Marspedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Terraforming

2011-04-12T15:47:32Z

T.Neo:

== How much must be added to the atmosphere for terraforming? ==
We can figure out the mass of the atmosphere on Earth and from that estimate what is lacking on Mars. Atmospheric pressure results from the weight of the atmosphere between the planetary surface and outer space. Over every square inch of Earth's surface at sea level there is a one square inch column of air reaching to outer space that weighs 14.7 pounds. 99.9% of the atmosphere is below the altitude of 34 miles. At that height there are only about 0.9% more square inches than there are at the surface. So we can estimate the mass of Earth's atmosphere as 14.7 pounds times the number of square inches of Earth's surface. That overestimates the mass by neglecting the fact that there is no air in the space taken up by mountains. That overestimation is the figure we want for estimating the mass of gas needed to be added to Mars' atmosphere. The radius of Earth is 3.96 E 3 (3960) miles. So the area equals 1.969 E 8 (19690000) square miles or 7.906 E 17 square inches. So the atmosphere of Earth weighs 1.16 E 19 pounds or 5.28 E 18 kilograms. To get the amount of gas needed to have an atmospheric pressure on Mars equal to Earth sea-level pressure we multiply by the ratio of Mars' area to Earth's area by the ratio of Mars' gravity to Earth's gravity. This underestimates the mass because Mars' atmosphere extends to heights at which the gravity is less than the surface gravity and overestimates the mass because it neglects the lessening of the scale height on Mars by the higher average molecular weight of the gas we will use (carbon dioxide, sulfur hexafluoride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane). We assume that the combined effect of these factors is insignificant. So the mass of atmosphere needed on Mars is 3.89 E 15 metric tons. If we raise the pressure to only one tenth of Earth's sea-level pressure and only one tenth of the atmosphere is to be added manufactured gasses, then these gasses would mass 3.89 E 13 metric tons. Spreading the manufacture of the gas over 1000 years we get 3.80 E 10 metric tons per year or 4.44 E 6 tons per hour. The Edmund Fitzgerald carried 26,000 tons. So, what would be needed would be 170 Edmund Fitzgerald cargo mass equivalents per hour for a thousand years. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 05:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:Doctor Robert Zubrin and Doctor Christopher McKay came up with a somewhat different figure for the amount of artificial greenhouse gases needed to be manufactured to raise the atmospheric pressure of Mars. They published [http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm Technological Requirements for Terraforming Mars] For a 10 degree centigrade rise in temperature they suggest that 878 tons per hour of greenhouse gasses over a period of 20 years would be sufficient. This in turn should trigger a run-away greenhouse effect until all carbon dioxide available to be released into Mars' atmosphere is released. They suggest that for a 500 millibar reservoir of carbon dioxide in the polar caps and the soil of Mars and a characteristic energy of releasing carbon dioxide from the soil of 20 K, the atmospheric pressure should stabilize at 400 millibar and the temperature at 1 C. There are problems with that. First, there is the unknown characteristic energy of releasing carbon dioxide from the soil and the unknown amount of carbon dioxide in the planetary reservoir waiting to be released. Zubrin & McKay suggest that manned exploration will provide the answers. Second, the equilibrium temperature they indicate allows some lakes to form in the equatorial region. Water and a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere on Mars means carbonate rocks will form, which will take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere again until the greenhouse effect is no longer sufficient to sustain the liquid water. Then Mars will freeze over again, like it did the last time this happened, billions of years ago.

:Why do Zubrin and McKay get their futile terraforming for so much less manufactured greenhouse gasses than I indicated? I picked 10 millibars out of a hat as the partial pressure of greenhouse gasses that would be sustained and they used 4 hundred-thousandths of a millibar as the needed partial pressure of greenhouse gas to raise the temperature on Mars 10 K. Zubrin & McKay's figure may be more reasonable, but there is still plenty worth discussing on this topic. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:: I, too, find it futile. Terraforming consumes so much effort, it is surely better invested in a comfortable colony. Human pioneer spirit will find a way to live and thrive even under original Martian conditions. However, I agree, it is an interesting topic all right. Farred, why don't you polish your calculations a little bit and put it directly on the article's page? Very good investigative work!-- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 20:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Thank you, Rfc, for the encouragement. I will look into moving information from the talk page into the article. I will try to do it right. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course something will be futile, if people see only problems and deny the possibility of solutions.

Obviously you don't want something as stupid as flying Edmund Fitzgeralds to Mars. You want to rely primarily on local resources, and only import volatiles if needed- which would be quite difficult, even with advanced technology.

It isn't impossible to change things on a planetary scale. We're doing it right now, and we've been changing the landscape of the Earth for thousands of years already. Of course, this is different from creating a whole new planetary biosphere, but it shows that humans are by far, not insignificant. Life has the power to change an environment- in fact, the whole reason we exist, the reason why the ecological diversity and habitable environment of Earth exists- is because of the waste products of single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Their evolution was so instrumental in the history of life- their force so significant, that they overturned the chemistry of the atmosphere and lead to a huge extinction of life, and led the way for the environment we see today.

The key to terraforming Mars is to do the most with the least. For example, by manufacturing highly efficient greenhouse gases from local resources, tipping the balance and outgassing more CO2.

I seriously doubt that minor fluvial activity will completely sequester a 400-500 millibar CO2 atmosphere into carbonates over human timescales. Indeed if this can occur at such a rapid rate, Earth's active hydrosphere should have sequestered CO2 at a much faster rate than it has in reality, or it should have least offset anthropogenic CO2 increase.

If you want a vaguely Earth-like environment, you won't want 400 millibars of CO2 ''anyway''. You'll need to replace that with oxygen (so animals and higher plants can breathe) and add nitrogen (so things don't spontaneously combust, and so some organisms have an atmospheric source of N2). Those two things are pretty much the hardest part of Martian terraforming- you'll need to seperate the oxygen from the carbon and... store the carbon away somewhere, while putting enough nitrogen into the atmosphere (nitrogen is unfortunately pretty sparse on Mars, but there are indications of nitrates in regolith, and concentrations which might increase as you dig down from the surface, though presumably it isn't the easiest thing to liberate this from the regolith).

What most people forget is that terraforming is an ongoing process- you may have a habitable planet, but you need to maintain it. On Earth, we're lucky enough that the natural setup happens to do this automatically, but on Mars, the global environment would need more attention- obviously things would be set up to be as self sustaining as possible, but this can't be done for everything.

"The money would be better off spent on a colony" makes absolutely no sense. For one, terraforming is many orders of magnitude more demanding than a colony, and offers orders of magnitude more returns. Yes, terraforming is very difficult, and it's a gargantuan task, but a properly terraformed Mars could support ''billions'' of people. A large colony could support maybe a million people, and by then, it would be the size of a city- a very large colony indeed.

People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Terraforming

2011-04-12T15:47:05Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Terraforming

2011-04-12T15:46:17Z

T.Neo:

Fungi

2009-05-12T20:14:39Z

T.Neo:

Fungi are eukaryotic organisms. Some fungi are edible and could be grown for food in a colony. Fungi might also be of use in the artificial ecosystem of a [[greenhouse]]

{{stub}}

[[Category:Food]] [[Category:Biospherics]]

Fungi

2009-05-12T20:13:50Z

T.Neo: Added categories, text.

Fungi

2009-05-12T20:05:41Z

T.Neo: Created page. Needs work.

Fungi are eukaryotic organisms. Some fungi are edible and could be grown for food in a colony.

{{stub}}

Talk:National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

2009-05-12T19:37:43Z

T.Neo:

This sort of plan will run into opposition from the no-sample-return-from-Mars crowd. Samples have been returned to Earth from Mars numerous times by nature and Mars is as dead as a doornail, but some people need to be worried about something. So, some people worry about microbes from Mars contaminating Earth.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 06:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:What are you talking about? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 18:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
*Perhaps you have heard of a group that opposes any sample return from Mars mission because they claim that there is a danger that microbes from Mars could contaminate Earth. Sending astronauts to Mars and returning them is a sample return mission, and as such will see opposition. Samples of Mars have been returned to Earth as chuncks of Mars blasted out of the planet by large impacting bodies. Finding even one such chunck of Mars on Earth as a meteorite indicates that this natural sample return process has occurred many times and there has been no observed detrimental effect from contamination. When I write that Mars is as dead as a doornail, I am writing literally about the biological condition. There are no microbes on Mars to worry about. Some people are stubbornly difficult to convince about this fact, and just do not want to take the chance that Mars microbes would overrun Earth like rabbits overran the Australian outback. I do not imply that the political situation of Mars exploration and development is dead.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 12:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, I agree. Living is dangerous, and it always ends deadly. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you SURE Mars is dead? We haven't found any life yet, because we have not looked in the right places.
While I don't think we should completely rule out the possibility of microbes from Mars, I doubt they will cause much trouble for us. We should be far more concerned about terrestrial microbes contaminating the samples, or Mars itself. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 17:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
*Yes I am sure Mars is dead. The evidence already returned by probes convinces me. Some people are just harder to convince.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 04:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Viking experiments only involved the highly exposed layers of topsoil, which is the least likely place to find any life. We have had no direct exploration of the underground aquifers, for example, which would be better environments for life to exist. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
*There are no underground aquifers on Mars. The degree of surface roughness revealed by remote observation is inconsistent with the lower strength that would be in hydrated soils. Except near the poles, the amount of moisture in the soil is very low. Near the poles the moisture is in frozen soils and blocks of ice neither of which support life. To have underground aquifers there would have had to have been impermiable layers holding in the vapor pressure. Apparently this did not happen. I do not know weather to be sad that the resource of pumpable underground water is absent, or happy that we can forget about the threat of Martian microbes. I think people will come around to recognizing that Mars is lifeless eventually.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a statement from NASA or another reputable organization about the lack of aquifers or life on Mars before I start to take your comments on the subject seriously. No offense intended. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

2009-05-12T12:27:51Z

T.Neo:

Interplanetary commerce

2009-05-08T20:46:34Z

T.Neo:

'''Interplanetary commerce''' offers unique benefits and challenges compared to [[inter-settlement commerce]] and [[intra-settlement commerce]]. For the purpose of this article, interplanetary commerce includes moons like [[Moon|Luna]] and dwarf planets like [[Ceres]].

==Benefits==
Interplanetary commerce allows for the introduction of ideas, goods, and resources that may be unavailable or prohibitively expensive from a native source.
==Challenges==

===Cost of Transportation===
The cost to transport an item will be many times the cost of the item itself. At least initially, only the most vital goods will be shipped. Non-physical things, such as information, incur only the cost of a [[radio link]].
===Distance===
Distances between the planets an Luna are always changing, requiring precise calculations for accurate transport.
===Time===

==Mercury-Mars Trade==
[[Mercury]] has similar [[gravity]] to Mars, so engeneering solutions developed on Mars may be applicable to Mercurial outposts.

==Venus-Mars Trade==
Trade between [[Venus]] and Mars is unlikely in the forseable future. Commerce will likely be restricted to information and some vital goods.

==Earth-Mars Trade==
::''Main article: [[Earth-Mars Trade]]''
Earth-Mars trade will be the first type of interplanetary commerce established by Martian [[settlement|settlements]].

==Luna-Mars Trade==
::''Main article: [[Luna-Mars Trade]]''
Trade with Earth's moon could involve selling resources such as carbon, nitrogen, and other volatiles which are in short supply on Luna. The cost of transport from Mars is potentially less than from Earth.

==Ceres-Mars Trade==
[[Ceres]] is a [[dwarf planet]] and the largest object in the [[asteroid belt]]. It is a possible location for a human outpost. It is a possible hub for asteroid mining efforts. Ceres is thought to have significant amounts of volatiles. The escape velocity of both Mars and Ceres are favorable. Commerce between Ceres and Mars may involve information, resources, and martian manufactured goods.

==Jovian Moon-Mars Trade==
By the time the Jovian Moons are settled, Mars will probably be well developed, and in a prime position to supply the Jovian colonies with technology and manufactured goods.

==See Also==
[[lunarp:Business Plans List|Lunarpedia Business Ideaslunarp]] Many of these ideas also apply to a martian settlement.

[[category:logistics]]
[[category:Commerce]]
[[category:solar system]]

Luna

2009-05-08T20:44:40Z

T.Neo: Created redirect page

#REDIRECT [[Moon]]

Moon

2009-05-08T20:42:28Z

T.Neo:

'''Moon''', also known as The Moon, Luna or Earth's Moon, is the sole natural satillite of Earth.

== External links ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon

{{stub}}

Moon

2009-05-08T20:42:01Z

T.Neo: Created page.

'''Moon''', also known as The Moon, Luna or Earth's Moon, is the sole satillite of Earth.

== External links ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon

{{stub}}

Interplanetary commerce

2009-05-08T20:32:51Z

T.Neo:

'''Interplanetary commerce''' offers unique benefits and challenges compared to [[inter-settlement commerce]] and [[intra-settlement commerce]]. For the purpose of this article, interplanetary commerce includes moons like [[Moon|Luna]] and [[dwarf planet|dwarf planets]] like [[Ceres]].

==Benefits==
Interplanetary commerce allows for the introduction of ideas, goods, and resources that may be unavailable or prohibitively expensive from a native source.
==Challenges==

===Cost of Transportation===
The cost to transport an item will be many times the cost of the item itself. At least initially, only the most vital goods will be shipped. Non-physical things, such as information, incur only the cost of a [[radio link]].
===Distance===
Distances between the planets an Luna are always changing, requiring precise calculations for accurate transport.
===Time===

==Mercury-Mars Trade==
[[Mercury]] has similar [[gravity]] to Mars, so engeneering solutions developed on Mars may be applicable to Mercurial outposts.

==Venus-Mars Trade==
Trade between [[Venus]] and Mars is unlikely in the forseable future. Commerce will likely be restricted to information and some vital goods.

==Earth-Mars Trade==
::''Main article: [[Earth-Mars Trade]]''
Earth-Mars trade will be the first type of interplanetary commerce established by Martian [[settlement|settlements]].

==Luna-Mars Trade==
::''Main article: [[Luna-Mars Trade]]''
Trade with Earth's moon could involve selling resources such as carbon, nitrogen, and other volatiles which are in short supply on Luna. The cost of transport from Mars is potentially less than from Earth.

==Ceres-Mars Trade==
[[Ceres]] is a [[dwarf planet]] and the largest object in the [[asteroid belt]]. It is a possible location for a human outpost. It is a possible hub for asteroid mining efforts. Ceres is thought to have significant amounts of volatiles. The escape velocity of both Mars and Ceres are favorable. Commerce between Ceres and Mars may involve information, resources, and martian manufactured goods.

==Jovian Moon-Mars Trade==
By the time the Jovian Moons are settled, Mars will probably be well developed, and in a prime position to supply the Jovian colonies with technology and manufactured goods.

==See Also==
[[lunarp:Business Plans List|Lunarpedia Business Ideaslunarp]] Many of these ideas also apply to a martian settlement.

[[category:logistics]]
[[category:Commerce]]
[[category:solar system]]

Talk:National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

2009-05-08T17:21:42Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Space Shuttle to Mars

2009-05-08T12:23:43Z

T.Neo:

A U.S. congress person is more likely to cut his or her throat than to approve a one way manned mission to Mars.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 06:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:And other U.S. congress persons might not. It depends on how this enterprise is put into a context and, for the first degree, on the public opinion. Do you know something about the latter? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
*I should qualify what I wrote. Until there is sufficient development of our knowledge, capabilities and the industrial infrastructure on Mars (which could be placed by artificially intellegent remotely operated devices) that a colony on Mars could survive and prosper, congress will not aprove a one way manned mission to Mars. I do not know much about congress, but I feel confident in that. If I am wrong, it could be demonstrated by congressional action to the contrary. Until then my belief is firm.--[[User:Farred|Farred]] 11:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:Well, that is exactly what we are doing here: Collecting knowledge and finding ways to ensure the prosperity of a Martian colony. Eric's proposal might just be a piece of the big enterprise. He himself states, the proposal is just a thought, a beginning. Naturally, it is not a very good plan to go to Mars only in order to die there. It is, too, not a very good plan to go there and come back after a short time. A much better plan is to go there, stay there, and build another civilization. That is my favorite view to a manned one-way mission. I personally would never ever go there with a return ticket, because it is too dangerous to do the trip twice. For me, it makes no sense to head for Mars just for the fun of it. From a scientific point of view a manned return mission makes no sense at all, and I hope the congress people think alike. So it depends on how this enterprise is put into a context. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As for one way missions, you could compare them to killing someone on national TV. It would merely be an expensive publicity stunt, which the population is too conservative to accept. I'd regard one way colonization missions are more dangerous then return ones, as we do not have the knowledge at present (or in the forseeable future) to sustain people long term on the surface of Mars. Again, the population is likely to be too conservative to accept such a mission.

As for using shuttles to go to Mars, the idea is utter nonsense- there are numerous reasons why this is not possible.
[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
:If you feel confident enough to declare such ideas ''"utter nonsense"'', you must be well trained in space technology. Could you please explain, what these ''"numerous reasons"'' in your opinion are? Furthermore, if you are so sure about our lacking knowledge at present or in the foreseeable future, why are you contributing to Marspedia? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One does not have to be well trained in space technology to see that this is not feasible- The Shuttle is designed for hauling cargo into LEO, not going to Mars, or landing there. Shuttles, or shuttle based technology, could be used to get to Mars in a far more sensible manner, i.e. carrying cargo or crews into LEO.

And just because we lack knowledge, does not mean we cannot learn. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Space Shuttle to Mars

2009-05-07T16:22:40Z

T.Neo:

User:T.Neo

2009-03-30T18:40:17Z

T.Neo:

Hi, I'm '''T.Neo'''.

subpage: [[/Manipulation of Phobos]]

User talk:T.Neo

2008-12-31T10:27:00Z

T.Neo:

==Damage Control==
Many thanks for your efforts on reverting recent attacks (as well as your contributions). The sooner the damage is reverted is always the better. I have changed the protection levels on the main page and on the water article. The main downside is that if you wish to make a change to the main page you'll now need to bug one of the admins. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be happy to revert any vandalism I come across. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

==administrivia==
Image has been deleted, per your request. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 22:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 10:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ascraeus Mons

2008-12-05T06:46:52Z

T.Neo:

According to NASA, the name of this volcano is spelled "Ascraeus Mons." [http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html NASA entry on Mars] --[[User:Laertes|Laertes]] 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why not move the page? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen

2008-12-02T07:16:43Z

T.Neo: Undo revision 4091 by 221.11.27.110 (Talk)

{{element
|float=right
|elementName=Oxygen
|elementSymbol=O
|protons=8
|abundance=0.13% ([[atmosphere]])
}}

'''Oxygen''' (''periodic table symbol:'' O8) is a chemical element that can be found in the [[atmosphere]] and in several [[minerals]] on [[Mars]].

==Biological significance==
The metabolism of [[human|human beings]], [[:category:animals|animals]] and various [[microbes]] depends on oxygen. The atmosphere of Mars contains only 0.2 % oxygen, which is not enough to support animal or human life.

==Production==
Oxygen can be produced
* in [[greenhouse]]s by plants.
* by reduction of [[carbon dioxide]] from the martian atmosphere
* by reduction of oxide minerals
* by [[electrolysis]] of [[water]]

[[Category: Biospherics]]
[[Category: Greenhouse]]
[[Category: Chemistry]]

Talk:Oxygen

2008-11-30T14:37:51Z

T.Neo:

This page is getting spammed a lot. Would it make sense to protect it? --[[User:Laertes|Laertes]] 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I vote for protection. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen

2008-11-27T16:10:28Z

T.Neo: Undo revision 4016 by 88.198.11.210 (Talk)

Talk:Minerals

2008-11-24T22:09:10Z

T.Neo:

To get the iron from hematite it is usually smelted with carbon. The iron-oxygen bond is strong in hematite so a stronger bond must be presented to remove the oxygen. The trick is to mix the ore with powdered coke, then smelt them while keeping the oxygen infusion low enough that you have a 1 to 1 mol ratio of carbon and oxygen. This produces CO, which then strips an additional oxygen atom from any iron ores present. The result is CO2 and reduced ore. Continue reducing until you have iron and CO2. It's the tried and true method of ancient iron production. Nowadays we call it fancy names like "carbothermal reduction." - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
:A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery bloomery] is about as low tech as you can get. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Where would one get coke on Mars? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
:From the atmosphere? I really have no idea for carbon black (coke substitute). If it were me, I would skip the carbon/coke step entirely and go straight to CO. This can can be accomplished by burning methane in an oxygen starved environment. Methane can be obtained from the martian atmosphere via a sebatier reaction. It is much less low tech, but you'd have to use high tech to get back to low tech anyways so I see little point unless coke/carbon can be obtained as a byproduct of some other activity. It would be easier to just circulate heated CO/CO2 upwards through a column while poring ore into the top (as in a blast furnace), but you'll need a lot of power for that. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 07:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't CO2 partially decompose to CO at high temperatures? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Minerals

2008-11-19T07:54:51Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Crime

2008-11-03T08:57:45Z

T.Neo:

Exile? Exile to where? Mars is pretty empty. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
::One could be exiled to another settlement or back to Earth. This would most likely happen when one's "crime" is against a settlement's ideology, but would not be considered a crime in a settlement of different beliefs. I suppose that a form of capitol punnishment could be "exile" to the surface, but I think most people would not support such a punnishment. --[[User:Laertes|Laertes]] 12:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Exile to Earth seems like a pretty good idea. How would the criminal be prevented from doing anything ''destructive'' on the trip back? And how would the ideologies of differant settlements differ? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

::Differing ideologies would likely develop over time, especially if settlements are somewhat isolated from others. People tend to gravitate toward those with whome they share values. Eventually, unique martian cultures will develop. Even if all martians share a homogonized culture (which doesn't seem likely given human history/nature), there will be many sub-cultures, each with their own practices, values, and beliefs.
::Exile would likely be a voluntary punishment taken to avoid imprisonment or other severe measure. In the United States, if one does not like the laws in one state they can move to another, a sort of voluntary exile (though exile is a rather strong term for it).--[[User:Laertes|Laertes]] 01:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

True. One could to look at internet communities to see how a "culture" can develop rapidly. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Crime

2008-11-02T23:09:46Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Crime

2008-11-02T08:16:40Z

T.Neo: New page: Exile? Exile to where? Mars is pretty empty. ~~~~

Exile? Exile to where? Mars is pretty empty. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Low energy trajectories

2008-10-30T16:14:27Z

T.Neo:

Cargo could be inserted into low-energy trajectories. These trajectories will take longer then current Hohmann transfer orbits, but will save propellant and thus allow more payload.
Low cost of transport will be vital in [[Umanned setup of a whole settlement|setting up a colony]] and in resupplying a [[semi-autonomous colony]].

== Methods ==
*Bi-elliptic transfers
*The [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network Interplanetary Transport Network]
*Using ion thrusters/solar sails/plasma sails

== Disadvantages ==
*Such trajectories will take much longer then Hohmann transfers
*This means cargo will be exposed to the harsh conditions of space for a longer period of time. New and ingenious methods will be needed to solve this.

[[category:Technology]]

Low energy trajectories

2008-10-30T16:12:14Z

T.Neo:

Cargo could be inserted into low-energy trajectories. These trajectories will take longer then current Hohmann transfer orbits, but will save propellant and thus allow more payload.
Low cost of transport will be vital in [[Umanned setup of a whole settlement|setting up a colony]] and in resupplying a [[semi-autonomous colony]].

== Methods ==
*Bi-elliptic transfers
*The [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transfer_Network Interplanetary Transfer Network]
*Using ion thrusters/solar sails/plasma sails

== Disadvantages ==
*Such trajectories will take much longer then Hohmann transfers
*This means cargo will be exposed to the harsh conditions of space for a longer period of time. New and ingenious methods will be needed to solve this.

[[category:Technology]]

Low energy trajectories

2008-10-30T16:08:54Z

T.Neo: New page: Cargo could be inserted into low-energy trajectories. These trajectories will take longer then current Hohmann transfer orbits, but will save propellant and thus allow more payload. Low c...

Cargo could be inserted into low-energy trajectories. These trajectories will take longer then current Hohmann transfer orbits, but will save propellant and thus allow more payload.
Low cost of transport will be vital in [[Umanned setup of a whole settlement|setting up a colony]] and in resupplying a [[semi-autonomous colony]].

== Methods ==
*Bi-elliptic transfers
*The [http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary Transfer Network Interplanetary Transfer Network]
*Using ion thrusters/solar sails/plasma sails

== Disadvantages ==
*Such trajectories will take much longer then Hohmann transfers
*This means cargo will be exposed to the harsh conditions of space for a longer period of time. New and ingenious methods will be needed to solve this.

[[category:Technology]]

Talk:Population

2008-10-27T07:18:49Z

T.Neo:

Open Issue:
Wikipedia gives 500 - 1000 individuals to be a minimaly viable population: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population Minimum viable population]
:I was under the impression that a minimally viable gene-pool consists of 40 unrelated individuals - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
::The number may depend on wether the colonists are preselected to exclude known genetic diseases and disorders. Frozen embryos could be sent with the colonists to provide added genetic diversity without the extra space (aside from refrigeration/support - still a lot less than the equivalent number of full grown humans). Aside form the outstanding moral/ethical stickiness, people may be willing to donate "extra" embryos from fertility treatments, or donate them outright. --[[User:Laertes|Laertes]] 01:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:I thought a minimally viable population was around 100. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::I went ahead and asked an expert. This is what I found out: There is no definite minimum viable population, just a survivability curve based upon the number of individuals of a species spread out over an arbitrary geographic area. The larger the area and higher the population, the higher the statistical probability of survival. Genetic diversity also affects the curve. Thinking the other way: viability decreases as geographic spread, genetic diversity, and population decrease. Geographic spread will avoid taxing the local (in this case Artificial) environment and will ensure survival should something happen to one or more habs/settlements. Instead of bringing embryos, I suggest sperm as it is easier to implant and stores can be diluted (unless we develop some form of artificial womb). - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 06:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Cryopreservation of fertilized eggs and (microscopic) embryos is common practice in human reproduction medicine. In Germany the cryopreservation of embryos is prohibited by law, but cryopreservation of fertilized eggs is done in a nearly industrial scale. The effort for storage of cryopreserved sperm and cryopreserved embryos is the same. Combined with the implantation of sperm, the implantation of such an embryo is done by a very similar process: The embryo is lifted by a pipette off the petri dish, and then it is inserted into a woman's womb. All in all, this is state of the art. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 10:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Once the embryo is implanted, it will do nothing but consume resources for the next plus-minus 10 years. In contrast to this, adult colonists can start working almost immadiatly upon arrival.
What about implanting two embryos at a time? Would this be a good idea or am I talking nonsense? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greenhouse

2008-10-21T07:11:34Z

T.Neo:

Open issues:
How long can plants survive without sunlight (e.g. during a dust storm)?
:-Plants can live their entire lives without sunlight if adequate artificial light is provided. Check with your local agricultural extension office to find out how long specific species can survive in total darkness.

How many persons are needed to work in the greenhouse to produce enough food for a hundred persons?
:-It depends on what you're growing, as some plants yield more calories per square foot than others. Various gardening writers (John Jeavons and Steve Solomon leap to mind) have calculated how much square footage is needed to feed a person using their gardening methods. Look these up, multiply by 100. Then contact a greenhouse or high-tunnel grower who grows the crops you want to grow, and find out what the area of their greenhouses are and how many employees they have to work that area. Apply that ratio to the area you'd need to grow food for 100 people.

How much energy is required for heating, especially during long lasting dust storms? This question can not be answered without an experimental setup.
:-This question most certainly can be answered without an experimental setup, as HVAC technicians routinely calculate the sizes of furnaces needed to heat a given volume. Figure the volume of your greenhouse. Determine what the ambient temperature and high and low windspeeds are (Does NASA have this data?). These figures, along with the R-value of the greenhouse material itself (and surrounding soil, if the greenhouse is earth-bermed or underground), will allow you to determine the rate of heat loss from your greenhouse. If you know the volume of your greenhouse, what the rate of heat loss is, and what temperature you want to maintain, you can determine how many BTUs of heat you need to generate. Look at the energy requirments of an electric furnace that generates that amount of heat.

What temperature and air pressure do plants need?
:-Depends on the plant. Again, check with your local extension office. As a rule of thumb, look at plants natural environments. For example, plants that grow high in the mountains do better at lower pressures, while plants that prefer to grow at sea level or underwater need higher pressures. "Coles" (brassicas) like broccoli, cabbage, spincach, kale, and Brussels sprouts can grow in cooler temperatures, whereas tomatoes, peppers, and okra require much warmer temps.

What air pressure is needed for persons to work in the greenhouse?
:-The Navy (or any diving instructor) can give you information on human survivability at high temperatures. I'd imagine both NASA and the Air Force would have information on low pressures.

Do plants need wind? How can it be provided?
:-Most plants don't need wind for normal development, though many require it for natural reproduction. In the absence of wind, this can be substituted with hand pollination by workers (something that would be necessary anyway in the absence of other pollinators, like bees and flies), but wind is simple enough to create. Just turn on a fan. Fans are standard equipment in greenhouses, both for ventilation (to regulate temperature), and to avoid stagnant, moist air, which can lead to fungal diseases like damping off and powdery mildew. Since a greenhouse on Mars could not be opened. for ventilation, air conditioning, as well as heat, may be needed on sunny days. It depends on your rate of heat loss versus rate of solar heat gain.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.221.191

Thank you for clearing up these issues. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Population

2008-10-21T07:07:38Z

T.Neo:

Talk:List of Medical Risks

2008-10-16T07:45:03Z

T.Neo: New page: Since there are no complex liforms on Mars to infect, native life would not have become pathogenic. There is much more of a risk of the colonists contaminating Mars, then there is of Mars ...

Since there are no complex liforms on Mars to infect, native life would not have become pathogenic.
There is much more of a risk of the colonists contaminating Mars, then there is of Mars contaminating
the colonists. Such worrys likley belong in the realm of science fiction. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Agricultural Technologies

2008-10-13T07:41:10Z

T.Neo:

{{Bootstrap}}
* [[Aeroponics]]
* [[Hydroponics]]
* [[Geoponics]]

* [[Waste Biomass Recycling]]

* [[Horticulture]]

* [[In-vitro meat]]

Talk:Amok

2008-10-12T21:06:19Z

T.Neo:

Where would someone get hold of radioctive substances in a martian colony? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:Some people think about building a Martian colony based upon a [[nuclear power]] station for energy production. In this case the security concept ought to include the abuse of radioactive substances. But don't get me wrong, I do not advocate this technology. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 19:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have thought of a nuclear reactor for a semi autonomous colony, but the reactor would be encased in tons of regolith and shielding. It would be abandoned in place after it depleted it's fuel. So there would be no easy way of getting hold of any radioactive substance. Trying to have an autonomous colony that refines its own fuel etc. is unrealistic. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Multi-layered vault settlement

2008-10-12T21:00:31Z

T.Neo:

Layers to the dome are added as the population grows. Surely there is a limit to the size of the dome?
How big would that be? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
: Yes, there is a limit. It depends on the material and on the structural construction. On Earth we are able to build houses from concrete with a height of 1000 m. On Mars it should at least be double, for the gravity is lower. The [[Olympus Mons]], for example, is 27 km high. But the height is not a crucial point. At the moment I am thinking about ways to create universal bricks for both automated production and automated laying walls and doms. And all this without grout. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Grout would be tricky on Mars. What about making the bricks interlock in some way, in a manner similar to LEGO? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:That's exactly, what I have in mind. How about my drawing? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about a more conventional rectangular/cube brick, with a raised ridge on the top and a depression at the bottom. Then again, these bricks wouldn't be very good for dome building. An alternative to the layered dome would be a cube-shaped habitat, made from universal bricks and using regolith for radiation shielding. If the settlement grew, another cube shaped habitat would be built alongside the previous one, and they would share sheidling, water an life support. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:How would you make the roof of this cube building, I mean from the static point of view? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point. The roof would be made out of rectangular steel/iron slabs. It might pay off to place additional bricks on top as radiation shielding. All the components would only loosly interlock, so liquid plastic or polyurethane foam would have to be sprayed inside for insulation and to make the building airtight. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:There is still a drawback: a cubic building can not grow unlimited, because the inner (old) rooms have to support part of the weight of the outer (new) rooms. In a multi-layered dome building every layer supports itself. Moreover, it is safe against a local failure. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I suggest building new cubes ''outward'' of the first, so that they surround it. Nothing is built on top, so when the colony grows large, it ends up growing outwards and covering a wider area. The result: A big flat roof on top of the settlement. A perfect place to put solar collectors and wind turbines. I am still concerned about the curved dome shape of your settlement. Maybe other shapes could be consedered, which are flat. How about a pyramid or some other geodesic shape? As an aside, what software do you use for the drawings? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:Pyramids required much more material than domes, because they are not stable if made with a thin wall. Domes achieve an optimal ratio of material and strength. I draw the pictures with no special software, just a simple paint program. But I am thinking about using a ray tracer. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. I suppose then that any other polygonal design would be just as inadequate. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Amok

2008-10-10T07:57:37Z

T.Neo: New page: Where would someone get hold of radioctive substances in a martian colony? ~~~~

Where would someone get hold of radioctive substances in a martian colony? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In-vitro meat

2008-10-10T07:53:32Z

T.Neo: /* Mimicking Meats */

'''In-vitro meat''' is the concept of growing meat in a laboratory environment. Growing meat in this way eliminates the need for farming in [[greenhouse]]s and producing [[food]] for the [[:category:animals|animals]]. Nutrient solution for growing the meat can be isolated from plants grown in the greenhouse. In-vitro meat also eliminates the problem of what to do with the unwanted parts of the animal, such as bones, skin and offal. Although In-vitro meat is [[Hi-tech versus lo-tech|High-tech]], it may use less space and [[energy]] and time to produce meat than raising animals would.

==Mimicking Meats==
Muscle tone will need to be developed to produce a laboratory culture that suitably mimics common animal meat products, and atrophy must be addressed by stimulating the cultured tissues to contract against a resistant force on a regularly scheduled basis. Providing suitable resistant forces will necessitate the development of a frame or scaffolding (read skeleton) to which muscles may be bound and forced to exercise. An alternative may be the use of tissues to pump fluids in the same way as a human heart.

A more easily developed method may be to produce meat similar to that which comes from invertebrate animals having no significant skeletal structure. Examples include squid, octopus, snail, clam, and oyster. Meats of this form have textures which differ from other animal products. While resistant forces will be less necessary, these tissues will still require regular contraction to maintain mass and prevent muscle deterioration.

However, mimicking the texture of meat may not be needed. Sausages, hamburger patties and several other meat products are made of ground up meat, and have a differant texture to normal meat. Gelatinous un-excersised meat may become a delicacy on Mars.

==PETA prize==
PETA is offering 1 million USD prize to anyone who brings into market in-vitro meat.

==Open issues==
*Is this already possible or is this science fiction?
*What technological effort is required to produce and maintain the machinery behind this concept?
*What is the energy balance compared with legacy meat production?

[[Category:Hi-tech]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category: Concepts]]

Talk:Multi-layered vault settlement

2008-10-09T07:58:26Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Mars-born children

2008-10-06T08:25:01Z

T.Neo:

Mars born children will grow taller then ordinary humans. We must take this into account when considering settlements. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Is there evidence? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, uh, no, not really. But they might just grow taller, or grow taller over several generations. Things like this can be fixed before we start. It would be really, really bad if the colonists started to outgrow the settlements. It would be very hard for them to alter the design of their habitats on Mars. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Multi-layered vault settlement

2008-10-06T08:18:33Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Mars-born children

2008-10-03T08:45:47Z

T.Neo: New page: Mars born children will grow taller then ordinary humans. We must take this into account when considering settlements. ~~~~

Mars born children will grow taller then ordinary humans. We must take this into account when considering settlements. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Multi-layered vault settlement

2008-10-03T08:41:08Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Multi-layered vault settlement

2008-10-02T07:19:46Z

T.Neo:

Talk:Mining

2008-10-02T07:17:04Z

T.Neo:

Which mining process, open pit or underground would be prefferred? What useful elements could be found in the rocks that are strewn on the martian plains? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:These are good questions. I can't answer them right now. We should start collecting the appropriate data from the rovers and make them available in Marspedia systematically. Then we shall be able to answer those high level questions. -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But the NASA rovers were designed to look out for evidence of water, hardly the kind of exploration needed to prospect for the mines. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mining

2008-10-01T12:58:18Z

T.Neo: New page: Which mining process, open pit or underground would be prefferred? What useful elements could be found in the rocks that are strewn on the martian plains? ~~~~

Talk:Multi-layered vault settlement

2008-10-01T12:42:44Z

T.Neo: New page: Layers to the dome are added as the population grows. Surely there is a limit to the size of the dome? How big would that be? ~~~~

Layers to the dome are added as the population grows. Surely there is a limit to the size of the dome?
How big would that be? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mission with planned death

2008-10-01T12:34:40Z

T.Neo:

== The downfalls of a mission with planned death or no return ==

A one way mission could happen. With our limited knowlege of Mars, it would likley have to be a mission with planned death.

Such a mission could be undertaken today. However, that is its one total flaw. The more daring technologies that need to be developed for a two-way mission could lead to spinoffs that positivly affect our lives on Earth. The knowlege of ISRU and how to make propellant on Mars will be vital to a future [[Settlement]]. The one way mission with planned death does not achieve anything. All it does is get people on Mars. Just like the apollo program, is basically "flagpoles and footprints". The crew have no means to do anything meaningful, like start a colony. Maybe they do a bit of geology, but that is it. Not even a sample return capability.

With this taken into account, a manned mission does not really mean anything.
One-way missions with planned death treat Humans as mere biological space probes. As a space probe design, humans are inferior. A much, much more productive mission could be undertaken with machines such as the MER rovers. Such machines also fly one-way.

A one-way mission with, or without planned death is no more then a publicity stunt.

Sure, a country with more radical ideals may come along with such a mission plan and land on Mars first, but this time, It isn't the one that comes first that wins. It is the one who stays. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. I would definitely not go on a mission like that. This article exists to ensure completeness of all possible manned one-way mission types. By the way, did you know that Laika went on a mission with planned death? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Laika went on a mission with planned death. The US sent along several chimpanzees, but recovered them afterwards. One could call a two-way mission to Mars a mission with unplanned death. There is no certainty for the crew that they will survive. Everything carries a risk. I'd rather see a crew die trying to return home then see a crew being sent on a trip to their deaths. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mission with planned death

2008-09-29T07:31:51Z

T.Neo: New page: == The downfalls of a mission with planned death or no return == A one way mission could happen. With our limited knowlege of Mars, it would likley have to be a mission with planned death...