You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
According to the article below--Mark Watney was right. Potatoes CAN grow on Mars, verified by a CubeSat experiment.
Offline
This might be misreported, or maybe I've misunderstood. It says that Mars air pressure is used. If that means seven milibars the water would have boiled out of the leaves and they could not have grown new tubers.
Offline
Triple point of water is 6.12 millibars. That means liquid water cannot exist below that pressure, but can exist at 7 millibars. Of course at Mars pressure, water freezes at 0°C and boils at 2°C, so won't stay liquid very long.
I do suspect it's misreported. The article mention soil taken from "Pampas de La Joya desert", and "salty soil with some help from fertilized Earth soil for both nutrition and structure". I suspect the intent was to show potatoes can grow in a greenhouse on Mars. Can they grow in Martian soil inside a pressurized greenhouse?
Offline
That triple point pressure for water is water vapor pressure, not total atmospheric pressure. Expose a puddle of water to CO2 at even 10 mbar, and it still bursts into vacuum boiling. Air pressure does not stop that, only water vapor pressure does.
That's a standard steam tables value, and that's what the pressure in those tables means: vapor pressure. If there is air, then the water vapor pressure is a partial pressure of that air pressure.
If the absolute humidity is 10%, then to achieve 6 mbar water vapor pressure, the total atmospheric pressure will be 60 mbar. Which effect is probably why I have heard that the min feasible air pressure in a Mars greenhouse is near 100 mbar.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I was very careful not to read "vapour pressure", it's the actual triple point. That means liquid water can exist. Actual liquid water. On Mars. At that absolute pressure. Of course, as I said, the boiling temperature is extremely low at 7 mbar. It's so close to the triple point that freezing and boiling temperatures are almost the same. Then again, salt will lower the freezing temperature, and raise the boiling temperature at the same time. I suspect the rivulets seen dripping down the side of canyons on Mars are actually brine. Not just salt water, but brine.
Offline
RobertDyck:
Go look in any classical thermodynamics text that includes the Keenan and Keyes steam tables, any units of measure (because that does not matter). Consult the verbiage that defines the variables in the table. You will find it to be water VAPOR pressure, not total atmospheric pressure.
This is 19th century stuff, and those interpretations and definitions have been known since then. They were developed for steam engine equipment, whether piston or turbine. In equipment like that operating steady state, all the air has been chased out by the volume of the steam (water vapor). The pressures in the system CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT WATER VAPOR, because there quite literally is no air. It was displaced, before you seal up and raise pressures in the equipment.
I've seen an awful lot of people (including scientists) misinterpret the meaning of the triple point pressure, thinking it is atmosphere pressure, instead of just water vapor pressure. But they are wrong! They make this mistake because their areas of expertise are not classical thermodynamics. One of mine is; I used to do this stuff for a living, in a business where even small errors were fatal.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-09 18:11:47)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
GW, I think what you are saying about vapor pressure being the relevant pressure the triple point is true.
But if the partial pressure of water is below the vapor pressure, then either evaporation or boiling will occur depending on the total pressure. In your example of 10 mbar CO2, the water should evaporate rapidly rather than boil, because the total pressure is high enough.
If what you were saying was true, water would boil at normal temperatures on Earth on a dry day (unless I misunderstood your previous comments, in which case I apologize).
Offline
As the OP of this topic, the cubesat experiment was done to show that zero gravity had no adverse effects, and the Atacama desert data was to indicate the soil type and salinity. Not that potatoes could be grown outside a pressurized greenhouse. Just making a case that crops could be grown there in greenhouses without too much chemical soil modification.
Offline
Oldfart1939, isn't the cubesat on Earth?
I think you're right that they are not using Mars temperature/pressure. The article does state:
"Inside this hermetically sealed environment the CubeSat delivers nutrient rich water, controls the temperature for Mars day and night conditions and mimics Mars air pressure, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels."
However, I can't believe that could possibly be true. The oxygen levels would be orders of magnitude too low for aerobic respiration, and transpiration levels are inconveniently high for plants even at 10 kPa.
Offline
GW: I greatly respect your knowledge. And I truly enjoy debating with individuals who are experts in their field. It makes me feel that I actually know something. So thank you very much. However, I have been very careful to separate "vapour pressure" from "absolute pressure". And if you choose to challenge all established knowledge, then that throws us back into to stone age.
The table linked above is for absolute pressure, not vapour pressure. When it says "PSIA" that means "Pounds per Square Inch Absolute", as apposed to "PSIG" which means "Pounds per Square Inch Gauge". I'm sure you know the difference. "Gauge" means pressure difference from ambient, so pressure difference from the room where the measurement is taken. "Absolute" means pressure compared to absolute hard vacuum. Notice the table is not vapour pressure, and it is not "PSIG". The table is for "PSIA". The title says "Boiling Point of Water at Various Vacuum Levels". It's not vapour pressure. I know you would like to lecture me that it is actually vapour pressure. And I understand your point. I was very careful not to use any tables or graphs that have anything to do with vapour pressure. This is actual absolute pressure. That means real pressure.
And to be absolutely "anal retentive" (to use a Freudian term), the table has entries for 0.147 PSIA and 0.088 PSIA. A pressure of 7.00 mbar converts to 0.101526 PSI. Interpolating between the two entries in the table produces a boiling temperature of +1.59°C. However, since I used a Mars surface pressure of "7" with one significant digit, so rounded the boiling temperature to one significant digit. I'm sure you understand significant digits. It's basic high school science, and you use that every day in your engineering work.
To be more precise, Mars Pathfinder recorded pressures over 3 Mars sols (solar days). The low was 6.77, the high was 7.08 mbar. Using those values 6.77 = 0.098190 PSIA, and 7.08 = 0.102686 PSIA. Interpolating the table produces water boiling point of +0.100°C for the lower pressure, and +1.797°C for the higher pressure. Those pressures should be rounded further for significant figures; the lower pressure becomes +.100°C (no initial "0") while the higher pressure becomes +1.80°C.
So your assertion that liquid water cannot exist at Mars ambient pressure is not far off. Reality is clean water without salt can exist, but only for a very narrow temperature range. That range can be extended with salt, and Mars surface does have a lot of salt.
However, as Oldfart1939 pointed out, this discussion thread deals with the article. The reporter made a fundamental mistake. We do not believe the test was done at Mars ambient pressure, or Mars atmospheric gas. It was done in a simulation of a pressurized greenhouse. That means more pressure and more oxygen. The test was to show Mars soil could be used, without any extreme measures to amend salt.
Offline
What it shows is that we can grow food if its protected from the cold, fire and excess water.. We have known that we can grow food on board the ISS for a decade or so but we are not farming on the ISS to create an ecological world that is sustainable by there own hand.
Online
What was in essence demonstrated is the Photosynthetic Reactions converting CO2 and H2O to carbohydrates can still work under extreme conditions. There are bacteria, notably Halobacterium Holobium that exist under pretty saline conditions. A simple reminder that bacteria are Plants!
Offline
RobertDyck:
Somehow, I was not able to express myself clearly about the water vapor pressure issue. I apologize for that.
The meaning of the steam tables and the associated phase and 3-D pressure-temperature-enthalpy diagrams in all thermodynamic texts since the 19th century is quite clear. The pressure in the tables and diagrams is the equilibrium vapor pressure of the substance, not that of any atmosphere which that substance might be exposed to. Whether expressed as gage or absolute pressure makes no real difference, although absolute is far more convenient to actually use.
When you relate that to real pools of water exposed to actual ambient atmospheric conditions, it can be quite complicated, even here on Earth. Strictly speaking, the tables and diagrams are only valid for liquid and vapor phases in thermal equilibrium. In actual practice, the pool of water and whatever gaseous media are in contact with it, do not have to be in actual equilibrium, as long as it is understood that pool’s liquid temperature governs the vapor pressure it tries to produce, not the temperature of the gaseous media in contact with that pool.
There is also the completely-separate problem of just how much water vapor can exist in an atmosphere of gaseous media. This shows up as a partial pressure of that water vapor in that atmosphere, and for air is governed by standard psychrometric charts. At typical Earthly conditions (near 59 F = 15 C) , this is in the neighborhood of 4% by volume, or 4% of whatever total atmospheric pressure there is.
It can, and does, vary quite a bit: once the atmospheric temperature is low, that maximum water vapor content is also quite low, trending toward pretty much practically zero, long before you hit -40 F = -40 C. That is why it is often “too cold to snow” in Canadian winters, the Arctic, and the Antarctic. The numbers might shift a little bit, but pretty much the same behavior obtains, in the Martian atmosphere, which is ~97% CO2, crudely.
Whenever the vapor pressure associated with the liquid pool exceeds the vapor partial pressure in the atmosphere above that pool, there is evaporation. The evaporation rate depends in part on the difference in those partial pressures (basically a diffusion process), and in part on how much heat energy is available to support the phase change. Usually, one or the other dominates, but both can.
We’ve all seen this with a water puddle on a dry sunny day versus a humid sunny day, and at night versus day at any given humidity. When the air is dry and/or the sun is shining, evaporation is rapid. When the air is humid and/or it is dark, evaporation is slow. But it does evaporate.
The other effect (actual boiling) happens when the vapor pressure implied by the pool temperature exceeds the total atmospheric pressure over the pool. That’s when you see bubble formation, and very high evaporation rates indeed! The so-called Armstrong limit of vacuum death above ~63,000 feet in Earth’s atmosphere is based on that boiling effect. At that altitude, the vapor pressure of liquid water at body temperature (98.6 F = 37.0 C) equals ambient air pressure. The moisture on lung surfaces quickly boils away. If the blood pressure inside the body falls to ambient, then the blood boils, too.
This boiling effect is quite distinct from the problem of vented versus pressure breathing, which comes into play down around 40,000 to 45,000 feet in Earth’s atmosphere. That is a diffusable oxygen concentration limit across lung tissues into the blood, complicated by water vapor displacement of dry air, inside the lungs. You’re not very functional on a vented oxygen mask at 40-45,000 feet, but you do not die of hypoxia. Above that, you do, which is why pressure breathing is required above those altitudes. This usually shows up as a pressure suit of some kind, except for the briefest exposures.
As for stable water on Mars: the equilibrium vapor pressure for 0 C liquid water is 6.2 mbar. If the Martian air is at or above that same 6.2 mbar, no boiling occurs, but evaporation can be quite rapid if the sun is shining, because that “air” can only hold a small single-digit percentage of water vapor. In other words, the Martian atmospheric water vapor partial pressure is at maximum on a warm day a very small fraction of a single mbar, for a difference on the order of 6 mbar to drive diffusion-driven evaporation. Given some available heat, evaporation is fast. But it does not boil.
On the other hand, if the Martian air is below 6.2 mbar total atmosphere, then the exposed water will boil, and evaporate away very quickly, faster if the sun is shining than if it is dark, but fast regardless.
The effect of salt concentrations is merely to shift the triple point (and the entire solid-liquid equilibrium line on the diagram) to lower temperatures. Same basic thermo-physics apply otherwise.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-11 14:33:57)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I suggested potatoes would require some work. Time to grow potatoes and space required are not at all practical for a ship. But that might be reduced. Develop a cultivar that produces much fewer leaves/stems/roots and more potatoes. This would require full sun 24/7. That means exclusive to the ship, or indoor farming on Earth. Furthermore, ensure the plant will tolerate harvesting potatoes without producing the toxin.
Potato leaves and stems have glycoalkaloids, mostly solanine. If tubers (the potato) are exposed to light, they produce a green patch where light strikes it. That green is actually chlorophyll but there's also solanine. So potatoes must grow in the dark. I found a commercial dye that is opaque to visible light and UV, transparent to Near IR. The dye is sold as a powder, or mixed with polycarbonate plastic as pellets ready for moulding. Hollow plastic balls made of this plastic could be used as the growth medium for hydroponics. Chlorophyll and other photo-dyes in plants only respond to 700nm wavelength or shorter. Very slight response to slightly more, less than 5% light absorption, with no light absorption at all above 720nm. This dye is opaque 200nm to 750nm. It allows less than 5% light transmission between 740nm and 750nm, but nothing shorter than 740nm. The manufacturer has other variants that are opaque further into infrared spectrum, but that's not necessary. This will prevent formation of the toxin. CMOS image sensors are sensitive to Near IR, including many smartphones. Visible light is 380nm to 700nm, but you can see red light up to 740nm. It's dim, but visible. Human night vision can even see into the Near IR, but the longer the wavelength the dimmer it appears. CMOS sensors can see 400nm to 1000nm wavelengths. Similar to human eyes, the deeper into IR, the dimmer the image appears. Also similar to human night vision, CMOS colour response is poor in IR, becoming monochrome. But while human night vision tapers to zero at about 800nm, CMOS tapers to zero at about 1000nm. This means a simple video camera, even certain brands of smartphone, can see through these plastic balls in the 750nm to 850nm range. That allows a worker or robot to look for mature potatoes, harvest without destroying the rest of the plant.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0110/ … 1529209157Hollow plastic balls would be lighter weight for use on the ship. Oh, but they would float in water. Would hydroponic potatoes require a heavier medium for stability that would sink in the hydroponic solution? With the plastic balls floating on top? Perhaps solid glass marbles, so they're also see-through? But with special hollow plastic balls on top to block visible light?
Online
Pages: 1
