Mars Settlement precursor thread

spacester · Mar 8, 2005

So does anyone know why not? Why do NASA engineers not like this option? IMHO, the answer is "politics" IMHO NASA is forced to find a reason for ISS to exist, and the primary thing they've come up with is "Life Science". The problem of long-term health in space is hard. There are two ways to approach it. Spend $Billions researching in microgravity, hoping to develop a, I don't know, a "magic pill" that makes all the problems go away. The other way is to develop spin-g, which we can be pretty sure will work. But spin-g is totally incompatable with ISS, so it's the red-headed stepchild of space research. NASA can screw around in microgravity for years and years and keep everybody busy, or they could start a spin-g program that would be in direct competition with ISS. Such a program would be expected to deliver actual usable results, but "ISS Life Science" can go on forever. You can connect the dots from there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Mar 8, 2005

>But also I noticed that simulating gravity by spinning the ship appears very rarely in NASA projects...Virtually all the NASA concepts for Mars missions that I have seen spun at least part of the ship.

teije · Mar 8, 2005

Can't you solve the low-gravity problem and the radiation problem in 1 go? I.e. Develop suits that use metal shielding? On mars you can make any astronaut a suit which has a mass of (astronauts' mass/0.38)-astronauts' mass. So a typical 70 kg astronaut can wear a 184 - 70 = 114 kg suit and experience exactly his normal bodyweight on mars. Humans have been able to make suits with those specifications since the middle ages. So it should be doable.... On EVA suits it would be a bit more difficult, but inside habitats where you don't need environmental control in your suit, it seems like a simple solution. Teije

najab · Mar 8, 2005

The problem with that solution is that the astronaut would still be in a low gravity field. The possible bad effects wouldn't all be controlled by, in effect, strapping weights to him.

teije · Mar 8, 2005

Not all of them. Agreed. And of course you can't just be wearing a 'lead-jumper' all day. But if you can make such a suit so that it will distribute it's own mass (more or less) proportionally over the astronaut's body, wouldn't that help? And it would surely help against radiation....

chris_in_space · Mar 8, 2005

Let's take NASA's Mars reference mission (in all its different versions and updates). It is allways considered that the crew will make the trip to Mars in a zero g environment. But if you have other mission concepts by NASA which use a spinning ship (or part of it), I'm interested in.

chris_in_space · Mar 8, 2005

teije I think it could be interesting to use a sort of water filled suit (I think it allready exists for the swiss air force) if it won't be too difficult to move in it. Maybe we can replace the water by Hg which is 13 times heavier which will make it a little more easy to move in it since there's less volume you wear around you but still I don't think it would be confrotable, especially if you have to wear it all the time. But I also agree with najaB when he says it won't solve all the low g problems. I think it would solve some exterior muscle and bone related problems but I don't think it can do much for all the inner organs... I also don't really agree with the 2 in 1 solution especially if the suit will be used only in the interior. I think the radiation problem could be solved easier directly on the habitat (burrowing it for example). Indeed I don't think some cm of water around you would help so much against radiation contrary to some meters of regolite. Besides concerning a Hg filled suit I don't know if Hg is a good radiation blocker or not.

spacester · Mar 8, 2005

The body suit is an interesting idea, but there are around 17 major adverse physiological effects of microgravity. What we need to find out is the list in 0.38 g We can do that in LEO, figuring that the coriolis and gravity gradient problems will be tolerable and thereby allowing the assumption that Mars itself would be more benign. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Mar 8, 2005

Hi Jon, I forgot to point out that my primary criteria to tell the difference between a settlement and a colony is that settlers don't have children, colonists do. So by (my) definition, my plan forbids them for at least the first two hitches. The reason? Exactly as per your argument: it would be irresponsible to allow experiments in child bearing until we have a lot of experience with other mammals. OK, I see your logic on risk: rotating crew versus long-term settlers can assume different levels of risk because of exposure time. Well said and I agree. But this is the fallacy of the false choice. We can do both. The lost thread had a whole bunch of discussion on one-way tickets. Factoring that into my plan, I conclude that we must allow for flexibility, so that the individual settler can make up their own mind on the level of risk they want to accept. Quoting the opening post on the main thread: "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." The policy would be: anyone can go home at the next opportunity. The expectation is that we find out during the first hitch that it ain't so bad and quite a few folks follow through on their original plan to stay for another hitch or two. Certain of the True Martians would stay no matter what. If everybody bails out at every opportunity, we have a series of expeditions, not a settlement. If everybody stays every time, we're on the way to a colony. The actual result would be somewhere in between. The success of the settlement would be judged on the primary criteria of population growth, sans children. Everyone there would be a professional and a willin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tzenda · Mar 8, 2005

Im with you spacester, the world has become to soft, risks are acceptable and always will be. And sighn me up for the first go, you wont find a better Joat(jack of all trades) anywhere

holmec · Mar 9, 2005

From my understanding. The authority of Congress and thus the FAA is just the skys overhead the US. If you contract out your launches and then rocket to Mars the only real contenders may be NASA, ESA, and the Russian space agency. Other than that the real reach of the Federal government is just financial. Financial includes not only funding but taxes, as in non-profit orgs. They will stick their nose in a non-profit org's business just because they don't have to pay taxes. You could launch outside the US. So launching by ESA, Russia or Japan. Or you could have multiple launches from multiple players that way you may play them against each other and they leave you alone. Legally I guess Mars is unconquered territory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Mar 9, 2005

>"What exactly are the advantages of the of a cycling transfer vehicle?"< Control, Control, Control. With the orbits of earth and mars not in sync. You could have a transfer vehicle operate all the time because it could navigate. Also it would be cheaper in the long run because you use only a small amount of these vehicles constantly. Another point is that they could navigate around any asteroids or particle clouds or after a Solar flare storm. It is also an assurance to the providers of the material that the cargo will get to is destination. Therefore it has some financial value. Should I go on??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Mar 9, 2005

Perhaps the geoligist need to be ready to do both. Just have someone with the knowhow of fixing and building things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Mar 9, 2005

Maybe this would be a good game to play. Making game that simulates trying to make a settlement on Mars. Sound fun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Mar 9, 2005

Spaceter, What if you make some kind of business plan on this, and make it a spreadsheet model so you can analyze what it will take initially, what are the costs to keeping it up, and what if the money runs out....etc. A lot of what ifs. That way you have something solid, a model. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Mar 9, 2005

Why do we need a cost number? The cost is fluid not static. This sounds more of an open ended mission. Not a mission with an end. Therefore I think a cost number is short sighted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

JonClarke · Mar 9, 2005

Spacester Yep, that sounds reasonable. Here is a sketch outline for settlement growth that tries to capture what we have said so far. BTW "colony" has a very bad ring to it for many people, so I will avoid using it. 1ST DECADE - EXPLORATION 2.5-years missions 4-8 people Verify basic Mars technology Verify ISRU Verify short term habitability Explore to 100 km radii surrounding different sites Select site for development 2ND DECADE - BASE 5-year missions with option of staying 8-30 people Verify biological life support Verify food production Verify consturction material production Verify medium term habitability Explore to 500 km 3RD DECADE - OUTPOST 10-year mission with option of return 30-90 crew Verify long term habitability Verify reproductive viability (first children) Verify multi-generational return Verify mineral resources Explore to 1000 km 4TH DECADE - SETTLEMENT Permanant settlement (with option of return) />90 settlers Verify potential income earners Exploration beyond 1000 km One thing that may be worth noting is that if you only sending things one way and you are prepared to accept lower efficiency trajectories you have launch windows every 13 months, not every 26. This would be very useful to rapidly build up materials for settlement. Cheers Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

spacester · Mar 9, 2005

Hi Jon, Well I'm glad you think that's reasonable, but your schedule is not in agreement with what I've described. Too busy here at work to explain right now. But I think if you look back at my posts you will see the differences. You're making a lot of assumptions that are in conflict with my approach and some that are premature decisions as well. I'm looking at a lot more flexibility and a larger first crew among other things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dan_casale · Mar 9, 2005

JonClarke: I think I'm going to agree with Spacester on this one. I think your timeframe is too long. How about something like this. Robotic mission - up to 5 years: verify ISRU verify basic Mars Tech. (Dome for Agriculture, tunnel for living quarters, mining, ....) Select best site for settlement. Human mission Continuing mission with option to return every 2.5 years. Coloney desides on a go/nogo. 60 - 90 people with more people arriving every 2.5 years First 2.5 years. 1) expand ISRU. 2) Improve Mars Tech. 3) Verify habitability. 4) Begin development of Martian CLLSS. 5) Begin Food production. 6) Begin construction material production. 7) Verify mineral resources second 2.5 years 1) Improve previous items. 2) Verify reproductive viability (first children) 3) Verify multi-generational return 4) Verify potential income earners 5) Begin mining/refining/manufacturing operations. Third 2.5 years. 1) Improve previous items. 2) Begin Medical science studies 3) Begin science studies that will improve Mars specific technology. fourth 2.5 years 1) Improve previous items. 2) Begin other science studies

scottb50 · Mar 9, 2005

How about something like: Robotic mission- 1970's to 2010 or so as already planned. Human Mission Continuing mission with return every 2.5 years. First mission 24-30 people and the same for subsequent missions with the people deciding whether or notr they wish to return or not. Facilities would be built initially for 30 and expanded with every mission. First 2.5 year mission 1) set up and maintain surface facilities. 2) comprehensive study of local geology and survey for promising site's for expansion of human presence as well as survey for resources with future uses. 3) research of possible food growth. 4) research into effects of Martian conditions and lower gravity to determine if limits on overall stays would be appropriate. 5) Research availability and assesability of Martian water to reduce transit costs from Earth. Second 2.5 years 1) Expand on previous tasks with specialists and specific equipment first mission deemed neccesary for continued expansion of both the facilities and exploration. 2) Determine long term effects of the Martian environment on facilities to plan for more permanent future requirements. Third 2.5 years 1) More people and specialists and expansion of number of bases. 2) Determination of human ability to survive for extended period, including schedules return to Earth for those from the first mission who chose to stay to study the readaption problems that may occur. 3) Further growth in farming and possible mining, if worthwhile materials are found. Beyond the third 2.5 year period it should become self evident whether further expansion is needed, maintaining a small research facility is advised or there is little reason for being on Mars in the first place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dan_casale · Mar 9, 2005

Scottb50: Overall it looks good, not as aggressive as I would plan for, but... I need more information on this line. ....expansion of number of bases. What is your definition of a base? Is it a habitat for 1 group? Is it a different selfsupporting group?

scottb50 · Mar 9, 2005

If we can put down an initial base we can just as easily do others, if for no other reason than safety, multiple bases would definitly be a good idea. I would build an initial base using multiple Modules, if a Module failure occures it could be evacuated and sealed off from the rest of the structure, maybe a little crowded, but livable for a time. If a more dramatic problem occures at some time it would always be nice to have somewhere else to go. Strength in numbers and all of that. It would also be next to impossible to reach the entire surface, or even a substantial amount of it from one location, maybe a facility dedicated to water production near the ice caps and another in a promising geological area and yet another at some other selected site, like MER one on one side and the other on the other side of the Planet. The primary mission of the first mission should be making sure it all works and refining the equipment for follow on missions. If we look at a beginning base as four or five connected Modules four or five more on the next mission could be used either to expand the existing facility or establish another. The determination could be made at anytime up to descent to the surface, expand the initial facility because it is in a good location or go somewhere else. The same would be true for the third and subsequent missions. Which base needs more room and man power? I would think the primary project for the first mission would be refining the information and determining where to build a more permanent facility rather than simply increasing the size of the initial project even though places of interest are a long ways off, as determined by the initial crew. Robots are great but the MER's have only gone a couple of miles, in two years humans could find all kinds of things neeing further attention. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scottb50 · Mar 10, 2005

Just found this: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050309/95978_1.html Use straight Hydrogen and you could have a pen size supply that will late for days in a laptop or cell phone. I just don't see why everybody fights so hard against Hydrogen.No matter how we get there the main act producing energy is Hydrogen and Oxygen combining into water. How you get the Hydrogen to the scene of the fire is the main question, Hydrocarbons are proven and used every day, pretty much universally because they are abundant and all you have to do is go down to your local Chevron, which made record profits last year by the way, Duh! Just stick your card in the slot. Hydrocarbon provide a fairly simple way to transport Hydrogen and are seemingly abudant. But their not! The technology exists to provide the Hydrogen by itself and fuel cells are well capable of providing long term power. On Earth Hydrogen and air, in Space Hydrogen and Oxygen. Burn it and you get a lot of immediate power and water, chemically combine it, in a fuel cell, and you get eledctrical power and water. As long as you are on Earth you have an unlimited supply, go to Space and it's the price we have to pay. At the very least a Mars mission could save a lot of small towns from being washed away by global warming. A win win situation if you ask me. If we just used Hydrogen it could be even simple. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Mar 10, 2005

I'm going to shift the discussion over to the main thread . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

orzek · Mar 10, 2005

Dan_Casale, Scottb50 In my opinion JonClarkes plan makes the most sense, since it has the best chance of success and doesn't try to do everything all at once. It probably can be shortened by a decade or two depending on how successful the earlier phases are. Trying to colonise another world is no mean feat and probably not within our capabilities yet. To do it so quickly as a decade or less requires precise planning, lots of resources and money and plenty of luck. Why rush? Rushing through impatience just leads to mistakes and oversights. One needs to verify that it is actually possible to stay on mars and that it best achieved in the beginning with a smaller crew and not try to force through success with sheer quantity.

Mars Settlement precursor thread

spacester

Guest

najab

Guest

teije

Guest

najab

Guest

teije

Guest

chris_in_space

Guest

chris_in_space

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

tzenda

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

spacester

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

scottb50

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

scottb50

Guest

scottb50

Guest

spacester

Guest

orzek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page