Flatulence is a great resource for ISRO production of propellant.
If you're going to Mars for years, drinking a protein shake on the way is going to be the very least of your psychological worries, I PROMISE you. Ridiculous.
I am reminded of a proverb involving the backs of camels, straws and breaking.People will tolerate a lot of discomfort, but what will finally break a person is usually something seeming relatively petty in the grand scheme of things.
Hmmm. Lots of unpleasant things I can do to these econocolonists.
Quote from: Krevsin on 02/03/2016 11:18 amI am reminded of a proverb involving the backs of camels, straws and breaking.People will tolerate a lot of discomfort, but what will finally break a person is usually something seeming relatively petty in the grand scheme of things.Yes, but we are talking about a few months of transfer. That the diet on Mars needs to be a lot better for colonists I think no one would dispute. I don't think that Soylent is the way to go but it is an option for the trip.
I agree that going to a super restricted diet wouldn't be good. But consumables mass could still be quite low without that extreme.Quote from: Burninate on 02/02/2016 03:53 pmA) Where do you get 5kg/day?Basic human life support requirements per day are about 5kg - less than 1kg oxygen, less than 1kg dry food, and over 3kg water (including water in food).This assumes either doing something other than normal bathing, or 100% recycling of cleaning water.QuoteB) Wait, what? 10 cargo missions per crew mission... of MCT? I believe Musk tweeted that.QuoteAnd how many propellant missions per crew mission is that? I don't know... depends on the size of MCT and the architecture.QuoteIf you limited it to 6km/s each = 5:1 mass ratio @ 380s (probably not reasonable, given 3.2 C3, 0.5 minimum to MTO, more for single-synod reuse, and largely propulsive SSRP EDL), 40 prop launches to feed 10 cargo launchesThat assumes that the MCT arrives in LEO empty.If BFR is really too large for any existing pad, I would expect MCT to either go to a higher energy orbit than LEO or arrive with significant propellant.But cost per launch will nonetheless have to be incredibly low by current standards.
A) Where do you get 5kg/day?
B) Wait, what? 10 cargo missions per crew mission... of MCT?
And how many propellant missions per crew mission is that?
If you limited it to 6km/s each = 5:1 mass ratio @ 380s (probably not reasonable, given 3.2 C3, 0.5 minimum to MTO, more for single-synod reuse, and largely propulsive SSRP EDL), 40 prop launches to feed 10 cargo launches
I drink Soylent for lunch. This is not "drinking 3000 Calories of vegetable oil."Building a colony transporter with the economics needed to make it feasible is not something that has ever been done before. It most CERTAINLY will involve thinking from first principles, as Musk is wont to do.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/03/2016 02:24 pmI drink Soylent for lunch. This is not "drinking 3000 Calories of vegetable oil."Building a colony transporter with the economics needed to make it feasible is not something that has ever been done before. It most CERTAINLY will involve thinking from first principles, as Musk is wont to do.The first principle in Musk's mind is cost followed by almost eliminating training, which is also a major cost. That would include using normal diet, fresh like foods. Each MCT would need a core group that is the operator/maintainers but most of the group of 100 are just passengers along for the ride with little training. Many of the specialists/crew may not be colonists and return. Similar to a ocean passenger ship crew.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/03/2016 02:24 pmI drink Soylent for lunch. This is not "drinking 3000 Calories of vegetable oil."Building a colony transporter with the economics needed to make it feasible is not something that has ever been done before. It most CERTAINLY will involve thinking from first principles, as Musk is wont to do.The problem is not thinking from first principles, it's rejecting actual research that's been done and the optimum that's been chosen in a program where every kilogram costs $30,000 extra, which has plenty of incentive to minimize mass and ramp up the ECLSS; And ensuring everyone that this is all an irrelevant, useless assessment, because you choose to drink Soylent for lunch sometimes.
A space freezer can be an air lock opened to space for some foods.
Food has been consistently rated the most important morale boosting thing Astronauts get
Quote from: Burninate on 02/03/2016 04:50 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/03/2016 02:24 pmI drink Soylent for lunch. This is not "drinking 3000 Calories of vegetable oil."Building a colony transporter with the economics needed to make it feasible is not something that has ever been done before. It most CERTAINLY will involve thinking from first principles, as Musk is wont to do.The problem is not thinking from first principles, it's rejecting actual research that's been done and the optimum that's been chosen in a program where every kilogram costs $30,000 extra, which has plenty of incentive to minimize mass and ramp up the ECLSS; And ensuring everyone that this is all an irrelevant, useless assessment, because you choose to drink Soylent for lunch sometimes.Yes, a lot of effort has gone into this subject. No need to throw that reseach out the airlock. NASA has a variety of dehydrated foods that are very mass efficient. So does private industry. While Soylent or something like it can be part of the food selection, there is no reason to make it the only food.
..meat can be freeze-dried, but reconstituting it turns it into a slurry.....
Quote from: RonM on 02/03/2016 05:05 pmQuote from: Burninate on 02/03/2016 04:50 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/03/2016 02:24 pmI drink Soylent for lunch. This is not "drinking 3000 Calories of vegetable oil."Building a colony transporter with the economics needed to make it feasible is not something that has ever been done before. It most CERTAINLY will involve thinking from first principles, as Musk is wont to do.The problem is not thinking from first principles, it's rejecting actual research that's been done and the optimum that's been chosen in a program where every kilogram costs $30,000 extra, which has plenty of incentive to minimize mass and ramp up the ECLSS; And ensuring everyone that this is all an irrelevant, useless assessment, because you choose to drink Soylent for lunch sometimes.Yes, a lot of effort has gone into this subject. No need to throw that reseach out the airlock. NASA has a variety of dehydrated foods that are very mass efficient. So does private industry. While Soylent or something like it can be part of the food selection, there is no reason to make it the only food.Completely agree.
Regarding weight and water content in food: how about freeze drying?
What's the sodium content of the NASA foods? The commercial versions have near edema inducing levels.
A system that cleans water (maybe via active coal, can be regenerated, and reverse osmosis) allows reduction of the mass without losing too much of the quality.