tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post6323119609740985895..comments2024-03-29T07:43:40.648+00:00Comments on ToughSF: How to live on Other Planets: MercuryMatter Beamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-45348401562675434342023-10-16T23:41:09.730+01:002023-10-16T23:41:09.730+01:00We can do both.We can do both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-1088873667235912492023-03-24T08:01:01.992+00:002023-03-24T08:01:01.992+00:00I Want to Colonize Mars Not MercuryI Want to Colonize Mars Not MercuryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-86905422851905230802022-12-30T09:58:39.562+00:002022-12-30T09:58:39.562+00:00(I guess I should also add that this is by no mean...(I guess I should also add that this is by no means the only possibility, just one that has clear storytelling potential. :D)Double sharpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-43239966478783326692022-12-30T07:26:09.862+00:002022-12-30T07:26:09.862+00:00According to 10.1016/j.pss.2022.105608, even metal...According to 10.1016/j.pss.2022.105608, even metallic asteroids should have Au abundances similar to on Earth; it's the PGMs proper where they are better. (True, economics may make it more worth it anyway to go to asteroids even for Au, to avoid pollution concerns.) Polar craters on Mercury and Luna are likely up to two orders of magnitude more concentrated in gold. But this is still not a good reason to go all the way down to Mercury when exactly the same process happens on the Moon.<br /><br />So I agree with your conclusion that the real point of industrialising Mercury is to make use of abundant solar energy, rather than to mine it for metals. The significance of this rather is that the polar colonies would pretty much have the complete periodic table in high abundance on their doorstep, so there's no such worry as there is for Jovian polities needing to trade with the inner system for heavy metals. Given the immediate self-sufficiency, the huge delta-V needed to get there, and (as Geoffrey mentioned above) the difficulty an invading force would have taking the planet's underground cities even after arriving, Mercury seems like it has the dystopic potential to become the Solar System's North Korea, holding the inner planets to ransom with laser weapons. I guess this fate could be avoided with advances in solar propulsion, so that its short synodic period that connects it with the rest of the system can actually get used more effectively. And given that Mercury is airless, perhaps Jupiter could retaliate with magsail-propelled bombardment. Hmm, an interesting storyline already! :DDouble sharpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-9391994614163985482022-12-29T07:49:35.125+00:002022-12-29T07:49:35.125+00:00Nice finds! I knew that mercury is good source of ...Nice finds! I knew that mercury is good source of metals but not that precious metals could also be found at reasonable concentrations. <br /><br />It remains to be seen whether Mercury is a better source that metallic asteroids though. The deltaV cost for travelling to Mercury is very high, and you need a high thrust engine to land on it on top of that. Asteroids cost less deltaV to reach and you can use a single low thrust but high efficiency propulsion system for all your maneuvers. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-14886898730019713992022-12-25T14:38:13.498+00:002022-12-25T14:38:13.498+00:00Oops, I made a mistake: the 0.11% figure is actual...Oops, I made a mistake: the 0.11% figure is actually for Au. The authors' model predicts this, in good agreement with 0.52% as found by LCROSS. Similarly, the authors predict 0.53% Hg, versus 0.39% estimated from LCROSS data. No figures are given for Ag.<br /><br />Still, those are tremendously high values, so the point stands. Some emission lines were also found suggesting the presence of Pt.Double sharpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-15171084391635462612022-12-25T11:48:45.083+00:002022-12-25T11:48:45.083+00:00The doi for the plant studies: 10.1111/plb.12031, ...The doi for the plant studies: 10.1111/plb.12031, 10.1038/s41526-018-0041-4, 10.1038/s41598-018-24942-7, 10.3389/fpls.2019.01529, 10.3389/fspas.2021.72915.Double sharpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-27074885793154444732022-12-25T08:25:10.911+00:002022-12-25T08:25:10.911+00:00"Mercury is only 40% wider than our Moon, but..."Mercury is only 40% wider than our Moon, but its density means it produces a gravity of 0.38G. This is believed to be sufficient for preventing the effects of microgravity, such as bone loss, eyesight problems and muscle atrophy."<br /><br />I'm not sure about this: Mercury (0.377G) has almost exactly the same as Mars (0.378G) gravity-wise, and on your article for Mars you say that it's doubtful that that's enough. There's some studies of plants at Mars gravity (so it should be applicable for Mercury); most seem to suggest it's okay, but one found changes to the cell cycle even at Martian gravity. The threshold for plants seems to be somewhere between lunar gravity (which is worse than microgravity even) and Martian gravity. I'd give the URLs, but I worry that that won't pass the spam filter: I've previously posted them at the Wikipedia talk page for "Colonization of Mars". :)<br /><br />LCROSS found native precious metals in the permanently shadowed regions of the Moon: the paper "Prospecting for native metals in lunar polar craters" by Platts, Boucher, and Gladstone (doi 10.2514/6.2014-0338) suggests mass abundances 0.11% Ag, 0.52% Au, 0.53% Hg. This is probably from electrostatic dust transport. These are extremely high compared to abundances on Earth, and we could presumably expect the same in the polar craters of Mercury. So precious metals might be another Mercurian export, and there shouldn't be any worries about running out of gold for reflective surfaces. Might want to purify the water ice before drinking it because of all that mercury, though. :)Double sharpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-85552445456833596992021-01-16T04:14:11.455+00:002021-01-16T04:14:11.455+00:00That's right! Kim Stanley Robinson made good u...That's right! Kim Stanley Robinson made good use of this fact for his novel 2312. <br /><br />I don't see the utility of having a giant colony-rover though. It would be destroyed if it breaks down, whether due to mechanical failure from equipment that cannot be allowed to stop and rest, or random events such as a meteorite striking the road or tracks it relies upon.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-89526844720125609272021-01-07T20:15:11.404+00:002021-01-07T20:15:11.404+00:004 years late, but I have to say this: the terminat...4 years late, but I have to say this: the terminator on mercury is really slow. You could stay in the night side on the equator simply by walking. I could see gigantic colony rovers circling mercury to stay in in the shadow. Think bagger 293 mixed with a cruise ship, housing 600 inhabitantsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-42811290812970317652016-11-06T15:04:00.472+00:002016-11-06T15:04:00.472+00:00I'm glad you find these posts interesting! Don...I'm glad you find these posts interesting! Don't hesitate to comment wherever you have a question.<br /><br />The problem with massive spinning constructs is that they wobble. The taller it is, the larger the wobble, with spheres being the worst offenders, and disks the least 'wobbly'. The lateral forces have to be compensated for structurally. For something the size of a colony, it would require a dynamic suspension system anchored by miles of metal beams dug into the surrounding rock to spread the forces.<br /><br />I think it is just more practical to let the colonists live in 0.4G, and move them once they develop problems. If we have interplanetary colonization, we have interplanetary transport. Similar to an oil worker staying in harsh Alaska for two years, then moving back to continental USA to enjoy his money, a colonist could go work on Mercury, then depending on how much money they make, risk it on Venus or pay premium for a spot on the Overcrowded Earth (T) of the future.Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-37482782261202066462016-11-04T17:47:41.375+00:002016-11-04T17:47:41.375+00:00Only just discovered this blog and am having a gre...Only just discovered this blog and am having a great time reading through it! Keep up the good work. Your Mercury colony idea reminded my of a lunar habitat I conjured up literally in a dream a few years back and quickly sketched out before I forgot about it. Just wondering if you think this makes any sense? The central idea is to provide a 1g environment by supplementing the lunar gravity with spin. I'm not an engineer though, so I have no idea what is actually feasible in terms of materials, etc. http://home.cogeco.ca/%7Eekchew/misc/pagoda.jpgTedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11412666966750749233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-30973419992104132672016-10-26T19:06:37.962+01:002016-10-26T19:06:37.962+01:00Well the american government didn't try to rec...Well the american government didn't try to recuperate costs by selling moon rocks, did it? It just footed the bill under 'Cold War expenses' and hoped secondary actors gained benefits, such as the aerospace, military and electronics industries. <br /><br />Also, you can't really convince a Wall Street exec that he'll gain money by investing in a colonization effort by creating connections... he can do that over a game of golf!Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-35747442579056786462016-10-26T18:54:43.300+01:002016-10-26T18:54:43.300+01:00An 83% payload ratio is excellent! It will beat ou...An 83% payload ratio is excellent! It will beat out chemical propulsion for sure.<br /><br />However...<br /><br />A solar-electric propulsion system with 20km/s exhaust velocity and averaging 2.5kW/kg between Mercury and Earth, massing 10 tons and using liquid hydrogen as propellant, could get the 20 ton payload across in barely 60 days by using 51.3 tons of propellant (30km/s deltaV). It could make the same trip 12 times, ignoring any synodic period. Its initial acceleration will be 3mm/s^2, rising to 0.08mm/s^2<br /><br />But... you have to have your payload be worth more than twice its weight in liquid hydrogen, plus service costs. This might rule out cheap and plentiful stuff such as nickel, iron, copper... those are the products that are most likely to be relegated to Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-77540102089227411062016-10-26T18:50:25.859+01:002016-10-26T18:50:25.859+01:00No pay-off for the original investors? Apollo las...No pay-off for the original investors? Apollo lasted only 15 years altogether, yet all of the companies involved ('investors' by analogy here) made profits and were able to make gains on the stock market to the extent the market was able to perform. The initiators of a terraforming project would realize a personal profit through their connection to the various industries involved. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-25975060435728519062016-10-26T17:29:52.957+01:002016-10-26T17:29:52.957+01:00A sail weighing less than 4,000 kg can deliver a 2...A sail weighing less than 4,000 kg can deliver a 20-ton payload to Mercury from earth in a flight of about 2.1 years. The same sail can deliver a 10-ton payload in about 1.6 years. When it comes to inert items where space exposure is not a main issue, this is very reasonable. Since sails launch on the same synodic period basis as most fuelled systems, you only have to add 115 days to these figures to get the total delivery time for an ordered item. In contrast, payloads delivered to Mars from Earth would need .7 years (actual flight time) plus 2.2 years synodic waiting period. This is why Mercury will cost less to develop than Mars. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-67504647851842920142016-10-26T17:05:29.026+01:002016-10-26T17:05:29.026+01:00Please add some sort of name to your comment, or e...Please add some sort of name to your comment, or else the Spam filter will catch it.<br /><br />By economic point of view, I was thinking in economics terms: a solar-electric/thermal propulsion system will allow for a very fast turnover compared to solar sails. If you can buy, transport and sell your products four times in the time it takes for one solar sail shipment to arrive, you will make more money in the end, even after paying for propellant. <br /><br />I doubt solar sails have lower production costs that solar-electric engines. The sails have to be very thin and smooth, which requires a large amount of very fine and consistent work. The only cost department they will save on is propellant costs: all others, such as lifting the payload to orbit, transferring it down to a surface and so on, do not benefit from the solar sails.<br /><br />But you are correct in one thing: I need to sit down and take a proper look at how much performance we can get out of solar sails. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-46269267367967733652016-10-26T16:42:31.352+01:002016-10-26T16:42:31.352+01:00"Solar electric, even solar thermal, beats th..."Solar electric, even solar thermal, beats them from an economic point of view." Hardly. These systems are based on a required propellant that must be produced, transported and transferred to the vehicles. This requires on on-site infrastructure whose cost must be taken into account. Sails, by design, do not need as complex an infrastructure. In their case, they need a system that delivers a cargo to the sail from Mercury's surface - a maximum delta-v of 4.2 km/sec. with ~3.5 km/sec. being more likely. Also, so far as sails being 'slow' this is a function of the payload mass/sail area and can be established for very fast transfers. Add zero-maintenance reuse; low initial launch mass (~4,000 kg for a sail 820 meters to a side) and likely lower production cost compared to more complex systems (above), combined with the 3- or 4-fold launch window opportunities noted for Mercury. . . Solar sails are a very good bet for making Mercury a low cost construction site and viable in commercial operations. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-3004592973535822362016-10-26T04:33:43.992+01:002016-10-26T04:33:43.992+01:00On AI see this
http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/p...On AI see this<br />http://computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/philosophy.html<br />especially halfway down "AI is possible...but AI won't happen"<br /><br />Jim BaergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-6735948010728765332016-10-22T14:13:05.318+01:002016-10-22T14:13:05.318+01:00The cost of moving a lot of ice comets (after find...The cost of moving a lot of ice comets (after finding them, sending a probe out there, covering them from sunlight and securing them) is probably far, far greater than the potential earnings of a tourism industry.<br /><br />Plus, safety regulators might not want tourists sitting under kilotons of ice falling on their heads. <br /><br />If terraforming becomes a tourist attraction, its progress would be limited to the waning and waxing of public enthusiasm. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-86923578029914399462016-10-22T09:07:25.546+01:002016-10-22T09:07:25.546+01:00Are we sure terraforming can't pay for itself?...Are we sure terraforming can't pay for itself? Green house gas emitting factories cheaply producing goods, tourists invited to watch ice comet bombardments... On the latter point, what if terraforming was a tourist attraction in and of itself?<br /><br />Regards Mercury, its placement near the sun and lack of athmosphere means it would have access to mirrors as defensive weapons, could produce most of its own materials and would have cities deep down in the crust. A planet in such a defensive position would be well placed to dominate the solar system at least for a time. Even if all its surface defences were knocked out, the only way to take control of the place would be to send ground troops into the tunnels below. Not a pleasant prospect. Geoffrey S Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-11399540614608838092016-10-20T16:14:01.172+01:002016-10-20T16:14:01.172+01:00From a capitalistic and free market perspective, y...From a capitalistic and free market perspective, you are quite right there is no "payoff" for the initial investors. But people have lots of other motivations as well....<br /><br />Consider the great cathedrals of Europe. they were erected for a spiritual purpose (the glory of God) and to proclaim the power of the Roman Catholic Church over the spiritual and temporal realms. Most of these Cathedrals took over 200 years to build, in an age where the average lifespan was about 40 years. Similar calculations may have applied to the Acropolis, the Great Pyramids, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Temple of Solomon, the Great Wall of China etc.<br /><br />Martians might develop some similar beliefs, so conventional economic calculations based on supply and demand or ROI are no longer relevant (although economics will still play an important role). I might suggest the real reason to carry out a terraforming project is to bind capital and human resources to a place, rather than allow them to be speculatively dispersed across the Solar System (Martians want future generations to live and work on Mars, not emmigrate to Uranus or Mercury). A quasi religious motivation like "the inevitable spread of life across the Universe" could be invoked to provide the philosophical foundation. And of course, scientific advances might mean that the initial investors would actually be alive one thousand years after the project's start to see the culmination of their dreams...<br /><br />People do far stranger things.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-10117541541124007012016-10-19T18:03:44.723+01:002016-10-19T18:03:44.723+01:00I kind of disagree with both of you. Extremely lon...I kind of disagree with both of you. Extremely long-term projects require equivalent gains for the investors, but we'd end up with:<br />-Investors dying before the project is completed.<br />-The end result being a habitable planet... which you can't really sell.<br /><br />There is no financial or economic method to compensate investors for projects that require several lifetimes to be completed. Terraforming projects do not produce any valuable assets until they are completed. Once you have a habitable planet, you'll be able to sell access to it indefinitely, but you'd never realistically get your money back. 'You' in this equation would be governments and megacorporations. The only way to make a profit would be massive immigration, and the masses cannot give up so much money on arrival or through taxes that they become poor. They would simply point to the orbital space stations above and say: I lived my entire life there. What's so much better about this planet? <br /><br />What I think is more realistic would be habitable sections, and techno-genetic adaptations.<br /><br />Habitable sections are something we are familiar with. It is a large-scale version of a space colony, placed on a planet. Unlike space-going habitats, these planetary 'parks' can grow organics, food and medicinal products in very large quantities, with little risk of radiation damage. That is their economic advantage. These 'green spots' on the planet are isolated from the inconvenient atmosphere and temperature, but have easy access to volatiles such as oxygen and water. <br /><br />In the shortlist of posts coming up on ToughSF, I speak of genetic modification and technological augmentation, comparing and contrasting the two. People will find themselves genetically engineering for compatibility with technological augments. These augments will allow people to live on Titan or Mars as simply as humans do on Earth. It is vastly cheaper for willing individuals to adapt themselves to the environment, than for the planet to be adapted to potential customers. Matter Beamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16721504049578296529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-39266202465363888812016-10-19T16:36:12.607+01:002016-10-19T16:36:12.607+01:00Your thinking is correct Geoffrey, but I am lookin...Your thinking is correct Geoffrey, but I am looking at this as being more internalized. The "Eastern Empire" might have no overarching interest in Mars, except as a way of thwarting the ambitions of the "Southern Empire", but the Martians themselves might see this as a quasi-religious calling for themselves and their descendants, and a way of mobilizing capital and labour to stay on Mars for generations working towards the ultimate goal of walking unprotected on the surface.<br /><br />How this would play out in fiction might be to make Mars considered a sort of sinkhole of investment capital, and a place where most people are considered to be cultists following the thousand year vision of Terraforming. People on asteroids or the moons of Gas Giants won't be drawn into projects like that because they are effectively impossible where they are, so more "practical" short and medium term projects like building domes or tunnelling into the interiors of asteroids will be the general direction for these people.<br /><br />I wonder if there might even be a distinction between the civilizations living in free space (asteroids, artificial colony structures) and those burrowing into moons and tied to their planetary system?Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8150340806781551727.post-59079642901977674622016-10-19T11:18:31.775+01:002016-10-19T11:18:31.775+01:00If mars can be terraformed in the same way that Br...If mars can be terraformed in the same way that Britain turned from forest to fields, or urban areas spread over the planet over millenia, i.e.: incrementally, then it could happen. <br /><br />The Taj Mahal, the Pyramids, and many ancient monuments have all been studied and maintained by polities long after their original builders died out. They were maintained due to the pride they brought their new owners. Perhaps terraforming could be seen as a form of national prestige, incrementally undertaken by the superpower of the day, with no self-respecting power wanting to be seen dropping the baton when they take over from the previous group. Geoffrey S Hnoreply@blogger.com