New Mars Forums

More Rovers and a Sample Return? https://twitter.com/SpokespersonCHN/sta … 5835363330

China joins space race leaders as rover touches down on Mars
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/ … 2b5a871726

For Calliban and kbd512 ...

As a reminder, Louis is filling an important role in the forum, by setting up challenging scenarios for more knowledgeable members to explore.

The beneficiaries of your efforts are NOT Louis!  They are the readers (members and non-members) who can learn from your work.

Please keep them in mind as you compose your posts.

Louis is here to stimulate creativity ... when you write, please consider tackling the specific errors that Louis makes and then resolutely, clearly and in a step by step manner, refute them.

In addition, I am calling for exploration of the feasibility of some version of Louis' wild-eyed concepts.

There was a brief moment when I thought the knowledgeable members might tackle the specifics of how to set up a solar panel manufacturing facility on Mars. The ideal solution (from my perspective) would be a package with self-contained power source able to fit in a single Starship, and begin making solar panels shortly after landing.

(th)

For Louis ...

The Antarctic vet was kind enough to send this snapshot ... it closes with an invitation to see more at a web site at a link provided.

> There is another opportunity for your experience to be given exposure,
> in the context of the NewMars ongoing discussions.
>
> While you may prefer not to establish an account in the forum (makes
> sense to me so no problem), there is an alternative that might work.

Yes.  I find Forums to be way too time consuming to warrant constant
monitoring and they only last as long as someone actively maintains
them.  They are the cul de sacs of the Internet.

The topic is interesting but I am way too overloaded right now to be
adding things.  I'm not really even keeping up with regular
correspondence.  This is the sort of topic that can occupy chapters of
books.

In short: even in the Winter at Pole, we go outside.  Vehicles don't
work reliably below -85F.  It's over a kilometer from the Station to
the Ice Cube Lab.  There are several remote buildings in the Dark
Sector.  Unless you are hauling cryogens or drinking water, you walk.
It was about a 20-25 minute walk for me with summer gear and 40
minutes in the winter (dark, plus heavier boots plus I'm short so I
walk up one side the drifts and down the other where 6'-tall-guys step
over them.  Tall guys could get to the Ice Cube lab 15 minutes ahead
of me).

There are YouTube videos of people putting on ECW gear for outdoor
activities at Pole.  The stuff we get is good for 4-6 hours of being
outside but I wouldn't want to go 7-8 hours.  Too tiring.

We routinely go out at -100F to -110F (it doesn't usually get colder
at Pole)  Obviously air pressure isn't a problem (avg 650 mb in the
winter, about 2/3 sea level - never saw lower than about 620mb, and
summertime, over 700mb is record-setting territory).  We don't use
heated suits, we just trap body heat in multiple layers
(polypropylene, down/fiber fill, fleece, nylon outer shell for
wind...)  Boots have multiple insulating layers (felt, quilted fiber
fill, polypro...) because you don't want to lose heat through the
soles of your feet standing on -100F snow.

There are people who literally do not go outside for 8 months.  Not
many, usually galley workers or office people.  Some people go outside
every day.  Most are in-between.  Recreation at -70F to -80F isn't bad
once you've acclimated.  -65F is nicer.  -55F is positively balmy for
Winter.  Colder than -90F and even Polies pay extra attention to their
gear before going outside for a walk.

One winter, we had a teleconference with the earth-based crew working
the Mars Phoenix Lander (one of their number was a former South Pole
winterover).  We realized during the call that it was 10-15 degrees
warmer where the probe was than the temp 10 feet from where we were
sitting at Pole.

That's the short version.  Invite people to look at a few pictures and
read about some of my days there at penguincentral.com

Cheers,

(th)

A7L-B operator manual from NASA: Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit
March 1971
Volume I
System Description
CSD-A-789-(1)
Apollo 15-17

Page 2.88, or PDF page 108, schematic if primary oxygen system. With specifications:
Primary O2 bottle
1410 ±30 psia
370 in³
1.34 lb available for EVA at 1380 psia and 70°F

Converting to metric:
1410 psi = 97.216 bar
370 in³ = 6.063 litres
1.34 lb = 0.6078 kg

Carbon Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV) from one manufacturer: Meyer COPV
Part No. HDRX-030
3.0 litre
Work pressure 300 bar
Weight 1.30 kg
Diameter 116 mm, length 444 mm

Yes, the example bottle has half the volume, but supports 3 times the pressure. It's the closest I could find. Google didn't find a lot of manufacturers. At half volume but 3 times pressure, this bottle can handle 1.5 times mass of oxygen. A7L-B was rated for 7 hours EVA.

For Louis re new topic ...

Best wishes for success with this (from my perspective) important new topic ...

Earlier in the forum archive (if memory serves) there is documentation of the coping mechanisms that people who live in Northern Scandinavian countries deal with being indoors for months at a time with no or little sunshine.

As i read you list, I felt many of the items would be helpful.

I would like to point out that books (reading) are a time honored way of transporting one's self to distant lands or times.  Science fiction readers (of which Mars_B4_Moon appears to be one) are treated to transport to distant places in the Solar system, distant galaxies, and even (on occasion) distant Universes.

Traditional forms of performance art may have been included in your list.  Plays, small scale theater, musical performances of various scales and other social events would seem likely to me to be popular.  I recall (as an example) performances of chamber music on the Star Trek Voyager series.

In thinking about your theme, and inspired by recollection of Star Trek, it occurs to me that creators of Star Trek and other science fiction extrapolations of the future have been attempting to deal with the challenges of life in remote places within a hostile environment.

***
Regarding oxygen ... I suspect you've not had time to closely read everything that's been published in the forum over time.

RobertDyck, in particular, has recommended pure oxygen for EVA equipment on Mars and on his large Ship on multiple occasions.

So, following up on your suggestion ... an EVA (to an agricultural facility operating with gas mixture best suited for plants) or out of doors would provide pure Oxygen for the duration of the EVA.

(th)

Records would be easily broken but the only way to know what truly happens is when people get there and live there and do their own version of Earth Sports, perhaps the spacesuits on the Lunar surface were restrictive or maybe it was the 'soil' or maybe there was little traction on the feet with less gravity that made them move different. If you look at the Apollo astronaut footage they were more comfortable doing a skip or two leg bunny hop, you could comfortably Moon hop and travel much better if you moved like an Aussie kangaroo. Personally I think people are doing to be too busy trying to keep a colony alive than trying to put on some Olympic sports event. Throws of Discus Javelin, the Weight Lifting, Gymnastics would be showing super-human cookbook super hero style feats, the Moon is not Mars, the Moon has no air but Mars has a thin atmosphere, the Moon has gravity 16.6% that on Earth's surface or 0.16 while Mars is a little over one third or 38% of that of Earth.

Speculation of advanced food production. Speculated about starship food production for a TV show or sci-fi book.

In the "Large scale colonization ship" thread, I described life support for a large ship for Mars: 6 months to Mars. Using technologies that either exist or can be developed in the short term. Let's start with that...

Existing technology:

• CO2 removed from cabin air with a regenerable sorbent. Amine paste painted on styrofoam peas, regenerated periodically via heat and partial vacuum. Alternative is silver oxide granules; more compact but more mass.

• remove bad smells with activated carbon. That's charcoal turned into an open cell foam. Also regenerated with heat and partial vacuum.

• urine filtered to remove remove water

• some concentrated urine aged with bacteria to produce nitrate fertilizer with a little potassium and phosphate for hydroponics, the rest transferred to waste receptacle.

• feces vacuum desiccated. Dry feces ground in a garburator, transported by auger and pressurized air to waste receptacle.

• water processor: from filtered urine, desiccated feces, and wash water

• recycling shower: cyclone separation, then filtration. Result: 70% of water that goes down the drain, comes back out the shower head. Reduces water consumption and energy to heat water. Water not recycled goes to water processor

• aquaponics: combination of hydroponics and aquaculture. Grow fresh vegetables. Parts of plants that aren't edible (stems, leaves) fed to fish. Fish poop used as fertilizer. Fertilizer from urine used only for hydroponic crops with produce above ground, not root crops.

short-term technology:

• chloroplast oxygen generator. Chloroplasts isolated from leaves of a plant stored in sterile water in a transparent plastic bag. Light on bag as energy source. Sunlight can be directed by mirror through a window, but UV must be filtered out to avoid damaging chloroplasts. Plastic is semi-permeable to let O2 out. To promote O2 getting out, circulate water inside bag with a pump, blow air across outside of bag with a fan.

• chloroplasts will produce carbohydrate as byproduct. Peas are the easist to isolate chloroplasts. Peas produce pea starch. Filter starch from water of oxygen generator bags, dry starch for use in kitchens.

• Emergency food: starch dissolved in water, add bread yeast and ferment for 3 days. Cook in microwave oven. Result is translucent white with consistency of pudding, flavour and aroma of freshly baked bread. Yeast adds a little protein, lipids, and full vitamin B complex (except B12).

• break down starch with enzyme (amylase) to produce sugar

• amylase produced by a species of mould grown in a vat on starch

New speculative technology:

• cultured meat. This requires a lot of animal hormones.

• grow animal hormones in vats with genetically modified bacteria. Bacteria fed sugar.

• flour: mostly starch, so start with pea starch. Grow protein and lipids appropriate for bread flour with genetically modified yeast, grown in a vat. Bacteria fed sugar. Dry and grind yeast, mix with starch to produce flour.

• bake bread from aforementioned flour: sandwich bread, buns for burgers, etc

• hydroponically grown potatoes. Can we grow potatoes large enough for french fries? With potato plant roots in hydroponic solution, possibly stabilized with vermiculite. Potatoes grow a "stolon", which is a modified plant stem, not a root. A potato grow on the end of each stolon, one stolon per potato. Normally potatoes grow underground, but for hydroponics is it possible for machinery to move the end of each stolon to some sort of cage, separate from roots? Perhaps more vermiculite to support the potato? The goal is to remove the vegetable from hydroponic solution, and separate the vegetable so it can be easily harvested without killing the plant. Potato is perennial: the plant dies with winter cold, but re-grows in spring from the tuber (the potato). How long can we keep a plant alive and producing before starting over?

Potato details: As long as temperature is warm, the plant has plenty of water and nutrients and light, the plant will continue to grow. And continue to produce potatoes. Potato plants produce fruit, about the size of cherry tomatoes. The fruit contains about 300 seeds each. Seeds do grow, but plants are not consistent. Plants grown from potato sections are a clone of the parent. Seeds are where new varieties come from. Potato fruit is poisonous, as are stems and leaves, only the tuber is edible. Potato is part of the Nightshade family. But potato flowers require pollination to produce fruit, so an enclosed hydroponic operation can keep pollinators out.

I still argue for soil agriculture for greenhouses on Mars. Hydroponics requires nutrient solution. Why create industry to extract nutrients from Mars dirt? More efficient to treat Mars dirt to produce arable soil.

Menu: salad

• romaine lettuce

• raw spinach

• tomatoes: cherry and regular

• sliced bell peppers (green & red)

• sliced cucumber

• grated carrots

• snap peas (stringless)

• green beans

• strawberry

• green onion

• bean sprouts

• broccoli

Croutons can be made from bread baked on the ship from flour brought from Mars.

Mushrooms can be grown in compost: white (aka button), portobellow, cremini/crimini, oyster mushrooms

Could we produce vegetable oil with vat-grown bacteria instead of plants? For cooking oil and salad dressing?
Microbial vat-grown casein for cheese?

Ketchup

entrée:

• burger

• dinner roll

• chicken sandwich: ground/pressed chicken patty, chicken salad

• Salisbury steak: just a burger patty without the bun, usually served with gravy and mushrooms

• french fries (aka chips)

• potato chips (aka crisps)

• mashed potatoes

• meatloaf

• tilapia fish steak

• sashimi: tilapia only. Not sushi. Sushi has rice, maki is layers of fish and rice wrapped in seaweed. I'm suggesting no rice or seaweed.

• pancake / waffle

A starship would have some stored food, but producing the bulk along the way greatly reduces the amount of stored food.

Louis, solar power systems on Mars do not provide enough surplus energy to reproduce themselves, meet other energy requirements and build excess capacity for expansion.  This is what stands in your way.  And it is not a problem that is easily solvable because it is imposed upon us by the unchangeable nature of the resource that we are trying to exploit.  It is a conservation of energy problem.  It isn't about not having sufficient tools to make the power systems in a technical sense.  It isn't about not having the knowhow.  It is the simple problem of not getting enough out compared to what you are putting in.  You could ship to Mars every factory and tool that you think you may need and it wouldn't make any difference.

By way of analogy, imagine having to grow enough celery to meet the calorific needs of your family on a piece of land, using nothing but your own muscle power.  You would starve to death.  It wouldn't matter how good your spade or seed drill was.  It wouldn't matter how much technological know how you had and how skillful you were at planting and tending and harvesting your crops.  You would starve because it would be impossible to harvest enough energy to pay for the energy inputs.  That is the sort of situation that you are in when trying to grow an industrial society using solar energy on Mars.

On Earth, we have all sorts of ways of subsidising solar power, both directly and indirectly.  But those things don't really apply on Mars.  There aren't any subsidies there because there is nothing to subsidise with.  No manipulation of money supply or interest rates will help you.  There are no cheap fossil fuels to make steel, or cement or silicon.

At least that is the conclusion that I would have to draw based upon the evidence that I have seen.  Maybe there is evidence that I haven't seen?

Mars has as much land area as the entire Earth.  A solar farm covering 200km2, would cover a little more than one millionth of the Martian surface.  It is a big place.  So I am less concerned about the visual impact of solar farms.

The issues that make this idea unworkable are the sheer amount of embodied materials and embodied energy needed to build a solar power plant.  On Earth, in northern Europe, the energy payback time of a utility grade PV plant is about 6 years.  And that is ignoring other energy losses and sunk energy costs, such as those associated with energy storage.  On Mars, we can expect it to be similar at the equator and progressively more as we head away from the equator.  This means that if we are making solar panels on Mars, using solar PV energy, a large proportion of the energy supply is consumed simply replacing the original solar power plant before it wears out.  This poor energy payback is an inevitable consequence of the nature of the resource and its low inherent power density.

In the context of a Martian colony that is attempting to grow into a city-state, this causes severe problems.  It makes it very difficult to grow the power supply and provide enough surplus energy to build infrastructure that an expanding population is going to need.

If we were talking about industrial development in free space at Earth distance from the sun, where sunlight is available at 1300W.m-2, and available 24/7; then the conclusion would be very different.  Solar power would provide more than sufficient net energy return to do everything that we needed it to do.  But in the context of a growing colony on the surface of Mars, the physics is telling us that it isn't possible.  Therefore it isn't responsible to advocate it, purely because you are attached emotionally to the idea of it.  But that seems to be the position that Louis is taking.  He is advocating this, not because it makes sense at any practical level, but because he likes the idea of it.  That's about as silly as you can get when you are trying to build something that is already absurdly difficult, like a colony on a planet with virtually no air and with temperatures as cold as Antarctica. 

Interestingly, solar power is not a sustainable proposition for provision of bulk electricity on Earth.  However, a number of factors combine to make solar PV power appear more affordable and sustainable than it really is, at least in the short-term.

1. Dumping of modules by Chinese state-owned companies.  This started around 2008 and drove most western solar PV manufacturers to the wall.

2. Very low (close to zero and less than inflation) interest rates, since 2009.  This has skewed the economics of new investments, because large institutional investors can now borrow, confident that the value of outstanding loans will depreciate faster than interest payments accrue.  This makes it very easy to invest expensive capital equipment, such as that needed to make solar panels.  The same applies to utility companies, who can pay for the manufactured solar panels with effectively zero interest money.  When one considers that the cost of renewable energy is dominated by capital costs, this has the effect of strongly reducing the need for revenue to cover capital cost payments.  In fact, if you think about it, if both manufacturers and utilities can borrow at less than inflation, you have to wonder why solar electricity isn't completely free right now.

3. Quantitative easing money is basically flowing into sovereign and corporate bond markets around the world.  This is inflating their price and conversely pushing down their rate of return.  This means that companies can now issue 30-year bonds with real returns that fail to even match inflation.  But it does have the effect of making capital investments very affordable.  This effect has allowed the US shale boom to take the world by storm, even though the energy return on investment of tight oil (shale) is far below conventional oil.  The same mechanism is benefiting solar and wind as well, though the scale has been less significant than shale.

4. Renewable sources have privileged access to electricity markets, allowing them to dump power on the grid whenever it is produced.  Other energy sources, many of which are relied upon as backup for renewable energy, are not compensated for lost market share.  This is part of the reason behind legacy coal, nuclear and even some natural gas powerplants going to the wall in recent years.  The problem of course is that we still need to rely on these plants for energy supply when the sun isn't shining or wind not blowing.

5. Some commodities are extremely cheap (or were until recently).  The Chinese are producing steel at a cost of $300/tonne.  Concrete is similarly cheap.  In mainland China, electricity is cheap.  This has made the enormous materials budget of Solar PV more affordable.  But the thing to remember is that these commodities are only cheap because they receive an enormous energy subsidy from fossil fuels.  Cheap coal makes for cheap steel and electricity.  Cheap natural gas makes cheap cement.  The same is true for any commodity that is cheap.  It wouldn't be cheap without fossil fuels.  So solar power, is really just coal or natural gas power.  Their energy is embodied in the energy cost of solar infrastructure.  These fuels are finite and we are close to their all time production peaks right now.  They won't exist at all on Mars and nor will there be air to burn them.

So the renewable energy boom is supported by unsustainable financial conditions that cannot be maintained for very much longer.  Low interest rates are destroying pension funds, leading to enormous unfunded pension liabilities.  Return on investment is so low that long-term investment is unprofitable.  Likewise, quantitative easing, which involves inflating M1 money supply, cannot continue for much longer without destroying the value of fiat currencies.  Yet without these conditions, wind and solar power would be too expensive to be more than niche solutions in our energy future.  We are living in a bubble at present.  When that bubble finally bursts, a lot of people are going to lose their shirts.

Louis,

If PV rolls are so easily deployed, then why aren't rovers deploying PV rolls every day?

How long did it take humanity to go from incredibly energy dense liquid hydrocarbon fuels, that required no separate oxidizer to burn in Earth's atmosphere, to producing solar panels?

By my math, it took about a century.  Scientists in multiple different countries knew about the photoelectric effect long before we had widespread use of internal combustion engines burning liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but it wasn't until the 1950s that we used the very first solar panels to power satellites.

This idea that we're going to start from scratch and then ten years later, start producing photovoltaic panels on Mars is wildly optimistic, especially if they're limited to solar power to begin with.

Solar panels rely upon materials that are about as abundant as Platinum, so unless Mars is awash in the minerals required, I don't see that as very practical.

Anyway, cost on Mars is tied to total system weight for the power generating and storage solution.  There is no such thing as a battery pack that stores equivalent energy as a nuclear reactor can produce, for equivalent weight, or anything close to it.  In another 10 years, that will still be every bit as true as it is today.

From the article you linked to, 869MWh of battery power storage is installed across the entire United States, so a city on Mars would require 4.25 times the amount of installed capacity to store 24 hours worth of energy.  No mention is made of the weight of the installed systems, either, but most of those systems installed in the US will be Lead-acid batteries as a function of cost.  I'm guessing they aren't all that light.