light.
>and with modern bioengineering we could probably improve low-light growth
On Mars, sunlight is 44% as bright [colorado.edu] as on Earth. Plants that are well-adapted to that amount of light already exist, because we have forests on Earth.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:26AM
Not all plants require photosynthesis. Never did that "grow $X in a dark closet" grade-school science experiment? With appropriate nutrition etc, a lot of stuff can be grown without sunlight.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Saturday October 28 2017, @03:50AM
According to NASA's tests on Martian-like soil, plants will do just fine on Mars, and that's before we mix in all kinds of good stuff for them to grow on, like mycorrhizae, worm castings, biochar and composted waste, etc. If you manage to "suddenly" kill off even a small percentage of the plant species you brought with you it will be a sign that you majorly screwed up your biodiversity choices at the planning stage, or you're doing something unimaginably wrong at the plant-growing stage. Any long-term expedition to another planet should have literally thousands of different types of plants and soil micro-flora/fauna cultures to work from, including dozens of different "heirloom" style hybridized variations of each type of plant for which there are variations available. Especially food plants. If we can't make a stable, sustainable plant-based ecosystem for human survival on Mars then we have no business going there in the first place. Given the proper biodiversity it should be extremely difficult to run into major issues keeping a plant-based system alive in any environment that a human can live in.
Yes, we will need lights, including grow lights, and all will likely be LED for efficiency, but all of that is a given. In order to live long-term we will need to be growing significant amounts of food, and even without adding huge tanks of oxygen-producing algae into the mix that will mean we will be growing plenty of plants per person to generate enough oxygen and recycle CO2.
I just hope we'd be smart enough to never use this oxygen and carbon monoxide producing plasma anywhere near anything connected to a human living space. Other than that, sounds like a really interesting idea. Since the waste gas from burning the fuel would just be a return to CO2 (I assume) it would technically be an ecologically neutral fuel source. At least on Mars.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ