New Mars Forums

A couple of observations:

1.  I would think we would wish to avoid use of plastics out in the open - surely the primary uses would be indoors to begin with?

2.  One thing we wont be short of on Mars: energy.  If we do use plastic outside, it will probably form part of objects which can be kept heat throughout the sol.

On that we can agree!  I personally gave Rossi one year from his last public demonstration to provide something one could characterise more as proof - so that would be October 2012.  Obviously working models going on sale is a pretty good proof and that is how he says he will give proof.  If we get further postponements and the university tests he has promised don't materialise, then we will have to call it a scam or an exercise in delusion.

I accept that life on Mars is crucially dependent on the chemicals industry in a way it is not on Earth. 

Methane could double up as  rocket fuel:

http://www.space.com/3774-methane-rocke … ested.html

You can have fuel self-sufficiency before you have rocket self-sufficiency.

Here are some principles I would suggest we need to keep in mind:

1.  SIMPLICITY. The methane example is a good one.  If we can double up methane as a rocket fuel that may be a better way to go than trying to deal with the difficulties of managing other rocket fuels on the surface. If we "triple" it up and use it as energy storage as well, to avoid the need to import or make heavy batteries then all the better.

2. SUBSTITUTION.  Where possible we should substitute the easy to make materials for those that are difficult to manufacture. On that basis, although we need to investigate the potential for polymer production, it will probably be best to make most implements, containers and so on  out of wood (bamboo, specifically), metal, ceramics (formed basalt) and glass.

3. SAFETY,  We should have safety at the forefront of our minds and procedures at all times.   There must strict zoning of chemicals usage and we should avoid as far as possible the use of chemicals that required elaborate safety management.

There you go, the three Ss.

As for pharmaceuticals, these are mostly lightweight and not a huge demand on the colony's capabilities. However I think we should develop plant based pharmaceuticals as we go along.

Save the lecture Josh, I am fully aware that air and water and me are made of chemicals.

However we do refer to the chemicals industry on Earth and by that we usually mean the chemicals necessary to agriculture and industry.  They require a lot of processing, special handling - and they are dangerous which is why explosions and fires at chemical plants have been among the worst seen on the planet. We can afford to lose a few people out of 6 billion on Earth, but we can't afford to lose a single settler on Mars. So this is an important question - or rather series of questions.

From the answers so far I'd say I think we need to have as our motto "keep it simple" to begin with...we shouldn't try anything too  complex with chemicals to begin with. Perhaps we should focus on rocket fuel.  It may safer and more productive to focus on metals, glass and glass fibre as involving fairly simple processes.

Not sure how one can have a sensible debate if you are going to judge a wealth of evidence on your view of the journal where it appears.

You've had a list of peer-reviewed papers. This article explains there were a number of replications or partial replications with those backing orthodoxy refused to recognise. The whole point about LENR is that it is not easily reproducible as there are a number of crucial parameters. But it is now evident - as NASA confirms -that LENR is real. You can be a compulsive denier if you wish -but don't confuse it with scepticism.

...and there will be no rare minerals or meteorites on Mars, of a kind never found on Earth?

Better that than a belly-flop I guess.

Yes, but no one ever seems able to make a go of Stirling engines. 

As for hat eating I believe the Japanese have rice paper hats for some occasions. I recommend one of those.

It's pretty clear now by the way (through a new statement) that National Instruments are working with Rossi on developing the operational capability of the device - which suggests this can't be out and out fraud as alleged by many to begin with.

Well let's limit this to the first 20 years. We will be doing well if we have 1,000 people there by then.  If they each earn say $50,000 per annum (plenty of money, since nearly all their living expenses will be covered) we are still only talking about $50million per annum - set against huge investment and revenue earnings in the billions.

I think it probably only makes sense to talk about wages once we have a Mars money economy on Mars.  Initially there will in effect be cost free rationing and free accommodation.

  I think there will certainly be separate settlements early on but most will be quite small I think - e.g. mining or coms centres.  For both Moon and Mars I expect there will be one big major settlement.

  I think there could be a developing Mars-Moon trading system. Lunar settlements might find it easier to get some materials and even finished goods from Mars.  Mars might buy in rocket fuel from the Moon.

Josh -

Your categorisation is interesting and might be useful even.  As ever I think one has to define the timeframe. Some economic activity, although sustainable in the long term,  might be costly to set up.  I also think you misunderstand the Mars Rolex project I suggested - it is very much trading on the Mars brand. It would impractical to set up an actual watch mechanism manufacturing operation on Mars. It would be a finishing process I think - probably putting metal surround and glass on to the parts, and maybe incorporating some Mars gems. The Mars brand aspect would be enhanced with photos of the watch in situ on Mars, and other little add ons (e.g. perhaps an engraving of the location on the back or similar).

Your comments on the valley are interesting as well. I thought there was a point where the valley does narrow considerably, but you know Mt. Kilimanjaro is not that impressive really, it's just straight up but people keep making documentaries about it.

On documentaries, I think you are looking at the low end.

Planet Earth gets a £16million budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(TV_series)   Frustratingly they don't give the take there but it's clear from the sales that there must have been a very substantial surplus.  A Mars TV documentary will play all around the world.

Glad you see from the Olympics just how much sponsorship could be available.

re grapes - I thought you were a scientist! All that it takes is the right light, temperature, humidity, wind. day-night cycle, water and soil chemicals to produce brilliant grapes.  I don't think it's impossible. The wine making process itself may be an issue of course. There are no doubt many "tricks of the trade".

ON the virtual reality experience we will have to just differ.

Re tourism and the super-rich I did get to know someone who had a £16million house many years ago...probably talking about £40million now. He did seem a pretty bored person, always looking for new things to interest himself in. Anyway I think the experience from both sale of Russian space flights and Virgin Galactic bookings is good and promising.

I think we do need to discuss those categories further.  Focussing on that is helpful I think.

Rune, I don't think anyone would deny that the Moon (and Mars) are a harsh mistress, but as far as I know, no-one has suggested that those Apollo flag poles are anything other than as upright as they were 40 plus years ago.  What were they made out of? Unobtainium?

Obviously a cost benefit analysis has to be undertaken of what is the best coms system, but I was just arguing against those who said there was only one solution in effect. A ground system will be a lot easier to maintain for one thing.

Yes it was  $100,000 I meant.

I think there may be some v. unusual or rare minerals to be found. I base that on having read that some meteorites contain very or unusual combination of elements or molecules. I guess they might have some practical use in theory.