…has some thoughts on risk, and who will be exploring Mars:
…space travel will be done by adventurers, doing it for the sake of it, and they will thus become more like today’s mountaineers, who are actually doing things which others have already done, but making life harder for themselves – for example by climbing without ropes.
“I hope that some people now living will walk on Mars, but they will go in my view not in the spirit of Nasa astronauts – who are exposed to fairly low risks – but as part of a cut-price venture accepting great danger and perhaps even a one way ticket. If the Chinese wanted to have a prestige programme, as the Americans did with Apollo, they could get there in 20 years. But unless they do so, the first people to land on Mars will be mad, brave adventurers, and we will cheer them on.
Yup.
Nope. Sorry to disagree Rand, but it will not be either (in any meaningful numbers.)
Astronauts will not be going to colonize, nor will adventurers. Adventurers do their thing on vacation then go BACK to their lives. Those going to mars are going TO their new lives. Adventure is not the main point for them although it certainly will be such.
Cost, even with fully reusable vehicles, will never be cheap. If space is ever to become more than ‘missions’ that ultimately go nowhere we need a land rush where the actual colonists bear a minimum cost. With my plan they all arrive millionaires so they can pursue their own individual happinesses.
The transportation companies get their profits in their ticket prices. To work, neither the colonists or transportation companies pay the cost.
The only asset that already exists where it needs to be pays for everything. Six weeks from today I start my road trip to make it happen.
The only hurdle is mindset. It’s not technical or cost. I’m going to personally free your minds by setting the precedent. I’ll be doing it without the personal fortune that would make it easier for others (they already have the lawyers I’d need on retainer.)
Because lawyers are all that are really required.
Because lawyers are all that are really required.
I find that mind boggling claim.
I suppose there’s really no point in me going over a discussion you and I have had about 50 times.
Lawyers provide the foundation and framework for funding. Funding is the only real issue (and not as big an issue as fear mongers want us to believe.) All other issues are challenges we are fully capable of dealing with (even if not on first attempts.) You have a lot of value to add to a mars colony Andrew. Don’t lose heart.
Those going to mars are going TO their new lives.
That’s a pretty powerful statement, given that no one yet knows whether humans can live long term (more than one generation) on Mars.
Leaving biological questions behind, there’s also the economic question. No one seems to be giving much thought to what settlers are going to do there. On Earth, settlements have typically been established in places where there was something of commercial interest (minerals, farmland, and transportation nodes being the most common). None of the people talking about Mars have identified a significant commercial interest there — nor do they even appear to see the need for one.
Elon Musk has stated that NASA will be a major customer for his Mars colony, but he hasn’t identified any other potential customers or industries. But a NASA research station cannot possibly employ 500.000 people, directly or indirectly.
I can’t think of a single major city on Earth that began as a scientific research outpost. McMurdo Station (a model Marsies often point to) has no permanent population and a transient population of only about 1200. Unless a Mars settlement has some sort of commercial industry, I can’t see it growing any larger than that.
On Earth, settlements have typically been established in places where there was something of commercial interest (minerals, farmland, and transportation nodes being the most common).
The key word here is “most”. Some cities were establish because the original settlers thought it “looked pretty”. Some were even established “just because”, with no ryme or reason. Not everything human makes sense. To steal a line from Paul Breed: Mars is not going to be settled by reasonable men.
None of the people talking about Mars have identified a significant commercial interest there
This statement is a little silly. There are a bunch of people that have volunteered to go despite enormous risk. There is even a billionaire that has dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars towards that goal. Obviously there is a huge commercial interest – some people would rather be on Mars than Earth, and will pay for that.
You seem to be under the impression that people are not allowed to go to new places unless it helps the place they leave in some way. That is not true. If I like deserts, I can decide to go live in the desert. Other Chicago residents cannot then ask “how does that help me?”.
Consider that trade between a Mars colony and Earth would happen only very rarely. Earth dollars will not buy bread on Mars. People on Mars will work for Mars dollars, and use them to buy food, etc. The most common occupation in the beginning will likely be farmer, until we get the efficiencies back to Earth level.
some people would rather be on Mars than Earth, and will pay for that.
Or at least imagine that they would.
This is the problem with Elon’s plan. What people seem to miss is that he’s a very traditional businessman. He just wants to sell tickets. But people will not be able to afford his best estimate (which doesn’t include an expensive space suit.)
A plan that works can not expect the colonists to pick up the ticket price themselves or arrive in poverty as slaves to some entity. They have to arrive free with assets for success.
The good news is selling tickets at a profit is all we need from Elon (or others.)
Thank you, David S.
Sure there are cities build that survive through trading on their exotic location or exotic local activities, these centers can prosper though a steady flow of visitors. I can see that working out pretty well within a few days of Earth, and Lunar Los Vegas has a nice ring to it, but that won’t work so well if the nearest visitors live 6 months away.
Yup. David’s making the same argument the founders of hippy communes used to make, back in the 60’s. “We don’t need to work for the Man. We’ll move out into the desert and grow our own food.”
Las Vegas grew to 500,000 people because it had an industry. The hippy communes didn’t.
Andrew and Edward,
The mistake is not understanding the economics works at all scales. Saying it only works for a scale you’ve chosen and not others is simple bias blindness.
Getting to mars is an entirely different economic issue from living on mars. Mars has the resources for a fully industrial society. Nothing more is needed than people, even a few hippies.
To give them the best start they need abundant energy and the ability to produce more than they need. Everything else is driven by that.
Mars has the resources for a fully industrial society.
You can’t identify a single industry that you expect to establish on Mars? Let alone the resources those industries will require? But, somehow, you know Mars has them? That is quite remarkable.
There are a bunch of people that have volunteered to go despite enormous risk. There is even a billionaire that has dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars towards that goal.
“Hundreds of millions of dollars” divided by 500,000 settlers? That wouldn’t buy a run-down home in Detroit, let alone on Mars.
Despite what some fans believe, Elon never said he was going to pay for the colony. He said he is going to *sell* Earth-Mars transportation to colonists. That means you will need *jobs* to pay for it. And a lot of other things that you’ll need when you get there.
Elon is not likely to accept a bushel of wheat in trade. And Martian farmers are not going to make money sending “very rare” shipments back to Earth. If a colony is to have chance of success, you need to start thinking about *practical* ways of making money from it, not utopian fantasies.
Nothing will be sent from mars to earth economically for a long time, with the exception of massless data
This is no impediment to a mars colony.
I agree about Elon.
You can’t identify a single industry…
Of course I can. Go to any small town and pick up a yellow pages.
Do you know where things come from Ed? I’s not the grocery store. Things come from need based on situation. This will be explained to us (and I expect to find it fascinating) by the martians when explaining the simplicity of their lives.
“Simplicity”? You mean unemployment and poverty?
How to put this kindly? You need to stop looking at hippy communes and start working at economic models that *work*.
Of course I can. Go to any small town and pick up a yellow pages.
You are being deliberately obtuse. I was about industries you will establish *on Mars*, not industries in some random small town. Your unwillingness to even address the question shows how poor your understanding of economics is.
Again, those small towns were established because there was a commercial reason for people to be there — farming, mining, transportation, etc.
Towns that did not have an industrial base did not survive.
Have you ever visited Rhyolite? Third largest city in Nevada, until the mines ran out. Today — I think there’s one or two houses still occupied. Residents make a living giving tours to the few cars that stop by on their way to Death Valley.
People didn’t hang around Rhyolite merely to sell groceries to one another. They went somewhere else, where there was work.
That’s what people always do.
I was about industries you will establish *on Mars*, not industries in some random small town.
With this one sentence you express a profound economic blindness. People seem to only see the import/export aspects w/o understanding the more important 99% which is internal trade.
Economics is all about choices made in situations. When the situation doesn’t allow something, you do something else.
If something is done in a new and better way, that doesn’t suddenly mean the old way become impossible or any less economically viable especially if the new way is not practical because of situation.
Name one industry they can’t develop on mars? Keep in mind that some industries are not required for small populations.
If there is a need for something and someone fulfills it, that’s a job. Mars will have 100% employment for our entire lifetime.
“The only hurdle is mindset. It’s not technical or cost. I’m going to personally free your minds by setting the precedent. I’ll be doing it without the personal fortune that would make it easier for others (they already have the lawyers I’d need on retainer.)
Because lawyers are all that are really required.”
Ken, is there any reason you aren’t calling the Space Show during an open lines segment to promote your ideas? There was one this past Tuesday and there is usually 1 or 2 a month. If you’re interesting enough, you could be invited on as a guest.
It’s a good thought Jim. I’m not ready. I want to be more public when I’ve got something a bit more tangible. Otherwise I really am just another crackpot.
That’s the point of my pending road trip. I intend to meet with some people and work on funding (mostly, but among other things.) I wish I’d done something before my income evaporated, but then other things weren’t ready. Now they are.
“Otherwise I really am just another crackpot.”
Ken , I wish you the best of luck on your pending road trip. However, if you really want to avoid the “crackpot” label avoid responses of the sort:
“Go to any small town and pick up a yellow pages.”
When someone ask you to name industries, name industries.
Simple questions deserve straight answers. I have no idea who you plan to meet on your trip but I very much doubt answers like “Go to any small town and pick up a yellow pages” will get you the desired results.
When someone ask you to name industries, name industries.
The problem was Ed and I were not looking at it from the same perspective. Ed was saying, what industry could produce a profitable export to earth? I was not thinking that at all, since I don’t believe anything with mass would be a profitable export from mars.
I was thinking industry on mars for mars, no export at all. My answer, perhaps too flippant (because I do take your point) was just my way of saying any industry found on earth should work on mars.
I believe there is a bias that puts restrictions like exports on what we can do on mars that are totally not required but simply make things impossible when they are not.
Who is earth’s current trading partner? Does that make earth economically non-viable?
Are we requiring full blown industry on mars or can we scale up as every business on earth does?
“Who is earth’s current trading partner? Does that make earth economically non-viable?”
Ken, earth currently has 7 billion people. Mars currently has 0 and will not have significantly more than 0 for centuries to come. Very few industries are viable with a labor pool and customer base on the order of 0 people.
I understand that you believe that hardy Martian colonists, living their lives in either fallout shelters or spacesuits can each do the work of hundreds of thousands of terrestrial wimps who have to get by in a comparative paradise. But you’re going to have to do more than than just believe it or say it. You’re going to have to offer some kind of evidence.
And speaking of saying it, the Space Show is having an open lines segment this Sunday. Call in and talk your ideas over with Dr. Livingston.
earth currently has 7 billion people. Mars currently has 0
Right. But my point is still valid. Trade is good, but requiring it when not possible (other than data) as I believe, creates an artificial showstopper.
…for centuries to come.
Does not have to be so. A dozen on first landing ($2b) and dozens on second ($3b) give you a good capability if well chosen. They build the infrastructure to more than double the population every 26 months.
Viable industries…
Scale to their customer base. I have a friend that made electric motors by hand in a small town a 100 miles from anywhere. That is an industry. On mars they would need another guy extruding wire (a 3D printer could do this in a pinch) and a guy making castings. Magnets are easy. Those two other guys could have other customers having other uses for wire and castings. It turns out you only need 3 or 4 dozen people for a complete industrial ecology that could potentially make anything. A single machinist (or 3D printer) can make thousands of different items (those 7 billion can help with designs.)
I understand that you believe that hardy Martian colonists, living their lives in either fallout shelters or spacesuits can each do the work of hundreds of thousands of terrestrial wimps
More artificial showstoppers (but nice sarcasm.) They don’t have to be huge industries. They simply have to do enough for their small customer base. Those fallout shelters can easily be huge shirtsleeve malls and mansions where the majority work. Why shouldn’t they, they will have plenty of room?
…some kind of evidence.
I’ve seen the evidence of what a handful of people are capable of doing because I’ve had the privilege of working with makers.
I also have a brother with mechanical talents and skills of a dozen others (but he only has two hands. More hands work better.) You should see him back double trailers through a parking lot maze. Or machine an intricate part. Or use heavy equipment like a ballerina. Or weld. Or tell the exact internal part of an engine needs replacing just by listening (a gift he’s had since about 10.)
When you watch a show like how it’s made… note that the machinery was made by somebody like my brother (more usually, but he alone could do it.) He really would be the perfect martian.
…the Space Show…
I’m considering it. Perhaps later, if not now.
I think something more reminiscent of the voyages of Columbus and Cook, the ships weren’t built especially for the journeys but were vessels already plying the local region, I see cislunar space developing to meet a demand for profitable activities, and them someone, a Musk or Fosset with a bit of finance, modifying existing hardware to go to Mars.
Yes Andrew, general purpose ships in earth orbit make other possibility real. Orion ain’t it. I propose replacing the second stage of an F9R with a merger of the second stage and something a bit larger than a Sundancer but smaller than a BA330. Dry it would be under 13 ton. Dry with a dozen colonists and supplies ready for earth departure it would be about 40 ton giving each crew plenty of living room on many months of journey (other than lunar excursions.) Then add fuel for any destination (hall thrusters bring it back to earth after colonists have transferred to landers sent ahead to any particular destination. Eventually replaced by body specific SSTOs.)
These ships could be put in orbit for less than $200m each and be amortized over many missions. Without going anywhere but LEO they become profit centers to pay for fuel for other eventual destinations. Methane Raptors would be their main engines with hall thruster backups. They are their own fuel depots.
I’ve kinda come round to that opinion, too. We need to get really good at cislunar manned space as a necessary precondition to beginning to get good at interplanetary manned space. But the wrinkle is the “profitable activities” part of the equation. I think there’s all kinds of science we can do in cislunar space and on the lunar surface, but we’re a long way away from hitting the price points needed to turn a real profit.
Government R&D has historically been successful in bridging that gap between the promise of profit and the actual profit. But NASA seems to be dead set on concentrating first on the launcher problem–where there are companies that can actually make profits–and then on silly stunts like asteroid retrieval, which neither get you close to profit nor to the foundational technologies that would allow others to get to profitability.
Narrowing the NASA manned space charter to “we do spacecraft and logistical technology for cislunar operations, lunar descent, and lunar habitation” would go a long way to rationalizing its mission and getting it to concentrate on the really hard, nasty bits of living in space or on the moon. The technology to do that will allow others to lash up missions to asteroids or Mars, instead of overreaching and then trying to backfill to get to something with mature economics. That’s what we did in the sixties, and it didn’t work out so well.
The key is prying NASA’s fingers off of launcher R&D and operations. That’s a very, very tough political row to hoe, but it’s the critical path to generating a rational manned space program. Do that, and suddenly things will become very clear.
The technology to do that will allow others to lash up missions to asteroids or Mars,
NASA developed technology for cislunar operations, lunar descent, and lunar habitation during the Apollo program. Who else is using it?
No one. Government R&D has *not* been successful in bridging that gap between the promise of profit and the actual profit.
What’s needed is not gold-plated technology built to government specs but cost-effective technology built to commercial specs. Harry Stine told us that 30 years ago. But people still fixate on trying to “fix NASA.”
“NASA developed technology for cislunar operations, lunar descent, and lunar habitation during the Apollo program.”
No, it developed a bunch of engineering curiosities. We need landers that can cycle at least tens of times, propellant depots, radiation-hardened habs, better closed-cycle environmental systems, etc. None of that is going to emerge out of a commercial market any time soon. But if NASA develops the tech, others will run with it.
None of that is going to emerge out of a commercial market any time soon.
Well, you’ve been waiting 50 years for it to emerge out of NASA. Is it that ridiculous to try a different approach?
I think Masten would dispute your claim about landers that can be cycled tens of times.
I don’t see why a Bigelow habitat couldn’t be radiation-hardened fairly easily.
You are wrong if you think the commercial sector cannot develop something as mundane as what you are talking about.
“Botany Bay… Botany Bay?! Oh, no!”
Any large population of humans living permanently off Earth will be born there. It is too expensive to ship people anywhere for the near term and maybe ever.
All the hype and hoopla over Space Settlements belies the huge effort to create habitable environments to support human societies and its ecosystem. This effort far exceeds the rockets and spacecraft that romantics (including myself) are so excited about in the here and now. The basic research needed has barely been started.
Any large population of humans living permanently off Earth will be born there. It is too expensive to ship people anywhere for the near term and maybe ever.
Good common sense, but there are some issues on the boundaries. We can and should get a viable colony started without births, perhaps a few thousand colonists (if they agree to restrain themselves. It should not be imposed on them.)
It is certainly too expensive to expect the colonists pay the ticket price which limits how many go. Oklahoma gives us a good historical example of the economic impact that follows homesteaders. All we have to do is insure they arrive with enough mass allotment included the travel ticket to insure they have the wealth to pursue their dreams because any personal items they bring carry a mass surcharge value.
The assets to pay for everything already exist even at a penny a square meter or what ever market rate. Even novelty rates. Deed holders themselves will insure greater than novelty rates.
The basic research needed has barely been started.
That research has been going on continuously since the first biped and will continue forward in the same way… by doing.
I got reinterested in space by Gerard K. O’Neill’s book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. That book laid out proposals for colonies in the Earth-Moon area that would do things like build space based solar power satellites to benefit humans on Earth — even ones who weren’t interested in space. I have yet to hear any such proposals for Mars colonies.
There is also the problem of actually living on Mars. We would need to build something like ground based O’Neill colonies to do so. Why? The Martian atmosphere has a pressure at ground level is 1/100 of Earth’s. To step onto the Martian surface would require a space suit much like Armstrong’s if not identical. Mars does not have a strong magnetic field. That means it is not protected from Solar storms. Mars does not have food that humans can eat. We can supply the ISS with rocket launches. We can’t do that for people living on Mars. Oh — we don’t know yet how to create a Biosphere 2 — even on Earth.
Will the human race eventually be able to create O’Neill colonies, Martian colonies and even travel to the stars? I am optimistic that we can — but first I think we need to create a space field that is more open and democratic than the current one is. Free democratic societies do better in the long run — especially at solving unusual new problems such as space exploration and development are doing.
a space field that is more open and democratic
Only happens by doing.
Required reading about SPS.
I won’t place any bets on space access and transport never being really low cost. I hope Elon can cut the access cost massively, but what will bring it down much further will be the kinds of systems with higher margins than can be squeezed from a “missile-shape” design, however well planned.
Those are the margins that XCOR is trying to develop in stepwise fashion from sub orbit to orbit (and there are _two_ phases of orbital launcher, the second being lowest cost).
Aside from that, I agree with everyone who points to the biological issues. Creating a “reasonably sustainable” biosphere – it doesn’t have to be perfect as long as you can avoid crazy out-of-control stuff with various species as at Biosphere 2 (hardest), and you have local resources to compensate for “raw materials” imbalances that show up.
And I know I say it often but It’s still a travesty that we have no idea whether humans can be healthy for long periods, let alone reproduce, at partial gravities as on Luna or Mars. But you can thank the DC porkers for that lack.
It’s not a binary yes or no. We can live and reproduce on mars. That is not the question. The question is the viability of mortality rates which will improve with experience. It’s time to get that experience. We have more than enough volunteers.
Safety is not an option (I’ve heard.)
We can live and reproduce on mars. That is not the question.
Sorry, but it is a question, and a serious one. We don’t know if we can live and reproduce on Mars.
Safety is not an option (I’ve heard.)
Not sure where you’ve heard that. Certainly not here.
We absolutely do know we can live on mars if they have the resources.
We can only extrapolate about birth mortality until we have the data which we only get from a good size population on mars.
There are differing kinds of not knowing. We have plenty of reason to believe normal births on mars are possible. We also have reason for caution. But we have no reason to assert it stops us from going forward (not that you’ve suggested such.)
We can only extrapolate about birth mortality until we have the data which we only get from a good size population on mars.
We have absolutely nothing from which to extrapolate. Do you even understand what that word means? We have no idea if we can conceive, let along gestate, let alone have viable offspring in that environment. I don’t understand why you don’t understand this.
We have plenty of reason to believe normal births on mars are possible.
“Because I want it to be true!” is a reason, but it is not a good reason.
We get the data by going to mars. We breed animals first and see how that goes.
Any argument that says we can’t has no more data than saying we can. Zero G does not apply. 0.01 g has a closer relation to a full g than it has to zero. A rocket scientist should know that?
0.38 is significant (or can you only argue it’s too much when arguing against?)
We have absolutely zero data.
Zero G does not apply. 0.01 g has a closer relation to a full g than it has to zero.
.01g is typical of what you will experience on a “microgravity” aircraft flight.
If you really believe that, why aren’t you doing the experiment aboard ISS? Building a 0.01g centrifuge shouldn’t be difficult at all. You could use an ordinary fan motor.
why aren’t you doing the experiment
Why aren’t we you mean? Good question. I’d have thought some college would do this with progressively higher Gs.
If we truly have no data, this would seem to be a no brainer… or suggests a serious lack of interest. Or in my case, a belief that since we should have gone yesterday we just get the data from the animals we bring to mars.
It would be much cheaper and faster to get the data in earth orbit.
You would think so, but FH may change things. With FH Elon says he could put a lander in mars orbit (up to 13,200 kg) for $150m which is about the same cost he proposes to send people to I.S.S. This seems in line with charging the govt. more for its red tape.
We might just send a rabbit hutch to mars collecting data until the food pellets run out.
I’m sure there is a better choice of animal, but it requires more thought.
The biggest problem of Mars vs the Moon is travel time. In the time it takes one vehicle to travel to Mars and return (about 30 months), a lunar transport system could do 30 round trips to the lunar surface. A lunar transport also may be much smaller than a Mars transport with less volume per passenger, fewer amenities, and less consumables. Only if the Martians are going one-way in the living quarters they will use on Mars does the transit time come down to only a few percent of the total mission duration, but the cost of the entry-descent-landing system must be charged entirely against the single use, rather than amortized across multiple flights.
So if a Mars mission architecture is reusable, it suffers from poor throughput. If it has good throughput, it’s not reusable. This would be like buying he Mayflower and living aboard it for years at Plymouth Rock.
That’s the problem with the moon… it’s too close. It’s like camping in your backyard and thinking you’re finally independent of mom and dad.
If you pay attention to our political problems here on earth, you have no need for any other justification for a mars colony (not a govt. project.)
That’s the problem with the moon… it’s too close. It’s like camping in your backyard
Says a man who has never been above the stratosphere. This is like the hobo saying *that* mansion isn’t swanky enough.
Of course, someone else could say that Mars is like your backyard. Why not Europa? Or Alpha Centauri? If you reason that way, you’ll never be able to settle anywhere — there will always be someplace farther off.
Except that people already argue that 20 to 40 minute light distance is too far. I say it’s the sweet spot. YMMV.
I say it’s the sweet spot.
Well, that’s utterly convincing. Who needs logic and facts when we have “Ken says so.” 🙂
Glad to see you’ve come around. 😉
Mars may be too close (that’s a nanny state question) but it’s the best we’ve got. We’re searching for such an ideal exoplanet when it’s right here waiting.
there will always be someplace farther off.
That’s the good news.
I don’t understand why you don’t understand this.
Because humanity has a history of bogymen that vanished without a trace simply by doing.
We do have data to extrapolate from (not a lot, but it’s definite) but it’s easy to ignore.
We have none.
“Because I want it to be FALSE!” is a reason, but it is not a good reason.
One way to look at g forces is to think of them as different clock rates. Everything that happens at higher g happens at lower g but slower. That is radically different from zero g. Even the difference between crashing and bouncing can be explained by different energy level at different clock rates.
Biologically, we’ve got a lot more variables than simple physical processes, so intuition is much less reliable. But giving birth at standard environment rates has never been the case. There has always been variations and children continue to be born.
Until the deed is done we are arguing in circles. I look forward to humanity putting this issue behind us as it has countless other bogymen. More impressive than landing on the moon (not sinking out of sight in the dust) or breaking the sound barrier (don’t forget your Beemans.) Humans going faster than on horseback was definitely impossible (ask anybody) until we did.
One way to look at g forces is to think of them as different clock rates.
That is one way, but we have no reason to think that it’s a way that corresponds to reality.
In fact, we have experimental data that shows it to be faster. Some things happen slower in microgravity (e.g., immune response). Other things happen faster (e.g., bacteria growth).
Not that slowing down human reproduction would be a good thing.
Bob Zubrin-type arguments about “bogeymen” tell us nothing.
We’re dealing with intuition here because we just don’t have the data yet. People seem to be arguing that only one g will do because we do have data on zero g.
Perhaps I am biased because the alternative seems to be we never leave the cradle.
But the arguments against sound like saying stars can only be one solar mass. The reality is fusion works in a range of solar masses that are not tightly clustered around one solar mass. My intuition tells me the same will be true of child birth. I could certainly be wrong but I trust my intuition on this.
Perhaps I am biased because the alternative seems to be we never leave the cradle.
No, the alternative is that we do the research to learn how to do it properly. And develop realistic business plans.
That requires a lot more work, but so what? No one ever said that opening the frontier was going to be easy.
Perhaps I am biased because the alternative seems to be we never leave the cradle.
No, the alternative is to do some research so we can figure out how to deal with the problem, or to build one-gee facilities outside gravity wells. Just because you’re obsessed with Mars doesn’t mean that the rest of us won’t conquer the solar system.
My obsession does not preclude any other options. I just see a huge opportunity cost loss (on the order of suppose there were no SpaceX? Take a pause to imagine the implications of that?) We have and will continue to lose decades by not establishing an independent mars colony ASAP. Why?
Because of what Elon describes as a forcing function. I believe he is entirely correct that minus a forcing function we could continue for more decades going in circles and accomplishing little. A mars colony is not only a forcing function but will on a daily basis drive a stake through the heart of many cherished false assumptions about space development. Most important some of the ridiculous economic assumptions. But proof requires following both states to a conclusion so its an argument I can only assert but never win.
Right now, the best candidates for a Mars mission would be people with terminal diseases who have little to lose in terms of lifespan, reproductive possibilities, etc.
There’s nothing unethical about allowing a geologist with a slow-growing but incurable cancer to spend the remainder of his life doing interesting fieldwork that will ensure his place in all the history books.
That would severely limit the candidate pool, but no more so than NASA’s astronaut selection process.
Well, that ignores the potential for improving medical technology that might save him if he hung around on earth long enough.
True, but people make those decisions all the time when they reject difficult, expensive, or experimental procedures which might prolong their lives — at least until something better comes along.
It might turn out to be the wrong decision, if there’s an unexpected breakthrough, but that doesn’t make it unethical.
I don’t think it’s unethical to let someone young and in good health do it, if it’s their own decision. The only think I would think unethical is having children there, given our current state of knowledge.
It might be if it’s a one-way mission and you aren’t sure the supplies and life-support systems will last for more than 5 or 10 years.
A state of knowledge that will change with experience.
Doesn’t it seem unethical to take the decision away from parents?
I’m not taking decisions away from anybody.
I’m not taking decisions away from anybody.
Fair enough.
At what point in your opinion would it be ethical?
When we have some actual data, at least using mammals, better yet, primates, that the offspring aren’t monsters.
Sounds right, keeping in mind monsters can develop in one g as well.
Yes, but only rarely, not with a certainty.
And in mathematical terms, the probability of shortening a person’s life is greater if you send a healthy person than if send someone who’s expecting to die in the in next five years. The number of expected early deaths from radiation, accidents, etc. will outweigh the likelihood of an unexpected medical breakthrough.
“Simplicity”? You mean unemployment and poverty?
The economic model that works is “see a need, fill the need.” Free enterprise works, especially on mars where the works have yet to be gummed up (yet top down planners continue to plan slave camps.)
There will be absolutely no unemployment on mars for as far into the future as we can reasonably see. The reason for choosing mars is it has everything required for industry and no lawyers to stop them.
Poverty will only exist because of poor choices. If every martian colonist arrives with a sufficient mass allowance of personal property (worth about $60k+/kg due to import costs) they will all arrive as millionaires.
Again, name one industry they can’t have on mars?
The economic model that works is “see a need, fill the need.
But you haven’t seen any need. Or if you have, you’re keeping it to yourself. I’ve asked you time and time again what customers your colony will serve, what products and services it will produce. From your lack of response, it’s pretty clear you haven’t even thought about it.
Elon has said the colony will host a NASA research station. Okay, but that’s a minor activity. It can’t possibly employ 500,000 people, directly or indirectly.
The reason for choosing mars is it has everything required for industry
Again, you can’t possibly you know that until you identify specific industries and their requirements. You’ve mentioned farming and animal husbandry, but you don’t even know if those activities are possible on Mars — and shipping food from Mars will be cost-prohibitive because of the gravity well.
I could see Mars being a good location for a motion-picture studio. But that’s probably a fairly niche market. I can also see it a sort of shore-leave facility for people working in space — especially if gravitational biology works out as you hope. A lot of cities got started that way, but that presumes a lot of people are living and working in space first. What else is there?
But you haven’t seen any need.
You floor me! I can see a million needs (or rather desires the only real need is life support.) Pick one you think the martians can’t fulfill? Click the link.
Let’s try this again…
What customers your colony will serve?
Mainly, but not exclusively, each other. Mars One plans to employ some as reality stars for example, but we need not depend on that.
What products and services it will produce?
Any they have the skills to produce. Power (that’s an industry.) Water (that’s…) Wire (that’s also…) Electric generators (ditto.) Hydraulic power tractors (I can provide blueprints and a parts list.) Anything a machinist or 3d printer can make… that would be millions of things… the blueprints free from earth supporters of the colonists or they just design the stuff themselves.) Really Ed, I need to do this?
It’s pretty clear you haven’t even thought about it.
Your mind reading skills are a bit off.
Elon has said…
He’s not the last word. You both could use a bit more imagination. Yes, I just said Elon has an imagination problem, but he’s a good traditional businessman. 500,000 people means more needs to fulfill, not less.
As far as living in 38% g, we’ll just have to find out. I’ll bet $10,000 they can farm. Will you cover?
I can see a million needs
So, show me. Produce a real marketing study. Act like a businessman instead of a zealot.
Power (that’s an industry.)
What kind of power? Solar? Easier to produce in Earth orbit. And how do you deliver it to the customers? Mars is too far away for power beaming. Nuclear? Are there fissile materials on Mars? Don’t just “assume” so, show me real data.
Water
Easier to get from the Moon (short term) or Ceres (long term).
Wire (that’s also…) Electric generators (ditto.) Hydraulic power tractors
You’ve got to be kidding.
You don’t have to go to the bottom of a gravity well to build any of those things.
I’m sure there are some things that are easier/better produced on Mars, but you haven’t come up with single example. It doesn’t even appear that you’ve tried very hard.
Edward,
This is a lot harder when you ignore what I’ve written in other comments to this post. I will try to explain why Rhyolite is the same mistake you made in your last post. I will assert that mars export will not happen (although data is an exception) and is not required. If I prove this I make all the points you keep repeating, null and void. I will agree with you that ALL parties must profit on average to make this work.
Mars is not selling anything. Got it? Rhyolite was about exporting gold. That is not the model for mars. Zero export. Do I need to repeat this many more times? You can continue to ignore this point which just means you are incapable of understanding, but I refuse to believe you are so… but you will have to give me a bit of credit rather than just assuming I’m an idiot, zealot or crackpot. That doesn’t get us anywhere. A market study regarding a dozen colonist doesn’t make any sense. For speculators perhaps so, so I will address that.
Profit is an issue. Profit for 3 groups. All must profit (with allowance for some percent failure.)
1) Colonists 2) ticket sellers 3) speculators
We can assume ticket sellers will profit because otherwise they don’t sell any and nobody goes. Ticket sellers will set their prices to include profit, whatever their costs.
Colonist profit in two modes. Basic life support is mode one. The source of ‘income’ is sunlight. ‘Expense’ for this mode is the maintenance and repair of equipment. If this were the whole story, they might survive for quite some time but premature death would be the end result. Mode two is internal trade involving zero export. This trade must provide more income than their life support maintenance and repair costs or it would have the same eventuality.
Basic economics guarantees mode two does not result in eventual death. Colonists on mars will be able to produce a surplus of life support (because they will not be so stupid as to bringing too few solar panels.) Abundant energy is a point that can’t be emphasized too much because too little is death. Also they will be able to make site improvements (not just habitats) they can sell to new arrivals. The existential need to survive means they will not sell too cheap. Competition will keep these prices from being too high. This balance is a basic law of economics and irrefutable. I’ve already explained how arriving colonist will all be millionaires but that still requires two basic requirement that are not negotiable. Their ticket must include a sufficient mass allotment (and I will explain why it will even though the ticket seller would rather it not) and the ticket price must be paid for by the speculators and not the colonists.
The ticket price must cover the cost of a space suit and enough life support to last a reasonable amount of time. No ticket seller could reasonably offer less. But the colonist can choose not to have all of his allotment be food, water and air because he can purchase this from the locals. So the new arrival will have luxury item to trade all with a competitive mass surcharge. Many of those items having been requested by older colonists so it’s not all just hoping to sell.
So far I haven’t said anything very controversial. The discussion of speculators is a harder sell. Especially if you insist on a market study. So let me stop here and see your response first.
I will assert that mars export will not happen… If I prove this I make all the points you keep repeating, null and void
No, if you prove that, all you will have shown is that Mars is an economic dead end — a money pit where investment goes in but nothing comes out. Of course, you haven’t proved that, you have merely asserted it, over and over (and over and over) again.
I’m not really sure what your point is, except perhaps that you like money pits and think everyone else will, too, if you just repeat your argument often enough.
Edward,
Your edit completely changed the meaning of what I said which rephrasing was: I intend to show that mars export is not required for colonization to be economically viable. What I’ve written is not complete as I pointed out in the last paragraph.
I was looking for confirmation that you understood what I’ve asserted so far. This doesn’t require you to agree, just understand. Your poor editing, which changed the meaning of what I said, proves you do not understand. Either by choice or because I’m just too poor a communicator.
I will continue discussing speculator involvement on my blog (I’ve begun the post and will complete it this day.) But it will continue to be meaningless to you if you can’t understand that the first two groups are economically viable already given the assertions I’ve presented. It is the third group that demonstrates that mars would not be a money pit (any more than the Americas.)
I am deeply saddened that you refuse to understand, but you are not alone. I once drove cross country with a rural friend of mine that wondered how people survived not being farmers. You think the same way regarding mining.
There are other economic models that work beyond exporting gold or [fill in the blank.] You would have had an opportunity to learn one if you could wrap your mind around it.
It is theoretically possible for a nation/ region/planet to become wealthy without exports, all that is required is that the resource available locally be of a high value, think of it in terms of thermodynamics, with a big return on the energy/effort invested, ie a high marginal rate of return.
That doesn’t seem likely to be the case on Mars.
Thank you Andrew, I’m am working to demonstrate how it could be the case for mars. It is not too difficult an argument to assert that the earth would not be economically viable without sunlight. Mars gets about half as much sunlight energy on its surface so we can say it has met that one requirement. We can also assert that the earth has no trading partners so we have at least one solid example.
So my argument has a foundation. I simply have to show the rest which I believe I can but it will require some time to get the documentation for my argument right. Clearly I need to do better on even the simplest points of my argument.
…a one-way mission and you aren’t sure the supplies and life-support systems will last for more than 5 or 10 years.
Assuming Elon’s lander has a 2500 kg payload ($150m ea.) we could support 3 colonists per lander indefinitely for $75m annually. That’s assuming they are unable to grow their own food ($10k wager anyone?.) Sending just 3 would be a mistake, $300m annually is more realistic. If NASA can throw away $3b to $6b annualy on SLS/Orion they could certainly cover this and the research colonists could provide would be more than dozens of rovers could do. Those rovers cost more than the colonists maintenance/supply costs.
Forgot to mention, any rovers NASA did send while colonists were there to drive them might also become ten times more productive.
Ed: You can’t identify a single industry…
But CJ did.
Darn it. Here it is…
http://planetplots.blogspot.com/2015/01/export-industry-for-mars.html