Nibb31 Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 49 minutes ago, B787_300 said: Also while the analogy to setling of America is not perfect it is okay. There were people who came to America in the 1600 and 1700s just to explore the continent. Also there will be minerals and other materials on Mars that might make it worth while to mine. Explorers are not settlers. Those 17th Century colonies also weren't very successful... There aren't any minerals on Mars that would be economical to trade with Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcube Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 16 hours ago, Rakaydos said: Elon Musk wants to change that about mars... Is he gonna bring it in bottles ? Along with the water ? This project is very cool but seems really unrealistical to me... It looks like a billionaire's fantasy. What's the point in colonizing Mars ? It's like a bottomless hole you throw money into Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishInferno Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 19 hours ago, Bill Phil said: There's no profit in going to Mars. Elon Musk didn't fund SpaceX for profit. He founded it to give humanity a second home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 39 minutes ago, FishInferno said: Elon Musk didn't fund SpaceX for profit. He founded it to give humanity a second home. No... He founded it because he's an eccentric billionaire who loves rockets. And he makes quite a bit of money from other sources. And he's not even doing the Mars One stuff, that's a different guy entirely. And Mars won't be much of a home for centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishInferno Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 9 minutes ago, Bill Phil said: And he's not even doing the Mars One stuff, that's a different guy entirely. And Mars won't be much of a home for centuries. How dare you associate Musk with that thing called Mars One?:P I never said that MO was Musk's thing. And someone has to start the process of cononiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 29 minutes ago, FishInferno said: How dare you associate Musk with that thing called Mars One?:P I never said that MO was Musk's thing. And someone has to start the process of cononiation. It doesn't have to be started. Not for a while. And most colonization efforts were done for quite a few reasons, profit being a big one. Not only that but planets themselves aren't goid colony sites. Imagine if, for a colony, the founding nation had to climb a waterfall to get to it. The colony wouldn't be founded. So why go to the extra effort of a gravity well? Especially when Mars' surface gravity isn't desirable and braking is difficult. Mars One is the only "famous" colonization effort put there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 3 hours ago, B787_300 said: Elon Musk didn't fund SpaceX for profit. No, but he still needs a business plan if he wants to raise the money to do it. He "only" has $14 billion, and that money is tied up in his companies so he can't spend it. And the people who go there are also going to need a business plan. People and corporations won't invest money if the only activity is survival. Somebody has to spend a lot of money to keep all those people alive, and it's only worth it if there is much more money to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisSpace Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 People thought people would be on Mars by 1980-1990. People thought there would be moon bases by the 80s. And guess who promised that? A government-run space agency! Your analogy does not work. There aren't any minerals on Mars that would be economical to trade with Earth. Well, obviously not now, when we have half a planet's resources at our disposal. But when certain minerals become extremely rare there will be a point where it suddenly becomes more economical to begin mining on Mars. I know that point is a very long way away, but it will happen. Imagine if, for a colony, the founding nation had to climb a waterfall to get to it. Well, how would you expect a settlement to grow on the open ocean? The problem with all orbital colony ideas is that they have no resources around them to independently grow themselves with. The only temporary solution is to build the colony on an asteroid, but that causes even more problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 13 minutes ago, ChrisSpace said: And guess who promised that? A government-run space agency! Your analogy does not work. Well, obviously not now, when we have half a planet's resources at our disposal. But when certain minerals become extremely rare there will be a point where it suddenly becomes more economical to begin mining on Mars. I know that point is a very long way away, but it will happen. Well, how would you expect a settlement to grow on the open ocean? The problem with all orbital colony ideas is that they have no resources around them to independently grow themselves with. The only temporary solution is to build the colony on an asteroid, but that causes even more problems. It's simple. The colony can move. It goes to an asteroid, mines it, and uses the resources. Or, better yet, bring the asteroids to the colony and build a bunch of em Gundam style. Except they used Juno... And I was using the waterfall analogy as a comparison of the required energy. In this case the ocean doesn't compare very well to space. Islands aren't mobile, you need to go below the surface to anchor the colony platform. In space, asteroids can be moved. Things can be built and be stable by then just being there. A free floating colony would use resources it gets to. They wouldn't take as much as a planet, especially one like Mars. These colonies can be built near to Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 28 minutes ago, ChrisSpace said: And guess who promised that? A government-run space agency! Your analogy does not work. Well, obviously not now, when we have half a planet's resources at our disposal. But when certain minerals become extremely rare there will be a point where it suddenly becomes more economical to begin mining on Mars. I know that point is a very long way away, but it will happen. Well, how would you expect a settlement to grow on the open ocean? The problem with all orbital colony ideas is that they have no resources around them to independently grow themselves with. The only temporary solution is to build the colony on an asteroid, but that causes even more problems. Ocean colonies can mine underwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBowman Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 We really need a 'killer app' for space industrialisation - something to take us beyond science and glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Findthepin1 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 There was a thing called Keep Mars Red. It was a petition to the UN to make Mars a big national park and not let any terraforming happen. I can't find it on the net anymore. Does anyone know what happened to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisSpace Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 52 minutes ago, Bill Phil said: It's simple. The colony can move. It goes to an asteroid, mines it, and uses the resources. Or, better yet, bring the asteroids to the colony And what happens if a rogue colony starts using its asteroid-redirection methods to throw rocks at Earth? In any case, the Moon and Mars have many resources that asteroids don't. Also, Mars is a much safer position since its atmosphere blocks out tiny meteors that would easily create a hull breach if the colony were somewhere else. 28 minutes ago, Findthepin1 said: There was a thing called Keep Mars Red. It was a petition to the UN to make Mars a big national park and not let any terraforming happen. Space Environmentalists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 What would happen? It would get intetcepted, and redirected. Earth has the same tech. Mars doesn't really have anything the asteroids don't. Neither does the moon. And the hulls of the colonies would be many meters thick. And if a meteorite hits it, and punctures it, not much would happen. The volume is so large that it would take a very long amount of time to lose a significant amount of th atmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 I think as long as we keep advancing technologically, people are eventually going to colonize Mars, if for no other reason than to see if they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Findthepin1 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bill Phil said: Mars doesn't really have anything the asteroids don't. Neither does the moon. Mars and the moon, especially Mars, have the intrinsic value of being actual worlds rather than pieces of rock in space. Technically they are pieces of rock in space but it has a huge effect on the human brain whether or not you can stand and walk on the ground, whether there's wind or snow or water or coloured sky, etc. We should, and probably will, value Mars the way we value Earth. We can't mentally treat worlds like chunks of ore as long as we have our emotions. And once we lose all our biological emotions, our intrinsic values we put in things, we become basically biological computers. Soulless in a way. I don't want that to happen to humanity. Anyway. TLDR: Intrinsic value in being on worlds makes Mars valuable. Edited December 17, 2015 by Findthepin1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 And those can all be factors of a rotating colony, too. And standing in Mars gravity is not the same and can change quite a bit about the experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 One advantage I see of colonizing Mars over building a space colony is that Mars is already there. It has resources we can extract and use. It can be self-sustaining. A space colony can travel around and mine asteroids, sure, but you've still got to build the thing in the first place. And technologically speaking, we're way closer to putting a small settlement on Mars or even the Moon than we are to assembling a kilometers-long O'Neil Cylinder in low-Earth orbit. I can't see the latter happening until the mid-22nd century, if at all, whereas we have the technology and the infrastructure (if not necessarily the political will) to colonize Mars by the 2050s. Once our space infrastructure takes off we'll probably do both: the planets and moons, possibly terraformed, will serve as "home ports" while the space colonies will focus on mining to trade for food and other resources. Kind of like the setting of Kim Stanley Robinson's 2312 (which I highly recommend). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) Mars is already there, yes, but it suffers from its own problems and isn't very desirable. It has a gravity well, thin atmosphere, and low gravity. All of which only make things unnecessarily more difficult. Asteroids also have resources we can extract and use. You also have to build the colony on Mars, too. Actually, we're far from both. Mars will have research stations that are similar to colonies, and space stations will be more and more similar to rotating colonies over time. Both types of colonies are far off. But, due to Mars' undesirable qualities, space colonies will crop up before true Mars colonies. Comparing a small settlement to a kilometer long Oneill Cylinder isn't fair. Comparing a large city to an Oneill Cylinder would be more correct. And Mars is farther away, thus costing more energy to colonize.... Neither is going to happen before the 22nd century. I agree on the last part, except I think that rotating space colonies will be more common. The population potential of having huge numbers of rotating space habitats is 100 billion to 10 trillion, depending on how much is mined. 10 trillion in this solar system alone, with resources mostly from the inner solar system! And also, comparing the energy required to create a similar population colony actually favors the free floating ones. Look up Kalpana One. Also, if you look at the population per unit mass, it's higher for floating colonies. Edited December 17, 2015 by Bill Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBowman Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 Much as I love Mars and the fun challenges of doing something with it I'm with @Bill Phil - why fall back down a gravity well? it just makes everything harder than it needs to be. A 'foam' of free floating habs from tiny up to ONeill (and beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKendree_cylinder ) is a fine medium for human expansion. It all makes good sense once you have sufficient space industrialisation. The trouble is getting there is going to involve convincing people to spend tera dollars, and they won't do it unless they think they can make giga dollars in profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisSpace Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 I have a feeling this is getting a bit off-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 When you get right down to it, the MCT is going to have to BE a space colony, if it's going to be a fully reusable craft capable of transporting 100 people at a time. A bit on the small side, but loft 10+ MCT Habitats and dock them together and you start geting a decen sized habitat. The question is, why go to a space station where everything is imported and one place is pretty much like all the others? MCT says "To get to Mars, where only 90% of everything is imported, and we're working on making that percentage lower." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 24 minutes ago, Rakaydos said: When you get right down to it, the MCT is going to have to BE a space colony, if it's going to be a fully reusable craft capable of transporting 100 people at a time. A bit on the small side, but loft 10+ MCT Habitats and dock them together and you start geting a decen sized habitat. The question is, why go to a space station where everything is imported and one place is pretty much like all the others? MCT says "To get to Mars, where only 90% of everything is imported, and we're working on making that percentage lower." They don't have to be all alike. The environment can be controlled, once we know how to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 A number I find interesting... If we take the 100 tons to mars surface number as gospel, then the MCT could rebuild the entire ISS, on the SURFACE of MARS, in 4 launches. That's a different enviroment, alright... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 17 hours ago, Findthepin1 said: There was a thing called Keep Mars Red. It was a petition to the UN to make Mars a big national park and not let any terraforming happen. I can't find it on the net anymore. Does anyone know what happened to it? Hopefully burned in a fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts