Would-be Mars settlers plan one-way trip to Mars

Originally posted by humy

If they had electricity for electrolysis would they need hydrogen for fuel?

I would guess hydrogen would be pretty useless as a fuel there because there is no oxygen in the Martian atmosphere. The reason why hydrogen can be readily be used as a fuel on Earth is because it burns (or, alternatively, chemically oxidizes in a fuel cell if a fu ...[text shortened]... s is required for that to happen but, on Mars, it wouldn't burn in the atmosphere there at all.

But electrolysis of water gets you both. After you get H2 and O2, they can be piped into fuel cells which have a long history of excellent reliability. And the output of the fuel cells: water. It's a win win situation if you ask me.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But electrolysis of water gets you both. After you get H2 and O2, they can be piped into fuel cells which have a long history of excellent reliability. And the output of the fuel cells: water. It's a win win situation if you ask me.

electrolysis requires electricity and thus you would not create any more useful chemical energy than you would use up in the form of electrical energy! and then, if you put that chemical energy into a fuel cell, you would just convert that chemical energy BACK into electrical energy which is what you had in the first place! So I fail to see the point of that! And, in addition, because those energy conversions will not be 100% energy efficient, you would LOOSE some of that useful energy in the form of waste heat thus making it even more pointless!

I suppose you could merely use the hydrogen and oxygen to STORE energy but that is far from the best form of energy to store it in because they are gases at room temperature and pressure! Far better to use something like a solid battery to store energy from electricity which is naturally nice and compacted and generally won't escape as a gas if it gets a leak!

Of course, electrolysis of water gets you breathable oxygen which you can use for just that. But then you would not want to use up all the the hydrogen as the by-product in a fuel cell because that would use up all the very oxygen you have just created thus leave you nothing to breath! However, the hydrogen as the by-product could be used for other things. In particular, if you chemically combine it with CO2 using solar energy, you could in theory make sugar and food although you could use plants for that and without the need for hydrogen gas.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What could they bring back to Earth?

Advertizing.
They could have a 24 hour feed of their lives over several channels. What do you think the first birth would rake in? More or less than the Royal baby?


They could have things like clothes shipped to them from earth paid for by sponsors.
They could do real science and charge NASA for it.

Originally posted by humy
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-space-cadets-line-one-way-mars.html
“...
More than 200,000 people from 140 countries have applied to go to Mars and never return, the group behind an ambitious venture to colonize the [b]inhospitable red planet said Monday.
Bas Lansdorp, a Dutch engineer and entrepreneur, plans to establish a permanent base on Mars in a miss ...[text shortened]... pace let alone sending a load of insane people on virtually suicidal one-way missions to Mars![/b]

Maybe they'll send Karl Rove there!

Originally posted by bill718
Maybe they'll send Karl Rove there!

It would take three trips just to get all his chins over there.

Originally posted by humy
electrolysis requires electricity and thus you would not create any more useful chemical energy than you would use up in the form of electrical energy! and then, if you put that chemical energy into a fuel cell, you would just convert that chemical energy BACK into electrical energy which is what you had in the first place! So I fail to see the point of that! A ...[text shortened]... ke sugar and food although you could use plants for that and without the need for hydrogen gas.

There are chemicals that store H2 and O2 in hydrides, very safe and the idea for all that is for portability. For transport, cars, trucks, whatever scheme comes about on Mars. It would be just like home and electric cars, except power would come from PV cells, but electricity would be sent out to homes with H2 and O2 generators. If PV cells were cheap enough, they could perhaps power cars directly, since a 1000 Kg car would only weigh 380 Kg and so forth, but of course it would still take the same energy to accelerate since it would still have the inertia associated with 1000 Kg. The problem there is Mars gets less energy from the sun than Earth does so there would have to be either extremely efficient cells or more of them.

Eventually fusion will be solved, maybe in 20 or 30 more years and all that will be in the past. One thing for sure. They will never burn fossil fuels there! Since there is not enough O2, that particular source of energy is going to be strictly Earthbound. So solar to start with, less energy available from the sun or not, will have to be the energy of choice, what happens next is up in the air, may the best system win.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There are chemicals that store H2 and O2 in hydrides, very safe and the idea for all that is for portability. For transport, cars, trucks, whatever scheme comes about on Mars. It would be just like home and electric cars, except power would come from PV cells, but electricity would be sent out to homes with H2 and O2 generators. If PV cells were cheap enoug ...[text shortened]... ll have to be the energy of choice, what happens next is up in the air, may the best system win.

The problem there is Mars gets less energy from the sun than Earth does

Arr yes, but there is compensation: the extremely thin atmosphere there means less solar energy is scattered via Rayleigh scattering back to outer space before it has a chance to reach the ground plus there usually less cloud (although there is often massive dust storms -that could be a big problem! But you could stick to just putting your colonise on the highest mountains there where the dust storms rarely reach in full force? ) plus no ozone layer to block UV means I would guess the average solar intensity striking the ground of Mars is much closer that what you would otherwise expect to being about the same as that striking the surface of the Earth despite it being further away from the Sun! Plus the light reaching the surface is normally direct sunlight there making it easier for solar reflectors to be used.
I think there would be enough solar energy there to make solar energy practical despite less than ideal conditions. Energy storage for when there is little sunlight could be more of a problem.

Originally posted by Soothfast
It would take three trips just to get all his chins over there.

But would it be worth the huge cost to get rid of him and all his chins?....sorry, silly question.

Originally posted by humy

The problem there is Mars gets less energy from the sun than Earth does

Arr yes, but there is compensation: the extremely thin atmosphere there means less solar energy is scattered via Rayleigh scattering back to outer space before it has a chance to reach the ground plus there usually less cloud (although there is often massive dust stor ...[text shortened]... n ideal conditions. Energy storage for when there is little sunlight could be more of a problem.

Solar works even on Mars, rovers prove that. Maybe you put solar cells on Olympus Mons and send wires down the hillside to the buried colonies. You still have the day/night energy storage problem we have here on Earth though.

We still have to work up viable methods to endow Mars with a magnetic field.

It might be that you wouldn't need a whole planet solution, local fields could protect a town or state maybe.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But electrolysis of water gets you both. After you get H2 and O2, they can be piped into fuel cells which have a long history of excellent reliability. And the output of the fuel cells: water. It's a win win situation if you ask me.

If they make it there alive, they want get back alive anyway.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy
But would it be worth the huge cost to get rid of him and all his chins?....sorry, silly question.

I say shoot the chins into the sun. Such added fuel would enable it to burn an extra billion years.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I say shoot the chins into the sun. Such added fuel would enable it to burn an extra billion years.

Well it IS carbon and the sun is in the middle of the carbon-carbon cycle.....

Originally posted by RJHinds
If they make it there alive, they want get back alive anyway.

The Instructor

If they want to get back, assuming they make it there safely, they had better be prepared to start their own rocket building company, the rockets that land on Mars will be unable to get them off again. They would be landing rockets only, not takeoff capable.

The gist of that is, if they commit, they are committed for life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Advertizing.
They could have a 24 hour feed of their lives over several channels. What do you think the first birth would rake in? More or less than the Royal baby?


They could have things like clothes shipped to them from earth paid for by sponsors.
They could do real science and charge NASA for it.

How many watched Armstrong on the moon?
How many watched subsequent lunar landings?

The general public bore easily. 😞

Originally posted by wolfgang59
How many watched Armstrong on the moon?
How many watched subsequent lunar landings?

The general public bore easily. 😞

America demands a clown circus on the Moon. Imagine the possibilities for the jugglers alone!