
Mars Colony Prize - aunty_helen
http://marscolony.marssociety.org/
======
jaggederest
This is a fun dimensional analysis problem.

I'm going to start with food energy. Leaving aside actual nutrition.

1000 people * 2000 kcal per day = 100000 watts carbohydrates (basic energy
intake)

100000 watts / 60% = 160kw(raw vegetation) (40% food waste)

160kw / 5% = 3200kw(light) (conversion efficiency from light to food ~5%)

3200kw / 40% = 8000kw(e) (electrical energy to light for LEDs)

8000kw / 40% = 20MW(th) (thermal energy to electricity, carnot limit)

So you need to have a 100% duty cycle 20MW(th) reactor just to supply the
lighting for producing food energy, if you're trying to be self sufficient.

You can do other, even more exciting problems for the other key resources. I'd
guess that the water cycle and the entangled oxygen cycle would be
interesting, as well. Also you can work out the positive energy coefficient of
using the hydrogen split out of the water to power a sabatier reactor and
produce methane. I can tell you already that the energy budget for this colony
would be challenging in itself.

Edit: added more specific units - part deux, corrected off-by-ten error (off-
by-one-zero ?)

~~~
Tossrock
The natural fit here is a naval nuclear reactor. For example, the A4W reactor
on a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier puts out 550MW(th), and of course it has a
continuous 100% duty cycle, and 20 years of operating time before requiring
refueling. For slightly less overkill, an S6G reactor from a Los Angeles-class
nuclear sub puts out 165MW(th), and is substantially smaller and lighter.

Of course, this raises some thorny issues around potential launch failures
spreading radioactive material over a large area. This is already a
consideration even with the little RTGs that NASA launches for rovers.

~~~
philipkglass
_The natural fit here is a naval nuclear reactor. ... Of course, this raises
some thorny issues around potential launch failures spreading radioactive
material over a large area. This is already a consideration even with the
little RTGs that NASA launches for rovers._

Counter-intuitively, a nuclear reactor has lower radiotoxicity risks in case
of an explosion during launch. Before a reactor reaches criticality for the
first time, it doesn't contain any highly radioactive materials. It's only as
radioactive as its uranium fuel. Uranium has a long half-life and
corresponding low radioactivity.

Plutonium 238, used in RTGs like that in the Mars Science Laboratory, has a
half life of 87.7 years. Uranium 235 has a half life of 704 million years.
Neglecting differing relative biological effectiveness of radiation for the
moment, that means that the plutonium 238 in RTGs is about 8 million times
more radioactive, kilogram-for-kilogram, than the uranium 235 in a reactor's
fuel.

The Mars Science Laboratory carried 4.2 kilograms of plutonium 238 (4.8 kg of
PuO2):

[https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/532433main_FIN%20MSL%20Launch%20Nuc...](https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/532433main_FIN%20MSL%20Launch%20Nuclear%20Safety%20FS%202-9-11.pdf)

It could have carried 33.7 _million_ kilograms of U-235 for roughly the same
radiological risk. Or, realistically, missions could launch with reactors
designed for a few tens of kilowatts to megawatts and the maximum radiological
risk would be much smaller than with RTGs. At least so long as the reactor
attains first criticality _after_ the risky launch phase.

~~~
mLuby
Really interesting point!

Since nuclear reactor is unfortunately a tainted term, maybe we just need to
rename it to something more technical, like RTG. Space-worthy Inert
Radioisotope Power Plant?

------
max76
The idea that 1000 people can be largely self sufficient on Mars is laughable,
unless we make unrealistic predictions about where tech will be.

For one example, a village of 1000 people would clearly have newborns. If
newborns are avoided then the colony isn't real self sufficient. Launch
windows to Earth are wide enough, and travel time is long enough, that sending
pregnant women back to Earth is probably not a good idea. It's inadvisable for
pregnant women to ride roller coasters, much less enter Earth's atmosphere.
The birth will have to be on planet. The colony would need to have OB-GYNs,
atleast one pediatrician, nurses, infant care specialist, teachers, janitorial
staff for these facilities, administrator staff for these facilities. Mars
level gravity births are uncharted territory, and we have no clear idea what
complications can arise from it. Easily 2-4% of the population would have to
be dedicated to the inevitability bringing in children and taking care of
them. Do the children count towards the 1000?

There are enough big problems with being humans that require specialist that
1000 is just not enough, unless you assume unrealistic labor cuts in some
areas such as farming, construction, mining, manufacturing, etc.

~~~
jakeinspace
We clearly don't need an entire hospital and school system to handle children.
Yes, the infant mortality rate would surely be high compared to our own,
especially with the effects of stress and lower gravity, but a few doctors
should be enough to handle basic birthing and the occasion C-section. People
managed for thousands of years with much less. As for teaching, I'd expect a
more communal model, with less structure and dedicated staff per student than
the American system. Parents would likely be much more personally responsible.

~~~
gnulinux
What if all doctors die due to a catastrophy? Will we send 10 more doctors to
Mars for children waiting to be born? Is this ethical?

~~~
Mtinie
Multi-disciplinary studies would likely be mandatory for the initial
colonists. “Field medic” training will ensure a sufficient number of colonists
could deliver babies and manage cases which required non-specialty medicine.
Much like it was during other periods of outward-expansion when your local
grocer or saloon owner doubled as a medic (in some case probably _the_ medic).

~~~
max76
I don't think a field medic level of medical training will be enough to handle
the complications involving living/birthing/growing in reduced gravity.

The effects of reduced gravity are largely an unknown. It could range from
minor physical alterations to crippling disabilities. We won't know until
mammal trials. Due to the cost it's likely the mammal trials will be human.

It's possible extra medical staff could have other jobs, but professional
doctors will be a requirement of the population.

------
maxander
> Each contestant will need to submit a report of no more than 20 pages

> Reports should be in pdf form and use 12 point Times typestyle, 1” margins.

A 20-page report at 12-point font isn't very much- an average college student
has likely prepared longer papers. It sounds implausible that one could pack
enough detail into that to make a substantial and novel case for a Martian
colony design.

~~~
jonathankoren
Also, the CFP is strongly hinting at what buzzwords a winning paper needs.
(Robots! 3D printing! Exports!)

Given the paper parameters and this strong hinting, I suspect they’re going to
attract a lot of very handwavy and not very serious papers.

For example, one of the requirements is to make steel on Mars. (Why you would
do this with only 1000 people, it doesn’t say.) No one wants to say, that
we’ll have humans strip mining iron ore (we don’t even know where such veins
exist), so someone will say something about 3D printing up a robot smelter
that collects iron from dust in the wind, and spits out I-beams that are a
special Martian alloy that makes shipping them back to Earth via a railgun
cost effective.

~~~
parliament32
>3D printing up a robot smelter that collects iron from dust in the wind, and
spits out I-beams that are a special Martian alloy that makes shipping them
back to Earth via a railgun cost effective

Just picturing this is great, sounds like a winning proposal to me.

~~~
jonathankoren
I am halfway tempteded to write this up.

------
pacificmint
Possibly more interesting than the competition is the link to the Mars
Papers[1], a "number of papers, including preliminary plans for Mars colonies
and their necessary subsystems"

[1][http://marspapers.org/#/papers](http://marspapers.org/#/papers)

------
zekevermillion
Whoever wrote these guidelines doesn't even understand Earth economics, let
alone interplanetary economics.

------
okintheory
"So why did you move to Mars?"

"I won the Mars Colony Prize, so it seemed like the logical next step."

------
wollstonecraft
How do you reject MWs of waste heat in a near vacuum?

~~~
felipemnoa
Insert metal rods into the mars's crust to dissipate the heat. I don't even
think they have to be that deep.

------
oliv__
Just why. I happen to enjoy living on planet Earth. Going to Mars has always
sounded to me like an excuse to continue trashing the perfect planet we
_already_ have. Of course in that scenario it becomes inevitable to colonize
Mars. But god what a sick unspoken premise that is.

~~~
juancampa
It's okay to ask why. Let's see, because if we get hit by a giant asteroid we
would have a way to survive. Because we could learn something about physics,
biology, cosmology, chemistry, psychology, etc. Because curiosity. Because
there's a whole universe out there waiting to be discovered and we have to
start somewhere.

I don't think anyone thinks your premise is valid though.

~~~
gotocake
That premise only holds if we can live without Earth’s support, and frankly
outside of science fiction and people without enough scientific education to
know better, that’s not happening in the lifetimes of anyone having this
conversation, or their children, and probably grand and great-grandchildren.
We’re still a ways from being able to live off Earth _with_ suppport from
Earth, never mind sustaining the race indefinitely without Earth.

If we want to get the chance to add some real redundancy to the species, we’re
going to have to need a functional Earth for the foreseeable future.

~~~
mLuby
We've had astronauts in the international space station for 18 years (with
regular supply shipments from Earth) so we're definitely capable of living off
Earth with Earth support.

Since we're making unsubstantiated claims, here's mine: humanity will have a
self-sufficient (given raw material inputs such as exist on Mars or the Moon)
colony within 100 years.

~~~
gotocake
Those astronauts spend less than 216 days on that station, and require
extensive physical therapy to recover (which they never fully do) when they
get home. They’re also not a sustainable population, even with supplies and
reinforcements from Earth. The longer they spend up there the more their long-
term health suffers, and there’s no reason to believe that they could survive
for years, never mind breed and sustain a population even with supplies.

Pointing to the ISS as an example of how close we are to self-sufficient
colonies betrays a total lack of comprehension about the challenges such an
endeavor faces.

