Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Mars Consortium 2011

Expand Messages
  • frank_stratford
    The Mars Consortium Project Overview This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet –
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 3, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The Mars Consortium
      Project Overview

      This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.

      This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.

      The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.

      The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.

      Philosophy
      It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
      The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
      A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
      Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.

      Why Mars?
      Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
      Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.

      Why not the Moon?
      While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
      Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.

      Why a global consortium?
      The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
      Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
      By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
      Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
      Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.

      The World Mars Program
      The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
      Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
      What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
      What resources do we have?
      How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
      Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.

      Conclusion
      It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.

      These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-

      1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
      2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
      3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
      4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.

      Join us.
    • Michael Bloxham
      Sounds good, Frank. How can I help? ;-) ... From: frank_stratford Subject: [marsdrivemission] The Mars Consortium 2011 To:
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 3, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Sounds good, Frank. How can I help? ;-)

        --- On Mon, 3/1/11, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:

        From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
        Subject: [marsdrivemission] The Mars Consortium 2011
        To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
        Received: Monday, 3 January, 2011, 1:06 AM

         
        The Mars Consortium
        Project Overview

        This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.

        This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.

        The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.

        The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.

        Philosophy
        It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
        The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
        A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
        Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.

        Why Mars?
        Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
        Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.

        Why not the Moon?
        While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
        Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.

        Why a global consortium?
        The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
        Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
        By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
        Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
        Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.

        The World Mars Program
        The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
        Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
        What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
        What resources do we have?
        How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
        Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.

        Conclusion
        It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.

        These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-

        1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
        2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
        3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
        4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.

        Join us.


         
      • David
        Frank, I have read your project overview with some interest. To my uninformed self, it looks good. However, I do have a few comments. PHILOSOPHY: 1. It is
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 3, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Frank,

          I have read your project overview with some interest.

          To my uninformed self, it looks good. However, I do have a few comments.

          PHILOSOPHY:

          1. It is difficult to see how "this technology [water and air manufacturing, energy production etc.] can be applied anywhere on Earth", at least in any direct and specific way. Do you have any examples of how these might be applicable? In general, these would only be viable on Mars where there is extreme scarcity of these resources, making the use of the technologies essential, and I would suggest would not be economically viable on Earth (e.g. how much would a pint of water produced using our proposed ISRU purposes actually cost?). That's not to say there would be no benefit, it's just that I would suggest that benefits are likely to be somewhat more intangible, longer-term or indirect.

          2. "Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet...It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedome, health, happiness and abundance". I am not sure that this is supported by the evidence from previous expansions of the human race on Earth, although nice politics it might be!

          WHY MARS?

          3. "not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian [typo - should be Martian!] environment." I think that this should be qualified a little. We are unlikely to adapt to breath carbon dioxide at <10mBar, for example. I would instead suggest "that it is reasonable to expect that not only humans but many of Earth's species could live satisfactorily on Mars within accomodation that can be developed with today's technology." (or something similar).

          4. I would also note that an objection of many laymen would be that life would not be possible on Mars without an artificially-created environment (pressure domes, whatever) and I would suggest that you should pre-empt such criticism by noting that "although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artifical environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population."

          WHY NOT THE MOON?

          No comment on this section - I am happy with the argument presented.

          WHY A GLOBAL CONSORTIUM?

          5. Typo - "enegineering"

          6. "in order to spread the cost". Whilst you spread the cost by collaborating, your also increase it overall. I understand that a typical "rule of thumb" in major international collaborative definece procurement programmes is that the total cost goes up roughly with the square root of the number of participants (e.g. with 4 participants, the total cost is doubled). You still win, because each individual partner's share is reduced (in this example, by a factor of two). This arises from differing requirememtns, objectives, political arguing, vested interests to be catered to and so on. Of course,my model may not be totally applicable, but you could look at other programmes e.g. ESA, Airbus, etc. although cost information is likely to be commercially sensitive. Your point is however valid, individual contributions are lower, it's just that they may not be as much lower as at first might appear.

          7. "all participants ideally should have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic". This is perhaps unrealistic. I note that democratic governments are elected specifically to look after the interests of their own population, and they would not be doing their job otherwise. Instead, I would suggest we need a collaborative model that can work with national self-interest. Perhaps national governments could each put up a percentage of the money on the basis that a similar percentage of the work ends up with their own industry, universities and other organisations. It might be worth reviewing the models for other multi-national aerospace programmes.

          8. A further benefit of a collaborative approach (which you might not wish to articulate in your document) is that it becomes harder to stop or cancel the programme once it is underway, as partners are locked in to some greater or lesser extent. As an example, in my line of work, the Concorde programme would probably have been cancelled had it been a UK only (or French only) programme, but because there was never a time when both parties strongly wanted to pull out at the same time, it went ahead (and lost vast amounts of money).

          THE WORLD MARS PROGRAMME

          9. The danger of definite deadlines is that you push ahead with the next phase of work whether or not the previous one has been adequately completed. Programme management of an activity such as this is likely to be a significant challenge. I would like a little more time to think over this aspect then perhaps get back to you with more detailed comment.

          CONCLUSION

          No comment.

          That's all I've time for now.

          Regards,

          Dave G

          PS - Mike, I haven't forgotten your mission!


          --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
          >
          > The Mars Consortium
          > Project Overview
          >
          > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
          >
          > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
          >
          > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
          >
          > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
          >
          > Philosophy
          > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
          > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
          > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
          > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
          >
          > Why Mars?
          > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
          > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
          >
          > Why not the Moon?
          > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
          > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
          >
          > Why a global consortium?
          > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
          > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
          > By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
          > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
          > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
          >
          > The World Mars Program
          > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
          > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
          > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
          > What resources do we have?
          > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
          > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
          >
          > Conclusion
          > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
          >
          > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
          >
          > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
          > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
          > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
          > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
          >
          > Join us.
          >
        • frank_stratford
          That document was put together by Shaun Moss, a Mars advocate I frequently meet with here in Australia and was released as a rough draft to the members here
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 4, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            That document was put together by Shaun Moss, a Mars advocate I frequently meet with here in Australia and was released as a rough draft to the members here for comments and ideas.

            Thank you David for what you said, so I will try to address each point as I go--

            Earth based applications-

            1. Food Production and storage-

            How many people in the world don't have enough to eat? How many die of starvation each day? I watched a program on Discovery the other day about food production in Africa and the presenter showed clearly how a lack of technology and knowledge was one of the main contributors to starvation and crop failures in that continent (and corruption is also a big influence too), but where it matters, on the ground, many farmers who have the ability and resources to fix their problems don't because they are unaware of solutions. A Mars program greenhouse production facility will have definite benefits for these sorts of communities and for anyone in remote areas anywhere on earth.

            Communities in frozen wastelands will be able to grow crops 24/7 with advanced Mars greenhouse advancements for one. Communities in the deserts will also benefit. You may say- But can these communities pay for this? I say yes. Payment systems are available through a wide variety of aid organizations and micro loans for farmers are becoming quite popular in these sorts of areas. Closed Ecological Life Support Systems will involve the R&D on a wide range of fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices. It will even produce sources of protein like fish and chickens for example.

            I have spoken to researchers in this field before and the benefits are more than obvious. In fact this area alone could produce profits large enough to pay for an ongoing Mars program.

            Water production is also a no brainer for many water poor communities on earth, and increasingly those communities are located in developed western countries now. Yes, they can pay for this technology if developed. For example, making water from air/ ISRU on Mars will have direct applications for here on earth, including for example water from rocks.

            2. Air manufacturing- Unique to space exploration needs or not? Ask hospitals if they would like abundant supplies of oxygen? Ask industry if they could use more readily available/cheaper forms of oxygen production for various applications such as chemical experimentations, welding gas, clean room air supplies etc. Ask the underwater exploration and mining industries if they could use advanced air production technologies (or spin off technologies). Ask the nascent private space industries if they would benefit from cheap, easily produced air in their business plans for hotels and orbital flights?

            3. Energy Production- This world is anything if energy hungry. New and unique energy production technologies will have instant and extremely profitable benefits for all of us here on earth. For example- Hydrogen Fuel Cells- Hydrogen storage/production technologies. We struggle with this in our mission plans, but it is an elegant solution to many of our needs if we can gain significant advancements in these areas. The same applies to solar developments, nuclear, fusion, wind or any other energy production technologies we develop/perfect. Sure, right now, some work is happening in these areas, but the combined resources of a consortium would advance R&D in this area quite quickly, something I am sure investors would be interested in.

            Communities and industries that need these resources are already paying top dollar for current new technologies to ensure their supplies, and this is unlikely to change if they are presented a new range of technologies that can ensure and enhance their way of life and future.

            I hope this is specific enough for you David and gives you a general idea of where I am heading. Am I missing something here? If you say that no one will pay for these technologies because they will be too "unique" or too expensive, I think there is a misunderstanding here.

            This consortium will develop all of these areas and use some of the profits for Mars settlement as a short and long term program. It has to be sustainable after all.

            Expansion into space has never happened before David. Specifically on Mars we have a barren planet (and others like it), and a hostile environment to contend with. Expansion on earth cannot really be compared with space as there are many unique factors which will help to evolve a society there and here that learns to utilize ALL resources, not just those readily available. To think that it will all go bad is as unfounded as thinking it will all go good. I think the reality will be somewhere in between.

            I agree with your 3rd and 4th points on "Why mars".

            If the consortium is lead by the private sector (or managed from that sector), it will keep a better focus than if governments controlled it, and there are some good examples in the A380 airbus and similar consortium efforts- profits are not instant, but strictly controlled and pushed for. You can't get that with a government lead consortium. Governments are good to pay for things, but managment for profits must be controlled by the private sector.

            I agree with your 7th and 8th points.

            As this program is sustained by ongoing profits at each step, and many will run in parallel to each other at all times, profits will control the timeline. (As will government involvement). As governments see milestones being met, their investment will increase (as it already does in similar collaborative projects). As it begins to make sense economically for earth, many barriers we currently face will fall away.

            Here is a random list of areas which would benefit from this expedition-

            1. Astrobiology- Imagine if we find life on Mars? Even if we don't the detailed exploration of a new planet will reveal some profound secrets as some of the robotic missions have begun to do so.
            2. Comparitive Planetology- Is there global warming on Mars? What does the geological record tell us? What can we find underground? What can we find at the ice caps?
            3. Settlement- Mars is still the most viable candidate for human settlement on a new world as it has an abundance of recognized resources we need to survive, especially water.
            4. Medical science- The space race has already brought us many spin off medical advancements we take for granted today as the needs of living in space require out of the box thinking and as a result many thousands of lives have been saved and enhanced by discoveries in medical treatments and research for space. This is one area that especially appeals to me and if necessity is the mother of all invention, what will trying to live on Mars produce for humanity? We will never know if we never go.
            5. Industrial advancements/technologies- New production and manufacturing methods will need to be developed for many aspects of this program, and the benefits for earth based industries in aerospace, I.T, materials, robotics, mining, communications, and much more will benefit.


            Humans to Mars is a project that provides the spark to drive fast forward in many of these areas, and if done in a collaborative way with private sector and governments combined, it is the old principle of many hands make light work.

            Humans to Mars is a mega project, and like all mega projects it will create benefits for humanity for decades to come. So why does no one care about this idea in 2011?

            Is it because our focus is on other areas? But when I compare any other idea to this idea of going to Mars, nothing comes close to creating benefits in all of these combined areas. Mars IS a planet we can settle.

            For 5 years now Marsdrive and other groups have tried hard to sell all these benefits to governments and the public, but in 2011, what I am working on is a specific business plan to pitch at the private sector to show how each step of the R&D phase for Mars missions will produce definite ROI as each step is passed.

            I was challenged in an interview recently what would I say to a room of investors on all this, and right now, that is the plan I am working at.


            --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@...> wrote:
            >
            > Frank,
            >
            > I have read your project overview with some interest.
            >
            > To my uninformed self, it looks good. However, I do have a few comments.
            >
            > PHILOSOPHY:
            >
            > 1. It is difficult to see how "this technology [water and air manufacturing, energy production etc.] can be applied anywhere on Earth", at least in any direct and specific way. Do you have any examples of how these might be applicable? In general, these would only be viable on Mars where there is extreme scarcity of these resources, making the use of the technologies essential, and I would suggest would not be economically viable on Earth (e.g. how much would a pint of water produced using our proposed ISRU purposes actually cost?). That's not to say there would be no benefit, it's just that I would suggest that benefits are likely to be somewhat more intangible, longer-term or indirect.
            >
            > 2. "Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet...It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedome, health, happiness and abundance". I am not sure that this is supported by the evidence from previous expansions of the human race on Earth, although nice politics it might be!
            >
            > WHY MARS?
            >
            > 3. "not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian [typo - should be Martian!] environment." I think that this should be qualified a little. We are unlikely to adapt to breath carbon dioxide at <10mBar, for example. I would instead suggest "that it is reasonable to expect that not only humans but many of Earth's species could live satisfactorily on Mars within accomodation that can be developed with today's technology." (or something similar).
            >
            > 4. I would also note that an objection of many laymen would be that life would not be possible on Mars without an artificially-created environment (pressure domes, whatever) and I would suggest that you should pre-empt such criticism by noting that "although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artifical environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population."
            >
            > WHY NOT THE MOON?
            >
            > No comment on this section - I am happy with the argument presented.
            >
            > WHY A GLOBAL CONSORTIUM?
            >
            > 5. Typo - "enegineering"
            >
            > 6. "in order to spread the cost". Whilst you spread the cost by collaborating, your also increase it overall. I understand that a typical "rule of thumb" in major international collaborative definece procurement programmes is that the total cost goes up roughly with the square root of the number of participants (e.g. with 4 participants, the total cost is doubled). You still win, because each individual partner's share is reduced (in this example, by a factor of two). This arises from differing requirememtns, objectives, political arguing, vested interests to be catered to and so on. Of course,my model may not be totally applicable, but you could look at other programmes e.g. ESA, Airbus, etc. although cost information is likely to be commercially sensitive. Your point is however valid, individual contributions are lower, it's just that they may not be as much lower as at first might appear.
            >
            > 7. "all participants ideally should have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic". This is perhaps unrealistic. I note that democratic governments are elected specifically to look after the interests of their own population, and they would not be doing their job otherwise. Instead, I would suggest we need a collaborative model that can work with national self-interest. Perhaps national governments could each put up a percentage of the money on the basis that a similar percentage of the work ends up with their own industry, universities and other organisations. It might be worth reviewing the models for other multi-national aerospace programmes.
            >
            > 8. A further benefit of a collaborative approach (which you might not wish to articulate in your document) is that it becomes harder to stop or cancel the programme once it is underway, as partners are locked in to some greater or lesser extent. As an example, in my line of work, the Concorde programme would probably have been cancelled had it been a UK only (or French only) programme, but because there was never a time when both parties strongly wanted to pull out at the same time, it went ahead (and lost vast amounts of money).
            >
            > THE WORLD MARS PROGRAMME
            >
            > 9. The danger of definite deadlines is that you push ahead with the next phase of work whether or not the previous one has been adequately completed. Programme management of an activity such as this is likely to be a significant challenge. I would like a little more time to think over this aspect then perhaps get back to you with more detailed comment.
            >
            > CONCLUSION
            >
            > No comment.
            >
            > That's all I've time for now.
            >
            > Regards,
            >
            > Dave G
            >
            > PS - Mike, I haven't forgotten your mission!
            >
            >
            > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
            > >
            > > The Mars Consortium
            > > Project Overview
            > >
            > > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
            > >
            > > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
            > >
            > > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
            > >
            > > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
            > >
            > > Philosophy
            > > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
            > > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
            > > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
            > > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
            > >
            > > Why Mars?
            > > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
            > > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
            > >
            > > Why not the Moon?
            > > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
            > > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
            > >
            > > Why a global consortium?
            > > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
            > > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
            > > By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
            > > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
            > > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
            > >
            > > The World Mars Program
            > > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
            > > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
            > > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
            > > What resources do we have?
            > > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
            > > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
            > >
            > > Conclusion
            > > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
            > >
            > > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
            > >
            > > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
            > > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
            > > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
            > > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
            > >
            > > Join us.
            > >
            >
          • frank_stratford
            You already are helping Mike with the design work. I know you have copped some flak from sticking to your mobile habs idea but there are some issues which need
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 4, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              You already are helping Mike with the design work.

              I know you have copped some flak from sticking to your mobile habs idea but there are some issues which need pointing out-

              While we can be conservative as we like, no human mission to Mars will happen until at least 2020 and beyond. What is considered conservative and "safe" today may change over the next decade.

              Our culture is extremely risk averse and legalistic. The entire idea of a Mars mission is too far out for them to take seriously, no matter how conservative we go. So I see nothing wrong with exploring our options in depth.

              The aim of finding an ideal base site may indeed be a major life saving development needed quickly if problems developed for a fixed base. Plus if settlement is the goal, finding an ideal site quicker is not a bad thing, especially given the financial constraints of this program. If we take too long not putting down roots, chances of the money supply drying up increase exponentially. If it can be as self sufficient as possible in a quick time frame, we will have our beachhead on mars at last.

              When you talk of landing cargo/humans in smaller capsules as "heritage" derived landing systems I think this is a step too far Mike. Heritage of what? If your smallest piece is 10 or 20 mt, this is 1000 to 2000% more than anything landed before. Those pieces may seem small compared to NASA's 60 mt ideas, but they are still very massive when compared to what we are sending to Mars today, including the next mission of Mars Science Lab.

              These pieces will still require development/testing of technologies like the hypercone for example to land on Mars. We can't avoid this Mike and we make a big mistake if we think 10 or 20mT capsules will land with "bigger parachutes" or some such idea.

              What LV are you basing your design around? And how realistic is it to being built, or can Elon Musk or others help us? To me it looks like Musk is making actual progress towards his goals (which include Mars), so why not design around his BFR for example?

              --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...> wrote:
              >
              > Sounds good, Frank. How can I help? ;-)
              >
              > --- On Mon, 3/1/11, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
              > Subject: [marsdrivemission] The Mars Consortium 2011
              > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
              > Received: Monday, 3 January, 2011, 1:06 AM
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              > The Mars Consortium
              > Project Overview
              >
              > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet â€" the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
              >
              > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
              >
              > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
              >
              > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
              >
              > Philosophy
              > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
              > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is â€" a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
              > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
              > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
              >
              > Why Mars?
              > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
              > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
              >
              > Why not the Moon?
              > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
              > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops â€" possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
              >
              > Why a global consortium?
              > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
              > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
              > By combining the resources of all nations â€" including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure â€" it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
              > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
              > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
              >
              > The World Mars Program
              > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete â€" namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project â€" we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
              > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
              > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
              > What resources do we have?
              > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
              > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
              >
              > Conclusion
              > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
              >
              > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
              >
              > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
              > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
              > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
              > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
              >
              > Join us.
              >
            • frank_stratford
              Take 2 David-- The Mars Consortium Project Overview This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 4, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Take 2 David--

                The Mars Consortium

                Project Overview

                This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of academia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars. This program will achieve the greatest possible value and Return On Investment from R&D that has and will be conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.

                This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.

                The primary goal of the Consortium is to achieve a return on investment through each phase of the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.

                The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program. (WMP)
                The World Mars Program
                Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 24 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilize existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done.
                Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.

                To kick this off we will start with online global collaboration via the MarsDrive website, emails, small meetings and discussion forums. The initial plan is to organize a real world consortium conference for 2012-13 for all interested partners and investors.
                Investment Areas
                Investment in technology R&D is often conducted by governments and companies on an "as needed" basis or pursued from small sectors of industry for very specific profit oriented goals. Consortium style efforts are rare but have proven advantageous for large scale or complex programs. The Mars Consortium will be formed to achieve the aim of permanent settlement of Mars, but it is the intermediate steps along the way which will provide the main reason for this consortium's formation.
                Areas of technology needed to advance humans to Mars-
                • Recycling
                • Robotics
                • Aeronautics
                • Astronautics
                • Navigation
                • Communications
                • Satellites
                • Energy Production
                • Water Production
                • Food Production
                • Transportation- Surface vehicles
                • Materials- Radiation protection, nanomaterials, dust mitigation materials
                • Launch Vehicles
                • Transit Vehicles
                • Mars Landing Systems
                • Medical technologies
                • New Space Transportation technologies
                Many of these areas already have certain levels of investment and are generally headed in their own directions, but combined into a single program, all of these areas and their subsets will enjoy the benefits of an unprecedented level of investment, collaboration and unique goals being achieved.
                Each nation, company and entity involved will specialize in one or a number of these areas.
                Phase 1- Private Consortium- (First 5+ Year Phase)
                The structure of it will be that private sector companies and investors form the management section of the consortium first. With a legal entity formed and a plan laid out for how to achieve these goals, governments from across the world will be invited to invest in the program. Today, many governments already invest in many of the above areas, in a random piecemeal fashion. What would make them invest in humans to Mars when they are so risk averse already?
                The private consortium in its first phase will need to use some of its profits on gaining real in space and Mars mission experience by launching small scale unmanned missions for specific purposes of identifying Mars resources and potential human landing sites. These actions would set them apart as a serious space organization that governments need to take notice of. Until now, 2011, no private entity has sent anything to Mars or even the Moon. Doing this would change the game.
                The private consortium would involve a range of companies from aerospace experienced companies to young and fresh technology based companies that cover many of the above listed areas.
                How does it work?
                Every area of technology needed for Mars will require specialist attention and development. But to advance in these areas we need the combined finances of all companies. This means for example that as recycling technologies are perfected, all original consortium partners, while not all doing all areas of work, will share in the profits as proportional investment partners. The Mars Consortium is an investment vehicle for which many companies and individuals can contribute to a wide range of promising technologies brought together in a single project.
                A humans to Mars program will require dozens if not hundreds of technological advancements to be achieved, and any investor in this consortium will know that their chances of a profitable outcome are greatly increased by the sheer number of different areas of investment this program covers.
                At this stage, it is a private consortium only, investing in its own set of technologies that must include earth based market applications as their primary goal. For example-
                Suits for use on Mars will require the development of a range of new technologies and materials that can mitigate dust, provide the correct pressure, protect from radiation and be sturdy enough to last a 2 year rotation at minimum. While the number of suits required for the mission will be small in number, the materials developed would be applied to a range of spin off industries from underwater exploration suits to nuclear power safety suits, satellite protection materials, nanomaterials for use in transportation safety, every day fashion for consumers, building materials, laboratory applications and much more. The consortium will ensure that not only are these materials developed quickly but that they get out into the market and begin to make a normal ROI within 5 years.
                The Government/Academia Phase- (2nd 5+ Year Phase)
                With technologies and materials ready for sending humans to Mars, and with some real in space experiments and missions in their resume, the private consortium would then approach governments for funding the launch vehicle and transit vehicle phases of the program. The governments approached would not be asked to pay for the entire program but limited to launch and transit hardware and systems. Their return on investment will be in several areas-
                • Employment for their own citizens
                • Boosting their own educational institutions
                • Mars sample returns
                • Access to all surface exploration data from science conducted on Mars
                • Making history- sending astronauts from their own space agencies
                If governments were not interested the consortium would lose nothing as their technology developments and products would already be in the market place making a profit at this stage.
                But is can be seen that for nearly 5 decades many governments are highly interested in Mars exploration having launched over 40 missions there already. If they were presented with most of the technologies needed, if the hardware for survival was already in place, and the consortium had in space experience and trust from governments, then presenting to them a plan to go to Mars would in this context make sense.
                Governments would only need to invest in launch and transit vehicle hardware while much of the cargo and internal systems will be supplied by the private consortium. The contracts for LV construction will go directly to the consortium anyway as the consortium would contain major aerospace companies already.
                Universities would also at this time be utilized as major research partners given their excellent track record in space exploration R&D projects.

                Why Mars?

                Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. It is the premier exploration target of our age in space and the opportunity exists to find life there. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, here are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human
                colony. Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, as much land area as Earth and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the Martian environment starting with enclosed towns and cities.
                Although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artificial environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population.
                Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.

                Why not the Moon?

                While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and
                low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation. Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as
                in Mars analog environments on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonization program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.

                Why a global consortium?

                The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilization, and almost every branch of engineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer. By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly.
                This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organize a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a prosperous Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kinds of results sooner. Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and is a truly unique and history making project without equal.
                There must be clear paths towards a fast ROI, and all participants should ideally have a pragmatic attitude about the project. Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved.
                This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.

                Conclusion

                It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of settling one world will be an
                improved quality of life for all people on this one.

                These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program
                such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-

                1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will
                come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                4. Accomplishments- Its end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boasting rights to whoever is involved.


                --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@...> wrote:
                >
                > Frank,
                >
                > I have read your project overview with some interest.
                >
                > To my uninformed self, it looks good. However, I do have a few comments.
                >
                > PHILOSOPHY:
                >
                > 1. It is difficult to see how "this technology [water and air manufacturing, energy production etc.] can be applied anywhere on Earth", at least in any direct and specific way. Do you have any examples of how these might be applicable? In general, these would only be viable on Mars where there is extreme scarcity of these resources, making the use of the technologies essential, and I would suggest would not be economically viable on Earth (e.g. how much would a pint of water produced using our proposed ISRU purposes actually cost?). That's not to say there would be no benefit, it's just that I would suggest that benefits are likely to be somewhat more intangible, longer-term or indirect.
                >
                > 2. "Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet...It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedome, health, happiness and abundance". I am not sure that this is supported by the evidence from previous expansions of the human race on Earth, although nice politics it might be!
                >
                > WHY MARS?
                >
                > 3. "not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian [typo - should be Martian!] environment." I think that this should be qualified a little. We are unlikely to adapt to breath carbon dioxide at <10mBar, for example. I would instead suggest "that it is reasonable to expect that not only humans but many of Earth's species could live satisfactorily on Mars within accomodation that can be developed with today's technology." (or something similar).
                >
                > 4. I would also note that an objection of many laymen would be that life would not be possible on Mars without an artificially-created environment (pressure domes, whatever) and I would suggest that you should pre-empt such criticism by noting that "although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artifical environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population."
                >
                > WHY NOT THE MOON?
                >
                > No comment on this section - I am happy with the argument presented.
                >
                > WHY A GLOBAL CONSORTIUM?
                >
                > 5. Typo - "enegineering"
                >
                > 6. "in order to spread the cost". Whilst you spread the cost by collaborating, your also increase it overall. I understand that a typical "rule of thumb" in major international collaborative definece procurement programmes is that the total cost goes up roughly with the square root of the number of participants (e.g. with 4 participants, the total cost is doubled). You still win, because each individual partner's share is reduced (in this example, by a factor of two). This arises from differing requirememtns, objectives, political arguing, vested interests to be catered to and so on. Of course,my model may not be totally applicable, but you could look at other programmes e.g. ESA, Airbus, etc. although cost information is likely to be commercially sensitive. Your point is however valid, individual contributions are lower, it's just that they may not be as much lower as at first might appear.
                >
                > 7. "all participants ideally should have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic". This is perhaps unrealistic. I note that democratic governments are elected specifically to look after the interests of their own population, and they would not be doing their job otherwise. Instead, I would suggest we need a collaborative model that can work with national self-interest. Perhaps national governments could each put up a percentage of the money on the basis that a similar percentage of the work ends up with their own industry, universities and other organisations. It might be worth reviewing the models for other multi-national aerospace programmes.
                >
                > 8. A further benefit of a collaborative approach (which you might not wish to articulate in your document) is that it becomes harder to stop or cancel the programme once it is underway, as partners are locked in to some greater or lesser extent. As an example, in my line of work, the Concorde programme would probably have been cancelled had it been a UK only (or French only) programme, but because there was never a time when both parties strongly wanted to pull out at the same time, it went ahead (and lost vast amounts of money).
                >
                > THE WORLD MARS PROGRAMME
                >
                > 9. The danger of definite deadlines is that you push ahead with the next phase of work whether or not the previous one has been adequately completed. Programme management of an activity such as this is likely to be a significant challenge. I would like a little more time to think over this aspect then perhaps get back to you with more detailed comment.
                >
                > CONCLUSION
                >
                > No comment.
                >
                > That's all I've time for now.
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Dave G
                >
                > PS - Mike, I haven't forgotten your mission!
                >
                >
                > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                > >
                > > The Mars Consortium
                > > Project Overview
                > >
                > > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
                > >
                > > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
                > >
                > > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
                > >
                > > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
                > >
                > > Philosophy
                > > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
                > > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
                > > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
                > > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
                > >
                > > Why Mars?
                > > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
                > > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
                > >
                > > Why not the Moon?
                > > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
                > > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
                > >
                > > Why a global consortium?
                > > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                > > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
                > > By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
                > > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
                > > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
                > >
                > > The World Mars Program
                > > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                > > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
                > > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
                > > What resources do we have?
                > > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
                > > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
                > >
                > > Conclusion
                > > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
                > >
                > > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
                > >
                > > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                > > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                > > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                > > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
                > >
                > > Join us.
                > >
                >
              • Joshua Gigantino
                Frank, That is a fine mission statement, keep technical and financial elements somewhat vague so we attract wider attention. When can we mention it in public?
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 4, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Frank, 

                  That is a fine mission statement, keep technical and financial elements somewhat vague so we attract wider attention. When can we mention it in public? 

                  What other organizations should be brought in on this first? One issue to me is that of creating a single "Mars mission". To succeed we need wider appeal. We should focus on expansive utilization. 10 people, then 100, then 10,000. How do we do that? 

                  I really love the idea of the MAB in this way. It provides a potential transit system if we can figure out some details. We hit on it and so did Dr. Davies. Send 2 people out in 2 smaller craft each with complete EDL and roving ability. Can we figure out how to do this in a sustainable manner? 

                  Best,
                  Josh






                  On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:03 PM, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                   

                  Take 2 David--



                  The Mars Consortium

                  Project Overview

                  This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of academia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars. This program will achieve the greatest possible value and Return On Investment from R&D that has and will be conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.


                  This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.

                  The primary goal of the Consortium is to achieve a return on investment through each phase of the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.

                  The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program. (WMP)
                  The World Mars Program
                  Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 24 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                  Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilize existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done.
                  Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.

                  To kick this off we will start with online global collaboration via the MarsDrive website, emails, small meetings and discussion forums. The initial plan is to organize a real world consortium conference for 2012-13 for all interested partners and investors.
                  Investment Areas
                  Investment in technology R&D is often conducted by governments and companies on an "as needed" basis or pursued from small sectors of industry for very specific profit oriented goals. Consortium style efforts are rare but have proven advantageous for large scale or complex programs. The Mars Consortium will be formed to achieve the aim of permanent settlement of Mars, but it is the intermediate steps along the way which will provide the main reason for this consortium's formation.
                  Areas of technology needed to advance humans to Mars-
                  • Recycling
                  • Robotics
                  • Aeronautics
                  • Astronautics
                  • Navigation
                  • Communications
                  • Satellites
                  • Energy Production
                  • Water Production
                  • Food Production
                  • Transportation- Surface vehicles
                  • Materials- Radiation protection, nanomaterials, dust mitigation materials
                  • Launch Vehicles
                  • Transit Vehicles
                  • Mars Landing Systems
                  • Medical technologies
                  • New Space Transportation technologies
                  Many of these areas already have certain levels of investment and are generally headed in their own directions, but combined into a single program, all of these areas and their subsets will enjoy the benefits of an unprecedented level of investment, collaboration and unique goals being achieved.
                  Each nation, company and entity involved will specialize in one or a number of these areas.
                  Phase 1- Private Consortium- (First 5+ Year Phase)
                  The structure of it will be that private sector companies and investors form the management section of the consortium first. With a legal entity formed and a plan laid out for how to achieve these goals, governments from across the world will be invited to invest in the program. Today, many governments already invest in many of the above areas, in a random piecemeal fashion. What would make them invest in humans to Mars when they are so risk averse already?
                  The private consortium in its first phase will need to use some of its profits on gaining real in space and Mars mission experience by launching small scale unmanned missions for specific purposes of identifying Mars resources and potential human landing sites. These actions would set them apart as a serious space organization that governments need to take notice of. Until now, 2011, no private entity has sent anything to Mars or even the Moon. Doing this would change the game.
                  The private consortium would involve a range of companies from aerospace experienced companies to young and fresh technology based companies that cover many of the above listed areas.
                  How does it work?
                  Every area of technology needed for Mars will require specialist attention and development. But to advance in these areas we need the combined finances of all companies. This means for example that as recycling technologies are perfected, all original consortium partners, while not all doing all areas of work, will share in the profits as proportional investment partners. The Mars Consortium is an investment vehicle for which many companies and individuals can contribute to a wide range of promising technologies brought together in a single project.
                  A humans to Mars program will require dozens if not hundreds of technological advancements to be achieved, and any investor in this consortium will know that their chances of a profitable outcome are greatly increased by the sheer number of different areas of investment this program covers.
                  At this stage, it is a private consortium only, investing in its own set of technologies that must include earth based market applications as their primary goal. For example-
                  Suits for use on Mars will require the development of a range of new technologies and materials that can mitigate dust, provide the correct pressure, protect from radiation and be sturdy enough to last a 2 year rotation at minimum. While the number of suits required for the mission will be small in number, the materials developed would be applied to a range of spin off industries from underwater exploration suits to nuclear power safety suits, satellite protection materials, nanomaterials for use in transportation safety, every day fashion for consumers, building materials, laboratory applications and much more. The consortium will ensure that not only are these materials developed quickly but that they get out into the market and begin to make a normal ROI within 5 years.
                  The Government/Academia Phase- (2nd 5+ Year Phase)
                  With technologies and materials ready for sending humans to Mars, and with some real in space experiments and missions in their resume, the private consortium would then approach governments for funding the launch vehicle and transit vehicle phases of the program. The governments approached would not be asked to pay for the entire program but limited to launch and transit hardware and systems. Their return on investment will be in several areas-
                  • Employment for their own citizens
                  • Boosting their own educational institutions
                  • Mars sample returns
                  • Access to all surface exploration data from science conducted on Mars
                  • Making history- sending astronauts from their own space agencies
                  If governments were not interested the consortium would lose nothing as their technology developments and products would already be in the market place making a profit at this stage.
                  But is can be seen that for nearly 5 decades many governments are highly interested in Mars exploration having launched over 40 missions there already. If they were presented with most of the technologies needed, if the hardware for survival was already in place, and the consortium had in space experience and trust from governments, then presenting to them a plan to go to Mars would in this context make sense.
                  Governments would only need to invest in launch and transit vehicle hardware while much of the cargo and internal systems will be supplied by the private consortium. The contracts for LV construction will go directly to the consortium anyway as the consortium would contain major aerospace companies already.
                  Universities would also at this time be utilized as major research partners given their excellent track record in space exploration R&D projects.

                  Why Mars?

                  Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. It is the premier exploration target of our age in space and the opportunity exists to find life there. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, here are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human
                  colony. Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, as much land area as Earth and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the Martian environment starting with enclosed towns and cities.
                  Although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artificial environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population.

                  Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.

                  Why not the Moon?

                  While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and
                  low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation. Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as
                  in Mars analog environments on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonization program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.

                  Why a global consortium?

                  The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                  Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilization, and almost every branch of engineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer. By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly.
                  This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organize a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a prosperous Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kinds of results sooner. Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and is a truly unique and history making project without equal.
                  There must be clear paths towards a fast ROI, and all participants should ideally have a pragmatic attitude about the project. Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved.
                  This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.

                  Conclusion

                  It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of settling one world will be an

                  improved quality of life for all people on this one.

                  These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program
                  such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-

                  1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                  2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                  3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will
                  come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                  4. Accomplishments- Its end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boasting rights to whoever is involved.


                  --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Frank,
                  >
                  > I have read your project overview with some interest.
                  >
                  > To my uninformed self, it looks good. However, I do have a few comments.
                  >
                  > PHILOSOPHY:
                  >
                  > 1. It is difficult to see how "this technology [water and air manufacturing, energy production etc.] can be applied anywhere on Earth", at least in any direct and specific way. Do you have any examples of how these might be applicable? In general, these would only be viable on Mars where there is extreme scarcity of these resources, making the use of the technologies essential, and I would suggest would not be economically viable on Earth (e.g. how much would a pint of water produced using our proposed ISRU purposes actually cost?). That's not to say there would be no benefit, it's just that I would suggest that benefits are likely to be somewhat more intangible, longer-term or indirect.
                  >
                  > 2. "Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet...It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedome, health, happiness and abundance". I am not sure that this is supported by the evidence from previous expansions of the human race on Earth, although nice politics it might be!
                  >
                  > WHY MARS?
                  >
                  > 3. "not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian [typo - should be Martian!] environment." I think that this should be qualified a little. We are unlikely to adapt to breath carbon dioxide at <10mBar, for example. I would instead suggest "that it is reasonable to expect that not only humans but many of Earth's species could live satisfactorily on Mars within accomodation that can be developed with today's technology." (or something similar).
                  >
                  > 4. I would also note that an objection of many laymen would be that life would not be possible on Mars without an artificially-created environment (pressure domes, whatever) and I would suggest that you should pre-empt such criticism by noting that "although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artifical environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population."
                  >
                  > WHY NOT THE MOON?
                  >
                  > No comment on this section - I am happy with the argument presented.
                  >
                  > WHY A GLOBAL CONSORTIUM?
                  >
                  > 5. Typo - "enegineering"
                  >
                  > 6. "in order to spread the cost". Whilst you spread the cost by collaborating, your also increase it overall. I understand that a typical "rule of thumb" in major international collaborative definece procurement programmes is that the total cost goes up roughly with the square root of the number of participants (e.g. with 4 participants, the total cost is doubled). You still win, because each individual partner's share is reduced (in this example, by a factor of two). This arises from differing requirememtns, objectives, political arguing, vested interests to be catered to and so on. Of course,my model may not be totally applicable, but you could look at other programmes e.g. ESA, Airbus, etc. although cost information is likely to be commercially sensitive. Your point is however valid, individual contributions are lower, it's just that they may not be as much lower as at first might appear.
                  >
                  > 7. "all participants ideally should have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic". This is perhaps unrealistic. I note that democratic governments are elected specifically to look after the interests of their own population, and they would not be doing their job otherwise. Instead, I would suggest we need a collaborative model that can work with national self-interest. Perhaps national governments could each put up a percentage of the money on the basis that a similar percentage of the work ends up with their own industry, universities and other organisations. It might be worth reviewing the models for other multi-national aerospace programmes.
                  >
                  > 8. A further benefit of a collaborative approach (which you might not wish to articulate in your document) is that it becomes harder to stop or cancel the programme once it is underway, as partners are locked in to some greater or lesser extent. As an example, in my line of work, the Concorde programme would probably have been cancelled had it been a UK only (or French only) programme, but because there was never a time when both parties strongly wanted to pull out at the same time, it went ahead (and lost vast amounts of money).
                  >
                  > THE WORLD MARS PROGRAMME
                  >
                  > 9. The danger of definite deadlines is that you push ahead with the next phase of work whether or not the previous one has been adequately completed. Programme management of an activity such as this is likely to be a significant challenge. I would like a little more time to think over this aspect then perhaps get back to you with more detailed comment.
                  >
                  > CONCLUSION
                  >
                  > No comment.
                  >
                  > That's all I've time for now.
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  >
                  > Dave G
                  >
                  > PS - Mike, I haven't forgotten your mission!
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > The Mars Consortium
                  > > Project Overview
                  > >
                  > > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
                  > >
                  > > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
                  > >
                  > > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
                  > >
                  > > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
                  > >
                  > > Philosophy
                  > > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
                  > > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
                  > > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
                  > > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
                  > >
                  > > Why Mars?
                  > > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
                  > > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
                  > >
                  > > Why not the Moon?
                  > > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
                  > > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
                  > >
                  > > Why a global consortium?
                  > > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                  > > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
                  > > By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
                  > > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
                  > > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
                  > >
                  > > The World Mars Program
                  > > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                  > > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
                  > > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
                  > > What resources do we have?
                  > > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
                  > > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
                  > >
                  > > Conclusion
                  > > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
                  > >
                  > > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
                  > >
                  > > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                  > > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                  > > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                  > > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
                  > >
                  > > Join us.
                  > >
                  >




                  --
                  http://www.gigantino.tv

                • Michael Bloxham
                  Thanks for the feedback, Frank.   Just to clarify:   1. I am pushing for the mobile hab  mode because I believe it is inherently much safer than the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 5, 2011
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks for the feedback, Frank.
                     
                    Just to clarify:
                     
                    1. I am pushing for the "mobile hab" mode because I believe it is inherently much safer than the "commuter" mode - especially for a Mars mission where stay times are up to 1.5 years and the crew would consequently be expected to spend a lot of that time out in the field. It is not *more* risky, it is *less*! If I have not made this clear, or you need a bit more convincing, I would be happy to elaborate on this in another thread. ;-) Also, I think many of you misunderstand what I am advocating with the mobile hab approach. I am not advocating global-roaming or very long and distant traverses in the first few missions. I am simply trying to communicate that conducting field-exploration within a pre-determined radius around the MAV would be safer with a pair of slow-going mobile habs, than with frequent fast back-and-forth commutes out inside a single short-duration rover. Thats all.
                     
                    2. If a simple biconic capsule with 25* backshell angle, Viking-shape PICA heatshield, conventional supersonic DGB parachutes, and subsonic retropropulsion cannot be described as "heritage-derived" then what is? Even the guidance mode, landing mode (using the suspension as landing gear), and moderately higher ballistic coeffcient that is required will be demonstrated by MSL when it flies this year! This is in total contrast with the EDL requirements of previous DRMs, which require surface payloads nearly one order of magnitude(!) greater. I'm not sure where you are getting your intelligence, Frank. Perhaps the idea that manned mars missions require such large surface payloads has become so ingrained that it is difficult to conceive of a mission plan which does not require such exotic EDL technologies? Now don't get me wrong: I am sure that scaling up MSL EDL tech to the ~7 tonne range will not be easy by any means. But it will be a heck of a lot easier than trying to deliver 25 - 50 tonne payloads through the bottleneck of EDL. You don't need a hypercone.
                     
                    Of course, these are both incredibly significant achievements (or so I think), so I don't blame you if you struggle to believe them at first! :D
                     
                    Thanks Frank,
                     
                    - Mike

                    --- On Tue, 4/1/11, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:

                    From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
                    Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: The Mars Consortium 2011
                    To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                    Received: Tuesday, 4 January, 2011, 5:26 PM

                     

                    You already are helping Mike with the design work.

                    I know you have copped some flak from sticking to your mobile habs idea but there are some issues which need pointing out-

                    While we can be conservative as we like, no human mission to Mars will happen until at least 2020 and beyond. What is considered conservative and "safe" today may change over the next decade.

                    Our culture is extremely risk averse and legalistic. The entire idea of a Mars mission is too far out for them to take seriously, no matter how conservative we go. So I see nothing wrong with exploring our options in depth.

                    The aim of finding an ideal base site may indeed be a major life saving development needed quickly if problems developed for a fixed base. Plus if settlement is the goal, finding an ideal site quicker is not a bad thing, especially given the financial constraints of this program. If we take too long not putting down roots, chances of the money supply drying up increase exponentially. If it can be as self sufficient as possible in a quick time frame, we will have our beachhead on mars at last.

                    When you talk of landing cargo/humans in smaller capsules as "heritage" derived landing systems I think this is a step too far Mike. Heritage of what? If your smallest piece is 10 or 20 mt, this is 1000 to 2000% more than anything landed before. Those pieces may seem small compared to NASA's 60 mt ideas, but they are still very massive when compared to what we are sending to Mars today, including the next mission of Mars Science Lab.

                    These pieces will still require development/testing of technologies like the hypercone for example to land on Mars. We can't avoid this Mike and we make a big mistake if we think 10 or 20mT capsules will land with "bigger parachutes" or some such idea.

                    What LV are you basing your design around? And how realistic is it to being built, or can Elon Musk or others help us? To me it looks like Musk is making actual progress towards his goals (which include Mars), so why not design around his BFR for example?

                    --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Sounds good, Frank. How can I help? ;-)
                    >
                    > --- On Mon, 3/1/11, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
                    > Subject: [marsdrivemission] The Mars Consortium 2011
                    > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                    > Received: Monday, 3 January, 2011, 1:06 AM
                    >
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > The Mars Consortium
                    > Project Overview
                    >
                    > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet â€" the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
                    >
                    > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
                    >
                    > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
                    >
                    > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
                    >
                    > Philosophy
                    > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
                    > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is â€" a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
                    > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
                    > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
                    >
                    > Why Mars?
                    > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
                    > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
                    >
                    > Why not the Moon?
                    > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
                    > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops â€" possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
                    >
                    > Why a global consortium?
                    > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                    > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
                    > By combining the resources of all nations â€" including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure â€" it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
                    > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
                    > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
                    >
                    > The World Mars Program
                    > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete â€" namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project â€" we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                    > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
                    > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
                    > What resources do we have?
                    > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
                    > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
                    >
                    > Conclusion
                    > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
                    >
                    > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
                    >
                    > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                    > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                    > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                    > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
                    >
                    > Join us.
                    >


                     
                  • Michael Bloxham
                    Josh, you said:   I really love the idea of the MAB in this way. It provides a potential transit system if we can figure out some details. We hit on it and so
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 5, 2011
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Josh, you said:
                       
                      I really love the idea of the MAB in this way. It provides a potential transit system if we can figure out some details. We hit on it and so did Dr. Davies. Send 2 people out in 2 smaller craft each with complete EDL and roving ability.
                       
                      Thanks Josh! I'm glad that you "get" this. I guess now I'll have to read Dr. Davies proposal. ;-)
                       
                      - Mike

                      --- On Tue, 4/1/11, Joshua Gigantino <jgigantino@...> wrote:

                      From: Joshua Gigantino <jgigantino@...>
                      Subject: Re: [marsdrivemission] Re: The Mars Consortium 2011
                      To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                      Received: Tuesday, 4 January, 2011, 9:05 PM

                       
                      Frank, 

                      That is a fine mission statement, keep technical and financial elements somewhat vague so we attract wider attention. When can we mention it in public? 

                      What other organizations should be brought in on this first? One issue to me is that of creating a single "Mars mission". To succeed we need wider appeal. We should focus on expansive utilization. 10 people, then 100, then 10,000. How do we do that? 

                      I really love the idea of the MAB in this way. It provides a potential transit system if we can figure out some details. We hit on it and so did Dr. Davies. Send 2 people out in 2 smaller craft each with complete EDL and roving ability. Can we figure out how to do this in a sustainable manner? 

                      Best,
                      Josh






                      On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:03 PM, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                       
                      Take 2 David--


                      The Mars Consortium

                      Project Overview

                      This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of academia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars. This program will achieve the greatest possible value and Return On Investment from R&D that has and will be conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.


                      This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.

                      The primary goal of the Consortium is to achieve a return on investment through each phase of the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.

                      The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program. (WMP)
                      The World Mars Program
                      Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 24 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                      Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilize existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done.
                      Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.

                      To kick this off we will start with online global collaboration via the MarsDrive website, emails, small meetings and discussion forums. The initial plan is to organize a real world consortium conference for 2012-13 for all interested partners and investors.
                      Investment Areas
                      Investment in technology R&D is often conducted by governments and companies on an "as needed" basis or pursued from small sectors of industry for very specific profit oriented goals. Consortium style efforts are rare but have proven advantageous for large scale or complex programs. The Mars Consortium will be formed to achieve the aim of permanent settlement of Mars, but it is the intermediate steps along the way which will provide the main reason for this consortium's formation.
                      Areas of technology needed to advance humans to Mars-
                      • Recycling
                      • Robotics
                      • Aeronautics
                      • Astronautics
                      • Navigation
                      • Communications
                      • Satellites
                      • Energy Production
                      • Water Production
                      • Food Production
                      • Transportation- Surface vehicles
                      • Materials- Radiation protection, nanomaterials, dust mitigation materials
                      • Launch Vehicles
                      • Transit Vehicles
                      • Mars Landing Systems
                      • Medical technologies
                      • New Space Transportation technologies
                      Many of these areas already have certain levels of investment and are generally headed in their own directions, but combined into a single program, all of these areas and their subsets will enjoy the benefits of an unprecedented level of investment, collaboration and unique goals being achieved.
                      Each nation, company and entity involved will specialize in one or a number of these areas.
                      Phase 1- Private Consortium- (First 5+ Year Phase)
                      The structure of it will be that private sector companies and investors form the management section of the consortium first. With a legal entity formed and a plan laid out for how to achieve these goals, governments from across the world will be invited to invest in the program. Today, many governments already invest in many of the above areas, in a random piecemeal fashion. What would make them invest in humans to Mars when they are so risk averse already?
                      The private consortium in its first phase will need to use some of its profits on gaining real in space and Mars mission experience by launching small scale unmanned missions for specific purposes of identifying Mars resources and potential human landing sites. These actions would set them apart as a serious space organization that governments need to take notice of. Until now, 2011, no private entity has sent anything to Mars or even the Moon. Doing this would change the game.
                      The private consortium would involve a range of companies from aerospace experienced companies to young and fresh technology based companies that cover many of the above listed areas.
                      How does it work?
                      Every area of technology needed for Mars will require specialist attention and development. But to advance in these areas we need the combined finances of all companies. This means for example that as recycling technologies are perfected, all original consortium partners, while not all doing all areas of work, will share in the profits as proportional investment partners. The Mars Consortium is an investment vehicle for which many companies and individuals can contribute to a wide range of promising technologies brought together in a single project.
                      A humans to Mars program will require dozens if not hundreds of technological advancements to be achieved, and any investor in this consortium will know that their chances of a profitable outcome are greatly increased by the sheer number of different areas of investment this program covers.
                      At this stage, it is a private consortium only, investing in its own set of technologies that must include earth based market applications as their primary goal. For example-
                      Suits for use on Mars will require the development of a range of new technologies and materials that can mitigate dust, provide the correct pressure, protect from radiation and be sturdy enough to last a 2 year rotation at minimum. While the number of suits required for the mission will be small in number, the materials developed would be applied to a range of spin off industries from underwater exploration suits to nuclear power safety suits, satellite protection materials, nanomaterials for use in transportation safety, every day fashion for consumers, building materials, laboratory applications and much more. The consortium will ensure that not only are these materials developed quickly but that they get out into the market and begin to make a normal ROI within 5 years.
                      The Government/Academia Phase- (2nd 5+ Year Phase)
                      With technologies and materials ready for sending humans to Mars, and with some real in space experiments and missions in their resume, the private consortium would then approach governments for funding the launch vehicle and transit vehicle phases of the program. The governments approached would not be asked to pay for the entire program but limited to launch and transit hardware and systems. Their return on investment will be in several areas-
                      • Employment for their own citizens
                      • Boosting their own educational institutions
                      • Mars sample returns
                      • Access to all surface exploration data from science conducted on Mars
                      • Making history- sending astronauts from their own space agencies
                      If governments were not interested the consortium would lose nothing as their technology developments and products would already be in the market place making a profit at this stage.
                      But is can be seen that for nearly 5 decades many governments are highly interested in Mars exploration having launched over 40 missions there already. If they were presented with most of the technologies needed, if the hardware for survival was already in place, and the consortium had in space experience and trust from governments, then presenting to them a plan to go to Mars would in this context make sense.
                      Governments would only need to invest in launch and transit vehicle hardware while much of the cargo and internal systems will be supplied by the private consortium. The contracts for LV construction will go directly to the consortium anyway as the consortium would contain major aerospace companies already.
                      Universities would also at this time be utilized as major research partners given their excellent track record in space exploration R&D projects.

                      Why Mars?

                      Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. It is the premier exploration target of our age in space and the opportunity exists to find life there. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, here are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human
                      colony. Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, as much land area as Earth and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the Martian environment starting with enclosed towns and cities.
                      Although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artificial environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population.

                      Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.

                      Why not the Moon?

                      While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and
                      low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation. Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as
                      in Mars analog environments on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonization program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.

                      Why a global consortium?

                      The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                      Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilization, and almost every branch of engineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer. By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly.
                      This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organize a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a prosperous Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kinds of results sooner. Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and is a truly unique and history making project without equal.
                      There must be clear paths towards a fast ROI, and all participants should ideally have a pragmatic attitude about the project. Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved.
                      This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.

                      Conclusion

                      It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of settling one world will be an

                      improved quality of life for all people on this one.

                      These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program
                      such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-

                      1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                      2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                      3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will
                      come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                      4. Accomplishments- Its end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boasting rights to whoever is involved.


                      --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidgooding16@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Frank,
                      >
                      > I have read your project overview with some interest.
                      >
                      > To my uninformed self, it looks good. However, I do have a few comments.
                      >
                      > PHILOSOPHY:
                      >
                      > 1. It is difficult to see how "this technology [water and air manufacturing, energy production etc.] can be applied anywhere on Earth", at least in any direct and specific way. Do you have any examples of how these might be applicable? In general, these would only be viable on Mars where there is extreme scarcity of these resources, making the use of the technologies essential, and I would suggest would not be economically viable on Earth (e.g. how much would a pint of water produced using our proposed ISRU purposes actually cost?). That's not to say there would be no benefit, it's just that I would suggest that benefits are likely to be somewhat more intangible, longer-term or indirect.
                      >
                      > 2. "Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet...It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedome, health, happiness and abundance". I am not sure that this is supported by the evidence from previous expansions of the human race on Earth, although nice politics it might be!
                      >
                      > WHY MARS?
                      >
                      > 3. "not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian [typo - should be Martian!] environment." I think that this should be qualified a little. We are unlikely to adapt to breath carbon dioxide at <10mBar, for example. I would instead suggest "that it is reasonable to expect that not only humans but many of Earth's species could live satisfactorily on Mars within accomodation that can be developed with today's technology." (or something similar).
                      >
                      > 4. I would also note that an objection of many laymen would be that life would not be possible on Mars without an artificially-created environment (pressure domes, whatever) and I would suggest that you should pre-empt such criticism by noting that "although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of technology and the creation of an artifical environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population."
                      >
                      > WHY NOT THE MOON?
                      >
                      > No comment on this section - I am happy with the argument presented.
                      >
                      > WHY A GLOBAL CONSORTIUM?
                      >
                      > 5. Typo - "enegineering"
                      >
                      > 6. "in order to spread the cost". Whilst you spread the cost by collaborating, your also increase it overall. I understand that a typical "rule of thumb" in major international collaborative definece procurement programmes is that the total cost goes up roughly with the square root of the number of participants (e.g. with 4 participants, the total cost is doubled). You still win, because each individual partner's share is reduced (in this example, by a factor of two). This arises from differing requirememtns, objectives, political arguing, vested interests to be catered to and so on. Of course,my model may not be totally applicable, but you could look at other programmes e.g. ESA, Airbus, etc. although cost information is likely to be commercially sensitive. Your point is however valid, individual contributions are lower, it's just that they may not be as much lower as at first might appear.
                      >
                      > 7. "all participants ideally should have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic". This is perhaps unrealistic. I note that democratic governments are elected specifically to look after the interests of their own population, and they would not be doing their job otherwise. Instead, I would suggest we need a collaborative model that can work with national self-interest. Perhaps national governments could each put up a percentage of the money on the basis that a similar percentage of the work ends up with their own industry, universities and other organisations. It might be worth reviewing the models for other multi-national aerospace programmes.
                      >
                      > 8. A further benefit of a collaborative approach (which you might not wish to articulate in your document) is that it becomes harder to stop or cancel the programme once it is underway, as partners are locked in to some greater or lesser extent. As an example, in my line of work, the Concorde programme would probably have been cancelled had it been a UK only (or French only) programme, but because there was never a time when both parties strongly wanted to pull out at the same time, it went ahead (and lost vast amounts of money).
                      >
                      > THE WORLD MARS PROGRAMME
                      >
                      > 9. The danger of definite deadlines is that you push ahead with the next phase of work whether or not the previous one has been adequately completed. Programme management of an activity such as this is likely to be a significant challenge. I would like a little more time to think over this aspect then perhaps get back to you with more detailed comment.
                      >
                      > CONCLUSION
                      >
                      > No comment.
                      >
                      > That's all I've time for now.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      >
                      > Dave G
                      >
                      > PS - Mike, I haven't forgotten your mission!
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > The Mars Consortium
                      > > Project Overview
                      > >
                      > > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
                      > >
                      > > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
                      > >
                      > > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
                      > >
                      > > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
                      > >
                      > > Philosophy
                      > > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
                      > > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
                      > > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
                      > > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
                      > >
                      > > Why Mars?
                      > > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
                      > > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
                      > >
                      > > Why not the Moon?
                      > > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
                      > > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
                      > >
                      > > Why a global consortium?
                      > > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                      > > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
                      > > By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
                      > > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
                      > > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
                      > >
                      > > The World Mars Program
                      > > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                      > > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
                      > > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
                      > > What resources do we have?
                      > > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
                      > > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
                      > >
                      > > Conclusion
                      > > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
                      > >
                      > > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
                      > >
                      > > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                      > > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                      > > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                      > > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
                      > >
                      > > Join us.
                      > >
                      >




                      --
                      http://www.gigantino.tv


                       
                    • frank_stratford
                      It would be great if we could do some simulation modelling of your EDL ideas Mike. Something I have always wanted us to do grid computing style. Would be
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 5, 2011
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It would be great if we could do some simulation modelling of your EDL ideas Mike. Something I have always wanted us to do grid computing style. Would be highly interesting.

                        --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Thanks for the feedback, Frank.
                        >  
                        > Just to clarify:
                        >  
                        > 1. I am pushing for the "mobile hab" mode because I believe it is inherently much safer than the "commuter" mode - especially for a Mars mission where stay times are up to 1.5 years and the crew would consequently be expected to spend a lot of that time out in the field. It is not *more* risky, it is *less*! If I have not made this clear, or you need a bit more convincing, I would be happy to elaborate on this in another thread. ;-) Also, I think many of you misunderstand what I am advocating with the mobile hab approach. I am not advocating global-roaming or very long and distant traverses in the first few missions. I am simply trying to communicate that conducting field-exploration within a pre-determined radius around the MAV would be safer with a pair of slow-going mobile habs, than with frequent fast back-and-forth commutes out inside a single short-duration rover. Thats all.
                        >  
                        > 2. If a simple biconic capsule with 25* backshell angle, Viking-shape PICA heatshield, conventional supersonic DGB parachutes, and subsonic retropropulsion cannot be described as "heritage-derived" then what is? Even the guidance mode, landing mode (using the suspension as landing gear), and moderately higher ballistic coeffcient that is required will be demonstrated by MSL when it flies this year! This is in total contrast with the EDL requirements of previous DRMs, which require surface payloads nearly one order of magnitude(!) greater. I'm not sure where you are getting your intelligence, Frank. Perhaps the idea that manned mars missions require such large surface payloads has become so ingrained that it is difficult to conceive of a mission plan which does not require such exotic EDL technologies? Now don't get me wrong: I am sure that scaling up MSL EDL tech to the ~7 tonne range will not be easy by any means. But it will be a heck of a lot
                        > easier than trying to deliver 25 - 50 tonne payloads through the bottleneck of EDL. You don't need a hypercone.
                        >  
                        > Of course, these are both incredibly significant achievements (or so I think), so I don't blame you if you struggle to believe them at first! :D
                        >  
                        > Thanks Frank,
                        >  
                        > - Mike
                        >
                        > --- On Tue, 4/1/11, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@...>
                        > Subject: [marsdrivemission] Re: The Mars Consortium 2011
                        > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                        > Received: Tuesday, 4 January, 2011, 5:26 PM
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > You already are helping Mike with the design work.
                        >
                        > I know you have copped some flak from sticking to your mobile habs idea but there are some issues which need pointing out-
                        >
                        > While we can be conservative as we like, no human mission to Mars will happen until at least 2020 and beyond. What is considered conservative and "safe" today may change over the next decade.
                        >
                        > Our culture is extremely risk averse and legalistic. The entire idea of a Mars mission is too far out for them to take seriously, no matter how conservative we go. So I see nothing wrong with exploring our options in depth.
                        >
                        > The aim of finding an ideal base site may indeed be a major life saving development needed quickly if problems developed for a fixed base. Plus if settlement is the goal, finding an ideal site quicker is not a bad thing, especially given the financial constraints of this program. If we take too long not putting down roots, chances of the money supply drying up increase exponentially. If it can be as self sufficient as possible in a quick time frame, we will have our beachhead on mars at last.
                        >
                        > When you talk of landing cargo/humans in smaller capsules as "heritage" derived landing systems I think this is a step too far Mike. Heritage of what? If your smallest piece is 10 or 20 mt, this is 1000 to 2000% more than anything landed before. Those pieces may seem small compared to NASA's 60 mt ideas, but they are still very massive when compared to what we are sending to Mars today, including the next mission of Mars Science Lab.
                        >
                        > These pieces will still require development/testing of technologies like the hypercone for example to land on Mars. We can't avoid this Mike and we make a big mistake if we think 10 or 20mT capsules will land with "bigger parachutes" or some such idea.
                        >
                        > What LV are you basing your design around? And how realistic is it to being built, or can Elon Musk or others help us? To me it looks like Musk is making actual progress towards his goals (which include Mars), so why not design around his BFR for example?
                        >
                        > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Michael Bloxham <michaeljbloxham@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Sounds good, Frank. How can I help? ;-)
                        > >
                        > > --- On Mon, 3/1/11, frank_stratford <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > From: frank_stratford <frank_stratford@>
                        > > Subject: [marsdrivemission] The Mars Consortium 2011
                        > > To: marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Received: Monday, 3 January, 2011, 1:06 AM
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >  
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > The Mars Consortium
                        > > Project Overview
                        > >
                        > > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to involve partners from all over the planet â€" the formation of a global consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
                        > >
                        > > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
                        > >
                        > > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
                        > >
                        > > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
                        > >
                        > > Philosophy
                        > > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans will begin living in space.
                        > > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to perceive Earth as it really is â€" a single, unified and somewhat fragile biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will be few engineering challenges beyond us.
                        > > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of new ones.
                        > > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology, how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom, health, happiness and abundance.
                        > >
                        > > Why Mars?
                        > > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most successful human colony.
                        > > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
                        > >
                        > > Why not the Moon?
                        > > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there. The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation.
                        > > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops â€" possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
                        > >
                        > > Why a global consortium?
                        > > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                        > > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will require research and development in space transportation, life support systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
                        > > By combining the resources of all nations â€" including people, research facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure â€" it's certain that our science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
                        > > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic.
                        > > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
                        > >
                        > > The World Mars Program
                        > > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is complete â€" namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this global project â€" we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12 months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes available.
                        > > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money, and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the survivors on a desert island would adopt:
                        > > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on Mars.)
                        > > What resources do we have?
                        > > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the maximum return on investment?
                        > > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment of our goal, early in the project.
                        > >
                        > > Conclusion
                        > > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
                        > >
                        > > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
                        > >
                        > > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                        > > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as the ultimate focus.
                        > > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                        > > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
                        > >
                        > > Join us.
                        > >
                        >
                      • frank_stratford
                        Actually I m finding people want alot more specifics and one of Mars advocacies weaknesses is a lack of detail. For example, we say all these industries will
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 5, 2011
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Actually I'm finding people want alot more specifics and one of Mars advocacies weaknesses is a lack of detail.

                          For example, we say "all these industries will benefit", but you are not going to get interest unless you can break that down into "how" investing in this consortium is better than directly investing in the technologies themselves.

                          My answer to that would be that the strength of a consortium is that it has a much larger pool of funds to draw from for all aspects and technology research than if each technology was to recieve specific and targeted investments for their own R&D.

                          Imagine if the A 380 Airbus had to wait for hundreds of individual technology investments to happen one by one before it acquired the combined technology to complete its project? Their consortium was formed AND fully funded first so they could complete each technology requirement unhindered in their very strict time frame, which BTW was still 10 years before seeing any profits.

                          This also highlights why a privately controlled consortium is so important. Government collaborative efforts are ok, but often various partners will renege or fall short of giving their portion of funds for political reasons. A private consortium does not face this problem. Their goal is clear from the start- profits must be made within 5 to 10 years and they are all on the same page.

                          This is why I see governments being involved as a secondary phase of this program but as more of a customer consortium. They will provide LV, transit vehicles and systems at cost to themselves in return for having members of their crews on Mars and scientific returns.

                          --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Gigantino <jgigantino@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Frank,
                          >
                          > That is a fine mission statement, keep technical and financial elements
                          > somewhat vague so we attract wider attention. When can we mention it in
                          > public?
                          >
                          > What other organizations should be brought in on this first? One issue to me
                          > is that of creating a single "Mars mission". To succeed we need wider
                          > appeal. We should focus on expansive utilization. 10 people, then 100, then
                          > 10,000. How do we do that?
                          >
                          > I really love the idea of the MAB in this way. It provides a potential
                          > transit system if we can figure out some details. We hit on it and so did
                          > Dr. Davies. Send 2 people out in 2 smaller craft each with complete EDL and
                          > roving ability. Can we figure out how to do this in a sustainable manner?
                          >
                          > Best,
                          > Josh
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:03 PM, frank_stratford
                          > <frank_stratford@...>wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Take 2 David--
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The Mars Consortium
                          > >
                          > > Project Overview
                          > >
                          > > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected to
                          > > involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global
                          > > consortium, comprised of academia, government and industry, that will
                          > > collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing
                          > > a permanent human presence on the planet Mars. This program will achieve the
                          > > greatest possible value and Return On Investment from R&D that has and will
                          > > be conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all technologies
                          > > and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment of our goal,
                          > > early in the project.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
                          > >
                          > > The primary goal of the Consortium is to achieve a return on investment
                          > > through each phase of the design and construction of a permanent human
                          > > settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be self-sufficient in air,
                          > > water, food and energy, have reliable internet connection with Earth, and be
                          > > capable of supporting 10 to 100 people more-or-less indefinitely.
                          > >
                          > > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of international
                          > > collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program. (WMP)
                          > > The World Mars Program
                          > > Once the initial phase of the program is complete – namely, setting up the
                          > > communications, collaboration, financial and legal infrastructure for this
                          > > global project – we will initiate an ongoing discussion among all players as
                          > > to the optimal strategy, starting from a systematic evaluation all existing
                          > > proposals and their pros and cons. Our intention is that this phase will
                          > > have a definite deadline so that discussions do not become excessively long.
                          > > We also do not want a mission plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain
                          > > agreed-upon deadline (say 24 months of planning), we will proceed with the
                          > > best plan developed to that point, while still remaining agile enough to
                          > > modify our strategy in the event that a cleverer idea or new technology or
                          > > other resource becomes available.
                          > > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we
                          > > believe it will be more efficient to utilize existing technologies and
                          > > solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money,
                          > > and extract greater value from work already done.
                          > > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has already
                          > > been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all
                          > > technologies and people that could potentially contribute to the attainment
                          > > of our goal, early in the project.
                          > >
                          > > To kick this off we will start with online global collaboration via the
                          > > MarsDrive website, emails, small meetings and discussion forums. The initial
                          > > plan is to organize a real world consortium conference for 2012-13 for all
                          > > interested partners and investors.
                          > > Investment Areas
                          > > Investment in technology R&D is often conducted by governments and
                          > > companies on an "as needed" basis or pursued from small sectors of industry
                          > > for very specific profit oriented goals. Consortium style efforts are rare
                          > > but have proven advantageous for large scale or complex programs. The Mars
                          > > Consortium will be formed to achieve the aim of permanent settlement of
                          > > Mars, but it is the intermediate steps along the way which will provide the
                          > > main reason for this consortium's formation.
                          > > Areas of technology needed to advance humans to Mars-
                          > > • Recycling
                          > > • Robotics
                          > > • Aeronautics
                          > > • Astronautics
                          > > • Navigation
                          > > • Communications
                          > > • Satellites
                          > > • Energy Production
                          > > • Water Production
                          > > • Food Production
                          > > • Transportation- Surface vehicles
                          > > • Materials- Radiation protection, nanomaterials, dust mitigation materials
                          > > • Launch Vehicles
                          > > • Transit Vehicles
                          > > • Mars Landing Systems
                          > > • Medical technologies
                          > > • New Space Transportation technologies
                          > > Many of these areas already have certain levels of investment and are
                          > > generally headed in their own directions, but combined into a single
                          > > program, all of these areas and their subsets will enjoy the benefits of an
                          > > unprecedented level of investment, collaboration and unique goals being
                          > > achieved.
                          > > Each nation, company and entity involved will specialize in one or a number
                          > > of these areas.
                          > > Phase 1- Private Consortium- (First 5+ Year Phase)
                          > > The structure of it will be that private sector companies and investors
                          > > form the management section of the consortium first. With a legal entity
                          > > formed and a plan laid out for how to achieve these goals, governments from
                          > > across the world will be invited to invest in the program. Today, many
                          > > governments already invest in many of the above areas, in a random piecemeal
                          > > fashion. What would make them invest in humans to Mars when they are so risk
                          > > averse already?
                          > > The private consortium in its first phase will need to use some of its
                          > > profits on gaining real in space and Mars mission experience by launching
                          > > small scale unmanned missions for specific purposes of identifying Mars
                          > > resources and potential human landing sites. These actions would set them
                          > > apart as a serious space organization that governments need to take notice
                          > > of. Until now, 2011, no private entity has sent anything to Mars or even the
                          > > Moon. Doing this would change the game.
                          > > The private consortium would involve a range of companies from aerospace
                          > > experienced companies to young and fresh technology based companies that
                          > > cover many of the above listed areas.
                          > > How does it work?
                          > > Every area of technology needed for Mars will require specialist attention
                          > > and development. But to advance in these areas we need the combined finances
                          > > of all companies. This means for example that as recycling technologies are
                          > > perfected, all original consortium partners, while not all doing all areas
                          > > of work, will share in the profits as proportional investment partners. The
                          > > Mars Consortium is an investment vehicle for which many companies and
                          > > individuals can contribute to a wide range of promising technologies brought
                          > > together in a single project.
                          > > A humans to Mars program will require dozens if not hundreds of
                          > > technological advancements to be achieved, and any investor in this
                          > > consortium will know that their chances of a profitable outcome are greatly
                          > > increased by the sheer number of different areas of investment this program
                          > > covers.
                          > > At this stage, it is a private consortium only, investing in its own set of
                          > > technologies that must include earth based market applications as their
                          > > primary goal. For example-
                          > > Suits for use on Mars will require the development of a range of new
                          > > technologies and materials that can mitigate dust, provide the correct
                          > > pressure, protect from radiation and be sturdy enough to last a 2 year
                          > > rotation at minimum. While the number of suits required for the mission will
                          > > be small in number, the materials developed would be applied to a range of
                          > > spin off industries from underwater exploration suits to nuclear power
                          > > safety suits, satellite protection materials, nanomaterials for use in
                          > > transportation safety, every day fashion for consumers, building materials,
                          > > laboratory applications and much more. The consortium will ensure that not
                          > > only are these materials developed quickly but that they get out into the
                          > > market and begin to make a normal ROI within 5 years.
                          > > The Government/Academia Phase- (2nd 5+ Year Phase)
                          > > With technologies and materials ready for sending humans to Mars, and with
                          > > some real in space experiments and missions in their resume, the private
                          > > consortium would then approach governments for funding the launch vehicle
                          > > and transit vehicle phases of the program. The governments approached would
                          > > not be asked to pay for the entire program but limited to launch and transit
                          > > hardware and systems. Their return on investment will be in several areas-
                          > > • Employment for their own citizens
                          > > • Boosting their own educational institutions
                          > > • Mars sample returns
                          > > • Access to all surface exploration data from science conducted on Mars
                          > > • Making history- sending astronauts from their own space agencies
                          > > If governments were not interested the consortium would lose nothing as
                          > > their technology developments and products would already be in the market
                          > > place making a profit at this stage.
                          > > But is can be seen that for nearly 5 decades many governments are highly
                          > > interested in Mars exploration having launched over 40 missions there
                          > > already. If they were presented with most of the technologies needed, if the
                          > > hardware for survival was already in place, and the consortium had in space
                          > > experience and trust from governments, then presenting to them a plan to go
                          > > to Mars would in this context make sense.
                          > > Governments would only need to invest in launch and transit vehicle
                          > > hardware while much of the cargo and internal systems will be supplied by
                          > > the private consortium. The contracts for LV construction will go directly
                          > > to the consortium anyway as the consortium would contain major aerospace
                          > > companies already.
                          > > Universities would also at this time be utilized as major research partners
                          > > given their excellent track record in space exploration R&D projects.
                          > >
                          > > Why Mars?
                          > >
                          > > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and
                          > > shoulders above the rest. It is the premier exploration target of our age in
                          > > space and the opportunity exists to find life there. Although humans will
                          > > certainly migrate to Earth orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System
                          > > during the coming centuries, here are several compelling reasons why Mars
                          > > will be the most successful human
                          > > colony. Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all
                          > > the elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon,
                          > > oxygen, nitrogen, as much land area as Earth and more. Mars's day is just 40
                          > > minutes longer than Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as
                          > > Earth's, results in a similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine,
                          > > therefore, that not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to
                          > > the Martian environment starting with enclosed towns and cities.
                          > > Although a partially artificial environment would need to be created, in
                          > > particular the generation of breathing air at an adequate pressure, much of
                          > > human life on Earth is only sustained due to significant levels of
                          > > technology and the creation of an artificial environment - there are not
                          > > many areas on Earth where naked human survival is possible otherwise let
                          > > alone at current levels of population.
                          > >
                          > > Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of metals, a
                          > > reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the only other
                          > > world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth). In the
                          > > scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the easiest
                          > > place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and one of
                          > > the easiest places in space for us to reach.
                          > >
                          > > Why not the Moon?
                          > >
                          > > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live on
                          > > the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost no
                          > > carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there.
                          > > The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive
                          > > dust and
                          > > low gravity also present significant challenges for human habitation. Note
                          > > that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of human
                          > > expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various technologies,
                          > > systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars Program, as well
                          > > as
                          > > in Mars analog environments on Earth such as the Dry Valleys of Antarctic
                          > > and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very rich in metals and one
                          > > of the best places in the Solar System for researching astronomy and
                          > > planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that a lunar colonization
                          > > program will also evolve as our technology develops – possibly even as a
                          > > side-effect of the World Mars Program.
                          > >
                          > > Why a global consortium?
                          > >
                          > > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international
                          > > collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars
                          > > Program is significantly more ambitious. There are three important reasons
                          > > why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more
                          > > successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                          > >
                          > > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge ever
                          > > undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will
                          > > require research and development in space transportation, life support
                          > > systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilization, and
                          > > almost every branch of engineering. While it may be possible for one or a
                          > > few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer. By combining
                          > > the resources of all nations – including people, research facilities,
                          > > materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our science and
                          > > technology will evolve much more rapidly.
                          > > This is not only a benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the
                          > > innovation stimulated by the project will flow into new technologies to
                          > > benefit communities on Earth. To put it simply, the sooner we can organize a
                          > > space settlement program, the sooner we will have access to the abundant
                          > > resources of space and will develop the technologies needed for a prosperous
                          > > Earth. Global collaboration on space settlement will deliver these kinds of
                          > > results sooner. Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that
                          > > represents, involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and is a truly
                          > > unique and history making project without equal.
                          > > There must be clear paths towards a fast ROI, and all participants should
                          > > ideally have a pragmatic attitude about the project. Several space agencies
                          > > have considered sending humans to Mars and possibly constructing a Mars
                          > > settlement. However, these plans remain dreams in light of the expense and
                          > > difficulty involved.
                          > > This leads us to the 3rd major reason why international collaboration is
                          > > essential for Mars settlement and that is, in order to spread the cost. The
                          > > cost of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget,
                          > > towards $2 billion. The cost of building the first base on Mars will
                          > > certainly be much higher, but by distributing this among the nations of
                          > > Earth, the per-nation cost should actually be lower.
                          > >
                          > > Conclusion
                          > >
                          > > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all
                          > > people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new
                          > > ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating
                          > > nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of settling one world
                          > > will be an
                          > >
                          > > improved quality of life for all people on this one.
                          > >
                          > > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars
                          > > Program
                          > > such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
                          > >
                          > > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by ideas
                          > > and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly unique, and
                          > > a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                          > > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it will
                          > > benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This cannot
                          > > be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have Mars as
                          > > the ultimate focus.
                          > > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in
                          > > technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology
                          > > developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of
                          > > private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning
                          > > that solutions will
                          > > come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many technology areas.
                          > > 4. Accomplishments- Its end goals will encompass far more than just R&D
                          > > into new technologies, providing boasting rights to whoever is involved.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<marsdrivemission%40yahoogroups.com>,
                          > > "David" <davidgooding16@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Frank,
                          > > >
                          > > > I have read your project overview with some interest.
                          > > >
                          > > > To my uninformed self, it looks good. However, I do have a few comments.
                          > > >
                          > > > PHILOSOPHY:
                          > > >
                          > > > 1. It is difficult to see how "this technology [water and air
                          > > manufacturing, energy production etc.] can be applied anywhere on Earth", at
                          > > least in any direct and specific way. Do you have any examples of how these
                          > > might be applicable? In general, these would only be viable on Mars where
                          > > there is extreme scarcity of these resources, making the use of the
                          > > technologies essential, and I would suggest would not be economically viable
                          > > on Earth (e.g. how much would a pint of water produced using our proposed
                          > > ISRU purposes actually cost?). That's not to say there would be no benefit,
                          > > it's just that I would suggest that benefits are likely to be somewhat more
                          > > intangible, longer-term or indirect.
                          > > >
                          > > > 2. "Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another
                          > > planet...It arguably represents the most effective path towards a world of
                          > > peace, freedome, health, happiness and abundance". I am not sure that this
                          > > is supported by the evidence from previous expansions of the human race on
                          > > Earth, although nice politics it might be!
                          > > >
                          > > > WHY MARS?
                          > > >
                          > > > 3. "not only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the
                          > > martian [typo - should be Martian!] environment." I think that this should
                          > > be qualified a little. We are unlikely to adapt to breath carbon dioxide at
                          > > <10mBar, for example. I would instead suggest "that it is reasonable to
                          > > expect that not only humans but many of Earth's species could live
                          > > satisfactorily on Mars within accomodation that can be developed with
                          > > today's technology." (or something similar).
                          > > >
                          > > > 4. I would also note that an objection of many laymen would be that life
                          > > would not be possible on Mars without an artificially-created environment
                          > > (pressure domes, whatever) and I would suggest that you should pre-empt such
                          > > criticism by noting that "although a partially artificial environment would
                          > > need to be created, in particular the generation of breathing air at an
                          > > adequate pressure, much of human life on Earth is only sustained due to
                          > > significant levels of technology and the creation of an artifical
                          > > environment - there are not many areas on Earth where naked human survival
                          > > is possible otherwise let alone at current levels of population."
                          > > >
                          > > > WHY NOT THE MOON?
                          > > >
                          > > > No comment on this section - I am happy with the argument presented.
                          > > >
                          > > > WHY A GLOBAL CONSORTIUM?
                          > > >
                          > > > 5. Typo - "enegineering"
                          > > >
                          > > > 6. "in order to spread the cost". Whilst you spread the cost by
                          > > collaborating, your also increase it overall. I understand that a typical
                          > > "rule of thumb" in major international collaborative definece procurement
                          > > programmes is that the total cost goes up roughly with the square root of
                          > > the number of participants (e.g. with 4 participants, the total cost is
                          > > doubled). You still win, because each individual partner's share is reduced
                          > > (in this example, by a factor of two). This arises from differing
                          > > requirememtns, objectives, political arguing, vested interests to be catered
                          > > to and so on. Of course,my model may not be totally applicable, but you
                          > > could look at other programmes e.g. ESA, Airbus, etc. although cost
                          > > information is likely to be commercially sensitive. Your point is however
                          > > valid, individual contributions are lower, it's just that they may not be as
                          > > much lower as at first might appear.
                          > > >
                          > > > 7. "all participants ideally should have an altruistic attitude about the
                          > > project and be global thinkers rather than nationalistic". This is perhaps
                          > > unrealistic. I note that democratic governments are elected specifically to
                          > > look after the interests of their own population, and they would not be
                          > > doing their job otherwise. Instead, I would suggest we need a collaborative
                          > > model that can work with national self-interest. Perhaps national
                          > > governments could each put up a percentage of the money on the basis that a
                          > > similar percentage of the work ends up with their own industry, universities
                          > > and other organisations. It might be worth reviewing the models for other
                          > > multi-national aerospace programmes.
                          > > >
                          > > > 8. A further benefit of a collaborative approach (which you might not
                          > > wish to articulate in your document) is that it becomes harder to stop or
                          > > cancel the programme once it is underway, as partners are locked in to some
                          > > greater or lesser extent. As an example, in my line of work, the Concorde
                          > > programme would probably have been cancelled had it been a UK only (or
                          > > French only) programme, but because there was never a time when both parties
                          > > strongly wanted to pull out at the same time, it went ahead (and lost vast
                          > > amounts of money).
                          > > >
                          > > > THE WORLD MARS PROGRAMME
                          > > >
                          > > > 9. The danger of definite deadlines is that you push ahead with the next
                          > > phase of work whether or not the previous one has been adequately completed.
                          > > Programme management of an activity such as this is likely to be a
                          > > significant challenge. I would like a little more time to think over this
                          > > aspect then perhaps get back to you with more detailed comment.
                          > > >
                          > > > CONCLUSION
                          > > >
                          > > > No comment.
                          > > >
                          > > > That's all I've time for now.
                          > > >
                          > > > Regards,
                          > > >
                          > > > Dave G
                          > > >
                          > > > PS - Mike, I haven't forgotten your mission!
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In marsdrivemission@yahoogroups.com<marsdrivemission%40yahoogroups.com>,
                          > > "frank_stratford" <frank_stratford@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The Mars Consortium
                          > > > > Project Overview
                          > > > >
                          > > > > This document describes an exciting and ambitious new project expected
                          > > to involve partners from all over the planet – the formation of a global
                          > > consortium, comprised of acedemia, government and industry, that will
                          > > collaborate on the common goal of research and development for establishing
                          > > a permanent human presence on the planet Mars.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > This group we are calling the Mars Consortium.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The primary goal of the Consortium is the design and construction of a
                          > > permanent human settlement on Mars. This first settlement will be
                          > > self-sufficient in air, water, food and energy, have reliable internet
                          > > connection with Earth, and be capable of supporting 10 to 100 people
                          > > more-or-less indefinitely.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The program for achieving this goal through the mechanism of
                          > > international collaboration we are calling the World Mars Program.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Philosophy
                          > > > > It is widely acknowledged in the scientific community that expansion
                          > > into space will be the next major phase in human evolution. It has been said
                          > > that this expansion represents an evolutionary leap of a similar scale to
                          > > life crawling out of the oceans. A tenet of evolutionary biology is that a
                          > > species will expand to fill its available niche, and our technology has
                          > > almost evolved to the point where our niche includes space. Once the
                          > > technological hurdles have been overcome, it seems inevitable that humans
                          > > will begin living in space.
                          > > > > The potential benefits of this migration are manifold. We will begin to
                          > > perceive Earth as it really is – a single, unified and somewhat fragile
                          > > biosphere, rather than a group of distinct nations or tribes. Without the
                          > > constraints of gravity, and with access to unlimited resources, there will
                          > > be few engineering challenges beyond us.
                          > > > > A frontier society is known to produce a rate of innovation and
                          > > resourcefulness much higher than usual, and the innovation stimulated by the
                          > > technical and psychological challenges of living in space will flow back to
                          > > Earth, resulting in better tools and systems and improved quality of life
                          > > for all humanity. The technologies developed for Mars colonisation are
                          > > likely to be survival-oriented, for example, water and air manufacture and
                          > > recycling, energy production, food production, soil engineering, environment
                          > > control, etc. This technology can be applied anywhere on Earth where
                          > > conditions are challenging, to either improve quality of life and
                          > > survivability for existing communities, or to make possible the creation of
                          > > new ones.
                          > > > > Expansion into space, and in particular the settlement of another
                          > > planet, will greatly benefit all people due to changes in our psychology,
                          > > how we perceive ourselves, access to virtually infinite resources, and rapid
                          > > evolution of almost every aspect of our science and technology. It arguably
                          > > represents the most effective path towards a world of peace, freedom,
                          > > health, happiness and abundance.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Why Mars?
                          > > > > Of all the potential targets for human settlement, Mars stands head and
                          > > shoulders above the rest. Although humans will certainly migrate to Earth
                          > > orbit, the Moon and elsewhere in the Solar System during the coming
                          > > centuries, there are several compelling reasons why Mars will be the most
                          > > successful human colony.
                          > > > > Mars has a number of important similarities to Earth. It has all the
                          > > elements necessary for our kind of biology and society: water, carbon,
                          > > oxygen, nitrogen and more. Mars's day is just 40 minutes longer than
                          > > Earth's, and its axial tilt, being almost the same as Earth's, results in a
                          > > similar seasonal cycle. It is reasonable to imagine, therefore, that not
                          > > only humans but many of Earth's species could adapt to the martian
                          > > environment. Mars has geothermal, solar and wind energy, an abundance of
                          > > metals, a reasonable level of gravity, and a translucent atmosphere (the
                          > > only other world in the Solar System with this particular feature is Earth).
                          > > In the scale of the Solar System, Mars is also very close. Mars is the
                          > > easiest place for humans to live in the Solar System other than Earth, and
                          > > one of the easiest places in space for us to reach.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Why not the Moon?
                          > > > > While the Moon may be much closer, it is significantly harder to live
                          > > on the Moon than Mars. The Moon has only small amounts of water and almost
                          > > no carbon and nitrogen, which means it will be difficult to grow food there.
                          > > The month-long day, extremes of temperature, lack of atmosphere, abrasive
                          > > dust and low gravity also present significant challenges for human
                          > > habitation.
                          > > > > Note that the Moon still has an extremely high value in the context of
                          > > human expansion into space. It may be advantageous to test various
                          > > technologies, systems and protocols on the Moon as part of the World Mars
                          > > Program, as well as in Mars analog environmetns on Earth such as the Dry
                          > > Valleys of Antarctic and the Atacama Desert. Furthermore, the Moon is very
                          > > rich in metals and one of the best places in the Solar System for
                          > > researching astronomy and planetary science. It is reasonable to expect that
                          > > a lunar colonisation program will also evolve as our technology develops –
                          > > possibly even as a side-effect of the World Mars Program.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Why a global consortium?
                          > > > > The ISS has demonstrated what can be achieved with international
                          > > collaboration on space research and engineering. However, the World Mars
                          > > Program is significantly more ambitious. There are a three important reasons
                          > > why a truly global effort is necessary, and why this will be a more
                          > > successful approach than any efforts by a single government or space agency.
                          > > > > Firstly, settling Mars is arguably the biggest engineering challenge
                          > > ever undertaken by humans. The technical challenges are formidable, and will
                          > > require research and development in space transportation, life support
                          > > systems, environment control, robotics, in-situ resource utilisation, and
                          > > almost every branch of enegineering. While it may be possible for one or a
                          > > few countries to achieve this goal, it would take a lot longer.
                          > > > > By combining the resources of all nations – including people, research
                          > > facilities, materials, knowledge and infrastructure – it's certain that our
                          > > science and technology will evolve much more rapidly. This is not only a
                          > > benefit for the WMP, but also for Earth, since the innovation stimulated by
                          > > the project will flow into new technologies to benefit communities on Earth.
                          > > To put it simply, the sooner we can organise a space settlement program, the
                          > > sooner we will have access to the abundant resources of space and will
                          > > develop the technologies needed for a peaceful Earth. Global collaboration
                          > > on space settlement will deliver these kind of results sooner.
                          > > > > Secondly, human settlement of Mars is something that represents,
                          > > involves and will affect everyone on Earth, and should therefore be totally
                          > > inclusive of all people irrespective of their nation, race, gender or
                          > > religion. Mars is the heritage of all humanity, not merely those fortunate
                          > > enough to have been born in a particularly wealthy or technologically
                          > > proficient country. Care must be taken to ensure that the WMP does not
                          > > excessively benefit one nation ahead of the whole human species. There must
                          > > be clear paths towards benefiting the whole Earth, and all participants
                          > > should ideally have an altruistic attitude about the project and be global
                          > > thinkers rather than nationalistic.
                          > > > > Several space agencies have considered sending humans to Mars and
                          > > possibly constructing a Mars settlement. However, these plans remain dreams
                          > > in light of the expense and difficulty involved. This leads us to the 3rd
                          > > major reason why international collaboration is essential for Mars
                          > > settlement, and that is, in order to spread the cost. The cost of NASA's
                          > > Mars Science Laboratory went significantly over budget, towards $2 billion.
                          > > The cost of building the first base on Mars will certainly be much higher,
                          > > but by distributing this among the nations of Earth, the per-nation cost
                          > > should actually be lower.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The World Mars Program
                          > > > > The Mars Consortium's strategy for achieving a permanent human presence
                          > > on Mars is not yet clearly defined. Once the initial phase of the program is
                          > > complete – namely, setting up the communications, collaboration, financial
                          > > and legal infrastructure for this global project – we will initiate an
                          > > ongoing discussion among all players as to the optimal strategy, starting
                          > > from a systematic evaluation all existing proposals and their pros and cons.
                          > > Our intention is that this phase will have a definite deadline so that
                          > > discussions do not become excessively long. We also do not want a mission
                          > > plan "designed by committee". Beyond a certain agreed-upon deadline (say 12
                          > > months of planning), we will proceed with the best plan developed to that
                          > > point, while still remaining agile enough to modify our strategy in the
                          > > event that a cleverer idea or new technology or other resource becomes
                          > > available.
                          > > > > Instead of designing every component of the mission from scratch, we
                          > > believe it will be more efficient to utilise existing technologies and
                          > > solutions wherever practical. This approach will save both time and money,
                          > > and extract greater value from work already done. Rather than pretending
                          > > that we're a large organisation with a huge staff of researchers and an
                          > > open-ended budget, the philosophy of our approach is more like something the
                          > > survivors on a desert island would adopt:
                          > > > > What is our over-riding objective? (A permanent human presence on
                          > > Mars.)
                          > > > > What resources do we have?
                          > > > > How can those resources be utilised in the most effective way in order
                          > > to achieve our goal in the minimum time, with the minimum cost, and with the
                          > > maximum return on investment?
                          > > > > Our goal is to gain the greatest possible value from R&D that has
                          > > already been conducted. To this end we anticipate a global "audit" of all
                          > > technologies and people that could potentially contriute to the attainment
                          > > of our goal, early in the project.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Conclusion
                          > > > > It is our sincere belief that human settlement of Mars will benefit all
                          > > people of Earth, through the development of new technologies, but also new
                          > > ways of thinking, and by improving relationships between collaborating
                          > > nations. If managed and conducted properly, the upshot of colonising one
                          > > world will be an improved quality of life for all people on this one.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > These technological benefits may be reached without the need for a Mars
                          > > Program such as this, but the unique aspects of this plan are-
                          > > > >
                          > > > > 1. It is a unique program with unique goals- In a world saturated by
                          > > ideas and competition in every sector, success comes from being truly
                          > > unique, and a humans to Mars program is most definitely unique.
                          > > > > 2. It is a history making program and any entity associated with it
                          > > will benefit from the intangible "reputational" aspect of this plan. This
                          > > cannot be replicated in a current/standard R&D program that does not have
                          > > Mars as the ultimate focus.
                          > > > > 3. Collaborative Force- At present most small scale R&D projects in
                          > > technology have only one or two financial partners involved. The technology
                          > > developed for a Mars progam will have the backing of literally dozens of
                          > > private sector companies, universities, governments and investors, meaning
                          > > that solutions will come quickly, providing a new competitive edge in many
                          > > technology areas.
                          > > > > 4. Accomplishments- It's end goals will encompass far more than just
                          > > R&D into new technologies, providing boating rights to whoever is involved.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Join us.
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          > http://www.gigantino.tv
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.