NationStates Jolt Archive

written by Frank Stratford on August 05, 2005


Anyone who knows me knows that my main topic of interest lies in ways of gaining the funding we need for future missions, settlement and terraforming of Mars. It is a vital subject and without it there can be no future on Mars. I have been of the view that there is enough colonization and terraforming information out there so why focus on the end result when we can't even deal with the funding problems? But the simple fact is, based on pure science we have very few tested plans for the first mission and settlement of Mars. There are many theories but little actual hard data to go on, or so it seems. In this article I want to discuss some of the ideas and requirements for a successful settlement on Mars, especially in those first years after landing.
Getting to Mars will be a challenge in itself but as many in the Mars advocacy community have pointed out, we do have the technology right now to launch such a mission. Some of the launch vehicles mentioned could be- The Russian Energia is described as "the most powerful booster in the world" and could easily be used in a successful Mars mission. At first glance, it looks refreshingly similar to those familiar with the US Space Shuttle. That initial impression is where the similarities end, however. The Energia configuration consists of a large central core similar in appearance to the Space Shuttle's external tank. One important difference, however, is that this is a genuine rocket stage complete with four engines (comparable to the Space Shuttle Main Engines) and guidance system. Four booster stages are arranged in two pairs on either side of the central core. Although these look similar to the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters, they are, in fact, liquid-fuelled. In other applications these rockets actually form the first stage of another Russian launch vehicle called 'Zenit'. One interesting feature of the Energia rocket is the location of the payload. Rather than mounted axially on the top of the rocket, Energia mounts the payload on its back. In 1987 the Energia lifted the heaviest payload ever of 100,000 kg. A manned mission to Mars could easily be made to fit this requirement.

Other boosters considered have been Europe’s Ariane 5, the Lockheed Martin Atlas 5, Boeing’s Delta 4 and the Khrunichev Space Center’s Proton vehicles along with future launch concepts like the Saturn VI or the SpaceX Falcon series, a much lower cost launch vehicle that promises great things for the settlement of new worlds like the Moon and Mars. The new CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) is being designed as the passenger component of any future manned space flights and will be able to be modified for use in flights to the Moon and Mars. The design and planning for this is well under way. Any component that deals with life support and crew habitation will need several criteria met before going to Mars. Things like radiation protection, artificial gravity, food and water supplies, and life support systems will all need to be on the cutting edge of any developments to be a success. Fabrics like Demron can be considered as good for radiation shielding as do concepts like magnetic radiation shielding. Practical types of shield include the magnetic shield, in which a strong magnetic field diverts charged particles from the crew region, and the magnetic/electrostatic plasma shield, in which an electrostatic field shields the crew from positively charged particles, while a magnetic field confines electrons from the space plasma to provide charge neutrality. Advances in technology include high-strength composite materials, high temperature superconductors, numerical computational solutions to particle transport in electromagnetic fields, and a technology base for construction and operation of large superconducting magnets. These advances make electromagnetic shielding a practical alternative for near-term future missions.

Such shielding can also be used for protection of any surface settlements on Mars. As the main hab will most likely be already equipped with such devices and materials, it would seem prudent to continue using such systems once on Mars, at least for the first one or two missions. Going underground has been suggested also as a solution to radiation shielding and no doubt this will be utilised once the necessary equipment is brought to Mars on subsequent missions. What type of space suits could be used on Mars? I am happy to report that progressive work and research is being undertaken as we speak by groups like the Mars Society on solutions to this practical requirement. Projects like MarsSkin are aiming to produce counter pressure suits that are much more flexible than the current "pressure Ballon" design. They will also contain advanced sensors that will detect any number of dangers to the astronauts working on Mars from cuts to radiation levels and dust interferance. The sensors are created by what's called nanotechnology manufacturing. They involve microscopic liquid crystals tethered to a thin film of gold by just a few molecules of a chemically receptive substance. When the receptive substance is exposed to certain chemicals, it bonds to the targeted chemical and loosens its grip on the liquid crystal.

Some of the other major challenges to be dealt with in the first years on Mars will be the creation and successful maintenance of food production, water supplies, recycling efficiency and production of energy for the ongoing viability and growth of any first settlement. Most likely the first and most practical energy source could be nuclear and most definitely solar. Any greenhouse component to a future base will utilise the latest in genetically modified plants and will rely heavily on the valuable lessons learnt through years of experimentation with the growth of plants in Low Earth Orbit missions from the shuttle and I.S.S. Assurance of food quality and food safety is an essential component in the maintenance of crew health and well-being. Food quality and safety efforts should be focused on monitoring the shelf stability of processed food ingredients, on identification and control of microbial agents of food spoilage, including the development of countermeasures to ameliorate their effects.

At some point manufacturing of building materials and other needed supports systems will have to be set up for the future viability of any Mars base, and possibly could be started by utilising one of the habs as a first manufacturing centre. Products like fiberglass (locally produced), Metallurgy (all types of metals) Polymers (such as polyethylene made from ethylene from CO2) Brick Masonry (either for unpressurized shelter, or covered with regolith for a pressurized space) and plant products (especially if a byproduct of food growth.) will be just a few of the requirements of an ongoing settlement to be perfected. Once local material production is in full operation, successful expansion of any settlement can proceed. It will probably take several missions to establish a first base that can function fully independent from continuing earth resupply. Eventually even domed structures will start to be built but they will have to take care with the various pressure issues for construction of such buildings. I picture a first settlement as a cluster of a few permanent habs, some greenhouses, a manufacturing centre, some half or full underground structures and pressurized rovers to transport the settlers in their explorations around Mars.

People will need decent recreational pursuits also, even in the first few years, and I can see things like a swimming pool being a useful project to help keep the settlers fit while they are enjoying themselves. The first habs should contain not just the basics for survival but the basics for psychological survival as well. This will also be an important component of any successful settlement. It would be a worthwhile project for them to construct a communications hub where settlers can contact people back on earth and be entertained by new films, books and games sent from earth via systems like the future Mars Telecommunications Orbiter. I can forsee the need for some type of roads or transponder routes to be established also for the mobile explorations of Mars by the first settlers to be built as they expand outwards. Can we imagine bulldozers on Mars? This may be accomplished by robotic rover style vehicles as a solution to keeping radiation exposure down to a minimum and could easily be placed aboard any current proposed missions as a first step to larger machines. Those first years will be groundbreaking and exciting for all those who participate and all of those who will watch from earth.

The key in a successful settlement is to keep things fresh, to not be afraid of embarking upon non-scientific projects because after all, Mars will be a future home for many people and we should always remember that. I cannot tell what a first base will look like but one element that should not be ignored is the Human element. Scientific bases usually only have required personnel, but I think this exploration of a new world should include people from many walks of life so that we here on earth can gain a balanced and inspiring picture of what Mars really is. If it becomes a pure science project it will once again turn off the general public as later Moon missions did and we cannot afford that mistake this time round. Artists on Mars? Most definitely. Writers? Yes. Media professionals? For sure. All of these and more should be included in a first settlement. A settlement on Mars cannot be allowed to be just for science and engineering purposes. As Earth is made up of a whole variety of people, so should Mars be. These are some of the issues we need to consider if we are to settle Mars.


What do you think of this, I think it was an interesting article. Read it and post your thoughts.

Well........either no one cares, or they are still reading it. I'll be patient.

What's the timetable for this?

Well........either no one cares, or they are still reading it. I'll be patient.

Still reading. Most NSers can't read paragraphs, and have to look up techniques before tackling works that employ them.

What's the timetable for this?

I don't know, I didn't write it. If I wasn't stoned I'd try to find out. But....

Couple problems with this.

Number 1 – yes it is most certainly technically feasible. But why? There is just no justification for the level of expenditure that would be required to build and maintain a colony on Mars. This sort of endeavor would be insanely expensive.

Number 2 – the reason why such missions are comprised almost entirely of pure scientists is that it is incredibly expensive to train and put someone in space. The cost is such that sending a poet into space just is not worth the expenditure. So you put a painter on Mars – that is one less scientist that goes, and less research that gets done. Contrary to the common perception, scientists are not all socially and artistically incompetent nerds. Just because someone is an accomplished biologist doesn’t mean they are not artistic. Sending people from a variety of fields just for the sake of ‘diversity’ in the crew is a phenomenal waste of money (remember it is incredibly expensive and you are very limited in the number of people who can be sustained).

If you want to colonize Mars, you will have to show why it is so much more important to spend a couple trillion dollars on starting a Mars base rather than on curing diseases, reducing pollution, or any other number of vital terrestrial projects.

Practically speaking, any mission to Mars would take decades to become self-sufficient (if at all) at an exorbitant cost. It would have to be comprised of only research scientists and engineers focused on establishing a working colony as the number of people that could be supported in a colony is very small.

The benefits to be gained are in research would be much easier and cheaper (in other words you could do far more with the same resources) locally. Any research on Mars itself could be done remotely with the use of cheap unmanned missions.

The bottom line is that the return on investment simply does not justify the expenditure.

Couple problems with this.

Number 1 – yes it is most certainly technically feasible. But why? There is just no justification for the level of expenditure that would be required to build and maintain a colony on Mars. This sort of endeavor would be insanely expensive.

Number 2 – the reason why such missions are comprised almost entirely of pure scientists is that it is incredibly expensive to train and put someone in space. The cost is such that sending a poet into space just is not worth the expenditure. So you put a painter on Mars – that is one less scientist that goes, and less research that gets done. Contrary to the common perception, scientists are not all socially and artistically incompetent nerds. Just because someone is an accomplished biologist doesn’t mean they are not artistic. Sending people from a variety of fields just for the sake of ‘diversity’ in the crew is a phenomenal waste of money (remember it is incredibly expensive and you are very limited in the number of people who can be sustained).

If you want to colonize Mars, you will have to show why it is so much more important to spend a couple trillion dollars on starting a Mars base rather than on curing diseases, reducing pollution, or any other number of vital terrestrial projects.

Practically speaking, any mission to Mars would take decades to become self-sufficient (if at all) at an exorbitant cost. It would have to be comprised of only research scientists and engineers focused on establishing a working colony as the number of people that could be supported in a colony is very small.

The benefits to be gained are in research would be much easier and cheaper (in other words you could do far more with the same resources) locally. Any research on Mars itself could be done remotely with the use of cheap unmanned missions.

The bottom line is that the return on investment simply does not justify the expenditure.


We could unpopulate an overcrowded earth by sending people to mars after a colony was established.

We could unpopulate an overcrowded earth by sending people to mars after a colony was established.

Much cheaper to just quietly slip birth-control into the water supplies.

Much cheaper to just quietly slip birth-control into the water supplies.

Quieter, but it violates human rights laws. But it would be cheaper. Just place a limit on how many children they can legally have, like china did.

Quieter, but it violates human rights laws. But it would be cheaper. Just place a limit on how many children they can legally have, like china did.

Some populations seem unable to keep their population growth in check.
Historically, as mortality rates decline, birthrates follow as society adapts to the new situation. When modern medicine is introduced to primitive societies, you see a decline in mortality rates, but the society has not had the time to adjust, thus leading to over-population. If external forces have caused such an imbalance, and internal forces do not correct it, should those same external forces seek to redress the balance?

Thus, if you change the mortality rate, should you not seek to change fertility rates as well? Is it immoral to address the side-effects of the changes you have imposed upon another culture? While removing the decision to have children is likely a violation of someone’s human rights, does the harm caused to society by external force causing it to outgrow its means of supporting that society outweigh that violation? Is reducing fertility a greater crime than causing mass starvation?

But that is for another thread.

On this topic, are the enormous resources spent on establishing a colony on Mars not better spent fixing the problems on this planet?

Some populations seem unable to keep their population growth in check.
Historically, as mortality rates decline, birthrates follow as society adapts to the new situation. When modern medicine is introduced to primitive societies, you see a decline in mortality rates, but the society has not had the time to adjust, thus leading to over-population. If external forces have caused such an imbalance, and internal forces do not correct it, should those same external forces seek to redress the balance?

Thus, if you change the mortality rate, should you not seek to change fertility rates as well? Is it immoral to address the side-effects of the changes you have imposed upon another culture? While removing the decision to have children is likely a violation of someone’s human rights, does the harm caused to society by external force causing it to outgrow its means of supporting that society outweigh that violation? Is reducing fertility a greater crime than causing mass starvation?

But that is for another thread.

On this topic, are the enormous resources spent on establishing a colony on Mars not better spent fixing the problems on this planet?

That is a good point, I didn't say i agree with the article, just that it was an interesting read.

he's full of shit and thinks we live in a episode of the Jetsons most of the things that he somehow thinks will solve the problems don’t actually exist yet combine this with the fact that:

1) it will not be profitable and sending people to mars to solve overcrowding will be to expensive (especially when orbital Earth colonies will be much cheaper and can actually be useful)

2) Mars has no natural resources to offer us unlike the Moon which has large supplies of Helium-3 and other elements that are rare on planets like Earth (and as such Mars) the other side of this is the fact that lunar colonies will need Earth resources making trade vital instead of having nothing more than a colony

he's full of shit and thinks we live in a episode of the Jetsons most of the things that he somehow thinks will solve the problems don’t actually exist yet combine this with the fact that:

1) it will not be profitable and sending people to mars to solve overcrowding will be to expensive (especially when orbital Earth colonies will be much cheaper and can actually be useful)

2) Mars has no natural resources to offer us unlike the Moon which has large supplies of Helium-3 and other elements that are rare on planets like Earth (and as such Mars) the other side of this is the fact that lunar colonies will need Earth resources making trade vital instead of having nothing more than a colony

This is true, like I said just stating what I interpretted from the article.

he's full of shit and thinks we live in a episode of the Jetsons most of the things that he somehow thinks will solve the problems don’t actually exist yet combine this with the fact that:

1) it will not be profitable and sending people to mars to solve overcrowding will be to expensive (especially when orbital Earth colonies will be much cheaper and can actually be useful)


Quite interesting, I saw a while back an idea to convert old shuttle fuel containers into space condos, of sort. Would be interesting.


2) Mars has no natural resources to offer us unlike the Moon which has large supplies of Helium-3 and other elements that are rare on planets like Earth (and as such Mars) the other side of this is the fact that lunar colonies will need Earth resources making trade vital instead of having nothing more than a colony

Well, the general idea would be to first plant the "seeds" of nature onto Mars, first an atmosphere(General idea with algea), and then plants, so forth and so on. However, if even possible, it would take an ungodly amount of time for a viable ecosystem to be put into place. In other words, not within my, my childrens, their childrens, and possible several generations later, lifetime. If even possible. The purpose that I could see a Mars colony would be a stepping point, and possible refueling point, for further expeditions.

This is true, like I said just stating what I interpretted from the article.

I suggest avoiding such articles in future especially if there from Frank Stratford
*nods*

We could unpopulate an overcrowded earth by sending people to mars after a colony was established.

LOL. I don't think you appreceate just how expensive sending a person to Mars is.

I suggest avoiding such articles in future especially if there from Frank Stratford
*nods*

*sighs* gonna have to, I dont even like Stratford, this is one of the only articles he's wrote that slightly interested me.

LOL. I don't think you appreceate just how expensive sending a person to Mars is.

Just saying, if it could be done cheaper, it would be a viable option.

Quite interesting, I saw a while back an idea to convert old shuttle fuel containers into space condos, of sort. Would be interesting.

a key part of such a plan is star elevators on Earths surface sending goods up to these colonies lowering the problems of space travel and cost immensely (this means we can also lower the trouble of future space missions)

if memory serves me well there is already one under construction in Dubai

Well, the general idea would be to first plant the "seeds" of nature onto Mars, first an atmosphere(General idea with algea), and then plants, so forth and so on.

problem is of course such a scheme is all theory at this point and such genetic feats may be better served on the Moon considering:

-Bacteria have managed to live that hitched on the lunar Landers

-the moons low gravity means crops can grow much larger (in fact one theory is that animals where larger in the past because Earths gravity was lower as you can see when you compare fossils of ancient fish)

The purpose that I could see a Mars colony would be a stepping point, and possible refueling point, for further expeditions.

I see Mars being more of a solar factory its one of the 3 rock planets in the solar system and the only one which is capable of large industry development with little care for the environment it also happens to be close to the solar Asteroid belt* which will be useful in future mining operations

*it’s a sad fact that when it comes to naming solar objects as a rule we have named are solar objects as the type as well

Just saying, if it could be done cheaper, it would be a viable option.

seeing as how the European colonies could only get settlers if there was economic/extreme political trouble or through transportation you may have some difficulty finding colonists* especially if they have to bring there families to a hostile environment

*unless of course you can somehow find a way to make an incredible amount of wealth out of Mars

-Bacteria have managed to live that hitched on the lunar Landers


-the moons low gravity means crops can grow much larger (in fact one theory is that animals where larger in the past because Earths gravity was lower as you can see when you compare fossils of ancient fish)



In relation to the first I think it was virus particles (though I may be wrong)

In relation to th second WTF!!!!1111one the mass of the earth has not changed by very much at all scince the moon was formed.

seeing as how the European colonies could only get settlers if there was economic/extreme political trouble or through transportation you may have some difficulty finding colonists* especially if they have to bring there families to a hostile environment

*unless of course you can somehow find a way to make an incredible amount of wealth out of Mars

Don't know, we could send our criminals up there, basiclly turn mars into a bigass prison.

In relation to the first I think it was virus particles (though I may be wrong)

well they all weren’t virus particles (but allot where which makes me wonder about how that happened) sadly they where in the dormant state though

In relation to th second WTF!!!!1111one the mass of the earth has not changed by very much at all scince the moon was formed.

you seem to forget how much the Earth has been pounded by space rock over the millions of years this is supposedly why Earth has increased in day length over millions of years*

*Though this just a supposed theory, modern science puts the reason at the Moons drift away from Earth which has allot more weight (excuse the pun) behind it

Don't know, we could send our criminals up there, basiclly turn mars into a bigass prison.

Lets not conditions during the exile trips to places like Australia made even the people of those days who where highly influenced by the idea of a criminal class (read that as species) horrified

Also even the comparatively cheap journey to Australia cost the British empire a 3rd of its total spending

Lets not conditions during the exile trips to places like Australia made even the people of those days who where highly influenced by the idea of a criminal class (read that as species) horrified

Also even the comparatively cheap journey to Australia cost the British empire a 3rd of its total spending

Just an idea. Again if it could be done cheaply and effeciantly. It would be an option. sending dangorous convicts into space is better then keeping them on earth where they might escape.

Just an idea. Again if it could be done cheaply and effeciantly. It would be an option. sending dangorous convicts into space is better then keeping them on earth where they might escape.

doing all the work to make mars inhabitable and then send criminals up there? that sounds stupid to me.

-the moons low gravity means crops can grow much larger (in fact one theory is that animals where larger in the past because Earths gravity was lower as you can see when you compare fossils of ancient fish)
The earth's gravity has never changed by a significant amount. I think animals were larger because of more oxygen in the atmosphere
Crops still need an atmosphere to grow

Mars is a dream. It may be achieved with ridiculous amounts of money but what's the point? Concentrate on sorting the earth out first.

Just an idea. Again if it could be done cheaply and effeciantly. It would be an option. sending dangorous convicts into space is better then keeping them on earth where they might escape.

Yeah, but they'd only start running things themselves and win The Ashes.

you seem to forget how much the Earth has been pounded by space rock over the millions of years this is supposedly why Earth has increased in day length over millions of years*


The % change is miniscule, any impactor large enough to have a significant impact on the mass of the Earth would eject a large % of its mass back into space due to the force of the colision.

The % change is miniscule, any impactor large enough to have a significant impact on the mass of the Earth would eject a large % of its mass back into space due to the force of the colision.

Hence the formation of the Moon (currently accepted theory).

The earth's gravity has never changed by a significant amount. I think animals were larger because of more oxygen in the atmosphere
Crops still need an atmosphere to grow

Mars is a dream. It may be achieved with ridiculous amounts of money but what's the point? Concentrate on sorting the earth out first.

(a) (and this is the reason I suspect any idea to settle mars is proposed), its cool

(b) there might be a reactor core beneath the surface.