|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2017 1:52:50 GMT
Seeing how we've been analyzing Martian soil for a number of years now and have found no life whatsoever, I'd think that the only thing Martian soil would be good for is a place holder for nutrients that the colonists would have to bring with them. Besides no nutrients, Mars has reduced sunlight and no water that we have found so far. Colonists would probably be better off sticking to indoor hydroponics where they could recycle what little water thy would have with them. And unless we develop FTL space travel, Mars is our only option for any type of colonization. or generation ships, which would also want hydroponics. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 1, 2017 3:02:43 GMT
Planets are big places, with plenty of space in which to hide things even if they are on the surface; Just consider the number of aircraft that have crashed in mountains within the United States and never been found. We have explored such a tiny amount of Mars for life that its hardly surprising we haven't found anything in this context. First because we are talking about the kind of life you can't see from orbit. Second because the total amount of Martian soil and rocks all the various Mars Rovers combined have tested wouldn't fill a childrens sandpit in your back garden. NASA has found water on Mars btw; www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/mars-ice-deposit-holds-as-much-water-as-lake-superior |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 1, 2017 9:03:21 GMT
Earth soil varies considerably in regards the types and levels of nutrients depending on where you are, and most places have plants of some kind. That doesn't mean that there would be something that could grow in those conditions that is suitable as a crop food of course. Of course the easiest 'crop' to grow would actually be algae, since the only thing you would really need locally would be water. Which is at least easier to filter and sterilize than native soils. It's also one of the few things even a fairly basic orbital survey will be able to confirm is available. Algae is ideal, as you can use it to filter the waste from the crew and create oxygen as a byproduct. The water to grow algae would still need the right salts and other nutrients and the atmosphere would also need to have CO 2 and nitrogen at the levels needed. The water problem, as you stated in your last post, could be solved on Mars and the atmosphere there would at least allow you to filter the right amounts of gasses into a hydroponics dome, so you don't have to bring those yourself as well, so for algae, Mars would probably be a possibility. On the point of us not having found evidence of life - past or present - on Mars yet, not only have we not taken that many samples, but we haven't gone that deep into the ground either. The chances of biology close to the surface are slim to none with the amount of radiation Mars gets from space, but it's entirely possible that things could be crawling around deeper down in the soil, where it's shielded from ultraviolet light and cosmic rays. We have literally just scratched the surface of Mars. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 1, 2017 11:11:04 GMT
On the landing of the Mars Rover...
The picked a "Nice flat spot", because they needed to land something.
Just what are the odds of an alien race investigating earth landing on say the Himalayas against landing on the Sahara, or Bonneville salt flats, or somewhere else flat featureless and devoid of life?.
Yeah, I know, there is life in some of earths deserts, just "Not as much" as elsewhere, and harder to find, especially of your chasing it at .03mph by remote control from half a solar system away?.
There has been suggestion that there may be plenty of water deep down under the surface of Mars, kinda like our own water table here on earth, that takes millions of years to cycle the water in places.
It has been hidden from the sun for many many millennium?.. maybe.
Only by deep exploration will we find that.
And that need us Humans to make possible, as that cant be done [yet] by remote control?.. yet?.. come back in 10-20 yrs and let me know if it happened yet will you?.
On what we know about Mars surface.
A Lot.
But we know more about the surface of the moon than we know about the depths of our oceans, and again, more about both of them combined than we do about the surface of Mars.
I aint saying we learn daily.
But how many books can you personally read a day?.
I have close to me a place known as the Round Library in Manchester, it has more printed material that any skilled speed reader may read in a lifetime inside it.
And thats just the stuff that has been printed in the last 150 yrs?.
It keeps at least one copy of every book published commercially.
Worldwide, there is more published every year than one person can read in a lifetime.
What we have got from Mars is the equivalent maybe of Encyclopaedia Britannica...
Which you may consider as out of date?.
But still, compared to the knowledge you can get from a whole planet, is still just the first Voyage of Captain Cook.
Yes HUGELY important at the time, it altered what we knew of the world, but since then, its just a aid of history, because everything we found afterwards has outdated it, on almost a daily schedule.
Mars Rover is less even than that.
Its the first voyage of a small rover that can barely do a few mile per day.
In construction at the moment is something the size of a small car that is modular, and is capable of climbing mountains, that will be "The next stage"
Also under consideration is the sending of one of them "Google earth" type satellites to sit in Mars orbit and send back a "street view" type buildup of the surface, because we need better definition.
Yeah I know the street view camera are surface camera's, because we like to see the sides of buildings, but, think the lowest resolution a satellite can show you of your own house.
Something that can differentiate down to something the size of a Rat or smaller would be better than something that could easily miss the mars rover...
Knowledge will always get better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 1, 2017 13:19:45 GMT
Earth soil varies considerably in regards the types and levels of nutrients depending on where you are, and most places have plants of some kind. That doesn't mean that there would be something that could grow in those conditions that is suitable as a crop food of course. Of course the easiest 'crop' to grow would actually be algae, since the only thing you would really need locally would be water. Which is at least easier to filter and sterilize than native soils. It's also one of the few things even a fairly basic orbital survey will be able to confirm is available. Algae is ideal, as you can use it to filter the waste from the crew and create oxygen as a byproduct. The water to grow algae would still need the right salts and other nutrients and the atmosphere would also need to have CO 2 and nitrogen at the levels needed. The water problem, as you stated in your last post, could be solved on Mars and the atmosphere there would at least allow you to filter the right amounts of gasses into a hydroponics dome, so you don't have to bring those yourself as well, so for algae, Mars would probably be a possibility. On the point of us not having found evidence of life - past or present - on Mars yet, not only have we not taken that many samples, but we haven't gone that deep into the ground either. The chances of biology close to the surface are slim to none with the amount of radiation Mars gets from space, but it's entirely possible that things could be crawling around deeper down in the soil, where it's shielded from ultraviolet light and cosmic rays. We have literally just scratched the surface of Mars. Algae is ideal as a 'crop' as everything you need to feed it could be carried in a very compact form or would come from the crew itself. It's already used in filtration systems, is simple enough to allow genetic modification to improve yield, would have to be grown in tanks - which means the guarding against accidental contamination is a lot easier. Basically it is a 'crop' that serves not only as food, but also as part of the waste recycling system and oxygen generation system and a ship. You could even pipe the water around the habitable areas of a ship to help with temperature regulation, and make sure that some of the energy you are putting into crew lighting is being fed back into the ship rather than being lost. Depending on the technology available (and I am talking real world technology here, not Sci-Fi) algae might not just be there as food. Processing would allow you to make paper and maybe even clothing. Heck, you might well be able to create a wide range of items from plates to tents which dramatically reduces the amount of supplies you need to carry as well as giving the scouts far more adaptability in what they can build as the situation requires. You wouldn't just grow algae though, or for that matter any single type of crop. You'd want to grow a couple of types, not because one might not have all the nutrients the crew needs (Genetically modified algae could easily cover this). Rather you'd want a way to literally spice things up. Expect something like a hydroponics bay containing tanks of algae with piping that runs throughout the inhabited areas of the ship, possibly smaller back-lit tanks in places like crew quarters both for added yield and as decoration. Also scattered around the ship would be small numbers of things like pepper, tomato and strawberry plants and various herbs. These would be both to add some variation in food flavoring, as well as giving some decoration. Much of course would depend on if the ship has gravity or not, although again leaving out Sci-Fi technologies, chances are that any space craft that is going to be in space for longer than a few months on a voyage, especially if the crew is going to be asked to go walking around another planet at the end of or halfway through a mission, is going to have gravity even if this comes from rotating sections rather than fictional 'gravity plating'. Gravity, or lack thereof, will denote what could be grown. Although once again algae come over as a winner since the design would remain the same. The only difference might be that if a ship has gravity those backlit tanks will probably have air bubbled through them, both to feed the algae and because it would add to the decorative effect. Maybe NASA should be hiring me to work on such things.... Read my post near the top of this page; NASA HAS found water on Mars...well large areas of ice. Which is just water that is too cool to want to flow. Also note that the language used indicates this is far from the only ice they have detected. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 1, 2017 15:28:51 GMT
If NASA knows where the water is on Mars, why do they keep looking for life where it isn't?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2017 15:55:16 GMT
If NASA knows where the water is on Mars, why do they keep looking for life where it isn't? since they are looking for evidence of life, and one of the things that is evidence is waste material, maybe they assume Martians know better than to dump their garbage into their water supply. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 1, 2017 16:00:32 GMT
If NASA knows where the water is on Mars, why do they keep looking for life where it isn't? since they are looking for evidence of life, and one of the things that is evidence is waste material, maybe they assume Martians know better than to dump their garbage into their water supply. Our trash says a lot about who we are, probably the same for Martians. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 1, 2017 16:18:06 GMT
since they are looking for evidence of life, and one of the things that is evidence is waste material, maybe they assume Martians know better than to dump their garbage into their water supply. Our trash says a lot about who we are, probably the same for Martians. with some people, trash IS who they are. but we're getting off topic. the earlier thing about the only local thing needed being water was not that water would carry the nutrients the algae needed, but that if you have a temperate planet with the right elemental components to make water, then you can probably use the local water instead of bringing your own. - I'd say water would be the first local resource you would be able to purify and use, from a practical standpoint. (not counting using the planet surface as a resting place, that is) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 1, 2017 16:38:36 GMT
If NASA knows where the water is on Mars, why do they keep looking for life where it isn't? Three reasons; 1; The ice is located underground, beyond the depth existing Rovers can dig. 2; The areas may not be suitable for landings, or may pose problems for existing Rover designs such as a reduced amount of light to power solar panels, and hence a Rover, that we do not yet have the ability to overcome. 3; Planning a mission to Mars takes 10-15 years depending on where you start. It's one thing to change the landing area of an existing planned mission. It's something else to change the nature/specifics of a mission where you need to develop new technologies to deal with a new or unexpected objective. In this case digging down to the ice will require a new Rover design. Basically we only discovered the ice fairly recently, and there has been no time to plan a new mission or design a new type of Rover to go investigate. It should also be noted that while finding ice is a big deal in itself. More important is finding out if there is any liquid water on Mars, as the odds of finding life would then be dramatically increased. Existing missions are capable of looking for evidence of liquid water, or at least the signs that water is or has flowed on Mars 'recently'. Indeed NASA has found evidence that water does flow in some areas on Mars, although I'm wary of taking that as gospel as the evidence could be misleading. Missions are much more likely to look at areas liquid water may be or have flowed as this would be closer to the surface and in warmer areas much better suited to existing Rover designs and their capabilities. Or if you like such missions are more cost effective as development costs and planning time is drastically reduced. If money really was no object we'd have sent a manned mission to Mars at least 20 years ago. But money is an issue, so they need to find ways to cut costs where they can. Faster missions are also easier ways to secure funding, as the results/progress will be visible to politicians who are rarely looking further ahead than the next election. This is why NASA never built long range space craft, but got stuck with the shuttle which was only intended to be the first stage of a larger project. While cost was a part of this, the bigger part was the inability for politicians and their constituents to understand that planning and implementing such projects takes a long time; The Apollo program was 'rushed' by space flight standards, and had the advantage of being able to piggyback of a lot of its technology from previous and existing projects. Yet it still took 8 years to put someone on the Moon for roughly 24 hours. In this regard the Apollo program may prove to be just as detrimental to space exploration as it has been beneficial; It gave people the idea that space flight and exploration is a lot faster than it really is. Consider that the first Earth Orbit was Sputnik in 1957, but the design of the rockets that got it up there were based on the V2 rockets of 1944, which in turn were developed from research in the early 1930's. So depending on how you look at it Sputnik was either a result of 13 or close to 30 years of development. This doesn't and shouldn't take anything away from the Apollo program and what they managed to do. But it has left us with this strange idea that space flight and missions should be fast and easy to plan and implement. This has not been helped by Sci-Fi films and TV programs. Even shows like Star Gate, that don't start with Earth having any space ships or the technology to make them, have Earth going from having no space ships at all, to being able to field a major star ship and space fighters within about 18 months. Even accounting for technical assistance and information from more advanced races, and in the case of the fighters reverse engineering some technology. This is an utterly absurd short period of time. It takes 4-7.5 years to build a modern destroyer or frigate and this is after all the design work (using technologies that we at least understand) has been done. Actual overall time would be closer to 20 years, maybe 10 if a lot of the political issues are discounted due to a clear and immediate need for such a ship. When you add in inevitable problems due to working with technologies that are at best not fully understood...well you'd still, in reality, be looking at 15-20 years to develop and build a viable starship. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 2, 2017 13:30:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2017 14:08:21 GMT
I see it has a few other things on its "we can spend more than you on wasteful municipal projects" list including building a hyperloop |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 2, 2017 14:34:29 GMT
I see it has a few other things on its "we can spend more than you on wasteful municipal projects" list including building a hyperloop And there are many who would consider the very thought of colonizing Mars a totally wasteful idea. It's their money, if they want to build a hyperloop, who am I to say they can't? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 2, 2017 14:47:05 GMT
I see it has a few other things on its "we can spend more than you on wasteful municipal projects" list including building a hyperloop And there are many who would consider the very thought of colonizing Mars a totally wasteful idea. It's their money, if they want to build a hyperloop, who am I to say they can't? another of them is equipping fire crew with "water jetpacks" (as seen here before) for doing quick response on fires in the canal areas. - they ride the power plant in jetski mode to the area close to the scene, and then deploy with the jetpack to reach and attack the fire. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 2, 2017 15:02:16 GMT
Regarding the Mars landers, there are a couple things at play.
So far the water has been found in the poles. Landing in a polar region is harder and takes more fuel than an equatorial landing. the Equator is spinning faster, so you don't have to slow a craft down as much to land. Additionally, you save fuel on having all your approaching on the same plane. You don't need a costly (fuel wise) polar orbit insertion.
Next, if you are looking for life (at least as we know it), it is more likely in a equatorial zone. Warmer and more sunlight. Consider how much life you have per random square meter in Antarctica vs. Brazil.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 2, 2017 15:43:59 GMT
Regarding the Mars landers, there are a couple things at play. So far the water has been found in the poles. Landing in a polar region is harder and takes more fuel than an equatorial landing. the Equator is spinning faster, so you don't have to slow a craft down as much to land. Additionally, you save fuel on having all your approaching on the same plane. You don't need a costly (fuel wise) polar orbit insertion. Next, if you are looking for life (at least as we know it), it is more likely in a equatorial zone. Warmer and more sunlight. Consider how much life you have per random square meter in Antarctica vs. Brazil. According to the article Cyber posted, the massive amount of water was found considerable distance from the polar region. The water discovery was made long after the rovers landed where they did. I'm sure if a new probe is planned for the future, this possible water discovery would play a part in the decision where to land. www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/mars-ice-deposit-holds-as-much-water-as-lake-superior |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 2, 2017 16:26:14 GMT
Do note that the ice is between 1-10 meters under the surface.
The Curiosity Rover has, or had as it stopped working, a drill that could go a mammoth 6cm.
The Beagle 2 Rover had a subsurface drill that could go down around a meter.
Basically to be assured of being able to get down to the ice to test it will require a new Rover design.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jun 6, 2020 13:04:34 GMT
Something I've been musing about as I toy with an idea for a science fiction bit. Suppose humanity settles on a planet that's reasonably habitable. More or less breathable atmosphere, reasonably fertile soil, natural water supply, et cetra. What might some of the first crops be? "The Martian" has pretty well made potatoes a definite, and I would imagine that some sort of legume would be introduced to help keep the soil charged. But what might be in the mix as well? As a guess, maybe they'd take some amount of reasonable time to investigate if any alien plants have ended up being edible to humans, so as to avoid introducing what might end up as invasive species? (Albiet, this assumes any plants at all are already there, and, as I say, ended up actually being edible) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 7, 2020 3:01:12 GMT
Something I've been musing about as I toy with an idea for a science fiction bit. Suppose humanity settles on a planet that's reasonably habitable. More or less breathable atmosphere, reasonably fertile soil, natural water supply, et cetra. What might some of the first crops be? "The Martian" has pretty well made potatoes a definite, and I would imagine that some sort of legume would be introduced to help keep the soil charged. But what might be in the mix as well? As a guess, maybe they'd take some amount of reasonable time to investigate if any alien plants have ended up being edible to humans, so as to avoid introducing what might end up as invasive species? (Albiet, this assumes any plants at all are already there, and, as I say, ended up actually being edible) a fair point, but it assumes we've actually learned something from all the invasive species we've set free on our own planet. I think one of the biggest questions regarding colonization is whether extraterrestrial life would be biologically compatible with us. maybe we will live long enough to find out. |
|
