this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
26 points (88.2% liked)
Space
8735 readers
84 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, Mars lost 99.999% of all of it's water. The part that remained is stored frozen inside. As soon as you take it out, it will be gone forever.
You can try and use and recycle it as much as you can, but once you lose it, it's lost.
Which shouldn't be that much of a problem, because everyone is going to be sealed in a closed environment anyway. There will be losses, but it's not like we'd be venting water vapor into the atmosphere.
If we can terraform enough to sustain an atmosphere to hold water vapor, we'd probably also be able to produce enough liquid water somehow, since they're both in the same region of science fiction right now. Maybe there's enough hydrogen and oxygen in the geology somewhere. If not, maybe we could produce them from nuclear reactions. But that would be very energy-consuming, so like I said, science fiction.