Unlocking Mars' Secret Power: Harnessing Wind Energy for Survival

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/EngineeringwithRosie/. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.

[@johannesnm9706]

Why would you want green energy on a planet you want to heat? Sure not bringing heavy fuel I'd nice but CO2 is not really a concern?

[@tonywilson4713]

Hi Rosie, I'm Australian born but did my degree in aerospace in America. I was lucky and got a scholarship. This is one of those topics that's a great thing for college students to go through to show them just how impractical some things are. My final year project was a cometary fly-by space craft where we spun up a shield (for stability) and released it ahead of the space craft and we flew in the protective envelope behind the shield. The idea is that you avoid all the dust storm like being under an umbrella. It was a fabulous exercise to do as a final year project. Its also utterly pointless. You see just like being under an umbrella there's the run-off except flying through the dusty tail of a comet its not water but plasma and/or highly charged/energised particles. Its because your smashing into that dust with insanely high kinetic energy. As I have said to you a couple of times I went off to the mining industry after meeting Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) back in 2002. That was because he said we'd be most likely going back to the moon to mine it for Helium-3 and I wanted mining experience. What I got from our mining industry was a gigantic reality check in fundamental infrastructure. When they build some of these mines there is actually NOTHING there. Its actually an incredible analog to the Moon or Mars. You have to build everything from scratch - the power systems, the water (clean & waste), the accommodation, workshops, storage (hardware, fuel & food). There's actually an incredible amount of stuff to build long before you even think about the hole the ground you're there for. 2 things really frustrate me these days. 1) The people who think we are about to have a permanent Moon base or go to Mars and have no clue about what it will actually take. That includes a lot of NASA people. I got hold of the entire conference output from a NASA conference a couple of years ago and out of nearly 200 pages there was all of 1-1/2 pages on maintenance and their answer was robots. Nothing was mentioned about spare parts or parts that wear or consumable items. it was stunning to see how little anyone at NASA was putting into the subject. 2) How staggeringly ignorant the politicians and economists are to the state of the developed worlds infrastructure. *Especially the energy infrastructure.* Its sort of why this video isn't completely crazy because its an exercise in what people need to consider. I just watched an ABC business interview with renowned economist Nouriel Roubini (kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZeTd6NvYpeDfNk) and for the first time (just before 6:00) I have seen an economist note that we have not kept up with energy infrastructure. In Australia we are very serious trouble. I found out about 6 years ago we had a bunch of very old large power stations that were rapidly ageing. I found out this is common around the world. I found out that nobody has plans to replace the old power stations once they close. Its an energy cataclysm we are marching right into. Nouriel Roubini says that Goldman Sachs have said everything not just energy but all commodities are about to go up this year. Of course they are, I did a basic economics class as an option. And if supply falls or demand rises then prices go up. Our populations have increased and with it energy demand, but we haven't invested in enough new power. That's economics 101 - demand increases and supply doesn't match it then prices GO UP. If energy goes up then everything that uses energy goes up BECAUSE EVERYTHING that's manufactured uses energy to make and everything that is transported uses energy. Its so staggeringly simple to see and yet a renowned economist who sees the problem doesn't say "we need to build power stations" he says "we need to understand the effects on the bond and equity markets." The whole Moon thing and the Mars thing is about to hit a wall, because the developed world is about to hit a wall. The worst of it is we should have seen it coming.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

@@johannesnm9706 No the "green" aspect is irrelevant really, I just thought it made a nice title! It would be insane to bother to ship in coal to Mars, and the atmosphere is nearly all CO2 already.

[@totalrecone]

One of my main concerns using wind turbines on the Martian landscape would be the sealing of the rotor bearings. As seen, Martian dust is powder fine and highly abrasive - qualities perfect for chewing out bearings. As maintenance would be a major concern, I'd venture to use non-rotating devices like the reactor or solar. Cleaning dust off panels would be a far easier job to do than bearing replacement in turbines.

[@PlumSack79]

You know she's trolling right. And you went on some weird ramble about bearings and dust.

[@philipandrew1626]

My thoughts exactly. The dust could be mitigated to a large degree with an electrostatic repulsion field near the moving parts and key seals.

[@christo930]

There is basically zero chance we will be going to mars to stay there as a colony anytime soon. So it really doesn't matter. Even something as seemingly simple as growing food there has overwhelming problems that would be enormously expensive to overcome, if they can be overcome. There is no evidence that even if we solved some of the problems (like where we are getting soil), that plants would grow well outside on mars in the environment of Mars. No insects or birds to pollinate. The sunshine is far weaker. Grow indoors? Where is all this building material coming from? We cannot make either steel, (high quality steel is not being made on Mars. You need a foundry to do that. You also need coal or oil coke to make steel) aluminum (same problems) or concrete on mars. 10kw wouldn't be anywhere near enough. No plastics. .

[@christo930]

@@philipandrew1626 Pure fantasy.

[@philipandrew1626]

@@christo930 The Luna space suits are being designed by NASA contractors with this exact technology. However I agree that Martian wind turbines are not viable.

[@Jawst]

I always assumed that due to the lack of atmosphere, it just wouldn't work!! Aeroplanes don't fly very high in the Earth's atmosphere because it is too thin for anything to work efficiently!

[@seriousmaran9414]

Not entirely true, planes just need to be very light, have longer wings and fly faster. That is not going to be easy but is possible. Highest electrically powered flight was close to 30,000 metres, nearly 100,000 feet. A Mig-25 got to 37,650 metres although that is unlikely to work on Mars. You then have rocket propelled planes which might be useful to transport stuff from and to orbit.

[@alanhat5252]

Ground launched aircraft have a ceiling because they're too heavy to fly higher but build a lighter aircraft & launch it off a 747 or a rocket & it will fly higher. Both were successfully used for the Space Shuttle though that's not a good example, it just demonstrated the technique. Sparse-atmosphere engines are different too, this is what the ramjet was originally designed for.

[@seriousmaran9414]

@Alan hat jet and propeller aircraft end up in issues because of oxygen starvation, not mass. Rockets carry their oxidiser within them so do not have the problem.

[@peterpicroc6065]

First time i saw someone with real knowledge talk about this. Most informative. Thank you!

[@davidlees2963]

Rosie - you keep using the term of weight when you really mean mass. The acceleration due to gravity on the Surface is 3.7 m/s^2 compared to 9.8 m / s^2. So some with a mass of a tonne on Earth is only going to be about 370kg on Mars. The supporting structure would only need to lift a little more than a third of what a similar sized set of blades on Earth weigh.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

true! maybe I meant the weight when it was loaded into the spaceship on Earth though...

[@sethryclaus]

Congratulations on maintaining an even tone throughout. Mars is a little hard to take seriously :D

[@dmitrijmordasov2396]

Hi Rosie, thank you so much for explaining the basics of our 'ARES' BSc project at TU Delft in such a concise and accessible manner, along with all the necessary background - this is a great introductory video on the topic!

[@dj_laundry_list]

Call me biased, but going to the clouds of Venus seems much more realistic than the red planet, at least as a first step

[@Conservator.]

I would suggest to spend the research money on how to make deserts on earth inhabitable instead of doing the same for Mars. If we could grow trees again in the deserts (some existing species can and do), that would be much more beneficial for mankind imo. (Message aimed at Elon Musk:)

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

I assume Elon is monitoring my KZbin comments pretty closely and will get your message! 😉

[@Conservator.]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Yes, I’m surprised he hasn’t reacted yet 😉

[@jimgraham6722]

Nuclear powered desal would do the job, easily. Renewables based desal also, but not so easily.

[@nc3826]

I assume Elon is monitoring Mars... For a signal, for when he should return.... Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here....

[@ChrisBigBad]

yay. Rosie all up in my feeds! A guest appearance on fully charged and talking space here! Sweet :D

[@nettlesoup]

I was going to watch this anyway but now you've gone and changed the thumbnail to an even more awesome one I guess I'll finally give in and watch now!

[@Undergroundbase-r1x]

It’s working so well on earth !

[@57wadey]

Any reason why you went with the American Shure brand rather than the Aussie made Rode product? 🤔

[@acmefixer1]

A question for Rosie: For Earth's atmosphere the WT blades are thin and long and usually three blades. But for Mars, with very thin atmosphere, could the blades be shorter, wider and greater than three? I could also see making a VAWT out of two half cylinders that are stowed as the actual rocket fuselage, and on Mars the cylinders would land upright and deploy automatically, splitting up into a typical VAWT. Which brings up another important issue. The bases of the turbines would have to be anchored to the surface, and that could be problematic. No humans with cranes there to assemble the turbines..

[@kurtisengle6256]

It's not that you just naturally think of a desk fan when you think of a windmill. You actually have a model of a desk fan type windmill, ON YOUR DESK. You REALLY SHOULD get rid of that, so you can just naturlly think of something else. Something vastly simpler. For example : the ancient Egyption wind turbine. A spinner atop a pole with 'wings' that easily swing one way but not the other. Wind blows one wing aside and blows against the other wing, causing rotation. Egypt used two wings because they painted them as birds. But, 4, 6, 8, whatever.

[@carlosvidosa284]

Would it be possible to build a space elevator on Mars with PV panels in space?

[@AWildBard]

In conditions on Mars, you should list radiation as one of the major concerns and problems to solve.

[@davidlees2963]

I guess the lack of life on Mars means there is no fossil fuel there. And the lack of Oxygen would made combustion difficult too.

[@nc3826]

oxygen accumulated in Earth's atmosphere... since it was a waste product of early life....

[@VerifyTheTruth]

What If You Had A Modular Semi-Closed System With A Superabundant Clean Energy Source And No Exposed Moving Parts?

[@mikebrant192]

Mars dust in VERY sharp and corrosive. Are there chemical compatibility issues?

[@theelectricwalrus]

This is an especially ironic video to see from you! You were the one who redirected my primarily space-focused engineering energy towards renewable energy

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Ha ha did I really? I studied aerospace engineering before deciding renewables was where it was at too. I still think space is cool though 😊 I've got a livestream planned for next week with some space people to talk about ways the space industry is helping with climate change, you might find that interesting!

[@transmitterguy478]

Atomic is the way to go, on Mars and Earth.

[@narvuntien]

How are you going to pay for it?

[@ForzaJersey]

​@narvuntien We could simply stop letting the superstitions and paranoia of nuclear science deniers determine public policy on nuclear energy. Most of the cost of nuclear power is overregulation and activist litigation. The remainder is the cost of building the machine components of a nuclear reactors ok since the existing nuclear manufacturing sector is a shriveled husk of what it was in the 70s.

[@ravenmad9225]

Nuclear fusion reactors are only 20 years away.So by the time we set up a base on Mars power will be no problem.

[@madtscientist8853]

What I don't understand is why aren't we using computer controlled generator Also known as pulse generators or pulse motors. Thay are smaller than a Nuclear System. And also will make power No matter the weather.

[@jansenart0]

Are these calculations taking air resistance and acceleration due to gravity into account?

[@AORD72]

Gravity has no affect on wind power calculation (p=1/2Area*density*wind speed cubed) as she showed. The only difference gravity does is allows you to build bigger turbine, as she showed. Air resistance is the drag of something moving through the air. This also accounted for in the equation p=1/2Area*density*wind speed cubed. The wind power formula is exactly the same as on earth, just the air density variable is different. It is lower on Mars, so creates less power. To account for the lower power you build bigger turbines, which you can do because the gravity is less.

[@AORD72]

Where is the center off gravity on a wind turbine blade rotor (three blades joined together)? It is the center of the hub, which is where the rotor rotates around. It is balanced at the point of rotation, so gravity has no affect on the rotor.

[@jansenart0]

@@AORD72 The hub of the turbine is one thing, the fluidistics of the Martian atmosphere are another. And, for that matter, so is high-purity CO2.

[@AORD72]

​@@jansenart0 What are you talking about, I think you need to take some physics lessons. The turbine physics is well known p=1/2Area*density*wind speed cubed. The formula is the same on both planets. The answer to your question "Are these calculations taking air resistance and acceleration due to gravity into account?" is: YES they are taken into account. 1) because gravity is not involved in the calculation (do you see g in the calculation?). 2) gravity has no affect on the rotor because the center of gravity is at the rotation point. 3) In the formula p=1/2Area*density*wind speed cubed, you put 1.2 for the air density on earth, 0.02 for on mass as Rosie calculated (@7:22 air density 60 time less than on earth). Is "fluidistics" a physics term? what does that even mean? And what does high-purity CO2 have to do with anything?

[@jansenart0]

@@AORD72 Bro, when your equations are calibrated for Earth, your anthropocentrism blinds you. Mars' atmosphere is almost exclusively CO2. It will behave differently from N2, as it does from H2O.

[@Petch85]

6:50 It would be nice if the animation showed the turbines rotating with the leading edge first and not the trailing edge. It just looks wrong.

[@geirmyrvagnes8718]

One of the three blades is rotating the right way. This knowledge may not make it better for you. On the other hand, I have seen worse in physics textbooks.

[@Petch85]

@@geirmyrvagnes8718 no it dos not. and knowing that textbooks makes the same mistake makes it even worse. But mistakes will happen no matter what, this was just the mistake that court my eye. But what about the mistakes I did not catch.

[@geirmyrvagnes8718]

@@Petch85 Don't watch the animation again. 😊

[@theodoremanning663]

Nuclear also has the advantage of producing power en route to Mars, and producing waste heat.

[@kalebproductions9316]

Can you collect electricity from cosmic rays? Two birds with one stone.

[@SocialDownclimber]

Yes but their fantastically low intensity means very little power is generated.

[@malcolmfowler8972]

Solar would be more practical. Easier to build and less maintenance

[@jovaz0r]

Not necessarily less maintenance. For instance the Mars rover stopped working due the dust storms on mars covering solar panels. Different playfield, different rules

[@chrisose]

You also left out the equipment that would be needed to erect a massive wind turbine on Mars. By all measures, wind turbines fail on Mars.

[@ianstewart7605]

Love these mind games. Can't see it happening in my lifetime though.

[@solexxx8588]

A rotating space station is probably more doable than mars. We don't even know if humans can survive the low gravity on mars long term.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

Maybe Try A Few In The Middle Of The Sahara Desert First.

[@grahamcook9289]

You could just as easily claim that Venus is the most Earth-like planet, as much as Mars is. Some the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn may also be considered Earth-like.

[@VerifyTheTruth]

What Is The Relative % Gravity On Mars?

[@VerifyTheTruth]

What Is The Air Composition And Atmosphereic Density Of Mars? Barometric Pressure At 300 Feet Above Average Surface Elevation? Maximum Wind Speed Expected Within 300 Feet Above The Surface?

[@VerifyTheTruth]

Do Differences In The Martian Electromagnetic Field Effect Variations In The Electrodynamic Properties Of Systems And Materials?

[@grahamkearnon6682]

No one's mentioned the NIMBY effect ie the Mars a nouts dislike of the view being spoiled. Hey just had a great idea, everyone will need exercise right, well remember the old bicycle light systems that ran off dynamo power, you just needed to pedal, problem solved.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

You had me at "Arnold Schwarzenegger"

[@narvuntien]

The game Surviving Mars has it wrong then :(. They have the Vertical Blade Turbines anyway. Clearly they should have the wind kites instead!

[@judelarkin2883]

Another great video! I am skeptical that humans will ever live on Mars long term. Participants in the US Antarctic Program are limited to 14 months on the continent due to negative physiology effects that are not well understood, making Antarctic a place on our planet that is not suitable for long term habitation. Knowing that, I can only assume the problems will be worse on Mars. We are the highly adapted product of 4 billion years of evolution on this planet. We don’t just live on this planet, we are a part of it.

[@AORD72]

I don't think so. We live over a wide range of environments on earth, mars is just another environment. As long as we a provided with the nutrient we need. Sun light might have been a problem in the Antarctic, but we can make IR bulbs for artificial sun light.

[@judelarkin2883]

@@AORD72 I have never lived on Mars so I could be wrong but I’ll believe it when I seen it. It seems like by now someone would be sealing themselves in a self contained habitat on this planet if they were serious about doing it on Mars. No one seems very excited to do that since Biosphere 2.

[@AORD72]

@@judelarkin2883 "No one seems very excited to do that since Biosphere 2", I don't thinks so, as Rosie said at the start, there is lots of people trying to get there. We are closer than ever with the billionaires trying. Some people won't be able to handle it. But there will be people that will. "It seems like by now someone would be sealing themselves in a self contained habitat on this planet if they were serious about doing it on Mars", Why? The astronauts that lived on the space station for over a year didn't do that. People that live locked in jail cells don't practice at home locking them selves in a room. I think strong willed people that are highly independent can handle the isolation and confinement of Mars. People like the famous explorers of the world. Tough people like Ernest Shackleton. Read about the "Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition" or watch the documentary. Shackleton lost the ship Endurance to ice in Antarctic and lived on the ice sheets, made it to Elephant island ( a barren frozen rock). It was over 2 years of living on a small ship then about a year fighting for survival and living in extreme cold and in tents and huts made from small boat hulls with next to nothing to eat. Isn't experiments like the Biosphere just a way to weed out the people that can't handle it. Can't this kind of time consuming experiment be avoided by just test and evaluating candidates like what is already done in the space agency programs?

[@judelarkin2883]

@@AORD72 I don’t think the purpose of testing a closed system on earth would be to test the human’s resilience, it would be to test the life systems. Keep in mind that they don’t produce anything themselves on the space station, everything is supplied. Also keep in mind that astronauts that spend a year on the space station return in poor physical condition. It is my understanding that most food and supplies will have to be produced or recycled on Mars. The inhabitants on Mars will have to deal with increased radiation, lower gravity, different light and will risk the bacterial biome becoming dangerously unbalanced in a small contained space. There are bacteria we need to survive and we all know there is bacteria that will kill us. It’s a delicate balance. Our terrestrial environment does a lot to keep that balance. The atmosphere and large bodies of water provide what is referred as a “biological buff.” It is more complicated to maintain a healthy environment without that buffer. I would think organization interested in colonizing Mars would be testing systems out but I haven’t heard anything about such an effort. It’s okay to disagree with my assessment. Many smart people do. I just think it’s a good idea to look closer at the challenges.

[@AORD72]

@@judelarkin2883 True, but your original statement was about "negative physiology effects". I think the first people going there will be fully supported from Earth. Probably many decades later self reliance will occur, but I don't see the problems as being unsurmountable. Radiation can be handled with shielding. Humans will evolve and adapt to the lower gravity over many generations (early generations might die earlier or live longer than on earth). The affects of lower gravity might be negated by strength exercises. On the balance the bad bacteria could be cancelled out by the good, medicines can help aid human survival just like on Earth. Suitable light can be made by us if needed. There are efforts/missions going on to build life sustaining systems for Mars: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - search for signs of water. Mars Exploration Rover - Determine the distribution and composition of minerals, rocks, and soils Curiosity Rover - Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, measured the radiation exposure in the interior of the spacecraft as it traveled to Mars, and it is continuing radiation measurements as it explores the surface of Mars. Perseverance rover - test oxygen production from the Martian atmosphere. The "Mars Society" has done a massive amount of work, they have their own habitat experiments and rover design experiments. Personally I think we should be aggressively pursuing colonization. Because we could easily be wiped out just like the dinosaurs were.

[@rogermckenzie2711]

Lovely lateral thinking.

[@mconnah1]

You forgotten the main reason is to try and ensure the preservation of the human race, in case of an extinction event…

[@geirvinje2556]

The Marsians might not like wind turbines on Mars.......

[@jeffrybradwell9589]

Hi I'm a 61 year old man that's living of grid for 30 year's and so meny people are getting it wrong and you can live better with less

[@fyiaustralia9686]

Your video went downhill from "Humans first walked on the moon in 1969".

[@cameronwalker294]

windpower very limited use here on Earth; Mars atmosphere is less than 1% of ours; you're not going to get hardly anything out of a martian windmill. Reality bites

[@seeker_of_knowledge5859]

Because there are too many Humans on Earth that is why

[@michaelklein807]

Much more super effective use of investment in people and cash is keeping earth alive. PERIOD.

[@peterblair6489]

Shesh, you're clueless. The moon race was political. All political.

[@uncivilizedengr4873]

i'm more interested in a carbon neutral mars, you aint got the credits. is this click bait for elon musk?? who would actually watch this video?! lolz humans

[@vdivanov]

Rosie, please slow down a bit! All this flies in too fast to be properly absorbed, and it is too important (and too cool) to be missed.

[@kennedy0tm]

Is Mars the most Earth-like planet? 50km above the surface of Venus: the pressure and temperature are in the same range as as Earth at ground level; the atmospheric density is higher so a balloon of Earth atmosphere will float but a leak is not an immediate disaster because pressure is equivalent; the atmosphere is not toxic with short or in trace exposure; suits outside of the colony don't have to be pressurised and are much simpler and less bulky; the gravitational field strength is 90% of Earth's, not 38% like Mars; the atmosphere means that at 50km up UV radiation that levels are similar to Earth... And there is lots of wind, at different speeds at different heights! Bring on the wind-powered floating cloud cities of Venus!

[@VerifyTheTruth]

This Is How It All Begins; First, Humans Are Trying To Erect Wind Turbines On Mars, Next Thing Ya Know They Are Looking For Their Space Modulator.

[@fishyerik]

So, why not Concentrated Solar Power? Collect heat when it's sunny, extract some power from that heat, and use the ground as a heat sink in that process, which makes the ground a thermal battery at the same time. Extract energy from that stored heat when it is used for heating. That's making the most of what's there as it is, and it is energy harvesting, and storage, and heat storage for the habitat, all in one. The concentrating part can be inflatable, like a balloon with one reflective side, and one transparent side to make the shape, and thereby deflatable for safe storage when there's no sun. The concentrating part could that way weigh less than 1 kg per kW. About wind power, how much strong winds there are tends to fluctuate much with season, and when the winds are strong the atmosphere tends to consist to a very large part, by mass, of very fine dust particles. And with almost no protective atmosphere means there's a lot of ionizing radiation, and meteorites. Wind power wouldn't be my first choice for power generation on Mars.

[@tonymc9102]

You would have to make totally sealed devices for wind power like the oscillating ones being developed with a strong flexible cover at the pivot points. A engineer from tesla is designing small thorium reactors that can fit into the starship. Which would be better than wind or solar in Mars.

[@psychosis7325]

Before I watch my gut says the Martian atmosphere is too light for wind to make sense vs solar cells even though there is also less light but I don't have a clue about wind speeds so V cubed is probably going to bite me.

[@MiniLuv-1984]

Great explainer, thanks Rosie.

[@МихайлоСєльський]

before watching: non-starter.

[@aikiemarais6676]

Hi Rosie, I still like your videos, they make me think. In terms of the bigger wind turbine, why not add more blades for more torque or use the blades in tandem. Another option is to broaden the blades more into a paddle shape to catch the wind more. Though I think wind turbines will be the absolute last option if nothing else works.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

You love a wind turbine, Rosie.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Yep

[@paulcummings55]

Interesting twist on your Wind Turbine expertise- enjoyed the video! And this was the second time today I saw you in a podcast, as you are now also doing videos for Fully Charged, it would appear. But back to Mars- it will almost have to be nuclear power on Mars- my own preference is for Thorium MSR reactors. It seems like there is plenty of Thorium (and Uranium, for that matter) on Mars as well.

[@markiliff]

Great to see you twice in 2 days. Really impressive stuff, as ever. Settler intervention to make the kites work would not be a problem. There won't be much to do on Mars, so kite flying could turn out be the top entertainment.

[@SapioiT]

Might be easier to make large funnel walls using marscrete (the medieval-walls way, with the concrete on the outside and in cement channels like the channels of brick walls, and normal mars dirt inside the giant bricks), and use a smaller windmill instead. Also, they might not use the wind turbine for the bulk of the power but instead as a backup micro-grid which to power emergency life-support systems. But I think that instead of that, they would more likely make "concrete ears" (large walls used during WW1 and/or WW2 to hear enemy aircraft, a form of human radar) with fresnel mirrors (the mirror equivalent of fresnel lenses) to make fresnel mirror walls, which to concentrate more sunlight onto the solar panels, and use the heat obtained from cooling them, to heat the living quarters of the colony. Especially since the solar panels can be placed in a depression into the ground which to be covered by a steel roof in case of falling debre/asteroids, and especially if a few steam generators are used with fresnel walls to make concentrated sunlight power stations. And if you use long pipes instead of sun-tracking mirrors, you will only need to track the sunlight on one axis, or on no axis at all by making a bit less power per mirror, because the metal mirrors can be very cheap to make, and have a lightweight (rope turned charcoal) carbon-fiber plastic backing, and use a low-tech and maybe also manual mechanism to adjust the angle of the solar panels once every 2-3 weeks.

[@UnexpectedBooks]

Hydroelectric! Oh, wait… never mind.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

lol

[@nc3826]

Damn, your comment made me thirsty....

[@roidroid]

1:20 *"Sure, Mars is the most Earth-like planet in our solar system".* aCtUaLlY... Earth has that title :P

[@brianballard1729]

Where is your research on wind-power via familiar turbines that dot the earth's surface with regular failures? You an engineer? I mark you an assured FAILURE>>>>

[@VictorCeccato]

after "settling" for one year on mars, everyone on earth will be bored with it and pay more attention to a some movie stars divorce battle ... but I guess the "martians" will get their 15 minutes of fame.

[@hamjudo]

A Starship will be able to bring 100 tonnes of cargo. An empty Starship weighs 150 tonnes. Most of that tonnage is in the form of just one alloy of stainless steel. Many cargo Starships will go to Mars, only a few will return. Each one that is left behind represents 100 tonnes of scrap steel. A lot of stuff on Mars will be built with that alloy of stainless steel. The production of propellants for return trips will require many gigawatt hours of power. This will use locally sourced water and carbon dioxide to produce methane and liquid oxygen. The propellant plant doesn't need to run around the clock, it can operate while the sun shines bright. I suspect that the downdraft of a helicopter hovering over a solar panel will be an effective way to clear off dust.

[@craigs5212]

For humans or even complex machines to live or function on Mars you need ENERGY and lots of it. The only energy Mars has is solar power, at about 43% of what we receive on earth. Even the rovers had to mostly shut down during the winter months. Wind is just a converted form of solar energy. To build stuff on Mars not only do you need energy but water, oxygen and carbon, all lacking on mars.

[@rickhalverson2252]

I love you. You are adorable. But you don't just bend science. You try to recreate it :( I can't tell you how much I would like to help you. Don't get lost girl.

[@wesleyashley99]

I won't rule out wind power being used on Mars but I think it will be mostly nuclear and space based solar that will provide power for Mars colonies. It's more practical than on earth to build a space elevator or tether from the ground to Mars synchronous orbit so even if microwave beams are not allowed for fear they might get accidentally aimed at people or damage infrastructure they can just run a cable from the ground to space.

[@grahamcook9289]

But humanity has gone further than the Moon, with robotic missions. No human necessary. We have even now left the Solar System and reached inter-stellar space with the Viking probes.

[@tomriddle6877]

If no wind a helium filled delta kite floats 100 ft high. Wind above 4 mph causes top kite to rise and pull a train of kites up. Cloth hose connects all train kites so air pressure runs a generator on the ground. Weight pulls kite train back in when wind is too light.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@EngineeringwithRosie >>> Great video...👍

[@snorttroll4379]

I dont believe government expensive projects bring forth new technology in a way that provides more value than just letting the market decide. because taking that money from people resulted in an equal loss of wealth in other parts of society. in fact more because bureaucrats and waste. just pay for basic research. or maybe not even that.

[@SocialDownclimber]

The most important part of a mars base is actually going to be the transport. Unlike the fairly homogenous moon, Mars has a variety of different terrains that may hold vital information about the possibility of past life on Mars, and since Mars had active geology and hydrology, resource surveying is going to be another critical task. For a rover, the best bet is deployable solar panels but in a dust storm period, airborne wind could be the only solution for powering a vehicle.

[@damianousley8833]

The martian dust sticks to photovoltaics like glue, such is the static cling of the dust. The atmosphere is only 1% of earth's with a surface pressure of less than 10 hPa.

[@hartunstart]

If you are planning to travel to Mars, first spend an year on Antarctica. Then think about it carefully: Mars is far worse and the way home is longer. Quite likely there will be no way home.

[@rmar127]

Rosie, I think there was a slip of the tongue there as there’s no soil on mars. Plenty of dirt, but no soil. Soil contains live organic matter. Which is something lacking on Mars

[@paulcooper8818]

Making smart robots to explore Mars would be a better avenue for resources. All the extra complications of sending and returning humans is pointless.

[@ekaa.3189]

I'd use a few Kilopower reactors to boot up a solar and wind with battery backup energy manufacturing sector on Mars.

[@stevebowen809]

Since aerodynamics are not a concern in space the tower and blades could be used as part of an earth/mars ship then once on mars the ship will be taken apart and reconfigured into the first base, I have always assumed this would be done as single use components make little sense for a mission to mars, this of course assumes multiple missions/ships so they can still get home.

[@stevemickler452]

For a long time I have been advocating space based solar power satellites for power on Mars

[@geofflewis8599]

..and just getting the giant pieces to Mars and onto its surface..

[@peterblair6489]

I hate to tell you this, but there's fuck all wind on Mars, because there's fuck all air.

[@lestermarshall6501]

Why not make the blades wider? More like a dutch windmill? The Kite looks good too though.

[@naveenv4227]

No I am good in earth.... But exploration are good though

[@tentimesful]

solar panels that can get cleaned of sand is best as mars dont have clouds that stop the sun..

[@runningman5871]

Thinking solar in space and beamed power could make a lot of sense long term at Mars.

[@bengorman5214]

You've defined Mars' air density as 1/60th of Earth's. Where do you get that figure? I'm finding the figure of 0.6% or 0.0166 for air pressure... Is air density the same as air pressure? What am I missing?

[@geirmyrvagnes8718]

Gravity?

[@bengorman5214]

@@geirmyrvagnes8718 Is related to air pressure/density how? The pressure/density is what is it, under the prevailing conditions at surface (i.e., in Mars' gravity). ??

[@geirmyrvagnes8718]

@@bengorman5214 Yeah. I think I confused myself a little. The pressure at the surface of a planet is maintained by the gravity, but that is beside the point here. For a given temperature, a given gas at a given pressure should have the same density no matter what the gravity. I haven't looked into the numbers here, but the significant difference here might be temperature. At a lower temperature (like on Mars), gas at the same pressure would have a higher density.

[@bengorman5214]

@@geirmyrvagnes8718 Okay, I'm starting to get it. Pressure, measured in Pascals or bars, is a function of the weight of the air mass above the point of measurement, which is itself a function of the planet's gravity. Density is measured in mass per volume (e.g. kg/l or g/cm^3). One assumes density decreases roughly in relation to pressure in nature, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Above, I was just being dense! Ha ha! In any case, thar ain't much air on Mars!

[@geirmyrvagnes8718]

@@bengorman5214 Yes, as a different example, think of a sealed container of gas. The density of that gas must stay the same as long as the container is sealed, but if you heat it up, the pressure will increase. Physics, ideal gas laws, all of that stuff. *waves hands in the air*

[@NaumRusomarov]

now I want wind turbines on mars.

[@audiodead7302]

Pedal power is the way to go.

[@krunoslavregvar477]

You are nuts!

[@markthomasson5077]

Problem with the kite wind power is that it will be high in the sky, and the local Martians might get upset if it gets in the way of their airliners.

[@alanhat5252]

it's a big planet...

[@glennboyd939]

There is negligible air pressure on Mars. You can't feel a 200km/h wind. Windpower is out until the atmosphere is thicker.

[@geirmyrvagnes8718]

This is how a rough oversimplification leads to wrong conclusions.

[@Alrukitaf]

We should go to the moon again. If we’ve still got the technology. It’s like a two-week deal, if that. Compared to six months + for Mars. Kind of a no-brainer, really, you’d think ?

[@SocialDownclimber]

The moon is largely useless though. We don't really have a reason to go back.

[@PinataOblongata]

RTGs are just so simple and require zero maintenance. Having something sealed in such dusty conditions would be a massive boon. So why not just take a hundred or so every trip (or a lower number of larger ones)? They would be modular so that given varying power needs as development at different areas differs, they could be shifted about as needed.

[@bobo2.2]

The main problem with a RTG is that the material (Pu238) is excessively expensive to make. It is doable for single spacecraft or rover, but we simply don't produce enough to power a whole base. I think the nuclear reactor is the best option for short-mid term, with fuel reprocessing if the chemicals required are available.

[@nicholashuff4198]

Is that 2-3 tons of Earth material, or the weight of that same mass on Mars?

[@guygillmore2970]

Tons is mass not weight. Doesn’t change in non-relativistic conditions

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

👍 Wind would be my second backup after solar, for a base on Mars... Something to act as a backup during those long dust storms that block the solar Just a few little vertical turbines RTG per hab for primary power, until the base is large enough to need a reactor... :)

[@Ironic1950]

Nuclear power is the only rational power source!

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

@@Ironic1950 It's the most powerful of the very few options available, yes... :) But I would always want at least 2 backups, however small.. Fission is king.. Although I'd rather use the fissionables for space travel than base power! :D

[@Ironic1950]

@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV the two Voyagers have thermo-electric generators on a long pole, to keep the radioactivity from the elemental Plutonium away from the electronics. These are now over 40 years old, and still functional.

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

@@Ironic1950 Yep! RTG's ftw... :) Curiosity has been running an RTG since 2011 too... on Mars... I would want one in each hab and vehicle, and most likely one in the larger outdoor robots too..

[@chefboyrdee1]

' and hopefully a way to get home ' this should be a first requirement along with food, water, shelter, and power. I know you're more empathetic then practical about this Rosie :)

[@ChrisBigBad]

Nah, people will work harder, if there is no way out ;)

[@PlumSack79]

You're trolling aren't you

[@PlumSack79]

Oh look, the hysterical fan boying has got so bad even a girl is doing it now.