Elon asking for help

[Rakaydos]

7 minutes ago, Beccab said:

The 2050s are 30 years away, not 20

 

"City itself probably takes roughly 20 years, so hopefully it is built by 2050"

 

Note that the current plan doesnt have the base START until early 2027. 20 years from then is 2047, which leaves 2 synods for delays.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Rakaydos

[kerbiloid]

If the native Martians already have the cities built, and all they lack is human slaves, then it's absolutely realistic to pack them by 500 per Starship and send to Mars.

Then indeed, no life support study is required, and it's realistic to populate Mars with humans by 2050.

Also then it's no need in the return planning. as they will stay on Mars with no return.
Just tell others about the ISRU methane production, just 4 lulz.

Any known native Martians over there, to deal with, negotiate, and trade?

Do they prefer "young and healthy" settlers to be sent there?

[Rakaydos]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

If the native Martians already have the cities built, and all they lack is human slaves, then it's absolutely realistic to pack them by 500 per Starship and send to Mars.

Then indeed, no life support study is required, and it's realistic to populate Mars with humans by 2050.

Also then it's no need in the return planning. as they will stay on Mars with no return.
Just tell others about the ISRU methane production, just 4 lulz.

Any known native Martians over there, to deal with, negotiate, and trade?

Do they prefer "young and healthy" settlers to be sent there?

Please keep this thread in the context of a spaceX fleet of 8 thousand raptors at less than 50 raptors per stack, all of which are fully reusable. More than that, because the boosters where most of the raptors are can be used 1 or 2 to a launch site, servicing any number of starships.

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Please keep this thread in the context of a spaceX fleet of 8 thousand raptors at less than 50 raptors per stack, all of which are fully reusable. More than that, because the boosters where most of the raptors are can be used 1 or 2 to a launch site, servicing any number of starships.

Well, that's a real way to solve the demographic problems of the Earth by sending people to Mars.

Just hire every volunteer you can and mass sell them to the Martians. All details from the previous post stay relevant.

Just why do they need so many humans? Do they farm them? Modify?

("farm" = "herd", probably)

[GoSlash27]

35 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Do you disagree that for every need a mars colony has, there exists a large, heavy machine that can provide that function on earth?

Rakaydos,

 Unless you're talking about using Starships to bring them everything they need from Earth, no... I don't agree with that at all. Humans live within a very complex biosphere that no machine can replace.

Best,

-Slashy

[Rakaydos]

We Kerbal players may be particularly vulnerable to underestimating how much mass SpaceX can be landing on mars. Can you imagine a ten thousand- launch campaign (to fuel over a thousand mars landers) being orchestrated one mechjeb launch at a time? And repeating this at every orbital opportunity? The lag alone!

But SpaceX isnt limited to a single control instance. They can and will launch massively parallel missions to bring hundreds of thousands of tons of equipment, supplies, and operators to mars every other year.

1 minute ago, GoSlash27 said:

Rakaydos,

 Unless you're talking about using Starships to bring them everything they need from Earth, no... I don't agree with that at all. Humans live within a very complex biosphere that no machine can replace.

Best,

-Slashy

Oh, we can build machines to replace it, it's just more expensive than letting the biosphere do it's thing. And it's not a one-and-done thing either- if you find you missed something, request a new, specialized machine to cover what you missed, to arrive in the next synod.

[Rakaydos]

Wow... So, Biosphere 2 needed constant management to remain stable. Sure. They were able to keep the entire first mission going, with proper nursemaiding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/sunday-review/biosphere-2-climate-change.html

Then Steve Bannon... yes, that steve bannon, took over, and the second mission had to be aborted because mismanagement would be lethal.

 

The trick with the mars colony, is to assume the recycling elements will fail at the worst possible time, and have enough supplies on hand  for replacements. But also, rely on the recycling elements (and ISRU, which biosphere 2 wasnt officially allowed) as much as possible, because they dont rely on shipments from earth.

[GoSlash27]

25 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Oh, we can build machines to replace (the biosphere), it's just more expensive than letting the biosphere do it's thing.

Yeah, I absolutely do not agree with that statement.

Apologies,

-Slashy

[Rakaydos]

2 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Yeah, I absolutely do not agree with that statement.

Apologies,

-Slashy

Can you get more specific? What part of the biosphere would be most difficult to replace?

[kerbiloid]

Cats.

[GoSlash27]

Sorry, I'll have to get back to you on that. Time for me to head out to work.

Best,

-Slashy

[Rakaydos]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Cats.

Traditionally, cats are pest management agents. Initially, in a purely synthetic enviroment, great lengths will be taken to assure that pests do not reach the colony... and infestations can be dealt with  via temporary local depressurization.

As more organic biosphere elements are added as the city grows,  pests may slip in- escaped pet mice and parrots may be a problem a future mars colony has to deal with. I dont think Cats will be a superior solution than "just space them", but Im not a martian resident who prefers colorful birds in the park domes even if they leave birdexcrements everywhere.

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Traditionally, cats are pest management agents.

Traditionally, the humans are herding rodents to supply the cats,

In the industrial society the cats a companion animals for humans.

Due to the lack of the rodents, nowadays humans herd cows to feed the cats.

While the cat have a social function.

[Rakaydos]

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Traditionally, the humans are herding rodents to supply the cats,

In the industrial society the cats a companion animals for humans.

Due to the lack of the rodents, nowadays humans herd cows to feed the cats.

While the cat have a social function.

...one that is easilly replaced even here on earth.

[GoSlash27]

Rakaydos,

 I think his point is that there is no machine that can make a cat. I agree that cats aren't essential for human survival, but there are lots of things in our biosphere that are essential and just as impossible to produce with machines.

 You asked me what the most difficult thing to produce with machines would be, and I really don't know which would be the most impossible. Just glossing over the food chain (one of myriad essential chains), should I start with all the basic elements that we need that aren't there and can't be replicated? Or the more complex organic elements/ compounds composed of them? The nitrates and organic matter that fertilize the soil, the colonies of diverse bacteria that fix the nitrates and break down the biomass to provide nutrients? The plants that feed the animals that feed us... The necessary vitamins, minerals...

 Or should I start at the top and say that there's no machine that can make fried chicken, buttered corn on the cob, and mashed potatoes/ gravy out of the Martian materials?

Somewhere in the middle, like there's no cow replication machine?

I mean... we can't make a machine that makes any of it, it's all complex, and all necessary... and that's just food with none of the fine details even considered.

Earth's biodiversity cannot be replaced with a machine, and we absolutely need that. An entire ecosystem must be transported to Mars, and must be of a scale that dwarfs the human contingent, and we're still learning about the essential niche roles that life fulfills here on Earth; we can't even set an upper bound on what's essential.

Best,

-Slashy 

 

 

 

[Rakaydos]

37 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Rakaydos,

 I think his point is that there is no machine that can make a cat. I agree that cats aren't essential for human survival, but there are lots of things in our biosphere that are essential and just as impossible to produce with machines.

 You asked me what the most difficult thing to produce with machines would be, and I really don't know which would be the most impossible. Just glossing over the food chain (one of myriad essential chains), should I start with all the basic elements that we need that aren't there and can't be replicated? Or the more complex organic elements/ compounds composed of them? The nitrates and organic matter that fertilize the soil, the colonies of diverse bacteria that fix the nitrates and break down the biomass to provide nutrients? The plants that feed the animals that feed us... The necessary vitamins, minerals...

 Or should I start at the top and say that there's no machine that can make fried chicken, buttered corn on the cob, and mashed potatoes/ gravy out of the Martian materials?

Somewhere in the middle, like there's no cow replication machine?

I mean... we can't make a machine that makes any of it, it's all complex, and all necessary... and that's just food with none of the fine details even considered.

Earth's biodiversity cannot be replaced with a machine, and we absolutely need that. An entire ecosystem must be transported to Mars, and must be of a scale that dwarfs the human contingent, and we're still learning about the essential niche roles that life fulfills here on Earth; we can't even set an upper bound on what's essential.

Best,

-Slashy 

 

 

 

I said replace, not create. Feel free to give the list of basic elements you believe are not present on mars- dont bother with transuranics, since they want to focus on solar power.

We do have a machine that makes nitrates- most fertilizer is artificial, and a significant portion of it  uses methane as a feedstock, which the rocket fuel plant will have plenty of.

Soil bacteria may be impossible to easilly replace- it's literally natural organic nanotech- but is self replicating, meaning that you only have to import some and keep tabs on it's growth through native growth media.

Plants, animals.... look up Aquaponics, it's an interesting field. Vitamins and minerals, a part of this healthy breakfast....

Fried chicken is not a requirement for self sufficency. Meat substitutes are a developing field, rendering livestock obsolete.

 

The trick is to break down the big problem into manageable sub problems. Gruel and water will keep the body together, even if earth imports make life worth living.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Rakaydos

[kerbiloid]

52 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 I think his point is that there is no machine that can make a cat. I agree that cats aren't essential for human survival, but there are lots of things in our biosphere that are essential and just as impossible to produce with machines.

And also that the cats need meat, leave smelly marks, scratch things, and do not accept zero-g.

So a space habitat can be called "home" only when it's enough advanced and redundant to keep the cats happy.

Not just the canned monkeys.

[southernplain]

On 7/11/2021 at 10:55 AM, GoSlash27 said:

The definition of self- sustaining isn't 'arbitrary'. It means that absolutely no imports are necessary for survival. And clearly we *can* continue the process (SpaceX is doing that now), the question is whether we *should*, especially if there's a long laundry list of reasons why a Martian colony can never be self sustaining.

Your definition of only fully self-sustaining settlements being colonies is arbitrary. Europe founded dozens of colonies during the early modern period that took centuries to become fully self-sustaining (arguably some of them are not even today).

Here is the modern OED definition of a colony: "A settlement in a new country; a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state; the community so formed, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connection with the parent state is kept up."

Quibble with the definition as we may, it doesn't require the colony to be self-sustaining. Human colonization efforts on Mars don't become a colony once we reach some arbitrary fully self-sustaining threshold, it happens over the generations of consistent attempts by the people living on the planet who intend to stay there.

Fully self-sustaining settlements will also tend to transcend the parent-colony dichotomy.

Quote

At the very least, it undermines the main reason for having a colony on Mars; "survival of the human race in the face of an extinction level event".

I think SpaceX has that reason as a goal, and they actively believe in it. But for the long term survival of the colonization attempt, I do not think this will become the primary motivation for human settlement on Mars. Nice side benefit? Sure. Primary reason? No.

I am totally willing to discuss the reasons Mars might not work for human settlement. Mars is the best planet we have after Earth, whether we can live there long term is questionable.

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, southernplain said:

I am totally willing to discuss the reasons Mars might not work for human settlement. Mars is the best planet we have after Earth, whether we can live there long term is questionable.

I think "best", not in opinion, but by setting a goal of "easiest to inhabit for humans" and then looking at the facts, is debatable. Not to say "don't colonize Mars at all" but there are other good options too.

From @K^2's post earlier in the thread, who does and can do a much better job of explaining it then me-

Quote

The answer is "Colonization of Mars." There are enough good arguments for not going down another gravity well at all, but if we have to settle down somewhere, Venus is a much better place. The only thing Mars has going for it is solid ground under your feet, and that's overrated. Especially, when that ground is irradiated, chemically toxic, and abrasive for a good measure. Almost total lack of atmosphere and radiation protection means that the only possible living on Mars is in small, stuffy tunnels underground. Not sure what will limit your life span on Mars more, constant stress over maintaining all the air seals in confined space or the effects of low gravity.

Venus gives you almost a full Earth gravity and temperatures just above freezing at altitudes where atmospheric pressure is close to Earth's. The atmosphere's not breathable and toxic if you inhale it directly, but it's there, meaning that even if you lost pressure, you could hold your breath and have a couple of minutes. And since the pressure in habitat is pretty much equal to outside pressure, you can build large clear domes out of plastic really easily. No need to be stuffed in a tiny tube with no windows. Plus, small leaks are effectively harmless.

Mars has such thin atmosphere that CO2 capture is actually somewhat of a challenge there, especially given the fine dust that will damage and clog any turbines you build to compress it. And carbon is the easy part. Water is present pretty much only as ice, and you have to dig through aforementioned toxic dirt to get to it. Good luck getting nitrogen. All of this makes manufacturing on Mars actually very, very difficult. You are in luck with a lot of metals, but getting them out of soil is going to be a complex process requiring very significant infrastructure. Prospects of more conventional mining are unclear.

Venusian atmosphere is basically giving you all the building blocks of hydrocarbons. The CO2 and nitrogen are readily available for capture. The atmosphere is often quoted as very dry, but that's because all the water is bound in sulfuric acid droplets. If you account for that, Venus is actually quote moist. At relevant altitudes, the sulfuric acid content can reach 0.1g/m³, which is comparable to typical moisture content of dense fog. The sulfuric acid is trivially decomposed into sulfur oxides and water vapor at temperatures of a few hundred Celsius. And because all of this is taking place at high altitude, you don't have to worry about solids damaging your condensers.

The only disadvantage of Venus in terms of long term sustainability is access to heavy elements. Early on, any colony will have to be good at recycling. I would argue that recycling metals is a lot easier than recycling organics, making it easier to build an outpost on Venus that can be self-sustaining for years or decades. To make it properly lasting, you would have to come up with some sort of a scheme for mining. Whether it would involve dropping scoops on the surface or some other arrangement. This is entirely feasible if you have a healthy industry and large population. And the fact that the colony can grow with just minimal supplies of minerals from off world initially is already a huge advantage, which means we have an actual chance to expand a Venusian colony to self-sustaining levels, whereas a Martian colony would rely entirely on off world supplies for a very long time.

At the end of the day, we might end up bothering with neither, sticking to building in space instead. But either way, trying to build a colony on Mars before Venus is entirely silly.

 

[Slyguy3129]

[snip]

So long as he gets subsidized by the Feds, no matter how little, I'm not impressed with him.

So long as he keeps focusing on SSTOs, no matter how cool his fanbois think they are, I'm not impressed with him.

As far as personally goes, I don't have a beef with him. My beef usually lands firmly at the "he can do no wrong" fanbois. But fanbois can make you hate just about everything. No matter "how little research" has been done.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Vanamonde

[Admiral Fluffy]

MOAR BOOSTERS.

That is how you get to Duna Mars.

[southernplain]

On 7/12/2021 at 4:27 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

I think "best", not in opinion, but by setting a goal of "easiest to inhabit for humans" and then looking at the facts, is debatable. Not to say "don't colonize Mars at all" but there are other good options too.

I don't think Venus is a bad option overall, but it is not clear to me that preferring Mars over Venus is "entirely silly" when every single national space program targets human Mars landings first.

Venus has the problem of the surface being literally hell for human life. At least we can be on the ground at Mars and build initial surface structures (which may be able to share design lessons from 2020's heritage Lunar landing infrastructure).

The Martian gravity well is quite a bit less of a problem for spaceflight infrastructure than Venus as well (Venusian escape velocity is pretty much Earthlike). Starship (Marsship?) can SSTO at Mars, it is not clear that it could SSTO at Venus or what Starship "landing" at Venus even looks like.

I think gravity and radiation are the obvious biggest threats at Mars. If 0.38g is too low for long term human habitation or if mitigating the radiation threat is insurmountable, then Venus really is our best option. 

On 7/12/2021 at 6:48 PM, Slyguy3129 said:

So long as he keeps focusing on SSTOs  [snip] I'm not impressed with him.

SpaceX isn't designing SSTOs.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Vanamonde

[K^2]

24 minutes ago, southernplain said:

I don't think Venus is a bad option overall, but it is not clear to me that preferring Mars over Venus is "entirely silly" when every single national space program targets human Mars landings first.

US wants to go to Mars, because that's where they wanted to go to during cold war to beat USSR and back then, we didn't know just how crappy Mars' surface is. Not that we cared too much. All you had to do was get boots on the ground, not establish any sort of long term colony. Today, China just wants to go there to compete with US, and that's it. Russia's claims about having a Mars program aren't even credible, and even China's are in way too early of a stage to call it anything concrete. So really, US wants to go to Mars as some sort of cold war vestige and publicity stunt, and that's about it. "Every single national program," is such a huge overstatement here.

27 minutes ago, southernplain said:

At least we can be on the ground at Mars and build initial surface structures (which may be able to share design lessons from 2020's heritage Lunar landing infrastructure).

And do what with them? Surface structures on Mars aren't suitable for long term habitation. Between radiation and toxicity and abrasiveness of Martian dust, just waiting out for next departure window on Mars is a huge challenge. You have to dig to build anything remotely sustainable for long term habitation. And that's not something you're going to be able to do with a few landers. You need to land an entire infrastructure on Mars before you can make it habitable. There are a few projects that suggest turning Martian dust into printable material to construct mounds over landed habitats, but even that's a huge undertaking.

Contrast this to Venus where a single lander with a balloon and additional inflatable sections can be suitable for long term habitation. Something like Starship would actually work perfectly, as it can survive the re-entry and has enough volume to bring in the inflatables. You'll have to find a way to resupply it, and you'll have to find a way to dock a return vessel to it, but at least you don't have the fundamental problem of people not being able to survive there with minimal equipment.

31 minutes ago, southernplain said:

The Martian gravity well is quite a bit less of a problem for spaceflight infrastructure than Venus as well

No. It's a problem for humans, though. A big one. And since we're trying to find a place where people can live long term, picking a place that's better for equipment is hardly the best criterion.

Yeah, it's a lot easier to organize a return trip from Mars. So if you want to just visit it for a few months, just to put a check mark that you've had boots on the ground, by all means. Go to Mars. I mean, honestly, that's all these gov't space programs are trying to do. Get good publicity stunt of having people walk on another planet. But that solves absolutely none of the long term issues.

39 minutes ago, southernplain said:

I think gravity and radiation are the obvious biggest threats at Mars. If 0.38g is too low for long term human habitation or if mitigating the radiation threat is insurmountable, then Venus really is our best option. 

Gravity problems can be overcome if you have enough space, and radiation if you have enough shielding. You can't do either with a few landers. You have to build major infrastructure. And then you're still living short miserable lives in cramped underground tunnels, because that's the best you can hope for on Mars. I just don't even see the point.

[Beccab]

3 hours ago, Slyguy3129 said:

So long as he gets subsidized by the Feds, no matter how little, I'm not impressed with him.

He isn't

3 hours ago, Slyguy3129 said:

So long as he keeps focusing on SSTOs, no matter how cool his fanbois think they are, I'm not impressed with him.

SpaceX is doing exactly zero SSTO, please get at least a single fact right if you want to call everyone a fanboy

[kerbiloid]

https://www.etymonline.com/word/colony

Quote

colony (n.)

late 14c., "ancient Roman settlement outside Italy," from Latin colonia "settled land, farm, landed estate," from colonus "husbandman, tenant farmer, settler in new land," from colere "to cultivate, to till; to inhabit; to frequent, practice, respect; tend, guard," from PIE root *kwel- (1) "revolve, move round; sojourn, dwell" (source also of Latin -cola "inhabitant"). Also used by the Romans to translate Greek apoikia "people from home."

In reference to modern situations, "company or body of people who migrate from their native country to cultivate and inhabit a new place while remaining subject to the mother country," attested from 1540s. Meaning "a country or district colonized" is by 1610s.

So, a colony doesn't need to be self-sustained.
Even more, it stays "colony" until it stops being related to the origin. It's by definition an add-on to the origin.

All they have to do is: to cultivate local stuff into cultivated stuff, and do this continuously for generations.
Also no local birth is required. They can be born in England, cross the ocean, spend the life in New England, then return and be buried in England.
It doesn't stop the New England from being colonies, just most of locals don't bother and have no need in the ocean crossing.

The Arctic cities depend on goods and food from the continent. But this is still a colonized land.