Mars Settlement: Phase I Summary

[spacester]

Starting March 1 2005, we began discussing the idea of Settling Mars sooner than later. It was my feeling, based on experience here, that the outline of a plan I had put together in my head contained too many "out-of-the-box" ideas to just jump right in, so I started the Mars Settlement precursor thread (warning: these links are "show all"). This thread served as a bridge to earlier threads here at uplink.space.com, sadly lost but partially documented here. The quite reasonable question of "where does the money come from?" was asked right away, but I deflected it until later and we went forward, leading to a second thread, Let's Design a Settlement for Mars! Once that had prgressed a while, I revealed the finance plan, Mars Settlement Financing. After a bit, I decided to run a Mars Settlement Poll and then, just two days ago as I write this, I began addressing some issues I had previously dodged with the thread named Mars Settlement and NASA and the People's Space Agency.<br /><br />It requires a dedicated person indeed to read all that material, so I'm starting this summary thread and declaring the end of Phase I and the start of Phase II. Obviously, referring only to the summary <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Structure of the PSA<br /><br /><b>PSA would be a private, not-for-profit Foundation dedicated to Space Settlement.</b> It would be governed by a board of directors charged with staying independent of certain outside pressures. It's the People's Space Agency because the bulk of the funding would come directly from individual contributions. We need lawyers to know much more than that. <br /><br />NASA says Science Supports Settlement (when the idea of Settlement even occurs to them). <br /><br />PSA says Settlement Supports Science. <br /><br />Working together, the two philosophies can create a space-faring society. <br /><br />Private Enterprise bridges gaps between NASA and PSA, yet PSA works as closely with NASA as NASA is willing and able to. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Financing the PSA<br /><br />(The above posts were written today. Starting here, I'm going to begin to mix copy-and-paste stuff from various threads and various posters with new words to tie it together. I'm not going to burden this summary with citing the posters in each case, I hope no one minds. Some of this is from an excellent first-draft summary kindly provided by Arobie, not previously posted. I hope Dan_Casale is not feeling slighted, I have not been as supportive of his excellent contributions as I should - it's just so darn well done, there's not much to do but quibble and I'm not inclined to quibble unless I feel I have to.)<br /><br />A first-draft proposal, pulling numbers out of thin air:<br /><br />Get the money from 39 million individual Americans. Annual subscriptions at three different levels of support. <br /><br />We need $3 Billion a year so that's <br />20,000,000* $25 = $0.5 Billion <br />plus <br />18,000,000 * $100 = $1.8 Billion <br />plus <br />1,000,000 * $750 = $0.75 Billion <br />totaling <br />$3.05 Billion <br /><br />That's the cash we have to spend. Our job is to harness the energies of students across America to generate a credible, integrated plan at a high level of robustness, completeness and credibility. <br /><br />If we do that, the next wave of financing comes on board. <br /><br />We're not soliciting Joe Billionaire or Joe Taxpayer for this project. We're soliciting Joe Sixpack, Joe Homeowner, Joe Professional, Joe Middle Class. <br /><br />There is a whole bunch of stuff in the Financing thread not shown here - the PSA would be sitting at tables all across America with students, local organizations, local businesses and professionals working at parts of the plan - think Space Club on Steroids. The Affiliates Program would be a big part of the effort - reducing costs by providing their expertise, as well as more financial support. <br /><br />Stuff from that thread that jumped off the page for me:<br /><br />Don't give up on the lottery idea altoget <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Mars Settlement Strategies<br /><br />A settlement lays the foundations for a colony; it determines if such a thing is feasible. No children are born. The number one priority for the settlers is to stay alive. The second priority is to maximize operations and industries, ie ISRU. Third is to ensure return trip capability. Once those are assured, their priority is science. <br /><br />The settlement supports science. Once established, the scientists do more work than they ever could have with a science-first approach. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

The Mars Settlers<br /><br />The settlement will be started with an initial crew of 28 with a 2 1/2 year commitment away from Earth due to orbital mechanics. After about 2 years when a return launch window arrives, any are free to return home. Some will opt to stay for another 2 1/2 year hitch. That is excellent. The more longtimers that develop, the more the settlement prospers and grows. <br /><br />The return home aspect of the settlement strategy is very important. ISPP to produce the propellant to make it home becomes a high priority. The option to return home is dictated by fundamental ethics and fairness, but the objective is to make the Settlement robust and confortable enough that many people will want to stay for multiple hitches, growing the Settlement.<br /><br />The Mars Fleet <br /><br />-Transfer Ship <br /><br />-Surface to Orbit Shuttle <br /><br />-Cargo Lander <br /><br />-ISPP Repropper <br /><br />-Surface Hopper <br /><br />Their are two main types of Mars Transfer ships, the unmanned version and the manned version. <br /><br />The unmanned version is a stack made of the interplanetary booster, either cargo modules or a loaded cargo lander*, and one of the other ships from the fleet. <br /><br />*To be determined. <br /><br />The manned version is a stack made of the interplanetary booster, crew transfer habitats (possibly Bigelow inflatables), and a supply module. Spin gravity is assumed so the Settlers arrive as healthy as possible.<br /><br />The Surface to Orbit Shuttle carries crew and limited cargo from Mars Orbit to surface and back. <br /><br />The Cargo Lander transports large cargo from Mars orbit to the surface. <br /><br />The ISPP Repropper 'fills up' interplanetary boosters in orbit with propellant made at Mars to allow them to return to Earth for reuse. <br /><br />The Surface hopper is a small vehicle that allows the transport of crew to anywhere on Mars. It may be a variant of the Surface to Orbit Shuttle.<br /><br />Habitats <br /><br />Transfer Habitats will st <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Where we go from here:<br /><br />The intent of this thread is to summarize discussion to this point so we can move forward as required. The message board format is wonderful for collaboration in some ways and lacking in other ways. Editing previously posted material is considered unethical (dishonest?) and ineffective (who goes back and reads old posts to find changes anyway?), yet the design process requires a dynamic approach.<br /><br />Does anybody here have experience with wikis? It seems like the ideal medium for moving forward, but I'm worried about using it simply because I have no experience with them.<br /><br />Whether we use the wiki approach or not, I think it's time to create a web site. Um, it was grooble who offered to help with that, right? (I can't find the post.) This thread is meant to serve as a template for the content of that website. That will let us work with the vast array of subjects, we can start to divvy out the chunks of Oliphant.<br /><br />Once we capture Phase I in this thread, we can use it to create the website, which is the start of Phase II. Maybe the website will be a static entity documenting Phase I and subsequent development will be done on a wiki, maybe the wiki doesn't make sense and the website is highly dynamic, I don't know. Maybe it's somewhere in between. Thoughts?<br /><br />OK, this is the last post on this thread which is subject to editing for a period of time, with the very significant exception that I would like the next post to be the latest of the very exellent summaries Dan_Casale has done. It looks like Dan has a real life and is off this weekend, so, uh, Arobie, would you mind posting that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

Dan_Casale's summary post has been moved to a post by him.

 

[arobie]

Ok, so the next step is to begin to document this work either by wiki, a website, or both. Cool.<br /><br />Well, I had no idea what a "wiki" was, so I did a google and came up with this:<br /><br />Wiki, from Wikipedia<br /><br />Then I found this:<br /><br />How to Start a Wiki<br /><br />I like the idea of having a website to document Phase 1 and future progress and of using wiki for development of PSA and the settlement plan.<br /><br />Wiki seems like an excellent tool with which to make progress. It can have the organization so needed for something as complex as this, and still everyone can contribute. It can remain open to everyone to add to.<br /><br />And then a website can be a static documentation of it all.<br /><br />I like it. I say let's give it a try.<br /><br />So grooble, I hope you are reading this. You offered some website making ability earlier today in spacester's NASA and PSA thread. I guess we could use that help if you're willing to give it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[spacester]

Hey Arobie, it just occurred to me that since you posted the In-depth Summary, and only the original author can edit a post, you are now in charge of editing it as we go along . . . <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> I didn't mean to trick you, but now that the deed is done, I'm comfortable with doing things that way.<br /><br />What do you think, Dan_Casale? Would you rather post it yourself so you can retain control over it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Question, would the PSA handle none Mars Issues???

 

[spacester]

Hi kdavis007!<br /><br />Please see the 'Mars Settlement and NASA and PSA' thread, I'd like to answer that question there, after you explain a bit about your concern with the UN Space Treaty. This thread is for summary stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

I did a search of all posts using 'Mars gravity' and found no results in any Mars settlement/colonization thread that discussed this potential roadblock. That surprised me, so I am bringing up the gravity problem here in this thread.<br /><br />Permanent manned habitation of Mars is a fine and dandy idea, but can human biology adjust to it? All the fancy life support and artificial biosphere tech still can't produce a one gee environment for the colonists on Mars. What are the long term effects of the 1/3 gee Mars gravity on a human body? Until this fundamental question is answered a plan for Mars settlement is pointless.<br /><br />If you proceed with a Mars plan the gravity question must get settled first, before any other technical issue. That suggests your PSA should support some kind of artificial LEO habitat for the long term study of the effects of a 1/3 gee environment on human biology.<br /><br />If the experiment proves humans can not adapt to lower gravity, the PSA space settlement agenda will have to abandon Mars and choose some other strategy for space settlement. Either habitats floating high in the Venusian atmosphere or some kind of rotating O'Neil L-5 colonies.

 

[spacester]

<p>You put a lot of faith in the uplink.sdc search engine . . . I love this place and all, but uh, I don't share that faith. <br /><br />This is certainly *not* an undiscussed issue; I welcome your comments, I really do, but if you're not gonna read the threads before nit-picking, I'm gonna be stuck with repeating myself and I'd much rather move forward.<br /><br />That suggests your PSA should support some kind of artificial LEO habitat for the long term study of the effects of a 1/3 gee environment on human biology.<br /><br />Ayup. We need to do exactly that. But I prefer a real LEO habitat to an "artificial" one. <br /><br />You don't suppose we're going to send our Settlers in a craft that hasn't been tested?<br /><br />But in any case how can we "settle the gravity question" without putting people on Mars? I've been posting links here for years to the few papers available discussing the realities of spin-g, and the bottom line is that we don't know squat. We have a lot of math and supposition and a few experiments' results (experiments conducted in Earth's gravity field of course). If spin-g can't be supposed to at least prove better than micro-g, then we should just shut down all these discussions, this website, NASA and the whole ball of wax.<br /><br />I'll dig those links up again, here's a cut-and-paste from years ago here:<br />**<br />For tons of information on the realities of artificial gravity, see:<br />This discussion about the effects of micro-g and the issues regarding artificial gravity and this for all the math you could ever want (scroll down to the conclusions) and then</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

Hey arobie i will be glad to do that when the time comes.

 

[dan_casale]

Per Arobie's request the summary has been moved to my post. Also I have included the water recycling post at the end of the summary.<br /><br />Danger: long post - I hope it's not too big.....<br />I tried to summarize everything to date. As of 6/8/05<br /><br />Mars Settlement Supports Mars Science; the more secure the people are in their ability to sustain the settlement, the more Science they can afford to do.<br /><br />OBJECTIVES:<br />The ultimate objective is to Settle Mars.<br />The initial objective is to encamp as many people as possible on Mars.<br />Their primary job will be to stay alive.<br />Their secondary job will be to maximize the productivity of the chosen industries.<br />Their tertiary job will be to enable return trips for those who want to go back to Earth or the Moon.<br />Once those needs are reasonably secure, their job will be to do Science.<br /><br />The primary objective for Spaceships, especially manned craft, is to keep people alive.<br /><br />The two other major categories of equipment are Habitats and Factories.<br />Habitats should be amply sized and built to last for decades.<br />Factories must see continuous improvement, whether by on-site enhancements by the settlers, or by the delivery of new and larger equipment.<br /><br />Utilization of local resources should be maximized, but realistic goals for the extraction and application of local resources must be set as well.<br />=============================================================<br />VISION<br />The purpose is to settle Mars, to begin a colony if practical. This means a good number of people need to stay for multiple cycles. Certain people would intend to never go back, of those some would and some wouldn’t; others might commit to a five-year hitch (twice the “typical” 2-1/2 year round trip). If enough long-timers develop, so does the viability of the settlement.<br /><br />It is readily apparent that the outlined approach will require the delivery of large payloads to the Martian surface. Pa

 

[JonClarke]

"It just does not make sense to discuss this issue in isolation from other survival issues and I cannot duplicate the previous discussions here. FWIW I'm guessing that your position is best represented by the posts of JonClarke in the Precursor thread, and I think I eventually got him to understand why my position makes sense in spite of its unorthodox approach."<br /><br />No, I agreed to disagree which is why I pulled out of the discussion.<br /><br />However since my name has been mentioned, I agree that the best way to research this issue is on the surface on Mars. I support precursor missions to various locations then an explanding base, before reaching the settlement phase. But because that is very different to what is being discussed here I will go back to lurking.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[grooble]

Is there no way to create 0.3g on earth or in LEO? Just do long term missions in a 0.3g hab, why would you have to go to mars to do the research?<br /><br />Create a tiny habitat and put pregnant mice in, launch it on a falcon 1 to LEO and have it spin for 0.3g and see what happens to the mice babies.<br /><br />That'd be an interesting first test.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

You mean like this?

 

[grooble]

Perfic. Will that thing actually be launched?<br /><br />Another question, if lower g = health deteriation, does higher g = strength and health gains? <br /><br />What would prolonged 1.3g do to the body?<br /><br />MarsGravity.org - the PSA would do well to team up / sponser things like this. <br /><br />

 

[spacester]

Hi Jon<br /><br />I apologize if I misrepresented your position, it was not intentional, I simply couldn't be sure exactly where we ended up, or if perhaps your position had changed in light of the discisussion since. If space enthusiasts cannot agree to disagree, we'll never get anything done, so of course I respect your position.<br /><br />I'm just glad to know you're still at least lurking. While you haven't granted that this settlement plan makes sense, at least you haven't said it's completely nuts. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> It's not like I don't know how unorthodox it is.<br /><br />But I have to say that it seems like no one has refuted or even addressed my not-so-rhetorical question. It's hard for me to let go of my belief that the expedition - /> base -> bigger base -> settlement approach is based on an unwarranted assumption derived more from science fiction and a scarcity mentality than anything else.<br /><br />I would love to still get your contributions if you can see your way clear to do so. It is hereby stipulated that you don't buy into the overall concept; maybe you can make comments with that understanding. Thanks.<br /><br />For everyone, just to clarify, I'm not saying that the best place to research this issue is on the surface of Mars. I'm saying the best way to find out if we can settle Mars is to try to settle Mars. Send a large crew for a better chance of success. The best place to research the 0.38g issue is in LEO, the purpose of the research being to demonstrate that settling in 0.38g is not completely nuts. It's important to remember that the gravity field on Mars will actually be more benign than the gravity field in a spin-g spaceship: no coreolis, no gravity gradient. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Good one, grooble / nacnud<br /><br />That experiment is right up our alley.<br /><br />But 34 rpm? Those poor mice are going to have some severe coreolis effects. Oh well, we'll take what we can get at this point, we need data points.<br /><br />I just worry that the mice won't be able to handle it and thus lead folks to conclude that spin-g doesn't work.<br /><br />MarsGravity.org - that's exactly the kind of thing PDA would work with. I haven't talked about that much, but they would be part of the Affiliate program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The best place to research the 0.38g issue is in LEO, the purpose of the research being to demonstrate that settling in 0.38g is not completely nuts."<br /><br />That's all I was asking for.

 

[JonClarke]

Spacester wrote:<br /><br />"It's hard for me to let go of my belief that the expedition - /> base -> bigger base -> settlement approach is based on an unwarranted assumption derived more from science fiction and a scarcity mentality than anything else."<br /><br />Not sure what you mean by a "scarcity mentality" but I think that any approach other than the one quoted is asking for trouble. Mars is an extremely hostile, it is not a benign environment for settlement like the Americas and Australia were for Europeans (and there were plenty of disaster even then). It is a hostile frontier, with more parallels to the high arctic, Antarctic, extreme altitude, the continental shelf, or LEO. We don't see settlements in any of these places, although bases are plenty.<br /><br />We have been though this before, I don't think either of us are going to change our minds on this one. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[grooble]

You know i was thinking something similar, why not use the arctic for a test run in creating a self sustaining settlement? You could test out your life support technologies, hydropics, aquaculture, tough environment, only allow the settlers to eist the base wearing a space suit and such.<br /><br />If a settlement can't thrive in the arctic, then what chance is there for mars?<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

Mars is extremely hostile, there's no doubt about it. So let's give it our best shot. If we're going to do more than flags and foot prints - if we're going there to set up shop - let's do it with an abundance mentality, not a scarcity mentality.<br /><br />"If we have a scarcity mentality, it means that we believe in scarcity, that we evaluate our life in terms of its lacks. If we dwell on scarcity we are putting energy into what we do not have, and this continues to be our experience of life." - Dr. Wayne Dyer<br /><br />(For the record, I'm not a hippy-dippy new age crystal gazer, I just like to embrace ideas that make sense and that can help us achieve our dreams in space.) <br /><br />Another google result <br /><br />edit: spelling <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>