3 ms·

Needs for net in-situ production, by section: 1) Drinking, hygiene, "everyday living": 0.07 kg/hr/person 2.1) Regolith processing: negligible. 2.2) Manufactu

by zeteo 11y ago

Needs for net in-situ production, by section: 1) Drinking, hygiene, "everyday living": 0.07 kg/hr/person 2.1) Regolith processing: negligible. 2.2) Manufacturing: 0.04 kg/hr/person 2.3) Perchlorate remediation: negligible. 2.4) Plant growth: 0.003 kg/hr/person 2.5) Habitat maintenance: 0.01 kg/hr/person Total: 0.123 kg/hr/person ===== In-situ sources: 3) Atmospheric processing (MARRS): 0.02 kg/hr/person 4.1) Robotic extractor (MISWE): 0.2 kg/hr 4.1) Bore hole digging rover w/ microwave heating: 0.3 kg/hr 4.2) Hothouse: 2.08 kg/hr (implied from Table 3) ===== Questions abound. Why are important quantities such as 2.2) and 3) estimated per person when their link to population size is very unclear? Why is the reserve in Fig. 1 an afterthought (sufficient for 6 months minimum consumption at best) when mission frequency is stated to be two years? Etc.

abraham6464 11y ago
> Why are important quantities such as 2.2) and 3) estimated per person when their link to population size is very unclear? The answer for 2.2) seems to be that this water would be mostly related to concrete production for habitat construction/maintenance. More people means more construction/maintenance. See: "Concrete production will most likely use the most water out of all the manufactured materials because that water isn’t easily reclaimed. And, although there may be more need for manufactured products towards the early stages of the colony, the amount required will be normalized to the amount of people in the colony." The explanation for 3) appears to be that this water is a byproduct of oxygen production, which occurs in proportion to oxygen consumption, which should be proportional to population size. See: "This amount relates to the water that would be extracted from the atmosphere during the process of extracting the required oxygen for breathable air (Wieland, 1998)."
- zeteo 11y ago
  Yes, I've seen the explanations in the paper but it's still confusing. 2.2) New construction should depend on population growth not population levels. In table 1, the population growth rate varies between 20% and 100% per mission, so it's hard to see the ratio (new construction)/population staying constant. 3) This assumes that a) all oxygen is produced from the atmosphere, none from the soil, plants etc. b) there will be no oxygen demand from manufacturing etc. Both assumptions seem quite tenuous.

by zeteo 11y ago

abraham6464 11y ago

> Why are important quantities such as 2.2) and 3) estimated per person when their link to population size is very unclear? The answer for 2.2) seems to be that this water would be mostly related to concrete production for habitat construction/maintenance. More people means more construction/maintenance. See: "Concrete production will most likely use the most water out of all the manufactured materials because that water isn’t easily reclaimed. And, although there may be more need for manufactured products towards the early stages of the colony, the amount required will be normalized to the amount of people in the colony." The explanation for 3) appears to be that this water is a byproduct of oxygen production, which occurs in proportion to oxygen consumption, which should be proportional to population size. See: "This amount relates to the water that would be extracted from the atmosphere during the process of extracting the required oxygen for breathable air (Wieland, 1998)."

zeteo 11y ago
Yes, I've seen the explanations in the paper but it's still confusing. 2.2) New construction should depend on population growth not population levels. In table 1, the population growth rate varies between 20% and 100% per mission, so it's hard to see the ratio (new construction)/population staying constant. 3) This assumes that a) all oxygen is produced from the atmosphere, none from the soil, plants etc. b) there will be no oxygen demand from manufacturing etc. Both assumptions seem quite tenuous.