One major issue faced in the quest to colonize other heavenly bodies is how to get all the raw materials transported in a financially feasible manner.
Trove reports a possible solution using 3-D printers to build materials required using native reources as ink:
That might be all they need if a plan by Niki Werkheiser and her engineering team at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center works out. They are experimenting with a 3-D printer that would make bricks suitable for airtight buildings and radiation-proof shelters using the grit that blows across Mars’s red surface. In Huntsville, Ala., Ms. Werkheiser, NASA’s 3-D print project manager, is starting to print curved walls and other structures using imitation Martian sand as an ink. Engineers at the European Space Agency are exploring ways to use lunar dust as an ink to print out an entire moon base. London-based architects Foster + Partners have designed a printable lunar colony.
It would make sense for colonization to send automated or remote-controlled fabrication units ahead to prepare a settlement for human habitation, but does that sensible step endanger the science due to the risks of contamination?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TK-421 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @02:50AM
Things are in a sad state when I repeatedly keep mistaking N.A.S.A for N.S.A. Seeing that series of letters together these days has a much better chance of it being the latter rather than the former which I find vulgar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @03:25AM
Good news, citizen! We're abolishing all N-word agencies to eliminate confusion. NASA, NSA, NSF, NTSB, we don't need any of those.
Meanwhile we're establishing the Office of the Future-President-Elect, to inform voters that they will be electing Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:41AM
Only because you hang out here which is largely a single-issue site with its stories. Sort of Fox News-ish where the same kind of stuff is recycled over and over to elicit the predictable outrage and puffery from the usual suspects.
I lurk, hoping things will improve, but I fear most dissenting opinions get marginalized and this place will stagnate.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @02:57AM
Imagine the potential for abuse! Soon space hackers will 3D print "Earth is Gay" in huge letters on the face of the Moon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @03:11AM
^ brave new world
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday April 14 2015, @03:30AM
Availability of energy.
This "little" problem bugged me while reading the Mars trilogy, especially the first (Red) one. Stanley-Robinson "solved" it by landing "Rickover nuclear reactor"s on the surface - the source of inspiration: the Hyman G. Rickover programme [wikipedia.org]. However the current "state of the art" designs for micro/modular reactors [wikipedia.org] still place them at 200 (10 MW) to 500 tonnes (100 MW) [wikipedia.org]: letting aside escaping the gravwell of Earth, it's hard to land them undamaged on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday April 14 2015, @03:37AM
They should focus on Luna first. Much more practical.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 14 2015, @04:48AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @03:39AM
No problem: crash the reactors on Mars, use the radioactive fallout as your power source to 3D print a colony, and send settlers after the radiation dissipates.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 14 2015, @04:35AM
If fallout is your purpose, why crash a reactor (200 tonnes) when you can crash a thermonuke - the Castle Bravo [wikipedia.org] has weighted only 10.7 tonnes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @03:50AM
Lockheed Martin small fusion reactor.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday April 14 2015, @04:22AM
Which will mean strong electromagnets (to be powered with what at boot start?) very precisely aligned and, thus, sensible to any shock - the ones involved by landing included. Moreover, will involve materials to resist the heat radiated by fusion (about 3-5 time more heat/unit than fission) + means to extract/convert this more intense heat as quickly as possible.
Somehow, I think will be heavier than the SSTAR design [wikipedia.org] (at 15m long and 3 m diameter already fits the back of a truck) and certainly more prone to accidents during landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:14AM
letting aside escaping the gravwell of Earth, it's hard to land them undamaged on Mars.
"Hard" just means hard. If you're colonizing Mars, you already have demonstrated a considerable aptitude for solving hard problems. There are two obvious solutions. First, simply construct a huge propulsion system capable of landing 200 to 500 tons. Second, break the nuclear reactor into a number of pieces and assemble them on the surface. Until the reactor goes online for the first time, it's not going to be very radioactive.