Where Are We Taking This Planet ?

[Hooman]

No I haven't heard what you're refering to. I've heard things both for and against recycling, but I'm inclined to believe recycling is a good thing. I guess it might depend on what it is you are recycling. Usually people who say recycling is a bad thing don't seem to provide a lot of support or context for their reasoning. Hence why I don't tend to believe them.


As for the fuel-cell / rocket stuff.... If you're using rockets for propulsion, then there is no way to reclaim the water exhaused without eliminating the propulsion. In that case, all you get is a really big heater. With fuel-cells however, you can easily reclaim the water. Fuel-cell are for producing electricity, and so you can claim the chemical byproduct withouth eliminating the output of the device. Mind you, the fuel-cells would likely have been for providing electricity to run the station, and not as any sort of propulsion system (unless maybe you're talking about an ion drive, but then those need some other chemical to expell as the propellant).


Btw Eddy, the chemical formula should be 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O. Oxygen is di-atomic. You never find single oxygen atoms.  


Also, I'd be a bit surprised if you could prevent all leakage of water and air. Especially if people were passing through air locks. I doubt those are capable of actually ruducing air pressure completely to zero, only really close to it. So over time, you'd need some way of replenishing the oxygen. Also, if air is lost, you're likely also losing water vapour in the air. Anyways, there is lots of oxygen on Mars, but in the form of CO2. I guess bring lots of trees?  :lol: Actually, I'd imagine we could extract that oxygen with present day technology easy enough. I'm not sure about the hydrogen, or about energy needed to make these reactions possible. I guess there is always solar energy, but you'd probably receive a little less of it out by Mars.
 

[Betaray]

well its been proven that water once flowd on Mars, so some of it must still be underground, where the heat from the core and the pressure would keep it liquid

if we found a resavuar like that close to the surface, than that would be a prime place for a coloney, becuase other than water, Mars has no other obsvious hydrogen sources

now for coloneys on the short term, let me introduce you to a little chemistry trick thats been known from teh 1800's

the sabatier reaction

basicly its this CO2+4H2=CH4+2H20

the methane produced (CH4) is a great rocket fuel, and the water can be electrolized to recycle the hydrogen back into the reactor, and the O2 can be used for atmosphere, and rocket oxidizer, or the water could be used for drinking

by weight, this represents an 18:1 ratio between methane produced, and hydrogen brought from earth, so only about 6 tonnes need to be brought to be able to supply a smallmartion coloney for 3 years, including methane powered rover excursions, and have enough fuel to go back to earth

thats all from robert zubrin

[spirit1flyer]

well its been proven that water once flowd on Mars, so some of it must still be underground, where the heat from the core and the pressure would keep it liquid

we can't prove that water at one time flowed on mars. The data we have is in a local area. But I do think that the icecaps are water.

the sabatier reaction?

cool! I thought that was made up in my computer game  
 

[Betaray]

the pics from space show river delta's and the like

and the some of the minnerals that were observed by the rovers could only be formed in the presents of water

so yes, Mars once had water, most of it must have evaporated when the atmosphere got thinner, and than would have been disasociated by ultraviolet rays from the sun, and escape into space, but underground water would still be there

btw, does anyone know if the rovers still work? I havnt heard any news about them breaking down, but if they still work, it would be almost 2 years

[Tellaris]

Don't know so much about the rovers...

Its possible the icecaps could be water, or just frozen Nitrogen (I think.   One of the gasses freeze and melt there every year, creating a kind of pcokmarked shape in the northern and southern hemispheres)
Hooman is right about the mass thing, its the same weight wether you bring it in liquid or seperated gasses.   Only difference is you need more tanks to sepeate them.   Also, water is less flammable then Hydrogen is.  (can you say spark and boom?)

As for making Ozone...
1. Ozone (o3) is toxic to life.
2. Make ozone at ground level, a lot of it will STAY at ground level, and will basically become a pollutant.
3. Ozone would have to be made at a very high hight.
4. To make a significant amount of Ozone would require a significant amount of Energy.    This can be acheived by fossil fuels, or nuclear reactions (kinda counter productive)   Hydro and Wind power both have negatives of their own.
You somehow have to get this energy into the machine thats gonna spark the O2 into O3 and you have to do it at the right hight, or its useless.

[Sirbomber]

Yes, I know ozone is toxic. But thank you for telling us that it needs to be created at a high altitude, Eddy and I were about to start testing the new generator!  

I think that the icecaps on Mars are actually frozen CO[size=8]2[/size].

Off topic, but don't they think Venus had water too?

[Betaray]

well the icecaps are not cold enough to freeze CO2 or N2, and I beleave theyve done radar penatration and the H2 ratio they found is concurent with water

venus has very little water, much less than Mars

to show this, think about if all teh water on a planet was in the form of liquid and was in the form of an even oceion covering the entire planet

venus would have a 5cm deep ocieon, mars would have 200 meters, earth has 2000 meters, only the moon at .00003 meters is dryer

so its pretty clear, that the only other planet suitible for humans would be Mars

we also know that there is water in the form of perafrost in the soil, and that can be brought out by mobile microwave units, and we know that Mars had rivers and oceons and thus undoubtably have underground geothermal sites, which would not only provide enough water for the coloney, but would also provide geothermal energy for the coloney

[Hooman]

Wow, as off topic as this is getting; from destroying our own planet, to how do we colonize Mars.... It might also be worth pointing out that sending a manned craft to Mars is also quite the undertaking. The flight would take quite some time, and if anything went wrong, they're a long way from home or any possible help. Not too mention the effects on the body of being in space that long would be a concern. I'm sure it's doable, but from what I hear, the lack of gravity can weaken the bone structure without proper exercise and diet. Also, I doubt anyone wants to risk the bad publicity from a failed attempt.


As for this planet, it wouldn't hurt to put more emphasis on things like solar power, or homes designed with solar power in mind. Think of how much fuel is spent on heating homes in cold climates? Think how much real estate there is in homes. If people started using that space to harness solar power to run their own homes, I bet people could dramatically reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

I'd also like to point out that nuclear waste can be processed to make it safer. From what I hear, the cost prevents people from doing so. Why not find a way to do this at a reasonable cost? Some of the by products of fission are more harmfull than others, and those that are can undergo further nuclear reactions to break them down into something that's safer. After all, there is more than one way to split an atom. If it splits into harmful products, then try to split it further into something safer.
 

[Betaray]

see its that kind of thinking that is keeping humanidy from Mars

in reality, those problems are easily fixed, take gravity for example, yes they will have to be in space for 6 months each way, but they dont have to be in a weightless envirment

its simple, all you have to do is take a teather between the hab module and the burned out upperstage booster, and rotate it, mars like gravity can be produced by a 6 rpm twist with a 1km teather

of corse its going to have risk, but that is the cost of exploration, what if columbus never went on his journey because he thought it was to risky?

its human nature to explore, and I dont think we should hinder it

[Hooman]

If people start dying left and right, funding for the programs will be cut, and it'll be many many years before things can recover and people will try again. I don't view it within human nature to spend all your money on people bent on crazy suicide missions. (Not that I think it is one, but with enough accidents, people will get that impression). If you do this wrong, it's more likely to set us behind on a goal of colonizing Mars than to help us achieve it. With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if people die in an attempt to colonize Mars. Even if reglar safe passage becomes possible, people still die in car crashes today which are considered regular safe passage. And yeah, I do expect many people to have that explorer attitude. Certainly if they kill themselves with their own private money (and not too often), people won't care too much.


As for the transit, I've heard most estimates at over 6 months (but not seriously over). Now, for the gravity thing to be useful, a significant portion of that time would have to be spent under those conditions. I don't see how a 1km long teather is practical, useful, or even safe. Unless you're putting some stress on your bones, by say standing against such a force, what's the point? For a teather to be useful, it'd have to be made so they were standing in relation to teather with their feet supporting them. Certainly possible, if a little awkward. Now, what would they be doing meanwhile? Just standing there? 1km out on a teather? With no worries of anything going wrong? How long would it take to get back into a ship in an emergency? And don't go telling me the ship is gonna be 1km in radius. Besides, people need to be doing something useful, not just swinging around in circles all day. You need to subject them to a force as they go about their normal daily operations. Or at the very least, provide enough daily exercise to keep them from becomming gelatenous blobs by the time they reach Mars. Yes, I know rotation can give the effect of artifical gravity, but for it to be practical, it'd have to be only a fraction of what we're used to.


 

[Betaray]

you havnt looked at the mars direct plan have you? it solves all your problems

firstly, the entire hab would be attached to the teather, thats the entire ship, so they are always under mars like gravity

2 the teather would be over a foot thick spectra fiber, capeable to being torn in many places from metorite impacts, but not to break

3, people arnt going to start dying left and right, this is more complacated than the Apallo missions, but our technology has advanced considerably to compensate for that, noone has ever died in space, the only people that died in apallo was during a test on the ground, and we learned our lesson

the upmost saftey and reduncey would be put in this mission, the crews lives would come first, it would not be a suicide mission at all

here is more info on the mars direct plan http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/direct.html

[Hooman]

Ahh, there we go. Some good hard plans that actually make sense to me.

It seems doable, but still dangerous sounding. Doesn't seem like there is too much room for error. And if something goes wrong, they can't exactly get help there fast. I definately like that idea of sending unmanned modules ahead of time. Doesn't seem like you can do this sort of thing with any sort of safety otherwise. But even then, it there are any problems, it better not be with the lander carrying the people.  :unsure:

But then, I guess a lander with a nuclear reactor had better land safely as well. It wouldn't do any good to polute the planet before we even get to colonize it first.  


So, as for this planet. What do people think about nuclear power? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Why? It can certainly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But what about the nuclear waste that is produced? Also, what should be done with the waste? Bury it? Process it? Something else?
 

[Betaray]

well fusion will produce little or no nuclear waste

the current trintium duterium fusion produces waste in the form of spent reactor componets

but once we've acheved D-Ti fusion, we can make D-He3 fusion, wich produces no waste, and produces more power, only problem is, He3 isnt avaible on earth, the closest place is the moon, and thats in parts per trillion quantites

the second best place is the gas giants, Saturn would be the closets vieable canadate, because jupider's gravity requires the gathers to have a mass ratio greater than 14 (almost impossible to do), plus it has extreme radiation belts that would liquidify any humans on board, and do sever dmg to any electronics

satern on the other hand, has a colonizeable hub, Titan, and its He3 can be had with only a mass ratio of 3 or 4, wich makes it alot easier

once He3 reators are made, Saturn and Titan will be like the persion gulf of the soler system, hopefully without the jihad lol

dude, I just found out that the mars rovers are still working!!! http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/

now thats the type of quality I expect with the maned mars mission, if we have that type of quality, we have nothing to fear

[Hooman]

Well, kickass on that rover deal.

As for fusion, it doesn't seem to be quite ready for use in power generation. So for the present, it would appear that any nuclear power is mainly going to be fission. So is fission worth it?
 

[Oprime]

I'd like to throw some stuff in. O2 gas (oxygen) is mostly produced in the world’s oceans (I think well over 60% of it) by algae not so much as forests. Landfills do fill up and when they do it is extremely hard and costly to cover them. All landfill owners in ploy several types of recycling techniques because it helps to extend the amount of time the landfill can last. Most CH4 gases used in power plants come from landfills (example A of recycling), Gold, Silver and Platinum is sometimes extracted from human fecal matter (example B ), and even the white milky looking liquid that comes from landfill garbage is recycled to produce water and many other usable materials (at water treatment plants of course) .

Recycling is the best thing going for people who want to save time and money. It has been done for millenniums. How many poor people would say Hand me downs are bad and to ALWAYS buy new cloths to wear. Go to your local landfill and ask them how much recycling helps those landfill owners lower costs and extend the amount of time they can continue running. Most landfills are privately owned and are only silently controlled by the local government.

At one point people said that water treatment plants are bad but in the long run not having a plant is horrifying. Having a massive amount of landfills in your neighborhood is not a good way to say protect the kids, elderly, and may I add the cost of your home.

*edit* If fission can be safely harnessed like Einstein wanted it to be the amount of energy taken from the reaction would be incredible. Fission is the release of energy used to create a material for example hydrogen into helium. Instead the reaction is being used by militaries and will never be given out to scientists to develop such a method. Fission would produce non stop energy that would pretty much last forever.

[Betaray]

you mean fusion

yes, there is no major technical hurdle that keeps us from getting fusion, its funding and politics

congress controlles fusion funding, now why would they fund a new energy source when most of them are involved with the oil componeys?

its corrupt and shot sided, and it should be changed, if funding would be brought up to acceptible levels, we could have fusion powerplants within 5 years or so

in 1999 we made sustaining fusion that produced as much power as was used to heat it, so with just a little more push, it will be a very viable power source

[Stormy]

Something I'd like to point out, when you are out in space THAT far away from earth, you are SO much more threatened by Radiation. Trust me, if you don't have good radiation barriers in the ship, the people will get cancer or something. It will NOT be pretty

Stormy :op2:

[Betaray]

ive seen the radiation calculations

during a 6 month jurney to Mars, they increase their chances of getting cancer by 5%

somone that smokes has a 15% greater chance, so thats not much of a problem

when solar flairs happon, the crew would hunker in the center of the Hab, where all the foodstuffs are located, and that would protect them from the increased radiation