I’m heading back to California tomorrow, for the first time in about six weeks (the longest I’ve been away from home since I moved back in 2009), but meanwhile, my long-awaited piece in The New Atlantis is on line.
[Update a few minutes later]
Sorry, that’s just a preview, unless you’re a subscriber. The full piece will be free on line in the future, but I’m not sure when.
We might consider the benefits of the govt. doing it wrong?
You wrote…
…the ability for a civilization to endure off planet is an economic one. … the question is whether or not we can do so affordably and sustainably, particularly without access to the industrial capacity of the home planet.
One thing we can be certain of is govt. will never be the source of this economic viability. That economic viability is staring us in the face.
Well considering we never tried to settle space to begin with we can consider it as just a sightseeing trip. At best it could be something like Captain Cook’s travels to map unknown places with expectation of making a colony later (in his case Australia). But in our case no one ever tried making a moon colony afterwards.
We just don’t have the technology to make settlement there economically viable. Yet.
There are hours of valid discussions that could be had on various aspects of this.
I’d would like to point out that I don’t believe there are really any significant TECHNOLOGICAL obstacles to forming a Moon or Mars colony, but there are significant financial and political barriers to be overcome.
“We just don’t have the technology to make settlement there economically viable. Yet.”
THAT depends upon why you want the colony in the first place. If it was to mine precious metals I bet we have the tech to make it economically viable now. Or will have the tech in short order:
tech is created when there is a definable clear worthwhile goal.
I maintain we have no *reason* to create a colony. No financial or political objective that makes the cost and effort worthwhile. If we did, focused research and development would occur to solve any problem that is known to exist.
After the New World was discovered, the next set of explorers went about trying to find a reason to settle. In some cases they did; in others, they did not.
I maintain we have no *reason* to create a colony.
I kind of agree and kind of don’t agree. People bring up all kinds of reasons to create a colony. Trying to distill them down, or to create something new, as the singular “reason” is a mistake. There are, and will continue to be, many reasons to create a colony. The more reasons you have, the stronger the case for one becomes.
Reasons will be different for all of the groups and individuals involved. Certainly there will be shared interests but also individual ones. When you use the word “we”, who are you referring to?
We from a government perspective have several reasons for colonization but those reasons are going to be different than the actual colonists’ reasons. IMO, while the government will have a set of reasons, one of those should be enabling colonists to pursue their own interests. If the government generally, and NASA specifically, has that goal, then they might get pulled into colonization activities rather than pushing the populace into them.
Just to add one other thing. A reason for a government agency to support colonization isn’t financial. Our government isn’t a business and we don’t turn profits.
Any reason for our government to support colonization is an ideological one because the budget is a creation of ideological priorities.
The government could support colonization out of a profit motive but it wouldn’t be for the government but the populace and the government wouldn’t know, nor should it decide, how that populace will make money while pursuing their interests.
That is the same as here on Earth. The government can’t plan out what inventions or innovations will be made, they can only encourage a beneficial environment for them to take place. The same is true in space except that there is greater uncertainty over the performance of the populace at this moment and in the near future.
The barriers aren’t technical or financial. They are completely mindset.
We haven’t crossed the technical hurdles yet, but the path is getting clearer (and more so when Musk outlines his plan next month.) The financial hurdle is lowering of cost to a break point level. Musk talks about $500k per colonist. So if we can show viability at $5m per colonist and show where that money comes from (as I have) then that isn’t the hurdle.
The hurdle is believing in the power of ownership and free trade. Where would we be on earth if ownership wasn’t an acceptable principle? Instead we believe in state control. Why? Not because it’s better for us regardless of the BS arguments. States exist for exactly one purpose. To protect us from other states.
Instead of telling me this is ignorant nonsense, how about making a substantive argument if you disagree?
Note that we aren’t at the $5m per colonist ticket price yet, but that is simply the maximum the trust will pay setting a target below which vendors would compete. This seems reasonable in light of Musk’s comments.
Or as I used to say, the challenge of cheap access to space [or space settlement and all it entails, etc.] is 10% technology and 90% psychology.
Last night I was contemplating the fact that over the past few years we’ve made a large dent in the psychology problem – and 90% of that so far due to SpaceX. I still keep my fingers crossed for their success, but there’s been a diffusion of _credibility_ in the steps required, ultimately for space settlement. And others are starting to broaden the foundation for continuing and added credibility. Not enough yet, but palpably progress
Credit Scaled Composites as well. That second SS1 flight on CNN stopped the “giggle factor” cold.
It’s a tough sell when a thing has never been done before. After the fact, everyone opposing is satisfied that until it was done, they were right. So bizarre!
What I don’t understand is when the parts all exist but have just never been put together. How can people be so blind in that case?
Elon has told us the key to his success. Identifying the fundamental principles rather than the conventional wisdom. He’s proof it works.
“Elon has told us the key to his success. Identifying the fundamental principles rather than the conventional wisdom. He’s proof it works.”
Which I note is the same reason the Wrights were able to beat Langely. Hard work and making sure you understand, accurately, everything that’s _essential_ to factor in.
“After the fact, everyone opposing is satisfied that until it was done, they were right. So bizarre!”
Or as ACC said, the third stage of new concepts is, “I knew it was a good idea all along!”
“States exist for exactly one purpose. To protect us from other states.”
When there was only the one single FIRST state why did it come into existance to protect from other states that didn’t exist?
Didn’t States came into existence by conquering other cities and forming a bigger community by force?
“When there was only the one single FIRST state why did it come into existance to protect from other states that didn’t exist?”
Your premise is flawed. There was never ONLY one single FIRST state. The first “states” were tribes or groups of people living together in the same cave.
Or, alternatively, the first state was when two individuals got beaten up and they decided to live and work and defend themselves together. If you wish to assume that (unlikely but not impossible) you could call that the “first” state. And it came into being to protect the two members. Then other “states” appeared. Possibly because the attacker(s) decided that the du-opoly was too tough to handle and tso they went looking for easier victims.
Who then created the second state. So even if we allow your premise, there’s a methodology where one state is created first.
OR – two attackers realized it was safer if they worked together and so the first state was created – not for protection but for convenience. That allows your premise but also allows a single state. Soon thereafter you had other states.
We will never know how it happeneded but it’s irrelevant really (as is your objection):
When grunts decided there was strength in numbers, they made the numbers.
Maybe he subscribes to the noble savage theory or a warped interpretation of the Garden of Eden where humans lived in harmony with each other and nature before the inventions of fire, hunting, agriculture, ect. The problem is that the use of tools, hunting, fire, and probably some forms of agriculture predate humans being homo sapien sapiens.
The noble savage theory itself relies on the ignorance of what it is like to live without modern conveniences. There are very few societies that still live the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. When given the opportunity, now and throughout history, they always choose to adopt modern conveniences.
IIRC, one of the movies called First Contact, there are a ton of them, was about a tribe in the Amazon and their contact with an anthropologist. The tribe members sought out the contact. When asked why, they responded because they needed protection from other humans and that it sucked being cold at night and sleeping in the dirt.
The conversation is interesting because Humans have always formed groups to protect each other from other humans and from nature. There was no “first group” because in order for humans to survive as a species, there always had to be a large enough population to do so. Finding that “first group” is far beyond our ability right now.
Archeologists have identified some population bottlenecks but human behavior predates them and predates humans.
Sorry but no accredited historian subscribes to a geopolitical classification of cave states. City states are the first and smallest designated states.
Depends on whether or not you are talking about the origins of government or a specific form of organization but you can’t ignore the evolution of group governance.
As far as city states go, there is much speculation that they arose out of the need to defend the city’s inhabitants and their harvest from other groups of people. Also, pretty hard to pin down a first state because there were probably concurrent developments all over the world just like the rise of agriculture.
“The barriers aren’t technical or financial. They are completely mindset.”
The barrier is financial in that there is no serious financial gain to be had that makes the effort worthwhile.
But also psychological in the sense that while unknown, there certainly exists something(s) to make it financially worthwhile and we wont discover them without taking the risk.
Risk of an uncertain future is certainly a psychological barrier.
no financial gain to be had
‘Serious’ is a weasel word so I’ve taken it out for you. You’re welcome. Only one source of financial gain need be demonstrated and I’ve done that. Having just that one source makes every other source possible because they then only need to succeed in other ways on the margins.
Pick my proposal apart:
Will ticket prices get under $5m per colonist? Musk says so. At $5m per seat MCT is priced at $500m which seems in line with F9 and FH. Which works even if he never gets that down to $500k each.
Will people speculate on the future value of martian land when as little as $5 gives them title to their own hectare? Property which can be mined and improved by contracting labor from locals?
Will people on mars do nothing with local resources to create value while waiting for the next group to arrive? Value that can be created simply by digging?
Will new arrivals have no personal property?
What’s the flaw? Show me that it’s more than mindset? Absolute cost means nothing if a return is demonstrated, which I have.
“‘Serious’ is a weasel word so I’ve taken it out for you. You’re welcome”
Listen snarkster, if the financial gain was $1.00 no one would bother with it. That’s financial gain that is un-serious, and taking the risks to achieve that is stupid.
If the financial gain stands to be $100 billion dollars you’d see a lot of activity….that’s because that is serious financial gain.
There’s a line in between those two numbers where people are willing to take the risks (of all kinds). Not sure where that it but it will have to be in the “serious” area.
“Pick my proposal apart:”
Easy….
“Will ticket prices get under $5m per colonist? Musk says so.”
His word is more solid than others but certainly NOT solid enough to start dreaming about colonies.
People will buy that price when they see the goods.
“Will people speculate on the future value of martian land when as little as $5 gives them title to their own hectare?”
Only if they can realize a profit from that hectare AND only if they have reasonable assurance that the ownership will be honored.
“Property which can be mined and improved by contracting labor from locals?”
What minerals exist there to be mined? What value do they have? How many of them exist on earth and how does the cost of obtaining them from Mars compare with obtaining them from Earth? What will they sell for? Who wants to buy these chimerical minerals?
What locals? Why are they there? You see, there will only be local miners if there’s minerals to be had that will sell as compared to getting them on earth.
Your entire proposal is based upon a fantasy. It precisely explains my position:
*IF* something were to be found on Mars that is so valuable that it’s worth all the expenditure and risk in getting it and using it, THEN there might be a colony.
Show me the goods…show me the mineral (or whatever) and tell me what THE cost of getting them is. So far you are speculating on the object to be gotten and the cost it will require.
“Will people on mars do nothing with local resources to create value while waiting for the next group to arrive? Value that can be created simply by digging?”
What do you do after you’ve dug a hole? Why are the people there in the first place? You are assuming the end game to justify the end game.
“Will new arrivals have no personal property?”
Why are they going there?
So far your proposal sounds like “Name a star”
Gregg, thank you for your well written response.
if the financial gain was $1.00 no one would bother with it
You would not bother but you can’t speak for others that have clearly indicated they would even accept a small loss. Those are the people that make it possible regardless of how many ‘more sensible’ people like you exist.
certainly NOT solid enough
Be careful about being so certain. There is a lead time factor. Before the trust buys any tickets it will have to be selling plots while the existing ticket price is too high to pay (because it would exhaust the funds with little result.)
Initially the MCT will not deliver 100 colonists. It will deliver fewer with a larger percent of supplies. This would certainly mean a higher ticket price and the trust would not buy any of those tickets. This is expected to happen even without my proposal. But when the MCT is delivering its designed capacity of crew, $5m is exactly as high as those tickets are likely to be with a competitive incentive to go even lower.
Only if they can realize a profit
That’s just one motivation. Obviously others exist which is proven by past results.
only if they have reasonable assurance that the ownership will be honored
Exactly right, which is you making my mindset argument.
mined and improved
Two parts, equally important, the third being local labor. It appears you are being intentionally dense. It is a fundamental fact that local labor can increase the value of raw land. I have also already explained who they will sell this higher value to (hint: to people on mars and not) which requires no mass transfer off of mars. This is transparently true. At the same time, some will not agree until it is demonstrated (at which time they will say, “of course that, but you never said that!”)
there will only be local miners if there’s minerals to be had that will sell as compared to getting them on earth.
This is a bizarre untrue statement. You might as well say the same thing about minerals on earth.
*IF* something were to be found on Mars…
Let me speak slowly… a life for those that want it.
Show me the goods
I showed you numbers that you have not refuted.
THE cost[s]
Did I stutter? $5m per ticket. $5 (more because it is an auction with a minimum) per hectare. Value from labor and materials by existing colonists? Whatever they can accomplish in 26 months which would include habitats worth hundreds of thousands of dollars available the moment new colonists arrive. Resupply from earth? Comes as personal property from earth worth whatever it would otherwise cost to deliver it from earth, but part of the new colonists wealth.
What do you do after you’ve dug a hole?
What a silly question. You simply continue to add value. When you lay a foundation for a building on earth have you added value? Are you then done with no ability to add more value? Could they add a roof to the trench? Could they make it airtight? Could they add life support using 19th century technology? Could they add a farm using specifications clearly defined by the mars society. After creating a workable habitat, could they not expand it to create more value?
Why are they going there?
Because they want to and the trust pays their fare. They arrive at a frontier they can build into whatever they want. They arrive with wealth simply because of the cost of getting there. The more it costs the wealthier they are.
You have simply proven my point that it is only mindset that holds us back.
So far your proposal sounds like “Name a star”
Yes, I can see some commonality. People spending money with no guarantee of profit because it is what they want to do. Your argument is contrary to that reality and you call THAT fantasy!
Note that you are also asserting the impossible… a guarantee of profits. Nobody can do that. What I have shown is the potential for profit which is all anyone can do.
I’ve shown you the standard profit models:
1) Tickets sold for profit.
2) Land speculation.
3) Value from labor.
4) Value from trade.
None of this is exotic or controversial. This is no more fantasy than your last paycheck.
“Because they want to …”
Why do they want to?
The problem with your entire notion is that you are ASSUMING a reason exists and then showing that people will go there …because the reason exists. I’ve not only disproved your point – I’ve shown that it’s starting premise is non-existent.
What I’m saying is that there is, at present, no reason for anyone to spend the time and money and effort to go there.
WHEN that reason appears I expect people will go.
“Why are they going there?
Because they want to ”
Ken you live in a fantasy world. I don’t have to disprove your point because you have none.
OT: Peace Time: Germany Prepares For Internal Disaster
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpeace/articles/20160830.aspx
What I’m saying is that there is, at present, no reason for anyone to spend the time and money and effort to go there.
That is exactly what you’re saying. Which is an amazing disregard for the fact that time, money and effort are currently being spent. What is it that those willing to spend millions and years know that you don’t?
“Why are they going there?
Because they want to ”
Ken you live in a fantasy world. I don’t have to disprove your point because you have none.
People and groups will go to pursue their own desires. The lower the barrier to entry, the more various those desires will be. Ken’s vision becomes more likely as the barriers drop. Greg is worried that there isn’t enough people for a Mars based economy, which is certainly true right now.
You can grow produce but there isn’t anyone to sell it to. You can mine minerals but there isn’t anyone to sell it to. You could have a power plant but there isn’t anyone to sell power to.
But say our government decides it is imperative that we have an outpost on Mars. Then you have someone to sell things to. A private consortium could serve the same cause. Notice that it has to be a group effort. There isn’t going to be people traveling to Mars to live as hermits. Any effort to live on Mars is going to involve a large group with different goals and aspirations.
How many people would you need to have a successful colony and what services would these people need to provide their neighbors?
Something else to consider, the history of human expansion on Earth shows that locations for settlements change in terms of feasibility as time and markets change. Early in Mars settlement, a population might need to be highly mobile to take advantage of discoveries which could happen at a faster pace than the decline of farming towns in the USA.