The thread for space cadets!

[Gigaz]

What is missing in Musks plan is in my opinion the economic case for moving to Mars. People were moving to the Americas en masse in hope for a better life. But why would life on Mars be any better than life on Earth?

 

[Lexicus]

What is missing in Musks plan is in my opinion the economic case for moving to Mars. People were moving to the Americas en masse in hope for a better life. But why would life on Mars be any better than life on Earth?

We're at the Jamestown point with Mars. Most of the people going to Jamestown were either fleeing immediate persecution, sentenced there as punishment for a crime, or had a debt they could only repay with some years of indentured servitude.

 

[Gigaz]

We're at the Jamestown point with Mars. Most of the people going to Jamestown were either fleeing immediate persecution, sentenced there as punishment for a crime, or had a debt they could only repay with some years of indentured servitude.

Seems like the next logical step for Musk after rockets, solar cells and electric cars is therefore private prisons.

 

[Cutlass]

Any other engineers out there looking for work:

The president of Pratt & Whitney said Friday morning that the company is committed to Connecticut and is looking ahead to an expansion that is expected to include filling 8,000 jobs during the next decade.

"Right now we have the biggest backlog since World War II," said Robert Leduc. "We have about $1 trillion of business in our backlog, and we've been able to do that through innovation."

He said Pratt & Whitney will hire 25,000 people worldwide in the next decade – partly to replace 18,000 expected retirements – and about a third of the hires will work in Connecticut. Meanwhile, the workforce expansion includes an expected hiring of 1,000 engineers in Connecticut in the next year and more than 1,000 in the manufacturing sector.

http://www.courant.com/news/connect...uc-pratt-and-whitney-0917-20160916-story.html


The main driver of the growth is demand for the new geared turbofan engine. Which is taking the airliner market by storm. It's well in advance of any of its competitors.

 

[r16]

What is missing in Musks plan is in my opinion the economic case for moving to Mars.

excitement for an adventure on par with the Race to the Moon , combined with the "profits" for mass use . Like 10 000 shots into space despite wondering how that that can carry 1 billion people there , as per in Turkish newspaper this morning . A far less promising thing , one might remember , was the Shuttle where gods' favourite Lockheed did its best to gain , then to stop , then assumed it would be so much so and allowed to happen . With Lockheed tiles , instead of exotic material available to Rockwell and Grumman . Why doesn't Mr. Musk -uhmm- go and satisfy himself ?

We're at the Jamestown point with Mars.

nasa banned Muslims and Budists and the lot for Mars , allowing only French and US passports for cohesion in the greatest adventure of mankind , that's why no American or French citizen will ever set foot there ...

Seems like the next logical step for Musk after rockets, solar cells and electric cars is therefore private prisons.

concerns with the economy indeed calls for a reversal for the profits of private industry . Though considering Mr. Musk has never dug an habitat on any celestial body ı guess he will soon discover Zyklon B is far cheaper than actually sending people so much away .


and yes only because ı love the thing so much or something .

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Life on Mars will not be easy by any means and it won't be for several generations. Anyone going there should know that and you shouldn't go unless a) you think of it as an ultra-expensive vacation (because Musk is pricing the return trip into your ticket) or b) you want to help make humanity a multi-planetary species. It's going to be ridiculously hard work for a long time to make a go of the colony.

I definitely encourage people to watch the presentation as it covers most questions you might have. The only thing that wasn't addressed was launch-abort options for the spaceship. Most other things about the rocket are covered. Though details on the colony itself are scant because it's so far off at this point.


And yeah, the Q&A session was some of the dumbest drivel I've ever come across. It was like a reddit AMA except no one could be stopped by down votes. The actual journalists asked good questions but half the questions were given over to non-journalists who used the opportunity to hawk their crappy websites and projects. Or brag about their trips to burning man. Yeah, that happened.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

There was a mars voyage "project" some years ago about sending volunters to mars, without any plan for returning but a horrible and miserable death after a couple of months for lack of oxygen. There were thousands of applicants for the way.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What is missing in Musks plan is in my opinion the economic case for moving to Mars. People were moving to the Americas en masse in hope for a better life. But why would life on Mars be any better than life on Earth?

I do think the economics are an important part that needs more consideration. However, the hardest part of setting up a Mars colony right now is getting people there and that is where Musk is focusing his attention. As he said at the IAC, he plans on becoming the Union Pacific railway of space.

And I think that at least a large portion of the economic question will sort itself out. Just having people on Mars will be a huge economic driver there as people will have to develop the entire infrastructure of a planet that has none. This will create a massive labor shortage for decades, if not centuries.

We're at the Jamestown point with Mars. Most of the people going to Jamestown were either fleeing immediate persecution, sentenced there as punishment for a crime, or had a debt they could only repay with some years of indentured servitude.

Yes and no. I hear your point but I actually don't think most people that will go to Mars will be driven by the same motivations as they were in centuries past. As long as private companies are providing the rockets, I don't think there is much chance that people will be forced onto them as punishment - I can't see a private entity getting involved in that. And no government currently has any plans to develop transportation to Mars (particularly the governments that would be most likely to send convicts). Further, once people arrive on Mars they'll set up their own government and I doubt they'd be willing to accept convicts. So not only would a country that wants to send convicts there have to provide transportation, they'd have to set up a second colony at the cost of billions or trillions of dollars to keep them alive once there.

As for the other reasons to go to Mars you listed, I find it far more likely that people would escape persecution by going to other countries, not other planets.


I think that the colonization efforts will be driven by people who want adventure and/or genuinely want to be part of making humanity a multi planet species.

Any other engineers out there looking for work:





http://www.courant.com/news/connect...uc-pratt-and-whitney-0917-20160916-story.html


The main driver of the growth is demand for the new geared turbofan engine. Which is taking the airliner market by storm. It's well in advance of any of its competitors.

Thanks for the tip! I will pass it along to the few friends from school who haven't burnt that bridge already.

There was a mars voyage "project" some years ago about sending volunters to mars, without any plan for returning but a horrible and miserable death after a couple of months for lack of oxygen. There were thousands of applicants for the way.

Mars One? Yup, basically it was a scam.


________________


One issue that colonization efforts will have to sort out is what to do with respect to potential Mars life. The Outer Space Treaty ensures that any country that has jurisdiction over space launches must protect potential life on other celestial bodies from contamination. NASA and the ESA take this very seriously and NASA also just put out a list of places Mars that no one should ever go to because of their potential habitability. I think this is misguided to be honest as it's based on far too many assumptions of what life is like outside of Earth. Granted, we only have one data set to go on but this unilateral policies like this are foolish. Once colonists arrive, these restrictions will be a moot point. NASA is not going to be able to dictate where people from Earth.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Mars One? Yup, basically it was a scam.

Yep, aparently it was. But the point is that not matters how dangerous, uncomfy or tough live in mars is, there will always be millions of volunteers. People is crazy about space exploration.

 

[uppi]

And I think that at least a large portion of the economic question will sort itself out. Just having people on Mars will be a huge economic driver there as people will have to develop the entire infrastructure of a planet that has none. This will create a massive labor shortage for decades, if not centuries.

A Mars colony will certainly have huge demand, but what can it offer? Apart from idealism and science, I can see little economic incentive for Earth to give the Mars colony the expensive support it will need. Once the colony is running, tourism might be an option, but other than that?

 

[Cutlass]

To that point, ultimately space colonization will have to be funded by people who are not the colonists. And they won't gain a return on what they spend. So once the "OMG it's so cool!" money is applied to it, you can't really count on more.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yep, aparently it was. But the point is that not matters how dangerous, uncomfy or tough live in mars is, there will always be millions of volunteers. People is crazy about space exploration.

Not really, unfortunately. I don't remember the exact numbers but it turned out that they said they got 180,000 applicants which was later shown to be a complete lie. They got something like 1,800 applicants and probably 50% of those either were not serious or suffering various ailments.


So scam aside, only a small number of people signed up for a free trip to Mars (it wasn't known that it was a bizarre pyramid scheme for several months).

Edit: Which does not bode well for the prospect of people paying $200,000 to go.

A Mars colony will certainly have huge demand, but what can it offer? Apart from idealism and science, I can see little economic incentive for Earth to give the Mars colony the expensive support it will need. Once the colony is running, tourism might be an option, but other than that?

I think you missed my point. Assuming the business case to send people to Mars can close (a big if, granted, but it's what SpaceX is focusing on), then the economic driver of Mars will be Mars development. Martians will be paying each other to build infrastructure and provide goods and services. Yes, much will have to be imported to Mars for a long time but that will largely sort itself out by people buying goods on Earth for shipment to Mars, where it will be sold to Martians who will pay for the goods by working on Mars projects and providing services.

There are very few places on Earth that are entirely self-sufficient and yet are economically viable. I don't think their will be huge amount of goods and services shipped back to Earth but I don't think that's a necessary condition for the venture to work out economically. And none of us can really predict what economic development will come out of the settlement effort. I don't think the 49ers were coming to California so that one day Hollywood and Silicon Valley would develop but they did.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

To that point, ultimately space colonization will have to be funded by people who are not the colonists. And they won't gain a return on what they spend. So once the "OMG it's so cool!" money is applied to it, you can't really count on more.

Why do you assume that? And why is everyone discounting the fact that Mars will be its own driver of economic growth and return on capital? Once basic capital goods needed to produce more capital goods and food are shipped, growth can follow as Martians utilize those goods to produce more and expand infrastructure. For an analogy, you don't need to ship 10,000 cranes and bulldozers to Mars to build a colony. You just send the machinery needed to make other machinery and cranes and bulldozers from raw material inputs. The Martians then pay each other to use those machines to build infrastructure.

And you don't even have to ship all the machines needed to make every other machine. Things like a foundry and a machine shop will allow the colonists to make all kinds of other machines. We know how to do advanced, highly automated manufacturing already.

 

[Cutlass]

Why do you assume that? And why is everyone discounting the fact that Mars will be its own driver of economic growth and return on capital? Once basic capital goods needed to produce more capital goods and food are shipped, growth can follow as Martians utilize those goods to produce more and expand infrastructure. For an analogy, you don't need to ship 10,000 cranes and bulldozers to Mars to build a colony. You just send the machinery needed to make other machinery and cranes and bulldozers from raw material inputs. The Martians then pay each other to use those machines to build infrastructure.

And you don't even have to ship all the machines needed to make every other machine. Things like a foundry and a machine shop will allow the colonists to make all kinds of other machines. We know how to do advanced, highly automated manufacturing already.

While true up to a point, I don't think you've got the best feel for just what it will really cost. The people who would like to go to Mars to start a new life won't be able to pay the cost themselves. That would require everyone going to be multimillionaires. And Mars won't be shipping anything back to Earth to pay the costs later. That also would cost too much.

The Mars expedition is going to be a one way trip. Those going will have to take everything that they need to survive. And while you are right that they don't have to take all the machines, but rather the means to build the machines, they still need to pack all the food, and enough of it to set up until they can reliably produce their own. That's still a huge mass.

Now what does Earth, or any investor on Earth, get back on their investment? And the answer is that they really don't. Mars won't have the means to repay. And because they won't be able to repay, you won't get commercial investors.

It's the selling of the spinoff tech which justifies attracting investors. But that only goes so far as the development of the tech. Not the use for it. Why would you think people will spend fortunes to subsidize other people starting new lives? I don't see it.

 

[red_elk]

At this point, colonization seems unworkable idea. We have lots of places which would be far easier to colonize than Mars (e.g. Antarctica), yet nobody is eager to create settlements there - even if it would be allowed by international treaties. Permanent research station is what looks more viable. And even those would probably be much easier to maintain if they will be unmanned.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Elon has said that tickets to Mars will cost approximately $200,000 per person. A return trip is included in that price as the spaceship will make a full round trip.

He intends to make the trips profitable (he has to or the company will fold) through the re-use of the rocket and spaceship. He's talking of sending 10,000 flights to mars with 100+ passengers and 450 metric tons of cargo per trip. For once in the space industry, economies of scale will apply. And no one is talking about rich people subsidizing colonists. SpaceX has made a good go of funding their colony R&D efforts by launching satellites, cargo to the ISS, soon astronauts to the ISS and will be launching a satellite internet network in the near future. The company is plowing a ton of effort in creating the kinds of technologies that will bring down the cost of space travel such that passengers of average means can purchase tickets to Mars. The cost per kilogram to orbit is going to plummet which is how the whole thing works. That's the idea anyhow.

It's really hard to draw comparisons to how this will work from the normal way the space industry operates.

 

[trader/warrior]

I imagine it will be many decades before average people other than some eccentric rich people go to the expense to move permanently to Mars, and self-sufficiency will be even further out than that. But I think a lot of people underestimate the attraction of a human presence on Mars well before that. I think 5 or so year stints would be a more typical Mars trip in the foreseeable future, for stuff like research expeditions, documentaries, education in geology and planetary science and such, and things in that sphere in addition to good old NASA space-stuff. If the price to Mars can be brought down as far as they say, then we don't need full on industrial activity that can pay for itself to have a viable constant human population out there, even if it will only be in the few hundreds or thousands. That can lay the necessary groundwork for eventual long-term colonization and terraforming

I do wish SpaceX had shown a bit more on how they see the initial "ground activity" on Mars though. I get that they will be the trans-continental railway rather than the settlers, but I would think they have to build a sort of train station as well.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'd just like to re-iterate that the cost to go is going to be approximately $200,000 USD in current dollars. If you can afford a home-loan, you should be able to afford to go to Mars. This is not an effort for the ultra rich.

And I agree that the details on what the colony will actually look like are badly needed. Having said that, just getting there is the hard part by a large margin so it makes sense that the company is putting most of its early efforts there.

 

[trader/warrior]

It's not really the cost of the trip that makes me say I don't think people will move soon, it's more the... technicalities one can foresee living in the first decades of a Mars colony, with habitats that might be cramped and expensive, long-term the radiation would have noticeable effects on life-span unless you live mostly under-ground (this has been overblown by a lot of opponents, but it is definitely a thing once you are living the whole life out there. Like being a smoker is approximately the effect I've heard).

So I imagine stuff like university sponsored projects, commercial projects etc. or just very long vacations for a set amount of time would be a lot more attractive initially. Before it can be self-sufficient, one more mouth to feed on Mars means more cargo needed to ship to Mars (not to bad for SpaceX, but for others...), and there is free space on the ships that need to go back. Just me guessing here, of course.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, it's going to be sucky, hard work for the first century or so of living on Mars.

I don't see that food production will be a massive issue (vis a vis 'one more mouth to feed'). You won't have great food, but I don't think people will starve. Or at least they won't if competent people are doing the planning.