Mars... Future Robot Mining Extraction Base?

[Bill Phil]

10 hours ago, K^2 said:

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.

We actually know the abundance of elements in the lunar surface fairly well. Aluminum, titanium, magnesium, iron, and the like are fairly abundant on the surface. Copper might be less abundant than on Earth's surface, but not greatly so. There are likely deposits with higher concentrations, though as technology advances one trend is the increasing use of lower grade ores, both because of necessity but also because technology makes it practical. Even now something like 20% of copper production is done with bioleaching, using low grade ores or waste from mines because the high grade stuff is depleted. As for carbon - there isn't "no carbon", the abundance is tiny. There is carbon. In trace amounts. Probably not useful amounts. But if we're talking near term we can source carbon and other volatiles from Earth until a better source is developed. Asteroids could be used though Venus's atmosphere is filled to the brim with CO2. For other volatiles asteroids would be preferred though. The Moon actually did have volcanism in the past, possibly as recent as a few hundred million years ago. Lava flows were also common. Abundant iron, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, and oxygen will definitely be useful. Other elements can be sourced from other locations - Earth initially but over time a robust infrastructure for using asteroids and other planets can be developed. But there's not much reason to put the actual industry on or around Mars.

11 hours ago, K^2 said:

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.

I wouldn't call that convenient. Cycler orbits are still bound to the limitations of the synodic period. Shipping things from Mars to Earth could take years between production and consumption. If we were to go this route then nuclear or solar electric will likely be used. Not to go fast, but one interesting thing about low thrust trajectories is that they're less sensitive to transfer periods (a trajectory can be plotted for almost any time within a given delta-v constraint, might take longer though for sub-optimal trajectories). So you can pack a million tonne (or larger) cargo ship with cargo and send off on its merry way at virtually any time. Place it in a high orbit over Mars so that spiraling out doesn't take too long, or even give it a push using chemical engines. Then just spiral down to Earth's orbit and brake into a high orbit there. Rendezvous with a spaceport and offload cargo.

Thing is that might be better suited for delivering raw materials, so there's not much need for industry on Mars beyond the needed amount to extract raw materials. Then similar vehicles could be used to deliver raw materials from all over the inner solar system (except Mercury because the vehicle may not be powerful enough to overcome the Sun's gravity there) and the asteroid belt. 

11 hours ago, K^2 said:

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.

The Belt has infrastructure issues as well. But industry there is likely to be centered on the largest asteroids. And more advanced propulsion technology - such as any flavor of nuclear pulse propulsion - would enable less awkward transport. Though I suspect any industry in the Belt will be decentralized, with each small industrial center having its own source of the various elements needed and only needing small shipments for other elements, except for the cases where there are larger industrial sites. With abundant energy (solar is still usable in the Belt) low abundance for elements isn't that much of an issue. And even then, the largest industrial product will likely be the very habitats the people live in. I wonder if the disassembler part of a Santa Claus machine could be developed in the next few centuries. With abundant enough energy it may be possible to do without too much hassle. Then pretty much every naturally occurring element is available, in different amounts based on their local abundance. 

I see Mars as a source of raw material, but not as an industrial site. That would be better suited in orbit. And if industry in Earth orbit is more advanced and developed as it likely will be then it will likely be cheaper to just ship raw materials from Mars to Earth. 

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

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.

Mars is there indeed. But why bother settling it? From a utilitarian point of view it would serve the species far better if we were to use it purely as a source of raw material. Earth has sentimental value, but Mars has less sentimental value. For a species looking to expand that has sufficient energy abundance, why not completely disassemble the planet? The energy required is significant but it may be available. If the project were to take a century it would require an average power of 1.542E21 joules - an enormous amount but that's only millionths of the output of the Sun. Since energy supply can increase exponentially the process could be shorter, though it may be more economical to make the process take longer to reduce the required power. If our future civilization has access to a black hole or Q-balls (if such a thing is even possible, which isn't really known) the process could even be bootstrapped in energy terms since the energy supply would grow as the amount of extracted mass grows. So it could even be self supporting in energy terms. 

But why disassemble Mars? Well, assuming 30 tonnes per square meter for a space habitat the mass of Mars would provide something like 20 trillion square kilometers of area. Less if the mass of Mars is used to power the process. And of course there are other things that the mass can be used for. That's a very long term prospect, but it is possible and likely preferable to settling Mars.

And before that it would still serve better as a source of resources in a more conventional context: raw materials sent to the major industrial center of the Solar System. That's likely to be the Earth-Moon system. But it could be something else.

The question isn't "why take advantage of Mars", it's "why live on Mars". There are superior alternatives in habitat terms and there are better uses for the planet itself.

[Spacescifi]

51 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

 

But why disassemble Mars? Well, assuming 30 tonnes per square meter for a space habitat the mass of Mars would provide something like 20 trillion square kilometers of area. Less if the mass of Mars is used to power the process. And of course there are other things that the mass can be used for. That's a very long term prospect, but it is possible and likely preferable to settling Mars.

And before that it would still serve better as a source of resources in a more conventional context: raw materials sent to the major industrial center of the Solar System. That's likely to be the Earth-Moon system. But it could be something else.

The question isn't "why take advantage of Mars", it's "why live on Mars". There are superior alternatives in habitat terms and there are better uses for the planet itself.

 

Hold up... the solar system is actually balanced... remove a planet here or there and the other planets WILL know it.

It may take few million years, but the result may be chaos. Planets flying off into deep space and what not.

Lifeless planets may seem like they do nothing, but they actually tug on each other gravitationally, and even small amounts add up ovet time.

I have no clue what disassembling mars would do. My guess, Earth orbit is likely changed a bit, and venus mercury or venus may or may not be headed for deep space unless we humans playing gods fix that.

As an example, even Earth switching places with Mars would cause chaos according to compuyer simulations of gravity.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-would-happen-if-earth-and-mars-switched-places/

I cannot see how disassembly of Mars won't change the solar system planetary orbits.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Spacescifi

[Bill Phil]

4 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Hold up... the solar system is actually balanced... remove a planet here or there and the other planets WILL know it.

It may take few million years, but the result may be chaos. Planets flying off into deep space and what not.

Lifeless planets may seem like they do nothing, but they actually tug on each other gravitationally, and even small amounts add up ovet time.

I have no clue what disassembling mars would do. My guess, Earth orbit is likely changed a bit, and venus mercury or venus may or may not be headed for deep space unless we humans playing gods fix that.

As an example, even Earth switching places with Mars would cause chaos according to compuyer simulations of gravity.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-would-happen-if-earth-and-mars-switched-places/

I cannot see how disassembly of Mars won't change the solar system planetary orbits.

Oh yeah certainly. But if we're at the point where we can disassemble Mars in reasonable time frames then we can move planets in reasonable time frames as well. This is because the total energy is similar. And if the instability gives us millions of years until it devolves into chaos... well, we'll be in an even better situation then. Or extinct. Either way it's not that big of a deal.

[Spacescifi]

16 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Oh yeah certainly. But if we're at the point where we can disassemble Mars in reasonable time frames then we can move planets in reasonable time frames as well. This is because the total energy is similar. And if the instability gives us millions of years until it devolves into chaos... well, we'll be in an even better situation then. Or extinct. Either way it's not that big of a deal.

 

The only place I would consider doing this is scifi... and even there it is a hard sell.

One race is naturally responsibly inclined, so much that if they agree not to accept bribes in their line of work and feel tempted to do so, they will literally resign from their job and accept one that DOES allow for accepting bribes within certain criteria (they have such things).

With that kind of mentality, I do not see them wanting to change planetary orbits. Knowing full well that it would wreck their climate.

Another race is divided into three factions running one planet, amd there is no way they all agree on planetary orbit change.

Also, in both cases the races are long-lived (millenia-forever), so there is a good chance messing with orbits WOULD effect them later.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

 

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Expansion is nature of species.

When the estimated profit exceeds the cost, otherwise Cortez and Columbus were crossing the ocean in a boat.

Or/and when the population is growing fast and requires more plowland.
The human species stops doing this at the tech level of 1960s, replacing the extensive models of development with the intensive ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Asteroids have much higher concentration of precious elements

Just several of them, and this still doesn't mean that they are covered with platinum dust.
They just have 0.001 instead of 0.0001, and it's not obvious if this is cheaper than to extract them from poor ores right here..

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

most plants can be grown in hydroponic systems in large greenhouses.

So, instead of just planting a plant into the ground under sun and wait, every ear of rice needs pumps, fans, and lamps.
Instead of partially self-produce the fertilizers (and also do the pest control) just by the crop rotation, every piece  of that should be chemically manufactured.

And either instead of the sun light for free, they should be lightened by lamps, or every square meter of the field should be encased into a sealed glass box.

"Of course, it's possible, sir, but very expensive." (c) old joke.
 

Spoiler

Actually this makes algae the only agricultural species for space (grows fast and can be packed in 3d).
But in this case you don't need area on the Mars, you can go with depth on the Earth.

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Nuclear energy is unlimited

But the nuclear equipment is not, as well as the heat capacity of the colony, especially when you don't have enough water around to use it as heat sink, like it's done here, on the Earth.
The terrestrial nuclear plants are warming the ocean, by warming a river or the air, then the heat gets brought to the huge volume of water.
On the Mars that''s not so easy to make the waste heat go.

So, the Martian colony would look like a small town near the nuclear powerplant, rather than a large city surrounded by green.
And can a town even here on the Earth buy a nuclear plant enough powerful to replace the sun? What should it produce to sell?

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

(is there phosphates available on Mars?)

They are, but mostly you need ammonium nitrate, which fully dissipates exactly like it appears.

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

insect farms can produce proteins in much less room, energy and raw material than usual domestic animals.

It's even strange that instead of a barn with crickets and larvas the humans are getting headache with pigs and cows.
Also, the locust should be treated as a blessing rather than a plague.

Still can't google how many kilograms of grass or grain do the crickets eat to produce 1 kg of meat.
Usually, small animals eat more food per body mass than big ones do.

Still can't see many samples of cricket farms of a pig farm total productivity.
Idk, maybe because herding a fishtank of crickets at home differs from doing this in a pig farm scale.

Probably, we should await the results of @cubinator's experiment with crickets. I hope, he's logging the total mass of the eaten food and the crickets total mass.

Even the SE Asian peoples who routinely consume the insects, still prefer to herd pigs and chickens for some reasons.

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Mars will be high tech civilization from very beginning without option for primitive lifestyles.

And such high tech civilisation unlikely needs the Mars or another planet.
Why, if they anyway live and grow the food in artificial medium under artificial light?

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

It is primitive intelligence. Real intelligence changes body, if it is impossible or impractical to change environment

The body changing is the way to nowhere, because:

1. It requires to follow the medium changes enough fast, while the speed of the body evolution is very limited. So, it reduces adaptability.

2. When conditions changes beyond the body's range of possibilities, the species gets extinct. That's normal for expendables, but inappropriate for the unique sapient one.

3. Not every change keeps your intellect intact. There are diceases when the change of just one protein production affects both body shape and intellect. Actually we know just one correct combination of proteins providing a sapient species, and any significant change would most likely lead to an ill goblin with intellect of macaque, rather than to an exquisite Martian race. But feeling comfy at 0.4 g.

4. This splits your civilisation in competing civilisations. So, they will either conflict and make wars, or (most likely) the dominant natural subspecies will suppress the others' development, which is limited from the very beginning. Also, this most probably would lead to the back engineering, when the Martian subspecies tries to turn back into normal humans, blaming their ancestors.

8 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

Earth have examples of adaptations to very strange conditions.

Earth, as well as the whole known Universe, has just one example of a sapient species, and it definitely prefers to change the conditions, rather than the body.
Nobody grows hairs on the body (well, except the beard, but it grows on its own) instead of putting on a coat.

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Copper might be less abundant than on Earth's surface, but not greatly so. There are likely deposits with higher concentrations

No water, no volcanism, no geothermal plumes bringing sulfides up to the surface and making spots of concentration.
No water to have ancient oceanic sediments.

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Cycler orbits are still bound to the limitations of the synodic period. Shipping things from Mars to Earth

requires same delta-V regardless of hitchhikable asteroids.
And building a flying hangar in space doesn't differ from building a flying hangar in space next to a flying rock.
So, the cyclers are a pure sci-fi idea.

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

But industry there is likely to be centered on the largest asteroids.

And the largest asteroids are many time smaller than the Moon, and contain either metal, or water, or carbon, buth never at once.
So, to transfer resources between the asteroids you need a travel, either lasting for years or comparable to the flight to Jupiter by delta-V.

This makes the asteroid belt almost useless, except if you had found a spot of palladium to extract and forget.

Edited July 7, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Hannu2]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

 

When the estimated profit exceeds the cost, otherwise Cortez and Columbus were crossing the ocean in a boat.

Time period when "profits" are calculated only in money is relatively short. I think that it is just adapting to industrialization and will probably go over over centuries. Most of humankind history profits have included much more than just simple money. Probably any of historical monuments have not been profitable in modern way of calculate. But superpowers states and their leaders have chosen to do so instead of just increasing soldier and weapon production which have probably been more profitable.

In past centuries profit included religious and ideological things etc. and in coming centuries driving ideology may be for example monumental scientific projects, like colonizing of Mars. At least I hope so. And of course personal objectives of mighty individuals have been and will be very important.

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, instead of just planting a plant into the ground under sun and wait, every ear of rice needs pumps, fans, and lamps.

Instead of partially self-produce the fertilizers (and also do the pest control) just by the crop rotation, every piece  of that should be chemically manufactured.

And either instead of the sun light for free, they should be lightened by lamps, or every square meter of the field should be encased into a sealed glass box.

"Of course, it's possible, sir, but very expensive." (c) old joke.

Exactly. Every breath of air needs fans, filters, carbon dioxide scrubbers, control systems, power generation etc. Mars will not be a nice place to go live easy life with low budget. As you said, it will not be profitable business. If Mars is colonized reasoning is ideological exactly like most of current science or Apollo project was.

It it was profitable in terms of modern business, first colonies would have been established already by biggest companies (owners of them). But because it is ideological it has to wait until technological level and economic production will increase so that willing small part of people can begin it. Much like Apollo had to wait that missile technology produced working rockets and basic space tech after which developing of manned operations or moon operations came economically possible propaganda tricks in cold war.

But without military applications I am not sure if orbital rocket had been launched yet. Who had paid massive development decades without any profit before first communication satellites?

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

But the nuclear equipment is not, as well as the heat capacity of the colony, especially when you don't have enough water around to use it as heat sink, like it's done here, on the Earth.
The terrestrial nuclear plants are warming the ocean, by warming a river or the air, then the heat gets brought to the huge volume of water.
On the Mars that''s not so easy to make the waste heat go.

On Earth decision of a reactor is very political and number of reactors is important thing. It favors technically very non-optimal huge reactors which need sea or big river to cool and are passively non-safe. Large reactor need running active cooling weeks or months after shutdown. We have sad example in my country, new very large reactor have delayed about a decade and been many times more expensive than estimated. But there is so much authority and money in project that it can not be canceled. But they got permission to build exactly one reactor. If they had built two with the same total power plant had been run a decade and produced billions to owners.

Martian reactors will be much smaller passively safe units. Cooling of 100 MW is much more manageable than cooling of 1 GW. Small reactors have been planned on Earth too, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

They are, but mostly you need ammonium nitrate, which fully dissipates exactly like it appears.

There is nitrogen in Martian atmosphere and hydrogen in ground (as water). They may be combined to ammonia and further processed to nitrates with similar chemical processes than is used in fertilizer production on Earth.

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It's even strange that instead of a barn with crickets and larvas the humans are getting headache with pigs and cows.
Also, the locust should be treated as a blessing rather than a plague.

Locusts are like many dangerous things in industrial society, like toxic chemicals or uranium 235. They are good in controlled processes they are intended to work but bad if too large amounts are released to environment. Animal production of Earth is not good example. Many people have attitude against insects and vertebrates is cheap to grow.

My information is from local guy who try to get crickets as profitable business. So I do not have references and this is not scientifically valid. He have container like units. They are easy to replicate if needed and production would be possible to scale industrial size if there were markets. Old ranch could produce more tonnes of crickets than beef with minor modifications on buildings.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Still can't google how many kilograms of grass or grain do the crickets eat to produce 1 kg of meat.
Usually, small animals eat more food per body mass than big ones do.

If I remember correctly he said that crickets produce about 5 times more proteins than cows from same amount of vegetable food. Consumption per body mass depends on activity. Invertebrates do not need to keep body temperature and crickets do not need to use energy to search food or avoid predators. Crickets grow in optimal conditions in less than 2 months which is much less than growth of cow.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Still can't see many samples of cricket farms of a pig farm total productivity.

This depends only on attitudes and economy. There is no technical limitations. Crickets can not compete economically with vertebrates under current regulations. Traditional agriculture including animal production is heavily supported in most countries. There are big economical support, regulations allow significant harm to environment and ethical regulations are sad jokes. But regulations are expected to be tightened which increases vertebrate meat price much more than insect meat.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The body changing is the way to nowhere, because:

1. It requires to follow the medium changes enough fast, while the speed of the body evolution is very limited. So, it reduces adaptability.

I thought artificial manipulations. They affect immediately (when individual grows, but do not need geological periods like natural evolution).

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

2. When conditions changes beyond the body's range of possibilities, the species gets extinct. That's normal for expendables, but inappropriate for the unique sapient one.

All modifications must be tested. It is impossible to change whole population's genome. All manipulations affect only to one individual and his offsprings.

Of course there is clear ethical problems and I do not see good way to overcome them. My guess is that there will be collapsed states and dictators very long time and they drive biological development regardless ethical considerations. Dictators will fall but rest of the world begin to use scientific data. Not nice way to proceed, but history is not nice and it would be credulous to expect that future will be.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

3. Not every change keeps your intellect intact. There are diceases when the change of just one protein production affects both body shape and intellect. Actually we know just one correct combination of proteins providing a sapient species, and any significant change would most likely lead to an ill goblin with intellect of macaque, rather than to an exquisite Martian race. But feeling comfy at 0.4 g.

There will be failures like in all technical development. Therefore I mentioned huge ethical problems. But when ethical things have limited human stupidity over long periods? Your critics is what prevents to proceed now in our relatively civilized states, but not based on any natural laws or other impossible things. They are just current human decisions.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

4. This splits your civilisation in competing civilisations. So, they will either conflict and make wars, or (most likely) the dominant natural subspecies will suppress the others' development, which is limited from the very beginning. Also, this most probably would lead to the back engineering, when the Martian subspecies tries to turn back into normal humans, blaming their ancestors.

Civilization is split in any case when it begins to spread to space. Or one or some factions of already splitted civilization, which seems more realistic situation. Exactly like it was split in history when people moved to other continents to make colonies. They developed, began to compete with founders, declared independent, fought for independence etc. It will not be anything new or prevent development. At least I do not see reason why.

Probably very advanced technical civilizations are less inclined to competition at all levels. In long run most productive civilization wins and competition is not the most productive way to make things. It leads to parallel work, intentional harming etc. well known issues. I do not see reason why current state of social development would be absolute maximum for our species. Societies have developed during millennia and will develop in future too. Development is slower than scientific or technological development, but as sure in long run.

 

 

[kerbiloid]

24 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

Time period when "profits" are calculated only in money is relatively short. I think that it is just adapting to industrialization and will probably go over over centuries. Most of humankind history profits have included much more than just simple money.

Well, almost all of them were done either for food, or for money, or to found a new colony which will be bringing food and money because the old place is already too overpopulated.

25 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

Probably any of historical monuments have not been profitable in modern way of calculate. But superpowers states and their leaders have chosen to do so instead of just increasing soldier and weapon production which have probably been more profitable.

Almost all of them were built to more effectively rule the people who bring profit.
Or to pleasure the local gods to ask them for something, usually very mundane.
Also, the greatest artists and composers have created there best masterpieces on somebody's paid order.

32 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

In past centuries profit included religious and ideological things

As an important part of the state management system.
But I can't remember any crusade or colonisation for science. Most of people are too practical for that.

33 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

in coming centuries driving ideology may be for example monumental scientific projects, like colonizing of Mars.

Colonisation has very little common with science. You don't need to study every stone to know everything about them all.

37 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

Exactly. Every breath of air needs fans, filters, carbon dioxide scrubbers, control systems, power generation etc.

On the Earth it doesn't.

39 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

If Mars is colonized reasoning is ideological exactly like most of current science or Apollo project was.

Apollo project was funded to show off in the "space race" and after the complex crysis of mid-1950s to show who's the first guy in the town.
It was much cheaper than the Mars colonizationm and not so many people would now and on prefer building a Martian colony instead of paying their bills.

And as we can see, almost 50 years have passed since the last lunar flight, and nobody cares.

As the Martian rovers have already delivered the inspiring picture of lifeless, cold, dry, toxic desert, not so many people would have an interest anymore.
You need at least a hill of gold or an alien derelict ship to really attract them.

55 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

There is nitrogen in Martian atmosphere and hydrogen in ground (as water). They may be combined to ammonia and further processed to nitrates with similar chemical processes than is used in fertilizer production on Earth.

And you can't use the crop rotation to reduce the required amount of that buy feeding the soil with remains and wastes of the previous species to fee the next one.
So, yes, the Martian agriculture is more expensive per tonne.

58 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

My information is from local guy who try to get crickets as profitable business.

Exotic food to try it once or twice, so it's profitable while stays in this niche.

But why do the SE Asians who calmly eat the insects as snacks, still prefer herding pigs and chickens for food?
Unlikely from superstitions. I believe, many of them have tried.
I guess, either the insects are not so cheap or not so edible to eat them daily.

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

If I remember correctly he said that crickets produce about 5 times more proteins than cows from same amount of vegetable food.

I've read this, too, but still couldn't find any concrete numbers.

A pig requires about 3..4 times of its mass to reach the required conditions. A cow ~8..10 of its masses, but eats grass.
A shrew eats 1.5..2 of its mass per day.
The cricket is smaller than them all, but is cool-blooded, but lives at warm temperature. So, how much food in kilograms to grow 1 kg of cricket meat, and which food is mentioned (grass, grain, another meat)?

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

Crickets can not compete economically with vertebrates under current regulations. Traditional agriculture including animal production is heavily supported in most countries.

Who could stop a Chinese peasant from growing crickets aside the silkworms, instead of the pigs?
Do they do it?

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

All modifications must be tested

Unlikely somebody will utilize a thousand of expendable babies at the lunar base to get one surviving ten weeks longer.

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

collapsed states and dictators

unlikely care about Martian colonization.

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

There will be failures like in all technical development. Therefore I mentioned huge ethical problems. But when ethical things have limited human stupidity over long periods? Your critics is what prevents to proceed now in our relatively civilized states, but not based on any natural laws or other impossible things. They are just current human decisions.

If the ethics was the only obstacle, it would already be done.
But this modification requires a lot of changes, so in the best case the result will just survive enough long time to realize that it's completely brainless.

On the other hand, if can modify the biological objects so easily, why that Mars? Just grow a live house, lay on bed, and give commands. So, in this case the body modification looks excessive.

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

Civilization is split in any case when it begins to spread to space. Or one or some factions of already splitted civilization, which seems more realistic situation. Exactly like it was split in history when people moved to other continents to make colonies. They developed, began to compete with founders, declared independent, fought for independence etc. It will not be anything new or prevent development. At least I do not see reason why.

But they are not competing incompatible species.

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

Probably very advanced technical civilizations are less inclined to competition at all levels.

Academicians and lawyers also don't beat each other's face (well, mostly), and speak politely.
But when they compete, hyenas are trembling with fear.

[cubinator]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Still can't google how many kilograms of grass or grain do the crickets eat to produce 1 kg of meat.
Usually, small animals eat more food per body mass than big ones do.

Still can't see many samples of cricket farms of a pig farm total productivity.
Idk, maybe because herding a fishtank of crickets at home differs from doing this in a pig farm scale.

Probably, we should await the results of @cubinator's experiment with crickets. I hope, he's logging the total mass of the eaten food and the crickets total mass.

Insects need about 1/6 the feed mass that large vertebrates need. There are lots of numbers in this book: http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/i3253e.pdf

So far I haven't had to replace much food in the 2 weeks or so I've been working. My second generation hasn't hatched yet, either, so it seems it can take a while to get these things going. I'm actually going to visit a commercial cricket farm on Thursday to ask them all about how this stuff works.

I log the mass of everything I input and output. The food container doesn't change very quickly right now.