I have no objections to other people going for Mars, unless it is tax money paying the freight. I’ll bet a cup of coffee that Mars never becomes the primary off world destination of live people. Or, my objection is that there is no reason for Mars that I find compelling.
Totally agree with the tax money comment. But then you state explicitly that your argument against humans choosing to go to Mars is… personal incredulity. Which leaves us with… Okay. Duly noted. Thanks!
My personal incredulity is a highly valuable resource!
There is no reason I find compelling for me to go to Mars. Others can do as they wish, and can afford.
john hare, thanks for the useful clarification. I interpreted your original post as meaning, no compelling reason for anyone.
I believe many people will want to go, but that’s more of a hope than a prediction. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, “many” might be a minuscule percentage of the human population, but enough to make it a paying proposition.
There is little reason to live on Mars or mine lunar water. The Moon and Mars has not been explored, enough.
When NASA explores the Moon enough. And NASA claims to proven lunar water is mineable, there are a number factors involved other then just the exploration and evidence. How it’s mined, who is mining it, when it can be done are some factors.
What is known is NASA can’t mine lunar water, but if NASA explores Mars, it could be significant factor related whether lunar water might mined, and not result bankruptcies [not be mineable].
Mars is considered most habitable planet other than Earth and it mostly wishful thinking, yet to be determined.
NASA can’t mine and make lunar rocket fuel nor can create towns/settlements on Mars.
NASA could test to see the effects of artificial gravity have people.
The lack of this not already being done, is problem.
Why wait for NASA to get around to it, considering the many demands on its budget? Deep space exploration, mohammedan outreach, corporate welfare?
If Space-X or any other private entity wants to invest the money into lunar water mining or Mars colonization, well: I hope so! I’ve been waiting since I was 8 years old to live on another planet or moon: Its high time it becomes possible.
“If Space-X or any other private entity wants to invest the money into lunar water mining or Mars colonization”…
Elon Musk says he going to invest a lot money
in building 1 million population city on Mars.
And I think it’s possible Musk will invest into lunar water mining. And he do it in way that I wouldn’t have thought it might be done.
He might want to do in way that NASA would like to do it, which is roughly use lunar rocket fuel to get to Mars.
I think if NASA did that, they would never get to point of exploring Mars. And I would say it would a wrong way to do it.
But for Musk to do it, it could make sense.
He starts another company or it’s part of SpaceX [as is Starlink].
“There are better places in the Solar System to colonise”
Fine, go where you want.
The disagreements come when deciding how to spend other people’s money.
Mercury might better, need ion engines or Nuclear rockets- I am not a fan of govt nuclear rockets.
So, with ion engines, Mercury could be better.
Mercury a cool place to live. Cool in terms of cold.
Mercury is as cold as our moon is cold but with with slower rotation and bigger.
But NASA has wanted to explore Mars, and everyone agreed to explore the Moon and then Mars. But probably before NASA feet on the ground of Mars, we have explored both Venus and Mercury a lot more.
I tend to think only millions of people will live on Mars.
I tend to think more people will live in Earth orbit, but eventually trillions will live in Venus orbit- they block sunlight from reaching Venus, and Venus will become a very cold planet.
I think if Venus gets same amount of sunlight as Earth it gets, it gets colder than Earth. Currently Venus gets twice as much sunlight as Earth and it absorbs about 170 watts global average. Earth which gets 1/2 as much sunlight absorbs an average of 240 watt.
Earth absorbs so much sunlight because of it’s ocean.
But anyhow if Venus amount 1/2 as much sunlight, it will obviously absorb far less than 170 watt average global, and will have runaway cooling effect.
Mainly it global wind will reduce from it’s current effectively 4 to 5 day, and once slow to say 10 days, the runaway effect begins.
Though humans mine the acid clouds, Venus will also cool.
Only advantage to living in Venus sky would be if use Nuclear Orions, which would allow mining the Venus sky.
The pace that we will become spacefaring civilization depends on whether Moon and Mars have mineable water. But there is no doubt our solar system has mineable water- many Earth oceans of water.
Oh, I was thinking of Jupiter’s Magnetic field and it’s effect upon GCR.
Question how far do have to be from Jupiter to not have harmful effects from and get some “benefit” from the planet blocking GCR.
Jupiter L-1 or L-2 seems too far away to get Jupiter blocking much GCR.
And one say L-1 and L-2 are way beyond what one could call Jupiter’s high orbit.
So high does the Jupiter high orbit, need to be?
“Even if 100% closure of the life support system on Mars cannot be achieved with a combination of biology and chemistry, It doesn’t need to be.”
As an Earthling, I don’t want Mars self sufficient.
No one is self sufficient anyway.
“No one is self sufficient anyway.”
On Earth? What about remote South Pacific islanders back in the day?
They had trade between islands.
All Mars needs is a lake.
To make Mars water cheap enough, you got to sell a lot of Mars water.
Cheap Mars starts at $1 billion dollar per million tons.
Olympic swimming pool is 2500 tons of water- so you will need a lake of water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System
Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System
Africans draw 2.4 cubic km [2.4 billion tons] of water per year from Sahara desert. If can get 0.0024 cubic km of water from Mars per year.
Don’t live on Mars.
We have explore the Moon and Mars to see if there could be any mineable water.
Venus orbit could/would pay 100 billion per 1 million tons of water.
Could Martian ship 1 million tons of water to Venus high orbit for less than $100 per kg.
Musk think Starship can do less per kg to LEO, but mass driver could work better.
If Moon has mineable water, at some point it could sell water in Venus orbit, but could take a while and the Moon would have to have a lot of water to ship 1 million tons, and seem it should cost more than 100 billion for 1 million tons.
Of course Mars settlements need Venus orbit, and would be good for Martians buy cheaper rocket in Venus orbit.
Mars window to Earth or Mars to Earth is every 2.1 years, on average you can 1/2 this window by first going to Venus [either way].
Rather than getting water from Earth, Moon, or Mars,
the better place could become from other places, such as space rocks.
Eventually, Venus orbit might need hundred of cubic km water per year. But we have to be spacefaring civilization for that to happen.
But we have yet to even test artificial gravity.
I wonder if this works: https://disqus.com/by/gbaikie/
“Don’t live on Mars.
We have explore the Moon and Mars to see if there could be any mineable water.”
Exploration means humans on site – robots to explore when you have an hour-long multiple round trip signal to make a course change takes far too long. Sending humans means having them live there long enough to explore, which (for Mars) means months on site.
And with humans on Mars, one can do a lot exploration with robots.
NASA Manned Mars should use a lot robots, Mars settlement will use many times as much as NASA crewed Mars should use.
Making robots, satellites, space mission in general would be large thing Martians would do.
One would tend to think they would be near Mars {including it’s L-points]. But if can industrial Earth orbit, Mars orbit would as good or better, I can’t imagine Mars settlement ignoring, Mars’ two Moons.
And also adding more rocks in Mars orbit.
I don’t see Venus as being viable. Yes it looks like we could put floating colonies at a height that will (possibly) have breathable atmosphere, but this means no access to minerals (they’re all 50km down in conditions where everything so far has failed in hours).
Unless there’s something we can filter out of the atmosphere that high up, Venus would have to import all its construction materials.
Mars looks like it has pretty much everything except hydrogen.
50 km isn’t so bad even with that environment – balloons with some sort of ballast (say frozen CO2) would probably work ok – drop, scoop, dump ballast. Maybe they could harvest dust though? Should be a bunch of it that high. And of course, several key elements in the atmosphere (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur).
I disagree with his thoughts on Titan and “space colonies,” though from a different perspective.
Titan is out of reach of today’s off the shelf technology, but that won’t remain true for long. As for lack of energy, Titan is covered with seas of rocket fuel and made largely of water ice. That’ll do. I’d colonize the entire Saturn system.
Million ton O’Neill cylinders were always silly. Something like a large, dirigible torus space station is what will get built, to house workers and equipment at resource nodes like the Jovian Trojan asteroids. The speculation about GCRs is largely bogeyman tactics. We simply don’t know what it will take, just that it’s not going to be millions of tons of regolith. People talk like today’s technology is it. Arthur C. Clarke called that Failure of Imagination. I think maybe Failure of Employed Engineers is more like it. “My job! My job!” It’s not your job, it’s humanity’s job. You’re just collecting this week’s paycheck, and someone else will be glad to do it instead.
PS: I don’t believe in robots either. If robots do the exploration, we might as well stay home and jerk off. Robots can do that for us too…
Million ton O’Neill cylinders were always silly.
They’e not silly, but they are certainly not feasible in this century.
So, for the time being, any space settlement we want to do has to be on a terrestrial environment of some kind.
They’e not silly, but they are certainly not feasible in this century.
Indeed. In the long run, large space structures may be more attractive than planetary surfaces, but they won’t be competing in the near future when decisions are made on what to colonize.
Mars colonization is difficult because the cost of living is very high and the means of making a living very limited.
There is unlimited work for an explorer with various kinds of training.
A ground astronomer might make sense, unlike on the Earth surface. Being able to predict mars impactors could be regarded as valuable. Finding Near Mars space rocks could be useful.
Lunar tourism seems obvious, because it’s close to Mars. But one could make Mars easier to visit and get Earthlings visiting in terms weeks or month or two.
Which would be helped a lot if using Venus orbit.
“…because it’s close Mars” I meant, because it’s close to Earth.
Let me switch that:
Hawaiian colonization is difficult because the cost of living is very high and the means of making a living very limited.
Obviously a few orders of magnitude on the limits, but there are several million people in Hawaii, and millions visit each year. Are there a thousand people that would visit Mars each year, given technology levels during the next century? Are there a thousand people that would choose to live there to support them?
I’m pretty sure the answer is yes. I love it here in Hawaii – I’d probably visit Mars, but wouldn’t live there. I also realize that my love of Hawaii is not rational – I would produce more efficiently elsewhere. But perhaps some of the truly insane people that live in the Mojave would. Everyone is different, and I’m sure there is someone that would move to Mars right now if given a 20% survival rate.
Because there are almost 8 billion of us, so those distribution tails are LARGE!
To put it another way, for 1,000 “settlers” they will be more than 5 standard deviations from the norm! You are not them!
Hawaiian colonization is difficult because the cost of living is very high and the means of making a living very limited.
I think when Hawaii was colonized, a thousand years ago or so, that was definitely not the case.
Are there a thousand people that would visit Mars each year, given technology levels during the next century?
That’s possible.
Are there a thousand people that would choose to live there to support them?
Live there? Doubtful. Work there for a well paid, limited time period? Sure. What does that have to do with colonization?
To put it another way, for 1,000 “settlers” they will be more than 5 standard deviations from the norm! You are not them!
And what will those 1000 “settlers” be doing on Mars to pay for the advanced technology from Earth required to live there? I can think of one answer: a scientific researcher supported by his government. That ensures that the “settlers” will be small in number and aren’t permanent residents. Or in other words, not a colony.
It’s been suggested that Martian colonists could produce valuable IP – software, say. Because you can produce that *anywhere*, if you have the skills and talent. That a Mars colony might attract more than its share of of highly intelligent and skilled people in this respect.
It could be, that we will discover other unexpected avenues of tradable services or goods we have not considered yet.
It’s been suggested that Martian colonists could produce valuable IP – software, say. Because you can produce that *anywhere*, if you have the skills and talent.
But who would be willing to pay the astronomical salaries required for Martian software developers to live on Mars when you can pay terrestrials so much less for the same work?
That a Mars colony might attract more than its share of of highly intelligent and skilled people in this respect.
These master race speculations are one reason why space colonization isn’t taken seriously by most people.
It could be, that we will discover other unexpected avenues of tradable services or goods we have not considered yet
Sure, but that hardly makes for a compelling argument for colonization.
The compelling argument for colonization that Musk most frequently puts forth is to increase the chances of the survival of the human race by making it multi-planetary. Obviously that’s an argument operating at a different level of Maslow’s hierarchy!
Perhaps there are better ways to do that than to colonize Mars; but Elon is not wrong to think that Mars is the …. well, least disadvantageous terrestrial target within relatively practical reach. Perhaps Titan might turn out to be better, but it’s a hell of a lot longer trip…
But I think if Rand were fielding this question, he would suggest that it doesn’t matter what reasons would-be colonists have for attempting it, so long as they have the means to make it happen and the willpower to try: that they should be free to make the effort, and develop whatever arguments they need to attract commercial partners and investors, free of government interference. And after all, the motivations to colonize a new land are always to some degree irrational, or at least, sub-rational. Virginia was hardly a promising prospect for obvious profitable payoff in 1607 (it was not even apparent that tobacco could be grown there as a cash crop, or how much of a market there would be for it even if they could), and the risks were a good deal higher than even most knowledgable people appreciated (most colonists who came in the first 20 years were dead within 12 months of stepping ashore). And yet, people kept coming.
Virginia could have been worse than Greenland. And a worry could other European
powers only later did England become a match for France. But it largely about religion, though leadership was connected to British monarchy- it was a job.
It doesn’t seem Martians will a boss back on Earth, but religion could be part of it.
Earth has problem, not enough cheap energy. Mars surface is a bigger problem with cheap energy- and a lack of water.
If got a lake you can cool nuclear reactor easier. You also have waste heat, wanted.
If anyone can make lake worth of water, they can make water cheaper.
That also works with the Moon [if there is enough water] later the Moon will get more water than Mars has- because biggest market in space is water, and space has oceans of water- and you need enough market for it. Mars surface wouldn’t be market for it, but Mars orbit, might be, as would Earth and Venus orbits. Venus seems like biggest potential market for the oceans of water in space.
Though if build a lunar space elevator and use it to gain energy from dropping water on lunar surface, the lunar surface could a large market for solar system oceans of water. As by product of wanting more lunar energy.
But lunar space elevator is not going happen anytime soon- even though it doesn’t have material strength problem of an Earth space elevator.
Though if solve the material problem with Earth Space Elevator, you drop water on say the Sahara desert. That gravity dam would provide Africa and Europe with all energy they need.
Using space elevator to get off Earth is rather pointless.
“Perhaps there are better ways to do that than to colonize Mars; but Elon is not wrong to think that Mars is the …. well, least disadvantageous terrestrial target within relatively practical reach. ”
It seems Elon likes US, he moved here. He now owns, twitter.
US govt wants to go to Mars.
What stopping this from happening, Elon has not launched his Starship, yet.
You could blame US govt, but it seems the problem at point is the launch pad.
I suggested using pipes.
What wrong with pipes? Very Mach velocity gas hitting pipes.
Sure. I can’t do that kind of math.
Anyhow, it probably could be fixed without using pipes.
Assuming it launches within a month or so, at least US has allowed him to launch few thousand new Starlink satellites [of course that is not nearly enough- I don’t know exactly, why].
Test launch is critical, but no doubt there will be some problems, but once get to point of working rocket. Does NASA’s wait and see, change to wanting stuff, now.
NASA could remain just concerned about SpaceX meeting their schedule and Musk launches satellites and whatever. Or NASA go, “let’s change our plans”- which is really quite un-NASA. It seems to me politician might want more happen before the next election cycle.
Of course the test launch could indicate Starship might not ready soon enough for NASA and even Starship, does even look it will work out, to land crew on the Moon.
Though it seems more likely, launch pad is not problem, and Starship launches in couple weeks, and all goes as is hoped will happen. And when could see a launch every month, and when is there more than 50% chance booster and second stage are reused and then when is closer to 100%. And using 3 launch tower and what about launching oil rig.
And even SLS could launch within 2 years.
A lot things including New Glenn could happen within 2 years. There are 6 New Glenn launches in 2023: https://www.rocketlaunch.live/
Which would not say is reliable, but it’s in someone mind.
Or SpaceX unlikely to change NASA, but quite likely to change Bezos and others.
And all this change, could speed things up.
The compelling argument for colonization that Musk most frequently puts forth is to increase the chances of the survival of the human race by making it multi-planetary.
Unfortunately, that’s an exercise in question begging. We need to know if man can live and thrive off Earth. “Backup” arguments don’t try to answer that question; they simple assume the answer is yes.
But I think if Rand were fielding this question, he would suggest that it doesn’t matter what reasons would-be colonists have for attempting it, so long as they have the means to make it happen and the willpower to try: that they should be free to make the effort, and develop whatever arguments they need to attract commercial partners and investors, free of government interference.
The operative phrase here is “so long as they have the means to make it happen”. Space advocates usually just assume that’s the case which is why colonization isn’t taken seriously.
For me personally, if I were 25, rather than living on a Mars Colony I’d prefer a trip in an interplanetary spacecraft taking a grand tour of the solar system and visiting all that could be visited over 10-15 years or so of spaceflight. Guess I’m more of an explorer at heart rather than a colonist.
This is behind paywall in the current AAAS Science.
This idiot woman, drops a bunch of straw men from L5 Society zealots circa 1970.
Surly Bob Zubrin appeared in her “research” for this book, you’d think his “Merchants of Despair” would have caught her attention, as it illuminates how her premise is exactly BACKWARDS.
Launius should be embarrassed by this cr*p review of a POS book.
Religion in space
A sense of divine entitlement pervades private space colonization efforts
ROGER D. LAUNIUS
SCIENCE
1 Dec 2022 Vol 378, Issue 6623
p. 954
Human space exploration has always been about a quest for utopia, laced with a fair measure of religious conceptions. In the early 1970s, Chris Kraft, the godfather of NASA’s Mission Control Center and a leader in the Apollo Moon landing program, characterized his support of space exploration in this way: “This step into the universe is a religion and I’m a member of it.”
Kraft’s statement made clear that those interested in moving beyond Earth, like the migrants to the Americas of the 16th and 17th centuries, endeavored to create a more perfect human experience free from the strictures of known society. Of course, what constitutes “a more perfect human experience” depends very much on individual perspective. Many observers of the space exploration community recognize this reality and have provided stinging critiques about what this might mean for extraplanetary regions explored by humans, who will bring with them all their beliefs and practices, for better and worse.
Mary-Jane Rubenstein, a professor of religion and science in society at Wesleyan University, adds her voice to these critiques with Astrotopia: The Dangerous Religion of the Corporate Space Race. She notes how human spaceflight supporters have long insisted that space is the next step in humanity’s “natural” and therefore irrepressible need to explore, often framing this inclination as a spiritual quest, a purification of humanity, and a search for absolution and immortality. These deep-seated convictions, she observes, have energized space exploration from the dawn of the space age.
Many of Rubenstein’s historical examples are well known. Captain Kirk’s soliloquy—“Space, the final frontier”—at the beginning of Star Trek and John F. Kennedy’s 1962 speech about setting sail on “this new sea” invoked journeying to a different land, settling an uncolonized region, and creating a new civilization. Such conceptions conjured images of self-reliant people moving to untouched territories in sweeping waves of discovery, exploration, and settlement. Implied therein were utopian ideals of optimism, individuality, and democracy. But flattening space into a mythological frontier reduced the complexity of events that would transpire during such exploration to a static morality play, avoided matters that challenged or contradicted the myth, framed the settlement experience as inherently good, and ignored the cultural context of migration.
Aspiring space colonizers disappointed with NASA’s declension in the 1970s began to imagine an alternative agenda aimed at achieving a bountiful future on a pristine planet, increasingly without government involvement. “New Space” advocates may be thought of as orphans of Apollo who found their way into myriad economic, political, and social camps. They evince distrust of authority, especially governmental authority, and celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Sir Richard Branson, whom they believe will finally open a boundless space frontier. Such individuals may support NASA’s efforts when they converge with their own interests, but they have grown increasingly critical of the space agency and any other large governmental activities.
Along with criticisms of NASA, “New Space” advocates also accept a dystopian future on Earth. They argue that in the 21st century, exponential growth of population and diminishing resources will create cataclysm. The answer, they believe, is to escape. And although humanity does not yet possess the technological capability to send human colonies elsewhere in the Solar System, these obstacles, they maintain, can be overcome.
Such beliefs are why, as Rubenstein makes clear, Musk and Bezos have become messiahs for the “New Space” community. In building the rockets necessary to get off this planet, presumably without government sponsorship, these entrepreneurs are opening the regions beyond Earth to settlement as never before. All will be the better for it, they believe. Notwithstanding the corporate ethos of Musk and Bezos, their supporters view their efforts as immensely more acceptable than the efforts of NASA.
Ultimately, Rubenstein succeeds in highlighting both the debate over whether future space exploration and exploitation should be led by government or entrepreneurial entities and the manner in which neoliberal, private-sector emphases have come to dominate the thinking of a particular segment of the pro-space community. Her criticisms of this phenomenon—part of a growing body of literature in environmental studies, Afrofuturism, and anticolonialism investigations—are on point.
Rendezvous with and re-direction of comets and asteroids is the big issue for me. Keep the dinosaur-killers from killing anything ELSE on the Unique Blue Marble. Ideally anything coming in close enough to be a risk presents an opportunity to re-direct to some sort of safe parking orbit, to be harvested for minerals or volatiles as the case may be.
Detecting dino-killing space junk seems to me to call for observatories dotting the far side of Luna, away from distortions of atmosphere and noise from radio traffic. Three or so colonies, not unlike the camps scattered across Earth’s polar regions, and supporting populations of a couple thousand up to a dozen thousand. Not many such camps, not “home”, but serious and long term residency for adventurous workers.
Launching the missions to rendezvous and divert dino-killers MIGHT be best done from Luna as well, depending on the availability of volatile fuels. If water and given sufficient solar power, I suppose a camp can fuel up a missile. But easier to climb out of Luna’s gravity well than either Earth’s or Mars’s , yes?
That seems to one advantage becoming spacefaring civilization- protecting Earth from impactors.
I call planet Venus a military fortress because impactors would not have much effect upon the planet.
Or people could living in the sky of Venus, and dinosaur killing impactor could impact Venus and it could little upon people living on Venus- unlike such impactor hitting Earth.
Or if idea is to protect Earth from impactors, the idea does “fit well” with bringing space rocks to Earth orbit- but it’s not much of problem with bringing space rocks to Venus orbit.
To some extent this also applies to Mars. You might even want to direct impactors to hit Mars surface for various reasons, but probably much smaller then 10 in diameter, though you might want put 10 km diameter space rock [or larger] in Mars orbit.
So explore moon and Mars to determine if they have mineable water and that call lead us to being a spacefaring civilization which would mine space rocks.
But if we only on Earth and not spacefaring, controlling these rocks is added expense- and we could be unable to do it.
So, rather having a few people on Mars and Earth gets wiped out, have few million people on Mars, could prevent Earth from getting wiped out.
Sadly, I am Tardus Pharticus now, but when young I was beyond those hilarious standard deviations in the right direction. Sewer worker, machanic, surveyor (trig and seismic), decent short order cook, writer of many traditionally published novels and stories, experienced and well paid software architect in my later days (a decent code monkey early on), hunter, bar fighter (and minorly a drunkard), fucker of women, father of children (and primum mobile of abortions)… I could go on, but you can see the shape of Heinlein’s universal man in there somewhere. I could probably still take your appendix out and leave you still breathing, but the rest of it’s probably receeding out of reach. If I wind up in an actual grave, there’s an epitaph.
“Objections To Mars Colonization” being “opposed to Mars Colonization” and/or arguments “against Mars Colonization” are quite dumb.
Is it opposition to NASA exploring Mars?
One argument against living on Mars was it would be easier to live on Earth ocean.
And it sort of missing the whole point, but I was noticing there was some interest in ocean settlements, and wondered how one could do it. And determine what is needed is to stop the ocean waves or you need breakwater. And in order to make ocean real estate cheap, you you needed much cheaper breakwaters and to be cheaper, they had to float.
And like any real estate, you needed power and water.
And services such as garbage and sanitation. And transportation, etc. And problem of ocean ownership.
It seems only real problem is ocean ownership and similar issues with settlements on Mars.
And seems if stop waves with floating breakwater, you should be able to or “allowed” to own that portion of the ocean.
Anyways, my conclusion was Mars settlements would cause Ocean settlements on Earth.
In terms Moon vs Mars, it seems lunar water mining would make to more likely or cause Mars settlements.
And if the Moon doesn’t have mineable water, Mars settlements would cause other types of lunar mining.
Mars settlements will also cause the mining of space rocks [provide enough market for it]. And Mars settlements need refueling in Venus orbit, and Mars doesn’t start mining space rocks, Venus orbit can provide huge market for space rocks. And Venus orbit helps a lot with exploring outer planets [which also involve using Mercury- or at least orbit closer to the Sun].
One aspect which I thought was selling point of the was it would lower Earth launch cost [more market for Earth launch, it seems other factors are already solving this issue [such as what SpaceX is doing].
The global satellite internet and AI in terms effect upon education could make things, more interesting.
–Japanese billionaire unveils the 8 artists he’ll fly to the moon on SpaceX’s Starship dearMoon flight
By Elizabeth Howell
published about 2 hours ago
I have no objections to other people going for Mars, unless it is tax money paying the freight. I’ll bet a cup of coffee that Mars never becomes the primary off world destination of live people. Or, my objection is that there is no reason for Mars that I find compelling.
Totally agree with the tax money comment. But then you state explicitly that your argument against humans choosing to go to Mars is… personal incredulity. Which leaves us with… Okay. Duly noted. Thanks!
My personal incredulity is a highly valuable resource!
There is no reason I find compelling for me to go to Mars. Others can do as they wish, and can afford.
john hare, thanks for the useful clarification. I interpreted your original post as meaning, no compelling reason for anyone.
I believe many people will want to go, but that’s more of a hope than a prediction. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, “many” might be a minuscule percentage of the human population, but enough to make it a paying proposition.
There is little reason to live on Mars or mine lunar water. The Moon and Mars has not been explored, enough.
When NASA explores the Moon enough. And NASA claims to proven lunar water is mineable, there are a number factors involved other then just the exploration and evidence. How it’s mined, who is mining it, when it can be done are some factors.
What is known is NASA can’t mine lunar water, but if NASA explores Mars, it could be significant factor related whether lunar water might mined, and not result bankruptcies [not be mineable].
Mars is considered most habitable planet other than Earth and it mostly wishful thinking, yet to be determined.
NASA can’t mine and make lunar rocket fuel nor can create towns/settlements on Mars.
NASA could test to see the effects of artificial gravity have people.
The lack of this not already being done, is problem.
Why wait for NASA to get around to it, considering the many demands on its budget? Deep space exploration, mohammedan outreach, corporate welfare?
If Space-X or any other private entity wants to invest the money into lunar water mining or Mars colonization, well: I hope so! I’ve been waiting since I was 8 years old to live on another planet or moon: Its high time it becomes possible.
“If Space-X or any other private entity wants to invest the money into lunar water mining or Mars colonization”…
Elon Musk says he going to invest a lot money
in building 1 million population city on Mars.
And I think it’s possible Musk will invest into lunar water mining. And he do it in way that I wouldn’t have thought it might be done.
He might want to do in way that NASA would like to do it, which is roughly use lunar rocket fuel to get to Mars.
I think if NASA did that, they would never get to point of exploring Mars. And I would say it would a wrong way to do it.
But for Musk to do it, it could make sense.
He starts another company or it’s part of SpaceX [as is Starlink].
“There are better places in the Solar System to colonise”
Fine, go where you want.
The disagreements come when deciding how to spend other people’s money.
Mercury might better, need ion engines or Nuclear rockets- I am not a fan of govt nuclear rockets.
So, with ion engines, Mercury could be better.
Mercury a cool place to live. Cool in terms of cold.
Mercury is as cold as our moon is cold but with with slower rotation and bigger.
But NASA has wanted to explore Mars, and everyone agreed to explore the Moon and then Mars. But probably before NASA feet on the ground of Mars, we have explored both Venus and Mercury a lot more.
I tend to think only millions of people will live on Mars.
I tend to think more people will live in Earth orbit, but eventually trillions will live in Venus orbit- they block sunlight from reaching Venus, and Venus will become a very cold planet.
I think if Venus gets same amount of sunlight as Earth it gets, it gets colder than Earth. Currently Venus gets twice as much sunlight as Earth and it absorbs about 170 watts global average. Earth which gets 1/2 as much sunlight absorbs an average of 240 watt.
Earth absorbs so much sunlight because of it’s ocean.
But anyhow if Venus amount 1/2 as much sunlight, it will obviously absorb far less than 170 watt average global, and will have runaway cooling effect.
Mainly it global wind will reduce from it’s current effectively 4 to 5 day, and once slow to say 10 days, the runaway effect begins.
Though humans mine the acid clouds, Venus will also cool.
Only advantage to living in Venus sky would be if use Nuclear Orions, which would allow mining the Venus sky.
The pace that we will become spacefaring civilization depends on whether Moon and Mars have mineable water. But there is no doubt our solar system has mineable water- many Earth oceans of water.
Oh, I was thinking of Jupiter’s Magnetic field and it’s effect upon GCR.
Question how far do have to be from Jupiter to not have harmful effects from and get some “benefit” from the planet blocking GCR.
Jupiter L-1 or L-2 seems too far away to get Jupiter blocking much GCR.
And one say L-1 and L-2 are way beyond what one could call Jupiter’s high orbit.
So high does the Jupiter high orbit, need to be?
“Even if 100% closure of the life support system on Mars cannot be achieved with a combination of biology and chemistry, It doesn’t need to be.”
As an Earthling, I don’t want Mars self sufficient.
No one is self sufficient anyway.
“No one is self sufficient anyway.”
On Earth? What about remote South Pacific islanders back in the day?
They had trade between islands.
All Mars needs is a lake.
To make Mars water cheap enough, you got to sell a lot of Mars water.
Cheap Mars starts at $1 billion dollar per million tons.
Olympic swimming pool is 2500 tons of water- so you will need a lake of water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System
Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System
Africans draw 2.4 cubic km [2.4 billion tons] of water per year from Sahara desert. If can get 0.0024 cubic km of water from Mars per year.
Don’t live on Mars.
We have explore the Moon and Mars to see if there could be any mineable water.
Venus orbit could/would pay 100 billion per 1 million tons of water.
Could Martian ship 1 million tons of water to Venus high orbit for less than $100 per kg.
Musk think Starship can do less per kg to LEO, but mass driver could work better.
If Moon has mineable water, at some point it could sell water in Venus orbit, but could take a while and the Moon would have to have a lot of water to ship 1 million tons, and seem it should cost more than 100 billion for 1 million tons.
Of course Mars settlements need Venus orbit, and would be good for Martians buy cheaper rocket in Venus orbit.
Mars window to Earth or Mars to Earth is every 2.1 years, on average you can 1/2 this window by first going to Venus [either way].
Rather than getting water from Earth, Moon, or Mars,
the better place could become from other places, such as space rocks.
Eventually, Venus orbit might need hundred of cubic km water per year. But we have to be spacefaring civilization for that to happen.
But we have yet to even test artificial gravity.
I wonder if this works:
https://disqus.com/by/gbaikie/
“Don’t live on Mars.
We have explore the Moon and Mars to see if there could be any mineable water.”
Exploration means humans on site – robots to explore when you have an hour-long multiple round trip signal to make a course change takes far too long. Sending humans means having them live there long enough to explore, which (for Mars) means months on site.
And with humans on Mars, one can do a lot exploration with robots.
NASA Manned Mars should use a lot robots, Mars settlement will use many times as much as NASA crewed Mars should use.
Making robots, satellites, space mission in general would be large thing Martians would do.
One would tend to think they would be near Mars {including it’s L-points]. But if can industrial Earth orbit, Mars orbit would as good or better, I can’t imagine Mars settlement ignoring, Mars’ two Moons.
And also adding more rocks in Mars orbit.
I don’t see Venus as being viable. Yes it looks like we could put floating colonies at a height that will (possibly) have breathable atmosphere, but this means no access to minerals (they’re all 50km down in conditions where everything so far has failed in hours).
Unless there’s something we can filter out of the atmosphere that high up, Venus would have to import all its construction materials.
Mars looks like it has pretty much everything except hydrogen.
50 km isn’t so bad even with that environment – balloons with some sort of ballast (say frozen CO2) would probably work ok – drop, scoop, dump ballast. Maybe they could harvest dust though? Should be a bunch of it that high. And of course, several key elements in the atmosphere (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur).
I disagree with his thoughts on Titan and “space colonies,” though from a different perspective.
Titan is out of reach of today’s off the shelf technology, but that won’t remain true for long. As for lack of energy, Titan is covered with seas of rocket fuel and made largely of water ice. That’ll do. I’d colonize the entire Saturn system.
Million ton O’Neill cylinders were always silly. Something like a large, dirigible torus space station is what will get built, to house workers and equipment at resource nodes like the Jovian Trojan asteroids. The speculation about GCRs is largely bogeyman tactics. We simply don’t know what it will take, just that it’s not going to be millions of tons of regolith. People talk like today’s technology is it. Arthur C. Clarke called that Failure of Imagination. I think maybe Failure of Employed Engineers is more like it. “My job! My job!” It’s not your job, it’s humanity’s job. You’re just collecting this week’s paycheck, and someone else will be glad to do it instead.
PS: I don’t believe in robots either. If robots do the exploration, we might as well stay home and jerk off. Robots can do that for us too…
Million ton O’Neill cylinders were always silly.
They’e not silly, but they are certainly not feasible in this century.
So, for the time being, any space settlement we want to do has to be on a terrestrial environment of some kind.
They’e not silly, but they are certainly not feasible in this century.
Indeed. In the long run, large space structures may be more attractive than planetary surfaces, but they won’t be competing in the near future when decisions are made on what to colonize.
Mars colonization is difficult because the cost of living is very high and the means of making a living very limited.
There is unlimited work for an explorer with various kinds of training.
A ground astronomer might make sense, unlike on the Earth surface. Being able to predict mars impactors could be regarded as valuable. Finding Near Mars space rocks could be useful.
Lunar tourism seems obvious, because it’s close to Mars. But one could make Mars easier to visit and get Earthlings visiting in terms weeks or month or two.
Which would be helped a lot if using Venus orbit.
“…because it’s close Mars” I meant, because it’s close to Earth.
Let me switch that:
Hawaiian colonization is difficult because the cost of living is very high and the means of making a living very limited.
Obviously a few orders of magnitude on the limits, but there are several million people in Hawaii, and millions visit each year. Are there a thousand people that would visit Mars each year, given technology levels during the next century? Are there a thousand people that would choose to live there to support them?
I’m pretty sure the answer is yes. I love it here in Hawaii – I’d probably visit Mars, but wouldn’t live there. I also realize that my love of Hawaii is not rational – I would produce more efficiently elsewhere. But perhaps some of the truly insane people that live in the Mojave would. Everyone is different, and I’m sure there is someone that would move to Mars right now if given a 20% survival rate.
Because there are almost 8 billion of us, so those distribution tails are LARGE!
To put it another way, for 1,000 “settlers” they will be more than 5 standard deviations from the norm! You are not them!
Hawaiian colonization is difficult because the cost of living is very high and the means of making a living very limited.
I think when Hawaii was colonized, a thousand years ago or so, that was definitely not the case.
Are there a thousand people that would visit Mars each year, given technology levels during the next century?
That’s possible.
Are there a thousand people that would choose to live there to support them?
Live there? Doubtful. Work there for a well paid, limited time period? Sure. What does that have to do with colonization?
To put it another way, for 1,000 “settlers” they will be more than 5 standard deviations from the norm! You are not them!
And what will those 1000 “settlers” be doing on Mars to pay for the advanced technology from Earth required to live there? I can think of one answer: a scientific researcher supported by his government. That ensures that the “settlers” will be small in number and aren’t permanent residents. Or in other words, not a colony.
It’s been suggested that Martian colonists could produce valuable IP – software, say. Because you can produce that *anywhere*, if you have the skills and talent. That a Mars colony might attract more than its share of of highly intelligent and skilled people in this respect.
It could be, that we will discover other unexpected avenues of tradable services or goods we have not considered yet.
It’s been suggested that Martian colonists could produce valuable IP – software, say. Because you can produce that *anywhere*, if you have the skills and talent.
But who would be willing to pay the astronomical salaries required for Martian software developers to live on Mars when you can pay terrestrials so much less for the same work?
That a Mars colony might attract more than its share of of highly intelligent and skilled people in this respect.
These master race speculations are one reason why space colonization isn’t taken seriously by most people.
It could be, that we will discover other unexpected avenues of tradable services or goods we have not considered yet
Sure, but that hardly makes for a compelling argument for colonization.
The compelling argument for colonization that Musk most frequently puts forth is to increase the chances of the survival of the human race by making it multi-planetary. Obviously that’s an argument operating at a different level of Maslow’s hierarchy!
Perhaps there are better ways to do that than to colonize Mars; but Elon is not wrong to think that Mars is the …. well, least disadvantageous terrestrial target within relatively practical reach. Perhaps Titan might turn out to be better, but it’s a hell of a lot longer trip…
But I think if Rand were fielding this question, he would suggest that it doesn’t matter what reasons would-be colonists have for attempting it, so long as they have the means to make it happen and the willpower to try: that they should be free to make the effort, and develop whatever arguments they need to attract commercial partners and investors, free of government interference. And after all, the motivations to colonize a new land are always to some degree irrational, or at least, sub-rational. Virginia was hardly a promising prospect for obvious profitable payoff in 1607 (it was not even apparent that tobacco could be grown there as a cash crop, or how much of a market there would be for it even if they could), and the risks were a good deal higher than even most knowledgable people appreciated (most colonists who came in the first 20 years were dead within 12 months of stepping ashore). And yet, people kept coming.
Virginia could have been worse than Greenland. And a worry could other European
powers only later did England become a match for France. But it largely about religion, though leadership was connected to British monarchy- it was a job.
It doesn’t seem Martians will a boss back on Earth, but religion could be part of it.
Earth has problem, not enough cheap energy. Mars surface is a bigger problem with cheap energy- and a lack of water.
If got a lake you can cool nuclear reactor easier. You also have waste heat, wanted.
If anyone can make lake worth of water, they can make water cheaper.
That also works with the Moon [if there is enough water] later the Moon will get more water than Mars has- because biggest market in space is water, and space has oceans of water- and you need enough market for it. Mars surface wouldn’t be market for it, but Mars orbit, might be, as would Earth and Venus orbits. Venus seems like biggest potential market for the oceans of water in space.
Though if build a lunar space elevator and use it to gain energy from dropping water on lunar surface, the lunar surface could a large market for solar system oceans of water. As by product of wanting more lunar energy.
But lunar space elevator is not going happen anytime soon- even though it doesn’t have material strength problem of an Earth space elevator.
Though if solve the material problem with Earth Space Elevator, you drop water on say the Sahara desert. That gravity dam would provide Africa and Europe with all energy they need.
Using space elevator to get off Earth is rather pointless.
“Perhaps there are better ways to do that than to colonize Mars; but Elon is not wrong to think that Mars is the …. well, least disadvantageous terrestrial target within relatively practical reach. ”
It seems Elon likes US, he moved here. He now owns, twitter.
US govt wants to go to Mars.
What stopping this from happening, Elon has not launched his Starship, yet.
You could blame US govt, but it seems the problem at point is the launch pad.
I suggested using pipes.
What wrong with pipes? Very Mach velocity gas hitting pipes.
Sure. I can’t do that kind of math.
Anyhow, it probably could be fixed without using pipes.
Assuming it launches within a month or so, at least US has allowed him to launch few thousand new Starlink satellites [of course that is not nearly enough- I don’t know exactly, why].
Test launch is critical, but no doubt there will be some problems, but once get to point of working rocket. Does NASA’s wait and see, change to wanting stuff, now.
NASA could remain just concerned about SpaceX meeting their schedule and Musk launches satellites and whatever. Or NASA go, “let’s change our plans”- which is really quite un-NASA. It seems to me politician might want more happen before the next election cycle.
Of course the test launch could indicate Starship might not ready soon enough for NASA and even Starship, does even look it will work out, to land crew on the Moon.
Though it seems more likely, launch pad is not problem, and Starship launches in couple weeks, and all goes as is hoped will happen. And when could see a launch every month, and when is there more than 50% chance booster and second stage are reused and then when is closer to 100%. And using 3 launch tower and what about launching oil rig.
And even SLS could launch within 2 years.
A lot things including New Glenn could happen within 2 years. There are 6 New Glenn launches in 2023:
https://www.rocketlaunch.live/
Which would not say is reliable, but it’s in someone mind.
Or SpaceX unlikely to change NASA, but quite likely to change Bezos and others.
And all this change, could speed things up.
The compelling argument for colonization that Musk most frequently puts forth is to increase the chances of the survival of the human race by making it multi-planetary.
Unfortunately, that’s an exercise in question begging. We need to know if man can live and thrive off Earth. “Backup” arguments don’t try to answer that question; they simple assume the answer is yes.
But I think if Rand were fielding this question, he would suggest that it doesn’t matter what reasons would-be colonists have for attempting it, so long as they have the means to make it happen and the willpower to try: that they should be free to make the effort, and develop whatever arguments they need to attract commercial partners and investors, free of government interference.
The operative phrase here is “so long as they have the means to make it happen”. Space advocates usually just assume that’s the case which is why colonization isn’t taken seriously.
For me personally, if I were 25, rather than living on a Mars Colony I’d prefer a trip in an interplanetary spacecraft taking a grand tour of the solar system and visiting all that could be visited over 10-15 years or so of spaceflight. Guess I’m more of an explorer at heart rather than a colonist.
This is behind paywall in the current AAAS Science.
This idiot woman, drops a bunch of straw men from L5 Society zealots circa 1970.
Surly Bob Zubrin appeared in her “research” for this book, you’d think his “Merchants of Despair” would have caught her attention, as it illuminates how her premise is exactly BACKWARDS.
Launius should be embarrassed by this cr*p review of a POS book.
Religion in space
A sense of divine entitlement pervades private space colonization efforts
ROGER D. LAUNIUS
SCIENCE
1 Dec 2022 Vol 378, Issue 6623
p. 954
Human space exploration has always been about a quest for utopia, laced with a fair measure of religious conceptions. In the early 1970s, Chris Kraft, the godfather of NASA’s Mission Control Center and a leader in the Apollo Moon landing program, characterized his support of space exploration in this way: “This step into the universe is a religion and I’m a member of it.”
Kraft’s statement made clear that those interested in moving beyond Earth, like the migrants to the Americas of the 16th and 17th centuries, endeavored to create a more perfect human experience free from the strictures of known society. Of course, what constitutes “a more perfect human experience” depends very much on individual perspective. Many observers of the space exploration community recognize this reality and have provided stinging critiques about what this might mean for extraplanetary regions explored by humans, who will bring with them all their beliefs and practices, for better and worse.
Mary-Jane Rubenstein, a professor of religion and science in society at Wesleyan University, adds her voice to these critiques with Astrotopia: The Dangerous Religion of the Corporate Space Race. She notes how human spaceflight supporters have long insisted that space is the next step in humanity’s “natural” and therefore irrepressible need to explore, often framing this inclination as a spiritual quest, a purification of humanity, and a search for absolution and immortality. These deep-seated convictions, she observes, have energized space exploration from the dawn of the space age.
Many of Rubenstein’s historical examples are well known. Captain Kirk’s soliloquy—“Space, the final frontier”—at the beginning of Star Trek and John F. Kennedy’s 1962 speech about setting sail on “this new sea” invoked journeying to a different land, settling an uncolonized region, and creating a new civilization. Such conceptions conjured images of self-reliant people moving to untouched territories in sweeping waves of discovery, exploration, and settlement. Implied therein were utopian ideals of optimism, individuality, and democracy. But flattening space into a mythological frontier reduced the complexity of events that would transpire during such exploration to a static morality play, avoided matters that challenged or contradicted the myth, framed the settlement experience as inherently good, and ignored the cultural context of migration.
Aspiring space colonizers disappointed with NASA’s declension in the 1970s began to imagine an alternative agenda aimed at achieving a bountiful future on a pristine planet, increasingly without government involvement. “New Space” advocates may be thought of as orphans of Apollo who found their way into myriad economic, political, and social camps. They evince distrust of authority, especially governmental authority, and celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Sir Richard Branson, whom they believe will finally open a boundless space frontier. Such individuals may support NASA’s efforts when they converge with their own interests, but they have grown increasingly critical of the space agency and any other large governmental activities.
Along with criticisms of NASA, “New Space” advocates also accept a dystopian future on Earth. They argue that in the 21st century, exponential growth of population and diminishing resources will create cataclysm. The answer, they believe, is to escape. And although humanity does not yet possess the technological capability to send human colonies elsewhere in the Solar System, these obstacles, they maintain, can be overcome.
Such beliefs are why, as Rubenstein makes clear, Musk and Bezos have become messiahs for the “New Space” community. In building the rockets necessary to get off this planet, presumably without government sponsorship, these entrepreneurs are opening the regions beyond Earth to settlement as never before. All will be the better for it, they believe. Notwithstanding the corporate ethos of Musk and Bezos, their supporters view their efforts as immensely more acceptable than the efforts of NASA.
Ultimately, Rubenstein succeeds in highlighting both the debate over whether future space exploration and exploitation should be led by government or entrepreneurial entities and the manner in which neoliberal, private-sector emphases have come to dominate the thinking of a particular segment of the pro-space community. Her criticisms of this phenomenon—part of a growing body of literature in environmental studies, Afrofuturism, and anticolonialism investigations—are on point.
Rendezvous with and re-direction of comets and asteroids is the big issue for me. Keep the dinosaur-killers from killing anything ELSE on the Unique Blue Marble. Ideally anything coming in close enough to be a risk presents an opportunity to re-direct to some sort of safe parking orbit, to be harvested for minerals or volatiles as the case may be.
Detecting dino-killing space junk seems to me to call for observatories dotting the far side of Luna, away from distortions of atmosphere and noise from radio traffic. Three or so colonies, not unlike the camps scattered across Earth’s polar regions, and supporting populations of a couple thousand up to a dozen thousand. Not many such camps, not “home”, but serious and long term residency for adventurous workers.
Launching the missions to rendezvous and divert dino-killers MIGHT be best done from Luna as well, depending on the availability of volatile fuels. If water and given sufficient solar power, I suppose a camp can fuel up a missile. But easier to climb out of Luna’s gravity well than either Earth’s or Mars’s , yes?
That seems to one advantage becoming spacefaring civilization- protecting Earth from impactors.
I call planet Venus a military fortress because impactors would not have much effect upon the planet.
Or people could living in the sky of Venus, and dinosaur killing impactor could impact Venus and it could little upon people living on Venus- unlike such impactor hitting Earth.
Or if idea is to protect Earth from impactors, the idea does “fit well” with bringing space rocks to Earth orbit- but it’s not much of problem with bringing space rocks to Venus orbit.
To some extent this also applies to Mars. You might even want to direct impactors to hit Mars surface for various reasons, but probably much smaller then 10 in diameter, though you might want put 10 km diameter space rock [or larger] in Mars orbit.
So explore moon and Mars to determine if they have mineable water and that call lead us to being a spacefaring civilization which would mine space rocks.
But if we only on Earth and not spacefaring, controlling these rocks is added expense- and we could be unable to do it.
So, rather having a few people on Mars and Earth gets wiped out, have few million people on Mars, could prevent Earth from getting wiped out.
Sadly, I am Tardus Pharticus now, but when young I was beyond those hilarious standard deviations in the right direction. Sewer worker, machanic, surveyor (trig and seismic), decent short order cook, writer of many traditionally published novels and stories, experienced and well paid software architect in my later days (a decent code monkey early on), hunter, bar fighter (and minorly a drunkard), fucker of women, father of children (and primum mobile of abortions)… I could go on, but you can see the shape of Heinlein’s universal man in there somewhere. I could probably still take your appendix out and leave you still breathing, but the rest of it’s probably receeding out of reach. If I wind up in an actual grave, there’s an epitaph.
“Objections To Mars Colonization” being “opposed to Mars Colonization” and/or arguments “against Mars Colonization” are quite dumb.
Is it opposition to NASA exploring Mars?
One argument against living on Mars was it would be easier to live on Earth ocean.
And it sort of missing the whole point, but I was noticing there was some interest in ocean settlements, and wondered how one could do it. And determine what is needed is to stop the ocean waves or you need breakwater. And in order to make ocean real estate cheap, you you needed much cheaper breakwaters and to be cheaper, they had to float.
And like any real estate, you needed power and water.
And services such as garbage and sanitation. And transportation, etc. And problem of ocean ownership.
It seems only real problem is ocean ownership and similar issues with settlements on Mars.
And seems if stop waves with floating breakwater, you should be able to or “allowed” to own that portion of the ocean.
Anyways, my conclusion was Mars settlements would cause Ocean settlements on Earth.
In terms Moon vs Mars, it seems lunar water mining would make to more likely or cause Mars settlements.
And if the Moon doesn’t have mineable water, Mars settlements would cause other types of lunar mining.
Mars settlements will also cause the mining of space rocks [provide enough market for it]. And Mars settlements need refueling in Venus orbit, and Mars doesn’t start mining space rocks, Venus orbit can provide huge market for space rocks. And Venus orbit helps a lot with exploring outer planets [which also involve using Mercury- or at least orbit closer to the Sun].
One aspect which I thought was selling point of the was it would lower Earth launch cost [more market for Earth launch, it seems other factors are already solving this issue [such as what SpaceX is doing].
The global satellite internet and AI in terms effect upon education could make things, more interesting.
–Japanese billionaire unveils the 8 artists he’ll fly to the moon on SpaceX’s Starship dearMoon flight
By Elizabeth Howell
published about 2 hours ago
The creator of ‘Everyday Astronaut’ is among the eight.–
https://www.space.com/dearmoon-announces-moon-crew-spacex-starship
But don’t know when.
When could it happen?
How could it happen?
From a Starship launch from Earth’s surface- wouldn’t
this have FAA permit issue?
Dragon fits 7