Information from Biosphere 2 would come in handy here. This step is actually comparatively easy and would provide a nice recreational environment on Mars if it were large enough, about the size of a tennis court.
Quote from: Alkan on 04/01/2018 02:24 amInformation from Biosphere 2 would come in handy here. This step is actually comparatively easy and would provide a nice recreational environment on Mars if it were large enough, about the size of a tennis court.Biosphere II really is not informative.Biosphere II was an aesthetic design, which incidentally sort-of-produced enough food on a truly massive area.You need pretty closely 3kW of electricity into good LED lights onto potatoes to feed a person, 6kW gives you a varied veggie diet, in around 100m^2.Perhaps a total of 10kW for food + oxygen.This is a tiny number compared to the amount of power you need for ISRU.
So, I'm interested in predicting some of the details of his colony. Each phase is looser and more speculative.Phase I: Fuel ProductionThe methane fuel will be created by the Sabatier reaction using CO2 and water.
What else is needed is food. It won't be self-sustaining for a long time, so I don't see greenhouses to grow food being particularly useful for some time. Rather, several years worth of food would be sent. 7300 pounds of food would feed a person for five years. It might be safer to send 10,000 pounds of probably pretty lousy space food. Send a crew of 8 people and you can send them with enough food, water and oxygen to survive the process of waiting for the fuel production to go home.
This is probably the primary goal of the first mission: set up solar panels to generate fuel with the Sabatier process. Some aspects of this would be easier than the space station: not having zero g means that stuff just doesn't float in the air freely.
Phase II: Increasing the Self-sustainability of the Base.... No micrometeorites, reduced cosmic radiation and a gravitational well make this relatively safe. Information from Biosphere 2 would come in handy here. This step is actually comparatively easy and would provide a nice recreational environment on Mars if it were large enough, about the size of a tennis court.
Quote from: Alkan on 04/01/2018 02:24 amSo, I'm interested in predicting some of the details of his colony. Each phase is looser and more speculative.Phase I: Fuel ProductionThe methane fuel will be created by the Sabatier reaction using CO2 and water. Welcome to the site. You're behind the curve here. Substantial Methane deposits have been found.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/01/2018 09:49 amQuote from: Alkan on 04/01/2018 02:24 amSo, I'm interested in predicting some of the details of his colony. Each phase is looser and more speculative.Phase I: Fuel ProductionThe methane fuel will be created by the Sabatier reaction using CO2 and water. Welcome to the site. You're behind the curve here. Substantial Methane deposits have been found. JS19: Methane deposits? I missed that.Are they usable? What form do they take? Do you have references?-----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
I still say expirimental cancer research will be mars's biggest unofficial export for some time. You're on mars, you're not going to spend your whole stay in a bunker driving an RC rover. And when the radiation starts giving you lumps, volunteer for expirimental therapies.
I still say expirimental cancer research will be mars's biggest unofficial export for some time. You're on mars, you're not going to spend your whole stay in a bunker driving an RC rover.
And when the radiation starts giving you lumps, volunteer for expirimental therapies.
Quote from: meekGee on 04/01/2018 12:51 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 04/01/2018 09:49 amQuote from: Alkan on 04/01/2018 02:24 amSo, I'm interested in predicting some of the details of his colony. Each phase is looser and more speculative.Phase I: Fuel ProductionThe methane fuel will be created by the Sabatier reaction using CO2 and water. Welcome to the site. You're behind the curve here. Substantial Methane deposits have been found. JS19: Methane deposits? I missed that.Are they usable? What form do they take? Do you have references?-----ABCD: Always Be Counting DownElon Musk literally said they're going to use CO2 at ITS presentation, so that comment about me being behind is kind of funny. It's probably easier to find a lot of water.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8unI6KHAocU?t=14m43sThe presentation on radiation on Mars was released before Elon Musk's Mars architecture was outlined. It will be an issue, though I don't think Elon Musk seems to think of it as such a big deal. It is a bigger deal than I think that Elon Musk thinks, but the risk of increased cancer is just going to be part of it.
Power is already solved compared to mining, though. Power is one of the only things that has already been demonstrated many times on Mars. Solar power in particular.But SpaceX has discussed power many times. There were comments about special lightweighted deployment using inflatables, plus there’s CG of huge fields of solar arrays. Power has been addressed WAY more than actual mining of water has.
The presentation on radiation on Mars was released before Elon Musk's Mars architecture was outlined. It will be an issue, though I don't think Elon Musk seems to think of it as such a big deal. It is a bigger deal than I think that Elon Musk thinks, but the risk of increased cancer is just going to be part of it.
Experimental therapies are not generally very effective, compared to existing ones.
Presentations on radiation on Mars have been given for decades, the situation has not changed much except that Mars Curiosity has validated that surface radiation levels are much less than deep space and solar events are effectively neutralized (compared to deep space).
Wrong. The equivalent to having the same radiation protection on Earth is about a 3metre layer of regolith.
The one thing that keeps bothering me is the question of power.What's needed is an estimate of consumption based on the colony plans, a power system concept and design, and then an estimae of mass and manpower that passes a sanity check.Just saying "solar" or "nuclear" is not enough, and SpaceX hasn't yet anything significant about it.-----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
I don't think SX have released any estimates for the settlement.
we’ll need to make about 1000 tons of propellant on Mars over a two-year cycle; bring it back; and that’s a tall order. You need about half a megawatt of energy to <inaudible> that much propellant <inaudible>
So if you’re taking it to Mars, it’s more efficient to ship reactors than it is to ship solar; it’s just that nobody’s really developed a space reactor yet. We’re working with NASA on that, and hopefully they’ll get funding to develop that. They’ve got a program called kilopower going that’s like, ten thousand watts, a 10 kilowatt reactor. We need a megawatt, but you know, you need to start somewhere.Eventually, the right way to have power on Mars is fission, but initially, it’ll probably be solar. But in order to get the rockets back, we need a lot of power there to make propellant.
QuoteMueller: we’ll need to make about 1000 tons of propellant on Mars over a two-year cycle; bring it back; and that’s a tall order. You need about half a megawatt of energy to <inaudible> that much propellant <inaudible>
Mueller: we’ll need to make about 1000 tons of propellant on Mars over a two-year cycle; bring it back; and that’s a tall order. You need about half a megawatt of energy to <inaudible> that much propellant <inaudible>
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/01/2018 09:49 amWrong. The equivalent to having the same radiation protection on Earth is about a 3metre layer of regolith. I would also like a source for this. Earth atmosphere has mass of 10 tonnes per square meter. Seems to me like equivalent mass of regolith would be significantly thicker than 3 meters. Also, this:
Historical estimates from various groups (which IIRC appeared on the Mars life support or Mars gardening threads) had figures of 6-60Kw/person/day with 60Kw being the number for LED lit greenhouses.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2018 05:02 pmPresentations on radiation on Mars have been given for decades, the situation has not changed much except that Mars Curiosity has validated that surface radiation levels are much less than deep space and solar events are effectively neutralized (compared to deep space).Please post a source. Mars has very weak magnetic field and very thin atmosphere. It should therefore receive almost half of deep space cosmic ray dose (like 200-300 mSv per year, other half shielded by the planet itself) and also most of solar flare doses. Not an issue if you only spend a dozen hours per week outside, but more than that and it becomes a serious concern, especially for actual colonists who will hopefully live for many years and decades on the planet, instead of year long missions.
The planet shields half the radiation, and the atmosphere (although "thin") is about 40 grams/cm^2 thick, which dramatically attenuates solar flares and also reduces dosage of GCRs somewhat. It's like a foot or two of regolith.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2018 07:24 pmThe planet shields half the radiation, and the atmosphere (although "thin") is about 40 grams/cm^2 thick, which dramatically attenuates solar flares and also reduces dosage of GCRs somewhat. It's like a foot or two of regolith.But isnt low amount of shielding generally even worse that nothing when it comes to GCRs due to secondary radiation? Of course it may depend on exact shielding mass and elemental composition...
Shield the planet. One of NASAs ideas is a ~3 Tesla dipole placed at Sun-Mars L1. 3 Tesla is about the power of a modern medical CT scanner. PhysOrg...Presentation video, this starts at 1:36:00https://livestream.com/viewnow/vision2050/videos/150701155
Shield the planet. One of NASAs ideas is a ~1-2 Tesla dipole placed at Sun-Mars L1. 1.5-3 Tesla is about the field strength of a modern medical CT scanner. PhysOrg...Presentation video, this starts at 1:36:00https://livestream.com/viewnow/vision2050/videos/150701155
And to your point 3T scanners aren’t even state of the art. 5T and 7T scanners are being used in research hospitals. They aren’t used routinely mostly because their greater expense isn’t worth it for routine clinical needs and also because those field strengths cause disorientation to patients that usually require sedation.
>You mean an MR scanner. CT scanners do not generate magnetic fields. And to your point 3T scanners aren’t even state of the art. 5T and 7T scanners are being used in research hospitals. They aren’t used routinely mostly because their greater expense isn’t worth it for routine clinical needs and also because those field strengths cause disorientation to patients that usually require sedation.
If the plan is colonization then near term could be handled otherwise.I also wonder about a magnetic 'mesh constellation' akin to StarLink with overlapping zones of influence.
Quote from: docmordrid on 04/01/2018 07:57 pmIf the plan is colonization then near term could be handled otherwise.I also wonder about a magnetic 'mesh constellation' akin to StarLink with overlapping zones of influence.Just put superconducting cables around the equator on the surface.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2018 08:14 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 04/01/2018 07:57 pmIf the plan is colonization then near term could be handled otherwise.I also wonder about a magnetic 'mesh constellation' akin to StarLink with overlapping zones of influence.Just put superconducting cables around the equator on the surface.You get very, very large currents flowing in the core, which act to cancel your imposed field essentially 'forever'.
You get very, very large currents flowing in the core, which act to cancel your imposed field essentially 'forever'.
Quote from: cppetrie on 04/01/2018 08:01 pm And to your point 3T scanners aren’t even state of the art. 5T and 7T scanners are being used in research hospitals. They aren’t used routinely mostly because their greater expense isn’t worth it for routine clinical needs and also because those field strengths cause disorientation to patients that usually require sedation.Most MRI machines used in hospitals are slightly under several hundred kilometers in diameter.
Quote from: speedevil on 04/01/2018 08:16 pmYou get very, very large currents flowing in the core, which act to cancel your imposed field essentially 'forever'.Not really. You charge it up over decades. That’s slow enough that the core doesnt cancel out the field. Additionally, core is above the curie point.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2018 08:18 pmQuote from: speedevil on 04/01/2018 08:16 pmYou get very, very large currents flowing in the core, which act to cancel your imposed field essentially 'forever'.Not really. You charge it up over decades. That’s slow enough that the core doesnt cancel out the field. Additionally, core is above the curie point.Skin effect means 'slow enough' is many, many thousands of years, not decades unfortunately.
I doubt such a calculation, although I haven’t had time to calculate it myself (Mars core is about 10^6 S/m). But thousands of years is still just fine for stopping erosion. Beefing up the atmosphere is a much greater priority and it’ll make a much bigger difference in surface radiation levels than the magnetic field would.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2018 08:43 pmI doubt such a calculation, although I haven’t had time to calculate it myself (Mars core is about 10^6 S/m). But thousands of years is still just fine for stopping erosion. Beefing up the atmosphere is a much greater priority and it’ll make a much bigger difference in surface radiation levels than the magnetic field would.That is - when you turn on your coil around Mars, you induce an equal and opposite current in the surface of the molten core of Mars, which almost perfectly cancels out your induced field.It takes longer than thousands of years for this cancellation to go away and your imposed field to be visible.(Local fields that don't touch the core are not affected)
Quote from: speedevil on 04/01/2018 09:22 pmThat is - when you turn on your coil around Mars, you induce an equal and opposite current in the surface of the molten core of Mars, which almost perfectly cancels out your induced field.It takes longer than thousands of years for this cancellation to go away and your imposed field to be visible.(Local fields that don't touch the core are not affected)If it really took thousands of years to become negligible, then all you would have to do is turn the magnet on for a split second and the current induced in the core would keep up a strong enough magnetic field for a long time.It's kind of absurd, actually. Changing magnetic fields induce currents, steady magnetic fields do not. Currents decay almost instantaneously if nothing is driving it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Formulation_in_SI_units_conventionThe third one, Maxwell–Faraday equation. The second one is easier to understand (DelXE=-∂B/∂t).
That is - when you turn on your coil around Mars, you induce an equal and opposite current in the surface of the molten core of Mars, which almost perfectly cancels out your induced field.It takes longer than thousands of years for this cancellation to go away and your imposed field to be visible.(Local fields that don't touch the core are not affected)
Modifying the local field is of course possible.
Without being driven and with an extremely high resistivity (which is NOT resistance), each volume element of the planet makes up a resistor. The thing is, there's not even a closed loop inside Mars to induce a current in. Any established potential inside of the planet is what would cause the induced current in the first place, and there isn't a loop - the charge is free to move across the planet's presumably metal core. You need to be thinking about concepts like current density and resistivity before you're thinking about current and resistance.
Sorry to interrupt your doomsaying, but you can shield a habitat on the surface to lower than Earth levels of radiation. Heck, a big enough habitat with enough floors will have enough shielding in the structure itself that the lower levels will have Earth-like radiation levels. That’s where children and pregnant families can hang out.
Hi I couldn't find the mars agriculture thread for some reason.. just dumping this here.
People forget we actually have a larger forum outside of SpaceX...General Mars threads should go in the general Mars section, not in the SpaceX Mars section.
My theory is that we are going to be living in mars bases one way or another.. even if we stay on earth. This is just another example out of thousands of how the inexorable evolution towards efficient sustainable technology on earth brings mars bases closer.
Plant based meat substitutes tend to have 2 problems: many of the better ones are based on glutens, which make many peoplei ill, and in order to have an acceptable taste they contain ridiculous levels of sodium chloride.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/05/2018 12:48 pmPeople forget we actually have a larger forum outside of SpaceX...General Mars threads should go in the general Mars section, not in the SpaceX Mars section.Actually, there is not really a "general Mars section". The thread Scaling Agriculture on Mars is under "HLV / SLS / Orion / Constellation", which is not really all that much better than "SpaceX Mars".
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44465.0
Aren’t iodine supplements an option to reduce radiation exposure? Longer term changing the atmosphere seems to be his big design goal. I think Tesla and BFR are practice for terraform engineering.
Quote from: DaveH62 on 04/26/2018 01:03 amAren’t iodine supplements an option to reduce radiation exposure? Longer term changing the atmosphere seems to be his big design goal. I think Tesla and BFR are practice for terraform engineering.If you are exposed to radioactive iodine, for example, from fallout or a reactor accident. Radioactive iodine is a byproduct of fission...I don't think iodine is particularly useful when you have general radiation exposure....
There are some drugs that can reduce effects of acute radiation exposure, though.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/26/2018 03:10 amThere are some drugs that can reduce effects of acute radiation exposure, though.Certainly, but not iodine tablets. And in most cases the risks wouldn’t be for acute exposure levels but for chronic exposure levels where you see increased cancer rates, etc. Where acute exposure would probably show up most profoundly is with increased spontaneous abortion rate, miscarriages, and birth defects because developing fetuses are much more sensitive to radiation exposure levels. Same for childhood cancers for similar reasons. Acute radiation poisoning requires a pretty substantial acute whole body dose, levels that are unlikely on a Mars colony or in transit.
Quote from: cppetrie on 04/26/2018 05:04 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/26/2018 03:10 amThere are some drugs that can reduce effects of acute radiation exposure, though.Certainly, but not iodine tablets. And in most cases the risks wouldn’t be for acute exposure levels but for chronic exposure levels where you see increased cancer rates, etc. Where acute exposure would probably show up most profoundly is with increased spontaneous abortion rate, miscarriages, and birth defects because developing fetuses are much more sensitive to radiation exposure levels. Same for childhood cancers for similar reasons. Acute radiation poisoning requires a pretty substantial acute whole body dose, levels that are unlikely on a Mars colony or in transit.There are people that live on earth in areas with very high background radiation levels and they are doing just fine. I think that the effects of radiation on the human body are generally exaggerated. If you look at the Lifetime study that observed people living in Hiroshima (and I believe Nagasaki too) after the atomic bombs were dropped, the effects were measurable, but not dramatic. The biggest effects are from radioactive particles that have been ingested or inhaled and that wont apply on a Mars colony.
Acute radiation is only a risk really for solar particle events. In a Mars settlement, this isn’t a risk as the Mars atmosphere is sufficient to reduce the dose by a large amount such that even the worst flares aren’t really detectable from acute symptoms.If the Mars settlement is a very large building, the radiation levels at about 10 floors down will be low enough for children.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/27/2018 11:20 pmAcute radiation is only a risk really for solar particle events. In a Mars settlement, this isn’t a risk as the Mars atmosphere is sufficient to reduce the dose by a large amount such that even the worst flares aren’t really detectable from acute symptoms.If the Mars settlement is a very large building, the radiation levels at about 10 floors down will be low enough for children.Exactly. The most dangerous types of radiation (alpha and beta particles) are easily stopped by even small amounts of everyday materials. Gamma rays are much less dangerous per unit of exposure and would also be attenuated by even the thin atmosphere. With the exception of solar events, radiation should be a pretty manageable issue. And even solar events should mostly require timely detection and a safe shelter(s) for short duration use.
Quote from: rakaydos on 04/01/2018 03:58 pmI still say expirimental cancer research will be mars's biggest unofficial export for some time. You're on mars, you're not going to spend your whole stay in a bunker driving an RC rover. And when the radiation starts giving you lumps, volunteer for expirimental therapies.You can spend almost a full work day (~30 hours per work week) in an EVA suit without exceeding annual Earth Radiation worker standards, provided the rest of the time is well-shielded. Few people seem to realize this.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/01/2018 05:00 pmQuote from: rakaydos on 04/01/2018 03:58 pmI still say expirimental cancer research will be mars's biggest unofficial export for some time. You're on mars, you're not going to spend your whole stay in a bunker driving an RC rover. And when the radiation starts giving you lumps, volunteer for expirimental therapies.You can spend almost a full work day (~30 hours per work week) in an EVA suit without exceeding annual Earth Radiation worker standards, provided the rest of the time is well-shielded. Few people seem to realize this.So just to be clear Mars surface operations will expose a person to 365x the radiation level of a worker in the nuclear power industry.So 30-40 days of Mars surface operations will rack up a lifetime radiation dose for a person, and staying inside the BFS is unlikely to deliver much better protection than working on the surface?That suggests building some well shield living space is not a luxury, but a necessity.
Annual dose limit for radiation workers is 50mSv per year.Mars surface radiation dose is 0.64mSv/day, or .027/hour. So being outside unprotected for 30 hours a week for 52 weeks a year is just 42mSv/year, under the terrestrial radiation worker annual dose limit (astronaut limits are higher).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/02/2018 12:49 pmAnnual dose limit for radiation workers is 50mSv per year.Mars surface radiation dose is 0.64mSv/day, or .027/hour. So being outside unprotected for 30 hours a week for 52 weeks a year is just 42mSv/year, under the terrestrial radiation worker annual dose limit (astronaut limits are higher).How much of that can easily be reduced? Gravity on Mars is light enough that permanently wearing garments with some radiation protection like metallic strands woven in should be possible. Maybe protect the more important bits by wearing heavier hats and undershirts.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/02/2018 12:49 pmAnnual dose limit for radiation workers is 50mSv per year.Mars surface radiation dose is 0.64mSv/day, or .027/hour. So being outside unprotected for 30 hours a week for 52 weeks a year is just 42mSv/year, under the terrestrial radiation worker annual dose limit (astronaut limits are higher).A) numbers! B) The solar component of the radiation is only present during the day, so the /day and /hr numbers are not simply a ratio of 24 - daytime level will be higher than night time. Still tho, your point stands.
The solar component of the radiation is only present during the day, so the /day and /hr numbers are not simply a ratio of 24 - daytime level will be higher than night time.
Is anyone (outside of SpaceX) actually working on a Mars Direct/Design Reference Mission architecture that baselines BFR as the prime transportation system to and from Mars?-MG.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/03/2018 03:33 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 06/02/2018 12:49 pmAnnual dose limit for radiation workers is 50mSv per year.Mars surface radiation dose is 0.64mSv/day, or .027/hour. So being outside unprotected for 30 hours a week for 52 weeks a year is just 42mSv/year, under the terrestrial radiation worker annual dose limit (astronaut limits are higher).A) numbers! B) The solar component of the radiation is only present during the day, so the /day and /hr numbers are not simply a ratio of 24 - daytime level will be higher than night time. Still tho, your point stands.The solar component of radiation is present on both day and night as it doesn't just follow straight from the Sun. It spirals randomly around the magnetic field lines which itself is a big spiral, and the solar radiation can even bounce backward along the magnetic field lines. But regardless, the solar radiation component is tiny on the Martian surface (it's much lower energy than galactic cosmic rays, and therefore the 40 grams/cm^2 of atmosphere blocks it very well) and can be safely ignored for our purposes.
You can also argue that normal radiation limits on Earth are very conservative, and I am sure you can find a large gap between where normal limits are set and where danger begins.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/04/2018 01:16 amQuote from: meekGee on 06/03/2018 03:33 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 06/02/2018 12:49 pmAnnual dose limit for radiation workers is 50mSv per year.Mars surface radiation dose is 0.64mSv/day, or .027/hour. So being outside unprotected for 30 hours a week for 52 weeks a year is just 42mSv/year, under the terrestrial radiation worker annual dose limit (astronaut limits are higher).A) numbers! B) The solar component of the radiation is only present during the day, so the /day and /hr numbers are not simply a ratio of 24 - daytime level will be higher than night time. Still tho, your point stands.The solar component of radiation is present on both day and night as it doesn't just follow straight from the Sun. It spirals randomly around the magnetic field lines which itself is a big spiral, and the solar radiation can even bounce backward along the magnetic field lines. But regardless, the solar radiation component is tiny on the Martian surface (it's much lower energy than galactic cosmic rays, and therefore the 40 grams/cm^2 of atmosphere blocks it very well) and can be safely ignored for our purposes.You did well before by presenting numbers.It is true that per photon energy is highest for galactic core type radiation, but flux matters too. And only charged particles get affected by magnetic fields.So if you've got a daily dose number, don't assume the hourly dose is 1/24 of that and then spread the hours over the course of a week.Unless you find a graph of radiation dosage over the course of an average day - data which must exist since they did arrive at those daily totals somehow.You can also argue that normal radiation limits on Earth are very conservative, and I am sure you can find a large gap between where normal limits are set and where danger begins.-----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
the solar radiation component is tiny on the Martian surface (it's much lower energy than galactic cosmic rays)
Units are not in the proper form of mSv that converts into biological dose. And altitude makes a huge difference. Mars landing sites are necessarily low altitude.I don’t know why we’re arguing about this still. MSL provides data that shows that solar flares are attenuated to near-irrelevance and that the day/night radiation dose difference is on the order of 2-3%. I already showed this. Let’s move on.
Units are not in the proper form of mSv that converts into biological dose.
Mars surface radiation dose is 0.64mSv/day
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/08/2018 03:30 amUnits are not in the proper form of mSv that converts into biological dose.I was just correcting your energy statement, as given. The Omaha Field design shields against the actual high-energy peak -- the flare peak -- because a shield should. Fig. 7. Omaha Field: 500 MeV Shielding, PerspectiveShielding effect on 500 MeV protons, having energy exceeding solar flare peak energy. Vertically-injected 500 MeV proton tracks in black, crater rim in red. Nearly all 500 MeV protons are deflected away from the crater floor. --As for dosage, you might sum the previous figure's physical dose in mGy, then convert to equivalent dose and organ effective dose in mSv, as best you can. That would be a nice addition to the thread.Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/03/2018 12:15 amMars surface radiation dose is 0.64mSv/daybtw, the Sept. '89 flare dose rate was ~ 26 mGy/day, down at 20 g/cm2 atm depth. That's more than 100x the typical dose recorded by RAD in Gale Crater, at about the same atm depth. Your post, above. Guo et al. 2018, Table 1.Again, you'd want to scale shielding designs to catch that.RefsGuo, J., Zeitlin, C., Wimmer-Schweingruber, R. F., McDole, T., Kühl, P., Appel, J. C., ... & Köhler, J. (2018). A generalized approach to model the spectra and radiation dose rate of solar particle events on the surface of Mars. The Astronomical Journal, 155(1), 49.
BTW, just to repeat this, the Sept. '89 flare would be reduced to WELL below acute levels by Mars' atmosphere (on average greater than 40g/cm^2 at low altitude, and using CO2 which is a much better shielding material than aluminum) and by the greater distance the flare has to travel.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2018 03:25 amBTW, just to repeat this, the Sept. '89 flare would be reduced to WELL below acute levels by Mars' atmosphere (on average greater than 40g/cm^2 at low altitude, and using CO2 which is a much better shielding material than aluminum) and by the greater distance the flare has to travel.Guo et al. 2018 does lay it out rather plainly: the flare delivered ~ 27 mGy/day, down at Gale Crater elevation.You disagree, but unless you spot a big problem with Guo's work, that's the dosage rate to be addressed.Have you read the paper, btw? Your posts seem to ignore it.
Quote from: LMT on 07/29/2018 04:57 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2018 03:25 amBTW, just to repeat this, the Sept. '89 flare would be reduced to WELL below acute levels by Mars' atmosphere (on average greater than 40g/cm^2 at low altitude, and using CO2 which is a much better shielding material than aluminum) and by the greater distance the flare has to travel.Guo et al. 2018 does lay it out rather plainly: the flare delivered ~ 27 mGy/day, down at Gale Crater elevation.You disagree, but unless you spot a big problem with Guo's work, that's the dosage rate to be addressed.Have you read the paper, btw? Your posts seem to ignore it.I have now. Seems to agree with my earlier post (<10mSv for the Sep89 event, far below any acute effects), at least roughly speaking. Though I will note I believe he's still using a 1D code (or at least taking the greater path through the atmosphere into account), and I can't find evidence he's not. That makes a huge difference as the vast majority of the radiation will be coming in from a greater angle. It makes almost a factor of 2 difference in average shielding level.edit:If I'm reading this chart correctly (page 24), it appears the surface dose for the SEP89 event is about 2.3*10^3 microSv (trying to measure a value on a logarithmic graph is tricky), or 2.3mSv, which is less than a head CT scan (given the handy comparison in the chart). That makes sense, given my previous chart and the increased effectiveness of CO2. That probably also means he's using a proper angle for the radiation path.If the worst case flare 2 hour exposure every few decades is just a CT scan on the surface, it's really not a problem....but notice that in deep space, the dose is "severe poisoning", i.e. you may die in short order.
The meeting is expected to include an overview of the spaceflight capabilities that SpaceX is developing with the Big Falcon rocket and spaceship, which Musk has previously outlined at length during international aerospace meetings in 2016 and 2017. Discussion topics will focus on how best to support hundreds of humans living on Mars, such as accessing natural resources there that will lead to a sustainable outpost.
Realistically, when could that view turn from a render into a real photograph? "I need a ray of hope about the future" - (c) Gaius Baltar, former President of the Twelve Colonies.
Probably 2028 for a base to be built
Wow - 2028 is a pretty tight timeline - even though some will say that's just "Elon time".Would base-building essentially commence with the first crewed landing?What would have to be accomplished first, to get to that point?
The exact year doesn't matter.The important bit is that Musk believes that this level of base is within the immediate plan - he sees a way to build and finance it.If 2028 depends on a 2022 first trip, and if the date means "hardware for the base delivered to the surface", then this base was delivered on synod 4.We already know the first two have 2 and 4 ships, and that none of the ships will fly back until synod 6, and so synod 8 is still mostly new ships.This to me means he intends to build LOTS of ships. If I could ever sneak a question in, it would be "how many ships/yr would the factory be producing in the coming years"-----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Hope & I travelled to Boca Chica yesterday to meet with Elon Musk. He explained #SpaceX’s extraordinary plan to begin the settlement of Mars,which was very much in evidence as hundreds of people were lined up outside to join his team building Starships. #Mars #Space #MarsSociety
We asked what the #MarsSociety could do to help, and he told us: Spread the word on the unlimited future opened by making humanity spacefaring.We will begin next week, by announcing an international contest to design a 1 million person #Mars colony.#SpaceX #NASA #Space #Science
Here’s a teasetwitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1225876236477620225QuoteHope & I travelled to Boca Chica yesterday to meet with Elon Musk. He explained #SpaceX’s extraordinary plan to begin the settlement of Mars,which was very much in evidence as hundreds of people were lined up outside to join his team building Starships. #Mars #Space #MarsSocietyhttps://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1225876531681153024QuoteWe asked what the #MarsSociety could do to help, and he told us: Spread the word on the unlimited future opened by making humanity spacefaring.We will begin next week, by announcing an international contest to design a 1 million person #Mars colony.#SpaceX #NASA #Space #Science
My article about my observations about @elonmusk’s plans to settle Mars following our recent meeting in Boca Chica was just published by National Review. @SciGuySpace @jeff_foust #Mars #Space #Science #NASA #SpaceX #MarsSociety
Elon Musk’s Plan to Settle MarsBy ROBERT ZUBRIN February 22, 2020 4:30 AMLast week my wife Hope and I traveled to Boca Chica, Texas, to meet with Elon Musk. While we talked inside the SpaceX onsite headquarters, a mariachi band played outside, providing entertainment for long lines of people queued up to apply for multiple categories of jobs building craft to take humans to Mars. Hundreds were already hired and at work in the complex. Soon there will be thousands.Musk calls his design the “Starship.” It’s a methane/oxygen-driven, stainless-steel, two-stage-to-orbit rocket with a payload capacity equal to the Saturn V booster that sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon. The Saturn V, however, was expendable, with each unit destroyed in the course of a single use. Starship will be fully reusable, like an airliner, and therefore promises a radical reduction in payload-delivery costs.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/07/2020 07:24 pmHere’s a teasetwitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1225876236477620225QuoteHope & I travelled to Boca Chica yesterday to meet with Elon Musk. He explained #SpaceX’s extraordinary plan to begin the settlement of Mars,which was very much in evidence as hundreds of people were lined up outside to join his team building Starships. #Mars #Space #MarsSocietyhttps://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1225876531681153024QuoteWe asked what the #MarsSociety could do to help, and he told us: Spread the word on the unlimited future opened by making humanity spacefaring.We will begin next week, by announcing an international contest to design a 1 million person #Mars colony.#SpaceX #NASA #Space #Science"We asked what the mars society could do to help."Elon: Can you weld? How's your environmental system design? Mining engineering talent? PR? Great, you can handle PR.
The facility also added a science lab (focusing on microbiology and geology), two electric ATVs to begin replacing the current gas-driven rover fleet, and a solar array to help generate electricity. The Hab itself has also undergone considerable renovations in the past year, including getting new furniture, new shelving, a new staircase and a new paint job on much of the interior. Next, the Mars Society plans upgrades to the MDRS telescope, which is called the Musk Observatory. The observatory is named after SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk, who is a long-time advocate of human Mars exploration."Plans for the future include converting the Musk Observatory into a solar observatory and [to] build a new astronomical observatory near the station," Stoltz said. "The new [observatory] will be a robotic observatory, accessible online from anywhere on the planet. We have already made arrangements with several institutions to use the remote observatory for research and studies."An anonymous donor paid for the upgrades, said Robert Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society, in an e-mail to Space.com. The cost of the upgrades was not released.
My donations are anonymous
With Cargo Starships much less costly than was assumed a few years ago, it seems more likely that a number will be left on Mars. This implies that used but fully functional Starships on Mars may cost not much more than the local cost of filling them with propellant. One detail about the colony this predicts is a business opportunity to launch other exploratory missions rather than returning cargo Starships to earth. This might include crewed missions of exploration around Mars. There would be many opportunities for human firsts. The first people on Phobos. The first on the summit of Olympus Mons. The first on the Martian North Pole. A cargo starship outfitted with hab quarters for a few crew and exploration gear might support a lot of rentals, tickets and cargo fees to Mars. Countries and corporations could back unique expeditions for comparatively low prices. Cargo Starships might also launch one way robotic expeditions to asteroids and outer planets. Expeditions would create paying customers for a Mars propellant and other supplies and facilities.
With Cargo Starships much less costly than was assumed a few years ago, it seems more likely that a number will be left on Mars.
Quote from: Ludus on 02/26/2020 12:56 amWith Cargo Starships much less costly than was assumed a few years ago, it seems more likely that a number will be left on Mars. If you haven't yet listened to Dr. Zubrin's recent interview on The Space Show, I highly recommend it (link here).On Zubrin's recent visit to Boca Chica, he asked Musk about this. If I remember correctly, he said the first 5 cargo ships would remain on Mars, and then everything after that would return to Earth for reuse.
So, I'm interested in predicting some of the details of his colony. Each phase is looser and more speculative.
Our goal is [to] get you there and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. A rough analogy is that we are trying to build the equivalent of the transcontinental railway. A vast amount of industry will need to be built on Mars by many other companies and millions of people.
Responding back to the original post on this thread:Quote from: Alkan on 04/01/2018 02:24 amSo, I'm interested in predicting some of the details of his colony. Each phase is looser and more speculative.First, I don't think this will be Elon Musk's Mars Colony.Yes, I suspect Musk will build the initial Mars base. By "Mars base", I'm talking a ballpark range of 10-20 people, more or less.To me, the word "colony" implies something much bigger. Musk has made it clear that he doesn't want to build this larger colony.Quote from: Elon MuskOur goal is [to] get you there and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. A rough analogy is that we are trying to build the equivalent of the transcontinental railway. A vast amount of industry will need to be built on Mars by many other companies and millions of people.(link here)So I think it's somewhat impossible to predict what the Mars colony will look like, since we don't even know who will build it.But we can make educated guesses about what Musk's initial Mars base will look like.
1- needs: It will be (I say) much more than 10-20 people.
2- investment. Even if other organizations like NASA were to match SX's investments, unless funds are transfered to SX, SX is likely to be able to do 10X as much with its funds than anyone else!
3- vision. SX/EM's vision of how to build a city for 1M souls will drive the development.
Quote from: Ludus on 02/26/2020 12:56 amThis implies that used but fully functional Starships on Mars may cost not much more than the local cost of filling them.Countries and corporations could back unique expeditions for comparatively low prices. Cargo Starships might also launch one way robotic expeditions to asteroids and outer planets. Expeditions would create paying customers for a Mars propellant and other supplies and facilities.only if the martian scrapyards don't outbid you. Over 50 tons of stainless steel, space rated solar arrays, and they can sell the raptors back to SpaceX next synod.
This implies that used but fully functional Starships on Mars may cost not much more than the local cost of filling them.Countries and corporations could back unique expeditions for comparatively low prices. Cargo Starships might also launch one way robotic expeditions to asteroids and outer planets. Expeditions would create paying customers for a Mars propellant and other supplies and facilities.
Elon Musk said very much the same thing about building satellites, before Starlink was announced. Sorry, don't have a source handy (I've seen practically every EM talk/interview out there, so it's hard to keep track).
Beyond that, SpaceX has to balance its suite of martian capabilities with its need to monetize Starship's other capabilities. Given that there are a whole bunch of enabling technologies needed to monetize EO, BEO, and lunar surface missions...
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/27/2020 05:52 amBeyond that, SpaceX has to balance its suite of martian capabilities with its need to monetize Starship's other capabilities. Given that there are a whole bunch of enabling technologies needed to monetize EO, BEO, and lunar surface missions...If you haven't yet listened to Dr. Zubrin's recent interview on The Space Show, I highly recommend it (link here).During this interview, Zubrin essentially says that Starship isn't capable of landing on the lunar surface without a landing pad.In other words, some other type of lander would need to establish a lunar base first,and whoever funds those missions would have to want Starship badly enough to build a fairly large landing pad for it.However, Zubrin did say that Starship / Super Heavy would make an ideal platform to throw other payloads to the moon.
Quote from: Dave G on 02/27/2020 11:58 amQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 02/27/2020 05:52 amBeyond that, SpaceX has to balance its suite of martian capabilities with its need to monetize Starship's other capabilities. Given that there are a whole bunch of enabling technologies needed to monetize EO, BEO, and lunar surface missions...If you haven't yet listened to Dr. Zubrin's recent interview on The Space Show, I highly recommend it (link here).During this interview, Zubrin essentially says that Starship isn't capable of landing on the lunar surface without a landing pad.In other words, some other type of lander would need to establish a lunar base first,and whoever funds those missions would have to want Starship badly enough to build a fairly large landing pad for it.However, Zubrin did say that Starship / Super Heavy would make an ideal platform to throw other payloads to the moon.UIt also said that SpaceX disagreed with Zubrin's assessment.
He said he's only interested in transportation and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. (from your quote of EM.) But if no one steps up, then SX will have to do it...
Once SpaceX starts getting large amounts of payload to Mars cost effectively, other investors will quickly jump in.I think many people will be surprised how fast this happens.
Musk in am industrialist that wants to build an entire civilization on Mars. He's iterated that many times.
SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.
Our goal is get you there and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. A rough analogy is that we are trying to build the equivalent of the transcontinental railway. A vast amount of industry will need to be built on Mars by many other companies and millions of people.
Quote from: DistantTemple on 02/26/2020 10:35 pmHe said he's only interested in transportation and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. (from your quote of EM.) But if no one steps up, then SX will have to do it...Going back to Musk's analogy of the Transcontinental Railway:The railroad companies pretty much stuck with transportation and it's associated infrastructure (train stations, meals, etc.), but it's worth mentioning that some of the people who ran these railroad companies were fabulously wealthy. In some cases, their net worth was more than anyone alive today, adjusted for inflation. So it was natural for some of these rich railroad guys to invest some of their private fortune into side projects around the railway.But even with that, the vast majority of the investment that developed the Western U.S. came from elsewhere.Similarly, I believe SpaceX will concentrate on transportation and it's associated infrastructure.Musk himself may invest in some other areas of the colony, but the vast majority of the investment will come from elsewhere.Once SpaceX starts getting large amounts of payload to Mars cost effectively, other investors will quickly jump in.I think many people will be surprised how fast this happens.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/27/2020 01:36 pmMusk in am industrialist that wants to build an entire civilization on Mars. He's iterated that many times.In every example I've seen, Musk says he wants to enable an entire civilization on Mars. That's quite different than wanting to build it himself.For example, from the SpaceX website:Quote from: SpaceX websiteSpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.(link here)Also, from the reddit AMA:Quote from: Elon MuskOur goal is get you there and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. A rough analogy is that we are trying to build the equivalent of the transcontinental railway. A vast amount of industry will need to be built on Mars by many other companies and millions of people.(link here)Can you provide one example where Musk actually says he wants to to build an entire civilization on Mars?
So it will take about 20 years to transfer a million tons to Mars Base Alpha, which is hopefully enough to make it sustainable
Musk: building a city in Mars will require fully reusable vehicles to lift 5 million tons of cargo #AWS2020
Quote from: Dave G on 02/27/2020 01:24 pmQuote from: DistantTemple on 02/26/2020 10:35 pmHe said he's only interested in transportation and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. (from your quote of EM.) But if no one steps up, then SX will have to do it...Going back to Musk's analogy of the Transcontinental Railway:The railroad companies pretty much stuck with transportation and it's associated infrastructure (train stations, meals, etc.), but it's worth mentioning that some of the people who ran these railroad companies were fabulously wealthy. In some cases, their net worth was more than anyone alive today, adjusted for inflation. So it was natural for some of these rich railroad guys to invest some of their private fortune into side projects around the railway.But even with that, the vast majority of the investment that developed the Western U.S. came from elsewhere.Similarly, I believe SpaceX will concentrate on transportation and it's associated infrastructure.Musk himself may invest in some other areas of the colony, but the vast majority of the investment will come from elsewhere.Once SpaceX starts getting large amounts of payload to Mars cost effectively, other investors will quickly jump in.I think many people will be surprised how fast this happens.Well they also made a huge amount of money by selling the land the government gave them as an incentive to build the lines. They got half the land within 1 mile of the line to sell and act as surety for loans to build the railroads.I don't think there's any equivalent for Mars.
Quote from: RDoc on 02/27/2020 03:46 pmQuote from: Dave G on 02/27/2020 01:24 pmQuote from: DistantTemple on 02/26/2020 10:35 pmHe said he's only interested in transportation and ensure the basic infrastructure for propellant production and survival is in place. (from your quote of EM.) But if no one steps up, then SX will have to do it...Going back to Musk's analogy of the Transcontinental Railway:The railroad companies pretty much stuck with transportation and it's associated infrastructure (train stations, meals, etc.), but it's worth mentioning that some of the people who ran these railroad companies were fabulously wealthy. In some cases, their net worth was more than anyone alive today, adjusted for inflation. So it was natural for some of these rich railroad guys to invest some of their private fortune into side projects around the railway.But even with that, the vast majority of the investment that developed the Western U.S. came from elsewhere.Similarly, I believe SpaceX will concentrate on transportation and it's associated infrastructure.Musk himself may invest in some other areas of the colony, but the vast majority of the investment will come from elsewhere.Once SpaceX starts getting large amounts of payload to Mars cost effectively, other investors will quickly jump in.I think many people will be surprised how fast this happens.Well they also made a huge amount of money by selling the land the government gave them as an incentive to build the lines. They got half the land within 1 mile of the line to sell and act as surety for loans to build the railroads.I don't think there's any equivalent for Mars.Moreover, people had reason to move to the West. First, because of the unoccupied agricultural land. Then, for the gold. In case of Mars, people assume colonists to give up a good life here on Earth and move to Mars for the excitement of establishing a colony on another world. The real colonists of the past did NOT go to make history.
I think you are missing a large population of idealists, escapists, start-overists, etc that are sick of the current state of humanity on Earth and would love nothing more than a blank slate to get up there. Also, what makes you think that once up there, people won't begin to innovate for themselves and get away from the initial settlement? People are adventurers and explorers. We will want to get away and setup our own places, free of neofeudalism, patriarchy, _____ (insert your hated philosophy here). People will figure out how to create their own rovers, building materials, life support systems once the basics have been established up there and it'll be the wild west all over again
Quote from: cailes on 02/28/2020 06:47 pmI think you are missing a large population of idealists, escapists, start-overists, etc that are sick of the current state of humanity on Earth and would love nothing more than a blank slate to get up there. Also, what makes you think that once up there, people won't begin to innovate for themselves and get away from the initial settlement? People are adventurers and explorers. We will want to get away and setup our own places, free of neofeudalism, patriarchy, _____ (insert your hated philosophy here). People will figure out how to create their own rovers, building materials, life support systems once the basics have been established up there and it'll be the wild west all over againPretty hard to fit an ECLSS system and all of its consumables in the back of a covered wagon. And that ignores the fact that the mining of water and production of oxygen and arable soil requires a fairly massive industrial plant.
Quote from: Twark_Main on 02/27/2020 04:22 amElon Musk said very much the same thing about building satellites, before Starlink was announced. Sorry, don't have a source handy (I've seen practically every EM talk/interview out there, so it's hard to keep track).The difference is that Starlink had a slam-dunk business case associated with it, and was an obvious way to fund the R&D needed for Starship. A Mars base has almost no medium-term business case driving it.
Quote from: geza on 02/28/2020 06:34 pmMoreover, people had reason to move to the West. First, because of the unoccupied agricultural land. Then, for the gold. In case of Mars, people assume colonists to give up a good life here on Earth and move to Mars for the excitement of establishing a colony on another world. The real colonists of the past did NOT go to make history.I think you are missing a large population of idealists, escapists, start-overists, etc that are sick of the current state of humanity on Earth and would love nothing more than a blank slate to get up there. Also, what makes you think that once up there, people won't begin to innovate for themselves and get away from the initial settlement? People are adventurers and explorers. We will want to get away and setup our own places, free of neofeudalism, patriarchy, _____ (insert your hated philosophy here). People will figure out how to create their own rovers, building materials, life support systems once the basics have been established up there and it'll be the wild west all over again
Moreover, people had reason to move to the West. First, because of the unoccupied agricultural land. Then, for the gold. In case of Mars, people assume colonists to give up a good life here on Earth and move to Mars for the excitement of establishing a colony on another world. The real colonists of the past did NOT go to make history.
Quote from: Dave G on 02/27/2020 01:24 pmOnce SpaceX starts getting large amounts of payload to Mars cost effectively, other investors will quickly jump in.I think many people will be surprised how fast this happens.I'm not sure that's true, because I'm not at all clear on what the return would be for such investors. How does one make money on Mars?
Quote from: cailes on 02/28/2020 06:47 pmQuote from: geza on 02/28/2020 06:34 pmMoreover, people had reason to move to the West. First, because of the unoccupied agricultural land. Then, for the gold. In case of Mars, people assume colonists to give up a good life here on Earth and move to Mars for the excitement of establishing a colony on another world. The real colonists of the past did NOT go to make history.I think you are missing a large population of idealists, escapists, start-overists, etc that are sick of the current state of humanity on Earth and would love nothing more than a blank slate to get up there. Also, what makes you think that once up there, people won't begin to innovate for themselves and get away from the initial settlement? People are adventurers and explorers. We will want to get away and setup our own places, free of neofeudalism, patriarchy, _____ (insert your hated philosophy here). People will figure out how to create their own rovers, building materials, life support systems once the basics have been established up there and it'll be the wild west all over againI understand your point. My point is that going there by idealistic reasons is not exactly the same phenomenon as going there for gold and being rich asap. Beyond the idealist people, you also need a huge amount of idealist investment capital. In case of American West, the railway was the big investment. Everything else was done by the settlers themselves. They survived on their own. For Mars, establishing transportation infrastructure by Elon Musk from Starlink revenue is a minuscule fraction of the investment needed for establishing a colony. Martian colony will never pay back the investment from Earth.About the "(insert your hated philosophy here)". Imagine that people hating e.g. capitalism unite in their hate with people hating anti-capitalists and decide together establishing the clean sheet. This is the best recepie for ending up with an even bigger mess.
Quote from: geza on 02/29/2020 01:01 pmQuote from: cailes on 02/28/2020 06:47 pmQuote from: geza on 02/28/2020 06:34 pmMoreover, people had reason to move to the West. First, because of the unoccupied agricultural land. Then, for the gold. In case of Mars, people assume colonists to give up a good life here on Earth and move to Mars for the excitement of establishing a colony on another world. The real colonists of the past did NOT go to make history.I think you are missing a large population of idealists, escapists, start-overists, etc that are sick of the current state of humanity on Earth and would love nothing more than a blank slate to get up there. Also, what makes you think that once up there, people won't begin to innovate for themselves and get away from the initial settlement? People are adventurers and explorers. We will want to get away and setup our own places, free of neofeudalism, patriarchy, _____ (insert your hated philosophy here). People will figure out how to create their own rovers, building materials, life support systems once the basics have been established up there and it'll be the wild west all over againI understand your point. My point is that going there by idealistic reasons is not exactly the same phenomenon as going there for gold and being rich asap. Beyond the idealist people, you also need a huge amount of idealist investment capital. In case of American West, the railway was the big investment. Everything else was done by the settlers themselves. They survived on their own. For Mars, establishing transportation infrastructure by Elon Musk from Starlink revenue is a minuscule fraction of the investment needed for establishing a colony. Martian colony will never pay back the investment from Earth.About the "(insert your hated philosophy here)". Imagine that people hating e.g. capitalism unite in their hate with people hating anti-capitalists and decide together establishing the clean sheet. This is the best recepie for ending up with an even bigger mess.I fully expect there will be messes. We are humans and that’s what we do. Once we’ve come to terms with this then we can agree to disagree. If you’ve never read the books, the Mars Trilogy by Kim Robinson is a great inspection of just this issue. If you’ve read it already, I apologize. Just makes for a good baseline understanding of these sorts of philosophical differences that we will face.
Interesting talk by KSR. Almost identical to Elon Musk, but of course Elon is a billionaire which kind of unavoidably impacts his perspective (WRT capitalism, etc), and it seems clear to me it's unlikely they'd get along very well today.Reminds me of the time I got Elon to say he was a socialist.
I support Yang
Back when SS was introduced, Musk was adamant that it fly back within the same synod.The cost of this is propellant and payload. Flying back in general costs much increased ISRU demand on Mars, and so much increased power budget.Musk of course knows this, but figured it was worth it.Except now he's talking about a $5M starship. (And even if it's $15M...)New Starships are made from stainless.A colony/city on mars will need lots of large tanks for all sorts of industrial liquids and gasses. They are going to be either made in-situ, or shipped from Earth...And removing engines takes so little time...So at this point I really can't see any reason to send most ships back. You have to have the capability tondo so, but until making stainless steel on Mars is cheap and easy, it simply makes no sense to me.. They should convert most ships to tankage, and send what's easily strippable back with those ships that do go back.(Though again, what's easier - make new Raptors, or ship them back from Mars for reuse 2 years later)Basically, all the cost reductions and simplifications that came about with SS really move the working point.Maybe, in the 1000 ship view, there will be a small numbers of manned ships (more expensive) that do fly back, and a large number of cargo ships that are designed to be consumed on the surface.
When Musk spoke with Zubrin last month, he said the first 5 Starship cargo versions would remain on Mars (link here).Note: Due to radiation, Starship can't be used to house people. In fact, Starship may make the radiation worse (link here).To shield people from radiation, Gwynne implied they'll need to dig underground tunnels (link here).
So at this point I really can't see any reason to send most ships back. You have to have the capability tondo so, but until making stainless steel on Mars is cheap and easy, it simply makes no sense to me.. They should convert most ships to tankage, and send what's easily strippable back with those ships that do go back.(Though again, what's easier - make new Raptors, or ship them back from Mars for reuse 2 years later)Basically, all the cost reductions and simplifications that came about with SS really move the working point.Maybe, in the 1000 ship view, there will be a small numbers of manned ships (more expensive) that do fly back, and a large number of cargo ships that are designed to be consumed on the surface.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/15/2020 05:50 pmSo at this point I really can't see any reason to send most ships back. You have to have the capability tondo so, but until making stainless steel on Mars is cheap and easy, it simply makes no sense to me.. They should convert most ships to tankage, and send what's easily strippable back with those ships that do go back.(Though again, what's easier - make new Raptors, or ship them back from Mars for reuse 2 years later)Basically, all the cost reductions and simplifications that came about with SS really move the working point.Maybe, in the 1000 ship view, there will be a small numbers of manned ships (more expensive) that do fly back, and a large number of cargo ships that are designed to be consumed on the surface.I thought about this, the problem is the amount of cargo needed to be transported far exceeds the ship production rate.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1192551728597438465QuoteSo it will take about 20 years to transfer a million tons to Mars Base Alpha, which is hopefully enough to make it sustainableSo that's 100k tons per synod, or 1000 ships per synod just like he predicted. But if you expend the ship, then you'll need to build a new ship every 17.5 hours, that's lower than even the most optimistic Musk estimate. So I think you still need most of the cargo ships back to be reused, it can't work otherwise.
So that's 100k tons per synod, or 1000 ships per synod just like he predicted. But if you expend the ship, then you'll need to build a new ship every 17.5 hours, that's lower than even the most optimistic Musk estimate. So I think you still need most of the cargo ships back to be reused, it can't work otherwise.
Quote from: su27k on 03/16/2020 03:35 amSo that's 100k tons per synod, or 1000 ships per synod just like he predicted. But if you expend the ship, then you'll need to build a new ship every 17.5 hours, that's lower than even the most optimistic Musk estimate. So I think you still need most of the cargo ships back to be reused, it can't work otherwise.Exactly.We know some Starship cargo versions will stay on Mars. When Musk spoke with Zubrin last month, he said the first 5 Starship cargo versions would remain on Mars (link here).So it's not an all-or-nothing type thing, but if you run the numbers, it seems most Starships will need to return to Earth.
Quote from: Dave G on 03/16/2020 10:17 amQuote from: su27k on 03/16/2020 03:35 amSo that's 100k tons per synod, or 1000 ships per synod just like he predicted. But if you expend the ship, then you'll need to build a new ship every 17.5 hours, that's lower than even the most optimistic Musk estimate. So I think you still need most of the cargo ships back to be reused, it can't work otherwise.Exactly.We know some Starship cargo versions will stay on Mars. When Musk spoke with Zubrin last month, he said the first 5 Starship cargo versions would remain on Mars (link here).So it's not an all-or-nothing type thing, but if you run the numbers, it seems most Starships will need to return to Earth.Still not really convinced of this ... They may not all stay on mars for salvage, but there will be a hell of a lot more than five that meet that fate. If the plan is to build a city, there's too much useful (on Mars) stuff in a Starship to send them all back to Earth. It would also massively reduce the amount of ISRU prop production needed on Mars if effectively the entire landed mass of a cargo ship was considered payload, and (mostly) only people haulers needed to be fueled and sent back. If thy can hit the build price point Musk is talking about (a very big if!), or even five times that, it seems like it may be faster/more efficient to use them (or their bits and pieces) on Mars.If the problem is we can't build Starships fast enough, the solution is obvious ... build more shipyards. Remember that the shiny steel artifacts being built in BC are, as cool and important as they are, kind of a distraction to outsiders as to whats really going on there. The principal prototype(s) isn't SNx, its the shipyard itself. I cant help by notice that most of the site is built of industrial Lego. Most of the tents, Sprung structures, high bays, etc. weve seen so far could be taken down and reconfigured/moved/redeployed quite easily. Once SX settles on a final configuration for SS/SH Shipyard SN1, it will be a lot faster/cheaper to create more build sites.Just my Ill informed opinion (obviously). The actual outcome will probably be somewhere in between.
The fuel plant, solar panels, digging machines, and so on, needed to refuel one star ship over one synod, can be thought of as one unit mass.
There’s an interesting side note on railroad development. The AT&SF and others were were granted 10 mile square blocks alternating from one side of the right of way to the other. The railroads then sold this land off to farmers and ranchers where possible and created an instant market.Elon will need to create the market for his transportation system. People can’t just go to mars and build a little house on the prairie. It needs a kickstart unlike anything that earth has ever seen.Phil
Quote from: OTV Booster on 03/31/2020 02:31 amThere’s an interesting side note on railroad development. The AT&SF and others were were granted 10 mile square blocks alternating from one side of the right of way to the other. The railroads then sold this land off to farmers and ranchers where possible and created an instant market.Elon will need to create the market for his transportation system. People can’t just go to mars and build a little house on the prairie. It needs a kickstart unlike anything that earth has ever seen.PhilThis is a key point. SpaceX have developed already a partially reusable space launch system, which is much cheaper than the competing possibilities. However, there is no sufficient demand for it, which would justify the investment. Therfore, they established StarLink, which want to lauch a huge number of satellites. The hope is, that StarLink itself will have an unsaturatable market: connectitity. Starlink will justify economically the development of a new, fully resusable lauch system, Starship. That is, connectivity will have the ultimate market, which is NOT created, but existing. LEO turism, or p2p can be another markets. When Starship technology and Starlink revenue are in existence, then Mars transportation, including a moderately-sized base on Mars, serving as a refueling station, will not be so difficult.The question remains, what will be the business model for establishing a significant city on Mars when transportation is up and running? What is the ultimate market, the ultimate justification? In case the American West, it was agricultural production on the new land. As far as we know, Occupy Mars has no such economic justification.Occupy Mars is a societal movement, not an economic one. I can assume an economic bootstrapping effect, however. IF it is generally assumed that Mars is The Next Big Thing, then nations and big companies will want to be part of it for prestige. Tesla Mars will never pay back the investment to Tesla Earth in money, but Tesla Earth will call itself as a Martian company, which will be perceived, as cool. Is this enough?
I think that's a common misconception.An economy has worth just by existing, so of it is growing, then you don't need to export in order to justify investment.Think about a European person investing in a small Rickshaw business in China in 1970. Today that business has a fleet of 1000 cars, servicing only the Chinese market.The investment paid off, even though no export left China.The trick here is that the investor remains outside China. In a way, the value (as defined by the desire of other European investor to buy his shares) was the export.This model will easily work with a Mars colony.
Quote from: meekGee on 04/02/2020 05:29 pmI think that's a common misconception.An economy has worth just by existing, so of it is growing, then you don't need to export in order to justify investment.Think about a European person investing in a small Rickshaw business in China in 1970. Today that business has a fleet of 1000 cars, servicing only the Chinese market.The investment paid off, even though no export left China.The trick here is that the investor remains outside China. In a way, the value (as defined by the desire of other European investor to buy his shares) was the export.This model will easily work with a Mars colony.That only works because China itself already has an existing, viable economy. But that's what we're trying to prove, so it can't be one of our initial assumptions (otherwise we're begging the question).
Presumably one source of revenue for a Mars settlement, at least early on, will be research. Consider all the billions that are spent on sending orbiters, landers, and rovers to Mars, and then consider how vastly greater the amount of science research could be done with people on the ground. (For example, Curiosity has travelled about 9km in total in 8 years, a distance a person could walk in couple of hours.) Having primarily a science focus would make the settlement much like Antarctica, at least at the beginning, but without be hampered by the development restrictions that outposts there face. Once there is a significant research presence, I would imagine that other secondary needs of the settlement would prompt new revenue opportunities.
Quote from: Twark_Main on 04/03/2020 04:05 pmQuote from: meekGee on 04/02/2020 05:29 pmI think that's a common misconception.An economy has worth just by existing, so of it is growing, then you don't need to export in order to justify investment.Think about a European person investing in a small Rickshaw business in China in 1970. Today that business has a fleet of 1000 cars, servicing only the Chinese market.The investment paid off, even though no export left China.The trick here is that the investor remains outside China. In a way, the value (as defined by the desire of other European investor to buy his shares) was the export.This model will easily work with a Mars colony.That only works because China itself already has an existing, viable economy. But that's what we're trying to prove, so it can't be one of our initial assumptions (otherwise we're begging the question).More exactly, it works, if an exchange rate has already been established between Chinies and European moneies. Then the European investor has the option to repatriate his profit, or sell the company and reptriate the so earned money. As these options are expected to remain open for the future, the investor may choose not to sell the company and not to repatriate the profit. In turn, existence of a reliable exchange rate is a consequence of an established commerce between China and Europe.
Quote from: geza on 04/05/2020 06:38 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 04/03/2020 04:05 pmQuote from: meekGee on 04/02/2020 05:29 pmI think that's a common misconception.An economy has worth just by existing, so of it is growing, then you don't need to export in order to justify investment.Think about a European person investing in a small Rickshaw business in China in 1970. Today that business has a fleet of 1000 cars, servicing only the Chinese market.The investment paid off, even though no export left China.The trick here is that the investor remains outside China. In a way, the value (as defined by the desire of other European investor to buy his shares) was the export.This model will easily work with a Mars colony.That only works because China itself already has an existing, viable economy. But that's what we're trying to prove, so it can't be one of our initial assumptions (otherwise we're begging the question).More exactly, it works, if an exchange rate has already been established between Chinies and European moneies. Then the European investor has the option to repatriate his profit, or sell the company and reptriate the so earned money. As these options are expected to remain open for the future, the investor may choose not to sell the company and not to repatriate the profit. In turn, existence of a reliable exchange rate is a consequence of an established commerce between China and Europe.No need for an exchange rate or even for a Chinese currency to exist.The model works for Englishmen investing in an Indian colony too, all using British pounds.The only requirement is that the perceived value of the investment, to other British gentlemen, will increase with time.Hence the idea that an economy has a value in and of itself, without having to export. It happens because ownership transcends the boundaries. Mars can make money to Earth investors simply by increasing in "Earth worth", which will occur with the growth of the population and the slow slog towards self sufficiency.
That is, Elon Musk and a pension fund are essentially different entities in this respect. Without existence of (or an informed hope for) a bidirectional commerce between Earth and Mars, investing into Mars has no universal value for an Earthly Homo economicus, who value nothing else than future profit in home money. Of course, Homo economicus is just an abstraction. The real Homo sapiens can behave differently. As Bill Gates can spend most of his wealth on charity, Elon Must can invest in Mars.
Kind of a random place to make a first post I know, <snip/>
Ultimately, when it comes to settling in difficult and undesirable locales, what separates success from failure is not striking gold or finding any external value within the area, it's ideology. If those in the community have deeply held beliefs that this is where they're meant to be, the settlement will outlast all its difficulties and shortcomings. Even if the colonists are ill prepared for what the location will throw at them.
Quote from: zbeeblebrox on 04/08/2020 12:50 amKind of a random place to make a first post I know, <snip/>Welcome to the forums, great first post!
I also think there will be millions of Mars fans on Earth who aren't willing to make the trip, but who may be willing to invest part of their wealth to allow others to do so, even with little hope for any ROI.
Although it's not clear what the cost will be for people who plan on being long-term colonists. For visitors, I know Musk estimated ~$200k on the optimistic side, and that makes sense for that use case. But it would be a very strange place if that first outpost of colonists was made up entirely of people who consider 200k pocket change.
......In other words, there's a group of people that have a significant amount of wealth. Let's call them Group A.And there's another group of people who are passionate about Mars. Let's call them Group B.The overlap between Groups A and B may not be a high percentage, but it's still a lot of money.As Starship becomes more real, I think we'll see that money start to flow.
If there was a reality show on called "Life on Mars" (as in "everyday life"...) I would be glued to the tube. It would be like "Alone" with a side order of "Mythbusters" and James May. On steroids. Count me in! (as a viewer).
Quote from: Oersted on 04/09/2020 10:56 amIf there was a reality show on called "Life on Mars" (as in "everyday life"...) I would be glued to the tube. It would be like "Alone" with a side order of "Mythbusters" and James May. On steroids. Count me in! (as a viewer).It wouldn't even have to be a reality show, I would keep the video feed running constantly if they simply had a Go Pro feed on an EVA as they are walking around Mars, I'm already watching it all of the time as they construct the Starship in Boca Chica, I would definitely be checking it out if they were on Mars or the Moon.
What sort of transmitter would be necessary to stream live HD (ignoring the lag from distance) all the way from Mars?
Quote from: Oersted on 04/09/2020 10:56 amIf there was a reality show on called "Life on Mars" (as in "everyday life"...) I would be glued to the tube. It would be like "Alone" with a side order of "Mythbusters" and James May. On steroids. Count me in! (as a viewer).I'm extremely dubious that watching the quotidian activities of Mars settlers would be all that gripping. Does anyone watch the astronauts on the ISS with any regularity? Or scientists at Antarctica? Most of what people do is boring, no matter what environment they're in.
I’m dying to do super efficient, quiet home HVAC with HEPA & water distillation. It’s weird, but I really want to do it.