Terraforming numbers

[Zeebie (OP)]

I'm puzzled by the state of my terraforming of Mars.  Right now the atmosphere numbers are:
Nitrogen 2.28%  0.007atm
CO2       0.98%  0.003 atm
Safe greenhouse 62.88% atm 0.1933 atm
Oxygen   33.86%  0.104 atm
Total pressure 0.3074

Surface temp 7.22

I'm a generic human, with ideal oxygen content 0.2, maximum deviation 0.1, ideal temp 14, max deviation 24.  Oxygen is within limits, right (0.104 > 0.2 -0.1)? Temp is definitely within limits, gravity is within limits.  So why is Mars still colony cost 2?  What do I need to do to improve it?

[MarcAFK]

Humans can't breathe 30% oxygen, you need to get it under 20%.
Just up the atmospheric pressure with more nitrogen, .2 atmospheres should do.
Extra atmospheric pressure will raise surface temperature too.

[Zeebie (OP)]

Humans can't breathe 30% oxygen, you need to get it under 20%.
Just up the atmospheric pressure with more nitrogen, .2 atmospheres should do.
Extra atmospheric pressure will raise surface temperature too.

Thanks MarkAFK.  Is there some way I should have known that from the racial tolerance numbers?

[Five]

I think that is shown in the f9 screen in the upper right if I'm not mistaken...or is it in the race screen, hmm. Will check later for ya

[joeclark77]

I believe the 20% thing is a hard-coded rule for all species, not a racial specific tolerance.

[Zincat]

If I were you I'd use carbon dioxide instead of safe greenhouse gas. It's inert, and adds to greenhouse effect just as much as the safe greenhouse gas. But at least it's not a "random  name 1", it's something that actually exists.

In fact, the "safe greenhouse gas" bit kind of ruins the immersion.

A real pity then that as far as I know there is no equivalent for the safe antigreenhouse gas, which you use on planets that are too hot. Or is there?

[Steve Walmsley]

If I were you I'd use carbon dioxide instead of safe greenhouse gas. It's inert, and adds to greenhouse effect just as much as the safe greenhouse gas. But at least it's not a "random  name 1", it's something that actually exists.

In fact, the "safe greenhouse gas" bit kind of ruins the immersion.

A real pity then that as far as I know there is no equivalent for the safe antigreenhouse gas, which you use on planets that are too hot. Or is there?

Well, sulphuric acid, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide are all anti-greenhouse but I didn't think anyone would go for those so I added the anti-greenhouse gas   Although, if anyone can suggest a better alternative I would be happy to add it.

Bear in mind though that a new player would have to know which was the anti-greenhouse gas in order to select it - that was one of the reasons for having an obvious name.

[Nathan_]

If I were you I'd use carbon dioxide instead of safe greenhouse gas. It's inert, and adds to greenhouse effect just as much as the safe greenhouse gas. But at least it's not a "random  name 1", it's something that actually exists.

In fact, the "safe greenhouse gas" bit kind of ruins the immersion.

A real pity then that as far as I know there is no equivalent for the safe antigreenhouse gas, which you use on planets that are too hot. Or is there?

Carbon dioxide is toxic to humans at high enough levels, though this isn't represented in game in any way.

[Zincat]

Yes, you are right Nathan, carbon dioxide is toxic over 5% concentration. But not in the game, and I don't really like much the "safe gas" options.

I don't know, I was just stating that a generic "safe gas" is kind of... immersion breaking....

As far as I know, water vapor is the only non toxic greenhouse gas but.... to go as far as to create a water vapor atmosphere... I don't know, but could it be considered?

Well, sulphuric acid, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide are all anti-greenhouse but I didn't think anyone would go for those so I added the anti-greenhouse gas  Although, if anyone can suggest a better alternative I would be happy to add it.

Bear in mind though that a new player would have to know which was the anti-greenhouse gas in order to select it - that was one of the reasons for having an obvious name.

As for anti greenhouse gases, I did read that helium has that kind of behaviour, but it's so rare.... perhaps, how about something different, like first you make a normal, inert atmosphere. I don't know, nitrogen. Then you pump particulate in the atmosphere, creating a permanent "cloud effect" that does not allow radiation to reach the surface. It could work theorically, right?

And it could be explained in the wiki

And yes, I'm being a nitpick, I know

[Erik L]

As far as I know, water vapor is the only non toxic greenhouse gas but.... to go as far as to create a water vapor atmosphere... I don't know, but could it be considered?

Hmmm Vaporous Dihydrous Monoxide. Hmmm... Wonder if any game has used that?

[Steve Walmsley]

Carbon dioxide is toxic to humans at high enough levels, though this isn't represented in game in any way.

Yes, I know. I have been thinking about adding some restrictions on those lines.

[Bgreman]

Humans can't breathe 30% oxygen, you need to get it under 20%.
Just up the atmospheric pressure with more nitrogen, .2 atmospheres should do.
Extra atmospheric pressure will raise surface temperature too.

I believe the 20% thing is a hard-coded rule for all species, not a racial specific tolerance.

The max percent is 30%, not 20%.  This is in fact hardcoded.

[Theodidactus]

If I were you I'd use carbon dioxide instead of safe greenhouse gas. It's inert, and adds to greenhouse effect just as much as the safe greenhouse gas. But at least it's not a "random  name 1", it's something that actually exists.

In fact, the "safe greenhouse gas" bit kind of ruins the immersion.

A real pity then that as far as I know there is no equivalent for the safe antigreenhouse gas, which you use on planets that are too hot. Or is there?

Well, there are gasses that help the planet radiate heat it would otherwise absorb, or relegate the heat to the upper atmosphere at the expense of colder temperatures on the surface, for example injecting thick cloud cover or kicking up a crapload of dust. As steve said sulfates are pretty reflective.  Helium would give a SLIGHT antigreenhouse effect, so slight that it wouldn't be worth the downside (everyone on your coursecant-like city world sound like chipmunks.)

I say transnewtonian tech to the rescue, obviously there are "gaseous mercassium"  particles in the atmosphere of these planets that, when heated, run the energy off into some parallel dimension. Probably dimension X.

I want more scientific accuracy. Specifically, I want there to be dramatic consequences the first time I move a (combustion driven) construction factory to a world with a hydrogen/oxygen atmosphere.

[alex_brunius]

Specifically, I want there to be dramatic consequences the first time I move a (combustion driven) construction factory to a world with a hydrogen/oxygen atmosphere.

Why would factories be combustion driven? I'm pretty sure a TN civilization that can generate enough energy to run 1000ton+ warships thousands of km/s for years has no problems with clean energy supply based either on Fission, Fusion or some TN technobabble.

To provide some perspective using combustion energy we struggle to move a 100 ton shuttle a fraction of 10'000km up to a orbital speed of 8km/s.


Conventional Industry could work as a very very inefficient terraforming building. Globally we have only managed to raise the CO2 amount in the atmosphere from around 0.025% to 0.04% during a collective effort the last few hundred of years. That's 0.00025 -> 0.0004 atm in Aurora numbers. I'm not sure that's worth the effort of trying to model in Aurora, would there even be any noticeable effect on temperature?

[Theodidactus]

Why would factories be combustion driven?

I want full-atmosphere explosions, dang it!