New Mars Forums

"Amundsen-Scott base is permanently inhabited, but nobody calls it a colony."

From might point of view, that is because of its purpose. Its purpose as I understand remains strictly scientific. If the object were to develop a self-sustaining human community, primarily for its own existence then I think we might call it a colony.

I agree if we just set up a base on Mars as a scientific "listening post" then there is not much point in calling it a colony because it is not our aim to create a large self sustaining human community there.

Ciclops -

Trying  to get these definitions sorted. So you seem to be saying...

Outpost is a permanent installation periodically with human habitation.

Colony is a permanent installation continuously inhabited mostly by persons who are permanent inhabitants of Mars.

You don't give a definition for a "base". Is that a permanent installation with permanent human habitations but where the inhabitants are mostly temporary inhabitants of Mars?

I don't really agree with this approach. I think any permanent installation which is continuously inhabited deserves to be called a colony. I wouldn't bother with the term outpost unless we are talking about a temporary habitat.

Not sure how we define the difference between a permanent outpost and a colony. I can't imagine that there will in the first 50 years be many volunteers (or at least, not many suitable volunteers). I think the reality is that people will be living on Mars temporarily for between 2 and 6 years. 

Gold trading might cover the cost of human transport. I don't think the developing outpost/colony will require a huge amount of material supply.  They will be living simply on Mars and the food, furniture, hygiene products, clothes etc will be made with Mars ISRU.  Some hi tech spare parts for machines and medicines will be required, but not huge amounts. I think we might be looking at less than 100 tonnes every 2 years for a mature outpost colony of 100 people.

That will be

   

ATLAST

Population 6[/b]

Jumpboy -

Esperanto? It's very Euro-latin-centric. Complete ignores African, Chinese and Indian languages.

It's not that easy to learn either, being so inflected and is no more rational than most languages.

I see no reason to opt for Esperanto which is spoken by hardly anyone in any case. Better to start afresh if it were to be attempted.

The Mars Hab doesn't have to fly! I think that removes about 90% of the complexity - all that cabling, wiring and instrumentation. I mean - what are we seeking to monitor and control in the Hab? It's an interesting question...probable list:

- Air quality

- Air pressure

- Radiation levels

- Air temperature

- Humidity

- Water levels/quality

- Fridge/freezer temperatures.

- Water temperature (hot and cold)

- Power intake/battery levels

- Venting of sewer gas?

- External conditions (whether safe to go out).

That probably covers it. A lot of these controls are very standard and will just need to be of a high engineering standard for durability (although we would have spares for the most important).

There is still the puzzle of how one arrives at these figures if development costs have been "front loaded". 

I don't think we need anything near a 1,000 support staff for a minimal Mars mission so even the estimates I have produced so far are pretty inflated.

I can see deep space coms could be an expensive ongoing cost. May depend if one could latch on to NASA's or Russia's existing system.

I think any country that doesn't look closely at the people it allows to become permanent residents and citizens is crazy. Yes, you should make sure that such people, whatever their background, are going to be loyal to your institutions.

While 96,000 might not sound a lot, you have to factor in a much higher birth rate for Muslim immigrants.

In the UK, we had hardly any significant immigrant communities 60 years ago. We now have a situation where 25% of primary school children don't have English as a first language (and that must exclude the quite substantial numbers of immigrants who do).

I think in the USA you should be concerned about Hispanic immigration. Language is the glue that holds together the USA and makes it what it is. Make it bilingual and it will become a sort of fractious Canada. That would be a great shame because the USA is the only big successful nation on earth not based on ethnic, racial, religious or  monarchical identity.  (Although Brazil might be an alternative candidate.)

He had some interesting technical ideas but from a philosophical point of view he always struck me as very shallow.

I respect your viewpoint, Gregori. This isn't a PR exercise. But I guess I just have a personal bias towards the inspiring. "Apollo" was a good choice, much better than say M1.

I think we need to understand that a Biosphere has very little to do with a Mars habitat. A Mars habitat won't be a closed self-regulating eco system. It will be an externally supported eco system - energy, resources and raw materials will be drawn in from outside the habitat and certain waste products will be vented into the exterior.

GCN Revenger -

On the H&S advantages, I think that they are twofold:

1. Additional radiation protection and micrometeorite  protection.

2. I think that while habitat and farm areas should be entrenched or covered in regolith, the danger of a flash fire from industrial processes makes above ground and open working desirable - so any fires or explosions do not endanger the main habitat and the personnel have a fighting chance of survival. (Of course the primary aim must be to ensure 100% safe operation, but we can't rule out human or machine error.)

That said, the heat issue was something that did exercise me and I am interested to learn from you that heat loss is less of a problem owing to the thin atmosphere - hadn't realised it was quite so significant. If heat is not a huge issue (and I don't think it would be with solar either by the way - given there are plenty of opportunities for energy storage to power internal heaters) then I wouldn't run with my idea - straighforward working in the open is probably OK, maybe with judicious choice of location, to provide a shadowed area perhaps for a large part of the idea, so as to provide additional radiation protection.

I think $6 billion a year for operational costs is way over the mark. Operational costs should definitely be going down over time.

I suspect that the missions being envisaged are overelaborate with NASA style allocations of 2 tonnes medical supplies!

We don't need a huge pressurised vehicle to do effective exploration (especially if we get the lander craft right so they can do hopping around the planet once we get rocket fuel production up and running). That will save a bundle.

I'm really at a loss to identify what the $6 billion dollars could consist of. I mean - employing a 1000 support staff couldn't cost more than $200million!  And I don't think the launch pads/mission control will need anything like that number.