Mars... Future Robot Mining Extraction Base?

[Spacescifi]

 

I just don't see Mars...being the endless desert without breathable air that it is, with toxic soil to cap it off, ever being a place humans will WANT to live.

Unless we pushed it closer to the sun,  even then major terraforming is required. A fixer upper is an understatement for Mars. We would have to literally either add mass to the planet to hold a proper atmosphere or somehow blanket/shield it to keep thicker air brought by us from escaping.

 

 

For every world humans ever visit in the future, we won't stay unless we make it like home or it already is.

Even then, what about human to human behavior?

Everyone always gets along... right?

Everyone shares limited colony resources equally all the time right?

No colonists will ever murder another right?

Well... assuming humans act like 2020 coronavirus humans?

LOL NO!

I played a game that had quite the real angle on the human side  of other world colonization.

Mars won't even have half of the resources as an Earth-like world, but human nature?

Consider it brought. On. If they come, drama will follow. Just like a baby born crying into the world.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

(Reads the title.)

Quote

Mars... Future Robot Mining Extraction Base?

(Keeps reading)

Quote

Even then, what about human to human behavior?
Everyone always gets along... right?
Everyone shares limited colony resources equally all the time right?
No colonists will ever murder another right?
Well... assuming humans act like 2020 coronavirus humans?

Finally, got it.
The Martian colonists, who had murdered another one, will be sent to exttract resources instead of mining robots.

That's wise.

[benzman]

I have no faith in talk of terraforming other planets.  The only planet that we have any experience of terraforming is the Earth, and that has not gone well.

 

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, benzman said:

I have no faith in talk of terraforming other planets.  The only planet that we have any experience of terraforming is the Earth, and that has not gone well.

 

The KSP game forum is like a cold shower of realism on the romatics' heads.

[K^2]

Mars feels like a good industrial base. Low gravity and thin atmo means rail launch is viable. I'm just not sure if it's substantially better than Moon for it.

For a colony world, Venusian cloud cities all the way.

[Nightside]

On 7/3/2020 at 2:20 PM, benzman said:

I have no faith in talk of terraforming other planets.  The only planet that we have any experience of terraforming is the Earth, and that has not gone well.

To be pedantic, we are actually veneraforming the Earth.

14 hours ago, K^2 said:

Venusian cloud cities all the way.

No need to travel to Venus, just wait here for a few decades.

...

On 7/2/2020 at 9:07 PM, Spacescifi said:

For every world humans ever visit in the future, we won't stay unless we make it like home or it already is.

Even then, what about human to human behavior?

There are lots of aspects to human nature. The urge to explore has been a major influence. There are lots of justifications for exploration, such as pursuit of knowledge, resources, treasure, glory, labor, etc, but essentially there will always be people willing to push hard on the limits of technology to do something and go somewhere new. 

[Okhin]

On the other hand, a planet sparsely inhabited by human, with an environment that's can be locally altered to be human friendly (dome settlements), with a lot of robots doing all the work. Count me in. As long as you keep other people out, I'll be happy to be there, farming robots, rovering through Mars surface, making things work.

The main issue on Earth is population density. But with one human per 100 km² on Mars, it should be viable :D

(Yeah, I don't really like people)

[Spacescifi]

12 minutes ago, Okhin said:

On the other hand, a planet sparsely inhabited by human, with an environment that's can be locally altered to be human friendly (dome settlements), with a lot of robots doing all the work. Count me in. As long as you keep other people out, I'll be happy to be there, farming robots, rovering through Mars surface, making things work.

The main issue on Earth is population density. But with one human per 100 km² on Mars, it should be viable

(Yeah, I don't really like people)

 

Mars... when your super rich, and really, really want to be left alone to do whatever you want.

Ivo Robotnik would love it!

 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Okhin said:

The main issue on Earth is population density.

The main issue is the amount of water for irrigation. Hewmans can be packed.

Say, we need 20 m² of appartment per hewmmo, with 2.8 m high ceiling. That's ~55 m³.

There are ~8 bln of them. So, ~500 bln m³ = 500 km³ of total habitat volume.

If it was a spherical asteroid, it would be just 10 km in diameter.

But say, they live in a 50 m high structure. So, they need ~10 000 km2 of urban area to store the whole humanity.
That's a circle  ~120 km in diameter

Say, the city should be surronded with green zone where the humans should spend their time when they don't sleep.
Say, this park should be available from any place in any direction in less than 10 minutes by subway.

Say, the train starts accelerating at 0.5 g to reach 50 m/s speed (180 km/h or 100 knots).
It will reach this speed in 50/(0.5*10) ~=10 seconds. Acceleration distance ~= 50² / (2*0.5*10) ~= 250 m.
So, it needs 20 seconds and 500 m to start and finish.
The rest of 10 minute long distance = (10 * 60 - 20) * 50 = 29 000 m.

So, the 50 m/s fast subway allows the city to be ~30 km wide.
Let it be 20 km wide.

Then we need (120/20)² = 36 → so, 100 such cities for whole humanity.

You live in an appartment cell surrounded by other cells, but you don't even see them.
Just your elevator delivers you to the urban transportation system, and several minutes later you get to the green park.

***

But the lack of water (already collected and distributed) can be replenished only by desalination, and this requires a lot of energy to be produced and equipment to be manufactured.
And the more of it is required, the more expensive it gets, due to the scale factor and lack of available water to desalinate.

***

And Mars doesn't have a lot of water.

[Hannu2]

On 7/3/2020 at 7:07 AM, Spacescifi said:

 

I just don't see Mars...being the endless desert without breathable air that it is, with toxic soil to cap it off, ever being a place humans will WANT to live.

Why not? Most of Earth cities seems quite nasty places to live for me and my house in middle of nature in subarctic climate would be very nasty for most of people in World. Such things depends on culture and changes quite rapidly. Probably virtual reality equipment will help such problems in quite near future.

On 7/3/2020 at 7:07 AM, Spacescifi said:

Unless we pushed it closer to the sun,  even then major terraforming is required. A fixer upper is an understatement for Mars. We would have to literally either add mass to the planet to hold a proper atmosphere or somehow blanket/shield it to keep thicker air brought by us from escaping.

Terraforming of planets is technomagic and  I believe it will be forever. I think it will be far more easy and far more economical to manipulate humans genetically to adapt in microgravity than terraform planets suitable for current humans. Maybe majority of humans live in massive space stations after couple of thousands of years and planets are for some extremists, scientists or fundamental religious people. Then there will not be any reason to terraform planets even it will be possible at some day. Planets and their life and distinct geological phenomena may be protected instead of colonized.

On 7/3/2020 at 7:07 AM, Spacescifi said:

Even then, what about human to human behavior?

I think this is very bad problem in first colonies. It makes also generation ships incredible in my opinion. There will always be problems with power and abuse and it is impossible to make colony immune to sabotage if someone is willing to die for revenge. And we know that there will always be such people.

But on the other hand, it has been problem always and there is change to survive. We have to just change our attitude from modern nitpicking to risk handling of exploration era. We begin ten colonies. When all of them fail we begin hundred new. Eventually some of them grow over critical phase and will be immune to human behavior. In very distant future it is probably possible to manipulate also behavior intentionally and create a successor species suitable for cosmic civilization.

I think ability to make intentional genetic manipulations will be as important steps in history of life than multicellular organisms, aerobic metabolism or transfer from sea to dry land. Of course not in our lifetimes or in immediately foreseeable future but in short time compared to history of human as species and several orders of magnitude shorter time than history of life. It may be reason to branch humans from biologic kingom Animalia to some new kingdom which controls reproduction and evolution intentionally with high technology instead of natural selection and other biological evolution mechanisms.

 

[Spacescifi]

4 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

 In very distant future it is probably possible to manipulate also behavior intentionally and create a successor species suitable for cosmic civilization.I think ability to make intentional genetic manipulations will be as important steps in history of life than multicellular organisms, aerobic metabolism or transfer from sea to dry land. Of course not in our lifetimes or in immediately foreseeable future but in short time compared to history of human as species and several orders of magnitude shorter time than history of life.

Regarding moving mars... theoretically it can be done if one is willing to wait AND has thousands of tons of antimatter at rheir disposal... but I admit that that is ridiculously beyond than modern capability.

For what it's worth... I toyed with the idea of a techno-god like race that for all intents and purposes appears to be AI, but the innards actually do have biological components.

Post contact with modern humanity causes them to do what they always do... create new races based on the ones they encounter... and then travel back in time and alter the past so that the created races lived and advanced far before and after humanity was made.

They use a mix of Earth lifeforms to create new humanoid races in the past, then tell Earth in the present what they have done and say "You kept dreaming of world you thought you would never see. Until now. Be careful what you wish for. They are coming."

And with that, the techno-god race leaves and the story properly begins.

At any rate giving a plausible reason why the aliens look humanoid (the technogods who made them do not).

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Spacescifi

[K^2]

7 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Why not? Most of Earth cities seems quite nasty places to live for me and my house in middle of nature in subarctic climate would be very nasty for most of people in World. Such things depends on culture and changes quite rapidly. Probably virtual reality equipment will help such problems in quite near future.

It's less of "Why not Mars?" and more of, "Why Mars specifically?" Yeah, I'm sure we can turn Earth into enough of a toxic dump that Mars would be acceptable as an alternative. "Same toxic soil and unbreathable atmosphere, but with way fewer neighbors? I'm in!" The problem with that is by the time we can start turning Mars into something self-sustaining, we'll have better options. Mars provides minerals and ice. So do a lot of asteroids out there. Mars provides a little more than 1/3 Earht's gravity. Is that enough for long term habitation without severe health issues? I don't know. I do know that a centrifugal station in orbit doesn't cost that much more than Mars habitat, and will give me a standard gravity making sure I stay healthy. Everything about Mars that feels like an advantage at the first glance is actually just more problems. Gravity? Just makes coming and going harder. Atmosphere? Barely there, but enough to result in dust storms. Radiation protection? Moving a bit further from the Sun, into the asteroid belt, is actually more effective, given the lack of magnetosphere on Mars. In a lot of ways the Moon is a better place for permanent habitation, and that's not in my top 3.

Short term, Mars can turn into a fantastic industrial base. If we crank up environmental protection laws on Earth to 11, it might be cheaper to do metallurgy and maybe even a lot of fabrication on Mars. But I wouldn't expect anyone to actually be living on the planet for that. To extract intermediate products from the surface and to bring in equipment, there will have to be a robust rail-launch system on the planet. So it's going to be way better to have workers have permanent habitation on Mars' orbit, probably collocated with all of the shipping, and have workers come to the surface to work. It's likely to be fly-in, fly-out setup, rather than commute, but it's still going to be closer to our presence on ISS than a real permanent habitation.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Most of Earth cities seems quite nasty places to live for me and my house in middle of nature in subarctic climate would be very nasty for most of people in World.

Any crops around? Or your city is parasiting (technically, not morally) on the places with warm climate, soil and water, which deliver the food to your site?
If the latter, the Mars doesn;t have such places, it's arctic to subarctic everywhere.

And there is no soil on the Mars at all. So, at the best you can grow greenhouse cucumbers.

7 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

to manipulate humans genetically to adapt in microgravity

The most important advantage of being sapient is the ability to change the medium rather than the body.
(If any radical physiological changes are possible at all).

[Bill Phil]

43 minutes ago, K^2 said:

It's less of "Why not Mars?" and more of, "Why Mars specifically?" Yeah, I'm sure we can turn Earth into enough of a toxic dump that Mars would be acceptable as an alternative. "Same toxic soil and unbreathable atmosphere, but with way fewer neighbors? I'm in!" The problem with that is by the time we can start turning Mars into something self-sustaining, we'll have better options. Mars provides minerals and ice. So do a lot of asteroids out there. Mars provides a little more than 1/3 Earht's gravity. Is that enough for long term habitation without severe health issues? I don't know. I do know that a centrifugal station in orbit doesn't cost that much more than Mars habitat, and will give me a standard gravity making sure I stay healthy. Everything about Mars that feels like an advantage at the first glance is actually just more problems. Gravity? Just makes coming and going harder. Atmosphere? Barely there, but enough to result in dust storms. Radiation protection? Moving a bit further from the Sun, into the asteroid belt, is actually more effective, given the lack of magnetosphere on Mars. In a lot of ways the Moon is a better place for permanent habitation, and that's not in my top 3.

Basically this. There's no real benefit to settling Mars and there are not only viable but arguably superior alternatives. 

43 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Short term, Mars can turn into a fantastic industrial base. If we crank up environmental protection laws on Earth to 11, it might be cheaper to do metallurgy and maybe even a lot of fabrication on Mars. But I wouldn't expect anyone to actually be living on the planet for that. To extract intermediate products from the surface and to bring in equipment, there will have to be a robust rail-launch system on the planet. So it's going to be way better to have workers have permanent habitation on Mars' orbit, probably collocated with all of the shipping, and have workers come to the surface to work. It's likely to be fly-in, fly-out setup, rather than commute, but it's still going to be closer to our presence on ISS than a real permanent habitation.

I don't know about using Mars as an industrial base for anything used on Earth. If it would be cheaper to do metallurgy and fabrication on Mars because of the law then it would be even cheaper still to do that metallurgy and fabrication either in orbit or on the Moon. The logistics of using Mars in that way is the main problem. So basically the setup would be exactly as you describe only on the Moon, plus some space manufacturing since there are some products that would benefit from free fall conditions. 

There's not much in metal terms that can't also be found on the Moon. The biggest issue with the Moon is the lack of volatiles. Perhaps the Martian moons or some other asteroids could serve as good sources for those. Maybe Venus's atmosphere could be used to source nitrogen and carbon, though that would suffer large logistical issues as well. 

Though if industry grows enough it may eventually run into a cooling problem, if the area available for radiators is limited to the surface of the Moon. Of course the Moon itself could serve as a heatsink, but that may not be desirable. It may be beneficial to place large industry in space for this reason. But that's a fairly long term problem.

[kerbiloid]

Unlike the asteroids, Mars has both CNHO (atmo, ice) and metals (Phobos, Deimos) at the same place.
So, it allows to produce plastic and metals for rough low-tech things.

So, Mars can be used as a fully automated infinite spawner of mass-produced standard crewless simple crafts like probes, sun reflectors, space antennas, etc.
(Any complicated equipment should be just delivered from the Earth.)
The engineers (several thousands) can just live in a rotating orbital station for several years, like the arctic oil drillers.

But none of them are for the Earth itself, they are to capture the Solar system in whole.

Also it will be a backup storage of materials (metals, plastic) and data to quickly restore the Earth after a cataclysm.

Edited July 6, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Orc]

Hi all,

Before you start talking / debating Terraforming or settling Mars read the classics:

https://www.amazon.com/Terraforming-Engineering-Environments-Martyn-Fogg/dp/1560916095

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/145160811X

and maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mars_Project by  Wernher von Braun

 

Firstly keep in mind that these works are now older than the majority of people on Planet Earth. 

Zubrin lays out a technical plan to get humans to Mars (and back, which some folks think is important) using Space Shuttle era left overs. He addresses most of the technical issues, including long term habitation and dismisses the "sirens" that people raise against the idea (IIRC Go back to Moon First, Cosmic Radiation/ Solar storms,  zero-gravity and bone and muscle wasting, human psychology, and probably a couple I'm not remembering). He does not address Terraforming, IIRC. There is apparently an updated version of the Plan using SPACEX equipment but I haven't read it. But all the key elements of living on Mars are addressed, shelter, food, water, breathable air, light and then heavy industry, energy sources, and how to make the fuel and oxidizer for your trip home.

Martyn Fogg takes a much longer look at things, including the truly EPIC like changing planetary orbits (hint: It's not impossible just VERY EPICALLY EXPENSIVE, and you'll probably end up increasing the planet's overall mass in the process - it will still SUCK to be living there for a couple of thousand years, even after the project is deemed finished). Terraforming is the stuff of a species that has shed its one-planet mentality, and has learned to take the long view on things.Perhaps a species that routinely lives two or three centuries instead of six decades. Even the relative quick fixes like solar radiation collectors that focus the equivalent of several times Mars's natural energy quota on the poles take hundreds or even thousands of years to make a difference. You're playing a very long game when you want to change a planet's environment. That all said, in Fogg's mind, and his calculations Mars is the easiest candidate in the solar system. A couple of the Gas Giant moons look more favorably until you factor in the Gas Giant's magnetic field and what it does to charged particles in the solar wind. Hint: Jupiter has Van Allen Radiation Belts that make Earth's look ... well... quite inferior... humorous even. Despite speculation in the 60s and 70s of ''çloud seeding'' Venus's atmosphere it is a total freaking nightmare, its probably easier just to demolish it and redo. For those of you following the link to Amazon. Note: the book is out of print and the people who have it are selling it for ridiculous amounts. I got my copy new for less than 10% of the price being asked. If anyone knows who to contact about getting another printing done, or convincing the copyright holders to allow a PDF publication please do so.

Von Braun? I included him for reference sake to show how technology can makes things change. I have a copy of an updated version of the Mars Project (updated during the early Apollo Project, I think). In the initial version he disregarded hydrogen-oxygen or kerosene-oxygen propulsion in favor of a ridiculously nasty hypergolic mix of nitric acid and hydrazine, because the hypergolic mix was storable even though he knew it had a much lower performance. Less than two decades later the same man recants and writes that even with LOX and LH2 lousy storage they're a better choice because the engines developed in the last two decades are so powerful and will shave thousands of tons and dozens of launches off the mission plan. Other things also disappeared or changed over the two decades. Initially all radio communication for the Mars mission would have been done through Morse Code, because of the mass of existing radios. By the time Armstrong and Aldrin touched down on the Moon they took TV cameras with them and were in constant voice contact with mission control. The manifest for Mars Project also included tons of coffee and mechanical computers for the multiple navigators, so that they could remain alert and precise while double checking each others calculation for the next trajectory adjustment. By the time that the Saturn V was finalized one of its stages (2nd I think) was carrying a 50 pound concrete ballist where a guidance computer would have been. The actual guidance computer had shrunk from a 50 pound monster to a sub-1 pound object in just five years. The equivalent computer today would probably fit on an SD card. 

 

Anyway, Mars awaits us. Who has the courage to go? If not this generation, or the next, then who?

 

Regards

Ork

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Tsiolkovsky was developing a whole universe terraforming, so Zubrin's and von Braun's projects are just a pale shadow of his ones.
However, same realistic.

Maybe Mars is waiting for us, but he should stand in the end of the queue after Antarctics, Sahara, Kalahari, and several tens of other such places which at least have breathable air, and in some cases, drinkable water.

[K^2]

4 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

I don't know about using Mars as an industrial base for anything used on Earth. If it would be cheaper to do metallurgy and fabrication on Mars because of the law then it would be even cheaper still to do that metallurgy and fabrication either in orbit or on the Moon.

I'm very far from being even competent on exogeology, but it seems like Mars has way better odds of having abundance of metals near the surface due to volcanism and tectonics in its past. Best chance for metals other than iron oxide and a handful of others on lunar surface is meteorite impacts. If we can get everything we need on the Moon in abundance, great, but it seems doubtful from the first glance. Just looking at general mineralogical composition, there's no carbon on the Moon. Even if you find a way to refine iron from the oxides found on the surface, no way to make such basic material as steel. Copper also looks like a problem, so aluminum alloys are also a problem. Mars has far richer geology and seems like it would give great opportunities for mining.

Mars is also conveniently located. It's a little far, true, but there are known cycler orbits that would make it very convenient both to send equipment from LEO or lunar gateway to Mars and to send goods from Mars to Earth. Shipping down here on Earth can take months, we still get things manufactured where it's cheap, not where it's convenient. 7-8 month shipping time from Mars seems entirely reasonable.

The next convenient mining location is the asteroid belt. The problem there is that while it's pretty good for raw resources, it's not fantastic for actual industry. A lot of the things we make require an entire pallet of raw resources. The simplest of titanium alloys require a source of titanium, aluminum, and tin. Good luck finding all of that on the same asteroid. And failing that, moving things about the belt is actually awkward. Depending on how quickly you want things moved, sending things to Earth might be cheaper than moving things from one part of the belt to another. On Mars, while I don't expect all of the necessities to be found conveniently in one location, you can have a literal railroad moving raw resources about. That planet's practically made for being turned into a giant factory. The only significant problems are the dust that you'll have to deal with and lack of rivers and lakes for easy cooling solutions. But this feels less like a barrier, and more like reason to build infrastructure differently.

[wumpus]

4 hours ago, K^2 said:

The next convenient mining location is the asteroid belt.

Except that the asteroid belt isn't sitting deep in a gravity well,  so once you mine an asteroid you can easily ship it where needed.  Granted, this is going to require either expensive ore or cheap robotics (technically near-zero interest rates would help, but that's almost certainly an illusion or hidden subsidy), because the *time* till your return on investment is going to be brutal.

It is entirely possible that you might send multiple probes out to locate ideal asteroids, unfurl a solar sail, reverse slingshot around Jupiter to Venus, reverse slingshot at venus, and finally capture at Earth.  Some of those asteroids would effectively break the current market for that ore, and only be valuable as either some sort of monopoly (like DeBeers) or finding new uses for said ore (like having platinum catalysts available everywhere, or replace copper conductors with gold).

- never heard of a golden asteroid, but you *know* you would get investors to go grab it.  It wouldn't matter how irrational, you'd get investors.

[Spacescifi]

 

Heh heh.... so what you are saying is... if Mars was the Golden planet INSTEAD of the Red planet, being covered with golden dust and diamonds on the soil, with platinum ore beneath... we would have a space program that was much farther along?

Because I find it really hilarious that the answer is probably YES!!!

Humans and their wants. To infinity and beyond lol.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Spacescifi

[wumpus]

30 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Heh heh.... so what you are saying is... if Mars was the Golden planet INSTEAD of the Red planet, being covered with golden dust and diamonds on the soil, with platinum ore beneath... we would have a space program that was much farther along?

Because I find it really hilarious that the answer is probably YES!!!

Humans and their wants. To infinity and beyond lol.

There would be funding, but you wouldn't start to make a profit until you produced all your return propellant on Mars and cutting costs in similar fashion.  And even then you'd probably be too deep in debt to ever make a profit on those things.  NASA is planning some sort of "Mars rock return" mission, don't even think of looking at the price tag vs. the total weight of cargo  returned.

16th Century Spain had effectively infinite amounts of gold and silver thanks to the new world.  But the biggest effect of all that "wealth" was to crash their economy.  So even if Mars had all that it would be of limited use (although industrial uses for gold and platinum are probably worth it).

[K^2]

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

Except that the asteroid belt isn't sitting deep in a gravity well

Mars is low enough gravity and thin enough atmo for rail launch. It's effectively free to ship cargo from Mars once you have an industrial base there.

Edited July 6, 2020 by K^2

[Hannu2]

15 hours ago, K^2 said:

It's less of "Why not Mars?" and more of, "Why Mars specifically?"

Because Mars is there. Expansion is nature of species. It does not have to be advantageous to individuals who make them, except indirectly through good feeling to do something special. Scientific curiosity, technical development, need to break barriers, display of power etc. will be driving force.

Technically it would be better to make huge space stations. Probably both will be done in distant future. Production and environmental protection and living room may be more important reason for space stations.

 

15 hours ago, K^2 said:

Short term, Mars can turn into a fantastic industrial base.

It is as difficult to see advantages in industry compared to asteroids and space stations. Asteroids have much higher concentration of precious elements and no problems of gravity, weather, seasonal and/or diurnal cycles, gravity well etc. I think that sentimental humans can colonize Mars and other larger bodies, because they are there and it can be done, but reasonable industry goes to asteroids and stations.

[Hannu2]

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Any crops around? Or your city is parasiting (technically, not morally) on the places with warm climate, soil and water, which deliver the food to your site?
If the latter, the Mars doesn;t have such places, it's arctic to subarctic everywhere.

Mars colonies will be dependent of Earth support centuries from beginning. But probably basic agriculture is one of the first  things to do independent. High tech stuff is much more demanding without proper infrastructure. There will not be open fields like on Earth, but most plants can be grown in hydroponic systems in large greenhouses. Nuclear energy is unlimited without strict environmental and national security limitations and give warm and light if needed more than Sun can deliver. If some elements are rare (is there phosphates available on Mars?) they must be recycled very carefully.

 

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And there is no soil on the Mars at all. So, at the best you can grow greenhouse cucumbers.

And most other vegetables. Also potatoes grow very well in hydroponics. It is energy and vitamins for humans. For example insect farms can produce proteins in much less room, energy and raw material than usual domestic animals. If some specific nutrition stuff is not available, it is easy to produce chemically. Mars is certainly not right place for those who appreciate natural lifestyle without artificial food additives (and whole food, water, air, everything). Mars will be high tech civilization from very beginning without option for primitive lifestyles.

 

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The most important advantage of being sapient is the ability to change the medium rather than the body.
(If any radical physiological changes are possible at all).

It is primitive intelligence. Real intelligence changes body, if it is impossible or impractical to change environment (like terraforming of planets certainly is). Earth have examples of adaptations to very strange conditions. It must just be learned to do.

[Spacescifi]

57 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

Mars colonies will be dependent of Earth support centuries from beginning. But probably basic agriculture is one of the first  things to do independent. High tech stuff is much more demanding without proper infrastructure. There will not be open fields like on Earth, but most plants can be grown in hydroponic systems in large greenhouses. Nuclear energy is unlimited without strict environmental and national security limitations and give warm and light if needed more than Sun can deliver. If some elements are rare (is there phosphates available on Mars?) they must be recycled very carefully.

 

And most other vegetables. Also potatoes grow very well in hydroponics. It is energy and vitamins for humans. For example insect farms can produce proteins in much less room, energy and raw material than usual domestic animals. If some specific nutrition stuff is not available, it is easy to produce chemically. Mars is certainly not right place for those who appreciate natural lifestyle without artificial food additives (and whole food, water, air, everything). Mars will be high tech civilization from very beginning without option for primitive lifestyles.

 

It is primitive intelligence. Real intelligence changes body, if it is impossible or impractical to change environment (like terraforming of planets certainly is). Earth have examples of adaptations to very strange conditions. It must just be learned to do.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/24/food-grown-in-fake-mars-soil-probably-wont-kill-you/%3foutputType=amp

Eating martian grown plants could kill you since the heavy metals can get into the plant.

A simulation of Martian soil grown plants on Earth was relatively safe, except for the radishes (too high metal content).

My guess is there will need to be some kind of filitration technology to help filter out the martian toxins just to be sure.

Better than just eating and hoping.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Spacescifi