New Mars Forums

Building a dome on Mars using local soil to create bricks is a feasible concept being actively researched by scientists and engineers. Bricks made from compressed Martian soil simulant have been found to be stronger than steel-reinforced concrete, potentially exceeding the specified Grade A brick 125 N/mm² strength requirement.

Martian Brick Strength
Material: Martian soil (regolith) contains iron oxide nanoparticles which act as a natural binding agent under high pressure.

Method:
A simple high-pressure compression method (like a blow from a hammer) can create sturdy bricks without needing an oven or additional binding agents from Earth. Other research explores using bacteria and urea or molten sulfur as binders.

Strength:
Compressed Martian soil bricks have a compressive strength comparable to or even greater than steel-reinforced concrete (average adobe bricks have a much lower strength of 250-300 psi or 1.7-2.0 N/mm²). The specified 125 N/mm² (equivalent to approximately 18,129 psi) is an extremely high "Grade A" strength, which may be achievable or exceeded with these advanced composite materials/methods.

Dome Construction and Soil Usage
Dome Feasibility:
Domes are a potential structure for human habitats on Mars, but they must be able to withstand the low external atmospheric pressure, internal positive pressure, and harsh environment (radiation, micrometeoroids).

Construction Method:
The compression method is compatible with additive manufacturing (3D printing), where layers of soil are compacted to build a structure.

Radiation Shielding:
10 tonnes of soil can provide significant radiation shielding. Habitats are likely to be built underground or covered with a thick layer of regolith to protect inhabitants from intense radiation. A depth of around 3-4 meters (or more to be safe) of rock/soil is needed to completely react out the pressure load and provide necessary shielding for a pressurized habitat.
In essence, using Martian soil to create extremely strong bricks for a protective dome is considered a promising strategy for future Martian settlements, as it drastically reduces the amount of material that would need to be transported from Earth

Martian sand grain sizes vary, with most active sand being very fine, around 50–150 micrometers, but coarser grains up to 500 micrometers or more are found in specific bedforms like coarse-grained ripples. The soil also contains dust particles smaller than this, and some inactive areas have a surface layer of much larger, dust-covered grains.

Fine sand
Dominant size:
The most common size for active sand is very fine, typically between 50–150 micrometers.

Location:
This size is abundant in the troughs and on the surface of active ripples and other wind-blown features.

Color:
The fine sand is often reddish due to the presence of iron oxides.
Coarser grains

Size:
Coarser grains can reach up to 500 micrometers and sometimes even larger, occasionally up to 1.4 mm or more.

Location:
These larger grains are found on the crests of coarse-grained ripples and can be found on inactive bedforms.
Appearance: They may be reddish or whitish and have irregular shapes, suggesting they are formed from the erosion of local bedrock.

Other particle sizes
Dust:
A significant amount of dust, much smaller than sand grains, is also present. It can mix with the sand or form a thin layer on top of other features.

Gravel:
In certain areas, such as crater rims, gravel-sized particles (diameters above 2 mm) have been observed

Elon Musk’s Starlink network was built to blanket the planet with low-cost internet, but a growing number of its satellites are now falling back to Earth every single day. As I look at the data and the scientists raising alarms, the story is no longer just about connectivity—it is about whether the world is sleepwalking into a new kind of environmental and safety risk in the sky.
The scale of the Starlink project means that even a small design trade-off can have global consequences once multiplied by thousands of spacecraft. With experts warning that deorbiting satellites are already altering the upper atmosphere and could threaten aircraft and people on the ground, Musk faces a new set of worries that can’t be solved with launch capacity alone.

Starlink’s rapid growth meets a new kind of gravity
When I step back and look at Starlink’s trajectory, the sheer speed of its expansion is staggering: thousands of satellites launched in just a few years, with plans for tens of thousands more. That aggressive cadence has turned low Earth orbit into a dense shell of hardware, and now the return journey—those satellites falling back down—is starting to define the next phase of the story. Earlier this year, reporting showed that up to four Starlink units are in the process of reentering the atmosphere on any given day, a rate that transforms what might have been a rare event into a routine part of the global environment.
What makes this shift so striking to me is that the falling hardware is not a surprise glitch but a built-in feature of the system: the satellites are designed to operate for only a few years before burning up in the atmosphere. A detailed analysis of the constellation noted that the spacecraft are intentionally placed in low Earth orbit so they will naturally decay and disintegrate rather than linger as debris, yet that same design choice means the planet is now being showered with a steady stream of artificial material. One investigation into how Starlink satellites are falling to Earth daily underscored that this constant turnover is happening at the same time as more and more units are being sent to orbit, raising questions about how sustainable the model really is.

Daily reentries and the warning from space experts
As I dug into the numbers, the idea that “a satellite fell somewhere” stopped feeling like a rare headline and started to look like a daily background condition. Spaceflight specialists now estimate that up to four Starlink satellites are in some stage of orbital decay at any moment, each one gradually spiraling down until it hits the thicker layers of the atmosphere and breaks apart. That means dozens of reentries every month, and because the constellation is spread around the globe, the fallout is distributed over many regions rather than confined to a single corridor.

The concern I hear from experts is not just about the spectacle of streaks in the sky but about what those streaks are made of. One space analyst described how the satellites’ aluminum and other metals vaporize as they burn, injecting material into the upper atmosphere that was never there in such quantities before. In a focused warning that Starlink Satellites Keep Falling, a Space Expert Warns that this daily rain of debris is happening at the same time as more satellites are being launched, creating a feedback loop where the more Musk builds his network, the more material ends up burning in the sky.

Scientists flag environmental risks in the upper atmosphere
What troubles me most is how quickly the conversation has shifted from abstract orbital mechanics to concrete environmental impacts. Earlier this year, Scientists documented that 120 Starlink satellites fell from space in a single month, a figure that turns the upper atmosphere into a kind of industrial exhaust pipe. Each disintegrating spacecraft releases metallic vapour as it burns, and researchers are now trying to understand how that plume interacts with ozone chemistry, cloud formation, and the delicate balance of radiation that keeps the climate stable.

In their warnings, Scientists have emphasized that the satellites are designed to burn fully, leaving no large debris to hit the ground, but that doesn’t mean they vanish without a trace. Instead, the material is redistributed as fine particles and gases at high altitude, where it can linger and potentially alter atmospheric processes in ways we are only beginning to quantify. A detailed report on how failing Starlink satellites worry scientists highlighted that 120 fell in Jan and that the environmental risks from this metallic vapour are not yet fully understood, underscoring how Musk’s orbital strategy is now entangled with planetary-scale questions.

Avi Loeb’s “new threat from the sky” and the numbers behind it
Among the voices pushing this issue into the mainstream, astrophysicist Avi Loeb has been unusually blunt, describing Musk’s falling satellites as a “new threat from the sky.” When I read his comments, what stands out is not alarmism but a sober recognition that the system is working exactly as designed: the satellites have an average lifespan of about five years, after which they are expected to reenter and burn up. Loeb has argued that this predictable churn means we can no longer treat each reentry as an isolated event; instead, we need to think of it as a continuous industrial process happening overhead.

Loeb’s concerns have been amplified by coverage that tracks how quickly the reentry rate is rising. One report by Zach Kaplan noted on Oct 10, 2025, and then Updated on Oct 11, 2025, that the number of satellites falling back to Earth could rise by 61% each year if current launch plans continue, a projection that turns today’s daily reentries into tomorrow’s constant shower. That same analysis pointed out that 37 satellites had already come down in a recent period, illustrating how fast the tally can climb. In that context, Loeb’s description of Elon Musk’s falling satellites as a “new threat from the sky” is less a rhetorical flourish than a summary of the math, and it is why I link his warning directly to the data on Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites falling to Earth.

Design choices: five-year lifespans and complete burn-up
From a purely engineering standpoint, I can see why SpaceX opted for short-lived satellites that burn up completely. By giving each Starlink unit a lifespan of about five years and placing it in low Earth orbit, the company reduces the long-term risk of dead hardware clogging space and triggering catastrophic collisions. The idea is that when a satellite fails or reaches the end of its mission, atmospheric drag will eventually pull it down, where it disintegrates before any large fragments can reach the surface.

The trade-off, however, is that this design pushes the environmental burden from orbital debris to atmospheric pollution. A detailed account of how Starlink satellites have a lifespan of about five years explains that they are specifically designed to burn up completely in the Earth’s atmosphere, with some researchers warning that the resulting particles could contribute to warming the atmosphere. In other words, Musk has solved one problem—space junk—by creating another, and the question now is whether regulators and scientists can keep up with the pace of his design decisions.

“Already falling” and why the trend will only accelerate
When I compare early Starlink launches to the current phase, the most striking change is how normal falling satellites have become. SpaceX’s orbital internet fleet is no longer a static constellation; it is a conveyor belt, with new units going up as older ones come down. Analysts tracking the orbits have concluded that the satellites are already falling out of low Earth orbit at an increasingly alarming rate, and that the trend is baked into the architecture of the system rather than being a temporary glitch.

Some observers have gone further, arguing that the pattern of failures and reentries points to a design problem as much as a planned lifecycle. They note that as the constellation grows, even small reliability issues can translate into dozens of extra reentries each year, compounding the environmental and safety concerns. A close look at how Starlink satellites are already falling suggests that the rate will only get worse as more spacecraft are added, raising the possibility that Musk will have to revisit core design choices if he wants to keep the system politically and environmentally viable.

Balancing global internet access with risks from above
For all the worry, I don’t want to lose sight of why Starlink exists in the first place. In remote villages, disaster zones, and war-torn regions, the network has become a lifeline, delivering broadband where fiber and cell towers either never existed or have been destroyed. That humanitarian and economic upside is real, and it explains why governments and consumers have been willing to tolerate a certain level of orbital clutter and reentry risk in exchange for connectivity that would otherwise be out of reach.

The challenge for Elon Musk now is that the trade-offs are becoming harder to ignore as the numbers climb. With up to four satellites falling toward Earth on any given day, 120 recorded in a single month, and projections that the reentry rate could rise by 61% each year, the burden of proof is shifting: it is no longer enough to say the satellites burn up harmlessly. As I weigh the evidence from Oct 8, 2025, Oct 9, 2025, Oct 10, 2025, and Feb 6, 2025, and read experts like Loeb warning that Starlink’s falling hardware represents a new threat from the sky, it is clear that Musk’s next big challenge is not just launching more satellites—it is convincing the world that the daily rain of metal and vapour above our heads will not come back to haunt us on the ground.

According to the original Artemis plan, we should have already put people on the Moon. Artemis III should have gone and come back by now. Instead, it is currently tentatively scheduled for no earlier than mid-2027. However, the mission is almost certain to be delayed again. The reason for the delay lies with SpaceX's Starship rocket: a leaked memo states that the vehicle won’t be ready until mid-2028, at least.
During the first Trump administration, the mission to bring humans back to the Moon was christened Artemis. It was going to involve the already-in-construction Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule, as well as a privately built Human Landing System. Orion and SLS were tested with Artemis I in 2022.

The original selection for the Human Landing System spacecraft was SpaceX's then-planned Starship. This actually created legal troubles for NASA. Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, a rival space company, filed a complaint in federal court against NASA, escalating its original complaint that NASA unfairly awarded the lunar lander contract to Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

At the time, the legal trouble seemed to be a major delaying factor. Issues with the spacesuit designs and problems with the heatshield of Orion added to the delays of both crewed missions: Artemis II, which will launch next year and travel around the Moon, and Artemis III, the mission that is going to bring the first woman and first person of color to the surface of the Moon. The next Moon landing was first envisioned to happen in 2024, then this year, and then it was postponed to next year. At the end of 2024, a mid-2027 date was put down, which remains the currently agreed target.

Before that agreement, an analysis published over a year ago by the US Government Accountability Office was skeptical that it would be possible to make that date, and posited it would be pushed to 2028. The major delaying factor now is Starship. The vehicle suffered multiple explosions this year. Despite the most recent successes, the vehicle is well behind schedule to safely carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the Moon's surface and back.

A few weeks ago, acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy went on TV to announce that the space agency was open to other companies to provide a lunar landing system. “[SpaceX and Musk] push their timelines out, and we’re in a race against China,” Duffy told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” at the time. “So, I’m going to open up the contract. I’m going to let other space companies compete with SpaceX.”

The only company that is ready to compete is Blue Origin. The company has not been advertising what they have been doing with their Blue Moon human lander, but it is expected that an actual space test will happen in the first half of next year. Blue Moon is supposed to be delivered in 2030 for Artemis V

Elon Musk did not take the news of NASA shopping around well. He turned to social media to post school-yard insults regarding Duffy (called him “Sean Dummy”) and wrote that: “The person responsible for America's space program can't have a 2-digit IQ.” Duffy retorted that “great companies shouldn’t be afraid of a challenge.”

In the leaked memo reported by Audrey Decker at Politico, SpaceX will be ready to land humans on the Moon in September 2028, more than a year after the mid-2027 goal of NASA. Before that, Starship needs to demonstrate in-space refueling, currently scheduled for June 2026, and an uncrewed landing on the Moon in June 2027.

To make that schedule work, nothing can go wrong. While Starship has achieved certain success as defined by the specific tests from SpaceX, it has yet to demonstrate the capabilities of flying to space and landing back on Earth safely. To state the obvious, a safe landing is the crucial part of a Lunar Human landing system.

NASA’s plans for the Moon missions continue to shift. The Trump administration’s budget has proposed canceling SLS, Orion, and the Lunar Gateway – the next-gen international space station currently under construction to replace the ISS – that is supposed to orbit the Moon to help facilitate both Moon landings nd further space travel. The administration's goal is to rely more on commercial partners, but it's an ever-changing race which ones they will be.

Building a 200-meter diameter brick dome is a massive engineering challenge, a project that would surpass the scale of the world's current largest masonry dome, the Florence Cathedral dome, which has a diameter of approximately 42 meters.
Such a structure would require advanced engineering, modern materials science, and innovative construction techniques to ensure stability and durability.
Key Considerations for a 200m Diameter Brick Dome
Structural Feasibility:
A 200m dome is possible in theory, but traditional unreinforced masonry techniques (like those used in historical domes) might not be sufficient at this scale due to the immense weight and stress. Modern construction would likely involve reinforced masonry, steel, or concrete elements.
Foundation:
A robust and secure foundation is essential to handle the massive load of a 200m dome and transfer it evenly to the ground without settling.
Construction Techniques:
Formwork:
Unlike smaller domes that can sometimes be built with minimal or no formwork using specific "tricks" like sticky mortar and specialized tools, a dome of this size would likely require extensive temporary support structures (centering or formwork) or innovative construction methods.
Geometric Design:
The geometry is critical. Engineers would need to select an appropriate profile (e.g., a hemisphere, which might not be practical for the internal space usage, or a different curve).
Material Science:
The bricks would need to be strong, and the mortar would play a critical role in bonding the massive structure.
Engineering Expertise:
Collaboration between structural engineers and architects is vital to ensure all aspects of the design and construction are feasible and safe.
Modern Alternatives:
For a dome of this size, modern construction methods like those used for Monolithic Domes (using an inflatable membrane, foam, rebar, and shotcrete) are more common and potentially more practical and cost-effective.
Seismic Considerations:
If built in an earthquake-prone region, specific reinforcement and design considerations would be critical to ensure the structure's integrity.
Summary
A 200m diameter brick dome would be a monumental architectural and engineering feat, far exceeding existing examples of masonry domes. Its construction would require substantial engineering innovation, modern reinforced techniques, and extensive structural analysis to overcome the challenges posed by its unprecedented scale.

For building arch shapes, you can use either tapered/wedge-shaped bricks or standard rectangular bricks. Tapered bricks are specially designed for arches to create uniform mortar joints, while rectangular bricks can be used for a flatter arch, sometimes called a soldier arch. Special shapes like double-tapered arch bricks or bricks with a specific angle (like a 70° skew-back angle for flat arches) are also available for curved elements.
Types of bricks for arches
Tapered or wedge-shaped bricks:
These are the most common for rounded arches. They are tapered to ensure that the mortar joints are of a consistent thickness throughout the depth of the arch.
Double-tapered arch bricks: These are double-tapered in either width or length to form curved features, like an archway or a circular window.
Rectangular bricks (cut or full-size):
Soldier arches:
These are created by placing standard rectangular bricks on their ends, with their long sides set vertically. This type is more of a flat arch and requires support like a lintel or frame.
Flat arches:
Flat arches are often constructed with standard rectangular bricks that are the same size and have parallel sides, sometimes with a specific skew-back angle.
Specialty and pre-fabricated arches: Modern technology allows for pre-fabricated brick arches built to specific dimensions and designs, which can be a cost-effective solution.
Key considerations for size and shape
Uniformity:
The key for most arches is achieving uniform mortar joints for structural integrity. Tapered bricks achieve this, while flat arches often use standard rectangular pieces with a consistent, small mortar joint.
Angle:
For flat arches, a 70° skew-back angle is common for the voussoirs (the wedge-shaped stones used to build the arch).
Customization:
If your design requires specific angles, curves, or a certain rise, you may need to specify custom dimensions or use pre-fabricated arches