Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Was going to ask "is there a reasonable source of hydrogen on Mars" but it seems that hydrogen is one of the main things you'd have to import [nasa.gov].
There seems to be plenty of water, just not everywhere.
We could divert a few comets to crash into Mars.
Halley's Comet is due in 2061 and contains 100 billion tonnes of water.
curious. what would it take
You don't want to use a process that involves large amounts of CO unless you have to
You don't want to use a process that involves large amounts of CO unless you have to
Except that's how normal smelting works, isn't it? Iron ore is reduced in smelters precisely by means of large amounts of carbon monoxide. [scienceaid.co.uk] And unless I'm mistaken, iron is the metal that comprises the vast majority of current metallurgy.
This process produces two molecules of carbon monoxide for every molecule of oxygen. What happens to the carbon monoxide? An atmosphere with a lot of carbon monoxide in it is presumably not desirable. Is the CO stored somewhere?
This process produces two molecules of carbon monoxide for every molecule of oxygen. What happens to the carbon monoxide? An atmosphere with a lot of carbon monoxide in it is presumably not desirable. Is the CO stored somewhere?
Carbon monoxide is already a component of the Martian atmosphere. The atmosphere has about 2 times 10 to the 10th tons of it.
The amount we could add by making oxygen is small compared to this.
If you look at death tolls in, for example, Jamestown, or the Oregon Trail, or just making the Atlantic crossing, the frontier comment makes a fair bit of sense. Sure they had breathable air and plants they could eat, etc but they also had disease and a host of factors that apparently prevented them from actually living off the land (it seems like, in many cases, that was because many of the people making the trip did not actually have the practical skills to live off the land, or the resources did not exis
Human and other life on this planet took billions of years to form ...
Human and other life on this planet took billions of years to form ...
And one of those species rose to the top of the pile because they developed technology to thwart or modify nature. Technology can address all the problems you listed. Earth orbit is more hostile than Mars. And we have explorers who have spent over a year in earth orbit.
... the totally sterile minerals with no life ...
... the totally sterile minerals with no life ...
That is an open question that the explorers going there are hoping to answer.
I fully doubt even our best minds are equal to the task of conquering the problems of Mars ...
I fully doubt even our best minds are equal to the task of conquering the problems of Mars ...
Science and Engineering are working on it. That pair tends to eventually figure things out. https://royalsocietypublishing... [royalsocie...ishing.org]
... when we still succumb to essential difficulties that vary in minor ways on our own planet today.
... when we still succumb to essential difficulties that vary in minor ways on our own planet today.
What we succumb to today is far less
I agree we have the potential but am very doubtful about the essential.
I agree we have the potential but am very doubtful about the essential.
A sampling: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... [nasa.gov]
I am well aware that the initial Europeans and others had no easy time in adapting to the American continents but this is quite different than adapting to the fundamental differences of an alien planet with far,far deeper differences from those on Earth. The differences in gravity, in radiation exposure, in temperature extremes and a breathable atmosphere plus even the totally sterile minerals with no life to accommodate the vast array of microscopic creatures essential to human existence simply does not exist. Human and other life on this planet took billions of years to form themselves to fit into what this planet offers and many attempts of Earth life had innumerable failures while gaining enough success here and there to create an amazing complex. Adapting to Mars is like starting from scratch and although humanity is quite clever, I fully doubt even our best minds are equal to the task of conquering the problems of Mars when we still succumb to essential difficulties that vary in minor ways on our own planet today.
I am well aware that the initial Europeans and others had no easy time in adapting to the American continents but this is quite different than adapting to the fundamental differences of an alien planet with far,far deeper differences from those on Earth. The differences in gravity, in radiation exposure, in temperature extremes and a breathable atmosphere plus even the totally sterile minerals with no life to accommodate the vast array of microscopic creatures essential to human existence simply does not exist. Human and other life on this planet took billions of years to form themselves to fit into what this planet offers and many attempts of Earth life had innumerable failures while gaining enough success here and there to create an amazing complex. Adapting to Mars is like starting from scratch and although humanity is quite clever, I fully doubt even our best minds are equal to the task of conquering the problems of Mars when we still succumb to essential difficulties that vary in minor ways on our own planet today.
There are a number of fundamental questions and challenges that we need answers or solutions to. Some of them, we won't even know if they are problems until people go there. I'll list some of the issues in rough order of importance.
Oxygen/air: We know that we can make from the atmosphere or from water. It requires some power, but it's not a crippling amount.
Water: Mars actually has plenty. Sure, on average, it's very dry, but we already know where to find some very large deposits of ice, already concentrate
Radiation and bad/toxic soil are problems here on Earth too. Sometimes not having oxygen is an issue as well. We just automatically assume it's there, but then sometimes it isn't. Lake Nyos in Cameroon had an eruption in the 80's that turned the lake effervescent and killed thousands of people from the CO2. Plenty of people don't know that they live in houses flooded with Radon. In some areas of California people get Valley Fever from inhaling dust. Earth is full of hazards. Many of them are complete unknow
If you look at death tolls in, for example, Jamestown, or the Oregon Trail
If you look at death tolls in, for example, Jamestown, or the Oregon Trail
If you do that it tells you nothing about the habitability of the place, since the deaths took place in an *already inhabited* place, although in the case of Jamestown they chose a place that Indians didn't settle because it was unsuitable for agriculture.
From a modern perspective the settlers themselves were primitives and savages. The reason they died in such numbers is that they had no idea how to organize an expedition or colony.. Modern shareholders would demand surveys (that would have showed there w
From a modern perspective the settlers themselves were primitives and savages. The reason they died in such numbers is that they had no idea how to organize an expedition or colony.. Modern shareholders would demand surveys (that would have showed there was no gold in the area) and feasibility studies -- and if they did not the insurance company surely would. Modern life is so absurdly complicated because we expect businesses not to kill over 70% of their workers in their first three years of operation.
From a modern perspective the settlers themselves were primitives and savages. The reason they died in such numbers is that they had no idea how to organize an expedition or colony.. Modern shareholders would demand surveys (that would have showed there was no gold in the area) and feasibility studies -- and if they did not the insurance company surely would. Modern life is so absurdly complicated because we expect businesses not to kill over 70% of their workers in their first three years of operation.
I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against the viability of a Mars colony there, since all sorts of studies would obviously be done before any colonists arrive.
I'm not for it or against it, because really the big question is whether having human habitation on Mars is an end itself or a means to an end. If it is *only* a means to an end it's probably not a good idea because there's bound to be more cost effective ways of achieving those ends. But I don't think practical economic concerns have to drive the decision.
I think we'll eventually have a Mars colony *because we want one*. And as long as we have one, it makes sense to find revenue sources to offset the cost
This is the exact opposite of the early New World colonies, where the investors were pursing quite sensible goals -- to invest money for a high return -- but through returns they had no justification to believe existed (finding large deposits of gold or geographic shortcuts to China's fabulous wealth). It's the difference between doing something because you value it in itself, and doing it because of wishful thinking.
This is the exact opposite of the early New World colonies, where the investors were pursing quite sensible goals -- to invest money for a high return -- but through returns they had no justification to believe existed (finding large deposits of gold or geographic shortcuts to China's fabulous wealth). It's the difference between doing something because you value it in itself, and doing it because of wishful thinking.
It seems like the actual settlers must have been following the quite sensible goal of dying of starvation/dysentery/scurvy/an arrow to the head, etc. I mean, if we're following the logic of the king who built 4 castles in a swamp, each on top of the sunken/burned ruins of the last from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, then I suppose a civilization built on the corpses of those who intended to live in it is fine. I would argue that they're not acting in an informed, rational manner. If that's because they're
This eagerness to start considerable population growth ...
This eagerness to start considerable population growth ...
Straw man. You realize that explorers live off the land too? Lewis and Clark for example.
Two explorers and an Indian guide could manage here. Mars requires massive experiment and three people would become an alien nightmare very quickly.
Two explorers and an Indian guide could manage here. Mars requires massive experiment and three people would become an alien nightmare very quickly.
Actually it was a party of about 42 people (the Corps of Discovery) plus various native guides along the way. With some of the the best technology of the day. All spread across several boats. Part of their mission was basic science. We'll need better technology for mars, be that ships or tools. And as mentioned in another post, quite serious scientists and engineers are working on the basics of survival: air, water, shelter and food; as well as the tools for the science. And just as we did with Apollo, we
If you wanted to live off the land, you would extract oxygen from the existing perchlorates.
If you wanted to live off the land, you would extract oxygen from the existing perchlorates.
This was perhaps an easier experiment for the rover. I am all for sending many rovers with many experiments before sending human explorers. I'd expect the experiments to become increasingly practical over time.
While the amount produced during these experiments is insignificant, if larger amounts of oxygen are able to be produced at some point in the future, will it remain within Mars' atmosphere or will it go into space? Is Mars' gravity strong enough to hold this oxygen?
Yes, I realize the production of oxygen will be for the people (if they ever get there) to breathe inside shelters, but certainly some will get out.
Is Mars' gravity strong enough to hold this oxygen?
A far more serious problem for Mars' atmosphere (for certain human-centric meanings of "problem") is that water in the atmosphere (high or low ; it's too thin to make much difference) is vulnerable to splitting by UV light from the Sun into hydroxyl and hydrogen radicals, and the hydrogen then escapes. How much of Mars' original inventory of water has been thus photolysed away versus how much has been frozen into the sub-soil remains unclear, but it probably doesn't matter : there isn't enough water in the asteroid belt to make Mars vaguely habitable.
I suppose you could try importing water from one of the Jovian icy moons. If you didn't care about having to haul the stuff "up hill" out of Jupiter's gravity well. So you'd need free power and free reaction mass from somewhere.
Some have proposed using comets :)
Of course, the planet would be close to uninhabitable for most of that time. It'd be the old "Chixulub nuclear winter" every couple of years. but without too much of the simultaneous atmospheric "pump and dump" from the Deccan. Unless some fool accidentally lands one on Olympus Mons / Tharsis plateau. Not a lot of po
Why would you *not* test it at a small scale before building a Mars colony sized version? I don't understand why people have a problem with this. Isn't this the same way just about everything is developed? We make small models of airplanes before setting up an assembly line to build the final product. The smaller scale you can make the proof of concept, the cheaper it'll be. In this case, it's a tiny experiment piggy-backing on a rover that's doing all kinds of other stuff too. It doesn't add a significant
"Oxygen, of course, is crucial for a human mission to Mars."
[Insert "You don't say?" Nicolas Cage meme here]
There will be no human missions until they can work out the problems with radiation and gravity. There would need to be some breakthrough to create artificial gravity to/from Mars and while on Mars. Same goes for radiation. Otherwise you will just have people dying slow horrible deaths with a myriad of serious health problems.
The manned mission talk is just another $$$ scam like everything else in our society.
This production of oxygen from CO2 in the air is the same process for the production of carbon from CO2 in the air. If someone can prove it viable to produce oxygen and methane using carbon dioxide and water on Mars then they can do the same thing on Earth. The plan is to launch a nuclear fission reactor to Mars for in-situ production of rocket fuel for a return trip to Earth. If they can produce rocket fuel on Mars using nuclear power, by extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere, then they solved the probl
The oxygen was already there, just bound to some carbon. Making oxygen would require some form of transmutation, either some amount of fusion. fission, or, at least, some radioactive decay (IIRC, there's an isotope of nitrogen that decays to a stable isotope of oxygen).
Every time I see one of those oxygen concentrator ads that claims you can "make your own oxygen", I mentally cringe.
Although there is a usable amount of oxygen at Earth, having the tech to make it via fusion should also yield useful power sin
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
US Officials Order Nvidia To Halt Sales of Top AI Chips To China
US Life Expectancy Falls Again In 'Historic' Setback
There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923