Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

kbd512 · 2018-08-01 08:49:06

Louis,

Reliable and abundant electrical power makes many things a heck of a lot easier. If it came from magic marbles, it'd make no difference to me.

Oldfart1939,

There's no harm in trying to figure out all the different ways something can be manufactured and it's an interesting topic, irrespective of what actually exists right now.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-01 11:14:24

Louis-

Your comments re: sulfuric acid are hopelessly naiive. What it takes in order to manufacture sulfuric acid alone is a project beyond the capabilities we have attributed to the colony. First, there's the matter of finding, extracting, and purifying sulfur. That alone is a major industry, and one which isn't going to be accomplished by 75 pioneers. Then after you presumably have Sulfur, the manufacture of Sulfuric Acid is far from trivial. Also necessary is lots of Oxygen, and most assume "you just burn Sulfur in Oxygen." Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way, because that yields SO2, not the SO3 actually needed (this is called "Oleum."). It requires V2O5, Vanadium Pentoxide, as a catalyst. Once Oleum is "in hand," then dissolution in H2O gives Sulfuric Acid. So...you picked a real beauty to espouse manufacturing thereof. Tis entire procedure requires massive amounts of infrastructure. Industrially, this is accomplished on massive plant scale in order to justify the expense of manufacture. The there is the minor matter of making enough plastic boards for conversion into solar panels. Plastics just happen to be another one of my areas of expertise. Even though the reactions "on paper" appear simple, manufacture of polypropylene circuit boards and other associated solid state devise isn't going to be "wished into existence." Plastics manufacture is far more complex and infrastructure intensive than Sulfuric Acid. Cutting to the chase, your estimate of the workforce require for your solar panel construction is really only about 5-10% manned using your numbers.

So...I really hate to break it to you this way. But...not really.

P.S. Just how do I know about Sulfuric Acid? My final orals and that was THE question asked by the inorganic professor on my committee.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-08-01 11:15:43)

Terraformer · 2018-08-01 11:49:07

Oldfart,

How does the old Lead chamber process compare with the contact process? Would it be easier for a Martian colony to use?

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-01 12:06:40

There is no problem using the lead chamber process other than transporting it to Mars. I can think of several hundred other items which could be equally useful but weighing far less than a lead chamber. The major objection to lead chamber process is contamination of the Sulfuric Acid with measurable amounts of Lead; not what we would want in "Electronics Grade" Sulfuric Acid.

Terraformer · 2018-08-01 12:18:02

I wonder if modern glass making could allow glass to be used instead, and for the chambers to be manufactured on Mars?

louis · 2018-08-01 13:53:05

I'm not doubting your technical knowledge.

Some chemicals will be easier than others. But for a colony of 1000 the quantities would certainly be small and could be manufactured in small scale facilities.

Modern solar panel factories produce MWs of solar panel capacity with v. few workers. Producing 300 sq. metres a week would not require much human involvement. Remember, it's a batch process so human workers can move from one part of the process to the next.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
Your comments re: sulfuric acid are hopelessly naiive. What it takes in order to manufacture sulfuric acid alone is a project beyond the capabilities we have attributed to the colony. First, there's the matter of finding, extracting, and purifying sulfur. That alone is a major industry, and one which isn't going to be accomplished by 75 pioneers. Then after you presumably have Sulfur, the manufacture of Sulfuric Acid is far from trivial. Also necessary is lots of Oxygen, and most assume "you just burn Sulfur in Oxygen." Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way, because that yields SO2, not the SO3 actually needed (this is called "Oleum."). It requires V2O5, Vanadium Pentoxide, as a catalyst. Once Oleum is "in hand," then dissolution in H2O gives Sulfuric Acid. So...you picked a real beauty to espouse manufacturing thereof. Tis entire procedure requires massive amounts of infrastructure. Industrially, this is accomplished on massive plant scale in order to justify the expense of manufacture. The there is the minor matter of making enough plastic boards for conversion into solar panels. Plastics just happen to be another one of my areas of expertise. Even though the reactions "on paper" appear simple, manufacture of polypropylene circuit boards and other associated solid state devise isn't going to be "wished into existence." Plastics manufacture is far more complex and infrastructure intensive than Sulfuric Acid. Cutting to the chase, your estimate of the workforce require for your solar panel construction is really only about 5-10% manned using your numbers.
So...I really hate to break it to you this way. But...not really.
P.S. Just how do I know about Sulfuric Acid? My final orals and that was THE question asked by the inorganic professor on my committee.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-01 14:15:41

Louis-

Please don't use the old "dismissive statement" ploy here. Making ANY chemicals in larger than benchtop scale quantities will require major infrastructure and the technical know-how to make it work. By making such statements, you automatically overlook the nuts and bolts of running ANY manufacturing operation. It's sort of "Well, we now have Sulfuric acid in a reactor. Now what do we do with it?" I'm referring to the additional transfer equipment and safety measures; personal protective equipment, containers, acid resistant pumps, etc., etc., etc. The answer will be to transport Pfaudler or DeDietrich chemical reactors to Mars, along with the necessary temperature control equipment; steam plants; chillers; process piping; rupture discs; overflow receivers; support brackets; filters; centrifuges; huge holding tanks. You should really make a visit to a real chemical plant before making these statements. Sorry you don't like my rebuttal, but I live in the real world.

Terraformer · 2018-08-01 14:32:21

louis,

Scaling down a process doesn't mean scaling down the cost, complexity, or labour requirement. Think of it like cooking. Making a curry for one person doesn't allow you to cut out ingredients, and you can't do it ten times as fast as making it for ten people. You need a stove however many people you make it for - you can't use a kitchen that's ten times cheaper when only making it for one, since you need the same equipment.

louis · 2018-08-01 16:28:46

OK this is a thought experiment and it depends what you mean by "major infrastructure".

Obviously you need a lot of energy. I've suggested a 1000 person colony would need a large energy infrastructure of perhaps 300,000 sq metres of PV panels.

I've been to a few large industrial facilities in my time. The striking thing about the more modern ones is often how few people are involved.

You are not wrong to point to the complexity. But then a 1000 strong Viking community in Greenland in the 1100s would have been pretty complex. You couldn't write down everything they did in half an hour.

You reference centrifuges and acid-holding tanks...these are technologies that will cross over several technologies. Likewise as I previously pointed out re industrial robot arms - they are common to a huge range of applications these days.

I would be happy to consider in detail the complexities of making a batch of 400 kgs of sulphuric acid every 10 sols on Mars, if you want to lead the discussion...e.g. going through mining processes, purification, creating and maintaining feedstocks, and following through the various processes that lead to safe storage of sulphuric acid.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
Please don't use the old "dismissive statement" ploy here. Making ANY chemicals in larger than benchtop scale quantities will require major infrastructure and the technical know-how to make it work. By making such statements, you automatically overlook the nuts and bolts of running ANY manufacturing operation. It's sort of "Well, we now have Sulfuric acid in a reactor. Now what do we do with it?" I'm referring to the additional transfer equipment and safety measures; personal protective equipment, containers, acid resistant pumps, etc., etc., etc. The answer will be to transport Pfaudler or DeDietrich chemical reactors to Mars, along with the necessary temperature control equipment; steam plants; chillers; process piping; rupture discs; overflow receivers; support brackets; filters; centrifuges; huge holding tanks. You should really make a visit to a real chemical plant before making these statements. Sorry you don't like my rebuttal, but I live in the real world.

louis · 2018-08-01 16:40:24

Cost is pretty irrelevant to this thought experiment. What makes sense on Earth in terms of cost reduction (e.g. mass production) makes no sense in a small colony on Mars. It would, for instance, make no sense to set up complicated commodity exchanges with commodity brokers competing for various materials in a 1000 person colony. It would be much better to just have a command economy plan of what you intend to do (as NASA had for its Apollo Missions). It is going to be an incredibly complex plan but with today's computer power it is manageable complexity. You can work back from every necessary product, knowing exactly what materials, processes and energy inputs are required.

Labour requirement is of course absolutely fundamental. You can't make people work more than x hours per sol and your number of colonists is finite. You cannot expand your labour force through urbanisation or intraplanetary immigration as happens on Earth. You want to maximise the benefit of each person - so that means every Mars colonist should have an impressive array of technical or administrative skills which they can use to harness to the max robotics and automated processes.

Scaling down production levels can mean scaling down complexity. If you have huge operations that generate massive amounts of heat then heat control is an issue within its own right (one that doesn't arise at much lower levels of production). You then need to build massive heat control infrastructure - hundreds of pipes, huge fans and the like.

Terraformer wrote:

louis,
Scaling down a process doesn't mean scaling down the cost, complexity, or labour requirement. Think of it like cooking. Making a curry for one person doesn't allow you to cut out ingredients, and you can't do it ten times as fast as making it for ten people. You need a stove however many people you make it for - you can't use a kitchen that's ten times cheaper when only making it for one, since you need the same equipment.

JoshNH4H · 2018-08-01 16:51:53

louis wrote:

I would be happy to consider in detail the complexities of making a batch of 400 kgs of sulphuric acid every 10 sols on Mars, if you want to lead the discussion...e.g. going through mining processes, purification, creating and maintaining feedstocks, and following through the various processes that lead to safe storage of sulphuric acid.

I have more to say on this thread in general but this is a topic of interest to me (as well as the others on this thread, it seems) and I will make a thread and link to it here

JoshNH4H · 2018-08-01 17:27:31

Thread created here:

Sulfuric Acid on Mars

JoshNH4H · 2018-08-01 20:23:14

louis wrote:

Cost is pretty irrelevant to this thought experiment

My first reaction to this was to be dumbfounded.

It is true that we need to think of costs differently in this context, and that because the Martian economy will be structured differently (both in terms of the distribution of income and the process relations in the economy, plus the relative cost of imports and paucity of exports) but it's entirely wrong to say that cost is irrelevant. Cost is a way of accounting for the value of the inputs to an operation and the simple fact of being on Mars does not obviate them.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-03 06:30:04

JoshNH4H wrote:

louis wrote:
Cost is pretty irrelevant to this thought experiment
My first reaction to this was to be dumbfounded.
It is true that we need to think of costs differently in this context, and that because the Martian economy will be structured differently (both in terms of the distribution of income and the process relations in the economy, plus the relative cost of imports and paucity of exports) but it's entirely wrong to say that cost is irrelevant. Cost is a way of accounting for the value of the inputs to an operation and the simple fact of being on Mars does not obviate them.

I too, am dumbfounded by this statement! The only way Mars will ever be attainable in my, or anyone else's lifetime is if it doesn't "break the bank." Elon is worth something like $32 Billion these days, and Jeff Bezos leads the pack at $135 Billion. The reason these guys have that kind of loot, is they aren't throwing it away on fool's errands. Yeah, the U.S. Gubernment has all the dough they care to print, but even then, there are limits.

The entire rationale for developing the Mars Direct mission package was invoking COST EFFECTIVE MEASURES! The so-called "Battlestar Galactica" program offered up in the 90 Day Report in 1989 would look like a bare bones program if we take the attitude of "costs don't really matter."

SpaceNut · 2018-08-03 17:33:16

Cost is always relavent as if you can not bring it to main stream, it is unobtainium....So are the Battlestar Gallatica and trillion dollars for going to anywhere with any mission design.

louis · 2018-08-07 11:37:33

This thread is about a self-replicating Mars colony. So forget Earth and costings on Earth, they are irrelevant to a self-replicating colony on Mars.

I am sure we are all agreed that a colony of, say, a billion people on Mars could be self-replicating...so I think implicitly we are talking about a small or very small colony ie "how low can you go and be self-replicating?".

Pricing is simply one way of allocating scarce resources. It is normally associated with working markets and multiple private ownership.

Pricing is not the only way of allocating resources. Rationing and per-person coupons is another. Military or prison issue is another. Within firms there are various methods including request and supply. Many large firms will engage in detailed planning of their resource allocation. Often the finance department acts as "gatekeeper" for resource release.They can have internal pricing as well.

Pricing on Mars is unlikely to be very relevant in a small colony because there is unlikely to be private ownership of land or resources, state taxes, licensing charges, or environmental protection charges. Essentially everything around you is "free" in terms of price (just like the air used in Earth industry is "free")... as long as you can get at it and make use of it.

I suspect in a small Mars colony, resource allocation would be undertaken much as it is internally by larger firms. There will be a plan which allocates resources between departments. A central department (like finance departments on Earth) will act as gatekeeper to release of resources (both labour and material).

In terms of the Mars colonial population I think resources will be allocated to them personally (e.g. PC tablets, clothing, bedding etc) on (a) a request and provide basis (b) a rationing points system and (c) allocation by grade (just as your boss gets the biggest desk).

In terms of achieving a narrow goal of self-replication, using Earth based "costs" would be a ludicrous way of proceeding. For one thing there are very few genuinely free markets on Earth. To take methane as one example, it is grossly overpriced on Earth because of producer and processing cartels and the price includes environmental protection costs that are irrelevant on Mars. But equally to try and establish a pricing system that applies purely to Mars would be virtually impossible. Who would be the owners in a 1000 person colony? If you allowed people to take ownership of land and resources, many of the 1000 would focus on that rather than on the self-replication effort.

The best way to achieve self-replication in a small colony is to have a very detailed plan that sets out targets over time, delivery teams and resource allocation of labour and energy to teams for the various objectives to be achieved.

The plan would then be sub-divided into a daily action plan that might be modified as some targets are achieved early and others are delayed.

Under an overall colony plan, you might have an "Industrial Chemicals Section" to the plan and within that a programme for production of 20 tonnes of sulphuric acid every 500 sols. There would then be a batch production process specified for every 10 sols say and that would be fixed in the production calendar. This work would be allocated to say a "General Chemicals Team"...the plan would allocate labour and energy resources to that Team and also specify where the material feedstock for the sulphuric acid manufacture would come from (e.g. a Mining Resources Team in line with the "Mining Section" to the plan).

Oldfart1939 wrote:

JoshNH4H wrote:
louis wrote:
Cost is pretty irrelevant to this thought experiment
My first reaction to this was to be dumbfounded.
It is true that we need to think of costs differently in this context, and that because the Martian economy will be structured differently (both in terms of the distribution of income and the process relations in the economy, plus the relative cost of imports and paucity of exports) but it's entirely wrong to say that cost is irrelevant. Cost is a way of accounting for the value of the inputs to an operation and the simple fact of being on Mars does not obviate them.

I too, am dumbfounded by this statement! The only way Mars will ever be attainable in my, or anyone else's lifetime is if it doesn't "break the bank." Elon is worth something like $32 Billion these days, and Jeff Bezos leads the pack at $135 Billion. The reason these guys have that kind of loot, is they aren't throwing it away on fool's errands. Yeah, the U.S. Gubernment has all the dough they care to print, but even then, there are limits.
The entire rationale for developing the Mars Direct mission package was invoking COST EFFECTIVE MEASURES! The so-called "Battlestar Galactica" program offered up in the 90 Day Report in 1989 would look like a bare bones program if we take the attitude of "costs don't really matter."

JoshNH4H · 2018-08-11 13:07:27

From my copy of Webster's, Unabridged 1957 edition, pp. 413:

cost, n.
the amount of money, time, labor, etc. required to get a thing; price; expenditure.
loss; sacrifice; detriment.
[pl.]in law, (a) the sum fixed by law, or allowed by the court, for expenses of a lawsuit, usually charged against the party losing; (b) fees paid to an attorney or counsel.

The relevant definitions here are 1. and 2.; the key distinction to make is that cost and price are not the same thing.

Now, in a perfectly functioning and efficient market with no externalities (which is to say, in Economics Fantasyland), price and cost would be the same thing.

Economics Fantasyland doesn't exist; It's certainly not Mars, which as we've discussed here and elsewhere may not have any kind of market economy at all.

Nobody has suggested, or would suggest, that Earth costs are directly applicable to Mars. However, they do correlate (imperfectly, but strongly) with the amount of resources required to make or do something and in that sense can sometimes be used as a guide along with other methods of analysis.

louis · 2018-08-12 09:23:47

JoshNH4H wrote:

From my copy of Webster's, Unabridged 1957 edition, pp. 413:
cost, n.
the amount of money, time, labor, etc. required to get a thing; price; expenditure.
loss; sacrifice; detriment.
[pl.]in law, (a) the sum fixed by law, or allowed by the court, for expenses of a lawsuit, usually charged against the party losing; (b) fees paid to an attorney or counsel.
The relevant definitions here are 1. and 2.; the key distinction to make is that cost and price are not the same thing.

Well definition 1 does give "price" as the meaning of "cost" - they are in that respect the same thing.

Now, in a perfectly functioning and efficient market with no externalities (which is to say, in Economics Fantasyland), price and cost would be the same thing.
Economics Fantasyland doesn't exist; It's certainly not Mars, which as we've discussed here and elsewhere may not have any kind of market economy at all.

In economics, income=production=expenditure. That's a cornerstone of economic analysis.

Nobody has suggested, or would suggest, that Earth costs are directly applicable to Mars. However, they do correlate (imperfectly, but strongly) with the amount of resources required to make or do something and in that sense can sometimes be used as a guide along with other methods of analysis.

I don't disagree with what you state there. But a small Mars colony could operate on the basis of cost (as in currency valuation) than an Antarctic base or big military base on Earth does.

I just want to be clear we are talking about resource allocation. And I think it is very important to understand that while raw materials on Mars are effectively free, as air is free on Earth, the really scarce resource will be labour. To a certain extent robots and automated machinery can make up for that, but labour scarcity is what will seriously limit the colony's ability to self-replicate (the point of this thread). Of course, in reality the Mars colony will be tied into Earth's priced markets and will also be generating huge amounts of income denominated in Earth-based currency and there will be little sense in aiming for 100% self-sufficiency.

SpaceNut · 2018-08-12 11:04:31

The issue with replicational machines is more than just free materials and plenty of the machines as you need the power sources for each (not just creation but portability and connectability), a place to house them in when working and idle, the communications to the when they need updating and to report failure modes.

JoshNH4H · 2018-08-12 11:51:26

louis wrote:

Well definition 1 does give "price" as the meaning of "cost" - they are in that respect the same thing.

It's true, and there is some overlap between the words in common usage. This is substantially a discussion of semantics, and I have no problem conceding the point or letting it go as long as we're in agreement that price when measured in dollars or pounds or euros or yen or renmibi is different (particularly on Mars) from questions of the allocation of resource, capital, and labor. You indicated below that you are, so I think there's no disagreement here.

louis wrote:

In economics, income=production=expenditure. That's a cornerstone of economic analysis.

It is true that this is an accounting identity which is useful for calculating the GDP of a country and various other quantities when working in units of currency; it is less true that it expresses a truth about resource allocation and production.

I don't disagree with what you state there. But a small Mars colony could operate on the basis of cost (as in currency valuation) than an Antarctic base or big military base on Earth does.
I just want to be clear we are talking about resource allocation. And I think it is very important to understand that while raw materials on Mars are effectively free, as air is free on Earth, the really scarce resource will be labour. To a certain extent robots and automated machinery can make up for that, but labour scarcity is what will seriously limit the colony's ability to self-replicate (the point of this thread). Of course, in reality the Mars colony will be tied into Earth's priced markets and will also be generating huge amounts of income denominated in Earth-based currency and there will be little sense in aiming for 100% self-sufficiency.

I think there's a pretty good argument for some way of accounting for resource exhaustion. In capitalist economies on Earth this happens through the market value of mineral rights, which are strongly affected by the current and expected future prices of the resources associated with them. In a planned economy you would want to do it some other way but you'd still want to do it, because an orebody mined can never be mined again. Having said thAnyat, this accounting will presumably be internal and won't actually cost the settlement that much (the real costs would be that the resource, let's say Iron, will be treated as being more valuable compared to if you did not price the orebodies; and therefore more labor and capital will be used to prevent waste than would be if you neglected to account for the value of the ore). The value of mineral rights will be low at first when the resources are pristine and the settlements needs are small, but will increase as resources become tapped out and the settlements needs increase.

Anyway I mostly agree with what you've said here but I don't think it's helpful to characterize things as free when they have value and costs associated with them.

louis · 2018-08-12 22:34:19

We're probably largely in agreement but I think the use of the word "free" is important in relation to Mars. On Earth there are lots of things where effectively you are paying a "rent"...someone is taking part of the value of your work because they own the land (and with it any raw materials). The rent income they earn has nothing to do with any input from the landowner...it's basically a form of economic parasitism. That is absent on Mars. And that is important, as is the fact you won't be paying (via taxes) for a huge governmental bureaucracy or a large health and welfare expenditure or environmental licences etc. "Rent", taxes, licence costs and welfare support taken together can easily take up anything between 20% and 70% of a business's costs. They will be virtually zero on Mars.

Free market pricing in currency is simply one method of resource management - a pretty good one for very large and complex economies. There are lots of other methods e.g. controlled pricing (we used to have something called retail price maintenance in UK shops back in the 1950s which meant you couldn't discount prices - so wasn't a real free market), or free market bartering or controlled bartering or rationing (through some sort of bureaucratic system such as coupons), or favour (medieval style resource division) or dictatorial command or democratic decision or algorithmic calculation...or some amalgam of any of the foregoing.

JoshNH4H wrote:

louis wrote:
Well definition 1 does give "price" as the meaning of "cost" - they are in that respect the same thing.
It's true, and there is some overlap between the words in common usage. This is substantially a discussion of semantics, and I have no problem conceding the point or letting it go as long as we're in agreement that price when measured in dollars or pounds or euros or yen or renmibi is different (particularly on Mars) from questions of the allocation of resource, capital, and labor. You indicated below that you are, so I think there's no disagreement here.
louis wrote:
In economics, income=production=expenditure. That's a cornerstone of economic analysis.
It is true that this is an accounting identity which is useful for calculating the GDP of a country and various other quantities when working in units of currency; it is less true that it expresses a truth about resource allocation and production.
I don't disagree with what you state there. But a small Mars colony could operate on the basis of cost (as in currency valuation) than an Antarctic base or big military base on Earth does.
I just want to be clear we are talking about resource allocation. And I think it is very important to understand that while raw materials on Mars are effectively free, as air is free on Earth, the really scarce resource will be labour. To a certain extent robots and automated machinery can make up for that, but labour scarcity is what will seriously limit the colony's ability to self-replicate (the point of this thread). Of course, in reality the Mars colony will be tied into Earth's priced markets and will also be generating huge amounts of income denominated in Earth-based currency and there will be little sense in aiming for 100% self-sufficiency.
I think there's a pretty good argument for some way of accounting for resource exhaustion. In capitalist economies on Earth this happens through the market value of mineral rights, which are strongly affected by the current and expected future prices of the resources associated with them. In a planned economy you would want to do it some other way but you'd still want to do it, because an orebody mined can never be mined again. Having said thAnyat, this accounting will presumably be internal and won't actually cost the settlement that much (the real costs would be that the resource, let's say Iron, will be treated as being more valuable compared to if you did not price the orebodies; and therefore more labor and capital will be used to prevent waste than would be if you neglected to account for the value of the ore). The value of mineral rights will be low at first when the resources are pristine and the settlements needs are small, but will increase as resources become tapped out and the settlements needs increase.
Anyway I mostly agree with what you've said here but I don't think it's helpful to characterize things as free when they have value and costs associated with them.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-25 11:22:28

MIT Researchers 3D Print Precise Plasma Sensors for Satellites
https://scitechdaily.com/mit-researcher … atellites/

Building a Lunar Base with 3D Printing
https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/buildi … -printing/

Building a base on the moon could theoretically be made much simpler by using a 3D printer to construct it from local materials.
The concept was recently endorsed by the European Space Agency (ESA) which is now collaborating with architects to gauge the feasibility of 3D printing using lunar soil.
“Terrestrial 3D printing technology has produced entire structures,” explained Laurent Pambaguian, heading the project for ESA. “Our industrial team investigated if it could similarly be employed to build a lunar habitat.”
According to Pambaguian, ESA’s partners have devised a weight-bearing “catenary” dome design with a cellular structured wall to help shield against micrometeoroids and space radiation – incorporating a pressurized inflatable to shelter astronauts.
Meanwhile, a hollow closed-cell structure – somewhat reminiscent of bird bones – provides a combination of strength and weight. The base’s design was guided in turn by the properties of 3D-printed lunar soil, with a 1.5 ton building block produced as a demonstration.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2018-08-01 08:49:06

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#77 2018-08-01 11:14:24

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#78 2018-08-01 11:49:07

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#79 2018-08-01 12:06:40

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#80 2018-08-01 12:18:02

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#81 2018-08-01 13:53:05

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#82 2018-08-01 14:15:41

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#83 2018-08-01 14:32:21

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#84 2018-08-01 16:28:46

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#85 2018-08-01 16:40:24

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#86 2018-08-01 16:51:53

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#87 2018-08-01 17:27:31

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#88 2018-08-01 20:23:14

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#89 2018-08-03 06:30:04

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#90 2018-08-03 17:33:16

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#91 2018-08-07 11:37:33

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#92 2018-08-11 13:07:27

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#93 2018-08-12 09:23:47

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#94 2018-08-12 11:04:31

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#95 2018-08-12 11:51:26

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#96 2018-08-12 22:34:19

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

#97 2022-08-25 11:22:28

Re: Self-replicating colony - a challenge but how difficult?

Board footer