You are not logged in.
I'm not going to dis the design in any major way- it seems very attractive in many ways. But as already indicate I do have some safety concerns even if you are not doing much burrowing (bringing stuff down off a hillside by mechanical means is obviosuly fraught with danger, especially in the difficult circumstances of working on the Mars surface.
As regards crop growing. I certainly do favour artificial light, for the following reasons:
1. Together with control of atmosphere, water release, nutritional feed and humidity this will provide complete control of growing conditions and dependable outcomes.
2. Dust storms. With natural light you are at the mercy of prolonged dust storms which will block the light and kill your crops. If you go to the trouble then of providing for artificial light (a) you are having to put in place exactly the same resources (but not using them most of them) and (b) it is difficult to see how such an artificial light system would be incorporated since they would normally block the incoming natural light.
3. We will have plenty of energy available. It makes sense to take full advantage of that.
Doesn't even anti-freeze freeze at the lower temperature rang on Mars.
Whoops - I do have a tendency to forget that. But energy will be abundant, so feel free to incorporate heating elements.
On the other hand, could you just get it to stand of itself as an "ice sculpture"?
You think Space Suits woudl suffice? Well, I'm not one to overdesign. I'm glad to forget the whole thing. But I was getting the impression for other sources that the cosmic rays are going to go through suits and helmets.
Robert -
Yes, there are similarities. But I think my proposal would be a lot quicker in terms of establishing the habitat.
I did look a their proposals and they seemed to me quite complex and requiring a lot of construction effort. With my approach a small digger digs the sort of trench you see being dug in the road every day and an inflatable habitat is inserted inside.
I've done some calculations for how quickly the habitat and farm area could be laid down and it really is only a matter of several days.
I think boring into hillsides or trying to make lava tunnels safe and habitable is just too time consuming an enterprise - and one fraught with danger of course.
I agree with the Hillside folk though that once you are established with your settlement you will have the spare capacity to start preparing for others to follow on and augment the settlement. And, yes, I think this sort of process should continue until there is a settlement of perhaps 100. At that point the colony will probably be in a position to start building the first domes which is what most of us want to see I think, using glass and metal frames with maybe water infill on the outer skin for radiation protection.
Some ideas for saving on mass...
1. Use regolith as ballast for larger machines or installations (e.g. gym equipment or washing machine) that require it.
2. Use the digger as the all purpose work horse on site. One vehicle for nearly all uses. But also have an lightweight electric trike (again weigh with regolith if it needs more stability) for exploratory and raw material missions - would have boot and trailer attachment at back.
3. You sometime see kitchen units with panelling. That's completely unnecessary. Should just be lightweight plastic mecanno-style assembly of rods. For kitchen work surface, could we not cut and polish some Mars rock?
4. Stools not chairs. Or no seating at all - just take inflatable cushions.
5. Gym equipment - fill boxes with regolith to make weights.
Any other ideas?
Any comments on some of the payload tonnages for my six person mission plan as set out below?
MISSION MANIFEST
TOTAL: 4 ten tonne payloads (i.e. ten tonnes per mission).
Of the 40 tonne payload, 26 tonnes will be for use outside the lander.
1 tonne - Mission personnel, clothing, personal hygiene. (Human mass: 1000 pounds for six bodies)
1.5 tonnes – Digger and associated equipment.
1 tonne – PV film and cabling.
0.5 tonne – Chemical batteries.
0.5 tonne - Electro turbines
0.5 tonne - Methane manufacture equipment
0.25 tonnes - Space suits (12)
1 tonne - Inflatable habitats and associated equipment.
0.75 tonne – medical supplies.
11 tonnes – food, nutrients, nutrient solution and soil.
1.5 tonnes – Air locks and turbines.
3 tonnes – CNC machines, lathes, electric motors etc.,
0.5 tonnes – Hydroponic and farming equipment.
0.5 tonnes – Habitat installations – e.g. gym and kitchen equipment
1 tonne - Oxygen manufacturing machine and water filter.
1.5 tonnes – “Versatile spares and contingencies.
I have been thinking about the problem of radiation protection for working on the surface of Mars over extended periods.
I would like to suggest a solution I call The Water Tent.
Think of a large plastic water containing object - think water bed, super large duvet, tent cover. There would be internal cells to provide some rigidity. It would be maybe between 5 and 10 cms thick.
The tent cover would be filled with water and suspended over a metal cage to provide cover for human activity. I think we would need it to cover an area of about 5X5 sq. metres to be useful and to be a height of about 4 metres, to allow for mini digger work. It could be lifted into position by the mini digger.
The cage would have to support somewhere between 500 kgs and 1000kgs weight.
However, as most of the weight would be water it would not add significant mass to the payload. The thing itself with cage might have a mass of about 50-100 kgs.
Robert/Larry -
Well I think it's possible we could go with a forty tonne payload of which perhaps 24 tonnes would be "deployed" post landing (i.e. would be "in the hold" as it were). This would comprise four ten tonne missions - two robot (not mobile robot) pre-missions and two human missions (2x3 = 6 people) to the same landing site within a small time frame.
Once you start stripping out the NASA style mass - so you aren't looking to take along a huge Rover vehicle, you aren't trying to do 101 experiments on your first mission, you aren't taking along heavy habitat structures and you aren't taking along with you a mini hospital - these figures look perfectly achievable.
Chemical rockets are indeed inconveniently slow. But I think they are doable. And become even more so once we have established a moon base with rocket fuel manufacturing capability. I feel that will ease the problems associated with conventional rocketeering for Mars.
I'm favouring full retrorocket landing, suggesting an overall mass for the space craft of around 2,000 tonnes for a ten tonne payload (no one's contradicted me on that yet but it is a total guesstimate!).
I see no fundamental barriers to Mars development as long as we get enough energy generating equipment there and we can do that with the new generation of ultra thin PV film ( a few hundred KGs should provide energy abundance for a team of six). Alternatively, though I'm not a fan, we could use nuclear power. With the per capita abundance of energy that we will have, we can then begin creating the ISRU infrastructure, although clearly much will continue to need to be imported (e.g. inflatable habitats, computers etc) for many years. Entrenched and covered habitats will provide effective radiation protection.
By far the largest item in terms of mass that needs to be transferred to Mars is food/nutrient solution (for hydroponic farming). Everything else essential to life - energy for heat and light, oxygen, and water - are available on the planet and it will not be difficult to begin small scale materials-based production on the planet.
The key requirements are energy production/storage and food production. These are already being demonstrated in various challenging environments including on Mars itself (Mars Rover solar panels) and on earth (e.g. the Antarctic greenhouses).
If we can get the colonists there safely what is to stop us?
Short hand category terms can be help us to see the wood for the trees.
I like to call my proposals for Mars colonisation "Minimalist". In all areas I am looking for the minimum that will get us there and established as I feel that will get us there earliest and ensure ISRU is pursued rigorously, thus creating the conditions for on Mars development.
Are there useful names for other categories already in existence?
I've read some people propose a fleet of space craft to establish human civilisation on Mars in one fell swoop - the opposite end of the scale from my approach. I'd call that "Rome in a Day". I don't think it's remotely feasible but one can see it might be attractive.
Anything involving as yet non-existent transport technology I think should be called "Star Trek Scenario".
NASA's approach? "Science First" perhaps?
Provolution (evolving for a specific purpose).
Jumpboy -
Yes I've wondered about that myself - ever decreasing orbits...does anyone know if the science makes this possible. Obviously it can't be that easy to do otherwise it would be done.
Personally I back slow descent with retro rockets.
I think we understand a lot more about ecology now than we did 50 years ago. I think we could make a stab at a balanced ecology if we have the life support elements there. Probably could be computer modelled as well. No doubt big mistakes will be made but nothing in ecology is irretrievable. I mean, you might lose a species, but the ecological niche remains and you can start again with something else to fill it. We do manage lots of ecologies. We've eliminated mosquitoes in many parts of the world through drainage. In Africa the numbers of all the major land animals are held in balance through culling.
I don't know of anything in principle that says suspended animation is not possible. Once it is a practical proposition then indeed it would be useful for space flights (you could then just pop the bodies in ice or water tanks to be protected from radiation.
You'd have to change the name! Colombia would always be confused with Columbia as in District of Columbia. Mind you, they already have the Washington/Washington thing going...
Well I was never suggesting they roam around the surface of Mars in their underpants!
Also, I think that my suggestion that the habitats should be inflatables inside trenches covered in a large mound of regolith will offer complete protection to the colonists while they are in the habitat.
If necessary work on the surface could be limited to night-time, though presumably that will have no effect on reducing cosmic rays.
I am a little unclear how the threat balances between cosmic rays and solar radiation. Anybody have an idea about that?
Certainly we know that no one who's been on the ISS a long time has died or as far as I know suffered serious ill health. Is the magnetic field of earth that effective against cosmic rays?
Yang Liwei -
I agree Britain cannot be called a space faring nation. Very sad but true.
I am an anti-imperialist. I think the British Empire was a huge historical mistake. The idea that it was a great success is quite wrong. It was a racist enterprise built on the notion that might is right. I am against the empires we see around us today oppressing nations that deserve to govern themselves.
As a democrat I simply think democratic nations should link up with other democratic nations in all fields - and that includes space.
The A4 rocket was a technical triumph. Doesn't say anything good about the regime that produced it.
That's not quite as romantic a notion!
Commodore -
Where's your evidence for these statements.
We know that people on the ISS have stayed for a year in zero G and been perfectly productive. We know also that the body does recover when returned to 1G. There is no requirement for the crew when they land to do anything much in particular of a strenuous nature. They can simply take a while, a few days if necessary, for their bodies to become re-accustomed to gravity. In any case once there is a human settlement established on Mars, the landing crew won't have anything to do. The people already on Mars can cater for their immediate needs in the gravity recovery phase.
I think the effects of return to gravity are often overstated. We have seen pics of people being lifted out of space craft. But this is not a reflection of physical collapse. It is to do with lack of use of the leg muscles. The ability to stand and walk soon returns.
In theory, but you can't look at the sun with the naked eye. Whereas you can look at the moon and think, my loved one is there gazing down on me - or at least it will induce such comforting thoughts.
Thanks for that Space Nut. Obviously others are working on the idea but I am thinking really that it would only be offered once a the area had been properly laid out. I can kind of see it my mind's eye. I think you need somewhere with an eerie beauty. I think it will prove powerfully attractive to many people.
I'm not sure outpost is right! Initial colony is how I think of it. My preference would be to found continuous human settlement from the outset - this is not going to be an Apollo mission or even an outpost mission. However, I think it is probably going to take 20 years to get to 100 people and to get to 1000 is going to require a huge effort. To get beyond 1000 will require either permanent migration and procreation or (more likely) a profitable Mars economy - based on something like gold export.
I think your diagram might be clearer if you started with the power source(s) on the left. I was a bit confused as to where gas fuel was coming from until I saw that there was a line from hydrogen (split from H2O) to hydrocarbons and fuel. But there doesn't seem to be a clear indication where the carbon is coming from.
Also, I think it would be clearer if processes were referred to as well e.g. smelting, gasification, metal pressing, firing, electrolysis etc.
Zhar -
"I disagree, if you have a colony of lets say 5000 to 10000 people and one of them gets cancer or something just as critical and the trip will take something like 40 days to 4 months to earth it would be better if you can produce and administer treatments there. "
I see from that quote that we are indeed talking about different stages of colony development. I'm thinking more of the initial colony - the first 20 years maybe - when we are growing it to a 100 people. You seem like you are in the stage beyond that - when we have major settlement.
My approach in terms of the initial colony would be to say if someone gets cancer that is very unfortunate, just as it will be very unfortunate if there is an air lock accident perhaps which results in someone having a brain seizure. We can't plan for every eventuality in terms of health emergency. We will have plenty of morphine, plenty of basic medicines and basic surgical tools to undertake basic surgery. But that's it. It is a risky venture. You might indeed die of cancer on Mars if you get cancer.
I have some other concerns with your approach. Your first instinct when you think of a button seems to be "how can we make that on Mars". My first instinct is "how can we avoid making that on Mars". And the answer is quite simple - we have simple clothes without buttons - cotton T shirts and loose slacks with draw string ties.
This principle can be applied to a lot of things e.g. paper and pens. Do we need them on Mars? Answer: no.
So I think we have a use hierarchy:
1. There are things we eliminate: e.g. paper and buttons.
2. Things we simplify: e.g. clothing and footwear (simple sandals will do for the most part, rather than leather shoes). Furniture - stools do as well as chairs for people with good posture. Food - we will grow a restricted range of food crops that meet dietary needs. There will be minimal packaging.
3. Things we substitute for: e.g. we may use bamboo table ware if it is less complicated to produce that compared with ceramic crockery and metal cutlery.
4. Things we replicate: e.g. rocket fuel, solar panels, electric cabling, electric motors. These have got to be essentially the same as on earth.
5. Things we import: eg complex software, electronics, communications equipment, pharmaceuticals.
So for me those are the watchwords: eliminate, simplify, substitute, replicate and import. In the initial stages the less able we are to replicate and the more we need to eliminate, simplify, substitute and import. Elimination is of course key to survival - we aren't going to attempt to produce the vast range of clothing, foodstuffs, scents and cosmetics, home ware, gardening equipment, gifts, personal electronic gadgets, personal transport vehicles, aeroplanes, carpets, wallpaper, interior design artefacts that we expect on earth in advanced societies. The emphasis will be on energy production, air, water, heat and lighting, shelter, a limited range of food and clothing: what you might call "life support plus".
We will be looking for 90% recycling rates.
I think the problem of explosive decompression is one of the reasons for having inflatable habitats entrenched and covered in regolith. In those circumstances if there is a break in the pressure seal there won't be an explosive decompression. I don't know how quickly there would be decompression - but if it was sixty seconds say then there would be time to get into emergency safe cabinets three or four of which might be placed around the habitat and which would include a couple of hours air supply. . Of course, this might be an argument for always having one person on duty in the main lander so that they are then able to go and rescue people trapped in the safe cabinets (which might involve wheeling them back to the lander air lock).
Here's a long address for a pic of a bamboo bowl and very nice too it is.
Zhar -
That's a great diagram - very interesting and helpful.
As with all discussions of Mars colonial development, I think one has to define where you are in the process.
I think we need to address the initial colony infrastructure - probably development up to 100 residents.
To my way of thinking your diagram suggests a pretty advanced system and for initial colony development I would certainly want to exclude some end products as requiring too much labour, specialisation and time and not directly securing the continuity of human settlement.
For instance I think we can forgo herbicides and insecticides. Organic agriculture can be pretty efficient on earth as it is. We will not face pests and weeds on Mars. All seed stock, nutrient solution etc will be carefully screened to ensure that.
I think pharmaceuticals are way beyond the capacity of the initial colony. They require space, special techniques and if something goes wrong it could be fatal. Of course there will be scope for producing a few herbal remedies but the initial colony crew will be chosen for their fitness. They are unlikely to require much medicinal treatment beyond space medicine, always excepting injury.
Much better and easier to import the pharmaceuticals which are generally lightweight in any case.
I note also you have "consumer" goods as an end result. I would query this. What exactly does the initial colony need? People will have full and active days. They will have to exercise for an hour or two a day. They will have their laptops for games, writing and entertainment. They will have each other for company. What exactly woudl these consumer goods be? I can see an argument for small scale machines to process cotton and linen, to make simple indoor clothes, and also hygiene products like soap and tootpaste but nothing else is required.
If you are thinking of objects to fit out extended habitats e.g. furniture, water piping, beds, kitchen units, shower units etc I would agree that is an early goal, but not everything could be done at once. I think we would certianly want to experiment with bamboo - a lot can be done with bamboo in terms of furniture, containers and vessels of all sorts.