You are not logged in.
That's a bit boring as far as I'm concerned.
You could at least make it Alpha City.
Yes - but nothing is more inefficient and potentially dangerous than people not sharing the same language - that's what has slowed up the new Airbus production in effect, because the computers in France and Germany are not speaking in a common language.
Sorry - unpressurised.
I think Jon just hit the ball out of the ground!
Does anyone think that there would be any value in having an entirely new language for the Mars civilisation?
I think my own answer is no. I would settle for English which has become (and will in my view remain) the lingua franca of Earth.
However, it is an interesting question and I can see some arguments for it as a way of creating a new identity and social solidarity.
I can only think of one instance where a new language has successfully been adopted somewhere in the world on a voluntary basis and that is Modern Hebrew in Israel. Although most people who emigrated to Israel were not Hebrew speakers, they nevertheless were familiar with many ancient Hebrew terms, so it had a cultural platform from which to work.
If a new language were to be created for Mars I think it should be
entirely new. We would have linguists work on a melded version of all the main earth languages in terms of phonemes they use. Then, perhaps try and develop a "rational" use of roots and stems. Eg. If the root word for "me" was say "zu", and "body" was "bay" and "extension" was "ho" and high was "fee" then for "my arm" it might be fee-ho-bay-zu maybe spelt Fehobazu (high-extension-body-me). Whereas leg using "gon" for low would be Gonhobazu. If you is "tu", then "your arm" would be "Fehobatu" and "your leg" would be "Gonhobatu".
Fun but ultimately a bit pointless!
No doubt this has been discussed before somewhere, but I was wondering whether people had suggestions for the first permanent human settlement on Mars.
My favourites:
1. Humanity
2. New World
3. Homopolis
4. Martis/Martis City
Working outdoors could be problematic on Mars - not so much for human beings who can wear space suits - but for machinery operating in extreme cold.
I have been wondering whether it is possible to build a kind of inflatable "aircraft hangar" type structure which would have as an internal lining a material which reflects infrared (?) heat and which would have aerogel insulation. It would have just a small opening on to the Mars surface and an internal heat source.
Would a structure of this type be able to maintain temperatures above freezing and allow easier outdoor working?
I am thinking incidentally that there would be health and safety advantages to external working.
I think that's a v. good point TK, and I think it reinforces something I would say - that space exploration, off earth ISRU etc are all very important to us being able to copy with the problems associated with trying to accommodate the ridiculous figure of 10 billion (and rising) human beings on the planet in the next few years.
You said it for me Jumpboy. I'd have it covered in a nice heap of regolith. For the initial colony a space of 200 metres square (say 6X6X6 metres) would likely be sufficient to provide power for 2 months. If there was a leak it would be a slow one permeating through the regolith.
I wouldn't have this as the only energy storage system. We'd have methane and chemical batteries as well.
Thanks for all these wonderful pics! I'm not qualified to speak on the water issues but those pics just make me feel so sad in some ways...here is the beautiful other world and no one on this planet is prepared to stump up the cash to go visit it properly and bring back the most amazing holiday video ever (and at the same time start a new human civilisation).
Surely, surely someone will before long embark on this adventure of the century.
Jumpboy - You must be suffering from the same disease as NASA (who came up with the ridiculous $400billion estimate for a Mars mission!).
Anyway, I don't think wiring will be a problem with PV film. I think that's one of its advantages. I think it's all integrated in the film - but I may be wrong!
The nuclear reactor still requires specialist knowledge.
Sorry! Jumpboy - where did you get that figure of 100KM 2 from?!?
I think a 100M2 facility - one hectare - would be more than sufficient for a six person initial colony.
Cost benefit analyses are really far more subjective than their proponents would like. That's not say we shouldn't look at some of the basic figures. We need some sort of comparison. But it would be a mistake to base policy on that.
It's instructive to look at our own everyday lives. We do make some cost-benefit analyses - will that car do a better mileage than this one? But we also take into account lots of other factors e.g. if I move to X I won't ever get to see my friends in Y etc.
So it is with Mars and the Moon I would suggest. It's all very well taking pricing the sample returned. But how could you ever judge the "quality" of the samples? The fact is that I would still trust the human eye over any surface robot to identify interesting samples.
Of course if technology can improve so that we enjoy via a robot a "virtual " experience of being on the planet then clearly the balance will begin to change. But at present in terms of utility I value humans over robots. Or rather I value humans PLUS robots over robots ALONE.
But that debate cannot override the fundamental impetus for colonisation of the planets - the urge to seek new homes and attempt to create the good society in these new places.
Yes - an outpost rather than a colony. But I don't care to distinguish too much.
Jumpboy -
Some points about nuclear v solar:-
1. Nuclear is mass intensive.
2. If nuclear goes seriously wrong there is probably little that can be done to fix it on Mars.
3. Nuclear can produce a lot of energy, but a lot of that energy is heat - not necessarily what we really need with our aerogel insulated habitats. We need electric power for artificial lighting in the farm zone, drilling, various electric motors etc.
4. Ultrathin PV film will be a less mass intensive solution than nuclear.
5. Solar energy does not require great specialist knowledge and engineering skills.
6. There are risks associated with launch failure.
7. Small scale nuclear reactor technology on Mars is an untried technology.
Well, if my calculations are anywhere near right, seems the CAES plant uses 1.8 million cubic metres of gas storage space. So divided by 20,000 that would be about 90 cubic square metres for two months supply! Something like 5 M 3 would more than do it.
That doesn't sound much...are my calculations right? Let's double it and more - call it 200M3 or something like that.
Interesting article on a pretty big system:
We'd only need a scaled down version - enough for the equivalent of 10 homes over about two months I'd say...so that would be at about 1/20,000th the size I calculate! I'll see if I can get some cubic metre figures as well.
Compressed Air Energy Storage: Gaining Popularity as an Alternative Energy Source
College Park, MD (August 1, 2001)- Alternative energy sources are on a lot of people's minds these days. So, the idea of storing energy by compressing air in underground mines may sound like science fiction, but it is already being done in Alabama and within a few years residents in Ohio will have their own compressed air plant.
"The world's first compressed air energy storage plant was in Germany," says Lee Davis, plant manager for the Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) Power Plant in McIntosh, Alabama. "The Alabama CAES plant was the first in the United States when it opened in 1991."
The Alabama Electric Cooperative CAES plant works like this: On nights and weekends air is pumped underground and compressed using low-cost electricity at pressures up to 1,078 pounds per square inch. Average air pressure level at sea level is only 14.7 pounds per square inch. During the day at peak times, air is released and heated using a small amount of natural gas. The heated air flows through a turbine generator to produce electricity.
In conventional gas-turbine power generation, the air that drives the turbine is compressed and heated using natural gas. On the other hand, CAES technology needs less gas to produce power during periods of peak demand, because is uses air that has already been compressed and stored underground.
"The proposed plant in Norton, OH about 35 miles south of Cleveland will be the world's largest CAES plant," says Michael McGill, Vice President of business development at, Norton Energy Storage. "At peak operation, the plant will store enough electricity to provide 675,000 homes with electricity for just over two days."
With the success of the Alabama plant, developers began to look for other suitable locations. "We looked at several other states before we decided on an abandoned limestone mine in Ohio, but soon we hope to explore some of the other promising CAES sites around the country and begin constructing," says McGill.
While the idea of compressed air energy storage has been in existence for the last decade, it is only now gaining popularity and support as researchers look for energy alternatives. "I think that it is important for all states to look at their alternative energy generation resources and ways of storing energy," says John Turner, a researcher at National Renewable Energy Laboratory. " Compress air energy storage is definitely one."
CAES may be the solution to take the pressure off finding alternative energy sources.
Yes "enormously expensive" - but the whole story is "enormously expensive and enormously productive".
I'm interested in how we might develop compressed gas storage on Mars, as this is I believe one of the most efficient means of storing energy - I think it achieves 90% plus efficiency.
The compressed gas when relieved can drive turbines.
Could this I wonder be combined with methane production so that as well as using the methane to burn and power steam turbines, we compress it as well so that the pressure can then turn turbines?
I believe we could store the compressed gas in inflatables buried in the regolith.
Any thoughts?
I disagree. Frugal living will be a major component of early colonial life on Mars.
What exactly do the people of Mars need? Basic clothing, air, food, water,
basic medical support (there aren't going to be any sickly octogenarians), heat, lighting and shelter. They'll need a kitchen, hygiene area, gym, sleep zone and rest room. They will have their gym and laptops for entertainment. We might throw in a basket ball hoop and basketball.
I really don't see the need for anything much more. We might have some musically minded people who could take light instruments - a flute would be a good choice. Laptops could have rubber keyboards attachments.
All their reading matter, films etc can be contained on laptops and similar.
akwx -
Of course a crater is a good start in excavating the hemisphere to house a spherical dome.
Certainly agree about the documentaries, Gregori. I think they could make a modest contribution to costs.
Also a dedicated Mars website including real time weather info, webcams etc might attract subscribers prepared to pay quite large amounts among universities around the world. 1,000 subscribers at $1,000 a time?
Also, maybe a Radio Mars station - that could attract quite large sponsorship I think.
I’m not qualified to determine which would be simpler and cheaper:
> a PV panel manufacturing plant and the infrastructure to mine and process the raw materials
> or a generator connected to a steam turbine and mirrors.It might make sense to get the generator and steam turbine from Earth, then all you’d need would be mirrors, which can be made from all sorts of stuff.
And 40% efficiency with 19th century technology.
Bob
Bob -
Interested you refer to mirrors and steam turbines - I was a strong advocate of that approach when I first got involved in this area of discussion. However, I more or less abandoned that when I found out about ultra thin PV film (which obviously avoids the need for mass-intensive and dangerous steam turbines). Nevertheless I agree we should keep this under review. Reflective foil is very light and easily assembled. It would probably be less susceptible to environmental degradation on the Mars surface than ultra thin PV film.
I think you’ll find the information at this site: http://hobbiton.thisside.net/rovermanual
The maximum power produced by the Spirit and Opportunity rovers' 1.2 square meter power arrays is 140 watts. This works out to about 19% efficiency. Keep in mind that this is almost never achieved because of time of day, seasonality, positioning issues, dust, atmospheric absorption, temperature and other issues.
Bob
Bob -
I dispute the 140 watts figure. The Rover solar panels have been quoted as achieving (best result) 900 watt hours over four hours i.e. 225 watts - which would give you about 30% efficiency. 140 watts may be an average.
Thanks for the fantastic reference - but that looks like the pre launch spec - actual results were better than predicted.
Grypd -
I tend to agree with you - I am proposing ultra thin for the initial landing and (in the case of Mars) maybe one or two follow up missions. Long term, to avoid transit of mass, we should be looking to develop ISRU solar panel manufacture. The fact that we may only be able to produce low efficiency panels to begin with should not discourage us from doing so. We'll have plenty of land and time to indulge in low efficiency production.
It's important we free up some mass to allow the import of more complicated and specialist CNC machines and robots which can help create a comprehensive (but small scale) industrial infrastructure replicating nearly all the processes found in large and complex industrial societies on earth.