Book about Life on Mars

tahanson43206 · 2018-12-17 09:17:44

https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-mars-hu … 55648.html

"Everything that you use and you create on Mars is so valuable. You simply can’t afford a pollution stream, you can’t afford a waste stream at all. Everything will absolutely be recycled ... at least in the beginning," said Stephen Petranek, author of "How We’ll Live on Mars."

Hoping this book deserves it's own topic. Please move if a better place exists.

Ordered from Amazon 2018/12/17. I note that copies are available for as little as $4.50 (plus shipping if customer is not Prime).

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2018-12-17 10:59:11)

louis · 2018-12-17 10:35:21

I'd say yes and no. I'd reverse it in fact. So less recycling at the beginning and more as time goes on.

Setting up recycling facilities, feeding them and maintaining them is actually a demanding exercise. A lot can be automated but not everything. Certainly on Earth there is a lot of human involvement.

In the early stages labour will be in v. short supply. It will be needed for other vital tasks like construction, life support, coms, energy generation.

Are the 10 or 20 pioneers really going to pull down the five redundant BFR Starships and recycle them? I doubt it, at least not in the first few years.

And the colony will not be generating much in the way of recyclable metal or plastics....

Probably food and agricultural waste will be one of the first areas where there is intensive recycling.

Dirty water may well be recycled as well.

Later, as the colony grows, I would expect maximal recycling to a key feature of the colony, since all primary resources extraction will be difficult in the Mars environment, even if it is fully robotised.

tahanson43206 wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-mars-hu … 55648.html
"Everything that you use and you create on Mars is so valuable. You simply can’t afford a pollution stream, you can’t afford a waste stream at all. Everything will absolutely be recycled ... at least in the beginning," said Stephen Petranek, author of "How We’ll Live on Mars."
Hoping this book deserves it's own topic. Please move if a better place exists.
(th)

tahanson43206 · 2018-12-17 10:57:56

Louis,

Thanks for taking up the debate with Mr. Petranek. I've ordered the book, and (hopefully) will be able to evaluate his arguments in light of your points above.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2018-12-17 18:35:37

The act of recycling is depending on mass delivery of payload plus quantity of delivery in one mission cycle that makes the desire to do more with less a means to the end as it does cost billions typically for such missions.
Without multiple ships for a sub assembly the amount of mass is limited to our 1 large lifting rocket whether that is SLS or BFR at 150 T chunks of payload to which is that all for a mission or are we needing more building blocks to make a mission possible.
The more blocks do not mean success of payload landing as past mars mission demonstrates but I am sure we will improve. Then the final question is what are we doing once there as that reconfigures the payloads that we send and the amounts there in to be able to handle the population that goes.

tahanson43206 · 2018-12-21 13:57:53

"How We'll Live On Mars" arrived today.

The hardcover format is smaller than I was expecting. It is 7 x 5 inches (roughly) or 186 mm by 135 mm.

SearchTerm:BookOnMars

tahanson43206 wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-mars-hu … 55648.html

(th)

Apparently there is a TED talk associated with this book:

Begin Quotation:
Watch Stephen Petranek's Ted Talk

Stephen Petranek's TED Talk, available for free at TED.com, is the companion to "How We'll Live on Mars".
End Quotation.

The Table of Contents reads as follows:
Begin Quotation:

Contents

Introduction The Dream
Chapter 1 Das Marsprojekt
Chapter 2 The Great Private Space Race
Chapter 3 Rockets are Tricky
Chapter 4 Big Questions
Chapter 5 The Economics of Mars
Chapter 6 Living on Mars
Chapter 7 Making Mars in Earth's Image
Chapter 8 The Next Gold Rush
Chapter 9 The Final Frontier

Acknowledgments
Image Credits

End Quotation.

Edit on 2018/12/29 to try to include an image, using SpaceNut's example from another topic:

Success: Left bracket img Right bracket URL of Image not in quotes Left bracket slash img Right bracket

Edit on 2019/03/26 to test imgur images for Epcot visit. This didn't work without .jpg in the uri

Trying url's. The result is display of the imgur web site with the image centered.

https://imgur.com/KeKHa6G

https://imgur.com/Mi8z5EO

https://imgur.com/vvr33Qj

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2019-03-26 13:09:37)

louis · 2018-12-21 14:34:11

It's good that books about the reality of Mars colonisation are now beginning to appear. I expect to see a lot more.

I don't know if the following quote from the article is an accurate summary of the author's argument, but if it is I don't buy it:

"Resources will be so limited that creating a waste stream will be nearly impossible – at least at first. That's because humans will only take what we absolutely need due to the limited space on rockets and spaceships and the time it takes to get to the planet – nine to 11 months, one-way."

Firstly, resources will not be incredibly limited. Space X are aiming to take about 500 tonnes of cargo. If the crew is 6 people that would be over 80 tonnes per person. That is a lot of stuff! They won't take "absolutely what they need". They'll take a lot of redundancy with them - two of everything, so to speak.

Secondly. most - bar one, it would seem - of the huge rockets delivered to the surface will not be going back to Earth - so you immediately have a "problem" as to recycling those rockets if recycling is your thing. I think that would be getting on for 600 tonnes of "waste" sitting on the surface, and there's no way a small team of pioneers could cope with that. So, immediately, the Mars colony will be underperforming in recycling!

Thirdly, from analysis, it seems that a journey time of between 5 and 8 months in a BFR Starship is most likely - not 9-11 months.

Finally, the article talks as if pollutants on Earth are pollutants on Mars. This is not the case. On Earth we breathe the atmosphere. On Mars we don't. Many "pollutants" will actually be very useful in terraforming Mars, as they will be greenhouse gases of various sorts.
We might in fact be deliberately manufacturing such "pollutants" - or "terraformants" as it would be better to think of them.

tahanson43206 wrote:

"How We'll Live On Mars" arrived today.
The hardcover format is smaller than I was expecting. It is 7 x 5 inches (roughly) or 186 mm by 135 mm.

tahanson43206 wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/life-mars-hu … 55648.html

(th)
Apparently there is a TED talk associated with this book:
Begin Quotation:
Watch Stephen Petranek's Ted Talk
Stephen Petranek's TED Talk, available for free at TED.com, is the companion to "How We'll Live on Mars".
End Quotation.
The Table of Contents reads as follows:
Begin Quotation:
Contents
Introduction The Dream
Chapter 1 Das Marsprojekt
Chapter 2 The Great Private Space Race
Chapter 3 Rockets are Tricky
Chapter 4 Big Questions
Chapter 5 The Economics of Mars
Chapter 6 Living on Mars
Chapter 7 Making Mars in Earth's Image
Chapter 8 The Next Gold Rush
Chapter 9 The Final Frontier
Acknowledgments
Image Credits
End Quotation.
(th)

tahanson43206 · 2018-12-25 15:11:57

2018/12/25 Citations from “How We'll Live on Mars” Stephen L. Petranek

Compiled as of Page 54

Zubrin, Robert

16, 36 52

Reactor

42, 46

Mars Society

50

Page 5
Begin Quotation:
Like many frontier outposts before it, this one will eventually rival the home planet in resources, standard of living, and desirability.
End Quotation.

Begin Quotation:
When these rockets land on Mars in the near future, it will be far more than a great moment of exploration. It will be nothing less than an insurance policy for humanity.
End Quotation.

Page 16

Begin Quotation:
As Orbital Science was building its business, Robert Zubrin got antsy about why we weren’t headed to Mars. … Zubrin wrote a comprehensive book called “The Case for Mars” and formed the Mars Society in 1998 to help promote his idea.
End Quotation

Page 36
Begin Quotation following discussion of “Mars One” timeline:
That’s basically the strategy that many Mars enthusiasts, like Robert Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society, have been backing for years.
End Quotation.

Page 42
Begin quotation following discussion of water:
There will be a lot of waste to deal with, and the process will demand energy – some of it available from solar cells, but much of it likely to necessitate a small nuclear reactor.
End Quotation.

Page 46
Begin quotation following discussion of MOXIE module on next NASA rover:
If MOXIE works as expected, NASA plans to scale it up by a factor of one hundred, although that will require a nuclear reactor for power.
End Quotation.

Page 50
Begin quotation following extended discussion of food production on Mars:
Other experiments continue, including Canadian experiments on Devon Island and a Mars Society greenhouse in Utah.
End Quotation.

Page 52
Begin Quotation:
Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct proposal, which he has refined over several decades, calls for building structures with vaulted ceilings, similar to those the Romans perfected, using bricks that could be crafted on Mars from regolith.
End

(th)

louis · 2018-12-25 17:03:14

The book seems to me to be looking back to a previous era of Mars settlement planning - what you might call the Zubrin Era. We are now in the Musk era. The most obvious indicators that the book is behind the times are the references to nuclear reactors. Musk has stated explicitly that the Space X settlement will be powered by a PV system. At most, I think a Space X mission might take some back-up RTGs. Space X are currently the only player in the game who can establish a settement on Mars within the next ten years I would say.

The early settlement doesn't really need to "deal with waste". It might choose to do so, but there is really no huge imperative for it do so if Space X are flying in 80 tonnes per person every two years.

I am a fan of Zubrin's proposal for "Roman brick arch" structures. I think they make a lot of sense. But, realistically, that is not the sort of structure we will see on Mars in the early stages. It's much more likely to be inflatable habs, self-assembly panelled habs, "pop up agrihabs" and the like. It might be 10 or even 20 years before it makes sense to pour resources into Mars ISRU construction.

tahanson43206 wrote:

2018/12/25 Citations from “How We'll Live on Mars” Stephen L. Petranek
Compiled as of Page 54
Zubrin, Robert
16, 36 52
Reactor
42, 46
Mars Society
50
Page 5
Begin Quotation:
Like many frontier outposts before it, this one will eventually rival the home planet in resources, standard of living, and desirability.
End Quotation.
Begin Quotation:
When these rockets land on Mars in the near future, it will be far more than a great moment of exploration. It will be nothing less than an insurance policy for humanity.
End Quotation.
Page 16
Begin Quotation:
As Orbital Science was building its business, Robert Zubrin got antsy about why we weren’t headed to Mars. … Zubrin wrote a comprehensive book called “The Case for Mars” and formed the Mars Society in 1998 to help promote his idea.
End Quotation
Page 36
Begin Quotation following discussion of “Mars One” timeline:
That’s basically the strategy that many Mars enthusiasts, like Robert Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society, have been backing for years.
End Quotation.
Page 42
Begin quotation following discussion of water:
There will be a lot of waste to deal with, and the process will demand energy – some of it available from solar cells, but much of it likely to necessitate a small nuclear reactor.
End Quotation.
Page 46
Begin quotation following discussion of MOXIE module on next NASA rover:
If MOXIE works as expected, NASA plans to scale it up by a factor of one hundred, although that will require a nuclear reactor for power.
End Quotation.
Page 50
Begin quotation following extended discussion of food production on Mars:
Other experiments continue, including Canadian experiments on Devon Island and a Mars Society greenhouse in Utah.
End Quotation.
Page 52
Begin Quotation:
Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct proposal, which he has refined over several decades, calls for building structures with vaulted ceilings, similar to those the Romans perfected, using bricks that could be crafted on Mars from regolith.
End
(th)

SpaceNut · 2018-12-25 17:44:17

Louis, Is your point that you can only believe Elon Musk and no one else or is it that the plans are dated in using what we have versus some none existant future possible rocket system to make a mars mission possible?

It is fictional writing by Stephen Petranek in which he says humans will live on Mars by 2027. He tries to make the case that living on Mars is not just plausible, but inevitable.

louis · 2018-12-25 18:39:26

I'm saying:

1. Space X are the only player capable of landing a human being on Mars within 10 years. I base that claim on (a) their plans (b) the progress they have made with the BFR Starship in fact and (c) their pretty solid revenue stream.

2. Space X have no plans to use nuclear reactors or Roman brick architecture as part of their settlement proposals.

3. I think NASA have stated that they are looking to a Mars human landing in the mid 2030s.

SpaceNut wrote:

Louis, Is your point that you can only believe Elon Musk and no one else or is it that the plans are dated in using what we have versus some none existant future possible rocket system to make a mars mission possible?

SpaceNut · 2018-12-25 18:44:03

I would say Nasa is over cautious for sure as they are taking a side trip to the moon.
The moon flyby by spacex bfr starship is scheduled to be sometime in 2023 if it happens....

louis · 2018-12-25 19:35:03

There has to be an element of caution I think when flying "civilians" on a commercial basis. The pioneers who fly the test flights of the BFR Starship or actually land on Mars are basically accepting a certain percentage risk of death above what would be deemed acceptable for "civilian" people paying for their flights. It's the same with test pilots - they accept a much bigger risk than a paying passenger on a new aeroplane.

SpaceNut wrote:

I would say Nasa is over cautious for sure as they are taking a side trip to the moon.
The moon flyby by spacex bfr starship is scheduled to be sometime in 2023 if it happens....

GW Johnson · 2018-12-26 10:12:17

Louis:

Spacex is building a transport vehicle. They have no plans for buildings or even a propellant plant, or a electric power source. They are expecting other outfits to come up with those things, without which a BFS landing on Mars is just a one-way suicide mission. They have their hands full just coming up with the vehicle.

The nuclear electricity supplies NASA is developing as Kilopower, but dragging their heels because (1) extreme risk aversion (they really don't want to go), and (2) delaying means less chance of Spacex embarrassing politically-powerful Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.

No one is working on any full-scale prototypes of the propellant plant. Until that is a done deal, NO ONE will go. The likes of Branson or Bezos have not stepped up to do that. Left to NASA, it remains a lab play-toy, as it is now, thus maintaining their control over whether anybody goes or not.

Buildings you can do without, camping out inside your spaceship, but only if it is huge like BFS. If it is not, then buildings are another make-or-break item for going. Human beings can only survive being confined in cramped spaces for limited amounts of time before going sociopathic, or even fully insane. Ask anyone who served time in solitary.

Them's just the facts. Sorry they conflict with dreams and fervent desires. But they do.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-12-26 10:24:03)

SpaceNut · 2018-12-26 10:34:05

Even the dragon v2 is only good for just so many days as its got no life support to be able to extend its use period which is a major hurtle for going to mars.

GW Johnson · 2018-12-26 14:11:26

Dragon v2 (crew Dragon) is life support-capable for a week or three, depending upon how many are aboard, up to 7 max. It is too cramped for even only 1 person to stay sane if cooped up in there for 6-9 months. No one will ever ride to Mars in a Dragon. Or in an Orion, and for exactly the same reasons.

GW

SpaceNut · 2018-12-26 14:24:24

Correct in cramp but couple that with a large sectioned cygnus or Beam inflateable is plenty of room for a single person though the life support is still in question. Using the beam or cygnus for consumables for the journey is sort of one way to mars and it might only be a flyby at best.

louis · 2018-12-26 15:13:04

People were sceptical about Space X making progress with the BFR Starship. There seems to be less scepticism around now.

As I understand it, Space X are looking for partners to develop life support and propellant production on the Mars surface. That seems a sensible approach.

"Human beings can only survive being confined in cramped spaces for limited amounts of time before going sociopathic, or even fully insane." 1. The pioneers are not going to be in solitary. They are going to be part of a very focussed team. They will in communication with Earth (including family back on Earth) and they will have a range of diversions available, from sport to computer games and videos. 2. In any case, many more people who are put in solitary survive it than go insane. 3. U Boat crews survived being in cramped conditions (much more cramped than a BFR Starship) for 6 months.

I think if you gave me $50 million I could build you a Mars hab within a year...not myself of course! but it would be simply a questioning of bringing together the right team with the right skills then project planning a prototype and final design spec.

GW Johnson wrote:

Louis:
Spacex is building a transport vehicle. They have no plans for buildings or even a propellant plant, or a electric power source. They are expecting other outfits to come up with those things, without which a BFS landing on Mars is just a one-way suicide mission. They have their hands full just coming up with the vehicle.
The nuclear electricity supplies NASA is developing as Kilopower, but dragging their heels because (1) extreme risk aversion (they really don't want to go), and (2) delaying means less chance of Spacex embarrassing politically-powerful Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.
No one is working on any full-scale prototypes of the propellant plant. Until that is a done deal, NO ONE will go. The likes of Branson or Bezos have not stepped up to do that. Left to NASA, it remains a lab play-toy, as it is now, thus maintaining their control over whether anybody goes or not.
Buildings you can do without, camping out inside your spaceship, but only if it is huge like BFS. If it is not, then buildings are another make-or-break item for going. Human beings can only survive being confined in cramped spaces for limited amounts of time before going sociopathic, or even fully insane. Ask anyone who served time in solitary.
Them's just the facts. Sorry they conflict with dreams and fervent desires. But they do.
GW

SpaceNut · 2018-12-26 18:04:42

The FAA controls whom will fly onboard a US ship not the launch provider...

topics discussed in
FAA Approval - Moon Express and Implications for Space X
Private Space Tourism
Space Activity Licensing >>>> - Controlling the Commercial Space Race
Space Tourism & Safety Regulations
Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time

louis · 2018-12-26 18:21:01

As long as the rocket flies from US territory. Remember - Space X started out from a non-US territory (Republic of the Marshall Islands). Space X is not necessarily dependent on the USA for launch facilities, though I have no doubt a rupture of that sort would delay the Mars programme by at least 2 years and probably more.

SpaceNut wrote:

The FAA controls whom will fly onboard a US ship not the launch provider...

SpaceNut · 2018-12-26 18:34:49

BUt he is bound by ITAR regulations....

louis · 2018-12-26 19:57:28

Well maybe so, but if he were to set up a company in another country those ITAR regs might not be so effective.

There's no doubt it's easier and eminently sensible for Musk to operate from the USA. But Musk could probably get all the essential data about Space X rocketry on one memory stick and if necessary smuggle it out, after he had left the country. He wasn't originally a US citizen and I think he is a world citizen first, before he is an American.

I believe Musk is a Mars person first and an American second.

Anyway, I don't think it will come to that. As long as he can show the Starship can fly safely, just like the Falcon 9, then he'll get whatever licence is required to fly humans. It's a lot easier to get permission to fly to Mars than it is to get permission to fly to the ISS - NASA are (rightly) horrified at the idea of someone smashing into the ISS at 100MPH relative speed.

SpaceNut wrote:

BUt he is bound by ITAR regulations....

SpaceNut · 2018-12-26 20:15:14

Which would lead to an arrest and closing of his bussiness and all the military contracts with it for doing anything state side ....Technology transfers are regulated as to keep them out of the worng hands....Understand that even the advanced solar panels used on the mars missions are on the list of technologies restriction....

Intelectural property is not a safe guard to the enemy....and that is the reason for ITAR

louis · 2018-12-26 20:31:57

Well you'd have to prove it first. Maybe he'd do a Snowden and head for China and Russia - zero chance of extradition.

I am just pointing out that the FAA doesn't make decisions in a vacuum. They understand what a huge contribution Musk makes to the US economy. I believe they will bend over backwards to accommodate his wishes, certainly as long as Trump is in the White House. If it was another anti-space exploration President like Obama things might be different.

SpaceNut wrote:

Which would lead to an arrest and closing of his bussiness and all the military contracts with it for doing anything state side ....Technology transfers are regulated as to keep them out of the worng hands....Understand that even the advanced solar panels used on the mars missions are on the list of technologies restriction....
Intelectural property is not a safe guard to the enemy....and that is the reason for ITAR

SpaceNut · 2018-12-26 21:05:19

The Faa is not there for the economy but as an arm of safety for civilians....

SpaceNut · 2018-12-29 19:14:31

Another such arm is the FCC Fines Swarm $900,000 for Unauthorized Smallsat Launch into the startup's launch of four picosatellites on an Indian rocket this January without regulatory approval.

The $900,000 penalty, though small compared to fines as high as $120 million the FCC imposed this year on spoofed robocall operations, is nonetheless meant to send a signal to those that might intentionally or inadvertently follow Swarm's footsteps. Swarm's renegade actions garnered condemnation across the satellite industry, which feared a regulatory clampdown in the aftermath of Swarm's decision. The FCC withdrew an authorization it previously granted for another four satellites Swarm intended to launch on a Rocket Lab Electron mission that occurred in April. Spaceflight, the company that arranged Swarm's January launch on a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle from India, said it will now check to make sure its customers have necessary licenses ahead of time instead of relying on them to do their own self-regulation.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-12-17 09:17:44

Book about Life on Mars

#2 2018-12-17 10:35:21

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#3 2018-12-17 10:57:56

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#4 2018-12-17 18:35:37

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#5 2018-12-21 13:57:53

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#6 2018-12-21 14:34:11

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#7 2018-12-25 15:11:57

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#8 2018-12-25 17:03:14

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#9 2018-12-25 17:44:17

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#10 2018-12-25 18:39:26

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#11 2018-12-25 18:44:03

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#12 2018-12-25 19:35:03

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#13 2018-12-26 10:12:17

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#14 2018-12-26 10:34:05

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#15 2018-12-26 14:11:26

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#16 2018-12-26 14:24:24

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#17 2018-12-26 15:13:04

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#18 2018-12-26 18:04:42

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#19 2018-12-26 18:21:01

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#20 2018-12-26 18:34:49

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#21 2018-12-26 19:57:28

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#22 2018-12-26 20:15:14

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#23 2018-12-26 20:31:57

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#24 2018-12-26 21:05:19

Re: Book about Life on Mars

#25 2018-12-29 19:14:31

Re: Book about Life on Mars

Board footer