Mars Colonial Transporter: What will it look like?

[kerbiloid]

Quote

Turns out MCT can go well beyond Mars, so will need a new name…

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Diche Bach]

Isn't "colonial transport" a bit premature at this stage? Don't we first need to send up an army of miner robots to carve out some caves where people can be relatively safe from radiation (and likely miserable)?

Wait . . . actually . . . shouldn't we have decent maps of the Martian physiography (particularly the hydrosphere), maybe even some clues as to where any usable ores or organics are located before we even send up the army of miner robots?

And then of course, I have to ask: why? Why would anyone want to live a miserable cramped existence in an underground hovel on a cold windy nearly airless planet, dependent on an intricate and fragile resource reclamation and extraction technology just to cling to survival?

Earth isn't THAT bad is it?

Send more robots, they love it up there! 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Diche Bach
correction

[kerbiloid]

57 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

Don't we first need to send up an army of miner robots to carve out some caves where people can be relatively safe from radiation (and likely miserable)?

A specially trained personnel would easily replace an army of robots. This is colonial ship, isn't it?

Spoiler

 

[Diche Bach]

How long will "specially trained personnel" last though? Mars' atmosphere provides pretty much zero protection against solar and cosmic radiation eh?

Or are the folks who lead the way just "expendable?" You know: land, dig a bit, croak, send the next "pioneers?"

ADDIT: I mean . . . not trying to be a spoiled-sport, but . . . have the geniuses and tycoons really thought it all through?

Wouldn't a base on the MOON be a logical first step? You know, its a lot CLOSER and rescue would be a much more feasible project in the event things don't really go as planned? Plus, great "test site" for the various technologies that will be necessary?

ADDIT^2: LOL! I missed your pic on first glance Kerbi!  . . . Ahhhh! I gott it inow! Just send up some burly looking stars and starlets who are salty and charismatic and everything should be okay . . .

Edited September 18, 2016 by Diche Bach
elaboration of comment/question

[kerbiloid]

19 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

have the geniuses and tycoons really thought it all through?

Probably, geniuses and tycoons carefully estimated chances of this project implementation in future 50 years... No Martian colonist will be harmed until XXII century.

[Diche Bach]

My first reaction when I saw the title of this thread was to do a Google Advanced image search for a string that starts with F and ends with N and has two words (3 morphemes I think it might be . . .) in it

Most images weren't particularly fitting but then I found this one . . .

[./spoiler]

[Nibb31]

I don't see what a German WWII propaganda leaflet had to do with the discussion.

[Diche Bach]

OP asked "Mars Colonial Transporter: What will it look like?"

My first thought was "It will look like a flying coffin." Like I said, most the pics I found weren't suitable to convey the messsage, but the propaganda leaflet with the "FLYING COFFINS" headline struck me as pretty apt, given the penchant these days for "Mars or Bust!" marketing schemes.

 

 

[Karriz]

3 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

OP asked "Mars Colonial Transporter: What will it look like?"

My first thought was "It will look like a flying coffin." Like I said, most the pics I found weren't suitable to convey the messsage, but the propaganda leaflet with the "FLYING COFFINS" headline struck me as pretty apt, given the penchant these days for "Mars or Bust!" marketing schemes.

 

 

The first few missions will be very much about scouting I think. They'll stay for a couple of years, maybe build some infrastructure for a future colony and seek water ice and other resources, but it's not some kind of a suicide mission like you are suggesting.

Radiation won't be an issue during that two-year mission. There will likely be some increased risk of cancer decades afterwards, but nothing to be immediately concerned about.

Actual colonists who are determined to stay would then go underground. I don't think it would have to be much different than urban lifestyle on Earth. Buildings close to each other, some open spaces with trees and stuff. Occasionally you could go outside for a rover trip or something.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Karriz

[Diche Bach]

3 minutes ago, Karriz said:

Radiation won't be an issue during that two-year mission. There will likely be some increased risk of cancer decades afterwards, but nothing to be immediately concerned about.

Are you just speculating? I seem to recall reading some stuff that suggests the trip itself might be extremely debilitating, and not simply because of the baseline radiation exposure (and potential for much higher--basically lethal--radiation depending on Sol's "mood" at the time).

Longest time spent in LEO is what? 13 months? That poor guy could barely walk if memory serves.

ADDIT: and one other question: why!? send people to "scout?" That is what robots are for!

Edited September 18, 2016 by Diche Bach

[Karriz]

13 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

Are you just speculating? I seem to recall reading some stuff that suggests the trip itself might be extremely debilitating, and not simply because of the baseline radiation exposure (and potential for much higher--basically lethal--radiation depending on Sol's "mood" at the time).

Longest time spent in LEO is what? 13 months? That poor guy could barely walk if memory serves.

ADDIT: and one other question: why!? send people to "scout?" That is what robots are for!

There's research on the radiation issue that goes both ways. This says that lifetime cancer risk would rise from the usual 12-16% to about 20%: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/1_NAC_HEO_SMD_Committee_Mars_Radiation_Intro_2015April7_Final_TAGGED.pdf 

For solar mass ejections there would have to be a water-covered shelter.

Zero-g is another issue of course. I think the muscle loss is not that big of a problem, as ISS astronauts can stand on their feet after landing.

https://www.quora.com/After-floating-around-in-the-ISS-for-many-days-how-does-it-feel-to-use-your-feet-and-walk-when-you-get-back-to-Earth

Some other things caused by zero-g like decreasing eyesight may be a big problem for longer stays in zero-g, but for a 6-month transit it's not a show-stopper.

Of course robots would go first, SpaceX's plan includes several red dragons and and at least one unmanned MCT landing before anyone sets foot on the planet. You have to send people at some point though, or not send them at all.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Karriz

[Diche Bach]

This site seems to be a pretty good "one stop" shop for an overview on the rigors of space travel for human beings.

THE HUMAN BODY IN SPACE: DISTINGUISHING FACT FROM FICTION

This page is quite brief, so I wouldn't consider it the "last word" on the topic. But what I gather is "at this point, the technology to make it sufficiently safe to even get to Mars within reasonable margins" is not operational.

I quote

Quote

The prospect of interplanetary missions compounds known health concerns regarding space travel. With our current technology, a manned mission to Mars would take more than two years, and by conservative estimates, simply getting to Mars might take 6 to 8 months. Radiation measurements recorded by NASA’s Curiosity rover during its transit to Mars suggest that with today’s technology, astronauts would be exposed to a minimum of 660 ± 120 millisieverts (a measure of radiation dosage) over the course of a round trip [14]. Because NASA’s career exposure limit for astronauts is only slightly greater at 1000 millisieverts, this recent data is cause for great concern.

. . .

The prospect of interplanetary missions compounds known health concerns regarding space travel. With our current technology, a manned mission to Mars would take more than two years, and by conservative estimates, simply getting to Mars might take 6 to 8 months. Radiation measurements recorded by NASA’s Curiosity rover during its transit to Mars suggest that with today’s technology, astronauts would be exposed to a minimum of 660 ± 120 millisieverts (a measure of radiation dosage) over the course of a round trip [14]. Because NASA’s career exposure limit for astronauts is only slightly greater at 1000 millisieverts, this recent data is cause for great concern.

This is not the article I was thinking of when I said that I recalled "reading some stuff that suggests the trip itself might be extremely debilitating, and not simply because of the baseline radiation exposure (and potential for much higher--basically lethal--radiation depending on Sol's "mood" at the time)," above. However, the cautionary tone as well as the "there are still a lot of unknowns" tone match what I have encountered in other reasonable sources.

Given we have yet to return to the Moon after 41 years, it would seem apt to spend a decade or so reinvigorating our ability to simply do that: and perhaps to also test drive some of the technology that will be integral to a Mars flyby/scouting.

[Diche Bach]

So having read through the NASA power point you linked to above, what I come away with is: its doable, but there is a lot of development (medicine, life support/living regimen, engineering, etc.) that needs to be done.

NASA is projecting a manned mission to Mars in what? 20 years?

Quote

Based on current mitigation plans for Crew Health and Performance Risks, NASA can support a Mars Mission • Mars Mission Health Risks Have Been Identified And Medical Standards Are In Place To Protect Crew Health And Safety – While there is a fair amount of forward work to do, there are no crew health risks at this time that can be considered “mission-stoppers” There will be a level of crew health risk that will need to be accepted by the Agency to undertake a Mars mission, but that risk will continue to be reduced through R&D – • Based on present understanding of risks and standards – Exercise countermeasure approaches (hardware & prescriptions) require further refinement/optimization to meet exploration mission, vehicle, and habitat designs Additional data needed to fully quantify some risks (vision impairment, CO2 exposure) Renal stone risk needs new intervention/treatment approaches Some risks (nutrition, inflight medical conditions) require optimization in order to support a Mars Mission Pharmaceutical & food stability/shelf life needs to be improved for a Mars Mission Behavioral health and human factors impacts need to be further minimized – – – – – – The radiation standard would not currently be met

If the question of the thread is "what will it look like when it is finally functional" then yeah, it won't look like a flying coffin I suppose.

[Diche Bach]

Have been reading up what Wiki has to offer about Mars. Damn! You don't pay attention to something for 10 years or so and the amount of knowledge really piles up!

The fricking USGS has divided the planet up into 30 quandrangles and has published generalized geological maps of the place!?

Well alright then, seems: a) physiographic mappping is already pretty well done (at least at a superficial level, obviously nothing will ever replace several decades of human geologists or robot geologists and lots and lots of cores) but for purposes of knowing "where to look next" for additional stuff, it seems that the half-dozen or so orbital mappers have already done a pretty good job.

b) groundwater, seems to be a problem. I'm getting the impression it is highly dispersed, although it may exist in very low concentrations all over the place. Even the "Ice Caps" (which are largely composite ice/dust structures) are mostly CO2.

Apart from the radiation, it seems the scarcity of water might be a real show stopper for any "colonial" ventures.

But now, here is where I change my tune on "why even bother to go" . . . its got CAVES! lava tubes (not limestone) but that in my opinion is all the reason we need to send people. I knew they suspected they MIGHT exist, but had not seen the actual orbital recon photos that show them with a high level of fidelity.

If there is one place where life (and water) would seemingly exist on Mars, it would seem to me to be in caves. Not to mention the fact that: shelter from the harsh Martian environment and thus = no need for an army of miner bots just to have a decent place for the first human visitors to stay with some modicum of safety.

[_Augustus_]

3 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

Have been reading up what Wiki has to offer about Mars. Damn! You don't pay attention to something for 10 years or so and the amount of knowledge really piles up!

The fricking USGS has divided the planet up into 30 quandrangles and has published generalized geological maps of the place!?

Well alright then, seems: a) physiographic mappping is already pretty well done (at least at a superficial level, obviously nothing will ever replace several decades of human geologists or robot geologists and lots and lots of cores) but for purposes of knowing "where to look next" for additional stuff, it seems that the half-dozen or so orbital mappers have already done a pretty good job.

b) groundwater, seems to be a problem. I'm getting the impression it is highly dispersed, although it may exist in very low concentrations all over the place. Even the "Ice Caps" (which are largely composite ice/dust structures) are mostly CO2.

Apart from the radiation, it seems the scarcity of water might be a real show stopper for any "colonial" ventures.

But now, here is where I change my tune on "why even bother to go" . . . its got CAVES! lava tubes (not limestone) but that in my opinion is all the reason we need to send people. I knew they suspected they MIGHT exist, but had not seen the actual orbital recon photos that show them with a high level of fidelity.

If there is one place where life (and water) would seemingly exist on Mars, it would seem to me to be in caves. Not to mention the fact that: shelter from the harsh Martian environment and thus = no need for an army of miner bots just to have a decent place for the first human visitors to stay with some modicum of safety.

For all we know, there could be MACROSCOPIC life down in those caves, we'd have no idea....

[Diche Bach]

Just now, _Augustus_ said:

For all we know, there could be MACROSCOPIC life down in those caves, we'd have no idea....

Yup. Caves are fascinating from an ecological perspective. Despite the fact they (excluding entrance areas) get very little energy directly from the sun, I don't think there is a cave on Earth that is truly devoid of life, and indeed almost ALL of them have fairly complex ecologies. Now granted, in the ones with the most complex ecologies, you got trogoloxenes who go outside to get food and bring energy in in their mulch, as well as surface water that brings in a lot of biomass.

Nonetheless, the stability of underground environments on Mars (both in terms of temperature, radiation, and water, etc.) would to me seem the most likely place for life to have made it. Combine this with the fact the planet has obviously had periods with LOTS of active surface water . . . seems promising to check it out thoroughly to me, and I don't think robots will be that good at cave exploring on Mars.

[_Augustus_]

1 minute ago, Diche Bach said:

Yup. Caves are fascinating from an ecological perspective. Despite the fact they (excluding entrance areas) get very little energy directly from the sun, I don't think there is a cave on Earth that is truly devoid of life, and indeed almost ALL of them have fairly complex ecologies. Now granted, in the ones with the most complex ecologies, you got trogoloxenes who go outside to get food and bring energy in in their mulch, as well as surface water that brings in a lot of biomass.

Nonetheless, the stability of underground environments on Mars (both in terms of temperature, radiation, and water, etc.) would to me seem the most likely place for life to have made it. Combine this with the fact the planet has obviously had periods with LOTS of active surface water . . . seems promising to check it out thoroughly to me, and I don't think robots will be that good at cave exploring on Mars.

Well, a robot has to be able to transmit data, and a cave stops that. Also, you'd have to have big batteries or an RTG to go inside a cave for an extended period of time with a robot.

SEND IN THE HUMANS!

Edited September 18, 2016 by _Augustus_

[Diche Bach]

4 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Well, a robot has to be able to transmit data, and a cave stops that. Also, you'd have to have big batteries or an RTG to go inside a cave for an extended period of time with a robot.

SEND IN THE HUMANS!

I guess so!

Actually, I have some old caving buddies whom I'm quite certain would be happy to sign up for a one way trip!  Good surveyors/field scientists too (though the part about the space flight/rocket ship control they might not be so swuft at)!

ADDIT: actually now that I think about it . . . the scales and extents could be absolutely stupendous. For whatever reason, everything on Mars seems to be several times more "massive" than on Earth, and given the entire southern hemisphere is dominated by gigantic lava flows and shield volcanoes, the extent of the lava caves could be positively mind boggling.

Just as an example: the deepest cave "in the United States" is a lava tube system on the Big Island in Hawaii, basically a series of sloping tubes and probably quite a few short pits that descend down the slopes of Mauna Kea mountain . . . cannot remember the name of the damn system now . . . Ah! Kazamura 65km in total "length" (minimum number of lengths of survey tape to traverse the 'whole' cave) and 1100m deep (total vertical extent from highest to lowest inside the cave [and excluding OUTSIDE the cave obviously!]). Note, 1100m is not the actual "depth" of the cave (meaning the maximum depth at any point in the cave from the surface, that might only be in the 100m or or less ballpark, not sure).

I don't know what the largest chamber is inside Kazamura, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were sections in the 15m high by 30m wide ballpark, perhaps even some actual "room like" chambers where lava swirled around before it continued flowing down an exit tube. Conceivably, one could 'easily' build habitation for scores if not hundreds of even thousands of humans inside such caves (easier than excavating the space by a long shot, though 'easy' relative to doing anything comparable on Earth: NOT), and with 50 to 100 meters of Martin regolith and bedrock between the humans and the surface, that would seemingly be pretty safe from radiation.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Diche Bach

[_Augustus_]

1 minute ago, Diche Bach said:

I guess so!

Actually, I have some old caving buddies whom I'm quite certain would be happy to sign up for a one way trip!  Good surveyors/field scientists too (though the part about the space flight/rocket ship control they might not be so swuft at)!

Harrison Schmitt barely knew how to fly the Apollo CSM and LM...

[Diche Bach]

26 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Harrison Schmitt barely knew how to fly the Apollo CSM and LM...

Oh I LIKE that guy!

[Nothalogh]

On 8/24/2016 at 2:12 PM, Scotius said:

I hope there will be voting process for the name of the first ship I bet top three proposals will be: Enterprise, Hermes and Ares

We already know where the names will come from, the same place the droneship names came from

[Rakaydos]

22 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

We already know where the names will come from, the same place the droneship names came from

 

So names like "Has Anyone Found My Gravatas?"

[Nothalogh]

5 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

 

So names like "Has Anyone Found My Gravatas?"

More or less.

• Diplomatic Immunity 
• Atlas 
• Opening Act 
• Foreign Object 
• Chain Reaction 
• Double Jeopardy
• Prenuptial Agreement 
• Electroshock Therapy
• Chemical Vacation 
• Unwanted Advance 
• Status Symbol 
• Conquistador  
• Exposure Therapy  
• Eminent Domain  
• Cold Iron 
• Implied Consent  
• To Whom It May Concern 
• Ultima Ratio

Stuff like that

[Diche Bach]

Re: Colonies. I just wrote out a fairly lengthy comment to a, very well-done ESA promotional Youtube video that touches on the topic.

Quote

A fantastic video. But I have to take issue with the notion that the accomplishments of the ISS constitute "colonization." I think this is an important point to make because it highlights how much more we have to achieve, and it arguably points in policy directions where ESA, NASA, etc., must focus in order for any of these agencies to achieve the vision of human colonization of space which they espouse. The ISS is very far from 100% self-sustaining. I would guess the only resource the ISS can gather and steward on its own, without replenishment from Earth, is electricity. While 100% self-sustenance is probably an unreasonably high standard, surely being able to provide for basic necessities (breathable air, drinkable water, environmental regulation, edibles) for prolonged periods should be taken as a requisite level to consider any spacecraft as a "colony." The capacity for fabrication of tools and replacement/spare parts, and the ability to sustain reproducing human families are--in anthropological terms--inextricable with the concept of a "colony." But these standards are perhaps 1000 or more years away in our future, so I don't think it would be reasonable to hold the ISS to that high standard of what constitutes a "space colony." Certainly conceiving, much less carrying a child to term and giving birth in micro-gravity would seem irresponsible at this stage given how little we know about the long-term effects of space environments on human physiology, let alone fetal, or child development. I would hope that the agencies require female crew members to use contraceptives while in space, because not doing so seems reckless to me. The point being: we are still merely visitors in space and until our ability to truly "LIVE" there, including full lifetimes spent there from conception to grave, applying the word "colony" will reflect a certain degree of dishonesty if not hubris. We are creatures of Earth, and short of long-term evolutionary changes, which may well prove to be impossible and our mutually exclusive with our terrestrial existence, we will only "colonize" space by recreating the environmental and ecological conditions of Earth to a relatively high fidelity, even if only at 'micro-scales.' I suspect our species will one day achieve true space colonies including (at minimum) closed-loop, self-sustaining biospheres which can handle the essentials of life, but be realistic: the ISS is not this, and to my knowledge, there are presently no plans or intentions to pursue the sorts of projects which could eventually lead to a true "orbital colony."

 

[Rakaydos]

6 minutes ago, Nothalogh said:

More or less.

• Diplomatic Immunity 
• Atlas 
• Opening Act 
• Foreign Object 
• Chain Reaction 
• Double Jeopardy
• Prenuptial Agreement 
• Electroshock Therapy
• Chemical Vacation 
• Unwanted Advance 
• Status Symbol 
• Conquistador  
• Exposure Therapy  
• Eminent Domain  
• Cold Iron 
• Implied Consent  
• To Whom It May Concern 
• Ultima Ratio

Stuff like that

From an nterview with Iain M Banks:

Somebody once told me that the ships Very Little Gravitas Indeed and Zero Gravitas were a response to a scathing review. Is this true?

Yes. But it was a scathing review of Culture ship-naming policy delivered by another Involved civilisation. They suggested that such enormously powerful and intellectually refined entities ought to have names with a little more gravitas, to reflect their near-god-like status; the immediate and sustained reaction of one of the Culture's ship manufacturies was to name all its subsequent vessels things like: Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out; Gravitas, What Gravitas?; Gravitas... Gravitas... No, Don't Help Me, I'll Get It In A Moment...; Gravitas Free Zone; Low Gravitas Warning Signal, etc etc (including the Zen-like Absolutely No You-No-What). I am so sad I have a separate list of the Gravitas ships at home. It currently runs to about 20, I think.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Rakaydos