> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Correct.