-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
Elon always seems to have a sneaky second purpose to his endeavors that would be of benefit in colonizing Mars. Electric vehicles can drive on Mars. Reusable rockets with rocket powered descent can land on and launch from Mars. A network of Internet satellites could set up an Internet on Mars. Solar power with grid storage could power outposts on Mars. Ergonomic redesigned space suits might be nice to have on Mars. Hm....
You are absolutely correct that SpaceX could make lots of money. That has never been Elon's strategy however. I'd expect that Elon will go it alone only if the government refuses to help make his goal happen. I don't see that happening since the government is already spending enormous amounts of money just to make a trip to Mars. Elon's goals are similar and his company will do it at a fraction of the cost. So I expect there will be some combining of the goals and SpaceX will get the basic funding they need. If the government refuses to help then I do see Elon changing his normal strategy and building a huge pot of funds expressly for his Mars colony project. In that situation, I see SpaceX keeping their prices just below their competitors and then storing the huge profits in their "Mars Project" bank. If they did that actively, I could see SpaceX with $30 to $40 billion within a decade if they have reusability down yet keep their prices just below competitors.
His professed SpaceX strategy is to establish a permanent and sustainable human colony on Mars. Of course that will require a huge sum of money. So I believe that he will seek to maximize SpaceX's profits in order to achieve that goal.
Ulmo
Active Member
If Elon finances the Mars expedition himself, he gets all the land and real estate profit, and all of the upside. And downside. His grandchildren could get rich.
I'm being slightly sarcastic. His grandchildren will be artificial robot beings.
I'm being slightly sarcastic. His grandchildren will be artificial robot beings.
I think we found out today that Elon will get government funding by sending a man-rated Red Dragon capsule to Mars to show that it can be done even with current rocket technology. Making that happen will capture the world's attention and governments attention. If that is successful, I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX gets all the funding they need to move forward on Elon's goal. I also wouldn't be surprised if other governments besides the US get involved.
Wow, this is spooky. I found this thread (dormant since sept 2015, and dormant since 2013 before that), and figured that we hadn't been talking much about Mars... 2 days later Big News... spooky. Like the red planet is waking up and calling...
Either that or I've gone funny in the head, which is more likely...
Either that or I've gone funny in the head, which is more likely...
Chet
Member
Mars? A ridiculous waste of resources given the urgent needs here on earth.
Earth will never be "perfect". There will always be urgent needs. I would never take the position that the 15th century European explorers should have stayed home and and tried to solve all the problems facing those countries at that time, which were legion.
In this century, we are facing an existential threat unprecedented in human history: rising CO2 levels that are almost certain to radically destabilize the ecosystem we depend on (as Elon puts it, we are performing the dumbest chemistry experiment ever). Yes, we can adapt and probably survive but likely in a diminished and extremely unpleasant state. We need a backup plan. Mars is the only planet in our solar system that there is a chance of humans establishing a permanent settlement on. It will be incredibly difficult. But not impossible.
Thinking longer term, the other existential threat we face on earth is an asteroid impact that really could wipe our our species, permanently. Such an impact has happened at least twice in the past few hundred million years, as far as we know (and there may have been others we don't know about). Now that we have the technology (or are very close to having it) to go off earth and establish human settlements, it's time to make that leap and do everything we can to ensure that our species will survive.
The genus Homo spread across the surface of the earth in a few hundred thousand years just by walking. For whatever reason, people have the urge to move, to explore, to learn about new places. It's what we do. Let's keep doing it.
In this century, we are facing an existential threat unprecedented in human history: rising CO2 levels that are almost certain to radically destabilize the ecosystem we depend on (as Elon puts it, we are performing the dumbest chemistry experiment ever). Yes, we can adapt and probably survive but likely in a diminished and extremely unpleasant state. We need a backup plan. Mars is the only planet in our solar system that there is a chance of humans establishing a permanent settlement on. It will be incredibly difficult. But not impossible.
Thinking longer term, the other existential threat we face on earth is an asteroid impact that really could wipe our our species, permanently. Such an impact has happened at least twice in the past few hundred million years, as far as we know (and there may have been others we don't know about). Now that we have the technology (or are very close to having it) to go off earth and establish human settlements, it's time to make that leap and do everything we can to ensure that our species will survive.
The genus Homo spread across the surface of the earth in a few hundred thousand years just by walking. For whatever reason, people have the urge to move, to explore, to learn about new places. It's what we do. Let's keep doing it.
Well said, ecarfan. I find the "we need to focus on Earth" statements to be incredibly short sighted and dangerous. That, in my mind, will eventually lead to extinction for humanity and, in the long run, the loss of our life friendly biosphere.
I apologize ahead of time for the speech but here you go: Humanity, for better or worse, has taken the industrial path into the future. As hunters and gatherers we were very stable for over 100,000 years. If we had progressed along that path it would have continued to be very stable until some future extinction event brought it to an end. With the coming of industrialization we are changing our environment including ourselves which allows humanity to flourish and adapt to nearly every environment on the planet. Lots of humans means lots of needs which inevitably leads to a demand for more and more resources. Is this damaging to the environment? Of course it is. It is the result of humanity spreading across a limited environment.
So we are left with a dilemma. Where do we go from here? There are generally three paths:
1. Go backwards. Try to get rid of industrialization and go back to simpler times. ?? That is absurd. It isn't going to happen.
2. Stabilize what we have. Focus inwards and clean everything. Become completely sustainable in every way. That sounds very nice. The question is how do you do it? You limit population, limit resource use, limit freedoms, and become incredibly controlling. In this scenario you need to control everyone and be aware of everything. It's not a very pretty future and one that will eventually lead to an extinction event as well. Many short sighted people see this as the way to go. This is the leaking boat scenario where you only have a small pail.
3. Keep moving ahead. There is an infinite amount of resources in space. There is an infinite amount of space, in space. It is only our one little planet that has a limited amount of space and resources. So we need to move beyond the Earth and into the vastness of space. It will be a lengthy slow process but one that must inevitably happen. In the meantime we still need to be as sustainable and efficient as possible here on Earth.
Elon has seen this. That is why he has chosen the path and goals he has to help humanity move forward.
I apologize ahead of time for the speech but here you go: Humanity, for better or worse, has taken the industrial path into the future. As hunters and gatherers we were very stable for over 100,000 years. If we had progressed along that path it would have continued to be very stable until some future extinction event brought it to an end. With the coming of industrialization we are changing our environment including ourselves which allows humanity to flourish and adapt to nearly every environment on the planet. Lots of humans means lots of needs which inevitably leads to a demand for more and more resources. Is this damaging to the environment? Of course it is. It is the result of humanity spreading across a limited environment.
So we are left with a dilemma. Where do we go from here? There are generally three paths:
1. Go backwards. Try to get rid of industrialization and go back to simpler times. ?? That is absurd. It isn't going to happen.
2. Stabilize what we have. Focus inwards and clean everything. Become completely sustainable in every way. That sounds very nice. The question is how do you do it? You limit population, limit resource use, limit freedoms, and become incredibly controlling. In this scenario you need to control everyone and be aware of everything. It's not a very pretty future and one that will eventually lead to an extinction event as well. Many short sighted people see this as the way to go. This is the leaking boat scenario where you only have a small pail.
3. Keep moving ahead. There is an infinite amount of resources in space. There is an infinite amount of space, in space. It is only our one little planet that has a limited amount of space and resources. So we need to move beyond the Earth and into the vastness of space. It will be a lengthy slow process but one that must inevitably happen. In the meantime we still need to be as sustainable and efficient as possible here on Earth.
Elon has seen this. That is why he has chosen the path and goals he has to help humanity move forward.
@ecarfan and @Grendal have provided the best arguments for pursuing Mars.
I will provide a human historical example. During the 15th century, China and India essentially controlled 25-50% of the world's GDP (I recall reading about it in an Economist's article). At that time GDP was truly based on population. China embarked on seafaring voyages of exploration and power projection during the 1410-30's. Some speculate that portions of the expedition may have reached the west coast of the Americas.
Yet in the 1430's due to "internal needs", China abandoned their seafaring expeditions, burned the ships and closed their ports, ceding exploration and colonization to Europe. It is only now, 600+ years later that China is getting anywhere close to where it was in the economic and political scheme of things back in the 15th century.
Thus, by choosing to abandon exploration and colonization in the past and only focusing on "internal needs", China condemned themselves to a catch up role up until our current times.
One may be a creationist and not believe in dinosaurs, global extinction events, etc... However, if you just look at historical events and extrapolate them to the argument that we should not pursue Mars due to "internal needs", then you can see what the geopolitical costs have been. At least China survived through the turmoil; natural cataclysms that bring about mass extinction events, by definition, are less kind.
I will provide a human historical example. During the 15th century, China and India essentially controlled 25-50% of the world's GDP (I recall reading about it in an Economist's article). At that time GDP was truly based on population. China embarked on seafaring voyages of exploration and power projection during the 1410-30's. Some speculate that portions of the expedition may have reached the west coast of the Americas.
Yet in the 1430's due to "internal needs", China abandoned their seafaring expeditions, burned the ships and closed their ports, ceding exploration and colonization to Europe. It is only now, 600+ years later that China is getting anywhere close to where it was in the economic and political scheme of things back in the 15th century.
Thus, by choosing to abandon exploration and colonization in the past and only focusing on "internal needs", China condemned themselves to a catch up role up until our current times.
One may be a creationist and not believe in dinosaurs, global extinction events, etc... However, if you just look at historical events and extrapolate them to the argument that we should not pursue Mars due to "internal needs", then you can see what the geopolitical costs have been. At least China survived through the turmoil; natural cataclysms that bring about mass extinction events, by definition, are less kind.
Chet
Member
You are correct. That is why, IMHO, exploration of Mars is and should be conducted by rovers/satellites, etc... Non-manned vehicles. Too expensive and risky to send people to Mars (as well as other systems) to simply explore.
Once the exploration phase has been "completed" then the colonization phase will begin. That's when the oxygen issue becomes relevant. Now there may be intermediate exploratory--colonization missions, but we shall see. I see the greatest challenge will be getting people home from Mars without the infrastructure in place.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Correct. I remember listening to Zubrin and one good point he mentions is that virtually no one can tell you who was king in which part of Italy in 1492 or indeed what rulings came from the pope that year, or about how king James IV of Scotland concluded his alliance with the French against England. But most know of Columbus "discovery" of America. Why? Because it is important now, 500 years later, to the people living now. Especially the people living in America!
This is why the year of the first manned mission to Mars will forever have a monumental place in every history book of humanity ever written, even far, far in to the future. In 2000 years, when humanity hopefully flourishes as a multi-planetary and perhaps even in some sense or another multi stellar, civilization, the first manned mission to Mars will be remembered and talked about. Edward Snowden, Donald Trump, the war in Yemen, etc. will be unknown to everyone except for the most spezialized historians.
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
I agree. Manned Mars base could study only small fraction of Mars. To study whole planet we need satellites, automatic and remote controlled equipment. Remote controlling from Earth is too slow. From orbit of Mars it would be easy. Virtual reality equipment is developing fast.
We don't know what resources moons offer, at least material for radiation shielding. So first manned Mars base should be on the moon. It takes less fuel to transport a ton from Earth to surface of martian moon, than to the Moon (with soft landing). Of course we should practice on the Moon because of shorter travel time.
Similar threads
