SpaceX's Elon Musk reveals more details on Mars plans - Polidicks

[QUOTE]But in an interview with The Post this week, Musk laid out additional details for the first time, equating the spirit of the missions with the settlement of the New World by the colonists who crossed the Atlantic Ocean centuries ago. And he acknowledged the immense difficulties of getting to a planet that is, on average, 140 million miles from earth. The months-long journey is sure to be “hard, risky, dangerous, difficult,” Musk said, but he was confident people would sign up to go because “just as with the establishment of the English colonies, there are people who love that. They want to be the pioneers.” [/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/10/elon-musk-provides-new-details-on-his-mind-blowing-mission-to-mars/"]Source[/URL] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't post most of the article. Your quote snippet should not go beyond a summary of the story." - OvB))[/highlight]

I wouldn't compare colonizing Mars to the colonization of the New World, I would compare it to research expeditions and settlements on Antarctica. Just like colonists didn't rush to Antarctica, they wont go to Mars, unless there is some research to be done or some company sends them there. At the end of the day the driest parts of Sahara and coldest parts of Antarctica still offer more to us than Mars. New World was basically paradise full with natural resources.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50491695]I wouldn't compare colonizing Mars to the colonization of the New World, I would compare it to research expeditions and settlements on Antarctica. Just like colonists didn't rush to Antarctica, they wont go to Mars, unless there is some research to be done or some company sends them there. At the end of the day the driest parts of Sahara and coldest parts of Antarctica still offer more to us than Mars. New World was basically paradise full with natural resources.[/QUOTE] despite the presence of rich minerals and other resources in Antarctica, it hasn't really been exploited even though there has been a continued human presence for like a century there with Mars being even further away and more expensive and difficult to reach, i find it difficult to see what the economic potential is

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50491946]despite the presence of rich minerals and other resources in Antarctica, it hasn't really been exploited even though there has been a continued human presence for like a century there with Mars being even further away and more expensive and difficult to reach, i find it difficult to see what the economic potential is[/QUOTE] The economic potential could very well be people [I]wanting[/I] to go there for the sake of going there.

There is no economic gain in going there yet. The point is to make humanity multiplanetary so we don't have all our eggs in one basket. It's also business for spacex, who will be the only one with the capability to move heavy things and people to Mars. Like I said in the last thread: [QUOTE=OvB;50467922]I look at SpaceX's Mars architecture as a "if you build it they will come" type scenario. While SpaceX's new BFR rocket will be able to send colonists to Mars, it will also be able to send hundreds of tons into orbit and elsewhere. It opens up previously unheard of potential for companies and governments to develop projects and vehicles that previously wouldn't have been worth the effort because no launch vehicle exists for them. Mars really doesn't have a tangible benefit that justifies building a colony there. The Americas were useful to Europe for their trees, pelts, and tons of other untapped resources. Mars (or anywhere in space for that matter) simply isn't that. The first colony on Mars is going to come at a cost to whoever sets sail first. Government or private. And then they come. Contractors will pitch their best solutions for making aquaponics, for raising livestock, for making the martian soil into cinder blocks, for inventive ways to build houses and generate power and etc, etc, etc. The best way to get rich on the California gold rush wasn't to toil away sluicing for gold. It was selling the sluices, pans, and picks. But those people need a way to get there. And who will have the only train there? SpaceX. SpaceX makes the colony, eats the cost. Demand for products (and recognition(First X on Mars!)) increases. People want to get their stuff to Mars to support the newest frontier. So they book a flight with - SpaceX. Really begs the question, is it truly going to be as expensive as it seems? If SpaceX invests Falcon 9 profits in building Mars stuff, then uses that Mars stuff to send hundreds of people to Mars at $500,000 ($50,000,000 in sales per flight) per person (on a rocket and capsule that can be reused, saving cost), then reaps the reward of profiting off the assumed boom? We'll have to see. Exciting times.[/QUOTE]

I want to move to Mars in my lifetime damn it.

Has anyone ran the thought of a space station half way for any reason such as human comfort or food growing? Being trapped inside a small tube for a long time could have huge psychological impacts. I'm assuming improbable at best but not impossible.

Speaking of economic potential, there's loads of titanium on the moon, its close as hell compared to mars, why not start there? Space travel is done in baby steps for now, why is there such a rush to put tons of people on mars?

[QUOTE=Karmah;50491957]The economic potential could very well be people [I]wanting[/I] to go there for the sake of going there.[/QUOTE] If you mean to settle, remember Average Joes need some rich company that plans to set up an operation there or a rich benefactor that will take care and finance them. It's not like people can sell all their stuff, go to Mars and expect government to give them a piece of land to start a farm and live of land there and be independent, like it was done when expanding US territories. Life support will cost billions. If you meant tourism, well it takes months of expensive and dangerous travel and when/if you come back to Earth it will take quite some time for the body to adopt to Earth gravity again.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50492110]Has anyone ran the thought of a space station half way for any reason such as human comfort or food growing? Being trapped inside a small tube for a long time could have huge psychological impacts. I'm assuming improbable at best but not impossible.[/QUOTE] The closest anyone has ever gotten to a psychological breakdown was surfing a Soyuz mission when the Soviets kept extending it and extending it until one of the cosmonauts threatened to kill his partner. Space agencies of the world have avoided a lot of this by very carefully selecting candidates, but even then there have been some problems, like one time a space shuttle payload specialist had a nervous breakdown as his experiment failed during the mission

[QUOTE=Karmah;50491957]The economic potential could very well be people [I]wanting[/I] to go there for the sake of going there.[/QUOTE] so a few dozen billionaires at most?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50492110]Has anyone ran the thought of a space station half way for any reason such as human comfort or food growing? Being trapped inside a small tube for a long time could have huge psychological impacts. I'm assuming improbable at best but not impossible.[/QUOTE] One of the many problems with a station at halfway is that you need to slow down and start up again when you reach and leave it. That's a lot of fuel. Also nobody would be able to relax when some guy is lubricating the hallway while honking his own nose.

[QUOTE=jonu67;50492091]I want to move to Mars in my lifetime damn it.[/QUOTE] you being able to type this means you're too early. 100 years or so, might be viable [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;50492123]Speaking of economic potential, there's loads of titanium on the moon, its close as hell compared to mars, why not start there? Space travel is done in baby steps for now, why is there such a rush to put tons of people on mars?[/QUOTE] Mars has water, an atmosphere, and more gravity. Overally mars is more viable in those ways, even though the moon is closer, mars has more usable resources that our technology and people can adapt to quicker

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;50492304]you being able to type this means you're too early. 100 years or so, might be viable [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] Mars has water, an atmosphere, and more gravity. Overally mars is more viable in those ways, even though the moon is closer, mars has more usable resources that our technology and people can adapt to quicker[/QUOTE] Mars is MUCH further away, the moon is more viable because its only a couple days travel from earth, that and a good launch site for ships. Also the time involved, 6 months to travel, survey for resources, and mine them, which would take who knows how long, then another 6 months back. Not exactly efficient with current space tech or even a few decades from now.

Were just not there yet to be able to support large manned missions to other bodies within our solar system yet. Small manned missions are relatively easy and we would have already set boots on Martian soil a decade ago or more if the Political will had been there.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50492189]so a few dozen billionaires at most?[/QUOTE] Musk has talked briefly about tickets to Mars would only be $500,000 but everyone would need to work pretty hard. If it will cost that much in reality who knows. [QUOTE=RobBrown4PM;50493534]Were just not there yet to be able to support large manned missions to other bodies within our solar system yet. Small manned missions are relatively easy and we would have already set boots on Martian soil a decade ago or more if the Political will had been there.[/QUOTE] Problem with small manned missions to Mars is you are going to have to stay on Mars for over a year due to the way the planets orbit.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50497434]Musk has talked briefly about tickets to Mars would only be $500,000 but everyone would need to work pretty hard. If it will cost that much in reality who knows.[/QUOTE] half a million dollars to spend a few years of your life in a small box before wandering about on some boring planet without much to do (the novelty would quickly die off) sounds a bit unsatisfying we're talking about a potential market (at the max) of maybe 100,000 people who can afford to piss away this much money. how many of them will want to go? how many are healthy enough to go on such a flight? how many of them are even able to go? it might become more feasible if somebody built a space elevator but even then that's probably a century off (if one is even built), and even you're going to have to rely on people who are both mad and wealthy enough to want to go the longer term goal of putting a gift shop on Mars is probably centuries off

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50497586]half a million dollars to spend a few years of your life in a small box before wandering about there (the novelty would quickly die off) sounds a bit unsatisfying we're talking about a potential market (at the max) of maybe 100,000 people who can afford to piss away this much money. how many of them will want to go? how many are healthy enough to go on such a flight? how many of them are even able to go? it might become more feasible if somebody built a space elevator but even then that's probably a century off (if one is even built)[/QUOTE] It takes about 8 months to get there. I'm not sure what space elevators have to do with this? It's certainly not something for everyone but a lot of people will probably be interested in it. Exploring a new world and building it up from nothing. There's a sizeable amount of people that would be interested in that, and they could sell all their earth assets to make the money. It's going to be a little while before we start sending regular people though, the colony would need to get built up a bit first. Out of 7 billion people though I think more than 100,000 would be interested in it. For health requirements who knows? We are going to have to see how the first colonists are impacted health wise to know that.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50497586]half a million dollars to spend a few years of your life in a small box before wandering about on some boring planet without much to do (the novelty would quickly die off) sounds a bit unsatisfying we're talking about a potential market (at the max) of maybe 100,000 people who can afford to piss away this much money. how many of them will want to go? how many are healthy enough to go on such a flight? how many of them are even able to go? it might become more feasible if somebody built a space elevator but even then that's probably a century off (if one is even built), and even you're going to have to rely on people who are both mad and wealthy enough to want to go the longer term goal of putting a gift shop on Mars is probably centuries off[/QUOTE] When it comes to a trip to Mars, I think people would be willing to part with a much larger chunk of their wealth than, say, for a suborbital space flight. I estimate the number of people who can come up with the money to go for such a trip in the millions at least.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50497649]It takes about 8 months to get there. I'm not sure what space elevators have to do with this? It's certainly not something for everyone but a lot of people will probably be interested in it. Exploring a new world and building it up from nothing. There's a sizeable amount of people that would be interested in that, and they could sell all their earth assets to make the money. It's going to be a little while before we start sending regular people though, the colony would need to get built up a bit first. Out of 7 billion people though I think more than 100,000 would be interested in it. For health requirements who knows? We are going to have to see how the first colonists are impacted health wise to know that.[/QUOTE] while you mention space elevators, it would be possible to construct one on mars, not right away, but without having to worry about crushing anything important and the lower gravity, its more than possible [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] [quote] from wikipedia: A Martian tether could be much shorter than one on Earth. Mars' surface gravity is 38 percent of Earth's, while it rotates around its axis in about the same time as Earth. Because of this, Martian stationary orbit is much closer to the surface, and hence the elevator could be much shorter. Current materials are already sufficiently strong to construct such an elevator.[52] Building a Martian elevator would be complicated by the Martian moon Phobos, which is in a low orbit and intersects the Equator regularly (twice every orbital period of 11 h 6 min).[/quote] sure we would have to be careful to dodge Phobos, but its got a lot going for it. Once you build a space elevator from mars, colonization would get substantially easier because you could rapidly deploy orbital infastructure that would be impossible on earth such as solar collectors, mining stations, and easily deploy communications systems such as GPS and satellite links. the only downside with it is mars's geostationary orbit is not very stable like earth's

[QUOTE=Morgen;50497649]It takes about 8 months to get there. I'm not sure what space elevators have to do with this? It's certainly not something for everyone but a lot of people will probably be interested in it. Exploring a new world and building it up from nothing. There's a sizeable amount of people that would be interested in that, and they could sell all their earth assets to make the money. It's going to be a little while before we start sending regular people though, the colony would need to get built up a bit first. Out of 7 billion people though I think more than 100,000 would be interested in it. For health requirements who knows? We are going to have to see how the first colonists are impacted health wise to know that.[/QUOTE] a space elevator would obviously reduce the cost of getting things into space substantially (and by implication getting to mars) the economics of colonizing mars is going to questionable considering that it's even riskier and with less benefits than colonizing antarctica unless you reduce the cost of getting there substantially, only ultramillionaires will have the money to spend on going there

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50498056]a space elevator would obviously reduce the cost of getting things into space substantially (and by implication getting to mars) the economics of colonizing mars is going to questionable considering that it's even riskier and with less benefits than colonizing antarctica unless you reduce the cost of getting there substantially, only ultramillionaires will have the money to spend on going there[/QUOTE] We don't need a space elevator for that, wait until the end of September.

Snippity snippy snippity snip

I just hope we get to plant an American flag on it first, and knowing Elon Musk's views on America, I'm sure he'd love to.

[QUOTE=wystan;50498188]I just hope we get to plant an American flag on it first, and knowing Elon Musk's views on America, I'm sure he'd love to.[/QUOTE] Seriously? The engineering achievement of a generation, and all you can think of is "I hope America gets to claim it as ours! Make America Great Again, God Bless America! *bald eagle sheds a tear*"

[QUOTE=wystan;50498188]I just hope we get to plant an American flag on it first, and knowing Elon Musk's views on America, I'm sure he'd love to.[/QUOTE] why not a united nations flag

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50498194]Seriously? The engineering achievement of a generation, and all you can think of is "I hope America gets to claim it as ours! Make America Great Again, God Bless America! *bald eagle sheds a tear*"[/QUOTE] It's more icing on the cake for another giant leap for mankind [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50498206]why not a united nations flag[/QUOTE] Because assuming SpaceX does this, and SpaceX is an American company, I guess they could put their own flag on it if they wanted. But Elon Musk being the turbo American Nationalist and Exceptionalist he is, I think he'll go with Old Glory.

[QUOTE=wystan;50498207]It's more icing on the cake for another giant leap for mankind [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] Because assuming SpaceX does this, and SpaceX is an American company, I guess they could put their own flag on it if they wanted. But Elon Musk being the turbo American Nationalist and Exceptionalist he is, I think he'll go with Old Glory.[/QUOTE] hmm it'd be nicer to see them put a flag representing all humans rather than just a minor nation

-nvm can't read-

I would be very surprised if they didn't put the american flag on it. The Outer space treaty states that the US has to be responsible for everything SpaceX does on other planets. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] The US really deserve it though as they made SpaceX possible. Russia laughed in Musk's face, and the ESA has a joke of a budget. I am a bit disappointed that the UK never really did anything with space.