Posted on 09/03/2018 7:35:51 AM PDT by BenLurkin
For a potential prize of $1 million, the government space agency is inviting the public to submit ideas about how to turn carbon dioxide, which is plentiful on the red planet, into glucose, which is more useful for human consumption. The goal is to allow astronauts to visit Mars with fewer materials and ultimately “to enable humans to live and thrive on the planet.”
...
NASA has also asked for help controlling a humanoid robot in a simulated mission to Mars and with building “sustainable housing for deep space.”
NASA isn’t the only organization trying to get people on Mars. Boeing and SpaceX are also working on plans to get humans to travel to and colonize Mars, and Elon Musk says SpaceX could begin a mission to Mars as early as 2022.
Entries for the CO2 Conversion Challenge are open through January 24, 2019.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
Exactly.
Maybe a little of complacency, apathy, and laziness. Remember that the fear of Communism and the Soviet Union drove us forward technologically. It is those times of adversity that motivate us. That and the old independent nature of the American spirit.
No doubt, technology has advanced. But more latterly than in a forward direction. I guess that we need to decide what is important. Just my two cents. :)
Why did the Vikings come to North America? Seeking land and resources? But, they only found wood and grapes for wine. Not worth the risk of crossing the North Atlantic in open boats. Ships and nav were too primitive for the trade.
The Spanish after Columbus fared better. They found gold, silver, and jewels that made Spain the richest country in Europe for over 100 years.
Why will people go to outer space, the High Frontier? Same reasons: power, wealth, and freedom.
Any nation that controls the High Frontier has air, naval, and land superiority over all other nations on Earth. A rock hitting the ground at 7 Km/sec has enormous energy. Chicom leaders, mostly engineers, KNOW this.
In terms of wealth, the mineral resources of merely the near Earth asteroids dwarfs the gold of the Aztecs in relative value. Sure, you can mine on Earth, but someone, often hostile governments, controls those minerals.
In space, no one owns the asteroids. However, it is established international law that if you mine it, you own it. Otherwise, how can the USA own the rocks we returned from Luna?
In terms of freedom, imagine industry and commerce with no earthly laws, regs, or taxes. If you don’t like the neighbors, move your habitat to a new location.
When I think of space colonization, I think of O’Neill type rotating habitats. Using AI and robotics, we can use the enormous amounts of iron, aluminum, titanium, etc. available to build whatever we want.
AI, robotics, genetic engineering, etc. can fuel a lot of economic growth. But, physical resources, i.e., minerals, will always be needed.
Humans require air, water, food, artificial gravity a la rotating habitats, and protection from radiation. Meet those minimum requirements and we can go anywhere and exploit whatever resources we find.
I understand that such an option is not for everyone. But, humans have colonized every possible environmental niche from the tropics to the arctic...using stone tools.
No new technology is required to colonize the High Frontier. Chemical rockets and spaceplanes work just fine to get to low Earth orbit. After that, nuke thermal rockets, which we developed over 40 years ago, are adequate to get to Jupiter and beyond. For nuke thermal reaction mass, you can use the abundant water found in near Earth carbonaceous chondrite asteroids.
Ad astra!
Sounds good. However, even the most extreme places on planet Earth are nothing compared to space. Cold, no oxygen, radiation, very harsh environment for food production. Short term, long term it is the most extreme. This has to be overcome.
Unlimited solar energy at several times the power/square meter available on Earth’s surface, unlimited resources, no environment to pollute, no natives, gravity level of our choosing via rotating habitats, non-corrosive environments, low delta V to get anywhere in the inner Solar System....lots of benefits.
Oxygen? Lunar regolith and near Earth asteroids loaded with it. Carbon? Lots of carbonaceous chondrites with abundant hydrocarbons. Smelting? Just focus sunlight using mirrors to get any desired temp.
Yes, it is challenging, but so was the ocean for early humans. Look what we do now with deep ocean drill ships.
It’s an engineering and finance problem, not a technology problem.
In addition to being an aerospace engineer, I got a masters in Econ. I learned to look at the long run.
In the long run, humans WILL colonize space. The current question is if you have to learn Mandarin to get a job there.
I take they want a cheap and easy industrial process to accomplish this. Mighty generous of them to offer a $1 million bucks for a process that will quickly net them a $1 trillion dollars or more.
Agreed. What is clear is the need for a self sustainable spacesuit. A means to strip the o2 from cow. Something that requires energy. Probably a lot of energy.
Agreed. What is clear is the need for a self sustainable spacesuit. A means to strip the o2 from co2. Something that requires energy. Probably a lot of energy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.