"Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

Void · 2019-01-22 21:16:51

As it happens I am now the one who is sick and mostly stranded at home, so this is what you get.

We could start with Isacc Arthur, a video on the topic. I don't necessarily agree with everything he presents.
For instance as I see it Radon may not be a problem underground on Mars, because the linings of tunnels and caves made to hold a higher pressure into the caves and tunnels (Except hyperloops), Radon may be kept at bay.

Corrected this link at 10:07 PM central time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBPMIUPz6-k

The Boring Company:
https://www.boringcompany.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company
https://www.inverse.com/article/52614-t … e-collider
Quote:

The Boring Company could save “several billion euros” on the construction of a giant particle collider, founder Elon Musk claimed on Monday.

So Elon Musk is projecting confidence to be able to vastly reduce the cost of tunneling. Isaac Arthur suggests that this is likely to happen in the future.

And in my opinion stated previously elsewhere. The occupants of Mars will want to control the two primary condensation points on Mars. The polar ice caps.

The current thinking I have on this is to start at some icy location in the mid latitudes, and create a trench reservoir which leads to a primary condensation point. This an ice covered canal/reservoir.

Where convenient it might also be possible to then transport water towards the equator. Either by continuation of canal, or more likely by water conveying tunnels underground that will fill relatively small reservoirs. Solar power likely the big deal. Various kinds.

While I am not opposed to glass/or glazed greenhouses. my biggest fantasy at this time is cone shaped sort of surface devices made of boring tailing bricks, and perhaps mounded over deeply by more tailings. That mound projecting above the ice in the canals I mentioned.
The cone enclosures linked by utilities to the water surrounding the artificial island. Also a boring tube connecting the cone enclosure to the undergrounds. Upon the island solar collection devices sufficient to collect photons deflected from a collection of heliostats.

Issac Arthur expresses misgivings about overheating in the undergrounds. I feel that the reservoir canal will be a very good radiator, even to some extent a evaporative radiator if we like. To do that then the water that evaporates from the ice must be replenished to the canal from one or both of the primary condensation points on the planet. One method is to shoot a laser into the ice cap from a lower point to melt water from the cap. That should flow down the created tube, as the angle from the laser projector will be at an angle upward. Here we avoid Caving such as happens when glaciers fall into sea. We don't want such water displacements projected into the canal. Of course the laser can be moved in it's pointing. An ice cave may result, and it should be possible to examine it scientifically, to examine the layers.

So, because of the cooling potential of the canal reservoir, I feel it will be very possible to have artificial lighted gardens both in the cone enclosures nearer the surface, and into the deeps below.

His thinking on air pressure is interesting. How deep could tunnels go below the floor of Hellas? 2 Miles? Is that going to be a big problem? Sorry Metric people if you like, do the conversions. So, 5,280 x 2 = 10,560 feet. That is a significant pressurization. What about 10 miles? The gravity is ~.38, so 10 miles is equivalent to 3.8 miles in pressure of rock on Earth, so maybe not impossible as far as rock pressure.

Then if you do manage to raise the surface pressure from an average of 5.5 mb to 16.5 mb, then I am just going to guess ~40 mb on the floor of Hellas and so then that much more air pressure if you bore down 5 mile or 10 miles.

That is I guess it is frivolous to suppose you would not use physical differential pressure barriers, but in the deeps even if you had a catastrophic rupture of the system, perhaps the outcome would not be lethal, not in the deeps.

And I guess the Insight Lander will be letting us know what sort of temperatures we might hope to find 5 miles down or 10 miles down.

And further doing things this way, what are the odds that useful mineral deposits will be encountered while tunneling. I think it would happen.

The Boring Company just drilled a tunnel about 1 mile long. Is it that hard to think of drilling one down 2 miles? 5 miles? 10 miles? I am guessing you would do it at an angle.

Hmm... What if the boring company could in fact access geothermal power as well? Hot Rocks. Maybe on Mars due to the low gravity.

This is interesting, of course there process resembles fracking for oil and natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dry_r … surization
Quote:

Feasibility studies[edit]
The feasibility of mining heat from the deep earth was proven in two separate HDR reservoir flow demonstrations—each involving about one year of circulation—conducted by the Los Alamos National Laboratory between 1978 and 1995. These groundbreaking tests took place at the Laboratory’s Fenton Hill HDR test site in the Jemez Mountains of north-central New Mexico, at depths of over 8000 ft and rock temperatures in excess of 180 °C.[5] The results of these tests demonstrated conclusively the viability of the revolutionary new HDR geothermal energy concept. The two separate reservoirs created at Fenton Hill are still the only truly confined HDR geothermal energy reservoirs flow-tested anywhere in the world.

A compromise would be to tunnel part way down per Boring Company method, then create a cavern, then frack downwards from the cavern. If their test wells were about 8000 feet deep, then for Mars, we could suppose to do at least (The following is corrected) 8000 / ~.38 = 21,052 below the cavern (Maybe).

Food for thought.

Mars is not Earth. In some ways it might be better.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-23 13:35:15)

Void · 2019-01-24 15:06:05

So, I think I have an underground geometric shape for a cave, that would be suitable to keeping things the way desired.

The boring company can make tunnels at this time.

The carved cave I am thinking of could be visualized by starting with a cone shaped cave. Then put an Aztec step pyramid inside of it. Leave enough room so that a tall person can stand up strait on any of the steps. But now change it to a cone shaped step pyramid. Also make the steps into a continuous spiral, from the apex of the cone to the bottom of the cone.

Now instead of visualizing carving the whole cone, and then building a cone pyramid with a spiral step, just carve the "VOID" space, which will leave a cone ceiling with a rock cone pyramid with a spiraled continuous ramp/step-way.

I am thinking that this would be cooled by evaporation. You would drip water at the apex as necessary, and let it spiral down the spiral steps. I suppose a slip and fall might be of a concern, so that has to be considered as something to fix against.

The pooling of water at the bottom of the cone could tell your process control that you have too little/enough/too much water. (Toilet methods (Water Closet) might do).

And then I would think that cool dry air would be introduced near the base of the cone.

The air to flow upward towards a venting at the apex of the cone.

The radiator condenser would be associated with a ice covered reservoir of water, the radiation of heat from the ice being through dirt covering it or even possibly through a contribution from sublimation from exposed ice. (In that case you must have a adequate source of makeup water to keep the reservoir filled with water and ice as would be desired. In the beginning the make up water could come from adjacent ice slabs, and when the Martian system is fully built it might ultimately come from the polar condensation points, or also perhaps from alpine sources at lower latitudes, presuming that Mars has also been sufficiently terraformed.

So, if you have such caves that can be evaporatively cooled in this manner, then you could put artificial lights into them to stimulate photo vetitive growth.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-24 15:18:36)

SpaceNut · 2019-01-24 18:32:35

I see the oh wait a minute...
Hawthorne+Test+Tunnel

Some other activity for the machine
https://www.boringcompany.com/products/

Still not finding much detail on the size, mass and what it runs on yet but I am sure it will turn up...

Void · 2019-01-24 19:18:06

I have a bit here:
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-the … e-chicago/
Quote:

During the Boring Company’s information session earlier this year, Elon Musk described the design of the startup’s tunnel boring machines. According to Musk, Godot, the company’s first TBM, is a conventional tunneling machine. Line-Storm, which was announced by Musk on Twitter last October, would be a hybrid, with parts from conventional boring machines and custom hardware designed by the company. Thanks to its hybrid nature, Line-Storm would be 2x faster than Godot. Proof-Rock, a third-generation TBM, will be developed entirely by the Boring Company, and it would be 10-15x faster than conventional TBMs.
It remains to be seen if the machine seemingly being assembled at the Hawthorne site is Line-Storm or Proof-Rock. That said, the Boring Company’s TBM for Chicago would most likely feature the startup’s most advanced tunneling tech yet. During the information session, Musk stated that the company’s boring machines, thanks to their electric nature (or partially-partially electric in the case of Line-Storm), the Boring Co’s machines are around 3x more powerful than conventional TBMs. The TBMs will be powered by Tesla batteries as well, eliminating the need for cabling in the actual tunneling site.

The only warrantee that comes with this is the fact that Falcon 9 can indeed do a hover slam and fly again. In spite of all the swirling around Elon Musk, SpaceX shows that he knows how to work with people to get fantastic things done. He demands a lot and does not get it all, but gets plenty.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-24 19:31:49)

Void · 2019-01-24 19:33:55

If they do pull it off, then the tunneling methods or similar should be ideal for Mars.

I confess, trying to make a pathway with ice covered waterways, is a bit out there.

But if you have reservoirs linked by underground tunnels for travel and to move various fluids, and can link water sources to water needs, and of course energy sources, I think you have the backbone of a civilization of some potential.

Done.

Void · 2019-02-04 22:15:15

I have been thinking about the so called "Aztec Cone Cave" of post #2.

Have revised my thinking.

I think now that a tunnel in the form of a spiral cork screw. Perhaps each loop a little further out. That way, no tunnel over the other, that way not much need for supports.

But it should be possible to cut shortcuts between loops. Probably those will have doors. A purpose is to make a shunt path if you cannot get through the helix for some reason.

And then I should imagine a double helix perhaps. One helix outside the other. Then you could flow air down one and up the other, or have a vertical feeder shaft to feed dry cool air to the bottoms of the helixes.

The things this might accomplish is storage of heat from the sunny days, a place for biology to occur, chemosynthesis, and perhaps artificial lights used to green it up.

The tubes naturally a storage for breathable atmosphere (It is hoped).

Access to the deeps of Mars.

I am not yet convinced that geothermal energy will not be accessible by a combination of these helical tunnels, and fracking from the bottom of the Helix's.

I also think that with all the other attributes, mining is also a possibility.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2019-02-05 17:22:55

Is the shape of the spiral small diameter at the top and widening as you bore downward into Mars?

I am still in search of the boring machines numbers for Mass, diameter, height and energy requirements to make the intent possible.
Th dug materials would be made use of later.

Void · 2019-02-05 21:19:00

I would think that if you did boring it would be the width of the tunnel.

But I suppose at intervals caverns could be created.

This is apparently twitter for the boring company.
https://twitter.com/boringcompany

Godot is the first boring machine they have. It is actually a sewer boring device. I think that they have converted it to battery electric instead of internal combustion. Which will make sense on Mars. I think they upped the power by x3 but please don't take me to the inquisition on that.

Something on Godot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cSBsnQN-5w

One of the desired innovations is to install tunnel liners as the tunnel is drilled in a continuous fashion. Current technology requires a stop of the machine to do that. I am not sure what other secret notions they have. However their quotes for some of the jobs they want to do are already ridiculously low I think. Err.... Maybe that's "Line-storm".

Here is a wiki on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Borin … g_machines
I think they are going to have two more, each with more and more innovation from the technicians at the Boring company.
Quote:

Boring machines[edit]
The first three boring machines used by The Boring Company are:[35]:51:15–54:30
Godot,[14] a conventional tunnel boring machine, used for research purposes.
Line-storm, a highly modified conventional boring machine, a hybrid design, boring 2–3 times faster than pre-2018 boring machines.
Prufrock,[32] or Proof-Rock,[36] a "fully-Boring-Company-designed machine",[35]:52:03[32] anticipated to be approximately ten times faster than conventional boring machines, with hopes of making it even faster. Currently under development since May 2018.[35][36]

That's not solid specs, but it is interesting speculation.

……

It may be that indeed at least some crustal rocks on Mars are generally more porous due to the ~.38 g field. That may bode well for using tunneling on Mars.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-02-05 21:34:21)

Void · 2019-03-12 09:38:16

I found this last night. Not too far off from some of what I previously suggested for "Cone" structures, but much better, much better.

MARSHA:
Teslarati 3D-Printed Mars Habitat could be a perfect for early spaxeX starship colonies, MARSHA
I do https://www.teslarati.com/3d-printed-ma … -colonies/

I do have concerns. There is a catch 22. If you land Starship on a deep ice slab because you want to mine water, then do you place this on top of the ice? I would be nervous about that. Or, do you carve/mine a hole in the ice and put this thing of rock foundations? Of course for that you not only have to remove the ice, but even then you might be perching the thing on frozen icy permafrost.

That sort of thing has been a concern for me for a while. You want a large ice body, but you want good foundations. So, I am inclined to think that you want to picture this ice slab as being a frozen body of water, and might like to find an "Island" of rock of substantial proportions, and yet to be able to access deep ice near by easily.

So, we would be looking for special real estate.

We could settle for shallow ice, but I guess that has to be located.

I do like there ideas.

……

In my use of it however, I might indeed dig holes in the ice and submerge these thing to a rocky surface, if possible. However the tops pointing up and out of the ice. Then you have two choices. In order to not melt the ice around the buildings, you may have to cool the air between the two sets of walls. Or you might just let the ice melt, and suck it up, and then either have a pocket of water under the ice, or simply have little craters in the ice where these building sit.

I did think that the boring company methods could be used to bore through rocks, but now I am thinking why not just bore through the ice at the "Grounding Line", and build horizontal tunnels from building to building in a network.

If you have sunken building, surrounded by ice, or a crater in the ice, then you would want diagonal tunnels or roads up the crater walls to get to the top of the ice slab. If you do have craters in the ice, then dust from dust storms will tend to gradually fill the craters, so maybe that is the answer, you might even take overburden from areas you are mining, and fill in around the buildings with berms heaped up. Perhaps dry dirt. That could be ideal, if you had good rock foundation, then you would not have to be concerned about melting ice or rocky/icy permafrost.

But for the garage you either move it up a level(s), or have tunnels through the berm that permit access to the surface of the ice slab.

I will make a note and say this tech looks like it could be usable for synthetic gravity machines in orbit.

Done.

Void · 2019-03-24 09:31:06

I was pleased to encounter www.hypersciences.com today.

https://www.hypersciences.com/
Near the bottom of the page are several interesting articles.

I won't do direct quotes at this time. In some cases, they intend to use concrete projectiles, which interests me for Mars perhaps.

So, I speculate that ingredients for concrete on Mars could be had from salts, perhaps Calcium salts? So, then you could have concrete projectiles for drilling.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ … JejZPZFzIU

Obviously, if they do manage to make geothermal energy so cost effective that nuclear energy becomes obsolete, that would be a giant factor for Earth civilization. I think it is less useful to think of abandoning planet Earth to go to Mars, than to think about economic enhancement of Earth as a sort of platform being enriched, so that we can then be strong enough to also move to other planemo's.
(Planemo, I picked that up from Karov).

One thing that should result from drilling for geothermal energy on Earth and other objects such as Mars, would be stumbling onto valuable minerals along the way, and also the information on the structure of Earth and Mars down deep.

And of course the technology if it does work, would provide a source of volume for habitation and industrial processes. Relatively safe from surface issues which could be adverse to humans.

How warm is Mars? Well standard thinking is that it is a Mini-Earth, and so has greatly cooled down relative to the Earth over ~4.5 billion years. We can hope that information from Insight, and other probes will give a more proper measurement of reality as to the geothermal potentials of Mars. Personally, I think the history of Mars is so different from Earth we may discover that it has some special tricks we are not familiar with.

One thing is sure to me, ~.38 gravitation, suggests that you can go deeper, and also that the rocks may be more porous, and so easier to penetrate.

A suspicion of mine is that Mars does not have tectonics like Earth, possibly because the crust is thicker and lighter. It may be that it cannot dive down into the planet like the crust does here. If that were so, we may just find, (Or not), that Mars is better insulated from heat loss in that respect. Heavy magma may have a hard time getting to the surface as well.

And I will again as I have in the past, suggest that the space environment may project heat into the Martian deeps. Here I suggest magnetic flux of the solar wind, inducing heat into the deeps of Mars. Mars only has fragmented fossil magnetic fields, and the solar wind does not blow steady, it is blustery I believe. So, this might induce heat into the deeps of Mars, or at least project heat into certain locations of lower crust. Similarly, I also speculate on electrical flows heating the deeps of Mars. We certainly have the example of dust devils being electrical and having magnetic fields also. If you do have wet plumbing in the crust of Mars, that is salty wet materials at a cold temperature perhaps, dust storm activity may project electrical flows through it, and those flows encountering resistance will then project thermal power into the liquids and the regolith they dwell in.

Another possibility, can be the electrical nature of the upper atmosphere of Mars. I will suppose that different parts can have different electrical charges, and I do believe that the CO2 dominated atmosphere of Mars could be more conductive to electricity flows than Earths atmosphere. So, perhaps high current flows may occur, but at lower voltages than for Earth.

But I just wanted to list some possibilities which will either be disproved, or proved. I like thinking of the idea that for some planets, electrical currents might cause volcanism to exist. I have read an article that indicates that some planets around red dwarf stars, may have magma oceans under their crust due to the solar wind. However, the effect from a red dwarf star could be perhaps ~1000 times as powerful as that of our sun "Sol".

But leaving speculation behind, and then for now settling only for the notion that radioactive decay is the source of geothermal heat on Mars, and then returning to the Hypersciences, process, I still then will say what a possibility could be for it.

Here, again baby steps I guess. You might start with the thick ice slabs, and glacial deposits, use the heat from below to warm them to liquid water covered with ice, or indeed manufactured materials. Might as well harvest some solar energy into them as well, but with giant reservoirs, and geothermal power, then you will be much better situated to deal with the harshness of Mars, such as global dust storms, and toxic chemistry on the surface.

And you should be able to dig horizontal conduits, which in some cases would include water flows for useful purposes. Canals on Mars after all. But down deep. While dry vehicle transport is a possibility, also literally tubes partially filled with water, where by means most useful living things could be farmed. Water craft in those tunnels even to transport materials with energy efficiency. The tubes to redistribute water, and also possibly heat.

We next have the polar ice caps, for when the technology would get even more vigorous, and have greater lifting power so to speak.

I can see those liquified into seas, while tapping both geothermal and solar energy. While hot water could be flowed into the polar caps both from geothermal and solar, another way is to simply melt the ice caps with Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Provide those into the waters, and microbes can then consume it creating biomass, and heat, somewhat like a wet haystack can get hot from microbial actions.

Obviously then some horizontal tubes could carry Hydrogen, and I think if they were relatively deep, that unlike surface pipelines the losses of Hydrogen would be relatively low.

And obviously if you melt the ice caps then you release the frozen Carbon Dioxide to your biological processes, possibly creating a huge amount of Methane to release to the atmosphere, or releasing the CO2 directly to atmosphere. Therefore a terraform process would be facilitated.

……

Of course this may distress Elon Musk's Boring Company, but it might delight SpaceX, as they are the most likely company to deliver this drilling process to Mars.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-24 10:21:33)

Void · 2019-03-24 11:38:17

Some afterthoughts already.

It occurs to me that the cement in the concrete might be recoverable to manufacture more projectiles.

I am also thinking that the tailings if they are not yet oxidized fully (Rusted), can in part be put into the large reservoir bottoms. As water is consumed for various purposes, the volume of the reservoir could be kept more constant by fill it in with these tailings. Probably desirable.
And I arrive at the notion that if the tailings are not yet rusted, then this can provide Hydrogen to the waters, while consuming some of the water. It is even conceivable that another output ultimately will be salts, and clays. I am not sure about the clays.

If the reservoir environment could be kept suitable for shellfish, then they could manufacture a possible source of cements for the drilling and other processes. Shellfish may be fussy. Perhaps parts of the reservoir would be maintained suitable for them. Hydrogen added into the waters along with a bit of CO2, with plenty of Oxygen would be required. This should result in a plankton of microbes, and the shellfish are often filter feeders, or feeders on detritus. So, it might work out.

And I will mention again that the reservoirs would be treated in part as radiators. Waste heat could be dumped into them, and also the activities of living organisms feeding on such a food chain will also heat the reservoir. I myself would be happy to see tunnels linked to these reservoirs, and large horizontal or big volume hollows under the reservoir floor, hopefully geothermal power also being available from all of this.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-24 11:42:57)

SpaceNut · 2019-03-24 13:46:19

This is one we have seen thus far in sulfur bearing materials for Martial Concrete

Not the first time we are discusion materials to make mars home. How to Build a House on Mars, The first step is figuring out how to make Martian concrete.

A number of insitu materials are possible with 3-D-printed ice house and many more. This power source must be adequate to operate a kiln as well as produce water by either manufacture or by permafrost extraction. Basic materials for the manufacturing of concrete in situ exist on Mars' surface.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/40479%28204%29111

The Viking and Pathfinder missions have provided data that indicate the presence of calcium sulfur and salts as well as large quantities of pozzolanic reactive silica. Forms of Martian concrete materials could be rudimentary brick, nonhydraulic or hydraulic cement concretes

Additive ingredience might be still needed if not found on mars.

3D Printing Habitats on Mars

The feedstock for Martian concrete is gypsum sand available on the Martian surface. Thermal dehydration converts the gypsum to plaster and water, two of the three ingredients necessary for concrete.

3D-Printing-Habitats-on-Mars_hero.jpg.aspx?width=460

Lava casting:
3D-Printing-Habitats-on-Mars_02.jpg.aspx?width=340

enclosed cone shape inner walls
3D-Printing-Habitats-on-Mars_03.jpg.aspx?width=340

Void · 2019-03-24 16:23:17

Well thanks then. Concrete will be a can do thing, therefore concrete projectiles to drill at fast speed, may also work out.

The materials of your post are welcome suggested precursors to the sort of thing I want to imagine. Something of that order will be necessary.

I have noticed that SpaceX will modify plans when it makes sense. I think I will do an sanity/insanity check on the notion of mining water as dirty chunks of ice.

That plan requires heavy equipment to be delivered on the faith that it is properly adapted for the necessary tasks. It is a very good try, but I am going to wonder about a regression to previous notions. I believe that Dr. Zubrin originally suggested that a ship which is going to do insitu production of propellants should bring Hydrogen with it. I at least want to review that notion, and also presume that somehow Kilopower can be associated with the process. I am not doing a very good job of precision at this point. I also apprehend what some of the problems could be.

Still in my mind, I would like a "Starship" robot that would land, deploy reactors, and begin making propellants. Long before humans even depart for Mars. I can't assure you that it could be done, but that would be a thing to look at I think, at least a review of a counter-option method.

Somewhere in this if possible, one or more of the ships could also bring proto-type water extraction equipment, so that it could be tested.

I suppose some of the problems in this are that KiloPower may not be fully ready yet, and a question exists, "How do you adapt it to a Starship. However, there are some pluses. You have assurance that propellants at least exist on Mars before you leave for Mars. You also have electric power from the reactors. A problem does exist however, radiation from the reactors, and how to deploy the reactors by automation. Perhaps out of the bottom ring cargo bay? These things would need solving. However although Murphy's law can strike, even so, if you have reactors on the surface of Mars, and propellant being made while you travel, then that says something. Especially if there were a global dust storm, or some calamity in the travel plan.

Also if mining equipment is prototype/testing only, then that load is diminished, and the necessary amount of human EVA in space suits is reduced I would think.

I think that a lot of testing and adaptation are needed before deciding firmly on best practices

……

As a possible example, I propose a notion. The question about it is for Mars at various developmental periods, should electrical equipment be emphasized, or can we go more mechanical? This then is a real proposal, but it is suggestive that there are many questions we do not have proper answers to yet as to best methods.

I often of course what to work with liquid water. I see many values for it. However it often will not go well with electrical circuits. So, I am thinking mechanical drive shaft to get what I want.

Rather than using explosives and heavy equipment, I suggest that indeed you might use solar cells for electricity or Kilopower if it makes sense. You would deploy either or both to the surface of an ice body. And by necessary means melt the ice below the dirt, leaving an ice layer on top. A possible necessary other action would be to reduce the overburden dirt at that site. That will indeed involve heavy equipment at that stage. The overburden can be heaped up at certain locations, as deep pads that surface structure can be built upon or even into. A thick amount of dirt, to isolate warm buildings from cold icy permafrost.

So, I start with notions about electrical equipment in association with liquid water, and also the probability that Copper and Aluminum may be very precious. I do make a leap of faith however in presuming that drive shafts can be efficiently manufactured for a power transfer method. That is not proven. Perhaps we could invoke some 3D printing scheme, but then we also need the metal for the drive shaft. It will certainly require solving in reality.

Anyway, I will now get more to the point.
1) Surface structure: Dominated by solar panels, perhaps. Making "Sheds" over the ice. Perhaps even enclosing the walls of the Sheds somehow with some material. This over an icy body with a remnant layer of dirt over it. This could reduce evaporation of the ice layer that it is desired to retain as frozen. The shade of the sheds would very likely assure that that layer of ice would be even colder than before the solar panels were deployed.

2) A motors in these sheds. Reducing the amount of Copper and/or Aluminum required. So the solar cells can spin a motor which will spin a shaft. The shaft can penetrate the ice, but bearings and bushings will be required. That assembly I presume set in the ice, and not to become so hot as to vaporize or melt the ice. That will possibly be a hard requirement.

3) So, now you have a spinning drive shaft penetrating from the sheds into the ice. You then have a source of power under the ice, not directly involving electrical processes.

4) You should now want a generator on the bottom end of that shaft, and a air filled enclosure to surround the generator. Now your generator can power underwater lights. If the air filled chamber is a diving bell, then you have possibilities for aquiculture. Still you may also have vascular land plants involved as well. Any waste heat will typically be captured into the waters of the reservoir. Of course where the shaft passes into the air filled enclosure again, bearings, and bushings. Easy to say.

So unless the sky rains copper or aluminum, the perhaps MG sets are mandated as I have suggested in steps 1-4.

And like greenhouses, I think these things should be tried, but we have not yet tested any of these ideas in the real Martian environment.
I think there is a whole lot to learn about reality on Mars. I would not tend to be too sure our plans are yet the best.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-24 17:04:06)

Void · 2019-03-28 11:11:11

I guess I will post this here.

I am now thinking that a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quonset_hut is the way to build low pressure structures on Mars.

I think the used of more basic materials in general as the bulk of the methods, but probably requiring a rib structure of Metals, to both impart more strength, and to facilitate electrical distribution in a local manner.

To begin with I think a use of Tar and Basalt fibers would allow for a shell material. While we may thing of tar paper as thin, and subject to weakening by heat, I think that Basalt Paper could be thicker, perhaps ~~~1/2 inch thick (~~~1.27 cm). By purpose I have just guessed a number. But make this into arches that can be glued together with a tar like substance into Quonset huts. I anticipate that under normal Martian conditions there will be very little weakening of the structure from the suns heat. Especially if associated structures can assist strength.

Associated structures can be a web of a metal ribbing. Perhaps it would be inside of the shell, but not necessarily so. I make the continuing presumption that metals such as Copper and perhaps even Aluminum, may be dear to be had. For this Metal ribbing therefore, I suggest the easiest obtainable metal alloy. It's purpose to be structural and also to be electrical. While Copper then Aluminum appear to be the best for electrical purposes, if certain tricks are utilized, then a relatively poor conductance will not very much matter.

The trick would be to mount solar panels over the Quonset hut shell, and then to connect them to the metal ribbing(s). Then on the inside of the Quonset huts, LED sets to provide light for growing photo life. As the passage from power supply to load will be inches to feet, (Sorry Metrics, precision does not matter here), less than optimal conductance can be forgiven, for the sake of not using up Copper and Aluminum.

So then how do we pressurize this incomplete enclosure? We complete the enclosure with dirt and icy permafrost. The bottom edges of the Quonset hut pressed into and enveloped by icy permafrost manufactured for that purpose. Icecrete? The ends closed by berms of soil, either dry or icy. Better icy I would think.

The pressurization levels? Well anywhere from ambient to 70 mb, if you get really good at it. Who know, maybe more. Maybe even eventually up to 1/3 bar.

But here I am speculating ambient to 70 mb.

3 Low places to contemplate have more favorable pressures. Hellas ~11.5 mb???, the northern plains, best cases ~9 mb???, the rift valley, best cases ~9 mb. Although I think these structures could work on top of Olympus Mons.

And I will start where I started, inside the enclosure, a trench filled with water, ice covered, the interior pressure >= the local ambient pressure. During the day pumps/fans could push Martian atmosphere into the structure to raise the pressure up a bit above ambient pressure outside. This could help reduce vaporization of ice, but maybe not desired/required to a great extent. For Hellas, maybe not required at all. In the night frost forms on the inside of the shell, during the day sunlight melts the frost, and it flows down the inside of the shell, to be collected as useful water??? So, for wet aquaculture, then a trench. That trench could be lined with Basalt Paper, but it might work perfectly fine to rely on icy permafrost to seal the exits for water in the bottom of the pond.

But if you want warmer aquaculture then higher pressures required. Enough said on that.

If you want dry land crops at ~70 mb, then yes of course higher pressures, and get rid of the trench/canal/pond. Higher pressures and warmer. Can permafrost hold the bottom exits for air closed? Probably. Otherwise again a complete pipe shaped basalt paper tube, perhaps with more effort on the closures on the ends.

I have not mentioned airlocks. Probably built into the ends.

That's a pretty good beginning. Tar must be available. If you can make Methane, then I have to suppose you can make tar. And I actually am beginning to believe that with the likelihood of wet periods up to a billion years ago on Mars, and the likelihood of panspermia, indeed likely petroleum can be drilled for on Mars. If not then you make it out of Methane.

Short on time today.

Yes, I love you too. Hugs and Kisses

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-28 11:36:08)

RobertDyck · 2019-03-28 21:05:56

ROCKWOOL, this site emphasizes their manufacturing plant in West Virginia, although they also have factories elsewhere.

production process fact sheet

raw materials fact sheet

Raw materials used to manufacture our stone wool insulation
Production involves several raw materials, the best-known of which is basalt rock– the bedrock of our products.
Material List
Basalt: Volcanic rock.
Dolomite: Rock composed mostly of the mineral dolomite.
Bauxite: Rock with high aluminum content.
Slag: A by-product of making steel, slag is left over after the desired metal has been separated from its ore. It is used as a raw material due to its energy efficiency (because it’s been melted before, it hasa high melt efficiency).
Recycled Mineral Wool: Our facility will include recycling plants to recover internal wool waste, whichis added back into the process.
De-dusting Oil: Added to reduce dust from the products.
Binder: Mixed from pre-made compounds including resin, binder acts like ‘glue’ to hold the fibers together. The standard resin is a urea-modified phenolic resin which is cured during the mineral wool process.The resin we use is a pre-made material from an external supplier and is classified as non-hazardous material.
Coal: A fuel to melt the raw materials. The coal arrives at the facility in milled form and is transferred through a closed system into our storage silos. The source of coal for the Ranson, WV factory has not yet been determined.
Note: ROCKWOOL does not use coal slag and will not utilize coal ash ponds as coal ash will not be generated at this facility. Petroleum coke will not be used at the Ranson, WV facility

Void · 2019-03-29 09:42:51

Robert,

I recognize this as a very good input.

In the thinking I provided as well, I was looking for an option. I also recognize the idea of glass greenhouses as an option as well, and appreciate your historical provision of thinking in that matter. I think that all options should be given nurturing, as what we want is performance. We won't know what works best until we try, and in time I think that all options are open to refinement. It may be that what works best for one crop will be different for another crop.

But Mars being what it seems to be, I think frozen foods are going to be one very big factor, against dust storm impediments, and unknown instances of Murphy's law. I cannot exceed you in notions of glass greenhouses. I do have this less pleasing option for perhaps some crops. I have noted your works concerning minimum pressurizations for crops ~understood at this point, only approximately in reality.

The only thing I could hope to offer per pressurized glass greenhouses is structural inversion. For instance, a dome could be made upside down, in a crater. Still glass is glass, even so, an inversion, will give more use of compressive methods, than the tensile methods. A glass dome, would then if inverted, (upside down), would involve more compressive imposition on the structure in the "Mega" view of the structure, but still the glass panes individually may suggest a concern on the individual pane level, a desire for inversion as well. That is how I think. I am still a weak sibling for courage on such methods, but I certainly celebrate the courage to think it out. I would always encourage, adventure in this direction. Mastering such methods should be our desire.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-29 09:44:33)

Void · 2019-03-29 15:51:46

Some further speculations on inverted glass greenhouses.

If the bowl shaped inverted dome should hang just above the curved interior "ground line", then with a ladder or platform it would be somewhat facilitated to reach all of the glazing for any maintenance needed.

Also, vertical structure from that "ground line" up to the dome could add further structural strength. If vertical beams, then support against gravitation. If tensile cables anchored from the inverted dome to fixed anchorage in the ground, then tensile strength against the air pressure inside pushing the inverted bowl dome out of it's hole. So, quite a lot of options while reducing structural materials needed I would think.

One of the problems with this structure would be reduction in photons received, if other methods were not used to upgrade that deficiency.

Here again I have paid attention to your works.

While I could propose a scaffold with motorized reflectors above the bowl, and outside of the bowl, then heliostats to project from the sides more photons, and then the reflectors above to then deflect the photons down into the bowl, I think the K.I.S.S. principle needs to then be applied, to simplify the whole notion, while achieving some beneficiation at a reasonable price of the number of photons received into the bowl.

I suggest as the simplest method, a reflector at the back side of the bowl. I don't prefer mirror, but rather diffused reflection. My experience of shining a focus through window glass is that the sun moving in the sky is fast enough to provide thermal shock to the glass, which could break it. (And did break it). Diffused reflection may reduce that potential trouble. However of course I was using typical window glass in my experiments. In the "Back side" of the bowl, of course I am presuming my experience of being in the temperate zone of Earth, where North would be the "Back side".

Mars will have several situations, only some of which will directly resemble my experiences. So, I propose that the diffuse reflector can be on wheels, and shall be able to move around the perimeter of the crater that the bowl will be in. For Earth this would be stupid due to gravity and even more about wind. For Mars with ~.38 g and far lesser wind forces it could make better sense. So anywhere you were on the planet, the reflector could track the sun and deflect photons into the bowl.

And then there could be yet another level of help for the proposed system. A night cover. As it is a bowl dome, then our cover seems as it needs to be primarily of a horizontal nature. This lends itself to several possibilities. An easier one could be simply horizontal cover on wheels, that simply drives forwards and backward during the day/night, or summer/winter situations to cover and uncover the bowl-dome.

Not by any means do I feel that the above masters the situation but this is the situation of trial evolution of thinking that I am at in this progression which is intended to provide hopes for successful provision of needs. Any variant proposed would be interesting to hear about.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-29 16:09:41)

RobertDyck · 2019-03-29 21:44:17

Void,

You posted an idea to use basalt paper for construction material. So I posted a description and a link to a company that currently manufactures construction material from basalt. So this is how to do at least one part of what you're proposing.

Void · 2019-03-30 09:51:55

Robert,

I appreciate your efforts to give me useful factual information on how it is accomplished here on Earth. I react to potentials. Reality requires actual ability to produce a material of use. You have refined a raw notion to a art. It is apparent that to get there to an art level for Mars, we will shadow what is done on Earth as a guideline, but we will have to suffer the necessity to adapt a process for Mars. Mars at least suggests that we can obtain hydrocarbon fuels, and perhaps Carbon. So, that is helpful for getting approximate notions of methods that will be required on Mars. So, your materials are very useful. Mars offers a bulk of such mineral fibers, but we don't yet have a mastery of what is the best practice method for Mars. We can get guidance from the materials you provided.

As for the glazed inverted dome materials I counter proposed, that was me hoping to build on your work. I think it will be even more difacult for us to achieve an art level of proficiency for transparent/translucent greenhouses than to build "Mineral wool" type structures. And yet we are getting measurements just approximate on how to make such an adaptation to Mars. I feel that at lest the two methods should be struggled with. To master both is worthy of effort. But I think it is sure that the struggle will be very large.

Done.

RobertDyck · 2019-03-30 10:29:38

That company burns hydrocarbons for the heat necessary to melt rock. You could burn coal, West Virginia has a large deposit of coal, mining coal is the major traditional industry there. Or you could burn natural gas. Traditional cement rotary kiln uses natural gas. But there are other sources of heat. You could use nuclear. We have often talk of using Mars thorium to fuel nuclear reactors on Mars, so we would have a local fuel. Processes to keep temperature down to +900°C or less are important so you can directly use heat from a nuclear reactor. That's so you don't melt stainless steel pipes used for primary coolant from the reactor core to the "use" chamber. To smelt steel from ore, the "direct reduced iron" method is roughly 900°C, but it requires a second step to refine the product. The link says melting basalt requires >2700°F, that's 1482°C. That's too hot for steel, it's even too hot for inconel. But you could use a nuclear reactor to generate electricity, then use an electric furnace of some sort with refractory liner to melt the rock. Again, take current processes used on Earth and adapt them for Mars.

Void · 2019-03-30 12:11:07

Good materials Robert. It does not look like an easy task, however most things on Mars will not be easy.

I have had some variant thoughts.

I think that indeed we might hope for nuclear power, but for the process we can afford to be more generic, and say a source of electrical power. I think your idea of an electrical kiln is the best way to hope to control the process. I would think we would hope to miniaturize the process to the degree that it does not inhibit production.

I was the one who specified mineral wool, a tar like substance, and a metal structural and electrical ribbing cage. If mineral wool were the route, then I would hope that some type of metal could be extracted from the melt process. Perhaps electrolysis?

But now I am going to be a bit of a jerk and suggest what other members have previously proposed, bamboo. I do this because I recognize that mineral wool is going to be a hard task to get started up, and I also recognize that bamboo could provide many other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_textile
https://www.startupbizhub.com/start-a-bamboo-farm.htm

But that does look hard. Maybe mineral wool is the way to go, Mars is not that friendly to life, and I am thinking that it will be a fussy project, sorry about that. It doesn't hurt to look at options.

Mineral wool then.

I think that your thinking is sound, not as fluffy as mine. Still if we want electric power, not to decline nuclear, but we also can consider solar power. Your interaction has stimulated some thinking on my part for that. It could just be solar panels, but then connection methods require electrical circuitry. Copper and Aluminum again.

I had thought of solar power towers, but I don't think a direct focus to melt rock will be very controllable. I still stick to your electric kiln.

But I do think of high temperature solar cells. I presume that since they supposedly will produce more power, for surface area, then less copper and aluminum required to connect them.

This one claims to work at 400 degC. I have seen others that go to 600 degC I think.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/high-tempe … lar-cells/

High temperature solar cells are not a requirement, but could be the way to go. But in this process I began thinking about solar power towers (Of course). I suppose a tower could be built with bricks/stones, but then again more work to do.

And so it occurred to me that cliffs could be considered a natural resource on Mars, with the use of solar cells and heliostats. Heliostats would then be more work, but the cliff might be a natural resource to be used as a tower. Of course the orientation has to be very good.

But the truth is I am wandering. Still then I might think that consideration of such terrain may be of value in selecting places to set up shop. That is the main reason I deviated to this. I thought it was a Segway to an item that could go into our bag of tricks.

I am sure I trust your thinking, going back to your post(s)

Hmm.... Hemp?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
Quote:

Hemp, or industrial hemp (from Old English hænep),[1] typically found in the northern hemisphere, is a variety of the Cannabis sativa plant species that is grown specifically for the industrial uses of its derived products.[2] It is one of the fastest growing plants[3] and was one of the first plants to be spun into usable fiber 10,000 years ago.[4] It can be refined into a variety of commercial items including paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, paint, insulation, biofuel, food, and animal feed.[5][6]

That is quite a lot of important materials. Pretty hard to pass up.

It is not quite as dangerous to talk about it in the USA as it used to be. I don't know exactly what air pressure it would require. Of course I think it like warm temperate conditions otherwise.

I wonder if the proposed chambers to make could be pressurized sufficiently to grow it. Of course we would be likely to grow it under pink LED's. Still would need metal conductors, and so if you need the metal conductors they could then as suggested before double as part of the air retaining structure, "Quonset Huts".

So, options. In this case, the more hemp you grow, the perhaps the more materials you have for more huts, and the more byproducts you get such as Quote:

commercial items including paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, paint, insulation, biofuel, food, and animal feed.

I was thinking rather low air pressures in such Quonset huts, so then as always it might be required to heap soil or an arch of compressed blocks over them to prevent air pressure from lifting the Quonset hut off it's foundations. Or use a complete tube.

Easy is hard to get. Maybe more thinking required. Another day perhaps. Perhaps this is the wrong direction and Mineral Wool is the thing. Probably all of the above eventually.

Sorry for the dithering.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-30 12:47:27)

SpaceNut · 2019-03-30 19:50:58

How about using the remaining fuels that are in the thrusters and other tanks to be the feed stock of energy for the kiln. The hydrogell would be a start for any of the other fuels to burn and can be used to keep its own fuel type burning. Its about metering and measurement when dealing with them.

elderflower · 2019-03-31 04:15:08

For moderate temperature kilns (eg lime burning) we can use LOX/LCO as fuel and oxidiser. At higher temperatures the reaction shifts away from CO2 towards CO so the energy available drops off.
Iron oxide can be reduced to Iron carbonyl using CO and this allows forming by vapour deposition. There have been previous posts about this so this is just a reminder.
LOX LCO is not difficult to make and you don't have to find and purify water for it.
You cannot know how much spare fuel will be available from the lander until you have landed it. It could be near zero.

SpaceNut · 2020-08-20 18:45:51

Finally back to what do we need for a habitat on the surface of mars.

Void · 2020-08-23 09:10:59

Spacenut woke this topic up a few days ago, and I have been thinking about it.
The argument that some prefer above ground, is to ignor potential assets, that should not be ignored by anyone who understands that to prosper in a frontier you must be adaptive.
The idea to construct above ground structures from insitu materials is adaptive, but I think that it is also not wise to think it will always be best to build from on site materials. Obviously at the start, many things should be imported from elsewhere. For now, principally from the Earth.
I guess I could think of four main catarories of structural resources.
1) Imports from elsewhere (Pretty much from Earth).
2) Surface structures from local Martian materials.
3) Sub Ice/Water modifications to promote a paraterraforming method.
4) Strucures in solid rock. Lava Tubes/Tunnels.
------
1) Imports from elsewhere (Pretty much from Earth).
If we would want to think to place a human/machine civilization on Mars, it is silly to ignor any of these potential assets. While some do not like lava tubes for instance, they exist and likely some of them can be modified to be of some sort of utility.
I will take on #1 at this time now. SpaceX seems to be within the circle of leaders for this. I like their two part Starship concept, and expect that it will be built over time, and will be retained as a necessary method, in particular for certain catagories of things. Both for the Earth's internal interests and for the effort to Mars.
However I do want a three part ship. Both SpaceX and others are rather close to being able to do it, I think.
With a three part system, you would have Super Heavy pretty much as already concieved.
But I would break Starship into two parts. The propulsion system and that which is contained in the fairings. Ideally in this variant, the propulsion system is stand alone comming down from orbit. In effect you would be doing a hot skydive into the Earth's atmosphere, with a cylinder, with canards and flaps.
So, for the upper Starship section there would be some options.
-The contents of the fairings could be retained to orbit, (Or not). The fairings could be dropped into the Earth's atmosphere to be recovered similar to how Falcon 9 is done.
Interestingly, a "Payload" to orbit could include recoverable space vehicles. Say a Dragon capsule to participate in Lunar activities. Or, maybe a Dream Chaser for LEO operations.
In both cases all the main hardware could be recovered. The difference though from the two piece Starship, is that your powered landing is mostly about recovering the Propellant Tanks, and Engines as a single unit.
This will complicate heat shielding of the device, but will very much lighten the load to land, therefore you do not have to have as much propellants to send to orbit in order to have propellants for landing. That is always going to be attractive.
The fairing recovery method of a split fairing is becomming improved towards effectiveness at this time. I would add an air breathing drone to fetch the device while it was descending. While you could direct it to a net on a boat, I am thinking that the fairing with its parachute could possibly just be flown back to land in a net on land. Saving the cost of the boat(s).
I do think that they also hope to recover Dragons with boats and nets. I am sure that at this time they need to keep the parachute system they have. Not sure you could grab that with an air breathing drone and then fly it to land. However, as is, in the event of not catching it with a drone, you should still be able to land in the sea, that is if your drone had not collided with the Dragon or it's parachutes. So, stupid drones would not be welcome for this.
For a mission to the Moon, I have been wondering about making a landing and assent stage to connect it to. But now I am looking at "LESS".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_esc … ange_flyer
Long-range flyer
While the LESS was designed primarily as a 'lifeboat' for the LM crew, a simple rocket which could carry two astronauts would be beneficial in other areas too. The Lunar Roving Vehicle allowed the astronauts to travel fairly quickly over a few miles, but an improved version of the LESS could allow rapid travel over much longer distances on rocket thrust.

By adding fixed legs, increasing structural strength to support landing stresses, supporting engine throttling or using a cluster of RCS engines that could be pulsed, and adding a long-range radio relay, the LESS design could be extended to become a long-range flyer (LRF). With around 1600 pounds of propellant from the LM, the astronauts could travel forty to sixty nautical miles from the LM to explore a wider area around the landing site. This would, for example, allow reconnaissance trips to potential future landing sites, and the LRF could also be used for orbital flight to return the crew to the CSM in an emergency.
For a Lunar mission, I might think that a one peice full fledged Starship would be the carrier.
You would have 1 or more Dragons in it.
More than one upgraded "LESS" vehicle.
Propellant tankage for the "LESS", and as radiation protection for the Dragons.
Possible a relatively modest dedicated pressurizable cabin in side the Starship, where the Dragons could dock to.
I suppose that in all cases a solar flair will always be a concern. Hopefully weather forcasting may help. So, for a LESS to pass Starship<>Lunar Surface there will be danger(s).
The Lunar Starship(Lander), could be mostly a hardware deleivery device.
LESS could be a low cost method to move people Starship<>Lunar Surface.
A good thing about having LESS, would be that you could have extra's, just in case you had some stranded people on the lunar surface, or even icompacitated people in a remote location. Of course these could be also used from a Lunar surface base.
The base I hope will become a source of Oxygen for Earth/Moon & Earth>Mars.
Methane is less likely to come from the Moon.
Some people might feel exposed in the "LESS", but I think that if you managed a landing, but the "LESS" had become an explosion risk because of it, you would not need an Air Lock to get away. And anyway, if you have a base to go into, why do you need to lug an airlock or a pressurized cabin with you? If you are doing a short stop somewhere, then there should be retrieval backup available from either the Starship or a Lunar base.
Working on the Moon will always have a greater element of risk than working in most places on Earth.
Back to Fairings from considerably up this page.
For the two part Starship, you might have a "Whole" fairing, which you can detach and leave in orbit. You could join two of these together to make a pressure shell. You could spin it end over end for artificial gravity, the most at the nose tip. Possibly up to .5 g.
So, lets call this a "Spinner". You might join several of these to make a space station.
With two, you could spin in opposite directions, I guess. You might also include less spinning or non spinning "Spinners".
So, Space Stations.
In order to get these "Whole" fairings to the surface of Mars, you would have a two part Starship again. In this case through, a propulsion system (Tanks and engines) would thrust to Martian orbit, and hook up to a fairing and then do a skydiving landing. The fairing could contain a cargo.
And then you unload the cargo, and the fairings, and make presurized space with the fairings.
I like this because you are only consuming propellants to get the propulsion section to orbit, without a fairing/cargo hold.
The complication though is that you have to get the fairings with their cargo to Martian orbit, probably without aerobraking??????????? (Hmmm......). Could a "Spinner" (Two fairings together do some form of aerocapture?
So, then possibly involving a propulsion system that can be used with "Ballistic Capture".
That might be some sort of electric, but why rule out nuclear or combustible fuels as an option?
So, in my mind at least this is how to make a rather efficient conveyor belt of materials from Earth/Moon>Mars.
Stuff to Mars.
2) Surface structures from local Martian materials.
These are nice, and primarily from the minds of other people. Angry Astronaut likes them best. I do note that there is a "Chicken and Egg" problem with this. Until you have a large infrastructure on Mars, you do need to have the #1 "Stuff to Mars" ability for many critical materials. Yes someday you could make plastics and windows on Mars, but where do you live before that? Of course you use as much local materials as you can but it would be silly not to use some imported materials where needed, as needed.
3) Sub Ice/Water modifications to promote a paraterraforming method.
This has been addressed a lot on this site. I see it as good for getting minerals, some agricultural products, and for collecting, storing and utilizing energy.
4) Strucures in solid rock. Lava Tubes/Tunnels.
A possible ideal setup might be Lava Tubes/Tunnels under a #3, "Sub Ice/Water modifications to promote a paraterraforming method".
Lava Tubes so far identified are exposed and not so much under sediments of regolith or ice.
The reason is obvious, as if they were under sediments, you might have a very hard time detecting them. That does not say that they do not exist.
I have done a bit of reseach on the web, to find information from those better than myself.
I queried for this: AGU, "Three-Dimensional simulations of the Southern Polar Giant Impact Hypothisis for the origin of the Martian dichotomy".
I got this:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com … 14GL062261
I believe that there are other more recent articles sort of down this path.
I also got this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_dichotomy
The above link has a very nice map you can hover your mouse over and also click to get information. It is at the bottom of the article.
So, clear as mud. But I sort of think that if the "Dichotomy" is due to an "Additive" impact of the south, then we look for lava tubes in the south more, and at the elevation changes.
I think that for high latitudes you are going to have lava tubes covered and conceiled by ice slabs, and of course regolith.
If this is true, geothermal resources might be more in the southern hemisphere, and of course, the shield volcano's.
I have wondered about something like Olympus Mons. Might it be a layer cake containing a labrenth of lava tubes, all the way inside and out?
Don't know.

Stealth Bombing. No spelling corrections yet. Boo Hoo

Done.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-01-22 21:16:51

"Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#2 2019-01-24 15:06:05

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#3 2019-01-24 18:32:35

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#4 2019-01-24 19:18:06

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#5 2019-01-24 19:33:55

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#6 2019-02-04 22:15:15

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#7 2019-02-05 17:22:55

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#8 2019-02-05 21:19:00

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#9 2019-03-12 09:38:16

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#10 2019-03-24 09:31:06

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#11 2019-03-24 11:38:17

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#12 2019-03-24 13:46:19

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#13 2019-03-24 16:23:17

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#14 2019-03-28 11:11:11

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#15 2019-03-28 21:05:56

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#16 2019-03-29 09:42:51

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#17 2019-03-29 15:51:46

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#18 2019-03-29 21:44:17

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#19 2019-03-30 09:51:55

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#20 2019-03-30 10:29:38

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#21 2019-03-30 12:11:07

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#22 2019-03-30 19:50:58

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#23 2019-03-31 04:15:08

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#24 2020-08-20 18:45:51

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

#25 2020-08-23 09:10:59

Re: "Underground vs Above Ground" (Both actually).

Board footer