SpaceX Mars colony predictions

[Ralathon]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Protecting the planet includes surveying and alleviating cosmic threats, which is still much cheaper than building colonies on other planets.

Besides, there aren't any credible cosmic threats that would leave less survivors on Earth than a colony on Mars. Even if you wipe out 99.9% of the World's population, there will still be more survivors than a Mars colony could ever support. If we have the technology to build self-sufficient habitats on Mars, then we can also build self-sufficient habitats on a scorched Earth. Having a colony on Mars has no effect on our chances of survival as a species. There is no backup. If we lose Earth, we lose everything, and there won't be anybody left to be sad about it, so it won't really matter anyway.

While I agree with your "No colonization anytime soon" standpoint, you're strawmanning here. The argument in favor of colonization is mainly insurance for human made catastrophes and backing up our economy. If we had a nuclear exchange right now our post apocalypse descendents could get stuck on the tech level of the 1800's. Since we consumed all the easily accessible fossil fuels their economic recovery would be severely depressed. It could take a very long time before they crawl back towards our tech levels without a cheap and plentiful energy source. If you have several economies running in parallel (Read, self sufficient bases) you have a much better chance crawling back out of the post apocalypse hole.

It is hard to have such parallel economies on earth, since they share the same biosphere. If we build a bunch of self sufficient colonies on Antarctica and proceed to nuke ourselves, the resulting fallout and climate change is going to ruin those economies as well. You need a good deal of isolation between the 2. So that means deep underground, deep underwater or space. Of those the latter is the easiest in terms of energy availability, engineering challenges and potential for growth.

[Temstar]

2 hours ago, Ralathon said:

The argument in favor of colonization is mainly insurance for human made catastrophes and backing up our economy. If we had a nuclear exchange right now our post apocalypse descendents could get stuck on the tech level of the 1800's. Since we consumed all the easily accessible fossil fuels their economic recovery would be severely depressed. It could take a very long time before they crawl back towards our tech levels without a cheap and plentiful energy source.

Those are hardly good argument for colonisation. One would think a good solution to the problem of nuclear war is disarmament (SALT, Comprehensive Test Ban, etc), and solution to running out of fossil fuel is to find alternative energy source (4th gen reactor, fusion, renewable etc). Using those problems as justification for colonisating other planets is the "all you have is hammer" school of problem solving.

If you want a good reason for coloisation it has to be along the line of "we're colonising mars because we need lots of boots on mars to do *insert economic activity here*, and that will make us a shed load of money". Then that colonisation effort will really get going. Otherwise you'll never convince people to pay for colonisation in the long term, weather those people be investors or tax payers.

Alternatively, if you pitch the idea to the government that we need a science station on Mars, something not unlike a more advanced version of what we have at Antarctica for the purpose of research and gain some political capital while we're at it too, and I have a way to achieve this cheaper than what we previously thought it will cost us then this might actually happen. But if you start rambling on about domed cities and terraforming and you ask for 500 billion dollar budget then you'll just have a repeat of the 90 Day Study that will hurt the credibility of the manned space flight program.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Temstar

[fredinno]

14 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Is there any way you could change your mind?

This is Nibb, so no.

13 hours ago, Gaarst said:

Indeed, this shows how SpaceX could reduce the price of a ticket to $500,000.
Though I would like to make a comment on this, a short one, a single word actually:

Assumptions.

Reality is not a fairy tale. And SpaceX are not magicians. This article just makes too much ridiculous assumptions for its arguments to be realistic. Sure, what it says is possible, but I think that Mars spontaneously moving in Earth orbit is more likely than all these predictions coming true.

It would be a great thing if it happened, but there are just so much unpredictable variables that could knock down SpaceX's ambitions at any moment. Predicting technological advances of the next few years is almost impossible, let alone those up to over 20 years. Economists didn't see the 2008 economic crisis arrive. Astronomers were baffled by New Horizons' images of Pluto. Facebook came out of nowhere and has become one of the most powerful companies in less than 10 years. Ebola appeared from nowhere too, was supposed to wipe out humanity, and is now disappearing, all of this in 2 years. The Space Shuttle was supposed to lower the costs of space travel immensly (reminds me of something)... And I can go on.
Therefore, arbitrarily dividing costs by hundreds over the next ten years or so is fantasy.

 

Also, I find your "It shouldn't take too long" unnecessary and somewhat condescending. Interpreted it wrong, nevermind.

Actually, many economists saw the Housing Bubble Crash coming- the growth was based off loans that would almost certainly eventually go bad.

13 hours ago, Spaceception said:

"It shouldn't take too long" was for the article. And you're right, there are a lot of things that are unpredictable, but I have faith this will succeed, not just because SpaceX is doing incredible things (Even if they're not always on schedule), but because people all over the world will want to take part in humanity's greatest adventure, and if that sounds like MarsOne, I admit, it does, but SpaceX is much more trustworthy, with.lot's of credibility behind them, so this time, It'll be different. I guess it does sound like wishful thinking, but I believe this will succeed, one way or another, Elon Musk will make this work, just like when people said he wouldn't be able to make an electric car company, he made a electric car company, and it's working really well, or when he tried to make a new space program, people said it wouldn't work, and yet, it's one of the most notable space programs out there now, Musk will put a colony on Mars, I just know it.

Faith and Kool-Aid drinking much?

13 hours ago, The Yellow Dart said:

I also think that once SpaceX starts serious work on Mars, NASA and ESA will want to partner with them, pooling resources and making this more feasible. I think Elon would be more than happy to do this as he only cares about achieving the goal, not how it happens. NASA has thus far been very open to and encouraging of SpaceX's innovations and ambitions.

But NASA will demand it makes use of Orion/SLS, or else their investments in it will be worthless .

[fredinno]

13 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Well, there is the possibility that the price tag will be higher in the beginning, and the $500k price tag doesn't come until the first few "Colonial fleets". Who knows? I guess we'll have to save our judgement until SpaceX lays down the plans in (Hopefully) a couple of months.

I honestly think Elon should stop all this MCT nonsense until he makes a normal reusable HLV as an interm, and uses these to make the initial exploratory missions, which will likely take maybe a decade to complete the research and construction necessary to need BFR. When that happens, build a BFR pad, and add core boosters to the original HLV.

9 hours ago, Ralathon said:

While I agree with your "No colonization anytime soon" standpoint, you're strawmanning here. The argument in favor of colonization is mainly insurance for human made catastrophes and backing up our economy. If we had a nuclear exchange right now our post apocalypse descendents could get stuck on the tech level of the 1800's. Since we consumed all the easily accessible fossil fuels their economic recovery would be severely depressed. It could take a very long time before they crawl back towards our tech levels without a cheap and plentiful energy source. If you have several economies running in parallel (Read, self sufficient bases) you have a much better chance crawling back out of the post apocalypse hole.

It is hard to have such parallel economies on earth, since they share the same biosphere. If we build a bunch of self sufficient colonies on Antarctica and proceed to nuke ourselves, the resulting fallout and climate change is going to ruin those economies as well. You need a good deal of isolation between the 2. So that means deep underground, deep underwater or space. Of those the latter is the easiest in terms of energy availability, engineering challenges and potential for growth.

If that's the main reason to build colonies, I would just build on the Moon. Has a reasonable about of resources, is far closer and easier to get to, and we might actually see antarctic-style bases there by 2100.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Temstar said:

If you want a good reason for coloisation it has to be along the line of "we're colonising mars because we need lots of boots on mars to do *insert economic activity here*, and that will make us a shed load of money". Then that colonisation effort will really get going. Otherwise you'll never convince people to pay for colonisation in the long term, weather those people be investors or tax payers.
 

Still, the rocket equation looks at potential Mars-seekers straight in the eye, haunting them.

[Temstar]

12 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Still, the rocket equation looks at potential Mars-seekers straight in the eye, haunting them.

Still, there is that one "if you plow the field, the rain will come" type view that I think has some merit. Basically we don't know how to make money by going to space, but we assume there are ways and we go to space anyway and look for them. I understand that this is pretty much Planetary Resources's business case and they get funded by billionaires as their pet hobby project.

[fredinno]

6 minutes ago, Temstar said:

Still, there is that one "if you plow the field, the rain will come" type view that I think has some merit. Basically we don't know how to make money by going to space, but we assume there are ways and we go to space anyway and look for them. I understand that this is pretty much Planetary Resources's business case and they get funded by billionaires as their pet hobby project.

NASA is at least interested in their project, and has injected a couple million into it, which means there IS a business case...

[Temstar]

3 minutes ago, fredinno said:

NASA is at least interested in their project, and has injected a couple million into it, which means there IS a business case...

Yeah ARM would help Planetary Resources a lot. Imagine if ARM managed to grab a dirty snowball and around the same time people figure out how to do propellant depot. Suddenly that snowball is going to be worth more than it's weight in solid gold.

It still won't provide a justification for setting up a colony on mars, but it would at least make going to mars easier.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Temstar said:

Yeah ARM would help Planetary Resources a lot. Imagine if ARM managed to grab a dirty snowball and around the same time people figure out how to do propellant depot. Suddenly that snowball is going to be worth more than it's weight in solid gold.

It still won't provide a justification for setting up a colony on mars, but it would at least make going to mars easier.

We CAN do propellant depots though if we get our gears grinding today, it just doesn't currently have the omph! to take off. Granted, it would probably still cost a few billion, but things like IVF for long-term storage, and Sun sails have already been proven.

[Spaceception]

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

Faith and Kool-Aid drinking much?

A little bit, I guess, but based on what Elon has done in the past, he's pretty consistent, if someone says it can't be done, he does something to prove them wrong, even if it's just on paper, he shows how it could be done (SpaceX, Tesla, Hyperloop ((Becoming closer to reality as we type)), Ultrafast internet, Electric jet ((Possibly)), and soon, a Mars colony). Like I said earlier: You never know the pages you haven't read yet.

[Robotengineer]

On January 14, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Nibb31 said:

Not gonna happen. There are simply no reasons for society to spend billions on a Mars colony. The MCT is a bridge to nowhere. I think the business case won't close and Elon will be sad.

1. Society isn't spending the billions, Musk and the other SpaceX investors are. 
2. Even if the Mars plan fails, the BFR will still be useful for large payloads.
3. Business case? What business case? SpaceX has never been about turning a profit just to turn a profit. The whole point of SpaceX is to establish a permanent human presence on another planet.

[Spaceception]

7 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

1. Society isn't spending the billions, Musk and the other SpaceX investors are. 
2. Even if the Mars plan fails, the BFR will still be useful for large payloads.
3. Business case? What business case? SpaceX has never been about turning a profit just to turn a profit. The whole point of SpaceX is to establish a permanent human presence on another planet.

Thank you!

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

1. Society isn't spending the billions, Musk and the other SpaceX investors are. 

Musk "only" has a personal fortune of $14 billion. To put it into perspective, $14 billion is peanuts when it comes to aerospace projects. It's pretty much what it cost Airbus to develop the A350, which is a rather conventional aircraft based on an existing design. 

But that money is tied up in his companies. He can't spend any of his fortune, because he would have to sell his shares, which would crash the companies and he would lose billions. For example, SpaceX is valued at $2.5 billion. If he wanted to sell $1 billion in shares, the value of the company would crash and he'd be in deep trouble. This is why, like most billionnaires, Musk lives on credit.

As for other investors, they put money into the business because they expect a return on investment. And so do the banks who lend him money.

Quote

1. Even if the Mars plan fails, the BFR will still be useful for large payloads.

Without the MCT, the BFR suffers from the same problem as SLS. There are no large payloads to launch.

Quote

1. Business case? What business case? SpaceX has never been about turning a profit just to turn a profit. The whole point of SpaceX is to establish a permanent human presence on another planet.

You need to be financially viable, otherwise you're going nowhere. Even though he's a billionnaire, Musk can't just throw his money away. SpaceX is a business and has to generate revenue in order to survive. He needs to at least break even, which requires some sort of business plan.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Spaceception said:

A little bit, I guess, but based on what Elon has done in the past, he's pretty consistent, if someone says it can't be done, he does something to prove them wrong, even if it's just on paper, he shows how it could be done (SpaceX, Tesla, Hyperloop ((Becoming closer to reality as we type)), Ultrafast internet, Electric jet ((Possibly)), and soon, a Mars colony). Like I said earlier: You never know the pages you haven't read yet.

You're sounding like a fanboy. Musk says a lot of things. He does some of what he says (generally much later than announced) and there is also a whole lot of stuff that he gives up and forgets: reusable upper stages, telecom constellation, hyperloop, etc...  Also Tesla loses $200 million every year and SolarCity isn't too healthy either.

Elon Musk isn't God. He's a human being like everybody else, and he screws up just as often as we all do.

[Spaceception]

On 1/14/2016 at 5:55 PM, Bill Phil said:

But Mars isn't the only option. And neither is Venus, there's a third option that's actually profitable, albeit after a decade or more. It can be done in our own back yard. It ensures survival even better than Mars does. It can sit at a point where it takes little energy to get to Earth, and little to get to the moon. Rotating space colonies. And if we're really clever, they can actually provide profit in the obtainment and selling of asteroid resources. And taxing the population.

Btw, profit is a huge motivation. The first colonies in the Americas were focused on profit. Yeah, it's not Mars. But the cost needs to be lowered, and the benefits increased/kept the same, for colonization to make sense.

And a few hundred people who need to have parts imported from Earth, while living in a bad situation, won't save the species.

Here, go wild with this, but keep it of this forum please.  http://lifeboat.com/ex/ark_i

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, Spaceception said:

A little bit, I guess, but based on what Elon has done in the past, he's pretty consistent, if someone says it can't be done, he does something to prove them wrong, even if it's just on paper, he shows how it could be done (SpaceX, Tesla, Hyperloop ((Becoming closer to reality as we type)), Ultrafast internet, Electric jet ((Possibly)), and soon, a Mars colony). Like I said earlier: You never know the pages you haven't read yet.

Mars direct was considered overly optimistic, and costs $30 to $50 billion  to implement the first mission.  How is Elon going to get all that? Not to mention this doesn't include the costs to make BFR, or the first proving ground robotic missions.

Edited January 15, 2016 by fredinno

[Spaceception]

5 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Mars direct was considered overly optimistic, and costs $30 to $50 billion  to implement the first mission.  How is Elon going to get all that? Not to mention this doesn't include the costs to make BFR, or the first proving ground robotic missions.

Revenue from satellite launches, $500k or (Much more likely) greater price tag per passenger, and rapid reusable rockets to lower costs. I don't know how else they'll get money though, generous investors maybe? Maybe NASA will give them a couple of contracts to get stuff to Mars for them.

[fredinno]

2 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Revenue from satellite launches, $500k or (Much more likely) greater price tag per passenger, and rapid reusable rockets to lower costs. I don't know how else they'll get money though, generous investors maybe? Maybe NASA will give them a couple of contracts to get stuff to Mars for them.

'$500k or (Much more likely) greater price tag per passenger.'

Likely greater, but you would need most of the money available beforehand for that.

'I don't know how else they'll get money though, generous investors maybe? Maybe NASA will give them a couple of contracts to get stuff to Mars for them.'

Dream on. Investors can't get money from this, and NASA-Mars is a pipe dream, TBH.

[Spaceception]

Maybe people all over the world will beg their governments to provide funding for this mission after the first colonists are on Mars, maybe space agency's all over the world will help out with funding. Maybe people will give money to the project, not to go to Mars themselves, but to aid the most exciting mission in the history of mankind. Who knows?

A quote from the wait but why article:

"And then, something will start to happen.

The hardest part will be over, and more people will want to go.

The first return ships will come back with people, and it’ll remind everyone on Earth that it doesn’t have to be a one-way ticket—and more people will want to go.

The people who come back to Earth will be commended for their courage, some of the people on Mars will write best-selling books about their experience, and others will film a little TV show about the early settlement and become household names on Earth—and more people will want to go.

People on Earth will see gorgeous photos of Martians hiking around on Olympus Mons and in Valles Marinaris, a mountain and canyon far bigger than any on Earth—and more people will want to go.

People will hear about being able to jump off a 20-foot cliff without hurting yourself and watch viral YouTube clips of new kinds of extreme sports that can only be played with Mars’ 38% gravity situation—and more people will want to go

 

And in case you were wondering if this is going to be a vacation jaunt, Musk explains, “It’s not going to be a vacation jaunt. It’s going to be saving up all your money and selling all your stuff, like when people moved to the early American colonies.” But he also points to the excitement and novelty of getting to found a new land—an experience that stopped being possible on Earth centuries ago: “There will be lots of interesting opportunities for anyone who wants to create anything new—from the first pizza joint to the first iron ore refinery to the first of everything. This is going to be a real exciting thing for people who want to be part of creating a civilization.”

End quote.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Spaceception

[FishInferno]

I voted 2026, because I believe this is when they will begin sending unmanned MCTs with rovers to begin preliminary setup.  But I think the first manned mission will be in 2029.

[Robotengineer]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Mars direct was considered overly optimistic, and costs $30 to $50 billion  to implement the first mission.  How is Elon going to get all that? Not to mention this doesn't include the costs to make BFR, or the first proving ground robotic missions.

Any NASA mission proposal takes into account all of the bureaucracy that one has to get past to actually launch. These are the people who pay $380 million for a launch from ULA that would cost $90 million from SpaceX. In that same exact sentence Zubrin noted that a privately funded mission could be done for $5 billion. 

“While Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range.” Source

[Spaceception]

1 minute ago, Robotengineer said:

Any NASA mission proposal takes into account all of the bureaucracy that one has to get past to actually launch. These are the people who pay $380 million for a launch from ULA that would cost $90 million from SpaceX. In that same exact sentence Zubrin noted that a privately funded mission could be done for $5 billion. 

“While Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range.” Source

Every manned ship SpaceX takes to Mars will likely cost $7 Billion dollars however, since it's 100 people, not 12, but I totally agree with you, private company's like SpaceX could definitely lower the cost enormously of putting people on Mars.

[ChrisSpace]

56 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Every manned ship SpaceX takes to Mars will likely cost $7 Billion dollars however, since it's 100 people, not 12

where are you getting that number from?

[Spaceception]

35 minutes ago, ChrisSpace said:

where are you getting that number from?

It's a guess based on sized comparison.

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, Robotengineer said:

Any NASA mission proposal takes into account all of the bureaucracy that one has to get past to actually launch. These are the people who pay $380 million for a launch from ULA that would cost $90 million from SpaceX. In that same exact sentence Zubrin noted that a privately funded mission could be done for $5 billion. 

“While Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range.” Source

I assumed that would only be what NASA pays- things like CCDev had companies paying partially out-of-pocket.

5 hours ago, Spaceception said:

Every manned ship SpaceX takes to Mars will likely cost $7 Billion dollars however, since it's 100 people, not 12, but I totally agree with you, private company's like SpaceX could definitely lower the cost enormously of putting people on Mars.

Actually, Mars Direct was 4 people. MCT is many orders of magnitude larger (and probably more expensive)

Edited January 16, 2016 by fredinno