Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Northstar1989]

43 minutes ago, tater said:

This is getting way OT for a space thread as they've said they are not interested in cyclers. Just throwing some water on this from the Elon POV, he also envisioned 1000 ITS leaving at once in that talk. At once. LOL.

The cycler needs to be identical to the regular vessel other than the small amount of dv needed for EDL at Mars. Assuming that it keeps it for corrections, then what do you get other than doubling the space, but with only the ability to take half of it to Mars?

An ITS needs to deliver 100 people, plus cargo. Sending 200 people and cargo for 100 doesn't cut it, and regardless, only the 1 ship of cargo can land, even if you cram people in for the short EDL part of the mission. So you've used 2 ships to get 2 shiploads of people to Mars. If they both landed, then you'd still get to reuse both of them, just at a different synod than it would be with Musk's plan now. I'm not seeing it as useful when the vehicles have any parity. If it required 5X the volume for an ITS full of people to be happy in transit, then maybe that makes sense, but 2X the people in 2X the volume... nope.

You seperate the cargo into dedicated cargo-only ITS's that don't interact with the Cycler at all, and arrive ahead of the crew.  This is worth it even without a Cycler architecture because it allows you to send your cargo on a slower, lower Delta-V trajectory, but with a Cycler it is an absolute necessity in order for the Interceptor to focus on only carrying crew (which is the only type of payload that benefits from a Cycler Ship) and make it worthwhile to use one...

As for gettimg 2x the crew with 2x the ship space dedicated to crew, that is true, yes.  But the main benefit of a Cycler, and what makes it worthwhile, is not somehow needing to launch less mass in crew accomodations in order to carry people to Mars, it's the fuel-savings.

With a Cycler architecture, you can pack roughly 2x as many people into the Interceptor as into an ITS dedicated solely to crew, but you only need to conduct the same number of Tanker missions to refuel the Interceptor as you would a standard ITS.  The result is substantial fuel and cost-savings over a number of missions.

It's no coincidence I said you could save $110 million over the course of a number of ITS missions where you relied on a Cycler and an Interceptor where two crew-only standard ITS's could have held the same number of people- that's precisely equal to what I estimated the refurbishment and refueling cost of an ITS to be over 11 missions.  Basically, you still have to refurbish and refuel the Interceptor between missions like you would a normal ITS, but you don't have to do the same for the Cycler, since it requires very little fuel or maneuver to maintain its orbit and make necessary plane-changes (and what little fuel it DOES need is provided by surplus from the Interceptor each trip- this is also why I said the Interceptor and Cycler together could accomodate 800 people instead of 900- I assumed you'd replace the crew accomodations and life suppory of roughly 100 people on the Interceptor with extra fuel tanks for this purpose- which would start out fully-fueled to get the same launch mass as an ITS that could carry 450 people instead of 350...)

If you're only sending 800 people to Mars every two years (not that many when our planet has a population of over 7 billion, and at least 800 million of those are wealthy enough their families could probably afford to travel to Mars at $140,000 a person if they really wanted...) then you only save about $5 million a year in refueling and refurbishment costs this way.  But if you're sending 80,000 then that number jumps to $500 million a year, and designing a Cycler Ship becomes much more worthwhile...

Musk was right.  Cycler Ships are a thing for when you've really scaled up your transit system to Mars and are spending a lot of money on refueling ITS's each year.  They don't make sense when your cost of mass to LEO and the number of people you're sending to Mars each year are both low... (not coincidentally Cycler Ships make GREAT sense in the "classical" scenario we have right now where ever kg of mass you send to LEO is incredibly expensive...  Hence why they made sense to Buzz Aldrin back when he proposed them- he never foresaw anyone finding a way to get mass to orbit as cheaply as SpaceX will be able to if their launch-stage reusability works and the ITS booster ends up being as cheap as planned...)

On the other hand, if the fuel tanker architecture Musk proposed turns out to be a lot MORE expensive than projected, then the fuel-savings of a Cycler Ship will really be worthwhile.  And let's not forget that if you're really patient, you can accelerate a Cycler Ship to its Cycler Orbit with nothing hut ion engines, since you don't have to worry about crew waiting the excruciatingly long time this would take if you establish the Cycler in its orbit unmanned, and only send it crew the next time it swings by Earth...

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 1, 2016 by Northstar1989

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, softweir said:

You missed a point: the regolith is rich in perchlorate salts. We make bleach out of perchlorate salts. So the regolith is like soil soaked with bleach. Nobody needs to try growing potatoes in bleach-soaked-soil because we know it is damned toxic.

Maybe there is a way to extract the perchlorate salts from the regolith, but that would be a very water-consuming and energy-consuming exercise. And even if you succeeded, what is left is so short of everything plants need (nitrates, sulphates, phosphates and all the other nutrients) that you have to add all those, so why not make things easier and leave the regolith out of the equation? Why go to all that effort to import a toxic, caustic material into your base where it will be a serious health hazard?

You missed my point, one cannot say that one cannot grow potatoes on Mars until one has at least tried. 

Why would one want to? Because learning to live off the land is part of the colonization process. There's plenty of water on Mars, and power is something we'll have to bring anyway.  At some point, cleaning the dirt becomes a more practical option than importing it.

[Northstar1989]

20 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

You missed my point, one cannot say that one cannot grow potatoes on Mars until one has at least tried. 

Why would one want to? Because learning to live off the land is part of the colonization process. There's plenty of water on Mars, and power is something we'll have to bring anyway.  At some point, cleaning the dirt becomes a more practical option than importing it.

Agreed.

It shouldn't actually be that hard to clean the dirt anyways.  The basic process would look like this- you spray the dirt with a bunch of water to leach out perchlorates (which are HIGHLY water-soluble).  Then you collect the contaminated water from below the dirt, evaporate it all off by heating it to reclaim the water (alternatively, you could just dispose of it by exposing the contaminated water to surrounding Martian atmosphere- the low pressure will cause it to boil in a hurry), and then after condensing the water again spray it back on the soil until you have removed all the perchlorates...

This will probably leach all the minerals out of the soil as well, but that's alright.  There are plenty more minerals on Mars you can mine and use to re-enrich the soil...

For this process to work, all you need is water and lots of energy.  Of course, it might be simpler to grow most crops via hydro- or aeroponics, and only clean soil for those crops that prove intolerant of hydroponic cultivation methods...

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 1, 2016 by Northstar1989

[kerbiloid]

Testing this ISRU technology in Antartic would even not require de-perchlorating.
Also, a warm Antarctic climate (just -80°C instead of -100°) also simplifies such testing.

Strange, but I still can't see any antarctic corn plantation. Of course, if somebody indeed plans do it on Mars, and not only continue making animations.
(At least, they could just build an martian antarctic command base and manage the launches from there.)

Edited October 1, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

It shouldn't actually be that hard to clean the dirt anyways.  The basic process would look like this- you spray the dirt with a bunch of water to leach out perchlorates (which are HIGHLY water-soluble).  Then you collect the contaminated water from below the dirt, evaporate it all off by heating it to reclaim the water (alternatively, you could just dispose of it by exposing the contaminated water to surrounding Martian atmosphere- the low pressure will cause it to boil in a hurry), and then after condensing the water again spray it back on the soil until you have removed all the perchlorates...

And what this gives you is a sterile substrate. It's not dirt. It's not soil. You might as well just import polysterene foam or sand. You are still going to need to add massive amounts of fertilizer and nutrients imported from Earth.

As for the this and the cycler discussion, can you please take them to another thread? This is supposed to be about SpaceX. SpaceX is not interested in cyclers and is leaving development of colonization techniques to others, so all of this talk is really off topic.

[Wjolcz]

57 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Testing this ISRU technology in Antartic would even not require de-perchlorating.
Also, a warm Antarctic climate (just -80°C instead of -100°) also simplifies such testing.

Strange, but I still can't see any antarctic corn plantation. Of course, if somebody indeed plans do it on Mars, and not only continue making animations.
(At least, they could just build an martian antarctic command base and manage the launches from there.)

Sir, I believe you to be a troll, but let me reply to your post anyway:

Corn can't grow on the south pole simply because there's no soil that could support it and the polar night is too long +the amount of light during the day is probably not sufficient simply because of it's angle (more atmosphere to travel through before reaching the surface).

On Mars the day-night cycle is much more consistent and regular. The atmosphere is also thinner. I am not sure what the exact amount of light on Mars' equator and  Earth's south pole is, but I'm pretty sure it's managable.

If there's any colony ever established on Mars they won't live above the ground anyway. It's better to bury everything because of radiation and keep only the necessary things on the surface (ISRU, solar power plant).

Edited October 1, 2016 by Veeltch

[Nibb31]

22 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Corn can't grow on the south pole simply because there's no soil that could support it and the polar night is too long +the amount of light during the day is probably not sufficient simply because of it's angle (more atmosphere to travel through before reaching the surface).

We are talking about using hydroponics with an artificial substrate, imported nutrients, and artificial lighting. The same principle would apply to Mars and Antarctica.

Mars has no soil either. You can only find easily accessible water at the poles. Settling at the poles gives you the same lighting problem as on Earth, because Mars' axial tilt (~25°) is similar to Earths (23.5°). Settling elsewhere is going to require ice extraction techniques that we simply don't have the slightest idea about.

Quote

On Mars the day-night cycle is much more consistent and regular.

It depends on your latitude, just like Earth.

Quote

If there's any colony ever established on Mars they won't live above the ground anyway. It's better to bury everything because of radiation and keep only the necessary things on the surface (ISRU, solar power plant).

First settlements are likely to use inflatable technology similar to Bigelow modules, which will be quick to set up and include adequate shielding and MMOD protection.

Digging requires a lot of work, which simply isn't practical in the early stages. They will have enough other problems to deal with.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Nibb31

[Northstar1989]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Testing this ISRU technology in Antartic would even not require de-perchlorating.
Also, a warm Antarctic climate (just -80°C instead of -100°) also simplifies such testing.

Strange, but I still can't see any antarctic corn plantation. Of course, if somebody indeed plans do it on Mars, and not only continue making animations.
(At least, they could just build an martian antarctic command base and manage the launches from there.)

That's a common, but terribly incorrect assumption.

The Antartic actually is effectively "colder" than the surface of Mars is.  Even though the average temperature is higher than certain parts of Mars (it actually gets surprisingly warm near the Martian equator- during the dayvit can exceed 70 F), the atmosphere is much thicker at Antarctica- which leads to MUCH greatet heat-losses due to conduction and (especially) convection.  Mars' atmosphere may be cold, but it's basically a vacuum, so it doesn't actually wick that much heat away from heated structures such as a greenhouse...  It's perfectly possible to keep a greenhouse warm with electric heating elements on Mars.

As for light, you augment the natural light with growth-lamps anyways.  So it's basically an artificial environment you grow these crops in...

 

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

And what this gives you is a sterile substrate. It's not dirt. It's not soil. You might as well just import polysterene foam or sand. You are still going to need to add massive amounts of fertilizer and nutrients imported from Earth.

As for the this and the cycler discussion, can you please take them to another thread? This is supposed to be about SpaceX. SpaceX is not interested in cyclers and is leaving development of colonization techniques to others, so all of this talk is really off topic.

Backseat moderating generally isn't appreciated Nibb (trust me, I've gotten in trouble for it before...)

As for the substrate, it's not even necessary to grow crops in the first place.  Contrary to popular belief, all plants actually need for growth is light, water, air, and mineral nutrients in their water- thos is why many crops grow perfectly well using hydroponics.  I don't know about where you live, but I can't go to the grocery without finding hydroponic lettuce for sale every day of the week.  It's simply routine to grow crops without substeate these days...

That being said, providing crops with substrate can only help their growth.  Substrate can help to retain water and nutrients on the microscopic level, eliminating the need to keep the roots constantly submerged in nutrient solution- which is highly beneficial to certain species susceptible to root-rot.

Nonetheless, sterile substrate is better than no substrate for a number of reasons, and provided it is cleaned of toxic substances first, it can't possibly do any harm.  And if you really want, it's easy enough to seed substrate with organic matter and bacteria like is done in The Martian.  Take it from a real life biologist- that part of the book (inoculating sterile soil with bacteria) is perfectly feasible.

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 1, 2016 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Sir, I believe you to be a troll, but let me reply to your post anyway:

Corn can't grow on the south pole simply because there's no soil that could support it and the polar night is too long +the amount of light during the day is probably not sufficient simply because of it's angle (more atmosphere to travel through before reaching the surface).

On Mars the day-night cycle is much more consistent and regular. The atmosphere is also thinner. I am not sure what the exact amount of light on Mars' equator and  Earth's south pole is, but I'm pretty sure it's managable.

If there's any colony ever established on Mars they won't live above the ground anyway. It's better to bury everything because of radiation and keep only the necessary things on the surface (ISRU, solar power plant).

The insolation (sunlight exposure) of the Martian equator is actually much higher than that of Antartica because there's very little atmosphere to interfere with sunlight reaching the surface.

Additionally, the CO2-rich atmosphere and the tendency of colonists to convert O2 to CO2 through breathing virtually guarantees that crops will be grown in a CO2-enriched environment.  This is actually a good thing, because, up to a certain point, plants actually grow much BETTER in a CO2 rich environment than one that is more Earth-like.  I believe the ideal point was 1200-1600 ppm: I remember it was at least 3-4 times higher than current atmospheric CO2 levels on Earth (in fact, if not for its tendency to lead to severe weather and droughts through climate-change, our enriching our atmosphere with additional CO2 would actually HELP alleviate World Hunger...)

 

Regards,

Northstar

Edited October 1, 2016 by Northstar1989

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Corn can't grow on the south pole simply because there's no soil that could support it

Is there any soil on Mars?

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

and the polar night is too long

But polar day is long, too. Usually crops require 3 months or so.

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

+the amount of light during the day is probably not sufficient

Earth gets 2.25 times more insolation than Mars, and Martian polar caps are also tilted under.exactly the same angle (25° vs 23°).
(Of course, they would grow plants near the water sources, not near equator. So, near the caps)

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

If there's any colony ever established on Mars they won't live above the ground anyway.

OK with this. Where is a test underground colony in, say, Arizona?

(Ninja'd by Nibb31's answer 3 hours ago. Yes, I'm a slowpoke.)

Edited October 1, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Northstar1989]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

We are talking about using hydroponics with an artificial substrate, imported nutrients, and artificial lighting. The same principle would apply to Mars and Antarctica.

Mars has no soil either. You can only find easily accessible water at the poles. Settling at the poles gives you the same lighting problem as on Earth, because Mars' axial tilt (~25°) is similar to Earths (23.5°). Settling elsewhere is going to require ice extraction techniques that we simply don't have the slightest idea about.

It depends on your latitude, just like Earth.

First settlements are likely to use inflatable technology similar to Bigelow modules, which will be quick to set up and include adequate shielding and MMOD protection.

Digging requires a lot of work, which simply isn't practical in the early stages. They will have enough other problems to deal with.

You actually CAN grow crops in enclosed, heated spaces on Antartoca, and some of the research stations there actually do precisely that- growing a small amount of produce beneath growth-lamps for "research purposes" (although the scientists probably don't hesitate to eat it at the end of the experiment- fresh vegetables are hard to come by at the South Pole between supply shipments...)

Lighting really isn't a problem in either case, because you can provide plenty of supplementary light with growth-lamp...

As for water, there ate actually many areas outside of the poles with abundant subsurface ice deposits.  You have to dig a few meters down, but in some areas the soil is actually more ice by volume and weight than silica or other materials... (in other areas, it's very dry.  You have to know where to land and establish a colony, which is why water prospecting is one of the single best things we could do with the SpaceX payloads they'll be sending from 2018 on if Musk is at all serious about this whole permanent colony thing...)

 

Regards,

Northstar

P.S.  FYI, before you raise the accusation of this going off-topic again Nibb: know that several SpaceX-related threads were actually merged into this topic, and basically any others about the company's surface plans will be as well.  So this is really a thread for discussing all things SpaceX, despite what the title might say...

Edited October 1, 2016 by Northstar1989

[kerbiloid]

37 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

The Antartic actually is effectively "colder" than the surface of Mars is.  Even though the average temperature is higher than certain parts of Mars (it actually gets surprisingly warm near the Martian equator- during the dayvit can exceed 70 F), the atmosphere is much thicker at Antarctica- which leads to MUCH greatet heat-losses due to conduction and (especially) convection.  Mars' atmosphere may be cold, but it's basically a vacuum, so it doesn't actually wick that much heat away from heated structures such as a greenhouse...  It's perfectly possible to keep a greenhouse warm with electric heating elements on Mars.

No problems with that. Glass greenhouses with electric heaters are fine, too. Then no difference in air conditions.

[Northstar1989]

17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

OK with this. Where is a test underground colony in, say, Arizona?

There actually is a test-plot for growing crops underground in, of all places, Idaho.  But that's not actually about growing crops on Mars- it's about growing cheaper food here on Earth (turns out the superior control over light, humidity, and temperature, and the ability to exclude pests or weeds from an underground farm actually make it CHEAPER than growing crops aboveground in places where electricity is cheap, and suitable tunnels such as abandoned mining tunnels are already available...  Note that you can light the xrops during the night, and let them rest by day, in order to cut down on your electricity costs- as electricity is actually cheaper at night in many parts of the USA...)

There are also secret military installations under mountains and such, designed to survive a nuclear bomb blast.  That's basically an underground colony, for many purposes...

Edited October 1, 2016 by Northstar1989

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

and the ability to exclude pests or weeds from an underground farm actually make it CHEAPER than growing crops aboveground in places where electricity is cheap

Absolutely sure, that's so, and this is the human's future (as I believe in self-sustaining arcologies, which are the same, just of another shape).
I just have a doubt that a 100-seats omnibus is relevant until they have a working mockup of Mars colony in just uncomfortable conditions, not Martian-like deadly.

[Nibb31]

42 minutes ago, Northstar1989 said:

 

P.S.  FYI, before you raise the accusation of this going off-topic again Nibb: know that several SpaceX-related threads were actually merged into this topic, and basically any others about the company's surface plans will be as well.  So this is really a thread for discussing all things SpaceX, despite what the title might say...

But SpaceX has zero interest in Martian agriculture. Musk specifically said that he is focusing on transportation only, and is leaving the rest to others to figure out. He wants to be the Union Pacific Railroad of Mars (as if that made any sense...).

In other words, settlement enabling technologies are not part of the SpaceX discussion. 

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Musk specifically said that he is focusing on transportation only, and is leaving the rest to others to figure out. He wants to be the Union Pacific Railroad of Mars (as if that made any sense...).

It does make sense - if you're familiar with the history of American railroads in the Midwestern and Western US.  Long story short, if they weren't granted land along the railroad by the government for building railroads, they'd buy land along the railroad from the government outright - and then plat out towns and sell it for cheap.  The idea was that people would buy up the lots, build towns, and then those towns would provide demand for the railroad's services.  (Shipping in manufactured goods, shipping out farm products from surrounding farms.)  It worked like gangbusters.

[Elthy]

What i just noticed:

SpaceX/Elon Musk managed to make the Saturn 5 look kinda boring, at least for me. The ITS upper stage weights as much as the whole rocket. Of course there were allways bigger rockets proposed, but this time the chance is quite high it actualy gets build...

[CatastrophicFailure]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Absolutely sure, that's so, and this is the human's future (as I believe in self-sustaining arcologies, which are the same, just of another shape).
I just have a doubt that a 100-seats omnibus is relevant until they have a working mockup of Mars colony in just uncomfortable conditions, not Martian-like deadly.

It's been done. Several times:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS-3

Not to mention the ISS, which has been continuously manned for many years now. 

Throw enough cargo at Mars and people will have a manageable time living there. Which is exactly what Musk's rocket is designed to do. 

[tater]

Real closed systems have not actually been well tested. Biosphere was not really sealed, and I know little about bio-3, though it looks more legitimate. ISS is not a closed loop, it's constantly resupplied.

Leaving people would require a real plan (that is really outside the scope of this thread). The plus is that local inputs are certainly possible (this is even true on the Moon), but it really requires more work/planning than it takes to get people there.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

It does make sense - if you're familiar with the history of American railroads in the Midwestern and Western US.  Long story short, if they weren't granted land along the railroad by the government for building railroads, they'd buy land along the railroad from the government outright - and then plat out towns and sell it for cheap.  The idea was that people would buy up the lots, build towns, and then those towns would provide demand for the railroad's services.  (Shipping in manufactured goods, shipping out farm products from surrounding farms.)  It worked like gangbusters.

It makes sense as long as people stick to the silly analogies involving Columbus or the Union Pacific Railroad. It is totally different.

In the past, colonization was driven by strong political motives. When free enterprise was involved, there was always a government backing it. There were actual resources, and both private and government investments were driven by the expectation of large economical returns. There were also populations willing to populate these lands, driven by the promise of a better life for themselves and their children.

For Mars, there is are no government grants, no land plots. There is no business model that promises any economical return. There is no better life awaiting the people who go there (unless you're so miserable that you're willing to sell your suburban house to live the rest of your life in a hab module eating hydroponic tofu). The only thing driving this effort is one billionnaire's personal dream.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

35 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

It's been done. Several times:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS-500

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS-3

Not to mention the ISS, which has been continuously manned for many years now. 

Throw enough cargo at Mars and people will have a manageable time living there. Which is exactly what Musk's rocket is designed to do. 

Biosphere 2 was a spectacular failure.

Mars-500 was a mostly a behavioral experiment and wasn't in close loop.

BIOS-3 kept 4 or 5 people alive successfully for 180 days.

None of these are actually self sufficient though. They rely on carrying enough supplies, just like the ISS. The goal for a self sufficient colony is to be able to survive even if supplies stop arriving. Also, extending the same techniques to keep 100 people alive is an order of magnitude more difficult.

[SargeRho]

7 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Biosphere 2 was a spectacular failure.

 

Biosphere 2 failed primarily because they didn't let the concrete cure properly, leading to a severe shortage of oxygen. Something an active ECLSS would/should be able to compensate for.

[Rakaydos]

18 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It makes sense as long as people stick to the silly analogies involving Columbus or the Union Pacific Railroad. It is totally different.

In the past, colonization was driven by strong political motives. When free enterprise was involved, there was always a government backing it. There were actual resources, and both private and government investments were driven by the expectation of large economical returns. There were also populations willing to populate these lands, driven by the promise of a better life for themselves and their children.

For Mars, there is are no government grants, no land plots. There is no business model that promises any economical return. There is no better life awaiting the people who go there (unless you're so miserable that you're willing to sell your suburban house to live the rest of your life in a hab module eating hydroponic tofu). The only thing driving this effort is one billionnaire's personal dream.

You dismiss SpaceX as a free enterprise without goverment backing on it's goals.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/109479-elon-musks-net-worth-is-more-than-the-gdp-of-nicaragua-54-other-countries

After a certian point, a sufficently rich backer with a goal in mind can effectively BE the "goverment" backing it. He who has the Gold makes the Rules.

Usually this is far more selfish than what Elon has planned, but there's no reson it has to be.

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Real closed systems have not actually been well tested. Biosphere was not really sealed, and I know little about bio-3, though it looks more legitimate. ISS is not a closed loop, it's constantly resupplied.

Any fledgling Mars colony would be regularly resupplied, too. That's where those hundreds of tons of cargo I've been mentioning come in. That's the point you guys seem to be missing. That's what makes it viable. The regular resupply while learning to live with what's there. We know people can live in semi-closed loops for more than two years like this. 

 

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

For Mars, there is are no government...

Look at the current political state of the world. Methinks this will be one of the very factors driving people to go there.