New Mars Forums

While I fully support the ideas pesented so far, there can also be this type of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet

Of course the sea mamals are not an option, and the tundra plants are iffy, but the fish and seaweed might be possible.

Enclosures could be ice covered or made of manufactured materials, or both.  In early days water would likely come from lower lattitude glaciers, but later when Mars is more developed, I see no reason not to liquify the polar caps into ice covered bodies of water, once the atmosphere becomes thick enough for stable ice, and then later after that there could be open water. 

Energy for life could be though Ice or water (Depending on the thickness of the atmosphere), and also artificial lighting underwater, and also chemicals could be manufactured to drive living things like fish and shell fish ecologies.  Such exist on Earth today.

I would make a poo heater with a solar concentrating mirror.  Sterilize it that way, maybe recover some hydrocarbon fuels.  Then add the ashes to soil to grow food, or pack the ashes away in a burried bag as previously suggested for future gardening.  Destructive distillation.

I will resort to lichen as the example life form that could benefit,
and agree that ice worms would require even more favor than the lichen.

Lichens have been shown to be able to survive and even like Mars like conditions in cracks in rocks, getting water,
from the dawn and dusk dews, not even needing water in ice.

But some Lichens like to grow inside of rocks in Antarctica.

Is there a condensation process that can lay clear or translucent water ice over sandstone or other rock that
lichen could grown in?

Perhaps in some climatic locations on Mars???

If so then I suggest that it can bottle pressure inside wet bubbles in the ice (Until they rupture).

This could be a repetitive watering process where ice is deposited, the sun comes up and heats the rock through
the ice, and a short period of wet occurs on the rock surface where pressurization is maintained by the ice
deposited on the rock, and then very likely a rupture.  But such a period of wetness might be all that is needed.

I do not expect life in assocation with CO2 Ice eruptions, but it's model can suggest a similar one for water ice
on a less noticible scale.
Much like the dry bubbles created with clear CO2 ice as mentioned here:
CO2  (The only reason you can see the spider-Trees is that these ruptured).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_geyser

From the above reference (Strangely),  an interesting idea,  I suppose water column or container pressurization are possible.

But this is all speculation.
I think the point is that it is very likely that there are temporary improvements of certain locations on Mars to the degree that it could favor life
more than normal.  How that life could be established in those locations?  Spores in the wind?

Quote:

I almost entirely agree with you but on this point, water ice can be liquid without salt.  Exposed ice can serve as a greenhouse window, and articles I have read indicate that this is widly true.  Don't know how acid the ice and it's melt water would be.

With that favor I pretty much agree with you.  The lack of Methane is a killer.

Further, it is hard to see how tiny plants and worms could migrate from one isolated pocket of water to another.

I recall that this was put forward however as a means for panspermia from Earth to Mars.  An Earth rock impacting a temperate ice field could expose clear ice, be embeded in it and for a time period have melted water around it.  So entering the Martian undergrounds.

No evidence of it though.

I have no certainty that what I will suggest next can actually work on Mars, but it is worth the risk of being wrong.

http://skullsinthestars.com/2011/05/27/ … ctrifying/

http://www.asknature.org/strategy/0635d … 5947962fee

http://books.google.com/books?id=bAwVvO … nt&f=false

I a military establishment used electric currents in the ground to dry out wet ground, so that tanks could pass over it.

So, if Mars soil does have a quantity of moisture, and it is associated with salt, perhaps it is essentially a very cold brine in some cases.  If so, then two electrodes deployed might cause it to concentrate on one electrode, which could be inside of a solar still.  This would then result in steam, and that could be captured with a vacuum system (Fan/Compressor and a condenser).

Each day the soil should be replenished from the atmosphere to a degree, if the salt remains present.

Of course the salt toxic charactistic would need to be handled, if it traveled with the water vapor some how.

You guys have started talking skyhooks.  You seem to be talking about an above atmosphere skyhook process.

I have a question.  If you are going to have a loop or elivator, or spinning tether (My preference) with a hook to grab hardware, why could you not also grab atmosphere?

When hooking hardware, I presume that the hardware and hook must have a point in time of virtual zero differential speed.

When grabbing atmosphere a small amount of differential speed could be tollerated.

In order to keep your grabber from burning up, you either do not dip too deep into the atmosphere, or you maintain a small enough differential speed by spinning the grabber appropriatly.
What good is grabbed atmosphere?  Oxygen, Nitrogen, maybe some Argon, and other trace gasses?  To be used in chemestry, or life support, or propulsion, Chemical propulsion or condensed to liquid or ice and expelled with a linear magnetic device.

Maybe you will show me that this is not a good application, but I am inclined to think that it could be quite useful.  Sorry for the diversion from the hardware hook though.

I think it is supposed to be a percentage of the planets size if it is formed from the planets disk.  1%????  Couldn't find the reference, any query for moon brings up our Moon.  So the bigger the planet, the bigger the moon mass.  However if Jupiter had one big moon instead of Io, Europa, Ganeymede, and Callisto, maybe that would be getting substantial.

But a planet many times bigger than Jupiter might do much better.

Then there is our moon which did not form that way apparently.  I have my own rogue notion of how it formed, I think it was condensed from the Earths spare material first as a wet object, and then was added to by rubble from impacts with the Earth.  I think that is why there is evidence of magmatic water.  I will not duke it out on that speculation however.

Then there is Triton, where it is thought it was captured.  Most likely method, was that it was a binary object, and it's partner was either ejected, or impacted Neptune.  So, maybe if you have a chaotic system forming with binary objects changing orbit, you could get a more substantial moon than if it
was a condensed moon, but it appears that that is not a common occurance.

Why?

As a laboratory for the development of instrumentation.  Just because it is not good enough now does not necessarily stop it from being improved.
First you perfect your instrumentation, your laser point system.

FYI (Strike GPS, substitute, Local Postioning Systems/Instrumentation/A camera on the rocket looking at Eor, owl, Christifer Robin, and Poo Bear waving flags on the ground.)

Then bring back GPS, because it may still be useful at some point bring it back as a future better GPS.

And if you tell me that it is impossible to point a laser at a machine, then of course it is impossible to
communicate with a spacecraft orbiting the Moon.
http://www.space.com/23308-nasa-moon-la … ecord.html

Then the chemical rocket as a laboratory to study the transmission of power by energy beam to a moving object.
Laser, use the more generic “energy beam” phrase, which also allows lasers).

A chemical rocket is a moving object and moves similar to how a moving object projected by an energy beam might move.
Therefore you can build a very small scale version (Laser pointer) to test the process and define it's potential.  If the results seem positive, you can scale it up by increments as far as the reality of physics and economics will allow.

It is possible that you would eventually eliminate the chemical rocket characteristic and then have an energy beam only method, but as far as I am concerned "Why would you want to do that?".  An energy beam to project a machine upwards still needs working mass, which you must either carry with the machine, or draw from the atmosphere.  Drawing from the atmosphere comes to fault where it gets too thin.

So, if you are carrying mass in the machine for the beam to heat up, and you have a choice for that mass to carry chemical energy with it.  Such machines have already been made (Chemical Rockets).  So you have this mass which can be burned to produce thrust, and you can also project more energy into it.

As for engines not being tolerant of this, I said "I don't think existing engines could put up with this very well".  Then you told me that  "A space shuttle engine would not put up with it very well".

I say again true, that is my expectation as well.  But of course do the experiment on a very small engine.  One that can be throttled back.
Throttle it back, but try to bring the thrust level back up by adding energy from a power beam.  Is the engine going to perform well?  No it is an existing engine which was designed for a specific purpose.  However, you might learn something about designing an engine that could operate in both modes.

Mode 1: 100% chemical energy for situations where the power beam failed or was not convienient to use.

Mode 2: 50% chemical energy + 50% power beam for situations where the power beam was on line and functional.   I have previously stated a limit of 5,000 to 10,000 feet, but that was arbitrary, maybe it works 5,000 to 10,000 feet and you want to attempt to expand it upwards.

Why is this worth doing?  Because you might conserve propulsion mass if Mode2 is functioning well, and be able to bring it up to orbit along with your other payload.  It might be worth a buck or two, should it be possible to apply it to a value added service.
And finally it has been stated by that guy that owns space X, that the hardware is more valuable than the fuel.  And so they are trying to figure out how to recover booster stages.

The scheme listed above also has the potential to recover the hardware by either getting it up to orbit, or landing it on the surface of a world.

If it is power beam alone, I have a hard time figuring out what the abort modes exist that could recover the hardware.

As for economics, it seems that I have to jump through that hoop more than anyone else (Or maybe that's just my perception).

Could you get your fuel from the Moon cheaper?  Maybe, but then you could also use a hybrid system to get it to Earth orbits, conserving the finite amount of such fuels that can be gotten from the Moon.

Is it the only and best plan?  That is not proven at all.  I did use the word laboratory, which implies testing.  It would have to pass quite a few tests, to displace other methods.

But keep in mind that my objective was to transfer an idea to other minds, and I have done that so, it really does not matter what further reply I get on this. 

I expect I will vacate this thread, at least for a while, and so keep the peace, even so, thank you for your time and input, and I really and truly hope that you outdo lasers  with your power beam concept.

OK, thats fine, it's better to find truth than to continue in ignorance.

However, if beamed power with lasers has any merit, then would it be possible to beam power to an attachment intended for that purpose, and not a rocket engine?  Then having the hybrid capability that way.  Of course the beamed power must be able to lift the attachment, and to make it worth anything it must provide a surplus of lift to add to that of the rocket.

If you are completely negitive to this then I would have to conclude that beamed power by laser is not a possibility.

Supposing that lifting a device with lasers is theoretically worth considering;
I will point out that if beamed power to a device without a chemical (Or altenative) lift has it's own problems.  Clouds for instance.

But yes any device which has not been produced yet has lots of unknowns, and I am sure that there was a time when many people thought that chemical rockets could never do what they do now.

You have caused me to wonder if the following could be done:

Place a honeycombed floating shell in the mostly N2 atmosphere of Titan, so creating multiple zones, (1) the atmosphere above the honeycomb shell,
(2) the atmosphere below the honeycomb shell, (3) and of course a multitude of enclosed chambers incorported into the honeycomb shell.

If greenhouse gasses which will not consense could be pushed into zone 1, then below that could be kept as vaporized a significant amount of Methane,
as a further greenhouse gass.

Presumably the (3) honeycomb shell chambers could be partially filled with Helium for flotation, and if they were warmer inside that would also aid flotation.

Heat directed into zone (2) would eventually melt everything to an ocean, and also likely release a huge amount of hydrocarbons, which would have to be
mechanically moved to zone (1).  In zone (1), those hydrocarbons could be exported from the world, and hopefully sold to a buyer.  This would eventually allow a N2 atmosphere in zone (1) and a N2/O2 atmosphere in zone (2), but you would want to make sure that the amount of combustable gasses in zone (1) was kept below the flamable limt, in case zone (1) and zone (2) atmospheres got mixed.

Eventually when the ocean of Zone (2) existed, a very large amount of hollow floats made of plastic could be dropped into the ocean.  They would have
anchors for plants to root onto, and would likely collect into rafts.  Bog plants modified could cause them to become floating islands.  Of course
zone (2) would need artificial lighting for bog plants to grow, but then as much of the ocean as was desired could be covered in this manner.  I believe
that normal plastic objects can persist for quite a long time.  A method would be required however to keep them from becomming waterlogged over a long
period of time.

If zone 2 were to have a temperature near freezing in the areas of bog, then it could be a floating permafrost bog.  Otherwise at elivated temperatures
where trees grow on the floating bog, it still might be able to support the weight of a person, especially under a .1 g (Approximately) situation.

It might be possible to have one hemisphere as tropical, one as arctic, and a transition band of temperate between them.  For the arctic hemisphere,
then it would be required that the honeycomb shell above that area would not be heated on average above freezing.  To allow ice to form, the lights would
be turned off periodically.

Minerals could be extracted from the water, although the core is likely surrounded by several types of pressurized ice I speculate without proof,
minerals from the core may travel to the water ocean if cyro-volcanism occurs in that pressurized ice.

The de-condensation process could stop at the point where the fueling apparatus was disconnected, so it would not be that bad of a problem since any increased venting could be topped off.  I also think that the heating would be more of a zap type of a pulsed thing, scanning across the tanks to inhibit buildup.  Some wavelengths are particular to ice, but conduction would put some heat in.  But it is not a priorty, just an option to inventigate.

I actually only think of using the laser to engine coupling for the first 5000 to 10,000 feet, just to see if any good could come from it.

Of course long before committing to such a thing you would do an experiment with a small engine on a testbed, to see how this works, the problems it creats, does it give a benefit?  Also in fact what are the additional costs in modifying the engine, and in the laser system itself.  Of course it has to pay it's way.

See the movie "Cloud Atlas" perhaps.