Getting a tad ahead of ourselves I think. More than a tad. We don't even have maps of the locations of the essential mineral resources a technology dependent Mars colony must have to be self reliant. And if the only copper deposit is on the other side of Mars or - very possible - doesn't exist at all?
Those false fears and bureaucratic barriers look like the least of the impediments - like straw compared to say, the appallingly negative economics in the absence of any commercially exploitable resources. And Mars looks especially difficult and lacking in commercially exploitable opportunities and I think is not the best option by any measure and compared to asteroids - that have minerals too, some with very real commercial potential - would be a dead end. Probably literally, unfortunately.
But I don't think space colonies can successfully be forced and must be an emergent outcome arising from sustained. successful commercial activities that require human labor. Even having making one as an explicit goal (for the purpose of species immortality) is getting ahead of ourselves and has no precedents; colonies are for economic benefit of the greater economy of which they are a part and that underwrites them and self reliant resident populations develop out of sustained commercial viability. Even extremely capable nations like the US don't exist in isolation and rely on trade.
Even aside from being incapable of repaying the establishment costs - and avoiding extravagant financial recklessness is a GOOD thing in bureaucrats - I'm struggling to see how even well equipped and highly skilled colonists working to their fullest abilities would be able to do everything that self reliant survival requires in such extremes. When simple manual tasks like digging up a leaky pipe (so, so many pipes!) requires million dollar PPE and takes 3X longer (being generously optimistic) then even setting up and operating everything brought from Earth will be hard enough but establishing an economy big enough and comprehensively capable enough and do it quickly enough to make replacements for it all and make it self supporting and not an exercise in Earth charity will be enough to overwhelm them.
Every problem may have a technological solution but they have to be economically viable solutions - and I think there are too many problems and the solutions will be too expensive.
Interesting exploration of some of the dangers of colonizing Mars. It seems reasonable to colonize and the goal of going is worthwhile to anyone with the ambition to do so. Eventually it may be easier, and beginning to incision and tackle any barriers now will make it easier in the future.
Maybe colonizing Mars is a good idea, but why NOW? Why not when we are 10 or 100 times more wealthy and the relative costs are lower? Or even just until we have cheap portable fusion reactors for power there?
Because the window to do so is open now. I'm paraphrasing Elon Musk here, but we don't know how long it will stay open. It's the first time in the 4 billion or so years life has existed on Earth that it can consciously spread itself to other places. We should take advantage while we can.
You're right it would be easier if we were wealthier, but I think colonizing and developing space generally (and Mars specifically) will accelerate the upward curve of human flourishing and wealth.
We'd kick ourselves if we didn't do it, and in hindsight it turned out this was our only real chance. Maybe a devastating natural or man-made disaster will knock us back to the stone age. Maybe bureaucracy and totalitarianism closes the window in a matter of decades. Gotta go while we can.
> Yes—because a human life has more value than that of a bacterium.
I find this bit questionable, especially in regards to life on Mars. If Martian bacteria evolved separately from life on Earth then it represents an entirely separate tree of life. That has immense value, and much more than than a single bacterium.
It might help to split out different sorts of value here. Any extant life on Mars has immense scientific value. Of course, it's virtually certain to be Earth life, as there's been "cross talk" in the form of rocks from both planets for billions of years. Personally, I doubt that there will be more than one type of life in our Solar System—once it's present in one location, it will eventually end up everywhere it can survive in the system.
Back to Mars: even terraformed, life underground (which is where it exists if it's still there) will be fine for a very long time. Giving scientists the chance to study it to their hearts content.
Talking about moral or ultimate value though, a human is always more important and valuable than a bacteria. Even an alien bacteria.
I argue it does not make sense to go directly from launching satellites to going to Mars. An intermediate stage in which humans colonize space in high Earth orbit, during which we develop the ability to live in airless regions close to Earth before trying to settle even more hostile environments many months distant.
I'm all in favor of O'Neill Cylinders or something similar. Large rotating habitats basically. I don't see it as necessary for there to be competition between that, the Moon, and Mars. We should do all of the above asap.
It's not competition. Its sequential. There are two issues. Funding the project and developing the capital assets, which includes both intellectual capital (how to operate to space, build stuff and safety live for months in the presence of dangerous levels of radiation) and how to mine metals and other materials, refine them and fabricate them into useful forms using robots in an airless environment. All this can be done in Earth orbit and on the moon, where Earth is just hours or days away.
While you are building your capability you send robots to explore all the likely spots to settle and choose one. Then you send a fleet of robot craft to pre-supply the colony for when the humans get there. Then once you have your capacity you send the colonization expeditions.
Doing all this will take a lot of cash flow. Starlink won't provide near enough. So, I suggest something like orbital hotels and lunar resorts.
It's not a bad idea. I still think all of the above is better, because I don't see space colonization and development moving in a linear fashion. This isn't going to be like Apollo where it was a strict A to Z development and in that order. Of course some things need to be done before others (e.g., transportation, which SpaceX is working hard on), but there's so many companies doing various things, each with their own A to Z plan and priorities. Together, I think the result will be asteroid mining, Mars colonization, bases + resorts on the Moon, and the beginning of far bigger space stations will all start happening around the same time. Probably in the early 2030s, with possible surprises sooner of course.
Just to talk about the magnetosphere, it's essentially irrelevant in the short to medium term (anything less than 100,000 years or so), even if Mars is terraformed, because that's how long it takes for atmospheric stripping due to not having a magnetic field to be an issue.
It's a problem for life on the long term, like on Earth, but not unless you're talking millions of years.
Anyways, the problem is relatively trivial, we almost have the tech to solve it already. Just put a "weak" electromagnet between Mars and the Sun, a space station at one of the Lagrange points would do nicely. Nuclear powered, maybe by fusion, and bam you have a perfect artificial magnetosphere. Easily doable before the end of this century, or early next in the worst case scenario.
I read the whole thing, it's basically a nonsense article written by someone who either has no idea what he's talking about, or is pushing that perspective for ideological reasons.
Getting a tad ahead of ourselves I think. More than a tad. We don't even have maps of the locations of the essential mineral resources a technology dependent Mars colony must have to be self reliant. And if the only copper deposit is on the other side of Mars or - very possible - doesn't exist at all?
Those false fears and bureaucratic barriers look like the least of the impediments - like straw compared to say, the appallingly negative economics in the absence of any commercially exploitable resources. And Mars looks especially difficult and lacking in commercially exploitable opportunities and I think is not the best option by any measure and compared to asteroids - that have minerals too, some with very real commercial potential - would be a dead end. Probably literally, unfortunately.
But I don't think space colonies can successfully be forced and must be an emergent outcome arising from sustained. successful commercial activities that require human labor. Even having making one as an explicit goal (for the purpose of species immortality) is getting ahead of ourselves and has no precedents; colonies are for economic benefit of the greater economy of which they are a part and that underwrites them and self reliant resident populations develop out of sustained commercial viability. Even extremely capable nations like the US don't exist in isolation and rely on trade.
Even aside from being incapable of repaying the establishment costs - and avoiding extravagant financial recklessness is a GOOD thing in bureaucrats - I'm struggling to see how even well equipped and highly skilled colonists working to their fullest abilities would be able to do everything that self reliant survival requires in such extremes. When simple manual tasks like digging up a leaky pipe (so, so many pipes!) requires million dollar PPE and takes 3X longer (being generously optimistic) then even setting up and operating everything brought from Earth will be hard enough but establishing an economy big enough and comprehensively capable enough and do it quickly enough to make replacements for it all and make it self supporting and not an exercise in Earth charity will be enough to overwhelm them.
Every problem may have a technological solution but they have to be economically viable solutions - and I think there are too many problems and the solutions will be too expensive.
Interesting exploration of some of the dangers of colonizing Mars. It seems reasonable to colonize and the goal of going is worthwhile to anyone with the ambition to do so. Eventually it may be easier, and beginning to incision and tackle any barriers now will make it easier in the future.
I told my wife I would do the manned mission to Mars, not that I would ever get a chance. She looked at me like I had two heads.
Maybe colonizing Mars is a good idea, but why NOW? Why not when we are 10 or 100 times more wealthy and the relative costs are lower? Or even just until we have cheap portable fusion reactors for power there?
Because the window to do so is open now. I'm paraphrasing Elon Musk here, but we don't know how long it will stay open. It's the first time in the 4 billion or so years life has existed on Earth that it can consciously spread itself to other places. We should take advantage while we can.
You're right it would be easier if we were wealthier, but I think colonizing and developing space generally (and Mars specifically) will accelerate the upward curve of human flourishing and wealth.
We'd kick ourselves if we didn't do it, and in hindsight it turned out this was our only real chance. Maybe a devastating natural or man-made disaster will knock us back to the stone age. Maybe bureaucracy and totalitarianism closes the window in a matter of decades. Gotta go while we can.
> Yes—because a human life has more value than that of a bacterium.
I find this bit questionable, especially in regards to life on Mars. If Martian bacteria evolved separately from life on Earth then it represents an entirely separate tree of life. That has immense value, and much more than than a single bacterium.
It might help to split out different sorts of value here. Any extant life on Mars has immense scientific value. Of course, it's virtually certain to be Earth life, as there's been "cross talk" in the form of rocks from both planets for billions of years. Personally, I doubt that there will be more than one type of life in our Solar System—once it's present in one location, it will eventually end up everywhere it can survive in the system.
Back to Mars: even terraformed, life underground (which is where it exists if it's still there) will be fine for a very long time. Giving scientists the chance to study it to their hearts content.
Talking about moral or ultimate value though, a human is always more important and valuable than a bacteria. Even an alien bacteria.
Ludicrous.
I argue it does not make sense to go directly from launching satellites to going to Mars. An intermediate stage in which humans colonize space in high Earth orbit, during which we develop the ability to live in airless regions close to Earth before trying to settle even more hostile environments many months distant.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-next-for-space
I'm all in favor of O'Neill Cylinders or something similar. Large rotating habitats basically. I don't see it as necessary for there to be competition between that, the Moon, and Mars. We should do all of the above asap.
It's not competition. Its sequential. There are two issues. Funding the project and developing the capital assets, which includes both intellectual capital (how to operate to space, build stuff and safety live for months in the presence of dangerous levels of radiation) and how to mine metals and other materials, refine them and fabricate them into useful forms using robots in an airless environment. All this can be done in Earth orbit and on the moon, where Earth is just hours or days away.
While you are building your capability you send robots to explore all the likely spots to settle and choose one. Then you send a fleet of robot craft to pre-supply the colony for when the humans get there. Then once you have your capacity you send the colonization expeditions.
Doing all this will take a lot of cash flow. Starlink won't provide near enough. So, I suggest something like orbital hotels and lunar resorts.
It's not a bad idea. I still think all of the above is better, because I don't see space colonization and development moving in a linear fashion. This isn't going to be like Apollo where it was a strict A to Z development and in that order. Of course some things need to be done before others (e.g., transportation, which SpaceX is working hard on), but there's so many companies doing various things, each with their own A to Z plan and priorities. Together, I think the result will be asteroid mining, Mars colonization, bases + resorts on the Moon, and the beginning of far bigger space stations will all start happening around the same time. Probably in the early 2030s, with possible surprises sooner of course.
Doubtful.
https://defector.com/neither-elon-musk-nor-anybody-else-will-ever-colonize-mars
Decel: "They'll never colonize space, there's no air there. Idiots."
Techno-Optimist: "There is a technological solution to every real world problem."
No, there is not.
What makes you think that? All the evidence would tend to point in the other direction of there being technological solutions to problems.
Read Abhcan’s link. Just the first sentences are enough.
Just to talk about the magnetosphere, it's essentially irrelevant in the short to medium term (anything less than 100,000 years or so), even if Mars is terraformed, because that's how long it takes for atmospheric stripping due to not having a magnetic field to be an issue.
It's a problem for life on the long term, like on Earth, but not unless you're talking millions of years.
Anyways, the problem is relatively trivial, we almost have the tech to solve it already. Just put a "weak" electromagnet between Mars and the Sun, a space station at one of the Lagrange points would do nicely. Nuclear powered, maybe by fusion, and bam you have a perfect artificial magnetosphere. Easily doable before the end of this century, or early next in the worst case scenario.
I read the whole thing, it's basically a nonsense article written by someone who either has no idea what he's talking about, or is pushing that perspective for ideological reasons.
Not now, but who's to say in a millennium or two?
Correct.