You are not logged in.
Skip to 1:56.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDbKThy2zYk
One million people on Mars by 2050! Insane!!
I don't doubt that Musk, can - if all goes well - do the technology (1000 Starships to Mars every 2 years).
The problem is not with the technology, it's with the people. Where are you going to get your one million people for permanent settlement of Mars? We're not referencing people going there for the purposes of scientific experiments, exploration or tourism...Musk is clearly talking about permanent settlers.
Even with loans, you won't get the right people there. Unless Musk is planning on shipping, at his own expense, one million criminals, religious fantatics, unskilled labourers, mentally unstable individuals and desperadoes of various kinds, there is absolutely no way he can get anywhere that number within 30 years.
It is clear to me that permanent settlers on Mars will need to be highly educated, possessed of lots of relevant skills, mentally resilient and physically fit - also within a narrow age range of probably 25-50. You are already down to maybe 100 million people on Earth. That's before you start ruling out people who are quite happy with their life on Earth. The problem for Musk is that the person specification for Mars settlers is also the person specification for every big company, scientific institution and university on the planet. These people will already have been snapped up. They will be leading comfortable, well rewarded lives on the home planet. Why should they give up their pleasant Earth-based lifestyle for the unknowns of Mars - on a permanent basis?
I think a programme of permanent settlement on Mars will be hard to implement. It won't be impossible but it will be very, very difficult.
There are so many things you will have to balance - skills, age, race, gender...
We should begin by looking on the Mars settlement as a permanent settlement but not a settlement of permanent residents. It will be more like an Antarctice base for the first few decades.
Before we can even think about attracting permanent settlers we need to undertake rigorous health checks over at least 10-20 years I would say because living in low gravity will be an ongoing health challenge. We need to be assured that it is likely humans can live healthily on Mars. Then, also, we need to create Earth-like environments (ELEs) that will appeal to humans and be part of a good quality of life.
Finally we can't attract human settlers to Mars on a false prospectus - we need to establish (over maybe 20-30 years) that humans can successfully procreate on Mars.
Once everything is in place, yes we can start thinking in terms of a permanent settler drive. But I very much doubt that you are going to be able to attract more than say 10,000 per annum being people who can deliver what Mars needs.
Of course things would change if Earth experienced some sort of horrendous catastrophe - meteorite strike, plague virus or nuclear weapon exchange. If it was a mega-catastrophe involving deaths in the tens of millions or more, then of course people would suddenly become highly motivated to move to Mars.
Last edited by louis (2020-01-22 04:26:06)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
1,000 ships!
Offline
Yep, he wants to deliver a million tons of "stuff" as well. That would certainly be enough to kick-start human civilisation on Mars but - the people? He doesn't seem to have analysed the "people problem" properly yet.
1,000 ships!
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I just be happy if we will have a permanent settlement of 10-20 residents.
I agree that the numbers don't fit and we need to build likable places before start a real colonization.
Before that... just industrial and scientific outposts.
That's the reason because I think that we must do a "robotic colonization" before the human colonization.
A manned outpost? No problem. In fact, a hybrid manned/automated work could be beneficial to allow the fast deployment that allow the industrialization needed to fast build real homes.
Real homes needes...
Plenty of space.
(Fake) open spaces (big closed spaces with good illumination.
Artificial gravity.
Radiation protection at levels needed for live a whole life without high risk of premature cancer.
Good local food and water.
The level of services needed to raise a child. Healthcare, education, security, etc. etc.
If we reach that level, a lot of people could see Mars as a potential home, a place to live. If not... only adventurers and pionners will accept to go, and even less to stay there for a long time or ever.
Offline
Looking purely at transportation costs, Mars has a bid disadvantage relative to the moon, as Musk's 'starship' will take 2.5 years to make a round trip. Imagine how much an aeroplane ride would cost, if each ticket had to cover 2.5 years of capital cost payments? It is safe to say, that the average starship will make no more than 10 round trips in its lifetime.
Transporting 1million people to Mars, along with all of the equipment they need; would work better if the starships were used purely as surface-orbit transporters from Earth and Mars. A dedicated space-based ferry would be a cheaper option for orbit-orbit transport. It could make use of bulk materials sourced from the Martian moons as reaction mass.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
I agree with your list, apart from artificial gravity (as I think the wearing of weighted suits and shoes will pretty much take care of muscle and bone loss - though there may be further low gravity effects that need to be addressed through space medicine).
I think the idea of a spacious "ideal home" would be attractive.
For "open spaces" there is a something of a contradiction between greater illumination (which I agree is important) and radiation protection. That's one of the reasons I favour using natural or artificial gorges in which to create Earth-like environments, with Earth-derived flora and even fauna. We can then use water or ice filled roof vaults to cover the area exposed at the surface. Interior illumination could be enhanced either by artificial light in the natural spectrum or by light pipes. In the absence of real wind, rain and direct sunlight, I think swimming will be very important.
Food harvested on Mars will be fresh and of high quality.
Health and education services should be of the highest quality.
I think given that Antarctica has a summer population of some 5000, it should not be that difficult to get the population up to 10,000 temporary residents purely on the back of scientific expeditions, exploration missions and all the back up services required.
Mars is potentially much more inviting than Antarctica as a permanent home. I would put it on a par with living in a very hot country like Dubai or a very cold one like Sweden, where a lot of the time is spent in the air-conditioned indoors/car. Your home is air conditioned and/or heated, likewise your car, your office, the mall, the gym/leisure centre etc.
I just be happy if we will have a permanent settlement of 10-20 residents.
I agree that the numbers don't fit and we need to build likable places before start a real colonization.
Before that... just industrial and scientific outposts.That's the reason because I think that we must do a "robotic colonization" before the human colonization.
A manned outpost? No problem. In fact, a hybrid manned/automated work could be beneficial to allow the fast deployment that allow the industrialization needed to fast build real homes.Real homes needes...
Plenty of space.
(Fake) open spaces (big closed spaces with good illumination.
Artificial gravity.
Radiation protection at levels needed for live a whole life without high risk of premature cancer.
Good local food and water.
The level of services needed to raise a child. Healthcare, education, security, etc. etc.If we reach that level, a lot of people could see Mars as a potential home, a place to live. If not... only adventurers and pionners will accept to go, and even less to stay there for a long time or ever.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
For "open spaces" there is a something of a contradiction between greater illumination (which I agree is important) and radiation protection.
Complicated, but not impossible, playing with mirrors. Mirrors don't reflect dangerous radiation and I guess is more efficient than capture & create new artificial light.
And I think that artificial gravity is a requirement, at least in some places. For babies, resting places for sleep or recovery, etc.
Not necessary the whole colony, but specific places at least.
Horizontal position (resting) helps allowing smaller rotary buildings (sickness is reduced in this circunstance)
Offline
Thanks, I was wondering whether any harmful radiation would be passed on if you used reflectors. Certainly that could resolve some of the issues, but water/plastic/gel filled roofs for domes present problems in terms of the structual weight. The lower gravity will help I guess.
Yes you are right: artificial gravity may well be required for foetal development and babies. Otherwise? I am not so sure.
My feeling is that humans will be able to live happily in 0.38 G but of course that hunch of mine can only be tested by people living there.
louis wrote:For "open spaces" there is a something of a contradiction between greater illumination (which I agree is important) and radiation protection.
Complicated, but not impossible, playing with mirrors. Mirrors don't reflect dangerous radiation and I guess is more efficient than capture & create new artificial light.
And I think that artificial gravity is a requirement, at least in some places. For babies, resting places for sleep or recovery, etc.
Not necessary the whole colony, but specific places at least.
Horizontal position (resting) helps allowing smaller rotary buildings (sickness is reduced in this circunstance)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
The mass for reflected can be done with light mass materials and framing to hold its shape for mars and it give at a minimum 400 w for each meter which we desire to use it with. Solar is only going to give you at best 30% of the 430 w which strikes it for use. Using plastics that take the temperature and pressures which can be coated with different materials to slow degrading of the clear plastics and filtering of what would go through to the inside. We can build internal water pillows on stilts that are to filter radiation once we are to ocupy the structure.
The ship count is Battle star galatica as if we are fleeing earth as a mass disaster is to come....
Offline
Impossible? No.
Insane? Slightly
Improbable? Most likely.
Offline
Depends what you mean by "impossible"! Musk's plan doesn't defy the laws of physics but I just don't believe there are one million people on Planet Earth who have (a) the right skill set for Mars (b) the willingness (no, strong desire) to move to Mars, probably leaving behind friends and families for good and (c) the intention of moving to Mars by 2050 (paying their own way or having to pay back a loan from a loan from Elon).
Insane? I'd say truly insane. You'd be hard pushed to get 10,000 permanent settlers on Mars by 2050.
I like Musk's ambition but I prefer it when his ambition is within the realm of the feasible.
Impossible? No.
Insane? Slightly
Improbable? Most likely.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Funny that the 1000 starships actually means 10 ships of 100 people to mars every cycle...when he has none as of yet....
Offline
If we built true interplanetary transports / not-so-miniature space stations (ITV's- we've discussed this concept at some length) with artificial gravity and electric propulsion, using Starships only to ferry people between those ships and planetary surfaces, then this plan looks a whole lot saner. There's nothing to stop us from sending people in ITV's holding 10,000 people each. If the objective is to create a second branch of humanity on another planet in a human lifetime, then we're going to need that kind of labor force to do it. Sending 100 people at a time or building 1,000 ships is just silly. We'll need to siphon off planetary atmospheres to source the quantities of propellants needed, but we'll have plenty of propellant to work with if we don't waste our time with pure chemical propulsion and taking unnecessary things to and from orbit thousands of times.
Offline
The question of where to get 1,000,000 projected settlers is a good one. Australia may ultimately serve as a model, but I hope not.
Just for giggles and grins, everyone here who is a SciFi fan should obtain a copy of the novel "A Desert Called Peace;" author Tom Kratmann. In the book, a new Earth-like planet is discovered which is accessible through what is probably a wormhole through time-space. Initially, after discovery, Earth rushes to populate the new world by all the nations; ultimately, the UN decides to ship entire "problem populations" to the New World, called rather creatively (not!), Terra Nova. All of Israel is sent there; all the Arabic Fundamentalist Moslems are sent there. Many whole rebellious populations of Central American dictatorships are sent there. Fundamentally creating a new world filled with interclan and intergroup warfare far beyond that on Earth. So...rule out Mars as the dumping ground for all dissident populations and criminals.
Offline
Oldfart1939,
Dang it! I was planning on sending all of our communists to Mars. You just ruined the entire plan. Alright then, back to the drawing board.
Offline
Oldfart,
Mars *is* named for the Roman god of war. I see nothing wrong with turning it into Ethniklashistan.
What's the IQ threshold for space settlement? If it's 120, then you're talking about only taking the top 10% of the population, before getting into other considerations. Then there's the countries the settlers will be taken from - almost all of which are East Asian, European, or Anglo-colonial - which means that 10% will be drawn from perhaps 3 billion people at most. Of those 300 million, how many will pass the physical test, or be of the right age? How many have the right skills? How many could be taken before causing serious problems for those left behind (brain drain)?
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
1000 people every two years? - that might give you 12,000 people by 2050 - excluding returnees of course.
No - I think his plans are far more ambitious than that. Remember, he's thinking in terms of 3 flights per day per Starship. And there is probably something like a 2 month orbital fuelling window before the Starships set off for Mars. So I think he means more like 1000 Starships to Mars every 2 years in the twenty years leading up to 2050.
As I said - insane!
The people aren't there and the money probably won't be either, as a result.
Possibly he's been indulging in too much whacky baccy.
Funny that the 1000 starships actually means 10 ships of 100 people to mars every cycle...when he has none as of yet....
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
There's a lot of sense in developing orbit to orbit travel, I agree. But of course Musk has to build his city at the same time as importing people for his model to work - while at the same time not having enough people on the ground to "build a city" before his one million settlers arrive! People are certainly not going to move to Mars to live in tin cans.
For a clever guy, he's come up with a very stupid plan. But that wouldn't be the first time in history.
If we built true interplanetary transports / not-so-miniature space stations (ITV's- we've discussed this concept at some length) with artificial gravity and electric propulsion, using Starships only to ferry people between those ships and planetary surfaces, then this plan looks a whole lot saner. There's nothing to stop us from sending people in ITV's holding 10,000 people each. If the objective is to create a second branch of humanity on another planet in a human lifetime, then we're going to need that kind of labor force to do it. Sending 100 people at a time or building 1,000 ships is just silly. We'll need to siphon off planetary atmospheres to source the quantities of propellants needed, but we'll have plenty of propellant to work with if we don't waste our time with pure chemical propulsion and taking unnecessary things to and from orbit thousands of times.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I think it will be the other way round! Any "problem" people on Mars will be returned to Earth, certainly until people are being born there.
But there is a high risk that religious fanatics funded by billionaires on Earth would use Musk's scheme to export their religious fanaticism to Mars, creating fundamentalist communities on Mars.
The question of where to get 1,000,000 projected settlers is a good one. Australia may ultimately serve as a model, but I hope not.
Just for giggles and grins, everyone here who is a SciFi fan should obtain a copy of the novel "A Desert Called Peace;" author Tom Kratmann. In the book, a new Earth-like planet is discovered which is accessible through what is probably a wormhole through time-space. Initially, after discovery, Earth rushes to populate the new world by all the nations; ultimately, the UN decides to ship entire "problem populations" to the New World, called rather creatively (not!), Terra Nova. All of Israel is sent there; all the Arabic Fundamentalist Moslems are sent there. Many whole rebellious populations of Central American dictatorships are sent there. Fundamentally creating a new world filled with interclan and intergroup warfare far beyond that on Earth. So...rule out Mars as the dumping ground for all dissident populations and criminals.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
This is my logic as well. Once you start looking at those percentages you will see that your selection pool is actually quite small, especially if you are restricting it in order to balance genders and other population groups.
If you then get down to your "starting pool" and ask "how many of these highly successful, highly skilled and mostly very affluent people in the 25-50 age range will actually want to relocate to Mars?" you are going to be getting down to maybe thousands or even hundreds.
But even then the group will get whittled down. Family and friends will put pressure on them to stay. Many will fail various tests unexpectedly. Many will return even after going to Mars.
Oldfart,
Mars *is* named for the Roman god of war. I see nothing wrong with turning it into Ethniklashistan.
What's the IQ threshold for space settlement? If it's 120, then you're talking about only taking the top 10% of the population, before getting into other considerations. Then there's the countries the settlers will be taken from - almost all of which are East Asian, European, or Anglo-colonial - which means that 10% will be drawn from perhaps 3 billion people at most. Of those 300 million, how many will pass the physical test, or be of the right age? How many have the right skills? How many could be taken before causing serious problems for those left behind (brain drain)?
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Oldfart,
Mars *is* named for the Roman god of war. I see nothing wrong with turning it into Ethniklashistan.
What's the IQ threshold for space settlement? If it's 120, then you're talking about only taking the top 10% of the population, before getting into other considerations. Then there's the countries the settlers will be taken from - almost all of which are East Asian, European, or Anglo-colonial - which means that 10% will be drawn from perhaps 3 billion people at most. Of those 300 million, how many will pass the physical test, or be of the right age? How many have the right skills? How many could be taken before causing serious problems for those left behind (brain drain)?
Simply having an IQ120 selection criterion, would make Martians a rather 'white' people. I'm guessing that most of the western nations would score higher, were it not for the contamination of ethnic-immigration.
https://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812
Last edited by Calliban (2020-01-23 06:56:46)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Calliban,
In both my past life in the military and in corporate life now, I've dealt with people from across our planet- every ethnicity / creed / religion / nationality / walk of life. The only common denominator I've ever found between intelligent people is the fact that they are intelligent. No matter what people look like or where they come from, the only contamination of our culture that I've seen stems from self-destructive ideas rooted in subversive or nihilist ideology that values adherence to the ideology above all else. While we're on this topic, I can think of no more self-destructive of an idea than tribalism, which seeks to define, polarize, and pit people against each other based upon superficial characteristics. Whether or not some vague kernel of truth is captured within that tribalism, for what little that's worth, it certainly doesn't help to unite people and bring about the better angels of our nature.
In about 99% of cases, I think we're much better off eschewing tribalism and learning to love each other, despite our numerous and varied faults. I generally believe that intelligent people implicitly understand the wisdom of that line of reasoning. I also believe that witnessing the results first-hand when we fail to do that serves as a poignant reminder of the need to use all of our intelligence to attain wisdom.
Offline
Calliban,
Given the sheer number of Chinese people, even before accounting for the higher IQ of East Asians, selection on IQ alone would most likely make Homo cosmoi Eurasian. The Hapa nationalists would turn out to be right.
But East Asia isn't won't producing many young people, and they don't have the pioneer culture of America (and other Anglo-colonial countries?).
Israel is, though, and the Ashkenazim are very smart. They also have experience colonising a hostile environment. Martian culture could take on a very Jewish flavour.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Calliban,
Given the sheer number of Chinese people, even before accounting for the higher IQ of East Asians, selection on IQ alone would most likely make Homo cosmoi Eurasian. The Hapa nationalists would turn out to be right.
But East Asia isn't won't producing many young people, and they don't have the pioneer culture of America (and other Anglo-colonial countries?).
Israel is, though, and the Ashkenazim are very smart. They also have experience colonising a hostile environment. Martian culture could take on a very Jewish flavour.
Terraformer, you may be right. For the record, I don't think making an IQ test a requirement for citizenship is a good idea. I am merely point out that it will skew population demographics in specific directions.
I think most of the world is tribalist. Maybe that isn't the best long-term survival strategy for the human race, but it is what it is.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
I'm not talking about IQ testing. But if you select people on the basis of qualifications and ability, you're going to be indirectly selecting for IQ anyway.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline