General The plants that would (probably) be taken to the stars
- Thread starter Spinward Scout
- Start date
Commander Truestar
SOC-14 1K
Actually, in this case, we do know.
We have tested both lunar and Martian samples exhaustively.
So, we know that "lunar" soil has zero similarities to Martian soil
Because we know this, the value of having grown anything in martian soil - which is not saturated with poisons - means nothing to growing crops in Martian soil.
An unfortunate regularity with this thread is that far too many comments jump on a single "but -we can do this" without considering what we actually know. That their one "we can do this" is a drop of water fighting a continent of other things that make their suggestion null and void.
There are several here who say things like "A starship could do it" without examining the math I have provided, which states that even 12 Starship class spacecraft would be pushed hard.
Others keep suggesting robot tech we don't and most likely won't have can replace Humans even though the *existing plans* state they will max out human capacity on the transport craft. So, they're not only not looking at the real math and logistics, they ignoring what the mission and colonial planners are "Saying They Will Do".
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Yes.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Musk is planning a lot more than 12 Starship launches to mars.
Chemical industry facts and known sources of water allow for the treatment of Martian soil and the production of water, rocket fuel, oxygen.
Martian soil can easily be treated to become chemically inert, and a lot of the chemicals recovered can be then put to other uses.
I'm pretty sure that the planners who are going to make all of this a reality already have solutions to these problems.
Robots, automated factories, a limited number of people to start, then ramp things up as more payload is delivered. Space X already has free rockets to LOE. Falcon boosters are up to their 30s for relaunches, at this point all that Space X is paying for Starlink launches is refurbishment and fuel.
If Starship becomes operational than the customers for the first tranche of flights are basically reducing the costs for Space X to then launch their Mars missions by which time:
fully AI capable robots - humanoid Optimus plus self driving vehicles and fully automatic chemical factories
commercial small nuclear reactors
an orbiting refueling station (with possible space tourist revenue)
But stay in the cave, it is far too dangerous to go exploring, don't get on the boat, there are dragons...
Chemical industry facts and known sources of water allow for the treatment of Martian soil and the production of water, rocket fuel, oxygen.
Martian soil can easily be treated to become chemically inert, and a lot of the chemicals recovered can be then put to other uses.
I'm pretty sure that the planners who are going to make all of this a reality already have solutions to these problems.
Robots, automated factories, a limited number of people to start, then ramp things up as more payload is delivered. Space X already has free rockets to LOE. Falcon boosters are up to their 30s for relaunches, at this point all that Space X is paying for Starlink launches is refurbishment and fuel.
If Starship becomes operational than the customers for the first tranche of flights are basically reducing the costs for Space X to then launch their Mars missions by which time:
fully AI capable robots - humanoid Optimus plus self driving vehicles and fully automatic chemical factories
commercial small nuclear reactors
an orbiting refueling station (with possible space tourist revenue)
But stay in the cave, it is far too dangerous to go exploring, don't get on the boat, there are dragons...
Silverhawk
SOC-12
So I was doing some reading on perclorates. There are possible uses for them that would help a colony. They can be broken down to release oxygen for example. There is use as well for rocket fuel. The perchlorate issue is solvable.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
NO launch to low earth orbit is ... "free" ... in terms of costs.
That glosses over the ENTIRE SUPPLY CHAIN that makes the refurbishment and fuel possible.
Yes, the SpaceX cost to launch is LOWER than what anyone else in the industry is offering.
Is that cost "practically zero" at this point?
No it is not ... and shame on anyone for thinking that it might be.
Just because SpaceX makes it LOOK EASY doesn't mean that is IS EASY.
So did the planners for Jamestown.
Then the Starving Time happened in 1609-1610, because ... winter came ... and the plans weren't good enough ...
Just because there's a PLAN on a spreadsheet (somewhere) doesn't mean that PLAN is going to survive contact with Real (alien) World Conditions™.
Plans are Nice To Have.
Success ... particularly when stressed because not everything is going to plan ... is better.
ALL of which need to be proven operational on the homeworld before they can be exported to other worlds.
Which need to be proven operational (and safely engineered!) on the homeworld before they can be exported to other worlds.
Conceptually speaking, there's nothing "wrong" with this notion ... except for the fact that it hasn't been done YET.
Small modular nuclear reactors SOUND great (on paper) because they have high energy density and useful waste thermal heat properties that can be scavenged for other purposes in a colony (like keeping the pressurized interior spaces "warmer" than the ambient atmosphere outside). The problem is that small modular nuclear reactors are going to be HEAVY to transport (anywhere). That's not as big of a logistical hurdle for road or water transport ... but in aerospace (and in space flight especially), HEAVY is the enemy. HEAVY has enormous costs associated with it (logistically speaking) and limited windows of opportunity for delivery. So long as the benefits "outweigh" the costs, it'll probably happen at some point.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if we can "crack the code" on nuclear fusion, that's the more reasonable path to take for nuclear power on Mars, rather than relying on fission reactors exported from Terra. Last I checked, the hydrogen end of the periodic table tends to be "lighter" than the transuranic end of the same table. Granted, hydrogen is more difficult to "contain" than most elements (it leaks through almost everything, except gravity, hence stars), but the hydrogen isotope fuel needed for fusion stands a better chance of In Situ Resource Utilization than anything involving fissionable isotopes mined and refined on Mars (so you don't have to export those fissionable materials from the homeworld).
Commander Truestar
SOC-14 1K
@Spinward FlowNO launch to low earth orbit is ... "free" ... in terms of costs.
That glosses over the ENTIRE SUPPLY CHAIN that makes the refurbishment and fuel possible.
Yes, the SpaceX cost to launch is LOWER than what anyone else in the industry is offering.
Is that cost "practically zero" at this point?
No it is not ... and shame on anyone for thinking that it might be.
Just because SpaceX makes it LOOK EASY doesn't mean that is IS EASY.
So did the planners for Jamestown.
Then the Starving Time happened in 1609-1610, because ... winter came ... and the plans weren't good enough ...
Just because there's a PLAN on a spreadsheet (somewhere) doesn't mean that PLAN is going to survive contact with Real (alien) World Conditions™.
Plans are Nice To Have.
Success ... particularly when stressed because not everything is going to plan ... is better.
ALL of which need to be proven operational on the homeworld before they can be exported to other worlds.
Which need to be proven operational (and safely engineered!) on the homeworld before they can be exported to other worlds.
Conceptually speaking, there's nothing "wrong" with this notion ... except for the fact that it hasn't been done YET.
Small modular nuclear reactors SOUND great (on paper) because they have high energy density and useful waste thermal heat properties that can be scavenged for other purposes in a colony (like keeping the pressurized interior spaces "warmer" than the ambient atmosphere outside). The problem is that small modular nuclear reactors are going to be HEAVY to transport (anywhere). That's not as big of a logistical hurdle for road or water transport ... but in aerospace (and in space flight especially), HEAVY is the enemy. HEAVY has enormous costs associated with it (logistically speaking) and limited windows of opportunity for delivery. So long as the benefits "outweigh" the costs, it'll probably happen at some point.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if we can "crack the code" on nuclear fusion, that's the more reasonable path to take for nuclear power on Mars, rather than relying on fission reactors exported from Terra. Last I checked, the hydrogen end of the periodic table tends to be "lighter" than the transuranic end of the same table. Granted, hydrogen is more difficult to "contain" than most elements (it leaks through almost everything, except gravity, hence stars), but the hydrogen isotope fuel needed for fusion stands a better chance of In Situ Resource Utilization than anything involving fissionable isotopes mined and refined on Mars (so you don't have to export those fissionable materials from the homeworld).
Thank you for your very accurate comments.
Sadly, I've said similar things to most of those you've responded to and they are certain their "one observation" - which ignores the rest of the whole - means you and I are wrong. It is disappointing but the truth can't change their minds.
I am glad you show there are more people out there who can see the whole
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
claim - there is no water on Mars - provably false
claim - perchlorates are an insurmountable problem - provably false with basic chemistry
Note I am paraphrasing comments made, neither of the above should be taken as a challenge to quotation
Apparently phosporous in more abundant on the martian surface than it is here on Earth, the biggest issue is likely to be lack of nitrogen, which will have to be extracted from the limited nitrates. The lack of nitrogen is likely to be the main hurdle to agridome farming, until we can supply a lot of nitrogen.
Meanwhile the jury is still out as to if Starship will ever be viable. One of Musk's more interesting ideas is a thousand Starship launches... Falcon has so far exceeded 500 in total. There is still the matter of getting Earth orbital refueling to work as well.
I should have put air quotes around "free", but then the rest of the sentence shows the context and that I was using hyperbole, something often lost on some thanks to the sterile nature of discussion forums such as these. But hey ho, people have different views with regards to Martian colonisation.
claim - perchlorates are an insurmountable problem - provably false with basic chemistry
Note I am paraphrasing comments made, neither of the above should be taken as a challenge to quotation
Apparently phosporous in more abundant on the martian surface than it is here on Earth, the biggest issue is likely to be lack of nitrogen, which will have to be extracted from the limited nitrates. The lack of nitrogen is likely to be the main hurdle to agridome farming, until we can supply a lot of nitrogen.
Meanwhile the jury is still out as to if Starship will ever be viable. One of Musk's more interesting ideas is a thousand Starship launches... Falcon has so far exceeded 500 in total. There is still the matter of getting Earth orbital refueling to work as well.
I should have put air quotes around "free", but then the rest of the sentence shows the context and that I was using hyperbole, something often lost on some thanks to the sterile nature of discussion forums such as these. But hey ho, people have different views with regards to Martian colonisation.
How about bringing soil from asteroids to mars?
www.sciencenews.org
Astronauts might be able to use asteroid soil to grow crops
Researchers grew romaine lettuce, chili pepper and pink radish plants in mixtures of faux asteroid soil and peat moss.
www.sciencenews.org
As they said back in the 60's. If you want to race the Russian on heavy lift capability, you will lose.
SPACEX is developing heavy lift capacity, and the means to scale it. Nobody suggests this is cheap, but they're striving to make it cheaper.
The more power that can be provided at the colony, the more self sufficient it can become.
The question about the pocket nuclear reactors, the net question is, per kg of mass, which is going to bring more power to the colony, an appropriate size nuclear reactor, or acres of solar arrays (plus all of the other upkeep, batteries, and such that needs to be considered). I haven't the slightest idea, but if the reactor is a significant win, there's nothing that says it has to be lifted all at once -- they can send parts.
SPACEX is developing heavy lift capacity, and the means to scale it. Nobody suggests this is cheap, but they're striving to make it cheaper.
The more power that can be provided at the colony, the more self sufficient it can become.
The question about the pocket nuclear reactors, the net question is, per kg of mass, which is going to bring more power to the colony, an appropriate size nuclear reactor, or acres of solar arrays (plus all of the other upkeep, batteries, and such that needs to be considered). I haven't the slightest idea, but if the reactor is a significant win, there's nothing that says it has to be lifted all at once -- they can send parts.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Small modular reactors are not a new technology, they are a new civilian technology...
NASA is investing in something called Kilopower...
NASA is investing in something called Kilopower...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Accurate?
Maybe.
Personally, I would use the term "insightful" instead, but I'm not inclined to quibble over your choice of terms.
Exporting (sustainable) life support to anywhere off-world is something that hasn't been done (successfully) yet.
Mainly because we haven't "needed" to ... YET.
Yes, there is limited recycling of life support on board the ISS (mainly waste water) ... but the ISS still needs regular resupply runs from surface to orbit, just to keep the life support operational. Also, a rather LARGE proportion of what gets dispatched from the ISS on return to atmosphere runs is "trash" ... which can include all the waste products that result from life support operations (which I will not elaborate on further).
Point being, the ISS life support system is for the purposes of our discussion an "open" system, rather than a closed (and therefore, self-sustaining) loop. It has more in common with the Cr2000 per 2 weeks per person life support overhead expenses that we are commonly acquainted with in Traveller.
Before we can export a closed loop (regenerative) life support system to Mars ... we're going to need to perfect an operational one on Terra, or in orbit of Terra, or on Luna. You REALLY don't want to export a closed loop life support system to Mars that ... doesn't work ... with no backup options in the event of failure. Let's just say that the "failure modes" would ... not be pretty ... for anyone dependent upon such systems for life support in a natively hostile environment (such as Mars or Luna).
To repeat what I've said before ... given sufficient Time, Tools and Tech Manuals™ ... this can BECOME a "solved problem" ... but there's a LONG way to go in order to get there from here. Previous attempts at closed loop regenerative biome life support have been ... less than successful. This is a REALLY HARD PROBLEM to solve. I'm sure it will be solved eventually (because it has to in order to sustain populations off world), but there is going to have to be a LOT more R&D plowed into the topic than there has been in order to get there.
The thing is, *IF* you can "build a machine that builds the machines" you need for In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) to produce solar panel arrays on Mars, you just need to "send enough stuff" to kick start the cycle of buildout ... rather than needing to send EVERYTHING. Perovskite solar cells could be a potential Tech Tree™ vector for doing this, but as with everything else you need to "perfect" the engineering (and automate the fabrication for it) here on the homeworld (Terra) first before you can export it to other worlds.
The advantage of an ISRU solution is that once you set up the "factory" to make the stuff you need using local resources, that "factory" can potentially produce way more than you could hope to deliver across interplanetary distances. Even ISRU on Luna is being looked at as a way to reduce the "throw weight" needed to launch a viable permanently manned lunar outpost/colony presence. I believe that Blue Origin (or was it some other company?) has already demonstrated a technique and process for converting lunar regolith into solar cells, which can then be used to build out the necessary power infrastructure of a (more) permanent lunar base facility. That way, you only need to "send the machine that makes the machines" (in this case, solar cells and the scaffolding/hookups to make them "work") to Luna, rather than needing to manufacture tons and tons and tons of PV cell arrays on Terra and launch them to Luna.
My current understanding is that any sort of ISRU manufacture of solar power systems on Mars is going to be FAR EASIER to do than any sort of ISRU for nuclear (fission or fusion) ... at least in the early going. Granted, global dust storms are a much greater hazard on Mars than they are on Terra (or Luna, for that matter) ... but if there are Optimus Robots available on Mars, even if it requires teleoperation, those humanoid robots can be sent out onto the surface with a "dust brush" to clear away accumulations from any solar panels exposed to the planetary atmosphere (once the winds have died down to acceptable levels for robot operations).
That said, I'm completely sure that at some point, nuclear power will become "commonplace" throughout the solar system (probably fusion) once we advance to TL=9. However, even then I would still expect solar power technologies to be employed for "colonization startup" almost everywhere within 4 AU of Sol. For anywhere that is 5+ AU from Sol, expect to need nuclear power in order to "launch" a colonial startup presence at all intended for human habitation. This will necessarily mean that outer solar system colonization efforts will tend to be "more expensive" in startup cost terms ... and not just because of distance.
And irony of ironies, it may wind up being that the upper atmosphere of Venus (right pressure and temperature, comparable to Terran atmosphere) and of all places ... Titan (largest moon in the solar system) ... might be the "best" locations for establishing permanent human outpost presence in the solar system beyond Terra/Luna, due to favorable local conditions that aren't THAT awful to engineer for.
Worst thing about living (high) in the atmosphere of Venus would be the SMELL ... due to all the sulfur (and sulfuric acid) ... assuming there's no hostile life in the atmosphere of Venus that will gladly "eat the flesh" of humans foolish enough to try to live there (many kilometers above the surface).
Worst thing about living in the atmosphere of Titan would be the COLD ... but there are solutions to that particular problem (including, don't go "outside"). At least the magnetosphere of Saturn and the atmosphere of Titan would protect against the worst of the radiation hazards (unlike Mars or Venus).
Commander Truestar
SOC-14 1K
First, no one on this threat claimed there was "No" water on Mars.
What is happening is that a number of the claims have suggested that existing water will be available in quantities great enough to carry out what they claim is possible.
Even with a colony site "very close" to the site of water ice, any colony will need to mine, transport, process and be stored or managed through plumbing that has to be built out.
That said, the "Statement" it will be "Years" before such systems can be built out to satisfy the quantity of water needed to:
1) Satisfy the human need for potable water
2) Satisfy the needs for basic non-potable systems (internal environmental, anti-fire etc)
3) Surface exploration and chemical investigation
And, finally, availability for soil washing.
Second, the issue is the lack of nitrogen, although that is an issue
The issue is that "the Perchlorates Are Fatal in Microscopic amounts" and a massive effort will be needed if colonists are to use martian soil for growing. You can't just add nitrogen and say "Now we're good!". And yes, your comments suggest that.
As stated above, the water won't be there for years.
And where you simply say "The lack of nitrogen is likely to be the main hurdle to agridome farming, until we can supply a lot of nitrogen"?
The simplicity of that statement waves a huge hand past the logistics involved.
Do we deliver that nitrogen in tubes as pressurized gas or cryogenic liquid? Or, do we then build out spacecraft with massive freezers and deliver dry ice? Perhaps, we pre-create solid powder fertilizer in the most inefficient storage mode of all. And then, build lots of ships because we have to have more transport for the bags of the stuff?
And, once you bring in the nitrogen/fertilizer, you need systems to mix them because "even-distribution" is needed or you will have zero efficiency using the stuff. So, you need even more transport for the machinery to do that work. And where it is suggested we will have advanced capability Robots to do the work, I'm sorry. I worked on Princeton University in the late 1980's, following my military service. We all knew we were within 10 years of cracking fusion power generation. Absolutely certain. Now, the reactor systems in that fancy new building are still used for experimentation, but the closest we've come to Fusion are the Helium 3 systems. And, we need to get He3 from the moon or they're useless on a largely He3-barren Earth.
And, again, after you mix in all that nitrogen.....the Perchlorates are still there - and still fatal - and will transfer into the crops from the soil in quantities which - while microscopic - are still fatal.
And no. This can't be solved with "basic chemistry". As the researchers at NASA/JPL.
They're the ones who've been tasked with coming up with these answers for more than a decade now.
Like I said, my "direct connections" are members of the rover teams. But I still get data second or third hand from those actually doing the work.
Probably as ammonium urea fertiliser, as that requires the least processing at the far end. Yes, it's inefficient. So is having to ship a whole urea plant, plus staff, etc. and then the raw materials. The whole thing is an exercise in the tremendous expenditure of resources for very little return, and that in the very long term.
This should be the same machinery used for setting up your soil tilling or hydroponics nutrient management system, at least if you bring the nitrogen in ready to use form, as I suggested.
By the time robots are able to do this stuff unsupervised, they'll be smart enough to demand pay, paid leave, free (to them) maintenance whilst on work time, and to go on strike.
I'd expect you'd take them out first, before bringing any of the Martian 'soil' (which isn't - it's just rock at this point) anywhere near the 'terran system'. But I fully expect the whole thing would be sealed and in tunnels and domes for ever - or until the place is terra-formed, which realistically will take many millennia, at least. So you're bringing in rock to be slowly added to the imported soil to bulk it out which, while it will go faster over time (as the stock of good soil increases), will take years and decades. Not using soil will be easier, but not everything you'd want to grow does well without it (and intensive hydroponics is fairly labour intensive, so adds people...).
Commander Truestar
SOC-14 1K
Ever since Apollo 1, we have done "natural atmosphere" environments in our spacecraft.
If it wasn't for the cold war, the Russians would have told us they'd discovered that mistake before we did.
Still, we don't ship Nitrogen "separately".
So, if you want to use that, there's yet another processor system to add - with personnel -etc...
Not to mention, this would also reduce the life support supplies for the crew.
Seriously.
The first thing you have to ask yourself when designing anything is "what does it cost"
You can't just say, "let's take it from the breathable atmospherics" without realizing the costs you need to pay.
This is a Key issue with nearly every comment - everyone says "We can do this" without looking at the cost to do it.
Stop pretending we can make a perpetual motion machine here.
Silverhawk
SOC-12
My comment on the fact that there are ways to deal with the perchlorates was only to state there is a way which can take a bad thing and get some good from it. Of course it is going to cost something. It is going to cost something just to get there and see what the situation is. It has cost something to find out what we know now and for me I suspect we don't know enough to be considering some of the ideas that Mars (or any other planet) is going to be some sort of major colony by the end of the century or the century beyond that.
Similar threads
