tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post3643252988288414012..comments2024-03-28T10:39:31.521+00:00Comments on ToughSF: How to Live on Other Planets: MarsMatter Beamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-42620092920644313692023-10-19T16:31:17.460+01:002023-10-19T16:31:17.460+01:00SameSameAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-30714396909512234442022-12-25T08:52:52.479+00:002022-12-25T08:52:52.479+00:00"Sadly, that stable temperature is -25 50 -15..."Sadly, that stable temperature is -25 50 -153 degrees Celsius" - typo?<br /><br />I'm reading this series with extreme interest. :)Double sharpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-82386230047710790562022-06-01T03:52:58.625+01:002022-06-01T03:52:58.625+01:00Radiation safety precautions are very strict for t...Radiation safety precautions are very strict for the general population, especially if we want pregnant women or children to live on Mars. So an abundance of shielding would be preferred.<br /><br />Now, the initial number of workers that build up the habitats for the 'general population' might not be so concerned and could accept higher risks.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-61930082387060473742022-05-28T15:21:40.020+01:002022-05-28T15:21:40.020+01:00Radiation may not be a problem which would allow e...Radiation may not be a problem which would allow easier to build habitats. With a bit of protection, for example when colonists are sleeping, the radiation level will be around 150mSV per year. At first, if they stay at the surface for 13 years, they will lose 2 years of life expectancy (if they are young), but these figures are based on the studies of the survivors of the American nuclear bombing who received this amount of radiation in only a few hours. In reality, it seems that low doses of radiation are far less damaging as long as they don’t exceed the repairing speed of DNA.<br />https://marspedia.org/RadiationCauchy Schwarzynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-61765103977339139522019-09-15T05:36:19.325+01:002019-09-15T05:36:19.325+01:00Thanks :)
I posted my Mars Colony Prize submission...Thanks :)<br />I posted my Mars Colony Prize submission a while back. It's sort of a wrap-up of the ideas I was working on over the past few years.<br />I've also gone and removed two years of spam comments, so things should be a little cleaner.Chris Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11247630943891521469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-57524524019743872742019-08-29T23:11:16.341+01:002019-08-29T23:11:16.341+01:00Phosphorus levels should be easy to maintain on a ...Phosphorus levels should be easy to maintain on a Martian colony. It is a solid and when it is used, it is not lost as a gas, so the phosphorus is easy to control and handle. It sits in well defined parts of our bodies (our bones!) and can be recovered from ashes even after cremation.<br /><br />The main cause of phosphorus losses in our terrestrial ecosphere is runoff from rainwater. It doesn't rain on Mars, and we're doing something terribly long if water for agricultural use is leaking away. <br /><br />Therefore, I believe that so long as the population remains within sustainable levels phosphorus will not be a problem.<br /><br />But, the implication is that population growth will increase the demand for phosphorus... so perhaps we might end up having to sift through Martian regolith to sustain agriculture on expanding colonies! We'd truly be selling sand in a desert.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-91548389409430411582019-08-28T02:24:42.657+01:002019-08-28T02:24:42.657+01:00I see, I agree. Well, about the radioactives. My p...I see, I agree. Well, about the radioactives. My point about the phosphorus is that native Martian soil can support agriculture for ~10 years before becoming exhausted, and then it can be shoveled out and replaced with any old dirt. Or replaced with treated poo. Manpower-intensive, but likely high-yield.Neil Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18074671506961961697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-86887525078264904982019-08-23T03:34:54.945+01:002019-08-23T03:34:54.945+01:00Thanks for returning to these. Please excuse the l...Thanks for returning to these. Please excuse the lower standard to which they were written. <br /><br />What I was trying to say was that a new colony on Mars would not start out with the ability to mine and process large volumes of rock, and then extract vital elements like uranium or phosphorus. They might be more abundant relative to Earth, but the new colony on Mars would not have access to thousands of workers and all the infrastructure we've built up over the centuries to make it easy for us.<br /><br />Therefore, they would have to start out by importing them. This is a big cost that causes the price of products made on Mars to increase, perhaps to the point of making them less competitive in the face of alternatives produced elsewhere.<br /><br />But, in the longer term, once they make the effort to become self-sufficient, I agree that the situation would be reversed and they would be able to make full use of the relative abundance of these elements. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-17357576892920836012019-08-23T01:12:38.875+01:002019-08-23T01:12:38.875+01:00Hey, commenting on a really old post, I know, but ...Hey, commenting on a really old post, I know, but I read your new post on Uranus and was inspired to binge your archives. I really like your assessments of the planets, but I disagree with a thing you stated here:<br />"such as processed nuclear fuel or phosphorus"<br />This is just about inverse to reality. Phosphorus concentrations in the regolith sampled by Viking was about five times higher than the average concentration on Earth. (Cite: The Case for Mars, by R. Zubrin) Actually, the Viking sites were slightly depleted of potassium, but presumably dry lakebeds can be found to enrich the soil. As for nuclear fuels, Mars Odyssey detected substantial quantities of thorium on Mars. So, really, radioactives are a selling point for Mars, as they are thought to be rarer on, say, the asteroids. Neil Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18074671506961961697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-69033651670939003292018-01-06T05:33:08.743+00:002018-01-06T05:33:08.743+00:00As you embark in your quest in order to hunt for t...As you embark in your quest in order to hunt for top commercial cleaning company here’s listing of points that you have to consider prior to zeroing on the brains behind fits your own requirement as well as bill as well. In Dubai, locate a cleaning organization that’s licensed through the National Atmosphere Agency (NEA). This guarantees higher requirements of cleaning and expert service through the company. <a href="https://www.springcleaning.ae/" rel="nofollow">office cleaning in dubai</a><br />Cleaning Company Dubai UAEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16858198447462397692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-50179304885091951292017-03-21T23:46:40.013+00:002017-03-21T23:46:40.013+00:00I appreciate the discussion. Feel free to ask any ...I appreciate the discussion. Feel free to ask any questions you have on this topic or others on the blog.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-67497419752903083802017-03-21T20:01:41.433+00:002017-03-21T20:01:41.433+00:00Thanks for your time.Thanks for your time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18283461709120174540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-35626142717642009012017-03-21T19:44:51.620+00:002017-03-21T19:44:51.620+00:00@Randy Norris:
The numbers don't quite add up....@Randy Norris:<br />The numbers don't quite add up. Even if you exported 2.5 Earth atmospheres worth of Venus atmosphere to Mars, which gives Mars a sea level pressure of 1 bar, you'd still have 90.5 Earth atmosphere's worth of gas on Venus.<br /><br />You have to deal with all the remaining gas in different ways. <br /><br />If you still want to do this, then the best way is to just freeze the Vanusian gasses and send them as big ice cubes or comets to crash down onto Martian poles. This requires the lowest amount of 'spaceship' per 'gas'. The kinetic energy released upon impact serves to heat back to the gasses into the new atmosphere. <br /><br />If your objective is simply to have a freighter making regular trips between Venus and Mars for stories to take place in, then it is best to forget transporting raw materials. It is hard to justify a terraforming process that involves both planets, and its even harder to sell the gasses because the atmospheres are so similar in composition.<br /><br />If you still want a terraforming angle on the story, you could exchange terraforming machines and products. Because of how much sunlight, nitrogen and carbon dioxide Venus has, it can easily produce chemicals such as fertilizers or aramid fibers or even amines, resins, plastics, explosives and so on for commercial purposes. <br /><br />You can't just transport these in big blocks of ice, so more freighter-like spaceships are needed.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-44422736233498185762017-03-21T19:24:35.823+00:002017-03-21T19:24:35.823+00:00@Jim Baerg:
It takes 571kJ/kg to convert solid CO2...@Jim Baerg:<br />It takes 571kJ/kg to convert solid CO2 into gaseous CO2 (and vice versa). It takes more than 172MJ to move one kilo from Mars surface to Venus surface, according to these tables: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php<br /><br />Even if we use aerobraking to shave off a few km/s from the deltaV required, the difference in energy, and therefore cost, of actually moving things around is huge. <br /><br />Mars has enough nitrogen locked up in certain rocks to give a thick Earth-like atmosphere. The rocks have to be superheated to start thermally decomposing and releasing nitrogen, which is much harder to do than simply letting green houses gasses fill it up with CO2. The quantities involved are quite huge too. You'd need 2.5 times more gas than on Earth to compensate for the weaker Mars gravity. This means a quantity of nitrogen equivalent to about 10000 trillion tons. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-45879855939571435592017-03-21T13:14:20.306+00:002017-03-21T13:14:20.306+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18283461709120174540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-42636512237622504322017-03-20T22:19:11.607+00:002017-03-20T22:19:11.607+00:00Would we need to?
Is there any data on how much ni...Would we need to?<br />Is there any data on how much nitrogen is in the Martian regolith, such as in the form of nitrates? Could there be enough to make a reasonably thick atmosphere?<br /><br />If we did the hard part would be getting it off Venus. 'Dumping' something onto a planet is just a matter of putting on a collision course with the planet, preferably in small enough chunks to not be disasterous.<br /><br />Jim BaergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-43402720185772710762017-03-20T22:16:18.457+00:002017-03-20T22:16:18.457+00:00All questions are welcome!
Exporting Venusian atm...All questions are welcome!<br /><br />Exporting Venusian atmosphere elsewhere has been seriously studied as a possibility for allowing colonization. Moving it to Mars is an option...<br /><br />but it would not be a practical option. The same effect can be done for less energy by cooling Venus below to freezing point of Carbon Dioxide, then trapping the ice underground. This removes CO2 from the air and reduces overall pressure. Cooling is as simple as blocking sunlight over a large surface area of the planet, starting with the poles. <br /><br />The reverse can be done on Mars. It has a lot of carbon dioxide and water trapped in polar ices. By focusing sunlight on the poles, the ices can be turned back to gas. The greenhouse effect is cumulative and soon you won't need to focus sunlight. The rising temperatures melt the ices on their own. <br /><br />There is one downside to this method, however. If the temperatures are left unchecked, Venus's trapped CO2 will escape again, and Mars will freeze on its own. Physically moving the atmosphere is extremely difficult, but would be a final solution.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-47592644075161386772017-03-20T21:32:19.885+00:002017-03-20T21:32:19.885+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18283461709120174540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-54147141634637307412017-03-17T08:54:35.113+00:002017-03-17T08:54:35.113+00:00While that might be true, consider this:
-The fir...While that might be true, consider this:<br /><br />-The first colonization attempts will happen before a phobos tether is in place, so staying on the equator due to favorable orbital mechanics is less of a concern.<br /><br />-10% soil water is harder to access, and requires more substantial preliminary steps, than just scooping up ice and melting it. For the first colonies, this might be a issue.<br /><br />-There is plenty of CO2 in the Martian air, but it is so thin that it will hard to collect and condense large quantities of it. Being on the poles has the advantage of handing over the CO2 freely and in large quantities, to produce carbohydrates or carbon monoxides for cheap rocket fuel. <br /><br />-A colony at the right latitude will have many more hours of sunlight per day than the equator, at least for the first 'season' during which it is being set up. Nuclear power is an incredibly useful tool, but relying on it strictly limits how far the colony can expand to how many reactors were brought from home. Also, something like a carbon-carbon battery (http://newatlas.com/dual-carbon-fast-charging-battery/32121/) built out of local materials might provide the power storage to eliminate the night/day issue entirely.<br /><br />Of course, in the long term, your suggestions are valid. Staying on the equator makes rocket launches cheaper and tether deliveries feasible. Orbital solar power would supplant panels that run rings around the poles for continuous sunlight, and overland transport makes gathering polar volatiles and delivering them to the equator easy... Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-73130670068849329332017-03-17T08:44:49.646+00:002017-03-17T08:44:49.646+00:00Sorry, I should I have used stronger words. We jus...Sorry, I should I have used stronger words. We just don't know the effects. <br /><br />However, we can guess at them. Bones are continuously recycled by osteocytes. The hydoxyapatite (bone material) is eaten up and reformed. The mechanism of bone loss in microgravity is that reduced tension on the bones causes the breaking down to exceed the re-making of the bone material. There is a net loss in bone mass.<br /><br />This causes weaker bones that are a big problem upon returning to normal gravity. It also causes hypercalcemia. The closest terrestrial condition is found in immobilized patients, which experience all of the same symptoms up to and including fluid redistribution and weakening of cardiac muscles (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871450/). The majority of these symptoms are treatable (low-calcium food, aerobic exercise, kidney stimulants) and some aren't really a problem if the colonists don't intend to return to Earth...<br /><br />All in all, I think there is sufficient data to support the theory that the body's response to different gravity levels is analog and not digital: it doesn't completely collapse, it just adjusts to the new environment. <br /><br />All in all, I don't think partial-gravity research could justify building a moon base. Eventually, we might run a spinning habitat on the ISS at lower-than-intended RPM, but other than that, it might be more cost effective to just design the Mars mission with less intermediate steps.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-82206026397715646532017-03-17T03:38:19.286+00:002017-03-17T03:38:19.286+00:00You make sense in most of your post, but I have so...You make sense in most of your post, but I have some comments on the points I disagree with.<br /><br />"Colonization efforts will focus on the polar regions at first, as they offer vast quantities of volatiles."<br /><br />Actually I don't think so. Doing a Google search for images for 'Mars water map' I get some maps that show equatorial regions with substantial soil water (about 10%) eg: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Water_on_Mars<br />So there is plenty of water in some regions that are easy to get to from the Phobos tether.<br /><br />Re: solar power for a Mars colony.<br />Night is a major drawback for solar power on any planetary scale body. Use nuclear for baseload supplemented by solar only to cover daytime peak in demand. A nuclear reactor sufficient to power an initial base wouldn't be terribly massive especially if the shielding is local regolith & the reactor is started only after being covered with regolith.<br /><br />OTOH solar is good for things in orbit since they never spend very long times in shadow, & even far from the sun, curved mirrors of aluminized plastic to concentrate sunlight would be cheap even by the km^2.<br /><br />Jim BaergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-25875013942653173392017-03-17T00:35:27.481+00:002017-03-17T00:35:27.481+00:00Matter Beam: "Reports on whether 40% of norma...Matter Beam: "Reports on whether 40% of normal gravity, like on Mars, is sufficient to maintain bone mass are inconclusive."<br />What reports?<br />SFAIK there is no data on the effects of staying in gravity between 0g & 1g for more than the few days some Apollo astronauts stayed on the Moon. So Lunar gravity *could* be enough for good health or even Venus gravity might not be enough.<br />Are you aware of some information on the topic that I have missed?<br /><br />To get such data I would like to see a moon base built & a rotating habitat that gives martian level gravity..<br />Jim BaergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-54752797468064410512017-02-06T15:24:03.392+00:002017-02-06T15:24:03.392+00:00You are quite welcome!
Your approach is quite cor...You are quite welcome!<br /><br />Your approach is quite correct- a military force on Mars would be crushed if it revealed itself too already. Also consider that not everyone would support their actions: such a military force's first victims would be Martians themselves....<br /><br />Laser tech for most purposes would be of rather low wavelengths. Infrared mostly, microwave if you're trying to get through thick atmosphere, optical if you want to communicate long distances. They only require cheap materials to focus them, such as aluminium, and easy to make generators.<br /><br />However, for warfare, you'll want short wavelengths (like ultraviolet) and expensive generators, like the Free Electron Laser. <br /><br />Maybe you can have the enemy, like Earth, have access to advanced lasers, but the technology is stolen and retro-engineered underground, on Mars. When Mars attacks, it is suddenly on an equal footing with the more advanced enemy. <br /><br />Laser tech exists today, so it'll be difficult justifying why it disappeared entirely. <br /><br />Radiator efficiency depends entirely on how how you can heat their surface to. It's not a big constraint.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-86722550383812657652017-02-06T09:02:58.350+00:002017-02-06T09:02:58.350+00:00Alright, thank you for the help.
If interested, ...Alright, thank you for the help. <br /><br />If interested, I've been pretty much having a certain Mars faction slwoly building up it's military in preparation for war, but covertly - nuclear/ orbital weapon bunkers disguised as just regular undergorund construction, laser weapons built underground in silos that won't emerge until needed (Though this one has been having som issues that don't get solved until they get the aid of another faction) and reconstruction of existing mass drivers to turn them into improv weapons. <br /><br />Also, as a note on lasers, would it be acceptable/ feasible to say that lasertech has existed for decades but has never been used in warfare simply because it was too inefficient and the energy required to power them too great to make them worthwhile aside from near areas like Mercury where Solar power is pretty much infinite? Part of my main thing is that when the big war breaks out, one of the groundbreaking technologies introduced is laser weapons, and to follow the war as this laser technology is introduced throughout the system and changes the face of space from primarily missiles and rails to more energy weapons. For this, I'm having fusion as a new/ very recent technology to help facilitate why the energy to power such a weapon is now available. Also better materials science allowing for more efficient heat radiators compared to the last war. <br /><br />What are your thoughts on this situation?BaconShelfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-63734972025705382742017-02-05T20:35:12.249+00:002017-02-05T20:35:12.249+00:00The SkyHook reaches down to a few meters above the...The SkyHook reaches down to a few meters above the surface. It will stay motionless for a couple of seconds, hanging in the air, before it accelerates straight up and away. All you have to do is hook up to it. <br /><br />On Earth, this is tough on the tether, as it would have to travel at Mach 25 through the air before and after stopping over the ground, so they make it only dip into the upper atmosphere, and have a larger relative velocity (Mach 8 for example). On Mars, the atmosphere is not a problem.<br /><br />On Mars, just having a large open area is a sign of wealth. Pressure is harder to contain in one big bubble or habitat, compared to multiple small spaces. You'd need large amounts of material. If you want a big, sun-lit space like in the picture, you need expensive transparent ceramics or quartz that is coated with anti-UV protection.<br /><br />Just one note of caution on using video game level designs for inspiration: their first objective is to be a balanced map for gameplay. They make sacrifices to realism to look interesting or be fun, such as massive sewers or ceilings so tall no player could touch them. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.com