Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-03 10:29:49

Here are just a few numbers for ya...

If the 436 registered members of this forum all donated $1,000 to a long term Mars fund this year, we (or our great-grandchildren) will have amassed $28 billion to start a Mars exploration program by the year 2118.

If we (just the 436 of us) contribute $1,000 each year for forty years and then just let it earn interest we will have $24 billion in 90 years. My daughters might still be around then.

If we up the anty to a one time $10,000 payment we would have $35 billion in 93 years.

If we could commit to $10,000 every year for forty years, in just 69 years we would be in business with $30 billion. I would be 95 by then and with sufficient advances in medicine I might live another 30 years to see it off to a good start.

Make check or money order payable to:

Ryan Trent
1922 Franklin
Alamosa CO 81101

dicktice · 2003-04-03 10:39:38

Please detail for me/us how all that money, if we had it now, would be used to get to Mars! No, seriously....

Palomar · 2003-04-03 10:53:27

*It is sobering. A few years ago I was either watching a video or reading an article (don't recall which) when a space exploration plan for 2039 was discussed. I jumped on that, excited...then realized how old I'll be in 2039.

Wake up call ::hits self on side of head::

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-04-03 11:03:40

And...just how old would that be, Cindy? I ask, because once known, we (all of us in the same boat, so to speak) can start proposing ways and means feasible within our lifetimes, of (at least witnessing) humans landing of Mars. It's called (or should be) the Columbus-to-India syndrome. You do what's just about impossible for you in your time, just to see what's there! I think yer great, by the way!

Palomar · 2003-04-03 11:14:05

And...just how old would that be, Cindy? I ask, because once known, we (all of us in the same boat, so to speak) can start proposing ways and means feasible within our lifetimes, of (at least witnessing) humans landing of Mars. It's called (or should be) the Columbus-to-India syndrome. You do what's just about impossible for you in your time, just to see what's there! I think yer great, by the way!

*Hi Dicktice. I'll turn 74 in 2039. Okay, so that's not super-old...but it's quite a thought, looking at it from a 30-something point of view!

Thanks for the compliment, too.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-04-03 11:20:21

Here is something to consider that may be a bit more worthwhile, and lead to a shorter time:

Start a Politcal Action Committe (PAC) for the sole purpose of lobbying for Humans to Mars.

The PAC then uses funds to support canadites who will support legislation for Human to Mars. the PAC funnels election money to those individuals that are pro-human mars exploration.

You don't need billions to do this. Millions will suffice.

A few hundred million and we can buy the support of a few dozen senators or congressmen- at least in the US.

Just another option to consider that is within our reach.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-03 11:33:58

The investment money would simply be put into a long term widely diversified portfolio. A little bit of interest could possibly be shaved off the top for precursor missions, experiments, planning, etc. Or some of it could be used to promote the cause and raise more money to speed things up.

I assume an average long rang rate of return of 10%.

The total sum of 20-30 billion dollars would simply use whatever technology was available at the time to get the job done. Probably mars direct style if it started today. I'm not the engineer just the fund raiser.

I would suggest making it a sustainable venture. We could use the fund as a growing perpetuity. Just spend half the interest and reinvest the rest. This would keep the program viable till the end of time (or the end of wall street), and it would keep the fund growing faster than inflation. We could also sell our launch vehicles, habs, cyclers, etc. if we wanted to move things along a little faster.

Did I answer your question?

RobertDyck · 2003-04-03 11:38:28

We have no way of knowing if currency as we know it today would exist by 2118. If it does, inflation could reduce that $28 billion to 10? in 2003 dollars. If you invest in stocks, the company may go belly-up, if you buy bonds the company may go bankrupt, if you simply deposit in a savings-and-loan bank it may collapse. A lot can happen in 115 years. Compare the economic power of the U.S. 115 years ago (in 1888) to European countries of the day; then look at the U.S. today. Europe was the economic/industrial power of the world until World War 1. Now look at how many countries the U.S. is going to war with. Again, a lot can happen in 115 years.

You can plan long-term projects such as terraforming to last over a century, but they must be part of an on-going and growing economy. We have to get something started now, something that can be self-sustaining and grow. Until a profit making venture is initiated, any work toward Mars will be a drain on our resources which cannot be sustained. How do we get over that "hump"? How do we start making a profit, so the venture can fund its own continuation and growth? For a country, investment in space provides military assets such as spy satellites and GPS positioning. Large projects like the ISS and a manned mission to Mars can provide an outlet for national competition which distracts from war. Preventing the expense of war is a direct economic benefit for a country, but an organization like ours needs a direct return on investment.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-03 11:39:32

Clark, we just seem to go head to head a lot don't we?

I'm a Libertarian! I don't want to use tax dollars. I don't want to try to maintain a political consensus either.

I wouldn't complain if it did get done that way though. Getting to Mars comes before reforming our political system in my book.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-03 11:50:06

Robert,

I agree that a lot can happen in 115 years. That's why we need to raise the money a lot faster.

But, the U.S. economy has averaged a 10% increase over the last 100 years. If the U.S. is getting into trouble then we just need to actively manage the account.

First, diversification protects the account from local downturns. It should be invested throughout the world not just in U.S. stocks.

Actively managing the account, we can find new countries with booming economies, catch waves of startup wonders, get out of bad markets before they crash, etc.

It can be done...you just don't want to wait that long, right? :;):

clark · 2003-04-03 11:51:02

Clark, we just seem to go head to head a lot don't we?

I get that a lot.

Not faulting your plan there, just pointing to something that may be a bit more cost effective in the long run.

I'm a Libertarian! I don't want to use tax dollars.

As is your right. However, might I suggest that your objection to use of tax dollars, while noble, is a bit misguided. The tax money will be spent, so why not try to influence how it is spent so that it is spent in a manner *we* agree is worthwhile.

It seems you are for using tax dollars for some things, so why not this?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-03 12:00:32

I coudn't agree more clark.

If the tax dollars are going to be spent, spend 'em on good ole Mars. I say cut the military budget in half and spend $150 billion every year on Mars. (Don't worry Republicans, we would still have the largest military in the world.)

But, as a Libertarian I say give it back to the people you stole it from in the first place.

Bill White · 2003-04-03 12:58:36

But, as a Libertarian I say give it back to the people you stole it from in the first place.

The existence and even handed enforcement of fair and sensible regulation is essential to the substantial accumulation of wealth. Well crafted government regulation and prudent public investment in things like infrastructure significantly raise the economic potential for everyone in a particular society.

The existence and funding of the FDIC, for example, or the SEC allows people to engage in profitable activity with less fear of fraud and therefore greatly enhances the global economy. Money goes into banks to fuel the economy and not mattresses to stagnate because people can count on the FDIC if the bank fails. Business folk want predictability and quick and certain recourse for breach of contract and for that you need strong government.

The tax dollars you snipe at helped create the goose that is laying all these golden eggs that make things like going to Mars financially feasible.

And - if you deny that things like sensible zoning regulations and building codes and strictly enforced title registration systems increase the value of people's property, well, you are simply wrong.

Sensible government regulation allows an economy to increase the "velocity of money" so that a given quantity of wealth can support a higher standard of living for all. Libertarian and anarchy based systems cannot accomplish the higher velocities of money that mixed systems can achieve.

Okay - put the soapbox away now. . .

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 14:03:11

I think that idea of making a workable Mars colony here on Earth could push us pretty far as far as colonizing or even just getting to Mars goes. We need a good idea of how we're going to exist on Mars. Small habs which keep us alive isn't enough, in my opinion. The trip to Mars isn't a big deal. Radiation risks are not a big deal. The big deal is getting there and lasting for a long while with very little or no outside assistance. I know, this kind of thing could be quite a ways off, but once we got it working here on Earth (a working colony which recycles all its waste, produces all its food, etc), it could be applied anywhere. Luna, Mars, Venus, anywhere (where enough energy is present).

And the technology and information created by this, could be resold by the Mars Society for a marginally small cost, until we've recieved enough money to actually land one of our own designs on Mars.

But by and large, I totally agree with Robert. A 100+ years time is a long time. It's hard to try to predict that far.

I'll be 63 in 2039. Personally, I don't feel like waiting.

Oh, BTW, Bill, I've always maintained that anarchy would be best suited for an economical / technological plateau, so I can agree with what you said.

Bill White · 2003-04-03 14:17:59

Oh, BTW, Bill, I've always maintained that anarchy would be best suited for an economical / technological plateau, so I can agree with what you said.

And, Josh, I agree with your point as well.

Once (if?) humans stop being selfish about money and status then anarchy is obviously the system that will emerge as best.

But note - even the availablity of limitless physical resources does not eliminate competition over status. How many of us have more than enough wealth to live comfortable lives yet remain jealous of others who have more?

clark · 2003-04-03 14:27:23

Once (if?) humans stop being selfish about money and status then anarchy is obviously the system that will emerge as best.

But are we even human at that point?

Bill White · 2003-04-03 14:33:42

Bill: Once (if?) humans stop being selfish about money and status then anarchy is obviously the system that will emerge as best.

clark: But are we even human at that point?

Bill: Probably not. We would be rather god-like, no? That is why my interest in anarchy is purely academic and speculative.

Bill White · 2003-04-03 14:51:30

I know, this kind of thing could be quite a ways off, but once we got it working here on Earth (a working colony which recycles all its waste, produces all its food, etc), it could be applied anywhere. Luna, Mars, Venus, anywhere (where enough energy is present).

Sadly, Josh, I view this as pretty unlikely. Its a question of scale-ability.

Earth works as a more or less closed ecology (powered by sunlight) because of its vast scale. Terran oceans are but one example of the enormous buffers needed to prevent shocks or disturbances pushing environmental conditions to a point where life cannot be sustained.

I believe the issue to address is "brittle-ness"

To scale down an entire ecology to a point where a small community can survive without trade strikes me as nearly impossible for a long time to come. An ecology needs shock absorbers and cushioning and early Mars settlements will need giant stockpiles of surplus food, water and energy "just in case" they encounter random bad luck. Subsistence agriculture allows no margin of error. A crop fails and you die.

Trade with Earth can supply those surpluses even if all Mars "trades" in return is prestige and publicity for the settlers' Terran patrons.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 14:52:41

But note - even the availablity of limitless physical resources does not eliminate competition over status.

I think it plays a very big role. Without a way to contrast your wealth to someone else, you can't really tell how wealthy you are.

The main reason a switch to anarchy would work, is, like I said before, because there would be way more people would would benefit from such a switch than there would be those who would lose out. I have an anarchistic personality, so I honestly can't say how everyone would react, but I can tell that the conditions for a majority of humans could be improved by leaps and bounds, so that's how I come to that conclusion.

Yes, there would still be competition over status (nice use of words there). Preserving the status quo will be a major hurtle in the future, though. Who wants to lose their power? But would it really matter on the scale of things? I don't think people in starving nations care much for status, and would rather just have a roof over their head and something to eat.

clark · 2003-04-03 15:01:48

The main reason a switch to anarchy would work, is, like I said before, because there would be way more people would would benefit from such a switch than there would be those who would lose out.

More people would win out than lose if we all paid 100% taxes too. Why isn't that just as reasonable?

I say it dosen't work for the same reason communism dosen't work: We may be equal, but we are hard wired to try not to be.

Think about it, from an environmental and darwinian point of view, a species that is equal, or strives for some kind of equality, is not equipped to deal with new conflicts in as flexible a manner if the species was unequal.

What are the two governing principles of all ideologies?

The rights of the individual versus the responsibility of individuals to one another.

All politcal discourse attempts to balance these two pieces of the equation.

? I don't think people in starving nations care much for status, and would rather just have a roof over their head and something to eat.

Careful with your words. Such arguments have been used for the legitiamte enslavement of entire peoples. But I digress...

Bill White · 2003-04-03 15:03:26

Yes, there would still be competition over status (nice use of words there). Preserving the status quo will be a major hurtle in the future, though. Who wants to lose their power? But would it really matter on the scale of things? I don't think people in starving nations care much for status, and would rather just have a roof over their head and something to eat.

Amartya Sen is very useful here.

Today, human starvation is all about power. Starvation only occurs where political disruptions destroy pre-existing food distribution systems. Warlords starve peasants to gain political advantage. American food conglomerates dump massive amounts of free food and (un)intentionally bankrupt the local farmers with gestures intended to show goodwill.

If folks didn't care about power and status, our Earth already produces enough food and other wealth for all 6 billion of us to live in peace and harmony, if we were so inclined.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 15:04:54

clark,

But are we even human at that point?

What makes us human is our experiences, desires, and so on, not our political or societal structure. You have to show that we'd lose our experiences, desires, and so on to show that we'd not be human.

Bill,

To scale down an entire ecology to a point where a small community can survive without trade strikes me as nearly impossible for a long time to come.

Why?! Most early societies did live this way, living off the land, as it were. Hey, look at the Hawaiians, or any other early Island socities.

We don't have to scale down an entirely ecology. That's what clark thought, too. All the attempts to do biosphere research were silly, because that's exactly what they tried to do, they tried to emulate Earth. We don't do that, we just emulate what we need. A hydroponic garden can grow consistently for a long time, it doesn't rely on many outside interactions. Some bacteria, water, and light, and there you go. Just recycle your waste, and it gets disolved back into the system.

A biosphere would require everything from predatory insects to small animals, you have to complete the circle as best you can.

I fiddle with my hydroponic plants every now and then, they require very little care, really, as long as everything is functioning. If I had a large garden of hydroponic plants, and it supplied my food, all I'd need to do is figure out how to convert my waste into something the plants could use. Not a difficult prospect.

Yes, I accept that there would be variences, but I've said before that we'd need a surplus. I should dig up the thread about subsistence agriculture...

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-03 15:08:15

If folks didn't care about power and status, our Earth already produces enough food and other wealth for all 6 billion of us to live in peace and harmony, if we were so inclined.

Very true, indeed. But we could put them out of business, as it were, with plentiful resources. Then the real wars would break out. They would claim that we were stealing from them (they'd have already patented something vague which could be interpreted as a method we're using). Then we'd have an interestingly little police state. I think though, that in the end, they would wind up being powerless, because there are still more of us than there are them. Just let them make things easier for us, and we'd be set.

clark · 2003-04-03 15:08:41

What makes us human is our experiences, desires, and so on, not our political or societal structure.

Our societal structure is a function of who we are as a species.

What about our experiences or desires make us 'human'? What is the integral piece of human experience that seperates us from chimps?

Our desires are in large part the result of our societal structures and our politcal ideologies (well, just ideologies), so wouldn't changing these change our desires, thus making us less 'human' as we know it?

I am more than ready to discuss this, as I have serious views on this.

Bill White · 2003-04-03 15:35:17

Why?! Most early societies did live this way, living off the land, as it were. Hey, look at the Hawaiians, or any other early Island socities.

"Gaia" (I only use the word as a loose metaphor) created enormous bio-surplus before humans ever arrived in Hawaii or modern day North America. On Mars, we need to make those surpluses from scratch, as it were.

In Hawaii, living off the land meant climbing a tree for coconuts or hunting feral pigs or fishing in a sea that had so many fish you could walk from island to island on their backs. On Mars, living off the land means turning iron oxide contaminated dust into bread. That said, I have hope we can do just that *IF* settlers have access to the resources of Earth while doing it.

When humanity arrived on Earth, plentiful game, fish, clean water pre-existed in abundance and early humans just soaked up the surplus. Given our tendency to extinct other species and disregard ecology, I am not 100% confident we will not extinct ourselves by overwhelming the enormous bio-reserves pre-existing on Earth BEFORE our species ever came into existence.

Actually - I have understated the point. Don't forget it took non-human life maybe a billion years to "terra-form" Earth and establish a climate and atmosphere fit for us to live in.

Very true, indeed. But we could put them out of business, as it were, with plentiful resources. Then the real wars would break out. They would claim that we were stealing from them (they'd have already patented something vague which could be interpreted as a method we're using). Then we'd have an interestingly little police state. I think though, that in the end, they would wind up being powerless, because there are still more of us than there are them. Just let them make things easier for us, and we'd be set.

Be careful with "us and them." Power and status is addictive stuff and every human being, you, me, clark, cindy, Saddam, Gandhi and Mr. Rogers enjoys the sensation of power and status. Anyone who says "not me" is a liar - either to us or to themselves (which is worse IMHO).

You cannot defeat the love of power or fame by being more powerful than "those other guys" who openly admit they love power.

In real life, the Tolkien "Ring of Power" cannot be destroyed and therefore Frodo can have no final escape from its temptation.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-03 10:29:49

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#2 2003-04-03 10:39:38

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#3 2003-04-03 10:53:27

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#4 2003-04-03 11:03:40

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#5 2003-04-03 11:14:05

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#6 2003-04-03 11:20:21

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#7 2003-04-03 11:33:58

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#8 2003-04-03 11:38:28

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#9 2003-04-03 11:39:32

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#10 2003-04-03 11:50:06

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#11 2003-04-03 11:51:02

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#12 2003-04-03 12:00:32

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#13 2003-04-03 12:58:36

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#14 2003-04-03 14:03:11

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#15 2003-04-03 14:17:59

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#16 2003-04-03 14:27:23

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#17 2003-04-03 14:33:42

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#18 2003-04-03 14:51:30

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#19 2003-04-03 14:52:41

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#20 2003-04-03 15:01:48

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#21 2003-04-03 15:03:26

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#22 2003-04-03 15:04:54

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#23 2003-04-03 15:08:15

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#24 2003-04-03 15:08:41

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

#25 2003-04-03 15:35:17

Re: Mars only 115 years away! - Now all I need are some longevity drugs.

Board footer