Author Topic: Skepticism about space colonization  (Read 21201 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #40 on: 09/14/2017 09:21 PM »

Absolutely, with the MethaLOx/ITS concept vehicle, and within the next ten years, since some portions of that system seem to have been in development already for at least three already.
So will that include the price to pay off the development costs, or do you expect Musk and the other investors to write those off?

Quote from: tdperk
It may take competition from other competent competitors to force them to drop their price in $/lb to be close to the cost to themselves.
It will take competition from other companies as otherwise there is little incentive for SX to undercut themselves if they really are the cheapest in the market.
Falcon 9 Block 5: The World's first fully and rapidly reusable booster is being fabricated while we debate... it's cost has not yet entered the equation, but it might approach $800/lb (~15tonnes to LEO for F9 cost of ~$25M = $758/lb). 
Where are those numbers coming from? There is no reason to assume such a large reduction in price or payload for first stage reuse.
Quote from: AncientU
Fairing and second stage (which make up the bulk of the $25M) reuse are being developed and tested. 
Fairing reuse is is known and recovers $5-6m. But as others have pointed out the numbers for the energy you need to dissipate to go from orbital to landing are about 26x (not 26%, 26x)  larger than that for 1st stage recovery. US recovery is not just a bit harder, its a very  great deal harder.

I'm aware Musk wants full reusability but what evidence do you have that SX is pursuing it for F9 US reuse?

Quote from: AncientU
FH: This vehicle which will fly within the next six months should improve on F9 costs by factor of 2-3x.
SX website numbers are more like 1/2 prices if you have a full load. Ariane 5 has struggled to dual manifest main payloads, so how they will get 3-5 payloads together is going to be interesting.

Quote from: AncientU
ITSy: The World's first fully and rapidly reusable rocket, designed from a blank sheet to be exactly this, is being rolled out in the next five years...
Had the LOX tank not failed, and the sub scale Raptor not suffered a test stand RUD maybe. I'd suggest 5 years is improbable. I'd be impressed if it was flying by 2027.
Quote from: AncientU
Cost around $100/lb to LEO is pretty much a given within 5-10 years at this point -- a few $10s per pound is likely at the end of 15 years.
That may be the number inside your head, but IRL It's rather less likely.

Whether an old folks home or military outposting, it will not be done until the cost to LEO (space access) falls dramatically, and no one will stay unless they have a good reason.
We can all agree on that.

The military outpost is what's called an "analogy". IRL there is no conceivable reason for a miiltary presence on Mars. My though is that people will retire from "Musk Villas" and choose to stay on Mars,
Quote from: tdperk
Present or future improvements of a political nature are one such potential improvement as a good reason--even if there is no particular revenue stream.  People will pay to be free if the "dead loss" is "only money" -- but if the financial outlay is real, so must be the liberty.
Would you like to consider restructuring that last paragraph? It makes no sense in English.
"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 tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #41 on: 09/14/2017 10:46 PM »
Absolutely, with the MethaLOx/ITS concept vehicle, and within the next ten years, since some portions of that system seem to have been in development already for at least three already.
So will that include the price to pay off the development costs, or do you expect Musk and the other investors to write those off?

I suspect that by the time the price is below $100/lb, there will be many tens of vehicles flying for well in excess of 100 trips per airframe--the R&D will be spread out quite a lot.

Quote from: tdperk
It may take competition from other competent competitors to force them to drop their price in $/lb to be close to the cost to themselves.
It will take competition from other companies as otherwise there is little incentive for SX to undercut themselves if they really are the cheapest in the market.

Which is what I said, "competent competitors".

Whether an old folks home or military outposting, it will not be done until the cost to LEO (space access) falls dramatically, and no one will stay unless they have a good reason.
We can all agree on that.

The military outpost is what's called an "analogy". IRL there is no conceivable reason for a miiltary presence on Mars. My though is that people will retire from "Musk Villas" and choose to stay on Mars,

And they will have farmers, doctors, lawyers, and masseuses -- the gamut.

Quote from: tdperk
Present or future improvements of a political nature are one such potential improvement as a good reason--even if there is no particular revenue stream.  People will pay to be free if the "dead loss" is "only money" -- but if the financial outlay is real, so must be the liberty.
Would you like to consider restructuring that last paragraph? It makes no sense in English.

At the risk of a frowny face, it seems clear to all who do not need to be spoonfed.  Do you need a sentence diagram?  People will pay dearly for liberty when the liberty is real.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2017 10:48 PM by tdperk »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5112
  • Likes Given: 3415
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #42 on: 09/14/2017 10:58 PM »
I'm aware Musk wants full reusability but what evidence do you have that SX is pursuing it for F9 US reuse?
Musk said so.

Quote
Would you like to consider restructuring that last paragraph? It makes no sense in English.
Made sense to me.

Just tossing out "I don't believe this" and "That's not going to happen" and "did you think of this?" (when everyone else in the thread clearly already did) isn't all that high value add. :( [1] It's more like "concern trolling" which is really really LOW value add.

Similarly, "conventional wisdom" that SpaceX won't lower prices any more than absolutely necessary to retain market share misses that Musk isn't in this just for the money. Prices will go down to support the overall goal, not to maximise revenue.

"Musk Villas" is a lame term that needs excision. If this thread is to add any new value, it needs to NOT rehash stuff discussed (at verylong length by people who like to write veryloooong posts) before.

1 - I'm not JS19, I don't vastly overuse frowny faces, and I don't want something from the mods...
« Last Edit: 09/14/2017 11:02 PM by Lar »
"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

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26866
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6775
  • Likes Given: 4805
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #43 on: 09/15/2017 12:31 AM »
Cost around $100/lb to LEO is pretty much a given within 5-10 years at this point -- a few $10s per pound is likely at the end of 15 years.

I've got to tell you, I don't see it dropping below $60/lb in 20 years time, not at this time.

I pretty much regard $25~30/lb to LEO as a floor for thermochemical rockets where a hydrocarbon is the fuel.
...
Wait, why?? Fuel and oxidizer only counts $2-3/kg for a vehicle like ITS. And it's possible to do even better than that.
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

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #44 on: 09/15/2017 12:43 AM »
Cost around $100/lb to LEO is pretty much a given within 5-10 years at this point -- a few $10s per pound is likely at the end of 15 years.

I've got to tell you, I don't see it dropping below $60/lb in 20 years time, not at this time.

I pretty much regard $25~30/lb to LEO as a floor for thermochemical rockets where a hydrocarbon is the fuel.
...
Wait, why?? Fuel and oxidizer only counts $2-3/kg for a vehicle like ITS. And it's possible to do even better than that.

Well if the R&D comes to $2bn, and each vehicle is $500mn, then to fly out the hardware and R&D costs--never mind the salaries, plant, and fuel--don't you think a hard floor of $25 to $30 per pound to LEO is plausible?  I'm thinking 20 vehicles and 100 flights before a major rebuild.

Main reason I really, really wish the ITS was still certainly at a 400 to 500 tons to LEO scale is, I don't believe the R&D costs scale with size.  I don't think they'll save much going to 200 tons.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 12:48 AM by tdperk »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8504
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1021
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #45 on: 09/15/2017 12:55 AM »
I think the other issue we have to look at is habitats,

1. How many man hours does it take to make a submarine that can hold a crew of 100 again. How many people will that be?
2. All colonies in vacuum and near vacuum will be tubes.
3. Large spheres are not living space efficient.
4. There are limits on how large of a tube you can make for habitation before it becomes inefficient.
5. Ovals and domes are not mass efficient.

I am going to throw two real world examples out real quick.

1. Submarines, the largest subs ever built (think Japanese I-400 class, and Soviet "Акула" , Typhoon class) where not single tubes, but two side by side tubes. A single tube was not practical for vessels that large.

2. We are approaching the same inefficiencies in aircraft,  the a380 is a perfect example, three levels (if you include baggage which is pressurized). It is difficult to use the space efficiently, hence the baggage below the passengers.

Sadly I must submit, even if manufactured locally, the colonists will be crammed into something between the fuselage of a 737 and a 777.

I will also submit that through advances in robotics and telecommuting  their will be little opportunity for people to step out side of these tin cans on a potentially dangerous Moon/Mars walk unless absolutely necessary. Your average Martian will not get to be outside ever.

So what is it going to be like telecommuting for the rest of your life from economy minus seating in the martian equivalent of a 737?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #46 on: 09/15/2017 01:26 AM »
I think the other issue we have to look at is habitats,

1. How many man hours does it take to make a submarine that can hold a crew of 100 again. How many people will that be?
2. All colonies in vacuum and near vacuum will be tubes.
3. Large spheres are not living space efficient.
4. There are limits on how large of a tube you can make for habitation before it becomes inefficient.
5. Ovals and domes are not mass efficient.

I am going to throw two real world examples out real quick.

1. Submarines, the largest subs ever built (think Japanese I-400 class, and Soviet "Акула" , Typhoon class) where not single tubes, but two side by side tubes. A single tube was not practical for vessels that large.

2. We are approaching the same inefficiencies in aircraft,  the a380 is a perfect example, three levels (if you include baggage which is pressurized). It is difficult to use the space efficiently, hence the baggage below the passengers.

Sadly I must submit, even if manufactured locally, the colonists will be crammed into something between the fuselage of a 737 and a 777.

I will also submit that through advances in robotics and telecommuting  their will be little opportunity for people to step out side of these tin cans on a potentially dangerous Moon/Mars walk unless absolutely necessary. Your average Martian will not get to be outside ever.

So what is it going to be like telecommuting for the rest of your life from economy minus seating in the martian equivalent of a 737?

I think none of your examples is even slightly applicable.

1.  Firstly a submarine has to be built far more strongly than any habitat will.  Hoops/balloons--sections of circles--are quite stable in the tensions of .333 to 1 atm pressure.  Many materials are good with tensions as well.  Submarines must be able to withstand many atm trying to crush them, and any shapes significantly out of round have stupendous strain on them.  Subs have quite a lot of systems but no structural applicability to space habs. 

2.  And?

3.  Large enough spheres are perfectly efficient in terms of volume utilization, especially with space habs which have large volumes of fluid dedicated to things terrestrial structures don't need, like water tanks for premeditation of waste and biological air recycling.  Simply don't put human occupies volumes where the shell is at an awkward angle.

4.  Asserted without being demonstrated relevant.  Aluminum become inefficient as a material for plane fuselage as you have exaggeratedly blended wing/body shapes.  This doesn't matter because we have composites.  How does it matter in your example?

5.  For all gravity structures, ovals and domes of some sort are most efficient in terms of containing area for a contained volume.  Where did you hear differently?

I think it is far more likely Mars settlers will be in quarters where they see green somewhere on every sightline, and those sightlines run for many hundreds of feet, and there are no lack of larger areas for special purposes.  If for the sake of the safety of compartmentalization sleeping and office areas are in smaller circular sections, those will be made as homey as hobbit holes.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26866
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6775
  • Likes Given: 4805
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #47 on: 09/15/2017 03:07 AM »
Cost around $100/lb to LEO is pretty much a given within 5-10 years at this point -- a few $10s per pound is likely at the end of 15 years.

I've got to tell you, I don't see it dropping below $60/lb in 20 years time, not at this time.

I pretty much regard $25~30/lb to LEO as a floor for thermochemical rockets where a hydrocarbon is the fuel.
...
Wait, why?? Fuel and oxidizer only counts $2-3/kg for a vehicle like ITS. And it's possible to do even better than that.

Well if the R&D comes to $2bn, and each vehicle is $500mn, then to fly out the hardware and R&D costs--never mind the salaries, plant, and fuel--don't you think a hard floor of $25 to $30 per pound to LEO is plausible?  ...
...you and I have a different definition of "hard floor," then.

Also:

Absolutely, with the MethaLOx/ITS concept vehicle, and within the next ten years, since some portions of that system seem to have been in development already for at least three already.
So will that include the price to pay off the development costs, or do you expect Musk and the other investors to write those off?
Absolutely I do.

Constellation and associated investment to pay for the vast majority of the dev cost. Maybe even the commercial lunar lander money from NASA to assist with the more lander-ish parts. Then Mars settlement can be done without the burden of amortizing those costs, just needs to pay for marginal costs of extra launches. Call it "subsidized," if you want, but that's what I expect will happen in order to make those costs work out.


The only reason SpaceX even has a constellation is to create the conditions necessary for really, REALLY cheap launch to LEO.

If that requires 20,000 satellites of 200 tons each, needing like 100 tons of fuel every 4 years, then so be it. If SpaceX can find enough business for such a constellation to break even, then they'll do it even if it has low margin.

EDIT:Okay, the money coming in from the constellation also helps a lot, but even if all they do is break even with the constellation, that's all that's needed to get costs extremely low.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 03:13 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

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5112
  • Likes Given: 3415
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #48 on: 09/15/2017 03:14 AM »
To a certain extent, detailed discussion of R&D costs for vehicles, is off topic, but it's understandable, the topic was concern-trolled a bit. Let that go.
"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 Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #49 on: 09/15/2017 05:23 AM »
The scarier future is one where there is no point in big colonies because there is nothing for most of the population to do, since almost everything out there can be done better by machines.  We may make ourselves obsolete as a space-faring species before we really get started.

Since when has human labor in space ever paid for itself? As far as I can tell your scary future has always been reality, and will remain so.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #50 on: 09/15/2017 07:34 AM »
Since when has human labor in space ever paid for itself? As far as I can tell your scary future has always been reality, and will remain so.
That depends a lot on how you calculate the charges for the development, mfg and testing of a human replacement versus the cost of selection and training of a human.

If the task is well defined then you can automate it with a point solution.  When you get into "Do this, but do that if something interesting shows up," and what "interesting" means, then things get much more complicated.
Likewise once you require "space grade" reliability system diagrams get a great deal more complex.  What's is conceptually a control valve becomes (with reliability considerations) 2 valves, with contacts to confirm it's open or closed, possibly with a sensor to track how open.

I'd suggest that a full accounting is not quite as clear cut, one way or the other, as people might think.
"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 john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #51 on: 09/15/2017 07:58 AM »

I am going to throw two real world examples out real quick.

1. Submarines, the largest subs ever built (think Japanese I-400 class, and Soviet "Акула" , Typhoon class) where not single tubes, but two side by side tubes. A single tube was not practical for vessels that large.

2. We are approaching the same inefficiencies in aircraft,  the a380 is a perfect example, three levels (if you include baggage which is pressurized). It is difficult to use the space efficiently, hence the baggage below the passengers.
You are right and wrong.

Pressure cookers and the interior of central heating furnaces (both operate around 1 atm above normal atmospheric pressure) don't have to be heavy or cylindrical (although pressure cookers usually are). Aircraft have to fly and submarines have to resist pressure much higher than a 1 atmosphere above normal.

One rather obvious option would be to find (or bore) caves that can be atmosphere sealed. It does not have to be cylindrical

But you are right that on Mars "open space" actually means pressurized open space, and there is a hard boundary between "inside" and "outside."
On Earth you could step "outside" a house and stand on the porch (weather and neighbours permitting) naked if you chose in this "open" space.
On Mars you die.   If your agoraphobic that won't be a problem for you. But it will severely restrict your living space (although the view through a window could be spectacular from the wall of a 20 mile long canyon).
"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 john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #52 on: 09/15/2017 08:15 AM »
< rest skipped >
 People will pay dearly for liberty when the liberty is real.
Ah. That was much more direct.

They will.

Now what liberty are you expecting this colony settlement to allow?
"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 MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #53 on: 09/15/2017 11:03 AM »

I am going to throw two real world examples out real quick.

1. Submarines, the largest subs ever built (think Japanese I-400 class, and Soviet "Акула" , Typhoon class) where not single tubes, but two side by side tubes. A single tube was not practical for vessels that large.

2. We are approaching the same inefficiencies in aircraft,  the a380 is a perfect example, three levels (if you include baggage which is pressurized). It is difficult to use the space efficiently, hence the baggage below the passengers.
You are right and wrong.

Pressure cookers and the interior of central heating furnaces (both operate around 1 atm above normal atmospheric pressure) don't have to be heavy or cylindrical (although pressure cookers usually are). Aircraft have to fly and submarines have to resist pressure much higher than a 1 atmosphere above normal.

One rather obvious option would be to find (or bore) caves that can be atmosphere sealed. It does not have to be cylindrical

But you are right that on Mars "open space" actually means pressurized open space, and there is a hard boundary between "inside" and "outside."
On Earth you could step "outside" a house and stand on the porch (weather and neighbours permitting) naked if you chose in this "open" space.
On Mars you die.   If your agoraphobic that won't be a problem for you. But it will severely restrict your living space (although the view through a window could be spectacular from the wall of a 20 mile long canyon).

Or across the caldera of Pavonis Mons.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #54 on: 09/15/2017 11:58 AM »
Or across the caldera of Pavonis Mons.
Indeed. However the results of trying to walk across it without an EVA suit will be just the same.

To put some perspective on the task. Here's a site about living in Antartica.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/can_you_live_in_antarctica.php

So it looks like you could move to Antartica tomorrow if you have (or can generate) enough money bring a house (you can't buy one, all the housing is allocated, not bought or sold) and grow (or buy) all your own food and buy (or generate) your own heat and light. And of course that you have a passport that's accepted by the part of Antartica you want to move to.

So it looks like the number 1 resource you actually need to move to Antartica is money and the number 1 resource you would need to survive there is also money.

All the other issues can be resolved provided you have enough money.

And what's true for Antartica I'd suggest goes 10x (at least) for Mars.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison could move there tomorrow if they were so minded
but there are no towns, no factories and no jobs outside the research bases.
So where will that income come from if you're not independently wealthy?
"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.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26866
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6775
  • Likes Given: 4805
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #55 on: 09/15/2017 12:27 PM »
Or across the caldera of Pavonis Mons.
Indeed. However the results of trying to walk across it without an EVA suit will be just the same.

To put some perspective on the task. Here's a site about living in Antartica.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/can_you_live_in_antarctica.php

So it looks like you could move to Antartica tomorrow if you have (or can generate) enough money bring a house (you can't buy one, all the housing is allocated, not bought or sold) and grow (or buy) all your own food and buy (or generate) your own heat and light. And of course that you have a passport that's accepted by the part of Antartica you want to move to.

So it looks like the number 1 resource you actually need to move to Antartica is money and the number 1 resource you would need to survive there is also money.

All the other issues can be resolved provided you have enough money.

And what's true for Antartica I'd suggest goes 10x (at least) for Mars.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison could move there tomorrow if they were so minded
but there are no towns, no factories and no jobs outside the research bases.
So where will that income come from if you're not independently wealthy?
No permanent structures allowed on Antarctica and no mining. Therefore no colonies, other than the colonies that have been grandfathered in.

Mars need not have such restrictions.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 12:28 PM 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

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #56 on: 09/15/2017 12:55 PM »
Why Mars?

Hollowing out asteroids and spinning them up for "gravity" seems a lot simpler than trying to terraform or enclose Mars (not to mention the ethical concerns). No breakthroughs needed, just scaling up of existing tech (bet I get some argument about this).

As far as reasons to settle go:

1. Backup hard drive. A sperm and egg bank with the appropriate custodians will take care of that. It can be a set of small orbiting facilities scattered throughout the Solar System.

2. Freedom. Nope. A settlement where you cannot open the door and walk out over the horizon stark naked and survive will always be at the mercy of those providing air, water and food. At best it would be a benevolent institution, but there's no reason it couldn't degenerate into a gulag.

3. Tourism. This one makes sense. Temporary residency for all, self-sufficiency only for a couple of re-supply cycles and economically self-supporting. Space will be settled due to humanity's inherent need to share selfies.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5868
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4501
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #57 on: 09/15/2017 01:42 PM »
Then we would all be obsolete down here, too.

Enough with the concern trolling.
The difference is "down here" there are plenty of places people can move to and support themselves.

It's the fact that there is no "local economy" on Mars to get a job in that's the problem for anyone who is not independently wealthy (and that's in billions, not millions of $). Of course the local economy does not have to use the conventional money. You could be paid in "Musk Dollars" or "Musks" with a salary of so many Musks a month.

The problem is who pays for any stuff that cannot be made in the local economy? That's going to cost real money.

No permanent structures allowed on Antarctica and no mining.

Therefore no colonies, other than the colonies that have been grandfathered in.
Surely that just raises the size of the bag of cash you'll need to take down there to begin with?

Let me suggest again that you reconsider referring to this as a settlement, not a colony.

To the very large parts of the Earth that have been colonies of various countries that term has very negative connotations. In many ways what was perfectly acceptable in 18th and 19th century thinking is not so today.
Quote from: Robotbeat
Mars need not have such restrictions.
I suspect the Outer Space Treaty might have something to say on that, and of course the USG.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 01:58 PM by john smith 19 »
"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 tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #58 on: 09/15/2017 01:54 PM »
Or across the caldera of Pavonis Mons.
Indeed. However the results of trying to walk across it without an EVA suit will be just the same.

To put some perspective on the task. Here's a site about living in Antartica.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/can_you_live_in_antarctica.php

So it looks like you could move to Antartica tomorrow if you have (or can generate) enough money bring a house (you can't buy one, all the housing is allocated, not bought or sold) and grow (or buy) all your own food and buy (or generate) your own heat and light. And of course that you have a passport that's accepted by the part of Antartica you want to move to.

So it looks like the number 1 resource you actually need to move to Antartica is money and the number 1 resource you would need to survive there is also money.

All the other issues can be resolved provided you have enough money.

And what's true for Antartica I'd suggest goes 10x (at least) for Mars.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison could move there tomorrow if they were so minded
but there are no towns, no factories and no jobs outside the research bases.
So where will that income come from if you're not independently wealthy?

Except nothing you have said about Antarctica is true, because by treaty you are forbidden from settling there.  Those nation maintaining "colonies" are in violation of those multi-state laws.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2119
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #59 on: 09/15/2017 01:57 PM »
When SpaceX gets ITS flying, costs to LEO are going to decrease.  By then, NASA and other nations may want to go to Mars with SpaceX.  There then comes the habitats, outposts, etc.

Tags: