5 ms·

> A colony of 1 million is also very unlikely to have the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and high-end chips which are cost competitive with Earth. Well, co

by lutusp 12y ago

> A colony of 1 million is also very unlikely to have the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and high-end chips which are cost competitive with Earth. Well, cost-competitive with products imported from Earth, which is an easier standard to meet. Maybe Mars colonization will finally bring 3D printing into its own. People will discover they need an exotic part, so they radio earth for -- not the part itself -- but a diagram of the part, delivered by radio. Then they print it using local raw materials. As to high-end technology, I think at least at first, the colonists will have to do without a ready supply of integrated circuits. They will have to live in a pre-iPod society for a while, more's the pity. :) I can imagine an interview room twenty years form now -- a candidate says, "I'm willing to put up with many discomforts, even danger, to be among the first to colonize Mars." A few facts are delivered, then, "What? No cell phones? Are you serious?" > If Musk is right about the cost, then there will be goods exported from Earth to Mars. If Musk is wrong about the cost, then it's not practical to send a significant population to Mars. With a degree of resourcefulness by the colonists, I think there will be local exploitation of raw materials and production of needed goods, relatively quickly. Especially if every idea for small-scale local production, like 3D printers, is taken advantage of.

dalke 12y ago
I see no reason for why Mars colonization is needed to "finally bring 3D printing into its own." Anything appropriate for a Mars colony would be as appropriate for overwintering in Antarctica, or for the residents of various islands from the Cook Islands to Saint Helena, or similarly isolated place. Presumably there's a cost-benefit matrix. Denser processors mean less needs to be shipped to Mars, but the harder it is to make locally. You mention "pre-iPod society" as if digital entertainment was the main loss. Pre-iPod also a pre-GPS-everywhere society, and pre-Internet-of-things society. Wifi embedded in every device may make a colony more likely to succeed. I would like a faulty CO2 scrubber to be able to notify the colony network, and wifi is cheaper than building cables. With that network in place in order to survive, a mobile device with phone-like communications is likely not only trivial but essential. Regarding 'resourcefulness' - that's besides the point. A self-sustaining colony requires a huge number of people. (Who builds the fab units? Who are the doctors? Who repairs the sewage systems? Who takes care of food and O2 production? Who spends the 20 years to educate the next generation to the PhD level needed to support a high-tech frontier?) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513004669 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513... estimates 40,000 people, which is a shot in the dark for the minimum size. Musk proposes 1 million; his cost numbers don't work out with only 40,000 people. Any rocket technology which is cheap enough to deliver 40,000 people for a self-sustaining colony on Mars is one which can support trade between the planets. Someone will want saffron. Someone will want white truffles. (Both are already in the $1000s/kg range.) Maybe not the first generation, who all volunteered, but surely the second.

by lutusp 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

I see no reason for why Mars colonization is needed to "finally bring 3D printing into its own." Anything appropriate for a Mars colony would be as appropriate for overwintering in Antarctica, or for the residents of various islands from the Cook Islands to Saint Helena, or similarly isolated place. Presumably there's a cost-benefit matrix. Denser processors mean less needs to be shipped to Mars, but the harder it is to make locally. You mention "pre-iPod society" as if digital entertainment was the main loss. Pre-iPod also a pre-GPS-everywhere society, and pre-Internet-of-things society. Wifi embedded in every device may make a colony more likely to succeed. I would like a faulty CO2 scrubber to be able to notify the colony network, and wifi is cheaper than building cables. With that network in place in order to survive, a mobile device with phone-like communications is likely not only trivial but essential. Regarding 'resourcefulness' - that's besides the point. A self-sustaining colony requires a huge number of people. (Who builds the fab units? Who are the doctors? Who repairs the sewage systems? Who takes care of food and O2 production? Who spends the 20 years to educate the next generation to the PhD level needed to support a high-tech frontier?) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513004669 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513... estimates 40,000 people, which is a shot in the dark for the minimum size. Musk proposes 1 million; his cost numbers don't work out with only 40,000 people. Any rocket technology which is cheap enough to deliver 40,000 people for a self-sustaining colony on Mars is one which can support trade between the planets. Someone will want saffron. Someone will want white truffles. (Both are already in the $1000s/kg range.) Maybe not the first generation, who all volunteered, but surely the second.