Possible locations for Elonsville, Mars

[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.