They won't need that much water. Even 10km³ will go a long way. Since that much water is in many locations they can look for other criteria.
Quote from: guckyfan on 11/23/2016 12:04 pmThey won't need that much water. Even 10km³ will go a long way. Since that much water is in many locations they can look for other criteria.But we're talking about the vision of building a city, and of sending a million colonists to live and work there. Even if the colony recycles water efficiently, there's still going to be a lot of spaceships departing for Earth (since their recyclability is key to the whole plan), and those will be needing a lot of water collectively.The Mars settlement will be a spaceport in its own right - at least over the long run - and thus you'll want to have abundantly ample resources available for scaling over the long term.
Large deposit of water ice the size of Lake Superior found just under the martian surface at Utopia Planitia:Why not simply go where the water is?
Otherwise, what other possible criteria would be important for selection of landing site and location of settlements?And the place has got one other plus - since Musk is a notorious sci-fi nerd, I'm sure he knows (as the rest of us do) that Utopia Planitia is the location of the shipyard where the USS Enterprise is built in the 24th century, in the Star Trek story universe.I'm sure he wouldn't pass up mentioning that, if this place met all his other criteria for a suitable spot.
Quote from: sanman on 11/23/2016 11:27 amLarge deposit of water ice the size of Lake Superior found just under the martian surface at Utopia Planitia:Why not simply go where the water is? Well the main disadvantage of Utopia Planitia is it is very, very, very boring. Viking 2 landed in the closest thing to what was Utopia's more interesting terrain, with the crater Mie to the east and Hrad Vallis to the south. I glanced at a map of the coordinates - there are a few ruples features and a spattering of small, unnamed craters...but literally nothing on the scale of tens, if not hundreds, if kilometers. Aside from a bland landscape, the science may be minimal outside of deep drills.I think a big reason why Utopia Planitia is such a boring place is, in the ancient wet days of Mars, it was Mars' equivalent of Earth's abyssal plains under the ocean. These regions technically dominate huge chunks of the Earth's surface, and by dominate I'm talking on the scale of continents since they are legitimately a full HALF of Earth's true surface (certainly if you talk to any oceanographers). Utopia is basically a fossilized version of these massive mud flats.Quote from: sanman on 11/23/2016 11:27 amOtherwise, what other possible criteria would be important for selection of landing site and location of settlements?And the place has got one other plus - since Musk is a notorious sci-fi nerd, I'm sure he knows (as the rest of us do) that Utopia Planitia is the location of the shipyard where the USS Enterprise is built in the 24th century, in the Star Trek story universe.I'm sure he wouldn't pass up mentioning that, if this place met all his other criteria for a suitable spot. Science and safety are the essential criteria. I'd personally rank a flat spot adjacent to Valles Marineris the best. However, I would put Utopia as my second choice now since it is generally safe and ice rich. My only additional requirement would be some form of long-range transport for a Utopia base to expedite exploration.I don't know what Musk's perference would be on where to setup a Mars base for ITS. Utopia might be fitting, but given his choice of "Heart of Gold" he may favor more British-themed locales bear-in-mind.
Musks presentations always show the red mars turning blue. Perhaps elevation should also be considered a significant factor in selecting the first landing site. Somewhere above global sea level if the planet were terraformed and somewhere not likely to become a lake or other inland body of water but perhaps next to a future place like this.
Posted it here before but since this is another thread on manned landing sites...NASA survey of potential landing sites...https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/exploration-zone-map-v10.pdfN.B. Nili Fossae is the closest to this Lake Superior glacial ice in Utopia Plantina
The predicted typicalmean annual surface temperature for the EZ investigatedlatitudes is -60ºC [5]. At these temperatures,permafrost could have a mechanicalstrength close to that of limestone [6, 7], whichcould have stabilized evacuated caverns. Chemicalprecipitation from circulating brines in terrestrialcold springs can produce cements along theperiphery of feeder conduits, thereby enhancingtheir overall structural stability [8]. Cements developedin association with cold water circulationinclude calcite, aragonite, Fe-Mn oxides, sulfidesand sulfates [9,10]. On Earth, caverns are knownto occur in ice-welded sediments such as in associationwith networks of ice wedges in permafrost[11] and ice-welded moraine deposits [12]. Someglacier caverns are known to have remained stableover decades [13]. Subsurface caverns andsteep walls in Hebrus Valles might represent naturalterrain features that can be adapted for constructionpurposes (minimum ROI requirement).,Hence, infrastructure can be emplaced or constructedthe LS (minimum ROI requirement).
a little far north for best solar
Quote from: philw1776 on 11/27/2016 02:45 pma little far north for best solarCorrect in regards to Utopia overall. The Hebrus Valles site I mentioned is more southerly but likewise farther from direct ice deposits. Also, given we're talking about SpaceX's plans, in the end they may not choose a site NASA scientists advocate simply because they might favor engineering concerns more heavily than science (such as the need for solar power).
Quote from: redliox on 11/27/2016 03:46 pmQuote from: philw1776 on 11/27/2016 02:45 pma little far north for best solarCorrect in regards to Utopia overall. The Hebrus Valles site I mentioned is more southerly but likewise farther from direct ice deposits. Also, given we're talking about SpaceX's plans, in the end they may not choose a site NASA scientists advocate simply because they might favor engineering concerns more heavily than science (such as the need for solar power).For colonization, engineering concerns are more important than scientific research. Once the initial base for the colony is established, explorers can drive rovers to more interesting sites for science.The key is to build a colony that will eventually become self-sufficient. Once the "beachhead" on Mars is established, other benefits such as science and multi-planet species will naturally follow.Access to water is the most important ISRU factor. Utopia Plantina sounds to me like a good place to start.