I somehow missed the Sci News article, but I just cannot see how there would by much concentration of minerals as a results of, say, about 200 million years of *possible* plate tectonics, verses, oh about 3.5 billion years on earth. In maps of Mars I don't see subductions zones, "island arcs", uplifts with erosion that would expose minerals, etc.
As far as Mascons, the Moon has mascons also. They could just be lumps of iron from impacts.
There was no plate tectonics on Mars so it is extremely unlikely that minerals got concentrated, and even if they did, there is no crustal movement to bring this stuff to the surface. I think that the mining prospects on Mars are bleak.
Mars would be a hideous place to colonize for the various reasons given above and the following little tidbits:
The children of Mars colonists, if they even survive, could never return to Earth.
The lack of full sunlight, the effects of the fine
Martian dust, and a drepressing home underground would certainly be miserable.
It would be impossible to live off the land on Mars because there is almost no nitrogen. Oxygen can be obtained from ice, but where is the nitrogen? You would have to import zillions of pounds of nitrogen for the living spaces and greenhouses.
Local obnoxious radio personality, Howie Carr, was interviewing an old hand from Hollywood who used to work the TV sets in the 60's/70's. This guy remembers seeing a rubber fish monster walks off the set of 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, get toweled off, and walk right on to the set of Lost In Space.
I felt the same way watching Terminator; there was nothing original about the movie. Even the robots
were right from Robocop/Lost in Space[new one].
Ick.
This was the word of the bunch if you figure in the expectations.
Slashdot Mirror
I somehow missed the Sci News article, but I just cannot see how there would by much concentration of minerals as a results of, say, about 200 million years of *possible* plate tectonics, verses, oh about 3.5 billion years on earth. In maps of Mars I don't see subductions zones, "island arcs", uplifts with erosion that would expose minerals, etc. As far as Mascons, the Moon has mascons also. They could just be lumps of iron from impacts.
There was no plate tectonics on Mars so it is extremely unlikely that minerals got concentrated, and even if they did, there is no crustal movement to bring this stuff to the surface. I think that the mining prospects on Mars are bleak.
Mars would be a hideous place to colonize for the various reasons given above and the following little tidbits: The children of Mars colonists, if they even survive, could never return to Earth. The lack of full sunlight, the effects of the fine Martian dust, and a drepressing home underground would certainly be miserable. It would be impossible to live off the land on Mars because there is almost no nitrogen. Oxygen can be obtained from ice, but where is the nitrogen? You would have to import zillions of pounds of nitrogen for the living spaces and greenhouses.
The problem is that the moon and mars are a horrible places to live.
Of the two, Mars seems like a better place to colonize, but it would be miserable.
Colonist would look to the blue speck at dawn and forever pine away for the green hills of earth [tip to rh].
Local obnoxious radio personality, Howie Carr, was interviewing an old hand from Hollywood who used to work the TV sets in the 60's/70's. This guy remembers seeing a rubber fish monster walks off the set of 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas, get toweled off, and walk right on to the set of Lost In Space. I felt the same way watching Terminator; there was nothing original about the movie. Even the robots were right from Robocop/Lost in Space[new one]. Ick. This was the word of the bunch if you figure in the expectations.