Mars Settlement precursor thread

[spacester]

Does anybody remember the Let's Design a Mission to Mars thread, pre-crash?<br /><br />Wanna do something like that again? I can try herding cats again, it was fun the first time.<br /><br />I've written up a Mars settlement strategy, about four pages of text. I actually wrote it a month ago or so but shelved it and just remembered it a couple days ago. I was thinking about posting it but first . . . <br /><br />After combining study of deltaVs for a range of mission times for the next 40 years, noodling with the rocket equation, adding some of my own design principles, I've outlined the entire fleet of vehicles needed to settle Mars. (Not the quantities of vehicles, just the types.)<br /><br />A primary thesis behind the strategy is that<br /><br />Settlement Supports Science<br /><br />There are two ways to do science: the way it's been done (which is good!), or you could take a more long term, broader view.<br /><br />In a nutshell, if your only goal is to do science, you don't send any more people than you have to. If your goal is to settle, you provide a base camp for the scientists, enabling them do do ten times the science they would have with a plan that minimizes mass.<br /><br />Does that sound like a reasonable starting point for designing a Mars Settlement Strategy?<br /> <br />EDIT: ADDED link to finance thread and link to Let's Design a Settlement thread<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

What will it cost in $$'s

 

[tap_sa]

How much selfsustaining is this settlement going to be? I sometimes find myself trying to figure out how much stuff an indefinetly selfsustaining settlement would initially need. It's fascinating, like playing some Sid Meyer's game but real.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">What will it cost in $$'s</font><br /><br />I have an answer to that, but it may not be satisfying. Please stick with me anyway.<br /><br />The main problem with my plan is that to understand it, you need to set some preconceived notions aside. Several of them actually, and they're so deeply embedded into the space enthusiast psyche at this point that I fear I cannot get past them. That's what this particular thread is about.<br /><br />You know how we keep having the same circular argument? You know: without CATS, you cannot do massive projects, and without massive projects you cannot get the flight rate high enough to get CATS. I've envisioned a way around that dilemma. It's not super simple to explain. It short circuits the typical thinking, it needs you to take something on faith, grok that part fully and then move on to other issues.<br /><br />What I want to do is explain the plan first and explain where the money comes from later.<br /><br />After all the real question isn't "how much", it's "Where does the money come from?"<br /><br />I have an answer, honest I do. But for now the answer to the question is:<br /><br />I don't care. We figure out what needs to be done, we figure out what it costs, we figure out where the money is and we go get it. (Hint: it's not NASA's budget, it's not even Federal tax dollars) All we have to do is assure ourselves that the pool of money we're looking at it sufficiently large and the strategy of getting it is sound enough to get a large enough fraction of it to serve our needs.<br /><br />Honestly, I do have an answer to the finance problem. The financing strategy is an outgrowth of the rest of the plan, so please bear with me.<br /><br />OK fine, if you put a gun to my head, the cost will be somewhere between $500 Million and $10 Billion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">How much self sustaining is this settlement going to be?</font><br /><br />I've always shied away from thinking in terms of a space project being self-sustaining. It won't be. It can't be. Off Earth locations lack the resources needed. There will always be exports to the project. The exports will exceed the "GNP" of your settlement for a long time.<br /><br />Self-sustaining colonies are the ultimate goal. But they are not the near-term goal. You will drive yourself crazy trying to figure out how to make your project self-sustaining in the near term.<br /><br />Thus, I propose establishing a settlement. The purpose of the settlement is to provide the foundation for a colony. A settlement is not self-sustaining, it requires continual investment by Earth. A colony has enough trade goods to offer to lay out a strategy for self-sustainability. <br /><br />To be more specific, the primary enabler of the plan in terms or Martian resources is well developed ISRU, specifically propellant production, specifically CH4 and CO2 rocket propellant. If you want to go home, you've gotta make your own propellant. If you want to hop to the other side of Mars, you gotta make your own propellant. <br /><br />I envision that all deltaV in the Martian gravity well will be supplied by Mars, with the exception of initial orbital insertion when arriving from Earth, which is minimized and sometimes zero. <br /><br />Other than that, everything comes from Earth until you find a way to make it on Mars. Food production would be on the top of that list. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

OK, I'm ready to hear the plan.....

 

[spacester]

<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><br /><br />So is there any objection to the "Settlement Supports Science" philosophy? <br /><br />Anyone? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marslauncher]

10 billion really isnt that bad, if you got a consortium of private enterprise as well as maybe RSA. ESA. NASA, China, and Japan, the total cost per country would be $2 billion each which really isnt bad. (if private industries stepped in and helped this figure would be greatly reduced) The biggest step in the exploration of space needs to not be done by just one country, it is a right of all mankind, therefore design with the plan of having the leading members of the international community to work together in this the greatest mission ever conceived, well enough of my ramblings, nuff said.

 

[grooble]

$10b is peanuts for such a grand project.

 

[dan_casale]

No, A settlement needs to have a purpose. Science is just as good as anything else.

 

[tap_sa]

Propellants, food, that's a good start for ISRU, oxygen too. I'd call that pretty self-sustaining already. Of course you run to trouble if those ISRU equipments start to malfunction, I suppose you plan to bring lots of backup units first. What I meant with indefinitely self-sustaining is that you are able to repair/reproduce every equipment you have, including the tools you use to repair.<br /><br />But please, let us see your plans! <br /><br />PS I believe in 10 billion budget (or less) only if all NASA, ESA, JAXA, what-ever-government-agency-A and BoeingLM&co stay out of the project.. NASA would spend first 10 billion just to design the mission patch!

 

[grooble]

But it's better to teach engineers how to wear a space suit than to teach a geologist how to build structures on mars.<br /> <br />Scientists are ok, but there should be many normal folks. Someone has to fix the plumbing.<br /><br />

 

[dan_casale]

I assumed that some non-scientist's would be allowed to do non-scientist things.

 

[dan_casale]

Looks good. But perhaps we should allow SPACESTER to put forth is plan before we begin planning a location.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Is the goal to support science, or to provide a foundation for a colony? <br /><br />Who's in charge? The settlement construction team, or the scientists? <br /><br />Will the goals of the scientists be in line with the goals of the settlement construction team that aims to create a colony? </font><br /><br />Excellent questions, this gets to the meat of what I want to talk about first.<br /><br />The goal is to settle Mars. The demonstrated successes and failures will dictate whether it is expanded to a colony, maintained as a settlement or abandoned as a ghost town.<br /><br />The goals of the scientists will be up to the scientists. The people building and maintaining the settlement will be in charge. The scientists will be expected to set their goals aside if needed to prevent the failure of the settlement.<br /><br />The goals of the scientists do not need to be in line with settlement goals, but they must not be in conflict.<br /><br />The idea is that by establishing a settlement, the scientists will end up doing a lot more science than if science if the sole goal. But they may have to be patient in the interim. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

<img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><br /><br />Everything so far sounds good. I'm ready to hear the plan when you are ready to give it.

 

[spacester]

OK, one step at a time though. This is the thread where I talk about the pre-conceived notions I need people to think about if they're going to properly process the plan. I'll be referring back to this thread when the main thread (to be started in a bit) gets bogged down because of a natural consequence of a misplaced preconceived notion. (Did that sentence make sense?)<br /><br />{Arobie, were you around for the Let's Design a Mission to Mars Thread?}<br />{I know Dan_Casale was a big part of that thread. Great to see you! – do you remember who-all was in on that thread? mental, Jon Clarke, uh no_way IIRC, my memory sucks for stuff like that}<br /><br />I'm going to try to actively steer the direction of the threads (the cat-herding part), but I don't want to let good input go unacknowledged. For example, it's way too early to pick out a site, but note to self, note to thread: Korolev Crater is cool!<br /><br />Other miscellaneous business then: (*scans thread*)<br /><br />OK, just this: maybe $50 Billion, I don't know. And I still don't care. The expenditures will be annual and if it works, the plan calls for a medium level initially, growing to a plateau of high annual investment, and then tapers off to a maintenance level. So to quote a single figure would be folly even if I had everything costed out.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and this: <font color="yellow"> PS I believe in 10 billion budget (or less) only if all NASA, ESA, JAXA, what-ever-government-agency-A and BoeingLM&co stay out of the project.. NASA would spend first 10 billion just to design the mission patch! </font><br /><br />You’re on the same track. The financing takes as a first principle that the key is to bypass NASA but more importantly bypass Congress altogether. If they want to jump on the bandwagon and help us out after we get things started, great. But they can not must not will not be in charge. Same for BoeLockM: no gravy train here, boys: we’ll pay you money to build stuff, but we’re the custo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

I might have been around when that thread was active, but I wasn't paying too much attention to these types of threads then. I started taking more interest in this sort of thread at your Hohmann Transfer to Mars Reference Thread . <br /><br />Ok, I can wait. I'm looking forward to this discussion and this soon to come thread. This will most assuredly be interesting. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[arobie]

I've got a question!<br /><br />I understand that this will come to fund itself when got going, but where is the initial money to get this off of the ground going to come from? <br /><br />It sounds very independent staying away from Nasa and Congress, but I like that.

 

[spacester]

That's the question I'm not supposed to answer yet!<br /><br />First I need people to stop and think about the idea of bypassing Congress. In fact I see this as the weakest part of my plan so I want to get it out of the way. A critic could say: "They'll never allow it." The critic would have a good point, but I have figured out a way around this as well. But I can't tell you that trick for a long time. And that's as much as I hope to say on that subject.<br /><br />The thing will not actually be funding itself. There will be a stable finance scheme, but it will take continuous investment over a period of many years. Make no mistake: it will soak up a lot of cash.<br /><br />I'm not being much of a salesman I guess by telling you the above, but I've been noodling this problem for several years now and I feel I'm ready to answer any objection except the "They'll never allow it" argument.<br /><br />But you want to know where the funding comes from. Not gonna do it, not yet, fairly soon. But hey you're a nice guy, so<br /><br />I'll give you a short answer:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">US. We the people.</font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

http://users.wpi.edu/~rcaron/mars/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Scottb50, YOU DA MAN! Great to see you here, I knew I could count on guys like you to find that site if still extant.<br /><br />I went thru those pages and vis-a-vis my current thinking, I see almost nothing "wrong".<br /><br />Thank you rpcyan! Are you still out there in cyberspace?<br /><br />I'm kinda waiting to see if some of the other big contributors like Jon_Clarke and mental show up. FMTTM and halfgael are history, too bad. najaB is around, everyone on that list had good contributions.<br /><br />mental's insistence on a very large initial mission really got my creative juices going. It's the damndest thing when he actually has a point <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (Not that I plan on missions that large) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"First I need people to stop and think about the idea of bypassing Congress. In fact I see this as the weakest part of my plan so I want to get it out of the way. A critic could say: "They'll never allow it." The critic would have a good point, but I have figured out a way around this as well."</font><br /><br />A question; what are the more precisely the issues that cause trouble with the Congress? Some sort of permits I guess but what kind? I know you have wrestle with FAA if you are building your own launch vehicle but what about mars mission, is there a specific law stating you require government blessing for that?<br /><br />One solution is to outsource troubling activity to other country with more flexible laws <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

Hi spacester<br /><br />This is a great idea. The earlier discussions were very useful and your role in guiding and chairing us rat bags was masterful. It would be fantastic if you could get the old team together. Sadly, the records are lost, but the insights remain. You might be interested to know that, although I did not quote directly from the work, the fact that we worked through so many issues proved very useful in clarifying my thoughts which was invaluable when late last year a colleague and I wrote a paper on mars lander design which was recently accepted for publication. We have started working on another paper now, on overall mission architecture. Again, no direct quotes from our discussion, but a lot of helpful background. <br /><br />I think we need to establish what kind of settlement we are going to establish, the underlying technology level, and the economy. Sp some questions and assumptions.<br /><br />QUESTIONS<br /><br />What do we mean by “settlement”? Is it a base through which people are rotated every few years, like an Antarctic base? Or is in a settlement which people come to live in permanently? Or a mixture of both? I suggest, for simplicity we decide on one or the other.<br /><br />Will we use both the opposition and conjunction windows, or just one? Remember each has different dynamics and masses that can be sent.<br /><br />What is the maximum payload we can land on mars at a time? Twenty five, 50, 75, 100 tonnes? This will set limits on the amount of mass that can be landed.<br /><br />What size lander modules are we going to use (remember they have to be launched from earth to start with)? Five, 10, 15 m in diameter? Ten, 20, 30 m long? This will set the size of equipment that can be transported.<br /><br />How many people will be transport at a time in these modules?<br /><br />What type of technology are we going to assume for getting to LEO? Are we going to use rockets or space elevators? Perhaps 200 tonnes is perhaps the practical l <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>

 

[nexium]

I think people who go to Mars should expect to stay on Mars unless they can pay a significant part of the cost of return to Earth. Exception should be on a case by case basis.<br /> If we use the Dr. Edwards version of the Space Elevator, small vehicles (20 tons gross mass) will be flipped off the the end (at 7 kilometers per second) weekly several months out of each year. To get a faster flip (crack the whip) of a bigger craft requires total dedecation of the elevator for a week or more, something stronger than the optimistic projection for CNT = carbon nano tubes and/or waiting until two 20 ton elevators can build a 50 ton elevator. Even at 50 tons (gross) we need to use both conjuntion and opposition, unless unexpected technology is available. Neil