What's new

China is working on a way to extract oxygen from the moon’s surface

Seriously, Mars is just a horrible choice. Energy matters. If you have lots of energy from say solar or thermal, you can do chemistry against the thermodynamic favorable direction, like melt rocks back into oxygen and silicon (as shown here)

If you have low energy you need energy just to survive and the less energy you have the more energy you need.

Agreed so we have three ways :

1. For lighting people are researching the chemistry-based mechanism of how fireflies produce lighting. In fact in the Dune book series there are the "glow globes" that produce light based on chemical reaction. Below scene is from the year 2000 TV adaptation of the first book :
2021-10-23-054805_1024x768_scrot.png


So that takes away one aspect of an energy-consuming device.

Maybe such a reaction can also be used in computer displays.

2. The American company NDB is developing a battery that uses carbon-14 material that is waste from nuclear reactors and in the battery is enclosed within synthetic diamond. The battery will be modular in form and universal in application - from lamps to stoves to computers to vehicles to heart pacemakers to spacecraft. The life of the battery is supposed to be from nine years to 28,000 years based on the application.

3. People are researching on how the electric eel can produce up to 860 volts ! Below is my recent thread on this eel :

Backup for humanity... Wow... Ok... You realize that Mars has some big problems right?

1. Low pressure
2. Low nitrogen
3. Low gravity
4. Low temperature
5. Low energy (both chemical and solar)
6. High radiation
7. Far away from Earth
8. Materials poor

Mars is not almost habitable. it is essentially not habitable whatsoever. Without constant support from Earth any Mars colony is dead.

Points# 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 also applies to the Moon and you have been promoting the Moon.

Ok, here's the problems that are solved by balloons on Venus:

1. Equal pressure at 50 km up
2. More nitrogen than Mars, can be mined from atmosphere
3. Equal gravity as Earth
4. Equal temperature as Earth at 50 km up
5. Extremely high energy (solar, chemical, geothermal)
6. Zero radiation, Venus atmosphere protects
7. Closer to Earth
8. Materials poor in the atmosphere unfortunately.

So Venus, a hellish planet, is more attractive than Mars in 7/8 ways, and that is just sad.

Settlements on Mars now is more realizable than balloons on Venus.

You say :
6. Zero radiation, Venus atmosphere protects
But this wiki says :
Due to the lack of the intrinsic magnetic field on Venus, the solar wind penetrates relatively deep into the planetary exosphere and causes substantial atmosphere loss.
So I assume that some 500 meter balloon in the upper atmosphere will be subjected to the same radiation as on the Moon.

And I don't really see what one can do on Venus unless it is terraformed in maybe 300 years or more.

So Mars it should be.
 
Last edited:
.
Seriously, Mars is just a horrible choice. Energy matters. If you have lots of energy from say solar or thermal, you can do chemistry against the thermodynamic favorable direction, like melt rocks back into oxygen and silicon (as shown here)

If you have low energy you need energy just to survive and the less energy you have the more energy you need.

Wow we agree on something.

Mars is actually a bad choice for any base. The best option would be Callisto.
Agreed so we have three ways :

1. For lighting people are researching the chemistry-based mechanism of how fireflies produce lighting. In fact in the Dune book series there are the "glow globes" that produce light based on chemical reaction. Below scene is from the year 2000 TV adaptation of the first book :
350


So that takes away one aspect of an energy-consuming device.

Maybe such a reaction can also be used in computer displays.

2. The American company NDB is developing a battery that uses carbon-14 material that is waste from nuclear reactors and in the battery is enclosed within synthetic diamond. The battery will be modular in form and universal in application - from lamps to stoves to computers to vehicles to heart pacemakers to spacecraft. The life of the battery is supposed to be from nine years to 28,000 years based on the application.

3. People are researching on how the electric eel can produce up to 860 volts ! Below is my recent thread on this eel :



Points# 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 also applies to the Moon and you have been promoting the Moon.



Settlements on Mars now is more realizable than balloons on Venus.

You say :

But this wiki says :

So I assume that some 500 meter balloon in the upper atmosphere will be subjected to the same radiation as on the Moon.

And I don't really see what one can do on Venus unless it is terraformed in maybe 300 years or more.

So Mars it is.


I think we should focus on the ice moons.
 
.
I think we should focus on the ice moons.

But how will you practically live there for years ? Mars is so much more comfortable than them.

BTW I think you replied to the two posts separately which I why I didn't receive alert for your reply to me. So please add replies to the edit box in one shot ( using multi-quote facility ) and thus reply to multiple members at the same time.
 
.
Agreed so we have three ways :

1. For lighting people are researching the chemistry-based mechanism of how fireflies produce lighting. In fact in the Dune book series there are the "glow globes" that produce light based on chemical reaction. Below scene is from the year 2000 TV adaptation of the first book :

So that takes away one aspect of an energy-consuming device.

Maybe such a reaction can also be used in computer displays.

2. The American company NDB is developing a battery that uses carbon-14 material that is waste from nuclear reactors and in the battery is enclosed within synthetic diamond. The battery will be modular in form and universal in application - from lamps to stoves to computers to vehicles to heart pacemakers to spacecraft. The life of the battery is supposed to be from nine years to 28,000 years based on the application.

3. People are researching on how the electric eel can produce up to 860 volts ! Below is my recent thread on this eel :

Points# 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 also applies to the Moon and you have been promoting the Moon.

Settlements on Mars now is more realizable than balloons on Venus.

You say :

But this wiki says :

So I assume that some 500 meter balloon in the upper atmosphere will be subjected to the same radiation as on the Moon.

And I don't really see what one can do on Venus unless it is terraformed in maybe 300 years or more.

So Mars it should be.

OK, I don't promote the moon. The moon sucks but Mars is worse. The difference is that small colonies of 10-100 on the moon can at least do research, ultra high value manufacturing (like 99.99999 pure vacuum refined metals or silicon) or mining, like Antarctica or oil rigs, since it is close. Mars can never be. The moon can also be more easily roboticized due to only 2 seconds of light delay, but anything on Mars must be 100% automated. If even the moon, as shit as it is, is better, then Mars is just trash. Btw, point 4 is incorrect. Moon is moderate in temperature just 5 m below the surface. But there's -68 C permafrost on Mars.

Low pressure but not vacuum is bad. Vacuum is superior to low pressure because there's industrial processes like vacuum brazing, smelting and refining that you can do in vacuum but not in low pressure, as you see here. The process described here (smelting aluminum titanium oxide to the raw metals and oxygen) is not possible on Mars due to 1. low energy 2. presence of oxidative species that would ruin the metal quality.

The other thing is that energy actually should be #1 on list of concerns. If you have energy, you have everything, if you have no energy, you have nothing. The entire progress of civilization is not more resources, it is more energy. No oxygen? No problem, you can reduce oxides with enough energy in vacuum, as shown here. No water? With enough energy, just pay for imports or smelt deep hydrated rocks. No food? No problem, use powered LEDs.

Also, solar wind removes Venus's atmosphere, true. But Venus atmosphere is 1.) far thicker than Mars atmosphere so there's still mitigation and 2.) protects against galactic cosmic rays. The Mars radiation problem is not solar radiation (UV), which can be blocked by a piece of paper, it is GCRs which penetrate all materials and the only way to shield against them is matter. That, btw, is what an atmosphere offers. And I'm not saying Venus is good. Again, Venus sucks but Mars is worse.

Here is how the Earth atmosphere blocks GCRs, notice how the magnetic field of Earth doesn't do jack shit to stop them. You need 30 km of Earth equivalent atmosphere above your head to protect you. Venus has that. Mars atmosphere has only 1 mbar pressure, which is equivalent to Earth atmosphere 30 km up - not good enough.

cosmic_rays_diagram.jpg
everest.jpg


And did you seriously cite science fiction as a source???
 
Last edited:
.
@Apollon

Callisto is too far and too low in potential energy - no solar, no chemical. If you have to bring your own energy i.e. a reactor, it is already a bad choice. What happens when your reactor breaks down or the fuel runs out? Even if you import more - how long does it take?

I think the only potential places for colonization (and I'm not saying they're good, I'm only saying they're not 100% shit) are Earth orbit, Moon and maybe Venus or Mercury.

Energy is #1 by far. If you have energy, you have everything. On earth, why do far more people live in the desert with even little water (i.e. Saudi Arabia with population 25 million) than in the Arctic with tons of water (Norway population 5 million)? Both are oil countries, both have about equal size.

Because in the desert, if you have even a tiny amount of water, you can farm with energy (sunlight). In the Arctic it doesn't matter how much water you have, there simply isn't enough energy (temperature, sunlight) for crops to grow.

With energy you can run endothermic reaction chemistries, run heat exchangers, and solve problems.

No oxygen? Vacuum refine metal oxides, now you have both oxygen and pure metals for construction.
No water? Melt crater ice (proven to exist on Moon, Mercury and in fact Mercury is one of the richest in volatiles outside Earth) or thermally decompose sulfuric acid (Venus).
No building material? Vacuum refined metals (Moon, Mercury) or polycarbonate from CO2 (Venus)
Too hot or cold? build underground for shielding then run air conditioners with heat exchangers powered by excess energy.

Remember, moon receives same energy as Earth but 24/7 (so 2x energy/area/time), Mercury receives 4-10x energy as earth also 24/7, Venus receives 2x more energy than Earth and 24/7. So moon, Mercury and Venus receive at least 2x energy that Earth does.

Mars? Same night/day cycle as Earth, 40% lower solar intensity, so the actual energy available for human use is 3x lower than moon and far lower than Mercury or Venus.

Distance is #2 since resupply missions are everything to a new colony. All your initial equipment has to be brought in, and frequently, and since long term habitation is hard at first, you have to start small and frequent. If you can't resupply or escape fast in an emergency, everyone on the colony is dead.

Mars is already shit for this since the transfer window only opens up once every 2 years and takes 9 months.

Anything further? Low energy and long transfer times.

Again, not saying Moon, Venus or Mercury are awesome. They're just not shit like Mars is.
 
Last edited:
.
But how will you practically live there for years ? Mars is so much more comfortable than them.

BTW I think you replied to the two posts separately which I why I didn't receive alert for your reply to me. So please add replies to the edit box in one shot ( using multi-quote facility ) and thus reply to multiple members at the same time.

On Callisto you have plenty of water, you are outside jupiters radiation belt and at same time protected from cosmic radiation by jupiters magnetic field. Titan is even more promising. It has a dense atmosphere and you can virtually fly there by flapping your arms with wings attached. Mars is a barren desert with super thin atmosphere. You get grilled by cosmic radiation and extrem dust storms.
@Apollon

Callisto is too far and too low in potential energy - no solar, no chemical. If you have to bring your own energy i.e. a reactor, it is already a bad choice. What happens when your reactor breaks down or the fuel runs out? Even if you import more - how long does it take?

I think the only potential places for colonization (and I'm not saying they're good, I'm only saying they're not 100% shit) are Earth orbit, Moon and maybe Venus or Mercury.

Energy is #1 by far. If you have energy, you have everything. On earth, why do far more people live in the desert with even little water (i.e. Saudi Arabia with population 25 million) than in the Arctic with tons of water (Norway population 5 million)? Both are oil countries, both have about equal size.

Because in the desert, if you have even a tiny amount of water, you can farm with energy (sunlight). In the Arctic it doesn't matter how much water you have, there simply isn't enough energy (temperature, sunlight) for crops to grow.

With energy you can run endothermic reaction chemistries, run heat exchangers, and solve problems.

No oxygen? Vacuum refine metal oxides, now you have both oxygen and pure metals for construction.
No water? Melt crater ice (proven to exist on Moon, Mercury and in fact Mercury is one of the richest in volatiles outside Earth) or thermally decompose sulfuric acid (Venus).
No building material? Vacuum refined metals (Moon, Mercury) or polycarbonate from CO2 (Venus)
Too hot or cold? build underground for shielding then run air conditioners with heat exchangers powered by excess energy.

Remember, moon receives same energy as Earth but 24/7 (so 2x energy/area/time), Mercury receives 4-10x energy as earth also 24/7, Venus receives 2x more energy than Earth and 24/7. So moon, Mercury and Venus receive at least 2x energy that Earth does.

Mars? Same night/day cycle as Earth, 40% lower solar intensity, so the actual energy available for human use is 3x lower than moon and far lower than Mercury or Venus.

Distance is #2 since resupply missions are everything to a new colony. All your initial equipment has to be brought in, and frequently, and since long term habitation is hard at first, you have to start small and frequent. If you can't resupply or escape fast in an emergency, everyone on the colony is dead.

Mars is already shit for this since the transfer window only opens up once every 2 years and takes 9 months.

Anything further? Low energy and long transfer times.

Again, not saying Moon, Venus or Mercury are awesome. They're just not shit like Mars is.

You have alot of geothermal energy on the ice moons, because the tidal forces. On Titan you even have lots of wind and liquid energy in form of rivers and endless amounts if methane.

Plus there is one moon that is the most interesting one...Europa. What is under the ice?
 
.
LOL. I have Mars haters here.

And did you seriously cite science fiction as a source???

What is science fiction today will become science fact tomorrow. And I have mentioned that fireflies are the subject of real research for lighting.

Mars is already shit for this since the transfer window only opens up once every 2 years and takes 9 months.

It takes seven months or nine to travel because of chemical propulsion but there is the VASIMR in-space engine in development that promises to make the travel down to three months though I don't know if this would be when Earth and Mars are closely aligned. Some days ago I had read about this research into a novel in-space propulsion method called MEGA drive which uses electricity to expand and contract piezoelectric crystal layers to push against space and this method they say will propel the craft at the speed of light !
From health concerns to funding, there’s no shortage of obstacles preventing humans from traveling beyond our solar system. But the main obstacle is propulsion: Our spacecraft are simply too slow and too reliant on fuel to realistically make a voyage to Alpha Centauri, the closest star to our Sun.

So, what do we need? Something like a reactionless drive — an engine that moves a spacecraft without exhausting a finite stock of propellant. So far, such a device only exists in science fiction. But for the past few decades, physicist Jim Woodward has been trying to change that.

The 79-year-old physics professor has developed a thruster design that he hopes will serve as a proof of concept for how humans can someday achieve interstellar travel. Called the Mach-effect gravitational assist (MEGA) drive, the device only requires a source of electricity to achieve thrust.

Early tests have shown mixed results. Woodward himself was only able to demonstrate miniscule amounts of thrust, while other teams reported little to no thrust when trying to replicate his experiments. Still, the design intrigued NASA enough to award Woodward $625,000 in funding between 2017 and 2018.

What’s more, in 2019 Woodward and his collaborator and fellow physicist Hal Fearn reported a major breakthrough after redesigning the thruster’s mount — a tweak that produced “more than 100 micronewtons, orders of magnitude larger than anything Woodward had ever built before,” as a recent feature in Wirednotes.

(To be sure, the level of thrust we’re talking about is barely enough to visibly move an object across a table. But if the results are confirmed, it would suggest the technology could be scaled up.)


SSI at NIAC 2017: Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission”youtu.be

Woodward’s system is based on ideas that 19th-century physicist Ernst Mach proposed about inertia, which is an object’s tendency to stay at rest unless acted upon.

In simple terms, Mach’s principle argues that distant matter causes local inertial effects. So, a star in a far away galaxy has some effect on the inertia you encounter when you push a shopping cart. That’s the idea, anyway. (Woodward gives a comprehensive breakdown of his views on Mach’s principle in this blog post.)

In the 20th century, Albert Einstein incorporated Mach’s ideas into his theory of general relativity, essentially arguing that gravity and inertia are fundamentally linked. But the broader physics community later rejected this view of inertia, largely because of a 1961 paper that showed inertia to be unrelated to the gravitational influence of distant matter.

Still, Woodward believes Einstein had it right all along, and that, under this framework of inertia, it’s possible to develop propulsion systems that require only an electrical charge, not fuel. The key element of his thruster is a stack of piezoelectric crystals, which produces an alternating electric field when voltage is applied to it, as Woodward explained:

“Piezoelectric crystals are electromechanical devices, which means that when you apply the voltage, they mechanically expand & contract depending upon the sign of the voltage. So by applying a voltage, you’re causing an E/c² energy fluctuation in the stack no matter what they do mechanically, and you’re also producing an acceleration because of the changing dimensions of the stack due due to electromechanical effects, which also causes the acceleration required couple the device to the large gravitational field.”

“The trick is timing the energy fluctuations and mechanical oscillations correctly, which requires using two frequencies — at the first and second harmonics, and it’s the second harmonic that actually produces thrust.”

Woodward and his colleagues have even drawn up plans for a spacecraft that would utilize the MEGA drive. Called the SSI Lambda, the craft would feature piezoelectric crystals and a small nuclear reactor to produce electricity.

“The SSI Lambda probe using MEGA drive thrusters is a truly propellantless-propulsion spacecraft,” the team wrote of the design in its report to NASA. “It can travel at speeds up to the speed of light in a vacuum with only consumption of electric power. No other method for travelling to the stars and braking into the target system has been put forward to date, which also has credible physics to back it up.”

After the COVID-19 pandemic settles down, other scientists and engineers hope to put Woodward’s designs to the test. The results of those experiments should reveal whether he’s onto something. To some experts in the field, the odds are slim. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth investigating.

“I’d say there’s between a 1-in-10 and 1-in-10,000,000 chance that it’s real, and probably toward the higher end of that spectrum,” Mike McDonald, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland, told Wired. “But imagine that one chance; that would be amazing. That’s why we do high-risk, high-reward work. That’s why we do science.”
As long as the crystals are okay there won't by any propellant
needed.

or mining, like Antarctica or oil rigs

No one does mining in Antarctica.

The moon can also be more easily roboticized due to only 2 seconds of light delay, but anything on Mars must be 100% automated.

I am talking about humans on Mars, not for machines on Mars to be controlled from Earth.

Vacuum is superior to low pressure because there's industrial processes like vacuum brazing, smelting and refining that you can do in vacuum but not in low pressure, as you see here. The process described here (smelting aluminum titanium oxide to the raw metals and oxygen) is not possible on Mars due to 1. low energy 2. presence of oxidative species that would ruin the metal quality.

Then take such processes to Mars orbit or its two moons where there is vacuum. And from where the materials will come, I am sure by the time someone establishes factories on the Moon there will be made ready a system of material extraction from the Asteroid Belt and bringing it to the outer Mars system.

And production of most goods can be done through 3D printing. The American spacecraft company Relativity Space is producing rockets that are 3D printed.

The other thing is that energy actually should be #1 on list of concerns.

I put in lighting at #1 because research on chemical lighting is being thought up of as not requiring electricity which will make at least one application independent of electricity.

If you have energy, you have everything, if you have no energy, you have nothing. The entire progress of civilization is not more resources, it is more energy. No oxygen? No problem, you can reduce oxides with enough energy in vacuum, as shown here. No water? With enough energy, just pay for imports or smelt deep hydrated rocks. No food? No problem, use powered LEDs.

Indeed and hence my two points 2 and 3.

Also, solar wind removes Venus's atmosphere, true. But Venus atmosphere is 1.) far thicker than Mars atmosphere so there's still mitigation and 2.) protects against galactic cosmic rays. The Mars radiation problem is not solar radiation (UV), which can be blocked by a piece of paper, it is GCRs which penetrate all materials and the only way to shield against them is matter. That, btw, is what an atmosphere offers. And I'm not saying Venus is good. Again, Venus sucks but Mars is worse.

Well, Venus at the moment has the importance of search for life which may involve scientists living in atmospheric balloons you referred to but Venus is otherwise a non-habitable planets for at least the next 300 or more years. Mars is still livable. Please read this post of mine.

You get grilled by cosmic radiation and extrem dust storms.

FairAndUnbiased has posted that NASA article link which speaks of ways to protect against cosmic radiation. I think that can be enhanced by wiring up habitats, suits and spacecraft with Faraday Cages.

Titan is even more promising. It has a dense atmosphere and you can virtually fly there by flapping your arms with wings attached.

Maybe Titan can be there as a picnic spot but not for living.
 
.
LOL. I have Mars haters here.

What is science fiction today will become science fact tomorrow. And I have mentioned that fireflies are the subject of real research for lighting.

It takes seven months or nine to travel because of chemical propulsion but there is the VASIMR in-space engine in development that promises to make the travel down to three months though I don't know if this would be when Earth and Mars are closely aligned. Some days ago I had read about this research into a novel in-space propulsion method called MEGA drive which uses electricity to expand and contract piezoelectric crystal layers to push against space and this method they say will propel the craft at the speed of light !

As long as the crystals are okay there won't by any propellant
needed.

No one does mining in Antarctica.

I am talking about humans on Mars, not for machines on Mars to be controlled from Earth.

Then take such processes to Mars orbit or its two moons where there is vacuum. And from where the materials will come, I am sure by the time someone establishes factories on the Moon there will be made ready a system of material extraction from the Asteroid Belt and bringing it to the outer Mars system.

And production of most goods can be done through 3D printing. The American spacecraft company Relativity Space is producing rockets that are 3D printed.

I put in lighting at #1 because research on chemical lighting is being thought up of as not requiring electricity which will make at least one application independent of electricity.

Indeed and hence my two points 2 and 3.

Well, Venus at the moment has the importance of search for life which may involve scientists living in atmospheric balloons you referred to but Venus is otherwise a non-habitable planets for at least the next 300 or more years. Mars is still livable. Please read this post of mine.

FairAndUnbiased has posted that NASA article link which speaks of ways to protect against cosmic radiation. I think that can be enhanced by wiring up habitats, suits and spacecraft with Faraday Cages.

Maybe Titan can be there as a picnic spot but not for living.

FIreflies produce light chemically. There is no way around it. You can use all the energy as efficiently or move it back and forth as much as you want but here's the cold hard facts:

1. Insolation of Mars is 600 W/m2, 40% lower than Earth.
2. There are no reduced chemical species on Mars.
3. Mars has no tectonic activity thus all the high value elements have sunk to the core long ago.

To get more energy there are only 2 ways:

1. Bring it with you
2. Deal with it

3D printing also isn't a way to produce industrial materials, it is a way to shape industrial materials and only very industrial materials can be 3D printed. What you won't have on Mars are industrial materials like steel sheets or pure aluminum. There are only 2 ways to go from raw materials to industrial materials from the ground:

1. Distillation (volatiles like water, oil/gas)
2. Smelting (metals)

That is literally it. Everything that is nonbiological in origin, at the beginning of its transformation from rock or crude oil, begins by heat and chemistry. It doesn't matter if you 3D print or use a hammer to shape it, the origin of everything is industrial chemistry and metallurgy

If you need to bring things up and down from Mars to Mars orbit, what is the point? If you need to bring energy, what is the point?

Is there one thing, anything, that Mars is superior to Earth at? No. Even if 10 asteroids hit Earth, it is still more survivable than Mars because at least it has oxygen, water, pressure and temperature for free, so it is STILL a bad 'backup'.

End result: I don't care either way if someone wants to dump their private money uselessly on Mars, I just hope nobody dies in the process and I really hope China does not get tricked, bandwagon and follow into the stupid economic black hole of Mars.
 
.
LOL. I have Mars haters here.



What is science fiction today will become science fact tomorrow. And I have mentioned that fireflies are the subject of real research for lighting.



It takes seven months or nine to travel because of chemical propulsion but there is the VASIMR in-space engine in development that promises to make the travel down to three months though I don't know if this would be when Earth and Mars are closely aligned. Some days ago I had read about this research into a novel in-space propulsion method called MEGA drive which uses electricity to expand and contract piezoelectric crystal layers to push against space and this method they say will propel the craft at the speed of light !

As long as the crystals are okay there won't by any propellant
needed.



No one does mining in Antarctica.



I am talking about humans on Mars, not for machines on Mars to be controlled from Earth.



Then take such processes to Mars orbit or its two moons where there is vacuum. And from where the materials will come, I am sure by the time someone establishes factories on the Moon there will be made ready a system of material extraction from the Asteroid Belt and bringing it to the outer Mars system.

And production of most goods can be done through 3D printing. The American spacecraft company Relativity Space is producing rockets that are 3D printed.



I put in lighting at #1 because research on chemical lighting is being thought up of as not requiring electricity which will make at least one application independent of electricity.



Indeed and hence my two points 2 and 3.



Well, Venus at the moment has the importance of search for life which may involve scientists living in atmospheric balloons you referred to but Venus is otherwise a non-habitable planets for at least the next 300 or more years. Mars is still livable. Please read this post of mine.



FairAndUnbiased has posted that NASA article link which speaks of ways to protect against cosmic radiation. I think that can be enhanced by wiring up habitats, suits and spacecraft with Faraday Cages.



Maybe Titan can be there as a picnic spot but not for living.


Why you assume Titan is not for living? There is no other object out in the solar system that is more similar to earth.
 
.
Why you assume Titan is not for living? There is no other object out in the solar system that is more similar to earth.

Titan has 3 problems (but still better than Mars 2/3)

1. extremely energy poor
2. extremely cold
3. far from Earth, Cassini took 6 years to reach there

Titan does have a 3 positives vs. Mars:

1. extremely high chemistry potential due to rich organic chemistry and presence of water
2. Earthlike atmospheric pressure
3. radiation blocked by atmosphere

Conclusion: Mars is still a shithole, Titan is bad but still 1000x better
 
.
Titan has 3 problems (but still better than Mars 2/3)

1. extremely energy poor
2. extremely cold
3. far from Earth, Cassini took 6 years to reach there

Titan does have a 3 positives vs. Mars:

1. extremely high chemistry potential due to rich organic chemistry and presence of water
2. Earthlike atmospheric pressure
3. radiation blocked by atmosphere

Conclusion: Mars is still a shithole, Titan is bad but still 1000x better

There are gigantic methane rivers and oceans on Titan, which can be used as fuel.
 
.
There are gigantic methane rivers and oceans on Titan, which can be used as fuel.

what do you burn it with? pure oxygen. is there pure oxygen on Titan? No, you have to produce it.

How do you produce it? By putting energy into water through electrolysis.

Oops, still no net energy.
 
.
what do you burn it with? pure oxygen. is there pure oxygen on Titan? No, you have to produce it.

How do you produce it? By putting energy into water through electrolysis.

Oops, still no net energy.

Good old Pu will do the trick.

Anyways at least we can agree that those icy worlds are far more interesting than Mars.

😁
 
.
Mars is just a waste of money, its just a gimmick. If we really want to search for life then the icy moons are the best bet. For a colony to succeed on mars, we would require alot of energy. Its only possible if humans develop miniaturized fusion reactors that they can take to mars and assemble it.
Having a base on moon may also be not that beneficial for further space travel as escaping gravity is the biggest problem for space travel, its better to have a large base in orbit, for refueling and replenishment.
 
.
Mars is just a waste of money, its just a gimmick. If we really want to search for life then the icy moons are the best bet. For a colony to succeed on mars, we would require alot of energy. Its only possible if humans develop miniaturized fusion reactors that they can take to mars and assemble it.
Having a base on moon may also be not that beneficial for further space travel as escaping gravity is the biggest problem for space travel, its better to have a large base in orbit, for refueling and replenishment.

Moon has 3 things going for it.

1. Proven capability to act as an industrial base if vacuum smelt metal oxides into metal and pure oxygen scales up.
2. Proven capability for humans to walk on and plants to grow (inside habitats) as proven during the Apollo and Chang'e missions, again just needs scale-up.
3. Proven capability to generate electricity via solar panels for long periods of time in missions like Yutu 2, yet again just needs scale-up.

Note that these are proven things. They do not require any tech that has not been demonstrated even on Earth, these have already occurred.

Fusion power plants do not exist. Orbital bases do not exist. Orbital refueling does not exist. None of that exists. It's not just a matter of scaling up, it is that they have yet to be even invented and tested.

But yes, Mars is terrible.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom