Quote:
Originally Posted by Titas Aduksus
Thanks Modest, I lost my calculations of years ago when I first had this idea, I was going to repeat them. Yes there would be problems. On earth tunnels are affected by geological instability caused through techtonics, such activities may not be such a consideration on mars. Will reply more fully later when work allows. Also tunnel would be inhabited during construction thus fully used (unlike tunnels on earth which provide no return until fully completed, thus time and length less of a problem, construction may also be simpler. Another benefit if Mars was always relatively geologically inactive then sub surface strata may be more stable and uniform than that which we tunnel through here on earth.
Thanks again.
I know I seem arrogant but I have thought through my ideas, and am a determined person.
|
Unless we come up with super-cheap "Mr Fusion" power, I just don't think 52 km's deep is worth it compared to the other alternatives. But until that time, we'll pretty much rely on wind turbines, solar thermal energy, solar PV, etc..... (and whatever nuclear fuel is left after "
peak uranium" hits, which is why I'm against nuclear power here on earth when solar thermal is cheaper. We'll need our uranium for Mars!)
52 km's is a LONG lift ride to get to the surface to maintain our energy systems and agriculture.... let alone a long, deep, nasty tunnel to
build.
Financially if I were running the colony I'd rather mine out a subsurface underground colony as suggested by many Mars colonising sites, and pay for a series of 10 airlocks to the colony. (And of course have regular airlocks within.)
However, if "Mr Fusion" reactors arrive and we've got a fusion powered tunnel borer and no worries about cost, then why not? With "Mr Fusion" on board, there are no limits. We could eventually sculpt out an underground paradise and forget about the surface altogether. Gosh, the recycling systems they'd have to have would make a permaculture systems engineer weep with joy to behold.
