Don't try changing the figures by introducing a straw-man concept.
We're NOT talking about a whole self-sustaining colony with metal refining, machine production, food, and babies.
We're discussing the notion that a few brave (stupid) souls go out there to try to eke out survival for 5-10 years with no guarantee of return or longer resupply.
Rather similar to an ISS on the moon, but without the CRV. Say 4-6 people, landed near an icecap or a source of proven subsurface permafrost as a source of ice, plus a nuclear plant for power to melt and electrolyse it to H and O.
Sure, the reactor makes it real heavy, but that's about the same challenge as delivering a Mars return vehicle, especially if you go the Mars direct route of requiring a chemical rocket fuel factory and power source.
The issue then is, what is 5 years' supply of dried food and vitamin pills going to weigh, plus a few spare spacesuits and digital cameras. Everything else you consume, cannibalise, repair, or discard.
Oh, plus Nitrogen...
Space/Science » in reply to Try working backwards. Figure out what the minimum self-sustaining Mars colony would be like, and work from there to what it would require.
minimum NON-self-sustaining Mars outpost
The whole thread (23 posts)
- "New Jamestown" first permanent colony on Mars
