Quote from: wes_wilson on 11/26/2016 12:18 pmMusks 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.The time scale between establishing a first colony and eventual filling of lakes or oceans via terraforming (if ever) will make it a non-issue. If the best place for initial colonies happens to be an area that gets flooded 1000 years from now so be it, they can build on higher ground later.Or do you think they can produce standing water in a lake 50 years from now? I don't think so.
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.
The timeline for terraforming is probably best for another thread. However, my view is that it could be much shorter term than most people think. On earth, we've already warmed the planet several degrees over the last 150 years as a byproduct of our society. A focused industrial effort to produce super greenhouse gases could effect more rapid change on a shorter timescale. Further, Mars doesn't have the same strong feedback mechanisms in place to prevent climate change. A little warming will release a lot of CO2. A breathable, stable oxygen atmosphere without unacceptable toxin levels, strong magnetic field and a biosphere is a whole different basket of eggs - but temperature and liquid water isn't.So, I think elevation is a factor if you're planning for long term inhabitation of Mars.
Quote from: wes_wilson on 11/28/2016 11:10 amThe timeline for terraforming is probably best for another thread. However, my view is that it could be much shorter term than most people think. On earth, we've already warmed the planet several degrees over the last 150 years as a byproduct of our society. A focused industrial effort to produce super greenhouse gases could effect more rapid change on a shorter timescale. Further, Mars doesn't have the same strong feedback mechanisms in place to prevent climate change. A little warming will release a lot of CO2. A breathable, stable oxygen atmosphere without unacceptable toxin levels, strong magnetic field and a biosphere is a whole different basket of eggs - but temperature and liquid water isn't.So, I think elevation is a factor if you're planning for long term inhabitation of Mars. Agreed. Whilst it probably doesn't matter if initial work is low level, there's no genuine reason why it needs to take a thousand years to significantly raise the temperature (a thousand years is the time between the early middle ages and the present day, think of the technology climb in that time. We will likely have a technology development rate in the near future which exceeds what we learnt in 1000 years in 100, 50, or less, and it will just keep on climbing. With present day tech it hypothetically doesn't need a thousand years, with unknowable future tech? Assume better ratios under optimistic, Muskian colonisation scenarios).There's a lot of satisfactory mid-ground or higher ground sites that it's unlikely to be a problem anyway.
My guesses at SpaceX site criteria0. Low enough below mean datum for sufficient aerobraking for landing (-2Km or lower) & low enough latitude (under ~30 degrees) to minimize landing & takeoff delta V. Excess landing deltaV makes colony $/ton landed freight bill more expensive. More trips/thousand tons. Excess takeoff deltaV consumes more energy intensive ISRU resources.1. ISRU: water available in colony need quantities2. ISRU: solar power available in colony quantities as mining water and especially disassociation eats electrons3. Given 1&2 sufficient water & solar power available for colony4. Other ISRU needs: minerals etc. for colonial development5. Interesting site & nearby attractions that motivate large #s of folks years to a lifetime off planetMusk is a marketeer; looking cool is important to selling the dream & human satisfactionNASA Priorities:0: ~ same as SpaceX 1. Sufficient ISRU to support small base camp for a synod & return propellant2. Science: geological history of Mars3. Science search for evidence of past life4. Science search for existing life. Base away from but accessible from search site accessed by tele-operated sterilized planetary protection rover
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..
Utopia Planitia may be boring BUT it has a basically unlimited water supply. IMO, the ideal place to set up the solar and ISRU plants needed. Plenty of area to build an initial base to establish a foothold. Plenty of room to locate landing zones far enough away from other structures. So what if you have to drive 10klm from the ITS to the base. It's not hard with the right vehicles.Land, get set up safe and comfortable and then worry about science and exploration.
My guesses at SpaceX site criteria0. Low enough below mean datum for sufficient aerobraking for landing (-2Km or lower) & low enough latitude (under ~30 degrees) to minimize landing & takeoff delta V. Excess landing deltaV makes colony $/ton landed freight bill more expensive. More trips/thousand tons. Excess takeoff deltaV consumes more energy intensive ISRU resources.1. ISRU: water available in colony need quantities2. ISRU: solar power available in colony quantities as mining water and especially disassociation eats electrons3. Given 1&2 sufficient water & solar power available for colony4. Other ISRU needs: minerals etc. for colonial development5. Interesting site & nearby attractions that motivate large #s of folks years to a lifetime off planetMusk is a marketeer; looking cool is important to selling the dream & human satisfaction......
Quote from: philw1776 on 11/28/2016 07:36 pmMy guesses at SpaceX site criteria0. Low enough below mean datum for sufficient aerobraking for landing (-2Km or lower) & low enough latitude (under ~30 degrees) to minimize landing & takeoff delta V. Excess landing deltaV makes colony $/ton landed freight bill more expensive. More trips/thousand tons. Excess takeoff deltaV consumes more energy intensive ISRU resources.1. ISRU: water available in colony need quantities2. ISRU: solar power available in colony quantities as mining water and especially disassociation eats electrons3. Given 1&2 sufficient water & solar power available for colony4. Other ISRU needs: minerals etc. for colonial development5. Interesting site & nearby attractions that motivate large #s of folks years to a lifetime off planetMusk is a marketeer; looking cool is important to selling the dream & human satisfaction......I am becoming sold on the idea that low elevation for landings is a higher priority than water. Water ice can be transported but elevation is hard to change.
Mind you that recently there is evidence that the "rocky" is likely ... surface ice! Which would be ideal for ISRU, as a bulldozer might effectively collect enough water for ISRU. And ... there may be enough of a crustal magnetic field. which along with the increased atmospheric density ... would have the least radiation (and perchlorate) issues for habitation.But here are the problems - likely static effects and dust accumulation is largest too, so optical density/scattering would be the worst on Mars. Also, solar would have the lowest yield due to the inclination.
......The inclination should not have too much effect with canted solar arrays, though with initial arrays only rolled out on the ground. Canted solar arrays should help reduce dust accumulation.I have also thought later, though not early, solar arrays could be located in the highlands, much reducing dust problems.
Quote from: MickQ on 11/27/2016 10:28 amUtopia Planitia may be boring BUT it has a basically unlimited water supply. IMO, the ideal place to set up the solar and ISRU plants needed. Plenty of area to build an initial base to establish a foothold. Plenty of room to locate landing zones far enough away from other structures. So what if you have to drive 10klm from the ITS to the base. It's not hard with the right vehicles.Land, get set up safe and comfortable and then worry about science and exploration.Do you want to live in New England (hills, valleys, waterfalls, lakes, forests, etc.) or in Kansas/Nebraska?