Slashdot Mirror
Now NASA Wants To Grow Potatoes On Mars For Real (examiner.com)
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.
Call me when you find a plant that can thrive on 600 Pascals of atmospheric pressure.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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...
Because nobody wants to eat sweet potato with every meal.
Potato, on the other hand...
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
While I'm sure NASA wants to grow potatoes on Mars, they are simply settling for growing them in carefully simulated soils. There are lots of technical challenges and it's interesting science. However, the title is somewhat misleading as there are no actual plans to grow them on Mars.
Spoilers...
We have to GET to Mars first...
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.
Wake me up when they can grow bacon on Mars.
You are welcome on my lawn.
After all the three sisters have been planted together for centuries for how well they work in harmony and the beans adding nitrogen to the soil and the squash keeping the roots cool and moist with their leaves would be useful in a Martian greenhouse. Seems like the most logical choice while providing a nice variety to the Martian farmers.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The soil on Earth has been washed by rain for millions of years and almost all the water soluble salts have been dissolved and transported to the ocean by the rivers. Without the rain cycle the martian soil is likely to contain very heavy doses of heavy and toxic metals, lots of salts. The martian Whatney would have died of heavy metal poisoning if he was eating the potatoes without poetic license and fiction reality adjustment. Just saying.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
I haven't read the article yet, but Peru, Chili and other part of the High Andes are known for cultivating varieties of potatoes that number in the thousands. They are more resistant to cold and low pressure than the variety you and others are familiar with and alluding to.
Who could reasonably claim to be a "space agriculture expert"? An astronaut who grew a couple plants for a week in orbit? TFA only mentions researchers, who don't actually have a great deal of praise for the idea of growing potatoes. It seems the summary could have used an RTFA expert.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Investing in food replicator tech will be needed for long range manned missions. You just don't have room or mass allowance for a full hydroponic system on a mission to Pluto.
Just to be clear, the potato is native to the Andes.
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.
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 there while the peasants lived on potatoes - and starved when the potatoes were blighted and the other stuff was still being reserved for export.)
Sweet potatoes, however, are a different thing and much heavier in sugar.
But I haven't looked it up lately, so I'm not asserting the above as truth.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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. Even in massive doses you'll just turn somewhat orange as the beta-carotene is, otherwise harmlessly, stored up. Vegans and juice-fasters (but not pizza-lovers and Paleo junkies) regularly do this. . . . it could be an adaptive form of camouflage to the new Martian environment.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
^ That is all.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
My guess is that potatoes are just the acceptable understandable crop for explaining to the public. They'll want to consider a lot of high energy foods. Casava and yam might get better energy density. Sweet potato might win on ease of production. Wild guesses here. May be completely different.
On Earth, we get sweet potatoes.
On Mars, we get sh*t potatoes. Oh great.
Why NASA is fucking up with us??? Just month ago they wouldn't take water samples to know if there's life scared by contamination risks. But now they wanna grow shit up there??? Make sense please!!!
Oh, to investigate the solar system? I thought, I mean it SOUNDED like you were going to say, I, er - nevermind.
So, kind of like McMurdo Station in Antarctica?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Because plenty of Irish, Russians, and other groups of people have lived almost entirely on potatoes. Granted, you need to eat a LOT of potatoes to live off of just them, but it's been done in the past.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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"!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I wrote 10,000x less hospitable, not 10x less.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Mash means Smash (potatoes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It seems that hydroponics is the only way to go since food replicators don't actually exist.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The licensing fees won't be that much until there are people there, and by then, the patent will have expired.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
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?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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 see space habitats first. Any attempt at terraforming Mars will take centuries just due to the energy requirements for getting material we need to Mars.
LOL
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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 do not know what a "human habitat" is. Hint: Its not a colony.
"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!!!
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"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.