Author Topic: Jeff Bezos believes in space as an industrial park, but not as a backup  (Read 32292 times)

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3421
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2175
  • Likes Given: 2693
So the big advantage of planets is that you can pollute them all you want without (in the foreseeable future) running out of the raw materials you're not bothering to recycle? That's the second most common argument against space exploration I hear all the time.

I wasn't aware that we'd run out of any raw materials here on Earth.  Definitely not of the mineral kind.

And if given the chance to start anew on a new world, we certainly have a lot of lessons learned that we'll be able to apply.  For instance, recycling aluminum can significantly reduce the need to mine and refine more aluminum, so I think Mars colonists will be very good recyclers.

Quote
Bear in mind that not a single city on earth is self-sufficient, and that even our entire society isn't self-sufficient as we keep burning through mineral reserves and billions of years worth of fossil fuels.

Let's cut to the chase here - I don't know anyone that thinks Mars will be self-sufficient anytime soon.  If we're lucky maybe a century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's far longer.

So self-sufficiency is not required to start colonization off of Earth, either for Mars or in-space colonies, since it's a long-term goal, not a near-term one.

Next subject...
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 01:57 AM by Coastal Ron »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
Huh?  C is a relatively straightforward engineering development process that begins with a spacecraft tethered to a spent stage.

Such a configuration would be for testing purposes only, not for normal use. 

Yes, a first step in a relatively straightforward engineering development process.

Quote
I think it will take many decades, maybe even centuries.  My career has been in the manufacturing world, so I know how hard it is to make things even in the middle of civilization.

But making the same size colony out in space, and not on a big lump of atoms, will take far longer.

I can't see how you would arrive at that conclusion.  Making any size colony in LEO is many orders of magnitude more economical and straightforward versus one on Mars.

Quote
Quote

Okay, first of all, they're all space colonies.  That's my point.  This idea that Mars is somehow an easier place to start a space colony, because it's a planet and therefore easier because it's a planet and therefore easier, is an unfounded assumption.

The same can be said about colonies not on a planetoid.  However I would characterize it as a calculated assumption.  And it's certainly one that many feel is worth pursuing.

The difference between a calculated assumption and an unfounded assumption is that one can begin making plans based on calculated assumptions.

Quote
Quote
Regarding resources, some time soon (< 10 years) after we (humans) begin launching asteroid retrieval spacecraft, small asteroids measuring in the half-kiloton range can begin to arrive in cislunar space, ready for retrieval to wherever we place stations.  A station in LEO can make a relatively rapid progression, using conventional equipment shipped from nearby, to the point where it can refine and smelt small amounts of ore.

All of our mineral extraction techniques here on Earth rely upon 1G gravity, free access to as much air as is needed, and in some cases bulk quantities of complex chemicals.

All we'll have in space is lots of heat and cold, so I'm not sure extracting minerals in space is going to happen at a very rapid pace.

My assertions about LEO colonies are based on the presence of 1G gravity, i.e. SSI-type settlements.

Quote
Quote
Based on what we've learned from ISS about equatorial LEO radiation levels, guilt-free baby-making can start immediately. Al Globus says so.

Somehow I don't think there will be a rush to make babies in space right away.  But as I said earlier, I think in-space colonies and Mars colonies can exist at the same time, and even complement each other.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "in-space colonies".  To me, Mars colonies are, for all practical purposes, "in-space colonies" that have simply been placed very far away from Earth.

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
Let's cut to the chase here - I don't know anyone that thinks Mars will be self-sufficient anytime soon.  If we're lucky maybe a century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's far longer.

So self-sufficiency is not required to start colonization off of Earth, either for Mars or in-space colonies, since it's a long-term goal, not a near-term one.

I agree.  But near self-sufficiency is relatively necessary right off the bat for a Mars colony, given the difficulty of supporting one, and self-sufficiency is inherently necessary to meet the goal of establishing a "Plan B for humanity", which is the reason most often cited by putative Mars colonists when asked why in tarnation we'd ever want to try to colonize Mars.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3421
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2175
  • Likes Given: 2693
It's highly unlikely that any government on Earth is going to support a Mars colony in the foreseeable future, and any Mars colony would require constant support for the foreseeable future.

For an orbital colony, the necessary support is orders of magnitude smaller and yet still highly difficult to justify.

Absent some currently unknown "National Imperative", I know of no reason the U.S. Government would spend any public money to directly finance or support a colony off of Earth - regardless where it is.  And I think the same applies to other governments too.

That's not to say that various governments wouldn't spend money to pursue "science", and pay Bezos or Musk to do what they already plan to do so that the governments can tag along.  But I don't foresee that being a majority of the overall funding.

I think colonizing space is going to have to be a primarily privately funded effort.  I'm certainly willing to throw some play money at it, and probably others would be too.  But I don't see any significant revenue streams coming in to help finance any of these efforts.

Quote
Tourism will be the first target, and although the market surveys look okay we'll have to wait and see whether that works.

Sorry, but no.  The market for "experiential travel" (which is what space tourism is initially) is not that big.  And overall tourism is a byproduct of humanities expansion, not a leader.  Plus, what is a space tourist supposed to do?

Quote
I've wondered myself whether, if we get better at bringing NEOs to LEO and sending products to the surface inexpensively, farming could turn out to be profitable, say on high-value crops that can be grown 24/7 without regard to seasons, insects, blights or natural disasters.

Unlikely.  Crops grown is space will be far more valuable supporting self-sufficiency in space.  Ironically crops grown in LEO could be sold to Mars colonists...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3421
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2175
  • Likes Given: 2693
But near self-sufficiency is relatively necessary right off the bat for a Mars colony, given the difficulty of supporting one...

That is not what Elon Musk is planning.  His plan is to double the number of ships going to Mars every synodic cycle.  No one knows if that will happen, but it's clear Musk plans to keep transporting people and materials to Mars in ever increasing amounts.  So the plan is not "one and done".

Quote
...and self-sufficiency is inherently necessary to meet the goal of establishing a "Plan B for humanity", which is the reason most often cited by putative Mars colonists when asked why in tarnation we'd ever want to try to colonize Mars.

Sure.  But there is no defined need date to make that happen, since we don't know when/if the end of the Earth is coming.

It is curious though that you're implying that LEO colonies will never become self-sufficient, yet you pan Mars colonists for trying.  Seems like a double standard to me...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
But near self-sufficiency is relatively necessary right off the bat for a Mars colony, given the difficulty of supporting one...

That is not what Elon Musk is planning.  His plan is to double the number of ships going to Mars every synodic cycle.  No one knows if that will happen, but it's clear Musk plans to keep transporting people and materials to Mars in ever increasing amounts.  So the plan is not "one and done".

IIRC, he has explicitly stated that the support of multiple governments will be required. So he may plan...

Quote
Quote
...and self-sufficiency is inherently necessary to meet the goal of establishing a "Plan B for humanity", which is the reason most often cited by putative Mars colonists when asked why in tarnation we'd ever want to try to colonize Mars.

Sure.  But there is no defined need date to make that happen, since we don't know when/if the end of the Earth is coming.

It is curious though that you're implying that LEO colonies will never become self-sufficient, yet you pan Mars colonists for trying.  Seems like a double standard to me...

No, and of course yes.  LEO colonies may become self-sufficient, and I think it's easier for them to become so.  But it's not necessary.  They're not that far away, and they can effectively participate in most of the things other Earth cities do.

As I've said, Mars colonies have an explicit requirement to become as self-sufficient as possible in the shortest timespan possible because of the high difficulty in supporting them.  That is a completely different standard.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 02:44 AM by daveklingler »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3421
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2175
  • Likes Given: 2693
Just to be clear, I think there is a lot of things that are common between what Jeff Bezos wants to do in space and what Elon Musk wants to do on Mars.

And luckily both have the ability and resources to work on lowering the cost to access space, which is certainly a major barrier to expanding humanity out into space - anywhere in space.

Personally I have more near-term interest in creating LEO space stations, but that is because I've taken an interest in 1st generation rotating space station designs that are scaleable.  It's just a hobby, but I think I understand the challenges involved.

I'm also fascinated by Musk's plans for Mars, although I don't yet understand how his colonization plan is supposed to work, but based on his past success I'm willing to give him some time to figure it out.

In comparison, all we have from Jeff Bezos is the transportation part of the goal he supports, so there is less to get excited over - but hopefully that will change with time too...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
It's highly unlikely that any government on Earth is going to support a Mars colony in the foreseeable future, and any Mars colony would require constant support for the foreseeable future.

For an orbital colony, the necessary support is orders of magnitude smaller and yet still highly difficult to justify.

Absent some currently unknown "National Imperative", I know of no reason the U.S. Government would spend any public money to directly finance or support a colony off of Earth - regardless where it is.  And I think the same applies to other governments too.

That's not to say that various governments wouldn't spend money to pursue "science", and pay Bezos or Musk to do what they already plan to do so that the governments can tag along.  But I don't foresee that being a majority of the overall funding.

I think colonizing space is going to have to be a primarily privately funded effort.  I'm certainly willing to throw some play money at it, and probably others would be too.  But I don't see any significant revenue streams coming in to help finance any of these efforts.

Yep.

Quote
Quote
Tourism will be the first target, and although the market surveys look okay we'll have to wait and see whether that works.

Sorry, but no.  The market for "experiential travel" (which is what space tourism is initially) is not that big.  And overall tourism is a byproduct of humanities expansion, not a leader.  Plus, what is a space tourist supposed to do?

I've seen several market surveys that disagree with your opinion, but I'm skeptical myself.  Regardless, I'm not in the space tourism business and I'm perfectly willing to wait and see.  Argue it out with Mr. Bigelow!

Quote
I've wondered myself whether, if we get better at bringing NEOs to LEO and sending products to the surface inexpensively, farming could turn out to be profitable, say on high-value crops that can be grown 24/7 without regard to seasons, insects, blights or natural disasters.

Unlikely.  Crops grown is space will be far more valuable supporting self-sufficiency in space.  [/quote]

That could be.  Or not.  It's all speculation until somebody sits down with a calculator.

Quote
Ironically crops grown in LEO could be sold to Mars colonists...

I think I've convinced myself (at least) that absent multi-government support, successful Mars colonies will not exist, and neither will any market for high-value crops grown in orbit and stored for a synodic cycle.  Elon's Mars colonists will have to eat each other. 

Which is exactly what I expect would happen.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3421
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2175
  • Likes Given: 2693
As I've said, Mars colonies have an explicit requirement to become as self-sufficient as possible in the shortest timespan possible because of the high difficulty in supporting them.  That is a completely different standard.

That's your standard, not Musk's.  And he gets to set the goals for his Mars colony, not anyone else.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
Just to be clear, I think there is a lot of things that are common between what Jeff Bezos wants to do in space and what Elon Musk wants to do on Mars.

Hm.  I'm having a tough time coming up with a list.

Bezos is an avid chess player, as I was once, and chess players have a certain way of thinking.  Bezos researches and plans very carefully.  He has a personal goal, I suspect, of going to the lunar surface some day, and a goal for Blue Origin, which is to provide low cost access to cislunar space.

Musk's goal is explicitly to put human colonies on Mars.  I was once an avid mathematician, as well, and I think Musk's goal lacks rigor.  Of course, I lament the lack of rigor in nearly everything, so for me to say that something lacks rigor is not uncommon.

Quote
And luckily both have the ability and resources to work on lowering the cost to access space, which is certainly a major barrier to expanding humanity out into space - anywhere in space.

Personally I have more near-term interest in creating LEO space stations, but that is because I've taken an interest in 1st generation rotating space station designs that are scaleable.  It's just a hobby, but I think I understand the challenges involved.

Yes, that is my interest as well.  I believe that LEO space stations can be plausibly worth building, and it's much easier for me to see a realistic need to develop infrastructure in LEO.  Said LEO infrastructure makes everything else easier and more economical, so in my opinion LEO infrastructure is ideally a first priority.

Quote
I'm also fascinated by Musk's plans for Mars, although I don't yet understand how his colonization plan is supposed to work, but based on his past success I'm willing to give him some time to figure it out.

Yep.  I'm all for him doing everything he's done so far, and I'll cheer for him if he puts explorers on Mars.  Beyond that I wish that he would use his time and resources to build infrastructure in LEO.  If he does so, he and I will both be happier.

Quote
In comparison, all we have from Jeff Bezos is the transportation part of the goal he supports, so there is less to get excited over - but hopefully that will change with time too...

I'm looking forward to New Armstrong.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 03:12 AM by daveklingler »

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
As I've said, Mars colonies have an explicit requirement to become as self-sufficient as possible in the shortest timespan possible because of the high difficulty in supporting them.  That is a completely different standard.

That's your standard, not Musk's.  And he gets to set the goals for his Mars colony, not anyone else.

I believe that is actually Musk's standard as well as an axiomatic standard for anyone else who wishes to colonize Mars.  Especially for the reasons that Musk consistently provides.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 43
So the big advantage of planets is that you can pollute them all you want without (in the foreseeable future) running out of the raw materials you're not bothering to recycle? That's the second most common argument against space exploration I hear all the time.

I wasn't aware that we'd run out of any raw materials here on Earth.  Definitely not of the mineral kind.

Have you quoted the wrong part of my post? I clearly say 'without running out of'.

Quote
And if given the chance to start anew on a new world, we certainly have a lot of lessons learned that we'll be able to apply.  For instance, recycling aluminum can significantly reduce the need to mine and refine more aluminum, so I think Mars colonists will be very good recyclers.

Exactly. Aluminum is not the best example because we're already doing our best to recycle as much as we can (well, in Europe at least, can't speak for the entire world), but phosphorus, fuel, water, plastics, etc. All things we carelessly throw away on earth because we have easily accessible reserves, will still be comparatively hard to extract and refine on Mars, and so more effort will go to recycling as much as we can. Hopefully before the other side of the production process, the waste material piling up in the environment, forces us to do so, like what's happening now on earth.

Same goes for a colony in space, which has to 'import' stuff from asteroids or the moon. They will use the same techniques, as far as spin gravity allows for using the same techniques, as planetary colonies will.

Quote
Quote
Bear in mind that not a single city on earth is self-sufficient, and that even our entire society isn't self-sufficient as we keep burning through mineral reserves and billions of years worth of fossil fuels.

Let's cut to the chase here - I don't know anyone that thinks Mars will be self-sufficient anytime soon.  If we're lucky maybe a century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's far longer.

So self-sufficiency is not required to start colonization off of Earth, either for Mars or in-space colonies, since it's a long-term goal, not a near-term one.

That's the point: a colony that is set up with the only goal that it will eventually be able to sustain it's citizens, will not last unless it does more than just sustaining them. In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

i'll try and explain this more clearly: a colony on Mars that is capable of providing its citizens with food, water, air, and habitation, what people on this forum mean with self-sufficiency, but has no valuable export, will see a steady decline in population as people try to get back to the higher living standards of Earth. The only way to keep them there, is to screw up earth so it's a worse place ot live than Mars.

On the other hand, if there is an export, from Mars or anywhere in the solar system, the colonists can decide for themselves what standard of living they want to keep up with to make a living off that export, what they want to import to keep that standard of living, and as the population grows, what they can be bothered with to do for themselves rather than schlep it across the solar system. This is what a succesful colony has allways been. There is no reason to assume the future will be different.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 07:07 AM by high road »

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6384
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1608
  • Likes Given: 1415
In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

But a Mars settlement will not use this definition. It will need to be self sustaining in the sense that they can survive when the supply line is cut. I agree that it will take a century but they would very conciously work towards that goal. It is the very reason for its existence. It would drive the financers and the settlers.

Edit: I wrote "for Mars". It seems the rationale for space industry and millions of people living in space as in Jeff Bezos' vision would have a different outlook.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 07:42 AM by guckyfan »

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 43
In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

But a Mars settlement will not use this definition. It will need to be self sustaining in the sense that they can survive when the supply line is cut. I agree that it will take a century but they would very conciously work towards that goal. It is the very reason for its existence. It would drive the financers and the settlers.

Edit: I wrote "for Mars". It seems the rationale for space industry and millions of people living in space as in Jeff Bezos' vision would have a different outlook.

Yes, and no people will invest in cutting the supply line until there's a threat that the supply line will be cut. So either that is because 1) investors/funders are backing out, or because earth will no longer pay for 2) political reasons or 3) economic troubles. In scenario 2 and 3, self-sufficiency at a premium over importing cheap will only be preferable when the crisis is at the horizon. In scenario 2, it's even going to be a catalyst of that crisis. And if scenario 1 is the reason, investors REALLY don't want self-sufficiency at a premium unless 2 or 3 happens. If scenario 1 happens because the way to make money turns out to not make money anymore, the locals will not even want to stay. So in all three cases, self-sufficiency at a premium will be postponed until there's no other way. Doing everything yourself is a good way to fail.

This does not include doing things yourself because it's cheaper than importing. That is preferable no matter where you are: free space, asteroids, Mars, Earth, etc.

Unless you get people to pay for the idea of having a completely independent colony, there will be no other alternative. And only because in that case, these people limit their comfort levels to what is possible on the scale of the colony, rather than benefitting from everything civilization has to offer. Think doomsday preppers and mormons. Great idea, but such a colony will grow a lot slower, and will certainly not be the backup of a highly advanced society. Not without going trough another dark age, that is.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27025
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6916
  • Likes Given: 4879
You seem to think the Mars city will be growing for financial reasons, like metal mining. Musk, at least, strongly disagrees. His vision is essentially secular (or at least pluralistic) space Mormons. People who go to start a city because they think it's important for humanity, driven by a purpose beyond themselves, not because they think it'll make them rich.

Because it won't likely make you rich.

"Investors" more like philanthropists or philanthrocapitalists. People who've got the "space religion" and think it's important to establish a permanent human settlement eventually capable of self sufficiency. And also the raw adventure of it.

Mars is not going to become an oil boom town. Bezos seems to think the rest of space will. But I have serious doubts it'll work out that way, as I think the vast majority of space mining operations will be highly robotic even autonomous.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 11:54 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3421
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2175
  • Likes Given: 2693
Exactly. Aluminum is not the best example because we're already doing our best to recycle as much as we can (well, in Europe at least, can't speak for the entire world), but phosphorus, fuel, water, plastics, etc. All things we carelessly throw away on earth because we have easily accessible reserves...

We don't "carelessly" throw away as much as we make an economic decision.  It's not easy to extract the mineral components out of our waste, and in many cases it's less expensive to just mine new material and make new parts.

Those living in space or on another planet will have different economic incentives to deal with, and it's likely that they will have an incentive to recycle far more than what we do today.  But that is because of their local conditions, not because of any Earth norms.

Quote
Same goes for a colony in space, which has to 'import' stuff from asteroids or the moon. They will use the same techniques, as far as spin gravity allows for using the same techniques, as planetary colonies will.

I've been looking into rotating artificial gravity structures, and I don't think they will be as simple to implement and use as many people think.  Sure, the concept is likely sound, but we really don't know what materials to use to build large spinning structures that won't fly apart.  And the material required will be MASSIVE.  The energy required to find, process, and move that material to build a rotating space station will be massive too, which means it requires a very large upfront investment.

No doubt Elon Musk needs to find investors of all types to help fund his Mars colony, but building an industrial park in Earth local space could require the same or more in investment.  Which means the time scale for both efforts is beyond generational.

Quote
i'll try and explain this more clearly: a colony on Mars that is capable of providing its citizens with food, water, air, and habitation, what people on this forum mean with self-sufficiency, but has no valuable export, will see a steady decline in population as people try to get back to the higher living standards of Earth. The only way to keep them there, is to screw up earth so it's a worse place ot live than Mars.

Robotbeat said it pretty nicely - those going to Mars are not going there for economic gain, but because they are believers.  Those that fund the effort are not investing because they expect an ROI within their lifetimes, but because they believe the investment will benefit their descendants long after they are gone.

And Elon Musk has even stated that there is no economic engine of growth.  I believe his example was that even if they found pure cocaine on the surface of Mars, it would be uneconomical to ship it back to Earth.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6066
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 788
  • Likes Given: 4902

That's the point: a colony that is set up with the only goal that it will eventually be able to sustain it's citizens, will not last unless it does more than just sustaining them. In economics, 'self sustaining' means raking in more revenue than what's needed to cover the cost. But this means exporting enough goods and services to pay for what needs to be imported.

i'll try and explain this more clearly: a colony on Mars that is capable of providing its citizens with food, water, air, and habitation, what people on this forum mean with self-sufficiency, but has no valuable export, will see a steady decline in population as people try to get back to the higher living standards of Earth. The only way to keep them there, is to screw up earth so it's a worse place ot live than Mars.
I think that's a pretty optimistic description.   :(

The technology baseline a Martian (or LEO) settlement needs to sustain life is so much higher than that needed for subsistence on Earth that I cannot see how one of them would survive without something generating a cash flow from Earth to pay for all the little things that wear out/need replacing

Presumably a LEO settlement would be set up with some products as part of their core mission.

Mars is more tricky. So far people have suggested produce with the unique "Made on Mars" label, Reality TV shows of various sorts, research labs and retirement homes for the very wealthy. Other options would be to require everyone to come with their own trust fund, or a community chest established by SX and other philanthropists to support everyone who has taken the risk of coming to Mars.

This is not just a matter of closed loop life support. It's the hardware needed to build a closed loop ECLSS. ISRU and 3d printing will reduce the range of products needed but the range is vast to begin with, from EVA suits to LED lights. Most of them needing a  very substantial industrial infrastructure to mfg.

"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 38
Mars as a backup for humanity is a feature of a fully sufficient Mars colony, but from a practical standpoint it is not a good reason to colony Mars. It will cost too much. Reaching a one million person colony that needs no input from Earth will be incredibly expensive. Good luck on getting funding if that's the primary reason.

For a fraction of the cost of a fully sufficient Mars colony, most of the civilization collapsing scenarios on Earth can be mitigated. Asteroid defense, civil defense, disaster relief, securing food production, reducing poverty, renewable energy, etc.

It is a mistake to think Mars colony would be more expensive than fixing Earth, in fact it's the opposite. For example, Imperial College London estimates the cost to half CO2 emissions by 2050 is $2 trillion per year, that's just one of the problems in your long list. The cost of a Mars colony would be rounding error comparing to the resources we spent and will be spending to maintain Earth.

It is a common misconception to think Earth is better than Mars because we have "free" air, water and good temperature range, but none of these are truly free. They're the product of a super complex, global scale ecosystem and climate, which is being strained by 7 billion people. Maintaining and fixing this complex system is going to make the ECLSS for a Mars colony like child's play, and that's ignoring man-made problems like politics, religion and war.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8621
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3555
And Elon Musk has even stated that there is no economic engine of growth.  I believe his example was that even if they found pure cocaine on the surface of Mars, it would be uneconomical to ship it back to Earth.

I believe he's wrong about that one. The ships are coming back anyway, so the incremental cost is the extra propellant needed. That's it.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline b0objunior

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Mars as a backup for humanity is a feature of a fully sufficient Mars colony, but from a practical standpoint it is not a good reason to colony Mars. It will cost too much. Reaching a one million person colony that needs no input from Earth will be incredibly expensive. Good luck on getting funding if that's the primary reason.

For a fraction of the cost of a fully sufficient Mars colony, most of the civilization collapsing scenarios on Earth can be mitigated. Asteroid defense, civil defense, disaster relief, securing food production, reducing poverty, renewable energy, etc.

It is a mistake to think Mars colony would be more expensive than fixing Earth, in fact it's the opposite. For example, Imperial College London estimates the cost to half CO2 emissions by 2050 is $2 trillion per year, that's just one of the problems in your long list. The cost of a Mars colony would be rounding error comparing to the resources we spent and will be spending to maintain Earth.

It is a common misconception to think Earth is better than Mars because we have "free" air, water and good temperature range, but none of these are truly free. They're the product of a super complex, global scale ecosystem and climate, which is being strained by 7 billion people. Maintaining and fixing this complex system is going to make the ECLSS for a Mars colony like child's play, and that's ignoring man-made problems like politics, religion and war.
Right, lets scrap Earth... Do you understand WHAT are you talking about?

Tags: