Corporate Government

RobertDyck · 2015-11-02 16:24:06

martienne wrote:

The dark winters are extremely psychologically hard though. You have to live it to understand it.
When you have one hour daylight, sometimes none at all - it really messes with your psyche.
It's even worse than extreme cold (which can also drive you bonkers - any little thing you need to do outdoors becomes a huge project.
One of the things that worries me the most about living on Mars, is the prospect possibly no natural light for months on end. And what does it do to people, to NEVER be able to go out in nature?

Nature is overrated. And misunderstood. It's basically what you're used to. You can go out side on Mars. There is no wildlife, so by definition no "wilderness". However, there is land and rocks and terrain. There are things to explore. The Bedouin are nomads (now seminomadic) who live in the Arab and Sahara deserts. How is a desert different than Mars? Cold, you need a spacesuit, but no "nature". Inuit live in the arctic, where there's nothing but ice and snow and rocks and under the pack ice there's ocean. Inuit live in an area without trees. They have for thousands of years. I use the Australian term "outback" to refer to areas of Mars that aren't developed. But I'm sure people will go outside. That's one reason I keep saying it's important to maintain habitat pressure to permit going through an airlock in a spacesuit with zero prebreathe time.

And one issue was radiation exposure. One member of the Mars Homestead project, phase one, wanted to keep radiation exposure down to US regulations for a nuclear reactor worker. Based on radiation data from the Marie papers from Mars Odyssey, we calculated 40 hours per week in a spacesuit. That's if the habitat is sufficiently shielded to have negligible radiation. But I kept pushing for an ambient light greenhouse, so that means time in a greenhouse counts toward time outdoors. That assumes a simple polymer film (Clarus) with spectrally selective coating (vacuum deposited layers of metal). Or a glass windows with the same coating.

For the Homestead settlement, modules close to the hillside will not have thick regolith to counter pressure on a brick wall. So modules close to the hill edge have to be made of something else. We considered steel, aluminum and fibreglass. We chose fibreglass because we felt it was easiest to manufacture from insitu materials. An apartment would have a window, so one end sticks out of the hill. It would still have regolith piled on top. I envision an overhang above the window, like the soffit of a roof, to hold more regolith. And a retaining wall at the soffit edge to permit regolith to be piled deep. And apartment windows could be double pane windows with mineral oil between, to provide additional radiation shielding.

I had envisioned multi-pane window for heat control. Most houses in Canada have double-glazed windows, meaning two panes. New construction has two panes of glass, and one to three sheets of polymer film between. Each sheet of polymer film acts as another pane. The film typically has low-e coating, which is the silver oxide from NASA's spectrally selective coating. All these panes are sealed in a frame, called a casement window. The entire frame can be opened with a door, with a crank. Every window that can open has a screen to keep out bugs. Gap between panes has to be within a certain range; far enough that it doesn't conduct heat, yet close enough that a convection current cannot form. There is a rule for the gap between panes, but I can't find it right now. And the air within a sealed casement window must be completely dry. In winter, any moisture will condense. You don't want that in a sealed window; it would fog the window, and collect in the bottom to cause water damage to wood, or grow mildew.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-11-02 17:14:39)

RobertDyck · 2015-11-02 18:14:16

I posted this before, but pictures are clear. This is one example of an apartment. From Mars Homestead.

The point of the project was to design a base that would start Mars settlement. So it included extensive manufacturing. It would start with 4 Mars Direct habitats, 3 to house crew members, and one backup. Each hab has a workshop the size of a single car garage. The entire 4th hab would be used for lab/workshop, that means the 8.4m diameter upper floor, plus the single car garage plus greenhouse for the lower floor. Each hab would come with an inflatable greenhouse, each the size of a double car garage. The site plan the architect came up with included just 2 inflatable greenhouses, each 5 metres x 15 metres (16.4ft x 49.2ft). That's slightly narrower than a double car garage, but double the length of a good size one, so more area. And again, the 4th hab would carry a skid-steer loader instead of a rover. That would be used to mine, and fabricate the larger base.

The larger base includes multiple manufacturing areas. Click this image for full resolution. It includes area of each module.

2 sun greenhouses, each 185m²
2 artificial light greenhouses, each 200m²
4 modules for greenhouse support, each 30m²
EVA prep/support, 50m²
Shop #1 (behind EVA), 25m²
Garage, 50m²
Shop #2 (behind garage), 25m²
1 MEP module (I forget what that stand for. Materials extraction processing?), 30m²
3 small manufacturing modules, each 30m²
2 large manufacturing modules, each 110m²
2 BOP (bulk ore processing) modules, each connected to a nuclear reactor for heat, each 100m²
2 large airlocks, one connecting BOP#1 to Manuf.#1, the other a vehicle airlock connected to Manuf.#2
3 nuclear reactors, each with a cooling tower
1 HVAC (high voltage alternating current) cooling tower, for power
2 outside water tanks
an outdoors area with multiple tanks for bulk gas storage, labelled CH4 (methane)
Separate manufacturing area: glass/plastics 100m², metal 100m², refining of raw materials 400m²
outdoor passive cooling area

Multiple small round interconnection nodes, each 10m²
4 apartment modules, 2 on each floor, each 50m². A couple gets a whole module, but a single person gets half. Notice the ground floor plan has one of each.
Behind each apartment module, a 25m² corridor module with bathrooms and storage closets in the back wall.
Notice the upper apartment level is not directly above the lower one, it's over hillside dirt. That means no noise from the neighbours upstairs. And the end of the residential corridor on each level has a hatch a vehicle can directly dock to.

Brick atrium:
ground floor: exercise, dining, kitchen, indoor bamboo gardens
upper floor: common area

Second brick building:
ground floor: labs, communications, a 20m² area coloured as common instead of lab. I think that's a seed bank in case a solar flare causes radiation that kills everything in the greenhouse. Ground floor and deepest into the hillside, for maximum radiation protection.
upper floor: labs, medical

Second floor:

This is a plan for the first base, not the city. But each apartment has a large window outside. And furniture. And a easy access to a vehicle. The base has multiple hatches where a vehicle can dock. You shouldn't get cabin fever here.

louis · 2015-11-02 19:18:37

I don't find your arguments persuasive.

The Arctic of course is not a land mass itself. It is an ever-shifting ice mass. But we do exploit resources within the Arctic circle - hugely, whether it's fish or fossil fuels. In fact at least half a million people live within the Arctic Circle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Arctic/Statistics

On Antarctica the regolith is generally buried beneath hundreds or thousands of feet of ice. That isn't the case on Mars. But even in Antarctica the annual population high point is over 5000.

In terms of colonising Mars I think any fair-minded person would accept a figure of 100,000 as an incredibly successful benchmark. But I think that is very much doable with current technology.

Mars is not Svarlbard. There is a limited market for TV documentaries about people going to Svarlbard. But documentaries about people landing and living on Mars will command audiences in the tens or hundreds of millions for many decades until it becomes an accepted part of life.

You won't find any special meteorites on Svarlbard but you will on Mars.

Yale and Havard won't want to set up campuses on Svarlbard but they will want to do so on Mars.

I don't find anything persuasive in the observation that Inuits and scientists in the Polar region don't have farm habs. Time and time again in history we see that to make something a success, you need a big initial investment, good organisation, strong will and efficient use of technology.

Once the initial colony is established on Mars they will be able to use the land to generate energy - even through simple solar reflectors heating steam boilers - and grow their own food using the energy generated (for heat and light). They will be able to provide 95% of their needs (measured as tonnage) and they will be able to pay for the 5% they can't produce themselves through the Mars based revenue stream.

The idea that out of 6 billion Earth inhabitants there won't be thousands of suitable Mars colonists sounds absurd to me.

martienne wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
Actually, we *could* colonise the Arctic - and I think we *should*, to demonstrate the sort of technology that we need to colonise other planets. We have the technological ability to ...
I agree. That makes perfect sense. One step at a time.
No point in daydreaming about huge settlement projects on Mars if viable settlement in inhospitable regions on earth isn't possible.

SpaceNut · 2015-11-02 19:36:51

martienne wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
Well, Antarctica is in a similar political situation to Mars as well, so that's .
The dark winters are extremely psychologically hard though. You have to live it to understand it.
When you have one hour daylight, sometimes none at all - it really messes with your psyche.
nature?

They make lights for this for those that have the seasonal depression due to the lessening amount of light.

SpaceNut · 2015-11-02 19:51:35

Svarlbard exists for those that did come to a new land and stayed as its not about jobs for them but the freedom to live and to survive as they have learned and passed down from generation to generation. Its not about earning a wage form the corporation and not for survival of profits by the corporation. It is about the individual and family that is the profit....
This actually proves that we can live just about anywhere that we can adapt to and use the available insitu resources

SpaceNut · 2015-11-02 19:57:49

RobertDyck I have forgot whether we have talked about the crew build up, timeline or costs to make the MarsHomeStead project let alone the amount of equipment needed to build such a base for a permanent home for all eternity....

louis · 2015-11-02 20:37:29

One thing is for sure - it is a v. tiny percentage of Earth GDP. So it isn't unfeasible -it is much more about creating the will to replicate ourselves on another planet.

SpaceNut wrote:

RobertDyck I have forgot whether we have talked about the crew build up, timeline or costs to make the MarsHomeStead project let alone the amount of equipment needed to build such a base for a permanent home for all eternity....

SpaceNut · 2015-11-02 21:14:18

True Louis but even Nasa can not seem to even fund its way back to orbit on its new Rocket in one SLS and Orion combination.....

RobertDyck · 2015-11-02 21:54:15

I see the Mars Homestead Project as connected to an advanced phase, because that's how to get it started.

Let's see...
4 launches of SLS block 2B for Mars Direct habs. For safety you would also want 3 ERVs. I could argue for my mission architecture, but let's start with Mars Direct.

First launch one ERV. 8.5 months to arrive on Mars.
26 months later, launch one Hab with astronauts. 6 months to Mars. Immediately follow that with another ERV, 8.5 months to Mars. This is the Mars Direct plan. The 1990 plan said the second would land at a different spot, for science to explore Mars. He later said space the missions roughly 1000km apart, so this leaves a series of Mars Direct habs as warming huts for long distance travel. But to build a Homestead, every mission lands at the same location.
26 months later, another Hab with astronauts. Immediately follow that launch with another ERV.
26 months later, yet another Hab with astronauts. At this point you already have 3 ERVs on Mars. You only need to launch a 4th ERV if one of the first 3 malfunction. And there are crew on Mars to check them.
26 months later, the last Hab, but this time with equipment instead of astronauts.

Within the Mars Homestead Project team, there was debate whether to launch any ERV. The idea was this crew would be on a one-way mission. I argued for safety we need the ERVs anyway. I was overruled. Notice the site plan does not include any ERV. But I include it here anyway.

The first crew will start the process of mining resources, and processing to produce raw material. They will have workshop tools. This will include rapid prototyping equipment. The crew will start manufacturing larger manufacturing equipment with materials produced from Mars resources.
Note: 4 habs, each with a set of solar panels for power, and a battery. And 3 ERVs, each with a small nuclear reactor. In the 1990s, Robert Zubrin talked about the SP-100 reactor because that was state-of-the-art. Since 2007 we have SAFE-400, same power and same operating environment, but lower launch mass.

The 4th Hab will have the skid-steer loader. By that time they should have basic materials for construction. They'll use the skid steer loader to excavate the side of a hill, digging level with the valley floor. Bricks can be made simply, baked in a pressurized workshop. Finished bricks can be piled outside. Once the hill is excavated, then construction begins. Bricks laid to form the groin arches of the deep parts of the permanent habitat. This would require mortar, does that require pressure to set?
Note: we could include on one of the Habs a small, dedicated robot to lay brick. In the 1980s when Bruce first thought of this, he envisioned astronauts doing it. But researchers are already working on robots to lay brick.

Total so far:
7 launches of SLS block 2B

If we use my architecture then:
first crew:
- 1 SLS Block 2B for MAV (direct launch from KSC to Mars surface)
- 1 SLS Block 2B for lab & pressurized rover (direct launch)
- 1 Falcon 9 v1.2 for ITV
- 1 Falcon Heavy for TMI stage
- 1 Falcon 9 lander & unpressurized rover
- 1 Falcon 9 for Dragon
subsequent crew (2 missions):
- 1 SLS Block 2B for MAV
- 1 Falcon Heavy for TMI stage
- 1 Falcon 9 lander & unpressurized rover
- 1 Falcon 9 for Dragon
Total:
4 SLS block 2B
1 Falcon 9 v1.2 (expended)
3 Falcon Heavy (potentially reusable)
6 Falcon 9 (potentially reusable)

My mission architecture was really designed for one crew at a time, not 3 crew on Mars at once. But all missions to the same location, so it builds up a base, one hab per mission. The ITV is sized for 4 crew members, not 12. So if they have to evacuate, this would be an issue. Furthermore, the MAV is the TEI stage, and the reusable ITV is needed for each transit. So the ITV will have to return to Earth orbit without crew. That means the first MAV will have to launch without crew. It will dock to the ITV, be the propulsion stage, then separate before aerocapture at Earth. So it can be done unmanned. But that leaves crew without any form of Earth return. Another MAV will arrive before the second crew, but that means 2 crews on Mars and only one MAV and one ITV. Again, they will have to return to Earth unmanned to get the third crew. Another MAV will precede the third crew. That means 8 crew members are committed.

The Homestead would require larger nuclear reactors to provide heat for an iron smelter. The plan above included 3, each delivered with a dedicated lander, and launched with its own SLS block 2B. Do we need to launch the first big reactor with the second crew? So they can start smelting hematite concretions to make steel?

This assumes the first human mission to Mars will start the Homestead. If you start with science missions, then my architecture would have the ITV already in space, so delete the one Falcon 9 v1.2. If you use Mars Direct, then you'll need all that stuff.

Either way, before the first science mission you would have to start with an unmanned orbiter to demonstrate aerocapture. And an unmanned lander to demonstrate ISPP; best accomplished by sample return.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-12-17 08:41:48)

SpaceNut · 2015-11-02 22:33:00

Looking back at the Nasa SLS block 2B mars missions they indicate for the long duration that it requires 10 for just one missions crew, with 6 being for the short stay and for the mars moons mission just 4 sls block 2B are needed for a single crews mission....
It appears that moving the crew off from the orion sls gravy train pays off big when we use the commercial taxi's to orbit to do that function... That said we not only save the applications of 3 plus billion from them but we pay less that a billion for all the crew to go....and have the funds to pay for the ITV, MAV, TMI stages and so much more with your plan to which we still save even more by not using another 3 SLS units at 3 billion at least.....

louis · 2015-11-03 13:15:42

I think this is an interesting problem and one mentioned by the long serving American ISS crew member - he's so looking forward to the wind and rain on his face. Of course in the equatorial regions of Mars the lack of light won't be a factor - it will probably be the equivalent of a slightly cloudy day in the temperate zones given Mars gets about 40% of Earth insolation but the skies are usually clear (excepting dust storms of course).

I would answer the problem in a number of ways:

1. Contrary to what many people believe, it should be possible to go outside on Mars with some skin exposed, during the summer when the afternoon temperature can reach 20 degrees celsius. We could likely develop gloves and face masks - essentially meshes - which would allow the wearer to experience the sense of direct exposure to the Martian air and the sun, and to touch rocks.

2. We should look to develop artificial "open" spaces as soon as possible. There might be for instance a gorge on Mars that can be blocked and bridged and then pressurised with artificial air. Water could then be pumped to create a stream and vegetation could be introduced. A gorge say hundred feet deep, 20 feet wide and 300 feet in length would provide about 66,000 square feet of surface area to explore and because of the steep sides would provide a real workout for colonists. However, in terms of roofing, we would only have to roof 6000 square feet.

3. The external landscape of the base should be made pleasing to the eye. A lot could be done e.g. placing of coloured or painted rocks as boundary markers for roads. Maybe a putting green.

4. Part of the joy of going out and about is the visual stimulation we receive. Art can to some extent serve as a substitute. We should think about providing art installations as soon as possible - Mission 2 perhaps. A space should be turned into an art gallery. Obvious candidates would be video installations (which could vary), light sculptures and holographic imagery. Later outside space could be used as a sculpure park.

5. Sport and games can substitute for outdoor activity in giving all the muscles a good workout. Obviously the sport must be relatively safe - we can't have colonists playing American football or even soccer as that would be inviting serious injury. But games like badminton and volleyball would give the opportunity for a strenuous and enjoyable workout.

6. Exploration, albeit in rovers, will be very stimulating and enjoyable even if people aren't in the open air - the idea of going over a ridge and seeing something new, finding a new rock formation , evidence of water flow etc will be very exciting for the colonists.
They will also get to name things, itself an enjoyable and rewarding process.

All in all, I think that Mars will be a stimulating experience - different from Earth - but far more stimulating than being stuck in a space station or on Svarlbard in winter!

martienne wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
Well, Antarctica is in a similar political situation to Mars as well, so that's another factor suggesting an Antarctic colony should be attempted. Maybe not within the Antarctic circle, though. Settle one of the islands off the coast.
The dark winters are extremely psychologically hard though. You have to live it to understand it.
When you have one hour daylight, sometimes none at all - it really messes with your psyche.
It's even worse than extreme cold (which can also drive you bonkers - any little thing you need to do outdoors becomes a huge project.
One of the things that worries me the most about living on Mars, is the prospect possibly no natural light for months on end. And what does it do to people, to NEVER be able to go out in nature?

RobertDyck · 2015-11-03 14:26:46

louis wrote:

1. Contrary to what many people believe, it should be possible to go outside on Mars with some skin exposed, during the summer when the afternoon temperature can reach 20 degrees celsius. We could likely develop gloves and face masks - essentially meshes - which would allow the wearer to experience the sense of direct exposure to the Martian air and the sun, and to touch rocks.

How is that? Remember, pressure on Mars is about 7 millibars. Mars Pathfinder recorded weather for 3 days, pressure varied form 6.77mbar to 7.08mbar. Curiosity rover today reports 902 Pa, which is 9.02 mbar. Humans require at least 2.5 psi pure oxygen to breathe, and that requires months of high altitude training. Humans can breathe 3.0 psi pure oxygen without difficulty and without training. That's really minimum. That equals 206.8 mbar. Big difference between 9 mbar vs 200 mbar. A mechanical counter pressure spacesuit uses a helmet or mask to provide breathing air, and an air bladder over the chest and upper abdomen to ensure pressure outside the lungs is the same as pressure inside. That voids restriction to breathing. You can have a tiny pressure differential between breathing air and extremities, but only tiny. You can't have a difference of 200 mbar breathing air to 9 mbar fingers. That would cause swelling blood to pool, causing swelling. So an MCP suit uses elastic fabric to provide pressure. You can have up to 1mm x 1mm area of skin exposed to hard vacuum, but not more.

Or do you mean the elastic fabric would be transparent, allowing sun to shine through?

Terraformer · 2015-11-03 15:10:45

You can take off the gloves for about 10 minutes before any swelling occurs. Though I wouldn't on Mars, given the oxidising environment (I'm presuming you actually want to touch things).

louis · 2015-11-03 18:50:29

Robert,

I wasn't suggesting that breathing apparatus wouldn't be required. I was suggesting that the hands and face could be partially exposed. You seem to agree regarding 1mmx 1mm area - so if one could have a lot of those e.g. in a specially designed glove, you should be able to touch rock and feel the air on your skin. Maybe exposing part of the face would be more problematical.

I meant that part of the skin would be exposed so you would feel solar radiation directly, passing from shadow to direct sunlight for instance.

RobertDyck wrote:

louis wrote:
1. Contrary to what many people believe, it should be possible to go outside on Mars with some skin exposed, during the summer when the afternoon temperature can reach 20 degrees celsius. We could likely develop gloves and face masks - essentially meshes - which would allow the wearer to experience the sense of direct exposure to the Martian air and the sun, and to touch rocks.
How is that? Remember, pressure on Mars is about 7 millibars. Mars Pathfinder recorded weather for 3 days, pressure varied form 6.77mbar to 7.08mbar. Curiosity rover today reports 902 Pa, which is 9.02 mbar. Humans require at least 2.5 psi pure oxygen to breathe, and that requires months of high altitude training. Humans can breathe 3.0 psi pure oxygen without difficulty and without training. That's really minimum. That equals 206.8 mbar. Big difference between 9 mbar vs 200 mbar. A mechanical counter pressure spacesuit uses a helmet or mask to provide breathing air, and an air bladder over the chest and upper abdomen to ensure pressure outside the lungs is the same as pressure inside. That voids restriction to breathing. You can have a tiny pressure differential between breathing air and extremities, but only tiny. You can't have a difference of 200 mbar breathing air to 9 mbar fingers. That would cause swelling blood to pool, causing swelling. So an MCP suit uses elastic fabric to provide pressure. You can have up to 1mm x 1mm area of skin exposed to hard vacuum, but not more.
Or do you mean the elastic fabric would be transparent, allowing sun to shine through?

RobertDyck · 2015-11-03 19:49:23

The 1mm x 1mm area comes from Dr. Paul Webb's original paper submitted for publication in December 1967, published April 1968.

Properties of Human Skin—The tensile strength of human skin is more than adequate to prevent serious deformation or rupture in the small spaces between the strands of elastic netting. According to Yoshi-mura, the average tension required to tear adult human skin is 1600 gms/mm², while the maximum force of 170 mm Hg which might be developed wearing the SAS is 2.3 gms/mm². The elastic materials we are now using show spaces as big as 1 mm² only when grossly overstretched.

Removing a glove completely would result in edema. That's severe swelling. It would be painful.

The book Red Mars had one of the characters remove a glove outside. But that was after extensive terraforming, increasing ambient pressure. I don't think you could do it today.

louis · 2015-11-04 05:55:38

I am talking about a specially designed glove that would be more like a mesh with lots of tiny holes, with perhaps more holes on the finger pads to give a good sensation of touch. The research you quote would appear to say it was feasible in a Mars environment, when the temperature is above freezing, to wear such a glove.

RobertDyck wrote:

The 1mm x 1mm area comes from Dr. Paul Webb's original paper submitted for publication in December 1967, published April 1968.
Properties of Human Skin—The tensile strength of human skin is more than adequate to prevent serious deformation or rupture in the small spaces between the strands of elastic netting. According to Yoshi-mura, the average tension required to tear adult human skin is 1600 gms/mm², while the maximum force of 170 mm Hg which might be developed wearing the SAS is 2.3 gms/mm². The elastic materials we are now using show spaces as big as 1 mm² only when grossly overstretched.
Removing a glove completely would result in edema. That's severe swelling. It would be painful.
The book Red Mars had one of the characters remove a glove outside. But that was after extensive terraforming, increasing ambient pressure. I don't think you could do it today.

RobertDyck · 2015-12-19 13:50:10

We could further discuss technology and cost to get the first settlement established. However, this is "Martian Politics and Economy". I proposed a means that settlement of Mars is profitable. As I explained before, as long as government is in charge, no colony will be successful. Again using Newfoundland as an example, Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. He discovered the Caribbean and Central America. He was Italian, but funded by Spain, so Central America is Spanish to this day. English explorer John Cabot set sail in 1495 to find what he could discover. Later that same year English fishermen harvested the Grand Banks, and used St. John's Harbour to protect their ships and built a fishing camp to process fish for storage and transport. That camp grew to a town, then a city, and today is the capital of the Canadian province of Newfoundland. The first European house was built for a caretaker during the summer of 1496, the caretaker stayed over the winter of 1496/1497. The first government colony was Roanoke, built in 1585. The ship went back for supplies, but due to politics was not permitted to leave England with supplies until 1587. No one was left. The Popham Colony (also known as the Sagadahoc Colony) was established in 1607, located in the present-day town of Phippsburg, Maine. About half the colonists died; survivors returned to England in 1608. Jamestown was the first government settlement in North America, built as a fort in 1607. They starved, and had to abandon the fort; it was permanent starting 1610.

Plymouth Colony was established by the Mayflower in 1620. Plymouth Colony (sometimes called New Plymouth) was technically not a government colony, it was established by separatists known as Pilgrims. I have heard many Americans refer to the Plymouth Colony as the first establishment of what is now the United States. Again, Plymouth was not a government colony, it was private.

So the first successful English/British settlement was not government, it was business. The purpose of this discussion thread is to propose a means to build a successful settlement on Mars.

SpaceNut · 2015-12-19 21:37:52

Nice history...

We have the resources in terms of insitu materials for survival but its the scale of down mass that the initial setup of Base needs to process these that is the issue as well as the cost to get them there that requires a corporate funding model. We have talked about how the funding from the coporate and from the indivdual can be offset by a variety of business that would create money based on a mission to Mars for the corporate.

So a survival base requirements are at a bare minimum impart due to the size of crew and the foothold that we are trying to establish. The numbers for each commodity is based on a variety of constaints and viability of the landing sites insitu resources with the equipment we are provided with.

RobertDyck · 2015-12-20 12:25:30

Well, the primary advantage of my mission architecture over Mars Direct is the return vehicle. Mine carries the return food and supplies with astronauts, as well as surface food and supplies. That way if a free return is necessary, they have plenty. And return is in a vehicle dedicated for interplanetary transit, so as much space as the upper floor of a Mars Direct hab, and artificial gravity both ways. Launch vehicles are reduced, but only if you include a return vehicle.

Mars Direct:
- 1 SLS Block 2B for hab
- 1 SLS Block 2B for ERV

Mine: I call it Mars Orbit Rendezvous, Robert Zubrin calls it Hybrid Direct. Each of the second and subsequent missions:
- 1 SLS Block 2B for MAV
- 1 Falcon Heavy for TMI stage
- 1 Falcon 9 for lander & unpressurized rover (or skid-steer loader)
some means to get astronauts to LEO. One of:
... Falcon 9 for Dragon
... or Atlas V for CST-100 Starliner
... or Atlas V for DreamChaser

If you don't bring astronauts back, you don't need the ERV. However, with my architecture, you still need to bring the ITV back for the next crew, even if it returns to Earth empty. The MAV is the TEI stage, so you can't delete that. But, having a vehicle that returns is a safety feature. If the Mars settlement needs to return someone, then there will be a regular flight back to Earth.

For a settlement, the lander will include rapid prototyping equipment, and tools. Equipment to harvest resources, and build small factories. That equipment used to build apartments and larger greenhouses. And so it grows.

Either way you will need cargo landers. Mars Homestead project talked about 3 nuclear reactors, each sized to completely fill one cargo lander. Falcon Heavy can deliver Red Dragon to Mars, but that only carries about 1 tonne of cargo. SLS Block 2B can deliver much more substantial cargo, such as a reactor.

IanM · 2016-02-27 16:01:27

I'm sure many of you have heard of the Space Settlement Institute, and their Space Settlement Prize Act: http://www.space-settlement-institute.o … e-act.html. Essentially, what it would do is have the US recognize claims made by a corporation up to a given area of land, in the case of Mars 3.6 million square miles for the first corporation to reach Mars and decreasing by 15% for each subsequent corporation reaching Mars. I sometimes daydream about being a surveyor on one of those claims, being the first ever human exploring given parts of the outback.

There are obviously some differences between that idea and yours, although both are examples of corporate governance:
-One of your key points is that there'd be one single corporation governing all of Mars. Here there are several corporations laying claim on Mars, and in fact in the proposed Act is a provision saying that no corporation (nor collection of corporations effectively under the same control) can have more than one claim, explicitly banning the monopolization of Mars.
-Your primary source of revenue would be in the transport and pre-homestead maintenance of settlers, while here the primary source of revenue is simply selling the land to the homesteaders.

Overall, I think your plan is better, but that is another way to think about corporations and Mars.

louis · 2016-02-27 18:47:51

I think you actually need to explain what you mean...

"there are several corporations laying claim on Mars, and in fact in the proposed Act is a provision saying that no corporation (nor collection of corporations effectively under the same control) can have more than one claim, explicitly banning the monopolization of Mars."

That sounds v. much like the Antarctic Treaty where there are overlapping claims on territory. Only works as long as people keep their bases well separated.

My own view that it would be best if one (multi-agency) Mars Consortium took the lead in colonising Mars and thereafter established de facto supremacy.

IanM wrote:

I'm sure many of you have heard of the Space Settlement Institute, and their Space Settlement Prize Act: http://www.space-settlement-institute.o … e-act.html. Essentially, what it would do is have the US recognize claims made by a corporation up to a given area of land, in the case of Mars 3.6 million square miles for the first corporation to reach Mars and decreasing by 15% for each subsequent corporation reaching Mars. I sometimes daydream about being a surveyor on one of those claims, being the first ever human exploring given parts of the outback.
There are obviously some differences between that idea and yours, although both are examples of corporate governance:
-One of your key points is that there'd be one single corporation governing all of Mars. Here there are several corporations laying claim on Mars, and in fact in the proposed Act is a provision saying that no corporation (nor collection of corporations effectively under the same control) can have more than one claim, explicitly banning the monopolization of Mars.
-Your primary source of revenue would be in the transport and pre-homestead maintenance of settlers, while here the primary source of revenue is simply selling the land to the homesteaders.
Overall, I think your plan is better, but that is another way to think about corporations and Mars.

IanM · 2016-02-27 19:33:32

Here's what the Space Settlement Institute is planning to do. The Institute is more interested in the Moon, though they also extend their basic idea to Mars. Essentially, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits governments from claiming sovereignty over space and celestial objects. However, the Institute claims, such a ban does not apply to private entities (this point is genuinely debatable, see a possible rebuttal here: http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/P … heAir.pdf). The Institute then asserts two points: that the government, via their inaction in the last several decades, is ineffective for space colonization, and private organizations are better-suited for the purpose, and that the most valuable asset currently on the Moon/Mars is the real estate. It then proposes a piece of legislation to incentivize private entities to colonize them: the United States would simply recognize (which, it pointedly notes, is NOT the same as national sovereignty, thus not violating the Outer Space Treaty) land claims up to a certain area by companies that can establish a base in their claim, and make revenue primarily by selling their real estate. In order to promote competition and to prevent a single entity from monopolizing the land, there is an upper limit for claim size, in the case of Mars 3.6 million square miles for the first claim and decreasing by 15% for each subsequent claim. You are right to note that this works if and only if the companies' claims don't conflict. The Institute has this in their proposed legislation:

If, in such a case, the land claims of the two settlements overlap, and the claimants are unable to divide the land between them through negotiation, a U.S. court shall allocate the land between the two settlements as seems fitting, before recognizing the claims.

This is technically in the section concerning when it's not apparent which entity landed first, but if I were them I would simply add a general provision that recognition would be "first come first serve" with respect to a parcel, which is already implicit.

Oddly enough, the Institute has this to say about governing the Moon (and, by extension, Mars) a la Antarctica:

It would be a terrible disaster for the future of mankind if the Moon was ruled by an Antarctic style regime.
The Antarctic regime was designed specifically to prevent development in order to keep Antarctica pristine for research. It was designed precisely to prevent humanity from settling in or exploiting Antarctica. That probably was the best use for Antarctica - but it's exactly the opposite of what we want for the Moon."

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-02-28 09:44:55

IanM wrote:

Here's what the Space Settlement Institute is planning to do. The Institute is more interested in the Moon, though they also extend their basic idea to Mars. Essentially, the Outer Space Treaty prohibits governments from claiming sovereignty over space and celestial objects. However, the Institute claims, such a ban does not apply to private entities (this point is genuinely debatable, see a possible rebuttal here: http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/P … heAir.pdf). The Institute then asserts two points: that the government, via their inaction in the last several decades, is ineffective for space colonization, and private organizations are better-suited for the purpose, and that the most valuable asset currently on the Moon/Mars is the real estate. It then proposes a piece of legislation to incentivize private entities to colonize them: the United States would simply recognize (which, it pointedly notes, is NOT the same as national sovereignty, thus not violating the Outer Space Treaty) land claims up to a certain area by companies that can establish a base in their claim, and make revenue primarily by selling their real estate. In order to promote competition and to prevent a single entity from monopolizing the land, there is an upper limit for claim size, in the case of Mars 3.6 million square miles for the first claim and decreasing by 15% for each subsequent claim. You are right to note that this works if and only if the companies' claims don't conflict. The Institute has this in their proposed legislation:
If, in such a case, the land claims of the two settlements overlap, and the claimants are unable to divide the land between them through negotiation, a U.S. court shall allocate the land between the two settlements as seems fitting, before recognizing the claims.
This is technically in the section concerning when it's not apparent which entity landed first, but if I were them I would simply add a general provision that recognition would be "first come first serve" with respect to a parcel, which is already implicit.
Oddly enough, the Institute has this to say about governing the Moon (and, by extension, Mars) a la Antarctica:
It would be a terrible disaster for the future of mankind if the Moon was ruled by an Antarctic style regime.
The Antarctic regime was designed specifically to prevent development in order to keep Antarctica pristine for research. It was designed precisely to prevent humanity from settling in or exploiting Antarctica. That probably was the best use for Antarctica - but it's exactly the opposite of what we want for the Moon."

Who really cares if the Moon is pristine or not? The Moon doesn't do anything, there is no ecology there, its just a rock. I am familiar with SSI, they propose using Lunar Material to construct O'Neill colonies. My idea is to turn part of the Moon into an O'Neill Colony.

Ever hear of a Bishop Ring? it is the largest size of an O'Neill colony that would be built or normal materials, in this case carbon nanotubes. My idea is if we use the Moon and build a ring around it, we don't need carbon nanotubes to hold it together against its spin, we can use the Moon's gravity instead. You need to first smooth out a 200 mile wide track around the Moon at its equator, then build a maglev track on that, and pile on top of the track lunar material in the amount that is 6 times the mass of the Bishop Ring to be spun, the weight of the excess lunar material under lunar gravity would then equal the centrifugal force of the Bishop Ring as it spins. Solar collectors covering the rest of the Moon would then supply the power to power the artificial light source for the inward facing Bishop Ring.

This is a free standing Bishop Ring, the one around the Moon would be a bit bigger, almost twice the radius, and would rely on the Moons gravity rather than the strength of carbon nanotube fibers to hold it together.

SpaceNut · 2016-03-02 20:55:46

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Problem is, why do a few governments only, get to decide how much to invest in it? The government didn't invent the automobile, it didn't invent the airplane. No one in congress could simply pull the plug and then have no flights going to anywhere. The problem is the technology up to now for space flight hasn't been self-sustaining. No one has found a way for space exploration and settlement to fund itself, rather than going to various legislative bodies, hat in hand, begging for more money! If space exploration isn't dependent on government subsidy, then the government can't pull the plug.

Tom Kalbfus you have asked a great question in the SLS topic but I think that the answer is in cost and then with funds.....

We have tried crowd funding, membership drives for funds, probably even bake sales but unless you have a launcher to provide for others then we do not have the excess cash to plan missions beyond what cash the corporation has on hands to do its own internally funded space mission.

MarsDrive as well as others were working on a consortium funded system but that can only go as far as what gets return value for doing a mission. The plans were to sell media coverage and lots of other stuff but the question is who will pay for the service that is being provide by such a mission to the world and others that will generate the funds to offset the cost.

Loius has as well posted simular on this forum for how to fund a mission.....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-04 12:33:58

SpaceNut wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Problem is, why do a few governments only, get to decide how much to invest in it? The government didn't invent the automobile, it didn't invent the airplane. No one in congress could simply pull the plug and then have no flights going to anywhere. The problem is the technology up to now for space flight hasn't been self-sustaining. No one has found a way for space exploration and settlement to fund itself, rather than going to various legislative bodies, hat in hand, begging for more money! If space exploration isn't dependent on government subsidy, then the government can't pull the plug.
Tom Kalbfus you have asked a great question in the SLS topic but I think that the answer is in cost and then with funds.....
We have tried crowd funding, membership drives for funds, probably even bake sales but unless you have a launcher to provide for others then we do not have the excess cash to plan missions beyond what cash the corporation has on hands to do its own internally funded space mission.
MarsDrive as well as others were working on a consortium funded system but that can only go as far as what gets return value for doing a mission. The plans were to sell media coverage and lots of other stuff but the question is who will pay for the service that is being provide by such a mission to the world and others that will generate the funds to offset the cost.
Loius has as well posted simular on this forum for how to fund a mission.....

The World spends more money of Boeing 747s, 757s, and Airbus 380s than it does on spaceflight. the main difference is the people spending on airplanes get a return on their investment, and when their is a return on investment a supply of money is forthcoming. With government spaceflight their is very little financial return on investment, we get knowledge, but that in itself does not fund next years space budget. With crowd funding, you can get a certain number of interested individuals willing to lose money for a space mission, but without a self-sustaining return on investment, that source of money is limited. So its usually the government that funds such things, and few governments in the World actually fund space missions. The United States, Russia, China, India, and the European Union collectively, since governments typically waste money anyway, their are various constituencies competing for various things to waste money on, the government has to be persuaded that is better to waste money of spaceflight than on $500 toilet seats, maybe the toilet seat manufacturers make more generous campaign contributions that the aerospace companies.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2015-11-02 16:24:06

Re: Corporate Government

#102 2015-11-02 18:14:16

Re: Corporate Government

#103 2015-11-02 19:18:37

Re: Corporate Government

#104 2015-11-02 19:36:51

Re: Corporate Government

#105 2015-11-02 19:51:35

Re: Corporate Government

#106 2015-11-02 19:57:49

Re: Corporate Government

#107 2015-11-02 20:37:29

Re: Corporate Government

#108 2015-11-02 21:14:18

Re: Corporate Government

#109 2015-11-02 21:54:15

Re: Corporate Government

#110 2015-11-02 22:33:00

Re: Corporate Government

#111 2015-11-03 13:15:42

Re: Corporate Government

#112 2015-11-03 14:26:46

Re: Corporate Government

#113 2015-11-03 15:10:45

Re: Corporate Government

#114 2015-11-03 18:50:29

Re: Corporate Government

#115 2015-11-03 19:49:23

Re: Corporate Government

#116 2015-11-04 05:55:38

Re: Corporate Government

#117 2015-12-19 13:50:10

Re: Corporate Government

#118 2015-12-19 21:37:52

Re: Corporate Government

#119 2015-12-20 12:25:30

Re: Corporate Government

#120 2016-02-27 16:01:27

Re: Corporate Government

#121 2016-02-27 18:47:51

Re: Corporate Government

#122 2016-02-27 19:33:32

Re: Corporate Government

#123 2016-02-28 09:44:55

Re: Corporate Government

#124 2016-03-02 20:55:46

Re: Corporate Government

#125 2016-03-04 12:33:58

Re: Corporate Government

Board footer