Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!

[scottb50]

Food production: <br /><br />I am still of the opinion the majority of consumables will have to be shipped, not only to free up manpower for initial facility construction but to allow exploration and determining if it is even fessible to try to grow indiginous crops.<br /><br />A long term food storage method will have to be devised.....<br /><br />That seems to be a minor problem freeze drying, radiation stabilization, even simple canning can more than meet the requirements. As for freezing I doubt using LH2 would be of much help, it might even be that after a certain point more cellular damage is done the colder you get. It is common to freeze meat for years in conventional freezers, so why complicate the problems.<br /><br />Water recycling: <br /><br />I have been seeing estimates all over the board for the percentage recyclable, discounting that taken up biologically, weight gain by the crew, there is no reason any should be lost, unless it is intentionally vented overboard. Black and gray water can be processed to remove pretty much all the water and hydrolization could assure zero contamination remains when it is put back into circulation. Actual waste would be reduced to dry powder, Carbon being a prime component, and could be further processed for building materials or discarded if that becomes to complex.<br /><br />Can a filtering system be an acceptable long term solution? />><br /><br />I don't think that would be effective enough, even reverse osmosis has limitations and the upkeep would be pretty demanding. I would say the best way would be filtration to the best practical point and multiple hydrolysis for the best results.<br /><br />Air recycling:<br /><br />Removal of CO2 is simple, as I have said before and removal of water vapor will eliminate most other contaminates. Methane and other gasses could be removed in a similar manner, if they present a problem. Maybe not having a bean feast night would help a lot too.<br /><br />The real concern is how much effort to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Nice work, guys! I’ve stayed away from this thread on purpose to let others work on stuff, and it’s been fun reading. Picking up from my last post, but not commenting on everything I could comment on . . . . <br /><br />As said, we need to secure a water source. Is that on the factories list? I think we need to bring lots of water for the transit, but we may not need to bring it to the surface much if at all. My thinking is that we start the transit off with pure water for shielding and we end up with gray water for shielding. With most all the people gone, the transit hab can shift to purifying the water in time for some folks to go back to Earth.<br /><br />{The banned topic . . . <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> . . . was just about Dr. Aldrin’s concept NOT being the same thing as my concept. Buzz Aldrin’s Cyclers are cool but not the right thing to establish a settlement IMNSHO.}<br /><br />So the water brought from Earth would stay in LMO and then go home. The solid waste removed from that water would go to the surface and be ‘burned’ in those nifty units supplied by our Affiliate (potentially), ChangingWorldTech.com.<br /><br />Those calcs are great stuff, Dan. I take it those numbers are for producing enough food for 28 people? I like all your design concepts for water and air handling. The composting strategy seems sound. I love the barnyard and pond and greenhouse and aquaponics and aquaculture synergy thing, that’s what we were talking about a while back IIRC.<br /><br />I dunno about the ETs, they have that nasty foam that is predicted to cause an awful mess if exposed to LEO for more than a few days. If we can wrap that rascal, maybe, but there would still be a lot of orbital operations to go down that road, so I dunno.<br /><br />We need to keep working up numbers and as soon as we get organized on the website we can start to figure out how big the cargo can attached to the hub should be.<br /><br />Radiation levels: Finding solid information is difficult, nice wo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arkady]

Found this at ESA website. <br /><br />MELISSA Project<br /><br /><i>MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative) is a multidisciplinary project which has been conceived as a micro-organisms and higher plants based ecosystem intended as a tool to gain understanding of the behaviour of artificial ecosystems, and for the development of the technology for a future regenerative life support system for long term manned space missions, e.g. a lunar base or a mission to Mars.</i><br /><br />Definately worth a look. Covers a lot of aspects including water recycling. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[dan_casale]

arkady:<br />Awsome link. Thanks. I have included it in my green house post above. <br /><br />Spacester:<br /> />> I take it those numbers are for producing enough food for 28 people?<< <br />In theory, yes. When I was growing up we had a very large garden (almost 1 acre), so I have extrapolated from that. Not real accurate but I believe it would be close. Some of the other difficultlies are crop rotation and other down times. That is why I ended up with a 4 acrea plot for food production. With careful tending and 24 hour lighting this might be able to feed 2 or 3 groups.<br /><br /> />>I dunno about the ETs, they have that nasty foam that is predicted to cause an awful mess....<<<br />But all the foam is on the outside, besides we can clean it off and sell it to the lunar bases for $5000/Lb. <br /><br /> />>20,000 tons is liftoff mass of a rocket, right?<<<br />Nope, that is the cargo mass. But remember that includes a 35MW solar system that is build to withstand Earth winds. Plenty of overkill for the Martian breezes. <br /><br /> />>Filtering: Um, we’re going to be making O2 from CO2, right? So what form does the leftover carbon take? CO? Coke? Can we make activated carbon from it somehow? I don’t think so, but wanted to ask. <<<br />I think that on ISS it is basically a black soot. A little heat and pressure and we could ship diamonds back to Earth......<br /><br /> />>Waste recycling: That Thermal Conversion Process looks very good. A small one of those would let us recover just about everything, seemingly.<br /><<<br />It looks like an awsome process, I think it would be the perfect backup for the waste disposal. I assume that it would be the primary system enroute and on the surface until the biological process was stable.<br /><br /><br />Scottb50: <br /> />>Food production: I am still of the opinion the majority of consumables will have to be shipped, not only to free up manpower for initial facility constructio

 

[grooble]

Any chance of a full scale mock up down the line? Anyone have access to 3 acres of land?<br /><br />You could add restrictions to make it more realistic such as reducing the solar power so it produces the same energy as it would on mars for a given task.<br /><br />I know other groups and people have done smaller scale ones, but i've never heard of a full scale 28 person, 2 year long mission. <br /><br />You could even delay responses to communications by 20 minutes, unless its a true emergency.

 

[spacester]

A full scale mock-up would be awesome. <br /><br />We need to distinguish between mock-up and simulation. Putting all the hardware mockups together would be one thing, but running an actual full duration simulation on functioning equipment would be quite an undertaking.<br /><br />A full scale mock-up would be awesome. It would also be very expensive if you did it the usual way.<br /><br />Our plan has it that almost all the mock-up hardware is made by students from K to grad student. The sub-systems can be worked out in smaller, focused groups. For systems integration, you would gather sub-system groups together.<br /><br />A full scale mock-up could be done by bringing it all to one central location.<br /><br />It's a mystery to me if taking it to the next level of simulation is in the cards. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">Oh, and we haven't decided on the size of later crews after the first 28. We know how to build a 28-person transfer ship, so . . . maybe we try to add 28 each time.</font><br /><br />Twenty-eight new people every cycle can really put a strain on resources. <br /><br />Can we support them food-wise? <br /><br />Dan's ecosystem is huge. I don't know if we can expand it quickly enough to support an influx of people that large, atleast not during the beginning of the settlement.<br /><br />After a few cycles, when all the ISRU factories are set up and we are able to expand the ecosytem as we need to, then we can start sending 28 people crews.<br /><br />In the beginning, we should let the settlement grow slowly. Maybe we should only bring 14 people, a couple will replace those who left and the others will add to the population of the settlement. However many we bring, that number should not raise the population past the limit the settlement can support.<br /><br />Let's say that after the first cycle, 7 people return to Earth. During the first cycle, the crew had raised the number of people that the settlement can support up to 32. Well there are now 21 people at the settlement. The next manned transfer ship could then bring 11 people, and the population of the settlement would be brought up to it's capacity at 32.<br /><br />The settlement would grow slowly like that until it has the ability to expand quick enough to support the growth in population that would occur with 28 new people every transfer.<br /><br />In order for the settlement to be able to support more people, it needs to expand it's living space, oxygen supplies, water supplies, and food production.<br /><br />Expanding living space should notl be too much of a problem. There will be a lot of extra propellant tanks around early on, just from transporting the settlement life support and then from everything else too. Finding extra propellant tanks to convert to habitats should not be too hard

 

[dan_casale]

Arobie:<br /> />>Twenty-eight new people every cycle can really put a strain on resources. Can we support them food-wise?<<<br />28 the first trip, 56 the second trip, 84 the third trip. As each eco-system gets established it will be able to support 28 (or more) people. If we send the same equipment at each launch window, then the settlement size should be able to grow by that much each time. The only increase in costs is the size of the interplanetary transport. As soon as the Mars settlement is able to produce its own enclosed spaces, it can grow as fast as people can arrive from Earth.<br /><br />I think this is where it is very important that the interplanetary ship returns to Earth to be expanded after each trip, or an new additional ship is built and they fly as a group back and forth to Mars.<br /><br /> />>Twenty-eight new people every cycle can really put a strain on resources. .... After a few cycles, when all the ISRU factories are set up and we are able to expand the ecosytem as we need to, then we can start sending 28 people crews. <<<br />I completely disagree. As we have learned from ISS, if the crew is too small, very little productive work can get done. We have 3 - 6 months travel time from Earth to Mars. The ecosystem should be setup as soon as the ship spins-up to Earth gravity. That way by the time the ship arrives at Mars the ecosystem should be fully functional, and the crew can make a valid "land" or "abort" decision. If the decision is to land, then the water is removed from the lake and stored, the craft stops spinning and the habitat parts are landed on Mars, reassembled and the ecosystem is restarted. It will restablize in a month or so. We will have learned how to do this properly by landing this same ecosystem on the moon.<br /><br />I think we have to assume that each major subsystem will weight as much as this ecosystem and its backup equipment, about 30,000 Kg. That would mean a total settlement weight of abou

 

[spacester]

OK, so Arobie has <28 on subsequent crews, Dan has n*28 on subsequent crews, and I have 28. Other than that, we're on the same page. Lol This is a good time to explain part of my vision for the website.<br /><br />I'm gonna make a long post to explain, but the short message is this:<br /><br />Everyone's vision is to be honored. Divergence of visions must be our strength, not a stumbling block. There needs to be a central plan, but it is only a baseline plan: anyone is free to discuss anything in terms of the baseline, but modified as they specify. This is what the personal sections on the website are about: organizing that complicated discussion. Everybody gets a place to specify those things about the baseline plan they haven’t completely bought into, and explain why. Those positions establish the context of their opinions, saving everybody time and reducing confusion.<br />***<br />Everybody has their own space vision. Even those that see things very similarly will find themselves diverging as they get deeper into actual planning. This is one of the central conundrums of unifying space keeners under one roof. This is one of the things I've pondered a lot.<br /><br />ACCESS is about establishing a big enough tent to house the vast majority of space keeners. The idea is be general enough that everyone's personal vision is under the tent. The challenge then becomes getting everyone under the tent to work in parallel towards a common objective. If we can do that, we can leverage that support with our education outreach and our Affiliates to get our 39 Million active citizens.<br /><br />If one guy starts a bunch of threads and practically highjacks a space message board <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> and says "this is how many people should be on the first crew to Mars: 28", does that make his vision more "correct" than some other guy who says the number should be 24 or 4 or 100 but in fewer words? No. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />If a bunch of guys all ag <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I think a Modular system makes the most sense. Say 28 if the maximum passenger capbility, using all Passenger Modules, if on a subsequent mission supplies, spares or new equipment is primary you would use cargo Modules and fewer Passenger Modules. Tailor the transfer vehicle to the particular mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

Dan_Casale,<br /><br />Wow! That is very ambitious and <i>very</i> optimistic.<br /><br />So you are saying that the first crew is 28. The next crew that comes is 56 raising the population of our Mars settlement to 84. The second crew that arrives will triple our population. If the third crew is another 84 people, then we will double that. That is growing awefully quickly. <br /><br />The first crew is a full ship with a full ecosystem to support them on Mars. I had figured that the ecosystem would have been brought to Mars beforehand because I had also figured it too big for the transfer ship to transport. It is 20,000,000 kg, right?<br /><br />Are you proposing that the second crew is two full transfer ships and two more full ecosystems? And that the third crew is three ships and three more ecosystems? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[arobie]

Scottb50,<br /><br />I had figured this as modular. The manned transfer ship is a booster with a hub on top of it. Attached to the hub are two trusses. It is planned that on the end of each truss will be a habitat. What is to stop us from putting one habitat on one end and a cargo module on the other if we need to as long as we design it right? All we need to do is match the weights and make sure the attachments are the same.<br /><br />If we only want to send cargo, then we use the unmanned configuration with just drops the hub and trusses and only has cargo modules.

 

[scottb50]

I don't really see a need for trusses. What I have planned is Modules that attach end to end, if the same diameter, side by side or side to end to each other whether the same size or not. This way Modules could be mass produced cheaply, considering only three major pieces are needed per Module and two of them are identical.<br /><br />Varying the size of the same basic Module would allow many different uses for the same design. As an example a Crew Module would feature a large outer Module with a smaller Module inside of it, the space would be filled with water during transit for crew protection. Cargo Modules would attach to the Crew Module and connect them to a Hub Module, allowing rotation to simulate gravity in the Crew Modules.<br /><br />If you consider a Module to be 60x30 feet and the inner Crew Modules 56x15 feet the floor of the Crew Modules would be nearly 100 feet from the center of the Hub. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

Scottb50:<br />Nice graphic. What are you using as a drawing program?<br /><br />Arobie:<br /><br /> />>So you are saying that the first crew is 28. The next crew that comes is 56 raising the population of our Mars settlement to 84..... That is growing awefully quickly.<<<br /><br />Not quite. I think the difference is that I have people returning to Earth. 1st trip - 28 people arrive and at least 1 ecosystem is setup. 2nd trip - 56 people arrive, 28 people return to Earth, and a second ecosystem is set up. 3rd trip - I am hoping that people will begin staying, 28 + replacements arrive, some go home, and a third ecosystem is set up. At this point we should have up to 84 people on Mars, and good science projects should be able to start.<br /><br /><br /> />>The first crew is a full ship with a full ecosystem to support them on Mars. I had figured that the ecosystem would have been brought to Mars beforehand because I had also figured it too big for the transfer ship to transport. It is 20,000,000 kg, right?<<<br /><br />Yes the parts for one ecosystem must be sent on the on the prior Earth-Mars conjunction. A second one will accompany the crew transfer ship and it will provide for the crew during the journey. Once they get to Mars, that ecosystem is landed on Mars and restarted. The spare ecosystem can be used for parts or assembled and start operating.<br /><br />For the second transfer ship, an ecosystem provides for the crew(s) during the journey to and from Mars. Or if noone leaves Mars it is landed and becomes the third ecosystem. Eventually, there would be one ecosystem shuttling between Earth-Mars and a new system arriving every conjunction.<br /><br />Most of the weight of that system is the solar panels. The weight of the actual equipment is estimated at about 40,000 Kg, so unless I really messed up my calculations somewhere, the rest is the solar power system. (Truely there are a number of other corrections that must be made to the power

 

[scottb50]

Nice graphic. What are you using as a drawing program?>><br /><br />Paint<br /><br />As I see it the initial mission would use a 13 Module vehicle, the first graphic, with three of the Crew Modules being sent to the surface as the nucleus of a station and one remaining in orbit if an emergency return is required. The other nine Modules would stay in orbit initially and be brought down to the surface as needed. Once cargo is removed they would be added to the Station. Since they wouldn't be double Modules, like the Crew Modules they would need to be buried, but that would not present too big of a problem.<br /><br />On subsequent missions the Module mix could be varied as needed with the outer four, gravity environment Modules being permenent. A normal cycler vehicle would be seven permanent Modules, with additional Modules added as needed to the core for a specific mission or return transit.<br /><br />The trick is the adapters that allow same diameter Modules to dock end- to- end and those on the sides and inside ends, that allow various size Modules to dock are identical, the only difference being the size.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

Scottb50,<br /><br />I like the idea, thanks for the persistance and thanks for the graphic. Nice job for paint!<br /><br />Are the modules cylindrical?<br /><br />For the Stage One Vehicle, you have that it is 13 modules. I'm sorry, you lost me in your diagram there. I count 7 modules. What am I not getting?

 

[scottb50]

For the Stage One Vehicle, you have that it is 13 modules. I'm sorry, you lost me in your diagram there. I count 7 modules. What am I not getting?>><br /><br />The first drawing is a front view, there are four Modules connected to the Hub Module by two Modules, side-by-side. Four three Module assemblies and a Central Hub.<br /><br />Continuing from there attach two, or more, Stage One Vehicles together and the size of a transit vehicle could be whatever you want. The other plus is each Module is completely self-contained, the Vehicle can be disassembled in minutes and Modules can be used for any number of uses.<br /><br />A unique aspect of these Modules is the same design can be used for infinite size Modules. Those I am illustrating would be 60x30 feet but a Module the size of the drawing could be built the same way, for use as a high pressure Hydrogen storage tank, for example. Accumulators, hydraulic cylinders and other pieces of equipment needed throughout a Module could be built exactly the same way. Another unique feature is the Modules can be built extremely strong while being light weight because they use a rigid exoskeleton to contain a single piece inner tube. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Scott, it's great to see the modules at last. Your idea is growing on me. The issues I have with the approach are technical and conceptual. The architectural concept is different than mine, but your concept is growing on me. I see the strengths of launching modules. It's when you take it to some of the next levels of detail that we'll start butting heads. Simply because our architectural concepts differ.<br /><br />All design is highly context sensitive and we've been spending our time on setting the context. Shoot, we've been busy trying to start an organization intended to grow to $3 Billion per year size, so we're not even to the point of setting context really.<br /><br />When we get the context established, we'll be able to productively debate the relative merits of our designs. But I guarantee you that your design concept is growing on me.<br /><br />I encourage you to further develop your idea. There are free CAD programs out there, I imagine that was quite a chore in Paint. <br /><br />Here are the essential problems I have with the concept: <br /><br />* The mass is not as strategically positioned as needed to optimize the user-friendliness of the resulting environment. We send all that mass up there and fail to use it optimally. <br /><br />* The concept of modules that are "identical but different" eludes me as a Design Engineer. Modules will see different structural loads and will require different utilities depending on their location within the overall vehicle.<br /><br />I see the strengths of your concept, I like the strengths. It's the potential weaknesses I'm concerned with. Rather unorthodox, so I gotta love it just for that!<br /><br />Very nice work! Needs development. Oh hey, by the way, <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> we're putting together a website with forums and a wiki. You'll be able to create your own wiki pages and have your own quasi "web site" to show off your work and explain to everybody how your space vision <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Hey grooble, I have a question and I'd like to just ask it here.<br /><br />How many wikis could we install if bandwidth isn't a problem? All under the single domain of course. Dozens? Scores? Hundreds?<br /><br />Can we offer certain members of ACCESS access to their very own wiki? They would have admin power within their own wiki to lock pages, etc. <br /><br />Would it be an admin headache for us webmasters?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Dan, you think big! Like me. You're the only guy I've encountered who thinks as big as I do. It's great! We need people to think big to pull this off, so we need as many examples of doing that as we can get.<br /><br />That being said, I was wondering just how big you were thinking! There <i><b>is</b></i> a practical upper limit to the mass we can muster for this enterprise. It was nice to see that you did specify your upper bounds, we cannot support exponential growth. Sending more and more each time is more like colonization, our job is to establish a settlement and see how it goes for a while.<br /><br />I love the idea of sending sister ships, and I was projecting 7-person habitats. My guess - and a sheer guess, we still need the answer to this question - is that a 14-person six month hab is beyond projected capabilities. If I'm wrong and we can do 14 person habs, great, we can send all 28 in a single craft. If I'm right, the 28 folks would be in four habs (baseline for now); alternatively we could choose to have sister ships with 2 habs each. <br /><br />You want to double that on the second launch cycle. That seems beyond the finance plan, but hey, it's all a big guess at this point anyway, right? Who knows? maybe we can pull it off. But I'd like the baseline to stay at 28 people outbound per cycle. <br /><br />28 establishes a settlement. Grow it from there as a function of your success at settling. If your settlement strategy, equipment and techniques work well, people will stick around and become lifers. Get a few lifers, you can support massive immigration. Make the settlement a rousing success and colonization will ensue. <br /><br />***<br />edit:<br /><br />Dan_Casale wrote a long time ago:<font color="yellow"><br />I wonder if the ET would fail during max-Q on a propellent only launch (no cargo container). An STS, propellent only launch should provide about 140 tons of propellents to a 500 km orbit. </font><br /><br />That is a very good question! Someone <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

Dan_Casale,<br /><br />There is quite a difference in what you and I imagined!<br /><br />Yours is very ambitious, orders of magnitude more difficult than mine. Bringing an ecosystem to Mars, I thought, would have been the most difficult part of the entire effort, just because it is so huge. I had figured that we might be able to do it once, and then expand it as we grow. But you propose bringing an expanding number of them every trip to account for the growth rate you propose. I feel that it might be over extending ourselves.<br /><br />I like the idea of bringing that many people that quick, but the amount of mass that we would also need to being to support them is HUGE, out of reasonable capability type huge. We should slow down that growth rate to where we do not have to bring so many ecosystems each time.<br /><br />I admit, I was aiming low. I was trying to avoid having to transport more ecosystems so early on, but you are aiming very high. I feel we should make a compromise and settle at spacester's growth rate.<br /><br />[Edit]<br /><br />Hey spacester! Yeah, I agree with your just posted, "Grow it from there as a function of your success at settling." That works for me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />And I should <b>not</b> have said in this post, "out of reasonable capability type huge." Reasonable capability is objective, and we have no idea what we are capable of yet.

 

[spacester]

Well it looks like we can offer several dozen free wikis to our Affiliates, no problem<br /><br />Anybody want a wiki of your very own for the purpose of explaining your vision of what Man's future in space should be?<br /><br />With a wiki, you create new pages on the fly by just TypingWordsTogetherWithoutSpacesWithFirstLetterUpperCase. If I typed that into my wiki page, I would automatically create a new wiki page and have a hyperlink to it. <br /><br />Very cool stuff for collaboration. You can let people come in and ask questions, offer their ideas, lock some pages from changes except by you or a certain few people, etc.<br /><br />Anybody Want a Wiki? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

* The mass is not as strategically positioned as needed to optimize the user-friendliness of the resulting environment. We send all that mass up there and fail to use it optimally......<br /><br />I intend for the second stage of a Launch Vehicle to be Modules, basically the intended Payload Module as well as the empty Propellant tanks would be taken to an assembly point. The Tank could then be outfitted as needed for whatever use it would be put to using equipment brought up from the surface in Payload Modules.<br /><br />If every Module has the same configuration it is simply a matter of plug-and-play; add lifesupport systems, electrical systems, by plugging them in. A Cargo Module could be changed to a Habitat Module or the reverse could be done, just as easily as changing a Propellant tank to a Habitat Module.<br /><br />* The concept of modules that are "identical but different" eludes me as a Design Engineer. Modules will see different structural loads and will require different utilities depending on their location within the overall vehicle....<br /><br />What I mean to say is the basic design features of Modules is identical, individual Modules can be modified for specific purposes. An advantage is simplicity, low risk and low cost. A disadvantage is the level of optimization for a certain role. An example would be a Cargo Module, it would be possible to build a dedicated Cargo Module that would be lighter and not have the flexibility of a Standard Module but in the long run the universal usabiliity over-weighs the immediate savings. A Module that could be a Tank would be the same thing, it could be made lighter, but it would only be usable as a Tank.<br /><br />To expand a little bit there are a few things planned that might make things clearer. First the two halves, or Segments, of a Module are identical, one end is completely open, the other end can be configured in two ways: The first version is completely open just like the other end, in this configuration numer <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

Arobie and Spacester;<br /><br />If a biosphere must cycle between Earth and Mars, then their will have to be a minimum number of people traveling each way. On the outbound leg we know that there are 28 people. If the biosphere requires at least 7 people to operate, then anytime fewer than the minimum want to return to Earth, they will have to wait until a full crew is available. On the flipside a minimum number must also stay on Mars to keep things operating. <br /><br />Thus rather than kill the biosphere by sending it back to Earth empty, land it on Mars and give the settlement some room to expand seems like a much better idea. When a functioning biosphere is returned to Earth, it should be able to handle being "overloaded" for a short period of time (about the same length as a trip to Mars). This would allow for larger then normal groups to transfer to Mars. At this point the operation would be more efficient, due to the overloading of the biosphere.<br /><br /><br /> />>...But you propose bringing an expanding number of them every trip to account for the growth rate you propose. I feel that it might be over extending ourselves.<<<br /><br />If the right equipment is brought the first few trips, the settlement could start manufacturing the parts needed to expand.<br /><br /><br /> />>I like the idea of bringing that many people that quick, but the amount of mass that we would also need to being to support them is HUGE, out of reasonable capability type huge. We should slow down that growth rate to where we do not have to bring so many ecosystems each time.<<<br /><br />Like I said, the mass of the biosystem is way overstated if the solar panels are included. It would be better for this project to buy the solar cell manufacturing equipment, and manufacture to a Martian standard. Of course if we are launching these supplies off the Moon, 6x the lift capacity will be available.<br /><br /><br /> />>.... I feel we should make a compromise and settle

 

[scottb50]

If a biosphere must cycle between Earth and Mars, then their will have to be a minimum number of people traveling each way.....<br /><br />That would be the crew of the Tranfer Vehicle, it makes sense that they don't stay at Mars, they return to LEO and get a vacation before their next trip. I would think it would be a fairly normal thing that people would go to Mars on one Vehicle and return on the next or the next. I doubt products would be returned to Earth for some time, so people would be the main cargo.<br /><br />Thus rather than kill the biosphere by sending it back to Earth empty, land it on Mars and give the settlement some room to expand seems like a much better idea.<br /><br />I would also think some of the Modules taken to Mars would be added to the Surface facilities, but taking the whole thing down is ridiculous. The only think taken down should be what is needed on the surface, not something that will go down and then come back.<br /><br />I think the growth rate of a colony can only be defined as it occures, if you need more resources then you need a flexible system that can allow that to be taken, if less is needed you need a system that can take that into consideration. <br /><br />The problem comes with the transit time and how quickly you need to define your needs. If an item, or person is needed the flexibility should be there.<br /><br />I would think the initial staffing for a Mars facility should be at least the 28 we have been discussing, I don't think every mission should add 28 more people or take all the initial 28 back, cargo will be the priority, not people.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>