What is needed for colony on Mars, Ceres, or a moon with volatiles and minerals?

[Robotbeat]

Pop cans are light and strong enough, too (will withstand 105psi before yielding). They are also ridiculously cheap, not much above the costs of their raw material. They are an excellent example of very high economies of scale and quality control applied to cheaply make something with a strength-to-weight ratio about the same as a launch vehicle. If we could make our rockets like that, we wouldn't have to make a reuseable launch vehicle (except for the engines).

[Robotbeat]

This is getting off-topic, though.
The whole reason of making a small colony self-sustaining is BECAUSE launch costs are so great (and the long wait times don't hurt). And, it's possible. The colonists would also desire to have self-sufficiency.

So, why don't we colonize the Sahara or Antarctica if we could colonize Mars? Well, some people do live in the Sahara desert with no external source of funding, and people in Antarctica are not able to mine there and have no reason to expand their presence, so that'd be pretty pointless. Besides, I think more people would be excited about the adventure of a new world than just living in the Sahara. America started as self-sufficient colonies because you can't wait for months (remember, no radio, so you have to include round-trip times) for your saddle or wagon axle to get fixed or replaced.

[Robotbeat]

People do live in the Arctic regions.

Heck, during the deep winter in Minnesota, any exposed skin can get frostbite within 30 seconds (within an order of magnitude of how long it takes in space), so you have to bundle up almost like a space suit (with thick insulation all over your body and face and hands and a ski mask protecting your eyes). And, you can make structures in the middle of winter dressed like that. In fact, it's literally child's play!

On the campus of my university in Minnesota, there are tunnels between the buildings so you don't have to go outside. Downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul both have extensive tunnel and skyway systems ("Minneapolis has the largest skyway system in the world [11km long] , linking nearly 80 blocks of downtown attractions, businesses and hotels."), so you wouldn't have to go outside for months, if you didn't want to. You could live comfortably in your downtown hotel, go to work, go to restaurants, go to the library, the courthouse, the county jail (if you're in St. Paul), and even see professional basketball games, without ever going outside. People in Minnesota in the winter time may never expose their skin to the outside air, staying inside their car while they open their garage door and drive to work, where they park in a heated parking garage downtown.

And the Mall of America in Minnesota has a large, indoor amusement park with lots of real trees and other greenery. It really actually feels like you could be in a space colony on some distant planet. There's a passenger rail electric transit system in Minneapolis that connects straight up to the Mall and the downtown skyway system, and also to the indoor Minneapolis/St.Paul International Airport, so you can fly in from some other country and stay inside as a tourist going all over without ever having to brave the bitterly cold Minnesota winter.

Many places in Canada have similar large indoor Malls or skyway/tunnel systems.

[Jim Davis]

Heck, during the deep winter in Minnesota, any exposed skin will get frostbite in a couple minutes, so you have to bundle up almost like a space suit (with thick insulation all over your body and face and hands and a ski mask protecting your eyes).

How many people would be living in Minnesota if the above was the case 24/7, year round?

[Robotbeat]

How many people would be living in Minnesota if the above was the case 24/7, year round?

I imagine that quite a few would, if the infrastructure was already in place. Otherwise, everyone would leave for half the year, right now. Remember, many Minnesotans really enjoy the winter and bother bundling up to go outside and play.

[mr_magoo]

iIt may have already been discussed but one problem with colonies anywhere might the gravity issue.   We don't know if the human body will take kindly to sustained 1/3rd g and that's as good as it gets in the solar system for reasonable colonies.  1/6th g to 1/8th g or less is more common on the larger moons.   If the human body can't adapt well to that, colonization is dead short of a future tech solution.

If the problem has no solution then colonization might be stuck with artificial 1g on rotating colonies over other moons and worlds.  Short visits to the surface might be only for resources, science or tourism.   

Assuming you mean real lifetime colonization and not just a science outpost for short duration stays.

[Robotbeat]

Mammals have adapted to fractional gravity before, and they can do it again! (see: dolphins and whales)

Obviously, the ancestors of dolphins and whales didn't immediately croak off because of bone loss issues (otherwise, they wouldn't have had time to evolve into dolphins and whales). So, we humans, the most adaptable mammals ever, will probably also be able to find a way to adapt to 1/3 gravity.

[hop]

Mammals have adapted to fractional gravity before, and they can do it again! (see: dolphins and whales)

Swimming is not actually fractional gravity.

Obviously, the ancestors of dolphins and whales didn't immediately croak off because of bone loss issues (otherwise, they wouldn't have had time to evolve into dolphins and whales).

They made a gradual transition, over millions of years. Irrelevant to the discussion of near term colonies.

[Robotbeat]

Swimming is not actually fractional gravity.

How is it different?

The same idea is used to think of ways humans could survive dozens of gees.

Also, human babies develop in a liquid environment, as well. So, it's potentially possible for human beings. There may be medical ways of getting around the low-gravity if it's a problem in the long-term. Otherwise, you can just sleep in a centrifuge. And exercise daily. And, if needed, why can't you just wear weights as you walk around? People do it already on Earth for exercise.

First, you say that long-term colonization may be impossible because of the low gravity, then you say that you're talking about the short-term.

[hop]

Swimming is not actually fractional gravity.

How is it different? I demand that you back up that claim.

You are still subject to 1 g whether you are floating in water or not. One obvious example is your inner ear: Can you tell the difference between floating in water, and jumping off the high dive ? I can, even with my eyes closed!

The bone loss characteristics are probably very similar (so is bed rest), but that doesn't mean all the effects are. Maybe so, maybe not.

edit to add: Have you ever experienced the symptoms of SAS after spending an hour in the pool ?

The same idea is used to think of ways humans could survive dozens of gees.

Huh ? This speculative AFAIK, does not appear to be relevant anyway.

First, you say that long-term colonization may be impossible because of the low gravity, then you say that you're talking about the short-term.

On the time scale it took whale ancestors to become fully aquatic, all of human history is "near term".

Given how much our civilization has changed in the last hundred years, it seems pointless to speculate about what our descendants will be doing in centures, never mind a millions of years.

[KelvinZero]

This is getting off-topic, though.
The whole reason of making a small colony self-sustaining is BECAUSE launch costs are so great (and the long wait times don't hurt). And, it's possible. The colonists would also desire to have self-sufficiency.

So, why don't we colonize the Sahara or Antarctica if we could colonize Mars? Well, some people do live in the Sahara desert with no external source of funding, and people in Antarctica are not able to mine there and have no reason to expand their presence, so that'd be pretty pointless. Besides, I think more people would be excited about the adventure of a new world than just living in the Sahara. America started as self-sufficient colonies because you can't wait for months (remember, no radio, so you have to include round-trip times) for your saddle or wagon axle to get fixed or replaced.

Hi, Im guessing this is a reply to my post since I mentioned the Sahara and Antarctica.

However I was not trying to say "we havent colonized the antarctic, so there is no point in colonizing mars". Not at all!

My point was if you want to colonize mars then you should get your marsbase proven right here on earth. It is absurdly easier, and has no reason to be tied to the highly volatile HSF schedules.

This is not only the most sensible approach if you are interested in colonization, it also should have a much wider public interest because it goes directly towards removing our dependence on oil and the middle east, to finding environmentally sustainable ways to live, to countering global warming and polution, to practical solar power, to garbage recycling, to solving the problems of african nations, to maintaining biodiversity, to survival from pandemics, to just finding new and interesting ways to live.

[Robotbeat]

Hi, Im guessing this is a reply to my post since I mentioned the Sahara and Antarctica.

However I was not trying to say "we havent colonized the antarctic, so there is no point in colonizing mars". Not at all!

My point was if you want to colonize mars then you should get your marsbase proven right here on earth. It is absurdly easier, and has no reason to be tied to the highly volatile HSF schedules.

This is not only the most sensible approach if you are interested in colonization, it also should have a much wider public interest because it goes directly towards removing our dependence on oil and the middle east, to finding environmentally sustainable ways to live, to countering global warming and polution, to practical solar power, to garbage recycling, to solving the problems of african nations, to maintaining biodiversity, to survival from pandemics, to just finding new and interesting ways to live.

Well, then I strongly agree.

In fact, my idea was that you could actually make all the equipment you plan to send to Mars on Earth with the same equipment. That way, you could be ensured that it's possible to service everything when you get there. If you wanted to be extra sure, you could try even using simulated Martian soil and atmosphere as the feedstock. Also, as a side benefit, it'd be far cheaper (even if it'd be much heavier and therefore much more expensive to launch).

This would be the perfect answer to people who say we should worry about solving poverty here on Earth, first. A lot of people nowadays in third world countries survive by doing ridiculously menial tasks, like breaking rocks (with a hammer, if you're lucky, and with another rock if you're not) into gravel. Clearly, this is not the most efficient or the most meaningful use of human capital. Well, you could just give a set of this equipment away to third-world countries. Even better would be to have the countries send over people to be trained on the equipment and then have those people actually produce a copy of all the equipment for themselves, or even have them do it while apprenticing the next group. So, you could be well on your way to solving poverty BECAUSE you solved self-sufficient Martian colonization.

[GI-Thruster]

This is getting off-topic, though.
The whole reason of making a small colony self-sustaining is BECAUSE launch costs are so great (and the long wait times don't hurt). And, it's possible. The colonists would also desire to have self-sufficiency.

So, why don't we colonize the Sahara or Antarctica if we could colonize Mars? Well, some people do live in the Sahara desert with no external source of funding, and people in Antarctica are not able to mine there and have no reason to expand their presence, so that'd be pretty pointless. Besides, I think more people would be excited about the adventure of a new world than just living in the Sahara. America started as self-sufficient colonies because you can't wait for months (remember, no radio, so you have to include round-trip times) for your saddle or wagon axle to get fixed or replaced.

Hi, Im guessing this is a reply to my post since I mentioned the Sahara and Antarctica.

However I was not trying to say "we havent colonized the antarctic, so there is no point in colonizing mars". Not at all!

My point was if you want to colonize mars then you should get your marsbase proven right here on earth. It is absurdly easier, and has no reason to be tied to the highly volatile HSF schedules.

This is not only the most sensible approach if you are interested in colonization, it also should have a much wider public interest because it goes directly towards removing our dependence on oil and the middle east, to finding environmentally sustainable ways to live, to countering global warming and polution, to practical solar power, to garbage recycling, to solving the problems of african nations, to maintaining biodiversity, to survival from pandemics, to just finding new and interesting ways to live.

Been there, done that:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/biospheresci/

[JohnFornaro]

I can't remember.  Was it  Chartres or Rouen which was built partway; the stone columns and arches may have already been a hundred feet tall, when it collapsed, and the church cleaned up the rubble and started constructin again.  With bigger columns.  The construction deadline was set back by maybe fifty years, but the church took the long term view, and cost was no object.  We can't do that with the next spacecraft however.

But I think Robotbeat is correct in general regarding one-time designs which approach some theoretical engineering maxima, or minima, however one defines it.  I've suggested building a half dozen more shuttle craft, perhaps using a new engine, or a redesigned external fuel tank which doesn't shed foam, or any number of incremental improvements.  Refer to the suggestion box at the VAB for more details.  But no, this idea has been soundly rejected a priori.  Costs would be excessive.  The workforce could never be retrained.  Where would we ever build it?  The drawings were thrown away.  The new rocket is bigger, better, cheaper, longer, shorter, safer, heavier, lighter, more powerful, more expensive....  The new rocket is the only one which can be built, and who, on the outside, can say otherwise?  Any argument other than "NO" has already been rejected.

As to the expense of shuttle ops, at $450M a pop, the cost of Ares I ops is touted as being far less in comparison.  Yet try and find a definitive anwser on Ares I costs.  It can't be done, which makes me suspicious about the truth of the assertion about these costs.

This is my sense, at any rate, that we're building one-off designs, and that's a large part of the high launch costs.  The Delta rocket series seems to be predictable, both in cost and reliability.  How old is that design?  How many have been made?

Moving on a bit.  My copy of The Moon: Resources, Future Development and Settlement, by Shrunk, Sharpe, Cooper, & Thangavelu arrived yesterday, and I blasted thru the first nine chapters.  What warmed the cockles of my heart was some confirmation of, or perhaps more accurately, agreement with, my previous speculations about lunar colonization, maybe in the "What do ya do on a colony?" thread. 

Introduction, page xiv.  They assume the second set of lunar footprints by 2020.  Eighty years later, they speculate that the colony will have a population of 100K.  I suggested forty years, 1969-2009.  And Chapter 9, p 157: Governance of the Moon, where they discuss the rule of law, personal property rights, and the general desirability of political independence of the colony as a planned, orderly objective.

However, and without the use of smilies (sorry Variable), I devolve into sarcasm.  I have talked about the itty bitty refutation, and it applies to this book as well.  Page 113, where  they discuss their proposed rail line to the south pole.  They claim that their "construction system" can lay a kilometer of track a day, and offer the back-up math: "10 pairs of 10m tracks".  What? That's only 100m!  Every other idea in the book can be safely discarded because of this typo.

Changing tracks again,  I also believe that we should practice here on Earth as well.  Biosphere III.  We've been there before, but we didn't actually do that.  The experiment did not prove that a self contained environment was conceptually impossible.  It proved that there was quite a bit to learn about the self sustenance of any colony.

An INSRU plant, sized to fit in the shuttle, operating in Death Valley, that can make solar panels, unattended.  We can't do that yet.

[grdja]

An INSRU plant, sized to fit in the shuttle, operating in Death Valley, that can make solar panels, unattended.  We can't do that yet.

Well "to fit in the shuttle" part is what makes it impossible. If you remove that part you could maybe make it. It might not even take more than one or two billion $ to get from R&D to a robotic factory churning out solar panels.
If you wanted it to be a self replicating factory, than yeah, good luck with 20 to 30 years and tens of billions invested.

Nothing relevant can ever be made to fit in the shuttle. Way to small mass and volume.



And for gods sake. You don't need biosphere 3, you dont need perfect closed self contained ecosystem. Once you are on Mars on a suitable asteroid you have available energy and materials to compensate for losses and inefficiencies , and later to allow growth.

[khallow]

And for gods sake. You don't need biosphere 3, you dont need perfect closed self contained ecosystem. Once you are on Mars on a suitable asteroid you have available energy and materials to compensate for losses and inefficiencies , and later to allow growth.

Indeed. And it's worth noting that water is the greatest consumable by weight. Recycling that alone would save considerable mass.

[Abram730]

Colonization requires thinking in terms of energy and material abundance as there will be losses and no truly closed loops systems.  Closed loops simply provide lower input level requirements and allow inputs to become growth.

Recycling and manufacture..
Use plasma to rip apart chemical bonds and then separate atoms for manufacture..

This process could be improved for total separation, although it's a good start.

Plasco


InEnTec


A colony could feed in rock and break it down for usable elements.    The elements could them be reassembled into different materials.  The Plasma Engines used to move the facility LEO to a colony can be the engine that runs it.

there are many microbial processes that are more efficent that could also be used.
Scopulariopsis brevicaulis for example converts arsenic into trimethylarsine.

water would be used or produced for algae farming to start.  That would be a module sent from earth.. consider that entire ecosystems can be powered by energy and microbes like around sulfur vents at the bottom of the oceans and in the absence of light... So a colony can be built around such a system to start..

After removing and processing a large rectangle of land say 20 meters deep a radiator for a nuclear power plant would be built.  This radiator would provide heat and microbes would produce plant nutrients from organic waste creating a viable soil with waste heat.. A greenhouse would be constructed around the radiator with a shielded roof and from local materials.. solar would be redirected into the greenhouse to grow more durable non algae foods.  Inevitable gas leakage would start teraforming all be it slowly but more importantly require gas production.  There isn't enough gravity on the moon for human breathable air but perhaps enough for low metabolism microbes to use a thin atmosphere.  decompression survivability could also rise with more atmosphere of a few pascal.

Microbes can survived the extremes and can grow processes like water filtration, air, and provide food electricity and building material.
http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/Riding-final.pdf
terraforming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129125446.htm
greensulate(growing insulation)

The possible applications are great and have a lower energy requirement then synthetic alternatives.

colonization isn't hard, just hard work and much thought.
Economies of scale of economies of scale.  People are never satisfied, simply adopt abundance and close the loops in our system and we will soon all be looking to the stars.  It just requires thinking big.

[JohnFornaro]

If the INSRU plant can't fit into the shuttle bay, even broken down, then it should fit into the Ares I or Ares V fairing.  I do not know how many pieces would be necessary, but the biggest smallest piece must be able to fit in a real or paper launching system.  My personal preference would be a real system, even Deltas IV Heavy, if the shuttle is perceived as inadequate by comparison.

It's not my decision on whether it should be able to go to Mars or Moon, but certainly one of these objectives will be less expensive to arrive at and to subsequently operate at, than the other.

The crucial point that I intended to make, which may need emphasizing, is that a working INSRU prototype in a terrestrial desert, making PV panels without any energy input save the sun, would teach a lot about how this could be done in a non-terrestrial environment.

Same with Biosphere 3.  Demonstrate a working prototype here on Earth, with an eye towards learning from the previous mistakes.  OTOH, ISS has many of these systems in place already.  Perhaps the ISS could have a Bigelow type structure attached to it where crop growth can be demonstrated.  A working protoype in LEO would go even further towards demonstrating the limiting factors for a semi-closed ecosystem than an Earth based one.

And thinking about water.  In my opinion, one of the first cargoes should be as large a tank of tap water as can be landed safely on the Moon.

[KelvinZero]

Im interested in artificial biospheres, but certainly that is only one dimension of the problem. With just a biosphere you cant do much but wait for some accident to finish you.

More interesting is to discuss the smallest subset of tools and materials we would need to build every element of the colony inside the colony itself.

What are the simplest technological requirements?
I know this is pretty simplistic, but what if we started with the assumption that all you need is a biosphere, a dome, an airlock, a spacesuit, a wheelbarrow and a shovel. Occasionally a spacesuited figure must leave the dome through the airlock with the wheelbarrow and shovel and gather some icy regolith.

In this highly simple case the dome and suit are just  airtight bags correctly sewn. The air tank is like the dome, just a stronger bag. The wheelbarrow possibly does not need a wheel. Entry and exit may involve cutting and regluing rather than hinges.

So what is the absolute minimum you need for plastic sheets, plastic threads, shovel bits, knife blades and glue? Your resources are a biosphere (oxygen and anything that can be grown) plus occasional input of mars regolith.

Again, I know this is simplistic and perhaps the immediate outcome will simply be that we absolutely need a few more things, but it is just a thought experiment, not a practical proposal.

[GI-Thruster]

I like the idea of this thought experiment and I'm not disparaging it in any way, but it is worthwhile to note that progress in technology is essentially a wildcard here.  The process of doing technology, of making tools to do things you cannot do without them, or to do the things you can easier, quicker, safer, more efficiently, better: is a fact of life to be reconned with in this consideration above.  It's certainly worthwhile to catalog all that's needed for a colony if you have the hankerin' (and this is a BIG project) but keep an eye on the horizon.  In the middle of such an activity you might well identify niches where the simplest of developments might save you time and energy.  Some will be fanciful.  "Lets build auto-replicating nanobots to build our cities."  Some will be more mundane.  ISRU!  Some will be from left field and it's worth looking out for them as you proceed.