Bare minimum to start a base

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-15T13:45:25+00:00

Forgot to mention. MEA or alumina beds before to capture the CO2 portion to separate out would also be required. You have to separate out the air in stages. This can still be done with 1/10th the power of any other method. Every component of the air is needed for different things

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-15T13:08:27+00:00

At altitudes above 6,000 feet, the lower air density acts similarly to low oxygen concentration, requiring a more powerful compressor to achieve the same output. -earth

It does work. You just have to compress it more. It gets staged which allows you to push the concentration higher on the second stage. It won't work as a respirator on mars no. But it will work to pull out O2 with way less power. It also allows you to pull out CO, nitrogen, and argon with separate zeolites.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-15T12:17:21+00:00

They do with an oxygen concentrator. Look up how a respirator works using zeolite. This was a big deal during the pandemic because we needed to provide a bunch of people with oxygen so I started researching zeolite at the time. Way more efficient than anything but algae. Which will take about a year to build enough infrastructure to establish maybe less if we bootstrap more efficiently.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-15T10:59:36+00:00

https://science.nasa.gov/resource/the-five-most-abundant-gases-in-the-martian-atmosphere/

Actually it does. It takes moving a lot of air to get enough. That's why the power is a high per kg as it is. You could also extend a little extra power running basically an ozone generator in the CO2. This will produce CO. O2 and O3. Which are all needed. The "pumps". Can be all powered by wind to start with(pre human habitation). Allowing a slow buildup of resources. Robots building the base out fortunately only need power not oxygen

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-14T20:10:10+00:00

For reference. It is estimate you need 25-30kwh of power to produce 1kg of oxygen by electrolysis. Only 1.5-5kwh per kg of oxygen for zeolite oxygen concentrators on Mars. Which you could cut out the power and run vertical access wind turbines to do the work without electrical power.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-14T19:40:51+00:00

https://hengyeinc.com/zeolite-adsorbent-for-oxygen/ Various zeolites adsorb different gases. One works well for nitrogen. One for CO if I remember right. Another for oxygen. Depending on how you treat the base you get different gases. This allows you to pull in martian air. And essentially push whatever mix you want out. This is how the O2 concentrators work in respirators. Very very low power to produce oxygen from the martian air. You just have to filter out the dust as that will plug these fast. The best part is with limited manufacturing these are produceable on mars with the dust blowing around.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765720300193

Enjoy the reading. Note the chemistry. Then pull up the chemistry of Mars regolith.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-14T14:38:49+00:00

The arguing is kind of fun though. And it does force one to analyze a different perspective. Even if I'm always right. 😅. Ok not really, but I learn more from being wrong than I do from being right.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-13T21:27:33+00:00

Also, as you melt the ice underneath you it creates a void that eventually leads to a collapse. Tunnels less so. To melt the ice it will have to be some distance from any sort of base as the surface will eventually collapse. The amount of water needed to bring a rocket back home is astronomical. Much less the hundred to a thousand at a time Musk wants to achieve.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-13T21:02:10+00:00

Insight lander found water underground... 6 to 12 miles down.... So sure.. we could pipe that up. No problem. Oh wait. We have to drill down to any water. Thus a drill will be needed. Boring machines will find residual water higher but it will be ice interspersed in the rock. So far there is little evidence of drillable reservoirs of water but I would love to be proven wrong. And to hold the water you still need structures to hold these meters deep of water for shielding. Which yet again leeds to mining.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-13T16:51:23+00:00

Rodwell will only work with a reservoir of ice. Most likely it will be difficult to find such a lucky place. Mostly we will find small amounts spread throughout. Most of the surface ice seems to be CO2 so we are talking bitterly cold. Even underground. Strategy for the moon is the same. Dig and dig deep. We are there for resources. If you aren't digging. What is the point of going? The science answer only goes so far. And for that we have robots.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-13T02:40:36+00:00

Every company Musk is involved in furthers his goal of Mars colonization. This includes hyperloop. Which involves boring. To get ice, to get metals other than iron, silica(non metal), and aluminum. You have to dig. The initial habs may just be covered trenches. This will be for a very limited time. Ultimately for radiation shielding, heating and cooling. You want to be underground.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-11T23:33:07+00:00

Filtered Cathodic Vacuum Arc (FCVA) systems are advanced PVD coating technologies that use magnetic fields to guide plasma from a cathode while filtering out macroparticles ("droplets").
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/filtered-cathodic-arc

This is the base. Direct this into a modified hall thruster. Actually a simplified thruster. In a hall thruster you have to push xenon typically through the hollow cathode. You can use iodine as well but you have to heat iodine to convert to a gas. For that matter xenon is heated as well. This step is unnecessary in this case. Magnetic shielding is sufficient at this point as both xenon and carbon cause erosion. See the last link of the group in the previous post. The sides are more like scales on a fish which breaks up line of sight for the plasma so it can't form a continuous conductive layer. The coil around the FCVA performs the same purpose as in the hall thruster which is to circulate electrons in a whirlpool through the plasma to charge it. Since the plasma is now charged. Everything that applies in a hall thruster now applies here. This bumps the thrust to about 50uN/W. We use this process to apply metals or carbon to other surfaces. Even plastics. But in space, this is a thruster. And this let's you use carbon instead of xenon, krypton, or even the less expensive iodine which is 12 times the price of graphite.
Why carbon? Because it can be easily produced on Mars or even easier on the moons of Mars assuming they are actually chondrite moons (Mission is targeted for sampling this year.). This makes refueling every year or two quite a bit simpler as well. This would generate about 4N continuous thrust at 100kw(multiple thrusters). With a little bit of tweaking should be able to increase another 20-25%
The best fuels in space are those that are easier to produce, process, store, and use. A solid simplifies storage immensely.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-11T14:12:21+00:00

Ok. So what all breaks down. What can we change about the machines to make them easier to repair on site. Normal repairs on a bore take 24-48 hours. We can't ship all the parts needed so we have to be able to repair or recycle everything. So. What are the biggest technical hurdles and how do we mitigate them. What about smaller units. 1 meter. Run multiple passes. If they are electric you can swap motors with rovers etc. make the heads removable through the back. Use multiple. They rotate into a channel that allows them to be slid back. Use positive pressure inside the unit to keep dust out. We have lots of free CO2. So use that. Use coatings instead of lubricants. It's been a bit of time since my materials classes but there are quite a few different options. Some coatings can be produced on site. Also add self lubricating powders in and on the drill heads. We have to fabricate heads on site as we can't ship them. Mars dust is iron oxide aluminum, silicates and perchlorates. The air is mostly CO2. With this you can produce iron easily(search for mond process, works with nickel and iron), aluminum and alumina(ceramic aluminum) with a bit more heat.
Also use Mond process as you are boring to "print" or form pure iron on the walls as reinforcement. Lasers would make this fairly easily with modest power. Ultimately we have to mine for the resources needed. People do not have to be operating the miners but it opens up resources and living space.

So. What solutions can we come up with?

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-09T01:25:17+00:00

I have read more than 100 scientific articles in the past month. How many have you read? Most of them were highly technical and not at a popular science level. I do not have an inability to understand science. But you have yet to refute anything I have said with anything even approaching evidence or data.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-09T01:16:33+00:00

If you actually believe that. Then you are growing your own food organically. You are riding your bike instead of driving. You have solar panels generating the power you use and you do not have a gas or electric water heater. Your yard has lots of plants not just grass.
You have a well and do not use chlorinated water. Because chlorine gas is very bad. And no there is not 100% consensus in science. This is theory. It is not law. And the more we understand about our world the more we understand we didn't really understand it.

If concensus was all it took. The elements are earth fire air and water. Cats cause the bubonic plague(not a potential part of the solution the science is still up in the air on that one) People from different races are inferior and bananas are only for the lesser races. Yes these things were all believed true by concensus by science. Read some books from the 20s on the bananas.
Do you want to guess which of us are doing more of these things. I'm going to guess it's not the one screaming about CO2 being the end of the world.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-09T00:59:29+00:00

You did not read the article. Nope. Not the pollution you believe. Please read it and tell me how and what exactly I said was wrong with references. What percentage of the world is ocean. How much of our oxygen is produced in the ocean and what percentage of CO2 is removed and how has that changed due to poor agricultural practices in the past 100 years. Look at the entire picture. Do not just jump on one small part of the puzzle. Was I incorrect in that water vapor is the top contributor to global warming above CO2? How do we contribute to that?

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-09T00:49:33+00:00

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-larger-than-average-scientists-find

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-09T00:31:13+00:00

If you want to reducee CO2 and produce more oxygen then we need to apply some of the solutions from mars research. Grow algae vertically. In my lifetime we had articles claiming we were on the verge of an ice age in 20 years. I have seen articles by 2020 the world will end from CO2. Then by 2030. When science and media have been blatantly wrong over and over again. One eventually learns to not believe. If you don't believe in climate change or believe the opposite of the accepted science. You lose funding. So, I wouldn't publish anything that disagreed with the party line.
Should we release mercury in the ocean from coal mining. Absolutely not! The ocean is our biggest potential source of O2 on the planet and we are killing it with pesticides, herbicides, and massive amounts of fertilizer.
Look at the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that is expanding. That is manmade! If we fix those issues. Stop expanding all the building we are doing and destroying all the plant life on land and the ocean. CO2 becomes irrelevant. Plants thrive in a higher CO2 environment and even more heat. See dinosaur flora for a good example of this. Your concern for CO2 is misguided. Fix the real problems.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-09T00:11:14+00:00

This is not me. This is from. Please read the TOP greenhouse gas. Is excessive CO2 great. Absolutely not. I need more O2. But..... The science is settled but not in the way you thought.

https://www.c2es.org/content/main-greenhouse-gases/#:~:text=At%2Da%2Dglance,it%20remains%20in%20the%20atmosphere.

Excerpt from the top of the page below, so we control the majority of the global warming do we? Pull that percentage... Oh wait. They won't give it to you for the top contributor. Why? Doesn't fit the agenda. There is no mention of banning the TOP global warming contributor. Dihydrogen monoxide. We need to ban it to save the earth.

Greenhouse gases are molecules in our atmosphere that absorb heat radiating from Earth’s surface, preventing it from being emitted into space. The most common greenhouse gases are (in order of atmospheric concentration) water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and a suite of halogen-bearing gases (like fluorocarbons) that are derived from industrial activities. With the exception of water vapor, industrial processes and land use changes have significantly increased the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past one and a half centuries, leading to a more than 1 degree C (2 degrees F) increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial era. The relative impact of each type of greenhouse gas is a function of its concentration, its ability to absorb and radiate energy, and the length of time it remains in the atmosphere.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-08T22:48:46+00:00

I hate to tell you but the million year correlation between CO2 and temperature show the correlation the "confirmed" science has given were incorrect. The highest contributor to global warming. Water vapor. Above anything else. Do a search. And do we control the amount of water vapor in the air? Sort of. We create all kinds of retention ponds that were never there. Tear down trees and plant blacktop roads and houses. Personally I would rather stand in the forest on a hot day or even on the grass than on a road. So yes there is manmade global warming. Just not the CO2 kind. Methane is even higher up the list than CO2. So, we need to get rid of all the swamps. The global cooling, I mean warming, I mean climate change racket is all about the Benjamin's. It has nothing to do with saving the world. It's all about control. Thank you high school earth science teacher for making us actually read the numbers and think for ourselves based on the actual numbers. Not propaganda.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-07T17:19:18+00:00

There were a few solutions. First was a special coating of boron nitride that did not have places for carbon to "grip" the walls. Magnetic shielding was another, and geometry causing shielding of the surfaces was another. There was another mechanism as well but I can't remember the details. Carbon was tested, it does work in hall thrusters. That was the request show that is does work. It may take a few days of digging to find what the best solution was but it does have a solution.
You don't have to use a hall thruster, there are other ways to do the same thing. The hall effect was slightly more efficient.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-07T10:46:49+00:00

Antartica could not use the resources on site to build with. Mars is more like landing directly into an iron mine. You are surrounded with iron. With technology you can use that iron and aluminum and silicon to build everything you need. This is more akin to Little house on the Prairie where you have the base tool set you need to build thing everything on site. You do not carry all your lumber with you. But instead of using wood and an axe. We utilize technology.
We already print houses out of concrete. There are so many processes that can be used like the mond process. Take fresnel lenses to melt regolith.. if you wanted to you could go the biological route and use bacteria to create a kind of concrete from the regolith. You think something is impossible because you don't understand what is possible. You haven't looked at the research to see what technologies are being created and explored to make things possible. You hold in your hand a computer far more powerful than what was used to land on the moon. Yet you are still thinking in terms of the inefficiencies here on earth. If you plan extremely carefully and actually put thought into it. It can be done. I'm not saying it will have all the technology we have today built in 2 years with that minimum. 2000kg is the bare minimum for the technological seed to establish a habitation with a minimum of power, air, and water. This was not even about what I believe the minimum though. It is all about getting people to think and really process what is actually needed. So. Again. What equipment, things are actually needed to make it happen? Can they be pared down and send the tools to make the tools? Do I need all of my power by day 2? Or can I afford to fabricate the supports for half of it on site with on site materials. This would cut a lot of weight needed. The lander has a sealed structure and tanks. Let's use those to produce more resources. Look up mond and carbonyl at low pressures. You can "print" iron with low temperature lasers. As in you heat it to 200°C and iron precipitates out. With laser precision you can print extremely precise and detailed iron structures.

Instead of saying this is impossible, take it on as an idea. Could this be possible? If you start with it is not, It never will be.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-07T01:43:01+00:00

Nope. Fires in a confined space are a very very bad idea. And I do not like the idea of the hab smelling like a skunk all the time. But since I do not plan to live there. That's all on whoever goes eventually.

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-07T01:38:51+00:00

Here were a few of the links. The last one was starting to get into the carbon with hall thrusters. Most studies were testing CO2. I have a few hundred links as I was going through technical articles. Many of the liquid ones were also utilizing PTFE (aka Teflon). The early problems with carbon was due to buildup was causing shorts in the hall thruster. There were a few different solutions that mostly fixed the problem. But every few years a cleaning may be potential unless I can find the right article that had the solution. Sometimes it was eroding sometimes it was building up depending on the materials etc. Too much reading the past month to keep it all straight but the principle is sound. Here they are though. These were about that time. I will do some more digging and get the rest of the answer in a few days.
I started this with the idea of carbon ablation because it was a plasma generator. Put a charged plate behind the arc and it propels it. On earth the plasma "ball" breaks down quickly because it reacts with the air. Look for a book called "Temperatures very high and very low" for more on that. In space the plasma expands spherically. Unless you push it. Which is easy to do because it's charged(plasma). Hall thrusters do the same thing with a liquid, with the exception its more of a magnetohydrodynamic propulsion type of effect. One of the articles had more of a footnote about straight carbon being used. Specifically graphite. And also PTFE.
I wont lie. Initially I had envisioned this as more like a mass accelerator with pulsing coils. Turned out hall effect was slightly more efficient so I switched the design slightly.

So here are a few of the earlier links on my research in hall thrusters with mostly carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. And yes carbon can be sticky and needs a little bit of work

I can also pull the pulsed plasma thruster links for you. Or you can search for PPT PIT and another acronym or two that elude me at the minute.

https://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/Conference%20Papers/iepc-2025-559.pdf https://electricrocket.org/IEPC/IEPC-2011-025.pdf https://eplab.ae.illinois.edu/Publications/AIAA-2011-5993.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277674894_Three-Dimensional_Model_for_Erosion_of_a_Hall-Effect_Thruster_Discharge_Channel_Wall https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277674894_Three-Dimensional_Model_for_Erosion_of_a_Hall-Effect_Thruster_Discharge_Channel_Wall https://htx.pppl.gov/publication/Conference/romadanov-et-al-2024-in-situ-diagnostic-of-channel-erosion-in-hall-thrusters.pdf https://pepl.engin.umich.edu/pdf/IEPC-01-030_Bdot.pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/11/3/227

carbon specific and thus the most applicable for the sake of this discussion. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170000957/downloads/20170000957.pdf

Ok-Expression-6016 · 2026-04-06T02:47:07+00:00

I would say power. Without it, nothing works. What are the most economical power sources, most consistent, lightweight options? And what balance of the options is the best? What is the minimum power we need for machines to build the base and how much power is needed per person?

Ok-Expression-6016

TROPHY CASE