Quote from: M.E.T. on 08/12/2018 01:23 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/09/2018 07:59 pmQuote from: spacenut on 05/23/2018 10:01 pmI for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings. that is very very very optimistic...its not "wild" just optimistic. until humans make "money" ie do something that has value above the cost of being in space....probably in low earth orbit...we are going to stay in low earth orbitwe wont have "colonist" on Mars for another oh 50 years in my viewMusk right now is changing the "baseline" but not inventing a new one. The plan is for Elon to use his approximately $200bn Tesla gains in ten years time to bootstrap the initial Mars colonization process. See link below for details of that: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.htmlAdditionally, Starlink profits are to pump tens of billions into SpaceX's coffers, to be channeled into Mars architecture development and mission funding. On top of that, the presumably hundreds of thousands of people willing to pay $200k per ticket to move to Mars. And on top of that, any other national, institutional, commercial or private partners that may want to come onboard once the concept proves feasible.All of the above gets you quite some way to a Mars colony of decent size over the next two to three decades. After that the dynamics become difficult to predict, and hopefully gets a self sustaining momentum of its own.Anyway, that's the plan. Reality may well take a different course. However, the strategy is not just hoping that Mars has some kind of unobtanium resource that makes it economically lucrative to colonize.what in your view is "the economic product" that Mars has to turn it into something that makes it economically lucrative to colonize? I dont see one but curious
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/09/2018 07:59 pmQuote from: spacenut on 05/23/2018 10:01 pmI for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings. that is very very very optimistic...its not "wild" just optimistic. until humans make "money" ie do something that has value above the cost of being in space....probably in low earth orbit...we are going to stay in low earth orbitwe wont have "colonist" on Mars for another oh 50 years in my viewMusk right now is changing the "baseline" but not inventing a new one. The plan is for Elon to use his approximately $200bn Tesla gains in ten years time to bootstrap the initial Mars colonization process. See link below for details of that: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.htmlAdditionally, Starlink profits are to pump tens of billions into SpaceX's coffers, to be channeled into Mars architecture development and mission funding. On top of that, the presumably hundreds of thousands of people willing to pay $200k per ticket to move to Mars. And on top of that, any other national, institutional, commercial or private partners that may want to come onboard once the concept proves feasible.All of the above gets you quite some way to a Mars colony of decent size over the next two to three decades. After that the dynamics become difficult to predict, and hopefully gets a self sustaining momentum of its own.Anyway, that's the plan. Reality may well take a different course. However, the strategy is not just hoping that Mars has some kind of unobtanium resource that makes it economically lucrative to colonize.
Quote from: spacenut on 05/23/2018 10:01 pmI for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings. that is very very very optimistic...its not "wild" just optimistic. until humans make "money" ie do something that has value above the cost of being in space....probably in low earth orbit...we are going to stay in low earth orbitwe wont have "colonist" on Mars for another oh 50 years in my viewMusk right now is changing the "baseline" but not inventing a new one.
I for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/12/2018 03:34 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 08/12/2018 01:23 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/09/2018 07:59 pmQuote from: spacenut on 05/23/2018 10:01 pmI for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings. that is very very very optimistic...its not "wild" just optimistic. until humans make "money" ie do something that has value above the cost of being in space....probably in low earth orbit...we are going to stay in low earth orbitwe wont have "colonist" on Mars for another oh 50 years in my viewMusk right now is changing the "baseline" but not inventing a new one. The plan is for Elon to use his approximately $200bn Tesla gains in ten years time to bootstrap the initial Mars colonization process. See link below for details of that: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.htmlAdditionally, Starlink profits are to pump tens of billions into SpaceX's coffers, to be channeled into Mars architecture development and mission funding. On top of that, the presumably hundreds of thousands of people willing to pay $200k per ticket to move to Mars. And on top of that, any other national, institutional, commercial or private partners that may want to come onboard once the concept proves feasible.All of the above gets you quite some way to a Mars colony of decent size over the next two to three decades. After that the dynamics become difficult to predict, and hopefully gets a self sustaining momentum of its own.Anyway, that's the plan. Reality may well take a different course. However, the strategy is not just hoping that Mars has some kind of unobtanium resource that makes it economically lucrative to colonize.what in your view is "the economic product" that Mars has to turn it into something that makes it economically lucrative to colonize? I dont see one but curiousYou don't need a product to export. Every economy has a worth (where does Earth export to?) And Mars will go from zero to planet in the decades to come.Ownership of this economy (by terrestrians of course, initially) will be the source of funding.People will want to own the Mars Aluminum industry, or glass indistry, etc. It will have stock, they'll buy it, etc.All you need is a growing colony of people.-----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Quote from: meekGee on 08/13/2018 12:14 amQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/12/2018 03:34 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 08/12/2018 01:23 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/09/2018 07:59 pmQuote from: spacenut on 05/23/2018 10:01 pmI for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings. that is very very very optimistic...its not "wild" just optimistic. until humans make "money" ie do something that has value above the cost of being in space....probably in low earth orbit...we are going to stay in low earth orbitwe wont have "colonist" on Mars for another oh 50 years in my viewMusk right now is changing the "baseline" but not inventing a new one. The plan is for Elon to use his approximately $200bn Tesla gains in ten years time to bootstrap the initial Mars colonization process. See link below for details of that: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.htmlAdditionally, Starlink profits are to pump tens of billions into SpaceX's coffers, to be channeled into Mars architecture development and mission funding. On top of that, the presumably hundreds of thousands of people willing to pay $200k per ticket to move to Mars. And on top of that, any other national, institutional, commercial or private partners that may want to come onboard once the concept proves feasible.All of the above gets you quite some way to a Mars colony of decent size over the next two to three decades. After that the dynamics become difficult to predict, and hopefully gets a self sustaining momentum of its own.Anyway, that's the plan. Reality may well take a different course. However, the strategy is not just hoping that Mars has some kind of unobtanium resource that makes it economically lucrative to colonize.what in your view is "the economic product" that Mars has to turn it into something that makes it economically lucrative to colonize? I dont see one but curiousYou don't need a product to export. Every economy has a worth (where does Earth export to?) And Mars will go from zero to planet in the decades to come.Ownership of this economy (by terrestrians of course, initially) will be the source of funding.People will want to own the Mars Aluminum industry, or glass indistry, etc. It will have stock, they'll buy it, etc.All you need is a growing colony of people.-----ABCD: Always Be Counting DownAs a starting place, the people going to the colony would have to have enough money to pay for the means of getting there, and the colony will have to be self sustaining. If the colony isn't self sustaining then they will need regular cargo trips to avoid death which someone has to pay for. The cycle can be sustained for a while by new colonists coming in, but eventually it reaching a tipping point where they are self sustaining, on welfare, or dead.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/12/2018 03:34 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 08/12/2018 01:23 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/09/2018 07:59 pmQuote from: spacenut on 05/23/2018 10:01 pmI for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings. that is very very very optimistic...its not "wild" just optimistic. until humans make "money" ie do something that has value above the cost of being in space....probably in low earth orbit...we are going to stay in low earth orbitwe wont have "colonist" on Mars for another oh 50 years in my viewMusk right now is changing the "baseline" but not inventing a new one. The plan is for Elon to use his approximately $200bn Tesla gains in ten years time to bootstrap the initial Mars colonization process. See link below for details of that: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.htmlAdditionally, Starlink profits are to pump tens of billions into SpaceX's coffers, to be channeled into Mars architecture development and mission funding. On top of that, the presumably hundreds of thousands of people willing to pay $200k per ticket to move to Mars. And on top of that, any other national, institutional, commercial or private partners that may want to come onboard once the concept proves feasible.All of the above gets you quite some way to a Mars colony of decent size over the next two to three decades. After that the dynamics become difficult to predict, and hopefully gets a self sustaining momentum of its own.Anyway, that's the plan. Reality may well take a different course. However, the strategy is not just hoping that Mars has some kind of unobtanium resource that makes it economically lucrative to colonize.what in your view is "the economic product" that Mars has to turn it into something that makes it economically lucrative to colonize? I dont see one but curiousYou don't need a product to export. Every economy has a worth (where does Earth export to?) And Mars will go from zero to planet in the decades to come.Ownership of this economy (by terrestrians of course, initially) will be the source of funding.People will want to own the Mars Aluminum industry, or glass indistry, etc. It will have stock, they'll buy it, etc.All you need is a growing colony of people.Edit:Part of this is that Mars needs an industrial base since transport is so difficult due to the 2 yr orbital schedule... so Mars is forced into a different economic sphere. -----ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
but how does a "colony" that has nothing that anyone else wants get off the welfare state? what you are saying is that Mars colonies need a source totally unrelated to Mars colonies to survive...how long do you think that lastis there any previous example of this?
but how does a "colony" that has nothing that anyone else wants get off the welfare state?
what you are saying is that Mars colonies need a source totally unrelated to Mars colonies to survive...how long do you think that last
is there any previous example of this?
Quote from: meekGee on 08/13/2018 12:14 amQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/12/2018 03:34 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 08/12/2018 01:23 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 08/09/2018 07:59 pmQuote from: spacenut on 05/23/2018 10:01 pmI for one, do not believe they will carry 100 passengers to Mars initially or within the first 4-6 years. I believe they will have to land, as Elon said, 10 cargo ships to one passenger ship. I believe the first people on Mars will be a crew of 10-12 astronauts setting up ISRU equipment, power plants (solar or mini nuke or both), ice mining equipment, greenhouses, habitats, even a boring machine to build underground habitats and greenhouses for future 100 passenger flights. I think a BFS with say 10-12 astronauts plus 80 tons of cargo is more practical initially. Permanent colonization will not begin fully until 6-12 years after the first landings. that is very very very optimistic...its not "wild" just optimistic. until humans make "money" ie do something that has value above the cost of being in space....probably in low earth orbit...we are going to stay in low earth orbitwe wont have "colonist" on Mars for another oh 50 years in my viewMusk right now is changing the "baseline" but not inventing a new one. The plan is for Elon to use his approximately $200bn Tesla gains in ten years time to bootstrap the initial Mars colonization process. See link below for details of that: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.htmlAdditionally, Starlink profits are to pump tens of billions into SpaceX's coffers, to be channeled into Mars architecture development and mission funding. On top of that, the presumably hundreds of thousands of people willing to pay $200k per ticket to move to Mars. And on top of that, any other national, institutional, commercial or private partners that may want to come onboard once the concept proves feasible.All of the above gets you quite some way to a Mars colony of decent size over the next two to three decades. After that the dynamics become difficult to predict, and hopefully gets a self sustaining momentum of its own.Anyway, that's the plan. Reality may well take a different course. However, the strategy is not just hoping that Mars has some kind of unobtanium resource that makes it economically lucrative to colonize.what in your view is "the economic product" that Mars has to turn it into something that makes it economically lucrative to colonize? I dont see one but curiousYou don't need a product to export. Every economy has a worth (where does Earth export to?) And Mars will go from zero to planet in the decades to come.Ownership of this economy (by terrestrians of course, initially) will be the source of funding.People will want to own the Mars Aluminum industry, or glass indistry, etc. It will have stock, they'll buy it, etc.All you need is a growing colony of people.Edit:Part of this is that Mars needs an industrial base since transport is so difficult due to the 2 yr orbital schedule... so Mars is forced into a different economic sphere. -----ABCD: Always Be Counting Downpeople on earth export to other places on earth...its called trade
But Earth as a whole doesn't. Which deflates your argument that Mars economics are nonsensical since "Mars won't export anything".Mars can be a complete economic sphere without exporting anything to Earth, and the fact that earth sub-economies export to (and import from) to each other exactly underscores this point.
Quote from: meekGee on 08/13/2018 05:57 amBut Earth as a whole doesn't. Which deflates your argument that Mars economics are nonsensical since "Mars won't export anything".Mars can be a complete economic sphere without exporting anything to Earth, and the fact that earth sub-economies export to (and import from) to each other exactly underscores this point.Actually it doesn't. What you're talking about is the internal economy of Mars. In construction they talk about a "Proper top," the minimum level of structure you need to put in before you can build out and up.On Earth the economic equivalent of a proper top was "Find parts of plants you can eat and animals you can use, either for meat or other products"These do not exist on Mars. Even the raw materials to make them exist in such different forms you need huge processing efforts to get to that stage. So the problem is (as it's always been) what does Mars produce that can be exported to Earth to pay for the things it needs, because during at least the first century (unless there is a vigorous effort to become self sufficient) the answer is "everything."However that is not scepticism on wheather BFR is possible, although I'm rather more doubtful when the first one will reach Mars.
Coastal Ron there is no real analogy on earth to mars colonization I know people use the South pole...but its not relevant. the South Pole only got "massive" (and still no one lives there perm)human activity when the technology to DO ALL THAT developed outside of any dedicated effort to settle the pole.Airplanes came of age in WW2, as did ships, well done motor vehicles (there was substantial fighting in cold regions).desalination plants.....and they all existed outside any unique procurement systemin addition the logistics trail to keep a base or bases on the south pole is trivial compared to Mars...the worst thing for Mars is that there is that EVERYTHING that humans need to stay alive is based on technology. at the south pole you dont need technology to breath you need protection from the climate, but its all passive...compared to a space suit it is trivial. Anywhere in space is a technology tour deforce to stay alive...and someone has to 1) develop the hardware because it has no earth equivalent and 2) has to be shipped there and 3) has to be paid for...the cost of all that will be enormous...and at some point unless it just constantly remains a charity case on earth...and hence dependent on it, which means that the colony has no chance to survive alone...they have to develop something that they can sale to earth ...and I dont see what it isI suspect a "inner" mars economy can develop...but the "umbrella" needed to make it work has to come from earth...and thats going to cost a lot of money ...
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/13/2018 10:28 amCoastal Ron there is no real analogy on earth to mars colonization I know people use the South pole...but its not relevant. the South Pole only got "massive" (and still no one lives there perm)human activity when the technology to DO ALL THAT developed outside of any dedicated effort to settle the pole.Airplanes came of age in WW2, as did ships, well done motor vehicles (there was substantial fighting in cold regions).desalination plants.....and they all existed outside any unique procurement systemin addition the logistics trail to keep a base or bases on the south pole is trivial compared to Mars...the worst thing for Mars is that there is that EVERYTHING that humans need to stay alive is based on technology. at the south pole you dont need technology to breath you need protection from the climate, but its all passive...compared to a space suit it is trivial. Anywhere in space is a technology tour deforce to stay alive...and someone has to 1) develop the hardware because it has no earth equivalent and 2) has to be shipped there and 3) has to be paid for...the cost of all that will be enormous...and at some point unless it just constantly remains a charity case on earth...and hence dependent on it, which means that the colony has no chance to survive alone...they have to develop something that they can sale to earth ...and I dont see what it isI suspect a "inner" mars economy can develop...but the "umbrella" needed to make it work has to come from earth...and thats going to cost a lot of money ...You're not saying anything revolutionary here. We all know there is a large initial investment required before a Mars colony can become self sustainable. The question is how much money are we talking about? Is it $200bn? $500bn? $1 trillion or $10 trillion?And how much will rich donors be willing to provide in aid of the cause? If it is Elon alone, he has already stated that he is willing to give all the assets he accumulates over the course of his life. And he won't be the only one.Similarly, some Arab states have proclaimed similar intentions to build cities on Mars.And then we have the chance that national governments will get involved in a colonization race similar to the land grabs of the New World, in which case trillions in investment will easily be sourced for the effort.
So the problem is (as it's always been) what does Mars produce that can be exported to Earth to pay for the things it needs, because during at least the first century (unless there is a vigorous effort to become self sufficient) the answer is "everything."
Quote from: john smith 19 on 08/13/2018 06:58 amSo the problem is (as it's always been) what does Mars produce that can be exported to Earth to pay for the things it needs, because during at least the first century (unless there is a vigorous effort to become self sufficient) the answer is "everything."Not "everything". If you need to import literally everything, there's no point in going. Mars has plenty of resources (e.g. gravity, energy sources, heat sinks, atmosphere, metals, minerals, water, land). All you need to import is the technology to utilize them - which was also true everywhere else that has ever been colonized. After a while, and given the effort required for importing, probably not that long a while, much of the technology needed to utilize local resources will also be produced locally. This also happened in many other places that have been colonized.
Quote from: envy887 on 08/13/2018 01:13 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 08/13/2018 06:58 amSo the problem is (as it's always been) what does Mars produce that can be exported to Earth to pay for the things it needs, because during at least the first century (unless there is a vigorous effort to become self sufficient) the answer is "everything."Not "everything". If you need to import literally everything, there's no point in going. Mars has plenty of resources (e.g. gravity, energy sources, heat sinks, atmosphere, metals, minerals, water, land). All you need to import is the technology to utilize them - which was also true everywhere else that has ever been colonized. After a while, and given the effort required for importing, probably not that long a while, much of the technology needed to utilize local resources will also be produced locally. This also happened in many other places that have been colonized.it is essentially everything. Mars may have resources but you cannot get to them with the technology that "an ordinary" citizen could sale all their belongings get on the Mayflower and have a reasonable chance at survivaland if you run out of any of them, you are toast...ok your rifle breaks and you cannot get a part until the next boat comes, you could fish, or eat the plants you have planted ...but if the framastam on your spacesuit breaks when you run out of spares, you are well out of luck. and the people who can afford to "self equip" are not the ones who are going to goThe Martian cured this problem because duct tape could fix anything as could this magic transparent material that somehow can handle a lot of PSIDand if you want to transport the stuff to make that framastam there...then well its more money and more energy and you cannot recreate the industrial base of the United States one BFR at a timeI was on a CVN for a bit...when the AO's came well it was a time of rejoicing because if we didnt get an AO we couldnt fly the planes, her support ships could not steam (they use kerosene ) and we ran out of food. the ship had amazing repair shops but in the end they could not replicate the stuff at Pearl...(or Norfolk) and...thats the big difference hereI am not saying it cannot be done...but like keeping the fleet at sea..someone is going to have to be induced to pay for it...unless the Martian colony figures out something that Earth has to have from them...that balances out the pricewithout having first demonstrated that in LEO or on the Moon...color me skeptical
Quote from: envy887 on 08/13/2018 01:13 pmNot "everything". If you need to import literally everything, there's no point in going. Mars has plenty of resources (e.g. gravity, energy sources, heat sinks, atmosphere, metals, minerals, water, land). All you need to import is the technology to utilize them - which was also true everywhere else that has ever been colonized. After a while, and given the effort required for importing, probably not that long a while, much of the technology needed to utilize local resources will also be produced locally. This also happened in many other places that have been colonized.it is essentially everything. Mars may have resources but you cannot get to them with the technology that "an ordinary" citizen could sale all their belongings get on the Mayflower and have a reasonable chance at survival
Not "everything". If you need to import literally everything, there's no point in going. Mars has plenty of resources (e.g. gravity, energy sources, heat sinks, atmosphere, metals, minerals, water, land). All you need to import is the technology to utilize them - which was also true everywhere else that has ever been colonized. After a while, and given the effort required for importing, probably not that long a while, much of the technology needed to utilize local resources will also be produced locally. This also happened in many other places that have been colonized.
and if you run out of any of them, you are toast...ok your rifle breaks and you cannot get a part until the next boat comes, you could fish, or eat the plants you have planted ...but if the framastam on your spacesuit breaks when you run out of spares, you are well out of luck. and the people who can afford to "self equip" are not the ones who are going to go
and if you want to transport the stuff to make that framastam there...then well its more money and more energy and you cannot recreate the industrial base of the United States one BFR at a time
I was on a CVN for a bit...when the AO's came well it was a time of rejoicing because if we didnt get an AO we couldnt fly the planes, her support ships could not steam (they use kerosene ) and we ran out of food.
without having first demonstrated that in LEO or on the Moon...color me skeptical
>and if you run out of any of them, you are toast...ok your rifle breaks and you cannot get a part until the next boat comes, you could fish, or eat the plants you have planted ...but if the framastam on your spacesuit breaks when you run out of spares, you are well out of luck. >