4 ms·

These things don't happen naturally, they don't progress at some rate. They happen because people decide to do them, and then do them. Humans haven't been to t

These things don't happen naturally, they don't progress at some rate. They happen because people decide to do them, and then do them. Humans haven't been to the moon in 50 years because nobody has decided to go in 50 years. Right now there's a man with more resources than almost any man on earth and he has dedicated his life to ensuring that people go to mars and live there. He is so to used on it that he has focused on creating novel technology just for the purpose, and demonstrated that technology. It is going to happen. In space, distance doesn't really matter, gravity wells matter. Going to mars is not much different than going to the moon. You don't really need a trial, the people are stuck there no matter how far away it is.

snek_case 5y ago
The plan is for SpaceX to send 3 uncrewed launches to Mars (with equipment and supplies) before sending people. I think that if they succeed with Starship, they can very much do it. And IMO, the more SpaceX progresses, the more people will get excited about space and investment money will be thrown at space technology. I invested some money in Rocket Lab, because they are a public company and the next best thing after SpaceX IMO.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Excitement cannot overcome a lack of exploitable natural resources at the destination.
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    Nation-state scale science programs notwithstanding, I think the possibility of independent sovereignty will be the main draw of going to Mars, if/when independent survival is technologically (and economically, in the local scope) feasible. There are absolutely exploitable resources there; they are just irrelevant to an Earth-centric economy because of the prohibitive cost of hauling them out of Mars' gravity well and down to Earth. But if you've gone to Mars to be independent there, Earth's economy will become similarly irrelevant to you.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Humans evolved to depend on air, water, food, and a radiation shield that don't occur naturally on Mars. Being on Mars a few decades is unlikely to change those fundamentals.
      - caconym_ 5y ago
        Maybe your initial comment was not clear. Reproduced below: > Excitement cannot overcome a lack of exploitable natural resources at the destination. In context ("the more SpaceX progresses, the more people will get excited about space and investment money will be thrown at space technology"), I assumed your point was that natural resources on Mars cannot be economically relevant to Earth-based investors, and therefore no such investment money will be "thrown" at Mars colonization regardless of how "excited" people are about the idea. Hence the substance of my reply. Did you instead mean to say that air, water, food, and radiation shielding are intractable problems for Mars colonization?
        beerandt 5y ago
        It's both. Without local resources, whether economic or life-sustaining, you're not really a colony, but a scientific expedition or military outpost or both. Both of which put you under the political authority (and reliance for survival) of your sponsoring entity, which to me largely quashes the whole sovereignty appeal. That isn't to say that there won't be "true believers" who buy into the idea of starting a colony, as it's sold by Elon or NASA or the US Space Force or whoever. I'm sure they'll find volunteers.
        caconym_ 5y ago
        You also seem to be taking as a given that independent survival on Mars is functionally impossible due to a lack of "local resources" from which to derive the essentials of survival viz. "air, water, food, and radiation shielding". Is that correct? My original comment explicitly (see: "if/when independent survival is [...] feasible") takes no position on this matter.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I've heard it said before, there is no economic benefit to going and there never will be. People will go because they want to go. Perhaps one day, when a ton of people live outside of gravity wells, there will be an economic incentive, but as of right now, there's no money to be made.
- gooseus 5y ago
  I would like to see SpaceX outline a roadmap according to each Mars transfer window, currently don't see it[1]: 2022/08/07 - Assume no transit 2024/09/26 - First uncrewed launch (X tons of supply) 2026/11/15 - Second uncrewed launch (X2 tons of supply) 2029/01/03 - Third uncrewed launch (X3 tons of supply) 2031/02/22 - First crewed launch (X4 tons of supply, Y tons of people) 2033/04/11 - Second crewed launch (X5 tons of supply, Y2 tons of people) 2035/05/30 - etc... ... [2] This way we can compare progress and keep pushing the schedule out as each transfer is missed to give a more realistic sense for what we're trying to do here. My sense is that if people would really to dig into the numbers (and I'm sure someone has) to calculate out the tonnage and delta-v required and how that translates to resources (money, energy, humans) over time (esp considering regulations and safety factors) then I think we would get a more realistic sense of we're trying to do here and realize how insane it is to think we'd have anything resembling a "colony" by 2050 (14 transfer windows). A 2050 Moon colony is a far more realistic prediction, though also somewhat far fetched unless we've solved the problem of economic and political instability. [1] https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ [2] http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm
paulryanrogers 5y ago
> In space, distance doesn't really matter,... Travel time and therefore distance matters. Months of increased radiation exposure, low gravity, and calorie restriction is very different than a few days going to the moon and back.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Yeah, but once you're there there's very little difference. Travel time to start the colony is (hopefully) only the first 0.001% of the life span of a colony. Also if the trip is so different how does a test run to the moon help us prepare for vastly different transit conditions? Either way, a pilot program on the moon offers virtually no benefit. It amounts to dipping your toe in when you know the water is cold; you're looking for an excuse to back out.
- DennisP 5y ago
  You don't actually have to endure microgravity for the whole trip. Tether two Starships and spin, and you've got gravity. Musk mentioned a few months ago that they were considering it. Couple years ago I worked out what the cable mass would have to be, and it really wasn't bad. There's even a Kevlar-equivalent that stands up well to space radiation.

snek_case 5y ago

The plan is for SpaceX to send 3 uncrewed launches to Mars (with equipment and supplies) before sending people. I think that if they succeed with Starship, they can very much do it. And IMO, the more SpaceX progresses, the more people will get excited about space and investment money will be thrown at space technology. I invested some money in Rocket Lab, because they are a public company and the next best thing after SpaceX IMO.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Excitement cannot overcome a lack of exploitable natural resources at the destination.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  Nation-state scale science programs notwithstanding, I think the possibility of independent sovereignty will be the main draw of going to Mars, if/when independent survival is technologically (and economically, in the local scope) feasible. There are absolutely exploitable resources there; they are just irrelevant to an Earth-centric economy because of the prohibitive cost of hauling them out of Mars' gravity well and down to Earth. But if you've gone to Mars to be independent there, Earth's economy will become similarly irrelevant to you.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Humans evolved to depend on air, water, food, and a radiation shield that don't occur naturally on Mars. Being on Mars a few decades is unlikely to change those fundamentals.
    - caconym_ 5y ago
      Maybe your initial comment was not clear. Reproduced below: > Excitement cannot overcome a lack of exploitable natural resources at the destination. In context ("the more SpaceX progresses, the more people will get excited about space and investment money will be thrown at space technology"), I assumed your point was that natural resources on Mars cannot be economically relevant to Earth-based investors, and therefore no such investment money will be "thrown" at Mars colonization regardless of how "excited" people are about the idea. Hence the substance of my reply. Did you instead mean to say that air, water, food, and radiation shielding are intractable problems for Mars colonization?
      - beerandt 5y ago
        It's both. Without local resources, whether economic or life-sustaining, you're not really a colony, but a scientific expedition or military outpost or both. Both of which put you under the political authority (and reliance for survival) of your sponsoring entity, which to me largely quashes the whole sovereignty appeal. That isn't to say that there won't be "true believers" who buy into the idea of starting a colony, as it's sold by Elon or NASA or the US Space Force or whoever. I'm sure they'll find volunteers.
        caconym_ 5y ago
        You also seem to be taking as a given that independent survival on Mars is functionally impossible due to a lack of "local resources" from which to derive the essentials of survival viz. "air, water, food, and radiation shielding". Is that correct? My original comment explicitly (see: "if/when independent survival is [...] feasible") takes no position on this matter.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I've heard it said before, there is no economic benefit to going and there never will be. People will go because they want to go. Perhaps one day, when a ton of people live outside of gravity wells, there will be an economic incentive, but as of right now, there's no money to be made.
gooseus 5y ago
I would like to see SpaceX outline a roadmap according to each Mars transfer window, currently don't see it[1]: 2022/08/07 - Assume no transit 2024/09/26 - First uncrewed launch (X tons of supply) 2026/11/15 - Second uncrewed launch (X2 tons of supply) 2029/01/03 - Third uncrewed launch (X3 tons of supply) 2031/02/22 - First crewed launch (X4 tons of supply, Y tons of people) 2033/04/11 - Second crewed launch (X5 tons of supply, Y2 tons of people) 2035/05/30 - etc... ... [2] This way we can compare progress and keep pushing the schedule out as each transfer is missed to give a more realistic sense for what we're trying to do here. My sense is that if people would really to dig into the numbers (and I'm sure someone has) to calculate out the tonnage and delta-v required and how that translates to resources (money, energy, humans) over time (esp considering regulations and safety factors) then I think we would get a more realistic sense of we're trying to do here and realize how insane it is to think we'd have anything resembling a "colony" by 2050 (14 transfer windows). A 2050 Moon colony is a far more realistic prediction, though also somewhat far fetched unless we've solved the problem of economic and political instability. [1] https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ [2] http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm

paulryanrogers 5y ago

> In space, distance doesn't really matter,... Travel time and therefore distance matters. Months of increased radiation exposure, low gravity, and calorie restriction is very different than a few days going to the moon and back.

betwixthewires 5y ago
Yeah, but once you're there there's very little difference. Travel time to start the colony is (hopefully) only the first 0.001% of the life span of a colony. Also if the trip is so different how does a test run to the moon help us prepare for vastly different transit conditions? Either way, a pilot program on the moon offers virtually no benefit. It amounts to dipping your toe in when you know the water is cold; you're looking for an excuse to back out.
DennisP 5y ago
You don't actually have to endure microgravity for the whole trip. Tether two Starships and spin, and you've got gravity. Musk mentioned a few months ago that they were considering it. Couple years ago I worked out what the cable mass would have to be, and it really wasn't bad. There's even a Kevlar-equivalent that stands up well to space radiation.