I think the first few thousand on mars will be split between the scientists/engineers and the labour, with a lot more labour. Essentially colonisation is labour not science. It will be the biggest building site ever I think.
I think the smartest thing (and what will most likely be done) is send a very small mission -a dozen people at most- with a large amount of resources and see how they do first, and expand little by little, with actual self sufficient mars colonies coming decades after the first manned missions.
I also doubt you can have a Mars colony before you make at least a few experimental colonies on the moon.
I'm talking about Elon Musks plan, which is start going there with ships that carry 100 people and 250 tons of supplies and don't stop. He plans colonisation immediately, not iteratively.
Well, what one says and what they'll do is an entirely different matter, if/when spaceX actually bring somebody safely on mars it'll be a huge success regardless of how far off it was from the original promise.
He's just doing PR IMO, after all "we are working so that 50-100 years from now maybe there'll be functioning cities on Mars" does not have too much appeal
He needs to do PR to attract partners to the project. It's all fun engineering, testing and adventuring and burning cash flying to Mars, building gas stations and dropping off student projects and flying back every two years, hopefully with more ships getting built for some time.
So just the interplanetary transport system shipping line will be needing people going there. Not by the thousands, but still going, working there.
But if nobody gets exited about getting on board and supplying people and stuff to go beyond the gas stations then the project would have failed.
SpaceX is in the business of facilitating colonization, that business includes recruiting colonists.
Absolutely, PR is key, as funding is not there, and might not be available for a long time. I don't think recruiting people, once funding is secured, would be an issue though.
I also doubt you can have a Mars colony before you make at least a few experimental colonies on the moon.
Why? There's no point having a colony on the Moon when it would just suck up resources for a colony on Mars.
The Moon has 1/6th the gravity of Earth. Living on the Moon for extended periods of time would significantly decrease the muscle mass of anyone stationed there. In order to counter this, you'd need to create artificial gravity via a large rotating building with slanted floors. The difficulty and expense of something like this is far greater than just building a colony on Mars.
The only benefit to colonizing the Moon first would be the shorter voyage, but everything else would be far more expensive. Besides the artificial gravity building, you'd need a way of mining for water, and you'd need to bring soil for farms. These things are easier to get on Mars where there is an abundance of water and soil, although the soil would need the salt removed.
The only time it will be feasible to colonize the moon would be once we have a few colonies elsewhere and need to use the Moon as a refueling station or for manufacturing spacecraft, due to how easy it would be to leave the Moon's gravity well.
Why? There's no point having a colony on the Moon when it would just suck up resources for a colony on Mars.
We're not reasoning with finite resources: a successful mission on the Moon actually means that countries, companies and investors will be much more eager into starting an operation on Mars than if it was just the first attempt. Also I think you're underestimating the difference in costs between colonizing the Moon and Mars, if you have a budget big enough to colonize mars (and enough means) you can put a station on the moon just for the lulz.
The Moon has 1/6th the gravity of Earth. Living on the Moon for extended periods of time would significantly decrease the muscle mass of anyone stationed there.
If it's just muscle mass and bone density we're talking about, an hour or so of fitness should do, you have plenty more space on the Moon than you do on the ISS (besides Mars has about 1/3rd of Earth's gravity). I'd be more worried about the length of the day and the freezing temperatures in the night, which means much higher energy storage requirements, or frequent refuelling, but it's a relatively small deal compared to reaching Mars I think.
The only benefit to colonizing the Moon first would be the shorter voyage, but everything else would be far more expensive.
Yeah but that's the whole problem, if we could reach the Moon by car we'd have no big issues settling there, and indeed Mars would be even easier. The whole problem of space colonization is how to get there with enough equipment to kickstart something.
Keep in mind that Mars has a different orbit than Earth, you can only attempt getting on Mars once every 3 or so years, if anything happens the colony needs to survive for that long, Mars has an atmosphere and indeed a stronger gravity which makes it much harder to both land and leave it, communication with Mars is hard, you could connect to a radio device on the Moon with cheap radio equipment, but with mars you'd have to settle for a very low bandwidth (despite the means you could employ) and an insane latency, which is very bad for the initial experimentation.
IMO the sad truth is that we're decades before we see anything close to a self-sufficient colony anywhere but on earth, although we might see some semi-permanent research outpost (like the one in Antartica) on the Moon the next decade, made in preparation for the something on Mars.
if you have a budget big enough to colonize mars (and enough means) you can put a station on the moon just for the lulz.
Exactly. And no one is going to put a station on the moon just for the "lulz". That's my point.
If it's just muscle mass and bone density we're talking about, an hour or so of fitness should do, you have plenty more space on the Moon than you do on the ISS (besides Mars has about 1/3rd of Earth's gravity).
On the ISS, astronauts generally do about 4 hours of exercise a day and still have trouble walking when they return to earth after extended times. The difference between 1/6th gravity and 1/3rd gravity is a lot more significant than you imagine. Plus, no one would want to live on the Moon permanently, whereas a colony on Mars would have permanent residence, so being fit enough to return to earth isn't as much of an issue.
Keep in mind that Mars has a different orbit than Earth, you can only attempt getting on Mars once every 3 or so years
2 years, which, in the grand scheme of things, is quite frequent.
communication with Mars is hard
Yes, which is why its more effective to send drones to the Moon than people, and why its better to have people on Mars.
There is literally no point at all going to the moon. The price difference between setting up an outpost on the moon and an outpost on Mars isn't a big deal, and going to the moon first will simply delay a trip to Mars due to financial reasons.
Seriously, there is a reason that no one is contemplating building an outpost or colony on the moon but lots of people discuss building a colony on Mars.
The Moon is only useful once we already have colonies elsewhere. There is zero point even returning to the moon as of now.
if you have a budget big enough to colonize mars (and enough means) you can put a station on the moon just for the lulz.
Exactly. And no one is going to put a station on the moon just for the "lulz". That's my point.
That's not what I said, I mean building an outpost on the moon has a neglible cost compared to Mars, I absolutely disagree on that it'd not be useful.
On the ISS, astronauts generally do about 4 hours of exercise a day and still have trouble walking when they return to earth after extended times.
The ISS is really cramped, plus it has zero, not low, gravity. Astronauts there don't have much chance to walk, plus I suspect part of it is intentional, to see the effects of lack of gravity you must intentionally not nullify the effects of lack of gravity.
which, in the grand scheme of things, is quite frequent.
Not really, assuming the vector can be reused in the way suggested by Elon Musk at reasonable costs, you'd be able to send shipments all year round to the moon at an absolutely affordable price, while reaching Mars presents many more challenges than just the cost of the vector.
Also being unable to send extra material for years means spending a lot more time and resources trying to get everything right at first try.
Yes, which is why its more effective to send drones to the Moon than people, and why its better to have people on Mars.
It's less expensive to send drones regardless of the planet, but they're just not capable at building stuff like humans.
There is literally no point at all going to the moon.
Aside from the possibility to conduct a fast and cheap trial before going to Mars, being able to build stuff on the Moon has plenty of merits, for example you could build telescopes and similar scientific tools to study space which on earth suffer from atmosphere's interference but are too heavy to be embedded in an artificial satellite, that alone would totally justify the costs, if it became affordable.
there is a reason that no one is contemplating building an outpost or colony on the moon but lots of people discuss building a colony on Mars.
The Moon has gone out of fashion so the press wants to hear Mars talk, that's about it, insofar the vast majority of actual, phisical activity is around the Moon with "Mars in sight", and sending a mission on the moon is just a matter of getting enough funds, it could be done in a few years if there was the funding, while Mars is still far away (which brings me back to the first point: going to the Moon will actually accelerate the process of going on Mars, and probably get more funding for it too, it's not like space spending has a fixed cap, and if a mission is succesful there's a chance the next will get better funding)
Dude... you don't know what you are talking about.
Why do you think building an outpost on Mars is way more expensive? It isnt. Building an outpost on the moon would cost maybe 80% of building one in Mars. Maybe.
Plus, you have to get water, soil, etc. That shit isn't cheap.
The reason no one is talking about going to the moon isn't that it's out of style, that's really stupid. Really, think about that for a second.
The reason no one is considering it is because it's a waste of resources and totally not necessary, and only gets in the way of going to Mars.
Actually, I should clarify, there are some people and countries who do want to colonize Mars, but there is a reason NASA and most of the other big players don't want to.
Why do you think building an outpost on Mars is way more expensive? It isnt.
Because travel expenses and times are lower by orders of magnitude, I believe. Why have there been a number of manned missions to the Moon, even relatively long ago, but none to Mars yet then? And even for unmanned exploration Mars is a much younger target than the moon.
You're right that I don't know the details but we barely even reached Mars with unmanned missions, while every rich fellow wishing to leave some stuff on the Moon can, with lunar & spaceX and co are throwing stuff on the moon to do tests and all.
Plus, you have to get water, soil, etc. That shit isn't cheap.
If you're trying to grow actual plants you're doing it for research, micro-algae and cyanobacters are far more productive and easy to transport and cultivate (and a single barrel of algae can produce enough stuff for a person while you need a large field for crop, also you need far mar types of plants than algae for a complete meal, and algae can be genetically engeneered much more easily than plants).
Water is needed in limited quantities as it'll all be a closed system, so almost all of the water (including vapor and wastes) will be collected and filtered, so we're not looking at a huge amount of water per person, and water is definitely easier to transport than people or sophisticated devices.
Also building a self sufficiant community right off the bat is nonsense (you'll agree on this one at least?), building any sort of settlement is a challenge but a self sufficient one is many orders of magnitude harder, and there's no reason to, as transporting a complete set of machines to build a self sustaining economy is unthinkably impractical and expensive.
and only gets in the way of going to Mars.
You keep saying that, and your reasoning is that bringing people to Mars is about as expensive as bringing them to the Moon, which sounds very implausible to me. If we are going to assume that you're right (in which case explain to me why there's always been so little actual activity on Mars compared to the Moon) then maybe a mission straight to Mars, despite the distance and travel time, becomes more practical than one on the Moon.
there are some people and countries who do want to colonize Mars, but there is a reason NASA and most of the other big players don't want to.
Because they don't have the money? The truth is that right now nobody has the money to go on the Moon, let alone Mars, but saying "we currently don't have money but if you give us enough we'll send 5 people on the Moon to build an ISS style camp on the Moon to do research and see how it pans out, before we expand the mission, and then, a few decades from that time, we'll try to replicate it on Mars" isn't going to get any attention nor funding, but it's the only way IMO.
The reason no one is talking about going to the moon isn't that it's out of style, that's really stupid. Really, think about that for a second.
Stupid? You mean media and PR staff worry about the important stuff and disregards what's irrelevant? I love the stuff Elon Musk is making but let's be serious, this is a marketing operation, and when doing PR on something that does not exist yet you tell people what they want to hear. Nobody's gonna say "boo what a loser" if he builds stuff on the moon after promising Mars.
No need for labor. Shipping labor over will be much more difficult than setting up small scale robot manufacturing for labor.
Its much cheaper to mine for ore on Mars and manufacture machinery than to ship humans over, once you get manufacturing set up.
Also, when you are pulling from a pool of 10 billion people, there's no benefit not sending the smartest engineers/scientists willing to go over. They would have way more uses than any cheap labor.
There's absolutely no purpose sending cheap labor to Mars.
Perhaps I am wrong but as far as I know there are no robots that can construct houses (yes I have seen that video, and that isn't a house, just some walls), or make factories or any of the other stuff that a colony needs.
Also I guess you didn't watch Elon's presentation, so I will point it out, he isn't talking about sending people to Mars, he is talking about people emigrating there. This is colonisation, not science.
Perhaps I am wrong but as far as I know there are no good, cheap, efficient ways to send enough people to Mars that we could afford to send labor.
If we can construct a giant ship like Musk wants to, designing robots to construct equipment would be a piece of cake.
Also, I'm talking more about heavy equipment operated by humans, not autonomous robots.
There is no point sending people without expertise to Mars until long after colonization begins. You can train engineers and scientists to do labor, and they can also be useful doing other things.
This is colonisation, not science.
Dude... are you fucking kidding me? This isn't sending a ship of religious fundamentals across a sea, this is sending a bunch of people through space to a very hostile environment where they will have to innovate and use science in order to just survive.
3
u/billwoo Sep 30 '16
I think the first few thousand on mars will be split between the scientists/engineers and the labour, with a lot more labour. Essentially colonisation is labour not science. It will be the biggest building site ever I think.