New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1 Re: Meta New Mars » Mary Christmas! » 2023-12-24 17:17:32
Happy Holidays to all those who celebrate. Wishing everyone happiness in the new year.
#2 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-28 03:07:02
Since I seem to have everyones attention, I need to ask a question of all of you.
If America were to try and run the whole Country on electricity from wind, what percentage of electricity do you think could come from wind?
I want each of you to give me a percentage. What do you think is the highest percentage of electricity you think can come from wind?
I need an answer from anyone/everyone reading this. I'm going to be busy for the next several days. It might be the weekend before I'm able to get back on this forum again. We'll talk more then.
In the meantime, I need an answer from everyone.
#3 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-28 03:05:55
Kbd512 #663
The energy to mine coal comes from burning coal.
That's true but it doesn't need to be that way.
The energy to move the coal from the mine to the power plant, also came from burning coal. Now it comes from diesel fuel because diesel engines are more efficient than the steam engines of 100 years ago.
Well that's sort of true, but it would help to learn some history. The reason that coal was used in the 1800s is because that was the only large form of energy available at that time.
From the beginning and up through the middle 1800's, people used to burn whale oil in their lamps. Whales started to become more scarce as a result, and the price of whale oil skyrocketed as the demand for whale oil greatly increased. A guy by the name of Abraham Gesner was the first person to extract a clear liquid from oil that came from the ground. He noticed that "clear liquid" would burn cleanly in his lamp, and it was a whole lot cheaper than whale oil. That "clear liquid" is today known as kerosene.
Needless to say word spread quickly. In the United States, the State of Pennsylvania had lakes/pounds of oil. These dirty, grimy, puddles of oil were considered waste. That was until everyone realized that they could put this oil in their still, (the one they used to make moonshine). By distilling the oil they could extract out this clear liquid (kerosene) that was a great substitute for whale oil, and a whole lot cheaper.
From that point forward everyone ran to the ponds of oil and hauled it back to their still. A man named Edwin Drake realized that it was only a matter of time before these ponds of oil would dry up. Edwin Drake decided he would try drilling for oil. Of course everyone laughed at him. He bought a steam engine in order to drill deeper. After many days/weeks/years of hard work and a lot of expense he reached the whooping depth of 70 feet and struck oil. It was in 1859 when Edwin Drake drilled the Worlds first oil well.
About 6 years ago I visited the Edwin Drake oil well in Titusville Pennsylvania. Below are some pictures I took while visiting the site. It has a museum and a park. The picture below is of the building where Edwin Drakes oil well is located. The second picture below is Edwin Drakes oil well inside the building. They pumped some oil from the well and then recirculated it for display purposes.
The reason coal was used in early steam locomotives is because that was the only large energy source available. Later, after kerosene was discovered, kerosene was another major source of fuel. Early engines, such as those made by Stover and Warner Manufacturing, all ran on kerosene. When the Model T was first mass produced in 1908, it could run on either kerosene or gasoline, because there weren't any gas stations. When the Model T first went into production, there were more electric and steam powered cars than there were gas/kerosene powered cars.
#4 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-28 03:03:23
SpaceNut #662
Well embodied energy on mars is even greater than on earth since it's going to be received at a much lower level than on earth.
Well, I can agree with what I think you are trying to say. But keep in mind that the embodied energy to make solar panels on Earth, and the embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars is one subject. The fact that Mars receives less light from the sun than does Earth is different subject.
The embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars, and the embodied energy on Earth should be about the same. But that's assuming we have the same raw materials available on Mars, and it's assuming transportation costs are the same. My guess is that the embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars would be more than it is on Earth, simply because the integrated supply chain on Earth is more developed. Even so, embodied energy to make solar panels on Mars will likely be less than the embodied energy it takes to build a coal plant on Earth.
When GW Johnson first proposed his "train-truck on Mars" idea there were some questions asked about why these things would be needed. Hopefully some of you now are starting to realize the importance of having this type of transportation on Mars. Personally, I saw the need right away and I like his idea.
Yes, it is true that the light level is less on Mars than it is on Earth. SpaceNut I think you yourself put up a post somewhere, maybe on this thread, that the light level on Mars is 59% of that of Earth. From that number alone it would seem that a solar panel on Mars would only produce 59% of what it would produce on Earth. But that's not the whole story.
Mars is a very cold place. The average temperature is -80F. When solar panels are cold they produce more power. The cold of Mars will help make up some of that power difference. I did the numbers on this over 10 years ago. If I remember right I think the numbers come out to about 70%. That is, a solar panel on Mars will produce about 70% of the power that it would produce on Earth. When I get time I'll dig out the information and post it on this thread. You're making a good point.
#5 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-28 03:01:29
Kbd512 #661
Do you think we might have to open some new power plants, just to produce energy to make that many photovoltaic panels?
Why would we need to do that? The embodied energy of both solar and wind is less than that of a coal powered plant. The real question is do we need to build more more solar and wind power, so that we have the enormous energy required to build a coal power plant?
#6 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-28 03:00:28
Calliban post #660
solar power plants do not replace fossil fuel plants, even on Earth. Your coal plant will still need to operate and will still need to ship coal from Wyoming.
Not true. We don't need coal plants at all. At at least not for making electricity. Coal is still used in the production of steel. Understand that solar and wind work together as a single system. You need to think of them as a network, not as a standalone system.
The only thing the solar plant will do is marginally reduce the fuel bill at the coal plant. But capital and other operating costs remain the same.
Not true. How many times do I have to say this? The cheapest form of electricity in terms of cost per kilowatt, which is the metric we need to be looking at, is solar. The second cheapest is wind. And both continue to get cheaper and cheaper. Obviously you didn't read the articles that I posted earlier. Here I'll post them them again:
It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant running
This article was posted back in November 2018. Wind and solar have gotten a lot cheaper since then.
Energy Fact – Solar is about to become the cheapest source of electricity
* Wind became cheaper than natural gas around 2012, with solar beating out gas in 2016.
* Solar starts to beat out wind as the cost-king around 2020.
Let me say this again since some of you aren't listening. As of today solar is the cheapest form of electricity. Wind is the second cheapest.
#7 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-28 02:59:09
Thanks for your comments gentlemen. I'm trying really hard not to laugh. Honestly, some of these comments are nothing short of hilarious. I'll try to answer at least one comment from each of you. I work a lot of hours so I don't have a whole lot of time. I'll do my best to address a few of your comments.
I can see many of you have a lot to learn about how power generation/distribution works. After I graduated from college in the 1980's, I moved to Indianapolis Indiana and I worked for the Navy as a manufacturing engineer. Years later, I worked for a company in Indianapolis that was called "Cellnet". They automate the reading of electric meters, eliminating the need of meter readers. I was in charge of rolling out the wireless network. I planned the installation of 20 "Towers". They work much like cell towers do with cell phones. I had four technicians that worked under me.
I worked closely with the local utility, Indianapolis Power and Light (IPL). I coordinated the work that was done by our technicians, and the work that was done by the utility workers (IPL). Through that experience I learned a lot about how power generation works, and power distribution.
Some of what I learned is that about half the cost of electricity is in the generation of electricity, and the other half is in the distribution of electricity, including reading meters. At that time Indianapolis had about 460,000 electric meters. It cost IPL about one dollar a month to read each meter. In other words, IPL was spending about $460,000 a month just to read meters.
Another thing I learned is that coal powered plants are their own biggest customer. That is to say, a coal powered plant itself uses more of its own electricity than any one of their biggest customers. That's not true of renewables.
I'll go through some of your comments and answer some of your questions. I plan to come back at a later time and I post more information.
#8 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-26 13:22:56
Calliban Post #652
Calliban it looks like you are talking about the cost to build a factory but you are not considering the cost of running the factory.
When I was at Kansas State University in the 1980's, one of my professors told us that the Jeffrey power plant (located about 35 miles East of Kansas State), burned two hundred train cars of coal a day to power two turbines. I have a cousin that used to work at that plant. While I was in college my cousin said that information was a bit dated. He said they had expanded the plant to use all three turbines. So I would assume they are burning three hundred train cars of coal a day.
It takes a lot of energy to mine that much coal. And the coal is shipped from Wyoming using fossil fuels, probably 600 miles to 1,000 miles I would guess. So more energy (cost) is used to ship the coal. This cost is independent of the cost to build the plant. The coal contains mercury, as well as other toxic elements, such as lead and arsenic. The resulting mountain of contaminated ash, resulting from burning 300 train cars of coal a day for decades, has to be maintained indefinitely. So the cost of maintaining the mountain of ash per day, multiplied by an infinite number of days, is an infinite cost.
I don't know why I have to point this out, but solar and wind do not need to be fed with a source of energy, that is their advantage. The wind comes to the windmill. Yes there is a cost to building a wind farm or solar farm, just like there is a cost to building a coal plant. And yes there is a cost to maintain a wind or solar farm, just like there is a cost to maintain a coal powered plant.
But wind and solar do not have the cost of mining the energy (coal) and shipping it to the plant. Wind and solar also do not have the cost of dealing with the coal ash afterward. The cost of wind (and solar) have gotten so cheap it's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than it is to keep an existing coal powered plant running.
It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant running
The metric we need to look at is the cost per kilowatt, not the initial cost of building a plant, wind farm, solar farm, etc. The total cost of building, operating, buying fuel (if needed), dealing with waste afterward (such as coal ash, nuclear waste, etc), is figured into the cost per kilowatt.
Why does the cost of renewable energy continue to get cheaper and cheaper?
Majority of New Renewables Beat Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost: IRENA
Most new wind and solar projects will be cheaper than coal, report finds
Energy Fact – Solar is about to become the cheapest source of electricity
Solar energy is not only practical on Earth, it's also practical on the Moon and Mars. I'll post more about that at a later time.
#9 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-26 13:20:37
Brian,
You need to learn to put units with numbers. Numbers are meaningless without units. Let me try and break down some of what you said:
Kbd512 Post #651
1mi^2 = 2,589,988.10m^2
100mi^2 = 258,998,810m^2
On the first line you are telling me that one square mile is equal to about 2.59 million square meters. I agree with that.
On the second line you are telling me that 100 square miles is equal to about 259 million square meters. I can buy that. Simple math so far, you just need to multiple the first line by 100.
However, Elon Musk didn't say an area of 100 square miles. He said an area that is 100 miles by 100 miles, which is 10,000 square miles. Not 100 square miles. Then you go on to talk about embodied energy, which has nothing to do with the area covered by solar panels.
Kbd512 Post #651
1m^2 of mono-crystalline photovoltaic panel = 585,000Wh of embodied energy (on average),
258,998,810m^2 * 585,000Wh/m^2 = 151,514,303,850,000Wh of embodied energy,
4,230,000,000,000,000Wh or 4,230TWh = total US electricity consumption during 2022
You're using a number of 585 kW for embodied energy of a solar panel. You must have gotten that number from Google. I went to Google and found this:
I went to the link above and found the following comment:
What is the typical embodied energy of a solar photovoltaic ...
Fossil fuels never reach energy payback
Electricity as a commodity has been in use for over a century, it isn’t going away in our lifetime. A better question is, “What’s the best way to produce it?”
If you look at the embodied energy of a coal plant, or even a modern high efficiency natural gas generator, how long does it take to earn back their embodied energy? The answer is they never do. We forget, or more accurately ignore the fact that once you build a coal plant, or gas fired turbine, you then have to feed it fuel the rest of its life which it converts to electricity at a rate somewhere less than 100%. So they keep digging themselves a deeper and deeper embodied energy hole they can never crawl out of.
At least the solar panel, water wheel and wind turbine can one day get even. This is why renewable energy as a whole is better for us environmentally and economically than any form of fossil based fuel source.
Embodied energy is not dependent on the area. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a solar panel that is one square meter in size, or a group of panels that are a square mile in size, or 10,000 square miles of solar panels as Elon mentioned. The embodied energy remains a constant. The area factors out of the equation. (You'd see that if you'd use units with numbers).
Here's a video from "Solar Queen Amy". The first myth is about embodied energy. She explains things better than I can. The video was posted about 7 years ago.
Here is an episode of Science Friday from August 27, 2021.
How To Make Solar Power Work For Everyone
Here is a quote from that segment:
Joseph Berry said:
We often talk, in our group at NREL, about embodied energy, the amount of energy you have to put into something in order to make it to begin with, because that’s something that you have that you have to pay back, once that solar cell is, say, generating electricity.
And for typical silicon-based panels that you have on say, your roof, the energy payback time is somewhere between two and 1/2, three years to basically generate the electricity you needed to basically put those together. We’re looking at materials that are an order of magnitude lower in embodied energy than that. In other words, the energy payback time is something on the order of two or three weeks.
As the article above states, typical payback is about two and a half years to three years. And as Joseph Berry stated "We’re looking at materials that are an order of magnitude lower in embodied energy than that. In other words, the energy payback time is something on the order of two or three weeks."
Again this is independent of the area of the panels. The area covered by panels has nothing to do with the payback time.
Brian I find it interesting that when Elon talks about putting a million people on Mars you think he's a visionary, but when it points out the fact that solar energy is cheaper than coal you call him a dreamer. I think Elon was making the point that solar panels do not take up that much space. Elon is right about that, it's not a dream. He's not the only one that has pointed out that fact.
As Tom pointed out in post #653 this topic is about solar energy on Mars. Brian you keep hijacking it and want to talk about fossil fuel on Earth. You need to stay on topic.
#10 Re: Human missions » Going Solar...the best solution for Mars. » 2023-11-25 13:34:02
(Nice post SpaceNut). Elon Musk was on the Joe Rogan show recently. (It was on Halloween, which is why Joe Rogan is wearing a wig). On the show Elon Musk mentioned that an area of solar panels, 100 miles by 100 miles, would provide enough energy to power all of the United States. Here is a 1 minute video clip from the show.
Joe Rogan and Elon Musk discuss about solar panels ... - TikTok
#11 Re: Meta New Mars » Greg Stanley Postings » 2023-11-24 23:54:23
As an FYI, Dr Greg Stanley has his own YouTube channel. Anyone with a YouTube account can subscribe to Gregs channel (or Google account, Google owns YouTube). The channel is under the name "gstanley0". Here is a list of some of his more recent videos (Including the one Tom listed in post #5)
MonthlySpaceNews 2023/11: Asteroid prospecting Psyche, Bennu; space manufacturing; regulatory crisis
47m 7s
Industrial revolution in space (focusing on Low Earth Orbit) ... and regulation slowing it down
27m 45s
Asteroids: visiting metal-rich Psyche, and returning samples from Bennu
18m 30s
MonthlySpaceNews 2023/09: Moon landing, crash, launch. Kuiper. Orbital debris. LEO/GEO. Starship
37m 0s
MonthlySpaceNews 2023/08: 2 Moon launches, Chinese win methalox orbit race, Euclid update, launches,
19m 28s
Starship design: simplify, simplify, simplify. Eliminating consumables, also new hot staging.
28m 10s
Monthly Space News 2023/07: Starship hot staging; Euclid Space Telescope; Virgin Galactic; launches
18m 24s
Monthly Space News 2023/06: Blue Origin as 2nd Moon lander; Virgin Orbit gone; recent launches
13m 25s
Wood Satellites! Finland vs Japan! Why?
7m 14s
Fault management overview (emphasizing aerospace)
57m 26s
Hakuto-R lunar lander crash: A failure in fault management
24m 40s
#12 Re: Life support systems » Shopping On Mars - Instacart Model » 2023-11-21 14:23:12
Tom, on the subject of the Die Cast Starship model. I thought I'd post a picture of it.
(Nice looking model).
Post#1
I decided to take a look at the site because the bank offered $20 off on the first transaction, and at this point in my life, I'm looking for savings of pennies, so $20 seems worth investigating.
For anyone who has the space and time, one way to save $$$ is to plant a garden. Groceries will never get any cheeper. It would be good practice for learning how to grow things on Mars, as well as saving a few dollars. I know we are entering winter now, but it's not too early to be planning for Spring.
I don't know where you live, but the growing season is shorter for those that live farther north. I have a cousin that lives in rural Kansas. She bought a glass greenhouse that looks something like the one below, which extends her growing season. Her area had two bad hail storms pass through, each a few years apart. Both hail storms broke out the glass on the roof. The second time it happened she replaced the top with a metal roof. If she put reflectors on both sides of her greenhouse to reflect light in from the sides, it would be like some proposals for Mars. I don't know how much her greenhouse cost. I've seen prices that range from $300 to $3,000. Even without a greenhouse. A garden would be good practice and would save a few dollars.
#13 Re: Life support systems » Crops » 2023-11-18 23:36:42
On the subject of the amount of area required to feed one person, SpaceNut (post#646) posted the article:
Could We Turn Mars Green Sooner Than Expected?
Which states "It takes around 370 square metres to feed a single person on a vegetarian diet."
The (tentative) plan for Artemis 3 is to land two astronauts on the surface of the Moon and stay for about one week (subject to change). If a crew of two were to have an extended stay on the Moon and only eat what is grown on the Moon, it would require a growing area that is 740 square meters in size (about 8,000 square feet). (Based on SpaceNuts post of 370 square meters per person).
One thing to keep in mind, is that humans do not produce enough CO2 for a garden that is big enough to feed themselves. In other words, two astronauts on the Moon will not breath out enough CO2 that a 740 square meter garden would consume. Eventually the plants will die due to a lack of CO2, or the astronauts will die due to starvation. Bryce Meyer has pointed this out a number of times, including in the following YouTube videos. (2nd point below).
Image above is from YouTube video:
Mr. Bryce Meyer: Space Farming, Menus, and Biological Life Support: For Here and There
Image is at 24m 25s into the video.
In the following YouTube video, Bryce explains why humans cannot exhale enough CO2 to feed themselves:
Video: NSS Space Forum -Bryce Myer - Farming in Space for Future Space Settlement
At 16m 50s
"Here is the problem. You do not exhale enough carbon dioxide to feed yourself."At 17m 48s
"The CO2 required to produce enough calories for you is 1.5 times the CO2 from your breath."
Using the image above, Bryce explains why this is true.
On Mars this isn't an issue because there is plenty of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere. The Moon does not have an atmosphere, so on the Moon, finding CO2 for plants is an issue.
#14 Re: Interplanetary transportation » SpaceX Orbital Launch Tower to be Ready August 5th for Testing! » 2023-11-18 16:23:51
RobertDyck #12
When I went to the SpaceX website and pressed the Watch button, all I got was a black display with a tiny white X in the corner to close....
Did anyone else have that problem?
Rob I didn't have any problem at all. I went to the link you posted (#7) about 3 minutes before launch, clicked on "watch" and it worked fine. After it was over, they announced this was the end of their coverage. I think the screen went blank after that and some music came on.
There are a number of articles about the launch on Space.com.
Here's an article from Gizmodo.com.
SpaceX’s Starship Clears Crucial Hurdle in Dramatic Second Flight Test.
#15 Re: Interplanetary transportation » SpaceX Orbital Launch Tower to be Ready August 5th for Testing! » 2023-11-18 01:48:51
Rob,
Thanks for the link. I hope all goes well. I would call it a success if the hot staging works and the 1st stage separates okay. Anything that survives after that is icing on the cake.
Tom,
Does anyone have contact with Louis? He seemed to have stopped posting abruptly. I wondered if something bad had happened. I hope he is in good health too.
#16 Re: Mars Society International » 2023 Mars Society Convention » 2023-11-05 19:56:08
Sunday Morning
Arizona Ballroom
26th Annual International Mars Society Convention (Day 4 - Sunday 10/8/2023)
4h 11m 26s
The link above contains a comment with timestamps and a description of each of the presentations. The timestamps are shown in blue, and when on YouTube, you can click on the blue timestamps and it will take you directly to that point in the video. A screen capture of the timestamps and description is shown below.
#17 Re: Mars Society International » 2023 Mars Society Convention » 2023-11-05 19:55:08
Saturday Afternoon
Arizona Ballroom
26th Annual International Mars Society Convention (Day 3 - Saturday PM 10/7/2023)
9h 35m 50s
The link above contains a comment with timestamps and a description of each of the presentations. The timestamps are shown in blue, and when on YouTube, you can click on the blue timestamps and it will take you to that point in the video. A screen capture of the timestamps and description is shown below.
(I left a comment on YouTube abut a question that was asked after the presentation "Agriculture on Mars" by Colleen McLeod)
#18 Re: Terraformation » Deep Asteroid Crater Habitat Proposal for Mars » 2023-11-05 13:06:30
PhotonBytes (#25),
You're sure bringing up a lot of good questions. I'll try best to answer some of them. Here they are:
Has Robert Zubrin considered this greener method to terraform Mars vs Elon Musk's nuclear option?
I don't know what Dr Zubrin and Elon Musk have in mind. I remember Chris McKay giving a zoom presentation at the Mars annual convention a few years ago. He stated that he had done the math and the nuclear option would not work. (Dr. Chris McKay has been on some TV documentaries about Mars Direct, and other Mars documentaries).
I believe the thinking is that if we can get enough of the carbon dioxide to turn into a gas at the poles, then it will create positive feedback. Releasing the greenhouse gas CO2 into the Martian atmosphere will cause Mars to warm, which will cause more CO2 to be released, causing more of a greenhouse effect, and so on. I least that's the way I understand it.
The frozen CO2 at the poles is reflective, so it reflects energy (heat) from the sun back into space. As the frozen CO2 evaporates, the dark ground beneath is exposed. The dark surface absorbs more sunlight (energy), causing the planet to warm, which melts more CO2, which exposes more Martian surface, which absorbs more solar heat, creating positive feedback. (The same thing is happening on Earth. As the poles of Earth melt it is exposing more (dark) surface area, creating more heating, causing more melting. -- positive feedback). According to Dr McKay, 100 nuclear bombs or so exploding on Mars isn't enough energy to get this positive feedback going.
...and shielded from solar wind with the crater walls and longer journey for such solar radiation though the atmosphere sideways to reach the poles.
What you are saying is true. But keep in mind that a thicker atmosphere will also provide more shielding against radiation. Also keep in mind that as the Martian atmosphere thickens, the expansion ratio gets less and less. In post #24 above I mentioned the expansion of methane from a solid to a gas is probably on the order of 130,000 to 1. After a big comet, or several small comets, have come into contact with Mars, that expansion ratio will drop, say to 120,000 to 1, then 110,000 to 1, eventually 10,000 to 1, and so on.
Another thing to keep in mind about comets, is that they contain cyanide. This was discovered in 1910 when Halley's Comet made a close pass by Earth. I made mention of this on a post in another thread. (See link below)
Post #35 (Halley's Comet contains cycnide)
By the way, I don't see this as an issue. If you have time sometime check out a proposal that I posted on this forum. It's rather long, about 90-95 pages. In this proposal I show how impurities from the Martian atmosphere can be burned off.
Proposal: Storing Energy, Introducing a "Cell", a Soil Factory on Mars
...No radioactivity side effects. Also more power compared to nukes.
Once a comet comes into contact with Mars, it does produce a lot of energy which gets converted into heat energy. So this does cause a (temporary) heating affect. After the initial blast, all of the heating from then on comes from the sun. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, act like a blanket that hold heat onto the planet. If a large amount of methane were released into the Martian atmosphere, it would take time for this heat to accumulate. But unlike nukes, it would be never ending. As long as there is methane in the Martian atmosphere, heat from the sun, which is constantly coming in, will cause the planet to warm until some point of equilibrium is reached. Reaching that point of equilibrium could take a few Earth-years.
How long methane will last in the Martian atmosphere is another big question mark. Mars burps up about 270 tons of methane every Earth-year. Somehow this methane breaks down and goes away. My guess is that breaks down from the intense ultraviolet radiation on Mars, but I don't know. (UV light is another thing we have to worry about on Mars).
On Earth the ozone layer blocks about 99% of the UV rays hitting Earth. Mars doesn't have an ozone layer. So even if we loaded up the Martian atmosphere with methane, I'm not so sure it's sustainable. Assuming it breaks down, I don't know what it breaks down into. On Mars, does methane break down into another greenhouse gas? I don't know the answer to that, but it would be nice if it did.
Robert's own invention the nuclear salt water rocket can redirect kuiper belt objects to hit one of the poles.
Actually you could just move asteroids from the asteroid belt as Void mentioned. All that is needed is to move some asteroids into the orbit of Mars, and let Mars run into it. There wouldn't be any aiming doing it that way, and it wouldn't provide a way of blasting a hole. But if it brought hydrocarbons and/or water to Mars it would thicken the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. According to the Wikipedia article "Asteroid belt", the asteroid belt consists mainly of three types of asteroids. One type is "Carbonaceous asteroids" which contain carbon (hopefully hydrocarbons, which are greenhouse gases).
Carbonaceous asteroids, as their name suggests, are carbon-rich. They dominate the asteroid belt's outer regions, and are rare in the inner belt. Together they comprise over 75% of the visible asteroids. They are redder in hue than the other asteroids and have a very low albedo. Their surface compositions are similar to carbonaceous chondrite meteorites. Chemically, their spectra match the primordial composition of the early Solar System, with the lighter elements and volatiles removed.
#19 Re: Terraformation » Deep Asteroid Crater Habitat Proposal for Mars » 2023-11-05 07:44:31
PhotonBytes,
Good to see you again. In Post #2 you are proposing crashing comets into Mars to dig a hole deep enough for the air pressure to allow Earth life to survive. I thought I'd mention that the comets themself would also cause an increase in atmospheric pressure.
On Earth, when a gas changes from a liquid to a gas, it usually expands somewhere around 700 to 900 times its volume. Here are some expansion ratio's:
nitrogen 696:1
argon 847:1
hydrogen 851:1
oxygen 862:1
(source)
Nitrogen's expansion ratio of 696:1 means that a cubic meter of liquid nitrogen will expand to 696 cubic meters of gas when its warmed up to STP. A cubic meter of liquid argon will expand to 847 cubic meters of gas (when at STP), and so on.
On Mars this expansion ratio is much greater due to the low atmospheric air pressure of Mars. The atmospheric pressure on Earth at STP is about 153 times that of Mars. (6.518 millibars on Mars compared to 1,000 millibars on Earth, or 0.095 psi on Mars compared to 14.7 psi on Earth). Therefore gases will expand about 153 times as much on Mars as they do on Earth (pV=nRT).
Comets are sometimes described as "dirty snowballs" and contain frozen methane. I believe the expansion ratio for methane is about 850:1 (solid to gas). On Mars the expansion ratio would be about 153 times that, or about 130,000. Meaning that just one cubic km of frozen methane in a comet would expand to about 130,000 cubic km's of methane gas. As you can see, frozen gases in a comet can add quite a bit of volume to the Martian atmosphere, which in turn increases air pressure.
Adding methane to the Martian atmosphere would also cause Mars to warm, as methane is about 25 times as potent of a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.
If we had the ability to crash comets into Mars, you probably would not have to dig 30-50km to get the air pressure you're wanting. Frozen gases from the comets you crashed to dig the hole would give you a boost in air pressure, and therefore you would not have to dig as deep. If you were to keep crashing more comets into Mars you could keep increasing the air pressure, which would decrease the required distance to dig.
Comets would also bring water to Mars. Many people don't realize this, but water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and would help warm Mars. We need to be careful about lakes on Mars though. Lakes are a reflective surface, and would reflect the suns rays (heat energy) back into space, and would have a cooling effect on Mars. If it were ever to rain on Mars, the clouds would also cause a cooling effect, as clouds also reflect heat energy from the sun back into space.
#20 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Dual Stage 4 Grid Ion Drive possibilities » 2023-11-04 15:24:16
Hi PhotonBytes, good to see you back. I'm no rocket scientist, but your ion drive post looks interesting. I'll look it over. I just wanted to say hello and welcome you back to the forum.
#21 Re: Interplanetary transportation » SpaceX should withdraw Starship as an Artemis lunar lander. » 2023-10-19 09:47:00
From space.com
SpaceX stacks Starship to gear up for launch rehearsal (photos)
Posted 2 days ago
The work — which took place at Starbase, the company's facility on South Texas' Gulf Coast — is part of the leadup to Starship's second-ever test flight, which SpaceX hopes to launch soon.
...
The FAA is the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, which recently wrapped up its investigation of Starship's first-ever test flight, which occurred on April 20.
...
Elon Musk has said that the latest Starship vehicle is ready to go from a technical standpoint; SpaceX has successfully test-fired the Raptor engines on both of its stages, for example.
But, as the above post on X notes, the company is still waiting for a launch license from the FAA.
YouTube Video
Starship Stacked and then Destacked - SpaceX Boca Chica
8m 53s
(Skip the first 2 minutes. Fast forward to 2m)
Video shows time-lapse video of the stacking and unstacking of Starship
Posted 1 day ago
#22 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Technology Updates » 2023-10-18 09:55:20
News about a recent "monster marsquake"
SCIENTISTS PUZZLED BY SUDDEN, SUPER-LOUD RUMBLE INSIDE MARS
A SO-CALLED DEAD WORLDMost of the data gathered about Mars' seismic activity so far indicates that it's originating from a huge pair of trenches known as the Cerberus Fossae, which are believed to be the open wounds of an underlying fault where magma interactions could still persist.
Insight's data on the monster marsquake, however, pinpoints the source of its reverberations as far beyond the faults, to the planet's southeast. It appears that some other mysterious phenomenon is behind the almighty tremor, and for now, scientists will have to see what shakes out.
"Clearly there's a massive piece of the tectonic and seismic puzzle that we haven't yet unraveled," Fernando told SA.
#23 Re: Meta New Mars » Steve Stewart Postings » 2023-10-09 18:18:25
Rob(#30)
No I don't think you need to eat any words. If your furnace wasn't running when you were gone it means you saved money on gas. Good thing it fired right up when you got home. Just think what would happen if you were on Mars and lost heat. That's why we need redundancy for everything on Mars. Maybe double redundancy.
#24 Re: Mars Society International » 2023 Mars Society Convention » 2023-10-09 17:16:26
Saturday Morning
Below is a 3 hour 21 minute video posted by the Mars Society on YouTube. I've gone through the video and have listed where (in hours/minutes) each presentation is located in the video.
26th Annual International Mars Society Convention (Day 3 - Saturday AM 10/7/2023)
0h 22m
Dean Cheng
The Chinese Space Program
0h 55m
William Clancey
Robotically Mediated Exploration Undersea and on Mars
1h 28m
Tiffany Morgan
NASA JPL Mars Sample Return
2h 7m
Roberto Carlino
NASA Ames HERA Mars Analog
2h 40m -
James Heiser -
Is the effort to settle Mars a dangerous religion?
#25 Re: Meta New Mars » Steve Stewart Postings » 2023-10-08 20:05:10
Rob(#28),
Wow that's an interesting story. You're so right about things being built better a long time ago than they are today.
Several years ago I remember seeing an episode on "Jay Leno's Garage" about an old steam engine. As I remember, the steam engine was built in the 1800's and was used for the textile industry somewhere in Europe. (This was the beginning of the industrial revolution). Jay Leno stated that Henry Ford had bought the steam engine because it was an antique, and he wanted the engine for his museum (The Henry Ford Museum).
I'm listening to Jay talk while doing some math in my head. I knew that Henry Ford had started three car companies. What we know today as the "Ford Motor Company" was the third car company Henry Ford had started. I believe Henry Ford was in his 40's when he left the second company he founded and sometime later got funding to make a third attempt at starting a car company. Later Ford made several car models before the Model T, and it took a number of years before the Model T was in high production.
So if Henry Ford bought this steam engine after he became wealthy, and after he had already established a museum, he probably would have bought that engine sometime in the 1920's (I'm guessing). Jay Leno then purchased the steam engine from the Henry Ford Museum. Jay stated the engine had ran for about 80 years if I recall correctly. The textile factory then replaced it. Not because it was worn out, but because it had become obsolete, it was too small -- not powerful enough.
So if the engine had ran for about 80 years, then was replaced, then was laying around for who knows how many years, then was bought by Henry Ford in the 1920s because it was an "antique" by that time. I want to know something, when was this engine made? It was probably made in the mid to early 1800s would be my guess. So how is it, that mankind was able to build a steam engine in the early 1800s, that was used most everyday for 80 years and is still running to this day, and yet today we can't buy a new kitchen appliance that will last 10 years?
I think the answer is planned obsolescence.
I remember running across some old posts where you talked about this, and I agree we need to talk about this on Mars. I think on Mars we need to utilize "standardization", meaning that parts from one piece of equipment needs to fit on other (different) pieces of equipment. I should probably write a paper about that sometime. I have a lot of ideas on that subject I'd like to share (some other time).
Here is an example:
A couple years ago in the summer of 2021 I paid a visit to the Seelye Mansion in Abilene Kansas. (The mansion is open to the public for anyone willing to buy tickets. There's a lot to see in Abilene). While on tour they pointed to the light fixtures in each room. Some of the fixtures were designed by Thomas Edison himself, as he had visited the mansion a few times. The lights were still on after over a century of use. Some of the lights had burned out over the years, and they keep them on display in a vase because the lights are an antique. Below is a picture I took of the few Edison lights that had finally burned out.
This is why we can't have nice things
YouTube video 17m 29s
Article: Planned obsolescence and its environmental impact
