Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

RobertDyck · 2016-10-04 20:51:28

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

What sort of airplanes did we have in 1916?
<image of World War 1 biplane>
I think they looked something like this. How do you go from this
<image of Boeing 777>
to this in 70 years? What would be the early 22nd century equivalent to a 777 in space? Would it be those crude things we're talking about now?

The analogy I use is from this...

(Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk, December 17, 1903)

to this...

(Boeing 707, first flight December 20, 1957)

The Boeing 707 was the first modern jumbo-jet airliner. Notice commercial airliners haven't changed much. That was 54 years from the first aircraft ever to a commercial jumbo-jet. The first human in space was Yuri Gagarin, April 12, 1961. First American in space was Alan Shepard, May 5, 1961. That first flight "Freedom 7" was a suborbital hop, the Redstone rocket was not capable of propelling a Mercury capsule into orbit. But the first flight of the Wright Flyer barely got off the ground. They had to apply chalk to the skids to confirm it didn't drag across the grass. So for us, the space fans who lived through the space race, we expected commercial flights to space somewhere around 1961+54=2015. And I don't mean a Russian Soyuz to ISS, I mean this...

Why didn't it happen? No need = no money. No money means no engineers working on it. No talented people = no progress.

Many people did expect the Shuttle would be our first frequent access to space. Again using an aircraft analogy, the DC3 was a propeller aircraft, but it was a commercially successful airliner. It's first flight was December 17, 1935.

Wright Flyer to DC3 was 32 years. So from "Freedom 7" that would be 1961+32=1993. In that year we were flying this...

I read about proposals for a passenger module for the cargo bay. When it wasn't built, I drew up one myself. My drawing was "back-of-the-napkin".

Getting back to Tom's point. Once flights begin, expect vehicle technology will proceed rapidly. Once money is being spent, there will be commercial companies trying to get a piece of that money. They will try to develop a better vehicle so those paying money will buy their vehicle instead. Those companies will hire engineers, and provide manufacturing infrastructure to build those designs. Once there's money, progress should be rapid.

The planets align once every 26 months. Elon Musk said he envisions a fleet of ships collecting in space in preparation for alignment, then launching all at once. That may be how it starts, but would that evolve into something more like...

Dook · 2016-10-04 21:21:53

Another thing that some of you are missing:

Any spacecraft landing on Mars is not going to be able to hit a precise spot. I know you think that just because SpaceX can do it on a pad on Earth that Elon Musk can also do it on Mars. When SpaceX tested it's rocket it did not have that rocket leave the Earth, return using aerobraking, then land on the pad.

When you approach Mars you have to aerobrake in the atmosphere which slows you down, then you deploy parachutes to slow down further, then you eject the parachutes and fire your rockets to land.

The final rocket firing is very late in the process and does not give you enough time to move around and find a spot. Also, the late rocket firing is for landing. It won't be able to hover the vehicle and use it's rocket power to move the ship where you want to land.

In "The Case for Mars" Zubrin talks about NASA having about an 800 kilometer range from one landing to another for any manned mission. This is probably over cautious and would be lowered some with practice but even so supplies are not going to land near your base. You're going to have to go out and get them and then bring them back to base.

Mark Friedenbach · 2016-10-04 21:41:19

Void, I for one value your contributions here.

RobertDyck · 2016-10-04 22:33:15

Dook wrote:

Any spacecraft landing on Mars is not going to be able to hit a precise spot.
...
When you approach Mars you have to aerobrake in the atmosphere which slows you down, then you deploy parachutes to slow down further, then you eject the parachutes and fire your rockets to land.

That's the usual way to land on Mars. Viking, Phoenix, and Mars Direct used that method. However, Dragon does not use a parachute. It is a blunt body with heat shield, using the atmosphere to break at hypersonic and supersonic speed. Then uses rockets to land. This requires more propellant. There are many analyses that show this uses so much more propellant that total mass is greater than using a parachute. However, Elon Musk stated they chose this method because the same craft can land on different bodies with minimal modification: Earth, Moon, Mars.

Promotional video shows Dragon landing on a concrete landing pad on Earth. If he can do it on Earth, he can do it on Mars. May require a homing beacon, because Mars does not have GPS satellites. But that's easy.

Impaler · 2016-10-05 02:19:21

Musk's core premise that a colony will lead to transportation technology and then profitable business is ass backwards.

Profitable business opportunities lead to transport tech development, and once transport tech is cheap enough the famous voyages of discovery or colonization efforts are done with the standard run of the mill ship of the day, often RENTED as was the case for Columbus and the Pilgrims on the Mayflower. The existence of the transport technology was never dependent on getting large numbers of people to take risky voyages to discover or colonize a new land, the tech depended on routine freight activity that employed the vast majority of the transport capacity available.

In today's context space travel technology is supported by the routine launch of satellites, this is to our technology what hauling dried cod was to the caravel. That market has already driven the cost of space access down a huge amount and it is the 'forcing function' Musk wants but doesn't acknowledge already exists. We will see space colonized when the gradual improvement and growth of markets make the launch volumes high enough and costs low enough that vehicles like what Musk propose are normal and commercially sound and someone can just rent one for a few tens of millions to go where they want.

Terraformer · 2016-10-05 03:50:55

Dook,

Your entire argument is based on the premise that nothing will change over the next century. No space infrastructure for refuelling. Space launch remaining as expensive as it is now. A grindingly slow space programme being the only way anything is getting done in space.

If you want to speak to an engineer, GW Johnson is around. But he doesn't seem to be anywhere near as pessimistic as you. In fact, I don't recall anyone on this site being as pessimistic as you.

louis · 2016-10-05 09:31:20

Dook, I can only think you are living in the past with references to Zubrin. The rocketry has moved on substantially. Musk isn't proposing a parachute for his Mars lander as far as I know.

Dook wrote:

Another thing that some of you are missing:
Any spacecraft landing on Mars is not going to be able to hit a precise spot. I know you think that just because SpaceX can do it on a pad on Earth that Elon Musk can also do it on Mars. When SpaceX tested it's rocket it did not have that rocket leave the Earth, return using aerobraking, then land on the pad.
When you approach Mars you have to aerobrake in the atmosphere which slows you down, then you deploy parachutes to slow down further, then you eject the parachutes and fire your rockets to land.
The final rocket firing is very late in the process and does not give you enough time to move around and find a spot. Also, the late rocket firing is for landing. It won't be able to hover the vehicle and use it's rocket power to move the ship where you want to land.
In "The Case for Mars" Zubrin talks about NASA having about an 800 kilometer range from one landing to another for any manned mission. This is probably over cautious and would be lowered some with practice but even so supplies are not going to land near your base. You're going to have to go out and get them and then bring them back to base.

Dook · 2016-10-05 10:16:44

Terraformer wrote:

Dook,
Your entire argument is based on the premise that nothing will change over the next century. No space infrastructure for refuelling. Space launch remaining as expensive as it is now. A grindingly slow space programme being the only way anything is getting done in space.
If you want to speak to an engineer, GW Johnson is around. But he doesn't seem to be anywhere near as pessimistic as you. In fact, I don't recall anyone on this site being as pessimistic as you.

No, it's not. Of course things will change but change doesn't happen quickly. We will, absolutely, positively, have 1 million people on Mars, maybe in about 500 years from now. It's not going to happen in 50 years regardless of what we invent, not even close.

People don't want to go to Mars except a very small amount of extreme comic book reading adults who don't like their life on the Earth. Astronauts don't want to live on Mars forever, they will want to come home to their families.

I'm being realistic, you're not, not even close. Please provide details about how we can get 1 million people to Mars in 50 years. How do we build 300 launch sites and where do we build them, where do we get the money for all of that, also, maybe explain why we should do it because it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Do you realize that the US government is $20 trillion in debt as it is?

louis · 2016-10-05 10:29:00

I think it's more complicated than that. A large economy based on Mars will be able to fund its own rocket programmes. And a large economy does really - at least until the full robotics economy takes hold - require a large population.

I agree that until a Mars colony can pull its own weight, Earth based satellite launches are the cash cow that can fund Mars colonisation.

Impaler wrote:

Musk's core premise that a colony will lead to transportation technology and then profitable business is ass backwards.
Profitable business opportunities lead to transport tech development, and once transport tech is cheap enough the famous voyages of discovery or colonization efforts are done with the standard run of the mill ship of the day, often RENTED as was the case for Columbus and the Pilgrims on the Mayflower. The existence of the transport technology was never dependent on getting large numbers of people to take risky voyages to discover or colonize a new land, the tech depended on routine freight activity that employed the vast majority of the transport capacity available.
In today's context space travel technology is supported by the routine launch of satellites, this is to our technology what hauling dried cod was to the caravel. That market has already driven the cost of space access down a huge amount and it is the 'forcing function' Musk wants but doesn't acknowledge already exists. We will see space colonized when the gradual improvement and growth of markets make the launch volumes high enough and costs low enough that vehicles like what Musk propose are normal and commercially sound and someone can just rent one for a few tens of millions to go where they want.

Dook · 2016-10-05 10:43:16

louis wrote:

Dook, I can only think you are living in the past with references to Zubrin. The rocketry has moved on substantially. Musk isn't proposing a parachute for his Mars lander as far as I know.
Dook wrote:
Another thing that some of you are missing:
Any spacecraft landing on Mars is not going to be able to hit a precise spot. I know you think that just because SpaceX can do it on a pad on Earth that Elon Musk can also do it on Mars. When SpaceX tested it's rocket it did not have that rocket leave the Earth, return using aerobraking, then land on the pad.
When you approach Mars you have to aerobrake in the atmosphere which slows you down, then you deploy parachutes to slow down further, then you eject the parachutes and fire your rockets to land.
The final rocket firing is very late in the process and does not give you enough time to move around and find a spot. Also, the late rocket firing is for landing. It won't be able to hover the vehicle and use it's rocket power to move the ship where you want to land.
In "The Case for Mars" Zubrin talks about NASA having about an 800 kilometer range from one landing to another for any manned mission. This is probably over cautious and would be lowered some with practice but even so supplies are not going to land near your base. You're going to have to go out and get them and then bring them back to base.

Rocketry has moved on substantially? No, it hasn't. Same engines, same fuel, the only difference is that SpaceX can reuse it's spacecraft and land on a floating barge. From reading about it on Wiki three of the rockets that landed on the barge were destroyed on landing. The reusable rocket is the smaller one, not the heavy lift one.

By reusing the rocket components he is reducing the cost of going into space, which is nice, that helps get equipment to Mars if you can refuel or assemble components in space but the costs are not negligible. Putting things into space is still expensive, it's just that we can do a "little" more than we could before.

1 million people on Mars in 50 years is still impossible.

Last edited by Dook (2016-10-05 10:56:08)

Terraformer · 2016-10-05 10:58:40

If technology advances over the next 50 years as much as it has over the last 50, or the 50 before that, or the 50 before that, or the 50 before that...

louis · 2016-10-05 10:58:58

Dook, I have criticised Musk for being over-ambitious with the one million people plan.

I would agree that recruiting colonisers is going to prove more of problem than Musk seems to accept - those who are most likely to want to go will probably be the least appropriate (the psychologically immature, the poor and uneducated, the desperate, the mentally unstable, religious minorities, political extremists etc). I think you will need people who are the equivalent of top league university graduates. You are probably talking about a pool of little more than a couple of million people across the whole planet would make suitable candidates at this juncture. They need to be scientifically literate, highly skilled. They need to be responsible, sober, self-starters, disciplined, intelligent. Initially they need to be prepared to forego a family as well, since child bearing in one third G will be a no-no until much more research on the effects has been done.

However, just because I believe Musk is being overambitious doesn't mean a more modest Mars colony is not impossible with current technology and people resources. It is my view a permanent colony of 500-1000 could replicate virtually all the main technologies on Earth so as to be effectively self-sufficient and also be able to generate sufficient revenues to fund Earth-Mars transits.

Dook wrote:

No, it's not. Of course things will change but change doesn't happen quickly. We will, absolutely, positively, have 1 million people on Mars, maybe in about 500 years from now. It's not going to happen in 50 years regardless of what we invent, not even close.
People don't want to go to Mars except a very small amount of extreme comic book reading adults who don't like their life on the Earth. Astronauts don't want to live on Mars forever, they will want to come home to their families.
I'm being realistic, you're not, not even close. Please provide details about how we can get 1 million people to Mars in 50 years. How do we build 300 launch sites and where do we build them, where do we get the money for all of that, also, maybe explain why we should do it because it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Do you realize that the US government is $20 trillion in debt as it is?

Dook · 2016-10-05 11:00:46

Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan was to build a big rocket and have it put 28.6 tons on Mars.

Elon Musk's Heavy Falcon is planned to put 29.9 tons on Mars.

WOW! An extra 1.3 tons!

Holy smokes, those 1 million comic book reading adults better start getting lined up.

Hehe...

Last edited by Dook (2016-10-05 11:01:02)

Dook · 2016-10-05 11:03:57

Terraformer wrote:

If technology advances over the next 50 years as much as it has over the last 50, or the 50 before that, or the 50 before that, or the 50 before that...

Things don't advance forever, there are limits.

You guys are really upset about the 1 million people thing. I don't get it, why do you "think" it's important? It's really not.

People living on Mars is a burden to society, not an asset.

Dook · 2016-10-05 11:17:44

louis wrote:

Dook, I have criticised Musk for being over-ambitious with the one million people plan.
I would agree that recruiting colonisers is going to prove more of problem than Musk seems to accept - those who are most likely to want to go will probably be the least appropriate (the psychologically immature, the poor and uneducated, the desperate, the mentally unstable, religious minorities, political extremists etc). I think you will need people who are the equivalent of top league university graduates. You are probably talking about a pool of little more than a couple of million people across the whole planet would make suitable candidates at this juncture. They need to be scientifically literate, highly skilled. They need to be responsible, sober, self-starters, disciplined, intelligent. Initially they need to be prepared to forego a family as well, since child bearing in one third G will be a no-no until much more research on the effects has been done.
However, just because I believe Musk is being overambitious doesn't mean a more modest Mars colony is not impossible with current technology and people resources. It is my view a permanent colony of 500-1000 could replicate virtually all the main technologies on Earth so as to be effectively self-sufficient and also be able to generate sufficient revenues to fund Earth-Mars transits.

Dook wrote:
No, it's not. Of course things will change but change doesn't happen quickly. We will, absolutely, positively, have 1 million people on Mars, maybe in about 500 years from now. It's not going to happen in 50 years regardless of what we invent, not even close.
People don't want to go to Mars except a very small amount of extreme comic book reading adults who don't like their life on the Earth. Astronauts don't want to live on Mars forever, they will want to come home to their families.
I'm being realistic, you're not, not even close. Please provide details about how we can get 1 million people to Mars in 50 years. How do we build 300 launch sites and where do we build them, where do we get the money for all of that, also, maybe explain why we should do it because it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Do you realize that the US government is $20 trillion in debt as it is?

Elon Musk's over ambition is fooling the simple folk who don't know better.

It's your view that a permanent colony of 500-1000 could manufacture everything they need? That's because you don't have any idea of how many launches it would take to have a colony of 500 people on Mars.

500 people isn't just 500 people, it's habitat for 500, food for 500, water for 500, oxygen for 500, waste processing for 500, chairs, beds, bedrooms, kitchens, electricity, yes, even kitchen utensils. You haven't looked at how many launches it would take for all of that.

Mars colonists are not going to be able to make anything for a very long time except grow a little food, even that won't be enough. Everything will have to be delivered and if something breaks, which it will, now you're in trouble.

Terraformer · 2016-10-05 11:22:26

I actually don't think it likely we will see 1 million people on Mars in 50 years time. But I do think we will see an almost self-sufficient (needing only to import small high value items such as computer chips) colony of thousands by that point.

Whilst you believe that's centuries off, and that we'll only have a base supplied mainly from Earth and staffed by a rotating crew at that point.

GW Johnson · 2016-10-05 12:42:20

Well, any new market is a chicken-and-egg problem. It takes a visionary to (1) jump in when others say not to, and (2) do so with the right equipment.

Looking at the airline industry as an analog, before the mid-1920's, there wasn't any really profitable business. The available aircraft could barely do the job, and with too few passengers to be profitable. Prices were too high; there were not enough rich people wanting to travel uncomfortably by air to constitute something feasible. Without a established market, the financial "smarts" said do not invest in large, comfortable airplanes, too risky.

But Ford jumped in anyway with the TriMotor about 1927, followed soon after in 1933 by Douglas with the even larger, more comfortable, and more efficient DC-3. Boeing got there too late to do itself much good with its model 247. The Beech D-18 simply didn't haul enough passengers to be a feasible airliner.

The availability of these large, comfortable, and efficient aircraft literally created the airline market. Chicken-and-egg. It's only exploded from there, as we all know, after that slow start.

That is exactly what Musk is attempting to do for off-Earth space travel. In foresight, his giant ships look idiotically risky. 20-30 years from now in hindsight, they will be regarded as the visionary leap into the unknown that first created practical interplanetary travel.

By then, the growth of the market (that does not yet exist today) will have spurred the development of better propulsion, better radiation shielding, better life support, better space suits, and artificial gravity as the default choice. Colonization will be exploding from there, after a slow start.

Same as 500 years ago.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-10-05 12:45:33)

louis · 2016-10-05 13:58:43

You obviously don't understand Musk's plans. The point is that at $140,000 a tonne you can do it over and over again. Zubrin's 28.6 tonnes would have costed hundreds of millions of dollars every time.

Dook wrote:

Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan was to build a big rocket and have it put 28.6 tons on Mars.
Elon Musk's Heavy Falcon is planned to put 29.9 tons on Mars.
WOW! An extra 1.3 tons!
Holy smokes, those 1 million comic book reading adults better start getting lined up.
Hehe...

louis · 2016-10-05 14:25:47

I've studied these issues in detail before now. The vast bulk of stuff used on Mars can come from ISRU. You can craft bowls from basalt, make glass to use as containers, manufacture steel for knives and forks, grow bamboo to make furniture with. It will be a frugal society - people won't wear clothes two or three times before throwing them away; they won't have their own car; or be jetting off on holiday somewhere; they won't use paper except v. sparingly...all food waste will be recycled as compost, all scrap metals will be recycled...

Water is all over the place on Mars. But water can in any case be recycled.

Per capita waste (including recycled waste) in the UK at 100 million tonnes is less than 2 tonnes per person (including industrial processes, domestic and commercial waste, but excluding construction). Waste is a good stand in for usage. So 2000 kg per person.

I am sure given the absence of private cars, bikes, paper, large TVs, carpets, curtains, children's toys (no children to begin with) etc etc that figure will come tumbling down on Mars - probably be nearer 500 kgs per person.

If 95% of that is produced on Mars, that means per annum, for a colony of 500, you need to import 500 x 25Kgs = 12.5 tonnes.

12.5 tonnes is more than manageable.

Of course while the colony will be permanent, people will be coming and going. But as the colony becomes established and the health effects of low gravity are better known and/or addressed (e.g. if necessary with sleep centrifuges on Mars). The "tours of duty" will become extended. So maybe the replacement figure will be around 100 people per year. So you would have to factor in their transport each year. That will be the major requirement. That could probably be dealt with by 3 or 4 20-person Mars Transit vehicles.

After the first few decades, I think we will see the first true colonists, people who go to live on Mars on a permanent basis and wish to start families there.

There are already 3D printers on the ISS - why on earth couldn't Mars colonists make things from the beginning? They could for instance make compressed soil bricks as others have pointed out here.

Dook wrote:

Elon Musk's over ambition is fooling the simple folk who don't know better.
It's your view that a permanent colony of 500-1000 could manufacture everything they need? That's because you don't have any idea of how many launches it would take to have a colony of 500 people on Mars.
500 people isn't just 500 people, it's habitat for 500, food for 500, water for 500, oxygen for 500, waste processing for 500, chairs, beds, bedrooms, kitchens, electricity, yes, even kitchen utensils. You haven't looked at how many launches it would take for all of that.
Mars colonists are not going to be able to make anything for a very long time except grow a little food, even that won't be enough. Everything will have to be delivered and if something breaks, which it will, now you're in trouble.

GW Johnson · 2016-10-05 14:39:47

Wait, last I checked, Red Dragon is in the neighborhood of 5-6 tons dry weight, near 1.2 ton propellants, and something like 2 tons dead-head cargo. Falcon-Heavy is capable of shooting one of these direct to Mars without stopping in Earth orbit. For something like $120M expendable launch price. That's about $60M-per-ton-delivered to Mars. Same launch price delivers 53-54 ton to LEO for about $2M/ton delivered, a factor of 30 lower than Mars.

And absolutely nothing can come home out of that dead-head cargo except what is specifically designed to come home all by itself. Once on Mars, Red Dragon is stranded there. Period.

By refuelling in Earth orbit, re-using boosters and spacecraft, using LOX-LCH4, and making return propellants LOX and LCH4 on Mars, AND BY SCALING TO GIGANTIC SIZE, Musk wants to reduce that to $140,000 per ton delivered to Mars. Ton of cargo, one person, no difference.

Compare that to current $5-6M/ton delivered to LEO with the likes of Atlas-5, Soyuz, Ariane-5, and Falcon-9, with 10-20 ton payloads to LEO, far less to Mars. That's somewhere around $150-180M per ton delivered to Mars, if the same factor of 30 applies (no guarantees that it does !!!!). Actually, a Delta-Heavy sent a 1-ton Curiosity to Mars for around $500M per launch, for about $500M per ton delivered to Mars. I'm in the ballpark, anyway.

$140K/ton to Mars? $200K/ton to Mars? You just don't do that with the sort of small payloads and throwaway stages that all the other manned Mars mission plans assume. You can't. Not any more than you could've made a profit hauling passengers from A to B in an open-cockpit biplane circa 1925.

Anybody here ever heard of "economies of scale"? It's why the Ford TriMotor and Donald Douglas's DC-3 succeeded as airliners, when all the previous (and subsequent) smaller planes did not. That effect is a part of why Musk projects prices that incredibly low with his proposed giant rocket system.

For prices that low, life support is feasible for a few decades until the settlement finally reaches that self-sustaining point. Try to do this with current small/throwaway rocket thinking, and it always fails. Simple as that.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-10-05 14:44:38)

louis · 2016-10-05 14:59:26

That's true, GW but the economies of scale require the people - which leads on to the one million figure.

But how many people capable of being useful early permanent colonists to Mars do we think there are in the world? How many young women are going to foresake the chance of beginning a family? How many people have that combination of intelligence, useful practical ability, good scientific understanding, drive, psychological stability, good interpersonal skills, preparedness for self-sacrifice and so on in the world? - I mean among those who are prepared to give up living on Earth and relocate to Mars, abandoning family and friends forever or for many years, as Musk proposes? Such people are not going to be driven by poverty or oppression as most American migrants were.

In my view it's really a non-starter. There just won't be the suitable, I stress suitable, candidates for Musk's colonies in such large numbers.

That's why the economies of scale fail in this project and why we need the economies of frugality in the early stages - maximum ISRU and a frills-free lifestyle on Mars with a fairly rigid command system to begin with, and limited tours of duty.

GW Johnson wrote:

Wait, last I checked, Red Dragon is in the neighborhood of 5-6 tons dry weight, near 1.2 ton propellants, and something like 2 tons dead-head cargo. Falcon-Heavy is capable of shooting one of these direct to Mars without stopping in Earth orbit. For something like $120M expendable launch price. That's about $60M-per-ton-delivered to Mars. Same launch price delivers 53-54 ton to LEO for about $2M/ton delivered, a factor of 30 lower than Mars.
And absolutely nothing can come home out of that dead-head cargo except what is specifically designed to come home all by itself. Once on Mars, Red Dragon is stranded there. Period.
By refuelling in Earth orbit, re-using boosters and spacecraft, using LOX-LCH4, and making return propellants LOX and LCH4 on Mars, AND BY SCALING TO GIGANTIC SIZE, Musk wants to reduce that to $140,000 per ton delivered to Mars. Ton of cargo, one person, no difference.
Compare that to current $5-6M/ton delivered to LEO with the likes of Atlas-5, Soyuz, Ariane-5, and Falcon-9, with 10-20 ton payloads to LEO, far less to Mars. That's somewhere around $150-180M per ton delivered to Mars, if the same factor of 30 applies (no guarantees that it does !!!!). Actually, a Delta-Heavy sent a 1-ton Curiosity to Mars for around $500M per launch, for about $500M per ton delivered to Mars. I'm in the ballpark, anyway.
$140K/ton to Mars? $200K/ton to Mars? You just don't do that with the sort of small payloads and throwaway stages that all the other manned Mars mission plans assume. You can't. Not any more than you could've made a profit hauling passengers from A to B in an open-cockpit biplane circa 1925.
Anybody here ever heard of "economies of scale"? It's why the Ford TriMotor and Donald Douglas's DC-3 succeeded as airliners, when all the previous (and subsequent) smaller planes did not. That effect is a part of why Musk projects prices that incredibly low with his proposed giant rocket system.
For prices that low, life support is feasible for a few decades until the settlement finally reaches that self-sustaining point. Try to do this with current small/throwaway rocket thinking, and it always fails. Simple as that.
GW

Dook · 2016-10-05 15:14:36

Zubrin never said that NASA was efficient, in fact, he said the opposite. He came up with a way to get to Mars efficiently using NASA because that was the only US rocket company who could do it.

When SpaceX goes to Mars it's still going to have to take in Mars CO2 and break it down into oxygen, how's it going to do that? Oh, Zubrin's idea that NASA is working on now, the MOXIE unit will do that. Wow, must be nice to not have to design, test, and build all the equipment yourself, tends to make things cheaper, doesn't it?

What electricity source is SpaceX going to use? An RTG? Oh, did they come up with some revolutionary design for a new one or are they going to have to use one designed and built by US taxpayer money?

Is SpaceX building space suits or Mars suits? Oh, wait, you mean they're going to have to use NASA ones or ones based upon years and years of NASA research?

What about water recycling? What's SpaceX's plan there? Either a NASA one or one based upon years and years of NASA research.

How is Elon Musk a "visionary" when all he is doing is taking years and years of NASA research and development and doing one part of it more efficiently. He didn't even invent a new rocket engine. He's not using any new fuel, it's still hydrogen and oxygen.

NASA isn't just about Mars, they have spacecraft going to other places so it's budget isn't all on Mars.

Don't get me wrong, cheaper is great, it's fantastic. We can do more, quicker. Ain't going to get us 1 million people on Mars in 50 years. That should never be the goal anyway.

I have no problem with going to Mars, going to Mars on a freakishly accelerated schedule takes on too much risk and Elon Musk has to have a freakishly fast launch schedule to make money and it always has to work. If he has a big failure or a series of failures he loses his customer base.

Last edited by Dook (2016-10-05 15:39:07)

kbd512 · 2016-10-05 15:41:47

louis wrote:

But how many people capable of being useful early permanent colonists to Mars do we think there are in the world? How many young women are going to foresake the chance of beginning a family? How many people have that combination of intelligence, useful practical ability, good scientific understanding, drive, psychological stability, good interpersonal skills, preparedness for self-sacrifice and so on in the world? - I mean among those who are prepared to give up living on Earth and relocate to Mars, abandoning family and friends forever or for many years, as Musk proposes? Such people are not going to be driven by poverty or oppression as most American migrants were.

You don't really believe your own BS about people needing advanced degrees to be farmers, do you?

Sure, you need some scientists and engineers. If none are willing to go, that says a lot more about the willingness to sacrifice to advance humanity of our "learned betters" than it does about the common man or woman, doesn't it?

Are you serious about the comment about not starting families? Do you keep up with many demographic trends in western countries? Most women aren't having any children. Most young adults just want to have sex without consequence.

louis wrote:

In my view it's really a non-starter. There just won't be the suitable, I stress suitable, candidates for Musk's colonies in such large numbers.

The people who came from England weren't really suited for life in the colonies here in America. Initially, some died, but last time I checked many others lived.

Maybe the Mexicans who come to the US who can't speak a word of English aren't very "suitable" Americans, but they do seem to be pretty damn industrious and don't whine or cry about their living conditions nearly as much as the coddled little university students and faculty members who need their safe spaces because they can't deal with the fact that someone else disagrees with them.

louis wrote:

That's why the economies of scale fail in this project and why we need the economies of frugality in the early stages - maximum ISRU and a frills-free lifestyle on Mars with a fairly rigid command system to begin with, and limited tours of duty.

Frugality is already practiced by our poor, un-educated immigrants we have here. And it will be practiced on Mars, too.

I have pairs of pants that are older than my children and still regularly use them to do yard work. They still fit and that's good enough for me.

Dook · 2016-10-05 15:52:15

louis wrote:

I've studied these issues in detail before now. The vast bulk of stuff used on Mars can come from ISRU. You can craft bowls from basalt, make glass to use as containers, manufacture steel for knives and forks, grow bamboo to make furniture with. It will be a frugal society - people won't wear clothes two or three times before throwing them away; they won't have their own car; or be jetting off on holiday somewhere; they won't use paper except v. sparingly...all food waste will be recycled as compost, all scrap metals will be recycled...
Water is all over the place on Mars. But water can in any case be recycled.
Per capita waste (including recycled waste) in the UK at 100 million tonnes is less than 2 tonnes per person (including industrial processes, domestic and commercial waste, but excluding construction). Waste is a good stand in for usage. So 2000 kg per person.
I am sure given the absence of private cars, bikes, paper, large TVs, carpets, curtains, children's toys (no children to begin with) etc etc that figure will come tumbling down on Mars - probably be nearer 500 kgs per person.
If 95% of that is produced on Mars, that means per annum, for a colony of 500, you need to import 500 x 25Kgs = 12.5 tonnes.
12.5 tonnes is more than manageable.
Of course while the colony will be permanent, people will be coming and going. But as the colony becomes established and the health effects of low gravity are better known and/or addressed (e.g. if necessary with sleep centrifuges on Mars). The "tours of duty" will become extended. So maybe the replacement figure will be around 100 people per year. So you would have to factor in their transport each year. That will be the major requirement. That could probably be dealt with by 3 or 4 20-person Mars Transit vehicles.
After the first few decades, I think we will see the first true colonists, people who go to live on Mars on a permanent basis and wish to start families there.
There are already 3D printers on the ISS - why on earth couldn't Mars colonists make things from the beginning? They could for instance make compressed soil bricks as others have pointed out here.

Dook wrote:

Elon Musk's over ambition is fooling the simple folk who don't know better.
It's your view that a permanent colony of 500-1000 could manufacture everything they need? That's because you don't have any idea of how many launches it would take to have a colony of 500 people on Mars.
500 people isn't just 500 people, it's habitat for 500, food for 500, water for 500, oxygen for 500, waste processing for 500, chairs, beds, bedrooms, kitchens, electricity, yes, even kitchen utensils. You haven't looked at how many launches it would take for all of that.
Mars colonists are not going to be able to make anything for a very long time except grow a little food, even that won't be enough. Everything will have to be delivered and if something breaks, which it will, now you're in trouble.

You've studied the details for manufacturing on Mars? Great, please share. I'd really like to see all the details on how you make glass on Mars.

You can make craft bowls from basalt? You think people are going to pay $140,000 to go to Mars so they can make their own bowls from dirt? And make their own furniture out of bamboo?

Water is not all over the place on Mars. Ice is and it's mixed with regolith and frozen CO2. Do you know what happens when your habitat atmosphere goes over 1% CO2?

There are already 3D printers on the ISS? Then why aren't they making their own food, water, oxygen, other ISS modules, rocket fuel, building materials, glass, kitchen utensils? If the ISS has a 3D printer how come there isn't an economy between the ISS and the Earth?

kbd512 · 2016-10-05 16:09:05

Dook wrote:

You can make craft bowls from basalt? You think people are going to pay $140,000 to go to Mars so they can make their own bowls from dirt? And make their own furniture out of bamboo?

I'm guessing that you wouldn't. This is clearly going to be a revelation to you, but not everyone likes what you like or thinks the way you do.

Dook wrote:

Water is not all over the place on Mars. Ice is and it's mixed with regolith and frozen CO2. Do you know what happens when your habitat atmosphere goes over 1% CO2?

That'd be double the exposure limit for an eight hour work day in most places, but it's survivable for short periods of time.

Dook wrote:

There are already 3D printers on the ISS? Then why aren't they making their own food, water, oxygen, other ISS modules, rocket fuel, building materials, glass, kitchen utensils? If the ISS has a 3D printer how come there isn't an economy between the ISS and the Earth?

3D printing rocket fuel? Seriously?

ISS is a research laboratory located in a hard vacuum. There isn't much in the way of readily available resources.

Are there many research laboratories pumping out commercial products that I'm unaware of?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2016-10-04 20:51:28

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#27 2016-10-04 21:21:53

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#28 2016-10-04 21:41:19

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#29 2016-10-04 22:33:15

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#30 2016-10-05 02:19:21

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#31 2016-10-05 03:50:55

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#32 2016-10-05 09:31:20

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#33 2016-10-05 10:16:44

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#34 2016-10-05 10:29:00

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#35 2016-10-05 10:43:16

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#36 2016-10-05 10:58:40

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#37 2016-10-05 10:58:58

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#38 2016-10-05 11:00:46

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#39 2016-10-05 11:03:57

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#40 2016-10-05 11:17:44

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#41 2016-10-05 11:22:26

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#42 2016-10-05 12:42:20

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#43 2016-10-05 13:58:43

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#44 2016-10-05 14:25:47

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#45 2016-10-05 14:39:47

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#46 2016-10-05 14:59:26

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#47 2016-10-05 15:14:36

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#48 2016-10-05 15:41:47

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#49 2016-10-05 15:52:15

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

#50 2016-10-05 16:09:05

Re: Elon Musk wants to populate Mars with 1 million people to save humanit

Board footer