New Mars Forums

Brick floor support for Mars domes would likely involve a reinforced, in-situ foundation, possibly built using a combination of the dome's bricks and a traditional anchoring system. As on Earth, the dome would require a solid base to distribute the load, but on Mars, it would also need to anchor the dome against the outward force of the internal pressure. Support structures could also include 3D-printed, load-bearing columns or walls built from Martian regolith, and the dome's tension members could continue below ground to form a basement or sub-basement.

Support structure components

Anchoring foundation:
On Mars, a pressurized dome exerts an outward "tension" force that must be anchored to prevent it from tearing itself out of the ground.
The foundation would need to be engineered to counteract this tension, likely using a combination of 3D printing and traditional masonry techniques.
Tension members from the dome could extend below ground to create a sub-basement or foundation to help hold the structure down.

In-situ material use:
Local Martian soil (regolith) could be used to create bricks, concrete, or other building materials for the foundation.

NASA's "astrocrete" method uses regolith and a binding agent from human waste to create a strong, locally sourced material.
Ice from Mars' polar regions could also be used as a binding agent or for creating ice bricks for a foundation.
Load-bearing structures: In addition to the foundation, the floor itself might be supported by columns, walls, or a combination of both, which could be created using 3D printing.
3D-printed concrete and other materials can be used to create load-bearing beams and columns comparable in strength to traditional materials.

Underground extension:
Integrating the dome with an underground structure could provide several benefits.

Stability:
The sub-basement structure provides extra support to prevent the dome from "pulling" out of the ground due to internal pressure.

Radiation shielding:
Burying parts of the habitat provides a natural shield against radiation.

Examples of proposed support structures
Basement:
The sub-basement could be a structural extension of the dome, continuing the tension members below ground to form a complete hemispherical structure.

3D printed columns/walls:
3D-printed elements could be used for the floor support, potentially integrated with the dome's tension members to create a strong and cohesive structure.

Ice and regolith:
A combination of ice and regolith, possibly forming bricks, could be used to create a strong, cold-resistant foundation that can be assembled relatively quickly

For a Mars colony of 100 people, the living space requirement is estimated to be at least \(100\text{\ m}^{3}\) (\(~3530\text{\ ft}^{3}\)) per person for indefinite habitation, totaling at least \(10,000\text{\ m}^{3}\) (\(~353,000\text{\ ft}^{3}\)) for the crew. This accounts for not only personal living quarters but also essential shared spaces for work, recreation, and agriculture, which are necessary for a self-sustaining settlement. For transit, the space requirement is lower, with estimates around \(80\text{\ m}^{3}\) (\(~2825\text{\ ft}^{3}\)) per person for deep space missions, though designs can vary significantly. For a Mars settlement Total: A minimum of \(10,000\text{\ m}^{3}\) (\(~353,000\text{\ ft}^{3}\)) of habitable volume for 100 people.Per person: A minimum of \(100\text{\ m}^{3}\) (\(~3530\text{\ ft}^{3}\)) per person is cited as a requirement for indefinite habitation, based on scaling from civilian needs.Purpose: This space must include a mix of personal areas and shared facilities for activities like work, exercise, and agriculture. For Mars transit (per person) Deep space/Mars transit: NASA's baseline estimate for long-duration deep space missions is \(80\text{\ m}^{3}\) per person.SpaceX Starship: The SpaceX Starship is designed to carry up to 100 passengers in its total volume, though this is for later-stage colonization missions once infrastructure is in place. Key considerations Transit vs. settlement: The space requirements are vastly different between the long transit phase and the final, permanent settlement. Transit requires efficient use of space for a shorter duration, while a settlement requires much larger volumes for long-term sustainability.Infrastructure: A crew of 100 people would require significant infrastructure and cargo to support them, which takes up a large portion of the total volume available in a spacecraft like the Starship.

For a crew of 100 on a long-duration Mars mission (over 180 days), the estimated minimum acceptable living volume required is approximately 2,500 cubic meters (m³), based on a NASA guideline of 25 m³ per person.

Living Space Requirement for a 100-Person Mars Crew

The living space requirements for deep space missions are based on NASA research and historical spaceflight data. For long-duration missions (over 180 days), the primary concern is the "net habitable volume" (NHV) needed to ensure crew physical and psychological health and mission success.

The guidelines below detail the estimated volume requirements.

[h2]Key Metrics[/h2]
*   Minimum Acceptable Net Habitable Volume (NHV) per person: 25 m³ (approx. 883 ft³)
*   Estimated total minimum NHV for 100 people: 2,500 m³

[h2]Factors Influencing Volume Requirements[/h2]
NASA research emphasizes a "bottom-up" approach to habitat design, where volume is allocated based on specific functional areas and activities.

*   Mission Duration: Requirements for short transit (e.g., a few months) are more constrained than for an extended stay on the Martian surface. The 25 m³ figure is specifically for long-duration exploration missions.
*   Functional Areas: The total volume must support various functions, including:
    *   Private crew quarters (approx. 5 m³ personal space per person)
    *   Hygiene and waste management facilities
    *   Exercise areas
    *   Medical facilities
    *   Work and science areas
    *   Communal/recreation spaces
    *   Stowage for supplies and equipment
*   Psychological Factors: Adequate space is crucial for crew well-being and performance in confined, isolated environments. Confinement studies and data from facilities like the International Space Station (ISS) inform these guidelines.
*   Gravity: In microgravity, space can be used more effectively (e.g., all three dimensions). On the Martian surface, where some gravity is present, floor area and familiar terrestrial accommodations become more relevant.

[h2]Comparison with Existing Habitats[/h2]
*   Apollo Spacecraft: Very cramped, about 210 cubic feet total for a crew of three.
*   International Space Station (ISS): Offers a much larger volume, around 152 m³ (5,368 ft³) per crew member for a six-person crew, as volume was not a primary constraint.

The 2,500 m³ figure represents a minimum engineering standard; for optimal performance and comfort on the Martian surface, more generous space would be ideal.
Human Research Program

The Mars Society's mission is to advocate for the human exploration and settlement of Mars by educating the public, promoting government and commercial support for Mars research, and inspiring a shared, challenging endeavor for humanity.
The organization's primary goals are to inform the public and government about the benefits of Mars exploration and to work toward establishing a permanent human presence on the Red Planet.

Key aspects of the mission

Public education and advocacy:
The Mars Society works to educate the public, media, and government on the benefits of exploring Mars.

Promoting government support:
It promotes international support for government-funded Mars research and exploration programs.

Encouraging commercial ventures:
The organization advocates for commercial space ventures that will aid in Mars exploration and settlement.

Pioneering research and programs:
The Mars Society pioneers research and develops programs to further the goal of Mars exploration and settlement.

Inspiring a grand challenge:
The mission frames human exploration of Mars as a noble challenge that can unite humanity and drive progress

The area of a 200 m diameter dome, assuming it is a perfect hemisphere, is approximately 62,831.85m^2. 

Step 1: Determine the radius and formula The dome is assumed to be a perfect hemisphere (half of a sphere). The diameter (\(D\)) is given as \(200\text{\ m}\). The radius (\(r\)) is half the diameter, \(r=D/2=100\text{\ m}\). The formula for the curved surface area of a hemisphere is \(A=2\pi r^{2}\). 

Step 2: Calculate the area Substitute the radius into the area formula and calculate the result: \(A=2\pi (100\text{\ m})^{2}\)\(A=2\pi (10000\text{\ m}^{2})\)\(A=20000\pi \text{\ m}^{2}\)Numerically approximated, this value is: \(A\approx 62831.85\text{\ m}^{2}\)

Answer: The area of the dome is approximately \(62,831.85\text{\ m}^{2}\) (or exactly \(20000\pi \text{\ m}^{2}\)).

The number of bricks needed for a 1-meter wall depends on the wall's height and thickness.
For a 1-meter-high, single-layer "half-brick" wall, you will need approximately 60 bricks.
For a 1-meter-high, two-layer "one-brick" wall, you will need approximately 120 bricks.
You can calculate the total for any wall by multiplying the wall's square meterage by the appropriate number of bricks per square meter (60 or 120) and adding about 10% for wastage.

Calculation for a 1-meter-high wall

Step 1: Determine the wall's length and thickness.
Let's assume the wall is 1 meter long and 1 meter high.

Step 2: Determine the thickness of the wall.
Single-layer (half-brick) wall: You'll need about 60 bricks per square meter.
Two-layer (one-brick) wall: You'll need about 120 bricks per square meter.

Step 3: Calculate the total number of bricks.
Single-layer: 1 meter (length) x 1 meter (height) x 60 bricks/sq meter = 60 bricks.
Two-layer: 1 meter (length) x 1 meter (height) x 120 bricks/sq meter = 120 bricks.

Step 4: Add extra for wastage.
Add an extra 5-10% for cuts and mistakes.
For a 60-brick wall, add 3 to 6 extra bricks. For a 120-brick wall, add 6 to 12 extra bricks

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.