6 ms·

If you have any interest, I highly recommend reading this. It's not marketing fluff; it has a creative and (seemingly) complete vision and well-thought-through

If you have any interest, I highly recommend reading this. It's not marketing fluff; it has a creative and (seemingly) complete vision and well-thought-through planning, and is clear, concise, and detailed. Maybe someone who follows these issues closely will already know much of it (or maybe not; I have no idea), but it is an education for me and by far the best thing I've read on the subject. For example, the three phases in the title are defined not by physical locations or technological developments, but by dependence on Earth: * Earth Reliant * Proving Ground: R&D in 'cislunar' space * Earth Independent Maybe that's old news to space geeks, but it's new to me and shows an effort to carefully conceive of the mission.

mediocrejoker 11y ago
That's what makes it truly exciting to me: it seems like a lot of smart people have been putting serious thought and consideration towards what would/will be required to have a realistic shot at colonizing another planet.
- stevesearer 11y ago
  The word 'colonize' evokes thoughts of British, Dutch, Portuguese, etc colonization ~500-200 years ago. When thinking of colonizing a new planet, is there any information about who will control the resources of the colony? Will the USA control Martian resources if we get there first or will it be a collaborative effort like the Space Station?
  - clem 11y ago
    At the moment that's something of a moot point. Is there a single resource on Mars that's worth the cost of transporting back to Earth? Until that's the case, it's only going to be the local Martian populace controlling the resources.
  - jerf 11y ago
    Zigging from clem's zag, let me put this another way. There absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt will be major political issues that arise from off-planet habitation. But, to be honest, not particularly all that more major than any number of issues that arise on Earth all the time, and we generally muddle through them. It'll be a long time before anyone would have any reason to start a shooting war over an off-planet resource. And science fiction has been predicting the near inevitability that eventually the off-planet colony will demand independence anyhow, a position I see no reason to modify or disagree with, personally. The structural forces in favor of that outcome are just overwhelming.
    - stevesearer 11y ago
      I wonder how things might be handled differently depending on whether public interests (NASA) or private interests (SpaceX) colonize first.
      - Ankaios 11y ago
        I expect that they will be acting in concert.
    - bewatson 11y ago
      In the movie "The Martian" (not a spoiler), there is a part where they describe Mars as international waters. I think it is a pretty interesting take on the subject: "There’s an international treaty (the Outer Space Treaty signed by the US and Soviet Union in 1967) saying no country can lay claim to anything that’s not Earth. And by another treaty, if you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law applies. So Mars is “international waters.” NASA is an American nonmilitary organization, and it owns the Hab. So while I’m in the Hab, American law applies. As soon as I step outside, I’m in international waters. Then when I get in the rover, I’m back to American law." If and when this becomes a legitimate issue, it will be interesting to see who claims what, or if it will be it's own independent place.
  - chc 11y ago
    According to the Outer Space Treaty, Mars and other celestial bodies are "the province of all mankind." Nobody can own or control them. However, if (for example) the US mines some Martian gold for its own use, I believe the US would be the proper owner of that specific gold, though it still wouldn't be able to claim any exclusive mineral rights to Mars.
    - ilurk 11y ago
      History has shown that treaties are broken by parties whose interests are disserviced by them. They are there to maintain the status quo.
  - ilurk 11y ago
    It will be interesting indeed but also worrisome. China also has plans for Mars and it has no collaborative efforts with the ISS. How much land will it claim? And how many colonies will demand secession? edited: typo :)
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - ForHackernews 11y ago
    > When thinking of colonizing a new planet, is there any information about who will control the resources of the colony? Will the USA control Martian resources if we get there first or will it be a collaborative effort like the Space Station? Once they're self-sustaining, I'd say the Martians will control Martian resources. Good freaking luck trying to exert power over people several light-minutes away.
    - nomailing 11y ago
      Yes. Also, if several nations have colonies on Mars, I would assume that they would all claim independence roughly at the same time and soon after would form some kind of pan-martian government. It just makes more sense to increase collaborations between colonies if you are so far away from earth. If there would be a US colony on Mars and a Chinese colony on Mars, these people would probably have more interactions with each other than with any person or nation on earth. There are huge advantages of exchange of goods between colonies, so that not every colony has to produce every special item or mine every kind of resource.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > The word 'colonize' evokes thoughts of British, Dutch, Portuguese, etc colonization ~500-200 years ago. Maybe in your generation. For me it evokes thoughts of Star Trek, of humanity as a whole expanding to outer space and building habitats in far away places. I really don't think people talking about colonizing Mars think about it in terms of colonial times. And this may be a source of various misunderstandings when debating manned space missions.
- Steko 11y ago
  I think the whole colonization angle is widely overblown and it's become embedded in our views about space by a century of genre fiction most of which couldn't break out of the colonial mindset. Technology is going to destroy birth rates and scarcity and machines will rapidly eclipse our own abilities to do anything and so future man will smartly answer the question of inter-planetary and perhaps interstellar travel with 'machines not people'. Eventually we may leave Earth on some scale but I doubt we'll ever run out of room or resources here and be forced to leave.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    People colonise not just to get more room or resources. North America was colonised by people who wanted to get away from the political situation at home. Australia was colonised because the government wanted to get criminal away from Britain. (And other strategic reasons, yes yes, whatever.) In both cases, colonisation was desirable in order for some people to be able to put some distance between them and some other people. And this desire won't go away. Imagine, the solar system would be a more harmonious place if everyone with rather strong ideas about how the world should be run could simply go start their own world to be run that way. You could have a libertarian planet, a socialist planet, a centre-left planet, a centre-right planet, and if someone didn't like the way things were run they could move to a new planet. Of course there's not enough planets for that, but there's enough raw materials to build enough orbital habitats.
    - Steko 11y ago
      > And this desire won't go away. I don't think that's clear at all. I think the widespread view that society is going to keep looking more or less like the present but with self driving cars is complete folly. Technology is going to -- among other things -- destroy scarcity, erase language barriers, end warfare, conquer disease and educate the masses. The societal changes coming are bigger than industrialization, maybe bigger than moving from hunter gatherers to agriculture. > Imagine, the solar system would be a more harmonious place if everyone with rather strong ideas about how the world should be run could simply go start their own world to be run that way. That doesn't sound very harmonious at all. That sounds like institutionalizing ignorance as an organizing principle and seems like something intelligent society would move away from.
chm 11y ago
That's definitely weekend reading for me. Right after grading these tests...
mattmanser 11y ago
Or a mainstream sci-fi fan. That's pretty much one of the major themes of the well-known Mars trilogy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
nickff 11y ago
I wish that NASA's plan were wise and thoughtful... but it isn't. NASA has created a plan which supports the continuation of all projects currently running and in development as part of the 'path to Mars'. While this may be a good jobs or aerospace stimulus spending program, these projects are not critical to getting to Mars. If NASA were serious about going to Mars as soon as possible, they would cancel the Space Launch System (SLS), and spend the money on in-orbit low-gravity research, ion thruster research, and SpaceX/Blue Origin/Orbital Sciences/ULA super-heavy lift capabilities. If they did this, NASA could send astronauts to Mars in 2024. As things stand, SLS is too expensive and slow a program to survive changes of administrations (i.e. presidential elections), like its predecessors, SLS and its descendants will go into cost/scope death spirals and get cancelled/restarted. In short, if NASA really wanted to go to Mars, they'd focus on going to Mars. If you're interested in the subject, I suggest you watch "The Mars Underground", as it is a good primer on the recent history of Mars exploration ideas/initiatives.[1] [1] http://documentarystorm.com/the-mars-underground/ http://documentarystorm.com/the-mars-underground/
- mzs 11y ago
  It's more Congress that wants SLS to continue than NASA.
  - nickff 11y ago
    I agree with you that SLS A.K.A. Senate Launch System is more of a congressional program than a NASA program, but neither NASA nor the executive branch have been vocal in opposing it, and the rest of the 'path to Mars' (as proposed by NASA) is even more wasteful than SLS.
    - mzs 11y ago
      NASA has been pretty vocally against since 2010 or so, here's an example: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-committee-clash-over-nasa-priorities/ http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-com... You have to understand that NASA is a big place and they have a public communications aspect with people who's job it is to spread word about what they are doing no matter if it's what they want to be doing or not, so rthat's why you see so much in support. The best way to tell if it is fluff or real is to look for vague ideas instead of hard timelines.
mzs 11y ago
I don't know, page 8 is pretty marketingy.

mediocrejoker 11y ago

That's what makes it truly exciting to me: it seems like a lot of smart people have been putting serious thought and consideration towards what would/will be required to have a realistic shot at colonizing another planet.

stevesearer 11y ago
The word 'colonize' evokes thoughts of British, Dutch, Portuguese, etc colonization ~500-200 years ago. When thinking of colonizing a new planet, is there any information about who will control the resources of the colony? Will the USA control Martian resources if we get there first or will it be a collaborative effort like the Space Station?
- clem 11y ago
  At the moment that's something of a moot point. Is there a single resource on Mars that's worth the cost of transporting back to Earth? Until that's the case, it's only going to be the local Martian populace controlling the resources.
- jerf 11y ago
  Zigging from clem's zag, let me put this another way. There absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt will be major political issues that arise from off-planet habitation. But, to be honest, not particularly all that more major than any number of issues that arise on Earth all the time, and we generally muddle through them. It'll be a long time before anyone would have any reason to start a shooting war over an off-planet resource. And science fiction has been predicting the near inevitability that eventually the off-planet colony will demand independence anyhow, a position I see no reason to modify or disagree with, personally. The structural forces in favor of that outcome are just overwhelming.
  - stevesearer 11y ago
    I wonder how things might be handled differently depending on whether public interests (NASA) or private interests (SpaceX) colonize first.
    - Ankaios 11y ago
      I expect that they will be acting in concert.
  - bewatson 11y ago
    In the movie "The Martian" (not a spoiler), there is a part where they describe Mars as international waters. I think it is a pretty interesting take on the subject: "There’s an international treaty (the Outer Space Treaty signed by the US and Soviet Union in 1967) saying no country can lay claim to anything that’s not Earth. And by another treaty, if you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law applies. So Mars is “international waters.” NASA is an American nonmilitary organization, and it owns the Hab. So while I’m in the Hab, American law applies. As soon as I step outside, I’m in international waters. Then when I get in the rover, I’m back to American law." If and when this becomes a legitimate issue, it will be interesting to see who claims what, or if it will be it's own independent place.
- chc 11y ago
  According to the Outer Space Treaty, Mars and other celestial bodies are "the province of all mankind." Nobody can own or control them. However, if (for example) the US mines some Martian gold for its own use, I believe the US would be the proper owner of that specific gold, though it still wouldn't be able to claim any exclusive mineral rights to Mars.
  - ilurk 11y ago
    History has shown that treaties are broken by parties whose interests are disserviced by them. They are there to maintain the status quo.
- ilurk 11y ago
  It will be interesting indeed but also worrisome. China also has plans for Mars and it has no collaborative efforts with the ISS. How much land will it claim? And how many colonies will demand secession? edited: typo :)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- ForHackernews 11y ago
  > When thinking of colonizing a new planet, is there any information about who will control the resources of the colony? Will the USA control Martian resources if we get there first or will it be a collaborative effort like the Space Station? Once they're self-sustaining, I'd say the Martians will control Martian resources. Good freaking luck trying to exert power over people several light-minutes away.
  - nomailing 11y ago
    Yes. Also, if several nations have colonies on Mars, I would assume that they would all claim independence roughly at the same time and soon after would form some kind of pan-martian government. It just makes more sense to increase collaborations between colonies if you are so far away from earth. If there would be a US colony on Mars and a Chinese colony on Mars, these people would probably have more interactions with each other than with any person or nation on earth. There are huge advantages of exchange of goods between colonies, so that not every colony has to produce every special item or mine every kind of resource.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > The word 'colonize' evokes thoughts of British, Dutch, Portuguese, etc colonization ~500-200 years ago. Maybe in your generation. For me it evokes thoughts of Star Trek, of humanity as a whole expanding to outer space and building habitats in far away places. I really don't think people talking about colonizing Mars think about it in terms of colonial times. And this may be a source of various misunderstandings when debating manned space missions.
Steko 11y ago
I think the whole colonization angle is widely overblown and it's become embedded in our views about space by a century of genre fiction most of which couldn't break out of the colonial mindset. Technology is going to destroy birth rates and scarcity and machines will rapidly eclipse our own abilities to do anything and so future man will smartly answer the question of inter-planetary and perhaps interstellar travel with 'machines not people'. Eventually we may leave Earth on some scale but I doubt we'll ever run out of room or resources here and be forced to leave.
- hugh4 11y ago
  People colonise not just to get more room or resources. North America was colonised by people who wanted to get away from the political situation at home. Australia was colonised because the government wanted to get criminal away from Britain. (And other strategic reasons, yes yes, whatever.) In both cases, colonisation was desirable in order for some people to be able to put some distance between them and some other people. And this desire won't go away. Imagine, the solar system would be a more harmonious place if everyone with rather strong ideas about how the world should be run could simply go start their own world to be run that way. You could have a libertarian planet, a socialist planet, a centre-left planet, a centre-right planet, and if someone didn't like the way things were run they could move to a new planet. Of course there's not enough planets for that, but there's enough raw materials to build enough orbital habitats.
  - Steko 11y ago
    > And this desire won't go away. I don't think that's clear at all. I think the widespread view that society is going to keep looking more or less like the present but with self driving cars is complete folly. Technology is going to -- among other things -- destroy scarcity, erase language barriers, end warfare, conquer disease and educate the masses. The societal changes coming are bigger than industrialization, maybe bigger than moving from hunter gatherers to agriculture. > Imagine, the solar system would be a more harmonious place if everyone with rather strong ideas about how the world should be run could simply go start their own world to be run that way. That doesn't sound very harmonious at all. That sounds like institutionalizing ignorance as an organizing principle and seems like something intelligent society would move away from.

chm 11y ago

That's definitely weekend reading for me. Right after grading these tests...

mattmanser 11y ago

Or a mainstream sci-fi fan. That's pretty much one of the major themes of the well-known Mars trilogy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy

nickff 11y ago

I wish that NASA's plan were wise and thoughtful... but it isn't. NASA has created a plan which supports the continuation of all projects currently running and in development as part of the 'path to Mars'. While this may be a good jobs or aerospace stimulus spending program, these projects are not critical to getting to Mars. If NASA were serious about going to Mars as soon as possible, they would cancel the Space Launch System (SLS), and spend the money on in-orbit low-gravity research, ion thruster research, and SpaceX/Blue Origin/Orbital Sciences/ULA super-heavy lift capabilities. If they did this, NASA could send astronauts to Mars in 2024. As things stand, SLS is too expensive and slow a program to survive changes of administrations (i.e. presidential elections), like its predecessors, SLS and its descendants will go into cost/scope death spirals and get cancelled/restarted. In short, if NASA really wanted to go to Mars, they'd focus on going to Mars. If you're interested in the subject, I suggest you watch "The Mars Underground", as it is a good primer on the recent history of Mars exploration ideas/initiatives.[1] [1] http://documentarystorm.com/the-mars-underground/ http://documentarystorm.com/the-mars-underground/

mzs 11y ago
It's more Congress that wants SLS to continue than NASA.
- nickff 11y ago
  I agree with you that SLS A.K.A. Senate Launch System is more of a congressional program than a NASA program, but neither NASA nor the executive branch have been vocal in opposing it, and the rest of the 'path to Mars' (as proposed by NASA) is even more wasteful than SLS.
  - mzs 11y ago
    NASA has been pretty vocally against since 2010 or so, here's an example: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-committee-clash-over-nasa-priorities/ http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-com... You have to understand that NASA is a big place and they have a public communications aspect with people who's job it is to spread word about what they are doing no matter if it's what they want to be doing or not, so rthat's why you see so much in support. The best way to tell if it is fluff or real is to look for vague ideas instead of hard timelines.

mzs 11y ago

I don't know, page 8 is pretty marketingy.