13 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 36.8 ms ] thread
In short: they just heated some (simulated) Martian dirt, and this alone was sufficient to produce liquid iron, and then liquid iron-silicon alloy. No huge quantities of carbon were required. This is quite surprising to me.

Making steel, with controlled carbon content, would be quite another challenge. Carbon is readily available on Mars, but only in the form of CO2.

It's a given that if you're taking space exploration seriously, you need ISRU. You can't ship everything to Moon or Mars from Earth - you need to learn how to process and refine local materials.

This is the key advantage of going to Mars or Moon surface, as opposed to operating a space station. A space station exists in a vacuum. Surface bases have access to local materials.

Sadly, very few planned space missions have this kind of ambition. That recent proposal US had about putting a nuclear reactor on the Moon was at least a step in the right direction - if you're bringing an entire reactor, that means you're establishing a permanent base, complete with an industry that would generate the demand for power.

Pretty neat. This would certainly make for an interesting Mars mission should SpaceX want to try it, land a lander, have the lander process regolith into iron chunks, create a pile of chunks. All good threshold goals.

What ever happened the asteroid mining folks? They have a similar problem, albeit with very little gravity and no atmosphere, but their metals are in theory worth a lot more (platinum, gold, silver, Etc.)

There was a similar idea/proposal for extracting aluminum from Lunar regolith, also a good space mission for private interests.

Once you've got basic metals you can make more interesting things, with iron you can make reinforced concrete which would be an interesting building material on Mars I suspect.

I have a fairly generic reaction to this.

Make metals at the top of Everest. Then we’ll talk.

There’s a good recent book series about this by Daniel Suarez called Delta V (in the first book they process regolith from an asteroid; in the second book its on the moon; presumably the unreleased third book is on Mars).
There is the small detail of heating the regolith to 1400c. It's not very clear where that energy comes from (at least not at scale).

Burning fuels seems to be out. So I guess nuclear or solar?

Mars solar is weaker than earth, but I guess let's of panels plus lots of batteries could work. Sorta. Not sure it produces "tons" of material very quickly.

Nuclear is the other option. But would rely on fuel from earth. Not to mention that building a reactor big enough to sustain a colony, plus industry, would be challenging. And of course landing fresh uranium on Mars would be risky. (It's heavy, and any accident would render a chunk of Mars radioactive for quite some time.)

Oh, and the reactor would need to be air-cooled not water-cooled.

But, I guess, yay regolith?

I've read some parts of Mars are full of Thorium, sometimes, somewhere.

Calls for in-situ-utilization, doesn't it?

>Swinburne and CSIRO researchers have successfully made iron under Mars-like conditions, opening the door to off-world metal production.

Not trying to be pedantic but really curious, it should be off-earth not off-world, right?

Off-world meaning that the iron production is made by alien not human.

Being assigned to Mars will be the new "sent to Siberia".
Fun Fact: There is a 0% chance we will go to Mars this century! Elon's hyperloop is more realistic, and RFK Jr's medical theories are safer than the journey would be.
This is so exciting. I really hope Musk succeeds in bringing humans to Mars so all this tech-tree can finally be unlocked!