What will be the science-fact to science-fiction ratio?

[nomen]

The main thing thats gets me about solar cells in games though is it the

rock + heat + silicon > black box > solar cell (ta da!)

I mean I know there's the gameplay element but really? You basically making computer chip! electronics grade silicon is the raw material. Thats really not something you make in your shed (or outside a cleanroom really).

Summary: could surviving mars have a go at trying to curb this trend? it does involve some interesting science + processes.

NB: Also reminded of a solution given (in phys forum) of civilisations giving up nuclear technology as an answer to the Fermi paradox. Not for this forum but good read.

 

[Bane5]

It is NASA's plans to use a miniature nuclear reactor coupled with a Stirling engine for any initial Mars colony. The former provides a source of heat to pressurize gas.

Simply put, renewables will not cut it. Its not just about raw power output, its also about reliability. A nuclear heat source can be buried underground away from a colony, and the system will not need any maintenance for many years.

I would also hope that the devs consider solar thermoelectric power as another lesser bulk power source rather than mass solar panels arrays. Maintenance is also the key factor here.

 

[keynes2.0]

It is NASA's plans

Which plan? Wait five years and there will be a completely different one.

NASA mars plans should be understood as speculative concepts for Mars equipment, not the last word. They have no budget for manned mars missions, all they can do is try to make the science missions they are funded for synergize with Mars plans. Towards this end, they release concepts of mars equipment that they might develop if Congress did decide to send a manned mission to Mars. But it's not like a rocket or a space probe where they have done a complete evaluation and decided this is the best choice. The circumstances will inevitably change. 10 years ago we didn't know much about martian water. Any mission today is going to depend heavily on making use of that water. 15 years ago, lightweight rechargeable batteries had prohibitive memory effects so everyone assumed fuel cells were the only way to store energy. Now battery technology has improved by leaps and bounds.

When NASA went to the moon, Congress gave them a budget explicitly earmarked for the moon. NASA has a specific mission to keep the ISS running. NASA has budgets for various robotic missions. NASA has no budget for humans on Mars. If NASA get's a budget then they will arrive at an expert opinion on things like power sources. Until then, it's just workshopping the problem.

 

[Sabotage13]

This is a game about the large scale colonization of Mars so it's already pretty solidly in the fiction camp.

 

[Orlunu]

This is a game about the large scale colonization of Mars so it's already pretty solidly in the fiction camp.

Political fiction, really. We could do it with contemporary tech if we had the right political state for it.

Thing is, the game could be anywhere from about as hard-science as games get to "I read a picture book about colonising Mars as a kid". I would rather it went closer to the former, but it doesn't look like a sure thing.

Just hoping it's highly moddable right now.

 

[Bob_Herzog]

This is a game about the large scale colonization of Mars so it's already pretty solidly in the fiction camp.

Yes and no. It is science fiction but it is what people tend to call the more realistic science fiction. It is within the possibilities of our current technologies. Some of the plans around how to design a Mars Mission even point out it might be a lot more cost efficient to directly start a colony then just go there and get those people we send there back to earth. Also if we can create a safe enviroment for them (which is amittetly a living space under ground and not a dome on the surface) it might be more healthy for them than returning through oben space. Esspecially since the optimal transfer window will be gone for quite some time after they used one to get there (and thus prolonging a potential return trip). There are challanges that would have to be overcome (the radiation issue would be a major one) but nothing we don't have solid ideas about how to deal with it.

In the end a lot hinge more on the willingess to actually do it. Which is mostly an argument about the costs and willingness to take the risks (because there will be failures on the way to get there). And given the other challanges we face like wide spreded proverty, limited accsess to fresh water for large parts of the population or large scale enviromental crises (of which climate change is only one) I can understand that many argue funding a Mars colonisation might not be the best use of humanities resources right now.

 

[DominusNovus]

Well, the game's confirmed to be very moddable, so lets just encourage as many modders to get started on a hard scifi mod as soon as possible.

 

[Deaghaidh]

You do know that we're not in the 1910s anymore, right?

You shut your mouth!

 

[bumbro07]

One of my old Astro professors was working on a concept where a slow-moving Moon rover manufactured photoelectric material from the regolith and deposits "solar panels" coherently as it moves across the surface. I bet you could do the same on Mars.

 

[keynes2.0]

One of my old Astro professors was working on a concept where a slow-moving Moon rover manufactured photoelectric material from the regolith and deposits "solar panels" coherently as it moves across the surface. I bet you could do the same on Mars.

Got a link to a paper by any chance?

 

[bumbro07]

Got a link to a paper by any chance?

Yes!! I found it just now! It looks like just a concept paper and I remember only seeing a slide or two in class.
I don't think anyone ever went as far to create a prototype, but it's an interesting idea.
Alex Ignatiev was my professor.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf

 

[Sabotage13]

It is within the possibilities of our current technologies.

It's not. Visiting Mars is perfectly possible, but the technology to keep people alive, healthy and productive in environments hostile to all life is just not there. We couldn't even maintain an Antarctica style manned research station on Mars with our current technology.

And honestly I don't have any problem with that, science fiction isn't supposed to depict only things that are within the possibilities of our current technologies. The entire point of the genre IMO is to think beyond the limits of our current state of affairs.

 

[TheDungen]

Europa Universalis is pretty heavy on the realism/sim side

... eh no it's not it feels more like a boardgame than a historical simulator.

 

[Cedar Valley]

It's not. Visiting Mars is perfectly possible, but the technology to keep people alive, healthy and productive in environments hostile to all life is just not there. We couldn't even maintain an Antarctica style manned research station on Mars with our current technology.

And honestly I don't have any problem with that, science fiction isn't supposed to depict only things that are within the possibilities of our current technologies. The entire point of the genre IMO is to think beyond the limits of our current state of affairs.

I think the game is set in the near future (probably somewhere between 2030-2060)

 

[Bob_Herzog]

It's not. Visiting Mars is perfectly possible, but the technology to keep people alive, healthy and productive in environments hostile to all life is just not there. We couldn't even maintain an Antarctica style manned research station on Mars with our current technology.

And honestly I don't have any problem with that, science fiction isn't supposed to depict only things that are within the possibilities of our current technologies. The entire point of the genre IMO is to think beyond the limits of our current state of affairs.

Sorry but ever since the confirmation of water it is. All they need is power which could be send in form of a nuclear reactor and protection from radiation which going underground would cover. The rest is money issues (creating enough space to sustainably farm would cost a lot).

Once you have a pressurised big enough space shielded from radiation with access to water the rest is just getting the right equipment and chemicals there to get the recycling processes started.

Although I have to admitt the more sensible plans are about temporarily colonisation so you have time to make your return fuel and wait for a good return transfer window.

Still permanent is not out of the question if you make it a goal for say the next 1-3 decades. The problems we need to solve are certainly not harder to solve than what was needed for the moonlanding when Kennedy set that as a goal. We have a better understanding on what we still need than what they had back then.

 

[keynes2.0]

but the technology to keep people alive, healthy and productive in environments hostile to all life is just not there.

Be specific. What specific need do you think they wont be able to address? Food? Water? Power? O2? Radiation? Bone mass? If you name a specific concern then I think the many enthusiasts would be happy to discuss it. If you have just general incredulity there isn't really anyway to answer that.

 

[Sabotage13]

Be specific. What specific need do you think they wont be able to address? Food? Water? Power? O2? Radiation? Bone mass? If you name a specific concern then I think the many enthusiasts would be happy to discuss it. If you have just general incredulity there isn't really anyway to answer that.

Bob_Herzog's mention of farming illustrates the problems with colonizing extraterrestrial space perfectly:
How would you create the soil necessary to sustain agriculture at a subsistence level? What microbes would be needed for a working farming environment? How would they be transported, and how would they be disseminated? What crops can survive on Mars, and what level of production is needed to attain self-sufficiency (and if not, how often would supply ships need to stop by for additional seeds, microbes, soil etc.)?

These are all practical problems that AFAIK haven't been field tested properly, or not at a scale sufficient to claim that we actually have the practical means to colonize Antarctica, let alone Mars. And that's before we talk about the issue how to transport and assemble the necessary infrastructure.


I could theoretically see unmanned mining colonies on Mars becoming a thing if we ignore all economic factors that would prevent such a venture, but actual human settlements require far more practical knowledge and infrastructure. With our current technology, human space colonies are a fun fantasy, no more no less.

 

[keynes2.0]

How would you create the soil necessary to sustain agriculture at a subsistence level?

Hydroponics would probably be more efficient. That is what urban farming has settled on as the most efficient thing.

What microbes would be needed for a working farming environment? How would they be transported, and how would they be disseminated?

It is a fairly trivial problem to bring a culture of microbes from earth. Simple collect cultures from a bunch of farms to get a broad cross section then refrigerate them.

What crops can survive on Mars, and what level of production is needed to attain self-sufficiency (and if not, how often would supply ships need to stop by for additional seeds, microbes, soil etc.)?

None whatsoever outside of a greenhouse. It is believed plants will survive fairly well inside a greenhouse, currently they grow lettuce on the ISS without much difficulty. If it's not practical to filter out harmful radiation then they can instead make a solar farm and use that solar farm to shine pink light on the plants. That would require additional solar equipment but would be much more efficient use of greenhouse space.

And that's before we talk about the issue how to transport and assemble the necessary infrastructure.

We already know that building rockets as big as the Saturn V is possible because the Saturn V was built. So build rockets that big and have them rendezvous in orbit for fuel transfer from several tanker rockets to one primary rocket. That would enable the payload of the primary vehicle to be two or three hundred tons. A big part of this is that rockets are getting much, much cheaper to build even before accounting for reuse. If the cost of delivering payload to the surface of mars falls by a factor of 10, problems that seemed very difficult might start to look quite easy.

but actual human settlements require far more practical knowledge and infrastructure.

Well let me know what that far more practical knowledge is.

 

[Sabotage13]

Hydroponics would probably be more efficient. That is what urban farming has settled on as the most efficient thing.

Urban farming methods (both hydroponics and aquaponics) tend to be ridiculously inefficient in their energy use and mostly work because of exorbitant real estate prices. I don't think it's a good model for an isolated human outpost.

It is a fairly trivial problem to bring a culture of microbes from earth. Simple collect cultures from a bunch of farms to get a broad cross section then refrigerate them.

How many times have people successfully created arable soil from scratch?

None whatsoever outside of a greenhouse. It is believed plants will survive fairly well inside a greenhouse, currently they grow lettuce on the ISS without much difficulty. If it's not practical to filter out harmful radiation then they can instead make a solar farm and use that solar farm to shine pink light on the plants. That would require additional solar equipment but would be much more efficient use of greenhouse space.

"It is believed" =/= "We know and have field tested"

Growing lettuce in space is a great start, I agree, but we're still far away from a self-sustaining human community which, in case you forgot, was my point.

I'm not saying that it's flat out impossible, just that the idea that we have all the necessary technologies is bogus because we have never tried this in earnest, not even a little bit. So far, all of this is speculation.

Well let me know what that far more practical knowledge is.

There is no need to be an ass.

 

[keynes2.0]

Urban farming methods (both hydroponics and aquaponics) tend to be ridiculously inefficient in their energy use and mostly work because of exorbitant real estate prices. I don't think it's a good model for an isolated human outpost.

Actually, pink light farming would in many ways be more efficient then sunlight farming for early stages of colonization. Plants only capture about 28% of the sunlight that hits them. That number can be more then doubled by using pink LED lights. So if lightweight solar power was used to power LED lights in a pinkhouse, there could be large weight savings by doing away with large glass surfaces and inefficient use of pressurized growing spaces.

You say "ridiculously inefficient" but we are really talking about like a 50% reduction in efficiency given the technology that would be commercially abundant in just a few years. You lose a factor of ~3 in the solar collection, you lose a factor of ~2 in electricity to light and then you gain a factor of ~3 by being able to tailor the light spectrum to the crops. And in exchange you save a lot of weight and make the system much more resilient.

How many times have people successfully created arable soil from scratch?

I dont have any clue how to look that up but I would guess several tens of thousands. I'm sure you have heard of the dust bowl. In the later half of the 20th century there was quite a lot of interest in land reclamation after the dust bowl and similar environmental catastrophes. However this is only tangentially relevant because we know that farming can be done in water.

"It is believed" =/= "We know and have field tested"

Of course not. But it's places things solidly outside the realm of science fiction and that is the standard I was interested in establishing.

just that the idea that we have all the necessary technologies is bogus

We do have the requisite technologies, it's an engineering problem at this point. Engineering problems are not science fiction. Driverless cars are an engineering problem at this point. I hardly expect you would call those science fiction. Mars colonization is a larger engineering problem but there are no real technological breakthrough still needed. It would seem silly to start without orbital fuel transfer and more efficient aerobraking but that's because they will bring costs down, not because they are strictly essential.

There is no need to be an ass.

I am attempting to talk with you about the scientific plausibility. I can't do that without asking what your concerns are for plausibility.