[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[jwenting]

This. About the only value that it has is that it keeps the idea of pioneering space missions in the media and the public's consciousness.

We're not ready to risk a permanent outpost that far away yet, we've managed to keep one running in LEO, but doing so further away involves a commensurate increase in complexity and cost. Mars One do not have the resources to accomplish the task. In reality it would take a multinational effort with support of major space agencies, similar to the ISS.

and it'd have to be self sufficient in everything, which ISS isn't, not by a long shot.

Mars One would need to produce its own food, water, air, have medical facilities that can treat anything not instantly fatal, which would require the base to also produce its own medical supplies.

It would have to produce its own spare parts so the inhabitants can repair worn out of damaged components (including those for the factory producing those components).

And all that would have to be highly automated, as there'd not be enough people to man it all. Which means they'd have to produce advanced computer equipment on site as well.

All of which requires large scale mining and refining activities on Mars, when there's no geological survey done or AFAIK planned to find the minerals required for all that construction.

[Borklund]

They have a contract with Paragon for life support and space suits.

Fantastic, they have one contract with one space industry company. Let's have a look at the block quote in the press release you linked to, shall we?

"The contract will enable the initial conceptual design of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and Mars Surface Exploration Spacesuit System. During this study, Paragon will identify major suppliers, concepts, and technologies that exist today and can be used as the baseline architecture for further development."

It's not a hardware contract. It is a study to pave the way for more studies.

Mars One is claiming there will be humans on Mars in 2023. It is now almost 2014 and there is no metal being bent anywhere. It takes years and years to design, build and launch a 1 tonne rover to go to Mars. There is a significant difference between that and what Mars One has to pull off in order to succeed. Nobody knows how to get a <1 tonne payload to the surface of Mars safely yet. That's just one example, there are hundreds of other problems that have yet to be demonstrated, tested or worked on by Mars One or even national space agencies, and that's just the hardware. It is going to cost many tens of billions of dollars to get to humans to Mars, money that Mars One does not have, or they'd have hardware being built right now.

Get real. Mars One is not going to happen.

Thats right, they don't have a launcher or have any contract with SpaceX. They did have talks with SpaceX about purchasing a rocket.

Calling it a scam doesn't make it a scam. Seriously, where is your proof that it's a scam?

Even better; why would it be a scam? What would they gain? Really, I'd like to hear why it's a scam.

They can have all the talks they want. They could talk to his holiness the dalai lama; it would change nothing. There is no progress being made towards actually getting people to Mars. They are just talking. There is an almost infinite gap between what they say they will do and what they are doing. In that sense it's a scam.

[Nibb31]

No, Elon said several times that the reason he founded SpaceX is to make Humanity a spacefaring civilisation, and to colonise Mars.

*sigh* Yes, that's his dream. However, he can't pay for that by himself. SpaceX is a launch provider. They will develop hardware to go to Mars if NASA (or someone else) pays for the ticket.

MarsOne doesn't even have the money to pay for a single LEO Falcon 9 launch, let alone dozens of Falcon Heavies, DragonRiders, and all the stuff that has to be built and put on board those rockets.

Also the Falcon Heavy is not just a powerpoint presentation, it's first flight is going to be later this year or early 2014. I think they already built the first DragonRider capsule, a modified version of which will be the RedDragon.

Red Dragon is just a 3 page paper study, presented as a cheap alternative to delivering 1 ton of cheap experiments to the Martian surface using off the shelf parts. It certainly isn't a study for a one-way long duration manned flight. There is no funding for Red Dragon, and because NASA was not interested, there are no customers.

Falcon Heavy will fly, but it is having trouble finding customers. Most launch providers have heavy variants of their launchers in their catalog, but the commercial market for large payloads simply doesn't exist.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[Seret]

It would have to produce its own spare parts

It might be because I'm an engineer, but this always seems like a really massive problem to me. I don't think people realise just how much infrastructure is required to support technology of this level. An actual self-sufficient outpost would have to be able to fabricate everything, from integrated circuits to pharmaceuticals to machine tools. They'd have to be able to locate and process raw materials of every kind, and have vast manufacturing facilities. The level of industrial capacity and technical expertise required is immense. Even with heavy automation you'd need megatons of equipment and a small army of people.

[Nibb31]

Yes, just locally producing the low-temperature lubricants or rubber seals for all the machinery is a whole problem that needs solving. People need food, but they also need soap, clothes, wipes, toilet paper, razor blades, q-tips, disinfectant, medicine, air filters... It's hard to make all that stuff just from grinding Mars rocks and mixing water.

Many people seem to think it's simple to live in a tin can, recycling urine and eating hydroponic tomatos until you die, but the level of complexity of life-support in such a harsh environment is mind-boggling. The discomfort is simply not worth it, especially if you know that you're never coming back and that you absolutely no future perspective for yourself or for your kin (assuming you could have viable children on Mars)

Edited August 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[czokletmuss]

Is Mars One a scam? Maybe not but it's not going to happen. Why?

Source: Global Exploration Roadmap 2013

[jwenting]

It might be because I'm an engineer, but this always seems like a really massive problem to me. I don't think people realise just how much infrastructure is required to support technology of this level. An actual self-sufficient outpost would have to be able to fabricate everything, from integrated circuits to pharmaceuticals to machine tools. They'd have to be able to locate and process raw materials of every kind, and have vast manufacturing facilities. The level of industrial capacity and technical expertise required is immense. Even with heavy automation you'd need megatons of equipment and a small army of people.

yes, as an engineer myself that's a big one.

Effectively they'd need to have the human and technical resources of a small country, say something the size of Belgium or Malaysia, to be potentially self sufficient.

[Albert VDS]

Fantastic, they have one contract with one space industry company. Let's have a look at the block quote in the press release you linked to, shall we?

"The contract will enable the initial conceptual design of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and Mars Surface Exploration Spacesuit System. During this study, Paragon will identify major suppliers, concepts, and technologies that exist today and can be used as the baseline architecture for further development."

It's not a hardware contract. It is a study to pave the way for more studies.

You could read it like that, but you also could read it as they are contracted to create a conceptual design, which will continue in to the actual development of those 2 systems.

Mars One is claiming there will be humans on Mars in 2023. It is now almost 2014 and there is no metal being bent anywhere. It takes years and years to design, build and launch a 1 tonne rover to go to Mars. There is a significant difference between that and what Mars One has to pull off in order to succeed. Nobody knows how to get a <1 tonne payload to the surface of Mars safely yet. That's just one example, there are hundreds of other problems that have yet to be demonstrated, tested or worked on by Mars One or even national space agencies, and that's just the hardware. It is going to cost many tens of billions of dollars to get to humans to Mars, money that Mars One does not have, or they'd have hardware being built right now.

Get real. Mars One is not going to happen.

You are right that it's an awful short time to get things done and might not even make their deadlines.

Do you honestly think we can't calculate what kind of retro-propulsion thruster we need to land 1 ton safely on Mars?

They can have all the talks they want. They could talk to his holiness the dalai lama; it would change nothing. There is no progress being made towards actually getting people to Mars. They are just talking. There is an almost infinite gap between what they say they will do and what they are doing. In that sense it's a scam.

If by progress you mean actual hardware being made, then yes, you are right. But I doubt that they aren't making progress to come to that actual point.

About the scam part, I think we have different views on what it means.

Lets look scam up in the dictionary:

scam [skam] noun, verb, scammed, scam·ming.

noun

1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.

verb (used with object)

2. to cheat or defraud with a scam.

That doesn't rhyme with your reasoning.

You could say that they are deceitful, but that would mean you think they have ill intentions.

Which would raise the next question; how do you know that?

[Nibb31]

The space industry has always been full of dreamers. Many of the commercial ventures (such as MarsOne) are not actually scams, but they are often set up for their founders to make a living with their dream rather than to actually achieve the dream. They attract venture-capital investors with neat powerpoint slides and cheap studies. The little money funneled into the project is never enough for the project to actually reach its goal, but it's enough to keep the company afloat, to generate more powerpoint slides and cheap studies, and to provide a decent paycheck for the company founder and a couple of employees for a couple of years.

When they finally fold, they usually start up another VC business in the same field or in something entirely different. Some of these people have been at it for 20 or 30 years, and it seems to work quite well as reliable source of income, even though everybody knows that they will never launch anything.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[SaturnVee]

Seriously though, what is the point? Why put two people up there in space for a couple years? Apart from being a test of human endurance, what exactly does it accomplish?

I suppose that it would break many records and from a human standpoint it would provide insights into the rigors of long space journeys. But I would think that we already have plenty of insight into that from all the thousands of person hours in Mir, ISS, etc.

Furthremore, what is the point of manned mission to Mars (particularly one way!!? THATS INSANE!) in the first place!?

Its a barren, highly radiated, nearly vacuum of a dirt ball. I can very little real reason humans would ever want to go there, or at least little reason to go there on a shoestring/half-baked mission plan with no obvious objective other than to "get there." Probes? Sure hundreds of the little buggers up there and gather all the data you can gather.

In the meantime, developing the technology to economically put stuff into space in the first place, followed by development of a true SPACE STATION that will set the foundation for in-space construction and full-fledged research labs in space, followed by some sort of presence on or near the moon, seem to me to be far more useful, reasonable and practical motives than sending humans to Mars.

Why did we visit the Americas? The Arctic? The Moon? Exploration. It's in human nature to strive to establish our presence, and give ourselves meaning.

There are many points to go to Mars aside from this, from a technological perspective, executing such an excursion would spark many advances. For example, these 15. Such a feat would also inspire the generation in the same way the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs did. I guarantee most of the scientists at NASA running all their current missions were inspired to do so by Apollo.

[Seret]

Do you honestly think we can't calculate what kind of retro-propulsion thruster we need to land 1 ton safely on Mars?

There's a bit of a difference between doing the calculations and having real, reliable, tested, safe hardware delivered on time and budget. I could calculate how much force it would take to lift Australia a meter into the air, but that doesn't mean I've got the gear to do it.

Mars One don't have the hardware they need, lack the ability to develop it themselves, and don't have the money to pay anyone else to do it. Until they get one of those they aren't going anywhere.

[czokletmuss]

I guarantee most of the scientists at NASA running all their current missions were inspired to do so by Apollo.

Unfortunately, in case of NASA it's the politicians who decides about funding. And as we can all clearly see, Congress and Obama administration has other goals for which they are willing to spend taxpayer's money than exploration to "give ourselves meaning". I know about this whole "half a penny" thing but the point is, USA gov doesn't really care. Healthcare, wars overseas, debt, unemployment and so on are bigger concerncs, especially if you want to be elected more than one time. And honestly, can anyone blame them?

I think that unless some big rock wipes out important city somewhere, there won't be any incentive to spend more money on space exploration.

Edit: Besides - if NASA, JAXA, ESA, Roskomos et cetera can't send people to Mars, do you really think that small company is capable of doing it?

[jwenting]

The space industry has always been full of dreamers. Many of the commercial ventures (such as MarsOne) are not actually scams, but they are often set up for their founders to make a living with their dream rather than to actually achieve the dream. They attract venture-capital investors with neat powerpoint slides and cheap studies. The little money funneled into the project is never enough for the project to actually reach its goal, but it's enough to keep the company afloat, to generate more powerpoint slides and cheap studies, and to provide a decent paycheck for the company founder and a couple of employees for a couple of years.

When they finally fold, they usually start up another VC business in the same field or in something entirely different. Some of these people have been at it for 20 or 30 years, and it seems to work quite well as reliable source of income, even though everybody knows that they will never launch anything.

which in most any other field would be called a scam.

It worked well in IT about a decade ago, I'm sure it worked in aeronautics as well in the 1950s and into the '60s.

It works great in "green energy" for the last decade or so. Anyone remember Solyndra?

Personally, even if I had the quick talking mouth to be able to pull it off, I'd not have the character to knowingly trick someone into giving me their money when I knew it'd be going down the drain (meaning my Swiss bank account) nor the mental stamina to keep on starting dream after dream on a theme and seeing them all come to nothing.

[Albert VDS]

True, but 1 ton is different than a continent. But it's not like we never landed anything on Mars with rockets

[Nibb31]

Why did we visit the Americas? The Arctic? The Moon? Exploration. It's in human nature to strive to establish our presence, and give ourselves meaning.

No. What pushes Humanity to explore and expand is to find ways to improve our living conditions by increasing wealth, comfort , security, or all three of those conditions. That's all.

We go where we will be safe, where the food grows, where we will find a decent job and get a better home, like our ancestors followed the bison and dwelled in caves. When people emigrate it is always because they hope to find a better life for themselves and for their children, not because they want to "give themselves a meaning". Exploration and colonization was a government-sponsored initiative to increase the wealth and political influence of the country. The goal certainly was never for the colonies to become self-sustaining and independent, quite the contrary.

The "give ourselves a meaning" is western romanticism, not human nature.

Nothing on Mars provides any hope for increased wealth, comfort, or security, or for a better life for your children. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is no possible trade or wealth to exploit, and life would be harsh and dangerous.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[czokletmuss]

No. What pushes Humanity to explore and expand is to find ways to improve our living conditions by increasing wealth, comfort and security. (...)Nothing on Mars provides any hope for increased wealth, comfort, or security, or for a better life for your children. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Exactly. Radioactive barren wasteland - that is, every celestial body in the System other than Earth - will give you no profit in the forseeable future. Can we do this (go to Mars)? Probably. But we also can with sufficient funds establish a colony at the Mariana Trench. More important is, why we should do this? And even if we can and we should, will the politicians understand this? Will the public opinion understand and support it?

[Crush]

when the crew has arrived they sell the rights to a production company to prduce a big brother kinda show.

Spending the rest of my life locked into a tin-can AND giving up all my privacy? Where do I sign?

[SargeRho]

Nothing on Mars provides any hope for increased wealth, comfort, or security, or for a better life for your children. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is no possible trade or wealth to exploit, and life would be harsh and dangerous.

You could do any number of things on Mars. From space tourism and extreme sports (why would anyone climb the Mt.Everest? ) to Industry. Mars's low gravity and thin atmosphere has the advantage that it's easy to lift off from there, Far far easier than from Earth. Iron is literally all over Mars, as well as plenty of other metals. If you can build a transfer ship that commutes between Earth and Mars (And we can, thanks to NERVA), you could get all the Metal one could ever need. Specially Aluminium without nasty nasty Bauxite processing and blowing up parts of the Rain forest. Also you can produce fancy alloys that would be hard, impossible, or ridiculously expensive (so expensive that getting them from Mars may be profitable) to make on Earth. This is speculative of course.

So back to Tourism. I'd gladly pay half a million to see Mars for myself, if I had half a million. I'd even volunteer for a colony, in fact. And I'm absolutely certain I'm not the only one. To make life less misserable, build glass and polycarbonate domes with heavy shutters or other means of strong radiation shielding. With plants in them. Lots of plants. I know it won't be a great life at first.

And there's another reason: I think as soon as enough people live somewhere to need IDs, it's time to GTFO.

Furthermore, political reasons. The science appart, a society that manages to succesfully colonise Mars would prove its superiority over others. It'd inspire more people to into science, engineering and high tech industry, and ultimately improve all our lives. It'll lead to countless new discoveries and inventions, I know this because it's always been that way. But it won't happen unless someone actually does it.

Edited August 22, 2013 by SargeRho

[Nibb31]

You could do any number of things on Mars. From space tourism and extreme sports (why would anyone climb the Mt.Everest? ) to Industry.

You might find that the market for a $10 billion vacation to climb Mount Olympus is rather small. Not enough to build the infrastructure for even a low-volume viable tourism industry.

Mars's low gravity and thin atmosphere has the advantage that it's easy to lift off from there, Far far easier than from Earth. Iron is literally all over Mars, as well as plenty of other metals.

But unless you build your rockets on Mars, you still have to launch them from Earth. You might argue that you just have to build the rockets on Mars, but in that case you still have to send thousands of immigrants to work on Mars, as well as the factories and machinery and supplies to allow them to live there. We could also build the USS Enterprise, but that is science fiction and it won't happen in this century or the next. It is certainly way beyond the scope of MarsOne's proposal.

If you can build a transfer ship that commutes between Earth and Mars (And we can, thanks to NERVA), you could get all the Metal one could ever need.

What do you mean? If you are discussing a Mars Cycler, you still have to lift the metal from the planet's surface to rendez-vous with the cycler, correct the trajectory of the cycler ship, and bring the payload back down. The delta-V expenditure is the larger than flying that mass of metal directly. It's pointless for cargo.

If you mean a reusable cargo ship, why not? A transfer vehicle and off-planet mining and processing facilities will still cost trillions to build and operate, with a return on investment that is not worth it. It would be cheaper to extract minerals from sea water than to go with your proposal.

Specially Aluminium without nasty nasty Bauxite processing and blowing up parts of the Rain forest. Also you can produce fancy alloys that would be hard, impossible, or ridiculously expensive (so expensive that getting them from Mars may be profitable) to make on Earth. This is speculative of course.

Yes, it's pure speculation. You've been reading too much science fiction.

So back to Tourism. I'd gladly pay half a million to see Mars for myself, if I had half a million. I'd even volunteer for a colony, in fact. And I'm absolutely certain I'm not the only one. To make life less misserable, build glass and polycarbonate domes with heavy shutters or other means of strong radiation shielding. With plants in them. Lots of plants. I know it won't be a great life at first.

Half a million? That's a joke, right? It would more likely cost half a billion. You'll find that there aren't many people who have half a million (that's a joke, right? ) AND are willing to give up everything. Most rich folks have ties with families, homes, jobs, and leisure activities that they won't want to abandon forever. They might sign a check for a glass of zero-G champaign with Virgin Galactic, but they are not going to give up all their worldly possessions to live in a tin module and drink recycled urine.

And there's another reason: I think as soon as enough people live somewhere to need IDs, it's time to GTFO.

The World is a big place. You can go and live anywhere on Earth that doesn't require an ID if that's what you really want. Life will still be more fun than on Mars.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[SargeRho]

1: Missed my point. Plenty of people are willing to do things that seem stupid, insane or just useless to some.

2: 3d printing. A 3d-printed rocket engine injector was recently tested, which is only the first step toward the first 3d printed rocket engine. Link:

3: I think it's cheaper to send one large load at once than many small ones. Hence the idea with the Mars Cycler. Which could aerobrake into Mars orbit upon arrival, and load up on propellant there, load up, and head back to Earth, and aerobrake there as well. It could carry supplies from Earth to Mars, and then stuff from Mars back to Earth. It could be powered by NTRs or even FDRs, if they turn out to be anywhere near as powerful/useful as they are said to be. Kind of like a Superfreighter vs many small tradeships.

4: They said that about cellphones, planes, trains, horseless vehicles and spaceflight. There is no way of telling what will happen in the next 87 years. Just think of what happened in the past 50 years alone. Plenty of stuff that was "never going to happen" happened.

5: Estimate presuposes the Reusable Falcon 9, and 6 people going in one trip (which gets you 3 billions).

6: Missed my point there too. My point is: We're stagnating. Time to expand to other worlds.

Edited August 22, 2013 by SargeRho

[Diche Bach]

It might be because I'm an engineer, but this always seems like a really massive problem to me. I don't think people realise just how much infrastructure is required to support technology of this level. An actual self-sufficient outpost would have to be able to fabricate everything, from integrated circuits to pharmaceuticals to machine tools. They'd have to be able to locate and process raw materials of every kind, and have vast manufacturing facilities. The level of industrial capacity and technical expertise required is immense. Even with heavy automation you'd need megatons of equipment and a small army of people.

Exactly. In 100 years, maybe we can be confident we will send humans to visit Mars in a safe and economically feasible way. In 1000 years perhaps there will be a semi-permanent presence on Mars. But in the meantime, those earlier journeys and the subsequent bases will be dependent on the in-space infrastructure, technology and practice having been developed closer to Earth. You don't go from your first ocean-going vessel straight to colonizing the New World in a mere 50 years. It took hundreds if not thousands of years for that the happen on Earth and it stands to reason it will take an approximately comparable amount of time for it to happen for space 'colonization.' The fact that culture and technology evolve far more rapidly today is not a reason to expect that our rate of progress into colonizing space will occur more rapidly than preceding phases of technological/exploratory innovation for a couple of reasons: the economics are orders of magnitude greater than any preceding epoch of human expansion/exploration; space and extraterrestrial bodies cannot sustain human life without substantial artificial infrastructure.

Is Mars One a scam? Maybe not but it's not going to happen. Why?

Source: Global Exploration Roadmap 2013

Wow. That pretty much says it all right there. Mars is a true "hellhole."

Will we humans eventually be able to live in a healthy way, even perhaps to thrive and prosper from spending time on planet that is so clearly inhospitable to human life in so many ways? Of course we will! Our ingenuity, resourcefulness and intrepidness are without question sufficient for us to extend our presence anywhere and everywhere that basic laws of physics and chemistry might allow it.

It is just a question of time and effort.

In that sense, efforts like Mars One are to be applauded for keeping these long-term human dreams in the minds of the population. It is simply a shame that they are doing so by projecting completely unrealistic timetables and program plans.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Nibb31]

1: Missed my point. Plenty of people are willing to do things that seem stupid, insane or just useless to some.

Plenty of people are crazy, but that doesn't mean that you can create a viable industry to cater for any kind of craziness. You need to have a viable market and an economical business model to fund the investment in infrastructure to cater for the crazy people.

2: 3d printing. A 3d-printed rocket engine injector was recently tested, which is only the first step toward the first 3d printed rocket engine.

Sure, and how do you 3D print rocket fuel, consumables, lubricants, seals, clothes?

A 3D printer is nothing more than a simplified CNC machine. You are still going to need heavy machinery and workers to extract and process raw materials. Then you will need facilities and workers to assemble, test, and operate the machines. You are going to need more people to provide food and basic services for all those workers. A self sufficient colony is going to require thousands of workers and billions of tons of equipment and machinery.

It's science fiction and has nothing to do with MarsOne or any current technological capability.

A small colony of a dozen people is going to rely on supplies from the outside to survive. Without supplies, they will either die, or they will barely survive to live a miserable life inside their tin cans.

3: I think it's cheaper to send one large load at once than many small ones. Hence the idea with the Mars Cycler. Which could aerobrake into Mars orbit upon arrival, and load up on propellant there, load up, and head back to Earth, and aerobrake there as well. It could carry supplies from Earth to Mars, and then stuff from Mars back to Earth. It could be powered by NTRs or even FDRs, if they turn out to be anywhere near as powerful/useful as they are said to be. Kind of like a Superfreighter vs many small tradeships.

Yes, but a superfreighter costs a lot more to build than a land rover. Economies of scale are only possible when there is demand for a large volume. Large-scale interplanetary space transportation will arrive when there is a need to transport large volumes of freight between planets. This will only happen if there is a business case that involves that kind of requirement AND if the investment is justified. For the foreseeable future, there is no such business case.

Until then, you are again in the realm of science fiction.

4: They said that about cellphones, planes, trains, horseless vehicles and spaceflight. There is no way of telling what will happen in the next 87 years. Just think of what happened in the past 50 years alone. Plenty of stuff that was "never going to happen" happened.

...Or flying cars, the cure for cancer, moon bases, immortality, and teleportation. That's a typical fallacy. Plenty of stuff that "was going to happen" didn't, and lots of stuff that people couldn't even imagine 50 years ago, like the Internet or MP3 players, happened too. Just because you can dream something up doesn't mean that it makes sense or that it will happen one day. And vice versa.

5: Estimate presuposes the Reusable Falcon 9, and 6 people going in one trip (which gets you 3 billions).

You can't fly 6 people to Mars on a reusable F9. The F9R won't be able to carry a Dragon to LEO (it will have a reduced payload compared to the non-reusable F9). A DragonRider can't carry life support for 6 people on a 1 year trip. It's designed to carry 6 people to the ISS with life support for 1 week. Where are you going to put the supplies? Where are they going to sleep and exercise during the journey?

A RedDragon can only land 1 ton of equipment and supplies on Mars, by launching on a F9H. That is not enough to keep 6 people alive indefinitely. It's not even enough to land a proper ECLSS module like the one on the ISS, let alone the greenhouse tents and had modules, the ISRU equipment, the power generators and batteries, the excavating equipment, the radiation shielding, etc...

The ISS needs 3 or 4 resupply flights every year to keep the astronauts alive. Each flight carries 10 or more tons of supplies. You will need dozens of RedDragon flights every year to maintain an equivalent supply line.

Missed my point there too. My point is: We're stagnating. Time to expand to other worlds.

That is a totally subjective view. You need to take a step or two back. We have only been on this planet for 200 000 years. We have had writing and agriculture for only 3000 years. 500 years ago we didn't even know that the Earth was a rotating around the Sun. Powered flight was only 100 years ago and we went to the Moon 30 years ago. In the grand scheme of things, we are far from stagnating.

Also, nothing implies that we must be on that exponential curve forever. We are likely to reach a plateau and stagnate for various reasons, or decline and rise again, like we have in the past. We also try things, fail, and figure out what is practical and what isn't. It's called learning. Right now, colonizing Mars is not practical. So let's concentrate on stuff that is practical.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[Diche Bach]

No. What pushes Humanity to explore and expand is to find ways to improve our living conditions by increasing wealth, comfort , security, or all three of those conditions. That's all.

We go where we will be safe, where the food grows, where we will find a decent job and get a better home, like our ancestors followed the bison and dwelled in caves. When people emigrate it is always because they hope to find a better life for themselves and for their children, not because they want to "give themselves a meaning". Exploration and colonization was a government-sponsored initiative to increase the wealth and political influence of the country. The goal certainly was never for the colonies to become self-sustaining and independent, quite the contrary.

The "give ourselves a meaning" is western romanticism, not human nature.

Nothing on Mars provides any hope for increased wealth, comfort, or security, or for a better life for your children. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is no possible trade or wealth to exploit, and life would be harsh and dangerous.

I could not have said this better myself. It is exactly the truth.

This does not mean that humans will never colonize space. What it means is simply that the prospects for 'betterment' relative to the risks and costs have to be clearly favorable. When we cross that threshold there will be a cavalcade of space miners, space explorers, space outposts, and probably space mercenaries/pirates.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Seret]

1

2: 3d printing. A 3d-printed rocket engine injector was recently tested, which is only the first step toward the first 3d printed rocket engine. Link:

I've been having a little bet with myself about how long it would be before somebody mentioned 3D printing.

Let's get one thing straight: "3D printing", or more correctly called Additive Manufacturing, is a nice addition to the manufacturing toolbox but it doesn't completely replace the full range of current technologies. It isn't revolutionary in the sense that you'll be able to use it to make anything.

It's probably equivalent to the invention of something like welding. Before we could weld we had to construct large objects (eg: ships) out of riveted or bolted plates. Welding is useful, but we also still have rivets and bolts. Likewise AM is useful for some things (prototyping, small runs, etc) but for boring microstructural and metallurgical reasons it can't simply be used to squirt out any widget you want and expect it to perform perfectly.

[SargeRho]

My point is more along the lines of: You don't need a large factory to build rocket engines. And robotic mining is a thing. While you will still have to produce the materials, you get rid of at least 1 large factory, and can replace it with a smaller one. There's plenty of things you can do with 3d printing, that will make extraterrestrial colonisation far, far easier (and cheaper).

Also yes, the F9R will be able to carry a DragonRider to LEO. The F9H would be able to send it to Mars, while having at least the 2 boosters being reusable.

The greeks knew Earth orbits the Sun, actually. We've had agriculture for 8-10000 years. Teleportation and Flying cars exist, just not practical. There are cures for several types of cancer such as Leukemia.

RedDragon is a modified DragonRider for cargo missions. A crewed MTV might have to be assembled in 2 launches + crew launch. Still less than half a billion for the launches. Rocket stage for the transfer to Mars, an Inflatable Hab, perhaps from Bigelow Aerospace + a DragonRider for landing the Crew. A DragonRider can hold up to 7 people.

Edited August 22, 2013 by SargeRho