Crops

Void · 2017-01-06 12:26:31

Just a post in passing. If all else fails, could autonomous robotic mini-drones be considered as pollinators/inspectors of the plants? The point being not only might they pollinate, but they might make an individual inspection of each plant every day, whatever value that might add. They might work in atmospheres inadequate for bees as well. The inspection information would go to a central computer which would advise actions to optimize productivity I would presume. Watering, and nutrition I presume. By the time humans are on Mars that technology should be available.

I am also thinking that those drones could be to a degree "Lighter than air", so that they would not have to fight gravity as much. Of course in that case minimal air currents in the greenhouse would be preferred. The pollinator/inspector might be somewhat more bulky than a bee in size, so it would likely need to have a pollination appendage, which may or may not be mobile. Maybe it could use air suction and pneumatics to suck in pollen and then inject it to another plant. Or a swab method.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-06 12:46:00)

RobertDyck · 2017-01-06 17:29:30

We still haven't determined that altitude is a limiting factor for bees.

All insects do not have lungs, they have pours in their skin/shell/carapace that allows air in. The membrane lining of these pours does the same as our lungs. But without the specialized blood circulation system we have, oxygen from these pours only provides for tissues near them. I'm told insects were the only animal on land hundreds of millions of years ago. They grew very large, including a dragonfly with 3 foot wingspan. They could grow that large because Earth's atmosphere had so much oxygen. Once mushrooms, fungi, and bacteria evolved to decompose wood, oxygen dropped to what it is today. Dead trees from that age just lay on the ground until they were buried. Those dead trees became coal. Since wood now rots, coal no longer forms. And insects got smaller; the largest insects today are about as large as they can get with today's oxygen.

My point is increasing oxygen in the Mars hab to 2.7 psi partial pressure is equivalent to only 3,000 feet. I think regular honey bees can fly in that. Even though total pressure will only be 8.4 psi (rounding off for significant figures) which will affect lift from bee wings, gravity will be only 38%. Again, I think regular honey bees can fly in that. Or as Elderflower suggested, a type of fly.

Terraformer · 2017-01-06 17:55:25

So the question for insects is, just how low can oxygen levels go (relevant to terraforming, definitely). This says that they can survive hypoxic conditions, but that's different from being able to actually thrive in them.

Terraformer · 2017-01-06 18:03:22

Of course, we could always genetically engineer the insects, if you don't mind the risk of them escaping and leading to an infestation of Giant Bees...

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-06 20:21:30

I'm highly opposed to transporting Genetically Modified life forms to Mars, in spite of the attractiveness of the concept. Monsanto is just now beginning to feel the backlash against some of the modified corn that they have promoted, since there has now been more research into the possibly toxic compounds found in them: Putrescine and Cadaverine are both polyalkyl symmetrical diamines that have very negative effects on animals fed the corn. The major advantage the corn has for growers and hence Monsanto, is the GMO resistance to Roundup.

SpaceNut · 2017-01-06 23:01:27

I would say that even if we had done the same through characteristic selection we would have seen that we had made the wrong selection choices....but then again here on earth greed seems to drive everything...

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-01-07 14:22:15

Bad GM

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I'm highly opposed to transporting Genetically Modified life forms to Mars...

Then logically you should also be opposed to greenhouses exposed on the martian surface, as cosmic rays will GM those plants, and very poorly.

You're not opposed, but you should be.

Studies on space effects on plants
A comparison of various studies has clarified how space effects are deeply influenced
by plant characteristics (e.g. species, cultivar, stage of development, tissue architecture
and genome organization) (Holst and Nagel 1997). In relatively short-term space-flight
experiments, it has been pointed out the space environment causes chromosome aberration
and changes in the cell cycle of plant cells. This may be due to either microgravity or
increased cosmic rays in space or resulting from unfavorable growing conditions in the
plant growing unit. Structural and functional changes in the DNA molecule are responsible
for most of the damage expressed after exposure to ionizing radiations, at both the
cellular and the systemic levels. DNA modifications range from single base alterations,
base substitutions, base deletions, chromosomal aberrations to epigenetic modifications.
In general, radiation exposure can induce both negative and positive effects on plants,
and the mutations at the base of these effects can also be transmitted to the progeny
(Mei et al. 1998; Yu et al. 2007). Apart from reduced germination, among the detrimental
effects, there is often reference to embryo lethality, dwarf architecture, modification
of floral morphology with altered occurrence of fertile floral elements (Kranz 1986;
Sah et al. 1996). On the other hand, stress conditions, like the exposure to ionizing
radiations, can have stimulatory effects on specific morphological parameters and can
increase the yield of the plants in terms of growth, reproductive success and ability to
withstand water shortage (Maity et al. 2005; Yu et al. 2007; Melki and Dahmani 2009).
A few space-flight experiments have attempted to test the effects of the space environment
on plant reproduction. For instance, Arabidopsis thaliana and wheat plants were
grown in space for different durations (Mashinsky et al., 1994; Salisbury et al., 1995).
They were found to produce and develop flowers, but the flowers produced more sterile
seeds than did ground control plants. These experiments could not specify the cause for
such failure in seed production.

Bad GM.

Last edited by Lake Matthew Team - Cole (2017-01-07 14:32:52)

elderflower · 2017-01-08 03:51:55

All our crops and domesticated animals are genetically modified. The method of modification was selective breeding (unnatural selection). A lot of these varieties would no longer be able to survive in the wild. Monsanto could have bred roundup resistance into various crop varieties, but the process is quite slow, so they took a shortcut. Their problem is that they failed to think through where they were going with this, so they sold it to producers and totally failed to sell its benefits (if any) to the consumers of the products.

elderflower · 2017-01-08 04:14:12

For starter crops, consider the American Indian trio of corn, beans and squash. It worked very well and has a fairly short growing season. Also carp in ponds of treated water per mediaeval monasteries for added protein sources. Carp are vegetarian.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-08 11:36:36

Lake Matthew Team-Cole

The GMO that you're describing are through radiation induced random mutation, not synthesis of a desired characteristic. Most mutations such as you have described are lethal, and have very little chance of massively influencing a species. That's why the crops may not thrive if exposed to too much cosmic radiation. Fortunately, the thin atmosphere on Mars, in addition to the planetary bulk reduces the surface Cosmic radiation exposure down to something like 35% of that in deep space, which is roughly the same level airline pilots are exposed to by flying in the 35,000 to 40,000 feet msl flight levels.

Monsanto is now "on the hook" for lots of cattle and swine illness as a result of their genetically modified field corn crops; released and promoted without adequate long term feeding trials. I'm surprised the FDA actually approved this sort of genetic crop modification without at least a 5 year field trial on the long term effects of the cattle and swine feed.

RobertDyck · 2017-01-08 13:04:11

First, long term trials for GMO food is a good idea. I generally argue in favour of GMO, but like everything you do have to be careful. A 5 year long term trial sounds obvious. Modifying crops to be resistant to one particular brand of herbicide? Doesn't sound like a good idea to start with.

But nature is more complicated. There is another factor most people either ignore, or don't know about. Mosquitoes bite not just humans, but every animal with blood. They can pick up a virus from that blood. Some types of virus will pick up genes from their host organism. So a virus might give you a cold or flue, but that virus cold pick up your genes. Then a mosquito could take blood with that virus to another animal. The virus could then implant that virus in that other animal. If the genes don't get into gamete cells (sperm or ovum) then the genetically modified cells die when that individual dies of old age (or whatever). This is nature's way to transfer genes from one species to another. Most of the time mosquitoes won't carry a virus, most of the viruses won't carry genes, most of the time genes are transferred they won't be passed on to new generations, but in very rare conditions they can. When the genes are passed on, most of the time they won't be beneficial. But under very rare circumstances, they can.

In nature, one species may develop very useful traits. But then when environment changes, become extinct for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the useful traits. This would result in useful traits being lost to the biosphere. Mosquitoes are a way to transfer genes from one species to another, so there is a chance that successful genes can spread. A gene evolved in a woolly mammoth could be passed on to aurochs (wild animal from which all cattle evolved). Or a gene evolved in a dinosaur could be passed on to the tiny proto-mammal that was ancestor to all modern mammals. Did it happen? We don't know. Science knows this does happen, but doesn't have enough information for specific instances.

So nature uses transgenics. We shouldn't be afraid of transgenics because it's GM. But at the same time be careful with anything you do.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-01-08 13:39:06)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-08 13:16:02

Robert-

That's a very rational and well thought out response. My complaint is Monsanto didn't exercise due scientific diligence in their quest to increase Roundup sales and sales of the GMO corn crops. It's called "unintended consequences."

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-08 13:23:48

Since this is a general "crops" thread, I'm going to make a comment/request to the moderator: We have intermingled goals and ideals for several different levels of colony gardening requirements. Maybe we should separate these lines of thought accordingly? My original assumption was a colony based on the first few years of Mars Direct minimalist-type missions, serving a small (up to maybe 50 scientists and developers) research station/colony as a step towards the Elon Musk ITS program wherein hundreds are brought in ALL AT ONCE.

I'd really like to suggest a combined crops-greenhouse thread limited to a basic and minimalist approach. It also makes sense for the longer term to "think big," as Lake Matthew Team-Cole has proposed.

RobertDyck · 2017-01-08 14:35:23

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I'd really like to suggest a combined crops-greenhouse thread limited to a basic and minimalist approach. It also makes sense for the longer term to "think big," as Lake Matthew Team-Cole has proposed.

That was my intent. The moderator asked whoever creates a discussion thread to work to steer the discussion back on topic. Ok, in this case that's me. My first post in this thread...

RobertDyck wrote:

This discussion thread is for specific crops for a permanent Mars settlement. This is an early settlement, but not the first science mission.

For a discussion of later phase of Mars settlement, with a larger population, the moderator recently created:
100 colonist production greenhouse

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-08 15:44:13

I was making something of an effort to get discussion focused in this direction, and not become diverted by the big greenhouse-hydroponics versus traditional soil based agriculture. Considering the amount of effort, mass, and level of technology involved, these larger scale projects would involve, we were tending to argue at cross purposes.

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-01-08 18:59:09

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Most mutations such as you have described are lethal, and have very little chance of massively influencing a species. That's why the crops may not thrive if exposed to too much cosmic radiation. Fortunately, the thin atmosphere on Mars, in addition to the planetary bulk reduces the surface Cosmic radiation exposure down to something like 35% of that in deep space, which is roughly the same level airline pilots are exposed to by flying in the 35,000 to 40,000 feet msl flight levels.

Where'd you get those ideas?

LEO mutations can and do pass to progeny, as noted in the papers.

And all that damage is at LEO capsule dosage, roughly equal to Mars surface dosage. Again, as noted in the papers.

Why don't you share some papers on the subject?

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-01-08 20:26:16

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Monsanto is now "on the hook" for lots of cattle and swine illness as a result of their genetically modified field corn crops...

It's a crop thread, not a pig thread. If a new crop can boost yield significantly in a Mars greenhouse, I want to hear about it.

The problems of flying pigs, not so much. Let's get discussion focused and not become diverted, etc.

Last edited by Lake Matthew Team - Cole (2017-01-08 20:28:55)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-08 21:16:48

How did you guess that we had such topics here....

Swine

Chickens

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-08 21:28:52

Check out the comments of Dr. Robert Zubrin in his book "Entering Space." He's a Ph.D. Nuclear Engineer, so I refer you to his statements regarding the effects of ionizing radiation.

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-01-08 21:47:23

In The Year 2000...

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Check out the comments of Dr. Robert Zubrin in his book "Entering Space." He's a Ph.D. Nuclear Engineer, so I refer you to his statements regarding the effects of ionizing radiation.

Mm-hmm. And do check out some of that referenced primary literature. The experimentalists have done some great work in this century.

RobertDyck · 2017-01-09 07:42:43

Lake Matthew Team - Cole, you keep going on about radiation. Here is an image from the team for the MARIE on Mars Odyssey. It shows cosmic rays only.

I recently posted links to detailed papers in the thread Greenhouse - hydroponics vs soil, but we have a thread to discuss just radiation: Radiation - how dangerous is it really? Have you read any of these papers? If they're too long you could look at the climate map, skip to the last page. It has a global image similar to this one. It includes all radiation, solar and cosmic. On the dried up ocean basin including Utopia Planetia and Elysium Planetia total radiation is 22 to 24 REM per year, also know as cSv/year.

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-01-09 08:53:32

RobertDyck wrote:

Lake Matthew Team - Cole, you keep going on about radiation. Here is an image from the team for the MARIE on Mars Odyssey. It shows cosmic rays only.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/gallery/latestimages/latest2002/march/Fig.4_marie_br.jpg
I recently posted links to detailed papers in the thread Greenhouse - hydroponics vs soil, but we have a thread to discuss just radiation: Radiation - how dangerous is it really? Have you read any of these papers? If they're too long you could look at the climate map, skip to the last page. It has a global image similar to this one. It includes all radiation, solar and cosmic. On the dried up ocean basin including Utopia Planetia and Elysium Planetia total radiation is 22 to 24 REM per year, also know as cSv/year.

"If they're too long..." Your radiation posts were cluttered with press releases and broken links. Not much there.

As for the actual radiation environment on Mars, I gave you a link to the authoritative paper that you wanted to talk about, but couldn't find. So there it is again. See how that ionizing radiation equates to the radiation experienced by suffering LEO crops.

Last edited by Lake Matthew Team - Cole (2017-01-09 10:08:31)

RobertDyck · 2017-01-09 10:18:45

My post did not have broken links. It does have links to published papers in PDF format. If you don't have a PDF reader, you don't have the basic fundamentals. And I copied the papers to the local chapter website, to ensure I have control so the links will not be broken. The papers I linked to are from the NASA team for instruments on the Odyssey orbiter. That's authoritative, based on actual measurements in transit from Earth to Mars, and in Mars orbit. I haven't read your paper yet, but I see it isn't written by NASA. But the abstract makes reference to the HZETRN formula. The Mars Odyssey team also used that same formula to estimate Mars surface radiation based on actual measurements in Mars orbit. The only thing I would consider more authoritative than the papers I published are measurements by the Curiosity rover.

Perhaps that's the problem. This abstract starts by saying their estimate is based on a 200 day transit to Mars, 500 day surface stay, then 200 day transit back. Mars Direct includes a 180 day transit each way. And Odyssey measured radiation close to solar minimum, Curiosity close to solar maximum. And this discussion thread is about a permanent settlement on Mars, not transit. Interplanetary space has somewhere between twice and three times the radiation of ISS, depending on solar minimum or maximum. The surface has half that of ISS. And specifically GCR is dramatically lower on Mars. So the premise of that paper does not match what we're doing here.

Ps. Got to go to work. Will read your paper in more detail later.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-01-09 10:19:09)

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-01-09 10:33:17

RobertDyck wrote:

My post did not have broken links. It does have links to published papers in PDF format. If you don't have a PDF reader, you don't have the basic fundamentals.

Even your very first link: 404.

And argument from press release... Really? Do you defer to others when they argue from press release?

RobertDyck wrote:

The only thing I would consider more authoritative than the papers I published are measurements by the Curiosity rover... I haven't read your paper yet, but I see it isn't written by NASA... Will read your paper in more detail later.

The other one, obviously.

Last edited by Lake Matthew Team - Cole (2017-01-09 10:37:15)

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-01-09 13:12:21

Perfect Day

Lake Matthew Team - Cole wrote:

Max Yield
I didn't attempt a Perfect Day / Thrive synthetic dairy plant in that scheme, because I can't quantify the plant's yield. I imagine it could boost calorie production significantly.

Perfect Day has kindly responded. With current tech, a 1,000-liter tank can produce ~300 liters of milk a week. Improvements are certainly possible, but that's about 15 million dairy calories per Mars year, right there. (Net calorie gain depending on the mix of crop/alternate sugars used in fermentation.)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2017-01-06 12:26:31

Re: Crops

#427 2017-01-06 17:29:30

Re: Crops

#428 2017-01-06 17:55:25

Re: Crops

#429 2017-01-06 18:03:22

Re: Crops

#430 2017-01-06 20:21:30

Re: Crops

#431 2017-01-06 23:01:27

Re: Crops

#432 2017-01-07 14:22:15

Re: Crops

#433 2017-01-08 03:51:55

Re: Crops

#434 2017-01-08 04:14:12

Re: Crops

#435 2017-01-08 11:36:36

Re: Crops

#436 2017-01-08 13:04:11

Re: Crops

#437 2017-01-08 13:16:02

Re: Crops

#438 2017-01-08 13:23:48

Re: Crops

#439 2017-01-08 14:35:23

Re: Crops

#440 2017-01-08 15:44:13

Re: Crops

#441 2017-01-08 18:59:09

Re: Crops

#442 2017-01-08 20:26:16

Re: Crops

#443 2017-01-08 21:16:48

Re: Crops

#444 2017-01-08 21:28:52

Re: Crops

#445 2017-01-08 21:47:23

Re: Crops

#446 2017-01-09 07:42:43

Re: Crops

#447 2017-01-09 08:53:32

Re: Crops

#448 2017-01-09 10:18:45

Re: Crops

#449 2017-01-09 10:33:17

Re: Crops

#450 2017-01-09 13:12:21

Re: Crops

Board footer