The first mission will include plenty of food, including meat, to make it to the next supply window. That food will be supplemented by whatever they learn to farm which is a high priority. They will not be able to eat all the food they produce unless the mission design includes killing them off.
Getting to Mars is only half the problem. \
The other half has nothing to do with getting back. It has to do with completely changing the colonists viewpoint and mindset. I am encouraged that Lt. Heidi Beemer is a chemist. If they include a machinist I will fall off my chair. Colonist on mars will shake their heads at all the planners on earth even if it takes a second generation. Feet on the ground makes a huge difference in perspective (lightspeed being a huge benefit for them.)
[It’s] not clear what they would do when they get there except be there
Which could refer to anyplace on earth. Lack of imagination on the part of some has no bearing on what the colonists will do. Live their lives would be my answer.
I agree with Wodun. It is this lack of experience that is holding all of humanity back. It’s immoral on a number of levels. Historians will be explaining this progress gap forever. Do you ever wonder how history would be different if we followed up on 1492 more aggressively? We lost a lot of opportunity in the 1500s.
There is so much to do on Mars that it’s pretty crazy to imagine someone wondering what humans would do there.
Exploration, of course, and investigation of the martian environment and geological history, and looking for life.
At the same time, there is an ungodly amount of work to do to set up colonization. The early priorities are power generation and propellant production, which should be baked into the mission design (like Mars Direct), otherwise it doesn’t make much sense. Very rapidly after the initial exploratory missions it becomes possible to gear up for long term colonization by increasing propellant production capabilities, beginning subsurface ice mining, building out sub-surface habitats, building greenhouses to begin growing food, etc. Within the first decade a colony can have a budding industrial base and be partially self sufficient on many consumables such as water, oxygen, vehicle fuel/propellant, and food.
And from there they can continue bootstrapping the local industrial/agricultural infrastructure. They’ll be able to produce concrete, smelt iron and other metals, build massive rectennas for space based solar power, grow and store all manner of food, build new structures, establish extensive mining operations, and so on.
Moreover, they can make use of rockets to be able to locally explore the entire planet. All they need is two rockets, they can refuel them locally then take a short hop to any location on the planet. They can then explore the local area from the comfort of a vehicle with enough resources to support them for a year or more if necessary, then they can hop back to a base colony, or if they encounter a problem they can be rescued in as short as a matter of hours by the backup vehicle.
All of that is on the table for the first few decades of colonization of Mars. Exploring an entire planet and building an entire civilization from the ground up certainly counts as a lot to do in my book.
“[It’s] not clear what they would do when they get there except be there”
It would certainly involve massive resources and a lot of danger
What a completely subjective description. What’s his idea of massive resources?
This guy could be talking about the single digit billions Mars One is seeking, or maybe the double digit billions that NASA blows through every year, or maybe the triple digit billions that have been proposed for former flags-and-footprints Mars missions. Who knows?
He certainly didn’t take on any “danger” by writing this puff piece.
Realistically, using ISRU and mostly solar power as well as reusable launch vehicles I think it would be possible to begin colonization of Mars for as little as $1 billion or even $0.5 billion per year. I’m excited to see what SpaceX comes up with because I think it’s going to fundamentally change the way people think about the feasibility of Mars colonization on a budget. If you can reliably send tens of tons of cargo to Mars every 2 years or so then colonization is definitely on the table. And if you can do so at a cost of less than $1b/yr then the prospect of finding enough financial backers (whether government or commercial) becomes vastly easier.
“Realistically, using ISRU and mostly solar power as well as reusable launch vehicles I think it would be possible to begin colonization of Mars for as little as $1 billion or even $0.5 billion per year.”
Hmm. 1 billion seems to me cheaper than cost to mine lunar water. I have tended to think the capital needed was about 5 billion dollars, but that generally includes the cost of capital- or
I assume one attempting to get return on money.
The difference is analogous to building oil platform vs sending some people on ocean cruise or I guess sending some people to some island and having them live there for years.
In comparison, since NASA failed to explore the Moon adequately, the 5 billion dollars cost
has generally assumed such exploration by NASA or some other space agency has already occurred. So, since this hasn’t occurred, tack on another billion dollars to this costs.
Likewise, Mars has not been adequately been explored for the purpose of human settlement.
One assume with both Mars and Moon that on doesn’t need any further exploration, and one just takes the risks- one guesses where a good location would be and spends the money on this guess. So sort of like Californian gold rush- having people mostly focused getting to California and sort of winging it.
So with the Moon, one has a general idea where you going- lunar poles. One has to pick the north or the south pole, and the region is quite small, it seems a deciding factor would related to the peak of eternal light. So, peak of eternal light with most sunlight near a minable crater.
Let’s instead focusing on mining, let’s focus “living on the Moon”, the model being on going to occupy a location, explore the location, and depending on how goes, perhaps continue
to live in this location.
So sending people, and somewhere for them to live, and other life support. Let’s say first plan is have people stay 1 month. So 2 people, spacesuits, food and water, With idea of adding as you go. So start with landing a beacon, then landing a robot at the beacon, followed with supplies need for humans to live 1 week. One view this practicing getting to this location, giving you some idea of what is there. Then people land with another week live support, and with there cramped “base” to live at for 2 weeks. Etc.
So that could cost less than billion dollars.
Now, for Mars. Well would say one location could Hellas basin- which about land area of 1/2 the US. Or one choose a Mars pole- again area of about 1/2 the US in land area.
In either of these one go where you think you get water. So with Hellas basin and idea of good location for water, could narrow the possible location, a bit. But with either poles there
finding water doesn’t narrow the location much.
You could just go here: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express/Water_ice_in_crater_at_Martian_north_pole
Lots of water, and it’s sort of known element, with exact location. The pole are good if you only want to stay there for it’s summer- one can get constant sunlight. Not good at winter.
Since we want to stay for years, one can almost rule out the poles.
Another possible location is going to a site, in which Mars landers have already gone.
And one plan to mine Mars air, and not focus as much getting water from the ground.
So sort of idea, here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33858.0
So according to this idea, what I would do is get 1 atm Mars air in container, and from this
container compress the air to 5.1 into tall container [3 meter diameter and 10 meter high]
In order separate the gases. So the 1 atm “container” could also be somewhere people could
live. The air isn’t breathable but it’s pressurized, so with oxygen masks people could breath.
So you deliver to Mars a large container [no windows, but a airlock], and deliver other equipment [tall cylinder, and other stuff]. So this container, is largest diameter one put on a rocket. It starts it’s life filled with pure oxygen with say 16 psi. It’s empty, save has “plumbing”
and airlock. It’s never designed as living quarters, but does it give pressure for people.
In addition, one way collect Mars air, so using fans, on pressurizes mars air to 4 psi, the 4 psi air in pumped into large container to around 1 atm, then pumped into cylinder to 5.1 atm.
And also one has way to make cryogenic gases from the 5.1 atm pressured air.
So one start with all containers involved have pure oxygen, and these container can emptied
of oxygen gas and stored as LOX, once on Mars surface. The whole purpose of it is to make
oxygen from Mars atmosphere, but you might as well start oxygen gas at pressure the tanks/container are rated to hold. And once you getting power at Mars, you replace the oxygen with Mars air.
While you doing this, the crew can actually build real living quarters.
So the large container is basically a return capsule, say like a dragon, but just shell- empty of everything, and made withstand pure oxygen, but crew will enter it when it’s got pressurized Mars air. So you essentially, landing a bunch of empty containers. Need solar panels, fans and pumps. Which placed before crew and in total should less than 20 tons payload.
So anyways, when crew arrive, they finish setting up the Mars “air conditioner” and focus
on building their home. Which needs to have radiation shielding.
Now I think the best way to live on Mars is under water. But this location may not have much water, and our “air conditioner” does not make much water- it makes tons of CO2 which liquid or dry ice. And from the all the Mars processed makes some water and oxygen, CO,
or:
Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.7%
Argon (Ar) – 1.6%; Oxygen (O2) – 0.13%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 0.08%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) – 0.85; Krypton (Kr) – 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) – 0.08 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
So fair amount liquid argon and Nitrogen, also.
Perhaps living quarters, should first be solar flare shelter. So bury a living quarters, which provides breathable air, food, etc. But no widows.
And once safe from effects of radiation, they focus on building something more enjoyable
to live in. Which could include finding water- lots of it.
So something like that could cost about 1 billion.
Total cost is the wrong metric. Cost per person is much better. More people means more total cost but a lower cost per person.
I expect the main thing that will go wrong on the first landing is not providing enough power even though this is one of the easiest things to fix. Planners will get lots of thing wrong. That’s guaranteed. The job of the first colonists will be to survive and get thing more right for the second wave of colonists.
Every martian on arrival will be a millionaire if done right. 144 million sq. km. of value potential means the damn will burst when the right idea is accepted. Or we could just continue to be communists in our thinking.
Acceptance of the right concept means the difference between a land rush in the next five to ten years verses continued debate for the next century.
The comments over there make me weep for humanity. It is likely that many of them even have college degrees which makes their views rather horrifying.
They’re enough to make me want to volunteer for the first flight.
no salads on Mars
Wanna bet? If we go, we go in style. Yes, CJ, they will be meat eaters as well.
The first mission will include plenty of food, including meat, to make it to the next supply window. That food will be supplemented by whatever they learn to farm which is a high priority. They will not be able to eat all the food they produce unless the mission design includes killing them off.
Getting to Mars is only half the problem. \
The other half has nothing to do with getting back. It has to do with completely changing the colonists viewpoint and mindset. I am encouraged that Lt. Heidi Beemer is a chemist. If they include a machinist I will fall off my chair. Colonist on mars will shake their heads at all the planners on earth even if it takes a second generation. Feet on the ground makes a huge difference in perspective (lightspeed being a huge benefit for them.)
[It’s] not clear what they would do when they get there except be there
Which could refer to anyplace on earth. Lack of imagination on the part of some has no bearing on what the colonists will do. Live their lives would be my answer.
I agree with Wodun. It is this lack of experience that is holding all of humanity back. It’s immoral on a number of levels. Historians will be explaining this progress gap forever. Do you ever wonder how history would be different if we followed up on 1492 more aggressively? We lost a lot of opportunity in the 1500s.
There is so much to do on Mars that it’s pretty crazy to imagine someone wondering what humans would do there.
Exploration, of course, and investigation of the martian environment and geological history, and looking for life.
At the same time, there is an ungodly amount of work to do to set up colonization. The early priorities are power generation and propellant production, which should be baked into the mission design (like Mars Direct), otherwise it doesn’t make much sense. Very rapidly after the initial exploratory missions it becomes possible to gear up for long term colonization by increasing propellant production capabilities, beginning subsurface ice mining, building out sub-surface habitats, building greenhouses to begin growing food, etc. Within the first decade a colony can have a budding industrial base and be partially self sufficient on many consumables such as water, oxygen, vehicle fuel/propellant, and food.
And from there they can continue bootstrapping the local industrial/agricultural infrastructure. They’ll be able to produce concrete, smelt iron and other metals, build massive rectennas for space based solar power, grow and store all manner of food, build new structures, establish extensive mining operations, and so on.
Moreover, they can make use of rockets to be able to locally explore the entire planet. All they need is two rockets, they can refuel them locally then take a short hop to any location on the planet. They can then explore the local area from the comfort of a vehicle with enough resources to support them for a year or more if necessary, then they can hop back to a base colony, or if they encounter a problem they can be rescued in as short as a matter of hours by the backup vehicle.
All of that is on the table for the first few decades of colonization of Mars. Exploring an entire planet and building an entire civilization from the ground up certainly counts as a lot to do in my book.
“[It’s] not clear what they would do when they get there except be there”
I think a popular sport on Mars will be parkour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEeqHj3Nj2c
It would certainly involve massive resources and a lot of danger
What a completely subjective description. What’s his idea of massive resources?
This guy could be talking about the single digit billions Mars One is seeking, or maybe the double digit billions that NASA blows through every year, or maybe the triple digit billions that have been proposed for former flags-and-footprints Mars missions. Who knows?
He certainly didn’t take on any “danger” by writing this puff piece.
Realistically, using ISRU and mostly solar power as well as reusable launch vehicles I think it would be possible to begin colonization of Mars for as little as $1 billion or even $0.5 billion per year. I’m excited to see what SpaceX comes up with because I think it’s going to fundamentally change the way people think about the feasibility of Mars colonization on a budget. If you can reliably send tens of tons of cargo to Mars every 2 years or so then colonization is definitely on the table. And if you can do so at a cost of less than $1b/yr then the prospect of finding enough financial backers (whether government or commercial) becomes vastly easier.
“Realistically, using ISRU and mostly solar power as well as reusable launch vehicles I think it would be possible to begin colonization of Mars for as little as $1 billion or even $0.5 billion per year.”
Hmm. 1 billion seems to me cheaper than cost to mine lunar water. I have tended to think the capital needed was about 5 billion dollars, but that generally includes the cost of capital- or
I assume one attempting to get return on money.
The difference is analogous to building oil platform vs sending some people on ocean cruise or I guess sending some people to some island and having them live there for years.
In comparison, since NASA failed to explore the Moon adequately, the 5 billion dollars cost
has generally assumed such exploration by NASA or some other space agency has already occurred. So, since this hasn’t occurred, tack on another billion dollars to this costs.
Likewise, Mars has not been adequately been explored for the purpose of human settlement.
One assume with both Mars and Moon that on doesn’t need any further exploration, and one just takes the risks- one guesses where a good location would be and spends the money on this guess. So sort of like Californian gold rush- having people mostly focused getting to California and sort of winging it.
So with the Moon, one has a general idea where you going- lunar poles. One has to pick the north or the south pole, and the region is quite small, it seems a deciding factor would related to the peak of eternal light. So, peak of eternal light with most sunlight near a minable crater.
Let’s instead focusing on mining, let’s focus “living on the Moon”, the model being on going to occupy a location, explore the location, and depending on how goes, perhaps continue
to live in this location.
So sending people, and somewhere for them to live, and other life support. Let’s say first plan is have people stay 1 month. So 2 people, spacesuits, food and water, With idea of adding as you go. So start with landing a beacon, then landing a robot at the beacon, followed with supplies need for humans to live 1 week. One view this practicing getting to this location, giving you some idea of what is there. Then people land with another week live support, and with there cramped “base” to live at for 2 weeks. Etc.
So that could cost less than billion dollars.
Now, for Mars. Well would say one location could Hellas basin- which about land area of 1/2 the US. Or one choose a Mars pole- again area of about 1/2 the US in land area.
In either of these one go where you think you get water. So with Hellas basin and idea of good location for water, could narrow the possible location, a bit. But with either poles there
finding water doesn’t narrow the location much.
You could just go here:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Express/Water_ice_in_crater_at_Martian_north_pole
Lots of water, and it’s sort of known element, with exact location. The pole are good if you only want to stay there for it’s summer- one can get constant sunlight. Not good at winter.
Since we want to stay for years, one can almost rule out the poles.
Another possible location is going to a site, in which Mars landers have already gone.
And one plan to mine Mars air, and not focus as much getting water from the ground.
So sort of idea, here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33858.0
So according to this idea, what I would do is get 1 atm Mars air in container, and from this
container compress the air to 5.1 into tall container [3 meter diameter and 10 meter high]
In order separate the gases. So the 1 atm “container” could also be somewhere people could
live. The air isn’t breathable but it’s pressurized, so with oxygen masks people could breath.
So you deliver to Mars a large container [no windows, but a airlock], and deliver other equipment [tall cylinder, and other stuff]. So this container, is largest diameter one put on a rocket. It starts it’s life filled with pure oxygen with say 16 psi. It’s empty, save has “plumbing”
and airlock. It’s never designed as living quarters, but does it give pressure for people.
In addition, one way collect Mars air, so using fans, on pressurizes mars air to 4 psi, the 4 psi air in pumped into large container to around 1 atm, then pumped into cylinder to 5.1 atm.
And also one has way to make cryogenic gases from the 5.1 atm pressured air.
So one start with all containers involved have pure oxygen, and these container can emptied
of oxygen gas and stored as LOX, once on Mars surface. The whole purpose of it is to make
oxygen from Mars atmosphere, but you might as well start oxygen gas at pressure the tanks/container are rated to hold. And once you getting power at Mars, you replace the oxygen with Mars air.
While you doing this, the crew can actually build real living quarters.
So the large container is basically a return capsule, say like a dragon, but just shell- empty of everything, and made withstand pure oxygen, but crew will enter it when it’s got pressurized Mars air. So you essentially, landing a bunch of empty containers. Need solar panels, fans and pumps. Which placed before crew and in total should less than 20 tons payload.
So anyways, when crew arrive, they finish setting up the Mars “air conditioner” and focus
on building their home. Which needs to have radiation shielding.
Now I think the best way to live on Mars is under water. But this location may not have much water, and our “air conditioner” does not make much water- it makes tons of CO2 which liquid or dry ice. And from the all the Mars processed makes some water and oxygen, CO,
or:
Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.7%
Argon (Ar) – 1.6%; Oxygen (O2) – 0.13%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 0.08%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) – 0.85; Krypton (Kr) – 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) – 0.08
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
So fair amount liquid argon and Nitrogen, also.
Perhaps living quarters, should first be solar flare shelter. So bury a living quarters, which provides breathable air, food, etc. But no widows.
And once safe from effects of radiation, they focus on building something more enjoyable
to live in. Which could include finding water- lots of it.
So something like that could cost about 1 billion.
Total cost is the wrong metric. Cost per person is much better. More people means more total cost but a lower cost per person.
I expect the main thing that will go wrong on the first landing is not providing enough power even though this is one of the easiest things to fix. Planners will get lots of thing wrong. That’s guaranteed. The job of the first colonists will be to survive and get thing more right for the second wave of colonists.
Every martian on arrival will be a millionaire if done right. 144 million sq. km. of value potential means the damn will burst when the right idea is accepted. Or we could just continue to be communists in our thinking.
Acceptance of the right concept means the difference between a land rush in the next five to ten years verses continued debate for the next century.