Mars and Off Planet Colonization - Pros and Cons Discussion

[ecarfan]

You appear to believe that human civilization on Earth is doomed, while at the same time believing that there is zero chance that human civilization could be established off Earth.

Yep

I'll probably continue to talk about the massive waste of resources that such a project entails.

Given your outlook on the non-existent future of humanity, it doesn’t really matter what people spend their time and energy on. Elon and his supporters will carry on while employing lots of people and many thousands of explorers will have an adventure of their own choosing.

Your endlessly repetitive criticizing of the topic of this thread contributes nothing to the discussion.

 

[ecarfan]

Yes, thousands, out of 300m+. And how many of the brave thousands are like yourself, too old or with young children to care for to go risking our lives out in space to build someone else's future home? I

I‘m confident that out of 8 billion-plus humans there will be many tens of thousands of qualified applicants before the first manned Mars-bound Starship launches. Elon’s vision won’t be limited to just US citizens.

Keep in mind that funding is needed as well, and those who choose to stay home probably won't want their penny to go into the pot. That's why it'll take Elon's contribution, because along with his billions, will be the hundreds of billions (or even trillions) from his supporters.

Yes, clearly that is the case. No reason to extract money from those who don’t want to contribute.

 

[daniel]

Given your outlook on the non-existent future of humanity, it doesn’t really matter what people spend their time and energy on.

It matters because resources are limited. When children are going to bed hungry, people are sleeping on the street, and in some parts of the world children are dying of cheaply-preventable diseases, wasting money on absurd projects needs to be called out.

Elon and his supporters will carry on while employing lots of people and many thousands of explorers will have an adventure of their own choosing.

Your endlessly repetitive criticizing of the topic of this thread contributes nothing to the discussion.

Thank you for your constructive criticism.

... No reason to extract money from those who don’t want to contribute.

Musk isn't going to finance this. If it goes forward, taxpayer money is going to pay the bills. That's money from people who could have used it instead to pay the rent, put food on the table, or pay for their kids' education. Musk will build the rockets that NASA pays him to send to Mars or wherever. We can see that right now: Musk sends nothing to space on his own dime other than that one tourist trip for publicity.

Nobody who truly grasps how miserable life would be on Mars would ever volunteer to try to make a life there, and nobody with an ounce of compassion would condemn their unborn children to live out their lives there. Reality is nothing like sci-fi. Mars would be the bleakest, most deprived existence it would be possible to subject a person to.

I imagine we'll send people for the bragging rights, to crow about how much better we are than the Chinese or Russians. And by the same token there will be volunteers willing to spend four years of their life in a tin can bombarded by cosmic rays while their bones whither away from microgravity, in order to come back as heroes for having gone. But a colony would be doomed to failure and the height of irresponsibility.

 

[ecarfan]

Musk isn't going to finance this. If it goes forward, taxpayer money is going to pay the bills.

Wrong. The US Congress will never approve funding for a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. The funding will all come from private sources.

But a colony would be doomed to failure and the height of irresponsibility.

Now where have I heard that before? Hmm….

 

[scaesare]

See, I disagree that we could make the Earth a perfect paradise. It WAS a paradise, and WE are the reason it isn't anymore. We have gotten so good at reproducing that we've become a cancer: A thing that grows out of control and kills off the rest of the organism.

I didn't read @Grendal 's as saying that we are capable of doing it. I read it as "even if we could", underscoring that the subsequent need wasn't solely dependent on the inability to create paradise here.

 

[daniel]

Wrong. The US Congress will never approve funding for a self-sustaining human colony on Mars. The funding will all come from private sources.

Nobody is going to fund a colony because it would cost more money than anybody has. NASA has plans to send astronauts to Mars. SpaceX will build the rockets, and NASA will pay for them. SpaceX will fund zero of it and Musk will fund zero of it. Musk says that he wants a colony on Mars but the first step would be to send astronauts, and Musk is not paying for any of that.

Actually, the first step to Mars is to return to the moon, and Musk is not paying for any of that. SpaceX will build the rockets and NASA will pay for all of it.

I'd say that Musk is advocating a Mars colony because his company SpaceX is in the business of putting people and stuff into space. Going to Mars will make Musk ten times as rich as he is now, with all the business it will bring him.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Nobody is going to fund a colony because it would cost more money than anybody has. NASA has plans to send astronauts to Mars. SpaceX will build the rockets, and NASA will pay for them. SpaceX will fund zero of it and Musk will fund zero of it. Musk says that he wants a colony on Mars but the first step would be to send astronauts, and Musk is not paying for any of that.

Actually, the first step to Mars is to return to the moon, and Musk is not paying for any of that. SpaceX will build the rockets and NASA will pay for all of it.

I'd say that Musk is advocating a Mars colony because his company SpaceX is in the business of putting people and stuff into space. Going to Mars will make Musk ten times as rich as he is now, with all the business it will bring him.

You have your facts wrong. So far the only rocket that NASA has funded to mars is Lockheed Martin's rocket. NASA has funded a mission to the moon using SpaceX's rocket, but that's a way of SAVING the taxpayer's money, instead of further SLS development funding. The fact that the same rocket might be used to send people to mars is just an efficient reuse of limited resources.

One company benefiting from saving the government money is generally viewed as a good thing.

If you think that NASA money paid to SpaceX for launches to the ISS and moon, means that they indirectly paid for mars as well, then you don't own anything either. After all, the money that your company earned to pay your salary from which you used to buy your clothes and food, all came from your company's customers. That's absurd reductive logic!

Once the money has exchanged hands, the ownership also changes. So NASA money paid to SpaceX for ISS launches is now SpaceX's. What SpaceX funds with their profit is privately funded.

 

[ecarfan]

Nobody is going to fund a colony because it would cost more money than anybody has. NASA has plans to send astronauts to Mars. SpaceX will build the rockets, and NASA will pay for them. SpaceX will fund zero of it and Musk will fund zero of it. Musk says that he wants a colony on Mars but the first step would be to send astronauts, and Musk is not paying for any of that.

Wrong again. NASA talks about sending astronauts to Mars but to date Congress has not allocated funds to do that and they likely never will because of the cost. Musk and supporters will have to pay for it and they will. Starlink revenue will contribute to the cost, as Musk has said.

If you would take the time to read any of the multiple biographies about Musk you would know that what motivated him to found SpaceX was, after going to the NASA website 20+ years ago to learn about the agency’s plans for putting humans on Mars, he couldn’t find anything about it. He was very surprised. He thought it was an important and worthwhile goal. So he started SpaceX with his own money, knowing next to nothing about rockets and knowing it would most likely fail. The entire existing aerospace industry laughed at him and knew he would fail. But he persevered and literally changed the industry.

Actually, the first step to Mars is to return to the moon, and Musk is not paying for any of that. SpaceX will build the rockets and NASA will pay for all of it.

Wrong again. Musk isn’t interested in the Moon as a human colony location, he never has been. NASA is paying SpaceX to build the HLS so SpaceX will gladly do that as that money also supports SpaceX learning how to build, launch, and refuel Starships in LEO. It would have been a bad business decision to tell NASA that SpaceX wouldn’t build an HLS. It’s a win-win for NASA and SpaceX. But SpaceX will only build a few Starships for that purpose. It will build hundreds of Starships for its Mars ambitions.

I'd say that Musk is advocating a Mars colony because his company SpaceX is in the business of putting people and stuff into space. Going to Mars will make Musk ten times as rich as he is now, with all the business it will bring him.

Wrong again. You don’t seem to know much about Elon and his long history of interest in a sustainable human colony on Mars. It’s definitely not a “get rich quick” (or slowly) scheme. He has said many times that the effort may well fail, and he’s right; the chances of success are low. He knows that. He knows it’s not a money-making scheme; it’s the exact opposite. Everyone knows that. But he believes it is worth trying anyway because of the many existential threats to human civilization.

So you think human civilization on Earth is doomed and there are absolutely no alternatives to Earth. And you think Elon’s goal in life is to make even more hundreds of billions than he already has while doing nothing to provide humanity with any hope for the future. The history and achievements of Tesla and SpaceX say otherwise.

You have nothing positive or constructive to contribute to this thread, and you completely misunderstand Musk and his goals.

 

[RSpanner]

Sending astronauts to Mars as a scientific project is a worthwhile objective. Wanting to build a Colony there? How about after cleaning up the mess we have made of the earth first? Kind of like buying junk food and littering is what we have done to the earth. To blunt?

 

[ecarfan]

Sending astronauts to Mars as a scientific project is a worthwhile objective. Wanting to build a Colony there? How about after cleaning up the mess we have made of the earth first? Kind of like buying junk food and littering is what we have done to the earth. To blunt?

Not too blunt. Your questions have been asked and answered several times in this thread.

Humans can do two things at the same time. Doing one thing does not exclude doing the other thing.

 

[mongo]

Sending astronauts to Mars as a scientific project is a worthwhile objective. Wanting to build a Colony there? How about after cleaning up the mess we have made of the earth first? Kind of like buying junk food and littering is what we have done to the earth. To blunt?

You can't have any dessert because I haven't eaten my vegetables.
You do anything recreational because I haven't paid the electric bill.
You can't have internet because people somewhere are hungry.

No one can live in high cost of living areas because they could live somewhere cheaper and give the difference to others.

No one can have kids because some places are overpopulated.

No one can go to Mars, because reasons ...

 

[Grendal]

It matters because resources are limited. When children are going to bed hungry, people are sleeping on the street, and in some parts of the world children are dying of cheaply-preventable diseases, wasting money on absurd projects needs to be called out.

The big mistake you and others who repeat similar statements IMO is that MONEY will solve the problem. This is faulty reasoning. There is plenty of money in the world to make sure every human being has basic medical care and enough food and shelter to live comfortably on. This does not happen. Why? Because there are lots of different countries, different leadership, different priorities, and no centralized logistical ability to do such things. Humanity is no longer hunter-gatherers. For better or worse, humanity has become industrialized and change our environment to "improve" our existence. As little as 125 years ago, the lifespan of a human was around 40 to 50 years. A little less than half of all children died around that time as well. Our industrialization has improved our lifespans and health. I think it is hypocritical to accept the benefits of industrialization while condemning it. It's only been about 4000 years that humanity, for better or worse, dropped hunter-gathering for industrialization. We are now on that path. There is no going back. We will grow up or not. We will destroy ourselves or not. So, IMO, we should work toward growth and do the best you can, but don't get in the way or be a naysayer. Being a naysayer is secretly hoping for failure. It is, to me, no different than the folks who complain about EVs and say "why get an EV? A gas car does what I need it to do. An EV still has pollution!" An EV is an attempt to do and be better. We are still childish. If you are a parent, do you throw out a 5 year old out of the house and into the street when they act out? Or do you teach them how to act better? Humanity has a lot of growing to do. We are learning. Maybe we learn to do better. I prefer to be optimistic and hope we will be better in the future. As a species, we have done better. Slavery is no longer a common practice. Women are, for the most part, no longer property of men.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[daniel]

You have your facts wrong. So far the only rocket that NASA has funded to mars is Lockheed Martin's rocket. NASA has funded a mission to the moon using SpaceX's rocket, but that's a way of SAVING the taxpayer's money, instead of further SLS development funding. The fact that the same rocket might be used to send people to mars is just an efficient reuse of limited resources.

One company benefiting from saving the government money is generally viewed as a good thing.

You are confusing several things: If NASA is going to squander money going to the Moon (or Mars) it's better that they do so the cheapest way, which is SpaceX. But better still would be to use that money for robotic exploration which has a much greater ROI.

I find it quite amusing that people believe Musk's own hype about himself. He's in business to make money, like every other business owner. With Tesla he's had a very positive impact, steering the country toward a path of cleaner transportation. But he's still doing it to make money. With SpaceX he's also done some good, providing NASA and others with a less-expensive means of getting into orbit. But he's still doing it to make money, like every other business owner.

Anybody who thinks he's a selfless person doing all this for the public good, or that he truly feels so strongly about a Mars colony that he will pay for it himself is looking at him very differently than I and many others. Musk says a lot of stuff. Believing everything he says is, IMO unwarranted.

 

[ecarfan]

He's in business to make money, like every other business owner. With Tesla he's had a very positive impact, steering the country toward a path of cleaner transportation. But he's still doing it to make money. With SpaceX he's also done some good, providing NASA and others with a less-expensive means of getting into orbit. But he's still doing it to make money, like every other business owner.

Again, you are guilty of gross misstatements.

Musk started SpaceX on his own, with his own money, when everyone told him it was impossible. He even had a hard time hiring qualified aerospace engineers because almost all of them thought he was crazy. As a plan to make money, starting a rocket company when you have zero experience or expertise in the field is the worst possible way to make a buck. And after the first 3 launches the company was broke and appeared doomed. Yet SpaceX succeeded and radically changed the space industry. Read Eric Berger’s book Lift Off to get the full story…oh wait, you’re not interested in the facts, so you won’t read it.

Well, starting a rocket company almost the worst way to make money. The other was is being the primary investor in a start up car company whose plan was to only make EVs at a time when no company was making an EV except as a minor side project to satisfy California law (and only selling in California) with zero intention of scaling up product, is also the worst business plan ever. No one outside of Tesla believed they could succeed. Every American car company started in the previous60+ years had gone bankrupt. Starting a car company from scratch with the goal of making money is crazy. Yet Tesla succeeded, and radically changed the entire automotive industry.

Musk didn’t start those companies with the only goal of making money, he did it because he believed the company goals were important. SpaceX had to create fully reusable rockets so that a colony on Mars could be attempted. Tesla would build EVs to make transportation a sustainable industry. Of course to succeed the companies had to be profitable, otherwise they would never achieve their goals.

Your repeated misstatements about Musk show you aren’t really interested in the facts.

Do I believe everything Musk says? Absolutely not. There are many things he says that I disagree with. But the idea that his primary goal with Tesla and SpaceX is to just make himself richer is nonsense.

 

[ecarfan]

We are really getting off topic for this thread. I would appreciate it if posts could stay on topic. And I would really appreciate it if posts could focus how off planet colonies could succeed instead of just dismissing the idea as impossible. Those who believe that have made their position clear, over and over again. Continuing to repeatedly say the same thing contributes nothing to the discussion. Thank you.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

You are confusing several things: If NASA is going to squander money going to the Moon (or Mars) it's better that they do so the cheapest way, which is SpaceX. But better still would be to use that money for robotic exploration which has a much greater ROI.

I find it quite amusing that people believe Musk's own hype about himself. He's in business to make money, like every other business owner. With Tesla he's had a very positive impact, steering the country toward a path of cleaner transportation. But he's still doing it to make money. With SpaceX he's also done some good, providing NASA and others with a less-expensive means of getting into orbit. But he's still doing it to make money, like every other business owner.

Anybody who thinks he's a selfless person doing all this for the public good, or that he truly feels so strongly about a Mars colony that he will pay for it himself is looking at him very differently than I and many others. Musk says a lot of stuff. Believing everything he says is, IMO unwarranted.

I didn't confuse anything. You've simply forgotten what you had written, but it's okay. This forum has a convenient threading system where you simply click on the up-arrow to go back to the quoted text that the poster was responding to.

As for your amusement, I find it ironic how certain you are of your opinion, when you don't even have your facts straight. We call that hubris from where I come from. Follow up on ecarfan's sources. Get your facts straight before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[daniel]

You think I don't have the facts. I think you've been seduced by the fascination with science fiction, in which everything is possible and magic is merely advanced technology.

As for Musk and SpaceX, he saw that there was a business opportunity. After the end of the space shuttle program NASA was dependent on the Russians for access to the ISS. SpaceX has been very successful, showing that he made a good business decision. And like any business owner, he's now promoting the services of his company.

There are many legitimate uses for space, and SpaceX is an excellent resource for those uses: Satellites for communication, geolocation, and Earth research, robotic exploration of other worlds, space telescopes, etc. I contend that sending people to Mars is not one of them.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

You think I don't have the facts. I think you've been seduced by the fascination with science fiction, in which everything is possible and magic is merely advanced technology.

As for Musk and SpaceX, he saw that there was a business opportunity. After the end of the space shuttle program NASA was dependent on the Russians for access to the ISS. SpaceX has been very successful, showing that he made a good business decision. And like any business owner, he's now promoting the services of his company.

There are many legitimate uses for space, and SpaceX is an excellent resource for those uses: Satellites for communication, geolocation, and Earth research, robotic exploration of other worlds, space telescopes, etc. I contend that sending people to Mars is not one of them.

See, this clearly shows that you've started with your conclusion and worked your views of the facts around it.

Here are the facts:
- SpaceX was started in 2002.
- The Columbia space shuttle accident happened in 2003. In 2004, the commission investigating concluded that the space shuttle program would end after the ISS construction due in 2010.
- The russian soyuz program was VERY cheap relative to the space shuttle for sending astronauts to space
- We were on good terms with Russia at that time. So good that Elon was going to them to buy their launch service.
- The Delta program was also cost effective relative to the shuttle for sending satellites to space.
- Musk didn't ASSUME he could make rocket launches cheaper until AFTER he went shopping for a launch service to send a token plant to mars.
- 4 years later, SpaceX still had NOT TESTED a single Falcon 1.
- 6 years and with almost all of his money gone (including the money of his friends), SpaceX still did NOT have a successful Falcon 1 launch.
- China's Long March successfully launched in 2003.

When you look at the chronology, there's no way to conclude that SpaceX was founded as a way to make money. Unless you think any of the above facts are wrong?

Edit: Starting a private rocket company, at a time when governments were the only entities wealthy enough and with enough engineers to do so, was literally the STUPIDEST way to make money. EVERY DIY project has only started because the DIYer was trying to save themselves money. The business "opportunity" only comes up AFTER the project starts.

 

[JB47394]

There are many legitimate uses for space, and SpaceX is an excellent resource for those uses: Satellites for communication, geolocation, and Earth research, robotic exploration of other worlds, space telescopes, etc. I contend that sending people to Mars is not one of them.

Now you're just being Toyota during the electric car revolution (they only want to work on hybrid-electrics). Once you have a rapidly-reusable super heavy lift launch vehicle, you can start to look at a number of other projects that involve lots of mass. I don't buy the Mars colony idea as viable, but there are lots of other things possible with Starship. Including one or more lunar research stations, as an analog to Antarctica. If that could be done robotically or remotely from Earth, I'd take that too. There are lots of other possibilities once you have a working Starship.

there's no way to conclude that SpaceX was founded as a way to make money

SpaceX was clearly founded to be a healthy commercial venture. Doing it any other way just isn't going to go anywhere. Ask any of the failed space companies that have come and gone over the years because they had grand plans, but no commercial savvy at all. Elon knows how to walk the line between his dreams and the practical realities of getting something done in a capitalist society.

I also doubt that SpaceX was founded only to make money. He has his visions, he believes in them, and he's wildly optimistic on timelines. All the time he's pursuing those dreams, he has to keep solvent the organizations that pursue them. So what I'm trying to say here is that you're both wrong, and you're both right. Elon is a dreamer who understands the realities of getting things done. He wants to go to Mars. Because he's so practical in pursuing his dreams, SpaceX will continue to make money because it has to. Because he's such a dreamer, the goal will remain a colony on Mars. Unfortunately, he won't live to see the surface of Mars. On the other hand, he'll probably live to see robotaxis, and that'll be amazing.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

SpaceX was clearly founded to be a healthy commercial venture. Doing it any other way just isn't going to go anywhere. Ask any of the failed space companies that have come and gone over the years because they had grand plans, but no commercial savvy at all. Elon knows how to walk the line between his dreams and the practical realities of getting something done in a capitalist society.

I also doubt that SpaceX was founded only to make money. He has his visions, he believes in them, and he's wildly optimistic on timelines. All the time he's pursuing those dreams, he has to keep solvent the organizations that pursue them. So what I'm trying to say here is that you're both wrong, and you're both right. Elon is a dreamer who understands the realities of getting things done. He wants to go to Mars. Because he's so practical in pursuing his dreams, SpaceX will continue to make money because it has to. Because he's such a dreamer, the goal will remain a colony on Mars. Unfortunately, he won't live to see the surface of Mars. On the other hand, he'll probably live to see robotaxis, and that'll be amazing.

We disagree on the purpose of the founding. SpaceX was initially started with Elon's money alone. The profit goals came up AFTER he realized how much money he was burning on rocket development and needed to bring in outside investors. Falcon 1 was the only rocket designed and built. Falcon 3 & 5 were put on the drawing board to bring in investor dollars (but were never built). Falcon 9 didn't get started until 2005.

Plans change, when met with reality. Read Erik Nordeus's book "The Engineer". It was written (started before 2012) much earlier than the other biographies and done without Elon's cooperation.