6 ms·

One view point: it's a waste of space and fuel to launch livestock with humans to a colony in the early days. Seeds and enough reserves to keep going would take

One view point: it's a waste of space and fuel to launch livestock with humans to a colony in the early days. Seeds and enough reserves to keep going would take up much less space. Another view point: livestock isn't just useful for food, cultures and civilisations have been turning livestock into food, clothing, tools and other resources for centuries. It could be useful. I know some people find it abhorrent we exploit animals as resources (not me personally), but Musk seems like a pragmatist. If it makes sense to send a bunch of meat loving carnivores to Mars with a ship hold full of livestock then that'll be the option. On the upside, if they're using a liquid oxygen/methane rich mixture for the fuel they'd have a natural source of methane by having livestock.

stcredzero 14y ago
Given power and hydrogen, methane can be efficiently produced on Mars using the Sabatier reaction. Even getting the hydrogen by electrolysis of local water, this should be many times more efficient than raising pigs to get methane from their excrement.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  It was more tongue in cheek than an actual valid idea. Does make me wonder how easy it would be for them to build the colony into a waystation with fuel refineries and fuel refilling.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    Actually, most schemes for missions to Mars involve some kind of in-situ fuel manufacture. It's already been demonstrated, and the technology actually is from the industrial revolution.
bunderbunder 14y ago
I suspect it's not about transportation costs so much as ecology. The amount of biomass available to animals at the top of the food pyramid is inversely proportional to the height of the pyramid. Energy and nutrients would be an extremely precious resource in a Mars colony that has to do all its farming under domes. Far too precious to waste on cattle. It's true that human cultures have historically relied on animals to convert inedible biomass into edible biomass, or to produce other materials. But those cultures didn't have all sorts of modern technologies such as hydroponics, engineered microbes, or chemical labs. And unlike the area where human cultures first developed, Mars isn't exactly known for its large quantities of available pasture land just sitting around waiting for grazing.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > I suspect it's not about transportation costs so much as ecology. The amount of biomass available to animals at the top of the food pyramid is inversely proportional to the height of the pyramid. Right on. The thing to remember here, is that, as Feynmann says, plants make themselves out of air! < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE > (If you doubt, go back to your basic biology education and remember the formula for photosynthesis.) So a Mars colony's farms are basically chemical solar collectors doing two things: 1) providing chemical energy to the colonists (food) and 2) Converting Martian CO2 and water into biomass. If you introduce too many warm blooded animals into the system, a lot of your energy input gets wasted as livestock body heat. tldr - By going vegetarian at first, the Mars colony accumulates usable biomass faster.

stcredzero 14y ago

Given power and hydrogen, methane can be efficiently produced on Mars using the Sabatier reaction. Even getting the hydrogen by electrolysis of local water, this should be many times more efficient than raising pigs to get methane from their excrement.

nicholassmith 14y ago
It was more tongue in cheek than an actual valid idea. Does make me wonder how easy it would be for them to build the colony into a waystation with fuel refineries and fuel refilling.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Actually, most schemes for missions to Mars involve some kind of in-situ fuel manufacture. It's already been demonstrated, and the technology actually is from the industrial revolution.

bunderbunder 14y ago

I suspect it's not about transportation costs so much as ecology. The amount of biomass available to animals at the top of the food pyramid is inversely proportional to the height of the pyramid. Energy and nutrients would be an extremely precious resource in a Mars colony that has to do all its farming under domes. Far too precious to waste on cattle. It's true that human cultures have historically relied on animals to convert inedible biomass into edible biomass, or to produce other materials. But those cultures didn't have all sorts of modern technologies such as hydroponics, engineered microbes, or chemical labs. And unlike the area where human cultures first developed, Mars isn't exactly known for its large quantities of available pasture land just sitting around waiting for grazing.

stcredzero 14y ago
> I suspect it's not about transportation costs so much as ecology. The amount of biomass available to animals at the top of the food pyramid is inversely proportional to the height of the pyramid. Right on. The thing to remember here, is that, as Feynmann says, plants make themselves out of air! < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE > (If you doubt, go back to your basic biology education and remember the formula for photosynthesis.) So a Mars colony's farms are basically chemical solar collectors doing two things: 1) providing chemical energy to the colonists (food) and 2) Converting Martian CO2 and water into biomass. If you introduce too many warm blooded animals into the system, a lot of your energy input gets wasted as livestock body heat. tldr - By going vegetarian at first, the Mars colony accumulates usable biomass faster.