Best Construction Methods for Mars

[sanman]

I want to ask people what would be the best techniques for large-scale construction on Mars, in support of a Martian colony.

Awhile back, I'd read how bacteria can be used to generate strong sandstone material, which could be used for building purposes:

http://youngandbrilliant.net/post/148829640

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/sandstone.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithification

The architectural pictures do have an exotic look that seems strangely appropriate for Mars.

I'm wondering how feasible this approach might be for the Martian environment?

Here is a TED talk by Magnus Larsson about creating sandstone architecture using bacteria:

http://www.ted.com/talks/magnus_lars...hitecture.html

The nice thing about lithification is that it eliminates porosity and creates an impermeable sandstone rock. Hopefully, this would keep atmosphere and heat in, and the cold out.

Sure, obviously, the cold Martian environment looks plenty hostile to life from Earth, but perhaps a strain of bacteria could be bred/engineered which would be able to survive at the equatorial zones for sufficiently long periods to be useful. (I'm not talking about right on the surface, which drops to ridiculously cold temperatures at night, but rather below the surface. I'm not sure how deep the Martian permafrost is, though)

Anybody have any better ideas for mass construction on Mars?

Alternatively, what about digging into the ground, or living in caves?

[kamaz]

There may be simpler ways. There is a book about building bases on the Moon, available here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/ which describes several techniques for making building materials out of lunar regolith -- such as heating the soil so it melts into bricks or whatever shape you want.

Yes, martian rocks are different, but it shows that a lot can be improvised and quite simply at that...

[Noclevername]

To keep the exposure to radiation to a minimum, most living and working quarters will likely be either underground, or with dirt berms covering them. Natural caves will probably not be used as there may be questions about their stability and they would be more difficult to make air tight than a constructed shelter.

[sanman]

From everything I've read, Mars is very geologically stable, with an extremely thick crust.

If Mars did indeed have a very watery past, then that water must have carved some pretty deep channels into that crust.

The deeper the elevation that the cave goes down to, the more Earth-like the conditions could be. More pressure, more insulation from radiation and day-night temperature swings on the surface, more likelihood of finding water below its triple-point. Perhaps there could even be some limited geo-thermal hotspots down below which could be tapped for energy, or at least make conditions more comfortable for life.

Thus deep caves would be the best places to find life, and therefore the best places to live in and explore.

[Noclevername]

"Live in" and "explore" are two very different animals. Your living quarters would quickly become contaminated with Earth bacteria, while you'd want to keep potentially life-bearing caves as pristine as possible to avoid cross-contamination.

[sanman]

If everybody's going to be perpetually squeamish about "humans contaminating Mars" then why send people there at all? Just send robots.

I think that some people are trying to sell the public a false bill of goods, when they go along with the idea of sending humans to Mars and even colonizing it, but still want to avoid "human/earthly contamination" of the place.

Most sales pitches for going to Mars involve selling visions of colonizing the place eventually. People don't want a one-off "flags and footprints" mission.

You can't colonize any place which you feel is in danger of being "contaminated" by you - it's a blatant contradiction.

If humans are going to take all that trouble to go there, then it's going to have to be for-better-or-for-worse, rather than some walking-on-eggshells effort just to appease puritanical zealots who're afraid the place is going to fall apart as soon as Man sets foot there.

It's a planet - it's been around for billions of years, it's suffered crust-smashing collisions, it's had its atmosphere stripped away, it's in a big deep-freeze with drought. I don't think human contact is going to wreck the place.

I'm in favor of researching how to terraform Mars by tipping its climate in our favor, however marginally that may be, and not in keeping Mars "pristine", "pure" and "untouched".

If we're going to send people there, it should be with the understanding of claiming the place for humanity, and not for some fringe bunch who want it kept "unspoiled" and "uncontaminated".

Otherwise, just stick with robots.

[IsaacKuo]

If everybody's going to be perpetually squeamish about "humans contaminating Mars" then why send people there at all? Just send robots.

Good idea! Seriously. We have barely even scratched the surface and underneath the surface is where the action would be (with respect to potential life on Mars). The answers to the questions of former and/or current life on Mars are more important than a little extra space to live. Mars has only a fraction of the surface area of Earth's oceans.

We could still exploit Mars for resources, if it makes sense, with robots and/or atmospheric scooping. The potential living area in orbital habitats would outstrip the potential area on Mars by many orders of magnitude.

[sanman]

A planet is a much larger and more buffered environment to live on than some fragile space colony. A planet will by definition have an abundance of resources on hand, which a space colony would not have.

I liked Elon Musk's articulated position that mankind must go multi-planetary in order to hedge against some disaster befalling the Earth, which could potentially wipe out mankind.

As far as robots probing the Martian underground for life in lieu of humans doing so, it would be nice if some means of communication could be developed that would pass through solid rock, so as to facilitate remote guidance of those robots while underground, as well as receiving their data feedback.

I'd read that the US Navy was researching neutrino beams for underwater communication with submarines. I can't think of any other type of phenomenon that could pass through what could potentially be miles of solid rock. Anybody know of anything?

[Noclevername]

If everybody's going to be perpetually squeamish about "humans contaminating Mars" then why send people there at all? Just send robots.

I think that some people are trying to sell the public a false bill of goods, when they go along with the idea of sending humans to Mars and even colonizing it, but still want to avoid "human/earthly contamination" of the place.

Most sales pitches for going to Mars involve selling visions of colonizing the place eventually. People don't want a one-off "flags and footprints" mission.

You can't colonize any place which you feel is in danger of being "contaminated" by you - it's a blatant contradiction.

If humans are going to take all that trouble to go there, then it's going to have to be for-better-or-for-worse, rather than some walking-on-eggshells effort just to appease puritanical zealots who're afraid the place is going to fall apart as soon as Man sets foot there.

It's a planet - it's been around for billions of years, it's suffered crust-smashing collisions, it's had its atmosphere stripped away, it's in a big deep-freeze with drought. I don't think human contact is going to wreck the place.

I'm in favor of researching how to terraform Mars by tipping its climate in our favor, however marginally that may be, and not in keeping Mars "pristine", "pure" and "untouched".

If we're going to send people there, it should be with the understanding of claiming the place for humanity, and not for some fringe bunch who want it kept "unspoiled" and "uncontaminated".

Otherwise, just stick with robots.

You misunderstood my intentions. You're the one who brought up the subject of finding native life in caves-- well, if you live in them, how are you going to tell our germs from native life? How are you going to keep our hardy bacteria from wiping out native life? That's what I meant by "contamination", in the medical sense. I'm not anti-colonizing or anti-terraforming-- but we need data on what's there before we can do either.

[Noclevername]

A planet is a much larger and more buffered environment to live on than some fragile space colony. A planet will by definition have an abundance of resources on hand, which a space colony would not have.

I liked Elon Musk's articulated position that mankind must go multi-planetary in order to hedge against some disaster befalling the Earth, which could potentially wipe out mankind.

Space habitats can avoid disasters that planets can't, and vice versa. There's no need to limit ourselves to just planets or just space stations-- we'll be better off living in as many places as we can.

[IsaacKuo]

A planet is a much larger and more buffered environment to live on than some fragile space colony. A planet will by definition have an abundance of resources on hand, which a space colony would not have.

You could scale up a space colony to just about any scale--including scales much larger than Mars or Earth. Space colonies could be Dyson Sphere-sized in scale, and beyond. They could have a far greater abundance of resources on hand, since all of the matter would be available (as opposed to most of the matter being deep molten magma).

I liked Elon Musk's articulated position that mankind must go multi-planetary in order to hedge against some disaster befalling the Earth, which could potentially wipe out mankind.

We should go off-planet eventually, but our chances of surviving such disasters would be maximized with space colonies, not Mars.

As far as robots probing the Martian underground for life in lieu of humans doing so, it would be nice if some means of communication could be developed that would pass through solid rock, so as to facilitate remote guidance of those robots while underground, as well as receiving their data feedback.

Wires work, if necessary. It wouldn't be necessary, though, for scientific core drilling. The robot parks on the surface, and drills down to take core samples.

I'd read that the US Navy was researching neutrino beams for underwater communication with submarines. I can't think of any other type of phenomenon that could pass through what could potentially be miles of solid rock. Anybody know of anything?

Neutrinos? Ridiculous fantasy. In contrast, wires work--if necessary.

Anyway, if you're taking samples from miles below the surface, you're not using some little self contained digging robot. You're using a drilling rig. You are definitely not using some manned vehicle.

[sanman]

Noclevername,

Fair enough - I just think that there should be some time-limit on finding Martian microbes, so that this doesn't impede plans for humans to fan out and colonize the place.

IsaacKuo,

Regarding robots searching underground, I don't think that core-drilling would be enough, as that would be too limited. I was mainly thinking of sending robots into cave systems, to travel as far down as possible to see what exists down there. As you say, I guess wires would work. I suppose the wires could even transmit power from a surface unit. I wonder what kind of mobility mechanisms a robot should have for navigating its way down a cave, where there may even be vertical drops. Wheels might not be enough. Spider legs, perhaps?

But even before robots can be sent into caves, it would be necessary to find caves and underground networks to begin with. Are there any plans on the drawing boards for some kind of cavern-sensing radar mission, which could map out underground cavities, channels and networks below the ground? Given that such underground places would hold the best chance of supporting life, shouldn't there be some plan to detect and map out these places?

[MentalAvenger]

To keep the exposure to radiation to a minimum, most living and working quarters will likely be either underground, or with dirt berms covering them. Natural caves will probably not be used as there may be questions about their stability and they would be more difficult to make air tight than a constructed shelter.

I agree that most habitats will have to be underground. But I disagree that caves would necessarily be unstable. Natural caves would have had millennia to stabilize. Personally, I like lava tubes. The largest volcano in the solar system could probably contain several very large cities.

[MentalAvenger]

I'm in favor of researching how to terraform Mars by tipping its climate in our favor, however marginally that may be,

It is unlikely that any terraforming will be done on Mars. As I indicated in another thread, that would require several thousand trillion tons of gasses added to the atmosphere. Due to Mars’ weak gravity and lack of a magnetosphere, the atmosphere could continue to be stripped off by the solar wind.

[MentalAvenger]

Space habitats can avoid disasters that planets can't, and vice versa. There's no need to limit ourselves to just planets or just space stations-- we'll be better off living in as many places as we can.

An underground society on Mars would not be devastated by some of the extinction level events that would wipe out all life on Earth. Then again, neither would an underground society on Earth.

[IsaacKuo]

Fair enough - I just think that there should be some time-limit on finding Martian microbes, so that this doesn't impede plans for humans to fan out and colonize the place.

We don't know enough, yet, to put a time limit on scientific exploration of Mars. We'll know when we know.

In the meantime, there's no reason we can't get started working on precursor missions, such as missions to Deimos or Phobos.

Regarding robots searching underground, I don't think that core-drilling would be enough, as that would be too limited. I was mainly thinking of sending robots into cave systems, to travel as far down as possible to see what exists down there.

Exploration of cave systems would be far more limiting than core drilling. Core drilling could be done practically anywhere.

As you say, I guess wires would work. I suppose the wires could even transmit power from a surface unit. I wonder what kind of mobility mechanisms a robot should have for navigating its way down a cave, where there may even be vertical drops. Wheels might not be enough. Spider legs, perhaps?

It is a challenge which we haven't even solved here on Earth yet. I can think of various potential solutions, but in all cases a significant R&D effort would be needed to turn those potential solutions into practical solutions.

But even before robots can be sent into caves, it would be necessary to find caves and underground networks to begin with. Are there any plans on the drawing boards for some kind of cavern-sensing radar mission, which could map out underground cavities, channels and networks below the ground? Given that such underground places would hold the best chance of supporting life, shouldn't there be some plan to detect and map out these places?

Underground caves would have worse chances of supporting life. The pressure is too low for liquid water. The best chances would be under enough ice/regolith/rock that there is sufficient ambient pressure for liquid water.

There could be liquid water in caves, but it wouldn't be exposed where a spelunker could see it directly. Rather, it would be underneath ice/regolith/rock. Either way, the robot would need some sort of core drilling hardware to get at it.