Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #600393 > unrolled thread

Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-11 06:33 -0700
    Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-11 18:35 +0000
      Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-11 14:30 -0500
      Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 08:47 -0700
        Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 10:31 -0700
          Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 20:37 -0500
            Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-13 18:49 -0700
              Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 21:53 -0500
                Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-13 22:40 -0700
                  Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-14 10:49 -0700
        Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-13 23:42 +0000
        Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-13 20:35 -0500
          Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-14 08:36 -0700
            Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-10-14 17:59 +0000

#600393 — Re: 1st Mars Colonists Should Be 'Prepared to Die,' Elon Musk Says

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
[]
> > I SAID :  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> >> >> I'll have to look more into the plans for energy production.
> > 
> > How many times do you have to ask the same question?
> 
> Likely until you provide a rational answer.
> 
> The solar irradiance on Mars on average is about half that of Earth
> when there are no dust storms, and there are lots of dust storms.

So there may be possibility for wind power. Thin atmosphere, but
how much power could be converted? something to consider. all options
should be checked.
> 
> The only way to provide the enormous amount of power needed to turn
> dirt and rocks into anything useful can only be supplied by several
> nuclear reactors.

I'm sure that is not the only way, but I agree Nuclear would be a big
source.
> 
> It is to be determined if sufficient water is available on Mars to
> cool a single nuclear reactor, much less the many that would be needed.

SO, alternative designs that do not need water might be an option.
I knew there had been some research on this, but I thought it was related
to fusion reactors. But here is a design that could be very useful:

"Molten salt reactors are nuclear reactors which use a molten fluoride
 salt mixture as the primary coolant. These salts have proven to be far
 superior heat sinks than the helium used in light-water reactors, which
 greatly reduces the need for supplementary cooling. The nuclear fuel
 (uranium tetrafluoride) can also be dissolved directly into the coolant
 as well. When the fluid is inserted into a graphite core, the mix goes
 critical and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unlike conventional
 light-water reactors, an MSR operates at very high temperatures to achieve
 thermodynamic efficiency but remain at atmospheric pressure to reduce
 mechanical stress on the system."
from:
http://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past

Maybe they can develop the technology for the Mars colony, then we get 
the benefit of the research for plants here on earth.

IF it turns out there is not enough water, maybe direct conversion
with thermal electric generators can be done. And then the "waste heat"
can also be piped around the colony for room heating and such.


Regarding the water, the space station shows that recycling water
works. So It would be interesting to calculate how much water would
really be needed per person. Clearly a lot less that what is used
by we Americans per person. I know of a company working on home
based recycling of water (for homes in drought affected areas).

The problems can be solved. and the benefits will come back to us.
You are using a computer that have taken a lot longer to develop
if the lunar program hadn't needed lower weight electronics.
Now that wasn't the only factor that drove the development of
the transistor in the US, but it did help drive the development
of integrated circuits.

So I cannot say the power issue is solved, but there is one
possible solution.
(Interesting too. I may just have to read more about MSR.)

Have a nice day.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#600431

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> []
>> > I SAID :  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
>> >> >> I'll have to look more into the plans for energy production.
>> > 
>> > How many times do you have to ask the same question?
>> 
>> Likely until you provide a rational answer.
>> 
>> The solar irradiance on Mars on average is about half that of Earth
>> when there are no dust storms, and there are lots of dust storms.
> 
> So there may be possibility for wind power. Thin atmosphere, but
> how much power could be converted? something to consider. all options
> should be checked.

How much can be converted you ask?

The same as anywhere else, about 30% of whatever is available, but
since the atmosphere is so thin, there is little available.

>> The only way to provide the enormous amount of power needed to turn
>> dirt and rocks into anything useful can only be supplied by several
>> nuclear reactors.
> 
> I'm sure that is not the only way, but I agree Nuclear would be a big
> source.

If you are so sure, name it.

>> It is to be determined if sufficient water is available on Mars to
>> cool a single nuclear reactor, much less the many that would be needed.
> 
> SO, alternative designs that do not need water might be an option.
> I knew there had been some research on this, but I thought it was related
> to fusion reactors. But here is a design that could be very useful:
> 
> "Molten salt reactors are nuclear reactors which use a molten fluoride
>  salt mixture as the primary coolant. These salts have proven to be far
>  superior heat sinks than the helium used in light-water reactors, which
>  greatly reduces the need for supplementary cooling. The nuclear fuel
>  (uranium tetrafluoride) can also be dissolved directly into the coolant
>  as well. When the fluid is inserted into a graphite core, the mix goes
>  critical and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unlike conventional
>  light-water reactors, an MSR operates at very high temperatures to achieve
>  thermodynamic efficiency but remain at atmospheric pressure to reduce
>  mechanical stress on the system."
> from:
> http://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past
> 
> Maybe they can develop the technology for the Mars colony, then we get 
> the benefit of the research for plants here on earth.

Fine. This just means you have to transport everything from Earth.

> IF it turns out there is not enough water, maybe direct conversion
> with thermal electric generators can be done. And then the "waste heat"
> can also be piped around the colony for room heating and such.

The typical efficiency of thermal electric generators is around 5-8%.

Piping heat anywhere, whether for heating or just dumpling it requires
a transport medium such as water.

> Regarding the water, the space station shows that recycling water
> works. So It would be interesting to calculate how much water would
> really be needed per person. Clearly a lot less that what is used
> by we Americans per person. I know of a company working on home
> based recycling of water (for homes in drought affected areas).

So where is this water recyling plant going to come from other
than Earth?

One more huge, heavy, expensive thing that needs to be transported.

No one is going to be watering a lawn on Mars.

They do not wash anything on the space station; they send dirty stuff
back to Earth and send up clean stuff on a regular basis.

> The problems can be solved. and the benefits will come back to us.

Sure the problems can be solved by sending huge amounts of stuff to
Mars on a regular basis. What benefit does that have to the taxpayers
funding all this?

> You are using a computer that have taken a lot longer to develop
> if the lunar program hadn't needed lower weight electronics.
> Now that wasn't the only factor that drove the development of
> the transistor in the US, but it did help drive the development
> of integrated circuits.

Which are now fully developed and the Apollo program had little to
do with it.

> So I cannot say the power issue is solved, but there is one
> possible solution.

Like what exactly? Collect everyone's shit, dry it on the near
vacuum surface and burn it in a steam boiler? Oops, no oxygen
to burn anything and no water for the boiler.

> (Interesting too. I may just have to read more about MSR.)
> 
> Have a nice day.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600439

On 10/11/2016 1:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> []
>>>> I SAID :  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
>>>>>>> I'll have to look more into the plans for energy production.
>>>>
>>>> How many times do you have to ask the same question?

>>> Likely until you provide a rational answer.
>>>
>>> The solar irradiance on Mars on average is about half that of Earth
>>> when there are no dust storms, and there are lots of dust storms.
>>
>> So there may be possibility for wind power. Thin atmosphere, but
>> how much power could be converted? something to consider. all options
>> should be checked.
>
> How much can be converted you ask?
>
> The same as anywhere else, about 30% of whatever is available, but
> since the atmosphere is so thin, there is little available.

1% of earth atmosphere, only 1% of the mass airflow

>
>>> The only way to provide the enormous amount of power needed to turn
>>> dirt and rocks into anything useful can only be supplied by several
>>> nuclear reactors.
>>
>> I'm sure that is not the only way, but I agree Nuclear would be a big
>> source.
>
> If you are so sure, name it.
>
>>> It is to be determined if sufficient water is available on Mars to
>>> cool a single nuclear reactor, much less the many that would be needed.

water could only be used in a closed loop system to distribute excess 
heat out to heat radiators to space

>>
>> SO, alternative designs that do not need water might be an option.
>> I knew there had been some research on this, but I thought it was related
>> to fusion reactors. But here is a design that could be very useful:

>> "Molten salt reactors are nuclear reactors which use a molten fluoride
>>  salt mixture as the primary coolant. These salts have proven to be far
>>  superior heat sinks than the helium used in light-water reactors, which
>>  greatly reduces the need for supplementary cooling. The nuclear fuel
>>  (uranium tetrafluoride) can also be dissolved directly into the coolant
>>  as well. When the fluid is inserted into a graphite core, the mix goes
>>  critical and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unlike conventional
>>  light-water reactors, an MSR operates at very high temperatures to achieve
>>  thermodynamic efficiency but remain at atmospheric pressure to reduce
>>  mechanical stress on the system."
>> from:
>> http://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past
>>
>> Maybe they can develop the technology for the Mars colony, then we get
>> the benefit of the research for plants here on earth.

that is the inner core cooling, bigger problem is dumping all that heat 
to atmosphere or radiate it out to space, as there are no bodies of 
water to dump the heat in

>
> Fine. This just means you have to transport everything from Earth.
>
>> IF it turns out there is not enough water, maybe direct conversion
>> with thermal electric generators can be done. And then the "waste heat"
>> can also be piped around the colony for room heating and such.

> The typical efficiency of thermal electric generators is around 5-8%.
>
> Piping heat anywhere, whether for heating or just dumpling it requires
> a transport medium such as water.
>
>> Regarding the water, the space station shows that recycling water
>> works. So It would be interesting to calculate how much water would
>> really be needed per person. Clearly a lot less that what is used
>> by we Americans per person. I know of a company working on home
>> based recycling of water (for homes in drought affected areas).
>
> So where is this water recyling plant going to come from other
> than Earth?

> One more huge, heavy, expensive thing that needs to be transported.
>
> No one is going to be watering a lawn on Mars.
>
> They do not wash anything on the space station; they send dirty stuff
> back to Earth and send up clean stuff on a regular basis.
>
>> The problems can be solved. and the benefits will come back to us.

> Sure the problems can be solved by sending huge amounts of stuff to
> Mars on a regular basis. What benefit does that have to the taxpayers
> funding all this?
>
>> You are using a computer that have taken a lot longer to develop
>> if the lunar program hadn't needed lower weight electronics.
>> Now that wasn't the only factor that drove the development of
>> the transistor in the US, but it did help drive the development
>> of integrated circuits.

> Which are now fully developed and the Apollo program had little to
> do with it.
>
>> So I cannot say the power issue is solved, but there is one
>> possible solution.

> Like what exactly? Collect everyone's shit, dry it on the near
> vacuum surface and burn it in a steam boiler? Oops, no oxygen
> to burn anything and no water for the boiler.
>
>> (Interesting too. I may just have to read more about MSR.)
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>

more you look at humans on mars, the more you realize it is stupid,
Ask Obama if he is going to mars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600716

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:46:06 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> > []
> >> > I SAID :  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> >> >> >> I'll have to look more into the plans for energy production.
> >> > 
> >> > How many times do you have to ask the same question?
> >> 
> >> Likely until you provide a rational answer.
> >> 
> >> The solar irradiance on Mars on average is about half that of Earth
> >> when there are no dust storms, and there are lots of dust storms.
> > 
> > So there may be possibility for wind power. Thin atmosphere, but
> > how much power could be converted? something to consider. all options
> > should be checked.
> 
> How much can be converted you ask?
> 
> The same as anywhere else, about 30% of whatever is available, but
> since the atmosphere is so thin, there is little available.

okay, you argue against solar on mars because of
"lots of dust storms." but then argue against wind power
because "the atmosphere is so thin".

Actually I am arguing that they might be able to harness
both forms of power. just as we need to do here.

> 
> >> The only way to provide the enormous amount of power needed to turn
> >> dirt and rocks into anything useful can only be supplied by several
> >> nuclear reactors.
> > 
> > I'm sure that is not the only way, but I agree Nuclear would be a big
> > source.
> 
> If you are so sure, name it.

Wind, solar. Boy you have very short term memory.
> 
> >> It is to be determined if sufficient water is available on Mars to
> >> cool a single nuclear reactor, much less the many that would be needed.
> > 
> > SO, alternative designs that do not need water might be an option.
> > I knew there had been some research on this, but I thought it was related
> > to fusion reactors. But here is a design that could be very useful:
> > 
> > "Molten salt reactors are nuclear reactors which use a molten fluoride
> >  salt mixture as the primary coolant. These salts have proven to be far
> >  superior heat sinks than the helium used in light-water reactors, which
> >  greatly reduces the need for supplementary cooling. The nuclear fuel
> >  (uranium tetrafluoride) can also be dissolved directly into the coolant
> >  as well. When the fluid is inserted into a graphite core, the mix goes
> >  critical and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unlike conventional
> >  light-water reactors, an MSR operates at very high temperatures to achieve
> >  thermodynamic efficiency but remain at atmospheric pressure to reduce
> >  mechanical stress on the system."
> > from:
> > http://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past
> > 
> > Maybe they can develop the technology for the Mars colony, then we get 
> > the benefit of the research for plants here on earth.
> 
> Fine. This just means you have to transport everything from Earth.

So did you read the Musk plan at all?

> 
> > IF it turns out there is not enough water, maybe direct conversion
> > with thermal electric generators can be done. And then the "waste heat"
> > can also be piped around the colony for room heating and such.
> 
> The typical efficiency of thermal electric generators is around 5-8%.

Yes, so? You are connecting them to a nuclear plant. LOTS of heat
available.

> 
> Piping heat anywhere, whether for heating or just dumpling it requires
> a transport medium such as water.

What is it with the water fascination with you?
You never had a house with forced hot air for heating?
> 
> > Regarding the water, the space station shows that recycling water
> > works. So It would be interesting to calculate how much water would
> > really be needed per person. Clearly a lot less that what is used
> > by we Americans per person. I know of a company working on home
> > based recycling of water (for homes in drought affected areas).
> 
> So where is this water recyling plant going to come from other
> than Earth?
> 
> One more huge, heavy, expensive thing that needs to be transported.

maybe the first few. Later they will make their own.
Again, did you not read the plan?

> 
> No one is going to be watering a lawn on Mars.
> 
> They do not wash anything on the space station; they send dirty stuff
> back to Earth and send up clean stuff on a regular basis.

Space station does not have the room. Mars will have room
for washing machines. Maybe not even water based. (ever had
your suit dry cleaned?)
> 
> > The problems can be solved. and the benefits will come back to us.
> 
> Sure the problems can be solved by sending huge amounts of stuff to
> Mars on a regular basis. What benefit does that have to the taxpayers
> funding all this?
> 
The colonists devise new ways of making things work with the resources
available on Mars. We then can do some of the same things here.
We will benefit.

> > You are using a computer that have taken a lot longer to develop
> > if the lunar program hadn't needed lower weight electronics.
> > Now that wasn't the only factor that drove the development of
> > the transistor in the US, but it did help drive the development
> > of integrated circuits.
> 
> Which are now fully developed and the Apollo program had little to
> do with it.

You missed my point. but I'll let this go.

> 
> > So I cannot say the power issue is solved, but there is one
> > possible solution.
> 
> Like what exactly? Collect everyone's shit, dry it on the near
> vacuum surface and burn it in a steam boiler? Oops, no oxygen
> to burn anything and no water for the boiler.

Again the SHORT TERM memory is failing you. Molten Salt Reactors.
I even mentioned it again on the line below. just above you sig:
> 
> > (Interesting too. I may just have to read more about MSR.)
> > 
> > Have a nice day.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

(like talking to a two year old.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600729

I can water the lawn ... if it's HOH

> okay, you argue against solar on mars because of
> "lots of dust storms." but then argue against wind power
> because "the atmosphere is so thin".
> 
> Actually I am arguing that they might be able to harness
> both forms of power. just as we need to do here.

> So did you read the Musk plan at all?

> maybe the first few. Later they will make their own.
> Again, did you not read the plan?

> Space station does not have the room. Mars will have room
> for washing machines. Maybe not even water based. (ever had
> your suit dry cleaned?)
 
> The colonists devise new ways of making things work with the resources
> available on Mars. We then can do some of the same things here.
> We will benefit.

> > Which are now fully developed and the Apollo program had little to
> > do with it.
> 
> You missed my point. but I'll let this go.

> Again the SHORT TERM memory is failing you. Molten Salt Reactors.
> I even mentioned it again on the line below. just above you sig:
> > 
> > > (Interesting too. I may just have to read more about MSR.)
> > > 
> > > Have a nice day.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jim Pennino
> 
> (like talking to a two year old.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600803

On 10/13/2016 12:31 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> I can water the lawn ... if it's HOH
>

if you water on Mars, does it make mud, or dry really fast ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600806

Serigo wrote:
> 
> On 10/13/2016 12:31 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> > I can water the lawn ... if it's HOH
> >
> 
> if you water on Mars, does it make mud, or dry really fast ?


It cannot make mud because there is no earth on mars. You need organice
material to make earth/dirt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600811

On 10/13/2016 8:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Serigo wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/2016 12:31 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
>>> I can water the lawn ... if it's HOH
>>>
>>
>> if you water on Mars, does it make mud, or dry really fast ?
>
>
> It cannot make mud because there is no earth on mars. You need organice
> material to make earth/dirt.
>

Mars stuff + water = gook   (not mud) ?
not gook either, they dont really mix,

a good test, starmaker

This Martian soil that we've analyzed on Mars just this past week 
appears mineralogically similar to some weathered basaltic materials 
that we see on Earth," David Bish, a CheMin co-investigator with Indiana 
University, told reporters. He cited as an example the "weathered soils 
on the flanks of Mauna Kea in Hawaii."

  "Much of Mars is covered with dust, and we had an incomplete 
understanding of its mineralogy," Bish said in a statement. "We now know 
it is mineralogically similar to basaltic material, with significant 
amounts of feldspar, pyroxene and olivine, which was not unexpected. 
Roughly half the soil is non-crystalline material, such as volcanic 
glass or products from weathering of the glass."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600818

Serigo wrote:
> 
> On 10/13/2016 8:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Serigo wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/13/2016 12:31 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> >>> I can water the lawn ... if it's HOH
> >>>
> >>
> >> if you water on Mars, does it make mud, or dry really fast ?
> >
> >
> > It cannot make mud because there is no earth on mars. You need organice
> > material to make earth/dirt.
> >
> 
> Mars stuff + water = gook   (not mud) ?
> not gook either, they dont really mix,
> 
> a good test, starmaker
> 
> This Martian soil that we've analyzed on Mars just this past week
> appears mineralogically similar to some weathered basaltic materials
> that we see on Earth," David Bish, a CheMin co-investigator with Indiana
> University, told reporters. He cited as an example the "weathered soils
> on the flanks of Mauna Kea in Hawaii."
> 
>   "Much of Mars is covered with dust, and we had an incomplete
> understanding of its mineralogy," Bish said in a statement. "We now know
> it is mineralogically similar to basaltic material, with significant
> amounts of feldspar, pyroxene and olivine, which was not unexpected.
> Roughly half the soil is non-crystalline material, such as volcanic
> glass or products from weathering of the glass."


It is not "soil":

https://www.google.com/#q=define+soil

soil1
soil/
noun
noun: soil; plural noun: soils

    the upper layer of earth in which plants grow, a black or dark brown material typically consisting of a mixture of organic remains, clay, and rock particles.


Don't let NASA fool you...they are crooks, all of them.

Everyday.


There is no soil on Mars. There is no earth on Mars. There is no - 'organic' remains - on Mars.


No   - 'organic' remains - , no Life, Period.


There is no organic content anywhere else in the universe. Why should there be?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600859

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Serigo wrote:
> >
> > On 10/13/2016 8:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Serigo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 10/13/2016 12:31 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> > >>> I can water the lawn ... if it's HOH
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> if you water on Mars, does it make mud, or dry really fast ?
> > >
> > >
> > > It cannot make mud because there is no earth on mars. You need organice
> > > material to make earth/dirt.
> > >
> >
> > Mars stuff + water = gook   (not mud) ?
> > not gook either, they dont really mix,
> >
> > a good test, starmaker
> >
> > This Martian soil that we've analyzed on Mars just this past week
> > appears mineralogically similar to some weathered basaltic materials
> > that we see on Earth," David Bish, a CheMin co-investigator with Indiana
> > University, told reporters. He cited as an example the "weathered soils
> > on the flanks of Mauna Kea in Hawaii."
> >
> >   "Much of Mars is covered with dust, and we had an incomplete
> > understanding of its mineralogy," Bish said in a statement. "We now know
> > it is mineralogically similar to basaltic material, with significant
> > amounts of feldspar, pyroxene and olivine, which was not unexpected.
> > Roughly half the soil is non-crystalline material, such as volcanic
> > glass or products from weathering of the glass."
> 
> It is not "soil":
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=define+soil
> 
> soil1
> soil/
> noun
> noun: soil; plural noun: soils
> 
>     the upper layer of earth in which plants grow, a black or dark brown material typically consisting of a mixture of organic remains, clay, and rock particles.
> 
> Don't let NASA fool you...they are crooks, all of them.
> 
> Everyday.
> 
> There is no soil on Mars. There is no earth on Mars. There is no - 'organic' remains - on Mars.
> 
> No   - 'organic' remains - , no Life, Period.
> 
> There is no organic content anywhere else in the universe. Why should there be?




The problem here is, NASA doesn't know the language the aliens from Mars speak...

NASA doesn't know the words for the ...stuff on Mars. You can not use English words to describe Martian words.


They speak a different language.


They don't have words like water, trees, boat and planes...

There is no Martian soil, so you cannot say Martian soil.


NASA needs to make up...new words.


They could try reading science fiction books about Mars to see if they can pick up new words...



I'm sure there are a lot of science fiction books about Mars out there...
probably you can find a whole entire Martian language out there in those SF books.


Anybody speak Martian?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600789

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:46:06 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>> > []
>> >> > I SAID :  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
>> >> >> >> I'll have to look more into the plans for energy production.
>> >> > 
>> >> > How many times do you have to ask the same question?
>> >> 
>> >> Likely until you provide a rational answer.
>> >> 
>> >> The solar irradiance on Mars on average is about half that of Earth
>> >> when there are no dust storms, and there are lots of dust storms.
>> > 
>> > So there may be possibility for wind power. Thin atmosphere, but
>> > how much power could be converted? something to consider. all options
>> > should be checked.
>> 
>> How much can be converted you ask?
>> 
>> The same as anywhere else, about 30% of whatever is available, but
>> since the atmosphere is so thin, there is little available.
> 
> okay, you argue against solar on mars because of
> "lots of dust storms." but then argue against wind power
> because "the atmosphere is so thin".

No, I am not arguing against anything, I am stating facts.

You do know that Mars if farther away from the Sun than the Earth and
that the atmosphere is very thin, don't you?

From NASA's numbers on the solar irradiance on Mars you can get a daily
average of about 40 W/m^2 of electrical energy on Mars. That is daily
average for a clear day, with a bit more at local noon and a bit less
mornings and afternoons.

That less dense moving air has less energy than more dense air is
basic physics.

> Actually I am arguing that they might be able to harness
> both forms of power. just as we need to do here.

There is no might about it, you could but you will not get a lot of
energy from either, nowhere near enough to support industry.

>> >> The only way to provide the enormous amount of power needed to turn
>> >> dirt and rocks into anything useful can only be supplied by several
>> >> nuclear reactors.
>> > 
>> > I'm sure that is not the only way, but I agree Nuclear would be a big
>> > source.
>> 
>> If you are so sure, name it.
> 
> Wind, solar. Boy you have very short term memory.

There is very little available energy in wind and solar on Mars.

Boy you have very short term memory.

To get the energy of a little 50 MW reactor you would need over a million
square meters of solar array and it would only produce energy during
the day.

>> >> It is to be determined if sufficient water is available on Mars to
>> >> cool a single nuclear reactor, much less the many that would be needed.
>> > 
>> > SO, alternative designs that do not need water might be an option.
>> > I knew there had been some research on this, but I thought it was related
>> > to fusion reactors. But here is a design that could be very useful:
>> > 
>> > "Molten salt reactors are nuclear reactors which use a molten fluoride
>> >  salt mixture as the primary coolant. These salts have proven to be far
>> >  superior heat sinks than the helium used in light-water reactors, which
>> >  greatly reduces the need for supplementary cooling. The nuclear fuel
>> >  (uranium tetrafluoride) can also be dissolved directly into the coolant
>> >  as well. When the fluid is inserted into a graphite core, the mix goes
>> >  critical and drives a turbine to generate electricity. Unlike conventional
>> >  light-water reactors, an MSR operates at very high temperatures to achieve
>> >  thermodynamic efficiency but remain at atmospheric pressure to reduce
>> >  mechanical stress on the system."
>> > from:
>> > http://gizmodo.com/5990383/the-future-of-nuclear-power-runs-on-the-waste-of-our-nuclear-past
>> > 
>> > Maybe they can develop the technology for the Mars colony, then we get 
>> > the benefit of the research for plants here on earth.
>> 
>> Fine. This just means you have to transport everything from Earth.
> 
> So did you read the Musk plan at all?

What does a press release have to do with facts?

>> > IF it turns out there is not enough water, maybe direct conversion
>> > with thermal electric generators can be done. And then the "waste heat"
>> > can also be piped around the colony for room heating and such.
>> 
>> The typical efficiency of thermal electric generators is around 5-8%.
> 
> Yes, so? You are connecting them to a nuclear plant. LOTS of heat
> available.

There is also the issue of cooling a nuclear plant so it does not
melt down.

>> Piping heat anywhere, whether for heating or just dumpling it requires
>> a transport medium such as water.
> 
> What is it with the water fascination with you?
> You never had a house with forced hot air for heating?

When you design your forced air cooled nuclear reactor, the world will
be at your feet.

>> 
>> > Regarding the water, the space station shows that recycling water
>> > works. So It would be interesting to calculate how much water would
>> > really be needed per person. Clearly a lot less that what is used
>> > by we Americans per person. I know of a company working on home
>> > based recycling of water (for homes in drought affected areas).
>> 
>> So where is this water recyling plant going to come from other
>> than Earth?
>> 
>> One more huge, heavy, expensive thing that needs to be transported.
> 
> maybe the first few. Later they will make their own.
> Again, did you not read the plan?

The plan says nothing about the duplication of a significant portion
of the industrial resources of Earth that would be required to do
that.

>> 
>> No one is going to be watering a lawn on Mars.
>> 
>> They do not wash anything on the space station; they send dirty stuff
>> back to Earth and send up clean stuff on a regular basis.
> 
> Space station does not have the room. Mars will have room
> for washing machines. Maybe not even water based. (ever had
> your suit dry cleaned?)

The major problem with the space station and washing thinss is not room.

So where is that river of dry cleaning fluid on Mars? You do know that
dry cleaning does use fluids, just not water, don't you?

>> > The problems can be solved. and the benefits will come back to us.
>> 
>> Sure the problems can be solved by sending huge amounts of stuff to
>> Mars on a regular basis. What benefit does that have to the taxpayers
>> funding all this?
>> 
> The colonists devise new ways of making things work with the resources
> available on Mars. We then can do some of the same things here.
> We will benefit.

Sure we will.

If it were all that simple, the Australian Outback would be wall to
wall people instead of an empty, desolate area.

>> > You are using a computer that have taken a lot longer to develop
>> > if the lunar program hadn't needed lower weight electronics.
>> > Now that wasn't the only factor that drove the development of
>> > the transistor in the US, but it did help drive the development
>> > of integrated circuits.
>> 
>> Which are now fully developed and the Apollo program had little to
>> do with it.
> 
> You missed my point. but I'll let this go.

I ignored the point of something new, wonderful, and unknown coming
out of sending people to Mars as childish wishing.

>> > So I cannot say the power issue is solved, but there is one
>> > possible solution.
>> 
>> Like what exactly? Collect everyone's shit, dry it on the near
>> vacuum surface and burn it in a steam boiler? Oops, no oxygen
>> to burn anything and no water for the boiler.
> 
> Again the SHORT TERM memory is failing you. Molten Salt Reactors.
> I even mentioned it again on the line below. just above you sig:

Which would still have to be cooled somehow if they existed.

>> > (Interesting too. I may just have to read more about MSR.)
>> > 
>> > Have a nice day.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> (like talking to a two year old.)

Like talking to a little girl wishing for her fairy princess to appear.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600802

On 10/13/2016 10:47 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 2:46:06 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
>>> []
>>>>> I SAID :  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
>>>>>>>> I'll have to look more into the plans for energy production.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many times do you have to ask the same question?
>>>>
>>>> Likely until you provide a rational answer.
>>>>
>>>> The solar irradiance on Mars on average is about half that of Earth
>>>> when there are no dust storms, and there are lots of dust storms.
>>>
>>> So there may be possibility for wind power. Thin atmosphere, but
>>> how much power could be converted? something to consider. all options
>>> should be checked.
>>
>> How much can be converted you ask?
>>
>> The same as anywhere else, about 30% of whatever is available, but
>> since the atmosphere is so thin, there is little available.
>
> okay, you argue against solar on mars because of
> "lots of dust storms."

that is what stops the Rover for months which is on Mars and solar powered

> but then argue against wind power
> because "the atmosphere is so thin".

it is only 1% of earth, not enough mass blowing to really generate a lot 
of power, and does Mars have strong prevailing winds ?  think not.

>
> Actually I am arguing that they might be able to harness
> both forms of power. just as we need to do here.

they need power at night, and when the wind is blowing, so they must use 
a nuk.   no need for wind power.  some solar may help but dust is a big 
problem, how do you clean it with out water or personel or scratching it ?

>
>>
>>>> The only way to provide the enormous amount of power needed to turn
>>>> dirt and rocks into anything useful can only be supplied by several
>>>> nuclear reactors.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that is not the only way, but I agree Nuclear would be a big
>>> source.
>>
>> If you are so sure, name it.
>
> Wind, solar. Boy you have very short term memory.

nope, they sound good, but not enough power during night. and wind is 
too wimpy


>>>
>>> Maybe they can develop the technology for the Mars colony, then we get
>>> the benefit of the research for plants here on earth.
>>
>> Fine. This just means you have to transport everything from Earth.
>
> So did you read the Musk plan at all?

yep, most all daydreams wo the engineering, no cost constraints

>
>>
>>> IF it turns out there is not enough water, maybe direct conversion
>>> with thermal electric generators can be done. And then the "waste heat"
>>> can also be piped around the colony for room heating and such.
>>
>> The typical efficiency of thermal electric generators is around 5-8%.
>
> Yes, so? You are connecting them to a nuclear plant. LOTS of heat
> available.
>
>>
>> Piping heat anywhere, whether for heating or just dumpling it requires
>> a transport medium such as water.
>
> What is it with the water fascination with you?
> You never had a house with forced hot air for heating?

it is mass, the mass of the water carrys far more heat than air, higher 
effeciency, etc.  Humans require a lot of water.



>>
>>> Regarding the water, the space station shows that recycling water
>>> works. So It would be interesting to calculate how much water would
>>> really be needed per person. Clearly a lot less that what is used
>>> by we Americans per person. I know of a company working on home
>>> based recycling of water (for homes in drought affected areas).
>>
>> So where is this water recyling plant going to come from other
>> than Earth?
>>
>> One more huge, heavy, expensive thing that needs to be transported.
>
> maybe the first few. Later they will make their own.
> Again, did you not read the plan?

old news, space station has it

>
>>
>> No one is going to be watering a lawn on Mars.
>>
>> They do not wash anything on the space station; they send dirty stuff
>> back to Earth and send up clean stuff on a regular basis.
>
> Space station does not have the room. Mars will have room
> for washing machines. Maybe not even water based. (ever had
> your suit dry cleaned?)

dry cleaning is with fluids, they used to use carbontet, but that causes 
cancer.  I saw a film from the early 50;s of people walking down into a 
pool of carbontet, and back out again, all their clothes were cleaned.

but you cant have an air polutant on the station, therefore no dry cleaning.

>>
>>> The problems can be solved. and the benefits will come back to us.
>>
>> Sure the problems can be solved by sending huge amounts of stuff to
>> Mars on a regular basis. What benefit does that have to the taxpayers
>> funding all this?
>>
> The colonists devise new ways of making things work with the resources
> available on Mars. We then can do some of the same things here.
> We will benefit.

arizona, austrailia will benifit, they are full of rocks and sand.

>

>>
>> Like what exactly? Collect everyone's shit, dry it on the near
>> vacuum surface and burn it in a steam boiler? Oops, no oxygen
>> to burn anything and no water for the boiler.
>
> Again the SHORT TERM memory is failing you. Molten Salt Reactors.
> I even mentioned it again on the line below. just above you sig:

there are safer reactors, they would probably just scale up one like the 
use to power deep spacecraft,  radioactive stuff heats up therompiles. 
ultra reliable, lasts long time.

>>
>>> (Interesting too. I may just have to read more about MSR.)
>>>
>>> Have a nice day.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> (like talking to a two year old.)
>

two is bettr than a three year old!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600845

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:36:13 PM UTC-4, Serigo wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 10:47 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
[]
> > [repling to JP
> > okay, you argue against solar on mars because of
> > "lots of dust storms."
> 
> that is what stops the Rover for months which is on Mars and solar powered

And then recovers when a "cleaning event" occurs.

> 
> > but then argue against wind power
> > because "the atmosphere is so thin".
> 
> it is only 1% of earth, not enough mass blowing to really generate a lot 
> of power, and does Mars have strong prevailing winds ?  think not.

Agree, both forms are likely to be intermittent.
> 
> >
> > Actually I am arguing that they might be able to harness
> > both forms of power. just as we need to do here.
> 
> they need power at night, and when the wind is blowing, so they must use 
> a nuk.   no need for wind power.  some solar may help but dust is a big 
> problem, how do you clean it with out water or personel or scratching it ?
> 
Every so often clean it with the equivalent of a leaf blower.
[]
> > Wind, solar. Boy you have very short term memory.
> 
> nope, they sound good, but not enough power during night. and wind is 
> too wimpy

So? Use multiple sources, {gasp} just like here on earth.
> 
> 
[]
> > So did you read the Musk plan at all?
> 
> yep, most all daydreams wo the engineering, no cost constraints
> 
So you know they do plan to send a lots of material initially,
until it becomes self sustaining.

[]
> >
> > What is it with the water fascination with you?
> > You never had a house with forced hot air for heating?
> 
> it is mass, the mass of the water carrys far more heat than air, higher 
> effeciency, etc.  Humans require a lot of water.

Sure, and if the water is available, that is the first choice.
JP was arguing there is little or no water available.
 
[water recycling equipment discussion]
> >
> > maybe the first few. Later they will make their own.
> > Again, did you not read the plan?
> 
> old news, space station has it

exactly. that part is not a problem.
> 
> >
> > Space station does not have the room. Mars will have room
> > for washing machines. Maybe not even water based. (ever had
> > your suit dry cleaned?)
> 
> dry cleaning is with fluids, they used to use carbontet, but that causes 
> cancer.  I saw a film from the early 50;s of people walking down into a 
> pool of carbontet, and back out again, all their clothes were cleaned.
> 
> but you cant have an air polutant on the station, therefore no dry cleaning.
> 

But we know how to contain such vapors.
[]
> >
> > Again the SHORT TERM memory is failing you. Molten Salt Reactors.
> > I even mentioned it again on the line below. just above you sig:
> 
> there are safer reactors, they would probably just scale up one like the 
> use to power deep spacecraft,  radioactive stuff heats up therompiles. 
> ultra reliable, lasts long time.

Yes, we agree that there are solutions

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600864

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:36:13 PM UTC-4, Serigo wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 10:47 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> []
>> > [repling to JP
>> > okay, you argue against solar on mars because of
>> > "lots of dust storms."
>> 
>> that is what stops the Rover for months which is on Mars and solar powered
> 
> And then recovers when a "cleaning event" occurs.

Yes, that is the advantage to robots. The don't die while waiting for
the power to come back on, the just go to sleep.

>> > but then argue against wind power
>> > because "the atmosphere is so thin".
>> 
>> it is only 1% of earth, not enough mass blowing to really generate a lot 
>> of power, and does Mars have strong prevailing winds ?  think not.
> 
> Agree, both forms are likely to be intermittent.

Intermittant and lacking in substance.

>> > Actually I am arguing that they might be able to harness
>> > both forms of power. just as we need to do here.
>> 
>> they need power at night, and when the wind is blowing, so they must use 
>> a nuk.   no need for wind power.  some solar may help but dust is a big 
>> problem, how do you clean it with out water or personel or scratching it ?
>> 
> Every so often clean it with the equivalent of a leaf blower.
> []

To get the equivelant electrical power of a small 50 MW reactor you need
over a million square meters of solar panel on Mars.

That would require a very large crew of leaf blower operators.

>> > Wind, solar. Boy you have very short term memory.
>> 
>> nope, they sound good, but not enough power during night. and wind is 
>> too wimpy
> 
> So? Use multiple sources, {gasp} just like here on earth.

The non-conventional sources, i.e. not nuclear, coal, natural gas,
or hydro, are a tiny fraction of the power used on Earth.

While solar and wind could supply a small amount of energy on Mars,
enough to support a small research station, it is obviously not 
enough to support a full blown colony with industry of any size.

>> 
> []
>> > So did you read the Musk plan at all?
>> 
>> yep, most all daydreams wo the engineering, no cost constraints
>> 
> So you know they do plan to send a lots of material initially,
> until it becomes self sustaining.

Lots being measured in the equivelant of a medium sized city if
the goal is a colony.

> []
>> >
>> > What is it with the water fascination with you?
>> > You never had a house with forced hot air for heating?
>> 
>> it is mass, the mass of the water carrys far more heat than air, higher 
>> effeciency, etc.  Humans require a lot of water.
> 
> Sure, and if the water is available, that is the first choice.
> JP was arguing there is little or no water available.

No, I was not.

I stated the fact that it is unknown whether or not there are large
quatities of water available any place other than the poles.

Even the most starry eyed space cadet dreamer has to agree that putting
a colony at the poles is stupid.

> [water recycling equipment discussion]
>> >
>> > maybe the first few. Later they will make their own.
>> > Again, did you not read the plan?
>> 
>> old news, space station has it
> 
> exactly. that part is not a problem.
>> 
>> >
>> > Space station does not have the room. Mars will have room
>> > for washing machines. Maybe not even water based. (ever had
>> > your suit dry cleaned?)
>> 
>> dry cleaning is with fluids, they used to use carbontet, but that causes 
>> cancer.  I saw a film from the early 50;s of people walking down into a 
>> pool of carbontet, and back out again, all their clothes were cleaned.
>> 
>> but you cant have an air polutant on the station, therefore no dry cleaning.
>> 
> 
> But we know how to contain such vapors.
> []

True, but where do you get it if you don't have a massive chemical
industry manufacturing it?

>> > Again the SHORT TERM memory is failing you. Molten Salt Reactors.
>> > I even mentioned it again on the line below. just above you sig:
>> 
>> there are safer reactors, they would probably just scale up one like the 
>> use to power deep spacecraft,  radioactive stuff heats up therompiles. 
>> ultra reliable, lasts long time.
> 
> Yes, we agree that there are solutions
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web