Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

I had an idea to deliver items to the moon and mars via self-propelled transport.  Therefore, the reactor and other large items would be transported via cargo pods that can land on mars all on their own.

Don't know how that relates to DF, though.

[Pickerel]

That idea has indeed come up before: one of the proposed plans is to send an autonymous ship containing a 'chemical plant' or 'mini fuel factory' to take down CO2 as hydrocarbons long before anyone arrives (using solar energy, of course...).  By the time humans get there, there will be a large stockpile ready for use.  Such an idea would decrease the lag time after arrival before major expansions can begin.  Usually this idea is meant as a way to produce a chemical fuel source to propel a ship back off Mars, making it so the ship doesn't have to carry, on the way there, it's fuel to get back.  However I am not one who thinks this should become a matter of dealing with the logistical nightmare of a round trip... so use the carbon as a carbon source... And deal with the logistical nightmare of setting up a sustainable, expanding colony.

[Granite26]

Personally, my major block is Mars having insufficient mass to hold an atmosphere...

5. Practice, as the first step toward even more distant, even greater, and at first even more impractical, things... 

And to make new and wonderful flavors of Tang...

[Im_Sparks]

That idea has indeed come up before: one of the proposed plans is to send an autonymous ship containing a 'chemical plant' or 'mini fuel factory' to take down CO2 as hydrocarbons long before anyone arrives (using solar energy, of course...).  By the time humans get there, there will be a large stockpile ready for use.  Such an idea would decrease the lag time after arrival before major expansions can begin.  Usually this idea is meant as a way to produce a chemical fuel source to propel a ship back off Mars, making it so the ship doesn't have to carry, on the way there, it's fuel to get back.  However I am not one who thinks this should become a matter of dealing with the logistical nightmare of a round trip... so use the carbon as a carbon source... And deal with the logistical nightmare of setting up a sustainable, expanding colony.

You do know this is dorf fortress; not real life.. Right? Realism is expected, but to a degree. You're the classic "takes it too far guy" or "RULES RULES RULES THERE MUST BE RULES" guy. Please stop with this sciencefaggotry.

Oh, and to everyone doing this too: It's great to make dorfs die without oxygen, but making no ships because "logically they wouldnt have enough fuel to get from earth to mars without a subatomic fission refuckulater etc etc" isn't helping the game. It's only making it my grade 11 physics course simulator ;_;

[mainiac]

Wow, Pickerel, you have a really great balance of crazy and sane.  I love it!  But seriously, have you ever looked into moon colonization?  I you haven't, I beg you to give it a little consideration because my opinion on the whole matter is that building settlements on mars is too expensive unless you already have a large non-terrestrial settlements to begin with (either martian or O'neil sphere) but a lunar settlement is the first stop on the path to space.

Come to the dark side, man!

I have to run now, but a couple thoughts on what you said: Transporting a chemical energy source to mars is an incredibly expensive proposition.  First, there's the difficulty of getting the energy source out of the earths gravity well.  Secondly, there's a substantial delta-v (i.e. difference in velocities) between the two planets.  Third, landing on mars requires even more propellant because the atmosphere is too thin for airbreaking.  Right now, we use robots that are designed to withstand v. high speed impacts with the martian surface.  If you were to transport a human or an explosive chemical to mars, you would first have to slow down your transport in orbit a lot.  Considering that the fuel used in each subsequent stage is a burden on each previous stage, I think you can see how it starts adding up and understand why a martian mission would need to be very weight aware, which pretty much rules out hauling a chemical energy source along with you.

Secondly... I can't remember.  I gtg now.  Maybe I'll remember it later.  Good post with ya!

[Im_Sparks]

Wow, Pickerel, you have a really great balance of crazy and sane.  I love it!  But seriously, have you ever looked into moon colonization?  I you haven't, I beg you to give it a little consideration because my opinion on the whole matter is that building settlements on mars is too expensive unless you already have a large non-terrestrial settlements to begin with (either martian or O'neil sphere) but a lunar settlement is the first stop on the path to space.

Come to the dark side, man!

I have to run now, but a couple thoughts on what you said: Transporting a chemical energy source to mars is an incredibly expensive proposition.  First, there's the difficulty of getting the energy source out of the earths gravity well.  Secondly, there's a substantial delta-v (i.e. difference in velocities) between the two planets.  Third, landing on mars requires even more propellant because the atmosphere is too thin for airbreaking.  Right now, we use robots that are designed to withstand v. high speed impacts with the martian surface.  If you were to transport a human or an explosive chemical to mars, you would first have to slow down your transport in orbit a lot.  Considering that the fuel used in each subsequent stage is a burden on each previous stage, I think you can see how it starts adding up and understand why a martian mission would need to be very weight aware, which pretty much rules out hauling a chemical energy source along with you.

Secondly... I can't remember.  I gtg now.  Maybe I'll remember it later.  Good post with ya!

Why do you all take so much time for a horrible argument that won't really affect anything?

[Aqizzar]

Why do you have a problem with it?  The conversation has clearly moved on from a DF mod in particular to space stuff in general, which PTTG was cool with.  I'm enjoying this, because I can use it in the Mars game that prompted this thread.

[Im_Sparks]

Because, my masculine friend; I find it kind of stupid(lol irony) to add irrelevant logic to the game that would do no more than just make it a little bit harder and make some awesome things impossible(IE: laser rifles, rocket ballistas, and plasma guns)

[Aqizzar]

Ah, of course.  The "You're not playing the right way" argument.  About one of the most readily, widely modable games with no goal or purpose no less.

[Im_Sparks]

Ah, of course.  The "You're not playing the right way" argument.  About one of the most readily, widely modable games with no goal or purpose no less.

Now, I think it should have some moderation in realism.

Not being able to breathe = acceptable
No lasers =
No water = acceptable
No lasers =

[woose1]

Ah, of course.  The "You're not playing the right way" argument.  About one of the most readily, widely modable games with no goal or purpose no less.

Now, I think it should have some moderation in realism.

Not being able to breathe = acceptable
No lasers =
No water = acceptable
No lasers =

Aqizzar is partly right, im afraid.
Anyone that was in the kolbold camp thread will know who I speak of when I say you are acting (Well maybe not yet) like him.

And I agree. No Lazors=

[Im_Sparks]

I don't think this is a good thing. I'm not flaming, I'm just giving my two hot and spicy cents.

[Techhead]

All well, you can still replace crossbows with coilguns.
However, I think you might have a problem with metals and the processing thereof.
Geology of Mars
Geography of Mars
The surface is mainly basalt and rich in iron, with some olivine deposits.
However the crust is 45 km thick on average. There is little volcanic activity close to the surface, so no magma. The definite lack of multi-celled Martian life means that there will be no coal deposits. The scarce atmosphere means that there won't be any trees.
This means that fuel will have to be fabricated via reactions, as forges and glass furnaces cannot work without fuel.

[woose1]

Its actually iron oxide, so you need a way of seperating it from the oxygen.

Maybe use fuel cells?
Not makeable but brought in caravans.

[mainiac]

By fuel cells I'm guessing you mean hydrogen fuel cells?  Those require oxygen gas to operate.  On earth that's abundant, but on mars, it ain't.  Intruigingly, the de-oxidation of the rusted iron on the surface of mars would provide a decent amount of oxygen.  In fact, ideally, the de-oxidation would require 825 KJ per mole and release enough oxygen to produce 858 KJ of energy if you had a limitless supply of hydrogen.  But neither process is anywhere near perfectly efficient.  H2 fuel cells tend to have %25 efficiency.  I don't even have a clue how inefficient de-oxidizing is but I'd bet it's pretty wasteful.

But even looking past the lack of oxygen, the energy density of hydrogen fuel is too low to send to mars, as it is for all chemical compounds I know of.  Yes, H2 gas has a high energy density but the density of hydrogen gas at atmospheric pressure and temperature is less then .1 g/L.  Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (a dead end technology if there ever was one) have to compress the hydrogen to 350-700 bars just to be able to carry a few measly kilograms.  To hold hydrogen at that temperature, the container ends up weighing something like 30 times as much as the gas.  Were that container built to sustain the rigours of space travel it would be absurdly heavy.  Liquid hydrogen is a little better given the benefits of vacuum for storing low temperature liquids but it would require an entirely different storage system once you got onto the surface of mars.  So you're still looking at lugging around a lot more useless storage device then fuel.