Author Topic: Skepticism about space colonization  (Read 77775 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #60 on: 09/15/2017 02:05 pm »
The argument that space colonization skeptics have put forward is that "no one even wants to move to Antarctica (except for a few thousand researchers, and they are not permanent residents), therefore colonization of Mars and other places in space will never happen."

No permanent structures allowed on Antarctica and no mining. Therefore no colonies, other than the colonies that have been grandfathered in.

So in fact the skeptics are wrong.

No one moves to Antartica permanently because no one is allowed to move there permanently.
It is quite possible (has anyone done a survey?)that thousands (millions?) would love to move there, if legally allowed to. Can anyone say not?

Well done Robotbeat. First rate research.

So "Mission accomplished"  ?



MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #61 on: 09/15/2017 02:10 pm »

The difference is "down here" there are plenty of places people can move to and support themselves.

No, there is no difference.  If there is no economic reason to exist there to any degree, there is also no economic reason to exist here to the same degree.  AI will be as smart here as there.

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.

And tourism and supplies provided to any nation indulging in boots and flags missions will provide convertible currency.  For that matter, Bitcoin and the like work as well there as here.

I suspect the Outer Space Treaty might have something to say on that, and of course the USG.

Which is my point that if we regard the OST as restricting the American nation, it is vital that the private efforts of American nationals who desire to settle Mars be recognized by the USG.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2017 06:45 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #62 on: 09/15/2017 03:38 pm »
Yes, several countries claimed spots on Antartica, but several countries voted that no country could claim anything on Antartica, so there are only scientific outposts.  See the Antartic Treaty Association.  Mining is banned until 2048. 

Space is somewhat different, no nation can claim anything, but there may have to be some type of treaty when SpaceX starts to colonize. 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #63 on: 09/15/2017 04:06 pm »
Perhaps the aboriginal model of just "using" land as opposed to the concept of "claiming ownership" makes more sense...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #64 on: 09/15/2017 04:09 pm »
Space Law is still a huge unknown exploration.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #65 on: 09/15/2017 04:24 pm »
...
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.

GAO... (F9 = 1220/lb to LEO, after correcting their typo) with mild extrapolations to reusable first stage costs.
First stage reusability should drop costs by about 90% of the 70% of F9 cost associated first stage, or 63% reduction.  This assumes Block 5 is successful at reducing turn-around costs to something like $3M which would easily cover a few days' effort by the ground crew.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #66 on: 09/15/2017 04:29 pm »
...

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.

No Raptor RUD reported AFAIK; Li-Al tankage is fine for ITSy.
If a NOVA-scale fully and rapidly reusable launcher was flying by 2027, the World would be impressed... doesn't preclude it flying earlier, though.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 04:32 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #67 on: 09/15/2017 04:35 pm »
Even comparing Mars to Antarctica is biased and misleading, with the only commonality being that both are usually colder then most of the other places on earth. Think about water, air, food, vacume, temperature and millions of km. Even in terms of commerce it is uncomparable, with the distances making even prepacked cocaine unprofitable to import from mars (the words of EM).

Comparing Mars to The New World, which was plentiful, is plain wrong, and reflects hard bias.


The word 'colonization' in the context of Mars is nothing but wishfull thinking.
anyone who ever gets there will be counting the days (and then hours and minutes) for their return. Whatever their intentions were at the get go.

Whenever there will be a case for profit on Mars or even a subsidized station, than both the crew, the visitors and the support staff will be rotating earthlings, just like over the ISS.
BTW, lowering the $/kg only makes this claim stronger.

All IMHO of course, and until terraforming is completed.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2017 06:47 pm by Chris Bergin »
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #68 on: 09/15/2017 04:56 pm »
Comparing Mars to The New World, which was plentiful, is plain wrong, and reflects hard bias.

I'm otherwise in agreement with the skeptical point of view, just a point to note though. As the human civilization progresses, a place that would considered 'plentiful' has slowly changed meaning, too. Our cities don't need to be next to river deltas anymore, which was kind of a must have in ancient times. Forests full of game is less of a requirement now, too. The criteria of how cheap is broadband internet and if Amazon Prime has Today delivery option or if there's a decent local asian supermarket have become somewhat more of a factor in choosing a place to settle.

Or, consider energy independence. In ancient times it meant having enough firewood. Then it became coal and natural gas sources. Windfarms and solar panels are now bringing a new shift. What will it be on Mars ?
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 05:01 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #69 on: 09/15/2017 05:18 pm »
Comparing Mars to The New World, which was plentiful, is plain wrong, and reflects hard bias.

I'm otherwise in agreement with the skeptical point of view, just a point to note though. As the human civilization progresses...


The New World relative to seventeenth century technology (pre-industrialization) is not massively different than Mars relative to twenty-first century technology.  Biggest change is today's huge aversion to anything involving risk.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #70 on: 09/15/2017 05:22 pm »
Submarine conditions for living (hot bunking, no space, the whole bit) plus the environment is trying to kill you.

Some people would find that as a challenge worth the trip and the effort. That seems to be one definition of colonization.

I wouldn't go if you gave me a ticket plus not likely to be useful there.

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #71 on: 09/15/2017 05:36 pm »
I'm a little more sanguine about space colonization. The analogy between Antarctica and Mars has several flaws not least the time/distance/energy/cost to get there and the purpose of settlement. In the case of Antartica, the purpose is primarily research or adventure tourism conducted by rotating crews composed of individual participants.

Because of the distance and cost of travel, a Mars or asteroid colony (as opposed to a precursor base) is more likely to be made up of committed pairs who are committed to a long-term (perhaps life-long) stay. At some point, natural reproductive population increase is more likely to contribute to an expansion of the colony than mass migration (eg, ITS).

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #72 on: 09/15/2017 05:47 pm »
I'm a little more sanguine about space colonization. The analogy between Antarctica and Mars has several flaws not least the time/distance/energy/cost to get there and the purpose of settlement. In the case of Antartica, the purpose is primarily research or adventure tourism conducted by rotating crews composed of individual participants.

Because of the distance and cost of travel, a Mars or asteroid colony (as opposed to a precursor base) is more likely to be made up of committed pairs who are committed to a long-term (perhaps life-long) stay. At some point, natural reproductive population increase is more likely to contribute to an expansion of the colony than mass migration (eg, ITS).
But aren't most economically developed countries (i.e. the ones that have more people that can afford to move to Mars) less likely to have children? (demographic transition)
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 05:48 pm by Pipcard »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #73 on: 09/15/2017 05:57 pm »
Other than Mars, the other option for Space is O'Neil colonies near mining areas, such as the moon, asteroids, etc.  People mining could rotate shifts say on the moon.  2 weeks or a month on the moon, then back home to the orbital 1g O'Neil colony, and another crew to the moon to work.  Zero G manufacturing could be done from raw materials mined from the moon at the O'Neil colony.

Same could be done in Mars orbit, but Mars has more in common with earth.  A little over 24 hour day, water (frozen), soil conditions good for growing potatoes, unknown minerals, atmosphere and water for making rocket fuel and argon for SEP or NEP propulsion systems.  Thus the idea of Martian colonies.  O'Neil would be large rotating cylinders to mimic earth conditions with radiation protection.  Same can be done on Mars, just large domes for growing plants for food along with large underground living spaces.  Yes, outposts and surface exploration will have to be done first, but it can be done, and probably will be done at some point in the future.  Yes, Mars is probably going to be there in 100 or 1000 years, but why wait.  LET'S go now, and get started.  Just going will kick start new inovation, new products, more efficient rocket or SEP propulsion, etc.  It will stimulate the creativity for new products and ways of doing things in space and on Mars. 
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 06:07 pm by spacenut »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #74 on: 09/15/2017 06:20 pm »
But aren't most economically developed countries (i.e. the ones that have more people that can afford to move to Mars) less likely to have children? (demographic transition)
Yes.

That, and several other equally obvious paradoxes, are some of the main reasons it's pretty easy to scoff at the idea of space settlement. to succeed any settlement plan has to have credible ways of answering those paradoxes.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #75 on: 09/15/2017 06:31 pm »
No permanent structures allowed on Antarctica and no mining. Therefore no colonies, other than the colonies that have been grandfathered in.
Comparable arctic environments are very sparsely populated, and almost all of those populations are heavily dependent on outside supplies and exist due to profitable resource extraction or subsidies.

No one is building self-sustaining habitats in Antarctic equivalent conditions, and the reason isn't laws or treaties. If the antarctic treaty system didn't exist, there might a few mining communities, but the experience of high arctic territories suggests it wouldn't be colonized to any significant degree.

The case for equivalent profit driven resource extraction on Mars is unproven, to put it mildly.

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #76 on: 09/15/2017 06:45 pm »
What about an asteroid mining business that used Phobos as a base? The Phobos base could be supported by a Mars colony. You wouldn't necessarily have to extract resources from Mars, just support a Phobos base which supports asteroid mining of precious metals.
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #77 on: 09/15/2017 06:51 pm »
But aren't most economically developed countries (i.e. the ones that have more people that can afford to move to Mars) less likely to have children? (demographic transition)
Yes.

That, and several other equally obvious paradoxes, are some of the main reasons it's pretty easy to scoff at the idea of space settlement. to succeed any settlement plan has to have credible ways of answering those paradoxes.

The reason it is easy to scoff at space settlement is that it is easy to scoff at anything.

Getting to space was science fiction a couple decades before we got there. Settling anything in space is science fiction now to many... those need not apply.  The work to be done is a worthy challenge for those willing to do it; not waiting around for those who spend their time raising reasons it cannot/should not/is too foolish to consider.

BTW, those who go to Mars might find it compelling to have many children -- completely independent of the current social pressures on Earth to limit family size.  In fact, they might be going there because of the current social pressures on Earth...
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 06:52 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #78 on: 09/15/2017 06:52 pm »
Even comparing Mars to Antarctica is biased and misleading, with the only commonality being that both are usually colder then most of the other places on earth. Think about water, air, food, vacume, temperature and millions of km. Even in terms of commerce it is uncomparable, with the distances making even prepacked cocaine unprofitable to import from mars (the words of EM).
The result of the "Martian Homesteading" threads was that their should be some market for data products EG A guy free climbing up a 10 mile high mountain would be pretty cool.

It was also noted that you could have a market for products whose unique selling point was that they were "Made on Mars" (with a suitable registered and copyrighted logo naturally).
IOW it's not a bottle of Whiskey/Rye/Gin/Vodka/Brandy, it's a bottle of Martian Whiskey/Rye/Gin/Vodka/Brandy
It wouldn't necessarily be any better than anything on Earth, but it would be very exclusive.
But bulk raw materials OTOH, not so hot.
Quote from: dror
Comparing Mars to The New World, which was plentiful, is plain wrong, and reflects hard bias.
True. The lack of hostile natives, ready availability of slave labor and substantial opportunities to make large fortunes by just growing stuff and shipping it back to your home country to name three.

Quote from: dror
The word 'colonization' in the context of Mars is nothing but wishfull thinking.
anyone who ever gets there will be counting the days (and then hours and minutes) for their return. Whatever their intentions were at the get go.
And somewhat offensive to anyone on the receiving end of such a process.
I think that assessment is  a bit harsh, although I suspect there will be a certain proportion of settlers who realize pretty quickly it's not for them.

As for the rest I think it's a question of what is the deal that is being offered?
Are you being offered the chance to have a stake in the founding of a new city (or maybe even a country in time?) like the Jewish settlers who went to Palestine in the 20's and 30's?
Or are you basically building Elon Musks retirement home?

One sounds like being a part of something historically significant, albeit while enduring considerable discomfort. Events that will shape the future (and your children's) of a whole planet.

The other sounds like being a drywall contractor on site for a few months.

Quote from: dror
All IMHO of course, and until terraforming is completed.
Terra forming changes everything but IIRC they were talking significant changes in 1000 years, now thinking seems to be it could take 10 000 for human made climate change to deliver the level of change needed to make Mars reasonably habitable.

I think the only way that's going to work would be for the terraforming to be incorporated into normal human activity, something that's virtually impossible not to do as part of your daily routine, but I'm not sure how that would be done.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2017 07:45 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #79 on: 09/15/2017 06:55 pm »
What about an asteroid mining business that used Phobos as a base? The Phobos base could be supported by a Mars colony. You wouldn't necessarily have to extract resources from Mars, just support a Phobos base which supports asteroid mining of precious metals.
which begs the question, what exactly does Mars supply that Phobos does not? Personally I'd be happy with that as a first step. Any sustainable settlement off Earth is better than none.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1