Annual budget required to build and maintain a small Martian base?

[colbourne]

I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required.  Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.

[Slarty1080]

I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required.  Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.

An interesting question but is probably even harder to establish than the requirements for a small Martian base (and although related is quite a different question). A key question would be is mammalian reproduction possible and safe under 0.38g? Without that the whole enterprise would become nonsense.

I doubt very much it will happen until there is a reasonable sized Mars base already in place and another Musk comes along and drives it to completion. I imagine it would require millions of tonnes of kit.

[guckyfan]

I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required.  Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.

Elon Musk expects the need of 1 million people for a fully self sustaing settlement for a reason. It does not just require to produce all food. It needs industry from mining through raw material processing to end user goods for everything. It requires a full health system. It requires childcare from nursery to elementary and high school and universities.

[DanClemmensen]

I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required.  Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.

Elon Musk expects the need of 1 million people for a fully self sustaing settlement for a reason. It does not just require to produce all food. It needs industry from mining through raw material processing to end user goods for everything. It requires a full health system. It requires childcare from nursery to elementary and high school and universities.

That's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.

[DanClemmensen]

Is a low-tech self-sustaining base feasible? Bootstrapping would depend on the minimum necessary material support from Earth. Use horribly inefficient equipment, processes, and materials that can all be produced and implemented locally. The technological base would look about like a US factory or ship in the year 1900, but incorporating knowledge gained since then. No semiconductors or PV. Use thermal solar and massive mirrors. Use glass instead of plastic. I think you need locally-produced steel, and you need to bootstrap the ability to build large equipment similar to steam engines and construction equipment. The steel cannot be made using 1900's-level techniques, but low-tech alternatives can probably be created. It is possible to use steam power based on thermal storage but it is highly inefficient.

The question is: Is this so inefficient that it cannot be bootstrapped?

[guckyfan]

That's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.

It is. A Mars settlement is nothing if not high tech. You can have a minimalist settlement like you envision on Earth in the wilderness. With access to water and air and fertile soil, or at least with plenty of wildlife for food.

[daedalus1]

The ISS weighs 400+ tonnes is for a crew of 7 or 8 maximum and is only self sufficient in energy. Use that as your starting point in this discussion.

[high road]

I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required.  Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.

An interesting question but is probably even harder to establish than the requirements for a small Martian base (and although related is quite a different question). A key question would be is mammalian reproduction possible and safe under 0.38g? Without that the whole enterprise would become nonsense.

I doubt very much it will happen until there is a reasonable sized Mars base already in place and another Musk comes along and drives it to completion. I imagine it would require millions of tonnes of kit.

Low gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.

That's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.

Human colonies did not start with power, lighted interiors, worrying about producing enough fertilizer to survive, balancing food production, CO2 consumption, oxygen production in a closed environment, potable water production, etc. All of that is required on Mars for survival. Even then, most human colonies started where there were locals to trade with, and I can't think of a single one that survived being cut off from the home land when it was anywhere near 'minimalist'.

Is a low-tech self-sustaining base feasible? Bootstrapping would depend on the minimum necessary material support from Earth. Use horribly inefficient equipment, processes, and materials that can all be produced and implemented locally. The technological base would look about like a US factory or ship in the year 1900, but incorporating knowledge gained since then. No semiconductors or PV. Use thermal solar and massive mirrors. Use glass instead of plastic. I think you need locally-produced steel, and you need to bootstrap the ability to build large equipment similar to steam engines and construction equipment. The steel cannot be made using 1900's-level techniques, but low-tech alternatives can probably be created. It is possible to use steam power based on thermal storage but it is highly inefficient.

The question is: Is this so inefficient that it cannot be bootstrapped?

The question is: can you produce enough energy and supply all applications without PV or microchips? Because there's no free  oxygen on Mars, the one thing that made all 1900's technology run is not available. No coal, no oil, no wood, no rivers, and wind is likely more effort that it's worth.

[lamontagne]

It is curious to ponder what anybody is thinking proposing 20 B$ as "a very marginal cost".

Very marginal to a global economy of 85 trillion dollars.

Half the cost of the seventeenth ranked social network ;-)

[lamontagne]

I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required.  Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.

Musk has propose about one million Tonnes as a minimum.  I think it's an OK number.  Sperm and eggs don't raise themselves, after all.  You need a minimum population to support a university and the details of technological society.

[lamontagne]

I would like to know how much you need to transport to Mars to set up a totally self sufficient minimalist colony that could possibly survive if Earth was wiped out, as this is meant to be Elon's long term plan. Fewer people might help as less raw materials would be required.  Sperm and egg banks could help prevent inbreeding.

Elon Musk expects the need of 1 million people for a fully self sustaing settlement for a reason. It does not just require to produce all food. It needs industry from mining through raw material processing to end user goods for everything. It requires a full health system. It requires childcare from nursery to elementary and high school and universities.

That's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.

I can't see the minimalist version surviving a significant length of time.  There is no food on Mars without advanced technology.  It's probably cheaper to send 1 000 000 tonnes to Mars than to developing sustainable low level technology.

1 000 000 T x 500 $/kg x 1000 = 500 billion$.  So transportation costs are not really an issue.  That's about the cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, at 400 billiion$.

SpaceX costs to LEO are supposed to go to 10 million dollars per launch, or 100$/kg to LEO.  So 500$ to Mars is not that much of a stretch.

[DanClemmensen]

That's not minimalist. Human colonies did not start with healthcare and and schools. A minimalist self-sustaining colony would eventually grow from a fairly grim and hardscrabble small base to evolve these things over several generations. However, to do this it does need to feed itself and it needs to be able to maintain its infrastructure and begin to expand it. Elon's vision is the luxury version, not the minimalist version.

It is. A Mars settlement is nothing if not high tech. You can have a minimalist settlement like you envision on Earth in the wilderness. With access to water and air and fertile soil, or at least with plenty of wildlife for food.

You absolutely do need food production. It will be high tech, and it will be radically different than food production anywhere on Earth. You also need a advanced shelter, also different than anything on Earth, because it must provide a pressurized breathable atmosphere. Note that we already have a form of this shelter on Earth, in nuclear submarines.

This minimal settlement requirement will almost certainly be high tech and dependent on lots of stuff from Earth. The idea of a low-tech approach with the absolute minimum of input from Earth is a completely different issue and is probably infeasible.

You do not need universities and advanced healthcare. Education will be completely computerized, augmented by interactions among the populace. People who need more than relatively basic healthcare (about what was available in 1950 in advanced countries, much better than is available today to most of Earth's population)  will die.

[Twark_Main]

I presume that everyone here has read the low-tech survival thread, but if not:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45772.0

[JohnFornaro]

Low gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.

It's amusing to see how on one thread it is asserted that building a "large rotating graviton" habitat is virtually impossible, while seeing on another thread that is is a "small challenge".

[Slarty1080]

Low gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.

It's amusing to see how on one thread it is asserted that building a "large rotating graviton" habitat is virtually impossible, while seeing on another thread that is is a "small challenge".

I depends if the plan for this base is going to be real world or rely on an inexhaustible supply of imaginary cash. If $500 billion is no problem then who knows, if Congress are involved I can't see it personally.

[high road]

Low gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.

It's amusing to see how on one thread it is asserted that building a "large rotating graviton" habitat is virtually impossible, while seeing on another thread that is is a "small challenge".

You missed the 'compared to everything else'. Even sustainable food production without regular fertilizer deliveries from Earth quickly scales up to something much bigger than a gravitron of comfortable-to-walk-around-in size.

Low gravity is a non issue. Building large rotating 'gravitron' hospitals where women can spend as much time as required during their pregnancy is a small challenge compared to everything else.

It's amusing to see how on one thread it is asserted that building a "large rotating graviton" habitat is virtually impossible, while seeing on another thread that is is a "small challenge".

I depends if the plan for this base is going to be real world or rely on an inexhaustible supply of imaginary cash. If $500 billion is no problem then who knows, if Congress are involved I can't see it personally.

Supplying a skeleton crew of scientists with a single Starship worth of consumables every synod doesn't seem to be a big ticket item for Congress. (in response to the OP). As in: little or no local food production, little or no mining for water (Bring along hydrogen for fuel production, Mars Direct style), let alone any other consumables. 100 tons of consumables and equipment each synod goes a loooong way. The biggest issue with that idea is that it takes a small industry to fuel and launch a Starship, which doesn't exactly make it a skeleton crew.

It's only when you want to reduce the required imports per person, that the initial budget needs to increase massively, while the annual budget doesn't decrease much, or even has to increase due to the additional required population to run the additional ISRU, power production, maintenance, ... Even just producing calories locally takes decades to earn back the additional initial mass.

[colbourne]

It is quite likely that 1 million tonnes is a minimalistic base for self sufficient long term survival. The whole point is to make a base that could survive if Earth could no longer be relied upon for supplies. Even at 1million tonnes I cant see the ability to maintain production of cpu's continuing after the first maufacturing machines malfunctioned beyond repair.
It would be necessary to work out the core skills and equipment for survival which is energy and food production, life support (breathable air), water recycling or mining. Finding a suitable tunnel would help. This would require airlocks and EVA suits to be manufactured and repaired. Maybe thinking small  and primitive would make it easier to survive.
Metals production, initially from meteorites would probably be essential.
For comparison the Nimitz aircraft carrier weighs about 100,000 tonnes

[high road]

It is quite likely that 1 million tonnes is a minimalistic base for self sufficient long term survival. The whole point is to make a base that could survive if Earth could no longer be relied upon for supplies. Even at 1million tonnes I cant see the ability to maintain production of cpu's continuing after the first maufacturing machines malfunctioned beyond repair.
It would be necessary to work out the core skills and equipment for survival which is energy and food production, life support (breathable air), water recycling or mining. Finding a suitable tunnel would help. This would require airlocks and EVA suits to be manufactured and repaired. Maybe thinking small  and primitive would make it easier to survive.
Metals production, initially from meteorites would probably be essential.
For comparison the Nimitz aircraft carrier weighs about 100,000 tonnes

'Small' and 'primitive' are contradictory. You need a far bigger facility/workforce to produce a given quantity of pretty much anything if you use more basic techniques.

[Greg Hullender]

Regarding fabricating CPUs, a friend of mine who teaches solid-state physics at the University of Michigan told me once that the biggest difference between the cheap and simple process he had his students use and the vastly more expensive processes companies like Intel use was that the big companies need very high yields. He and his students could be happy to get one working chip per wafer. (Of course, this was over ten years ago; modern technology may be less forgiving.)

Anyway, if you want a civilization where everyone walks around with a hot CPU in his/her pocket, then, yeah, that'll take some doing. But if you just want to be able to manufacture a few hundred CPUs a year, there's no reason they ought to lose that ability. At least if you limit them to, say, 2010-level technology.

[lamontagne]

Regarding fabricating CPUs, a friend of mine who teaches solid-state physics at the University of Michigan told me once that the biggest difference between the cheap and simple process he had his students use and the vastly more expensive processes companies like Intel use was that the big companies need very high yields. He and his students could be happy to get one working chip per wafer. (Of course, this was over ten years ago; modern technology may be less forgiving.)

Anyway, if you want a civilization where everyone walks around with a hot CPU in his/her pocket, then, yeah, that'll take some doing. But if you just want to be able to manufacture a few hundred CPUs a year, there's no reason they ought to lose that ability. At least if you limit them to, say, 2010-level technology.

And there is a technology just for that, called minimal fabs. https://www.minimalfab.com/en/
based on 1/2 inch wafers.  This seems a perfect match for Mars.