Possible locations for Elonsville, Mars

[jsgirald]

Since Mars is the stated target of Spacex, I think this is the right place for this thread.

Probably any self respecting space nerd has, at  some point, selected a place for the first Mars colony so I'll give it a try and explain mine:

Noctis Labyrinthus, a maze of deep valleys and canyons close to Valles Marineris. Just going by the amazing name seems worthwhile, but it's also deep (more atmosphere) with narrow canyons that could be roofed/enclosed one day. This would allow for larger habitats with less construction. It might provide also usable caves (either natural or artificial). And being close to the equator will be useful too for orbital operations.

Please feel free to provide your own preferred places, or criticism.

(I couldn't find any thread dealing with this, which is odd. If it exists please forgive me and kindly point me to the right place.)

[Beittil]

Somehow I don't think using deep canyons on Mars for 'more atmosphere' is going to make much a of a difference, it still wouldn't be survivable without a pressurized suit

I do like the line of thinking where (natural) caves could/should be used of expansion of habitats. Being naturally underground like this not only benefits because of the need of less construction materials, it also provides much better shielding against radiation.

[jsgirald]

Somehow I don't think using deep canyons on Mars for 'more atmosphere' is going to make much a of a difference, it still wouldn't be survivable without a pressurized suit

Actually I was thinking in terms of radiation than pressure, thanks for pointing!

[docmordrid]

I was thinking the deeper atmosphere would aid EDL.

[spectre9]

Since this is in the SpaceX forum I must ask.

What needs would a SpaceX base have that another Mars base wouldn't have?

I say this because there are already plenty of Mars base threads in the Mars forum. If this topic is to be in the right forum it needs to be related to SpaceX.

[JasonAW3]

Once we lick the issue of higher altitude landings, at the Base of Olympus Mons.

Lava tubes for the colony, possible geothermal power/heating for colony, protected against both Metor impacts and radiation, possible access to deep ground water sources.

And when the terraform Mars, it won't be underwater like most canyon designed colonies would be.

[Beittil]

What needs would a SpaceX base have that another Mars base wouldn't have?

If you compare the case versus something like a Mars One base for example. MO has no plans for return trips, so they could in theory go for polar regions where the ice is. SpaceX does want return trips, so they would aim for equatorial regions which is better for launching the return vessels.

But other than that, I don't really see SpaceX requiring a much different scenario.

[Hotblack Desiato]

hello

first time posting (after reading a lot here...):

noctis labyrinthus is a fine area with lots of interesting features, i'm just a bit afraid that the terrain makes landing somewhat challenging, and from what I've read in the mct-thread, the martian atmosphere wouldn't provide any substancial aid at landing.

one of the maybe biggest both advantages and disadvantages of NL would be the deep valleys, which provide extra radiation-shelter (GCR), just because there are shielding mountains. solar arrays however need to be mounted on the tops of the mountains, in order to receive enough sunlight.

and NL might have lots of different precious metals, which are mandatory for a colony after the initial settling-phase.

I'd suggest a different site: Arsia Mons.

a 20km high mountain, very close to the equator. if MCTs powered landing requires less atmosphere for landing, that might help. Arsia Mons shows some evidence of having glaciers (up to 200m thick), which is essential for the ISRU-systems, and there might be lava tubes, which could be an early radiation shelter (no need to cover the buildings with regolith, when there is a nice natural roof).

one of the disadvantages of AM is that there is nothing interesting nearby (it's a long journey to the next volcano, and a even longer journey to other martian features, whereas NL offers vallis marineris close by).

another disadvantage might be the weather. wikipedia describes a weather phenomenon which occurs every year. winds form and transport a lot of dust which forms sediments on AM, and that stuff would cover solar panels (happens once a martian year, and that means, that the panels need periodical cleaning).

ETA: olympus mons would have similar advantages, and having the biggest volcano everywhere would be nice. but it's a bit off-center from the equator, which leads to higher fuel-requirements during launch. and OM isn't much higher than AM.

[MarsInMyLifetime]

Other factors for location include:


1. Science that may be done close to the selected habitation area
2. Amenability to ISRU resource generation for oxygen, fuel, etc.
3. Suitability for more extensive agriculture (available ice for water, soil that can be amended, site for a greenhouse)
4. Landscape able to support current and future surface operations (landing sites, solar arrays, roads, plans for eventual trade routes--always a hub for human economies)
5. Interesting views for colonists/tourists. Unless I could get out and about for diversion, living in a lava tube is unappealing. And considering the number of pit collapses we see on known tube networks, I'm not sure I trust the integrity of those "found habitats". My "Bora Bora" view on Mars would be from the rim near a bend of the river channel that drains into Gale Crater. Radiation abatement is just a Simple Matter of Engineering if the cost is worth the view to someone rich enough to move there.

[jsgirald]

The thing about SpaceX Mars goals, as someone pointed in another thread, is that they seem to jump from "manned capsules in LEO" to "a colonial fleet of spaceships carrying hundreds" without any clue of intermediate milestones.

Surely they have a plan, but has anyone heard from SpaceX anything stating at least a roadmap to that ultimate goal? Why so secretive? It's clear that they cannot have detailed blueprints but I can't see any reason for not being more specific regarding the challenges ahead.

[solartear]

Additional atmosphere and shading would make heat radiation easier for propellant generation/storage and later human habitation.  This will be less of an issue when significant mining services are developed.

[solartear]

Surely they have a plan, but has anyone heard from SpaceX anything stating at least a roadmap to that ultimate goal? Why so secretive? It's clear that they cannot have detailed blueprints but I can't see any reason for not being more specific regarding the challenges ahead.

They expect the plans to keep changing as they find better ways and learn particular ways are not practical. Like when they switched from hydrogen to methane fuel, and Merlin 2 to Raptor. Their competitors and (some) media would use this against SpaceX, reducing their perceived credibility.

[su27k]

The thing about SpaceX Mars goals, as someone pointed in another thread, is that they seem to jump from "manned capsules in LEO" to "a colonial fleet of spaceships carrying hundreds" without any clue of intermediate milestones.

Surely they have a plan, but has anyone heard from SpaceX anything stating at least a roadmap to that ultimate goal? Why so secretive? It's clear that they cannot have detailed blueprints but I can't see any reason for not being more specific regarding the challenges ahead.

They already shared a lot more than manned capsule in LEO:
1. Get a significant share of commercial/NASA/DoD launch market
2. Perfect 1st stage reusability with F9/FH
3. Full reusability and heavy lift with Rapter powered BFR

That's about 5 to 10 years of work, predicting further than that is not going to be credible.

[guckyfan]

The thing about SpaceX Mars goals, as someone pointed in another thread, is that they seem to jump from "manned capsules in LEO" to "a colonial fleet of spaceships carrying hundreds" without any clue of intermediate milestones.

There will be no intermediate devlopments. They cannot afford that luxury.

It's Dragon then MCT.

It's Falcon9/Falcon Heavy then BFR.


Edit: For sure there was not even the slightest hint of something inbetween. Unless you count the initial flights of few MCT as inbetween. Or MCT flights to the moon. Or a loop around the moon with Dragon.

[BobCarver]

We don't yet know enough about Mars to pick a site for a permanent colony. We need exploration missions to determine the parameters for choosing a site. Given that requirement, Olympus Mons seems to be a good choice for an initial exploration base. Using robots deployed from that base, we could cover a great deal of ground and collect a lot of data to analyze.

Once we have a much better understanding of the planet, we can choose a site for the initial colony. Until we have more information, any choice is so full of unknowns as to be irrelevant.

[philw1776]

Agreed we do not know enough about Mars to pick a credible colony site. 
This lack of knowledge has never stopped me before, so here's my current favorite site, Kasei Valles (Mars Valley) about 27 North degrees from the huge equatorial rift valley and at 295 degrees East, this interesting complex of valleys, mesas, et. al.appears as if it was cut by water flow eons ago.

HRSC images used to make this ESA Mars Express movie.  Check it out.

[RanulfC]

The thing about SpaceX Mars goals, as someone pointed in another thread, is that they seem to jump from "manned capsules in LEO" to "a colonial fleet of spaceships carrying hundreds" without any clue of intermediate milestones.

There will be no intermediate devlopments. They cannot afford that luxury.

It's Dragon then MCT.

It's Falcon9/Falcon Heavy then BFR.


Edit: For sure there was not even the slightest hint of something inbetween. Unless you count the initial flights of few MCT as inbetween. Or MCT flights to the moon. Or a loop around the moon with Dragon.

Actually wasn't there mention of some FH/F9 "precursor" missions? Even if SpaceX has to partner with someone they have to have some direct data for building the MCT.

Randy

[guckyfan]

There will be no intermediate devlopments. They cannot afford that luxury.

It's Dragon then MCT.

It's Falcon9/Falcon Heavy then BFR.


Edit: For sure there was not even the slightest hint of something inbetween. Unless you count the initial flights of few MCT as inbetween. Or MCT flights to the moon. Or a loop around the moon with Dragon.

Actually wasn't there mention of some FH/F9 "precursor" missions? Even if SpaceX has to partner with someone they have to have some direct data for building the MCT.

Randy

I am not sure there are statements by SpaceX. If there is any pointer would be appreciated. But it was widely discussed that precursor missions are likely necessary. I was thinking along the line of development of major intermediate hardware which has not been suggested. Though developing Red Dragon might fall in that category. Deploying Com Sats was mentioned. But IMO that would not fall in the category of intermediate development.

[jsgirald]

There will be no intermediate devlopments. They cannot afford that luxury.

It's Dragon then MCT.

It's Falcon9/Falcon Heavy then BFR.


Edit: For sure there was not even the slightest hint of something inbetween. Unless you count the initial flights of few MCT as inbetween. Or MCT flights to the moon. Or a loop around the moon with Dragon.

Actually wasn't there mention of some FH/F9 "precursor" missions? Even if SpaceX has to partner with someone they have to have some direct data for building the MCT.

Randy

I am not sure there are statements by SpaceX. If there is any pointer would be appreciated. But it was widely discussed that precursor missions are likely necessary. I was thinking along the line of development of major intermediate hardware which has not been suggested. Though developing Red Dragon might fall in that category. Deploying Com Sats was mentioned. But IMO that would not fall in the category of intermediate development.

I've created a new thread to deal with this:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36028.msg1284630#msg1284630

[Hotblack Desiato]

I agree, precursor missions are necessary.

what should this precursor mission look like? my opinion: after they tested MCT on mars, they can send a crew over there, landing with a cargo-MCT, carrying a large rover. then they set it up for ISRU fuel production, and depart with the rover, which has enough living-space and supplies for the crew. they head for a second MCT, which waits at the target destination. their mission is to check a bunch of more or less promising colony-sites. a third MCT could wait in orbit, if they encounter any problem. that thing lands close to them to rescue them. or it lands over there because they found what they were searching for.

the mission could be simplifyed to two MCTs, but on the expense of extra time (if it works, the second MCT is done with fuel production when they arrive, and if that MCT has to wait in orbit, it can't produce any fuel).

[Nilof]

http://www.google.co.uk/mars/

One disadvantage of the Tharsis montes is they are on a plateau with only highland around them, so landing is difficult. Olympus Mons is better since it has lowlands somewhat nearby, but that is still stretching it. If you want volcanoes, the Elysium Montes are likely a better option since they have a steeper slope and are surrounded by lowlands including Utopia planita to the west, which makes reentry and landing easier.

[Robotbeat]

Previous thread with essentially same question: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28487.0

[jsgirald]

Previous thread with essentially same question: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28487.0

I see why I didn't find it, was looking for 'Mars Colony' not 'Mars Base'.

Thanks for sharing, I'll readit (not too long)!

[grakenverb]

FYI it will be "Muskegon", not Elonsville.

[matthewkantar]

If I were Spacex, I would be looking for a surplus spy satellite, or looking to build the biggest telescope I could send to Mars on a Falcon heavy. They could build some com/data capabilities into it. The resolution at which Mars has been studied is not nearly suitable for choosing prospective spots, in my opinion.

Matthew

[Hotblack Desiato]

from what I've read in the MCT-speculation thread, it's somewhat unclear which capabilities the MCT will have. so far, mars probes required a "thick" atmosphere in order to land by parachute. a luxury which isn't available for a 100+ tons spacecraft. since MCT is supposed to land propulsively like the first stage of a falcon 9R, they need a thin atmosphere in order to reduce aerodynamic problems.

and in this case, a higher landing area would help.

more over, they have to deploy their initial settlement (they'll have to find out if that is a suitable spot for a colony on site) close to a water deposit. ISRU-systems depend on that.

if they need a thick atmosphere, and still require that water deposit, hellas planitia looks promising. it's not too far away from the equator, it's at a really low altitude, there might be glaciers, and it's geolocially interesting. there could be interesting metals for a colony and the air pressure is fairly high. the downside, as someone pointed already out: if mankind ever attempts a terraforming, hellas planitia will be flooded (although I think, terraforming will be very unlikely).

[Robotbeat]

from what I've read in the MCT-speculation thread, it's somewhat unclear which capabilities the MCT will have. so far, mars probes required a "thick" atmosphere in order to land by parachute. a luxury which isn't available for a 100+ tons spacecraft. since MCT is supposed to land propulsively like the first stage of a falcon 9R, they need a thin atmosphere in order to reduce aerodynamic problems....

Stop right there. MCT is landing propulsively, sure, but it depends all the more on a thick atmosphere. It's MASSIVE (20-100 tons, depending), and thus the square-cube law means it'll have actually a /harder/ time than an equivalent small probe.

Thick atmosphere is GOOD for MCT, the thicker the better.

[AJW]

Actually wasn't there mention of some FH/F9 "precursor" missions? Even if SpaceX has to partner with someone they have to have some direct data for building the MCT.

Randy

From Shotwell's speech in Singapore, June 2013

"I'll talk very briefly about Falcon Heavy. So from a commercial perspective Falcon Heavy, it's an over-sized vehicle. Its got more capacity than folks in this room need - unless we wanna put two of the biggest satellites on this vehicle and fly them both to GTO. That would yield a pretty respectable price for folks. But what we are really trying to do is, push the bounds of technology with respect to size of launch vehicles, and see if we can put some really interesting things into the solar system and hopefully land some things on Mars as well. This will be the largest vehicle flying since the Saturn moon rockets. We're sandbagging the GTO-numbers, actually analytically it looks like were gonna take 19 tons to GTO. But we're being conservative, with the 12 metric tons. And this will be - hopefully - a vehicle that takes many things to Mars."

Yes, sounds like a precursor.

[Robotbeat]

And, of course, it's worth noting that SpaceX doesn't ever plan everything in ultra-detail years in advance. They have a big picture view that gets updated with new information. Are they going to send payloads to Mars with Falcon Heavy? Maybe. But they're also working on MCT/BFR and expect the first tests in about 5-6 years. Will they launch stuff with Falcon Heavy to Mars before that time? Hard to say, but they probably were at least considering that at the time Gwynne gave that speech.

Shotwell is awesome, by the way.

[llanitedave]

And, of course, it's worth noting that SpaceX doesn't ever plan everything in ultra-detail years in advance. They have a big picture view that gets updated with new information. Are they going to send payloads to Mars with Falcon Heavy? Maybe. But they're also working on MCT/BFR and expect the first tests in about 5-6 years. Will they launch stuff with Falcon Heavy to Mars before that time? Hard to say, but they probably were at least considering that at the time Gwynne gave that speech.

Shotwell is awesome, by the way.

For designing and building rockets, big-picture views that get refined later will work, since the fundamental laws of physics and rocketry are known and unlikely to change.  For picking a habitation site on Mars, it can't work that way -- a big picture view is useless without the detailed data.  There are still too many unknowns about the fundamentals of Martian geology and resource distribution.

They need many, many very accurate small pictures before they can assemble a big one.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, so my point was that they /don't/ have an ultra-detail plan and are expecting to have to refine it. What are we disagreeing about?

[llanitedave]

I don't know that we're disagreeing about anything.  This is an internet forum, so I suppose we may be disagreeing just because we can!   

[JH]

For designing and building rockets, big-picture views that get refined later will work, since the fundamental laws of physics and rocketry are known and unlikely to change.  For picking a habitation site on Mars, it can't work that way -- a big picture view is useless without the detailed data.  There are still too many unknowns about the fundamentals of Martian geology and resource distribution.

They need many, many very accurate small pictures before they can assemble a big one.

HiRISE has a swath width of 6 km at 0.3 meter resolution in a 300 km orbit. Granted that is for its red band, while the NIR and BG bands are 1.5 meters/pixel, but it already has such a high resolution that total coverage over the course of MRO's mission (~8.5 years) is only 1-2% of the Martian surface. HiRISE also has a stereoscopic mode which allows for topography down to 0.25 meter resolution. How much higher resolution do you think is necessary?

[Robotbeat]

For designing and building rockets, big-picture views that get refined later will work, since the fundamental laws of physics and rocketry are known and unlikely to change.  For picking a habitation site on Mars, it can't work that way -- a big picture view is useless without the detailed data.  There are still too many unknowns about the fundamentals of Martian geology and resource distribution.

They need many, many very accurate small pictures before they can assemble a big one.

HiRISE has a swath width of 6 km at 0.3 meter resolution in a 300 km orbit. Granted that is for its red band, while the NIR and BG bands are 1.5 meters/pixel, but it already has such a high resolution that total coverage over the course of MRO's mission (~8.5 years) is only 1-2% of the Martian surface. HiRISE also has a stereoscopic mode which allows for topography down to 0.25 meter resolution. How much higher resolution do you think is necessary?

For context, until /very/ recently it was basically illegal for US commercial imaging satellites to sell imagery better than 0.5m resolution.

[darkenfast]

My site isn't a site.  Living on Mars (I believe), will require a stimulating career for the remainder of your life.  I think some serious thought should be given to a mobile base.  Perhaps a train(s) of Martian Mobile Modules, with habitations, labs, logistics and such all linked together and capable of assembling in different configurations, or splitting up for awhile to cover more scientific objectives.  At the right time, they would migrate to a fuel depot to meet that season's incoming fleet of MCTs.  They wouldn't have to move very far in a day, so power requirements could be modest.  Drones under real-time control would scout ahead.  People might suit-up to walk alongside for a few hours. Obviously, radiation shielding would be a major consideration.  Think outside the box (or the base, in this case).

[llanitedave]

For designing and building rockets, big-picture views that get refined later will work, since the fundamental laws of physics and rocketry are known and unlikely to change.  For picking a habitation site on Mars, it can't work that way -- a big picture view is useless without the detailed data.  There are still too many unknowns about the fundamentals of Martian geology and resource distribution.

They need many, many very accurate small pictures before they can assemble a big one.

HiRISE has a swath width of 6 km at 0.3 meter resolution in a 300 km orbit. Granted that is for its red band, while the NIR and BG bands are 1.5 meters/pixel, but it already has such a high resolution that total coverage over the course of MRO's mission (~8.5 years) is only 1-2% of the Martian surface. HiRISE also has a stereoscopic mode which allows for topography down to 0.25 meter resolution. How much higher resolution do you think is necessary?

You need boots on the ground, and core samples under the ground.  You need chemical analysis, and structural mapping.  You need to see fractures and faults, and the patterns of alteration, weathering, and brecciation on those fractures and faults.  You need stratigraphy and crystallography.  Simple averaging of minerology isn't going to be enough.

You need real geology.  You need to understand how the rock cycle and hydrologic cycle and gas cycles and magmatic cycles work on Mars.  They won't work quite the same way that they do on Earth.

[guckyfan]

You need boots on the ground, and core samples under the ground.  You need chemical analysis, and structural mapping.  You need to see fractures and faults, and the patterns of alteration, weathering, and brecciation on those fractures and faults.  You need stratigraphy and crystallography.  Simple averaging of minerology isn't going to be enough.

You need real geology.  You need to understand how the rock cycle and hydrologic cycle and gas cycles and magmatic cycles work on Mars.  They won't work quite the same way that they do on Earth.

All these things are really needed. But what is the consequence on selecting a location? Are you arguing that you need people on Mars for decades before you start a colony? In a real scenario you start the colony and worst case you have to relocate later.

[Lampyridae]

For designing and building rockets, big-picture views that get refined later will work, since the fundamental laws of physics and rocketry are known and unlikely to change.  For picking a habitation site on Mars, it can't work that way -- a big picture view is useless without the detailed data.  There are still too many unknowns about the fundamentals of Martian geology and resource distribution.

They need many, many very accurate small pictures before they can assemble a big one.

HiRISE has a swath width of 6 km at 0.3 meter resolution in a 300 km orbit. Granted that is for its red band, while the NIR and BG bands are 1.5 meters/pixel, but it already has such a high resolution that total coverage over the course of MRO's mission (~8.5 years) is only 1-2% of the Martian surface. HiRISE also has a stereoscopic mode which allows for topography down to 0.25 meter resolution. How much higher resolution do you think is necessary?

You need boots on the ground, and core samples under the ground.  You need chemical analysis, and structural mapping.  You need to see fractures and faults, and the patterns of alteration, weathering, and brecciation on those fractures and faults.  You need stratigraphy and crystallography.  Simple averaging of minerology isn't going to be enough.

You need real geology.  You need to understand how the rock cycle and hydrologic cycle and gas cycles and magmatic cycles work on Mars.  They won't work quite the same way that they do on Earth.

As someone who works in geophysics - yes.

Space:
Hyperspectral imaging (surface features only)
Gravitational mapping (10s - 100s of km resolution)
Radar & lidar
Terrain penetrating radar (10s of m at best)
Magnetic surveys (100s of m)

Airborne:
Aerial magnetic and E/M surveys to pick out igneous dykes and faulting. (10s of m)
Gravimetric surveys in blimps. (10s of m, low noise)
Radiometric surveys (depending on altitude - 10s to <1m)

Ground:
Radiometric (<1m)
Ground penetrating radar (<1m)
Surface resistivity surveys - may pick up saline aquifers (although frozen ground will be a problem) (~10s of m)
Portable E/M surveys and magnetic surveys (<10s of m)
Ground gravimetric surveys - highest resolution (<10s of m)
Core sampling (the only true way to be sure)
Downhole geophysics (using the core holes)
Seismic surveys (5-50m depending)
Surface sampling and onsite rock labs

All of the remote mapping technologies require ground truthing to confirm their models. Inversion models of the subsurface used are basically educated guesses at best without core and borehole geophysics data.

[Lampyridae]

You need boots on the ground, and core samples under the ground.  You need chemical analysis, and structural mapping.  You need to see fractures and faults, and the patterns of alteration, weathering, and brecciation on those fractures and faults.  You need stratigraphy and crystallography.  Simple averaging of minerology isn't going to be enough.

You need real geology.  You need to understand how the rock cycle and hydrologic cycle and gas cycles and magmatic cycles work on Mars.  They won't work quite the same way that they do on Earth.

All these things are really needed. But what is the consequence on selecting a location? Are you arguing that you need people on Mars for decades before you start a colony? In a real scenario you start the colony and worst case you have to relocate later.

Likely the first base camps would be where there was something interesting geologically. But Johannesburg grew into the biggest city in South Africa from a bunch of tents because of gold (and later platinum), and also happens to have great farmland. You can't throw down a colony at a random point and expect it to be successful.

[JH]

I agree that vastly more data is needed and that much of it will have to be acquired on site. I was responding to the suggestion that SpaceX needs to send a telescope to look for sites. Frankly, I think that it is highly unlikely that an ideal location for a permanent colony will be definitively determined for years after the initial colonists arrive.

To start find a place that the GRS on Odyssey shows has a good amount of hydrogen (and therefore probably water) in the subsurface, has strong crustal fields based on fitting of spherical harmonics to MAG and electron reflectometry data (the MGS payload included both instruments), and has a bit of land that is flat enough to land on. Also, it would probably be a good idea if it was relatively dust free. The middle of Terra Sirenum meets all of these requirements pretty well, although there probably aren't any lava tubes.

[Bynaus]

I am not sure the summit of Olympus Mons is really a good idea - after all, the MCT is to use the atmosphere for deceleration (even though it has retropropulsion), so I don't know if there is enough of atmosphere along the path from hyperbolic entry to the summit of Olympus Mons to allow a landing there.

Of course, if the atmosphere plays an important role during deceleration, deep sites might be favored, e.g. the depths of Valles Marineris or the flats of Hellas planitia (also for radiation shielding).

But the thought I would like to contribute here is that the landing site and the site of the "first colony" (Elonsville? Why not ) do not need to be at the same spot. Remember, MCT is thought to be a SSTO vehicle on Mars (even a "single-stage-to-escape-velocity" vehicle), so it can easily do suborbital point-to-point transport to any site on the martian surface, probably even two-ways (i.e., no re-fueling needed at the destination). All you need is site convenient for refueling the MCTs (e.g., close to large deposits of water ice, abundant sun-light for PV, enough tankage for multiple re-fueling of incoming and outgoing MCTs), and then the whole surface of the planet is accessible for exploration and colonization.

[Hotblack Desiato]

but we have a chance of determining the parameters needed for at least a settlement, if they later find out that an other spot is better suitable, they might consider movement or foundation of a second settlement and start transporting goods back and forth.

what the settlement will initially need: a wide flat area for landing spacecrafts, low altitude, and water supply. and those parameters can be determined from space.

later on, when the settlement grows to a full colony, their demands will shift. equipment and materials initially brought from earth have to be manufactured on site. maybe we aren't looking at one colony but on a network of colonies, and every colony has its own goods (mining sites offering valueable metals, but lack of water), and those colonies trade and exchange their products.

[GORDAP]

I think there are several factors that go into the selection of a first 'base' landing site:

1) Optimal for EDL.  I believe in the latest Red Dragon sample and return talk the speaker stated you'd want to shed velocity by riding in at about 10k feet, and that this meant 'avoiding the southern hemisphere highlands'.
2) Locate close to known reserves of (possibly close to the surface) water.  (Don't we have pretty good data on this now?)
3) Location with high solar radiation (i.e. close to equator) for solar power, plant growth, etc.
4) Close to possible geothermal activity.
5) Close to possible metal ore deposits.
6) Close to optimal launch location (again equator).
7) Close to caves/lava tubes for possible habitation.
Close to 'interesting' geological features.

I think the above list is probably close to the right priority order.  I think 1 and 2 favor some mid northern latitudes, while 3 and 6 favor equator.  No idea about the rest.

Can anyone with a good familiarity with martian topography suggest a location that might be best with the above list in mind?  Seems there should be several locations that meet, say, 1-4 above.

[guckyfan]

I think there are several factors that go into the selection of a first 'base' landing site:

1) Optimal for EDL.  I believe in the latest Red Dragon sample and return talk the speaker stated you'd want to shed velocity by riding in at about 10k feet, and that this meant 'avoiding the southern hemisphere highlands'.
2) Locate close to known reserves of (possibly close to the surface) water.  (Don't we have pretty good data on this now?)
3) Location with high solar radiation (i.e. close to equator) for solar power, plant growth, etc.
4) Close to possible geothermal activity.
5) Close to possible metal ore deposits.
6) Close to optimal launch location (again equator).
7) Close to caves/lava tubes for possible habitation.
Close to 'interesting' geological features.

I think the above list is probably close to the right priority order.  I think 1 and 2 favor some mid northern latitudes, while 3 and 6 favor equator.  No idea about the rest.

A comprehensive list, I like it. Except I would place availability of water even higher than optimal EDL. IMO a small payload hit is better than insufficient or difficult water supply especially for the first settlement.

Also I cannot imagine useful geothermal energy aynwhere on Mars but I may be wrong.

[JasonAW3]

Personally, I kind of prefer the first colony be named someting like Bradbury Base.  But that's just me.

[guckyfan]

Personally, I kind of prefer the first colony be named someting like Bradbury Base.  But that's just me.

It won't be Elonsville. But the Mars president will have the title "The Elon". Wernher von Braun already knew that.

Bradbury Base sounds good.

[llanitedave]

but we have a chance of determining the parameters needed for at least a settlement, if they later find out that an other spot is better suitable, they might consider movement or foundation of a second settlement and start transporting goods back and forth.

what the settlement will initially need: a wide flat area for landing spacecrafts, low altitude, and water supply. and those parameters can be determined from space.

later on, when the settlement grows to a full colony, their demands will shift. equipment and materials initially brought from earth have to be manufactured on site. maybe we aren't looking at one colony but on a network of colonies, and every colony has its own goods (mining sites offering valueable metals, but lack of water), and those colonies trade and exchange their products.

I would think so too, which brings up the point that, to quote Aldo Leopold:  "You can't do one thing."  A successful colony can't stand alone.  It needs a widely developed regional infrastructure to support trade and the uneven pattern of resource availability.  This takes time to develop.

So, to answer guckyfan's question:

Are you arguing that you need people on Mars for decades before you start a colony?

Yes.  Anything less is a recipe for a human tragedy.

In a real scenario you start the colony and worst case you have to relocate later.

That's why I suggested naming such a colony "Roanoke".  It would be doomed, and the long time between possible replenishment visits would mean that relocation may not be that simple.

Another consideration is the need to figure out what resources you really need to prioritize, and their value.  It wouldn't be the same as on Earth.  Gold, for example, is often held as having some sort of inherent standard value to justify exploitation.  In reality, the value of gold is probably substantially less than tradition and symbolism makes it.  Certainly, on Mars you wouldn't need stored piles of gold bars just to back up some currency.  For industrial and construction uses, you really only need very small amounts of it.

Which is good, because we don't really know what sort of processes would concentrate gold into ore-grade bodies on Mars.  If you find veins of pure gold, great.  Where?  It's often associated with volcanism, but not just any old volcanism.  Seen any gold deposits on Hawaii?  Volcanic gold usually is associated with felsic volcanism -- granites and rhyolites, which are notably lacking on Mars.  It also requires a good geothermal (areothermal?) water circulation system, which hasn't occurred on Mars in a very, very long time.  Other types of gold deposits on Earth are Carlin type gold deposits, in which hydrothermal gold-bearing fluids deposit the metal in sedimentary rocks, often altering them to clay or silica-rich derivatives in the process.  Recovery of this type of gold is difficult and expensive, often requiring requiring extensive crushing of the host rock, and water slurries containing cyanide to leach through the ore pile to recover the gold in solution.  You're also left with huge piles of waste rock that end up making your nearby mining settlement somewhat less than a paradise.

Other minerals might be more valuable on Mars than on Earth.  One possibility I can think of is lithium, which would come in really handy for batteries and a lot of other uses.  It's not that uncommon overall, but on earth it's very hard to find good concentrations of it, and that might be the case on Mars as well.

Take a look at this diagram from Western Lithium:


Most lithium is recovered from evaporated brines in arid environments.  Maybe you can find stuff like that underground on Mars, but don't expect it to be ubiquitous.  It will have to be painstakingly prospected for.  The next most common source, pegmatite and spodumene, are also associated with felsic rocks like granite and granodiorite, which are extremely rare on Mars, rather than the more common basalt.  There may be unexpected sources there that don't occur on Earth, but we don't know that.  It will have to be researched, and don't count on it being easy.

Phosphorus is another vital element for life.  We may luck out there, as both Opportunity and Curiosity have found areas of enhanced phosphate deposition, and the Martian crust may be richer in phosphorous than that of Earth.  But that's not to say you can just dig it up anywhere, especially in the concentrations needed to grow crops.

All of these things and more will take time and energy to locate and characterize, more time and energy to extract and process, before they can actually be useful to any nearby residents.  We'll have to learn new ways of prospecting, new ways of mining, and new ways of refining, and do it with a different mix of ores and priorities than we're used to.  I laughed when I heard a certain Alaskan once imply that our ticket to national wealth was just "drill, baby, drill!"  You have to drill in the right place, or you're going to go broke.  It happens all the time on Earth, where we supposedly have a decent understanding of the geologic processes and resource distribution.  On Mars, we're starting from scratch.  We can't just show up with a drill and a pan and think we're going to get rich.

Or even survive.

[Zed_Noir]

Personally, I kind of prefer the first colony be named someting like Bradbury Base.  But that's just me.

It won't be Elonsville. But the Mars president will have the title "The Elon". Wernher von Braun already knew that.

Bradbury Base sounds good.

I protest. The first Martian Barsoom base should be Helium. President don't really matches Elon's usual M.O., the title "Warlord of Barsoom" is a better fit. 

Seriously the supposed site of Helium on Mars is right next to Hellas Plantina crater basin, Which might have ice deposits. So somewhere in the Hellas Plantina basin might be a good location for base or colony.

The altitude difference between the rim and the bottom is 9,000 m (30,000 ft). The depth of the crater (7,152 m (23,465 ft) ( 7,000 m (23,000 ft)) below the standard topographic datum of Mars) explains the atmospheric pressure at the bottom: 1,155 Pa[1] (11.55 mbar, 0.17 psi, or 0.01 atm). This is 89% higher than the pressure at the topographical datum (610 Pa, or 6.1 mbar or 0.09 psi) and above the triple point of water, suggesting that the liquid phase could be present under certain conditions of temperature, pressure, and dissolved salt content

Note - obviously E R Burroughs fan, much better than that Johnny come lately Bradbury. 

[Robotbeat]

Zed_Noir, you missed it. "The Elon" is a title that Werner Von Braun made up for Mars, way before Elon Musk was born.

[Jcc]

Probably the first base will be just that, a place from which to go exploring, and determine the site for the first major colony. Initially they will need to build the base and establish the first group. The colony with likely be built elsewhere, but there will be small outposts in several locations to explore and prospect for resources.

[Zed_Noir]

Zed_Noir, you missed it. "The Elon" is a title that Werner Von Braun made up for Mars, way before Elon Musk was born.

Knew about the Von Braun "The Elon" remark. Nevertheless E R Burroughs predate Von Braun. 

[Jimmy_C]

Zed_Noir, you missed it. "The Elon" is a title that Werner Von Braun made up for Mars, way before Elon Musk was born.

Knew about the Von Braun "The Elon" remark. Nevertheless E R Burroughs predate Von Braun. 

Could you provide a reference for Von Braun's remark please? I'd love to read about it.

[dcporter]

Jesus. imgur.com/a/yhvDH

EDIT: "Jesus" was because it was my sixth or so try to make an imgur link, which don't fly on this forum for some reason.

[guckyfan]

Could you provide a reference for Von Braun's remark please? I'd love to read about it.

He wrote a book, called "Mars Project". In that novel the Mars president has the title The Elon. It is available as PDF.

http://www.wlym.com/archive/oakland/docs/MarsProject.pdf

[nadreck]

Yes exploration has to happen from several bases with the capabilities to be either relocatable, or field long range missions, before any colony sites are picked. However, Roanoke comments aside, the whole concept of having Mars as the first redundant active store of human DNA, is, well, redundancy. Not all early American colonies were successful, however several separate and successful colonies established interdependence.  If I can be allowed to posit what Elon might have meant by public comments that he hopped that there were several colony initiatives is that he wants both the exploration and establishment of colonies to exist in a sort of co-petative environment. That would likely stimulate the greatest endeavours within the growing civilization on Mars.

Now, lets consider that there may well be a number of different colony sites and that each of these needs some independent capabilities, but that, in the longer run, sites could specialize based on nearby resources to produce some of the things that they no longer want to import from Mother Earth. It would make a good topic for another thread to determine what the basic industries each site would need, vs those that could exist in just one or two places on Mars (ok lets go with at least two, anyone remember the RAM shortage after the Kobe earthquate?).

[Hotblack Desiato]

I guess, it would revolve just around a few parameters.

1. is it possible to land there from space. a place that is suitable for landing MCTs (or more generally every landing system).

2. is water available.

the first colony will obviously need these two parameters, others are less important.

3. local resources like iron, copper, phosphor and so on. the starting colony needs virtually everything. they will send prospection-rovers out to find deposits of what they need, and then found mining sites. those mining sites will eventually grow from small settlements to cities on their own.

4. energy-production.  first colonies will rely on solar energy. but depending on their energy requirement, they will soon switch over to nuclear power since most industries require large amounts of energy. I'm thinking about nuclear facilities with 100s of MW(el), maybe even GW-scale. that requires a large heatsink. a lot of chemical processes directly require heat, and a human settlement needs heat aswell.

the 4th requirement does not depend on geology but on where they set up a nuclear reactor, and that would be the only a large settlement, which produces a lot of good.

another equally important thing will be transportation between colonies. I guess, first transportation will be done with rovers on roads. but those roads will be just leveled regolith. no concrete, no asphalt, nothing (since it isn't raining, that's not a big problem). I guess, top speed will be 50 km/h.
later on, when iron/steel production kicks in, they can set up railroads, allowing much higher speeds (150km/h) and larger transportation capacities. they'd even allow precision docking since a railcar moves on a precise track.

[RonM]

I guess, it would revolve just around a few parameters.

1. is it possible to land there from space. a place that is suitable for landing MCTs (or more generally every landing system).

2. is water available.

the first colony will obviously need these two parameters, others are less important.

3. local resources like iron, copper, phosphor and so on. the starting colony needs virtually everything. they will send prospection-rovers out to find deposits of what they need, and then found mining sites. those mining sites will eventually grow from small settlements to cities on their own.

4. energy-production.  first colonies will rely on solar energy. but depending on their energy requirement, they will soon switch over to nuclear power since most industries require large amounts of energy. I'm thinking about nuclear facilities with 100s of MW(el), maybe even GW-scale. that requires a large heatsink. a lot of chemical processes directly require heat, and a human settlement needs heat aswell.

the 4th requirement does not depend on geology but on where they set up a nuclear reactor, and that would be the only a large settlement, which produces a lot of good.

another equally important thing will be transportation between colonies. I guess, first transportation will be done with rovers on roads. but those roads will be just leveled regolith. no concrete, no asphalt, nothing (since it isn't raining, that's not a big problem). I guess, top speed will be 50 km/h.
later on, when iron/steel production kicks in, they can set up railroads, allowing much higher speeds (150km/h) and larger transportation capacities. they'd even allow precision docking since a railcar moves on a precise track.

Transportation is an important consideration for expansion. The location should allow for easy road and rail construction. Good point about rail cars and docking.

[go4mars]

A deep excavation below Hellas.  Mainly for pressure and top sealing.
I also like Hellas because it's the biggest and best for atmospheric-friction negative acceleration. 

But also because I suspect the remanent fracture networks below the enormous impact will have fluids within for exploitation.  Silane, hydrogen, methane, and noble gases in particular.  Might even find water down there above the hydridic (redox) interface. 

I believe silane will quickly overtake methane/oxygen or hydrogen/oxygen to become the most important rocket fuel on Mars, because the atmosphere itself can act as oxidizer - allowing isp's over 1000.  Preferable to drill for silane on Mars rather than expending energy synthesizing it.