Colonising Mars and a meme I found

[YNM]

4 hours ago, James Kerman said:

I think rice is not the best crop due to the high water and volume requirements. 

Traditional field plantation of rice requires a lot of water due to the use of flooded fields, unlike wheat, millet, sorghum and maize.

Under greenhouses and drip-watering the rate should be reduced.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

We have thousands of years of experience in animal husbandry

While there is a lot of grass for free, bees to pollinate this grass, parasites to control the bees population, bugs, worms, and larvae to eat the dear's manure, and thousand other agents in a natural balance we are leeching on.
And a lot of soil fertilized by humus, a lot of water, and so on.
Humans still haven't created anything workable like this even on Earth.
So, balancing such system would be a highly nontrivial problem with still no working examples of its particular solution.
It can be only a set of particular species grown for food. All such species are well known, humans eat them for millenia. So, the only thing to do with them is their optimization for the unusual conditions.

If the deer born healthy calves at 0.4g is also unknown. As well as can rice give some grain.
Unicellular specimens even don't know about "g"s.

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

Has anyone eaten it?

It's what the chicken is in the very beginning.
Then such cell evolves in different ways according to the surrounding conditions. Feel free to make conditions in the vat to get appropriate chicken tissues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

Just not much sense in growing a whole part, it's easier to make a protein paste and mix it with other edible components.

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

That is why we need to get back to what it was and learn to use organic products again as well as our ancestors did.

They did.

Spoiler

But better we shouldn't.

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

But I would eat a soup that is made of bone marrow.

But to grow the marrow you should grow the bone. 

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

The production of gelatin starts with the boiling of bones, skins, and hides.

Why do you need so much gelatine on Mars? To make the wooden furniture?

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

How do you want to make them without using chemistry on Mars?

Cotton is cellulose.
Cellulose, polymer fibers.

[Laie]

3 hours ago, YNM said:

Traditional field plantation of rice requires a lot of water due to the use of flooded fields,

AFAIK, flooding isn't strictly necessary. It's just that rice can withstand it, while many pests and weeds don't.

[KSK]

9 hours ago, Cassel said:

Now I have looked more closely at your calculations and you count only for 45kg of grain, what is intended for human consumption, but to grow 45kg of rice you must provide raw materials to build the whole plant.
Entire plant weights about 80g of which about 8g is grain, so you must have about 450kg of "green waste" to produce 45kg of grain.

If there is any animal that can eat the green part of the plant, we have a source of food for meat farming :-)

But 45kg is a daily requirement. One rice ripening cycle is optimistic 60 days (pessimistically 90 days, without hydroponics 120 days).
One 60 day cycle is 2700 kg of grains needed, which gives about 27t of plant weight every 60 days.
This means that every 60 days you need 540kg of micronutrients and 26.5t of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

Picking this up again after a friendly private messge. You know who you are - thanks. 

@Cassel Yep - good points and you’re right about the error in my calculation - thanks. I could maybe debate the exact numbers but that’s just nitpicking for the sake of it. Your point still stands - that’s a hefty amount of resources to find.

I think it can be - and will need to be - substantially reduced by recycling though. To a decent approximation (and it is only an approximation) whatever nutrients an adult consumes are eventually excreted in one form or another. That’s obviously not true of growing children where nutrients consumed go to make more child.  

But even so, in principle, a lot of that 540kg of micronutrients should be recoverable from sewage and that green waste you mention. The big trick of course is designing a system that combines reasonably efficient recovery with reasonable simplicity. KISS is going to be an important factor in running a Mars colony I think, given that any technology used needs to be imported from Earth or manufactured onsite - which brings its own set of problems.

That’s why I liked your post above about using the whole animal. I’ll not bore you (again  ) with my thoughts on Martian livestock but your general point about efficient use of all resources - or at least that’s how I read it - I completely agree with.

It’s also why I think that some form of plant farming on Mars is going to feature in any colonisation efforts. Plants are pretty good at recovering trace elements from their environment and packaging them up in a convenient, more-or-less ready to eat package. Yes, biology is messy and yes, growing plants comes with its own set of problems to solve but, to me, their effectiveness and potential simplicity (compared to a more technological solution) as nutrient recyclers is quite compelling.

Edited October 5, 2018 by KSK

[tater]

Protein ain't coming from rice.

I suppose in the relatively near future we might well have meat without animals. This would be idea for space colonies, regardless of location (as I say in all of these threads, I'm partial to O'Neill colonies if you must have loads of people off Earth for some reason).

 

[DerekL1963]

33 minutes ago, tater said:

Protein ain't coming from rice.

No offense, but that's 100% incorrect.  There's a reason why beans and rice are considered complementary in terms of diet - each supplies amino acids (in the form of proteins) that the other doesn't.  It's not a dense source of protein, granted, but it's there.
 

49 minutes ago, KSK said:

But even so, in principle, a lot of that 540kg of micronutrients should be recoverable from sewage and that green waste you mention.

There's lag in the system (due to the time it takes to recycle), but that's not even remotely insurmountable.

[Bill Phil]

33 minutes ago, tater said:

Protein ain't coming from rice.

I suppose in the relatively near future we might well have meat without animals. This would be idea for space colonies, regardless of location (as I say in all of these threads, I'm partial to O'Neill colonies if you must have loads of people off Earth for some reason).

 

We already have the technology, though it's probably not at a TRL high enough for large scale use.

Cultured meat is an interesting technology...

[tater]

15 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

No offense, but that's 100% incorrect.  There's a reason why beans and rice are considered complementary in terms of diet - each supplies amino acids (in the form of proteins) that the other doesn't.  It's not a dense source of protein, granted, but it's there.
 

Yeah, my bad for making it an absolute statement. You are of course correct.

 

That said, rice is about 10X more carbs than protein. A guy might need to eat ~60 to 100+ g of protein a day (depends on who you talk to, plus what diet they think is ideal, which as far as I can tell is practically religious, lol)), and rice is ~4.3g protein/cup. Beans obviously improves this, but it's still on the starchy/carb end of things for a daily, forever diet, but I think such a serving gets you a lot closer to 20-something, which is a useful amount in a meal for sure.

I really meant as rice alone, not as part of a total diet. I'd think that living forever in a colony, you'd want more than rice and beans every meal (my buddy's dirty rice is awesome, but it's got andouille in it, lol).

Seems like cruciferous veggies would be something important to start with vs simple starches.

Chickens (for eggs) seem like an ideal animal product (and their waste can be used as fertilizer).

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, tater said:

I really meant as rice alone, not as part of a total diet. I'd think that living forever in a colony, you'd want more than rice and beans every meal (my buddy's dirty rice is awesome, but it's got andouille in it, lol).

Then we'll just pick colonists from cultures that are used to surviving on beans and rice!  That's semi-serious, semi-facetious...  A Martian colony has to be balanced around a wide variety of factors, and psychological effects (such as a monotonous diet for example*) are only one such factor.  Wide margins on Earth make it possible (at great costs) to allow us to avoid dealing with some economic realities head on, a Martian colony won't have that luxury.

(Let's not get into the politics inherent in that last sentence.  It's off topic and will draw unwanted mod attention.)

* The developed West (particularly the Anglosphere and Europe) are something of an aberration - we take a highly not-monotonous diet for granted.  That's a cultural thing, not an unchanging or unchangeable truth.

[tater]

16 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Then we'll just pick colonists from cultures that are used to surviving on beans and rice!  That's semi-serious, semi-facetious...  A Martian colony has to be balanced around a wide variety of factors, and psychological effects (such as a monotonous diet for example*) are only one such factor.  Wide margins on Earth make it possible (at great costs) to allow us to avoid dealing with some economic realities head on, a Martian colony won't have that luxury.

(Let's not get into the politics inherent in that last sentence.  It's off topic and will draw unwanted mod attention.)

* The developed West (particularly the Anglosphere and Europe) are something of an aberration - we take a highly not-monotonous diet for granted.  That's a cultural thing, not an unchanging or unchangeable truth.

That's very true. It's easy for me to parochially assume that anyone not eating different cuisines every night of the week would go mad, lol.

For the majority of human history, people had to eat whatever was within short walking distance of their camp, after all.

[tater]

 

[Green Baron]

We aren't even "colonizing" the deserts on earth.

[tater]

13 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

We aren't even "colonizing" the deserts on earth.

<looks out window>

You sure?

 

[YNM]

4 hours ago, Laie said:

AFAIK, flooding isn't strictly necessary. It's just that rice can withstand it, while many pests and weeds don't.

Very likely so (still doesn't change the fact there is some pest though, and often during the end drying period).

But inside a greenhouse you can control the weeds and the pests through introduced control (by clearing it out, and by using pest-killing insects).

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

bees to pollinate this grass

Have you ever seen the flowers on them ? Grass isn't attractive to flying insects.

20 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

We aren't even "colonizing" the deserts on earth. 

The US comes to mind...

[Green Baron]

47 minutes ago, tater said:

<looks out window>

You sure?

 

<Cuts the road and waits for the trek of beggars>

Yep. :-)

That's is not a desert where you live. Not even a steppe. It is greener than where i live and yet they grow bananas here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chihuahuan_Desert#/media/File:Antelope,_Otero_Mesa_NM.jpg

 

Am talking of Rhub al Khali, Gobi, Atacama, central Sahara ... you know what i mean i think.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Rhub+al+khali&amp;t=ffsb&amp;iax=images&amp;ia=images&amp;iai=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luomoconlavaligia.it%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2Fimage0026-Rub-al-Khali-Oman.jpg

Edited October 5, 2018 by Green Baron

[magnemoe]

1 minute ago, Green Baron said:

<Cuts the road and waits for the folks>

Yep. :-)

That's is not a desert where you live. Not even a steppe.

Am talking of Rhub al Khali, Gobi, Atacama, ... you know what i mean i think.

Capital of Saudi Arabia is in center of Rhub al Khali. Lots of cities in deserts however most along the coast but that is true for most cities anyway. 
People tend to live there its work, this tend to imply cities or resources like farming, fishing or mining. 
Cities tend to be trading hubs and most are old, you could build an city in an desert today but its kind of pointless unless you have an reason. 
Like its an port city or an tourist destination or strategic important. 

No city is not self sufficient, all cities need to import food anyway, you can cheat and use an city state with surrounding farmland or an fishing town, but I can siege it and discus this some months later  
this is very old news as in stone age. 

[tater]

I've been in the Sahara, and yeah, that's a serious desert. A piece of grass every several hundred meters was a green bit. None the less, there were still people there.

[Green Baron]

59 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Capital of Saudi Arabia is in center of Rhub al Khali.

Nope. ;-) It is outside.

Nevertheless, it is in a desert climate. If you cut it off from supply people will have to move elsewhere. Today, people rely on sea water desalination and pipelines of 100s of km, waste water treatment and in dwindling parts on fossil groundwater, but the table is sinking. Omani (and Morocco and others of course) desert farming relies in parts on fossil ground water, with the same future problems.

6 minutes ago, tater said:

I've been in the Sahara, and yeah, that's a serious desert. A piece of grass every several hundred meters was a green bit. None the less, there were still people there.

And still there is water only 2km or so away ;-)

 

Edit: what i am up to is building a self sufficient colony in these areas is a challenge that nobody has taken on for now. If there is a road and electricity, people may live there if supplied. Even build a farm in areas that allow tapping fossil water. But if you cut the supply routes they will have to leave. Which brings us back to the op question, or so. Or otherwise. Who knows ;-)

Edited October 5, 2018 by Green Baron

[tater]

12 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Edit: what i am up to is building a self sufficient colony in these areas is a challenge that nobody has taken on for now. If there is a road and electricity, people may live there if supplied. Even build a farm in areas that allow tapping fossil water. But if you cut the supply routes they will have to leave. Which brings us back to the op question, or so. Or otherwise. Who knows ;-)

Humans have managed successfully in pre-modern times in most every environment on the planet.

Still, some areas are far less populated than others, because they are nasty---and the nastiest place on Earth is a paradise compared to Mars.

[Green Baron]

 

11 minutes ago, tater said:

Humans have managed successfully in pre-modern times in most every environment on the planet.

Yes. In deserts around water holes and oases. The journey in between was (and is) dangerous.

I hesitated with the central Sahara because groundwater table isn't far away, there are oases. Still, 200 years ago a caravan had to plan thoroughly or risk the loss of beasts or people. Not so in the Rhub al Khali for example. People couldn't enter in there in pre-historic times, at least in phases with a climate like today.

Quote

Still, some areas are far less populated than others, because they are nasty---and the nastiest place on Earth is a paradise compared to Mars.

*hough*

:-)

 

Edit (i always edit): in principle all deserts on earth are geographical features with a limited lifetimes. They come and go, grow and shrink with climate and circulation patterns. Which makes them less dreadful for a geographer or geologist. Yet, even these guys and girls can die of thirst ...

Edited October 5, 2018 by Green Baron
darn editor

[tater]

Yeah, I think we're on the same page regarding habitability, though. Drop a human anywhere, naked, and they might die of dehydration after they run out of their own urine to drink in a couple days, or they might starve to death in a couple weeks. In many locations they will live indefinitely, however.

The time to death on Mars is considerably shorter. Minutes, in fact, every single time, regardless of where you drop them.

[YNM]

6 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Am talking of Rhub al Khali, Gobi, Atacama, central Sahara ... you know what i mean i think. 

Yeah, for those the only way out is for you to trade.

Someone said Sahel is getting greener, though.

[DerekL1963]

8 hours ago, Green Baron said:

We aren't even "colonizing" the deserts on earth.

We aren't colonizing anywhere on Earth where there isn't an economic incentive to do so.

[Cassel]

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

While there is a lot of grass for free, bees to pollinate this grass, parasites to control the bees population, bugs, worms, and larvae to eat the dear's manure, and thousand other agents in a natural balance we are leeching on.
And a lot of soil fertilized by humus, a lot of water, and so on.
Humans still haven't created anything workable like this even on Earth.
So, balancing such system would be a highly nontrivial problem with still no working examples of its particular solution.
It can be only a set of particular species grown for food. All such species are well known, humans eat them for millenia. So, the only thing to do with them is their optimization for the unusual conditions.

It is true that large living organisms are expensive to maintain, but the benefits we have gained from breeding such organisms have always been greater.

The fact that we ate something for millennia and does not hurt us means that it is a proven food and we can safely use it in an unproven environment, such as the base on Mars. In the meantime, you suggest using unproven food in an unproven environment, if something goes wrong and people will get sick, you will not know if it's the fault of food or the environment.

With proper construction of a hydroponic farm, animals could be raised using lighting used for plant growth. Beehive and bees would not hurt either.
If the dome was double-decker and downstairs, you would have animal breeding and, for example, a small meadow. At the top, the hydroponic farm with an almost transparent floor is the amount of light reaching the grass and the animals should be sufficient.
An additional plus of such a solution is that every 60 days you will not have to carry 27t of "green waste" from one point to another, only when collecting rice grains you would throw the waste into the chute that would lead to the animal feeder.

 

Quote

If the deer born healthy calves at 0.4g is also unknown. As well as can rice give some grain.
Unicellular specimens even don't know about "g"s.

Another good reason to grow deer on Mars. If such a large mammal has a problem with reproduction on this planet, there is a good chance that we will have similar problems there. Unless you prefer to experiment on children to find out?

 

Quote

It's what the chicken is in the very beginning.
Then such cell evolves in different ways according to the surrounding conditions. Feel free to make conditions in the vat to get appropriate chicken tissues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

Just not much sense in growing a whole part, it's easier to make a protein paste and mix it with other edible components.

There was a film "Atlas of Clouds" in which people fed on such a paste.

And from an economic and scientific point of view, why is it not our main source of food yet on Earth? And yes, because it is unproven and very expensive. The production costs of this food can be lower than traditional farms only if governments impose fines eg for using too much water for animal husbandry.

 

Quote

They did.

  Reveal hidden contents

But better we shouldn't.

I repeat, the addiction to technology has deprived people of the intellect. The fact that we should cease to be extravagant and more economical to approach raw materials management does not mean that we must use tools that were used hundreds of years ago. We can use modern tools only we need to learn to live more economically and pay more attention to how many things we waste. How many things we produce only for the sake of production, not for us to serve us as long as possible. In this sense, I wrote about returning to what was centuries ago.

 

Quote

But to grow the marrow you should grow the bone. 

Why do you need so much gelatine on Mars? To make the wooden furniture?

I grow many other useful things while growing this "bone".

I think the furniture on Mars will also be needed? Trees would also be an interesting idea. Maybe as a natural storage for some substances that will later be needed for the industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelatin#Uses

We need trees for furniture and apples :-)
"Gelatin is used for the clarification of juices, such as apple juice, and of vinegar. "

Also wood + metal
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2018/September/New-wood-metal-hybrid-for-lightweight-construction.html
 

Quote

Cotton is cellulose.
Cellulose, polymer fibers.

How much space and resources do you need for this? With the same space, you can breed a herd of deer on the skin.

@magnemoe
It is interesting that the Russians and Americans used leather and hardened leather for their space suits. On Mars, we'll also need suits, I'm curious how the leather (of course, after proper processing) would deal with the dust on Mars.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Cassel

[DerekL1963]

4 minutes ago, Cassel said:

An additional plus of such a solution is that every 60 days you will not have to carry 27t of "green waste" from one point to another, only when collecting rice grains you would throw the waste into the chute that would lead to the animal feeder.

Instead, you'll be constantly moving animal waste from one point to another.  And you'll still have lag in the system because just like "green waste", the animal waste takes time to process.  And as a special bonus prize - by raising animals, you'll simply throw away as much as 80% of the nutrition value that you could have had by using the plant material directly.

Animals are an extraordinarily wasteful form of food production.  A Mars colony cannot afford that level of waste.
 

8 minutes ago, Cassel said:

We can use modern tools only we need to learn to live more economically and pay more attention to how many things we waste.

Says the guy who is proposing the most wasteful form of protein production humanly possible.