Settlement design

louis · 2021-04-22 07:14:08

Steely Dan?

kbd512 wrote:

I just thought of a good name for the first crewed Starship that lands on Mars. That first ship shall be christened Audacity. Her sister ship that carries the other four astronauts shall be christened Alacrity. The first true colonization class ship, a ship of the line, a vessel that Starship clearly isn't, shall be christened Enterprise, for that is what she truly represents.

tahanson43206 · 2021-04-22 07:19:03

For RobertDyck, Oldfart1939 and SpaceNut ...

For RobertDyck ... thanks for picking up on the different needs to be addressed ...

Since this is Noah's topic, I hope/trust he'll be evaluating the input from everyone.

The post explaining/reminding that go-home supplies should be left in orbit captures that concept nicely.

The landing of supplies needed for the on-surface expedition makes sense.

What I was trying to open up at the start of the current series was the option of leaving ** spare ** supplies in orbit.

It is not known what you're going to run out of on the ground, so having some reserves in orbit would seem to me to make sense.

Most expeditions on land (Earth) that I can think of off hand have involved large ships packed with supplies, and small boats used to move crew and supplies back and forth from land.

Those are time tested procedures, and I see no reason at all to forget them just because we are going to another planet.

The Apollo project was like sending a canoe across the Pacific Ocean when the Polynesians conquered that entire region.

There is plenty of time to set up an expedition to Mars with sufficient resources to get everyone home safely, even if surprises occur that reveal defects in understanding of the problem.

***
I'm going to keep beating this drum ... In order for Noah (and his team) to develop an ** actual ** plan, they are going to need software beyond what this forum package can provide. A Wiki is ** one ** concept, and since the Mars Society has experience with it, it makes sense to consider it for this application. However, there may be other software that would do a better job of helping to solidify decision making so we stop re-inventing the wheel every few weeks or months.

Noah announced a (tentative) expedition size of 8 people ... Oldfart1939 offered a 17 person expedition size and gave specific reasons for the advantages of that size of team. I'd like to see the equivalent justification for 8 people.

In my opinion the expenditure of funds (ie, labor of people and allocation of time that could be used for something else) should NOT be a factor this early in design of an expedition that is going to succeed in its mission and return everyone safely.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-04-22 09:34:19

Louis,

It speaks to the character of the mission and the crew, for having the audacity to make the first attempt to live on another world, so very far from home, and the alacrity required to make it happen- to willingly accept and meet any challenge presented.

RobertDyck · 2021-04-22 11:12:15

kbd512 discussed ship names. I came up with a name for my Large Ship, described in another thread. You know, that really big one for 1,000 to 1,600 setters at a time. I went through the list of names of Mars in various languages. Ares is the Greek equivalent. Nirgal is Babylonian, used for a character in the book "Green Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson. The name from Old English stood out for me: TIU, root word for Tuesday. That name dates before the Roman invasion of Britain. My logo would be in the alphabet used at that time, Anglo-Saxon runes. ᛏᛁᚢ

SpaceNut · 2021-04-22 16:05:27

The problem with spare cargo is its already been paid for and has a specific destination since it was launched predetermined with no other means to place that cargo in an alternative state that was not already planned for from the minute it was packaged and launched.

Take for instance a cygnus is a LEO payload delivery system and if can not be used anywhere else without modifications to make it have the capability to do so. Its the same problem you have with starship as its going nowhere until its modified by refueling and then only to a specific location and back as determined by fuel.

Edit
Which brings to the ERV by RobertDyck which is basically a space station around mars waiting to be used. This brings forward the reason for why have these stations in LEO, Lunar and what I would suggest is now Mars and Phobos to have for increased trade and cargo delivery...
Its that cargo delivery that awaits use at each station that we would want as then what's loaded in one vessel can be moved to what is needed so as to deliver what they need and not what is not.

louis · 2021-04-22 16:06:52

Musk likes silly and scandalous names...

If it was me I would call it New Earth to get the message across.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
It speaks to the character of the mission and the crew, for having the audacity to make the first attempt to live on another world, so very far from home, and the alacrity required to make it happen- to willingly accept and meet any challenge presented.

Noah · 2021-04-23 01:30:02

Mass requirement

Does anyone have information on mass requirements per person per day (or for a mission to Mars)?
PDF's or websites are also welcome.

Noah · 2021-04-23 02:10:17

Workload

I have summarized the main tasks, did I miss a task?

Main tasks:
-Maintenance (lss, cleaning, repairs).
-Building the settlement (if necessary)
-Production of fuel
-Exploration (search for water & resources)
-Collection and treatment of water
-Energy system "installation"
-Science (search for past or present life).

tahanson43206 · 2021-04-23 04:41:23

For Noah re #283

SearchTerm:Workload Post 283 list of tasks for an expedition to Mars
SearchTerm:Tasklist Post 283 list of tasks for an expedition to Mars
SearchTerm:Expedition planning for

Re Post #282 .... there is now a significant history of space flight. What I ** don't ** know is how much of that history is available to the public to study.

The quality of life provided to astronauts is also potentially knowable. The three major players are the Russians, the US/ESA partnership, and China.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-04-23 04:45:30

I got this chart from NASA. However, these numbers can be altered. For example, this chart has urinal flush water, but ISS uses a toilet with a urine collection tube that uses air flow instead of flush water. And the US Habitation module was never installed on ISS (long story), so there's no shower. And they don't wash clothes, instead ship clean clothes up periodically and throw dirty clothes in the trash. One issue for Mars is you can't dispose of clothes like that, laundry will be required. And of course any modern long-duration life support system recycles oxygen and water. But if you want a simple chart for daily requirements, here is one.

louis · 2021-04-23 07:09:22

Personally I think the last one on your list should be deleted for Mission One, or at least be considered supplementary to successful completion of other tasks.

I think there is an argument for some early experimentation with industrial and farming processes.

Preparation of Starship for return flight (maintenance, testing, loading, refuelling etc) is deserving of its own category as I imagine it could possibly take up something like 10-20% of the pioneers' work time on Mars, concentrated towards the end of the mission no doubt.

Noah wrote:

Workload
I have summarized the main tasks, did I miss a task?
Main tasks:
-Maintenance (lss, cleaning, repairs).
-Building the settlement (if necessary)
-Production of fuel
-Exploration (search for water & resources)
-Collection and treatment of water
-Energy system "installation"
-Science (search for past or present life).

Last edited by louis (2021-04-23 07:11:54)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-04-23 10:08:26

Louis-

I disagree. The science is one of the primary reasons for going there--the search for life past and present is of major importance.

louis · 2021-04-23 12:47:00

It's certainly a key benefit of establish a human colony but first you have to set up a secure base. Why lose focus by prioritising scientific exploration. I just feel it's not a priority for Mission One - Mission 2 onwards, yes (not least because it will be an important way of attracting investment from universities and other agencies).

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
I disagree. The science is one of the primary reasons for going there--the search for life past and present is of major importance.

Last edited by louis (2021-04-23 13:42:32)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-04-23 13:12:29

Louis, et. al;

This is another one of the reasons for sending a larger crew. There doesn't have to be any "either-or" choice made. The scientists are there to DO SCIENCE! That's why I included 2 triads of construction oriented crew members. The medical personnel are there to make sure everyone is capable of doing his/her assigned tasks. Yes, there will be a lot of cross training, but there's a lot of knowledge involved in repairing an electric front loader that a molecular biologist wouldn't.

louis · 2021-04-23 13:46:12

I think this is a bit of an either-or for Mission One alone because on Mission One you are doing several things never before attempted: setting up an energy system that can generate something like 1MW or thereabouts, identifying concentrated sources of water ice, mining the water ice, transporting it back to base, getting a propellant production facility up and running that will manufacture over 1000 tons of propellant, making the propellant, safely refuelling a return Starship and preparing a Starship for return to Earth. That's a demanding and challenging list of things that must be done on Mission One.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis, et. al;
This is another one of the reasons for sending a larger crew. There doesn't have to be any "either-or" choice made. The scientists are there to DO SCIENCE! That's why I included 2 triads of construction oriented crew members. The medical personnel are there to make sure everyone is capable of doing his/her assigned tasks. Yes, there will be a lot of cross training, but there's a lot of knowledge involved in repairing an electric front loader that a molecular biologist wouldn't.

tahanson43206 · 2021-04-23 14:22:12

For Louis re several recent posts ....

I decided to think about the position you've taken for a while, before attempting a comment .... I can (sort of) understand your position, but on the ** other ** hand, I am reminded of the first expedition to the Moon. While engineering demonstration was the primary objective of that mission, the need for science was considered important enough so that a number of science related activities were included.

Beyond that, I think that the search for water could be understood as a scientific activity, as distinct from engineering, which is about doing something with water once you find it.

Since this is Noah's topic, I am looking forward to seeing his observations.

We (existing (and mostly older)) forum members have an opportunity to help Noah make crucial decisions as he continues and ultimately (hopefully) completes his academic preparation for a career in the Age of SpaceX.

I am hoping that Noah can (somehow) find his way through this period of time so that he is positioned at graduation to either enlist with some existing activity that might be headed in the direction he wants to go, or (outside chance) embark upon something risky such as starting a new activity.

(th)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-04-23 14:54:33

You have entirely missed my point. There are real construction specialist who are extremely good at what they do, and a team of 6 will make incredible progress in a short time. The geology/exploration team will also be doing some very valuable science in addition to finding reserves of ice and water. They will also be available for some construction work, since they will be responsible for any cave discoveries and evaluation of building sites.

Real construction professionals don't like having amateur help. The old joke about rates they charge: $50 per hour for doing the work; $75 per hour if you watch and comment; $300 per hour is when you help.

louis · 2021-04-23 15:14:02

The search for water will involve a lot of geological understanding and I am sure will produce plenty of material for scientists back on Earth to ponder. I am not against the pioneers returning with samples from the water ice mine operation.

The aim of the Apollo landing was not explicitly to export human civilisation to the Moon. It was really a combination of a political demonstration and science. The Space X mission to Mars is explicitly about exporting human civilisation to Mars, so I think that is the overarching priority. The rest will follow naturally. I have always said more science will be done in four years on Mars through two Starship missions than was accomplished by NASA in 40 years. That's the context really - Space X don't need to make an major effort to exceed what NASA have done. Once the base is established Universities, Space Agencies and many other bodies will be keen to undertake scientific work on Mars.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Louis re several recent posts ....
I decided to think about the position you've taken for a while, before attempting a comment .... I can (sort of) understand your position, but on the ** other ** hand, I am reminded of the first expedition to the Moon. While engineering demonstration was the primary objective of that mission, the need for science was considered important enough so that a number of science related activities were included.
Beyond that, I think that the search for water could be understood as a scientific activity, as distinct from engineering, which is about doing something with water once you find it.
Since this is Noah's topic, I am looking forward to seeing his observations.
We (existing (and mostly older)) forum members have an opportunity to help Noah make crucial decisions as he continues and ultimately (hopefully) completes his academic preparation for a career in the Age of SpaceX.

I am hoping that Noah can (somehow) find his way through this period of time so that he is positioned at graduation to either enlist with some existing activity that might be headed in the direction he wants to go, or (outside chance) embark upon something risky such as starting a new activity.
(th)

louis · 2021-04-23 15:17:42

I think we can agree at least that the water ice mining operation will be based on a lot of scientific work and will also yield lots of interesting material samples or involve events of scientific interest.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

You have entirely missed my point. There are real construction specialist who are extremely good at what they do, and a team of 6 will make incredible progress in a short time. The geology/exploration team will also be doing some very valuable science in addition to finding reserves of ice and water. They will also be available for some construction work, since they will be responsible for any cave discoveries and evaluation of building sites.
Real construction professionals don't like having amateur help. The old joke about rates they charge: $50 per hour for doing the work; $75 per hour if you watch and comment; $300 per hour is when you help.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-04-23 15:23:12

Louis-

I'm looking at things from a different perspective than you. There needs to be political support in order to get NASA's fingers dirty too, and they can generally justify their support of a scientifically based mission. Musk has the colonization covered.

SpaceNut · 2021-04-23 15:34:58

http://www.marsjournal.org/contents/200 … 6_0005.pdf
Clearly, life support is critical for human missions to Mars, and recycling and possibly use of indigenous Mars water resources are necessary elements of any rational plan to make such missions feasible and affordable.

https://phys.org/pdf79015566.pdf
Mars journey: Unsolved technical problems

https://www.nasa.gov/content/life-support-systems

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/m … ssurf.html

RobertDyck · 2021-04-23 16:19:49

Re post #296, the box labelled "Carbon Dioxide Reduction" has one of two outputs: Acetylene, or Carbon. There is no such thing on ISS. There have been proposals, but it hasn't been developed. What does exist is Sabatier Reactor, its output is Methane.

Sabatier: CO2 + 4 H2 → CH4 + 2 H2O
The issue is due to human metabolism, this only consumes half of CO2 from cabin air. Limitation is hydrogen. When the other half of CO2 is dumped in space, that loses oxygen.

other chemical reactors (net): 2 CO2 + H2 → C2H2 + 4 H2O
Acetylene is C2H2. This goes beyond what's necessary. If you get get hydrogen to carbon ratio 2:1 instead of 4:1, that would consume all CO2. Acetylene has 1:1, so dry food would end up becoming CO2 and water, accumulating excess water.

louis · 2021-04-23 16:52:45

Space X do need NASA's support especially for coms and mapping, that's true.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
I'm looking at things from a different perspective than you. There needs to be political support in order to get NASA's fingers dirty too, and they can generally justify their support of a scientifically based mission. Musk has the colonization covered.

louis · 2021-04-23 16:57:26

I was looking into this the other day and it seems like with the ISS LSS, NASA are in a programme of continuous improvement, e.g. finding the best materials for CO2 removal. The impression I got was that they do have systems that work but that they could potentially be improved upon.

Of course a Starship is big enough to take its own air, water and food for a small crew but I am sure Space X will want to put in place something similar to the ISS.

SpaceNut wrote:

http://www.marsjournal.org/contents/200 … 6_0005.pdf
Clearly, life support is critical for human missions to Mars, and recycling and possibly use of indigenous Mars water resources are necessary elements of any rational plan to make such missions feasible and affordable.
https://phys.org/pdf79015566.pdf
Mars journey: Unsolved technical problems

https://www.nasa.gov/content/life-support-systems
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file … cture3.png

Noah · 2021-04-24 22:20:18

Thanks Louis and Oldfahrt1939 for your comments.
Thanks RobertDyck and SpaceNut for the sources and informations, looks quite useful.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2021-04-22 07:14:08

Re: Settlement design

#277 2021-04-22 07:19:03

Re: Settlement design

#278 2021-04-22 09:34:19

Re: Settlement design

#279 2021-04-22 11:12:15

Re: Settlement design

#280 2021-04-22 16:05:27

Re: Settlement design

#281 2021-04-22 16:06:52

Re: Settlement design

#282 2021-04-23 01:30:02

Re: Settlement design

#283 2021-04-23 02:10:17

Re: Settlement design

#284 2021-04-23 04:41:23

Re: Settlement design

#285 2021-04-23 04:45:30

Re: Settlement design

#286 2021-04-23 07:09:22

Re: Settlement design

#287 2021-04-23 10:08:26

Re: Settlement design

#288 2021-04-23 12:47:00

Re: Settlement design

#289 2021-04-23 13:12:29

Re: Settlement design

#290 2021-04-23 13:46:12

Re: Settlement design

#291 2021-04-23 14:22:12

Re: Settlement design

#292 2021-04-23 14:54:33

Re: Settlement design

#293 2021-04-23 15:14:02

Re: Settlement design

#294 2021-04-23 15:17:42

Re: Settlement design

#295 2021-04-23 15:23:12

Re: Settlement design

#296 2021-04-23 15:34:58

Re: Settlement design

#297 2021-04-23 16:19:49

Re: Settlement design

#298 2021-04-23 16:52:45

Re: Settlement design

#299 2021-04-23 16:57:26

Re: Settlement design

#300 2021-04-24 22:20:18

Re: Settlement design

Board footer