Author Topic: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?  (Read 7247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Yansi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2656
  • Country: 00
  • STM32, STM8, AVR, 8051
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #150 on: January 22, 2019, 06:45:59 pm »
So how do they cool it then?  I don't think Swedish people have invented any magical way of converting heat to electricity directly, to bypass the steam engine cycle.
 

Offline glarsson

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 807
  • Country: se
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #151 on: January 22, 2019, 06:57:06 pm »
We let cold sea water in and warm sea water out.
 

Online Yansi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2656
  • Country: 00
  • STM32, STM8, AVR, 8051
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #152 on: January 22, 2019, 07:18:27 pm »
So you just like to get pipes corroded, okay then   :)
 

Offline glarsson

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 807
  • Country: se
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #153 on: January 22, 2019, 07:25:09 pm »
Swedish engineering. Still works after 50 years...
 
The following users thanked this post: apis

Offline Domagoj T

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Country: hr
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #154 on: January 22, 2019, 07:38:14 pm »
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Krško+Nuclear+Power+Plant/@45.9368288,15.5155644,930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4765baedd80efa8d:0xa59aa45b4d5134d7!8m2!3d45.9380375!4d15.5157897

It's Krško nuclear powerplant. It uses a river to cool down. Both intake and outflow can be seen on google maps link above.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 08:04:53 pm by Domagoj T »
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #155 on: January 22, 2019, 07:41:38 pm »
Here's the Loviisa reactor in Finland:
 

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2671
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #156 on: January 22, 2019, 08:34:31 pm »
Your profile picture is a nuclear power plant, is that one of the ones at Three Mile Island?
It's a picture of a cooling tower, they are not characteristic of nuclear power stations.

Well, to be fair he said power plant, not reactor. I think the rest of the plant is there, just hiding behind the trees.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #157 on: January 22, 2019, 09:13:16 pm »
Your profile picture is a nuclear power plant, is that one of the ones at Three Mile Island?
It's a picture of a cooling tower, they are not characteristic of nuclear power stations.
Well, to be fair he said power plant, not reactor. I think the rest of the plant is there, just hiding behind the trees.
He did say nuclear power plant, based only on the picture of a cooling tower and he didn't know which power plant it was since he initially asked if it was Three Mile Iland, i.e. he couldn't have known it was a nuclear plant even if it turned out to be one. That suggest he believed that a cooling tower equals nuclear power plant.

I wasn't criticising him for that mistake, I was just trying to correct a common misconception about cooling towers since they are often used dishonestly in propaganda. Now he will hopefully be a little bit better att spotting BS.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 11:25:45 pm by apis »
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3372
  • Country: us
  • 💎
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #158 on: January 22, 2019, 09:33:00 pm »
how do you run a big ass titanium mining operation from solar?

you need to look at profitable elements. its 4% titanium.you can also get uranium there.

If you had the extra power then you can get iron, aluminum and silicon from there, and do the refining thats power hungry too. If you use processes like heat-drag purification (zone crystalization) you can just use the lunar power.

I wonder if you can do direct electrolysis of molten oxides. Then you can get Ca, Al, Fe, Ti.


No carbon there so you can't really make steels. Not sure what kind of structural alloys you can make.

silica    SiO2    45.4%    45.5%
alumina    Al2O3    14.9%    24.0%
lime    CaO    11.8%    15.9%
iron(II) oxide    FeO    14.1%    5.9%
magnesia    MgO    9.2%    7.5%
titanium dioxide    TiO2    3.9%    0.6%
sodium oxide    Na2O    0.6%    0.6%


Maybe you can make propellant from elemental sodium powder that is burned with an oxidizer to make rockets.

If you do electrolysis you can accumulate oxygen for fuel in tanks.

You can make very high temperature kilns from uranium oxide (2700C). I think its up there as one of the most refractory oxides.

Not sure if you can melt other oxides in uranium oxide. Maybe you can heat up Uranium oxide rods in a nuclear reactor and then submerge them in other metal oxides to melt em and then take over with electrolysis?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 09:39:48 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #159 on: January 22, 2019, 09:51:28 pm »
I wonder if you can do direct electrolysis of molten oxides. Then you can get Ca, Al, Fe, Ti.
That is the common way of making aluminium on earth, which is why it is rather electricity intensive. You could imagine doing the aluminium electrolysis only during the moon day which means you could use electricity from solar. As a bonus you produce oxygen at the same time.

 

Offline Domagoj T

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Country: hr
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #160 on: January 22, 2019, 09:53:06 pm »
You don't need carbon for steel.
For example, maraging steel has no carbon (primary alloying elements are nickel and cobalt) and has some very nice characteristics.
 
The following users thanked this post: apis

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #161 on: January 22, 2019, 10:18:09 pm »
There is carbon in many asteroids, so eventually you might be able to bring a C-type (carbon rich) asteroid over to the moon. Such asteroids might already have crashed into the moon (very likely), so you might also be able to find coal in craters.

NASA have been working on at least two methods of extracting metals from lunar regolith:
The first one is just what it sounds like.
The second one uses carbon as a reducing agent. While most of the carbon used can be recycled some small fraction of it will be consumed so there has to be a carbon source for it to be sustainable.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 01:47:13 am by apis »
 

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #162 on: January 23, 2019, 04:15:06 pm »
^ Yeah, this. But the nuclear sub/carrier is the tip of an iceberg. The system to service it is a long way from being even thinkable on the Moon. And on the Moon the base of this pyramid is the tip of another exponentially larger pyramid. The output of solar panels would hopefully be able to sustain itself, alone. You'd need an automated self-replicating/self-maintaining system to hopefully support itself with a smidge leftover to have the entire surface of the moon supporting a few people.

In the event of the doomsday collision of earth, there's nothing that mars or the moon or any planet we can reach will do to save humanity that will be any benefit over loading people on free-space vessels that are designed to keep people alive as long as possible... giving them no provision to land anywhere... certain inevitable death traps. Same thing as a Mars base, but way more practical and cheap and efficient. You still get the best seat in the house to witness the destruction of the earth. Then you have some years of life left to hopefully be discovered and taken on as pets by aliens.


What percentage of terrestrial inhabitants must be settled on  Mars   to  give human species a chance for continuity   in outer  space in  case of  dooms day scenario smashing   planet  Earth. What is  the  guarantee for success?  Who takes   the  lead? Who is  to be  left  behind to fend  for
themselves? Will  other nations  of Earth   accept their  fate submissively ?  Many questions come  up like break up of  the social  order within
a  nation when  it  comes to making choices  and  selection of  individuals wanting  to leave head  for  Mars.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3299
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #163 on: January 23, 2019, 06:35:32 pm »
^ Yeah, this. But the nuclear sub/carrier is the tip of an iceberg. The system to service it is a long way from being even thinkable on the Moon. And on the Moon the base of this pyramid is the tip of another exponentially larger pyramid. The output of solar panels would hopefully be able to sustain itself, alone. You'd need an automated self-replicating/self-maintaining system to hopefully support itself with a smidge leftover to have the entire surface of the moon supporting a few people.

In the event of the doomsday collision of earth, there's nothing that mars or the moon or any planet we can reach will do to save humanity that will be any benefit over loading people on free-space vessels that are designed to keep people alive as long as possible... giving them no provision to land anywhere... certain inevitable death traps. Same thing as a Mars base, but way more practical and cheap and efficient. You still get the best seat in the house to witness the destruction of the earth. Then you have some years of life left to hopefully be discovered and taken on as pets by aliens.


What percentage of terrestrial inhabitants must be settled on  Mars   to  give human species a chance for continuity   in outer  space in  case of  dooms day scenario smashing   planet  Earth. What is  the  guarantee for success?  Who takes   the  lead? Who is  to be  left  behind to fend  for
themselves? Will  other nations  of Earth   accept their  fate submissively ?  Many questions come  up like break up of  the social  order within
a  nation when  it  comes to making choices  and  selection of  individuals wanting  to leave head  for  Mars.

These questions become pertinent if the doomsday event is present when you start the colonization attempt.  Which is another good reason to start now.  Odds are that such an event won't happen in the next 100 years, which is enough time to get a self sustaining colony going. 

Once the colony is going it doesn't really matter how much wailing and moaning goes on on the doomed planet.  At least if it is going well enough to fend off too many people trying to climb over the gunwales of the lifeboat.

 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3372
  • Country: us
  • 💎
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #164 on: January 23, 2019, 08:01:41 pm »
i dont want any colony known as some kind of salvation or you will get weird ass Jehovahs and other cults forming on them. I  think its bad PR.

'christian homesteaders' (with biological weapons included).
« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 08:04:44 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #165 on: January 24, 2019, 02:52:07 pm »
^ Yeah, this. But the nuclear sub/carrier is the tip of an iceberg. The system to service it is a long way from being even thinkable on the Moon. And on the Moon the base of this pyramid is the tip of another exponentially larger pyramid. The output of solar panels would hopefully be able to sustain itself, alone. You'd need an automated self-replicating/self-maintaining system to hopefully support itself with a smidge leftover to have the entire surface of the moon supporting a few people.

In the event of the doomsday collision of earth, there's nothing that mars or the moon or any planet we can reach will do to save humanity that will be any benefit over loading people on free-space vessels that are designed to keep people alive as long as possible... giving them no provision to land anywhere... certain inevitable death traps. Same thing as a Mars base, but way more practical and cheap and efficient. You still get the best seat in the house to witness the destruction of the earth. Then you have some years of life left to hopefully be discovered and taken on as pets by aliens.


What percentage of terrestrial inhabitants must be settled on  Mars   to  give human species a chance for continuity   in outer  space in  case of  dooms day scenario smashing   planet  Earth. What is  the  guarantee for success?  Who takes   the  lead? Who is  to be  left  behind to fend  for
themselves? Will  other nations  of Earth   accept their  fate submissively ?  Many questions come  up like break up of  the social  order within
a  nation when  it  comes to making choices  and  selection of  individuals wanting  to leave head  for  Mars.

These questions become pertinent if the doomsday event is present when you start the colonization attempt.  Which is another good reason to start now.  Odds are that such an event won't happen in the next 100 years, which is enough time to get a self sustaining colony going. 

Once the colony is going it doesn't really matter how much wailing and moaning goes on on the doomed planet.  At least if it is going well enough to fend off too many people trying to climb over the gunwales of the lifeboat.


Time period of  100 years or   so is  enough to  render   many terrestrial nations  space   capable. With history of  last  250  years or  so of  colonization on Earth,  vying for space  up there is going  to be a  tricky proposition  for adversaries to handle their future amicably.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3299
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #166 on: January 24, 2019, 06:03:18 pm »
^ Yeah, this. But the nuclear sub/carrier is the tip of an iceberg. The system to service it is a long way from being even thinkable on the Moon. And on the Moon the base of this pyramid is the tip of another exponentially larger pyramid. The output of solar panels would hopefully be able to sustain itself, alone. You'd need an automated self-replicating/self-maintaining system to hopefully support itself with a smidge leftover to have the entire surface of the moon supporting a few people.

In the event of the doomsday collision of earth, there's nothing that mars or the moon or any planet we can reach will do to save humanity that will be any benefit over loading people on free-space vessels that are designed to keep people alive as long as possible... giving them no provision to land anywhere... certain inevitable death traps. Same thing as a Mars base, but way more practical and cheap and efficient. You still get the best seat in the house to witness the destruction of the earth. Then you have some years of life left to hopefully be discovered and taken on as pets by aliens.


What percentage of terrestrial inhabitants must be settled on  Mars   to  give human species a chance for continuity   in outer  space in  case of  dooms day scenario smashing   planet  Earth. What is  the  guarantee for success?  Who takes   the  lead? Who is  to be  left  behind to fend  for
themselves? Will  other nations  of Earth   accept their  fate submissively ?  Many questions come  up like break up of  the social  order within
a  nation when  it  comes to making choices  and  selection of  individuals wanting  to leave head  for  Mars.

These questions become pertinent if the doomsday event is present when you start the colonization attempt.  Which is another good reason to start now.  Odds are that such an event won't happen in the next 100 years, which is enough time to get a self sustaining colony going. 

Once the colony is going it doesn't really matter how much wailing and moaning goes on on the doomed planet.  At least if it is going well enough to fend off too many people trying to climb over the gunwales of the lifeboat.


Time period of  100 years or   so is  enough to  render   many terrestrial nations  space   capable. With history of  last  250  years or  so of  colonization on Earth,  vying for space  up there is going  to be a  tricky proposition  for adversaries to handle their future amicably.

While costs of space will come down, hopefully a lot, it will be an expensive operation for a long time.   There will be a few nations or alliances competing at the colonization scale, but I doubt that many will be the appropriate description. 

 If you are looking for historical parallels I suspect you should compare the next 100-200 years in space with the period of exploration from 1400-1500 which had relatively little colonial impact.  Or perhaps even further back to the settlement of the Mediterranean by the Greeks and Romans.  The 1400-1600 period has another event which may have a current analogy.  The Chinese abdication from the oceans after great exploratory efforts may well be an analogy for the US step back from space.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #167 on: January 24, 2019, 09:37:16 pm »
I feel that speculating about the technical aspects are hard enough, speculating about what will happen politically/socially is too difficult. I think easy access to space (i.e. a moon colony, not a mars colony) will be technically/economically beneficial to the people on earth in the very very long term, if we make it. But if wealth is distributed like it is today it would probably only benefit the 1%.
 

Offline Electro Detective

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2152
  • Country: au
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #168 on: January 24, 2019, 10:54:10 pm »
I feel that speculating about the technical aspects are hard enough, speculating about what will happen politically/socially is too difficult. I think easy access to space (i.e. a moon colony, not a mars colony) will be technically/economically beneficial to the people on earth in the very very long term, if we make it.

But if wealth is distributed like it is today it would probably only benefit the 1%.




Those  1%  insane asylum dodgers, sporting suits with fat asses parked on Chesterfields in secure ivory towers, will work out a way to abuse the Moon and Mars too,
for fast, lazy, easy big dollars.

That's what happens when the apathetic 99%  :=\ :=\ :=\  have faith in their twisted intelligence,
and allow them to control the money ship


No thanks, I'm sticking to what still works on this nice rock called Earth  :-*  :-+

Fools that want to blow  -other peoples money-  and take risks in order to realise the obvious 'no go zone MEANS no go zone' reality at the end,
can keep their wet dream, and all the fun and misery following it up  :popcorn:

 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #169 on: January 24, 2019, 11:30:39 pm »
Those  1%  insane asylum dodgers, sporting suits with fat asses parked on Chesterfields in secure ivory towers, will work out a way to abuse the Moon and Mars too,
for fast, lazy, easy big dollars.

That's what happens when the apathetic 99%  :=\ :=\ :=\  have faith in their twisted intelligence,
and allow them to control the money ship

No thanks, I'm sticking to what still works on this nice rock called Earth  :-*  :-+
Fools that want to blow  -other peoples money-  and take risks in order to realise the obvious 'no go zone MEANS no go zone' reality at the end,
can keep their wet dream, and all the fun and misery following it up  :popcorn:
Hmm, by "other peoples money" I presume you mean tax money. Those are not "other peoples money" they are the governments money. Like all money they used to be someone else's money. What's different about tax money is, if you live in a democracy, you get a say in how they are being spent. There's a limited set of resources and they are distributed among people and organisations in a certain way which is determined by the law, some of it ends up in the government, most of it ends up with the 1%. This notion of money being hard earned and well deserved just nonsense, although it's is very common. How hard you work and how deserving you are has literally zero to do with how much money you get to own.

But that is a political issue that affects everything the same. I don't think space is just a plaything for the 1% (although it would be that too). Better space access would benefit everyone, but as usual, most of the benefits will go to the 1%, the rest of us will just get to feast on the scraps.

If one worry about the money it's more a question of it being future generations that will reap the benefits of what current generations will be funding. Since it would be such a long term investment people living today will probably not be seeing any benefits from it. It's the same with climate change. People living today will probably not suffer very much, it will be future generations that will have to deal with the bulk of the problems. It's not a particularly nice heritage we leave for future generations though.
 

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #170 on: January 25, 2019, 03:53:21 pm »
^ Yeah, this. But the nuclear sub/carrier is the tip of an iceberg. The system to service it is a long way from being even thinkable on the Moon. And on the Moon the base of this pyramid is the tip of another exponentially larger pyramid. The output of solar panels would hopefully be able to sustain itself, alone. You'd need an automated self-replicating/self-maintaining system to hopefully support itself with a smidge leftover to have the entire surface of the moon supporting a few people.

In the event of the doomsday collision of earth, there's nothing that mars or the moon or any planet we can reach will do to save humanity that will be any benefit over loading people on free-space vessels that are designed to keep people alive as long as possible... giving them no provision to land anywhere... certain inevitable death traps. Same thing as a Mars base, but way more practical and cheap and efficient. You still get the best seat in the house to witness the destruction of the earth. Then you have some years of life left to hopefully be discovered and taken on as pets by aliens.


What percentage of terrestrial inhabitants must be settled on  Mars   to  give human species a chance for continuity   in outer  space in  case of  dooms day scenario smashing   planet  Earth. What is  the  guarantee for success?  Who takes   the  lead? Who is  to be  left  behind to fend  for
themselves? Will  other nations  of Earth   accept their  fate submissively ?  Many questions come  up like break up of  the social  order within
a  nation when  it  comes to making choices  and  selection of  individuals wanting  to leave head  for  Mars.

These questions become pertinent if the doomsday event is present when you start the colonization attempt.  Which is another good reason to start now.  Odds are that such an event won't happen in the next 100 years, which is enough time to get a self sustaining colony going. 

Once the colony is going it doesn't really matter how much wailing and moaning goes on on the doomed planet.  At least if it is going well enough to fend off too many people trying to climb over the gunwales of the lifeboat.


Time period of  100 years or   so is  enough to  render   many terrestrial nations  space   capable. With history of  last  250  years or  so of  colonization on Earth,  vying for space  up there is going  to be a  tricky proposition  for adversaries to handle their future amicably.

While costs of space will come down, hopefully a lot, it will be an expensive operation for a long time.   There will be a few nations or alliances competing at the colonization scale, but I doubt that many will be the appropriate description. 

 If you are looking for historical parallels I suspect you should compare the next 100-200 years in space with the period of exploration from 1400-1500 which had relatively little colonial impact.  Or perhaps even further back to the settlement of the Mediterranean by the Greeks and Romans.  The 1400-1600 period has another event which may have a current analogy.  The Chinese abdication from the oceans after great exploratory efforts may well be an analogy for the US step back from space.


Briefly  keeping  with in the  spirit  of  the board,  following the adage "likes must be compared  with likes", comparing the capabilities ,now , of those  nations preparing  for space  explorations, are  at  far  superior platform  than those  in 1500 century. How ever comparing the intentions of  the competing nations and   the   subsequent terrible outcome affecting   the geopolitics of  the  world till  end  of  WWII is before us if  we seek guidance. Many wars were raged along  with consequences suffered  by humanity  at  large.
Within next  decade   or  so other space capable  nations  will emerge on the  scene  each  armed with  nukes etc,  racing  to  space so  as not  to be  left behind. In fact training of   astronauts and  acquisition of  related paraphernalia is going  on.
All  this is  going  on  while Earth continues  to suffer. Some thing to be  said  for  renaissance  of  Pugwash spirit.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf