Now NASA Wants To Grow Potatoes On Mars For Real (examiner.com) 95
MarkWhittington writes: In the hit movie, "The Martian", NASA astronaut Mark Watney survives by planting potatoes in one of the modules of the Mars base who is stranded at. The plot device received a great deal of praise from space agriculture experts, according to a recent story in Popular Mechanics. Of course, future space farmers would be advised to grow a variety of crops in order to diversify their diet, not an option for Watney. In any case, according to a story in ZME Science, NASA is partnering with Peru's International Potato Center (CIP) to do what Watney did and grow potatoes on Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
Because nobody wants to eat sweet potato with every meal.
Potato, on the other hand... [qwantz.com]
Re:Why potatoes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Food choices on a Martian colony are going to be extremely limited. Any 'real' food - as opposed to dehydrated reconstituted engineered powders - is going to be welcome.
Sweet potatoes are also more nutritionally beneficial than white potatoes.
Re: (Score:2)
If we ever discover green alien chicks needing a good screwing the rush to go into space will shift into overdrive and prioritize the development of a warp drive and hang the cost. Until that happy day we will just have to make due with robotic probes to investigate the solar system.
Re: Why potatoes? (Score:1)
Oh, to investigate the solar system? I thought, I mean it SOUNDED like you were going to say, I, er - nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
Because saying "never" always works out so well.
Just by the use of that one word, I can say AC is wrong, and you are the ignorant one for agreeing with them.
Colonization of the solar system is well within our capabilities, it is just expensive currently. There is nothing preventing us from colonizing the solar system.
Colonization of other star systems is unlikely for the near future, but it is quite doable with generation ships, or if we can make a propulsion breakthrough.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever.
Ever is a pretty bold claim. From what we know that is sufficient time to create a universe from nothing, create habitable planets in our solar system and grow life from scratch.
Well, it is an AC post so therefore, most certainly a troll. That being said, it's pretty much true for anything our generation will attempt. Even if we get around to forming an outpost, or even a temporary base on Mars, it will be at least 30+ years in the future. A colony, meaning an attempt at a permanent settlement will be centuries after that and after many other milestones. Between effective lack of atmosphere on both, plus the regrowlith on the Moon and poisonous landscape on Mars, we'll most likely
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that hydroponics is the only way to go since food replicators don't actually exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet potatoes are also more nutritionally beneficial than white potatoes.
ORLY?
I was under the impression (from a claim I heard in a discussion of The Potato Famine) that ordinary potatoes of the sort grown in Ireland a century and a half or so ago, though heavy on starch (and thus leading to overweight issues if you try to live on them alone and aren't extremely active), were nutritionally complete, or very close to it. (That's why the Brit landlords could get away with exporting everything else farmed th
Re:Why potatoes? (Score:5, Informative)
So I looked it up.
White potatoes have many (but not quite all) of the major nutrients. But you'd have to eat a LOT of them if that's all you ate.
White and sweet are very close on most things, with a few major exceptions: White is a bit higher in protein. Sweet has about an order of magnitude more sodium (which white is very low in). Sweet also has a bunch more sugar. And sweet is LOADED with vitamin A and Beta-carotene - which is great for a serving but terribly toxic if you get too much - as you would if you tried to live off just sweet potatoes.
So, no, sweet potatoes are NOT more nutritious than white (except if you need some vitamin A and are only eating sweet potatoes as PART of a balanced diet.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why potatoes? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is beta-carotene toxic? I knew Vitamin A was quickly toxic, but I thought beta-carotene, which is converted to Vitamin A in the body was close enough to non-toxic.
beta-carotene is very close to non-toxic. The conversion to vitamin A is well regulated, so it normally won't cause hypervitaminosis A. It does react with cigarette smoke to somewhat increase lung cancer risk, has a slight association with raised rates of a couple other cancers, and, when taken with alcohol can lead to liver toxicity. But it's generally extremely safe (which is why you can take it - without vitamin A riding along with it - until you turn orange).
But while sweet potatoes have a lot of beta-carotine, they ALSO have a LOT of already formed vitamin A. Like over 14,000 IU per 100g serving (to a white potato's 2 IU). Daily Tolerable Upper Level of Vitamin A as Retinol for adults is only 10,000 IU. (Even if that 14,000 IU number includes the beta-carotine, that would only account for 10,600 IU, so 300g/day would be the safety limit.) Trying to live on just sweet potatoes is a recipe for a fatal case of hypervitaminosis A.
Re:Why potatoes? (Score:4, Funny)
But you'd have to eat a LOT of them if that's all you ate.
There was an old Cold War joke:
The Russian general tells the American general, "My troops are well fed! They get 2000 calories per day!"
The American general counters, "My troops get 4000 calories per day!"
The Russian general answers, "Nonsense! Nobody can eat that number of potatoes!
This joke was resurrected in the late 90's, when the general folks were talking about how much USB stick storage their soldiers had.
The Russian general answered, "What!? Your soldiers have that much storage on their USB sticks!? Nonsense, then all your soldiers would be blind from masturbating"!
Sweet Potatoes, Oh Joy! (Score:1)
On Earth, we get sweet potatoes.
On Mars, we get sh*t potatoes. Oh great.
Re: (Score:1)
Potato is native to the Andes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right (Score:2)
Re:Right (Score:5, Informative)
You wouldn't grow plants in the open, not just due to (the lack of) atmospheric pressure but because you'd lose valuable water invested in them.
For the foreseeable future, any farms on Mars would be grown indoors in a densely stacked hydroponics or aeroponics environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
any farms on Mars would be grown indoors in a densely stacked hydroponics or aeroponics environment.
Which means you could grow just about anything you wanted, not only potatoes :)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, we'll be able to grow people to colonize the planet!
Wait, does that mean the machines won?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think NASA has officially jumped the shark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
but the politicians are not listening
Because NASA keeps on suggesting idiotic stuff. Like growing potatoes on Mars.
Actually there are very practical applications ... (Score:3)
Because NASA keeps on suggesting idiotic stuff. Like growing potatoes on Mars.
You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related? Having astronauts on long endurance missions grow some of their own food is not only cost effective but incredibly good for morale.
Re: (Score:1)
Take the Atacama Desert and make it 10,000x less suitable to life. That's Mars.
IOW, there aren't going to be any human habitats on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wrote 10,000x less hospitable, not 10x less.
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference in those two numbers are zeroes, and we all know that zero is equal to nothing. So no, there's no difference between 10 000 and 10.
I tried that logic with my bank and they looked at me funny.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Take the Atacama Desert and make it 10,000x less suitable to life. That's Mars. IOW, there aren't going to be any human habitats on Mars.
You don't seem to understand what a human habitat is. The international space station is a human habitat and it is in an even more hostile environment than mars. People have been living in that particular habitat for 15+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
The international space station is a human habitat and it is in an even more hostile environment than mars.
You're either (1) joking, (2) delusional, or (3) didn't make yourself clear.
People have been living in that particular habitat for 15+ years.
It's -- on average -- 250 miles away, not 140 million miles away. So, take the $100 billion (*not* including the $50 billion in Shuttle launches) cost of the ISS and multiply it by a jillion.
That's what the Mars Colony would cost, and it's why there will never be a Mars Colony until some miraculous new compact power source can be invented.
Re: (Score:2)
The international space station is a human habitat and it is in an even more hostile environment than mars.
You're either (1) joking, (2) delusional, or (3) didn't make yourself clear.
You forgot option (4). You erroneously conflate relative ease of visiting and supply with a hostile environment.
People have been living in that particular habitat for 15+ years.
It's -- on average -- 250 miles away, not 140 million miles away.
Are you replying to the correct individual? I'm the one who wrote: "You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related? Having astronauts on long endurance missions grow some of their own food is not only cost effective but incredibly good for morale."
So, take the $100 billion (*not* including the $50 billion in Shuttle launches) cost of the ISS and multiply it by a jillion.
That's what the Mars Colony would cost, and it's why there will never be a Mars Colony until some miraculous new compact power source can be invented.
Thank you for confirming that you d
Re: (Score:2)
"You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related?
How? One is a microgravity and the other is 38% of Earth gravity.
Having astronauts on long endurance missions grow some of their own food is not only cost effective but incredibly good for morale.
We can agree on that.
Thank you for confirming that you do not know what a "human habitat" is. Hint: Its not a colony.
People on Mars would have to live somewhere. It would be in... a habitat!!!
Re: (Score:2)
"You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related?
How? One is a microgravity and the other is 38% of Earth gravity.
Gravity is not the main problem. NASA is focusing on aeroponics approaches that are compatible with micro and zero g.
Thank you for confirming that you do not know what a "human habitat" is. Hint: Its not a colony.
People on Mars would have to live somewhere. It would be in... a habitat!!!
Apparently a simpler clue is needed: You are the only one talking about a colony in this conversation.
Potatoes and Tomatoes (Score:4, Informative)
Potatoes and Tomatoes might be a really good idea for space/mars...I didn't see the movie, so forgive if its obvious already...
They can be continuously harvested for some time. When we do it on earth, we generally are lazy and don't use them to their potential; we plant wait until fruit appears and harvest.. What's special about growing in confined controllable space is, they can be grown vertically in a box, and continuously produce new edible parts...
Example, Potato:
You start with a box full of dirt say 6-12" deep/walls... Plant potato after the plant gets a good start, add 6" to the box, and put more dirt against the stock.. Keep doing this as time goes by... You can eventually harvest the potatos from the bottom run, as new potatoes grow closer to surface... I'm not sure how long this can go for(potentially a lot time) but you can get multiple crops from a single plant(This is what you'd want to genetically modify if necessary, simply direct it to stay alive/keep producing)..
Tomatos are grown in massive greenhouses today and they can survive years.. They simply keep folding/rolling up the tomato vine slowly through the months in a controlled environment.. New Tomatoes flower at the top of the vine, ripe harvested from bottom.
More importantly still might be those special edibles that grow like a weed and ALL parts are edible/nutritious(Unlike potatos and tomatos) edible roots, stems, leaf, fruit...
http://old.seattletimes.com/AB... [seattletimes.com]
What you want and what you get are different (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Far more interesting to me than the soil would be the atmosphere, temperature, and greater distance from the sun.
I'd be fine with hydroponics, if we can get them to work without having to run nuclear power plants to insolate them.
Damnit, Slashdot (Score:2)
Spoilers...
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously???? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be silly, Nazis have been there for decades
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that is supposed to be a secret!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly, Nazis have been there for decades
That's the moon silly!
Re: (Score:2)
well, they do like their kartoffelsalat
Re: (Score:2)
I think Douglas Quaid is already there, maybe we could ask him how things are going up there.
hog futures (Score:4, Funny)
Wake me up when they can grow bacon on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nori-wrapped bacon could be interesting, but bacon-wrapped bacon [bacontoday.com] can't be beat. Now, to improve on pigs in space [wikia.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The beans don't actually add nitrogen to the soil. Legumes are used for this because they form a symbiotic relationship with a bacteria. The bacteria is the one that fixes atmospheric nitrogen into the type ready for plant uptake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are probably lots of companion guilds they could choose, but perhaps they're trying to walk before flying.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly Earthling! Mars does not have plentiful gaseous nitrogen, so those nitrogen-fixing symbiotes are useless. Martian farmers will be adding nitrogen fertilizer directly to the soil for the foreseeable future.
Martian soil is likely to very salty and toxic. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But also wind erosion freeing metals from rock out cropping. So who the hell knows.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's part of the challenge. What's getting in and what do we need to do to get it out? What can be done with the stuff available - for instance it looks like you can even condense freaking formaldyhde out of the atmosphere there so something to react with the heavy metals to precipitate them out may be a
Re: (Score:2)
The licensing fees won't be that much until there are people there, and by then, the patent will have expired.
Re: (Score:2)
No reason to ague with idiots.
I agree, therefore there is no point in arguing with you.
What details did the book omit that you think would be deal breakers?
Expertise seems pretty cheap (Score:2)
Chiiips... in... spaaaace (Score:2)
^ That is all.
Giving food to conspiracy theorist! (Score:1)
Mashed potatoes (Score:2)
Mash means Smash (potatoes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]