Imagine you’ve just gotten to Mars as part of the first contingent of settlers. Your first challenge: build a long-term habitat using local materials. Those might include water from the polar caps mixed with specific surface soils. They might even require some very personal contributions—your blood, sweat, and tears. Using such in situ materials is the challenge a team of Iranian engineers studied in a research project looking at local materials on Mars.
In situ resource utilization has always been part of Mars mission and colonization scenarios. It’s expensive to bring along habitat construction materials with you, and space will be limited onboard the ship. Once you settle on Mars, you can use your ship as a habitat until you build your new colony. But, what are you going to create new homes from?
Cement or concrete come to mind, made from whatever’s available on or just below the surface. The authors of the study, Omid Karimzade Soureshjani, Ali Massumi, and Gholmreza Nouri, focused on Martian cement. They assembled data sets about soil composition from Mars landers and orbiters and came up with a collection of concrete types that future colonists could use. Next, they applied structural engineering principles and suggested some options for onsite construction using what are called spider/radar diagrams and charts. These allow building planners to apply data for different concepts of Mars architecture.
A graph showing steps in the study of possible building materials on Mars. Courtesy: Soureshjani, et al. Click to enlarge. Building That Mars CityThe authors, like most of us, foresee permanent settlements in the next decades. They write, “The goal would be to establish a self-sustaining city (self-sufficient megabase) on the surface of Mars, accommodating at least a million people. However, constructing safe, stable, and sufficient buildings that can withstand the harsh Martian environment for such a population will be challenging. Due to the high costs associated with importing buildings, materials, and structural elements from Earth, it is necessary to construct all buildings on-site using local resources.”
Let’s look at the usability and cost-effectiveness of Martian soil (regolith). Chemically, it’s rich in the right amounts of elements to make different types of concrete. Of course, not all the regoliths are equally useful, so they propose surface scans to find the best surface materials mixes. Presumably, those scans will help future inhabitants find the best collections. Access to those raw materials from around the planet should make them cost-effective, eventually.
Challenges to Mars ConstructionOf course, there are other factors besides material availability at work in such a construction project. Here on Earth, we have centuries of experience building in this gravity well, with familiar materials. We know how to build things under this atmospheric pressure, and we don’t have to contend with the harsh conditions of a planet constantly bombarded by ultraviolet radiation. Mars presents the challenge of creating buildings that have to withstand that radiation, the lower atmospheric pressure, and water scarcity. That lower pressure and gravity on Mars could seriously affect the durability of a given concrete made from Martian materials.
In addition to planetary geology and surface conditions, it takes energy to collect, process, and create the building materials needed for long-term habitation. You need a simple, cost-effective energy source—particularly in the beginning. It’s not likely that nuclear power plants will be first on the list to build. Those require a tremendous number of resources. Perhaps later they can be built, but not in the first wave. Solar energy is going to be the “go-to” resource in the beginning. In addition, to make cement, you need water. And, water is a notably scarce resource on much of Mars, except at the poles. They could provide some water from the ice caps, but you’ll likely want to figure out a way to make good cement with the least amount of water.
Using Organic Binders for Mars Home Building BlocksInterestingly, the authors mention something called “blood concrete”, or its modern version: AstroCrete. It’s a concept based on ancient Roman practices of using organic additives to construction materials (think: animal blood, urine, etc.). Now, they aren’t suggesting that future Martians must “bleed for their art” but our bodies do make plasma rather easily. It could be a useful resource.
A substance called “human serum albumin” (HAS) is under study as a binder to mix with “AstroCrete” materials, along with sweat, tears, and urine. All those will be available in relative abundance in future Mars settlements. The AstroCrete made from Martian soils and human “contributions” is a strong building material you can rely on for strength (and you hope it won’t smell too bad). Essentially, AstroCrete is waterless cement.
Visible light images of the 3D-printed HSA-ERB based on Martian Global Simulant. (a) after fabrication, (b) during compression testing, and (c) after compression testing. Courtesy: Robertsad, et al. Exploring the PossibilitiesThe authors studied 11 types of cement, including geopolymer and magnesium silica mixtures, all of which require specific materials. They point out that sulfur concrete is probably going to be the most promising avenue for structures on Mars. Others will take more study and implementation to understand their usability in Martian conditions. In the long term, searching out and understanding the materials available on the Red Planet will help future colonists build the necessary habitats and cities. Finally, the authors point out that additional study of both materials and the Martian environment using data from current and future missions is necessary. Their paper is well worth reading in more detail.
For More InformationMartian Buildings: Feasible Cement/concrete for Onsite Sustainable Construction from the Structural Point of View
Martian Concrete Could be Tough Stuff
Blood, Sweat, and Tears: Extraterrestrial Regolith Biocomposites with in vivo Binders
The post Building Concrete on Mars From Local Materials appeared first on Universe Today.
This WaPo article below (click headline to read, or find the piece archived here), discusses the new case about gender transitioning being adjudicated by the Supreme Court. It’s judging the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that, according to the paper, “bans the use of puberty blockers and hormones for gender-transition treatments in minors on the grounds that it unlawfully discriminates based on sex.” (23 other states have similar laws). I’m not sure how a ban on blockers can discriminate on the basis of sex if the hormones are banned in both males and females, but I’ll leave that up to the lawyers.
What’s important here is that the dispute about the blockers is now being discussed openly, in an Editorial Board op-ed in the Washington Post, while previously such discussion was taboo. Even questioning the use of such “affirmative treatments” was seen as “transphobic,” though there wasn’t good clinical evidence that they had good outcomes. They could even have been harmful, and in light of a lack of efficacy, they’re now banned in the UK and regarded as experimental treatments in much of Europe.
What we need, as the paper says, are “gold standard” studies: large controlled studies (double blind ones would be impractical given that the drugs have easily discernible effects) over a fairly long period of time.
Read below, and I’ll give some quotes (indented):
This unresolved dispute is why Tennessee has a colorable claim before the court; it would be ludicrous to suggest that patients have a civil right to be harmed by ineffective medical interventions — and, likewise, unconscionable for Tennessee to deny a treatment that improves patient lives, even if the state did so with majestic impartiality. The issue is subject to legal dispute in part because the medical questions have not been properly resolved.
Multiple European health authorities have reviewed the available evidence and concluded that it was “very low certainty,” “lacking” and “limited by methodological weaknesses.” Last week, Britain banned the use of puberty blockers indefinitely due to safety concerns.
“Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led,” British Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said in a press release. “The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.”
An early Dutch study of blockers showed “promising results”, but the sample was too small to give definitive results, and wasn’t replicable:
Yet as other doctors began copying the Dutch, clinical practice outraced the research, especially as treatment protocols rapidly evolved. A British study attempting to replicate the Dutch researchers’ success with puberty blockers “identified no changes in psychological function” among those treated.
Some clinicians appear reluctant to publish findings that don’t show strong benefits. The British lackluster results were published nine years after the study began, after Britain’s High Court ruled that children younger than 16 were unlikely to be able to form informed consent to such treatments.
And here is the unconscionable censorship on the part of both the American government and the WPATH organization that I haven’t yet written about:
Internal communications from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] suggest that the group tried to interfere with a review commissioned from a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University
Johanna Olson-Kennedy, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, told the New York Times that a government-funded study of puberty blockers she helped conduct, which started in 2015, had not found mental health improvements, and those results hadn’t been published because more time was needed to ensure the research wouldn’t be “weaponized.” Medical progress is impossible unless null or negative results are published as promptly as positive ones.
Weaponized? WEAPONIZED? The study is done, but the results aren’t ideologically pleasing to gender activists, and so the study languishes, unpublished. That is unethical, for whether or not one uses blockers can have permanent effects on the well being and future fertility of adolescents.
And so we have one more example of science being suppressed because it didn’t give the results activists wanted. But this story isn’t over. As the Post recommends, Congress should fund larger and wlll-conducted trials of blockers with followups on adults who have gone on to estrogen or testosterone therapy. Given the increasing number of people who want to transition, such studies are imperative. But now we lack evidence, and without that the use of blockers should, I think, be stopped. Anecdotal evidence is not enough.