Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

SpaceNut · 2017-07-30 08:42:25

Trying to post to page 15 of this topic which is indicating a sync error for table issue
That way I can see what happens.
Will delete post or edit it if it works

SpaceNut · 2017-08-10 16:29:02

I was thinking about the list of needs that we take for granted and the biggest is Earth sun combination as without these we would have none of the topic titled items. Which is solar energy and gravity which allows for the radiational shield as well as atmospheric containment.
As we go to mars we will need to not only provide that base line of needs but those that we take for granted as well.

So what is the real solar energy level that man needs as its also part of mans waste recovery process.

louis · 2017-08-10 17:39:07

I like to reverse this way of thinking. If there were a Martian civilisation thinking about visiting Earth how might they compare our conditions with theirs? Might their expert opinion not read something like the following:

Huge oceans of liquid H2O cover the vast majority of the planet's surface posing severe risk to landing craft. The ocean swells rise to many times the size of a Martian. Landing craft even if equipped with flotation devices may be sunk in the liquid H2O in storm conditions.

There are many other hazards. Earthquakes can quickly destroy any surface settlements. Huge wind storms and vortices - far worse than those on Mars - can also wipe out any surface structures.

Where earthquakes trigger huge ocean waves, any coastal settlements would be destroyed in their entirety.

Where the H20 is frozen, any landing craft is likely to be crushed by the constantly moving solid structures.

Any individual Martian in an exposed area may be subject to a lightning strike and be turned to cinders.

There are also many large organisms on Earth which will view Martians as food and thus destroy them in order to eat them.

In addition there are a wide range of microscopic organisms (pathogens) that can potentially kill Martians through disease to which we have no resistance.

It is also considered that the stronger gravity and weaker radiation will play havoc with our essential organic functions.

Conclusion: under no circumstances should we venture to Earth.

SpaceNut wrote:

I was thinking about the list of needs that we take for granted and the biggest is Earth sun combination as without these we would have none of the topic titled items. Which is solar energy and gravity which allows for the radiational shield as well as atmospheric containment.
As we go to mars we will need to not only provide that base line of needs but those that we take for granted as well.
So what is the real solar energy level that man needs as its also part of mans waste recovery process.

SpaceNut · 2017-08-29 15:35:30

clark wrote:

Perhaps they realize that building and demonstrating a proto-type of a Martian settlement on Earth is the quickest way to demonstrate the disadvantages to living off planet.
Reporter: So what do you do all day?
Proto-Mars Colonist: Er, um, I sit inside, under the flickering lights, driving this little rover around in vacum.
Reporter: What do you do for fun?
Proto-Mars Colonist: Well, most of the time we have to do saftey drills, do diagnostic sweeps, calibrate sensors, and triple check the machinery we pretend to depend on for life.
Reporter: So what are the advantages of pretending to live on Mars?
Proto-Mars Colonist: That's what we are trying to figure out, so far we have "science".
Reporter: What is the food like?
Proto-Mars Colonist: Rich and varied, all nutrious- of course by Earthly standards, it is sparse and tasteless. We have very little room for luxaries, as the cost is too great. Most of our food is soy based. Most of us would kill for ice cream, we feel for our Antartic cousins.
Reporter: Speaking of killing, is there crime in your community?
Proto-Mars Colonist: Nah, not really- what with all the cameras and other base sensors that monitor the status of the habitat 24/7, and the fact that we live in an enclosed and regulated environment, there is little opportunity for crime. Of course, it would be nice to have cloudy and cold days now and then, but the temp regs require 72 degrees, all the time- and due to the need for constant work throughout the day for maintainence, the lights are always the same in the general area.
Reporter: Why do you think people would want to go to mars?
Proto-Mars Colonist: Why? For the adventure of course, dosen't my life sound like an adventure? Well, dosen't it?
You tell mme.

You bring up good points of how isolated the colonist will be and how that they must become a sustainable colony very early.

The Contralmirante wrote:

It is very boring. But there is one aspect of colonizing Mars you forgot about. Renewable food. A food garden would be a must have for real Mars colonists. If an Apollo 13 type malfunction delays a supply run, with rations their only food, colonists are dead. One hundred percent isolation from the outside world (including reporters) would be a necessary part of establishing a test colony on Earth. Also B-12 deprivation is a serious issue. Without a high-tech chem-lab as part of the colony for creating artificial pills and liquids with vital nutrients like that, a full blown ecosystem within the real Mars complex would be necessary, including keeping animals for slaughter.
There are many such issues I see with colonizing Mars, but I'm determined to come up with solutions to every single one of them, same as the rest of you, I assume.

Would be very tragic for any member to die from any and starvation should not be on the list.

Kolbytivy · 2017-09-22 13:04:27

Ive feed him every food in the house except for the porridge then what?

SpaceNut · 2017-09-24 18:21:35

Yes the human body can eat just about anything within reason but at some point if there are no supplies coming and crops have failed then we have a real problem.
We better send more stuff to preload any site before man even thinks of going.

That should be the challenge to send 10 ton preload of things that men will need to a given predetermined site. Seeing just how close they can land to the designated location....

Sounds like a new prize contest.....RED Eagle xprise.....open to anyone just like the COTS, Lunar xprise and so on.....

SpaceNut · 2017-10-21 17:40:54

I happened upon a story via a grocery store cashier...

It goes like this in that a couple was looking at there food bills and came up with a plan to save money in that for the first 3 weeks of a month they would buy there food and on the 4th would buy none.
This would in either case cause them to eat 1/3 rd less food in the first 3 weeks each in order to be able to eat during the 4th as one senerio of what could be, with a second was to buy 1/3 more food but at the same cost as the original planned food costs and the third would be to buy the food and the final choice is to spend status quo over the 3 weeks that would be funded by 4 weeks of cash.

Applying this to mars and a greenhouse I think targetting food production for the 4th week is a valid way to look at how to reduce the food mass to mars....rather than trying to go for sustianability of 100% from the get go...

louis · 2017-10-21 18:15:45

Well, yes, I agree - and I would say the 4 weeks of the parable equates to 4 years of colonisation. After 4 years the Mars colony should be functionally self-sufficient in food, although no doubt various "treats and meats" will be imported...but it could support itself in food if necessary.

SpaceNut wrote:

I happened upon a story via a grocery store cashier...
It goes like this in that a couple was looking at there food bills and came up with a plan to save money in that for the first 3 weeks of a month they would buy there food and on the 4th would buy none.
This would in either case cause them to eat 1/3 rd less food in the first 3 weeks each in order to be able to eat during the 4th as one senerio of what could be, with a second was to buy 1/3 more food but at the same cost as the original planned food costs and the third would be to buy the food and the final choice is to spend status quo over the 3 weeks that would be funded by 4 weeks of cash.
Applying this to mars and a greenhouse I think targetting food production for the 4th week is a valid way to look at how to reduce the food mass to mars....rather than trying to go for sustianability of 100% from the get go...

SpaceNut · 2017-11-01 18:24:00

Just went 3 days with out power and it brings to mind that unless we have a huge habitat full of air and water as well as food its power that is the large straw on the priority list followed by depending on whether you have a large space to start with for the staying of the enevitable for lack of power.

joesmith · 2017-12-24 11:59:11

......on the other hand we could apply the tech that we own torward living a Mars caveman existence.

Last edited by joesmith (2018-01-14 20:00:25)

RobertDyck · 2017-12-24 14:53:09

Hello joesmith. Nice first post, welcome. Yes, many of us have talked about homesteading on Mars. Build a Mars settlement and survive. I'm afraid I put a proverbial monkey-wrench in one friend's work. Bruce Mackenzie came up with the idea of making bricks from Mars regolith, building Roman style arches and domes, and piling loose regolith on top to provide weight to counter air pressure inside. Great idea, but my critique was pressure finds the easiest way out. Air inside would find a weak spot in the mortar between bricks, then push a channel through Mars soil to the surface. Air would leak out. When I mentioned this, a mutual friend suggested we just spray a sealant on the inside of the brick wall. Ok, that works. But my point is Mars is dangerous. Although I do expect survival at first, as you said, that will still require a certain level of technology.

By the way, which beach are you on?

louis · 2017-12-24 15:04:38

Prior to the Space X Plan I favoured the low tech "cut and cover" method of a digging a trench and covering with Roman arch brickwork with regolith on top. I first read about that in some of Zubrin's work. Yes, a sealant is the obvious first stage solution (which could come from Mars ISRU). But, I do wonder whether your assertion has been tested experimentally. Yes, there would be initial pressure escapes but wouldn't the channels gradually fill up with particles (large ones to begin with but then smaller and smaller ones as they get obstructed by the larger particles) and slow down the release of air until it becomes a marginal issue? I am think the key here is to have enough regolith cover and to have it packed firm.

RobertDyck wrote:

Hello joesmith. Nice first post, welcome. Yes, many of us have talked about homesteading on Mars. Build a Mars settlement and survive. I'm afraid I put a proverbial monkey-wrench in one friend's work. Bruce Mackenzie came up with the idea of making bricks from Mars regolith, building Roman style arches and domes, and piling loose regolith on top to provide weight to counter air pressure inside. Great idea, but my critique was pressure finds the easiest way out. Air inside would find a weak spot in the mortar between bricks, then push a channel through Mars soil to the surface. Air would leak out. When I mentioned this, a mutual friend suggested we just spray a sealant on the inside of the brick wall. Ok, that works. But my point is Mars is dangerous. Although I do expect survival at first, as you said, that will still require a certain level of technology.
By the way, which beach are you on?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-12-24 16:59:56

Welcome to the Forum, Joe Smith. You too can join our happy band of Martians. (Some might say Lunatics, but that's the wrong astronomical body involved).

SpaceNut · 2017-12-24 19:12:27

A layered approach to the arch with sealing adhesives, insulation materials in between each layer builds up to created a stronger barrier and this lessons the pressure escape as it make up is via layers for the thickness required without piling up regolith on top of it as each layer is structural instead.

Welcome to the fun of conversation about man and Mars plus all other destinations for man to travel too; Joe Smith....

SpaceNut · 2018-01-24 20:34:11

I think this is a pioneer level mission with a common designed mars lander:

https://www.mars-one.com/mission/the-technology

1 Carrying Life Support Units that generate energy, water and breathable air for the settlement.
2 Carrying Supply Unit with food, solar panels, spare parts and other components.
3 Carrying Living Units that are outfitted with deployable inflatable habitats.
4 Carrying Humans to the surface of Mars
5 Carrying Rovers to the surface of Mars

elderflower · 2018-01-25 10:51:07

A sealant is essential on the inside, warm side, of any habitable structure on Mars. It must be an effective vapour barrier to keep moisture in the hab and avoid formation of ice in the walls or overburden. The expansion as the moisture freezes would generate very high pressures capable of disrupting many materials. It can split metal pipes and spall flakes off bricks.
Moisture invading your insulation is also a potential disaster as its thermal performance falls towards that of solid ice. This happens in earth domestic freezers which lose the outside seal, thereby allowing the warm atmospheric water vapour to infiltrate.

RobertDyck · 2018-01-25 13:01:58

Sorry, I thought that's obvious. My mother's father built houses for a living. My father was a high-steel construction worker before his wife became pregnant with their first baby (me). He then got a job as welder at the railroad, so he could come home to his family every evening, and get weekends off. My father built a double-car garage, and finished the basement of his house. Since I was a young boy, of course I was interested, I "helped". So I learned from a very young age. Finishing a basement of a house in Canada at that time meant 2x4 studs filled with batts of fibreglass insulation, and covered with a heavy sheet of plastic film as a vapour barrier. You don't want moisture getting trapped in the fibreglass batt, it would rot. And yes, mildew can grow in fibreglass. On very cold nights, concrete walls had frost form on the inside. Not deep down, but at the top where the outside of the concrete was exposed to cold winter air, and a couple feet below ground level. If that got into fibreglass insulation, it would soak it, making it soggy. Any child playing outside in winter will at some time get soaking wet. Soaking wet winter clothes, outside in the cold of winter, does not protect from cold. The coldest winter days are too cold for liquid water, there's only water outside on mild days, but soaking wet clothes provide no protection so you get very badly chilled. So anyone growing up here knows first hand what happens to wet insulation.

elderflower · 2018-01-25 15:07:53

Yes Robert, but a lot of folks on this site live in places like Texas or Australia and keep their houses cooler than the outside for half the year...

SpaceNut · 2018-01-25 19:44:07

Understood about vapor barriers and with a structure built of glass pane the seal is in the frame rubber that holds the glass. Multiple panes means many sealing layers being made.

SpaceNut · 2018-02-19 16:04:20

The need for multiple living and growing environments not only for food but for man to live within on mars is a must. This can only happen when we have a solid plan for success from the start knowing what we have to make use of for deliverables but also what to do when the first use of an item is complete.

GW Johnson · 2018-03-16 15:02:09

I am back from back surgery. It went well, but I am in much pain.

I took a second look at two-gas habitat atmospheres and min oxygen suit pressures. This time I had better fire danger criteria, and I included the "usual" factor 1.10 on suit pressure for leak-down effects. The results are posted over at my exrocketman.blogspot.com site. Been working on this for several days leading up to the back surgery. Title is "Suit and Habitat Atmospheres 2018", dated 3-16-2018.

Basically, everybody gets the same wet in-lung oxygen partial pressure: equivalent to Earthly air at 10,000 feet elevation. The suit is pure oxygen at 2.836 psia, that portion of habitat or vehicle from where outside suit wearers will come is a two gas mix of oxygen and nitrogen at 45.45% by volume oxygen, and total pressure 6.240 psia. The other portion of the living spaces where pregnant women and small children might be is real synthetic air (oxygen-nitrogen at 20.946% by volume oxygen, at 10.11 psia.

The suit is the min pressure design that requires no pre-breathe time, higher pressure designs also need no pre-breathe. The same min-pressure suit design leaked down by factor 1.10 still provides the wet in-lung oxygen partial pressure equivalent to Earthly air at 13,300 feet. That's within standard airline cabin pressure altitude practice, its not far from a supplemental oxygen mask at 40,000 feet (equivalent wet in-lung oxygen 12,000 feet), and is within 3 meters of the elevation of La Paz, Bolivia, where tourists go all the time without trouble.

The 45.45% oxygen at its reduced pressure of 6.24 psia actually has less oxygen concentration than Earthly sea level air. Fire reaction rates and energy release rates should look very similar to those in sea level air.

All very simple two-gas stuff, except the suits. What I calculated for the suits applies to both gas balloon suits and MCP suits. However, since there is gas only in the helmet and a very well-protected tidal volume bag in an MCP suit, I have to wonder whether the leakdown factor is really necessary. I think it probably is necessary for a gas balloon suit.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-03-16 15:08:13)

louis · 2018-03-16 16:49:43

All the best for a swift recovery GW.

GW Johnson wrote:

I am back from back surgery. It went well, but I am in much pain.
I took a second look at two-gas habitat atmospheres and min oxygen suit pressures. This time I had better fire danger criteria, and I included the "usual" factor 1.10 on suit pressure for leak-down effects. The results are posted over at my exrocketman.blogspot.com site. Been working on this for several days leading up to the back surgery. Title is "Suit and Habitat Atmospheres 2018", dated 3-16-2018.
Basically, everybody gets the same wet in-lung oxygen partial pressure: equivalent to Earthly air at 10,000 feet elevation. The suit is pure oxygen at 2.836 psia, that portion of habitat or vehicle from where outside suit wearers will come is a two gas mix of oxygen and nitrogen at 45.45% by volume oxygen, and total pressure 6.240 psia. The other portion of the living spaces where pregnant women and small children might be is real synthetic air (oxygen-nitrogen at 20.946% by volume oxygen, at 10.11 psia.
The suit is the min pressure design that requires no pre-breathe time, higher pressure designs also need no pre-breathe. The same min-pressure suit design leaked down by factor 1.10 still provides the wet in-lung oxygen partial pressure equivalent to Earthly air at 13,300 feet. That's within standard airline cabin pressure altitude practice, its not far from a supplemental oxygen mask at 40,000 feet (equivalent wet in-lung oxygen 12,000 feet), and is within 3 meters of the elevation of La Paz, Bolivia, where tourists go all the time without trouble.
The 45.45% oxygen at its reduced pressure of 6.24 psia actually has less oxygen concentration than Earthly sea level air. Fire reaction rates and energy release rates should look very similar to those in sea level air.
All very simple two-gas stuff, except the suits. What I calculated for the suits applies to both gas balloon suits and MCP suits. However, since there is gas only in the helmet and a very well-protected tidal volume bag in an MCP suit, I have to wonder whether the leakdown factor is really necessary. I think it probably is necessary for a gas balloon suit.
GW

SpaceNut · 2018-03-16 18:37:22

Yes good to hear that all went well, oh and thanks for the altitude plus mix data

SpaceNut · 2018-03-22 17:36:52

From Clark Clamity:

JoshNH4H wrote:

Air Pressure/Pressure Containment
Oxygen
Temperature
Water
Food
Assumed functioning:
Communications
Power

Items 1 through 3 sort of go together as the first needs when it comes to energy tier needs.
Treating item 4 and 5 in that order represent the 2nd and 3rd tiers of energy needs.
item 6 is the final item with the lowest of priority towards energy needs as we can do without it longer than we can do so with any of the other items.

So if items 1 & 3 are stable the energy requirement is all in for making oxygen (2) from mars insitu moxie units unless there is a lower level of energy for oxygens creation.

elderflower · 2018-03-23 03:13:00

Hope you have a swift and thorough recovery, GW.
I would just point out that Mars atmosphere, with CO and CO2 removed contains about as much N2 as Argon so a three gas mixture, rather than two, is more likely to be used. Separation of Ar from N2 is not particularly difficult, but why would you bother?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#351 2017-07-30 08:42:25

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#352 2017-08-10 16:29:02

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#353 2017-08-10 17:39:07

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#354 2017-08-29 15:35:30

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#355 2017-09-22 13:04:27

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#356 2017-09-24 18:21:35

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#357 2017-10-21 17:40:54

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#358 2017-10-21 18:15:45

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#359 2017-11-01 18:24:00

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#360 2017-12-24 11:59:11

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#361 2017-12-24 14:53:09

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#362 2017-12-24 15:04:38

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#363 2017-12-24 16:59:56

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#364 2017-12-24 19:12:27

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#365 2018-01-24 20:34:11

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#366 2018-01-25 10:51:07

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#367 2018-01-25 13:01:58

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#368 2018-01-25 15:07:53

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#369 2018-01-25 19:44:07

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#370 2018-02-19 16:04:20

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#371 2018-03-16 15:02:09

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#372 2018-03-16 16:49:43

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#373 2018-03-16 18:37:22

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#374 2018-03-22 17:36:52

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#375 2018-03-23 03:13:00

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

Board footer