You are not logged in.
GCN -
You say:
"Also do not forget, that 1MT must also include the fuel tanks for the fuel too. Overall, powered breaking isn't out of the question, but if you are going to do that and bring the fuel you need for the trip back to Earth, forget about chemical rockets. Nuclear rockets on the other hand could pull it off perhaps."
That suggests you have an idea about how much fuel or overall rocket mass would be required to get 10 MT to Mars and back. Are you able to give the figure. I was thinking perhaps we were talking about 2,000 MT but are you saying it is much higher. If you're not why are you saying we should "forget it"?
Zhar -
Probably not that easy to produce an industrial development plan here but there certainly does need to be one.
The overarching pattern is:
1. Raw material mining and crop growing.
2. Processing (purifying ores and gases, extracting materials from crops).
3. Shaping metals, polymers and ceramics into standard units.
4. Working of standard units to produce parts.
5. Assembling parts for final products.
Diggers, transporters and hydroponic farming cover 1. Various computerised small scale machines will cover 2,3 and 4. 5 will be covered by human labour in combination with computerised machines.
Some of the industries I think we would want to establish with the aim of creating a self-sufficient community on Mars would be:
- construction materials (cement, concrete, steel girders, glass, sand bags).
- rocket fuel
- hygiene materials (soap, toothpaste etc)
- spare parts for computerised industrial machines
- solar power panels
- gas cylinders
- electric motors
- simple electric vehicles (think go karts)
- chemical batteries
- turbines
- electric cable and electric equipment
- plastic piping
- furniture and habitat equipment
- hydroponic farming equipment including farm tools
- simple clothing
- simple computers
Some things are always going to be (or for a very long time will be) difficult to produce: medicine, advanced computer systems and software, rockets.
I think your approach is essentially correct. We won't be trying to establishing a huge heavy industry base on Mars at the outset (or maybe never - it might be a different type of economy). The industrial infrastructure will involve firstly the importation of small scale machines (SSMs) such as CNC machines (computerised number control machines) e.g. lathes which can be programmed to cut metal etc in accordance with instructions and not involving any particular skill on the part of the operator (similar to key cutting machines you may have seen when you go to get your keys cut). Later, we should be able to replicate many of these machines on Mars (perhaps beginning with spare part production).
I am sure these fabbers could have a role to play as well - maybe more with polymers? I have read that some industrial processes involving metal shaping do actually require big rollers in order to impart strength at a molecular level (and we might have to replicate the effect of big rollers on earth with pressure systems on our small scale machines).
Yes, Fabbers could definitely be part of the solution.
John Creighton -
It is important not to try and run before we walk.
I think the first few years should be dedicated to consolidating the base colony and developing a small but sophisticated industrial infrastructure.
Only then should major exploration expeditions be undertaken.
This is not to say that there won't be a lot of exploration going on in the vicinity of the base - maybe say 30 kms in any direction. That will provide lots that is of interest.
But the prime focus must be on creating the conditions for human settlement.
If you are really interested in exploration, then I think you should back this approach. Once we have an industrial infrastructure in place we will be able to manufacture rocket fuel at will. That will provide plenty of scope for using the lander itself as the exploratory vehicle - heading off to various points on the planet. A lot easier than duplicating everything on the lander in a large, big mass Mars Rover.
So industrial infrastructure first. Manufacture fuel, then visit wherever you want to on the planet. At each landing point, use cheap low mass transport e.g electric bikes, trikes or scooters to explore the immediate vicinity.
Some great graphics on the Explore Mars site and an interesting approach to LEO assembly which I have always thought coudl be helpful.
Yep = or trikes with boots.
Attach a small electric motor and they become a very practical from of long distance transport as well.
Regarding risk, I think we should be looking at this much more like going mountaineering than getting on a commercial airliner.
Of course, everything should be done to minimise risk within reason and no one should take a conscious gamble on a life (as happened with the O rings).
But on the other hand we have to expect that people could die on a mission to Mars and as long as people are prepared to volunteer for these hazardous missions, they should go ahead with all due speed.
Idiom - Like-minded? We can't even agree how to get there!!!
Some nice ideas with the calendar.
Thought the languages could more diverse. Yiddish seemed a bit over-represented! How about Japanese or Chinese.
I see Japanese for Red Earth is "Ni" so I propose that for one of the days.
Some suggested holidays:
Foundation Day - To celebrate the foundation of the first colony.
Unity Day - To celebrate the peace and unity of the Mars settlers.
Knowledge Day - To celebrate the sciences that got people to Mars.
Mars Future Day - To celebrate plans and ongoing work for the terraforming of Mars.
Does anybody have any views on whether ultrathin photovoltaic film would work on Mars.
I would say at the outset that
1. I don't think wind and dust storms are a problem. I am sure we can weigh down the film with regolith and we can control dust through various measures, including blowers.
2. I don't think the lower output compared with say the Mars Rover solar panels is an issue. The reduced mass is an incredible gain. Calculations I have done previously suggest we might be able to power a colony of six people from just a few hundred Kgs of the stuff. Land is not a problem - there is plenty of that, though obviously when we start to go some distance cabling can become an issue.
I think the main issue is whether the film would disintegrate in the extreme cold of Mars? (take a look at the Nanosolar site if you want to see what I am talking about).
Assuming that would be an issue, is there a solution?
One possibility is to raise the temperature of the film itself, by maybe incorporating heating elements, which would keep it above a certain temperature. However, I am not sure whether that would drive the system into negative values and make it useless.
Another possibility is perhaps to encase the film in a thin transparent plastic coating which is resistant to degradation as this might (?) protect the thin film.
Does anyone one know how the problem of degradation of materials has been solved with the Mars Rover solar panels?
My idea on another forum was disposable overalls (similar to the type forensic experts use) to protect the expensive suit from Mars dust abrasion and to help protect the internal habitat environment from dust pollution.
Such suits could be very light. Let's say 50 grams. 20 per kG or 5000 per 250 kgs. It might be worth taking them along for the ride if they did really prolong the lives of the space suits and make dust control easier.
LATEST FROM SPACE X
"McGregor TX – Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) conducted the first three-engine firing of its Falcon 9 medium to heavy lift rocket at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor, on March 8, 2008. At full power the engines generated over 270,000 pounds of force, and consumed 1,050 lbs of fuel and liquid oxygen per second. This three-engine test again sets the record as the most powerful test yet on the towering 235-foot tall test stand. A total of nine Merlin 1C engines will power the Falcon 9 rocket.
The test series continues with the addition of two engines for a total of five, then finally the full complement of nine engines. With all engines firing, the Falcon 9 can generate over one million pounds of thrust in vacuum - four times the maximum thrust of a 747 aircraft.
“The incremental approach to testing allows us to closely observe how each additional engine influences the entire system,” said Tom Mueller, Vice President of Propulsion for SpaceX. “This ensures that we obtain as much data, knowledge and experience as possible as we approach the full nine engine configuration. To date we have not encountered any unexpected interactions between the engines.”
The Merlin 1C next generation liquid fueled rocket booster engine is among the highest performing gas generator cycle kerosene engines ever built, exceeding the Boeing Delta II main engine, the Lockheed Atlas II main engine, and on par with the Saturn V F-1 engine. It is the first new American booster engine in a decade and only the second American booster engine since the development of the Space Shuttle Main Engine thirty years ago.
The first Falcon 9 remains on-schedule for delivery to the SpaceX launch site at Space Launch Complex 40, Cape Canaveral, Florida, by the end of 2008.
About SpaceX
SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles intended to increase the reliability and reduce the cost of both manned and unmanned space transportation, ultimately by a factor of ten. With its Falcon line of launch vehicles, powered by the internally developed Merlin engines, SpaceX is able to offer light, medium and heavy lift capabilities to deliver spacecraft into any inclination and altitude, from low Earth orbit to geosynchronous orbit to planetary missions.
As winner of the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services competition, SpaceX will conduct three flights of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for NASA. This will culminate in Dragon berthing with the International Space Station and returning safely to Earth. Falcon 9/Dragon will have the opportunity to provide crew and supply services to the Space Station, and fill the gap in US resupply capability when the Shuttle retires in 2010.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS!
That's quite encouraging - if I've understood it right.
I'm a Mars Minimalist I think we can get there and establish permanent human settlement on a very small payload - but we have to change our way of thinking about the problem.
I'm also a retro rocket enthusiast.
So I;m suggesting a much smaller payload than some others do.
I think for Mission 1 we could go with two robot pre-flights delivering 10 tonnes each followed by two companion manned flights and landings of 10 tonnes each. So 40 tonnes total of which maybe 24 tonnes would be deployed following landing.
So do you have any thoughts on how big a single stage craft launched from earth using only retro rocket landing would have to be for a 10 tonne payload. Would something like 2000 tonnes be about right? Or is that too low?
Another way of addressing the problem once we had a lunar base would of course be to have the craft launch from earth with fuel tanks half or third empty, to refuel on the moon from lunar fuel. That seems like a very sensible way of proceeding to me.
Unless you were the optimistic type, you'd also have to plan for failure of the rotation mechanism, in which case you would have to have all the pumps ready for zero G conditions. So there would be no mass or complexity saving.
OK, indoors then.
Inflatables in trenches (and covered in regolith) will be the way to go with the initial habitat, rather than domes. Then we should go for sandbag construction (eco domes). Only when industry has got a foothold can we look to making proper domes.
I agree transparent is best psychologically. Trees around the internal perimeter to disguise the supporting struts will help give the illusion of open space.
Here's one early idea I had:
Use reflective foil on exterior of crater walls to reflect solar radiation on to a steam boiler.
CME - I'm not sure it would necessarily be disastrous but it is a factor (especially as low gravity does appear to compromise the immune system). Strangely I was speculating on another thread whether people in Antarctic stations also suffered compromised immunity because their immune systems weren't being tested in the way they are in crowded cities etc.
I think the workplan on Mars should allow for a "slowdown" situation where everything switches to minimal power and resource use (I was thinking of dust storms but this could apply also to situations where there are not enough people active to maintain all systems.
Good crops (hydroponic) to go for at an early stage:
Salad vegetables like lettuce, tomatoes and watercress.
Bean sprouts
Soya beans
Buckwheat
Rice?
Oil bearing plant (not identified yet but rapeseed perhaps).
Bamboo - as a material for various uses e.g. containers and so on.
I'm still not convinced.
I think there may be an argument for a small emergency wind turbine - you can never really have too many power sources in my view - but I still think it would be easier to "make hay while the sun shines" and just store solar energy in various ways: chemical batteries, hydrogen (splitting water), compressed air, methane production, gravity drops and possibly mini hydro.
Thanks for that clarification Noos.
My sense is it is just a lot quicker and efficient to go for full artificial lighting. Given the existence of dust storms on Mars, any greenhouse system dependent on natural light could result in crop failure. If you are going to make it non-dependent on natural light (so crops can survive prolonged dust storms) then you will have to provide a full artificial light system and that in itself will block out natural light - so, not a good solution.
Also put the farms underground for radiation protection.
My guess is that something like 100 square metres (2 metre high) would provide enough food for 4 people with a hydroponic system growing crops on two levels and with crop choices being directed to those with short growing seasons (anything from five days to 60 days). It would be highly intensive agriculture but with perfect growing conditions, provided by the artificial light, controlled heat and humidity, water supply and nutrient solution, there is no reason why it shouldn't work.
here's one type of dome construction that should not be forgotten:
http://www.calearth.org/EcoDome.htm
I think they'd also look good on Mars.
Using sandbags to fill with sandy regolith is a quick way of creating building material and uses no industrial processes as such. Lifting the bags would be easier in third gravity, though maybe you would need more of them to create a pressure seal?
Not sure about the cement rendering, as to how easy that would be to produce on Mars. You'd need a lot of cement!
For animal protein - in order of introduction I have on the menu:
1. Shellfish
2. Guinea pigs (a delicacy in South America)
3. Chickens
4. Small deer
Well obviously whatever they are, these fines have not been so fiendishly destructive as to prevent the Mars Rovers from chugging around and they have plenty of moving parts.
That said, it will probably make sense for most industrial processes (lathes, metal pressing. moulding etc) to be conducted in a relatively dust free environment - probably in a surface inflatable.
Austin Phillips talks of the
"reliability and simplicity of these systems " (i.e. nuclear power systems on subs).
I don't buy into this.
Are you saying we don't have nuclear engineers on board subs? Are you saying the engines don't have to be monitored?
The really reliable system is solar power (as we've seen with the Mars Rovers). And part of the reason it's reliable is that it is indeed simple and difficult to disrupt or destroy.
If we can use ultra thin PV film on Mars then we also have something that will weigh v. little. A few hundred Kgs could produce a great abundance of energy per capita. And it will be reliable and safe.