2001mars Society Convention Part 2

A Game for the Simulation of a Martian Base
Marc Salotti
[2000]
Abstract
We would like to create a realistic game based on the ability to survive and to develop the activities of a Martian base.
During the simulation, the astronauts have to explore the surface and find the resources they need to grow plants, to
build new objects, to repair machines, to build new habitats and finally to improve the autonomy of the base.
Meanwhile, they have to maintain the life support system, the energy system and the rover in good working order. We
have tried to realize an educational game, taking into account the technological solutions that will be exploited on Mars.
We are still in the early stages of the development and the characteristics of the simulator have not been precisely
defined. We propose to generalize the concept of object and the concept of transformer, in order to facilitate the
definition of the scenarios and the extension of the game. A web site is devoted to the development of the game:
http://msn.ifrance.com/salotti/jeumars.htm.
1 Introduction
We have recently investigated the creation of a game for the simulation of the development of a Martian base. Though
a similar but more ambitious objective has been proposed by the authors of SimMars, we were not aware of their work
and our approach is in no way comparable. At the moment, we are not intending to sell the final product. Our aim is
rather to develop an educational game, that could be presented to people interested in the development of a Martian base.
Our objective is to present the main difficulties that will be encountered by the astronauts and the possible technological
solutions that will be available on the Red Planet. An important scientific data collection is actually being done in order
to take into account the main processes that will define the development of the Martian base and the survival of the
astronauts (chemical reactions, rover engine, life support system, . . .).2,3,6
We have been inspired by typical simulation games, like SimCity or Age of Empires, the book of Zubrin The Case for
Mars, the Plan to Settle the Red Planet” and also Stanley Robinson’s famous trilogy.1,4,5,6. The evolution of the game
is indeed determined by the activities of the astronauts. For instance, they start the maintenance of the life support
system, go into the rover and explore the neighboring crater, or build a new object using the materials stocked at the
base. The main objects of the game involve the life support system, the production of energy, the exploration of the
Martian surface, the greenhouse, the chemical unit and some tools and machines. We have tried to facilitate the
management of the different objects. This important point is detailed in Section 2. Particular attention has also been
paid to the graphics and the movement of objects. In order to enforce the attractive aspect of the game, we propose to
use real images of Mars, provided by NASA / JPL / Malin Space Science Systems for instance, and the synthetic images
of the Mars Society for the base and the rover. The management of the map, the moves and the different windows are
explained in Section 3. Since the development of the game is still in its early stages, it is not possible to give the details
of the scenarios. The basic structure of a scenario file is nevertheless presented in Section 4. Some perspectives are
discussed in conclusion and preliminary images of the game are presented to illustrate the project.
2 Management Of Objects
2.1 Data structures
Many objects have to be managed. The problem is that there are many different properties and actions attached to each
of them. For instance, a nuclear reactor supplies energy to the base, a rover is a moving object and the oxygen stock is
consumed by the astronauts. Moreover, according to us, it is not the role of the programmer to define the list of possible
objects of the game. The objects list and their corresponding properties are defined in specific “objects declaration
files.” The scenario designer has the ability to modify the files and to create new objects with new properties without
recompiling the sources.
Marc Salotti; Planète Mars, France; marc.salotti@wanadoo.fr
–1–
In the current version of the project, the same basic object structure is used to represent all objects of the game. It is
defined as follows, using Pascal formalism.
robject = record
name : string;
id : integer; // Identifier of the object.
category : integer; // constant : LSS, energy, exploration, chemistry, food, tools, human . . .
state : integer; // constant : ok, damaged, in production, stopped, . . .
lbmp : TClassListBmp; // List of images representing the different aspects of the object
weight : real; // Its weight, in kilograms
power : real; // Its power consumption or production, in Watts
lifetime : real; // Without maintenance, an object breaks down after a while
container : pobject; // Pointer to the container (another object)
pdegrad : pdegradation; // Pointer to a structure with information on the maintenance procedure
ptransform : ptransformation; // Pointer to a structure with information on the sources and the
// products of the transformation, nil if it is not a transformer
lastro : TclassListObjects; // List of astronauts working on this object
lobjects : TclassListObjects; // List of included objects
pmv : pmove; // Pointer to a structure with information on the possible move
// nil if the object is not allowed to move
levents : TclassListEvents; // List of events attached to the objects
end;
Note: Characters to the right of the // are comments.
All objects share the same basic properties and functions. Then, if it is a transformer or if it participates in the
production of energy (for instance), new properties and new functions are specifically added.
2.2 Transformers
Transformers are particular objects that can produce or create other objects. A typical transformer is the reactor that will
provide in-situ propellant for the rover and other machines. The sources are carbon dioxide (from the atmosphere) and
hydrogen and the products are methane and oxygen. A rover engine is also a transformer: its sources are for example
methane and oxygen and its products are carbon dioxide and water. The concept of transformation can be applied to
other domains, for instance to the production of food or energy. In order to generalize this concept, a new data structure
has been introduced. It is defined as follows:
rtransformation = record
lsources : TClassListNeeds; // List of objects sources and their quantity needed for the transformation
lproducts : TclassListNeeds; // List of objects products and their quantity
timetransformation : real; // Required time for a single transformation
powertransformation : real; // Energy required for the transformation
typeoftransformation: integer; // Constant : continue or unique
end;
General functions are associated with this structure. One of them checks that all sources are locally available and
another one proceeds to the transformation, updating the quantity of sources and products. A timer is used to take into
account all events of the game. When a transformation is desired, a particular event is inserted in the list of events. The
transformation is achieved when the required time is over. A transformation can occur only once or it can be continuous,
depending on the way it works. The automation of all kinds of transformation is very important for the flexibility of the
game and its extension. It makes it possible to change the efficiency of a transformer or even to change the input and
the output of a machine. For instance, if a new technology enables the construction of a new engine for a rover, there
is no problem taking it into account.
–2–
2.3 Examples of objects

Since we are actually collecting scientific data on the development of a Martian base, the list of possible objects is not
definitive. In the current version of the game, the main objects are the habitat, the greenhouse, the nuclear reactor, the
chemical unit, the rover and four astronauts. In the habitat, the main elements are the different parts of the life support
system. The greenhouse management is simplified: the seeds are transformed (using the transformation process
explained earlier) into vegetables or fruits using a certain amount of fertilizer and water. The nuclear reactor supplies
energy to the base. Of course, the consumption should never exceed the production, otherwise all machines are
automatically switched off. Meanwhile, the stock of Uranium slowly decreases.
The chemical transformations are also very important. The different stocks of oxygen, hydrogen, water, nitrogen,
methane, silicon, ethylene, and so on, are defined as chemical objects. For some of them, the initial stock is not empty,
but for the others, the player will have to explore the planet and bring them back to the base. According to Zubrin’s
plan to settle the planet, there are many technologies that can be used to build new objects and to improve the autonomy
of the base.6 In the domain of energy, solar dynamic systems, photovoltaic systems, windmills or geothermal power can
be manufactured on Mars. They will provide additional power to the base and finally replace the nuclear reactor.
Ceramics, glass, plastics, steel, and copper will also be manufactured on Mars in order to build new machines, new
habitats, and new tools. These elements will be introduced into the game step by step as the player reaches new levels.
3 Graphics And Interface

3.1 Exploration
Graphics, sounds, moves and interaction with the user are important parts of the game. We are still working on a
preliminary version and many changes may be desired before the final product. Actually, the main window shows a
picture of a small region of Mars (see Figure 1). In order to propose a realistic map, a real image has been chosen, thanks
to the data base of NASA / JPL / Malin Space Science Systems. It should be mentioned that such images may only be
copied for personal use.
Figure 1. Main window. The rover is selected.
–3–
The other graphics have also been copied from the Internet, most of them from the Mars Society web site. They will
eventually be redrawn for the specific purpose of the game. The Delphi platform development has been chosen for the
management of graphics and interactions with the user. The look of the game and the method of playing have been
inspired from other games like SimCity, Red Alert or Age of Empires (without the battles).1,5 Most exploration actions
are commanded with the mouse:
• The entire map is much bigger than the window. The user can move the window up and down or left and right just
holding the mouse near to the borders.
• Each object can be selected by a click of the mouse. Some information about the object is displayed in a small
window located on the right of the screen.
• When a moving object is selected, another click elsewhere makes it go to the new position.
• When an astronaut is selected and the mouse is over a base or a rover, the shape of the cursor changes. A click on
this object makes the astronaut walk towards this new objective and go into it.
• A double click on the base or the rover commands the exit of an astronaut.
The management of graphics is relatively complex because of the required efficiency due to real-time constraints. For
this purpose, a list of displayable objects is regularly updated. For instance, when an astronaut goes into the rover, it is
deleted from this list and if he goes outside, it is reinserted. A timer is used to repaint the graphics ten times a second.
Two bitmaps are stored in memory: a copy of the full background image and a copy of the screen. If the user wants to
scroll the screen to see another region, a new rectangle of the first bitmap is copied into the second. All changes are
realized in memory before being displayed on the screen. First of all, each displayed object is removed by
superimposition of the corresponding region of the background. Secondly, the new position of moving objects is
calculated according to their objective. Then, the image associated with each displayable object is superimposed to the
background image. If it is desired to hide some parts of the terrain, shadows can be added at this time. Finally, the
bitmap stored in memory is copied to the screen. This management may not be optimal, but the moves are fluent and
the graphics are updated in time.
3.2 Other actions

A click on the small images located on the right panel allows the user to see other windows (see for instance Figure 2).
Since we are still working on this part, we will only give a quick overview of what will probably be proposed. The idea
is to present the different objects according to their category: life support system, food production, power systems,
exploration, chemical unit and tools and machines. Most objects have to be maintained in good working order. The
user will have to check if an object requires maintenance, and if so, he could decide to select an astronaut for this task.
The maintenance will be accepted if the selected astronaut is not already too busy. The time spent for each task is a
major factor of the game. The objective is to explore the planet, to find new resources, to exploit them, to build new
objects and finally to improve the autonomy of the base. The time spent in maintenance is not spent in exploration or
in construction. A tradeoff has therefore to be chosen between security and expansion.
Figure 2. Chemical unit.
–4–
4 Scenario Construction
We have tried to simplify the construction of the scenarios. Once again, since the task should not be assigned to the
programmer, a specific declaration file has been introduced. The structure of the file is relatively simple. It is organized
in sections and subsections. The list of the main objects has to be declared in section [built]. Two numbered subsections
are attached to each object, one for the declaration of the object name and the other for the declaration of an optional
identifier. The name should correspond to one of the registered objects, defined in the objects declaration files (see
Section 2.1). The identifier is the header of another section in which some object properties may be redefined and a list
of included objects is declared. All lists are structured the same way, thus allowing a hierarchical description of the list
of objects. The first lines of a simplified scenario are reproduced below to illustrate the organization of the file.
[built] // Two main objects are declared

object1=Martian base
identifier1=my first base
object2=rover
identifier2=rover1
[my first base] // Information on the Martian base
positionx=100
positiony=800
object1=air
object2 =controller pressure
object3=stock O2
identifier3=stock O2 base
[rover1] // Information on the rover
positionx=150
positiony=818
speed=3 // Modification of the default speed value
object1=stock O2
identifier1=stock O2 rover
object2=combustion engine
object3=stock propergol
[stock O2 base] // Information on the stock of oxygen of the base
weight=2000 // Modification of the default weight value
[stock O2 rover] // Information on the stock of oxygen of the rover
weight=20 // Modification of the default weight value
The objective of the scenario can also be defined by a hierarchical description of a list of objects. For instance, if the
goal is to collect two hundred kilograms of rocks and to bring them back to the base, the objective would be defined as
follows:
[objective]
object1=Martian base
identifier1=final base
[final base]
object1=stock rocks
identifier1=final stock rocks
[final stock rocks]
weight=200
Some information is not declared using this formalism. For instance, a rover can not cross deep craters or climb cliffs.
In order to facilitate the indexing of these small regions, a utility has been created. A pointing operation allows the
definition of small circles on the map. Then their coordinates are stored in a specific section of the scenario file. The
choice of the different maps (the name of the image) and the text presenting the objective of the scenario are added as
subsections of the [objective] section.
–5–
5 Conclusion
Some work has already been done, but there are a lot of details that remain to be implemented and tested. The scenarios
also are not precisely defined. In the first stages, the player has to learn the basic actions, such as the maintenance of
the objects and the exploration of the surrounding regions using the rover and the astronauts. Then he will have to find
water, ores to build new objects, and expand the base and to improve its autonomy.
In the perspectives of this work, many options deserve to be explored. For instance, the competence of the astronauts
may vary; every two years new objects may be sent from the Earth to help the astronauts on Mars; advanced robots can
be used to extract the ores or to perform other tasks; the health of the astronauts can be taken into account, with
physiological and psychological impacts, etc..
Another perspective to this game is the extension to the problem of terraforming Mars. Several bases may compete or
collaborate in the transformation of the Red Planet in order to make it habitable. This new challenge might be addressed
later, if the current project is successfully achieved.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Elie Cali and Delphine Joao for their valuable comments and suggestions.
References
1. Age of Empires, The Rise of Rome. Microsoft Editor.
2. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, “Reference Mission Version 3.0, Addendum to the Human Exploration of Mars: The Reference Mission of
the NASA Mars Exploration Study Team”, NASA Report EX13-98-036, June 1998.
3. Marshall Space Flight Center, “Designing for Human Presence in Space: Environment Control and Life Support System”, NASA RP-1324,
September 1994.
4. Robinson K. S., “Red Mars” 1993, “Green Mars” 1995 , “Blue Mars” 1997.
5. SimCity, Red Alert, Electronic Arts (htttp://www.simcity.org).
6. Zubrin R. with Wagner R., “The Case for Mars, The Plan to Settle the Planet and Why We Must”, Touchstone Ed., N.Y., 1997.
–6–
High Frequency Digital Surface Communications
G. Edward Bixby, AK0X

[1999]
Paraphrasing Robert Zubrin in his book The Case For Mars:
• Satellite communications will be very expensive and therefore not a viable option for some time to come.
• Line of sight (VHF & UHF) surface communications will be limited because of the smaller diameter of Mars.
• Mars has an ionosphere, enabling global surface to surface communication in the short-wave radio bands.
• SSB HF communication should be possible at about 4 MHz during the day and at 0.7 MHz at night.
• Mars’ ionosphere extends upwards from an altitude of about 120 km, but is generally weaker than Earth’s.
Premise: Scientists exploring Mars will not be satisfied with simple voice communication. They will want to send error
free digital communications permitting direct computer file transfer of technical data, including pictures, data files and
spread sheets as well as fax.
Obviously, line of sight VHF and UHF communication distances can be considerably enhanced by the use of repeaters
strategically placed on high points. Such repeaters, in common amateur radio use, receive on one frequency and
automatically re-broadcast received communications on another frequency. The dual receive / transmit frequencies are
necessary so that the repeater doesn’t hear only itself in a severe feed back loop. Since they are placed at high altitudes,
the line-of-sight distances are extremely enhanced. You can imagine the range of a repeater placed on top of Olympus
Mons! But this talk is about HF communications employing ionospheric propagation.
First, I would like to make some general comments about single sideband (SSB) high frequency (HF) communications
which utilize the reflective properties of Earth’s ionosphere for signal propagation instead of the more common line-of-
sight transmissions. Higher frequencies pass more easily through ionized layers (there may be many) and suffer less
scattering and in general less distortion. They also suffer less from static and multi-path interference caused by a signal
taking more than one path from transmitter to receiver. Since the path lengths are likely to be different, signals taking
different paths in general arrive at the receiver at slightly different times resulting in distortion similar to ghosting on a
TV when roof top antennas are used instead of cable. Because of these problems, simply increasing power won’t
necessarily result in the expected increased signal quality or, in the case of digital communications, increased data rates.
The Earth’s ionosphere actually consists of multiple layers at different heights which wax and wane with the day / night
cycle, the eleven year solar cycle, solar storms, and some say even the weather as well as the geographic location of the
communicating stations. These layers extend from a low of 48 KM to over 300 KM. The higher layers are primarily
responsible for worldwide communications while the lower ones tend to scatter, and therefore weaken, the signal during
the day. At night, however, the lower layers mostly disappear while the upper ones are significantly weakened.
Therefore, during the day frequencies of 14 MHz or up are most useful while at night frequencies as low as 1.8 MHz or
lower can be heard around the world. The exact nature of the propagation is strongly dependent on the solar cycle as
well and sometimes varies considerably within a few minutes. Zubrin implies Mars has a much simpler single low lying
but weak ionospheric layer that may mitigate these complications.
Another characteristic of ionospheric propagation is what is known as “skip zones.” The signal bounces off the
ionosphere and returns to Earth at some distant point. At distances beyond the ground wave (essentially line-of-sight
propagation) and less than the return point of the sky wave, no signal is heard. Signals skip over these intermediate
distances. This process can continue, with the sky wave reflecting off the Earth’s surface and again off the ionosphere
to return again at some even more distant point. This process can continue over and over again, sometimes completely
circling the globe with, of course, significant attenuation of the signal at each hop.
In Memory of Raymond Petit, W7GHM, my long time friend and inventor of CLOVER
–1–
Another phenomenon that occurs is known as “ducting.” A transmission can be continuously reflected between two
ionization layers, traveling a significant distance around the Earth before returning to the surface where an
uncharacteristically strong signal may be heard.
In general, if we want long distance communication, a low angle of radiation is desirable; one that essentially radiates
strongly parallel to the Earth so that it reaches into the ionosphere only as the surface of the Earth curves away. This
results in the fewest number of “hops” to a distant point. Now, if local communication (up to say 300 KM) is desired,
lower frequencies are chosen which bounce off the lower layers. Antenna designs that produce nearly vertical radiation
(straight up) and therefore effectively illuminate these lower overhead ionization layers are most effective. These
antennas tend to be horizontal wires such as a dipole placed close to the ground (less than 1/8th of a wavelength) where
the reflected waves from the ground combine with the original wave from the antenna to produce a strong vertical
component.
The height of the Martian ionosphere, according to Zubrin, extends upwards from about 120 KM roughly corresponds
to one of Earth’s lower layers, the “E” layer, which strongly reflects lower frequencies during the day. Now, if the
communication we desire on Mars is from a local base to roving vehicles, standard vertical antennas used for mobile
operations will probably not be as effective as horizontal antennas. Horizontal loops placed on the roof of the rover and
low long wire dipoles at the base will probably provide optimum performance.
The Amateur Radio community has developed and utilized global HF SSB communication technology for decades.
Amateur bands span frequencies from 1.8 MHz to 1300 MHz and multi-band 100 Watt transceivers suitable for mobile
voice and digital communications are widely in use. Digital technology in the form of CW (Morse code) and RTTY
(Radio Teletype) have been widely used for years. More recently, however, more modern techniques such as Amtor,
Packet, Pactor, CLOVER, PSK31, BPSK, MT63 and MT-Hell have been developed. Of these, in the author’s opinion,
only two are suitable for error free high speed SSB HF digital communication of computer files and keyboard
conversation: CLOVER and Pactor. There are two versions of both modes, CLOVER II, CLOVER-2000 and Pactor I
and Pactor II. Pactor technology was developed in Germany while CLOVER is strictly a US product invented by my
friend Raymond Petit, W7GHM. Since I am more familiar with (and closely associated with the development of)
CLOVER, I will dedicate the remainder of this paper to CLOVER technology and the contribution it has for digital HF
SSB communications.
The HF environment is inherently noisy with problems with static, multi-path, and interference with other stations a
constant problem. Although I doubt that interference from other stations on Mars will be a problem for some time I
suspect the other two limitations will apply. CLOVER has been especially developed to operate in this noisy
environment by using a combination of modern technologies including a very narrow bandwidth wave form, Reed
Solomon error control coding, an adaptive protocol based on the quality of the signal path, and digital signal processors.
CLOVER hardware consists of a single long slot IBM compatible computer board and three wires to a standard SSB
transceiver: receive audio, transmit audio, and a push-to-talk line to key the transmitter. Simple menu driven software
makes use of CLOVER very easy to learn and other coding schemes come with the software permitting use of RTTY,
Amtor, and Pactor I (but not Pactor II) as well.
Let’s look at this technology more closely. A narrow bandwidth waveform consisting of Dolph-Chebychev pulses
spaced 32 ms apart is used. These smooth pulses are the envelope of the audio frequency tones at about 2 kHz generated
by the digital signal processor. The amplitude of the tone is slowly changed from zero to a maximum and back to zero,
forming the individual pulses. The bandwidth of a single frequency train of pulses is about 100 Hz at -60 dB. This
narrow bandwidth enhances the signal to noise ratio and therefore performance.
Data is encoded in the pulse string by a combination of changing adjacent pulse amplitudes or a phase change of the
audio tone at the point in time when the amplitude is zero. By performing the phase change at zero amplitude, the signal
is not broadened as it would be in standard phase shift modulation technology.
–2–
Let’s look at this phase modulation a little more closely. The audio tone is essentially a sine wave which has both an
amplitude (how big it is) and a phase (when it passes through zero amplitude or when it starts, however one wishes to
think of it). By changing the phase between adjacent pulses, by 0 or 180 degrees for example, data can be passed. Zero
phase change can represent a binary zero and the 180-degree phase change can represent a binary one. Thus, one bit of
data is sent every 32 ms for a base data rate of about 31 bits/sec. This is called binary phase shift modulation (BPSM)
since two phase angles are used. BPSM is the base data rate of CLOVER.
But, by using four phase angles (0, 90, 180 & 270 representing the binary 00, 01, 10 and 11 states) two data bits can be
sent every 32 ms doubling the data rate to about 62 bits/sec. This is called QPSM, quaternary phase shift modulation.
CLOVER got its name from this modulation when Ray displayed QPSM with noise on an oscilloscope and his wife
Joyce exclaimed: “It looks like a clover leaf!”
CLOVER also uses 8PSM which adds another data bit every 32 ms as well as 8P2A in which two levels of pulse
amplitude add another data bit. The highest data rate is achieved with a 16P4A modulation wave form which adds two
more data bits every 32 ms. Thus, 16P4A provides a data rate of 6 bits every 32 ms or about 187 bits/sec.
However, CLOVER doesn’t stop there. Four audio tones with a separation of 100 Hz are generated, separated in time
by 8 ms for a repetition period of 32 ms, the basic pulse period. Each tone carries independent information so the data
rates quoted above are multiplied by four. The resultant signal is now about 500 Hz wide still at -60 dB and exhibits
four distinct peaks at the four audio frequencies located in a central plateau in frequency space. This distinctive
waveform is independent of which modulation (BPSM, 16P4A etc.) is being used although the time trace of the various
modulation techniques (and the sound heard by the ear) varies considerably. Thus, CLOVER has a very unusual
characteristic in that its bandwidth is independent of data rate! This 500 Hz signal is easily handled by modern amateur
HF SSB transceivers and is narrower than normal voice SSB communications and a relatively low-level duty cycle
mode. Therefore, the transceivers’ built-in filters can be effectively used to further improve the signal to noise ratio.
Actually, there are two distinctly different versions of CLOVER. The one described above is used by the amateur community
and has the 500 Hz bandwidth stated above. But a commercial version has also been developed which takes full advantage
of the 2 kHz bandwidth assigned to commercial HF users. The pulse interval is shortened to 16 ms and eight audio tones are
used in place of the four, resulting in a full 2 kHz CLOVER bandwidth. Thus, the data rate is four times faster in this
commercial version over the amateur version. This is called the CLOVER-2000 (for the 2 kHz bandwidth) protocol.
But which modulation technique does CLOVER actually use? As mentioned previously, BPSM is the base or default
modulation used. Although the slowest, it is the most robust mode in overcoming a noisy environment. Multi-path, for
example, can smear out the measured phase changes and noise can distort the amplitude modes. But the measured phase
change has to be off by more than plus/minus 90 degrees before a data error is made and BPSM doesn’t use amplitude
modulation. Obviously, smaller errors in measured phase changes will result in corrupted data for the higher data rate
modes. However, BPSM is fast enough for normal keyboard conversation under normal conditions.
But what if higher data rates are needed, like when one station wants to send a data file such as a JPEG picture?
CLOVER continuously monitors the quality of the communication path between two conversing stations in both
directions and keeps both stations informed of that quality by automatically encoding the information in what are called
Clover Control Blocks (CCBs). Measures of the signal to noise ratio (SNR), phase distortion (PHS), modulation type,
and transmitter power are continuously transmitted to both stations for both directions of communication. Thus, when
a large amount of data needs to be transmitted, CLOVER automatically makes a decision of what data rate is to be used
based on the quality of the communication path. If the path is very poor, communication may proceed in the base BPSM
because attempts at higher data rates would result in nothing but errors with no transmission of data. But if the path is
good, CLOVER shifts into high gear and data can really fly when the higher data rates are possible. Data rates in the
two directions are independent. One station can be sending data in BPSM just acknowledging correct receipt of the data
while the other is sending in 16P4A! The CCBs are always sent in BPSM to minimize errors.
–3–
This technique is called an “adaptive protocol” and no other modulation known to this author uses it, certainly none
suitable for the HF environment. A word of caution, however. Because of this very difficult environment, attainable
data rates are much below those of hard-line techniques used on the Internet or UHF satellite based communication. A
data rate table for the CLOVER-2000 protocol is included later in this paper.
I have talked a lot about controlling errors but how is this actually accomplished? Many people are familiar with parity
checking, the technique of using an 8-bit byte consisting of 7 data bits and the 8th as the parity bit. If there are an even
number of 1s in the 7 data bits, for example, the 8th parity bit is left a 0 so the number of 1s remains an even number
(thus the name even parity). If there are an uneven number of 1s in the 7 data bits, the parity bit is set to 1, again
resulting in an even number of 1s. This method can detect an error if one bit, for example, is changed from a 0 to a 1.
It can detect errors which change an uneven number of bits but not if an even number of bits are in error nor can it correct
the error, but only claim that an error has occurred.
But more sophisticated mathematical techniques can be applied. Additional error control bits can be added such that a
rigorous methodology can be applied to the received data so that, if not too many errors are made, the exact bits in error
can be determined and reversed and the data therefore corrected. CLOVER uses one of these techniques called Reed
Solomon Error Control Coding. Three different levels are available: Robust in which 60% of the bits are data with the
remaining 40% are error control bits, Normal 75% coding, and Fast in which 90% of the bits are data. If all errors can
be corrected, re-transmission of the data block is not required. If the data cannot be corrected, the receiving station
automatically requests re-transmission of the data block. A Check Sum Comparison is also made at the end of each data
block to ensure absolute data accuracy.
This is the Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ) mode in which two stations are talking exclusively to each other. One
station transmits for two seconds, and then the other station transmits for two seconds in the basic BPSM keyboarding
mode so data flows almost simultaneously in both directions making it very similar to a full duplex link although only
one radio frequency is used. This bi-directional link is also unique to CLOVER. If a station has data to pass in which
the higher data rates are to be used, its transmission block is automatically extended to about 20 seconds with the receive
station acknowledging in 2 second blocks. If both stations have data to send, both will go to the 20-second blocks and
may even use different modulation techniques if the path quality is different in the two directions! In other methods,
communication is unidirectional with the receiving station only acknowledging proper receipt of the data. A “hand-
over” code is transmitted when it is the other station’s turn to talk.
A broadcast mode called Forward Error Control (FEC) is also available in which one station can broadcast data to several
other stations simultaneously. Only one station transmits with the other stations passively listening. The error control
protocol is fully active but repeat requests for errors which cannot be corrected is not available in this mode. The operator
of the transmitting station chooses the modulation method and amount of coding to use at the beginning of the transmission.
A “dual diverse” mode is available in FEC which provides even more robust communication. In this mode, tones 1 and 3
(in the amateur version) send the same data, and tones 2 and 4 send identical (but different from tones 1 and 3) data in
BPSM format. Thus, two chances of decoding correct data are available, the best one being chosen of course.
As can be imagined by now, the CLOVER signal is very complex and the encode / decode software logic very
complicated. But it works! And this complexity yields one very nice benefit: an ARQ communication between two
stations is quite secure from outside listeners. While someone with a CLOVER board can copy bits and pieces of the
communication, data from both stations will be intermingled and of course non-correctable data errors cannot be
corrected by a repeat request from this third party. Without the CLOVER hardware and software, correct encoding of
the communication by any third party station is virtually impossible!
All this data encoding and decoding is accomplished by the digital signal processor which generates the transmitted
audio waveform as well as employs very strong digital audio filtering of the received signal in addition to that filtering
provided by the receiver. The PCI-4000 digital signal processors are the DSP 56001 24-bit processor with an 8 Kbyte
–4–
x 24 bit RAM and a 68EC000 16-bit processor with 32 Kbytes x 16 bit RAM and 16Kbyte x 16 bit ROM. At least I
hope I got all that right. Software is downloaded to the PCI-4000 board from the host CPU disk file programs. The
software is menu driven with multiple screens and “magic keys” are available for ease of use. Computer files can be
selected and transmitted easily by choosing a file handling facility and identifying the appropriate path. A data
compression technique is automatically enabled for transmission of binary files.
I have personally used CLOVER to talk to other amateur operators located throughout the US and other operators have
communicated around the world with it. I have received data files of a few hundred kilobytes absolutely error free although
it might take an hour or two if the path is poor. But this is the reality of HF SSB communications: not nearly as good as
modern internet data rates but they can be error free and I believe CLOVER is the optimum solution available today.
I am convinced that no better digital communication method for the HF environment is available anywhere.
In his book 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clark has the space ship on-board computer, HAL, identify himself with the words:
“I am a HAL Nine Thousand computer, Production Number 3. I became operational at the Hal Plant
in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12, 1997.”
CLOVER is a proprietary product of: HAL Communications Corporation located in: Urbana, Illinois.
CLOVER was introduced to the amateur radio world at the Dayton, Ohio Hamvention in 1993.
With karma like that, CLOVER BELONGS ON MARS
CLOVER-2000 PROTOCOL
–5–
How the Mars Movement Could Achieve Solar System Exploration:
A Mathematical and Structural Conceptualization
Marilyn Dudley-Rowley
[1999]
Abstract
Taking a macrosociological viewpoint, the author demonstrates how the Mars Society could provide the impetus for a
combinatorial and structural series of events that could lead to solar system exploration and a multi-world economy.
These events can be categorized by six tiers.
Tier 1: The individuals who comprise the Society are international and interact across national boundaries and agencies
both public and private. This is the transnational basis of the Mars agenda.
Tier 2: From among the individuals of the Society emerge interlocking teams devoted to the pursuit of the Society’s
political and/or technological goals which “step-to” Mars exploration and habitation.
Tier 3: Networks and trade relationships develop among individuals and teams, generating capital.
Tier 4: Tier 3 agents searching for specific resources establish consortia.
Tier 5: Consortia organize resources and logistics to accomplish missions and settlement of Mars, the Moon, and
platforms in low-Earth orbit.
Tier 6: A multi-world economy emerges which sets the stage for exploitation of outer solar system locales.
Introduction
Macrosociological thinkers Daniel Bell and Alain Touraine called the times we are living in the post-industrial
society.1,2 In 1976, Bell forecast the Information Age and how it would change the social structure to mold a world
which would rely upon the economics of information rather than the economics of goods. The new society would not
displace the old one, but rather intermingle with it in profound ways much as industrialization coexists with the agrarian
sectors in our society today. The post-industrial world would include the emergence of a “knowledge class,” a change
from goods to services, and changes in the role of women. These would be based upon an increasing dependence on
science as a means of innovation; a means of technical and social change. Patrick Nolan and Gerhard Lenski see it
somewhat differently. For them, this Information Age is the fourth phase of the Industrial Revolution, characterized by
rapid advancements and global diffusion of technology.3 Peter Drucker sees it as a post-capitalist society where the
inability of nation-states alone to address world-challenging issues is leading to the establishment of transnational
organizations.4
The Transnational Institution

Drucker says that the first real precedent of a transnational organization was the 1990 coalition against Iraq’s invasion
of Kuwait (Drucker, p. 9). This event set the common interest of the world community against terrorism ahead of
national sentiments and interests. Foreshadowing this was the 19th century treaties which stamped out the slave trade
and piracy on the high seas. There is a growing need for transnational institutions.
Examples of transnationalization are to be seen in many of the pressing issues current in the news today. Money is no
longer controlled by national states, not even by them acting together. All information is nearly accessible by anyone
on the face of the planet. Control of money might be attempted by the establishment of central banks and common
currencies, but information is insidious and pervasive. Money becoming a transnational institution has outflanked the
nation-state by nullifying national economic policy. Information becoming transnational has outflanked the nation-state
by destroying the link between national identity and cultural identity. In his examination of arms control, Drucker
writes, “Unless arms control becomes transnational, it cannot be exercised at all – which would make global conflict
practically inevitable” even if major powers managed to avoid a hot war among themselves (pp. 139-140). Terrorism
has become unmanageable by national states with private armies having proven counterproductive as a tool of national
Marilyn Dudley-Rowley; OPS-Alaska, c/o 1030 Carl Shealy Road, Irmo, South Carolina 29063; (803) 732-3604; MD_R@Hotmail.com
–1–
How the Mars Movement Could Achieve Solar System Exploration: A Mathematical and Structural Conceptualization
policy. Stemming terrorism and arms control are becoming more and more United Nations activities. Similarly, the
enforcement of human rights has come under the United Nations and NATO, a trigger being the inundation of prosperous
countries with refugees escaping various kinds of persecutions, as Drucker predicted. All encompassing has been the
problem of the environment with numerous threats to the habitat upon which all of humanity depends. We have taken
transnational steps to prevent global warming, to protect oceanic resources, and to protect Antarctica.
The transnational organization is characterized by:

1. In its own sphere, transcending the nation-state by setting the common interest of the world community ahead of
national sentiments and interests;
2. Establishing a sovereignty of its own, recognized by nation-states, and directly controlling citizens and
organizations within the nation-state.
3. Addressing challenges that cannot be tackled within the borders of a national state.
Its avenues are in the emergence of the processes whereby nation-states began to share power with other organs, other
institutions, and other policy makers. Major catastrophes might hasten the speed in which they arise. Limitation of
national sovereignty will be a central issue in decades to come.
The Problem of Solar System Exploration

As has been outlined many times, the survival of the human species depends on expansion into the solar system: to gain
the experience of living and working indefinitely in extraterrestrial environments and to locate a breeding population
off-planet, among other specific reasons. The United States possesses the resources and knowledge base to foot the first
critical steps of the expansion, but has, at least two times, let the opportunity pass: 1) when Congress cut the legs out
from under a sustained lunar program and the von Braun Mars plan and 2) when the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI)
was dismissed out of hand from “sticker shock.”
It is in the common interest of the world community to expand into the solar system. However, it does not seem likely
that the United States, the most powerful nation-state on Earth, will be able to transcend its forces of “political drag” to
accomplish this. What is needed is a transnational organization that can acquire the expertise and resources to undertake
long-duration space research and missions; to command sovereignty; and thus address the challenge of solar system
expansion. Ironically, the organization which might grow into such a transnational institution is one which was
primarily established to advocate that the United States take up the banner of Mars exploration and settlement: the Mars
Society.
The Mars Society as Progenitor of a Solar System Exploration Transnational Organization

The Mars Movement began following the Viking missions. During the fall semester of 1976, a group of Colorado
University-Boulder students had a meeting. This led to a Spring 1977 class, which in turn led to a 1981 conference, the
first “Case for Mars” meeting and the emergence of the Mars Underground as the students and their associates were
called. There were five subsequent meetings over the years until August 1998, when the Underground formally became
the Mars Society under the leadership of Dr. Robert Zubrin. The formal convention of the Society followed the
publication of Zubrin’s popular book The Case for Mars: the Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must.5
The founding convention saw the arrival of representatives from over 40 countries and nearly every major laboratory,
scientific agency, and academic department in the world. The Society’s mission soon took a three-pronged approach:
1) broad public outreach to instill the vision of pioneering Mars; 2) support of ever more aggressive government funded
Mars exploration programs around the world; and 3) conducting Mars exploration on a private basis. What can be
forecast from this start through the lenses of the combinatorial and structural vision of the macrosociological thinker?
The Society could trigger a process of socially interacting forms, which can be described as a pyramid constructed of
six tiers.
–2–
How the Mars Movement Could Achieve Solar System Exploration: A Mathematical and Structural Conceptualization
Tier 1: The individuals who comprise the Society are international and interact across national boundaries and agencies
both public and private. This is the transnational basis of the Mars agenda.
There is a large population in this tier, probably on the order of several thousand interested persons among
whom are actually dues-paying members, among whom, in turn, are a subset of active members who do the
work of the Society. This subset is contains a few hundred members at the most.
Tier 2: From among these individuals in the Society, along with those they are affiliated with in their professions, are
emerging interlocking teams devoted to the pursuit of the Society’s political and/or technological goals which
“step-to” Mars exploration and habitation. Examples of these are already in existence: the interlocking teams
emerging to do the componentized work of the Mars Arctic Research Station (M.A.R.S.), the Mars mission
rehearsal facility being constructed on Devon Island in the Eastern Arctic under sponsorship of the Mars
Society; and the autonomous non-profit Red Planet Research group composed of Mars Society and non-Society
members from various agencies that has a number of Mars-related technical projects underway. Also associated
is a very active group operating out of the Stanford University Engineering Department. Persons active
originally in one of these groups are now active in one or two of the others. This is leading directly to the next
tier of operations.
Tier 3: Networks and trade relationships develop among individuals and teams, generating capital.
Although in an early formational stage, networks have already been established among Tier 2 actors in the areas
of Russian technology transfer and a multinational / multiagency unmanned space mission which are expected
to generate substantial capital. A number of smaller efforts have already begun to generate capital.
Tier 4: Tier 4 will form when Tier 3 agents searching for specific resources establish consortia.
It is at the level of consortia that the Mars Movement begins to approximate a transnational organization that
can command a certain degree of sovereignty over citizens and organizations within nation-states. Consortial
actors need not to have been started solely from Tiers 1-3.
Tier 5: Interacting consortia organize resources and logistics to accomplish missions and settlement of Mars, the Moon,
and platforms in low-Earth orbit.
An example of such interacting consortia might be a number of non-profit space-related organizations acting
under one set of overarching goals combined with a commercial space consortium of different companies
devoted to providing the technical features to accomplish the goals of the former.
Tier 6: A multi-world economy emerges which sets the stage for exploitation of outer solar system locales.
Once permanent settlements are enacted on Mars, the Moon, and a number of space platforms, humans are not
just a multi-planet species, but have set the stage for a multi-world economy, where markets interact from
among the different human loci. The multi-world economy will drive the exploitation of outer solar system
locales.
References
1. Bell, Daniel. 1999. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
2. Touraine, Alain. The Post-Industrial Society; Tomorrow’s Social History: Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society.
3. Nolan, Patrick and Gerhard Lenski. 1999. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology, 8th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Drucker, Peter F. Post-Capitalist Society. 1993. New York: Harper Business.
5. Zubrin, Robert with Richard Wagner. 1996. The Case for Mars: the Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. New York: The Free Press.
–3–
Table.pm – Easier Creation of HTML Tables
Dean Calahan
[2000]
Abstract
Mars Society Members are in good company with activists worldwide, maintaining hundreds or even thousands of Web
pages. Although many helpful Web authoring tools exist, some authors code simpler pages directly in HTML. One
common HTML idiom is using the HTML <table> tag to position text and graphics. Although many Web authoring
tools use this idiom, it is probably fair to say that hand-editing HTML composed of complex tables is so tedious and
fraught with error, that hardly anybody does it. Authoring tools are simply the most convenient way to obtain the desired
formatting. Table.pm, a Perl (see www.perl.org) module available from http://www.baloney.com/dean/table_pm/, is not
quite an authoring tool, but affords the HTML hand-coder the ability to more easily produce complex tables, and thus
more sophisticated Web pages.
Introduction
Table.pm converts an easily derived text string defining a table to a piece of HTML code that embodies that table,
containing replaceable elements that make it easy for the author to insert content. Although easy to create, the finished
table is no more easily hand-edited than any other HTML table, so to “modify” pages after they are first created, simply
recreate the page with new content (rebuilding or reusing the Table.pm generated HTML). In fact, although this process
can be done manually with little effort, Table.pm is even more useful in an automated HTML generating environment.
1 Creating Complex Tables

There are four steps for creating the desired HTML table. First, write down a string representation of the table. Second,
using Table.pm, generate the HTML table code with replaceable elements. Third, replace those elements with the desired
content. Forth, incorporate the table into the HTML of the page being designed. The following sections describe how to
do steps one, two, and three (the intended audience for Table.pm is unlikely to need instructions for step four).
1.1 Defining the table string

The string representation of a table uses a sequence of numerals separated by commas to define a row, and a sequence
of rows separated by semicolons to define the table. In the examples, consecutive numbers are used, but as long as the
numerals are unique for each cell or span (randomly generated characters might even be used, so long as each is unique),
Table.pm will generate correct HTML for the defined table.
Four steps are used to create a string that matches the geometry of an HTML table. First, sketch the desired table
geometry using firm bold strokes. Second, if there are colspans or rowspans, lightly sketch in the cells hidden by the
span. Third, give each individual cell (including the each cell that constitutes a span) a numeral, using the same numeral
for each cell of a particular span, but a unique numeral for each individual cell or span.
This is perhaps best understood through a few examples. Figure 1 shows how the string “1,2;3,4” is obtained for a
simple 4 by 4 table with no spans. Figures 2 and 3 show how colspan and rowspan attributes are interpreted. Figure 4
shows how a much more complex table, using both colspans and rowspans, easily produces a string representation.
Dean Calahan; email: dean@baloney.com
–1–
1.2 Generating HTML with table.pl

1.2.1 The Command Line
Table.pl (the Perl script distributed with the Table.pm module) is designed to function on the command line. The Perl
savvy among the audience will find it trivial to make use of Table.pm in their own scripts by a quick glance at table.pl,
whereas the rest of the audience may find it easier to create batch files or shell scripts that call table.pl.
Be aware that, as arguments to table.pl are separated by spaces, care must be taken to insure that all argument strings
be free of spaces.
1.2.2 Example
To generate a 2x2 table with no spans, use Perl table.pl 1,2;3,4 (see Figure 1). Used this way, table.pl will print the
HTML for the table directly to the screen, Perl table.pl 1,2;3,4 > table.txt will, on many platforms, create a file named
table.txt containing the HTML for the table. Other options for directing the output stream exist, including piping it to
another process. It is up to the user to determine which option works best in their environment.
–2–
1.2.3 Attributes
In addition to the table string, which is required, further arguments can be supplied to Table.pm that may specify any
<table> tag attribute, as well as any attributes for the <td> tags within the table.
Arguments for the table attributes are specified on the command line in a colon separated format. For example, to
specify a border in the example, use Perl table.pl 1,2;3,4 border:1.
Arguments to specify format of <td> tags are specified on the command line in a colon-comma-separated format. The
plural of the desired attribute is followed by a colon, followed by the value for each <td> separated by a comma. For
example, to specify the align attribute of each cell in the example, the following command would work: Perl table.pl
1,2;3,4 aligns:left, center, right, center.
The single exceptions to the <td> formatting syntax is the specification of cell widths. This is still expressed in a colon-
comma separated format, but only the widths of each column are specified, not the width and height of each cell. To
use the example, Perl table.pl 1,2;3,4 widths:200,300. Note: for the sake of completeness, it might be desirable that cell
heights be specifiable in a row-by-row manner exactly similar to the specification of column widths. At press time,
Table.pm does not support this function, and in practice the author has not found it necessary. This does not mean that
cell heights cannot be specified, just that they must be specified in a cell-by cell manner rather than row-by-row.
However, future revisions of the module may include this and other functions that may seem appropriate.
1.3 Inserting Content Into the Table

Each cell or span is represented in Table.pm generated HTML as a table tag (optionally with attributes):
“<td>%n%</td>”, where n is an integer surrounded by percent sign characters, staring at zero and ascending
incrementally, numbering left to right, top to bottom. Two basic ways exist for inserting the content – manually open
the created file in an editing program, search for each integer pattern, and type or paste in the content, or store each piece
of content in a separate file and use an automated process to insert the content. Again, it is up to the user to decide which
approach is best.
Conclusion
For the HTML-savvy Web author comfortable with shell scripts, batch files, or other automation tools, creating pages
with sophisticated layout does not require use of a sophisticated Web authoring tool. Table.pm defines an easy-to-use
notation that can be combined with manual or elementary automation techniques to generate tables at any level of
complexity.
Appendix
HTML code generated by Table.pm for each of the example tables in figures 1-4, as well as a variant of figure 4 with
<table> and <td> attributes (including widths) follows. It should be noted in 5.5 that apparent redundancies exist in the
width attributes – not only does each cell have a width specified, there is also an extra row of blank cells with widths
specified. The state of web browser technology is still such that incompatibilities exist between versions of browsers
available. The author has discovered circumstances in which specifying only the cell width in spanned cells can produce
incorrect output in one browser, and other circumstances in which specifying only the column widths in an extra row of
blank cells can produce incorrect output in a different browser. The only way to resolve this inconsistency is to
redundantly specify widths. The author would cynically welcome evidence that this solution also produces output
inconsistent between browser versions.
Additionally, be aware that web browsers can be presented with inconsistent HTML. For example, if a table cell has
both width and height specified, yet the content for that cell exceeds either of those limits, it is certain that the output
will not be as expected, being wider or higher than specified. It is often easiest to specify only those widths or heights
that are most important, as inspecting HTML to detect overspecified, or inconsistently specified, values is often tedious
and confusing.
–3–
Figure 1
<table>
<tr>
<td>%0%</td>
<td>%1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>%2%</td>
<td>%3%</td>
</tr>
</table>
Figure 2
<table>
<tr>
<td colspan=”2”>%0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>%1%</td>
<td>%2%</td>
</tr>
</table>
Figure 3
<table>
<tr>
<td rowspan=”2”>%0%</td>
<td>%1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>%2%</td>
</tr>
</table>
Figure 4
<table>
<tr>
<td>%2%</td>
<td>%3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>%5%</td>
<td colspan=”2” rowspan=”2”>%6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
</tr>
</table>
–4–
Figure 5
<table border=”1”>
<tr>
<td width=”40” align=”left” height=”50” colspan=”2”>%0%</td>
<td width=”20” align=”right” height=”50” rowspan=”2”>%1%</td>
<td width=”40” align=”center” height=”*”>%2%</td>
<td width=”40” align=”left” height=”50”>%3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=”20” align=”right” height=”50” rowspan=”2”>%4%</td>
<td width=”20” align=”center” height=”*”>%5%</td>
<td width=”80” align=”left” height=”100” colspan=”2” rowspan=”2”>%6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=”40” align=”right” height=”*” colspan=”2”>%7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=”20” height=”0”></td>
</tr>
</table>
–5–
Human Exploration Ethnography of the Haughton-Mars Project 1998-99
William J. Clancey
[1999]
Introduction
During the past two field seasons, July 1998 and 1999, we have conducted research about the field practices of scientists
and engineers at Haughton Crater on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic, with the objective of determining how people
will live and work on Mars.
This broad investigation of field life and work practice, part of the Haughton-Mars Project (HMP) lead by Pascal Lee,
spans social and cognitive anthropology, psychology, and computer science. Our approach involves systematic
observation and description of activities, places, and concepts, constituting an ethnography of field science at Haughton.
Our focus is on human behaviors – what people do, where, when, with whom, and why. By locating behavior in time
and place – in contrast with a purely functional or “task oriented” description of work – we find patterns constituting
the choreography of interaction between people, their habitat, and their tools. As such, we view the exploration process
in terms of a total system comprising a social organization, facilities, terrain / climate, personal identities, artifacts, and
computer tools. Because we are computer scientists seeking to develop new kinds of tools for living and working on
Mars, we focus on the existing representational tools (such as documents and measuring devices), learning and
improvisation (such as use of the internet or informal assistance), and prototype computational systems brought to the
field. Our research is based on partnership, by which field scientists and engineers actively contribute to our findings,
just as we participate in their work and life.
By studying human exploration as it naturally occurs in an extreme environment – which the geologists characterize as
being like Mars – we have a basis for developing future exploration tools that are situated in human practices and the
natural setting. The present study serves as a baseline: When scientist-astronauts are constrained by a Mars-like
environment in future field analog studies of operations on Mars – with more limited resources and perhaps realistic
hazards – their behavior and productivity can be compared to what happens on Earth in relatively unconstrained settings,
such as Haughton (Figure 1). In this way, the problems and advantages of new tools and practices will be better
understood because we will know how people prefer to live and work and what discoordinations they might be
experiencing. We will also know what kinds of adaptations they may be making which are masking the inadequacies
of the tools they are given and procedures they are forced to follow. Too often engineers will characterize a tool as
“faster” or “better” without appraising both the pros
and cons relative to normal practices. Often
technology developers bring tools to the field as a
form of technology “push” and test them out; but this
process of prototyping omits the step of first
understanding how “users” naturally live and work
in the field, so no comparison is possible. An
ethnography of human exploration seeks first to
understand field science on its own terms, and to
design new technologies on that basis.
Figure 1. Design spiral: Understanding practice

precedes design and enables
comparative analysis after new tools and processes
are enforced (after Tang, 1991)
William J. Clancey; (On leave from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, University of West Florida, Pensacola.); NASA / Ames
Research Center Computational Sciences Division, M/S 269-3 Moffett Field, CA 94035 March 1, 2000
–1–
With these principles in mind, an understanding of life and work at Haughton can provide information useful for a
variety of Mars-related purposes:
• to design and automate habitat systems, such as the Mars Arctic Research Station (MARS), which will be placed at
Haughton by the Mars Society (Micheels, in preparation)
• to determine requirements for infrastructure and data collection tools
• to prototype protocols and collaboration tools for mission operation support
• to establish needs and methods for virtual presence (for the public, scientific communities, and immediate
collaborators of the crew), including remote sensing. In subsequent sections, we describe the ethnographic method
employed at Haughton and survey some of the patterns we have observed and design hypotheses we are
investigating.
Ethnographic Method: Work Practice And Exploration

Our observational and recording approach is eclectic, combining methods from anthropology, cognitive science, and
computer modeling:
1. Participant observation (Spradley, 1980): Learning about practices by participating in the life and work at Haughton
2. Field notes: Writing extensively about our experiences, on the basis of which patterns in behavior, understanding,
and social relations will emerge
3. Video interaction analysis: Extensive video of everyday life and scientific work, seeking to uncover interactions
between people, places, and things
4. Interviews: Recorded interviews, often about the time a member of the expedition is leaving, focusing on their
understanding of purpose and accomplishment, plus examining notebooks.
5. Surveys: Post-expedition questionnaires about use of the internet, email, and computer tools while at Haughton,
contrasted with use of software and data analysis after returning home.
6. Domain analysis: A systematic description of the concepts and terminology of the culture
7. Simulation modeling (Clancey, et al., 1998): A discrete-event simulation of human behavior at this location
Ethnography began as a method used by anthropologists studying human cultures in exotic locations, exemplified in the
present context by Ituzi-Mitchell’s (in preparation) study of Paleo- and Neo-Eskimos. Literally, ethnography is the
written study of a group of people, that is, a culture. Its application has been generalized by social scientists to include
the study of corporate life for the purpose of redesigning work systems, including especially computer systems (Bowker,
et al., 1997; Clancey, 1995a, b, 1997; Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991; Horgan, et al., 1999). The origin of this “business
anthropology” may be found in the “socio-technical systems” research of the 1950s (e.g., see Emery and Trist, 1960),
which forms the basis of our study of scientists and engineers working at Haughton.
Only a handful of anthropologists have actually studied scientific work in the field (Goodwin, 1995; Latour, 1995;
McGreevy, 1994; Roth & Bowen, in press). To be clear, an expedition is not a culture in the traditional sense because
of its temporary nature (lasting a few weeks or at most a few months) and often transitory membership (of more than
44 participants in HMP-99, on average only twelve were in the field at the same time). An expedition is a kind of short-
term project, which brings together people from different organizations, with common support and living arrangements.
In practice, the group is interdisciplinary and hence forms small work groups in the field (typically two or three people
spending most of the day together). Nevertheless, as in all human endeavors, there is a cultural aspect to such
expeditions, largely derived from the broader and now blended “communities of practice” (Wenger, 1998) to which
these scientists and engineers belong. In this respect, we include expedition communications with outside collaborators
in our study (especially email consultations) and are specifically interested in designing tools that will facilitate
communications between Mars expeditions and the scientists and general public back on Earth.
Furthermore, our concern with exploration focuses on the local scientific work on Devon Island, such as the geologists’
practices and tools for mapping the crater. Other ethnographic studies of exploration are possible, such as a broader
study of how Devon Island has been explored over the past decades or the historical study of Arctic expeditions seeking
–2–
to find a Northwest Passage. Indeed, many lessons for planning extended space missions can be gleamed from historical
analogs (Stuster, 1996). However, in contrast with voyages of discovery, a modern scientific expedition tends to work
from a base camp (rather than moving over hundreds or thousands of miles). The sense of exploration here is not a
discovery of entirely unknown landscapes (though ice-bound islands were still being discovered as recently as 20 years
ago), but more detailed exploration of already photographed and mapped terrain, such as ravines in Haughton Crater.
In contrast with discovering that the crater exists, an HMP expedition discovers and investigates parts of the crater itself
– mapping and sampling outcroppings, oases, and lakes. This kind of exploration involves using existing regional maps
to identify areas of interest; thus, the ridges, lakes, and valleys of Haughton Crater are being named during HMP
expeditions for the first time.
Finally, the ethnomethodological analysis of how scientific descriptions and diagrams are created, adapted, and
interpreted (e.g., see Lynch and Woolgar, 1993) – another aspect of the study of scientific practice – is much narrower
than our study of exploration at Haughton. Although creation of notations, tool adaptation, and meaning construction
are relevant to the design of new tools and may be found in our setting, our concern is necessarily broader, including
how life and work are interwoven in shared space and how the expedition communicates with the outside world.
Furthermore, our goal is not to write an ethnographic analysis per se, in the form of a purely descriptive story of the
HMP expeditions. Rather, our work is constrained by pragmatic engineering and organizational concerns in designing
the MARS habitat and determining how the Martian surface can be explored efficiently wearing space suits and working
with robots yet to be invented.
Drawing on NASA’s “Reference Mission” (Hoffman and Kaplan, 1997), current operating practices in the space
program, computational tools being tested during the expedition, and previous experience at Haughton (Clancey, in
press), we chose to focus our ethnographic observations this year on:
• Traverses (traveling by ATVs in the crater)
• Planning (especially allocating resources for the next day)
• Hand-overs (exchanges between crew members on different expedition phases)
• Use of space (especially shared areas)
• Communication through the internet (especially with colleagues not at Haughton)
• Conceptual change.
During the expedition a number of new patterns emerged, providing new topics for study:
• Variety of notebooks
• Revisiting sites
• Naming places and mapping
• Repairs and improvements
• Use of manuals
Subsequent sections briefly describe some of these topics and the kinds of patterns one may observe.
Space-Time Interactions
During the 1998 HMP expedition we had observed that two work tents, one shared by all expedition members and the
other used by a subgroup, tended not to be used equally. The shared tent was used for just short periods of time; the
subgroup’s tent was often occupied. To understand such differences and to determine when the tents were actually used,
we recorded the use of work space more systematically during the 1999 season, using time-lapse video. For example,
a camera was placed outside between the (now expanded) shared work tent, the (new) natural sciences tent, and the
(new) large dome tent, with a view of the ATVs parked on the terrace in front (Figure 2).
–3–
Figure 2. Example placement of camera for time- Figure 3. Example frame, showing an exit event
lapse video, recording entry and exit from dome from work tent and (at least) two people at the
and work tents, plus the central staging area used ATV staging area.
for traverse preparation.
During a three-hour period (11 a.m. - 2 p.m.) quarter-size video frames (320 x 240 pixels, see Figure 3) were directly
captured to computer disk every 3 seconds (a compromise between storage and visible information). This video
therefore logged occupation and motion between four key areas of the base camp, as well as capturing use of some
personal tents. The layout was of special interest because motion between the work and dome tents corresponds to the
top and bottom floors in a proposed layout for the MARS. The resulting video was coded in a spreadsheet, indicating
the times when someone entered or left the tents and ATV area. Durations of visits and number of people occupying
each area were calculated using Visual Basic macros in Excel. Averages and totals were graphed to show correlations
(for example, see Chart 1). One unexpected result is that the data allows measuring the effect of a schedule change
(delay in departure of a traverse by 1.5 hours) on both individual and group occupation of the different areas. For
example, movement between the dome and work tents (the two “floors”) peaked each time occupation at the ATV area
peaked, and reached a minimum during the delay period.
Chart 1. Average number of people inside work and dome tents and at ATVs, showing correlation at noon and 1:40 p.m. expected
EVA departure times. During intervening wait, work tent duration increased dramatically and crossings between tents drops.
–4–
Factoring the analysis by individuals (Chart 2) shows a great variation that can be best explained by considering the
actual activities of individuals and their roles in the camp. For example, the person who occupied the work tent for the
longest total duration during this three-hour period also crossed between the work and dome tents the most number of
times. This person served as a base manager and provided general infrastructure support, requiring many interruptions
to assist in a variety of matters around the camp. On the other hand, a biologist who spent a relatively long time in the
work tent tended to leave infrequently, so his average duration per visit was relatively long, too. Paradoxically, the base
manager’s desk was in the deepest corner, so he continuously passed behind those who didn’t leave their seats. Further
analysis of what the base manager was doing (kitchen chores? facilities maintenance?) would be required for relating
work areas to avoid disrupting the rest of the crew during these movements.
Chart 2. Individuals on X-axis sorted by decreasing total time inside work tent, showing variability in crossings and duration
at the ATV, dependent on individual activities and roles. For example, K was in the tent the longest during this period, but
was responsible for different tasks at many locations, so crossed between tents the most often. V was looking for someone,
so crossed often, but didn’t stay in the work tent. D was working relatively undisturbed, not leaving his seat in the work tent.
Domain Analysis
Video analysis is an important way to detect and quantify patterns. As indicated, the relations that emerge raise more
questions about the details of what people are doing, how they use space, and how they chronologically chunk the work
day. Such information is gathered by participating in the various activities and making notes about what people are
doing. But then how are those notes to be correlated and summarized? One way of systematically organizing
observations is to classify them according to a framework of relations. We used a domain analysis framework suggested
by Spradley (Table 1). The relations are illustrated with two examples, one relatively mundane (corresponding to
explicit knowledge, which people typically mention in their conversations, e.g., kinds of rocks), the other not typically
explicated in everyday conversations (tacit knowledge, e.g., kinds of traverses during an expedition).
–5–
Each of the relations can then be represented as a root of a hierarchy, with one tree corresponding to each relation and
covering concept. For example, parts of an ATV is a relatively complex, but obvious hierarchy of parts. Some of the
other relations, which are not often explicated in discourse during the expedition, may also be complex. For example,
there are many reasons for revisiting a site (Figure 3). In presenting this diagram to other participants, two other reasons
surfaced – recovering a sample left behind on a previous visit and looking for a lost tool.
Table 1. Domain analysis relations and examples illustrating kinds of knowledge
Figure 3. Domain analysis: Reasons for revisiting a site (diagram implemented using Cmap tool). (Cmap is a tool for representing
and sharing “concept maps”; the tool is provided by the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, University of West Florida.)
–6–
Another central aspect of work practice at Haughton can be characterized as stages in a traverse:
• Planning the activity
• Organizing at start (e.g., gathering at the ATVs)
• Launching into the activity (e.g., leader departs, others follow)
• Punctuated events (e.g., full stops)
• Regrouping (bringing the group back together)
• Ending the activity
• Following-up (action items)
The reasons for revising a site and the stages in a traverse exemplify the kind of patterns that become evident only after
participating in the expedition over many days, recording one’s experience, and then reflecting on recurrent events.
These particular patterns are relevant to mission planners, who have very limited experience with supporting human
exploration (traverses on the moon and EVAs from the space shuttle are scripted to the minute). For instance, a mission
planner might have thought a priori that traverses on Mars should be planned to maximize coverage of an area, avoiding
returning to the same spot twice. In practice, daily planning of field science usually begins by considering what sites
need to be revisited. Revisits are not caused by poor planning (though incidents like forgetting to bring a tool do occur);
rather revisits are inherent in the work being done (e.g., observing a place on regular intervals) or emerge from discovery
(e.g., realizing that something new may be surveyed or counted, which requires more time).
In addition, an ATV robot that accompanies a team of scientist-astronauts would have to be designed with operating
procedures that incorporated the choreography indicated above, including conditions so it would “know” when to start,
pause, turn off its engine, work on its own, return to the main group, and so on. Because such patterns are tacit and may
vary in unanticipated ways with terrain, timing, and weather, a robot would also need to be capable of violating these
“rules” and learning new practices. Notice that this procedure cannot be determined by interviewing the field scientists (in
the manner of a “knowledge engineering” interview used for building expert systems). Rather it constitutes tacit “know-
how” that is induced as non-verbal conceptual coordinations during social interactions in the field (Clancey, 1999).
Many other aspects of everyday life and work were analyzed and described during the expeditions, including learning
in the field, improvised repairs and improvements, and the layout of individual notebooks. For example, we recorded
every marked occurrence of learning that we observed, such as asking someone for help or referring to a manual. We
deliberately photographed every instance of improvisation, and noted that many of these involved creative uses of string
or wire, such as unjamming the zippers of the dome tent by relieving tension on the shrunk fabric. We interviewed
people who regularly used a field notebook, considering how they structured the notebook and how it relates to
computer files. These and many other research topics (listed above) warrant more systematic observation and
measurement in the future.
Topics especially relevant to computer system design were highlighted by a written survey completed by twenty-four of
the participants in the month following the expedition. Important findings are summarized in Table 2. The greatest
surprise is how many people downloaded and/or learned to use new software. Aside from laptop computers, the most
prevalent use of computing is the digital camera; most people without a digital camera said they would bring one next
time. The average number of digital photographs was 137, yet only two people used a photo database (on average 204
conventional photographs were taken per person). Perhaps the domain analysis framework may be useful for organizing
and sharing photographs.
On the basis of the patterns we observed, work system design hypotheses are already emerging, which will help
prioritize future research at Haughton. These are described in the next section.
–7–
Table 2. Computer and digital device usage during HMP-99 expedition (N = 25)
Hypotheses Under Investigation

Ethnographic observation and recording is a bottom-up process, moving from an unbroken continuity of experiences to
named patterns and themes for in-depth investigation. Although at the time of this writing analysis of the data from
1999’s expedition is far from complete, the combination of past experience in NASA and at Haughton in 1998 has
suggested some initial themes. These are expressed as hypotheses here, which further analysis and observation could
support, refine, or refute.
• Exploration is not just about covering the most area in the most time; continuously revisiting places is essential.
Although survey and reconnaissance is critical for exploring an area, scientific work requires reworking an area
(Figure 3). Robot design is often suggested as a way to increase the coverage in site exploration; field practices
suggest as well the importance of having a robot return to a marked location. However many of these visits required
fine adjustments and improvisations to scientific equipment, which are well beyond current robot capabilities. (For
example, installing a new battery at a repeater station once required changing the shape of the battery’s terminals.)
• During an expedition like the Haughton-Mars Project, conceptual change is mostly about organizational roles, not
only or even primarily scientific theories:
In the cognitive science community, “scientific discovery” is heralded as an important topic in the study of human
learning. We had thought that studying field scientists would be a good way to understand such learning as it
naturally occurs. We found instead that most data is analyzed and compared in laboratories back home (yet on Mars,
500 day surface visits are likely to change this practice). Furthermore, many conversations at Haughton concerned
how people interpreted the nature of the HMP (e.g., its role in the context of space exploration), individual
contributions at Haughton (and how this might change for a small crew restricted in ability to work outdoors), and
how our home organizations relate to each other (e.g., what is the emerging relation of the HMP to NASA and to the
Mars Society?).
• Living on Mars will change scientific practice, physically constraining how the work is done and how analysis and
publication are coordinated:
Although we were specifically interested in understanding field science to establish a baseline, the nature of an
analog or simulation is that it must experimentally modify practices, facilities, and tools to correspond to the
–8–
simulated situation (in this case, living and working on Mars). For the first two seasons, the focus has appropriately
been on understanding Haughton as a geological analog of Mars. Including a habitat simulation as part of the project
(Micheels, in preparation) may require that scientists participating as crew members wear a simulated space suit,
restrict their time outdoors (because of radiation), and use realistically constrained data collection tools (e.g., perhaps
voice recognition, not pencil and paper). By doing this, highly sophisticated communication and automation tools
perhaps become meaningful. Technologists have been fostering techniques such as video conferencing and placing
data on a server, which field scientists at Haughton do not always need. Without a long-duration expedition at
Haughton, it will not be easy to simulate how analysis and publication practices will change, and hence what tools
will be useful.
• Systematic domain analysis before deciding what to build can improve designs of facilities and tools:
Computer system developers, particularly “knowledge engineers” routinely carry out detailed analyses of domain
knowledge, such as building an expert system. But this analytic technique is most often applied after a decision has
been made about what tool to build. In contrast, an ethnographic study, particularly using the methods of cognitive
anthropology, is both broad and detailed by its very nature (Table 1) – helping us determine not just how to build a
useful tool, but what tools to build. In a few weeks of work we were able to identify computer applications that were
not considered in our laboratories back home.
For example, while accompanying a geologist on traverses and studying his notebook afterwards during an interview,
we found an elaborate logical scheme for numbering sites and relating observations to photos and a map of the crater.
This suggested a hybrid tool that is not currently available: A digital camera with a relatively large LCD touch screen
(about 3 inches square) allowing the user to draw directly on the photograph, marking and naming areas of interest.
In addition, the user would be able to “hyperlink” a spot on an image to another image or area, allowing detailed
images to be linked to overviews, and images to be linked to a photograph of a map. The playback system would
then allow the user to employ “hot-spots” for jumping between photos. This is a classic example of how participant
observation and analysis in the field, just using off-the-shelf technology such as a digital camera, leads to new design
ideas. Similar methods could be employed by participant observation during a habitat simulation.
• Despite the current emphasis on robotic exploration, an important use of computers will be for life support
automation and mediating communication with Earth:
Simulation at Johnson Space Center (JSC) and elsewhere has focused appropriately on life support systems that will
recycle waste and hence make possible a multiple-year mission to Mars. A habitat simulation at Haughton would
allow the tasks of monitoring and maintaining life support systems to be placed in the context of surface exploration
activities and time-delayed communication with Earth-based support. Experience on Mir suggests that maintenance
of such systems could dominate the crew’s activities. Use of “artificial intelligence” to develop software operations
and maintenance assistants will be important, but again the crew will be required to physically find and repair
plumbing, wiring, climate control systems. At Haughton we observed that maintaining the electric generators,
satellite communication system, and internet link was a full-time job.
• Protocols for Mars-Earth communications should help Mission Control learn about human activities on Mars and
adjust its support role as surface practices develop:
As an experiment during the 1999 expedition, JSC personnel in the Technology and Exploration Offices set up a
“Devon Support” facility in Houston and protocol for communication with the expedition. Daily documents were
exchanged, involving a “down-link” status report from Haughton and an “up-link” information package from
Houston. Video conferencing was used in addition, often at 7 p.m., to transmit daily accomplishments and provide
reports on consumables (fuel, water, food), health, and safety. This experiment provides a useful baseline for
understanding the roles and needs of the participants (including members of the expedition and support team).
–9–
However, the web site maintained by the HMP provided additional information to Houston, which was outside of
the communication protocol.* How this information, which included candid photographs and sometimes detailed
field reports, is interpreted and used by a support operation requires further study. Perhaps web pages will become
the medium for communicating between Earth and Mars. Coming from the other direction, it is not clear how a
single point of contact on Earth (the JSC mission scientist role) will manage the e-mail and internet traffic directed
at the Mars crew, which can be expected to greatly exceed the volume of information provided by local JSC back
rooms during Apollo missions.
* In addition, most of the logistic support required for the expedition was provided by the Canadian Polar Continental
Shelf Project (PCSP) in Resolute, on neighboring Corwallis Island. One way to understand the future role of
“mission control” would be to examine the communication and support practices between Haughton and PCSP,
viewing them in part, perhaps, as an analog for the relation between a remote Mars site and a Mars base camp.
Broader Cultural Themes

The participants of HMP-99 came from very different backgrounds. Consequently, they had different purposes for being
at Haughton, and their activities in the field varied considerably. The people present during the 1999 expedition fell into
three groups: scientists / computer systems engineers, pilots, and journalists / film-makers. As indicated in the
introductory sections, an ethnographic study of exploration writ large would consider how these subcultures were
manifest and interacted in the field. But our concern is with developing tools and practices for scientist-astronauts, so
the focus here is on the shared understanding of identity, capability, and behavior among the scientists and engineers.
In Spradley’s (1980) terms, shared understandings are “cognitive principles” that constitute assumptions about the
nature of common experience. For example, HMP members demonstrate in their actions an overarching sense of
purpose and capability to be productive; they also rationalize their participation in ways recognizable to each other.
People display this understanding most obviously in the nightly ritual of after-dinner autobiographical stories (e.g.,
mentioning a childhood interest in the space program) and in how they comport themselves in group planning
conversations (e.g., by articulating scientific interest in part of the crater, as well as in deferring personal needs to
accommodate the expedition’s overall goals). The patterns of shared understanding include:
• Almost everyone has a lifelong interest in the space program; everyone strongly supports living and working in
space.
• The overarching objective, the reason for being at Haughton, is to have people go to Mars.
• Scientists at Haughton adhere to academic principles of systematically recording data and presenting results only
after peer review; their productivity is oriented to producing a written report with findings presented in graphic tables
and charts.
• Members of the HMP are physically competent to avoid injury; specifically, people are vigilant about the risks and
dangers of the environment and self-sufficient in personal clothing and hygiene.
• Members sustain and develop individual interests, while enhancing and promoting the HMP’s goals.
• Behavior at Haughton expresses a commitment that is secondary to family and sexual concerns.
• Members are always “on stage” with the expedition; there is no purely personal or outside pursuit. In particular, there
are no “days off”; people are always working regardless of what they are doing (e.g., lounging on the ATVs is not
viewed as “time off,” but momentary resting). There is no real distinction between work life and personal affairs.
• People believe that “whatever we do, it should be fun.”
• Unlike on historical seafaring expeditions (Stuster, 1996), there is no class distinction between scientists and the
people providing logistic support (e.g., the satellite communications specialist); everyone lives together. However,
there is a bias to view geology and biology as first among equals (“hard sciences”), with computer science and
engineering being auxiliary.
• The HMP federation of individuals and subgroups manifests a progressive, liberal orientation, which itself represents
the open, unfettered social organizations that may colonize Mars.
– 10 –
These observations provide a broader background for understanding group dynamics on a Mars mission and how the crew
will relate to support on Earth, and how these the explorers will relate to the general public. For example, the above
description constitutes information that may not be obvious to the public. If such values were reflected in a public web
site portraying a Mars mission, people might come to embrace the life style and values of the “away team” and hence
support the mission more vigorously. Thus, design of computer tools and communication might take into account not
only primary scientific and engineering concerns, but portray the members of the crew, NASA support team, and related
communities of practice as real people, with characters and personalities that others can care about and identify with.
A public relations approach for revealing the everyday life of space exploration may seem simple and mundane, but it
is currently limited by formal, on-board press conferences. The problem is systemic, for even mission control cannot
always know what the astronauts are feeling or experiencing. For example, astronauts experienced headaches and
nausea during recent work in the space station, but “none of the astronauts reported symptoms to ground controllers
while the mission was in progress” (Berger, 1999). The origins of the antiseptic portrayal of astronauts is a complex
cultural theme, perhaps mutually reinforced by the internal politics of flight-schedule planning; the astronauts’ desire to
carry out difficult work without being subject to the glare of TV at every turn; and the public’s interest in ready-made
heroes. Similarly, the observation of life at Haughton shows a dimensionality of experience and commitment that is not
commonly reported during NASA’s missions and, if exposed in tales of Mars exploration, could potentially increase
support for the space program. Achieving this in a balanced way would involve unfolding how mundane activities and
learning are inherent in scientific fieldwork (as exemplified by the reasons for revisiting a site, Figure 3). In short,
astronauts (and scientists more generally) are human beings – they enjoy themselves, do silly things, and yet act
responsibly, with awareness of the privileges society has given them.
Next Steps
The study of human exploration is a broad and exciting topic, benefiting from the methods and insights of the cognitive
and social sciences. The study at Haughton during two field seasons has established, at least, that the prevalent focus
of cognitive science on data collection and “discovery” in the modeling of human learning ignores the practices by
which people live and work in the field. Indeed, even Latour’s (1995) astute account of representational practices
among field biologists never mentions how people live in the field as a temporary community. The land, which becomes
a “protolaboratory” (p. 158), must first become a home, with routes, landmarks, and boundaries imbued with the group’s
identity and sense of purpose.
More specifically, developing technology for Mars will be hindered if it is based only on constraints imposed by the
Mars environment (such as the inability to use a pencil and notebook in the field), without considering how people
productively use their time, allocate resources, organize space, and make records under natural conditions on Earth.
Thus, some of the learning burden is shifted to tool designers, rather than inserted as an afterthought in a better
“interface” or handed over to the trainers who must prepare the users to cope with awkward technology.
New processes and tools can be comparatively evaluated by understanding current practices (Figure 1). A variety of
ethnographic, participatory methods, including video analysis, formal description, and interviews, enable us to perceive
and articulate the habits, preferences, and cultural themes that constitute the practice of field science. Scientists’
difficulties with new exploration methods may reflect a learning process in changing practice or inappropriate design of
tools or procedures. To understand where human adaptation is required and where better tools are required, future HMP
expeditions will experimentally incorporate more constraints that simulate living and working on Mars. Ongoing
ethnography of field science at Haughton will then incorporate a comparative analysis of the relatively unconstrained
experience in 1998 and 1999, relative to the analog experience in the MARS.
Our ongoing research may include the following:

• Simulation of MARS habitat activities – “A day in the life of the crew at the Mars Arctic Research Station” based
on field practices at Haughton and the newly designed habitat facilities.
– 11 –
• Analysis and modeling of EVA videos – develop a simulation model to control the behavior of (perhaps ATV-based)
robots that can collaborate with each other and the field scientists.
• Use the domain analysis represented as Cmaps to organize information about the MARS on the Internet.
• Bridging the gap between Earth-style field science and imagined-Mars tool design – constrain the scientists to live
and work as if they are on Mars and help technologists understand the nature of difficulties that develop.
• Understanding the limits of what can be learned from Haughton analog studies – classify aspects of the MARS
experiment according to the degree of fidelity relative to a Mars expedition and understand the confounding effects
of those aspects that are not simulated or naturally like Mars.
A great deal of work remains to be done. Fortunately, the easy collaboration between scientists of different disciplines
at Haughton makes rapid learning possible, as we interact directly in the field, conveying our tools and methods as we
live together.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported in part by the Mars Society, the Haughton-Mars Project lead by Pascal Lee, and the NASA
/ Ames Research Center. I am grateful for the support and assistance of the members of the Haughton-Mars expeditions,
who have generously provided time to share their ideas and experience on Devon Island. The work reported here is a
collaboration with Maarten Sierhuis and other members of the Computational Sciences Division. An important part of
this study involved ongoing email exchanges with our team members “back on Earth,” Roxana Wales and John O’Neill,
who provided encouragement and many useful suggestions for what to observe and how to interpret our experiences.
Mike Shafto, Jane Malin and Charlotte Linde provided additional suggestions for improving this paper. I also thank
Brigitte Jordan (Xerox-PARC) and other anthropologists who have provided helpful advice for pursuing this study. For
reprints and related information, please see http://home.att.net/~WJClancey.
References
1. Berger, B. (1999). NASA takes steps to prevent illness on station. Space News. August 2, p. 4.
2. Bowker, G. C., Star, S. L., Turner, W., and Gasser, L. (eds.) (1997). Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work: Beyond the great
divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Clancey, W. J. (1995). The learning process in the epistemology of medical information. Methods of Information in Medicine, 34(1/2): 122-30.
4. Clancey, W. J. (1995). Practice cannot be reduced to theory: Knowledge, representations, and change in the workplace. In S. Bagnara, C.
Zuccermaglio, and S. Stucky (eds.),Organizational Learning and Technological Change (Papers from the NATO Workshop, Siena, Italy,
September 22-26, 1992.) Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
5. Clancey, W. J. (1997). The conceptual nature of knowledge, situations, and activity. In P. Feltovich, K. Ford, & R. Hoffman (eds.), Human and
Machine Expertise in Context, pp. 247-291. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
6. Clancey, W. J. (1999). Conceptual coordination: How the mind orders experience in time. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Clancey, W. J. (in press). Visualizing practical knowledge: The Haughton-Mars Project.
8. Clancey, W., Sachs, P., Sierhuis, M., and van Hoof, R. 1998. Brahms: Simulating practice for work systems design. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 49: 831-865.
9. Emery, F.E. & Trist, E.L. (1960). Socio-technical systems. In C.W. Churchman et al., (eds.) Management sciences, models, and techniques.
London: Pergamon.
10. Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies in Science, 25, 237-274.
11. Greenbaum, J., and Kyng, M. (eds.) (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
12. Hoffman, S. J., and Kaplan, D. I., (eds.) (1997). Human exploration of Mars: The reference mission of the NASA-Mars exploration study team.
NASA Special Publication 6107.
13. Horgan, T. H., Joroff, M. L., Porter, W. L., and Schön, D. A. (1999). Excellence by design: Transforming workplace and work practice. New
York: John Wiley.
14. Ituzi-Mitchell, R. D. (in preparation). Anthropological considerations on human colonization of Mars: Insights from the indigenous peoples
who first settled the Earth’s Arctic. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the Mars Society.
15. Latour, B. (1995). The “Pédofil” of Boa Vista. Common Knowledge, 4(1), 144-187.
16. Lynch, M., and Woolgar, S. (eds.) (1993). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. McGreevy, M. W. (1994). An Ethnographic Object-Oriented Analysis of Explorer Presence in a Volcanic Terrain Environment. NASA TM-
108823. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.
18. Micheels, K. (in preparation). The Mars surface habitat: Issues derived from the design of a terrestrial polar analog.
19. Roth, W-M, & Bowen, G.M. (in press). Digitizing the lizard or the typology of an (externalized) retina in ecological fieldwork. Social Studies
of Science.
– 12 –
20. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
21. Stuster, J. (1996). Bold endeavors: Lessons from polar and space exploration. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
22. Tang, J. (1991). Involving Social Scientists in the Design of New Technology. In J. Karat (Ed.), Taking Software Design Seriously: Practical
Techniques for Human-Computer Interaction Design, pp. 115-126. Boston: Academic Press.
23. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
– 13 –
The Hunt for Liquid Water, Life and Landing Sites on the Surface of Mars Today
Vincent Chang; David Chu; Christina Lee; Robert Lee; Dalziel Wilson; Miki Yamada
[2000]
Abstract
As the debate rages on about past or present life on Mars, the prevailing assumption has been that the liquid water
essential for its existence is absent because pressures and temperatures are too low. This study presents data, and
anecdotal and experimental evidence to challenge that assumption.
Introduction and Background

“Liquid water does not exist on the surface of Mars . . . Without liquid water, life as we know it cannot exist.”
Principal Viking investigator Norman Horowitz made these statements over two decades ago, establishing the
contemporary paradigm of a barren Mars today. Since that time, a wealth of new knowledge has been accumulated in
the form of images and data on soil, air composition and climate from the robotic probes of the 90s, Pathfinder and Mars
Global Surveyer (MGS). We now have extensive pressure and temperature data from all three probes (Figure 1a and
Figure 1b) demonstrating pressures above the triple point and temperatures above freezing for long periods of time,
meeting the criteria for liquid water. Pathfinder also found 20ºC variations along its mast, suggesting ice can melt on
the surface even with air temperatures above it below freezing. Spacial variations in temperature may also permit ice
to melt against sunlit, smooth, dark rocks despite immediately adjacent temperatures being below zero. Other issues of
concern include boiling, evaporation and stability. Under observed Martian pressures, there exists only a 7ºC window
exists between freezing and boiling. Though narrow, the Viking orbiter observed such a window. As for stability, even
if liquid water could exist, skeptics argue, it would be rapidly driven off by high evaporation rates into the dry
atmosphere. On the other hand, frost was observed to persist at Viking’s Utopia Planitia landing site, implying
condensation and stability.
Figure 1a. Probe Pressure Data
University of California, Berkeley; Contributors: Vincent Chang, David Chu, Christina Lee, Robert Lee, Dalziel Wilson, and Miki Yamada;
Teaching Staff: Larry Kuznetz and David Gan
–1–
Figure 1b. Viking Temperature Data
If conditions are stable and above the triple point, thermodynamics dictate that liquid water must exist. But does it?
The results of this study suggest it can, although precariously. Can life exist in water that remains liquid for just a few
hours a day? The answer is less clear. To resolve the questions raised above, a multi-tiered study of theoretical models,
empirical evidence and experiments has been performed.
Theoretical Considerations
Martian Atmospheric Conditions
The Martian atmosphere is composed almost entirely of C02, with minor fractions of O2, water vapor and trace gases
(Table 1). The NASA-Ames AEPS study analyzed this atmosphere and concluded that it can be treated as an ideal gas.
Table 1. Compositions of Martian atmosphere
–2–
As such, the laws governing its behavior can be summarized as follows:
The Knudson number, is on the order of 10-5, where:
Dalton law of additive pressure
Where Pmix = pressure of a gas mixture,

Pi = pressure of one composition of the mixture,
Tmix, Vmix = temperature and pressure of the mixture.
Amagat’s law of additive volume
Fick’s law
Where M is evaporation or sublimation rate, D is a property of the binary diffusion coefficient, and C denotes
concentration.
Psychrometry
For a multiphase medium, evaporation is governed by partial pressure and temperature differences between each
component on the surface and in the air stream, according to the following equation:
Heat / mass transfer analysis

Using the preceding equations together with ones that govern the flow of fluids, heat, and mass, a mathematical model
of the Martian climate system accounting for conduction, convection, radiation, evaporation, sublimation, atmospheric
properties and soil properties can be constructed (Figure 2).2 Such a model has been used by Haberle3 et al. to indicate
that liquid water is not only feasible, but potentially stable for up to 150 days/year near the equator.
Thermodynamics
The phase diagram for pure water (Figure 3) shows the pressures and temperatures at which water can exist in a solid, liquid,
or vapor form. As seen from this diagram, liquid water cannot exist below 6.1 mb. Since Martian pressures range between
3-10 mb and temperatures frequently fall in the 0-7ºC window, between freezing and boiling, thermodynamics dictate that
liquid water must exist at certain times. A question frequently asked is whether the abscissa in Figure 3 is total pressure or
partial pressure of water vapor. If the former, the pressure on Mars is frequently above the triple point. If the latter, the
pressure would always be below it since the partial pressure of water vapor in the atmosphere is only a fraction of a millibar.
This question will be addressed in the experimental methods section of this paper. Another issue is water purity. The triple
point diagram is for pure distilled water. Water with brine, sand, or impurities such as on Mars, would have a depressed
freezing / melt point, shifting the boundaries of Figure 3 down and increasing the probability of liquid water.
–3–
Figure 2. Water on Mars Thermal Model
Empirical Evidence
The porous plate sublimator used in all astronaut EMU’s (Extravehicular Mobility Units) since the Apollo program
makes use of the fact that water goes directly from ice to vapor at pressures below the triple point. The design of this
sublimator incorporates a feedwater tank under pressure that supplies water to the plate, a ventilation gas loop, a liquid
cooled garment loop that carries body and equipment heat from the EMU to the sublimator, and associated pumps, fans,
batteries, diverter valves, tubing and ancillary equipment.
–4–
Figure 3. Triple Point Diagram. Source: handbook of Chemistry and Physics
Figure 4. Porous Plate Sublimator Cross-Section Source: Hamilton Standard, Division of United Technologies
–5–
Figure 5. Sublimator performance. Source: Hamilton Standard, Division of United Technologies
The system functions as follows:
An ice layer forms within the porous plate when the feedwater tank directs water to it because it is exposed to ambient
vacuum. As long as heat is not supplied to it, this ice layer stays intact. However, when the suit ventilation and liquid
cooled garment loops enter the sublimator carrying body and equipment heat (Figure 4), the ice layer sublimates to
steam in direct proportion to the amount of heat being carried in. The feedwater tank resupplies water to the sublimator
plate in proportion to heat loss, until its eight-pound supply is exhausted. The passage of heat from the suit, air and
water loops to the sublimator takes place by conduction through aluminum heat exchanger fins integral to the design.
As a consequence of this design, ambient pressures rising above the triple point will cause the ice layer on the plate to
melt when heated. If this happens, unlike traditional water boilers or evaporators that continue to operate at low
pressures, the unit will experience “breakthrough” and stop functioning. Such functional degradation is rapid and
marked and has been observed in suit testing within vacuum chambers. Test data has established that this process occurs
at pressures above 3.5 mb with Mars-like temperatures (Figure 5).
The implication is inescapable. If sublimation is indeed replaced by evaporation at Martian pressures in a vacuum
chamber on Earth, evaporation from a liquid phase must occur on Mars as well. It must be added, however, that since
the sublimator tests described here were for EMU performance, not Mars simulation, this evidence for liquid water is
circumstantial.
Experimental Evidence
Protocol:
Simulating Martian conditions in a bell jar was the objective of the experimental phase of this study. An ice cube in a
glass funnel placed inside a bell jar containing Drierite (a desiccant), calibrated thermometers, and dry ice (to create a
CO2 atmosphere) was kept under Martian pressures by a vacuum pump. A lamp placed over the bell jar simulated
Martian sunlight (38% of Earth) and time, temperature and pressure readings were recorded (Figure 6). The end point
for each run was defined as the first appearance of a water droplet or film.
–6–
Results:
Over 80 runs were made, 23 using tap water and the remainder using distilled water, diluted sea water, bacterial culture
media and other mixtures. Typical results are shown for tap water in Figures 7-9 and are summarized as follows:
As seen in figure 7, with mean atmospheric temperature of 26ºC, liquid water was observed at pressures between 12 mb
and 16 mb. These runs, taken at higher pressures than Martian conditions, demonstrated that the sublimation process is
total-pressure-driven and not driven by the partial pressure of water vapor, since the latter was below the triple point.
At a mean ice temperature of 0ºC, as seen in figure 8, liquid water was observed at pressures between 3 mb and 10 mb,
Mars like conditions. This data demonstrates that liquid water can exist under these simulated Martian conditions.
Figure 9 shows transient results for a typical run. At the beginning of the experiment, the ice cube is frosted over,
yielding no liquid water even when touched by a warm body. Half way through the experiment, temperatures have
grown significantly and the pressure has dropped. It is at this time that micro-ice crystals and vapor films are observed
on the sides of the funnel. The ice cube has also changed appearance, changing its white exterior for a glossy one.
Towards the end of the experiment, white and frozen films are seen, suggesting concurrent sublimation at low pressures.
Figure 6. Experimental setup
–7–
Figure 7. Atmospheric temperature vs. pressure endpoints
Figure 8. Ice cube temperature vs. pressure endpoints
–8–
Figure 9. Transient temperature and pressure graph
Discussion and Errors:

The protocol had certain inherent errors. First, observations were subjectively based on the eyes of the observer. To
counter this, a team of observers was utilized, as well as photographs and videotape recordings. Secondly, the
atmosphere provided was pure CO2, not the exact mix of the Martian atmosphere specified by Table 1. However, since
95% of the atmosphere is CO2 and the remaining 5% is either inert or trace gases, this is a reasonable approximation.
Thirdly, although Drierite, a desiccant, was used to keep the bell jar free of water vapor, humidity sensors were not
available to test exactly how dry. The Drierite, on the other hand, contained an indicator that would change color when
exposed to persistent water vapor. Since it never did, we can reasonably assume water vapor quantities were extremely
low. Fourthly, the dual thermometers used to measure air and ice cube temperatures recorded different data depending
on the placement within the ice cube and air stream. This was likely caused by radiant heating of the thermometer bulbs
by the sun lamps. As such, actual atmospheric temperatures were likely lower than the sensed air temperatures, an error
having little effect on the final results because temperatures were within the Martian range, as shown in figure 1b.
Lastly, ice was seen to swivel on its own, suggesting the presence of a liquid film, when a visual confirmation of liquid
could not be made.
Conclusions:
The purpose of the bell jar experiment was to determine the feasibility of liquid water under Martian conditions. This
condition was met. Additionally, we can conclude that total pressure drives the phase change of water, not the partial
pressure of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Implications
Implications for Geology:
McKay et al.4 have assumed the absence of liquid water as a significant geologic force for billions of years (Figure 10).
If it can be shown that water persists in liquid form today, it would shift the timeline and paradigm of the forces that
shaped the planet.
–9–
Figure 10. Geologic history of Mars. McKay and Stoker (ref. 4)
Implications of Life:
The viability of liquid water on the Martian surface may provide an environment for fringe organisms that live in
conditions far more extreme than a temporary film of cold water. If extremophiles can be found living in ice 2.3 miles
below the frozen surface of Lake Vostok in Antartica,5 why not Archea, Eubacteria, or Protista on Mars? Sites that
demonstrate the possibility of liquid water may likely be temperate enough to sustain such life today.
Figure 11. Extremophiles found in Antartica. (ref. 5)
Implications for Landing Site Selection:

If liquid water were on the surface today, it would not only shift the paradigm of how geologic forces shaped the planet,
but effect human mission planners who assume its absence. On-site water would provide resources for drinking,
– 10 –
oxygen, and hygiene, saving the cost of shipping it from Earth or making it on the surface. Decreased mass, complexity
and power requirements would decrease costs, possibly even making the difference between an affordable or
extravagant mission. The question then becomes how best to locate water, and after having done so, how to let it
influence landing site selection. One way of doing this is by using theoretical models such as Haberle’s.6 Another is
by utilizing Mars Global Surveyor mapping data.
Global Surveyor Mapping Data.

The presence of liquid water on the Martian surface would greatly impact human landing site selection, and we have
presented evidence for it under simulated Mars conditions. The next phase of this study will evaluate the feasibility of
these conditions on the planet itself and map the locations where they might occur. Haberle’s theoretical model provides
one method of doing this and another is the utilization of mapping data from Mars Global Surveyor.
MGS, currently in orbit, records pressures and temperatures using radio occultation. Microwave radiation is transmitted
by the spacecraft into the Martian atmosphere and received at tracking stations on Earth. Analyzing the phase shift of
these waves provides data for specific longitudes, latitudes and time of day. Table 2 shows MGS pressure and
temperature profiles for a site in Hellas Crater collected this way. Although the data suggests a liquid phase cannot exist,
trend analysis may show otherwise. It’s important to note that temperature and pressure increase as one nears the surface
from higher elevations (Figure 9), and that the vertical resolution of the MGS oscillator can only approximate abrupt
topographical surface changes.
Indeed, “sounding” the atmosphere within a canyon is possible in only rare cases7 and radio occultation may prove over-
generalized for deep and chaotic surfaces like Hebbes and Ophir Chasma. If so, another way of determining conditions
in these sites would be to extrapolate surface data to lower depths using theoretical models, pressure decay curves, and
other techniques. This approach, using figure 9 for pressure augmentation and the Monte Carlo radiant interchange
analysis of spherical cavities for temperature is one we hope to utilize in the future. This analysis may reveal higher
probabilities for liquid surface water than expected from current MGS data. For example, if the pressure was only a
scant 15 mb instead of 10 mb at the bottom of Vallis Marinaris, the probability of liquid water would nearly triple and
the span between freezing and boiling would nearly double (see cross-hatched region of Figure 12).
Table 2. MGS Observation Data Source: MGS Web site
This Martian weather observation is brought to you courtesy of the MGS Science Team. The time of the atmospheric measurement
and the local time of the measurement on Mars are specifies on a 24 hour clock. The elevation is with respect to a standard Martian
reference surface (geoid). The typical atmospheric pressure on the surface of the Earth is approximately 1000 millibars (1 bar).
– 11 –
Figure 12. Altitude vs. Temperature / Pressure (MGS) Source: MGS Web site
Summary and Future Work

By examining Viking, Pathfinder, and MGS data, theoretical considerations, and a simulation experiment, we have set
down the conditions under which liquid water can exist on the surface of Mars today and found clear indications that it
does. Since liquid water is a deciding factor on where to send human missions, it would also influence landing site
selection. Two approaches to finding such sites have been discussed: the theoretical approach of Haberle at NASA
Ames and the use of MGS data to extrapolate desirable sub-datum level landing sites.
The experimental protocol described was only used for pure liquid water. Future work involves testing water in soil
under Martian conditions, a study currently underway by Quinn et al at NASA Ames, and a study incorporating
microbial life in simulated Mars soil samples, which we hope to perform shortly. If these tests yield positive results,
they could form the basis of a Pathfinder-like proposal to search for liquid water and surface microbes on Mars itself.
Acknowledgments
Our thanks to Professor Richard Muller and Professor Ron Shen of the UC Berkeley Physics Department for their
advice, Dr. Daniel Mills, Microbial Diseases Section of the California State Department of Health Services, Berkeley
for material support and calibration of our thermometer and Mr. Don Stiver for technical support.
References
• Kuznetz, L and Gan, D (1999). Hunt for Liquid Water on Mars Today. Mars Society Proceedings, May 1999, Boulder, CO.
• Rodriguez-Navarro, Carlos (1998), Evidence of Honeycomb Weathering on Mars.
1. NASA Advanced Environmental Protective System Study (AEPS), NASA Ames Res. Center, Advanced EVA Branch, 1982
– 12 –
2. Kaplan. “Environment of Mars.” NASA-TM-100470 (1988)

3. Haberle, et al. (2000). “Meteorological Control on the Formation of Martian Paleolakes.” Abstract in the proceedings of the 33rd Lunar and
Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX.
4. McKay, C. P and Stoker, C. R. “The Early Environment and Its Evolution on Mars: Implications for Life” in Reviews for Geophysics, 27,
2/May 1989, p. 189-214.
5. Science, (Priscu and Karl, Dec. 10, 1999)
6. Haberle et al. (2000). “On the Stability of liquid water on Present Day Mars.” Abstract in proceedings of the First Astrobiology Conference,
NASA Ames Research Center
7. Conversation with David Hillman at Stanford University.
– 13 –
Implications of a Proposal for Real Property Rights in Outer Space
Wayne N. White, Jr.

[1999]
Abstract
This author presented a paper entitled Real Property Rights in Outer Space at the 40th Colloquium on the Law of Outer
Space, in Turin, Italy (1997). In that article, the author proposed a regime of real property rights for outer space, in the
absence of territorial sovereignty. In this paper, the author discusses the goals and expected outcome of the proposed
real property regime, including legal, political, military, social and economic implications. Among other things, the
author concludes that the proposed regime would make international conflict less likely than a real property regime
predicated upon territorial sovereignty, would promote transition of space settlements from Earth-based jurisdiction to
self governance, and would promote investment in and settlement of outer space.
Introduction
Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty1 prohibits national appropriation of outer space, but it does not prohibit private
appropriation.2 Hence, private entities may appropriate area in outer space or on a celestial body, although states may not.
Because the relationship between property and territorial sovereignty differs under common law and civil law systems,
it is not immediately clear whether Article II would permit national governments to confer property rights upon private
entities under their jurisdiction. The common law theory of title has its roots in feudal law. Under this theory the Crown
holds the ultimate title to all lands, and the proprietary rights of the subject are explained in terms of vassalage. Thus,
common law nations, which are parties to the Outer Space Treaty, cannot confer real property rights on private entities
because Article II would prohibit them from claiming territorial sovereignty. Civil law, on the other hand, is derived
from Roman law, which distinguishes between property and sovereignty. Under this theory it is possible for property
to exist in the absence of territorial sovereignty.
Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty requires parties to the treaty to “retain jurisdiction and control over . . . space
objects on their registry . . . and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.” Article VIII
confers “quasi-territorial” jurisdiction. It applies to the space facility, to a reasonable area around the facility (for safety
purposes3), and to all personnel in or near the facility, irrespective of nationality. Space objects occupy locations on a
first-come, first-served basis, and personnel have the right to conduct their activities without the harmful interference of
other states. In addition, although entities may not claim ownership of mineral resources “in place,” once they have
been removed (i.e., mined) then they are subject to ownership.4
Article VIII jurisdiction also permits the state of registry to subject its space objects and personnel to any national laws
that are not in conflict with international law. This jurisdiction in limited in time, however. It ceases to exist when
activity is halted– as, for example, when a space object is abandoned or returned to Earth.
Taken together, the rights conferred upon private entities under the Outer Space Treaty amount to a limited form of
property rights. And, because Article VIII permits states to pass laws and regulate the activities of private entities under
their jurisdiction, it is possible for states to unilaterally implement a system of limited property rights which would not
constitute a violation of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. Because this form of limited property rights would
be based upon Article VIII jurisdiction, and not territorial sovereignty, it would not violate Article II of the Outer Space
Treaty, even if the state in question were a common law country.
This author proposed that the space-faring nations consider implementing such a system of limited property rights in his
article Real Property Rights in Outer Space.5 The author suggested that such states follow the example of the United
States’ homesteading acts, and require private entities to maintain a facility (and/or conduct certain activities) in a fixed
Wayne N. White, Jr.; Attorney at Law, 4465 Kipling Street, Suite 200, Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
–1–
location, for a specified period of time (e.g., one to five years) in order to perfect property rights. The author also
suggested that states which implement a property rights regime could include a reciprocity provision in their property
laws, which would provide for recognition of the property rights of entities under the jurisdiction of states that enact
similar property laws which also contain a reciprocity provision.
In addition, or in the alternative, such states could also negotiate, draft, ratify, and implement a multilateral treaty to
coordinate property rights. Such a treaty would elaborate on the elements in Article VIII – it would define the property
rights conferred under Article VIII, and provide for their recordation; it would define the term “space object,” with
particular emphasis on the distinction and between space vehicles and permanently situated space facilities; it would
define the term “personnel”; and it would delineate the extent of jurisdiction and control, with particular emphasis on
the physical extent of safety zones, and upon the temporal duration of jurisdiction, i.e., upon the period of abandonment
necessary to extinguish jurisdiction.
This article discusses the legal, political, military, economic and social consequences of implementing this author’s
proposal for limited real property rights, in the absence of territorial sovereignty. This article also discusses the goals
we should hope to achieve by establishing an institution of real property rights for outer space.
Legal Implications
Because this proposal for limited property rights is consistent with the Outer Space Treaty and other international law,
it would be easy for states to implement. Both common law and civil law countries are free to unilaterally enact this
form of limited property rights, without any changes in the Outer Space Treaty or other international law. If states model
their laws on the U.S. homesteading acts, they will have to set up claims offices to record property claims, and to issue
titles when claims are perfected. Once more than one state has implemented property rights, an international registry
would seem advisable, if not necessary.
Implementing this real property regime would provide greater legal certainty to investors and entities participating in
the development and settlement of outer space. Those entities will be able to look to terrestrial property law for legal
precedents. National judicial systems would experience similar benefits, as judges could decide cases on the basis of
established legal principles.
In this author’s opinion, however, the field of space law is sufficiently specialized that it will eventually be necessary to
create specialized courts to adjudicate space disputes. In locales like Mars, it will probably be necessary to set up local
courts once substantial development and settlement occurs, because delays in communicating with Earth would
otherwise make judicial proceedings unacceptably cumbersome and time consuming.
Another benefit of this form of limited property rights will be competition between national legal systems and a resulting
cross-fertilization of legal ideas. To a certain extent, this process is already occurring with advances in communications
and the globalization of business interests on Earth. This author believes, however, that the proposed regime of limited
property rights would accelerate this trend. Because the proposed property regime does not rely on territorial
sovereignty, and because the safety zone jurisdiction outside facilities would be strictly limited, entities would not be
claiming large areas. This means that different facilities and their safety zones could each be under the jurisdiction of
a different state, and yet still be in close proximity to each other. Assuming that entities residing in and operating these
facilities have frequent interaction, differences in national laws would be immediately obvious and would have a real-
life impact on the entities involved. The expected result would be a demand for the most economically efficient and
least restrictive laws, with the laws of other space-faring nations serving as examples.
Political Implications
There are four principal reasons why the United States and the Soviet Union (and later other countries) chose to prohibit
territorial sovereignty in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty: (1) to prevent conflict; (2) to ensure free access to all areas
–2–
of outer space; (3) because it would be difficult for states to delineate boundaries in outer space; and (4) to enhance
national pride, prestige and influence.
This author believes that the reasons that justified the prohibition of territorial sovereignty in 1967 are still valid reasons
for prohibiting territorial sovereignty in the 21st century. The entire history of Earth is one long tale of military conflict
over disputed territory, or even outright seizure of territory by governments with no lawful claim to the territory in
question. Permitting national claims of territorial sovereignty in Outer Space would only perpetuate that history of
conflict. The modern standard for establishing territorial sovereignty is the continuous and peaceful display of state
authority. Despite the word “peaceful,” this standard, as a practical matter, generally means establishing and
maintaining military control over territory.
But can we afford the expense of defending territorial claims with military force? This author frequently thinks of an
analogy to the board games Risk® and Monopoly®. In the game Risk®, each player amasses armies and attempts to
conquer as much territory as possible by defeating the other players’ armies. The winner of the game is the player who
conquers the world (or convinces the other players of the inevitability of that outcome).
In the game Monopoly®, players acquire properties, which they develop with houses and hotels, thereby earning income
from the other players when they land on those properties. Some properties are worth more than others are, and the rent
that the other players must pay for landing on properties varies with the quality of the property. The winner of the game
is the player who obtains the most and best properties, developing those properties to earn more money than the other
players do. Many people alter the rules of the game to allow players to sell and trade properties, resulting in a period
of consolidation wherein the players adjust their portfolios of properties to hopefully maximize their income.
In outer space, do we want to spend our precious resources on military defense of territory, or do we want to spend our
resources on research, development, and settlement? This author believes that most sane people would prefer the latter.
In the real world, playing Monopoly® is clearly a better choice than playing Risk®.
The second reason for prohibiting territorial sovereignty was to ensure free access to outer space. If nations begin
claiming large areas of outer space or on celestial bodies, it will prevent entities from other nations from having free
access to both claimed and unclaimed areas of outer space. Because the extent of safety zone jurisdiction is very limited,
free access would not be as much of an issue with limited property rights as it would with territorial sovereignty, where
the areas claimed are typically much larger.
The third reason for prohibiting territorial sovereignty was because it would be difficult for states to delineate boundaries
in outer space. That reasoning still applies today. While it would be difficult for nations to delineate the boundaries of
territory in open space, it would be far easier to delineate the boundaries of real property claims, because the area claimed
will be far smaller, and because safety zones in many cases will extend a uniform distance from a facility, in all directions.
The final reason for prohibiting territorial sovereignty was to enhance national pride, prestige and influence. The major
powers were vying for the allegiance of the many new African and Asian nations at the time when they negotiated the
language of Article II. These recently independent former colonies were extremely wary of “superpower imperialism.”
Consequently, both the Soviet Union and the United States could expect to gain political influence and prestige should
they reject territorial sovereignty and its overtones of colonialism.
Today those political views are still present in some, and perhaps many non space-faring nations. Consequently, the
space-faring nations will encounter far less political opposition to a real property regime that does not include national
claims of territorial sovereignty.
Most readers will be familiar with the political controversy which surrounded, and still surrounds the 1979 Moon
Treaty.6 That treaty provided for redistribution of income obtained from resource appropriation, requiring the
–3–
appropriating states to share the profits of such activities with non space-faring nations. The Moon Treaty also
prohibited all forms of property rights.7 Most space-faring nations found such provisions unacceptable.
This controversy illustrates the political differences between the space faring and non space-faring nations. Non space-
faring nations fear that the space-faring nations will appropriate most or all of the best resources before they have the
ability to participate in space development and settlement. In the view of this author, and apparently most of the space-
faring nations, this fear is unfounded, because the resources of outer space are virtually unlimited when compared with
the limited resources of Earth. Nonetheless, these attitudes prevail in the non space-faring nations, and they must be
considered when evaluating a property rights regime.
Fortunately, the proposed regime of limited property rights should defuse most of the possible political opposition from
the non space-faring nations. Because the Article II prohibition of territorial sovereignty remains in place, the non
space-faring nations can rest assured that large areas of outer space will remain unclaimed for the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, because private entities could sell outmoded or financially unsuccessful facilities, including the associated
property rights, other nations would have the opportunity to purchase those facilities and property rights, even though
they might not have developed space-faring technology. The limited property rights regime therefore addresses the
concerns of the non space-faring nations, and even provides them with the opportunity to share in space development
and settlement, while still achieving the objectives of private entities. Finally, the proposed regime should be politically
acceptable to the governments of space-faring nations, because: (1) they will have the independence to enact and fine
tune property legislation without seeking the approval of other nations, including non space-faring nations that have far
different political views, (2) their citizens can develop and settle space without transferring any of the income from those
activities to the non space-faring nations, and (3) governmental entities will have the same jurisdictional rights over
facilities and safety zones that private entities do.
Military and Security Implications

The military implications of the proposed real property regime are fairly obvious in light of the preceding discussion
regarding prevention of conflict in outer space. If the Article II prohibition of territorial sovereignty remains in place,
nations will not have to exert military control over large areas in order to perfect territorial claims. And, wars over
conflicting territorial claims will not occur as they did when European nations settled and developed the North and South
American continents.
The military, and possibly other security forces, will have a role, however. Once mining and industrial development
takes place, it may be necessary for the military to be available to prevent others from stealing mining claims, sabotaging
competitors’ facilities, etc. In the early stages of development and settlement, entities are likely to cluster their facilities
in close proximity for safety and economic reasons. The military would therefore have a fairly easy time defending
those facilities, in a manner similar to Army forts which defended nearby settlements while the American West was
being settled. Once local governments are established and have defensive capability, the need for Earth’s military forces
will diminish.
Another concern is international security. Unfortunately, the threat of terrorist activity is always a possibility. To
prevent such activity, states which implement the limited property regime will undoubtedly want to provide in any
legislation that the government has the right to prohibit sales of facilities and property rights to nations which present
any sort of significant security risk.
Economic Implications
The institution of real property rights is the most efficient manner of administering the territory occupied by private
entities. The proposed real property regime will allow a free market to develop in property rights. Commercial entities
that want to buy more technologically advanced facilities can sell their facility and buy a new one. Commercial entities
that engage in an unsuccessful venture will still have some residual value remaining in their facility and property rights.
Such entities could then sell their facility and property rights to recoup some of their investment.
–4–
Because the proposed regime will permit judges, lawyers and legislators to look to terrestrial property law for
precedents, private entities will enter into space ventures with greater certainty about their legal rights, and the outcome
of any potential legal disputes. Real property rights will thereby encourage private space development and settlement,
at very little cost to the taxpayers.
Social Implications
Hopefully, the proposed property regime will encourage peaceful settlement and commercial development in the same
way that homesteading encouraged people to relocate to the American West. This author hopes that the proposed regime
will also foster international cooperation and understanding, once the non-space-faring nations actually participate in
space activities and realize financial, technological and social benefits from those activities.
Limited real property rights will also help ease the transition to self-governance in outer space. Once a space community
becomes self-governing, it will be a simple process to convert limited property rights to full-fledged property rights.
And Earth nations should realize that it is in their best interests to allow communities to become self-governing as soon
as they are technologically, economically and socially ready. Earth governments should learn the lessons of history so
that they do not repeat the same mistakes. England was ultimately unsuccessful in governing and taxing the American
colonies, and Earth governments should not expect any more success, should they choose to continue governing entities
after they have become capable of self-governance.
Governing and taxing entities from afar is neither practical nor good policy. It alienates and hinders brave and
independent pioneers who risk their lives in a hostile environment. Earth nations have a lot more to gain from trade
with space-based entities than they will from micro managing and taxing them. The principles of freedom and self-
determination are just as valid in outer space as they are on Earth, and we should expect our governments to adhere to
those principles.
Conclusion
This author has proposed a regime of limited property rights in the absence of territorial sovereignty. The proposed
regime is consistent with the principles and provisions of the Outer Space Treaty and other generally accepted principles
of international law. Accordingly, states that want to enact real property laws are free to do so at any time, without
seeking the approval of other states.
Implementing this regime would provide greater legal certainty to investors and entities participating in development
and settlement activities, because terrestrial property law would provide legal precedents. The regime would also foster
competition between national legal systems and cross-fertilization of legal ideas.
The limited property rights proposed by this author are based upon the jurisdiction conferred by Article VIII of the Outer
Space Treaty, and not territorial sovereignty, which is prohibited by Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. The author
believes that the reasons for prohibiting territorial sovereignty are still valid today, and recommends that states enact
property laws without disturbing the prohibition against territorial sovereignty. Space-faring nations simply cannot
afford the cost of defending territorial claims, and the possible military conflicts that might result from such claims.
Keeping the prohibition in place will also eliminate many of the political objections to a real property regime, and
increase the likelihood that the regime will be accepted by other nations.
The real property regime is economically efficient, and will allow non-space-faring nations to participate in space
development and settlement. The regime will allow private entities to sell outmoded or financially unsuccessful
facilities to other entities or governments, including the associated property rights, subject to any security restrictions
imposed by the country exercising jurisdiction over the facility. This arrangement would benefit both the selling entity
and the purchasing entity.
–5–
Finally, the regime will help ease the transition to self-governance in outer space. Once a space community becomes
self-governing, it will be a simple process to convert limited property rights to full-fledged property rights. Earth
governments should allow and encourage space communities to become self-governing as soon as they are economically
self-supporting and willing to govern themselves. The proposed property regime will help facilitate that goal.
References
1. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies, done Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. No. 6347, 610 U.N.T.S. 205 (entered into force Oct. 10, 1967).
2. Gorove, Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, 37 FORDHAM L. REV. 349, 351 (1969).
3. E.g., Rothblatt, State Jurisdiction and control in Outer Space, Proceedings, Twenty Sixth Colloquium On The Law Of Outer Space, at 135, 136
(IISL, 1984).
4. E.g., Cepelka & Gilmore, Application of General International Law in Outer Space, 36 J. AIR L. & COM. 30, 38-39 (1970).
5. White, Real Property Rights in Outer Space, Proceedings, Fortieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, at 370 (IISL, 1998).
6. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1363 U.N.T.S. 3, adopted 5 December 1979, entered
into force 11 July 1984.
7. Id., at Article 11.
–6–
An Interplanetary Mass Transit System Based On Hypersonic Skyhooks
And Magsail-Driven Cyclers
Erv Baumann; Lawrence E. Pado
Abstract
A number of innovative methods have been proposed for transporting the first human explorers to Mars. This paper
takes a long-term perspective in presenting a concept for a transportation system capable of supporting the mass
migration of people and goods between Earth and Mars. The proposed mass transit system integrates the magnetic sail
(magsail) and hypersonic skyhook concepts proposed by Zubrin with features of Aldrin’s “Mars Cycler” architecture
and Forward’s orbital tether concepts to define a system capable of providing regular transportation between Earth and
Mars. This service would be provided by a fleet of magsail-driven “cruise ships” capable of transporting large numbers
of people between Earth and Mars in relative comfort and safety. Transportation between these “MagCyclers” and
planetary surfaces would use a combination of rotating hypersonic skyhooks to achieve the large velocity changes
required and transatmospheric vehicles powered by local propellants for takeoffs and landings. Although the envisioned
system would initially be used to establish regular Earth-Mars trade routes, its ultimate purpose is to enable a thriving
system of commerce throughout the inner solar system.
A key advantage of the proposed scheme is that it provides a relatively high level of vehicle and spaceport utilization
as well as the ability to repair and upgrade the ships while they are on-orbit. More efficient operation of the skyhooks
is enabled by allowing the masses of incoming and outgoing cargo to be matched, thereby reducing the energy required
to reboost the skyhook. The paper also discusses the anticipated evolutionary development of this space transportation
infrastructure including the potential for expanding the system to provide MagCycler service to Venus.
“For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,

Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;”
— Alfred, Lord Tennyson
1. Introduction
“This is the goal….
To make available for life every place where life is possible
To make inhabitable all worlds as yet uninhabitable
And all life purposeful.”
— Hermann Oberth, 1923
Since the rocket-borne birth of the Space Age almost forty years ago, and most notably during the past decade, a number
of visionary individuals have proposed alternative methods for reaching space and spanning the great distances between
the planets. The primary goal of these methods is to reduce the cost and/or time required to safely transport passengers
and cargo from Earth into space, and ultimately to the planets. In some cases the underlying technologies are also
applicable to interstellar travel. The successful realization and application of these technologies, both alone and in
combination, promises to dramatically increase our accessibility to space and the nearby worlds of the inner solar
system, and to ultimately provide the foundation for a thriving system of commerce throughout the entire solar system.
Such advanced technologies and concepts include rotating skyhooks or tethers,1,2,3,4,9 magnetic sails,3 solar sails,4
light-craft,4 planetary “cyclers,”5 transatmospheric vehicles,4 and even more exotic and exciting fusion and anti-matter
propulsion methods.4 For obvious reasons these concepts are usually presented in papers that focus on a particular
propulsion or transportation method and do not discuss how they might be synergistically combined with other
Erv Baumann; Gateway Space Transport, Inc., 1132 Hutchinson Way Pl., Florissant, MO 63031
Lawrence E. Pado; Pado 3D, 3702 Banbury Drive, St. Charles, MO 63303
–1–
An Interplanetary Mass Transit System Based On Hypersonic Skyhooks And Magsail-Driven Cyclers
technologies to create an overall transportation infrastructure. Although substantial work remains to be done on refining
these ideas and the supporting technologies that will be required, it is not too early to see how several of them might be
used in combination to build a safe, efficient, and cost-effective mass transportation for the inner solar system. The
remainder of this paper presents just such a concept for a transportation infrastructure that incorporates rotating
skyhooks, magnetic sails, transatmospheric vehicles, and planetary cycler concepts. It is primarily intended to provide
inspiration and “food for thought” for the reader.
2. System Overview
“The 21st century will see the planets drawn together and the complexion of human civilization changed.
Space has already demonstrated that a bountiful future is not possible for mankind without it.”
— Krafft Ehricke, Men of Space
The basic operation of the transportation system involves transporting people and cargo from the Earth’s surface in a
suborbital transatmospheric vehicle (TAV) to rendezvous, at hypersonic velocities, with the lower end of an orbiting,
rotating tether (skyhook) system. After linking to the TAV with a grapple device, the skyhook proceeds to throw the TAV
on a trajectory to rendezvous with a large, magsail driven “cruise ship” (the “MagCycler”) which is parked in a highly
elliptical orbit around the Earth. Once fully loaded, the magcycler ship employs its magnetic sail supplemented, if
necessary, with reaction engines, to reach escape velocity and embark on its journey to Mars.
After a six to eight month journey to Mars, the reverse sequence takes place. The MagCycler brakes into a highly
elliptical orbit around Mars using its reaction engines (since Mars has no significant natural magnetic field). The TAV,
which is capable of flight in Earth’s or Mars’ atmosphere, leaves the magcycler and flies to a rendezvous point with the
upper end of a rotating Mars skyhook (equivalent to the one used at Earth). After achieving linkup, the rotation of the
skyhook carries the TAV down to an altitude and velocity where the TAV is released, powers up its (Mars) air-breathing
engines, and proceeds to its landing site. For the return journey to Earth, which could take from six to fourteen months
depending on the launch window used, the same basic steps would take place. However, since the Earth has a substantial
magnetic field, a “magneto-braking” (analogous to “aero-braking”) maneuver could be used to eliminate, or
significantly reduce, the need for reaction engines to enter Earth orbit.
Although the above example refers to a single TAV, skyhook, and magcycler, there would, in fact, be a large number of
TAVs used (depending on the capacity of each magcycler) and several rotating hypersonic skyhooks in equatorial orbit
around each planet (depending on the transfer rate required to load and unload the MagCyclers while on orbit). As
shown in Figure 1, the MagCycler ships would travel in fleets or “caravans” of three ships for safety and to allow them
to perform useful maneuvers involving the coupling of their magnetic fields. Four such caravans (twelve MagCyclers
total), taking advantage of available Earth-Mars opposition and conjunction launch windows and Venus flyby
opportunities, and spending an average of six months on orbit for maintenance and resupply at each planet, could
provide departures and arrivals at each planet at intervals averaging approximately ten months (varying from six to
fourteen). With advancements in magsail technology, and experience in employing the unique orbital transfer maneuvers
of which they are capable, it should be possible to make departure times more flexible.
3. Mag-Cycler Operation
When ships to sail the void between the stars have been invented,
there will also be men who come forward to sail those ships.”
— Johannes Kepler, 1600 AD
The Magsail-driven Cycler, or “MagCycler,” shown in Figure 2, is a ship designed to operate in the inner solar system for
the purpose of carrying passengers and cargo along the trade routes between the Earth and Mars. Each MagCycler includes
a magsail for propulsion, a pair of inflatable habitation rings to accommodate passengers and cargo, and a circular array of
–2–
movable solar panels to provide power. The magsail design concept presented here represents a vastly scaled up version of
the magsail example presented by Robert Zubrin in.3 Zubrin estimates that the fare for a trip to Mars on a magsail-driven
cycler could be as low as $28,000.6 Scaling is accomplished not by increasing the overall physical dimensions, but by
increasing the current carrying capacity (cable cross section), number, and arrangement of conductors in the web-like
magnetic sail. This section briefly describes the MagCycler’s principles of operation, living areas, and power source.
Limitations of current technologies that must be addressed to realize such vehicles, primarily in the area of high temperature
superconductors, are also mentioned. More detailed treatments of these topics can be found in the referenced documents.
Figure 1. MagCycler Caravan Approaching Mars
3.1 Magsail Principles of Operation

A magnetic sail or “magsail” can be thought of as a magnetic “balloon” or “bubble” that is blown by the solar wind.
The solar wind consists of a high velocity outflow of protons and electrons from the Sun. A magsail generates an
immense magnetic field that acts as a barrier to these charged particles in the same way that the Earth’s magnetic field
prevents the same high energy particles from penetrating our atmosphere as illustrated in Figure 3. When the particles
are blocked by it’s magnetic field, they transfer a small momentum to the magsail. This small momentum, summed over
the immense surface area of the magnetic field, slowly accelerates the magsail, and whatever is attached to it. The field
of the magsail also acts as a shield against harmful high-energy particles that accompany solar flares and that also inhabit
the Earth’s radiation belts in a band from approximately 500 km to 10,000 km above the equator.
As with a hot air balloon, the magnetic field of the magsail can be “inflated” or “deflated” (increased or decreased in
size). This provides the ability to control how hard the solar wind pushes against the magsail. Advanced magsail designs
will also be capable of generating asymmetric magnetic fields that will turn the MagCycler without using reaction
engines. As with solar sails, which are pushed by the photons in sunlight rather than the solar wind, a magsail can also
“tack” against gravity, which means it can move towards as well as away from the wind (or the Sun, in this case).
Furthermore, the magsail can be used to effectively counteract a small percentage of the Sun’s gravity, allowing it to
perform unusual orbital transfer and rendezvous maneuvers, such as arriving ahead of a planet, then continuing to travel
in the same orbit but at a lower velocity, allowing the planet to “catch up” to the magsail-driven ship.
–3–
Figure 2. “MagCycler” Design Concept
Figure 3. Earth’s Magnetic Field Deflecting the Solar Wind (NASA)
–4–
Figure 4. Example of Solar Wind Structural Details7
As shown in Figure 4, the solar wind is not uniform but has a large-scale structure containing regions of high and low
velocity particles that are consistent over periods of several months.7 Persistent shock waves have also been detected in
the solar wind. By monitoring these variations in the solar wind a magsail-driven craft may be able to “ride the waves”
more efficiently, reducing transit time between the planets.
3.2 Superconducting Magsails

A magsail capable of driving the MagCycler will require a three order of magnitude increase in field strength over the
magsail example provided by Zubrin in.3 While the payload mass assumed by Zubrin was fourteen tons, the mass of the
habitation rings and solar panels of the MagCycler will be similar to that of a medium size cruise ship, or about 10,000
tons (this is roughly twenty times the mass of the International Space Station). To achieve the required increase in
propulsive power while maintaining a magsail size on the order of sixty kilometers in overall diameter, the magsail
consists of ten concentric conducting loops, each approximately one inch in diameter and capable of carrying 5000 kA.
Such immense, high current, magsails will only be possible if they can be constructed of superconducting (zero
electrical resistance) cable. Fortunately, recent developments in high-temperature superconductors (alloys that are
superconducting at readily attainable temperatures) shows promise not only in terms of significantly increased current
capacity, but also in the ductility and potential availability of the massive quantities needed to fabricate the large lengths
of cable required for a magsail of these dimensions.
–5–
The magsail will be deployed and stabilized both by repulsive electromagnetic forces, when powered, and by centrifugal
forces provided by rotating the magsail. Due to the large diameter of the magsail its rotational rate must be independent
and significantly lower than the rotational rate of the habitation rings in order to avoid developing excessive tensile
forces in the magsail cables. This can be implemented through the use of superconducting magnetic slip rings and laser
power transfer at the central hub.
3.3 Habitation Rings

A pair of coaxial “donut shaped” rings, shown in Figure 5, provides living space on the MagCycler. Although visually
reminiscent of the double-ringed station of Kubrick’s “2001 A Space Odyssey,” the MagCycler’s habitation rings differ
both in scale and construction. The overall diameter of the habitation rings is one kilometer, providing sufficient living
and storage volume to comfortably house several thousand passengers. To reduce weight, construction time, and cost,
the habitation rings and struts are inflatable structures based on an evolved and scaled version of NASA’s TransHab
design. Rigid bulkhead inserts provide separate airtight sections within the rings. Fold-out floor panels built into the core
of the inflatable rings are deployed to create decks. After the structure is inflated and decks deployed, walls are installed
as desired using interlocking composite panels.
Figure 5. MagCycler Habitation Rings
The central hub, which acts as a hangar as well as the axis and attach point for the habitation rings and magsail, is
fabricated using more conventional methods and materials, although by the time of its construction essentially all of the
–6–
materials used will be lightweight composites. Due to the weight savings resulting from the use of composites and
inflatable structures the overall mass of the habitation rings is expected to be equivalent to that of a medium sized cruise
ship (about 10,000 tons) even though the living volume is more than five times greater.
The habitation rings are rotated to produce artificial gravity. The rotational rate is gradually changed during the course
of the voyage to vary the artificial gravity from 1g (at Earth) to 0.38g (at Mars). This allows the passengers to
unconsciously become acclimated to the gravitational forces at their destination.
Figure 6. MagCycler Solar Panel Array
3.4. Solar Panels
A circular array of high-efficiency solar panels, shown in Figure 6, provides the power required to “pump up” the
magsail and power the environmental and control systems. The panels, which can be oriented to maximize their
exposure to the Sun, are evolved versions of the solar panels used on the International Space Station. However, the
surface area and power capacity of the array will be several thousand times greater, as needed to power such a massive
vehicle, including rapid recharging of the magsail if necessary. Power distribution and control will be handled by a
distributed system of switching nodes located at the intersections of the magsail’s radial and circular current carrying
cables.
–7–
4. Hypersonic Skyhooks
“Rockets are the ferry boats of orbital travel,
[but] bridges to orbit may also be possible…”
— Hans Moravec, 19779
Skyhooks are bridges to orbit. In physical terms they are “momentum exchange” devices, or “orbital slings,” that can
catch a payload traveling at one velocity and release it at a higher or lower velocity later in its rotation. As shown in
Figures 7 and 8, a skyhook consists of a long cable or “orbital tether,” a grapple device and control module, and ballast
that accounts for the bulk of the skyhook’s momentum.1,2,3 The ability to exchange some of the skyhook’s momentum
for a corresponding change in the payload’s momentum (i.e. velocity) enables the inexpensive and efficient transfer of
payloads to and from orbit. After catching or releasing a payload the skyhook ends up in a slightly higher or lower orbit.
The skyhook’s orbit can then be returned to its initial state using thrusters or electrodynamic forces acting on an
electrically conducting portion of the skyhook. Alternatively, if the skyhook alternates between catching and tossing
payloads of equal mass, or is designed and operated in a “double ended” fashion, simultaneously catching and releasing
equal incoming and outgoing payloads on opposite ends of the skyhook, its net momentum is maintained and little or
no reboost is required.
Figure 7. Orbital Skyhook / Tether Operation

(Produced by Johann Rosario for Tethers Unlimited)
Figure 8. Orbital Skyhook Concept

(Produced by SLIM FILMS for Scientific American)
–8–
The “rotating hypersonic skyhook” design envisioned for use in the mass transit system is a scaled-up, two-ended
variant of the “MarsWhip” and EarthWhip” orbital tether designs developed by Dr. Robert Forward and others.1,2 One
of the most significant advantages of these designs is that they can be constructed using existing materials, such as
Spectra™ 2000, that is already available in large quantities. The skyhook is “hypersonic” because the lower end is
traveling at a velocity of about Mach 5 when it approaches the top of the sensible atmosphere where it rendezvous’ with
a suborbital payload carrier. In the system presented here the entire payload carrier, a transatmospheric vehicle (TAV) is
carried to orbit by the skyhook and released on a trajectory to rendezvous with the MagCycler in a higher elliptical orbit.
An interesting option presented by the rotating hypersonic skyhook is the ability to directly throw payloads between
Earth and Mars. The payload is caught on the receiving end by an equivalent skyhook. Although this option will almost
certainly be used to transport some cargo directly between the planets, the transport of passengers, and certain personal
cargo, will take place in the spacious accommodations of the MagCycler. This is primarily due to the large masses of
the habitation and power modules and the corresponding accelerations required to complete a direct transfer between
skyhooks at the two planets. The reader is referred to the “Tethers Unlimited” papers1,2 for a detailed analysis of the
design and operation of these orbital tethers / skyhooks, including the direct “throw and catch” technique.
5. Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle Operation
The Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV) concept shown in Figure 9 is an adaptation of current hypersonic waverider
designs to hybrid rocket and “air-breathing” operation in both Earth’s and Mars’ atmospheres. A basic ground-rule in
the design of the TAV would be that all fuels used in the engines must be available in quantity at both planets, even if
this means accepting somewhat suboptimal performance in the Earth’s atmosphere. A likely candidate fuel for the rocket
engines would be a combination of liquid oxygen (LOX) and methane, which can be manufactured using in-situ
propellant production methods at Mars. Two of the relatively few materials that burn in the presence of carbon dioxide
and which can be found or produced in quantity on Mars are magnesium and silane (SiH4). The air-breathing component
of the propulsion system may therefore extract carbon dioxide from the atmospheres (at either planet) and use it to burn
magnesium or silage. The chemistry involved in producing LOX-methane and silage-carbon dioxide fuels using in-situ
resources is described in.6
Figure 9. Suborbital Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV)
Due to the low density of the Martian atmosphere it is likely that the engines will not be true “air breathers” in the sense
that they won’t use the gases directly from the atmosphere in flight, but will instead be fed from tanks of carbon dioxide
which are replenished during the TAV’s stay on Mars or Earth. The differences in atmospheric density of the two planets
could also result in the engines being divided into two “clusters,” one at the rear of the vehicle and the other at the
bottom. In the Earth’s atmosphere the vehicle would obtain significant lift from the thicker atmosphere and could fly to
–9–
a horizontal landing using only the rear engines. On Mars the bottom engines would compensate for the lack of
aerodynamic lift and would be used to execute a vertical landing.
Either a built-in payload bay or a piggyback detachable canister arrangement can be used to carry cargo and/or passengers
to the skyhook. If the TAV is carrying passengers bound for another planet the entire vehicle would be captured by the
skyhook and released into a transfer orbit to rendezvous with the MagCycler. If only cargo is being transported a small
guidance and reaction control system integrated with the payload canister will be necessary to guide it to the vicinity of
the MagCycler for pickup or for interplanetary course corrections if the payload is being thrown directly to another planet.
6. Transportation System Evolution

“Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice;
it is not a thing to be awaited, it is a thing to be achieved.”
— William Jennings Bryan, 1899
Once a thriving system of commerce has been established between Earth and Mars, people will begin to turn their eyes
and energies outward to the asteroid belt and inward to Venus and Mercury. Due to their positions and composition, it
is likely that Mercury and the asteroids will be used principally for their mineral resources. It is also conceivable that
by this time terraforming activities will have begun on Mars and that the incredibly challenging task of taming Venus’s
acidic atmosphere will appear less daunting. If so, Venus will become the next target for colonization. With one of the
MagCycler trade routes already passing Venus on the way from Mars to the Earth, a key enabling component for the
next phase in the history of the inner solar system will already be in place.
Figure 10. Evolution of Transportation Infrastructure

in the U.S. (1800 – present)
(Red Lines - Actual Data; Black Lines - Curve Fit)
– 10 –
To extrapolate beyond this time frame into the more distant future it may be helpful to take a look at the history of
transportation over the past 150 years. In his seminal paper, “Dynamics of Transportation Infrastructures,”8 Nakicenovic
uncovers the amazing pattern evident in Figure 10. This historical data, depicting the relative percentages of the total
transportation route distances for various transportation modes from the mid nineteenth century to recent times, reveals
a regular pattern of transition between dominant transportation infrastructures. These transitions have always been
accompanied by the ability to travel farther, faster, and through a wider range of environments (water, land, and air…).
If one assumes that this pattern will continue and extrapolates the starting points and slopes of future cycles, the result
is the plot shown in Figure 11. Note that the starting years derived for the next two cycles are 2010 and 2175. It is
interesting to speculate that the upcoming cycle, which should begin around 2010, may represent the beginning of travel
to near-Earth space by multitudes of people. The next cycle, starting around 2175, may see the birth and growth of
manned interplanetary space travel. And perhaps the following cycle, beginning about 2350, will herald the
development of interstellar travel. Peering even further into the future, one can only wonder what the cycle beginning
around 2720 might bring!
Figure 11. Projected Evolution of Transportation Infrastructure (1800-2800)
7. Epilogue
Will this vision or something like it, really come to pass? In the words of Arthur C. Clarke: “The challenge of the great
spaces between the worlds is a stupendous one; but, if we fail to meet it, the story of our race will be drawing to its close.
Humanity will have turned its back upon the still untrodden heights and will be descending the long slope that stretches
across a thousand million years of time, down to the shores of the primeval sea…”
Three decades ago we took the first small step in answering the challenge of the great spaces between the worlds. Now
the capability to travel to worlds beyond the Earth, won by our intellect, sweat, and blood, presents us with a choice;
– 11 –
the most profound choice ever faced by mankind and perhaps by life itself…. As H. G. Wells once said: “It is the
UNIVERSE or NOTHING…”
Which shall it be?
References
1. R. Forward, G. Nordley, “Mars-Earth Rapid Interplanetary Tether Transport (MERITT) System: Initial Feasibility Analysis,” 35th AIAA /
ASME / SAE / ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, June 1999, AIAA 99-2151.
2. R. Hoyt, C. Uphoff, “Cislunar Tether Transport System,” 35th AIAA / ASME / SAE / ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, June
1999, AIAA 99-2690.
3. S. Schmidt, R. Zubrin, “Islands in the Sky,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-13561-5, 1996.
4. T. Beardsley, “The Way to Go in Space,” Scientific American Quarterly, May 1999, pp. 59-75.
5. Buzz Aldrin, “The Mars Transit System,” Air & Space, October / November 1990, pp. 41-47.
6. R. Zubrin, R. Wagner, “The Case for Mars,” The Free Press 1996, ISBN 0-684-82757-3.
7. T. Cravens, “Physics of Solar System Plasmas,” Cambridge Univ. Press 1997, ISBN 0-521-35280-0.
8. N. Nakicenovic, “Dynamics of Transportation Infrastructures,” International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria, prepared
for National Academy of Engineering Workshop on the Evolution of Infrastructures, August, 1986, Woods Hole, USA.
9. H. Moravec, “A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook,” J. Astronautical Sci., Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 307-322, Oct-Dec 1977.
– 12 –
Legal Implications for an International Space Mission and
What Types of Rules will be Necessary After Initial Success
J. J. Hurtak, Ph.D.; M. Jude Egan

[2001]
Abstract
The turn to space exploration and Martian settlements should encourage global cooperation. Space exploration and the
continuing development of a space infrastructure reside in a complex environment that crosses technical, political, and
philosophical boundaries. For the nations of the Earth to cooperate in the human exploration of the solar system, there
will have to be a common vision and shared philosophical understandings, unified in a law that binds all equally. This
requires dialogue between people involved in space-related sciences and policy making, and the fostering of mutual
respect for the larger philosophical considerations of human life.
Most all international agreements are caught in a bind between secrecy, the proprietary “technical intelligence,” and the
“openness” necessary for international participation in such a venture. To encourage in-depth international programs,
each participant must relinquish some of the jealously guarded managerial control and intelligence it normally exercises
in its national programs, even to its former enemies. In order to ensure respect between nations, it will be necessary to
draft a legal framework, a type of constitutional statement that sets forth common understandings of participation and
is binding to all equally. Such a framework would not only articulate the mission statement but also define and codify
the roles and understandings of all of the players as a unified entity.
International Space Policy and the UN-COPUOS

With increasing numbers of rocket launches, space activities have ceased to be an issue linked exclusively with States
in the public sphere and have become a major course of commercial dealings between States, with a substantial
participation by the private sector. It is therefore imperative to establish the basic legal principles that are to govern
commercial activities concerned with outer space. To this end, many countries around the world have supported The
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) which was set up by the General Assembly in 1959 (UN
resolution 1472 (XIV)) to review the scope of international cooperation in outer space, to devise programs in this field
under the auspices of the United Nations, to encourage continued research and the dissemination of information on outer
space matters, and to study legal problems arising from the exploration of outer space (UN resolution 1348, (XIII)). It
is the belief of the authors that if laws are going to be developed, written and enacted, it will not be accomplished by
individual States, but by an organized body such as COPUOS working with the United Nations.
COPUOS has two standing Subcommittees of the whole: the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, and the Legal
Subcommittee. The Committee and its two Subcommittees meet annually to consider questions put before them by the
United Nations General Assembly, as well as to address reports submitted to them and issues raised by the Member
States. The Committee and the Subcommittees, working on the basis of consensus, make recommendations to the
General Assembly, and the detailed information on their work is contained in their annual reports.
The Committee has the responsibilities of strengthening the international basis for the peaceful exploration of outer
space, and feels that developing countries are critical for the advancement of space technology. This attitude was
demonstrated in their work with COPINE (Cooperation Information Network) to coordinate in several African countries
the implementation of a satellite-based cooperative information network, linking scientists, educators, professionals and
other decision makers in order to establish an efficient communications network with Africa (in coordination with
Europe). Europe and the ESA (European Space Agency) play an equally important role in the COPUOS coordination
of their work with Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland (UN GA A/55/20, 2000).
J. J. Hurtak, Ph.D.; AFFS Corporation Los Gatos, CA 95031; www.affs.org / M. Jude Egan; University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. Candidate; Jurisprudence and Social Policy
Program; J. D. Candidate, 2002, Boalt Hall School of Law; U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94609; mjegan@boalthall.berkeley.edu
–1–
Legal Implications For An International Space Mission And What Types Of Rules Will Be Necessary After Initial Success
In working with developing countries, COPUOS has established regional centers for space science and technology
education in each economic region, and these include the Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in Latin
America and the Caribbean (supported by Mexico and Brazil), the Centre for Space Science and Technology Education
for English-speaking African Countries (Nigeria), and the Centre for Space Science and Technology Education for
French-speaking African Countries (Morocco). Both long-term and short-term fellowship programs for in-depth
training have been conducted internationally. Among the organizations that COPUOS works with are the United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (ECOSOC), World Meteorological Organization, Austrian Space
Agency, Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES), Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), European
Commission, ESA’s European Space Research Institution (ESRIN), European Organization for the Exploitation of
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), International Astronautical Federation (IAF), International Search and Rescue
Satellite System (COSPAS-SARSAT) International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS),
Lockheed Martin Corporation, NASA, National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA). NGO organizations
included The Planetary Society (TPS), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and the International
Law Association (ILA). UNESCO, ICAO, EUMETSAT, INTERSPUTNIK, and the International Space Law Center
(ISLC) also have submitted information to the Committee (UN GA A/AC.105/726, 4 February 2000).
Current Treaties and Legal Principles

Since its establishment by the General Assembly in 1959, COPUOS has elaborated five international legal instruments
and sets of principles which provide the framework for international space law and policy, addressing and providing for
the non-appropriation of outer space by any one country, arms control, the freedom of exploration, liability for damage
caused by space objects, the safety and rescue of spacecraft and astronauts, the prevention of harmful interference with
space activities and the environment, the notification and registration of space activities, scientific investigation and the
exploitation of natural resources in outer space and the settlement of disputes. Each of the treaties lays great stress on
the notion that the domain of outer space, the activities carried out therein and whatever benefits might accrue therefrom,
should be devoted to enhancing the well-being of all countries and humankind, and each includes elements elaborating
the common idea of promoting international cooperation in outer space.
Specifically, the five treaties are as follows:
• The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the
Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty,” adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 2222
(XXI)), opened for signature on 27 January 1967, entered into force on 10 October 1967, 96 ratifications and 27
signatures (as of 1 February 2001); it provides that space exploration shall be carried out for the benefit of all
countries, irrespective of their degree of economic development. It also states that outer space is the province of all
mankind, free for exploration and use by all States, and not subject to national appropriation.
• The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer
Space (the “Rescue Agreement,” adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 2345 (XXII)), opened for
signature on 22 April 1968, entered into force on 3 December 1968, 87 ratifications and 26 signatures (as of 1
February 2001); it provides for aiding the crews of spacecraft in the event of accident or emergency landing, and
establishes a procedure for returning to a launching authority a space object found beyond the territorial limits of that
authority.
• The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (the “Liability Convention,”
adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 2777 (XXVI)), opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered
into force on 1 September 1972, 81 ratifications and 26 signatures (as of 1 February 2001); it provides that the
launching State is liable for damage caused by its space objects on the Earth’s surface or to aircraft in flight and also
to space objects of another State or persons or property on board such objects.
• The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “Registration Convention,” adopted by
the General Assembly in its resolution 3235 (XXIX)), opened for signature on 14 January 1975, entered into force
on 15 September 1976, 43 ratifications and 4 signatures (as of 1 February 2001); it provides that launching States
shall maintain registries of space objects and furnish specified information on each space object launched, for
inclusion in a central United Nations Register.
–2–
• The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Moon Agreement,”
adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 34/68), opened for signature on 18 December 1979, entered into
force on 11 July 1984, 9 ratifications and 5 signatures (as of 1 February 2001); it elaborates in more specific terms
the principles relating to the Moon and other celestial bodies set out in the 1967 Treaty and sets up the basis for the
future regulation of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources found on such bodies.
In addition to the treaties, five sets of legal principles have been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly to
provide for the application of international law and promotion of international cooperation and understanding in space
activities, as well as the dissemination and exchange of information. The five declarations and legal principles are as
follows:
• The Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space
(General Assembly resolution 1962 (XVIII) of 13 December 1963);
• The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television
Broadcasting (resolution 37/92 of 10 December 1982);
• The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (resolution 41/65 of 3 December 1986);
• The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (resolution 47/68 of 14 December
1992);
• The Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the
Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (resolution 51/122 of 13
December 1996).
In addition to these five legal principles, UNESCO published in 2000 the report of the World Commission on the Ethics
of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), which stressed the importance of taking ethics into account in the
implementation of space policies and international cooperation. Some of COPUOS felt that COMEST should become
a working document of the Legal Subcommittee and that a working group on ethics in connection with an international
authority for outer space be established.
The treaties have been ratified by many governments, and many others abide by their principles. In view of the
importance of international cooperation in developing the norms of space law and in promoting the use of outer space
for peaceful purposes, there is a clear need to increase the number of ratifications of these five United Nations treaties.
A broader dissemination of an awareness of how developing countries stand to benefit from space technology would
increase the number of ratifications as well as future compliance.
While the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons offers a vital framework to halt the spread of nuclear
weapons technology, it does not address the issues involved in the proliferation of specific technology dedicated to the
militarization of outer space. A balance needs to be established between the principle of state sovereignty over territorial
airspace and the principle of freedom of exploration and the use of outer space in order to avoid possible abuse of the
freedom of exploration that could jeopardize the sovereign rights and security of States.
COPUOS and the 21st Century

With the growing commercialization of space over the past decade, new opportunities and challenges arise for the
international community. Space technologies have entered into the commercial marketplace, a fact which has allowed
countries throughout the world to bridge the “space gap” and receive the benefits of those technologies.
Forthcoming workshops are being planned by COPUOS for space scientists and engineers which will discuss a) robotic
telescopes; b) distributed mission and science operations; c) utilization of archives of satellite missions and data systems
through the World Wide Web; and d) the virtual observatory concept (UN GA A/AC. 105/750, 2001). During the
workshops, participants from various government institutions and private industry from developed and developing
countries are briefed on the latest developments in satellite solutions to accessing or providing internet services. The
–3–
object is to familiarize participants in decision-making positions with practical and cost-effective space-based solutions
for applications such as distance education, disaster management, telemedicine, and remote sensing.
The transformation of many government space activities to commercial operation over the past decade has generated
additional economic benefits, but has also created some problems. On the one hand, commercialization has allowed an
increasing number of countries to take advantage of space technologies for national economic and social development.
On the other hand, commercialization of space activities has increased the risks of advanced space technologies being
used for aggressive military purposes. For example, many satellite launch vehicle technologies are identical to those
used for ballistic missile development, and information derived from high-resolution civilian remote sensing satellites
can be used to support military planning and operations.
Commercialization of certain space technologies, particularly remote sensing imagery, has resulted in high costs which
many developing countries cannot afford. Those high costs are limiting developing country access to vital information
just when commercialization suggests it will become available to them. A less visible but equally problematic effect of
commercialization is the tendency of developing countries to invest scarce resources in space systems and technologies
that are operated primarily by foreign consultants or contractors, rather than investing in the education and training that
is necessary to develop local expertise and competence in the use of space systems and technologies.
It is the belief of COPUOS that the international community, particularly those countries with space capabilities, should
take steps to make space services available to all interested countries at affordable prices. Consideration might be given,
for example, to flexible pricing arrangements, with commercial prices for commercial users and non-commercial prices
for non-commercial users. Arrangements should also be made to enable users in developing countries to become more
involved in the planning and development of space technologies and systems to ensure that future systems are designed
to meet the needs of all countries. In general, efforts must be made to enable as many countries as possible to participate
in the production of space technology, rather than leaving the majority to be only consumers of what others design,
produce and operate.
The Jurisprudence of Space Activity

As we contemplate the institution-building that is already in progress to govern space exploration and activity, the
normative question that we must answer is this: How should we conceive of space itself — as a place for competitive
markets, or as the common heritage of all humankind?
Will space exploration be a humanitarian mission, a scientific project, a commercial venture, or a national security
strategy? The answer is probably all four at any given time. The question of openness, or participants’ willingness to
share important technical and organizational information, is likely to be dependent on which type of venture is being
proposed. The first two, the humanitarian mission, the mission for the benefit of humankind, the type that would be
sponsored by COPUOS or the United Nations in general, and the scientific mission, meaning “basic” scientific research
to enhance our ability to better understand the world, would likely be characterized by greater openness than the latter
two. Both commercial ventures, characterized by the profit-seeking motive, and national security strategies, in the
defensive, a shield against missiles from “rogue states,” or in the offensive, weapons with nuclear payloads attached, or
even military remote sensing devices aimed at improving offensive capability, will by their nature be less open to
information sharing.
The UN treaties conflict with regard to their description of space: is it a place to be used for the benefit of all nations?
Is it a place where profit can be argued to benefit all nations by increasing the aggregate welfare of humanity by making
more resources available? Or is it a place in which, when nations use it, it can only be used for the benefit of all nations,
but when commercial ventures use it, it can be used for profit? Clarifying our view of space and the resources located
in it, including natural resources, eventual land usage and potential biochemical processes developed in zero gravity,
will aid the development of a workable plan that can guide all future ventures.
–4–
To help us understand our goals in space, and while the process of designing the political institutions that will govern
future actions is still young, we would do well to consider at least these three separate perspectives on political theory:
Distributive Justice. Taking the Rawlsian “difference principle” (Rawls, 1973) as the starting point, we would develop
a system of property rights that would always benefit the least well-off in society. We pay special attention to
distribution, especially for the benefit of those who have less access to resources, less existing technical know-how, and
problems with development.
The policy implications of this type of theory suggest a legal framework that would allow some private development in
space, but would tailor rights in such a way as to increase the welfare of those worst off in society, possibly giving them
partial shares in ventures, allowing them to benefit from technological training, and or take part in mission planning,
maintenance and operations. Monetary benefits from space-based resources would entail some redistribution to those
who otherwise could not participate in the program.
Personhood. Along with Prof. Radin (1982), we acknowledge that some types of property have more value than their
market value by their ability to define us as people. A theory of space-based property rights that included this would
argue that the participation in a venture into space is person-defining, and that exclusion from participation based on
economic status undercuts the ability people have to become fully self-conscious people, reducing their participation
and ultimately their freedom.
The policy implications of this system would mean viewing space as a different type of commodity than fungible
property as we currently understand it. Space, as the common heritage of humankind, would be seen as our common
destiny, increasing the personal nature of any type of mission. This would speak to joint UN sponsored projects for the
benefit of all nations and all people of the Earth in which participation would be considered a right based on a common
understanding that humanity is a unified people when it comes to exploring what is beyond the Earth. Such a regime
would emphasize participation and equality, and de-emphasize property rights and profit as the major reasons for
activities in space.
Utilitarianism. A utilitarian theory for space would argue that we ought to maximize the aggregate benefit for society
as a whole. That means that laws and governing regimes would be structured in such a way as to encourage exploration
and exploitation of natural resources in space.
The policy implications of this would probably include a strong private property regime that would encourage
entrepreneurs and wealthy corporations and nations to begin harnessing the benefits space-based resources might bestow.
Such a regime would attempt to avoid market failures and what may be thought of as legal failures, such as lack of ex
ante legal protections against preventable safety accidents and a lack of legal jurisdiction for courts to provide ex post
equitable damage remedies for those who have been injured. An oversight body regulating safety would have to have the
authority to force compliance and/or provide assurance for the payment of damages in the even of an accident.
The utilitarian system would follow the Coasian framework whereby resources and rights are most efficiently allocated
when transaction costs are reduced to zero (Coase, 1960). This argument is that when the cost of bargaining is zero,
people will bargain with one another in such a way as to allocate resources most efficiently (i.e., to those who value
them the most). Such a utilitarian system would require that a system of rules evolve in such a way as to decrease
transaction costs, in bargaining, litigation and regulatory compliance while providing a disincentive for externalities.
Such a system would likely be exclusionary, in the sense that wealthier nations and corporations could participate at this
point in time, while the less wealthy would face an uphill battle. We would have to work to avoid the temptation to
structure rules in such a way as to make market entry impossible for the poor, while ensuring the highest levels of public
safety. This has traditionally been difficult as in the case of the United States’ airline industry. Established players argue
that they bestow a public benefit and therefore should be entitled to subsidies. Would be market entrants are held to strict
–5–
safety standards that often impose restrictive costs upon them, making it all but impossible for them to enter the market.
Thus, up to a certain point, safety will increase at the cost of reduced capability of entrance for new market participants.
Protocols Of Future Space Law

Before we can design appropriate space-focused institutions and legal arrangements, we must agree whether we are
simply trying to exploit resources and potential resources in space as quickly as possible, or whether we are trying to
develop space resources in a planned and wholly shared way. The former could involve a “Wild West” mentality or lead
to a tragedy of the commons on the new high frontier. Following this mentality, in order to avoid others staking claims
in open space, corporations (or governments) would claim larger swaths of resources than they can control, simply to
keep others from doing the same. This might bring us into space more quickly, but it also might, in the end, limit our
ability to plan for the benefit of all nations appropriately. The UN space treaties do not now account for the possibility
of a private property regime in space, much to the lament of would-be space entrepreneurs and space-law proponents.
At least some political theorists (Locke) and eventually Supreme Court Justices in the United States (Marshall, Holmes)
argue that the entire legal system is based on a regime of private property that protects people’s labor from being taken
by others. From that idea we get a sovereign government, a set of criminal and civil protections, and eventually what
can almost be seen as a property right in our constitutional freedoms. Space is a new type of environment, which may
entail a moral obligation to equal access for all nations. This might require subsidies for those who otherwise could not
participate, a direct affront on a system of private property rights in a market regime.
We do at least have the possibility of learning from our many successes and failures, in other areas, to design institutions
that will govern the peaceful and profitable usage of outer space. To do this, we will need a coherent legal theory and an
understanding of the nature of space: Is it a place? Is it an extension of territorial airspace? Is it distinct from or part of
the terrestrial Earth? Choosing one particular view of space will dictate the development of the ensuing legal apparatus.
Designing an organization for long-term institutional constancy—which means an ability to maintain technical
capability as well as adherence to organizational mission over many managerial generations—means defining the end
goals we seek. It entails a technological / managerial dimension (i.e., designing error-free technological and
organizational systems) and a normative dimension (i.e., defining mission and managerial structures so that they can
respond flexibly to changing environmental conditions without a corruption of mission goals over time) (LaPorte, 1996;
LaPorte and Keller, 1996).
To that end, we may take a cue from the literature on High Reliability Organizations, understanding that governing risky
space activities is going to entail not only technological expertise, but also strict adherence to the mission by managers
and all the players in the system (Roberts, 2000). Failure will be catastrophic not only in terms of human, environmental
and economic costs but also in the trust and confidence people place in the governing body.
The UN will have to understand itself as “governing for reliability” something we currently see in public institutions
with high-risk operations like the United States’ national nuclear weapons laboratories. Governing space operations will
involve national security concerns, especially post-September 11, 2001, commercial interests, national safety,
international tort and contract law, aviation and aerospace law, each of which presents a host of reliability constraints.
To the extent that space exploration is risky—and it is risky along many dimensions: technological, moral, national
identity, personal identity, economic, etc.—the types of risk decisions that must be made will be political in nature
(Douglas and Wildavksy, 1982). Political decisions, unlike strictly technological risk decisions, involve values-based
decision-making. Decisions about values necessarily implicate democracy. The basic questions of political theory are:
who decides? And for whose benefit? (Meister, 1994). It seems to be a moral imperative that the people most directly
affected by the potential risks ought to have a say in the decision to undertake them (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982).
The challenge for the UN, then, is to design an institution with a strong sense of purpose and a clearly defined mission,
one that will receive willing support from the most and least powerful states alike. It must be able to promote
exploration and development of space-based resources while guaranteeing safety to the people in off-Earth
–6–
environments, and it must also provide protection to the intellectual and real property of those who venture forth.
Finally, the institution must have the capacity to endure many generations into the future. It must do all of these while
allowing citizens to have a say in values-based risk-decisions that will affect them, while distinguishing those from
purely technological risk-decisions and utilizing experts to make those decisions. These are the basic elements of public
trust, reliability, and longevity and are the requirements of institutional constancy (LaPorte, 1996)
Conclusion
After the formation of a governing body and a set of guiding principles, work that has been at least partially done, but
not to the complete satisfaction of the world community, the next steps will involve drafting specific legal guidelines
pertaining to legal jurisdiction, liability, and regulatory control of for-profit multi / extra-national and corporate
activities. According to space entrepreneurs and legal experts, legal quandaries of liability, sovereignty, and import /
export laws, to name a few, pose greater limitations to space exploration than our technological status. We will need
not only a primary mission-defining statement, but also a defining concept of how national interests might coalesce into
one working whole. Only then can we take the next step, which is the development of a set of international space rules
to govern such areas as commerce, trade, transportation, taxation, liability and legal jurisdiction.
The use of space technology in support of those United Nations efforts will enable the Organization to make more
effective and efficient use of its limited resources to promote peace, security and development. An effort should be made
by Member States, wherever possible, to put at the disposal of the United Nations those space technologies and systems
which would support the expanding international security role being assumed by the Organization. At the same time, we
should be cautious about requiring powerful states to give up too much of their sovereignty or national security before
the Organization has proven itself trustworthy. The Organization will be examining its requirements in satellite services
and the equipment needed to use those services, as well as considering the possibility of making formal arrangements
with Member States or other international organizations for regular access to space systems to meet its needs.
In recent years some States have taken steps, both individually and multilaterally, to halt the proliferation of advanced
military technologies, most notably through the Missile Technology Control Regime and other supply-side controls.
However, these measures raise international political problems because they are perceived by many countries of the
world to be inequitable. In our opinion, the international community must devise more equitable and comprehensive
approaches to the problem of ensuring that space technology is used for peaceful purposes and not for destruction. As
with other elements of proliferation control and disarmament, controls must be non-discriminatory and generally
acceptable if they are to be effective. The same is basically true for economic incentives for space development. The
UN has to acknowledge the needs of powerful nations like the United States, whose participation and support is crucial,
while not subverting important distributive goals.
References:
1. Beebe, Barton, “Law’s empire and the final frontier: legalizing the future in the early Corpus Juris Spatialis.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 108,
no. 7, May 1999, p. 1737-73.
2. “Business-driven negotiations for satellite system coordination: reforming the International Telecommunications Union to increase
commercially oriented negotiations over scare frequency spectrum.” The Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol. 65, no. 1, Winter 1999, p.
51-75.
3. Coase, Ronald, “The Problem of Social Cost,” 3 Journal of Law & Economics 1 (1960).
4. Douglas, Mary and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982.
5. LaPorte, Todd and D. Metlay, “Facing a Deficit of Trust: Hazards and Institutional Trustworthiness,” Public Administration Review, 56, 4
(July-August 1996), 341-346
6. LaPorte, Todd and Ann A. Keller, “Assuring Institutional Constancy: Requisite for Managing Long-Lived Hazard,” Public Administration
Review, 56, 6 (November-December, 1996)
7. Lowder, Stacey L., “A state’s international legal role: from the Earth to the Moon.” Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, vol.
7, no. 1, Fall 1999, p. 253-83.
8. Malagar, Leo B. and Marlo Apalisok Magdoza-Malagar “International law of outer space and the protection of intellectual property
rights.”Boston University International Law Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, Fall 1999, p. 311-65.
9. Meister, Robert, lecture given at the University of California.
10. N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam: Pergamon. (2000).
–7–
11. Radin, Margaret Jane, “Property and Personhood,” 34 Stanford Law Review 957 (1982).
12. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press), ch 2. and sec. 45 (1973), 1999 ed.
13. Reinstein, Ezra J., “Owning outer space.” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, vol. 20, no. 1. Fall 1999, p. 59-98.
14. “Report on the work of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its subcommittee.” Annals of Air and Space
Law, vol. 25, 2000, p. 271-82.
15. Roberts, Karlene “Catastrophic Organizational Errors: Their Cause and Prevention,” In
16. “Symposium on legal aspects of commercialization of space activities.” Journal of Space Law, vol. 28 no. 1, 2000, p. 49-52.
17. United Nations Resolution 1348, XIII, 792nd plenary meeting, 13 December 1958.
18. United Nations Resolution 1472, XIV, 856th plenary meeting, 12 December 1959.
19. United Nations Resolution 2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,
including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, the 27 January, 1967.
20. United Nations Resolution resolution 2345 (XXII), The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of
Objects Launched into Outer Space, 22 April 1968.
21. United Nations Resolution resolution 2777 (XXVI), The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space, 29 March 1972,
entered into force on 1 September 1972.
22. United Nations Resolution resolution 3235 (XXIX), The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space,14 January 1975.
23. United Nations Resolution resolution 34/68 The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 18
December 1979.
24. United Nations General Assembly, A/AC.105/750 “Report of the Expert on Space Applications,” 4 January 2001.
25. United Nations General Assembly, A/55/20 “Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 2000.
26. United Nations General Assembly, A/AC.105/726 “Coordination of outer space activities within the united Nations system: program of work
for 2000 and 2001 and future years” Report of the Secretary-General, 4 February 2000.
27. Wong, Henry, “2001: a space legislation odyssey—a proposed model for reforming the intergovernmental satellite organizations.” The
American University Law Review, vol. 48, no. 2. Dec 1998, p. 547-88.
–8–
Distributive Life Support Testing
Sherwin Gormly
[2001]
Abstract
Distributive Life Support Testing:
Presently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) research indicates that Closed Ecological Life
Support Systems (CELSS) cannot achieve a payback on a mass basis until after 15 years mission length, based on
current technology. There are well documented reasons to expect that this number (15 years) can be reduced by
investigation of specific hardware problems. However, because of NASA’s mission profile based priorities this result
may deny CELSS the research funding required to develop the science behind “go to stay” scenarios. This would make
a “flags and footprints”-based life support system the inevitable NASA research priority. Also, this means that if truly
long-term life support (go to stay) is to be competitively developed past the theoretical phase, then organizations like
the Mars Society may play a key role. Three areas where this is particularly true are:
• Development of a broad and flexible body of knowledge (database) in the use of appropriate hardware and
techniques related to long term life support systems that are likely to be overlooked or receive insufficient funding
at NASA.
• Development of a broad interdisciplinary group of knowledgeable and competent researchers on the model of the
backyard astronomers involved in Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) research.
• Development of an open ended forum organization (coop or working group) among Mars Society members to act as
a working group and information point of contact for independent researchers in CELSS.
There are five specific areas of CELSS-related research in which any committed Mars Society (or other space Active
organization) member could make real and valuable contributions to the state of the art. These areas are:
• Advanced water treatment technology process validation

• Composting and digestor technology process validation
• Applied greenhouse and hydroponic controls and CELSS integration
• Extremeophile (lichen and microorganism) culture
• Inflatable structure and waste treatment (solid and wastewater) system field testing in extreme environments
This paper is primarily dedicated to the serious examination of meaningful garage and backyard science opportunities
in the above five areas, and ends with an encouragement for Mars Society members and their counterparts in other space
development oriented organizations that are interested in these areas to come together in an active research coop.
Introduction
Current National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Closed Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS)
utilizing vascular plants have long projected mass payback time projections. Studies at NASA Ames Research Center
(ARC) relating to probable time to payback based on power considerations indicates a 15 year payback (Flynn and
Borchers)1 for CELSS mass and energy requirements (based on 1997 state of the art). This exceeds all reasonable
mission planning in length, and indicates that CELSS is a reasonable life support system only for permanent basing.
This study also indicated that mass payback time could be greatly reduced with targeted research. However, based on
NASA’s current Low Earth Orbit (LEO) focus for the foreseeable future, large scale funding for CELSS will remain
difficult. This situation will mean that the coordination efforts and direct research efforts of Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) like the Mars Society can play a critical role in forming and promoting these technologies.
Sherwin Gormly; Tetra Tech EM Inc.; 1325 Airmotive Way, Suite 200, Reno, NV 89502; 775-333-4855; gormlys@ttemi.com
–1–
Flight Hardware vs. Base / Community Infrastructure

One of the primarily difficulties associated with CELSS development is the different, and sometimes contradictory,
goals of in space (transit) and surface life support systems (Cohen).2 Interplanetary transit habitations have no in-situ
resources for use, or to defray lifting mass costs in construction. Radiation and zero gravity add design requirements
(and thus mass) to the transit habitat that are not required on the surface. The difference between transit and surface can
be summed up as the difference between aerospace life support and base infrastructure. NASA, over a period of 40
years, has provided an excellent knowledge base for CELSS as short- to medium-term life support, but a permanent
human presence on Mars (or any other planetary body other than Earth) requires getting off life support quickly and
moving to a form of CELSS that is a base and/or community infrastructure. This transition should start at touchdown
of the first manned mission.
Base and community infrastructures in extreme environments on Earth have been and are being used as analog test beds.
Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station has been a subject of cooperative research in this area (Flynn et al).3,4 It is likely
that infrastructure engineering in the Antarctica, at sea on submarines, and in various sanitary applications in the Arctic
and in high altitude settings has equal application to planetary habitats as does NASA CELSS research to date. Due to
the environmental impact constraints being placed on Antarctica, Arctic, and high altitude recreational, scientific and
recreational support service development, it is likely that sanitary / environmental engineering and technology
development in the private sector has out-stripped NASA planetary CELSS research in critical areas. The Mars Society
and other NGOs (National Space Society, Planetary Society, etc.) could play a fundamental and important roll in
developing planetary habitat technology and system architecture by leveraging this private sector engineering.
A Model For NGO Coops For CELSS Research

Coops in the Mars Society already exist in the form of working groups. The Mars Society Technical Working Group
(MSTWG) and the Green CELSS Task Force (Green CELSS) are organized to facilitate discussion of these issues. In
order to leverage these and other similar groups three basic organizational goals should be pursued.
• Develop a broad and flexible body of knowledge (database) in the use of appropriate hardware and techniques related
to long term life support systems that are likely to be overlooked or not receive insufficient funding at NASA.
• Develop a broad interdisciplinary group of knowledgeable and competent researchers on the model of the backyard
astronomers involved in Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) research.
• Develop an open-ended forum organization (coop or working group) among Mars Society members to act as a
working group and information point of contact for independent researchers in CELSS.
MSTWG has started the process. However, work in all three areas is needed to develop a coop while maintaining an
open and welcoming atmosphere. Potential hobby and craftsmen participants are as essential as research engineers and
scientist if off-the-shelf leverage and broad analog environment testing is to be effective. MSTWG has been developed
to provide this welcoming atmosphere that is essential. A high level dialogue on addressing the above three areas of
development could leverage current Mars Society efforts. This dialogue should include specific recommendations for
productive research.
Specific Research Opportunities

The next step is to develop specific research projects with a high potential of payback that can be undertaken by
MSTWG members that are not affiliated with NASA or any other large supporting groups. Also, these research efforts
should be organized so that members with practical skill can play a real and legitimate roll. There are five specific areas
of CELSS related research in which any committed Space Active NGO member could make real and valuable
contributions to the state of the art. These areas are:
• Advanced water treatment technology process validation

• Composting and digester technology process validation
• Applied greenhouse and hydroponics controls and CELSS integration
–2–
• Extremeophile (lichen and microorganism) culture

• Inflatable structure and waste treatment (solid and wastewater) system field testing in extreme environments
Advanced Water Treatment Technology Process Validation

Public water systems and private wells throughout the United State and the world are experiencing ever-increasing
difficulty achieving basic drinking water quality standards. This is as true for ordinary urban residences as well as
residences of what are traditionally thought of as “underdeveloped” areas. Serious consideration is being given to a more
distributive system approach to both municipal water and wastewater systems. This would mean the development and
wide application of small water and wastewater treatment technologies at the city block or in-house level. Many of these
small systems resemble CELSS relevant hardware. The present market for this hardware is the under sink or whole-house
water treatment system for the concerned citizen. Because these water quality degradations effect the personal security
of individual Mars Society (or other space NGO) members, the development of a database for members to receive free
information on these technologies and services from qualified experts relating to their effectivity would provide a basis
for advanced off-the-self water treatment technology process validation. Highly CELSS compatible water treatment
technologies could be selected, studied, improved, and eventually fully validated for CELSS use using Space Active NGO
homes while simultaneously providing a valuable membership benefit for these organizations.
Composting and Digester Technology Process Validation

Composting and digester technology process validation offers a similar opportunity to water treatment, but more in a
hobbyist role. Composting is already central to the organic gardening culture. Special products are available in the form
of garden composters, composting toilets, snail farms, and dog feces composers, among many other examples. The
Green CELSS coop appears to be highly leveraged in this area, based on current e-mail traffic. Better coordination
among this group and the avid gardeners, trade craftsmen, and engineering professionals in the space NGOs could
develop into an excellent and rigorous test program. Also, zero emission incineration units could also be investigated
(Fisher et al).5
Applied Greenhouse and Hydroponic Controls and CELSS Integration

NASA Ames Research Center has published excellent work on CELSS system control for systems using off-the-self
hardware (Bates and Bubenheim).6 Extensive text references on the plant physiological parameters are available to help
set hydroponic systems control start points (Hashimoto et al)7 and environmental physics (Monteith).8 Simply repeating
CELSS experiments on new plants provides an expanded database of plants with tested metabolic performance. Every
plant will have a different set of performance curves or metabolic envelope. A valid plant test cell can be made out of
an old refrigerator. With some instruction any reasonably capable hydroponic gardener can define all the relevant
performance curves presently available for wheat, lettuce, and a few other selected crops tested extensively by NASA
and the Russian Space Agency.
Extremeophile (Lichen and Microorganism) Culture

For people who live in “horticulturally challenged” areas, Extremeophile culture is often a hobby. Cactus and succulent
gardening is quite popular. If this type of unique gardening could be extended to lichen, air pollinated Arctic vascular
plants, and some alga then culturing unique and useful strains could be developed.
Inflatable Structure and Waste Treatment (Solid And Wastewater) System Field Testing In Extreme
Environments
The ultimate testing of CELSS technologies and system architectures could be conducted by volunteer fabrication and test
teams in extreme but accessible locations. Some of the best and most accessible locations may be dry, high altitude
locations in the western US. Promising water treatment and composting technologies could be offered to the mountain
resort community or the Park Service as novel solutions for responsible environmental stewards operating in these delicate
environments. Greenhouse technologies are a part of life for avid gardeners who are fortunate enough live in these areas.
Members that fall into this category should be encouraged to participate in CELSS research. Greenhouse specific HVAC
systems can be actively compared to life support related control parameters using standard deign texts (ASHAE).9
–3–
The ultimate goal of the development project is to produce CELSS related technology that is lightweight, compact and
simple to activate and/or assemble. A program of adventure tourism to test maturing equipment (inflatable structures
and waste handling equipment) would have direct research and development value. It would also unite “outward bound”
hobbyists in an extreme sport that leads to a social coop as well as a research coop. One location of interest is the White
Mountains of Western Nevada and Eastern California. These are dry desert mountains with large areas of alpine desert
(similar to Arctic desert) between 10,000 and 14,500 feet in altitude. It is also home to the Ancient Bristlecone Pine
Forest and some spectacular and lightly populated wilderness areas that are accessible by road. Depending on the
specific technology, other locations of equal recreational value may be recommended.
Conclusions
This paper is intended to start a real dialog on developing a research agenda for Space Active NGO members to pursue.
The suggestions voiced in this paper provide for a rewarding and inclusive approach to this research. The ideas in this
paper are certainly not the only way to do this, but they may present a solid starting point. What is most important is
that a program be developed that offers real people real opportunities to contribute and reap the rewards of contributing.
This paper offers solid suggestions on how to get started, both organizationally and in terms of technical directions that
may prove rewarding.
References
1. Flynn, Michael and Borchers Bruce. The Influence of Power Limitations on Closed Environment Life Support System Applications 27
International Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE Technical Paper Series 972356, 1997
2. Cohen Marc. Design of Planetary Habitat Versus an Interplanetary Habitat 26 International Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE
Technical Paper Series 961466, 1996
3. Flynn, Michael, Bubenheim, David, and Straight, Christian. Development of an Advanced Life Support Testbed at the Amundsen-Scott South
Pole Station 24 International Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE Technical Paper Series 941610, 1994
4. Flynn, Michael, Bubenheim, David, Straight Christian, and Belisle Warren. The Controlled Ecological Life Support System Antarctic Analog
Project: Analysis of Wastewater from the South Pole Station, Antarctica-Volume 1 NASA Technical Memorandum 108836, 1994
5. Fisher, John., Pisharody, Suresh., Moran, Mark., Wignarajah, Kanapathipillai., Chang, Shih-Ger., and Shi, Yao., Reactive Carbon from Life
support Wastes for Incinerator Flue Gas Cleanup NASA Technical Memorandum 2000-01-2283, 2000
6. Bates, Maynard, and Bubenheim, David, Applications of Process Control to Plant-Based Life Support Systems 27th International Conference
on Environmental Systems, SAE Technical Paper Series 972359, 1997
7. Hashimoto, Yasushi., Bot, Gerard., Day, W., Tantau, H., and Nonami, Hiroshi., The Computerized Greenhouse: Automatic Control Application
in Plant Production Academic Press, Inc New York, 1993
8. Monteith, John., Principles of Environmental Physics
9. ASHRAE Handbook 1978 Applications Handbook American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta,
GA, (Chapters 11 and 22), 1978
–4–
Strategic Thinking for Long-Range Mars Plans
John K. Strickland, Jr.

[1999]
Planning for a successful Mars Exploration and Development program will be complex and the plans must extend over
many decades. Even though we do not want to repeat its plant-the-flag-and-leave goals, the great success of the Apollo
program was in large part to its planned organizational structure. Unfortunately, the last 30 years of the post-Apollo
manned space program have been seemingly productive, but in the opinion of many, goal-less and directionless years.
In spite of the thousands of dedicated and competent professionals working in the field, the government space program
has been the victim of a repeated series of bad decisions, some political, some bureaucratic, others financial, which may
have caused as much as a quarter century of delay in human space exploration and development. Repeatedly, good
designs were abandoned for bad or expensive ones, fundamental research in critical areas such as advanced propulsion
was delayed or stopped, and moves to develop radically cheaper launch vehicles postponed. The bad decisions
themselves were in many cases made for short-term reasons, and without considering many of their longer-range
consequences. The result has now caused many in the space community to question the feasibility and practicality of
any manned space exploration program led, managed, funded or sponsored by the federal government. There is no
guarantee that any future program will avoid such pitfalls, but it behooves us to attempt to avoid them if we can.
Effective, long range and formal planning conducted publicly by both advocate groups and NASA can help reduce the
probability of future bad decisions, and make it harder for problems caused by conflict-of-interest situations to damage
the program.
Because the problems blocking the creation of a Mars program, and most threatening to its success, are political and
organizational, rather than technical, it is critical for us to deal with the issue of planning, planners, design and control
of programs now. One of the most important abilities of humans is our ability to do advance planning. In preparing for
Mars Operations, we would be negligent if we did not use that ability to the maximum extent possible before operations
start. I also think it is important to get people interested in looking at Mars planning from a variety of viewpoints before
a lot of “final or master plans” are created, since more good ideas will then be contributed, and all plans will be better
for being subjected to open analysis and debate.
I here present ideas and methods for a long-range planning process for creating a permanent human presence on Mars,
partly based on the Delphi Method, and which takes into account both technical and organizational problems. This
involves examining often controversial and concrete issues where people of good will may differ. My idea consists of
a formal plan for planning, which uses inclusive methods to arrive at a consensual Mars Development Scenario.
Abbreviated versions of this plan are intended to be used first by the Mars Society and other Space Advocacy groups in
an attempt to create a consensus on Mars Programs. Later, it is intended that a more mature version could actually be
used by the Sponsors of a real Mars Program to avoid some of the past pitfalls.
The Plan itself would in general follow these steps:

1. It first requires posing (and addressing) a list of fundamental questions that need to be asked about the process, including
identifying additional fundamental questions. (Some of these questions will be addressed in the process below.)
2. Decide what the long term and short-term goals should be.
3. Decide how to tell if any goals have been reached and if so, whether the program should be (A) have new goals
adopted, or (B) be transitioned to a new program with all new goals, (C) ended,
4. Identify the major decision points or alternative scenarios encountered while planning, especially on points where
obvious branches to two or more reasonable paths are found, (even though some of the paths may not seem obvious
or reasonable to some of the participants).
5. In the process, material would be presented from multiple points of view, along with specific facts and arguments
from experts on the advantages and disadvantages of each choice at each decision point.
John K. Strickland, Jr.; email: jkstrick@io.com
–1–
6. Identify what assumptions are made by each potential choice (and find out if they are valid).
7. Use flowcharts covering the most critical points and pathways leading to Mars development for discussion of the
inter-relationships between the decision points that are unique to a specific situation. The resulting flowcharts create
a visual representation of the “decision geography.” They will have an initially diverging pattern, but one which
would eventually converge again.
8. The participants must work out the consequences of each decision, and would thus consider the later (downstream)
changes in plans and decisions that would be forced by any earlier (upstream) changes.
9. In so doing, they must also ask the question: how far upstream in the flow of decisions do we need to go to start
planning most effectively?
10. We would then attempt to create a rough time and procedural framework where issues relating to Mars Issues in
development planning can then be logically and sequentially located in relation to other issues.
11. Based on a selection of the best decision points and pathways, the plan requires identification of the major phases
of a Mars program, whose correct timing and implementation depend on the right series of decisions.
12. Only after this point, by using the Delphi method, would we then try to create a consensus on the best current
choices, (including identifying why they are the best ones), as well as pathways that have generally negative results.
(Planners must be ready to re-assess if new technology or pertinent information becomes available.)
13. With the framework in place, it again uses the Delphi Method to resolve the major identifiable issues that will
confront the planners and managers in most or all phases no matter what direction the program actually takes, (issues
partly decoupled from the timeline). Whether these issues can be resolved without extended infighting later depends
on how well the pre-program-start agreements on policies and goals have been settled.
14. Based on resolution of the best pathways and the major issues, create fundamental policies or guidelines for the
program (such as using primarily re-usable Vs single use spacecraft).
15. It then requires the participants to negotiate a formal Pre-Program-Start Agreement defining in black and white the
Program Goals, General Rules and Policies, Funding Level and Sources, Control and Management of Program, Goal
Changing Rules and Termination or Transition Rules. (Many of these items will have already been agreed to in the
above process.) Part of the Agreement should cover pathways and policies specifically forbidden by mutual agreement.
Attempts at Long-Range Planning should always explore several different approaches to the problem, and follow some
step by step method similar to the one above. For advocacy groups, additional steps are possible: (A) trying to influence
the “powers that be” to make the right decisions based on an analysis of the decision tree, and by educating them on the
consequences of the decisions, or (B) even attempting to influence who the decision makers are. Some of this activity
crosses the boundary into politics. Part of the problem from our point of view is how to persuade the decision-makers
to adhere to such a formal system. Part of the answer is that a lot of the groundwork: the build-up of the set of goal
statements, decision tree, arguments, supporting facts, pathway framework, etc. can be done in large part by the
advocacy groups, if we document our discussions as we go along. Another advantage is that most of the advocates have
no directly related personal stake (such as career goals) in the specific outcome of the planning process, and so would
be less likely to have conflicts of interest than people representing potential sponsors and financial backers (such as
government agencies or companies). Variations of this plan, as used by the Mars Society (and other societies), could
lead to an interactive process where people could meet in person and over the net for an extended period to discuss and
try to come to a consensus on the best of a series of alternative Mars scenarios for later presentation to other agencies.
Part of my idea is to create, outside of government a widely recognized body of planning, information that cannot be
easily ignored by the bureaucracy before any Mars program starts. If we can show that it is in almost everyone’s best
interest, they may actually agree with some of our ideas. This may seem like a lot of formal structure, but considering
the past history, and that a Mars Development program involves a major portion of the Human Future, it is worth doing.
Below I have covered in more detail some of the more important steps in the process.
–2–
Asking Fundamental Questions

What questions need to be asked (and addressed) before we start planning a Mars program? A good examination of
them by the real decision-makers will increase the probability of correct decisions. They can also serve as a basis for
beginning discussions. Some of these pertain to actual negotiations, others to discussions by advocacy groups:
• What other fundamental questions have we missed?

• What formal agreements should be made between major sponsors before the program starts?
• What should the stated goal(s) of the program be?
• How can non-government organizations have a say in designing a Mars program?
• Is it possible for a Mars program to be a for-profit Enterprise?
• Should a government program cooperate with a non-government program and how?
• If the program is government funded, how can we avoid having the government agency in charge from “running
away with the ball,” by altering the program plan or changing the schedule for its own benefit?
• What groups (besides space groups, government and industry) should be involved in the planning?
• Who (besides space groups, government and industry) should be involved in the actual program?
• What would the government expect to get out of funding a Mars Program?
• What would the other interested parties expect to get out of it?
• Should we start a program with no guarantee that it will be self-sustaining or lead to a permanent base?
• Should we accept or support politically a program that is not open-ended?
• Would an open-ended but single goal program, AKA Apollo, be inevitably self-limiting?
• How should an “open-ended” program be run or evolve so as not to become a dead end?
• Is a re-usable Mars vehicle architecture (after launch) vital to the survival of an open-ended program?
• What is a “financially sustainable” annual cost for a US Mars program, 1, 2, 3, 5 Billion?
• Should the Program be international in scope and participation?
• What is a “financially sustainable” annual cost for an International Mars program, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 Billion?
• How best can we reduce the annual cost – what is the most critical cost parameter?
• On what basis should we conclude that the “cost” of waiting exceeds the cost of starting?
• What parts of the cost and or program might be funded or managed by private enterprise?
• How soon and in what scope should planning and R&D for the initial landing phase and science / sortie missions,
their transport vehicles, hab. units, equipment, and materials processing start?
• How soon should planning for the permanent base phase start, in conjunction with the sortie phase?
• Would any major upgrades in equipment or vehicles occur at the transition to this phase.
• What long-lead time items should be funded first?
• What kind of surface and atmospheric transport should be developed for use on Mars?
• What effort should go to creating technology for use of in-situ materials beyond fuel and volatiles?
• What kinds of items should we be able to make from local resources at each phase.
• What balance should be struck between single use or re-usable science and exploration “sortie” bases and a “main”
or “development” base which would be expanded?
• When and on what basis should a main base site be selected or expanded vs. continuing to build and use sortie bases?
• What factors should be considered in selecting a “permanent” base site?
• What proportion of time and money would be spend on (1) pure science, (2) exploration, (3) operations and
maintenance, (4) base expansion, and (5) research and testing of technology for base development?
• Could an economic system exist at a permanent Mars base and on what basis would it operate?
• What minimal conditions would be needed for an “economy” – could it be seeded or jump-started?
• If there was no or only a minimal economy, on what long-term basis would the base be sustained? This should
include comparisons to Arctic and Antarctic scientific and industrial bases.
• What would come after the permanent base phase?
• At what point and how would a base transition formally to a colony? (colony requires a new plan)
• Should any consideration be given to possible future terraforming plans (such as avoiding areas like the floor of
Hellas which would be flooded) in selecting development base sites?
–3–
Define the General and Specific Justifications, Purpose, Goals and Objectives of the Program
I created a list of general goals and objectives for space activities in general about 10 years ago called “WHY SPACE.”
A number of these are especially relevant to a Mars Program. Which set of general goals the planners agree to, if any,
will have a very large impact on the conduct, direction, and sustainability of the program.
General Goals For Mars Development:
1. Pure Science – Information about Mars to compare to the Earth and other planets.
2. Practical Information about Mars to allow mankind to survive and grow on Mars.
3. Expansion of Human Civilization to another planet (growth).
4. Backup copy of Civilization and Mankind in case of natural catastrophe or war on Earth.
5. Tourism and cultural expansion – new experiences for humanity
6. Social diversity and freedom from dominating state authorities (frontier environment)
7. Providing a greater diversity of types of places to live and work.
8. Spreading LIFE to a probably sterile world.
9. The Human drive to Explore.
10. Inspiration and education of today’s youth.
Also required is a list of specific and concrete goals, which should support the general goals. Examples (with dates)
would be: Placing a small orbiting Mars Base and refuge at Mars by 2015, Conducting a reconnaissance of Phobos for
volatile resources by 2018, Identifying and investigating at least 5 potential Base sites by 2018, Finding one or more
base sites with accessible water (by drilling or mining) by 2020, Creating a permanent Exploration and Development
Base on Mars by 2025, Testing (on Mars) 3 types of prototype equipment for smelting and fabricating metal or
composite pressure shells from Mars materials by 2022, etc.
Telling When Goals Have Been Reached and What to do Next

This may seem obvious, but what is needed is a formal agreement in advance as to how to tell when or if each goal has
been reached. For example the Space Shuttle was declared “operational” after just 4 test flights.” Specific numeric
limits for acceptance of factors such as size of a completed base, closeness of a resource to a base site, concentration of
a resource, etc. should be set. The agreements must be flexible enough for the parties to be able to change the definitions
when changed circumstances warrant. The main purpose is a means of keeping a completed step from being continued
indefinitely due to bureaucratic inertia, or from starting a new step before we are ready to do so.
Some Obvious Issues and Decision Points

The decision point is where you have to make a decision on one issue in a series of issues, because that decision affects
what the next issue or set of issues is. Phase 4 consists of gathering a wide variety of opinions and choices like these
over an extended period, with minimal emphasis on evaluation.
A. ACCESS TO MARS:
1. Launch Point To Mars:
(a) Earth Surface
(b) Earth Orbit Rendezvous
(c) Earth Orbit from “facility” (affects costs and design of payloads, time frame for program)
2. Launch Vehicles Used:
(a) existing ELV
(b) new ELV
(c) new 2STO rocket powered RLV
(d) new SSTO rocket powered RLV
(e) new air-breathing RLV) (same affects)
–4–
3. Orbit To Orbit Propulsion:

(a) Chemical
(b) Nuclear
(c) Ion / Plasma / Hall solar or nuclear thrusters
(d) other. (affects size of payload or speed of trip)
4. Earth Orbit To Mars Orbit (Transit) Vehicles:
I. type (a) expendable general purpose – one use
type (b) general purpose – a few uses
type (c) maintainable – general purpose
II. optimal size for vehicle and crew if only 1 vehicle is flown per mission.
III. (a) optimal crew and vehicle size based on earth launch type and cost and assembly method.
(b) optimal crew and vehicle size for multiple vehicles per mission.
IV. construction and/or earth orbit assembly considerations:
(a) single unit – no assembly (large launch vehicle or small vehicle)
(b) modular vehicle – multiple launches required, smaller launchers, no mass limit
(c) construction in earth orbit required with supporting infrastructure.
(d) inflatable (transhab type) or rigid metal construction
5. Need For Any Permanent In-Orbit Facility(s):
(a) None
(b) Limited Fueling and Earth Return Stage storage bay
(c) b plus refuge
(d) fully capable orbiting base
6. Atmosphere Entry Method By Manned Craft:
(a) direct entry from solar orbit via aerobraking
(b) partial aerobraking and orbital insertion and transfer to re-usable landing ferry
(c) rocket powered orbit insertion and transfer to re-usable landing ferry.
7. Orbit To Surface Vehicles:
(a) expendable: general purpose – one use
(b) expendable general purpose – a few uses
(c) maintainable – general purpose
(d) maintainable, specialized use
(e) maintainable – modular multi-function
8. Functional Types Of Orbit-To-Surface Vehicles Needed:
(a) crew transfer with abort to surface self rescue capability
(b) crew/hab combo (Mars Direct)
(c) pressurized cargo ferry
(d) unpressurized “flatbed” cargo ferry for large objects (like habs)
9. Surface Point-To-Point Transportation:
Rover? Airplane? Sub-orbital (Hopper or Surface to Orbit vehicle?), Range and payload requirements?
B. MARS BASE PLANNING

1. Type Of Hab Unit For Initial Sortie Base Missions:
(a) inflatable
(b) rigid
2. Surface Hab Unit Integration:
(a) separate units for delivery by cargo ferry
(b) part of single use Transit Vehicle
(c) part of single use Lander
–5–
3. Energy Source For Sortie Base:

(a) solar cells
(b) nuclear (reactor) generator
(c) nuclear heat source
4. “Permanent” Manned Base Site Selection:
(a) by unmanned survey only
(b) limited manned survey: < 5 missions
(c) extended manned survey: < 25 missions
(d) none
5. “Permanent” Manned Base Site Qualification Parameters:
(a) must have provable water or ice supply by drilling or excavating
(b) use water from CO2 and Hydrogen stocks
6. Material Usage At Base Sites:
(a) volatiles and fuels only
(b) crude fabrication of structural materials
(c) fully developed (on earth) fabrication technology for habitation structures, etc.
7. Desired Latitude Of Manned Base:
(a) near-equatorial
(b) “temperate”
(c) polar or near-polar. (affects energy use, orbital access to surface, thermal hazard to some metals / materials).
8. Terrain And Rock Type At Manned Base:
(a) southern highland cratered terrain
(b) northern lowland lava plain
(c) volcanic region
(d) outwash region
(e) eroded regolith & valley region
(f) polar deposit
(g) sand dunes
9. Division Of Labor And Effort At A Sortie Mars Base & A “Permanent” Base:
(1) maintenance & operations
(2) construction and base expansion
(3) Mars technology development
(4) Mars science, geology and exploration
Include Multiple / Alternate Points of View in Gathering Opinions

In gathering opinions on issues and decisions, it has been long shown that two heads are often better than one, and that no
one person or few people will come up with as many good ideas as a larger group. While gathering the ideas, only a minimal
effort should be made to evaluate or judge them. The evaluation phase is done later under better-controlled conditions.
Checking the Validity of Assumptions

The two main types of assumptions we are concerned about here are logical and technical. Technology advances so
rapidly that what was impossible a few years ago is easy today. Frequent re-assessments of technological assumptions
should be an important part of Mars planning. Planners should defer to engineers when discussing what current
technology can do, but should be cautious in accepting negative assessments of future technology. Experts are not
needed to check logic – just clear thinking!
Use of Flowcharts
Here is an example of a simple flowchart illustrating the issues covered under steps 8 and 9. Much better charts can
be created using professional flowchart software.
–6–
Examples of interacting issues that should show up in flowcharts:
• Crew size vs. vehicle number and size per expedition.

• Cost-time tradeoffs interact with re-usable or expendable vehicles – Earth Launcher capacity affects design of the
Mars vehicles.
• Purpose of expedition affects type of bases and expeditions
• Policy of creating in-space capability at Mars or not affects type of equipment.
• Mars orbit selection or not affects development base location and vice versa.
• Initial Mars materials usage affects type of equipment taken on sortie expedition.
• Detection of raw materials affects location of development base.
Consequences: Decisions Affecting Other Decisions

A good example of consequences and how issues are inter-related is the major issue (an issue affecting multiple phases)
of re-usable vehicles at Mars. (Issues affecting just a single phase also need to be evaluated in a similar way.) This
argument bounces back and forth as it progresses, first favoring one method, then the other. While use of re-usable
vehicles for Earth Launch can be partly decoupled from the design of the Mars transit and lander vehicles, the design
of the transit vehicle / landers themselves are tightly coupled. With the original Mars Direct design for example, the
initially unmanned Earth return vehicles go down to the surface in direct entry, without orbiting at all. The use of
aerobraking at this point greatly reduces the need for fuel, but the need to take all of the structure of the earth return
vehicle down to the Martian surface and then have to re-launch it back into orbit is a heavy penalty to pay, (and results
–7–
in a very cramped return vehicle). It also results in a Earth-Mars transit vehicle which can not be used again, since it is
left on Mars, although the habitation section used during transit to Mars is also used on Mars [Zubrin].
However, under a re-usable vehicle policy, we would separate the components into Earth-Mars Transit Vehicles, docked
Habs, and Mars Landers (or ferries). This allows both the transit vehicles and the ferry vehicles to be re-used. We would
then need to get into Mars orbit first before we can use the lander to land. This would mean expending fuel to slow both
the transit vehicle and lander into Mars orbit. There are two factors which mitigate this: (1) if the landers could be re-
used, many fewer of them would be needed, enabling additional cargo to be brought along and conserving vehicles for
future use, and (2) the approaching manned transit and cargo vehicles could be designed to use partial aerobraking to
kill most of their extra velocity, before raising the “peri-ares” into the proper orbit. This maneuver takes only a little
fuel. It seems clear that a set of initial return to orbit vehicles (or ferries) could be sent to Mars, along with a set of Earth
return vehicles (one of which could be the cargo propulsion module), which would be left in orbit. The reduction in
mass required to be boosted back into orbit would allow extra fuel to be delivered to orbit instead, allowing a bigger or
faster earth return stage and a happier crew.
Use of separate vehicles means that a specific orbital plane must be selected by any of the preceding cargo vehicles
whose initial destination is orbit, rather than surface. This means that rendezvous operations would be required at
approach to Mars, and after return to orbit. Any hazard caused by failed rendezvous operations could be mitigated by
allowing remote control of the unmanned orbiting section so that it could rendezvous with any stranded vehicle.
Another backup would be an abort to surface capability, with at least one surface Hab able to support the crew for an
extended period. The unmanned orbiting Earth return vehicles (with always a spare present) could be shrouded with a
thermal blanket / micrometeorite blanket, keeping them protected while the crew is on the surface. The vehicles left
over from each expedition would be left in Mars Orbit, stored inside protective thermal and meteoroid blankets. After
just a couple of expeditions, a good number of spares would exist, and more cargo space could be turned over to
scientific and development equipment. For early expeditions, the cargo ferry might have an emergency crew
compartment and would remain on the surface until the mission was over, serving as a backup means of returning to
orbit. All ferries would have an extra-large capacity fuel tank, capable of carrying more than enough extra Mars-derived
fuel back to orbit for the return trip to Earth.
This issue also interacts with the policy decision of having in-space capabilities at Mars, not just surface capabilities.
For example, the ability to explore and possibly utilize resources on Phobos or Deimos may become a high priority goal,
which the Mars Direct system would not provide. On the other hand, a pre-program agreement could allow a variation
of the Mars Direct system to be used to build up surface capabilities for a certain period, and then when certain goals
had been met, the need for in-space capabilities would be addressed. The issue then is more simply: how to maximize
cost-efficiency so that we do not run out of vehicles.
How Far Back Along the Decision Stream to Go

Good examples of linked issues are the Space Access – Time Clock problems, which directly affect the design of the
Mars vehicles. NASA upper management wants to keep doing incremental improvements to the shuttle, which (based
on airframe life span), would allow the shuttles to keep operating for another quarter century. Unfortunately, this will
lead to only very “incremental” cost reductions, which means access to space will not get cheap very soon if NASA gets
it’s way. The impact of annual cost on Mars planning affects not only the cost of a mission, but also the very design of
the spacecraft. Using the shuttle to orbit pieces of Mars spacecraft and assembling them in orbit would be very
expensive. Using a new expendable booster would also be expensive, and unless one of sufficient capacity already
existed, would cost a lot to develop. Using a new re-usable booster (with at least a re-usable first stage) might take a
couple more years, but would reduce the cost per mission, while waiting for a re-usable air-breathing vehicle of
sufficient size might take 10-15 years, since the first commercial version might be too small. Currently we are in a
vicious circle of: no mission, so no booster will get built, and so we can’t do the mission.
–8–
The cost issue is basic to persuading the nation that a financially sustainable Mars program is feasible. A limited
program of 2 launches a year such as Mars Direct could be accomplished with an expendable booster, but some suggest
that waiting until a re-usable booster is available would greatly expand the number of men and the amount of material
that could be sent to Mars for the same cost, thus greatly expanding the scientific and utilitarian aspects of a mars base.
There are at least four reasons for waiting for a cheaper booster: (1) The higher cost of using existing or proposed
expendable launchers could result in a limited duration, non-sustainable Apollo style Mars program with non-re-usable
hardware. Just like Apollo, use of expendable Mars spacecraft would require a constant production of vehicles paid for
by the government. If the government was paying for them, at some point it might decide to stop, (just like Apollo),
forcing an end to the program; (2) Once the effort to design and build a vehicle has already been expended, we tend to
remain “stuck” with it long after it is obsolete; (3) If we wait, we can design Mars vehicles to be built in a semi-
assembly-line mode, similar to how the Russians build Soyuz modules, and thus with cheaper launch costs and cheaper
vehicles, we will (4) be able to launch several of each kind per expedition, not just one. This will allow greater safety
and allow operations to continue if a single vehicle is damaged or fails. We have the time now, before any program is
started, to think out in general the best vehicle designs, for not just the first few landings, but for at least a decade of
missions. Some fear, however, that any delay in starting the program, while waiting for re-usable heavy boosters, or
that a drawn-out program like the aerospace plane, could delay or stop the impetus for the program. This kind of
decision will obviously be heavily involved with politics.
One solution would be for the program to be initiated at the same time that the booster work was started, so that the long
lead time work would be done and spacecraft would be ready when the booster was ready. This of course, requires a
level of coordination, but not cost, similar to that of the Apollo program. Any funding peak would have to be
minimized. A reasonable compromise would be to schedule the expedition phase to start as soon as at least a two-stage
fully re-usable commercial vehicle was available, and get assurances that any cheaper follow-on vehicle would be able
to handle all of the cargoes currently planned or in use.
What is most likely to happen, however, given the current situation, is the “time clock syndrome.” This is the hurried-
up design and development of a program’s hardware, driven by a managers need to “show results” and “lock in” a
design, once a program is approved and started, before support for the program wavers. The decision stream for
deciding on the type of vehicles to use could thus begin the minute there is a viable political move toward a Mars
program. The forces controlling the program feel they must get it underway right away, and thus quick and dirty designs
(such as single use manned spacecraft) are used instead of designs which would be better for a long range program. (A
similar syndrome in Hollywood becomes obvious when a producer has the sets built before the script is written.)
Government managers are not immune to these pressures, even though there is no profit motive pressing on them. In
fact, it is obvious that there is already in existence inside parts of NASA (among the “empire builders”) some pressure
to create an “instant program” by grabbing existing designs and start building Mars spacecraft.
This situation is one of the best reasons for backing up and creating a long range plan which specifies the goals and life
span of a program, and then designs spacecraft and equipment (using the best current technology), to best fit the
demands of that program. If such a plan existed before a program was approved, it should have a strong effect on the
new program’s policies.
Create Timeline and Selected Pathway Framework

Once the decision points and major issues are settled, use the existing flowchart framework to eliminate or place on a
lesser priority the less desirable paths, and then link the remaining ones together in a timeline, with a start date of 0. The
subsequent program events are measured from this start date, which would mark whenever the program was approved.
Existing management techniques inherited from Apollo are sufficient to schedule the development and production of
the needed equipment.
–9–
Identify Major Phases of the Program

A Mars program can be divided into three main phases: a low cost planning – and research phase, a high cost
development and construction period before manned operations, and the medium cost operations phase after manned
flights begin. (A more detailed list of major phases would emerge from the process.) The planning phase is intended to
provide sufficient funds to create preliminary paper designs and to develop and test long lead-time hardware, without
tight scheduling and funding pressures. By the time the development phase begins, many promising technologies,
designs and methods may be omitted from the plan, simply because there is not enough time left to do so. This is why
a lot of the planning and long lead-time development must be done before a goal date is set for the first expedition.
If development takes place during a period of eight years, its annual cost can be distributed so that it does not greatly exceed
that during the operations phase. Finally, during the operations phase, the goal is to keep annual operating costs as low as
possible, to minimize political problems, and to maximize the amount of funds available to actually operate the base and
do exploration and science. In other words, if you don’t have to spend a billion dollars a year on new launch or transit
vehicles, that billion may be available for bigger crews, more exploration equipment, etc. If a continuing supply of new
vehicles is not needed during the entire operations phase, it will be much easier to maintain operations for a long time.
The operations phase can also be divided into to sub-phases: (a) the period of initial landings at science oriented sortie
bases when information is being gathered both to understand Mars as a planet and to decide on the desirability,
feasibility and usefulness of sites for phase (b) a “permanent” “development base.” Such a base should be located in an
area easily accessible from whatever standard Mars orbit is used, not at too high a latitude, near the widest possible
variety of terrains and geological features, and at or near site(s) of demonstrated resources such as water (see appendix).
Several options exist for transitioning to this phase: (1) selecting a “main” base before the first landing, (2) selecting it
after a certain number of landings, (3) selecting it after certain facts have been established, or (4) not selecting a single
main base at all. Guidelines must be established and agreed on for this transition decision before program start, because
of three undesirable pathways: (A) arbitrary program termination (a la Apollo), (B) indefinitely getting “stuck” in a
sortie base stage because of a lack of political will by the managers to make the commitment to switch resources to
establishing and building a development base, or (C) selecting the wrong site for the development base.
Finding the Best Pathways

It has also been shown that the ideas are discussed much more fairly, and the group comes to a consensus faster, than
when the proponents are known during the discussion.
The task before the group now is how to evaluate the ideas in a fair fashion. Part of this is judging how well each method
addresses the program goals. It has been repeatedly shown that ideas are usually judged by whom they come from,
rather than on their merits. To evaluate and choose among the differing pathways that have been established, many
believe The Delphi Method is one of the best techniques, where ideas are submitted without the group knowing who the
submitter is until after a discussion of the idea. It is means of dealing with a complex problem or reaching a group
consensus by sidestepping the effects of personality clashes and dominance. It does not require a physical meeting, and
the participants do not even have to know who the others are. Therefor submitted ideas are judged more by their merit
than by who proposed them. Reasons for using Delphi include: diverse background and personalities of the group,
where time and travel is limited, and where disagreements, dominance problems, value differences and other human
biases already exist (Turoff). The possible objectives of Delphi are (1) to determine or develop a range of possible
alternatives, (2) to explore or expose underlying assumptions or information leading to differing judgments, (3) to seek
out information which may generate a consensus within a group, (4) to correlate informed judgments on a topic spanning
a wide range of disciplines, (5) to educate the group on the diverse and interrelated aspects of the topic [Turoff].
This method uses a coordinator or coordinator team to manage the interaction between the participant panelists and
experts. The coordinator first presents the panel with information (in this case all the information gathered during the
previous steps: (1-11), then asks for opinions and/or forecasts on a set of defined topics. The coordinator then receives
the responses, edits, clarifies, and summarizes the information. The coordinator tries to identify and order the reasons
– 10 –
and assumptions behind the judgments, then gives the set of anonymous feedback to the panelists with a second round
of questions. These rounds continue until a consensus is reached or the experts opinions cease to change [Classnotes].
Experience has been that the experts often converge on better solutions faster than when in a face to face meeting! Note
that existing Internet software is ideal for this type of interaction!
A major article on the Web contains many suggestions for improvements to the original process, which may be critical
to effective use of the Delphi process). Of critical importance is how the panelists are selected. Lang suggests panelists
should be selected from 3 groups, stakeholders, experts, and facilitators [Lang]. In the case of a panel run by an
advocates group, we would get to pick the panelists and coordinators, not a government agency! It is probable that a
series of panels would be held, to pick the best pathways from each phase of the program.
Settle Major Issues Affecting the Program (Examples)

These issues, common to many phases or sub-phases of a program, cannot be settled until the best pathways have been
identified. Use a similar consensus-building method.
One major issue (now rearing it’s ugly head in the space station) is how much crew time and effort should and can be
expended on science and exploration, and how much needs to be expended for operations and maintenance. A “science-
only” expedition will not need any development. This issue will be a major factor in the decision on when to switch
emphasis from sortie missions to a development base, because it will (at least temporarily) change the ratio of science
time to operations time. A Martian astronaut’s time will be extremely valuable during at least the first decade of
operations. Therefor decisions will need to be made on how his or her time is best used. This reflects back to the basic
purpose and goals of the mission and program, and will cause bitter disputes between science and development oriented
people unless the purpose and goals are agreed to early on.
Another of the most critical issues, and one to which little attention has been paid, is that of using in-situ Mars resources
(other than the atmospheric gases). Bob Zubrin, his associates and several others have pioneered the Mars Resources
field when absolutely no attention was being paid to it, and they have made it an integral part of manned Mars missions.
By now, several functioning units have been built and demonstrated, which can create propellants and other useful
volatiles from the atmosphere. This is the type of technology that should be available during the initial phase of sortie
base operations. Now, we must move beyond the pioneer stage (of atmospheric resources only) and look at the industrial
stage! This topic will become critically important once it is time to select a development base site.
The first factor in Mars resources is that Mars is not extremely depleted in atmospheric volatiles, as is the moon. It will
be much easier to get the water and gases needed in the processing of other solid resources than on the moon. The low
gravity, near vacuum and low nighttime temperatures will still be challenging. It is reasonable to ask: what types of
structural materials and equipment can be made from Mars resources, especially if we develop and prepare equipment
to do this before the missions start. Work should start on miniaturization of concentrating / smelting / fabricating
technology with specific end products in mind. Each early mission would then carry one or more prototypes of the
equipment to test it under real Martian conditions. Any problems could then be worked out in time to assist in the
construction of one or more permanent bases.
The second factor is that there will be a wider range of raw materials available on or under Mars than on the Moon.
Martian soil may be source of a significant variety of mineral salts and volatiles (no rain for 3 billion years). Simple
magnets might be able to recover large quantities of meteoric iron in some areas. Water under the permafrost or ice
regolith layer may be rich in brine, with different metallic salts in solution. Some Martian sand might be mostly quartz,
a good source of pure silicon dioxide. Volcanoes erupting long ago through the “wet” layer may have created limited
bodies of ore. On Mars, rock and its components would play a much larger part in the lives of the crew than it does for
most city people on Earth, where we are surrounded indoors by large amounts of formerly living material (wood, leather,
wool, etc.), and ever increasing amounts of synthetic materials like plastics and alloys. City people might even define
that unfamiliar substance called “rock” as a “non-living and non-synthetic solid”!
– 11 –
The third factor is deciding which items are worth creating at Mars during each phase, compared to the cost of bringing
the item all the way from Earth. Low value and high weight and bulky items would be good candidates, such as some
form of concrete, glass, structural metals and plastics, insulation, etc. The value of an item will decrease as time goes
on, with the highest value being during the first mission. However, crew time will also be valued most highly during
the first mission. Therefore, a balance of crew time use (Mars cost-effectiveness vs. Earth cost-effectiveness) will have
to be struck. Crew and staff time will initially be split between exploration, science, operations, maintenance, and Mars
technology development, and later construction). One way of reaching a compromise would be for simple types of
fabrication of larger objects to be done on Mars, with smaller items requiring much more elaborate tasks to build coming
from Earth. For example, simple pressure shells for hab units could be fabricated on Mars, while the complicated air
locks that would bolt on to the ends of the shells could come from Earth. Other relatively simple materials that might
be fabricated would include energy collection film, parts for vehicles, tools, drilling pipe, structural materials for plant
growth structures and habitation structures.
The fourth factor is the cost of developing the processing equipment back on Earth and how much it will cost to bring it
to Mars. Remember that even a partly automated process could multiply the capabilities of a single crew member
manifold. Even current industrial techniques may be able to create relatively miniaturized equipment that requires little
attention. Robots may eventually be able to take over some of the tasks of crew members, and they would not need food
and oxygen! However, also remember that the managers and sponsors may not be inclined to spend money to design and
create expensive equipment for a base that might never be built. Again, this points out the importance of pre-agreement
on goals and policy. Some types of equipment might not rely on automation, but depend specifically on human operation;
doing things that robotic equipment would be unable to do reliably enough due to mechanical failure rates.
A good example of this would be a deep drilling rig on wheels, which would enable a Development Base crew to drill
for and extract water and brine from below the permafrost layer. A major advantage of the rig would be that it would
also provide invaluable scientific access to the crust of Mars, and enable the crew to attempt to find any life that might
exist a mile or more deep. The joint development and scientific community’s sponsorship of the rig would raise the
chances of its approval. However, the depth of any “global water table” in the regolith and rock might vary greatly
depending on the actual elevation of each site, so only certain sites (such as the floors of Hellas and Vallis Marinaris
might have water less than a mile or two deep. At most sites the water could be sealed many miles deep under the
cryosphere, beyond reach of any reasonable drilling rig, until the means exists on Mars to build large one. The newest
information indicates that there may be much more water ice at many sites in the upper crust of Mars (at least north and
south of 45 degrees latitude) than was previously thought, and that large parts of the very flat Northern Lowland Plains
and the floor of Hellas were originally covered with deep water before Mars froze [Clifford].
A basis for agreement to spend more money during the development phase of a program hinges tightly on the program
goals. A “science only” program will have no need for expansion and development. Even though most people
supporting development also strongly support science, many (but not all) scientists will not reciprocate, as they (being
specialists, just like most people), are interested only in their specialty: science, not in colonization or development.
Thus if the long range goals established early on include eventual colonization, getting funding for materials processing
will be much easier.
Create Fundamental Policies and Guidelines

Here are examples that could resolve the major issues. These depend on the prior establishment of goals and best paths
and resolution of the major issues.
A. All launch, solar transit and ferry vehicles used for this program will be re-usable and repairable, with the exception
of special early habitation payload ferries and emergency crew modules.
B. Part of the Mars development effort will be the creation of an in-space capability out to the orbit of Deimos, including
science missions and rescue operations.
C. We will assure the program’s financial sustainability within established funding limits.
– 12 –
D. A major portion of research and development funding prior to manned launches will go to developing prototypes of
miniaturized extraction, smelting and fabrication equipment for use in converting Mars resources into usable
structural materials such as metals and glass.
Negotiate Points of the Formal Pre-Program-Start Agreement

A. Include the Goals, Rules, Exclusions, Phases, Pathway and Major Issue Choices, and Schedule already adopted by
the previous planning sessions. Add to this some of the following:
B. Agree on whom Controls the Program

As an example of a control-of-program problem currently affecting prospects for any Mars program, we need look
no further than the related Space Access and Time Clock Dilemmas covered earlier.
There are several ways that we might try to assure that any plan (such as the one under step 9) created to sidestep
those dilemmas was followed. (1) Educating the public, media and decision makers on the consequences of not
following the plan in certain ways would allow public pressure to be brought to bear on errant managers; (2) With
such education, it might be possible to get a firm political agreement with the managing agency and supporting party
to agree to a set of firm policies under which the program would operate; (3) Part of such an agreement would
mutually identify a set of bad policies or paths that would not be followed; (4) Another method would be to create
an oversight commission, which would not be responsible for running the program, but would have the power to
make sure that basic policy was followed. The executive branch would delegate part of its authority to the
commissioners. The primary difficulty with commissions is trying to find commissioners who do not have glaring
conflicts of interest. Anyone employed or on the board of a company doing significant work for the agency involved
would automatically have such a conflict of interest, which could divert the plan. Thus it would be very important,
at the beginning, to try to agree on a fair and open process to select commissioners.
C. Agree on A Financially Sustainable Program

Another problem is achieving a balance between a sustainable program (which can support missions for at least a
decade after they commence) without requiring additional annual expenditures, and a faster program that creates
political enemies simple because of it’s size. If the annual cost is too high, there will be continual calls to end the
program and divert the financial juices to some other purpose. Again, here is where we must get a public and political
agreement whereby the parties should agree on (a) what the goal(s) of the program should be, that (b) the annual cost
is reasonable and sustainable, that a long term program is desired, that (c) increases in funding will not be requested
except to cover inflation, (d) what the fundamental policies governing the program should be (e) how to determine
when or if the goals are met, and (f) what or when its endpoint or transition point to a new program with new goals
should be, with new funding levels established. Many programs originate with back room deals, and as such, are hard
to control due to the unspoken prior agreements. This is why all agreements should be on public record.
Getting the annual cost down is another decision area that is tied to others. In the current climate a cost of 2 to 3
billion may be sustainable. The space station program is marginally sustainable at 2 billion, but has had poor cost
management and poorly defined goals, so it has had marginal support politically. It has always needed a little more
than the set allocation to continue. Once (a) the station is built, and (b) a re-usable manned vehicle is available to
transport crews and supplies to and from earth orbit, the annual cost will be dramatically less – enough to even allow
gradual expansion of the station. This logic also applies to a Mars program.
Another critical issue is the diversion of funds – both from and to the program. The program should be provided
with at least a 10% buffer for contingencies, but should be designed to be able to shrink in size slightly if major
operational problems develop. In return for a pledge of good financial management and not asking for more money
(unless additional goals are approved within the scope of the program), the program should also be isolated from
diversions to other programs (other than a declared national emergency).
– 13 –
D. Agree on Levels of Financial Support, Sponsorship of and Participation in the Program

It would be beneficial to have additional sponsors and sources of funding for a Mars program. International
sponsorship would make it more difficult for our government to back out of the program once it was started.
(Diplomatic repercussions may be one reason why the Clinton Administration has not ended the Cassini program in
spite of its vociferous anti-nuclear opponents.) Non-profit and Scientific Organizations could also have a hand in
sponsorship of such an expedition and could, for example, build and sponsor robotic rovers that might also work in
conjunction with such an expedition, especially if the launch costs of Mars-bound cargo can be reduced. Small
advanced smart rovers that could be unpacked and set up from cargo by the crew and released on the surface could
multiply the “eyes and ears” of the limited base staff, and could also retrieve rocks at remote sites and return them
to the base for analysis. However, the participation of all these groups would make planning and pre-program start
agreements all the more important.
Private enterprise should be allowed to play a large role in the expedition. The two main types of participation are
mission support and mission result products and services. Mission support includes Earth based launch services and
construction and support of Mars Transit vehicles and crews. It may also be possible for private companies to deliver
unmanned cargoes to Mars orbit for an agreed on price. It is still likely that the Transit vehicles themselves would
be owned and operated by a government agency for at least the Sortie Base Phase. Examples of mission result
products and services include future interactive video and remote viewing systems and software would allow
earthbound viewers to experience the Mars expedition almost as if they were there. A major aspect then would be
not only immediate media coverage of the expedition, but also gathering the video and topographic data to be used
with the video equipment later. Another source of income would be bringing back Mars rocks for sale to the public.
The collection and return to Earth of such rocks could be coordinated with the expedition’s geologists, so that they
would get first pick of any rocks of especial scientific value. Current NASA policies strongly disapprove of such
involvement in private enterprise, so this is a significant obstacle to private enterprise in addition to their
discouragement of private launches and vehicles. There are probably many other ways of making money on Mars
Sortie Missions.
E. Agree on how the money will be spent at each phase of the program.
This type of agreement is crucial to prevent conflict over allocations of resource both before and after manned
operations begin. Spending on developing materials processing vs. science and transport, and allocating crew hours
to running mineral extraction equipment instead of collecting rocks for science are good examples
Appendix
Sample Planning Information
These examples show the types of information and information organization used in planning.
A. Sortie / Science Base Site Examples:

1. Cydonia Mensae: “edge terrain” ancient highland materials eroded and exposed without aeolian mantle, northern
plains materials. Site is geologically diverse and important, despite the presence of the “Face.”
2. Floor of Vallis Marineris – wall layers and landslide deposits, layered sediments within canyon system.
3. Elysium Volcanic Region – young water outflow channels, diverse young volcanic units, high heat flow, shallow
water table (Thin cryosphere) – bio. search.
4. Edge of South Polar Layered terrains at high latitude – Seasonal and permanent polar cap geology and meteorology,
water and volatile analysis, climate history of cap, layered deposits, aeolian mantles, adjacent southern highland
terrain (SUMMER SITE ONLY!).
5. Argyre or Hellas Planitia (at edge of floor): Excavated deep crustal materials in basin rim, channel deposits, lake
deposits? on basin floor, aeolian deposits, climate history, fossil microbiology?
6. Memnonia highlands edge, channels, aeolian-eroded deposits (SUMMER SITE ONLY!).
– 14 –
B. Main “Development” Base Qualification Parameters

• Current information indicates a near-equatorial site or no more than 30 degrees latitude is desirable.
• Climate (low latitude) – no polar climate. Orbital Access – near equatorial for easy landing.
• Solar energy Access – near-equatorial for maximum solar energy.
• Low altitude – for maximum atmosphere pressure and radiation shielding.
• Volatiles Access: Water, low altitude to drill easily to the hydrosphere “sea level” (The top of water table in regolith
/ crust may be below the lowest exposed surface on the planet).
• Possible access to dissolved metal salts, etc. (in brine and evaporite deposits).
• Local and regional geological diversity – for access to a greater variety of raw materials.
(Determination of presence, type, and scarcity of specialized mineral resources depends on global geochemical and
mineralogical mapping. Extent of geological and mineralogical diversity is essentially unknown yet. The extent of
crustal recycling on ancient Mars resulting in localized ore formation, geochemically “unusual” igneous intrusions /
eruptions, etc. are essentially unknown, but will be partially understood after Mars Surveyor Orbiter (Thermal IR
composition mapping), Mars Climate Orbiter (Visible / Near-IR mineralogical mapping), and Mars 2001 orbiter
(Gamma-ray spectrometer global elemental abundance map)
C. Main “Development” Base Site Examples

1. Chryse Planitia margin at outflow channels: “safe landing area” , low latitude and altitude, lava plain edge, edge of
highlands, channel deposits.
2. Coprates Chasma floor (between wall and layered deposits): deep crustal materials, lake bed?, aeolian and landslide
deposits, easy access to canyon wall cross-section, low latitude and altitude.
3. Northwest edge of Hellas Planitia floor: lowest point on Mars? – easiest access to water table, excavated deep crustal
materials in basin rim, channel deposits, lake deposits? on basin floor, aeolian deposits, climate history, fossil
microbiology, greatest atmospheric radiation protection & pressure.
4. NW edge of Elysium Volcanic Region , (adjacent to Utopia Basin channels): young water outflow channels, diverse
young volcanic units, high heat flow?, shallow water table (Thin cryosphere) in basin.
5. South edge of Isidis Planita floor, (Next to Syrtis Major volcanic area & Circum-Hellas Highlands
D. Parameters For Materials (Solids) Processing (other than volatiles)

The purpose of this list is to better identify the types of materials better created from Mars materials. The first parameter
is favorable to their use, the second is not
1. Low / High task complexity in processing: high = electronics.
2. Low / High-energy use: high = aluminum.
3. Low / High volatile use in processing and separating.
4. Easy / Difficult to obtain and process ore into product (ore rarity, concentration and chemical form)
5. High / Low weight or bulk (difficult and/or expensive to bring from Earth): high = structural metals.
E. Main Types Of Geological Resources On Mars

Distribution Type:
(a) Globally Homogeneous
(b) Latitudinally zoned
(c) Regionally Variable
(d) Rare to Non-existent
1. Volcanic Rock:
ultra-mafic rocks (iron-magnesium silicates, basalt, andesite, rare volcanics including granite) (a,c)
– 15 –
POSSIBLE PRODUCTS AND SOURCES (for volcanic rocks only)

silicon oxide: basalt glass, andesite lt, le, hv
silicon quartz or andesite or feldspar it, he
phosphorus apatite (in andesite, etc.) ?
aluminum anorthosite or calcium feldspar it, he
iron basalt iv
magnesium basalt ht
titanium high-titanium basalt if present ht
(l – low, i – intermediate, – high, t – task, e – energy, v – volatiles, p – process, w – weight)
2. Atmosphere:
(a) Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Argon
3. Surface Volatiles:
(b, c) Water Ice, Carbon Dioxide Ice, unknown trace volatiles?
4. Dune Sands – Un-Weathered Mineral Grains: Basalt Minerals:
(a,c)
5. Global Dust Blanket:
(a) iron?
6. Large Surface Evaporite Deposits:
(c) mineral salts
7. Soil / Regolith (Mixture: Crushed Rock, Salts, Adsorbed Volatiles):
(a,b,c) Magnesium, Iron, Water Ice, Sodium, Potassium, Sulfates, Chlorides, trace salts
8. Rare Surface Evaporites:
(c,d) Boron, Iodine, Bromine, etc.
9. Meteoric Nickel-Iron (Random Distribution):
(a,c) Nickel, Iron, Steel
10.Water / Brine Aquifer:
(a.,b,c) Access depends on elevation above “global water table” Sodium, Chlorine, Potassium, Iodine,
Magnesium, trace salts
11.Volcanic Evaporites:
(c,d) Sulfur
12.Sedimentary Bedrock:
(c,d) Calcium ?
13.Rare Hydrothermal Ore Bodies (if any):
(d) Titanium, anorthosite, other metal, etc.
14.Rare Or Hard To Get (low concentration) Materials On Mars:
(d) (minerals that take extensive hydrothermal activity under specialized conditions to concentrate) Copper, Gold,
Lead, Tin, Phosphorus, Boron, etc.
References
1. “The Case for Mars” Robert Zubrin The Free Press, New York 1996
2. “The Evolution of the Martian Hydrosphere and its Implications for the Fate of a Primordial Ocean” abstracts from: Fifth International Mars
Conference Pasadena, CA, published by the Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston TX 7/1999
Delphi Method web sources:

1. http//eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/coursenotes/CIS675/675l11 (Murray Turoff 1997)
2. http://www-ent.engr.ucf.edu/classes/1998-...ll/eti4635/classsnotes/chapt03/tsld013.htm
3. http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/future/j7/LANG.html
(An Overview of Four Futures Methodologies by Trudi Lang)
– 16 –
Conceptual Design of a Guidance and Navigation System for a Mars Airplane
M. R. Jardin
[1999]
Abstract
In March and April of 1999, researchers within the Aeronautics Directorate at NASA Ames Research Center performed
a feasibility study of a small autonomous airplane mission to the Valles Marineris region of Mars. The flight was to
occur on December 17th, 2003, the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers’ first flight. The combined airplane and
entry heat shield were to fit within a volume of approximately one cubic meter and the airplane was to have a mass on
the order of 25 kg. The conceptual design was to be developed without relying on systems from other Mars missions.
This paper describes the guidance and navigation concept developed for the study. This concept places the aircraft
delivery error ellipse along a relatively straight section of canyon wall so that the aircraft can be guided to the wall by
following a constant heading angle. A low-range (10 km) radar sensor is used to detect the canyon wall and the height
above ground level so that when the aircraft comes within a selected range of the wall and ground (500 m to 1 km), the
guidance algorithm is switched to a wall and altitude tracking mode. Complete or partial attitude determination for the
plane is made by taking advantage of aircraft dynamic stability to obtain the vertical direction vector and to use a second
non-parallel direction finding device (e.g., sun sensor) to obtain a second direction vector so that heading and, in some
cases, position may be determined. Inertial navigation sensors are employed to complement the attitude determination
sensors. An analysis of the airplane approach to the canyon wall has been performed to ensure that the proposed radar
sensor range is adequate given the mission constraints.
Introduction
In order to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers’ first powered flight, researchers at several
NASA centers were directed to study the feasibility of sending a small autonomous airplane to Mars. Within this effort,
members of the Aeronautics Directorate at the NASA Ames Research Center completed the conceptual design of a
subsonic propeller-driven airplane that would fly inside the Valles Marineris canyon system on Mars. The science goal
for this mission is to demonstrate the technology necessary to fly on Mars, to relay video images of the flight, and to
obtain high-resolution photographs of the canyon walls. This paper describes the guidance and navigation concept that
was developed for this mission.
Figure 1. Mission scenario for the Canyon Flyer
M. R. Jardin; mjardin@mail.arc.nasa.gov; Automation Concepts Research Branch (AFC);

NASA Ames Research Center, MS 210-10, Moffett Field, CA 94035
–1–
The mission scenario and design constraints will now be briefly discussed. In Fig. 1, depicting the mission scenario for
the Canyon Flyer aircraft, the first step shows the aeroshell (which contains the airplane) as it is joined to the fly-by
spacecraft enroute to Mars. In step two, about five to fifteen days prior to arrival at Mars, the aeroshell separates from
the fly-by spacecraft. The spacecraft goes on to fly past Mars, never entering orbit. In step three, the aeroshell enters
the Martian atmosphere and decelerates by aerobraking. Once the aeroshell has slowed to a safe speed, the airplane is
unfolded and deployed along with a parachute to further slow the descent. Finally, in step four, the aircraft performs its
mission by flying along the walls of Valles Marineris while relaying photographs, video, and other science data through
the fly-by spacecraft. The following table lists the engineering constraints on the design of the Canyon Flyer:
Table 1. Mission Design Constraints
The design of this airplane was to make use of available technology, and was not to rely on any other Mars missions.
For example, the use of Mars orbiters from other missions such as the Mars Global Surveyor was not to be considered.
The design team for the Canyon Flyer consisted of about 25 engineers. Different sub-groups were responsible for the
aerodynamic configuration and design, the power plant, the communications, the science payload, and the guidance,
navigation, and control. The final working-configuration of the aircraft is shown in Fig. 2.
The primary mission requirement is to fly to within 1 km of a canyon wall so that video and high resolution photographs
may be taken. Fully autonomous operation and terrain avoidance through the use of a powerful radar terrain-mapping
sensor or vision-based sensor was ruled out based on weight and power constraints. Therefore, the aircraft must be
guided to a pre-selected location within the canyon with relatively well-known features. The approximate position of
the aircraft on arrival at Mars is known to within a 20x40 km error ellipse (semi-axes) so that the only essential
information the navigation system must measure is heading and descent rate. Once the heading has been determined,
the aircraft may be guided to intercept the canyon wall. The aircraft must be able to detect the canyon wall soon enough
to effect a turn along the wall, at which time a wall-distance tracking control law can be used. Similarly, the aircraft
must be able to detect height above the ground in order to maintain a safe altitude. A similar system to the one
developed here has been considered in previous design studies.1
Figure 2. Final design configuration of the Mars Canyon Flyer
–2–
Without relying on the infrastructure required for sophisticated ranging techniques such as satellite time-of-transmission
ranging or Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) ranging like that used by commercial aviation, the navigation
problem is reduced to one of either direction-finding or dead-reckoning. With two unique direction vectors (e.g., the
local vertical direction and the direction to the Sun), attitude may be determined. With three or more direction vectors,
position may also be determined. An Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) may then be combined with the direction
sensors using a complementary filter such that good short-term and long-term navigation accuracies are achieved. The
use of range measurements from the fly-by spacecraft may also be used as a means of improving navigation accuracy
for the IMU-based system.2
This paper will concentrate on the guidance and navigation aspects of the Mars Airplane from the time the aircraft has
completed atmospheric entry and has just released from the decelerating parachute. The following sections will discuss
aircraft attitude stabilization, real-time attitude and position determination, canyon wall approach, and finally, system
component specifications.
Attitude Stabilization
The attitude and position determination options considered in the next section require that the aircraft dynamics (with
the aid of stability augmentation) be stabilized in the wings level forward-facing orientation. This requirement makes
practical sense for many other mission considerations (control system complexity, stabilization after deployment from
parachute, etc.). With measurements of pitch rate, yaw rate, and roll rate, and three-axis linear acceleration
measurements, the dynamics of most typical aircraft configurations are such that the aircraft attitude is completely
observable. It is usually possible to estimate and remove any bias in the rate gyro and accelerometer sensor
measurements.
The approach for designing the attitude stabilization controller is as follows:
• Design a stability augmentation system (SAS) for the wings-level equilibrium condition using feedback of angular
rates and linear accelerations.
• From the nonlinear aircraft model, analyze the stability of other equilibrium conditions (steady-turn, steady-climb,
upside down, etc.) to ensure that the aircraft and SAS are unstable for all of these conditions. Compute the time
constants for the unstable modes at these other equilibrium conditions to determine the time required for the aircraft
to stabilize.
• Use nonlinear simulation to verify operation of the aircraft and SAS under various deployment conditions.
To help explain how this technique is possible, we can look at the dynamics of a small general aviation aircraft (the
Navion3). Although the particular dynamics of the Mars airplane will be different from the dynamics of the Navion, the
cross-coupling between states and modes will be similar. For this reason, the conclusions of this observability analysis
should apply to the Mars airplane as well.
The general state-space form for the linearized model of either the longitudinal or lateral dynamics is given by
(1)
where the form of the system matrix for the longitudinal dynamics of a small airplane like the Navion is given by
(2)
and the form of the system matrix for the lateral dynamics is given by
–3–
(3)
The linearized state vector for the longitudinal dynamics is given by
(4)
where is the perturbation longitudinal velocity, is the perturbation vertical velocity, is the pitch rate, and is the pitch
angle, while the linearized state vector for the lateral dynamics is given by
(5)
where, v is the sideslip velocity, r is the yaw rate, p is the roll rate, and φ is the roll angle. The control inputs are not
required for this observability analysis and will not be discussed here.
For the longitudinal dynamics, if three additional bias states are added to the given fourth-order model to represent the
biases in the longitudinal and vertical accelerometers and the bias in the pitch rate gyro, the augmented state vector is
given by
(6)
The measurement matrix, C, is a representation of measurements of longitudinal and vertical accelerations corrupted by
the bias terms, and measurement of the pitch rate, also corrupted by a bias term. The C matrix is thus given by
(7)
For the lateral dynamics, if two additional bias states are added to the given fourth-order dynamic model to represent
the bias in the roll and yaw rate gyros, the augmented state vector is given by
(8)
with a corresponding measurement matrix representing bias-corrupted measurements of yaw rate and roll rate given by
(9)
With the given A and C matrices, we now form the observability matrices
(10)
where is the number of states in the dynamic model.
We can easily verify that the observability matrices are of full rank (7 for the longitudinal model, and 6 for the lateral
model). When these matrices are full rank, the chosen measurements can completely determine the augmented aircraft
state, including the bias states.
–4–
A more complete modal analysis will be required once the dynamic models for the actual aircraft have been better
determined, but this preliminary analysis demonstrates that for the dynamic coupling expected for this type of aircraft,
the accelerometer and rate gyro measurements are enough for complete determination of the aircraft states. The
mathematical dual of the observability problem is the controllability problem, and the controllability analysis easily
shows that the usual suite of control actuators (elevator and throttle for longitudinal control; ailerons and rudder for
lateral control) for a standard-configuration aircraft such as this allows complete controllability of all the dynamic
modes for this airplane. Therefore, this airplane will be stabilizable.
Using the numerical longitudinal and lateral models of the Navion airplane, Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG)
controllers were designed to hold the aircraft with wings level and the systems were then simulated in order to verify
the above analysis. Only the longitudinal simulation is shown here (Fig. 3). The results of this simulation demonstrated
that the aircraft could easily be regulated to keep the wings level (Fig. 4).
In addition to this initial stabilization mode, other control modes will be required to descend the aircraft and to guide
the aircraft along the canyon wall. These control modes are typical and will not be discussed further in this report. Once
the aircraft has stabilized and determined the vertical direction vector, the aircraft heading and/or position need to be
obtained. In the next section, methods for further determining aircraft attitude and position will be presented.
Figure 3. Block diagram of simulation used to demonstrate stabilization of longitudinal modes of the Navion
aircraft from biased measurements of pitch rate and both longitudinal and vertical linear accelerations.
Figure 4. This plot of pitch angle vs. time shows that the aircraft may be stabilized with biased
and noisy measurements of longitudinal and vertical acceleration and pitch rate.
–5–
Attitude and Position Determination

The ability to determine attitude from direction measurements depends upon knowing two non-parallel direction vectors
in both the aircraft coordinate system and in a reference coordinate system. In the discussions in this section, several
reference frames will be employed as defined below (Table 2) and shown in Figure 5.
Table 2. Reference Frame Definitions
Figure 5. Definition of aircraft-relative (AR) axes and Mars Local East-South-Down (MLESD) axes.
There are many different ways to obtain two non-parallel vectors in both the AR and MLESD axes. The following list
gives a few candidate vectors:
1. Direction of local vertical
2. Direction to celestial body (e.g., Sun or Earth)
3. Direction of spin axis of entry vehicle (maintained with rate gyros)
4. Direction to orbiting spacecraft
5. Direction to a surface feature or landing vehicle
6. Time rate of change of any direction vector and angular velocity vector of the airplane
Given any two non-parallel unit vectors u and v whose components in the AR and MLESD frames are uA, vA and vL, vL
respectively, create two orthogonal triplets of basis vectors by forming the following cross products
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
–6–
Then form the direction cosine matrix (DCM) to rotate from MLESD axes to AR axes as
(15)
This same DCM may also be computed symbolically as a 3-2-1 rotation (rotate about z-axis, then about the new y-axis,
and finally about the new x-axis) of yaw (Ψ), pitch (θ), and roll (φ). Note that heading, , is usually defined such that
zero degrees is North so that in this development we have . The DCM expression is given by
(16)
By equating Eqs. 15 and 16, the following three expressions may be evaluated to give the three Euler angles of the
aircraft (Ψ, θ, and φ) in terms of the measured direction vectors
(17)
(18)
(19)
Note that computation of the entire DCM in Eq. 15 is not necessary because only three of the matrix elements are required.
By requiring that the aircraft be made stable in the wings-level configuration, the attitude and position determination
becomes much easier. If the aircraft is controlled to maintain wings-level, then the vertical direction can be obtained
and held with the rate gyros and accelerometers in the IMU. The vertical direction enables initialization of the rate gyros
so that the pitch and roll angles may be estimated by integrating the angular rates. The determination of heading and
even position may then be obtained using one of several options as discussed below.
The first option is to obtain the approximate aircraft heading by using the vertical direction (as described previously)
and to then measure the angle between the direction to the sun and the vertical. In this case, the two known direction
vectors are the local vertical vector, and the direction to the sun. The sun direction can only be approximated in the
MLESD coordinates, though, because the position on the surface is only approximately known. One way to analyze the
accuracy of this method is to notice that the sun direction alone will not determine aircraft heading because the locus of
points on the surface of Mars that have the same sun-vector to vertical angle is described by a circle with a radius
determined by the magnitude of the sun-vector angle. If the aircraft position is assumed to lie within a given error
ellipse, and the sun is not too close to being directly overhead, then the heading may be closely approximated.
For approximate position within a given error ellipse, geometric considerations (Fig. 6) lead to an approximate
expression for the heading angle error, ε
(20)
where ∆s is half of the arc-distance error along the sun-circle, RMars is the radius of Mars, θsun is the angle made between
the vertical and the sun direction (0 degrees when straight overhead), and δθsun is the error in the angle determination.
This expression allows us to examine the required sun-sensor accuracy and sun-angle constraints as a function of
heading angle error (Fig. 7). Using this method, heading errors of less than 10 degrees are easily attainable.
–7–
Figure 6. Heading determination from approximate position and sun-sensor angle with known local vertical direction.
The second option is to use the spin axis of the aeroshell entry vehicle. Since the aeroshell is to be spin-stabilized, three
inertial-grade rate gyros (drift less than 1.0 deg. per hour) can be used to maintain this known spin-axis direction
Figure 7. Heading angle errors as a function of the angle between the known direction vector and the vertical direction vector for
different values of angle-determination error, δθ. The asymptote depends upon the radius of Mars and on the error ellipse size.
throughout the aeroshell descent and aircraft flight. This inertial direction vector provides similar information to that of
the sun-sensor. The error analysis is the same as for option 1, but now the main source of error is gyroscopic drift. The
expression for the heading error for this option is
(21)
where θIGG is the angle between the inertial vector and the vertical axis, is the time since the gyro spin-up, and δθIGG
is the gyroscopic drift rate.
Since will be relatively small (less than 5 hours), and can be made less than 1.0 deg/hr, the angle determination error
between the gyro direction and the vertical will be less than 5.0 degrees. Therefore, the largest potential for error as
seen in Eq. 21 is again from having too small an angle between the gyro direction and the vertical. The spin axis will
be tilted relative to the local vertical at the atmospheric entry point by 90 degrees minus the initial flight path angle.
Current mission estimates call for an initial flight path angle of 11 degrees or 20 degrees for a 40 kg or 20 kg aeroshell
–8–
weight, respectively. The aeroshell will then travel through an arc of about 2 degrees around Mars to the deployment
point. From this information, will be either 81 degrees or 72 degrees. Referring to Fig. 7, we see that for degrees and
for degrees, the heading error for this option will be approximately 1 degree. This relatively good accuracy results from
the good geometry of the situation.
The third option, a combination of the first two, is to measure either position or the complete aircraft attitude by using
both the sun direction and the aeroshell spin axis direction. If the position on Mars is approximated from the error
ellipse, then the aircraft attitude relative to Mars can be calculated so that initial stabilization of the aircraft is not
required to determine attitude (including heading). If initial stabilization is used, it becomes possible to calculate both
position and attitude. These two options may be used together in different phases of the mission. The determination of
approximate attitude prior to aircraft stabilization would be very helpful for performing the initial stabilization. Once
the aircraft has stabilized and locked onto a more accurate measurement of the local vertical, then the position measuring
sub-option could be used.
The approximation of aircraft attitude relative to the MLESD reference frame is made by following the same procedure
outlined in Eqs. 11 through 19. The only trick involved is to first compute the approximate DCM between a sun-
centered inertial (SCI) reference frame and the MLESD frame by using the approximate position on Mars. This step is
necessary because the sun direction vector is known only in the SCI frame and in the AR frame and must be converted
into the MLESD frame by the approximate DCM.
Once the aircraft heading has been determined, the aircraft can be directed to follow a commanded heading to reach the
canyon wall. In the next section, the canyon wall approach is considered in order to determine the radar range required
to make a safe turn along the canyon wall.
Canyon Wall Approach Considerations

After the aircraft has stabilized and determined the correct heading, it will be guided to follow an appropriate descent
rate and heading towards the canyon floor and wall. The location of the canyon wall is known from previous Mars
mapping missions like the Mars Global Surveyor. While following these guidance laws, a short range radar will be used
to probe ahead for the canyon floor and the canyon wall. Once the floor and wall have been detected, the guidance laws
will switch to proximity guidance modes. An important consideration for this approach is to determine what range is
required of the radar sensor. If the range is too short, the airplane might not have enough time to turn before crashing
into the canyon wall. On the other hand, the radar range cannot be made arbitrarily large because the weight, size, and
power of the radar system will increase rapidly as a function of the required range. This section describes the analysis
used to determine what radar range will be adequate for the given mission.
Due to the high speed of the aircraft and the relatively short range of the radar sensor, the aircraft may not be able to
approach the wall perpendicularly. This is because a safe turn along the wall may require the aircraft to exceed its lifting
capability or wing-loading limits.
The maximum range of the radar sensor, Rr, the desired flight distance from the canyon wall, d, and the aircraft
performance specifications may be used to determine the maximum safe wall incidence angle, Ψi. The significance of
this angle is that it determines the transit time from the descent point to the wall. The minimum time to reach the wall
is achieved for a 90 degree incidence angle, so this is our goal. The analysis in this section will result in plots of the
relationship between maximum achievable specific lift and the worst-case transit time for the airplane to reach the
canyon wall.
For minimum turn radius Rmin, aircraft ground speed Vg, aircraft mass m, bank angle φ, lift L, and Mars gravitational
acceleration gm, the vertical force balance gives
(22)
–9–
and the horizontal force balance gives
(23)
so Rmin, φ, and turn rate, ƒtr, are given as functions of by the following equations
(24)
(25)
(26)
From geometric considerations (Fig. 8), an expression for the maximum incidence angle at which the airplane may
safely approach the wall is given by
(27)
The analytical solution to Eq. 27 is given in normalized form by
(28)
where ηr ≡ Rr / Rmin and ηd ≡ d / Rmin. A more practical view of Eq. 28 is to examine the functional relationship
between the incidence angle and the maximum achievable specific lift for different buffer distances and different radar
ranges. Two plots have been generated based on Eq. 24 and Eq. 28 to help quickly determine what the best incidence
angle will be as information about maximum radar range and specific lift becomes available (Figs. 9 and 10).
Figure 8. Geometric determination of maximum wall-incidence angle, Ψi, as a function of minimum turn radius, Rmin,
maximum radar range, Rr, and buffer distance, d.
– 10 –
Figure 9. Maximum incidence angle, Ψi, as a function of buffer distance, dbuff, and
maximum specific lift, L/m, for a radar range of 1 km and Approach Speed of 140 m/s.
The characteristics of the plots show that for a given radar range and desired buffer distance, there is a minimum specific
lift below which no real incidence angle solutions are possible. This fact can be deduced from Eq. 28 by noticing that
for real solutions we must require that ηd2 + 2ηd = ηr2. Physically, this is because by the time the radar can pick up a
signal from the wall, the aircraft cannot generate (or withstand) enough lift to turn fast enough to maintain the desired
buffer distance. Also to be noted on both plots is that there are two solutions for any given specific lift. The primary
solution is the one we are interested in because it corresponds to the larger incidence angle.
Figure 10. Maximum incidence angle, Ψi, as a function of buffer distance, dbuff,
and maximum specific lift, L/m, for a radar range of 10 km and Approach Speed of 140 m/s.
With a radar range of 1 km, achieving buffer distances of about 500 meters begins to become difficult by requiring
approximately 30 of specific lift (about 3 Earth g’s). If the radar range is increased to 10 km, the required specific lift
for the same 500 meter buffer distance is reduced to about 4.3 (less than half of an Earth g). The transit time from
parachute release to the canyon wall is a function of the size of the error ellipse, the amount of time needed to stabilize
– 11 –
and descend the aircraft, and the wall incidence angle. From geometric considerations, ignoring the small curved part
of the flight path at the final turn along the wall, the transit time, is given by
(29)
where is the landing buffer distance (distance between wall buffer line and error ellipse), is the semi-major axis distance of
the error ellipse (use semi-major axis for worst-case analysis), is the wall incidence angle, and is the ground speed. Using
Eq. 28 and Eq. 29, plots of transit time vs. specific lift have been created for two different radar sensor ranges, and for
several different wall buffer distances (Figs. 11 and 12). The characteristics of both of these plots are similar, but as before,
the case with the longer radar range shows that much less specific lift is required to obtain the same transit time. As one
can see, the maximum transit time asymptotes to about 10.5 min due to the size of error ellipse (40 km semi-major axis),
and rapidly increases for smaller values of maximum specific lift. Clearly the longer the range of the radar, the better. This
requires that a trade-off be made between radar weight and power and guidance system mission specifications.
Figure 11. Maximum possible transit time from far edge of error ellipse to the canyon wall for a radar range of 1 km.
Figure 12. Maximum possible transit time from far edge of error ellipse to the canyon wall for a radar range of 10 km.
– 12 –
Size, Power, and Weight Estimates

The approximate size, power, and weight for each of the options addressed in this report are given. The final
determination of which system to use will depend upon a more detailed analysis of the performance of each system and
upon what features are required to meet the mission objectives.
Table 3. Guidance and Navigation System Component Specifications
Conclusion
This report outlines some of the options available for performing guidance and navigation on a small autonomous
aircraft with a mission to fly within the Valles Marineris. Through the use of simple direction measurement devices, it
is possible to estimate both the aircraft attitude and position on the surface of Mars well enough that the aircraft can be
guided to intercept a pre-selected canyon wall. If a higher-accuracy IMU is used, then the aircraft might possibly be
guided to specific locations instead of just to a section of the canyon wall. Once the aircraft is within range of the canyon
wall, a radar sensor provides range measurements so that the aircraft may be guided along the wall at a chosen distance
and a chosen above-ground altitude.
During the next phase of work, high-fidelity nonlinear simulations of the proposed options should be developed so that
the accuracies of each option can be determined. At that time, the best option can be chosen based on the consideration
of mission requirements and on system size, power, and weight.
References
1. Clarke, V.C., Kerem, A., and Lewis, R., “A Mars Airplane?” Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1979, pp. 42-54.
2. McEneaney, W.M., and Mease, K.D., “Error Analysis for a Guided Mars Landing,” The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 4,
Dec. 1991, pp. 423-445.
3. Bryson, A. E., Control of Spacecraft and Aircraft, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994.
– 13 –
The “Mars Bottle” – The First Interactive Student Research Laboratory
for Martian Environmental Simulations
Robert E. Strong
[1999]
Abstract
The Sir Arthur C. Clarke Near Earth Object Observatory is establishing an Exobiology Research Laboratory to study
and conduct basic research concerning the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe. The purpose of the
Exobiology Research Laboratory is two-fold. The first purpose is to perform basic research in exobiology. The second
purpose is to engage elementary, middle, and high school students directly in these exobiology real-time investigations
via interactive Internet based video observations, submitting proposals for experiments – including procedures and
environmental conditions – and manipulate simulated extraterrestrial environments.
Introduction
The initial interactive Exobiology Research Laboratory student component is the “Mars Bottle.” The idea of the Mars
Bottle is to create a simulated environment as close as we can currently get to putting our “experimental hands” on the
surface of the planet Mars. The Mars Bottle will enclose a small environment simulating the conditions found on
surface of the planet Mars.
The proposed Mars Bottle will create a miniature Martian atmosphere with pressure, temperature, and component gases
in their proper proportions for any surface location of given the latitude and longitude, elevation, season, and local time.
The Mars Bottle will include a simulated “Sun” having the same luminosity and radiation characteristics as the real Sun
seen from Mars. The simulated “Sun” will rise in the east and set in the west. Additionally, there will be an ambient
background radiation field inside the Mars Bottle that will simulate the soil background radiation, the solar wind, and
cosmic radiation levels found on the surface of the planet Mars.
A few kilograms of Mars Simulant, soil chemically and physically similar to soil found on Mars by the two Viking
Landers, will act as a substrate upon which to test various chemical, biological, and terraforming (areoformation) ideas
and research.
The Mars Bottle will contain:

1) an atmosphere having the same pressure as found on the surface of Mars. The Exobiology Research Laboratory is
planning to create a computer program that will predict the atmospheric pressure at any surface location: given the
latitude and longitude (thus the mean elevation), orbital position (for season), and local time.
2) atmospheric component gases in their proper proportions for each location, seasonal and local time.
3) the expected atmospheric and surface temperatures for each location, seasonal and local time.
4) a simulated Sun which will have the same radiation and behavioral characteristics of the Sun as seen from Mars for
each location, season, and local time. The simulated Sun will rise in the east and set in the west, have the same
luminosity, and radiation characteristics of the Sun seen from Mars.
5) an ambient background radiation field inside the Mars Bottle will simulate the soil background radiation, the solar
wind, and cosmic radiation field found on the surface of the planet Mars.
6) a few kilograms of Mars Simulant; a simulated Mars soil chemically and physically similar to what was found on
Mars by the two Viking Landers. The Mars Simulant is to act as a substrate upon which to test various chemical,
biological, and terraforming (in this case areoformation) ideas and research.
Robert E. Strong; West Liberty State College SMART-Center; email:Strongro@wlsc.wvnet.edu
–1–
The “Mars Bottle” – The First Interactive Student Research Laboratory for Martian Environmental Simulations
The construction of the Mars Bottle:

The principle investigator (author) and several of the co-investigators and advisors (see Acknowledgments) have
extensive professional experience working with vacuum systems, vacuum vessels, gases at low pressure, telepresence,
environmental chambers, furnaces, radiation fields, and cryogenics. This
hands-on experiential base coupled with a desire to create a “little piece of
Mars on Earth,” has led to the conceptual creation of the Mars Bottle; built
out of off-the-shelf components used in industrial and laboratory vacuum and
cryogenic systems. Eventually the fully implemented project calls for three
Mars Bottles to be produced. As funding is secured a second and a third Mars
Bottle will be built hopefully over a three-year period.
Once the second Mars Bottle is created, we envision the first of the Mars
Bottles being tied up performing on-going long term Mars research. The
other (eventually two) Mars Bottle(s) will then be available to simulate the
environments of other worlds real (atmospheres and surfaces of Mercury,
Luna, Near Earth Asteroids and Comets, satellites of Mars, Minor Planets in
the Main Belt, upper atmosphere of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, their
satellites and trojans) and imagined (terraformed worlds in the solar system
and hypothetical or recently discovered worlds pristine or terraformed beyond
the solar system).
The Exobiology Research Laboratory envisions these Mars Bottles as a

unique way to create exotic, real, or hypothetical micro-environments by
–2–
having control over various levels of temperature, atmospheric pressure and composition, light (including IR / Visible /
UV), electrical and magnetic fields, electrical discharge, different material substrates by compositions, background
radiation, solar wind and cosmic radiation simulation. All of these environmental components will be able to differ
independently in duration as desired. The only in situ environmental condition not meet by the Mars Bottle is the
ambient gravitational acceleration. To simulate a smaller than one Earth gravity we will need to utilize the Space Shuttle
of International Space Station environments and utilize a centrifuge in microgravity.
A dividend of this research direction will be a better understanding of the probability of finding extant microbial life on
Mars with its present environmental conditions assuming that life arose during a warmer and wetter epoch in the past.
The Exobiology Research Laboratory

West Liberty State College is seeking to establish an Exobiology Research Laboratory.
The Exobiology Research Laboratory will serve three objectives:

1) to serve as an Exobiology Research Laboratory to study and conduct basic research concerning the origin,
evolution, and distribution of life in the universe;
2) to function as a working research laboratory to demonstrate to local area students and teachers research laboratory
techniques and to stimulate interest in mathematics, science, research, and technology; and
3) in addition to the basic research conducted by the principle investigator and co-investigators, time will be allotted
to use the Exobiology Research Laboratory’s facilities and equipment for supervised experimentation and research
by local area educators and students after initial safety training. The experimentation and research time in the
Exobiology Research Laboratory will be made available via project proposals. The principle investigator will be
responsible for the scheduling of teacher and student experimentation and research time.
To accomplish this task, the Exobiology Research Laboratory is seeking funds to purchase a gas chromatograph and
related equipment to chemically identify product compounds created in simulated prebiotic Earth (and other world)
atmospheric environments (i.e., the Miller / Urey and Sagan / Khare experiments). Funds and equipment are being
sought to create three Mars Bottles (Miniature Aries Research Simulator for Biological Observations in Terraforming
Techniques via Laboratory Environments) from off-the-shelf laboratory vacuum equipment. The Mars Bottles will be
simulated surface environments having the potential for a wide variety of atmospheric pressures (less than 1 Atm),
compositions, and temperatures found on worlds out to the orbit of the planet Saturn.
Within the first objective of the Exobiology Research Laboratory, (i.e., that of studying and conducting basic research
concerning the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe) the investigators will primarily be concentrating
exobiology research efforts in three directions; I) prebiotic evolution II) the early evolution of life, and III) the evolution
of advanced life.
I. Research in the area of prebiotic evolution seeks to understand the pathways and processes leading from the origin
of a planet to the origin of life. The strategy is to investigate the planetary and molecular processes that set the
physical and chemical conditions within which living systems arose. The Exobiology Research Laboratory will
concentrate on three major objective areas in prebiotic evolution. These objective areas are to:
1) determine constraints on prebiotic evolution imposed by the physical and chemical histories of planets;
2) develop models of active boundary regions in which chemical evolution could have occurred; and
3) determine what chemical systems could have served as precursors of metabolic and replicating systems both on
the Earth and elsewhere.
To reach our research goals in the area of prebiotic evolution, the Exobiology Research Laboratory intends to create
two stations to perform updated classical experimental research already done in the areas of examining prebiotic /
primordial atmospheric mixtures and subjecting them to various energetic states and analyzing the products. The
–3–
Exobiology Research Laboratory using library research will update the classical experimental research of A) The
Miller / Urey Experiment and B) Sagan / Khare’s Titan Tholin Experiment.
It is hoped that in setting up and running these two classical experiments of prebiotic evolution in union with library
research and the added fresh input of educators and students, will lead to many other productive and informative
experiments that will add to our knowledge in this field.
All of the equipment to create these experimental research environments will be donated from the laboratory
storerooms of West Liberty State College and its sister agency, the WLSC SMART Center.
To complete and complement the two stations, the Exobiology Research Laboratory needs a gas chromatograph and
related equipment to analyze the chemical nature of the products produced at the two stations and those experiments
that will evolve out of this research.
It is desired that the two stations be set up very early in year one, and that the gas chromatograph be set up in such
a time frame as to analyze the first products.
The evolution of the initial two stations and the development and use of daughter stations over the following two
years of the project will progress as the library research indicates and new ideas and suggestions arise.
Note: this is an area that can be easily taken over to a great extent by trained educator and student assistance at the
end of the requested three years of proposed funding.
II. The goal of the research into the early evolution of life conducted by the Exobiology Research Laboratory is to
determine the nature of the most primitive organisms, the environment in which they evolved, and the way in which
they influenced that environment. Using the concept of the Mars Bottle (a “bottle” containing a simulated Mars
environment), as a working physical model for primitive environments, the Exobiology Research Laboratory hopes
to better understand the early evolution of life in the universe. Using library researched information gathered on the
two natural repositories of evolutionary history available on Earth, the molecular record in living organisms and the
geological record in rocks, the Exobiology Research Laboratory will use the Mars Bottle as a tool to better
understand boundary conditions within which simple present Earth based life may perish, be sustained, or thrive.
The findings for these boundary conditions for life derived from the Mars Bottle and the paired molecular and
geological records will be used to concentrate on five major objective areas in the study of the early evolution of
life. These objective areas are to:
1) determine when and in what setting life first appeared;

2) determine the characteristics of the first successful living organisms;
3) understand the phylogeny and physiology of microorganisms thought to be analogs of primitive environments;
4) determine the original nature of biotic energy transduction, membrane function, and information processing
through study of extant microbes; and
5) elucidate the physical, chemical, and biotic forces operating on microbial evolution.
To reach the research goals in the area of early evolution of life, the Exobiology Research Laboratory intends to
create three Mars Bottle stations.
Long has been the fascination of visiting other worlds. TV, movies, video, radio, books, all forms of media have
mirrored our collective interest in visiting and exploring other worlds. No other world has so grasped, held, and
stimulated the imaginations of generations of children and adults as has the planet Mars.
–4–
Thus, came into being the idea of the Mars Bottle. The Mars Bottle is as close as we can currently get to putting our
“experimental hands” on the surface of the planet Mars, without actually going there. The Mars Bottle will enclose
a small simulated environment having as close as we can arrange, the conditions on the surface of the planet Mars.
III. The goal of the research associated with the study of the evolution of advanced life by the Exobiology Research
Laboratory, seeks to determine the extrinsic factors influencing the development of advanced life and its potential
distribution in the universe. The Exobiology Research Laboratory is concerned with two main objective areas in
the study of the evolution of advanced life.
The first objective area of interest to the Exobiology Research Laboratory in the study of the evolution of advanced
life, is research including an evaluation of the influence of extraterrestrial and planetary processes on the appearance
and evolution of multicellular life, conducted by: 1) tracing the effects of major changes in the Earth’s environment
on the evolution of complex life, especially during mass extinction events and 2) determining the effects of global
events and of events originating in space on the production of environmental changes that affected the evolution of
multicellular life.
To reach this two-part objective the Exobiology Research Laboratory will perform extensive library research and
computer simulations to determine the effects of global events and of events originating in space on the production
of environmental changes that affected the evolution of multicellular life. In addition, the Exobiology Research
Laboratory intends to use its Mars Bottles to create a series of simulated effects of “micro-global” events and of
events originating in space on the production of environmental changes that affect growth, behavior, and development
of multicellular life on various Earth environments past, present, and in the future. Additionally, the Mars Bottles,
gas chromatograph, and other equipment can be used to create and alter a myriad of hypothetical worlds. This will
give us data to fill in the unknown gaps in our understanding of the influence of various environmental effects on
various events in various exotic environments that will and will not sustain multicellular life.
To further research in the direction of the first objective (that of research evaluation of the influence of
extraterrestrial and planetary processes on the appearance and evolution of multicellular life), the author investigator
is presently the director of the k-SkyWatch Survey, a survey of Near Earth Objects (NEO’s) having the potential to
impact the earth, posing a threat to the earth, our climate, and civilization. The k-SkyWatch Survey has of this
writing a modest funding base.
The second objective area of interest to the Exobiology Research Laboratory in the study of the evolution of
advanced life is research into furthering our understanding of the distribution of life elsewhere in the universe.
To reach this second objective the Exobiology Research Laboratory will perform extensive library research and
computer simulations to create an updated and revised form of the “Drake Equation,” including currently known
and extrapolated data to answer this most fundamental question: Are we alone in the universe?
To do further research in the direction of the second objective (that of furthering our understanding of the
distribution of life elsewhere in the universe), the principle investigator and several of the co-investigators and
advisors have been involved in a series of three proposals for amateur astronomers to gain research time on the
Hubble Space Telescope. The proposal is known as SETT (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Technology), and looks for
thermal signals from extraterrestrial technologies. As of this writing these proposals have not been accepted.
The Exobiology Research Laboratory sees the first year as one of research into the evolution of advanced life as
primarily consisting of library research. The second and third years will continue the library research on a smaller
scale as compared to the first year. The second and third years will see the use of Mars Bottles and computer
simulations to allow the Exobiology Research Laboratory to arrive at some more definite conclusions.
–5–
Facilities And Equipment

The facility for housing the Exobiology Research Laboratory is a well-equipped chemistry laboratory with benches,
water and sinks, full electrical, and gas lines. West Liberty State College and the WLSC SMART – Center will provide
all material resources but the major equipment items listed below.
The Exobiology Research Laboratory is pursuing funding to purchase (1) a gas chromatograph and related equipment to
analyze the chemical nature of the products produced at the two stations researching prebiotic evolution, and (2) the materials
to assemble three Mars Bottles; built out of off-the-shelf components used in industrial and laboratory vacuum systems.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Russell P. Stackpole, II, a co-investigator on the Mars Bottle Project and Mechanical
Engineer / Aerospace Engineer / Experimental Electron Microscopist at a local research laboratory. Mr. Stackpole’s
responsibilities will include: assembly, trouble shooting, and design of the Mars Bottles with Mr. Strong. Russell P.
Stackpole, is also a gifted artist and has rendered the drawings seen in this paper. Additionally, Mr. Stackpole will be
working with Mr. Strong on the programming to simulate the influence of extraterrestrial and planetary processes on the
appearance and evolution of multicellular life.
The author also wishes to acknowledge the help of H. A. (Andy) Cook Ph.D., Dean of Natural Sciences, Health
Professions, and Mathematics at West Liberty State College. Dr. Andy Cook (co-investigator on the Mars Bottle
Project) will be responsible for coordinating exobiology research activities between WLSC students and faculty and the
Exobiology Research Laboratory.
–6–
Modeling the Mars-Earth Logistics and Transfer Architecture: Focus on Conducting
Inexpensive Exploration Through Variance of Key Mission Requirements
Dr. Charles M. Reynerson

[1999]
Abstract
This paper addresses a concept-level model that produces technical design parameters and economic feasibility
information addressing future Mars Exploration platforms. In this context, the platforms considered include those
currently chosen in the NASA Mars Design Reference Mission.
This paper uses a design methodology and analytical tools to create feasible concept design information for these space
platforms. The design tool has been validated against a number of actual facility designs, and appropriate modal
variables are adjusted to ensure that statistical approximations are valid for subsequent analyses. The tool is then
employed in the examination of the impact of various payloads on the power, size (volume), and mass of the platform
proposed.
Dr. Charles M. Reynerson; D.Sc. in Astronautics at the George Washington University; creyners@alum.mit.edu; Resident of Boulder, CO;
email: creyners@alum.mit.edu
–1–
Modeling the Mars-Earth Logistics and Transfer Architecture: Focus on Conducting Inexpensive Exploration Through Variance of Key Mission Requirements
The development of the analytical tool employed an approach that accommodated possible payloads characterized as
simplified parameters such as power, weight, volume, crew size, and endurance. In creating the approach, basic
principles are employed and combined with parametric estimates as necessary. Key system parameters are identified in
conjunction with overall system design. Typical ranges for these key parameters are provided based on empirical data
extracted from actual human space flight systems.
In order to provide a credible basis for a valid engineering model, an extensive survey of existing manned space
platforms was conducted. This survey yielded key engineering specifications that were incorporated in the engineering
model. Data from this survey is also used to create parametric equations and graphical representations in order to
establish a realistic range of engineering quantities used in the design of manned space platforms.
Using this tool a sample Mars exploration architecture is formulated with emphasis on cost minimization through
variance of key mission requirements. This paper is based on work Dr. Reynerson recently completed at George
Washington University in fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Science in Astronautics. Dr. Mike Griffin, former head
of NASA’s Human Mars Mission, was a member of the dissertation committee.
Introduction
The design of human space flight systems is not a field that has an overabundance of design examples. But from over
40 years of experience there exists enough quantitative data on which to attain initial estimates for future designs. On
this premise the following paper is written. Prior work has been done in this area relative to space station designs. In
the doctoral dissertation work performed by Dr. Charles Reynerson an engineering model was created for preliminary
space station design. The model is general enough in that it can be used for any spacecraft, regardless of it’s purpose.
Typical spacecraft with only sensors for payloads would be a specialized case of the model. The generalized model
incorporates the addition of humans and their associated life support and habitation systems.
It is the intent of this paper to show that the same model can be used for elements needed for human transportation and
settlement on extraterrestrial bodies. This model can be easily adapted to have applicability to elements such as
transportation vehicles, non-earth orbiting space stations, and surface habitations. The model also provides a rough cost
estimate for future manned missions.
As an example, the NASA Mars Design Reference Mission (DRM) will be used as a baseline architecture which will
be perturbed by altering the desired payload amount during transfers and landings. This variation will show the impact
of entire system mass required as well as system cost.
Human Space System Model

A human space system model was created that is composed of both an engineering model and a cost model. This model
treats two basic types of payloads: humans and space hardware (i.e., sensors, communications, manufacturing, . . .). The
model flow is shown in Figure 1. Five inputs are put through the engineering model and spacecraft power, mass, and
volume are output. The cost model uses spacecraft weight as an input since it tends to drive about 80% of cost on typical
space systems.
Engineering Math Model Governing Equations

The inputs to the model are the following variables:
Wp = payload power (payload being defined as space rated hardware and equipment used to create revenue for the
space business park)
Vp = payload volume
Pp = payload user power (most commonly referred to as user power on space stations)
Nc = number of crew members
Ec = designed endurance limit for the crew. This time factor will also be the assumed resupply interval for
consumables calculations.
–2–
Inputs:
User Payload: Size, Power, Weight
Crew Number, Endurance Cost Model
Expenditures
Revenues
Engineering Model
Power Weight Volume
Figure 1. Modeling Flow Diagram
Assume the outputs to our model are the following variables:

Wƒ = facility weight
Vƒ = facility volume
Pƒ = facility power
Assume that the output variables are some linear combination of the input variables. In reality the input variables may
be raised to some arbitrary power as follows.
(1)
(2)
(3)
If a linearized form of equations 1 through 3 are used then the following approximations can be made:
(4)
(5)
(6)
In matrix form:
(7)
–3–
The above equations form the basis for the engineering concept model.
In reality the components of matrix A will vary depending on the payload input values in vector p. Thus the system is not
truly linear; nonetheless, we will approximate it as such. Each component of A will be discussed in the following sections.
When focusing on the meaning of each component in relation with the physical system some of the A matrix coefficients
can be neglected. For the facility volume calculation, the payload weight term does not affect the payload volume term
if they are assumed to be independent. Similarly, in the facility weight calculation the payload volume term is
independent of the payload weight term. For the facility power calculation, only the payload power and crew number
terms are assumed to have an effect on payload power. Therefore, the A matrix becomes,
(8)
Through careful accounting of typical spacecraft weight, volume, and power budgets the above assumptions can be
shown to have validity.1
Facility Weight
The weight of the facility can be considered in terms of its basic segments. The most general division is that of payload
and bus. The payload in this case is considered to be both space hardware and people. The spacecraft bus must be
designed to support both the hardware and the crew. Since the effect of varying the amount of space hardware and crew
on the facility is to be considered, the bus is broken into two portions: that which supports the space hardware, and that
which supports the crew. The third major weight category is consumables. This can also be subdivided between
consumables for the spacecraft bus and consumables for the crew. The facility weight equation is given by:
(9)
The corresponding terms are defined as followed:
α ·Wp = payload weight + payload bus support weight - power system weight required to support payload
Β ·Vp = 0
χ ·Pp = power system weight required to support the payload
δ ·Nc = spacecraft subsystem weight required to support the crew (includes power) and crew weight
ε ·Ec = weight of consumables for the crew and the facility.
The second term is assumed to be zero since the payload effect is included in the first term. This might be useful if the
assumed payload density is not comparable to current systems. The above equation coefficients can be shown to relate
to actual spacecraft weight budgets.
Facility Volume
For the volume equation, the terms are analogous to those of the weight equation except for the fourth term. For the
crew members, there is an additional volume allocation for habitability. This was neglected in the weight equation since
the weight of the air within that volume is small relative to the other terms. The facility volume equation is given by:
(10)
where the corresponding terms are defined as followed:
ϕ ·Wp = 0
ϕ ·Vp = payload volume + payload bus support volume - power system volume required to support payload
γ ·Pp = power system volume required to support the payload
–4–
η ·Nc = spacecraft subsystem volume required to support the crew (includes power) + crew habitable volume allocation
ι ·Ec = volume of consumables for the crew and the facility
The first term is zero since the payload effect is accounted for in the second term. This might be useful if the assumed
payload density is not comparable to current systems. The above equation coefficients can be shown to relate to actual
spacecraft volume
Facility Power
The facility power equation is given by:
(11)
where the corresponding terms are defined as follows:

µ ·Pp = power required for supporting the payload and payload support systems
ν ·Pp =power required to support crew related subsystems and facility support systems
= = =0
The first (payload weight) and second (payload volume) terms are not needed since the third term, represented by the
payload power, gives the direct relation for the payload. The last term is applicable if the power subsystem design
strategy is to treat power as a commodity to be resupplied at various time intervals. An example may be fuel cells, non-
rechargeable batteries, or short-lived nuclear power sources. For this model we will assume conventional photovoltaic
or solar dynamic systems are used and that sufficient design margin is used to compensate for power system efficiency
degradation over time.
Table 1. Key System Parameters Internal to Engineering Model
The above equation coefficients can be shown to relate to actual spacecraft power budgets. The above equations form
the basis for the engineering concept model. Details of this model and its validation are beyond the scope of this paper
–5–
but can be found in reference [4].2 Internal to the model, the coefficients of the governing equations can be related to
14 key system parameters that are unique to each system. These parameters are presented in Table 1 along with their
typical range for several human space flight designs.
Cost Model
A cost model was created to complement the engineering model. For a commercial development cost tends to be the
bottom line and therefore should be addressed. Various cost factors that result from space facility designs and an
estimation of rough order of magnitude cost are included in this cost model. The model consists of two main sections:
required investments and revenues. The required investment areas addressed include the space segment, launch
vehicles, operations, and logistics. The revenues considered include crew and user payload related revenues.
Space Segment Cost

The space segment is modeled using the product of four variables. The space segment cost factor (Scf) is the price per
kg of facility on orbit. This value typically varies from 58 to 148 $K/kg for unmanned spacecraft.3 For manned space
programs (Note that these values are for government run programs) the range is 38 to 157 $K/kg and the mean is 104
$K/kg. The program cost is normalized over the number of manned vehicles produced. The low number in the Skylab
program is likely due to less research and development required since it was derived from the Apollo program.
The research, test, development, and engineering (RTD&E) cost factor (Rcf) is used to compensate for new development
cost. RTD&E cost tends to be about three times that of the theoretical first unit (TFU) cost. For manned systems this
would make the Scf range from 22 to 52 $K/kg for the TFU if you assume all of the programs were pure RTD&E cost
(not including Skylab). Assuming this range for the TFU, then the Rcf should be 3 for new development programs, 1
for a program based on existing hardware, or somewhere in between if there is partial development required.
The space segment cost (Sc) can now be defined by the following equation:
(12)
Launch Vehicle Cost
The launch cost factor (Lcf) can be estimated using historical data and planned cost goals for future developments.
Launch vehicle costs4 for several competing launch systems range from 4.4 to 57.4 $K/kg. The average cost is around
15.2 $K/kg.
An insurance cost factor (Icf) is used to account for insurance cost related to launch. Typically for commercial launches,
insurance runs about one third of the launch cost. The Icf would therefore be a value of around 1.33.
The launch cost (Lc) for delivering the facility to orbit can now be defined by the following equation:
(13)
Ground Operations and Support
The cost for the ground equipment is typically much smaller than the cost needed for the space segment and launch. But
the operations for the ground stations becomes significant over time and should be considered in the cash flow
calculations to counter the yearly revenues. Operations, mission, and program support costs for the Skylab program5
average (over 4 years) $31.6 M in 1970’s dollars. This cost is roughly $83 M in 1997. The International Space Station
program has $13 B in its operations budget over 10 years for an average of $1.3 B per year.6 This figure likely includes
logistics costs for delivery of consumables and maintenance costs to upkeep the facility over its ten-year design life. It
may also include the RDT&E for future payloads, experiments, and support. For the purposes of this ROM cost model,
a figure of $80M per year is used for yearly operations and support costs (Yosc). A ten-year operational period (Ny) is
assumed for life cycle costing purposes.
–6–
Logistics
To account for the delivery of people, payloads, consumables, and products to and from the facility, a yearly logistics
cost is calculated based on weight delivered and launch cost. A logistics crew specific weight (δcs) is defined as the
equipment weight needed for crew support during the trip to and from orbit. This value should be no more than the
crew specific weight for space facilities due to much shorter duration on orbit. The value for crew specific weight can
be estimated from previous manned missions (1500 kg/person for Mercury to 11030 kg/person for Apollo). The Apollo
crew specific weight is high due to the stressing requirements to go to the moon. The Space Shuttle crew specific weight
is high due to its design to accommodate a heavy lift payload.
For this cost model a nominal value of 2000 kg/person is assumed for logistics crew specific weight, which is just higher
than a Gemini capsule. Equation 14 defines the yearly crew logistics weight (Wcl) including consumables. This model
assumes resupply intervals to be that of the endurance interval, Ec.
(14)
Here δcrew and δcs are the crew system specific weights for the crew itself and their gear, respectively. ε is the
consumable consumption rate for the entire facility.
For user payload logistics, a yearly turnover fraction (Tf) is defined as that fraction of total payload weight that is
replaced during the year. This term is more useful for permanent facilities. If the payload requires a certain amount of
production materials delivered, then a materials weight fraction (Mf) is used. The Mf is defined as that fraction of
equivalent payload weight is required per year for payload production needs. The value for Mf is highly dependent upon
the payload mission. For a tourism mission it might be zero and for a materials processing facility it could be more than
100%. The value for Mf is also mission dependent and very much market driven. If payloads have a nominal life of 5
years, then the turnover rate would be 100% in ten years. Therefore the yearly turnover rate would average 10%. The
yearly user payloads logistics weight (Wupl) is then defined by the following:
(15)
To account for maintenance materials required for the facility, a maintenance materials weight fraction (Mmf) is
established. This term like the previous term is also more useful for permanent facilities. The Mmf is that fraction of
the facility weight that is required to be replaced each year. A nominal value of Mmf = 0.01 is assumed for this model.
The maintenance materials yearly delivery weight (Wmm) is therefore:
(16)
The total yearly logistics weight is the sum of equations 14, 15, and 16 as follows:
(17)
The yearly logistics cost is similar to equation 13 but based on logistics weight:
(18)
The total life cycle operations and support cost (Osc) including ground and logistics is then:
(19)
The total investment required over the facility life is then:
(20)
–7–
Table 2. Some Key Parameters for the Transit Surface Habitat
Application to Human Mars Missions

This model can be applied to most vehicles that uses humans as payloads. The initial application for this model was
space stations. An evaluation of NASA’s X-15 high speed test vehicle was conducted using this model. Some minor
modification was required. The concept model was within 22% of the actual weight, which is acceptable for concept
level designs.
For the NASA Mars Design Reference Mission (DRM), this model can be applied to the transfer habitat, surface
habitats, ascent / descent vehicles, and the Earth Return Vehicle (ERV). By using the weight and power budget data in
reference 7, Table 2 shows some of the key system parameters for the Transit Surface Habitat design. These system
parameters were found using the engineering model described above. Of the six parameters calculated, two are outside
of the typical range for typical human space system designs. The first, the bus to payload power ratio, is somewhat
higher than the typical range. This could mean that the bus power was overestimated, the power required for the
payloads was underestimated, or some of both. The second, the powerless bus to payload weight ratio is somewhat
lower than the typical range for typical human space system designs. This could mean that the powerless bus weight
was underestimated, the payload weight was overestimated, or some of both. The powerless bus weight is the weight
of the bus less that of the power subsystem.
Comparing the NASA DRM to Apollo

As one looks to the one big past human exploration mission to another celestial body, Apollo, it is enlightening to see
the enormity of the mission. Table 3 compares the net mass of the two missions at various stages. To keep the missions
normalized for consistency, each one assumes 12 flights to the destination and back.
Table 3. Mass Comparison between the Mars DRM and Apollo
One may ask why there is such a big difference in these masses when compared. The return mass to earth is more for
the Apollo missions since there were men returned to earth with each mission. For the Mars DRM only three of the
twelve missions are piloted for a total of 18 people as opposed to Apollo returning 36 people (that is, if we had really
done 12 missions). If we were to normalize by number of people then the multiplication factors would be even higher
than shown in the table.
–8–
The mass delivered from the body surfaces matches but the Apollo missions would have lifted 24 persons from the
surface in 12 missions. The difference in mass per person is likely due to a more efficient packing factor for the Mars
DRM. The Apollo LEM was designed to lift two at a time while the Mars Ascent Vehicle is designed to haul six. The
efficiency occurs since the MAV needs less support system mass per person.
The mass delivered to the body surface differs by more than an order of magnitude. Perhaps this can be accounted for
by the length of stay required on the surface and the desired redundancy needed for such a remote location. On the other
hand, a closer look should be performed to see if an unreasonable amount of material is being transported to the surface.
The mass delivered to Mars orbit should be somewhat greater than the Apollo missions since the transfer vehicle and
Earth Return Vehicle require a larger delta-V for TEI as compared to a trip from the moon.
The total system mass and the mass delivered to LEO have about the same multiplication factor of 3.5. This is just the
difference in mass between going to Mars (using the NASA DRM methods and technologies) as compared to the moon
(using Apollo’s methods and technologies). Note that the DRM total system mass is estimated and based upon using a
system similar to the Saturn V for delivery to a LEO parking orbit. This is somewhat of a disturbing figure to most
aerospace engineers who realize that cost can be linked to around 80% of the system mass. For the Apollo scaled
comparison realize that only 6 missions actually landed on the moon and returned to the Earth but 32 units were
produced. In estimating mission cost it should be somewhat less than Apollo if we account for the learning curve factor
of human space flight knowledge over the last 40 years. Perhaps we would also have less test flights prior to an actual
landing mission.
For a rough cost estimate it should be more accurate to use a specific cost number for the International Space Station
(ISS) of $66,000 per kg (Apollo was $157,000 per kg). Using the mass delivered to LEO for the DRM, the estimated
cost is $165.5 B (FY 97 dollars). This amount is very close to the Apollo program cost of $166.8 B in FY97 dollars.
So the paramount question is: “Can we afford to do another Apollo-sized program?”
Reducing the Cost to Go to Mars

The following modifications could be made to the NASA Mars DRM in order to save a significant amount of
infrastructure cost.
A. Use of Existing Transportation Systems

To avoid the excessive cost of creating a new launch vehicle system, the approach assumed is to use existing
transportation systems to deliver modules into a low Earth orbit (LEO) prior to Trans-Mars injection (TMI). This
approach allows existing docking and maneuvering techniques to be used as well as the existing ISS infrastructure
should there be integration or start-up problems. Such problems are best dealt with prior to TMI, when there is a better
chance to recover from serious problems.
During return trips the intermediate destination is in LEO. Payloads can be retrieved in LEO by the Space Shuttle, then
subsequently returned to earth.
B. Reusable Transfer Vehicle Designs

The transfer vehicle is designed such that it can be used more than once. This lends itself to producing less hardware
overall that would be more reliable than a single trip vehicle. It also would be a huge step in creating a permanent
infrastructure for Earth-Mars transfers.
C. Mars Orbiting Station (MOS)

A space station in low Mars orbit (LMO) is proposed to allow for staging materials between the surface and LMO as
well as providing human missions an extra safe haven in case of catastrophic failures in other systems or destructive
weather on the surface. As the ISS provides a life support node in LEO, the MOS provides one in LMO.
–9–
D. Change Basic Requirements

If we examine the impact of varying the payload requirements, this can provide a natural way to choose payload amount
in a cost-constrained program. The key system parameters for the DRM transfer vehicle were placed in the engineering
model described above. By varying the amount of payload, both human and space hardware, the resulting transfer
vehicle mass is shown in Table 4. For 1,800 kg of space hardware payload removed results in a transfer vehicle mass
savings of 4,230 kg. For each person removed from the mission results in a mass savings of 17,656 kg.
E. Reuse of Surface Habitats

As time goes on, it is evident that the surface habitats on Mars for the DRM grows as more people arrive. The number
of inhabitants remains the same. This gives the last crew the most comfortable amount of space as compared to the
previous crews. If one were to normalize the mass per person over all missions using the most austere environment of
the first mission, then the overall amount of mass needed to be delivered to the surface should decrease substantially.
F. Use a Commercial Approach

The cost of government programs almost always can be done more cheaply through the commercial sector. The last 40
years of human space flight endeavors performed by various governments have certainly reduced the risk to the point that
companies can start to imagine how human space flight could be performed with no, little, or reduced government support.
At first, some of these architecture changes may appear costly, but with more investigation they might actually provide
a net cost savings while significantly improving overall system operational redundancy.
Table 4. Modeled Transfer Vehicle Mass by Varying Payload Amount
The Impact of Changing Payload Requirements

To see how payload requirements affect the Mars DRM let’s first examine what type of payload drives the architecture.
For the DRM 14.72 metric tons of science equipment are planned for delivery to the Martian surface. There is about
560 metric tons total planned for delivery to the Mars Surface. So only about 3% of the mass is science payload. Some
of the mass delivered would be to supply power and consumables for the science payloads. But it is safe to say that the
Mars DRM is driven by the human payload.
The mass savings for the transfer vehicle is realized by reducing the number of people on the mission described above
in Table 4. The impact on the entire mission can be approximated by dividing the total DRM system mass (over 12
launches) by the number of people delivered (18). This number is 3463 metric tons per person. Note that for Apollo,
491 metric tons were needed per person on the 6 landing missions showing seven times the mass is needed to support
people on Mars (using the NASA DRM) as opposed to going to the moon for much shorter periods (3463/491 ~ 7).
Key Parameters for Surface Architecture Over Time

By examining the difference between two key model parameters for the Mars DRM over time, we can see that there is
a drastic change in the amount of equipment available to the second and third landing groups as compared to the first.
Looking at the crew system specific weight, this increases drastically from 11533 kg/person to 48166 kg/person between
the 1st and 2nd crews. Similarly the powerless bus to payload ratio decreases from 1.33 to 0.46. These both indicate
– 10 –
that a large increase in the amount of equipment available to support the later crews. This may just be the plan for
providing redundancy over time and the price paid for expanding the exploration frontier.
Another way to look at this difference in key system parameters would be to realize that overall system mass could be
saved by maintaining roughly the same amount of equipment for each crew. Yes, this is an opportunity to save overall
system mass. This would certainly not be true if we were planning to keep personnel there for even longer stay periods
(i.e., 1,200 days) requiring 2 crews to be supported at the same time. Then again, that is not the plan for the DRM.
Conclusions
This paper has shown the basic governing equations for both an engineering and cost model that can be used for human-
tended space facilities and vehicles. Although the cost model used is rough and not absolute, it can show the relative
effect of various payloads and facility designs. The power of combining both engineering and cost models can
effectively show the impact of payload requirements on cost. Alternatively, this combination can show the amount of
payloads you can support given a limit on the initial investment amount. Such trades are critical during the concept
design phase for space facilities. For a commercially developed and operated facility such trades are mandatory in
providing a business case based upon sound engineering and cost data. To learn more about the modeling techniques
involved in this paper, please contact Dr. Charles Reynerson at creyners@alum.mit.edu.
Through the above analysis it was found that the DRM system mass, and therefore cost, could be reduced significantly
by changing requirements such as reducing the number of crew members and the amount of surface science payloads.
The effect of reducing the number of crew members by far outweighs the effect of reducing science payloads. Other
potential ways to reduce cost include reuse of transportation systems and surface habitats and taking a commercial
approach rather than an inflated government approach. This may be crucial information in selling the price tag to all
countries destined to be involved in this endeavor. If the mission is not sellable due to the price tag, this paper has shown
that key mission requirements can be traded with desired cost.
References
1. Reynerson, Chapter 4
2. Reynerson, Chapter 4.
3. Wertz, SMAD, pp 735, table 20-14.
4. Space Business News, February 5, 1997, pp 3.
5. Ezell, pp 62-69.
6. International Space Station Fact Book.
Bibliography
1. Ezell, L. N., “NASA Historical Data Book, Vol. III, Programs and Projects, 1969-1978,” NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division,
NASA, Washington, DC, 1988.
2. Foley, T., “Space Business News,” February 5, 1997, Phillips Business Information, 1997.
3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “International Space Station Fact Book,” January 1997, information also found in an internet
website: http://station.nasa.gov/reference/factbook.
4. Reynerson, C. M., “Concept Design Theory And Model For Multi-Use Space Facilities: Analysis Of Key System Design Parameters Through
Variance Of Mission Requirements,” D. Sc. dissertation, George Washington University, 1997.
5. Wertz, J. R., Larson, W. J., “Space Mission Analysis and Design (SMAD)” , 2nd Edition, Microcosm Press, 1992.
6. Willenberg, H. J., Hopkins, J., Rubeck, M., Torre, L., Lauer, C., Woodcock, G. R., , “Commercial Space Business Parks, Final Report of Task
Order # TOF-021 to Contract #NAS8-50000,” Boeing Defense and Space Group, Final Briefing, 7 April 1997
7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration “NASA Mars Design Reference Mission,” internet website:
http://www_sn.jsc.nasa.gov/marsref/contents.html
– 11 –

2001mars Society Convention Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2001mars Society Convention Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Game for the Simulation of a Martian Base

Marc Salotti; Planète Mars, France; marc.salotti@wanadoo.fr

Note: Characters to the right of the // are comments.

2.3 Examples of objects

3 Graphics And Interface

Figure 1. Main window. The rover is selected.

3.2 Other actions

Figure 2. Chemical unit.

[built] // Two main objects are declared

G. Edward Bixby, AK0X

Paraphrasing Robert Zubrin in his book The Case For Mars:

With karma like that, CLOVER BELONGS ON MARS

The Transnational Institution

The transnational organization is characterized by:

The Problem of Solar System Exploration

The Mars Society as Progenitor of a Solar System Exploration Transnational Organization

1 Creating Complex Tables

1.1 Defining the table string

Dean Calahan; email: dean@baloney.com

1.2 Generating HTML with table.pl

1.3 Inserting Content Into the Table

Figure 1. Design spiral: Understanding practice

Ethnographic Method: Work Practice And Exploration

Table 1. Domain analysis relations and examples illustrating kinds of knowledge

Hypotheses Under Investigation

Broader Cultural Themes

Our ongoing research may include the following:

Introduction and Background

Figure 1a. Probe Pressure Data

Figure 1b. Viking Temperature Data

Table 1. Compositions of Martian atmosphere

As such, the laws governing its behavior can be summarized as follows:

The Knudson number, is on the order of 10-5, where:

Dalton law of additive pressure

Where Pmix = pressure of a gas mixture,

Amagat’s law of additive volume

Heat / mass transfer analysis

Figure 2. Water on Mars Thermal Model

Figure 3. Triple Point Diagram. Source: handbook of Chemistry and Physics

Figure 5. Sublimator performance. Source: Hamilton Standard, Division of United Technologies

The system functions as follows:

Figure 6. Experimental setup

Figure 7. Atmospheric temperature vs. pressure endpoints

Figure 8. Ice cube temperature vs. pressure endpoints

Figure 9. Transient temperature and pressure graph

Discussion and Errors:

Figure 10. Geologic history of Mars. McKay and Stoker (ref. 4)

Figure 11. Extremophiles found in Antartica. (ref. 5)

Implications for Landing Site Selection:

Global Surveyor Mapping Data.

Table 2. MGS Observation Data Source: MGS Web site

Summary and Future Work

2. Kaplan. “Environment of Mars.” NASA-TM-100470 (1988)

Wayne N. White, Jr.

Military and Security Implications

Erv Baumann; Lawrence E. Pado

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,

— Johannes Kepler, 1600 AD

Figure 1. MagCycler Caravan Approaching Mars

3.1 Magsail Principles of Operation

Figure 2. “MagCycler” Design Concept

Figure 3. Earth’s Magnetic Field Deflecting the Solar Wind (NASA)

Figure 4. Example of Solar Wind Structural Details7