5 ms·

Mars colonization isn't happening. SpaceX's Starship might be flying within the next year, yet there has been no substantial development of Martian habitat te

Mars colonization isn't happening. SpaceX's Starship might be flying within the next year, yet there has been no substantial development of Martian habitat technology. Are they building a bridge to nowhere? I think it's obvious that Starship was never about Mars; from the start it has been intended for launching extremely large satellite constellations (particularly for Starlink and DoD contracts.) SpaceX's talk of Mars is little more than a recruiting scheme. As far as I can tell the strongest evidence against my take is the $100M prize money Elon Musk has offered up for carbon capture that would supposedly be for making methane fuel on Mars. Making fuel that way would be pointless on Earth (except for greenwashing/PR.) But that's not even $100M spent, just $100M pledged.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Mars colonization isn't happening. SpaceX's Starship might be flying within the next year, yet there has been no substantial development of Martian habitat technology. "Isn't happening" was similarly a slam against the Falcon 9's reusability prospects not long ago. It should hardly be shocking that no one's making Mars habitats until the details of getting them there are known; it's entirely possible Starship will receive significant redesigns during development, just as F9 did. > Are they building a bridge to nowhere? Yes, just as ship captains in the 1500s largely didn't build their own colonies in the Americas. The Mayflower made other trips back and forth, providing transport to settlers who were responsible for deciding what to bring and how to use it.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  It's exciting to imagine various public and private ventures all booking rides on Starship to Mars, or more realistically in the short term, to the Moon.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > "Isn't happening" was similarly a slam against the Falcon 9's reusability prospects not long ago. Not so. SpaceX was visibly investing in reusable boosters more than 10 years ago. Everything SpaceX has actually spent serious money on is something that has a mundane commercial application, reusable boosters particularly. There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats. The "if you build it they will come" argument doesn't make sense. If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready. The Europeans who sailed to America packed their ships with a bunch of commercially available supplies and hoped for the best. There is no commercially available Martian habitat, countless billions of dollars and many years of development will be necessary. That's presently not happening. Even if it starts tomorrow, that development would be laughably far behind Starship development. They're not building a rocket for customers they think maybe might exist in 20 or 30 years.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > SpaceX was visibly investing in reusable boosters more than 10 years ago. And their competitors laughed at the idea. ULA doubted SpaceX's reusability prospects as recently as 2020 (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-rockets-economic-nonsense/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-roc...). > There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats. Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis. If SpaceX can get Starship to Mars, the idea that NASA wouldn't bother to buy some flights for some Mars landings seems nonsensical. > If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready. So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > And their competitors laughed at the idea. ULA doubted SpaceX's resuability prospects as recently as 2020 Well take that matter up with them. I wasn't among those laughing at their plan to develop reusable boosters. Reusable boosters have clear commercial application. Everything SpaceX has actually put serious money behind is something that has near-term commercial value. > Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis. SpaceX won a contract. How much have they actually spent in developing lunar-specific equipment? I doubt they even expected to win that contract. > So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing. A serious Mars colonization effort a century from now obviously won't be using Starship, unless rocket development severely stagnates between now and then. So if you're conceding that sort of timeline, let me reiterate my point: Starship will never bring a colony to Mars. There is presently no serious effort underway to colonize Mars.
      - starik36 4y ago
        They are investing heavily in Starship. A spacecraft capable of getting to Mars. > won't be using Starship I wouldn't be so sure. Practically every non-SpaceX workhorse spacecraft in use today has roots in rockets developed in 1960s. That's 60+ years ago. Some are even earlier: Delta is the latest version of Thor from 1950s. Soyuz rockets were designed in 1960s. RD-180x series were built for Buran and is based on the NK-33 from 1960s. It's not so difficult to imagine that 60 years from now, in the year 2082 we might be able to get people to Mars, perhaps using Starship. > Starship will never bring a colony to Mars Obviously. It will start with a small crew. Probably after we mastered getting to the moon.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Starship is pathetically inadequate to colonize Mars with, even if it were a good idea to try. There will be no colony on Mars. It is just possible a can could be placed there for a few people to squat in for a few months at a time. But there would be no reason to put them there. Mars is a dump, with nothing of interest to offer. Starship is probably adequate to support a smallish Moon base, along McMurdo lines. The moon offers much of interest, particularly its billion-year-old lava tubes.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Why would the Moon’s lava tubes be of interest, but not the ones on Mars?
    - Paradigma11 4y ago
      Because you could use them to build an industrial base with workers returning regularly like on an oil platform. You can also use the moon base to build spaceships without regards for aerodynamics. Or send material relatively cheap into orbit for assembly there.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Any on Mars have been subject to weather, so are ordinary caves. Lunar lava tubes are wholly unique. They will probably be filled with incredible filigreed crystal structures grown by differential vacuum sublimation over uninterrupted hundreds of millions of years.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        “There might be pretty crystals” is an odd thing to hang a space program on.
deepdriver 4y ago
>yet there has been no substantial development of Martian habitat technology. This is, in a word, wrong: https://www.space.com/26267-china-lunar-palace-space-research-mission.html https://www.space.com/26267-china-lunar-palace-space-researc... https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/Life_support_pilot_plant_paves_the_way_to_Moon_and_beyond https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Techn... https://www.css-inc.com/projects/bioregenerative_life_support.php https://www.css-inc.com/projects/bioregenerative_life_suppor... http://www.ibp.ru/science/bios3.php http://www.ibp.ru/science/bios3.php
- summerlight 4y ago
  To my eyes, those don't look like qualifying the word "substantial development". If you want to seriously take Mars colonization as a survival strategy for human species, you need a way to either implant most of the modern infrastructure in a massive scale (at least for hundreds of millions, otherwise the society won't sustain by itself) or develop a novel technology to terraform the planet into a human livable form within a reasonable budget. At that moment, we can talk about Martian habitat.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > If you want to seriously take Mars colonization as a survival strategy for human species, you need a way to either implant most of the modern infrastructure in a massive scale (at least for hundreds of millions, otherwise the society won't sustain by itself) or develop a novel technology to terraform the planet into a human livable form within a reasonable budget. At that moment, we can talk about Martian habitat. We cannot sustain a million people on Mars just yet. That's a far cry from claiming there has been no progress. For that claim to sustain, the British Bombe was a dud for not being able to run one's taxes. THAT SAID: the monarchist Thiel acolytes pushing Mars to profit off surveillance contracts while trashing anything resembling a response to our climate crisis can go stuff it. They are not only destroying what we have. They are, in the long run, undermining the Mars project as well.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
elihu 4y ago
I've wondered about the same thing; if it suddenly became cheap to send stuff to Mars, where's all the infrastructure we'd supposedly be sending? Is it being developed right now, or has it been a distant goal for so long that nobody yet has the attitude that it's time to start packing our things? I think, though, that if it's actually happening it might not be happening in a very public way. I mean, it's not exactly in the news every time someone develops a new space suit or a new air lock or a more efficient CO2 removal system. And a lot of the equipment sent to mars will probably just be boring industrial equipment, tools, construction materials, storage tanks, electrical cable, pipes, and so on, some of the same or only slightly modified from what's available at any hardware store. A few things will be highly specialized for the Martian environment, such as vehicles. Some things will be redesigned for no other reason than to reduce the mass so we can send more stuff cheaper. I wonder if there are any large-scale coordinated projects to figure out what exactly is needed for a minimum viable settlement, or if it's all kind of ad-hoc with a bunch of private companies and universities working on projects more-or-less at random with no organization? Or if everyone is kind of just sitting on their thumbs waiting for someone to take charge and/or start giving out grants and making purchases?

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Mars colonization isn't happening. SpaceX's Starship might be flying within the next year, yet there has been no substantial development of Martian habitat technology. "Isn't happening" was similarly a slam against the Falcon 9's reusability prospects not long ago. It should hardly be shocking that no one's making Mars habitats until the details of getting them there are known; it's entirely possible Starship will receive significant redesigns during development, just as F9 did. > Are they building a bridge to nowhere? Yes, just as ship captains in the 1500s largely didn't build their own colonies in the Americas. The Mayflower made other trips back and forth, providing transport to settlers who were responsible for deciding what to bring and how to use it.

deepdriver 4y ago
It's exciting to imagine various public and private ventures all booking rides on Starship to Mars, or more realistically in the short term, to the Moon.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> "Isn't happening" was similarly a slam against the Falcon 9's reusability prospects not long ago. Not so. SpaceX was visibly investing in reusable boosters more than 10 years ago. Everything SpaceX has actually spent serious money on is something that has a mundane commercial application, reusable boosters particularly. There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats. The "if you build it they will come" argument doesn't make sense. If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready. The Europeans who sailed to America packed their ships with a bunch of commercially available supplies and hoped for the best. There is no commercially available Martian habitat, countless billions of dollars and many years of development will be necessary. That's presently not happening. Even if it starts tomorrow, that development would be laughably far behind Starship development. They're not building a rocket for customers they think maybe might exist in 20 or 30 years.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > SpaceX was visibly investing in reusable boosters more than 10 years ago. And their competitors laughed at the idea. ULA doubted SpaceX's reusability prospects as recently as 2020 (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-rockets-economic-nonsense/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-roc...). > There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats. Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis. If SpaceX can get Starship to Mars, the idea that NASA wouldn't bother to buy some flights for some Mars landings seems nonsensical. > If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready. So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > And their competitors laughed at the idea. ULA doubted SpaceX's resuability prospects as recently as 2020 Well take that matter up with them. I wasn't among those laughing at their plan to develop reusable boosters. Reusable boosters have clear commercial application. Everything SpaceX has actually put serious money behind is something that has near-term commercial value. > Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis. SpaceX won a contract. How much have they actually spent in developing lunar-specific equipment? I doubt they even expected to win that contract. > So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing. A serious Mars colonization effort a century from now obviously won't be using Starship, unless rocket development severely stagnates between now and then. So if you're conceding that sort of timeline, let me reiterate my point: Starship will never bring a colony to Mars. There is presently no serious effort underway to colonize Mars.
    - starik36 4y ago
      They are investing heavily in Starship. A spacecraft capable of getting to Mars. > won't be using Starship I wouldn't be so sure. Practically every non-SpaceX workhorse spacecraft in use today has roots in rockets developed in 1960s. That's 60+ years ago. Some are even earlier: Delta is the latest version of Thor from 1950s. Soyuz rockets were designed in 1960s. RD-180x series were built for Buran and is based on the NK-33 from 1960s. It's not so difficult to imagine that 60 years from now, in the year 2082 we might be able to get people to Mars, perhaps using Starship. > Starship will never bring a colony to Mars Obviously. It will start with a small crew. Probably after we mastered getting to the moon.
ncmncm 4y ago
Starship is pathetically inadequate to colonize Mars with, even if it were a good idea to try. There will be no colony on Mars. It is just possible a can could be placed there for a few people to squat in for a few months at a time. But there would be no reason to put them there. Mars is a dump, with nothing of interest to offer. Starship is probably adequate to support a smallish Moon base, along McMurdo lines. The moon offers much of interest, particularly its billion-year-old lava tubes.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Why would the Moon’s lava tubes be of interest, but not the ones on Mars?
  - Paradigma11 4y ago
    Because you could use them to build an industrial base with workers returning regularly like on an oil platform. You can also use the moon base to build spaceships without regards for aerodynamics. Or send material relatively cheap into orbit for assembly there.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Any on Mars have been subject to weather, so are ordinary caves. Lunar lava tubes are wholly unique. They will probably be filled with incredible filigreed crystal structures grown by differential vacuum sublimation over uninterrupted hundreds of millions of years.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      “There might be pretty crystals” is an odd thing to hang a space program on.

deepdriver 4y ago

>yet there has been no substantial development of Martian habitat technology. This is, in a word, wrong: https://www.space.com/26267-china-lunar-palace-space-research-mission.html https://www.space.com/26267-china-lunar-palace-space-researc... https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/Life_support_pilot_plant_paves_the_way_to_Moon_and_beyond https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Techn... https://www.css-inc.com/projects/bioregenerative_life_support.php https://www.css-inc.com/projects/bioregenerative_life_suppor... http://www.ibp.ru/science/bios3.php http://www.ibp.ru/science/bios3.php

summerlight 4y ago
To my eyes, those don't look like qualifying the word "substantial development". If you want to seriously take Mars colonization as a survival strategy for human species, you need a way to either implant most of the modern infrastructure in a massive scale (at least for hundreds of millions, otherwise the society won't sustain by itself) or develop a novel technology to terraform the planet into a human livable form within a reasonable budget. At that moment, we can talk about Martian habitat.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > If you want to seriously take Mars colonization as a survival strategy for human species, you need a way to either implant most of the modern infrastructure in a massive scale (at least for hundreds of millions, otherwise the society won't sustain by itself) or develop a novel technology to terraform the planet into a human livable form within a reasonable budget. At that moment, we can talk about Martian habitat. We cannot sustain a million people on Mars just yet. That's a far cry from claiming there has been no progress. For that claim to sustain, the British Bombe was a dud for not being able to run one's taxes. THAT SAID: the monarchist Thiel acolytes pushing Mars to profit off surveillance contracts while trashing anything resembling a response to our climate crisis can go stuff it. They are not only destroying what we have. They are, in the long run, undermining the Mars project as well.
MichaelCollins 4y ago

elihu 4y ago

I've wondered about the same thing; if it suddenly became cheap to send stuff to Mars, where's all the infrastructure we'd supposedly be sending? Is it being developed right now, or has it been a distant goal for so long that nobody yet has the attitude that it's time to start packing our things? I think, though, that if it's actually happening it might not be happening in a very public way. I mean, it's not exactly in the news every time someone develops a new space suit or a new air lock or a more efficient CO2 removal system. And a lot of the equipment sent to mars will probably just be boring industrial equipment, tools, construction materials, storage tanks, electrical cable, pipes, and so on, some of the same or only slightly modified from what's available at any hardware store. A few things will be highly specialized for the Martian environment, such as vehicles. Some things will be redesigned for no other reason than to reduce the mass so we can send more stuff cheaper. I wonder if there are any large-scale coordinated projects to figure out what exactly is needed for a minimum viable settlement, or if it's all kind of ad-hoc with a bunch of private companies and universities working on projects more-or-less at random with no organization? Or if everyone is kind of just sitting on their thumbs waiting for someone to take charge and/or start giving out grants and making purchases?