SpaceX Mars colony predictions

[tater]

IN the generic colony thread I said something that needs saying here. With ISS as an example, the logistical tail on each crew member is vast. 10s of thousands of people per crew member and multiple billion-dollar industries. Any colony would require people willing to throw away many billions per year supplying it. The other idea, that it might become self-sufficient is possible (also requiring billions thrown at it with no return), but it means replicating all the industries in that logistical tail. Musk has thrown numbers around like a million people, hasn't he? What kind of minimal industrial capability would be required to support that with excess capacity for population growth?

If it was a Mediterranean climate on Earth, you'd drop them there, and they'd simply prosper. These people require a society that is instantly more dependent on technology than any of us. We're annoyed if we have a power failure. They're dead. It's very complex to figure out even minimal needs.

[Interplanetary Engineer]

I think (or hope, at least) that humans will probably visit Mars within this decade (or my liftime, if I'm lucky), but probably not within the next twenty years. I mean, we have the tecnology and all, but we've got a heck of a lot of planning and engineering to do before it might just become bankable for such a buisness as SpaceX.

About the whole colonisation of planets will save humankind thing: I don't really think so. Until we manage to terraform Mars it enough to live there without a spacesuit (if that's even possible), humans will probably have gone extinct. I think our best bet would be Titan. You can already survive there now with a heated swimming suit, and being able to fly with wings strapped to your arms just tops it all.

[tater]

There is zero chance of humans on Mars this decade, or even within 10 years.

[Rakaydos]

6 hours ago, tater said:

There is zero chance of humans on Mars this decade, or even within 10 years.

I'm pretty sure he misyped century. otherwise the rest of his post makes no sence.

[tater]

Likely true as this decade is half over, and even the next 10 years is too soon

[Rakaydos]

I actually meant the "within the current decade, but not for 20 years" thing he said in the first sentance.

[Bill Phil]

On February 17, 2016 at 2:48 PM, tater said:

There is zero chance of humans on Mars this decade, or even within 10 years.

There's very little chance, yes. But if we truly wanted to, we could get a man on Mars by 2019. It's true. We'd probably have to use nuclear propulsion, maybe pulsed like in Orion. But it can be done. With a boat load of money.

Is it going to happen? Nope. Is it possible? Yes. Probable? Nope.

[tater]

It would be doable only with chemical by 2019, and it was a Manhattan Project level thing. Some time in the next decade there might be an outside chance of an NTR. Zero chance of Orion. Not small, zero.

I was responding to: 

Quote

I think (or hope, at least) that humans will probably visit Mars within this decade 

It wasn't a "we could if we wanted to" type thing. "We" don't want to, or we'd be farther along. Any program for 2019 would have to already exist. Also, there's not a good launch window in 2019.

 

[Rakaydos]

11 hours ago, tater said:

It would be doable only with chemical by 2019, and it was a Manhattan Project level thing. Some time in the next decade there might be an outside chance of an NTR. Zero chance of Orion. Not small, zero.

I was responding to: 

 

And clearly you stopped reading right there, because the entire post your replying to agrees with you, except the one word you stopped reading at.

[tater]

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

And clearly you stopped reading right there, because the entire post your replying to agrees with you, except the one word you stopped reading at.

The entire post I'm replying to is pretty much impossible to parse, rereading it.

Quote

I think (or hope, at least) that humans will probably visit Mars within this decade (or my liftime, if I'm lucky), but probably not within the next twenty years. I mean, we have the tecnology and all, but we've got a heck of a lot of planning and engineering to do before it might just become bankable for such a buisness as SpaceX.

He thinks people will visit Mars within 4-10 years, but not within 20?

He could be saying that (taking the most charitable "hopes"):

He hopes we can get there in 4 years. (impossible, period)

He hopes we can get there within 10 years from now. (not technically impossible, but functionally impossible as it would already need to be funded)

He hopes we can get there within his lifetime---the first part of the sentence just deleted. (entirely possible assuming he's not terribly old)

The bankable for SpaceX part is never going to be true, there is no money to be made.

 

[Rakaydos]

1 minute ago, tater said:

The entire post I'm replying to is pretty much impossible to parse, rereading it.

He thinks people will visit Mars within 4-10 years, but not within 20?

He could be saying that (taking the most charitable "hopes"):

He hopes we can get there in 4 years. (impossible, period)

He hopes we can get there within 10 years from now. (not technically impossible, but functionally impossible as it would already need to be funded)

He hopes we can get there within his lifetime---the first part of the sentence just deleted. (entirely possible assuming he's not terribly old)

The bankable for SpaceX part is never going to be true, there is no money to be made.

 

Now, replace the "Decade" in his post with "Century." Makes much more sence, right?

Quote

I think (or hope, at least) that humans will probably visit Mars within this century (or my liftime, if I'm lucky), but probably not within the next twenty years. I mean, we have the tecnology and all, but we've got a heck of a lot of planning and engineering to do before it might just become bankable for such a buisness as SpaceX

Edited February 19, 2016 by Rakaydos

[tater]

It certainly makes sense with century in place of decade.

 

[Gojira1000]

Sadly. unless Mars turns out to be made of money, I don't see a self-sufficient colony there, ever. 

That being said - scientific crewed mission to Mars? Yeah, eventually. I'd be surprised it it was earlier than 2035-40, though. And it'll depend on some as yet non-existent radiation shielding technology/medicines. Otherwise you're killing your astronauts 15-25 years early with aggressive cancers. Same issue applies to colonizing Mars, actually.

[Spaceception]

12 minutes ago, Gojira1000 said:

Sadly. unless Mars turns out to be made of money, I don't see a self-sufficient colony there, ever. 

That being said - scientific crewed mission to Mars? Yeah, eventually. I'd be surprised it it was earlier than 2035-40, though. And it'll depend on some as yet non-existent radiation shielding technology/medicines. Otherwise you're killing your astronauts 15-25 years early with aggressive cancers. Same issue applies to colonizing Mars, actually.

All you need is at least 3 meters of stuff; metal, water, poop, dirt, the fuel tank/engine, whatever, between you and the radiation, so when we're on Mars, all you need to have is a inflatable module with 3 meters of martian dirt between the two hulls, and 'voila! No radiation!

[Gojira1000]

40 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

All you need is at least 3 meters of stuff; metal, water, poop, dirt, the fuel tank/engine, whatever, between you and the radiation, so when we're on Mars, all you need to have is a inflatable module with 3 meters of martian dirt between the two hulls, and 'voila! No radiation!

That's true - but if you have to stay subsurface for your colony, just go to the Moon. Mars doesn't offer anything markedly better for long-term settlement (other than being more colorful and probably not smelling as bad), and the Moon is much, much more conveniently located  

[Spaceception]

Just now, Gojira1000 said:

That's true - but if you have to stay subsurface for your colony, just go to the Moon. Mars doesn't offer anything markedly better for long-term settlement (other than being more colorful and probably not smelling as bad), and the Moon is much, much more conveniently located  

When did I say you had to have a subsurface colony?

Mars has much more water, its day/night cycle is better for growing food (Yes, I know Mars gets less light than Earth, but that's not too much of a problem), its gravity is more than double the Moons (Which is better for long-term health, the Moons gravity might be fine for humans with regular exercise, but Mars' gravity is better overall) it has an atmosphere to protect Astronauts from micrometeorites, and we may be able to Terraform it someday to turn Mars into a second Earth.

You got me there. Until we have faster propulsion technologies

[tater]

How do you grow food using the better day/night cycle when the structure is under 3m of soil? Then there are the perchlorates in the soil.

I suppose you can use a heliostat, but you could just as well use lights, and turn them on and off as well.

 

[Spaceception]

15 minutes ago, tater said:

How do you grow food using the better day/night cycle when the structure is under 3m of soil? Then there are the perchlorates in the soil.

I suppose you can use a heliostat, but you could just as well use lights, and turn them on and off as well.

 

Watch:

 

[Spaceception]

35 minutes ago, tater said:

How do you grow food using the better day/night cycle when the structure is under 3m of soil? Then there are the perchlorates in the soil.

I suppose you can use a heliostat, but you could just as well use lights, and turn them on and off as well.

 

Also, under some conditions, you could probably expose the plants to sunlight (With a clear covering to keep in the atm/temp of course) due to there being (Weak, mind you) Spotty magnetic fields around Mars.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Gojira1000 said:

That's true - but if you have to stay subsurface for your colony, just go to the Moon. Mars doesn't offer anything markedly better for long-term settlement (other than being more colorful and probably not smelling as bad), and the Moon is much, much more conveniently located  

The moon lacks Volatiles.

[Gojira1000]

19 minutes ago, fredinno said:

The moon lacks Volatiles.

It has oxides galore, considerable sulphur and more helium-3 than Earth. There's stuff to work with.

[Rakaydos]

Woud the magnetic field of an active fusion plant be enough to protect a habitat from stellar radiation?

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Gojira1000 said:

It has oxides galore, considerable sulphur and more helium-3 than Earth. There's stuff to work with.

It lacks carbon, which is a pretty big problem when a huge amount of compounds are made from Carbon.

8 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Woud the magnetic field of an active fusion plant be enough to protect a habitat from stellar radiation?

It probably isn't big enough for that- nor designed for that.

[Gojira1000]

I love this stuff - here's a good research paper on one Lunar possibility. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280099331_Economic_Assessment_and_Systems_Analysis_of_an_Evolvable_Lunar_Architecture_that_Leverages_Commercial_Space_Capabilities_and_Public-Private-Partnerships

I like this one largely because they're looking at how to make it pay a little bit back. That, and they're admitting there needs to be some actual prospecting probes to ensure the necessities are there in the required amounts.

[WinkAllKerb'']

the sooner the better, then next planet ... pls don't forget about genetics law time scale interaction inter-"being" (micro/macro) over time, wich from human lifespan point of view "tend" to be still a bit "blurry", and bring as much environnemental element as you can, because you ll never do it alone ...

Edited February 22, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''