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.
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.
I suspect the Outer Space Treaty might have something to say on that, and of course the USG.
...Quote from: AncientU on 09/14/2017 05:53 pmFalcon 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.
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).
...Quote from: AncientUITSy: 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.
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...
Comparing Mars to The New World, which was plentiful, is plain wrong, and reflects hard bias.
Quote from: dror on 09/15/2017 04:35 pmComparing 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...
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)
Quote from: Pipcard on 09/15/2017 05:47 pmBut 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.
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 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.
All IMHO of course, and until terraforming is completed.
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.