Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself(slate.com)
slate.com
Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/03/15/elon_musk_wants_spacex_to_help_establish_a_colony_on_mars_.html
13 comments
The moon may have fewer natural resources than Mars, but it seems strange to not practice building habitats in the Earth's backyard. "Lunarcrete" is one way to build bunkers (using materials already on the moon) that keep out gamma rays and extreme surface temperatures.
The moon is also close enough that I could imagine a private company like Virgin Galactic building lunar resorts in a couple decades. :D
The moon is also close enough that I could imagine a private company like Virgin Galactic building lunar resorts in a couple decades. :D
The answer Musk gave at a Q&A I was at was, "We won't go to the Moon because the Moon sucks."
His point was that the Moon can never be made habitable for humans, and the low gravity makes it hard to work.
The analogy he made was the Arctic--sure, it's a lot closer to Europe and Asia, but Columbus et al. went to the Americas instead. Farther away, but more habitable.
His point was that the Moon can never be made habitable for humans, and the low gravity makes it hard to work.
The analogy he made was the Arctic--sure, it's a lot closer to Europe and Asia, but Columbus et al. went to the Americas instead. Farther away, but more habitable.
If you're going from Earth to Mars, you waste a lot of delta-V going to the Moon first.
We need to develop remotely operated building machines first. Test them on the moon and succeed in building a sound, sealed, safe environ for humans to enter before we try to get to mars.
If I were Elon, I would focus on the building of the delivery system to get materials and equipment to the moon - then have an X-prize for people to develop the robots to build stuff.
Get a heavy payload like that to the moon, assemble some stuff and test it. Then make money off moon tourism Parlay this to mars research, funding and experience.
If I were Elon, I would focus on the building of the delivery system to get materials and equipment to the moon - then have an X-prize for people to develop the robots to build stuff.
Get a heavy payload like that to the moon, assemble some stuff and test it. Then make money off moon tourism Parlay this to mars research, funding and experience.
If you can make a 'makerbot' that can make a makerbot I think you're 95% of the way there :)
> If someone on Mars manages to, say, contaminate the colony's water supply, all we can do is record farewell messages for loved ones and deal with the bad publicity for decades. I wouldn't like that.
The same is true for a major disaster at the South Pole in winter, though. There's a several month period in which vehicles cannot reach the pole due to the temperatures and weather involved. We still go there.
The same is true for a major disaster at the South Pole in winter, though. There's a several month period in which vehicles cannot reach the pole due to the temperatures and weather involved. We still go there.
Or in an African village. It doesn't take distance to maroon someone with no means.
I hadn't heard of an Aldrin cycler. Very very cool! Here is an animation of how one could work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCVfUlFZQ4U
If you compare it with 19th century polar expeditions, a trip to Mars doesn't look that bad. They sometimes took multiple years, with men trapped in iced up ships, usually with no chance of rescue or even communication - at least we know how to prevent scurvy now!
Have a read of the book "Barrow's Boys: A Stirring Story of Daring, Fortitude, and Outright Lunacy":
http://www.amazon.com/Barrows-Boys-Stirring-Fortitude-Outrig...
NB Having read too much Kim Stanley Robinson and Zubrin, I'd jump at the chance to go to Mars.
Have a read of the book "Barrow's Boys: A Stirring Story of Daring, Fortitude, and Outright Lunacy":
http://www.amazon.com/Barrows-Boys-Stirring-Fortitude-Outrig...
NB Having read too much Kim Stanley Robinson and Zubrin, I'd jump at the chance to go to Mars.
An expedition to Mars would cost a lot more, with a much smaller expected ROI. I too would love the idea of going to Mars, but, in order to build a sustainable colony, you'd need to put in place a whole lot of infrastructure to make interplanetary travel cheaper. And, right now, it's not even feasible.
Insurance for humanity against disaster is a small ROI? Not trying to offend, but how do you define ROI of a colony on Mars?
As far as I can see, there are very, very few disasters that would render Earth less inhabitable than Mars but not also destroy Mars in the process. Even if Earth were reduced to a cold, lifeless rock with almost no atmosphere or water, high radiation levels and almost all sources of energy gone (including geothermal and wind energy and things as simple as burning wood), that would just put it in the same ballpark as Mars.
Basically, if you have the technology to support human life on Mars, you have the technology to disaster-proof Earth.
Basically, if you have the technology to support human life on Mars, you have the technology to disaster-proof Earth.
The concern is not a disaster that necessarily destroys Earth itself - an extinction event for humans is enough. There are plenty of species that have gone extinct before (including some close relatives) and since it's obviously never happened to us we have little idea of its shape or likelihood.
The very distance that makes Mars so hard to reach would be good protection against such an unexpected event (whether it's unintended effects of scientific experiments, novel WMDs, grey goo etc.). There is no way to create a similarly isolated colony on Earth, even if we discount the problem that nobody would want to live in such a place. (As opposed to the many people, reared on SciFi, who would volunteer for Mars quite eagerly.)
The very distance that makes Mars so hard to reach would be good protection against such an unexpected event (whether it's unintended effects of scientific experiments, novel WMDs, grey goo etc.). There is no way to create a similarly isolated colony on Earth, even if we discount the problem that nobody would want to live in such a place. (As opposed to the many people, reared on SciFi, who would volunteer for Mars quite eagerly.)
The scenario that comes to mind is a massive asteroid impact, but your final sentence sums up the objection nicely: identifying and redirecting a space rock seems at least an order of magnitude less difficult & technologically distant than building a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Even the worst asteroid impact would not render the planet uninhabitable. It might kill lots of people, but it wouldn't kill all of them.
And yet, again, a Moon colony would be handy to counter an asteroid too. The far side could host very powerful telescopes that could map NEOs with unprecedented efficiency and clarity. On Earth, you have a couple hours of sensor exposure. On the Moon, you have two weeks to trace stuff. And most of the heavy parts could be manufactured in situ, be lighter and higher quality (made in a high grade vacuum).
And that's to say nothing about the ability to launch spacecraft from a lower gravity and/or using a magnetic rail. One could even turn the asteroid into dust (which is less dangerous than a ferrous mountain falling from the sky) with a kinetic impactor packing enough energy.
And that's to say nothing about the ability to launch spacecraft from a lower gravity and/or using a magnetic rail. One could even turn the asteroid into dust (which is less dangerous than a ferrous mountain falling from the sky) with a kinetic impactor packing enough energy.
What about virulent plague? Chemical warfare? Disasters don't have to come from far away.
If you're going to survive on Mars, you already need the ability to sustainably disconnect yourself from the surrounding atmosphere (we don't know of any virus that's as lethal as lack of air), so just apply your putative Mars tech to Earth.
Air is just one of many possible infection pathways. You would also need to quarantine people, food shipments, water supplies, equipment.
Food shipments? Water supplies? We're talking about the kind of technology that would allow you to live on Mars. If you need to rely on those, then 1) Your Martian colony is not really independent and thus doesn't carry any survival benefits, and thus 2) You're wasting resources shipping them to Mars. If you don't need those for your Martian colony, then why would you need them for your Earth colony?
If Earth were in a situation of having to segment populations to prevent the spread of disease, all it takes is one little mistake to wipe out an entire intermingling group of people. I'm not saying we wouldn't have the tech to prevent that from happening, but humans are fallible creatures. Is it worth risking the entirety of humanity when we could have a remote colony that would be very well protected from those types of events?
Very well protected? The danger specifically from viruses might be somewhat less (though if we're allowing people to travel there, it doesn't seem like much less of a concern), but any other danger you can imagine would be much greater. The remote colony would be no more protected from disaster than one on Earth. On the contrary, since the surrounding environment would be irreconcilably hostile, it would be constantly at risk of one little mistake wiping it out.
The odds of extinction within the next 50 years are still low. A self-sufficient Moon colony would cover most of the disaster scenarios adequately while being a lot cheaper to build than a Mars colony. Besides, having a self-sufficient lunar colony would probably make building a Mars colony much cheaper.
On the Moon, solar energy is abundant (close to the Sun, no atmosphere) and so are the metals used in spacecraft construction. Without atmosphere and with a low gravity, launching cargo to Mars is easier and can be done with a magnetic rail launcher, effectively using solar power to launch a spacecraft to Mars.
I's even greener to go for the Moon first ;-)
On the Moon, solar energy is abundant (close to the Sun, no atmosphere) and so are the metals used in spacecraft construction. Without atmosphere and with a low gravity, launching cargo to Mars is easier and can be done with a magnetic rail launcher, effectively using solar power to launch a spacecraft to Mars.
I's even greener to go for the Moon first ;-)
So, I'm not that guy, and really trying not to be that guy, but wouldn't it be fair to summarize your general point as: "That's no moon. It's a space station." ? (mainly mentioning it because it could be taken for an inspirational saying in this context)
> Insurance for humanity against disaster is a small ROI?
A self-sufficient colony on the Moon would be efficient insurance against most disasters I can imagine and much easier to build. A colony on Mars offers negligible benefit over one on the Moon for the purpose you mention.
A self-sufficient colony on the Moon would be efficient insurance against most disasters I can imagine and much easier to build. A colony on Mars offers negligible benefit over one on the Moon for the purpose you mention.
...is a small ROI?
You, me, and the original poster agree: it's cheap compared to the potential downside.
Now, go try and tell guys with actual money about this, see if you walk away with the bucks for a Mars-based insurance policy.
You, me, and the original poster agree: it's cheap compared to the potential downside.
Now, go try and tell guys with actual money about this, see if you walk away with the bucks for a Mars-based insurance policy.
Furthermore, as technology and quality of life increases, risk tolerance decreases. I think this trend will continue. Historically, technology has increased fast and uniformly enough that we've still been able to do great things. But if health care technology improves much faster than space technology, then we may never leave orbit again.
(This trend holds at least at the societal level, and over long terms. For individuals over the short term, it can be weaker, e.g., you might buy a helmet or a safer car, and then ski or drive more dangerously.)
(This trend holds at least at the societal level, and over long terms. For individuals over the short term, it can be weaker, e.g., you might buy a helmet or a safer car, and then ski or drive more dangerously.)
The Aldrin cycler requires fuel to keep it going around the sun (with periodic flybys of Earth and Mars).
In principle, each Earth flyby is used to rotate the orbit so that it goes to Mars, but the problem with the Aldrin cycler is that the required flyby distance is too close to Earth: it's smaller than Earth's radius! As a result, rocket fuel is required to give it the required extra kick.
But there are other Earth-Mars cycler trajectories! One of my projects in grad school was to investigate them, and there are some that really can keep going without spending fuel (except for minor adjustments). In particular, the so-called "Ballistic S1L1" cycler is very promising. Here's a paper about it:
McConaghy, T. Troy, Landau, Damon F., Yam, Chit Hong, and Longuski, James, M., “Notable Two-Synodic-Period Earth-Mars Cycler,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 2, March–April 2006, pp. 456–465.
In principle, each Earth flyby is used to rotate the orbit so that it goes to Mars, but the problem with the Aldrin cycler is that the required flyby distance is too close to Earth: it's smaller than Earth's radius! As a result, rocket fuel is required to give it the required extra kick.
But there are other Earth-Mars cycler trajectories! One of my projects in grad school was to investigate them, and there are some that really can keep going without spending fuel (except for minor adjustments). In particular, the so-called "Ballistic S1L1" cycler is very promising. Here's a paper about it:
McConaghy, T. Troy, Landau, Damon F., Yam, Chit Hong, and Longuski, James, M., “Notable Two-Synodic-Period Earth-Mars Cycler,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 2, March–April 2006, pp. 456–465.
Thanks! I never did the math on the Aldrin cycler. Can you give more details for the journal-challenged?
I agree and as a kid I always wanted to visit both the Moon and Mars. But for any of this to happen we need a breakthrough that applies Moore's law to $/kg for space travel to become economical. We need cost effective nuclear fusion to increase our energy budget. Or material science has to advance to the point that space elevators or launch loops and similar become feasible. Does anyone know the timeline on those?
I love the last line:
“I would definitely like to go to Mars. I think it would be cool to be born on Earth and die on Mars,” he said as the night wrapped. “Hopefully, not at the point of impact.”
“I would definitely like to go to Mars. I think it would be cool to be born on Earth and die on Mars,” he said as the night wrapped. “Hopefully, not at the point of impact.”
I will take his grandest adventure line coupled with the part about, there will always be problems on Earth and waiting for a time there isn't will never come.
Far too many people criticize lavish dreams such as what Musk has but that is what separates the watchers from the doers.
Far too many people criticize lavish dreams such as what Musk has but that is what separates the watchers from the doers.
> lavish dreams such as what Musk has but that is what separates the watchers from the doers.
?? Not sure of your meaning: Dreams are usually the domain of the watchers, expertise and hard work are usually the domain of the doers. Musk has demonstrated expertise and hard work, but in a different area; here he is a dreamer. Is that what you meant?
?? Not sure of your meaning: Dreams are usually the domain of the watchers, expertise and hard work are usually the domain of the doers. Musk has demonstrated expertise and hard work, but in a different area; here he is a dreamer. Is that what you meant?
Musk is demonstrating hard work in this area, too: they're building rockets and launching them. Far more affordably than their competitors, too.
I am convinced that Mars colonization should be seriously considered as a part of space exploration policy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay
I'm with Carl Sagan.
Visit? Yes. Settle? Not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to go to Mars as a hobby, as a tourist-- if that's how you want to spend your billions, fine. But I worry that too many impatient sci-fi lovers see space travel as some way to escape from the problems of Earth, which it will never be. If we can't figure out how to live sustainably on Earth, humanity will perish long before we have any realistic possibility of emigrating.
Visit? Yes. Settle? Not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to go to Mars as a hobby, as a tourist-- if that's how you want to spend your billions, fine. But I worry that too many impatient sci-fi lovers see space travel as some way to escape from the problems of Earth, which it will never be. If we can't figure out how to live sustainably on Earth, humanity will perish long before we have any realistic possibility of emigrating.
Is that just a fancy rhetorical flourish, or do you actually expect "living unsustainably" to potentially cause our extinction? If so, I would be interested in hearing a mechanism.
By definition, if you cannot live sustainably, you cannot sustainably live. Though sustainability, more or less, is about sustaining current populations and quality of life; most failures of sustainability won't extinct the human race, they'll just kill a lot of people off and deprive us of the massive amounts of energy needed to maintain our present quality of life.
Whenever I hear that argument I want to scream. The logic flaw is so clear:
It is only unsustainable at current technology levels.
The way we lived in 1900 was unsustainable then, but we could survive like that with 2012 tech no issue (less coal burning, improved sanitation, etc). In 100 years it will be sustainable to live like we do today.
It is only unsustainable at current technology levels.
The way we lived in 1900 was unsustainable then, but we could survive like that with 2012 tech no issue (less coal burning, improved sanitation, etc). In 100 years it will be sustainable to live like we do today.
The goal should be that in 100 years, it will be sustainable to live like we will 100 years from now.
If the definition of sustainability that you are using is "sustainably living" then it isn't [insert ideas associated with the sustainability movement here]. Not automatically, anyway.
If all we care about is continuing to live (excepting the limitations imposed by entropy) then continuously importing resources from somewhere else is a perfectly valid solution. For that matter, no amount of efficiency will ever eliminate the necessity of importing resources.
Pushing that necessity into the future is probably a good idea, of course. Continuing to live is not all I care about. But mature space infrastructure would positively contribute to doing just that, even if a colony on Mars might not in and of itself.
If all we care about is continuing to live (excepting the limitations imposed by entropy) then continuously importing resources from somewhere else is a perfectly valid solution. For that matter, no amount of efficiency will ever eliminate the necessity of importing resources.
Pushing that necessity into the future is probably a good idea, of course. Continuing to live is not all I care about. But mature space infrastructure would positively contribute to doing just that, even if a colony on Mars might not in and of itself.
Musk said in a Q&A that he views it as cheap insurance.
You say that with authority. Care to share your reasoning? Folks went as far (in terms of travel time) to desolate places to make a future before. You are likely descended from some of them.
No human being has ever settled in a place which was not previously the habitat of a billion years of successful organic life-- and we have failed to settle in a number of places which are.
To think of Mars as just the new New World is a romantic idea, but there is no basis for the comparison. Populating another world will be the most significant undertaking of humanity by orders of magnitude; to assume it can be done while it remains to be seen whether we can survive as a species on a planet with an atmosphere which is exactly what we breathe, which is made of as much water as we are, of the same phase ours is, where food grows in the ground all by itself and we are nearly completely protected from debris large and small, and with a legacy of billions of years to prove it can be done-- well, I'd ask to know your reasoning.
To think of Mars as just the new New World is a romantic idea, but there is no basis for the comparison. Populating another world will be the most significant undertaking of humanity by orders of magnitude; to assume it can be done while it remains to be seen whether we can survive as a species on a planet with an atmosphere which is exactly what we breathe, which is made of as much water as we are, of the same phase ours is, where food grows in the ground all by itself and we are nearly completely protected from debris large and small, and with a legacy of billions of years to prove it can be done-- well, I'd ask to know your reasoning.
We're smart. We live almost entirely in structures and cities that are very remote from the idyllic world you describe. When was the last time you saw your food grow?
There are technological hurdles to living on Mars, but not much we already don't know how to handle. Food, water, air - that's the minimum, and thats not all that hard given raw materials and energy, which is abundant on Mars.
There are technological hurdles to living on Mars, but not much we already don't know how to handle. Food, water, air - that's the minimum, and thats not all that hard given raw materials and energy, which is abundant on Mars.
...really? How many cities run on recycled air produced from rocks? On recycled water from melted permafrost? With 100% solar power? Eating entirely food grown using the same? With the risk that if any ine of those things fails, everyone living there will certainly die?
To this you compare the fact that I eat cows fed grass from a hundred miles away, brought to me using energy we literally just dug out of the ground? That I drink water piped from a giant lake all of halfway across the county?
If anything, you support my point: what passes for "remote" and "inhospitable" on Earth is unbelievably luxurious by the standard of anywhere else. Even Death Valley gets rain. Even Antarctica has oxygen. Talk to me about your plans for a self-sustaining colony in one of those places, and then we can talk about how many times -- how many orders of magnitude -- harder and more expensive it will be to do the same thing on Mars.
To this you compare the fact that I eat cows fed grass from a hundred miles away, brought to me using energy we literally just dug out of the ground? That I drink water piped from a giant lake all of halfway across the county?
If anything, you support my point: what passes for "remote" and "inhospitable" on Earth is unbelievably luxurious by the standard of anywhere else. Even Death Valley gets rain. Even Antarctica has oxygen. Talk to me about your plans for a self-sustaining colony in one of those places, and then we can talk about how many times -- how many orders of magnitude -- harder and more expensive it will be to do the same thing on Mars.
I'll just answer with this: nobody who goes will be thinking like that. Sure there are problems, but really, all of them are solvable - we're not 16th-century folks grappling with science, we're 3rd-millenium folks with centuries of science behind us.
Graphene filters to purify sublimated water-ice. Solar cells manufactured from sand and plastic. Oxygen siezed from rocks, lots at first but then just recycled thru green growing things.
Plenty of folks starved in the New World when their support systems ran out, doesn't matter whether it was oxygen or food, dead just the same. The point is, they were willing to take the risk with a whole continent to win.
Now its a whole planet! With different challenges, different storms and temperatures. Without challenges like locusts, floods, communication issues, pesky natives to deal with.
Graphene filters to purify sublimated water-ice. Solar cells manufactured from sand and plastic. Oxygen siezed from rocks, lots at first but then just recycled thru green growing things.
Plenty of folks starved in the New World when their support systems ran out, doesn't matter whether it was oxygen or food, dead just the same. The point is, they were willing to take the risk with a whole continent to win.
Now its a whole planet! With different challenges, different storms and temperatures. Without challenges like locusts, floods, communication issues, pesky natives to deal with.
Hawaii isn't too badly populated for being 28 million years old.
Life quickly develops on any new land that appears on Earth. But without Oxygen I'm skeptical that we could accomplish similar on Mars in the near future.
Life quickly develops on any new land that appears on Earth. But without Oxygen I'm skeptical that we could accomplish similar on Mars in the near future.
None of them had to take their own air.
Mars colonists won't need to, either.
They might not take it, but they would have to make it. Almost no free oxygen on mars.
But making oxygen (from rocks presumably) uses lots of energy (electricity - it's basically the same process used to make aluminium from ore).
But making oxygen (from rocks presumably) uses lots of energy (electricity - it's basically the same process used to make aluminium from ore).
Which is abundant on Mars as solar energy, with its thin atmosphere.
Not that abundant - Mars is 1.4 AUs from the sun and receives about half the solar energy we get on Earth. Also, keep in mind that, while the atmosphere is very thin, there are very intense sandstorms that can block the sun for months at a time.
The thin air mitigates the distance issue somewhat. Anybody know how much? Solar intensity reduces by the square if distance. If the advantage of thin air multiplies available sunlight at ground level, it may be close to break-even or even better?
Rocks? No. Water ice. Solar powered electrolysis, and you get to use the hydrogen for fuel too.
Water ice? No.
Water ice is much harder to find than rocks. It's more useful for drinking, and the binding energy of hydrogen is greater than the metal in rocks. (I.e. it takes more energy to get oxygen from water ice than from rocks.)
And how exactly do you plan to use the hydrogen for fuel? What's your oxidizer? Other than the very same oxygen you just worked so hard to make in the first place.
Also, although the most common metal from rocks is silicon, iron is not uncommon on mars, so if you pick your rocks properly you get iron as a waste product, which you can use for building.
Water ice is much harder to find than rocks. It's more useful for drinking, and the binding energy of hydrogen is greater than the metal in rocks. (I.e. it takes more energy to get oxygen from water ice than from rocks.)
And how exactly do you plan to use the hydrogen for fuel? What's your oxidizer? Other than the very same oxygen you just worked so hard to make in the first place.
Also, although the most common metal from rocks is silicon, iron is not uncommon on mars, so if you pick your rocks properly you get iron as a waste product, which you can use for building.
[deleted]
Right now, an asteroid could wipe out humanity with pretty minimal warning. There's something major to be said for at least a small self-sustaining colony somewhere else.
Except we can defend the earth from an asteroid for probably five orders of magnitude less money than establishing a self-sustaining colony somewhere else. And if self sustaining is all you need, setting up a self-sustaining colony a mile underground is also five or six orders of magnitude cheaper.
I can't think of any risk to humanity where going to the moon or Mars makes sense as insurance.
I can't think of any risk to humanity where going to the moon or Mars makes sense as insurance.
> Except we can defend the earth from an asteroid for probably five orders of magnitude less money than establishing a self-sustaining colony somewhere else.
If we find out about it decades or centuries out. If it's a year out when we spot it, there's very little we can do with current technology to head it off (asteroid disaster movie plots notwithstanding).
> And if self sustaining is all you need, setting up a self-sustaining colony a mile underground is also five or six orders of magnitude cheaper.
It's also much more accessible by desperate refugees trying to get in as the planetary disaster approaches.
If we find out about it decades or centuries out. If it's a year out when we spot it, there's very little we can do with current technology to head it off (asteroid disaster movie plots notwithstanding).
> And if self sustaining is all you need, setting up a self-sustaining colony a mile underground is also five or six orders of magnitude cheaper.
It's also much more accessible by desperate refugees trying to get in as the planetary disaster approaches.
It's also much more accessible by the planetary disaster itself, be it some sort of pandemic or war.
"Five orders of magnitude less" than the cost of the Apollo program is $20 million [1]. Current large space telescopes and underground labs cost of order $2 billion, only 1/100th of the cost of the Apollo program, so I don't think your suggested alternatives are as cheap as you think.
What makes SpaceX important is that they've rethought the design and manufacturing process to make their rockets far cheaper than others to date. If you bend the cost curve enough, surprising things become reasonable.
[1] https://xkcd.com/980/
What makes SpaceX important is that they've rethought the design and manufacturing process to make their rockets far cheaper than others to date. If you bend the cost curve enough, surprising things become reasonable.
[1] https://xkcd.com/980/
You aren't going to get a self-sustaining colony on Mars for the cost of the Apollo program. Just getting a biosphere-level of sustainment would be several orders of magnitude more expensive. If "self-sustaining" is meant to mean an insurance policy, then it requires more than just generating food and water; it will require a whole manufacturing base. I don't think 10+ trillion dollars, about three orders of magnitude more than NASA's budget either now or during Apollo, is unrealistic at all.
For comparison, the space station cost $150 billion 2010 dollars (according to Wikipedia). It is in low-earth orbit and satisfies no conditions of self-sustainability. With a factor of 100 on that, which is impossibly optimistic, you are already at $15 trillion.
For comparison, the space station cost $150 billion 2010 dollars (according to Wikipedia). It is in low-earth orbit and satisfies no conditions of self-sustainability. With a factor of 100 on that, which is impossibly optimistic, you are already at $15 trillion.
> Right now, an asteroid could wipe out humanity with pretty minimal warning
That isn't true. There are no asteroids big enough to do that, that we haven't seen. The asteroid risk is a regional one, not a global one.
That isn't true. There are no asteroids big enough to do that, that we haven't seen. The asteroid risk is a regional one, not a global one.
> There are no asteroids big enough to do that, that we haven't seen.
How exactly are you proving that negative?
How exactly are you proving that negative?
By searching. Which we have done, and there isn't anything. The bigger the asteroid the easier it is to see. We would have certainly seen any large enough to kill everyone on the planet.
There are plenty of undetected asteroids, and while they could cause damage they are not big enough to wipe out all life.
There are plenty of undetected asteroids, and while they could cause damage they are not big enough to wipe out all life.
Asteroids yes, comets not so much. A long period comet could hit the Earth with a warning time of only a few years, and could easily be large enough to destroy human civilization.
Asteroids can be large - up to 1000 km, but comets are much smaller - up to 40km.
According to http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=20000&... a 40km comet impacting the earth would destroy entire countries.
But on the other side of the earth, while it would be noticed, it would not kill anyone and it would not cause severe damage.
So deadly? Yes. but humanity destroying? No.
According to http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=20000&... a 40km comet impacting the earth would destroy entire countries.
But on the other side of the earth, while it would be noticed, it would not kill anyone and it would not cause severe damage.
So deadly? Yes. but humanity destroying? No.
Pluto is effectively a comet. There are objects just as large or larger in the Kuiper Belt and Oort cloud. It's likely that the larger an object is the less likely it is to be jostled by interstellar forces and have its orbit perturbed enough to fall into the inner Solar System (if we're lucky) but we don't really have any clue on what the size limits are for such processes. It would suck to find out by way of the entire human race being eliminated.
I'm with Tsiolkovsky:
"A planet is the cradle of mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."
usually cited as "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."
"A planet is the cradle of mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."
usually cited as "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."
A good leader sets a goal that is outside of our comfort zone and little by little works towards achieving those goals. Along the way, as steady progress is made, that once lofty goal starts to become more reasonable and others start to buy in. This seems to be the approach Elon has taken with Tesla and SpaceX. From personal experience I can tell you that simply making these lofty goals has attracted a lot of young, idealistic folk that are willing to put in a lot of sweat to show that this kind of stuff is within our reach.
> In January, Newt Gingrich’s space ambitions were mocked by many experts as well as the public, particularly his vow that a moon colony would be established by the conclusion of his “second term.” Musk isn’t committing to a timeline nearly so ambitious; when pushed by Wright, he suggested that this could be a reality within the next 30 years.
Gingrich's moon base by 2020 is probably less ambitious than Musk's Martian colony by 2042. The moon is orders of magnitude closer, doesn't involve leaving Earth orbit, doesn't involve the radiation hazards, and we've actually been to the moon before. I don't want to get into a political argument, but going back to the moon and staying there is not an especially difficult or onerous goal for the next eight years.
Gingrich's moon base by 2020 is probably less ambitious than Musk's Martian colony by 2042. The moon is orders of magnitude closer, doesn't involve leaving Earth orbit, doesn't involve the radiation hazards, and we've actually been to the moon before. I don't want to get into a political argument, but going back to the moon and staying there is not an especially difficult or onerous goal for the next eight years.
You're forgetting the economy and number of technological achievements grows exponentially.
At 4% per annum growth the world economy will be triple the current size in 30 years. (assuming no technological singularity event).
An economy triple the current size doesn't seem like it can easily afford a colony on Mars either but I think Elon Musk thinks my assumption is wrong.
At 4% per annum growth the world economy will be triple the current size in 30 years. (assuming no technological singularity event).
An economy triple the current size doesn't seem like it can easily afford a colony on Mars either but I think Elon Musk thinks my assumption is wrong.
The economy is irrelevant. Technology just takes time to develop sometimes; nine women can't have a baby in one month.
It's not irrelevant. If our economy one thousandth the current size, even a trip to the moon would be difficult. It just wouldn't be producing enough fuel, metal, ceramics and quality human capital necessary for a trip to the moon. It is a lot easier to takes these things from a much larger economy than a small one.
Larger economy can speed up technological advancements too, but I guess that is irrelevant here.
Larger economy can speed up technological advancements too, but I guess that is irrelevant here.
The economy already isn't the limiting factor on establishing a Mars colony; technology is. So it's irrelevant.
It'll be much more difficult to convince citizens to set up a Mars colony at a cost of $1,000,000 per citizen as opposed to only $1,000 per citizen. Therefore, I'd argue it is relevant. If you were talking about setting up a privately owned colony - a larger economy means there is more chance of a company large enough to take on this task. (In large economies capital is more concentrated, at least that's what I'm observing from history. It would be difficult to have a company the size of Apple in an impoverished country whose GDP per year is less than Apple's quarterly income, for example.)
So every citizen spends $1000 and suddenly you have a Mars colony? No, you have to develop the technology, and that takes time no matter how much money you throw at it. And when you look at the year 2042 and imagine having a Mars colony by then, having an order of magnitude more money rolling around by say 2022 or 2032 won't help if it takes longer than 10-20 years to develop the needed technology.
Mars, sounds great! I am still amazed that the Rovers are still operational.
> I am still amazed that the Rovers are still operational.
A lot of people are. I had the pleasure of chatting with the NASA program manager in charge of one of the rovers. She was a bit hilarious: When it came time to set the height of one of the mission cameras, someone whipped out a ruler and measured the distance from the floor to her eyes -- and then wrote it in the spec.
Her comment on the first manned mission: Inevitably it leads to a discussion about one-way missions to mars. The next discussion is "who would volunteer", next followed by "who would you volunteer?"
[btw, she said NASA will not officially consider one-way missions as a matter of principle.]
A lot of people are. I had the pleasure of chatting with the NASA program manager in charge of one of the rovers. She was a bit hilarious: When it came time to set the height of one of the mission cameras, someone whipped out a ruler and measured the distance from the floor to her eyes -- and then wrote it in the spec.
Her comment on the first manned mission: Inevitably it leads to a discussion about one-way missions to mars. The next discussion is "who would volunteer", next followed by "who would you volunteer?"
[btw, she said NASA will not officially consider one-way missions as a matter of principle.]
Ha, now that's comical!
In the book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein, which is a fantastic science fiction book about colonizing Luna and the politics of an anarchistic government, he mentions the creation of a Rocket Sled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_sled_launch) which seems to never get mentioned when people talk about earth side technology for improving our ability to leave earth.
Does anyone know if there is some reason why this technology seems to get ignored? According to wikipedia it seems like a big win. Why aren't we doing this right now?
Does anyone know if there is some reason why this technology seems to get ignored? According to wikipedia it seems like a big win. Why aren't we doing this right now?
Why don't we focus on the shit here first?
I'm sorry, but I just get frustrate with all these wondrous predictions that always seem to be about 30-50 years in the future. Short enough away to be enticing, but long enough away where no one making these predictions will really he held accountable for their ridiculousness.
It just seems that every single generation a) has some "new threat" for "how the world will end" and b) has some technological vision that ends up being way overestimated.
I'm sorry, but I just get frustrate with all these wondrous predictions that always seem to be about 30-50 years in the future. Short enough away to be enticing, but long enough away where no one making these predictions will really he held accountable for their ridiculousness.
It just seems that every single generation a) has some "new threat" for "how the world will end" and b) has some technological vision that ends up being way overestimated.
We can do both. Hell, even Elon Musk can do both; he also runs Tesla Motors, which makes electric cars on Earth.
Also, I notice that people are much more likely to condemn space development as frivolous than they are to criticize, say, football or whittling. Does that seem like a double standard to you, too?
Also, I notice that people are much more likely to condemn space development as frivolous than they are to criticize, say, football or whittling. Does that seem like a double standard to you, too?
Football and whittling are sustainably self-funding.
Football isn't a productive enterprise, regardless of how much money it can extract from the wider economy. Going to mars will most likely result in a large array of new tech which will find unrelated uses on Earth. Think of it like a way to buy a big burst of creativity.
OK, I'll bite. Define "productive enterprise".
You're not left with anything new at the end of a football game.
You have recordings and accounts of the game that can be published or resold, and potentially fond memories of an enjoyable experience. The same criticism could be made of live theatre or concerts. Is the presence of physical artfacts after the fact your criteria for a "productive enterprise"? How do you reconcile this value judgment with the fact that experiences, rather than possessions, tend to be a bigger factor in human happiness?
It's very hard to justify that something is "frivolous" or "non-productive" when it contributes materially to the happiness of a lot of people. People can deeply enjoy football, it can strengthen family and community bonds or just make for a fun evening. We don't live in a bleak dystopian society where we do nothing all day but provide for each other's physical needs. Football is no more frivolous or non-productive than easily most of the economy.
It's very hard to justify that something is "frivolous" or "non-productive" when it contributes materially to the happiness of a lot of people. People can deeply enjoy football, it can strengthen family and community bonds or just make for a fun evening. We don't live in a bleak dystopian society where we do nothing all day but provide for each other's physical needs. Football is no more frivolous or non-productive than easily most of the economy.
Yeah, I get all that, and I'm a fan of movies, theatre, and even the occasional football game. But I think that entertainment in general is less worthy than anything that moves knowledge and understanding forward. To your original comment, it's a bad idea to try to derive something's true worth from its profitability, especially in the short term.
I wasn't trying to derive anything's "true worth"--I was just saying that football is self-sustaining.
And actually, movies and professional sports have advanced our understanding and technology a great deal, be it by advancing camera and computer imaging technologies or by advancing our medical knowledge by giving us more experience dealing with certain types of injuries. The competitive nature of professional sports also gives us insights into the most effective ways to train, condition, and give nutrition to the human body.
And actually, movies and professional sports have advanced our understanding and technology a great deal, be it by advancing camera and computer imaging technologies or by advancing our medical knowledge by giving us more experience dealing with certain types of injuries. The competitive nature of professional sports also gives us insights into the most effective ways to train, condition, and give nutrition to the human body.
OK, you just seemed to be saying that those things were better because they could support themselves financially.
I don't think they're on the same order of magnitude in terms of knowledge gained - those are mature industries, space travel isn't anywhere near, so the gains should be much more dramatic and broadly applicable.
I don't think they're on the same order of magnitude in terms of knowledge gained - those are mature industries, space travel isn't anywhere near, so the gains should be much more dramatic and broadly applicable.
No, the main thing is that self-sustaining enterprises aren't up for public debate, so there's no reason anyone would criticize them as frivolous. Whereas anything that needs public funding, like space travel historically has, is automatically subject to a debate about its worthiness.
Sure there is - I know people who would call those things frivolous. Football consumes a serious outlay of energy for comparatively little lasting benefit. It's not scrutinized as often as things that are funded with taxes, but that doesn't save it from frivolity. Anyway, we're probably arguing past each other. I see taxpayer funded science of all sorts as being more worthy than most things, because I view scientific discovery as the foundation of the country's economic competitiveness. Most things seem frivolous by comparison.
So is SpaceX. Their rockets are changing the economics of space launch already--they are several factors cheaper per pound to orbit than their competitors.
What makes things go right? What makes wake up and work your best every day?
Well, such inspiring, exciting stuff, as colonizing other planets. Doing that also improves all other areas. Transportation of course. Electronics. Software. Radio. Medicine. You name it.
That is why such projects not a "childish idea" but actually a great plan.
There's only 2 reasons for humans to work hard, and work good:
- fear of death (war)
- f* exciting stuff (and no, software idea 923839 is not nearly exciting enough, and money isn't either)
Well, such inspiring, exciting stuff, as colonizing other planets. Doing that also improves all other areas. Transportation of course. Electronics. Software. Radio. Medicine. You name it.
That is why such projects not a "childish idea" but actually a great plan.
There's only 2 reasons for humans to work hard, and work good:
- fear of death (war)
- f* exciting stuff (and no, software idea 923839 is not nearly exciting enough, and money isn't either)
How is he going to get there and back without his bones disintegrating? I don't believe the science is there yet.
This is remarkable, but is going to Mars really our most challenging goal, our raison d'etre as humanity? Given the choice between being either the First human on mars or the First machine-augmented-human what would you choose?
Let's not choose between artificial dilemmas. Do them all.
Is there some reason these are mutually exclusive?
I find it interesting that people find these equally challenging. For the record, we know way too much about Mars and too little about the machine that makes us want to go (and go) to mars, the brain. If we can master our intelligence we could do so much more than going to a desolate planet. TBH i believe the first mission to mars will leave us disappointed (we won't have learned anything - and we don't really need mars for our future).
The future of space travel is mining the asteroid belt and war preparation, anything else is just farting around, without the unobtanium or the fear of death to drive us, there is no reason to leave earth for more than a quick trip.
If Elon Musk wants a base on mars, have him start putting missile silos up there, there will be a McDonalds up there in 30 years instead of some decrepit shack with a few science projects going on.
If Elon Musk wants a base on mars, have him start putting missile silos up there, there will be a McDonalds up there in 30 years instead of some decrepit shack with a few science projects going on.
Space is just a place. All that it takes is people who want to go there and the technology to do so being within their grasp. As technology advances and people grow wealthier colonization of space will become possible, and then it will happen. And once there are people living in space then the entire equation changes again, because once there is an economy in space there will be more reasons to go than just adventure.
Edit: In terms of technology/wealth, imagine a future in, say, 2100 when we have mastered things like automation, 3D printing, etc. When we can fill out a form on a web app, upload a few files and not just have, say, a fully reusable rocket ship pop out the end of a factory but actually a rocket ship producing factory pop out. Such things are technologically possible, and within our grasp. What happens when we have such power? Do we sit at home?
Edit: In terms of technology/wealth, imagine a future in, say, 2100 when we have mastered things like automation, 3D printing, etc. When we can fill out a form on a web app, upload a few files and not just have, say, a fully reusable rocket ship pop out the end of a factory but actually a rocket ship producing factory pop out. Such things are technologically possible, and within our grasp. What happens when we have such power? Do we sit at home?
2100?? having those things in 2100 would mean we humans all are incredibly lazy. You already have 3D printers. Automation too. Why you need to wait 88 more years?
Given what happened in last 30 years, I would rather say in 2100 you will be able to scan yourself into a readable file and shoot it across the solar system all the way to the Mars, and print yourself out anew (printing algorithm would catch and get a rid of all cancers you caught and aging too).
Given what happened in last 30 years, I would rather say in 2100 you will be able to scan yourself into a readable file and shoot it across the solar system all the way to the Mars, and print yourself out anew (printing algorithm would catch and get a rid of all cancers you caught and aging too).
Indeed, I was trying to be conservative with my assumptions.
It's also close, so, even if someone screws up very badly, a rescue mission would be less than a week away. If someone on Mars manages to, say, contaminate the colony's water supply, all we can do is record farewell messages for loved ones and deal with the bad publicity for decades. I wouldn't like that.
A second step could be an Aldrin cycler space station - this way you could ride a small spacecraft to the cycler, live there for a couple months and depart to Mars when it passes by. Plus, you'd get some prime moving real-estate - one that goes between Earth and Mars without spending fuel.