You are not logged in.
Very interesting comments Robert.
I'm pleased to see you feel 38% gravity will be enough to protect human physiology from harm .That's my hunch as well.
I agree we'll have to restrict outside working but 40 hours sounds more than enough. I think actually that there may not be much need for outside working once the habitat has been constructed, although I think regular outside sorties will be important psychologically. Solar panels will probably need cleaning with blowers on a fairly regular basis (once every two days would be my guess).
One thing that occurs to me. If we do have covered habitats, it would be good to have lightweight screens that could reproduce the outdoor scene (recorded by wifi connected cameras). That way the colonists will feel connected to the outside world and the day/night cycle. I think work has been done on electronic paper and so a lightweight display might be a possibility in a few years' time.
Gregori -
You say: "any inflatable material is going to wear down and tear and leak air".
Well where's the evidence for that. If you are talking about microscopic leakage, well that's not a problem since we are not talking about self-contained biosphere: we will be manufacturing air.
But wear and tear? How quickly? If the inflatable is in a covered trench and the surrounding regolith takes most of the pressure strain on the material, I really don't see a great deal of scope for wear and tear, given we will be using state of the art materials.
What is your view of the Bigelow enterprise? Are you saying their structures will quickly deflate? My understanding is that the one in space is still doing fine after (some? a couple of?) years.
It's true that most consumables in Antarctic research stations are not produced from ISRU (although I believe they do use solar and wind power).
However, the only reason is that the earth based cost of flying in or shipping consumables to the Antarctic is far cheaper than would be using ISRU.
But these expenses would need to be seen, in relation to Mars, in the context of perhaps a $40billion project over ten years. It would NOT cost a billion dollars to to provide the ISRU structure for a small colony of up to 20 people. It wouldn't cost even 100 million dollars I think. Probably somewhere between 10 and 100 million dollars. Essentially all the machines are in existence. They just need to be adapted to Mars conditions and made as light as possible to reduce the mass we are carrying to Mars. Particular attention will need to be paid to those machines that will be operating in the outside environment e.g. the digger. However, we know from the Mars Rovers that such machines can be produced. Remember also that with humans around these machines can be made a lot less sophisticated.
Why are they fragile? I'd say they could last for a long, long time. The only weathering they will be subject to will be frost damage.
Why are we worried? Per capita energy will be abundant on Mars. There will be more than enough to spare for splitting water if that is what is required.
Gregori -
"But living on Mars will also be very difficult."
Let's assume we can get to Mars. What then is the great difficulty in living on Mars? I don't really see it myself. Is it in principle so very different from living in Antarctica over winter given there is also no soil, no natural vegetation, no running water, and extreme cold? An Antarctic winter has the added disadvantage of no natural light of course.
And yet, crops are now being grown at Antarctic bases. I haven't actually heard of any base workers actually dying because of the extreme conditions.
We have lived on the Moon for several days. People have lived in the ISS for a year or more. People have survived in Antarctica.
What is it about Mars that makes it impossible to set up a colony in the next say 10 years (leaving aside the difficulties of getting there, which I accept are a challenge).
When you say "colony" are you thinking of some grand metropolis? I can understand why that will not be viable for some time. But a modest colony focussed on research is well within our grasp I would say. Essentially that is because we now have an energy solution (solar), a food solution (hydroponic farming), and a habitat solution (entrenched inflatables with aerogel insulation). Added to that we have the ability to import industrial capability in the shape of a range of small scale machines: oxygen and other gas extractors, smelters, automated glass blowing, computer controlled lathes etc etc which will give us the products of an industrial society from a tiny, tiny mass.
I think we can go rapidly from the landing to a colony of 20 people - maybe within 10 years. In the ten years after that I think we could go to 100. Once we are able to construct domes using ISRU, we can think in terms of 1000s of colony residents.
What is stopping us?
I think the only serious brake on colony development will be the cost of interplanetary travel. That is still a big unknown. But development of a lunar base does hold out the promise of reducing space travel costs through LEO refuelling.
Well we could bore tunnels and we could cinterise the regolith to layer over metal habitats.
But if we want a quick, cheap, safe and effective solution to creating habitat nothing to my mind beats an inflatable placed inside a trench and covered in a large mound of regolith. This only requires a mini digger to achieve. Depending on the condition of the regolith, some cintering might be desirable.
That should be possible using solar reflectors. However, if it can be avoided, all the better.
I am not sure, but I have a feeling trench digging may actually be easier on Mars than on the Moon.
Terraformer: More often than you'd think.
Gregori: Obviously small meteorites are not a problem for entrenched inflatables covered by regolith.
However, I agree the issue is more complex with domes and will need to be looked at.
I agree with KISS.
And I would add -
We aren't at this stage talking about huge populations or huge resource utilisation. So let's start small. A railway does not to be big. It could be an ultra light narrow gauge railway (like the little railways used at fairs to give kids a ride). We're not going to be in any particular rush on the moon or Mars. It'll be fine if it can transport say 500kgs at 20MPH. That'll be fine.
Gregori -
There are catastrophic drops in pressure where aircraft do fall out of the sky, literally. I'm not talking about normal turbulence.
Terraformer -
All fluids can have vortices can they not? And all "light fluids" like air can experience sudden pressure drops where aircraft can fall tens of thousands of feet in a few seconds. I doubt we know enough about the Venusian atmosphere to say how difficult it would be to live in.
My suggestion for inflatables on Mars is that they would be entrenched and covered in a large amount of regolith. Also inflatables have been developed for space (by Bigelow). If they are suitable for space, they must be suitable for the surface of Mars I would think. However, I would still prefer to entrench inflatables.
Space Nut -
I agree. We need more of "can do" approach applied to ISRU. If you look on the internet, on You Tube and other sites, you can find many examples of people undertake very sophisticated manufacturing and processing operations at home. If it can be done at home it can certianly be done on the Moon and Mars with the backing of billion dollar programme.
I agree with you as well that we need to think of this in terms of different levels or stages of production. Level 1 is indeed the top priority life support level: we need energy, water, heat, air, and food. You could add shelter but I think for the initial colony it is more straightforward to take the habitat with you, as an inflatable which can be entrenched and covered in regolith to give v. good radiation protection.
Level 2 would to my way of thinking be focussed on servicing or facilitating a lot of level 1 - so you will be thinking in terms of chemical batteries, motors, wiring, cabling, pipes, gas holders, hydroponic equipment, tools etc . Level 2 is where you get into generalised raw material sourcing - stockpiling various metal ores and ceramic material.
Level 3 - is where you move into more advanced products: simple vehicles, furniture, glass products, construction materials, a range of tools, spare parts for the CNC and other machines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7351437.stm
Interesting link showing that lunar regolith, ground down, plus bacteria gives a good growing medium.
Only takes a vortex, a sudden pressure drop, something similar and you could have several thousand dead people on your hands. Or being eaten alive by sulphuric acid in the case of Venus!
I remain a firm Mars advocate. I think it can be a new earth almost from the start. We will soon have domes and acres of vegetation.
Only takes a vortex, a sudden pressure drop, something similar and you could have several thousand dead people on your hands. Or being eaten alive by sulphuric acid in the case of Venus!
I remain a firm Mars advocate. I think it can be a new earth almost from the start. We will soon have domes and acres of vegetation.
I think the matter will be decided on a cost-benefit analysis. Essentially will it cheaper from an earth based cost analysis to fly resources from Venus to Mars or to develop them on Mars with ISRU or to send stuff direct from earth to Mars? I have no doubt in my own mind that for most applications, the middle course will be best. And the reason is the abundance of energy and land. It is always easier to maintain facilities on land rather than in floating facilities - for a variety of reasons. The abundance of energy (on a per capita basis) will allow for energy substitution. So, although in terms of an earth based approach, it might seem like a wasteful procedure, every often on Mars the right thing to do will be to "throw energy" at the problem to get it fixed. If we took creating an artificial soil. It might seem simpler to jsut fly it in from earth. But a cost-benefit analysis will likely show it is better from an earth cost analysis to expend a lot of energy on robot digging, sifting, chemical sorting etc to create the soil in situ on Mars.
Of course we have to remember the aim is also to create a self sufficient community on Mars, one that coudl ultimately survive the complete demise of earth civilisation - so sometimes we will develop ISRU operations even if cost-benefit analysis suggests an earth export solution is more effective.
Robert -
So you are saying we can have a "taxi" service to a reusable lunar lander that goes into LEO? Fuelling of the lunar lander takes place on the moon.
Seems like not a bad solution to me. So you are just lifting essentially the people (with some resupply material) to LEO.
Would mean of course a rocket fuel facility on the moon would be a top priority.
How difficult would it be to make rocket fuel on moon? How much would we need for say a three person lander with a ten tonne payload to do a round trip from moon to LEO?
I know regolith to oxygen machines have been developed.
What would be the best fuel for lunar manufacture?
Sorry - please explain...when did we develop the floating cities technology on earth? Do you mean floating on water - or floating on air?
Grypd makes the important point that recycling will be very important on Mars. With sufficient energy (and we will have that in abundance), we will be able to devote a lot of resources to recycling. All metal - iron , steel, copper, aluminium etc will be recycled.
I don't myself distinguish between a "research station" and a colony. They are both human settlement.
I think if you taken into account recycling, vastly reduced consumption of end products, abundant energy and known resources then there is nothing to stop us going now. In fact that's a possible thread - could we go RIGHT NOW!
I agree with Robert. There is enough knowledge available now to say that all the resources required for a permanent substantially self-supporting community are available on Mars. We know also from the Mars Rovers operating in a very difficult environment - out in the open on the move - that solar power can supply our energy needs.
I think we also have enough knowledge on how to get there, though it will be difficult.
Longer term, if there is to be large scale development we probably do need some trade impetus. One possibility is gold trading. If there are sufficiently rich veins of gold exposed on Mars mining might be quite easy. The ore could be processed on Mars and pure gold exported back to earth. If we can get the transport costs down to say $5,000 per Kg, this could become quite feasible.
Gregori -
My comments on your post are:
1. We won't be trying to produce EVERYTHING we do on earth on Mars. There will be a strategic approach to production. We will exclude whole ranges of products which currently absorb huge amounts of energy and labour input: e.g. private cars, decorative clothing, furnishings, food packaging, all printed material. It's a very long list of what we don't need to produce. We will concentrate production on those items essential to life and build up our infrastructure gradually using mostly ISRU but with strategic importation from earth.
2. The Antarctic bases with their artificially lit greenhouses already provide a good analogue for Mars operations.
3. I dispute we do not know whether we can grow anything on Mars. Entrenched hydroponic facilities with artificial lighting will provide controlled conditions for growth. The only unknown is how crops will behave in 38% gravity. Given there are plenty of foods we can grow successfully in zero g, I don't think this is going to be a problem. Entrenched facilities provide almost 100% protection against solar and cosmic radiation.
4. Why do you think it's difficult to build a factory on Moon or Mars? All you do is take your small scale machine with you - there's your factory.
What is it you are worried we won't be able to make? It's going to be a different type of industry - not huge Toyota plants with dedicated workers, but small scale, serial production with all inhabitants participating directly in manufacture.
5. I think we do have a fairly good idea of regolith composition on Mars. Enough to know that there is a wide range of materials available. Similarly we know that there are many of the ingredients required to make a good fertile soil.
No. Venus is a distraction.
The feasibility of floating colonies with current technology is dubious to say the least. The opportunities for para-terraforming are few.
Mars has its drawbacks, but overall it will make a good home for humanity and para-terraforming, using ISRU, is within our current technical abilities.
Mars should be the focus of our efforts. We could have large scale domes on the planet within 20 years of landing, all linked, creating mile upon mile of fertile inhabitable space. It will be a kind of paradise, a playground, a new beginning.
So let's decide on Mars now. We go to the Moon first, but with a clear focus on establishing humanity on Mars. The Moon will provide us with resources and experience for tackling Mars.
Starting now we could have our lunar base in five years and land on Mars in ten if we were serious about it. Within 30 years Mars could have a thriving domed human colony.
Well if it was my choice I'd go with two crew of three - two separate landers that is, as that's how I'd like to go to Mars. So a total of six initial colonists.
But if we open the lunar hotel serving perhaps 20 guests at a time, then I think we'd need at least three hotel "staff". So maybe after a year or two you would be looking at a habitat with six colonists and a lunar hotel housing 23 guests and staff - total 29.
So for the overall structure of the mission, we are looking at the following themes:
1. Launch
2. Landing
3. Habitat and zones
4. ISRU
5. Lunar economic development
6. Return to earth
Under no. 4, what are the main Mars-related capabilities we want to test?
I would suggest:
Hydroponic farming with artificial lighting growing a number of crops. However, owing to one sixth gravity, these may be more limited than on Mars.
Oxygen from regolith + artificial air manufacture
Water manufacture and water mining
Raw material mining - metals and ceramic materials
Smelting
Metal shaping - rolling, extruding, beating etc
Glass making
Ceramics
Gas production (methane, hydrogen)
Use of CNC machines - lathes, grinders etc. to product containers, tools, screws, machine parts etc.
Manufacture of range of products e.g. containers of all shapes and sizes (in glass, metal and ceramics), tools, simple furniture, kitchen ware, a range of polymer products, solar panels, solar reflectors, cabling, wiring, switches and other electrical control equipment, electric motors, chemical batteries, turbines, gas holders, light bulbs or diodes, simple clothing, nutritional solutions and hydroponic farming equipment.
The emphasis of production would be on creating the ability to replicate all aspects of life support: the power system, artificial atmosphere, machinery, agriculture, and habitat - all with minimal resupply from earth.
Although I don't think we can attempt that here, what is required in effect is a Product and Parts Inventory of everything used in life support/economic activity on the moon colony broken down into constituent parts. Matched against that we need a Production and Process Plan identifying all items that need to be produced and how they are to be produced.
Jumpboy -
That looks a little cutting edge for me. In outlining this mission, I think we want to stay with existing technology as much as possible. But feel free to argue your case!