Quote from: rakaydos on 07/18/2018 01:35 ammported modern computers are nice, but the local production can be '40s tech or earlier. You still need a chemical industry, metallurgy, glass blowing and vacuum pumps, but none of that needs intensive computing behind it.What else is needed for a 1950s tech local production base?1. functionally unlimited water resources2. virtually unlimited legal restraint on air & water pollution emissions into the Mars environment3. unlimited electrical power generation at $.01 to $.02 per kwh4. fossil fuel resources on par per capita with Saudi Arabia's Gawar oil field5. Demographics & legal institutions favorable to family formation, stability, & reproduction6. A Bretton Woods style agreement making Martian currency the reserve currency of the solar system.7. Arable land equivalent per capita to the fertility & productivity of the American midwest.This could become a very long list, but I think even 1950's level technology is not achievable for a small colony. ( i.e a million people) I hate to be a downer to this thread, but the premise that low tech will be the basis for long term survival is fatally flawed. The entire notion of self sufficiency is very possibly flawed to the degree that self sufficiency may never be achievable on Mars, or any other body, natural or manmade, in our solar system.
mported modern computers are nice, but the local production can be '40s tech or earlier. You still need a chemical industry, metallurgy, glass blowing and vacuum pumps, but none of that needs intensive computing behind it.What else is needed for a 1950s tech local production base?
....That doesn't actually make any sense. Your post doesn't contribute anything to this thread at all. In fact, it's a negative contribution because it's full of inaccuracies. .....
So it sounds to me like Stan is saying that he feels clean sheet designs offer more efficiency when it comes to maintaining a supply chain.And it sounds to me like Robo is confident that technological advancement allows for some things that were previously uneconomical to become economical.Am I getting you guys right?
This could become a very long list, but I think even 1950's level technology is not achievable for a small colony. ( i.e a million people) I hate to be a downer to this thread, but the premise that low tech will be the basis for long term survival is fatally flawed. The entire notion of self sufficiency is very possibly flawed to the degree that self sufficiency may never be achievable on Mars, or any other body, natural or manmade, in our solar system.
The planet you're living on now is an existence proof that you're wrong.It is a closed system, to the same extent that Mars is IE access to the Sun and interplanetary space.
The question (as it's always been) is what is the minimum subset of the resources of Earth that are needed for another planet to be self-sufficient IE able to grow without external input in the worst case scenario of no more supplies (or people) coming from Earth.
What we do have now are a) Much better design resources to build an environment that is mostly working and b) The understanding of the consequences of our actions on the environment. It his a hypothesis that it will be easier to achieve that closure by eliminating certain more modern paths and hence simplyfying the manufacturing chain that stands behind the parts being used.
Going low tech will be by nature, less efficient & more consuming of available excess labor.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/19/2018 05:44 amThe question (as it's always been) is what is the minimum subset of the resources of Earth that are needed for another planet to be self-sufficient IE able to grow without external input in the worst case scenario of no more supplies (or people) coming from Earth. This sums up the problem of setting up a civilisation on Mars that has the potential to flourish and the possibility of growth, independently from Earth.I think the minimum could be a base using very little, if any electricity. People and crops would live in tunnels and light could be reflected in with mirrors, and a few windows. Air would be cleaned by the vegetation as much as possible. The only requirement for complex production processes could be to produce glass (or transparent alternatives) and airlocks, although even these could be made from rock , and sealed with ice. Suits for use outside could be fabric or leather , proofed with resin ? Breathing equipment for use outside will be a major problem.
So it sounds to me like Stan is saying that he feels clean sheet designs offer more efficiency when it comes to maintaining a supply chain.
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 07/20/2018 06:02 amGoing low tech will be by nature, less efficient & more consuming of available excess labor.I think (but cannot think of a way of proving) that going low tech will lead to a productivity problem, in that it needs more than one man-year of labor to keep someone alive for a year.The reasons for this are:1. many things will be much less efficient on Mars (at any given technology level) than on Earth. a - transport will have no ships (the most efficient), or aircraft (technically aircraft are possible, but much harder and less efficient than on Earth). The equivalent of trucks will be less efficient (cabins and loading docks need to be pressurized). Rail is less efficient (track maintenance is harder, loading and unloading). For all modes of transport there need to be air locks and breakdowns are harder to deal with.b - agriculture is much less efficient, services that are free on Earth (light, watering, air circulation) will need to be engineered in. Whatever structures are used will need far more maintenance than a field.c - many things that can be done outside on Earth will need to be inside on Mars, leading to more buildings being required, these buildings will need more maintenance as they need added life support services.d - manufacturing will be less efficient, the much smaller population size means that economies of scale have less effect. Sourcing raw materials and controlling pollution are both likely to be more difficult - for instance many industrial processes need lots of water.
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 07/20/2018 07:26 amQuote from: Stan-1967 on 07/20/2018 06:02 amGoing low tech will be by nature, less efficient & more consuming of available excess labor.I think (but cannot think of a way of proving) that going low tech will lead to a productivity problem, in that it needs more than one man-year of labor to keep someone alive for a year.The reasons for this are:1. many things will be much less efficient on Mars (at any given technology level) than on Earth. a - transport will have no ships (the most efficient), or aircraft (technically aircraft are possible, but much harder and less efficient than on Earth). The equivalent of trucks will be less efficient (cabins and loading docks need to be pressurized). Rail is less efficient (track maintenance is harder, loading and unloading). For all modes of transport there need to be air locks and breakdowns are harder to deal with.b - agriculture is much less efficient, services that are free on Earth (light, watering, air circulation) will need to be engineered in. Whatever structures are used will need far more maintenance than a field.c - many things that can be done outside on Earth will need to be inside on Mars, leading to more buildings being required, these buildings will need more maintenance as they need added life support services.d - manufacturing will be less efficient, the much smaller population size means that economies of scale have less effect. Sourcing raw materials and controlling pollution are both likely to be more difficult - for instance many industrial processes need lots of water.All of these posts make reference to the idea of "efficiency" But efficiency can be measured in many different ways. On Earth "efficient" (depending on context) can mean1) Minimum investment (because people are cheap)2) Minimum staffing (because people are expensive)3) Minimum specialized equipment (because special made-to-order hardware maybe too expensive or take too long).and a bunch of other drivers that result in different ideas of what is the optimal way to do things.
Any concentrator solution needs sun tracking. That makes it complex and failure prone. Concentrators are not even widely used on Earth where servicing is readily available.
Tracking solar systems in the context of Steam Punk Mars. Doesn't make any sense to me.