05-03-2004 03:27									#121
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by The Viceroy No nitrogen whatsoever .. but not being a biologist, I couldn't really say what the effect of this would be .. any ideas ?? something tells me, it may not be too healthy.

There would be an effect for plants if lack of nitrogen in the atmosphere also meant lack of nitrates in the soils.

	05-03-2004 03:51									#122
	Full PM-box? Change here!

This didn't copy/paste as well as I hoped it would, but all the info is there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Mars Facts | Compositions (Soil and atmosphere)

Martian Soil Composition From Pathfinder (1997)

Element or Compound
A-2, Soil
A-4, Soil
A-5, Soil
A-3, Rock
"Barnacle Bill"
A-7, Rock
"Yogi"

weight %
weight %
weight %
weight %
weight %

C (Carbon) (note 1)
-
-
-
-
-

O (Oxygen) (notes 1,2)
42.5
43.9
43.2
45.0
44.6

Na (Sodium)
3.2
3.8
2.6
3.1
1.9

Mg (Magnesium)
5.3
5.5
5.2
1.9
3.8

Al (Aluminum)
4.2
5.5
5.4
6.6
6.0

Si (Silicon)
21.6
20.2
20.5
25.7
23.8

P (Phosphorus)
-
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.9

S (Sulfur)
1.7
2.5
2.2
0.9
1.7

Cl (Chlorine)
-
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6

K (Potassium) (note 3)
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.9

Ca (Calcium)
4.5
3.4
3.8
3.3
4.2

Ti (Titanium)
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5

Cr (Chromium)
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0

Mn (Manganese) (note 3)
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4

Fe (Iron)
15.2
11.2
13.6
9.9
10.7

Ni (Nickel)
-
-
0.1
-
-

Na2O (Sodium Oxide)
4.3
5.1
3.6
4.2
2.5

MgO (Magnesium Oxide)
8.7
9.0
8.6
3.1
6.3

Al2O3 (Aluminum Oxide)
8.0
10.4
10.1
12.4
11.4

SiO2 (Silicon Dioxide)
46.1
43.3
43.8
55.0
50.9

SO3 (Sulfur Trioxide)
4.3
6.2
5.4
2.2
4.2

K2O (Potassium Oxide) (note 3)
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.4
1.1

CaO (Calcium Oxide)
6.3
4.8
5.3
4.6
5.8

TiO2 (Titanium(IV) Oxide)
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.8

MnO (Manganise(II) Oxide)(note 3)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5

FeO (Iron(II) Oxide)
19.5
14.5
17.5
12.7
13.8


Notes:
(1) Direct results on C and O will be available from the analysis of alpha spectra at a later date.
(2) O is calculated from oxide stoichiometry, assuming S in the form of SO3 and Fe in the form of FeO.
(3) Values for K and Mn are upper limits; more accurate numbers will be available after further analysis.

Analysis based on X-ray data.
Values for potassium and manganese are upper limits; more accurate numbers will be available after further analysis.
Minor elements such as phosphorus, chlorine and chromium are omitted from this table.

Martian Atmospheric Composition

Element or Compound
Make-up

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)
95.23%

N2 (Nitrogen)
2.7%

Ar (Argon)
1.6%

O2 (Oxygen)
0.13%

CO (Carbon Monoxide)
0.08%

H2O (Water)
210 ppm* (0.021%)

NO (Nitrogen Oxide)
100 ppm* (0.01%)

Ne (Neon)
2.5 ppm* (0.00025%)

HDO (Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen)
.85 ppm* (0.000085%)

Kr (Krypton)
.3 ppm* (0.00003%)

Xe (Xenon)
.08 ppm* (0.000008%)

* = Parts-per-million

Sources:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetar...t/marsfact.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetar...pxs_table1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetar...th_results.html

	05-03-2004 04:05									#123
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I might point out that Mars is a little over 50% further from the sun than the earth, so the density of visible sunlight, UV light, and cosmic radiation will be about half that of the earth disregarding the absorption of the atmosphere.

When you contemplate the extraction of resources from the moon you have to take into consideration that the moon never had an active molten core. On earth the molten core is thought to have played a significant role in the accumulation of mineral ores into deposits concentrated emnought to make mining worthwhile. On the moon then it is unlikely that minerals will be found in concentrations worth mining. Since Mars may have at one time had an active core perhaps some mineral deposits may exist, but you know, traveling 60 to 240+++ miles to get them hardly seems worhtwhile.

If someone were to colonize the moon on the other hand they could build mass projectors giving them the capability of bringing every nation on earth to its knees.

	05-03-2004 04:34									#124
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove (...snip...) If someone were to colonize the moon on the other hand they could build mass projectors giving them the capability of bringing every nation on earth to its knees.

I'm for that!!!

	05-03-2004 05:27									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Dr Strangelove

First, a molten core has nothing to do with the minning capabilities of a dead planet (i.e. the moon). The moon is nothing more than a chunk of rock, most likely taken from the surface of some other planet with a molten core. Thus, it's chemisty is most likely consistant through out.... Leading to a more worthwhile reason why harvesting on the moon is not worth a damn.

However, this could be wrong.... Considering that we really have no idea what the core of the moon is made of, or if there are large deposits of some element within.

Second, your statement of Mars being so far away, but the throwing out the idea that it's atmosphere could attribute to creating favorable conditions is, IMO, the whole point! No one ever said that a planet need to be in the exact same point as earth.... Yet, it still makes you wonder, that if Mars contained water it most certainly contained the ability to contain life. Regardless of how far away from the sun it was.

Third, from DroseDars post: Silicon galore there? Silicon based life? I find it odd that while our earths surface is mostly Al, there's is Si... What are the consiquences? Life there, where it to exist, is/was not carbon based if the evolution theory holds... IMO, if we find evidence of carbon based life, evolution would not hold.

Think of this Al is 3+, Si 4+.... C is 4+ allowing for a competitive advantage of consolidating... What is 5+? N, P, As... = entities that would be deadly to humans! However, Si is highly reactive. Nothing exists purely as Si really. Thus, the question could still be up in the air.... Especially if we were able to determine what kind of atmoshpere did exist to sustain life.

	05-03-2004 05:55									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Dr. Strangelove, wouldn't the denisty of sunlight vary according to a cubic relationship. If Mars is 1.5 times Earth's orbit further away, the solar density sould be 1/1.5 cubed, or around 1.34 that of Earth.

However, the much highed CO2 content should be able to retain more solar heat.

	05-03-2004 06:01									#127
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: OK, Rogan. "We" American give you Europeans the right to explore the oceans. As to what "We" Americans do with our money, why not leave that to us.

He brought up a perfectly valid point that warrants a response. And a lot of Americans agree with him.

And its good to know that life works differently in the Nedaverse.

	05-03-2004 06:08									#128
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Ned: I don't think that 1.5 times the distance would have a really huge effect on solar density. I could be wrong.

	05-03-2004 06:10									#129
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned OK, Rogan. "We" American give you Europeans the right to explore the oceans. As to what "We" Americans do with our money, why not leave that to us. BTW, I can only hope that we claim Mars for the US and charge you guys rent if you want to visit.

I'd say you're welcome- it looks like Australia's Red Centre, only colder and less hospitable.

Still, it would only be a matter of time before you had those hallmarks of American culture sprouting everywhere- shopping malls, crack dens, gas stations and smog.


Loves ya, Neddy.

	05-03-2004 06:19									#130
	Tired of ads?

quote: Dr. Strangelove, wouldn't the denisty of sunlight vary according to a cubic relationship. If Mars is 1.5 times Earth's orbit further away, the solar density sould be 1/1.5 cubed, or around 1.34 that of Earth.

Squared, Ned. The radiation is distributed around a surface extending from the sun, which has a distance-squared dependence.

	05-03-2004 06:23									#131
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom I'd say you're welcome- it looks like Australia's Red Centre, only colder and less hospitable. Still, it would only be a matter of time before you had those hallmarks of American culture sprouting everywhere- shopping malls, crack dens, gas stations and smog.

You mean Starbucks, surely... the rest are optional.

	05-03-2004 08:08									#132
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: What is the point of even exploring Mars when we haven't fully explored the deep sea?

NASA is already devoted to understanding the Earth. Earth sciences gets ~ $1.5 billion per annum and the Sun-Earth connection gets ~ $800 million. Relatively little goes to speculative exploration like Mars -- $570 million. Other things like astronomy (~$900 million) are also well funded.

In the end, NASA is more about nifty aeronautics research and maintaining a military/civil space flight capability than anything else. $7.8 billion per annum.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2167main_04..._sum_030227.pdf

I agree that Mars is not really a worthwhile destination in the long run. Even a terraformed Mars wouldn't hold a candle to Earth. However, there is a good argument to be made for research diversification and some speculative research. You just never know what you'll find.

	05-03-2004 09:29									#133
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Japher Dr Strangelove First, a molten core has nothing to do with the minning capabilities of a dead planet (i.e. the moon). The moon is nothing more than a chunk of rock, most likely taken from the surface of some other planet with a molten core. Thus, it's chemisty is most likely consistant through out.... Leading to a more worthwhile reason why harvesting on the moon is not worth a damn.

That's essentially what I said. Since the moon doesn't have a molten core, it has not had streams of molten material projecting up to it's surface acting to concentrate minerals into deposits. It's fairly certain that the moon never had a molten core. I seem to recall somewhere that there was some evidence that Mars at one time may have had molten core. Whether it was around long enough to make a concentrate mineral deposits is not known.

quote: However, this could be wrong.... Considering that we really have no idea what the core of the moon is made of, or if there are large deposits of some element within. Second, your statement of Mars being so far away, but the throwing out the idea that it's atmosphere could attribute to creating favorable conditions is, IMO, the whole point! No one ever said that a planet need to be in the exact same point as earth.... Yet, it still makes you wonder, that if Mars contained water it most certainly contained the ability to contain life. Regardless of how far away from the sun it was.

That's not what I said. I said that it was too far away to profitably transport materials back to earth.

quote: Third, from DroseDars post: Silicon galore there? Silicon based life? I find it odd that while our earths surface is mostly Al, there's is Si... What are the consiquences? Life there, where it to exist, is/was not carbon based if the evolution theory holds... IMO, if we find evidence of carbon based life, evolution would not hold.

The idea of Silicon based life is unrealistic. Life requires polymeric macromolecules. You can't make them with Silicon.

	05-03-2004 17:06									#134
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Japher The moon is nothing more than a chunk of rock, most likely taken from the surface of some other planet with a molten core. Thus, it's chemisty is most likely consistant through out.... Leading to a more worthwhile reason why harvesting on the moon is not worth a damn.

Last 'accepted' theory I heard is that a planet of a similar size to Mars (called Orpheus) crashed into the Earth around 5 billion years ago, the Moon being created from the ejecta that remained in orbit after the collision.

quote: That's essentially what I said. Since the moon doesn't have a molten core, it has not had streams of molten material projecting up to it's surface acting to concentrate minerals into deposits. It's fairly certain that the moon never had a molten core.

I was under the impression that the 'marias' or seas of the Moon were created by the laval flows into the large impact craters. That suggests a molten core to me, at least for a few hundred million years.

	05-03-2004 17:32									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tripledoc What I am trying to say is that the reason advanced life is non-existent on Mars is a result of a very conservative microbe, anathema to any further advance of evolution.

Most original anti-conservative troll ever

	05-03-2004 18:31									#136
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I've got an economy question:

Is it possible to sustain life on mars through a starting investment only? If the answer is yes, or will become positive in 100 years, then I think we should start preparations now.

and though mars couldn't hold a candle to earth, We could always use criminals boost the initial settlement.

	05-03-2004 20:01									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Mars seems to have a molten core that's mostly iron. That seems to mean that it does have a magnetic field.

	05-03-2004 20:23									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Azazel I've got an economy question: Is it possible to sustain life on mars through a starting investment only? If the answer is yes, or will become positive in 100 years, then I think we should start preparations now. and though mars couldn't hold a candle to earth, We could always use criminals boost the initial settlement.

Difficulty, you could provide Food and O2 by means of Agricultural Domes and maybe use human waste as nutritients for the Plants.
But you will always have to get Supplies such as Spare Parts to Mars and will have to be prepared that Disasters coul happen, such as Meteors striking one of the Domes and the like.

	06-03-2004 00:31									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Azazel, I think Mars hotels, golf courses, wild animal parks, etc., and the like would be hugely profitable if the cost to get there were reduced to around $50k per person. Even if we could first land on Mars in '30, I wouldn't expect costs to go that low for at least 100 years. But the time will come.

	06-03-2004 00:33									#140
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

BTW, Dr. Strangelove, would it even be possible for females to give birth on Mars if the low gravity somehow affected the fetus, making it physically larger or more fragile than on Earth?

	06-03-2004 01:02									#141
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned BTW, Dr. Strangelove, would it even be possible for females to give birth on Mars if the low gravity somehow affected the fetus, making it physically larger or more fragile than on Earth?

If what you are saying is correct then they can simply give birth the cesarian way. This, actually, more and more earth-women are already choosing, but for entirely different reasons, I gather.

	06-03-2004 01:43									#142
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned Azazel, I think Mars hotels, golf courses, wild animal parks, etc., and the like would be hugely profitable ---

These were things we read in science fiction stories from the 50's, and still only a few 100 people has been to space. I can't see how space travelling could ever be profitable, except for some short orbit tourist trips around earth perhaps. Mars travelling takes years for each trip. Considering how little space travel has developed the last 30 years, I can't see how it would develop that much in the close future, unless funds are increased significantly (= an order of magnitude at least). And that will not happen.

	06-03-2004 02:25									#143
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Especially with all the people moaning "oh, we have too many problems here to deal with first!"



We really, really, really have to get off this rock.

	06-03-2004 02:39									#144
	Remove this text

I'm not saying we should stop spending money on space research, I'm just saying it woun't be fast and it will never be profitable.

	06-03-2004 03:16									#145
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If we get humans there, and equipment for it to be self sufficient, it WILL be profitable. becides, the whole concept of profit diminishes when you move from a planet to a planet, and transportation being essentially the only expenditure in interplanetary commerce.

In that case, what we need to establish in Mars is a complete material autarky. That means: agriculture, mining, manufacturing, services, all will have to be on mars. In that case, extrernal supply of general goods will be uncompetitive and redundant, limiting trade to tourism, entertainment, information, and limited amounts of luxury goods.

The only power that has the power, and the desire to create such a thing is a government interested in the progress of entire mankind since such a thing will NOT be profitable to it. ( What is it going to do to the new Mars territory? Tax it ?

	06-03-2004 03:22									#146
	Full PM-box? Change here!

confused 'profitable' with 'self-sustaining'.

I meant the latter, in the previous post.

	06-03-2004 04:08									#147
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Azazel confused 'profitable' with 'self-sustaining'. I meant the latter, in the previous post.

Yeah, there is a a certain difference between the words. If not, anyony who started a Mars exploration enterprise and registred at NASDAC would become billionarie.

	06-03-2004 04:25									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Not so. Plus, I don't exactly see any private company placing the thousands of people, and the shitload of equipment mars needs to begin, anyway.

They'll have to have:

-mines of various metal ores.
-smelting factories.
-manufacturing plants.
-energy sources ( no current solution, besides some sort of nuke power. Fusion ? )
-Agriculture.
-Chemical Industry: such an industry is a must for any industrial/technological society. And any other kind will not survive on Mars.

So, how much people will the smallest of mines require? the smallest of factories, and of plants? If we minimize everything, what's the minimum of people to get there, if it's to be self-sustainable?

I imagine the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands.

	06-03-2004 05:48									#149
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

One is not going to have private enterprise doing anything on the Moon or Mars until some governmental organization begins to grant real property deeds and concession rights. I think the US ought to enter into bilateral treaties with countries willing to invest in the development of Mars exploration to set up an interantional agency ala the IMF to issue such deeds and concessions. Participation on the Space IMF board would be proportional to members financial contribution.

	06-03-2004 05:52									#150
	Got spare money?

Its a bit early to be considering any of that. You can't really framework an organisation 30-50 years before you think it might be needed. It'll be outdated by the time its implemented.