Bhavya Lal’s Post

I agree with “sustainability”, but haven’t seen any definitions of it, especially in the context of space explora/exploita -ion. The initial NASA Mars architectures had missions of 700 days, circa 900 mT per mission; presumably this was deemed “sustainable “, but was not addressed - cost only? Risk? If there is a calculable criterion, that should be delineated. If not, that should be a priority.

Excellent post. We've talked about sustainability many times and what it means/how its applied to our actions off planet. Think it is also just smart to ♻️ and keep a tight loop on resource use and dollars spent.

I’ll send a longer thought in a bit, but one thing I would mention is that in an address to Congress, JFK stated the Apollo goal of first man on the moon, then stated the next step was going to Mars with nuclear rockets. So if not a plan, a succession of goals. The fact that this was not widely remembered may indicate a general challenge with long range plans to the general population, or perhaps it’s just Congress.

Good thoughts! Your point about leveraging the moon as a testing/development (and I’d argue base staging) ground is I think a vital part of the discussion. One that I’m not hearing much about, unfortunately.

Great article Bhavya! Excellent insights on the need for sustainability in space exploration! One possible angle to consider is how best practices from orbital sustainability—like those being developed for space debris mitigation and end-of-life servicing—could inform long-term infrastructure planning for Mars. Ensuring that future Mars operations integrate principles of reusability, in-situ resource utilization, and responsible stewardship from the outset will be key. Looking forward to the discussion on how commercial, governmental, and international partnerships can align to make this vision a reality!

Bhavya Lal I don't think anyone will disagree with you, especially in public. Also, there's nothing to disagree about. However, I think that there are two assumptions that you may be making (not sure, just guessing here) to substantiate the position. - one assumption is that governments will invest in the CAPEX of companies, allow for their controls with the private sector, and they will abide by some regulatory regime. This was done by many countries around 1490's to 1530's. That gave purpose, value, approaches and even helped towards meeting sovereign interests and things were....not the same as started. - the other assumption is that economies on earth are stable enough for long enough to allow and facilitate to not make the old mistakes and take advantage of the great stuff we have. I just think of the economy from 1969-1975 and the piggy bank broke by 1977. So govt spent a lot and was spending other places and went sour. I agree with your paper, if you want it to work, we have to validate assumptions. Willing to go on that journey with you when the time comes.

Hi, Bhavya, I think that a good policy for sustainability and for equity might be a lottery to choose Mars settlers. It would be for all economic and ethnic groups. I shudder to think that Musk would have control of the passenger list. He would invite only billionaires, I fear. Alan

needed to be said!