You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] rwbj ago 

It looks like this boils down to economics and physical viability. I think we both agree that the physical viability will be there, so I'll go with the economics side.

I think the most accurate way to look at this is really simple. You have a Venn diagram with two groups - those that can afford to go to Mars, and those that want to go to Mars. The market for people that would want to go to Mars, for whatever reason, is already likely in the millions. The big problem is the people that can afford to go to Mars. We need to get the total value of the overlap between those two groups to be greater than 'x' where 'x' is the total cost of a mission + sustenance.

And that's really the entire point of SpaceX. SpaceX today are working against their own short term interest. They can successfully get things into space and cheaper than most anybody else. Given the huge barriers to entry in orbital level spaceflight if they just charged what the market could bear, they'd be seeing far greater profits. But their goal is precisely to send the cost of spaceflight way down. They recently succeeded in reflying a previously flown and recovered rocket - something most were saying would be impossible not that long ago. Following this Musk has stated that he believes they can imminently get the cost of flights down about a hundred fold. Today a flight costs about $60 million. That'd be $600k for an orbital launch, which is just insane to even think about. To put that into context, Virgin Galactic has booked hundreds of individuals on 5 minute suborbital flights into space at $250k/person (long before they should have started accepting reservations, but that's another topic.) Suborbital flights being some orders of magnitude more simple than orbital flights.

Now anyhow the point here is that SpaceX's goal is not to launch rockets, but to begin to develop what I think we can really finally begin to call space ships. This is the ITS or interplanetary transport system. The goal there is to get the cost, per person, down to about $250k. And given the trajectory of SpaceX that's about the point that they're expecting to begin to see the economics of Mars travel begin to be economically viable. There's definitely a long way to go and I see an extremely strong argument that things could end up being delayed (their current timeline aims for the first human flight to Mars in 2024 - that would of course be specialists, not general access) but I can't really see any way that it simply cannot work and again in the relatively near future.

I also don't think we're left to put all all our eggs in one basket. SpaceX has a number of private competitors who are even more well funded and are racing behind them, like Blue Origin. And it's also possible that the old giants like Boeing and Lockheed might one day start trying to do something other than collect fat taxpayer checks. They have some plans, but they seem incredibly conservative/risk averse and expensive. Assuming SpaceX manages to send two humans around the moon next year, as they've announced, that will likely be a sharp reality check for the old giants.


Very interesting on the failure rate of restaurants. I had not considered that, though I was also speaking moreso of franchised locations. It's really incredible how much every little nuanced bit of every one of these possibilities has so much room for discussion. Automation opens up even more. For the sake of not writing forum novels, I definitely agree on automation completely upsetting our standard economic models making it difficult to try to discuss beyond that horizon in any way beyond completely blind speculation.

0
0

[–] Mathurin1911 ago 

I think the most accurate way to look at this is really simple. You have a Venn diagram with two groups - those that can afford to go to Mars, and those that want to go to Mars. The market for people that would want to go to Mars, for whatever reason, is already likely in the millions. The big problem is the people that can afford to go to Mars. We need to get the total value of the overlap between those two groups to be greater than 'x' where 'x' is the total cost of a mission + sustenance.

You havent quite gotten what I am saying. It is possible right now to send people to the moon and build a city on the moon, or mars, that we agree on, I just dont think you understand how hard it will be. Indeed there are people who want to do it and who have enough money to do it. It is irrational. Humans are not strictly rational, but their irrationality has hard economic limits.

Humans dont actually go somewhere and live there for no reason, or just because they want too, there must be something there, some reason to stay, usually an economic one. Some humans go to awesome places to come back and tell the tale, but thats not a colony. Its possible that one day we will have hotels on the moon/mars, but it is unlikely. Colonies are not made by Armstrong or Shackleton, they are made by people whose name you will never know.

So what is on mars other than that it is awesome, strange and new that will cause people to go there to stay, beyond the history makers looking to be in books and have buildings made after them.

I also don't think we're left to put all all our eggs in one basket.

With current technology levels and the advances in the forseeable future, we still would be. A mars colony would have to have the equivalent of a chip foundry (among many other things) in order to be actually self sufficient, otherwise a natural disaster on earth would just doom the colonists to slow death trying to kludge together failing systems without parts. While they are working on making 3d printers able to print circuits, nothing yet implies they could produce usable integrated chip level stuff, even with advances.

Modern people dont have to deal with maintenance very much, so they dont tend to think about it, but the effort required to maintain a habitable space on mars makes it highly unlikely to be a real colony for some time yet.

Dont get me wrong, I love the ideas, I just dont find them feasible.

0
0

[–] rwbj ago 

You're definitely right. I missed what you were asking, but I think there's a fair reason for that. To me it's a question with a self evident answer. I don't mean to say it's obvious, but rather that it's extremely subjective. For many people adventure and voyage are things in and of themselves. Not even things to tell people about, but things to do just for their own sake. I moved and live halfway around the world and have no public social media - I'm definitely not doing it to instagram some exotic food or imagecraft on facebook (really want to say fakebook, but I'm just not angsty enough). There's no true reason for it other than a desire to seek out new things. And there are plenty exactly along the same lines as myself from all sorts of very diverse backgrounds.

The goal of the early adventurers will be mostly people wanting to help be part of an entirely new colonization. These people will lay the foundation for people that would need a 'catch' to want to stay on the planet. I think the motivations for such will vary radically. Like you mentioned there will be definitely be a race for "firsts." Budweiser, of all companies, is already starting to carry out experiments determining what will be needed to brew beer on Mars (and on the way there), and for the sake of all that's sacred I really hope they're not the only option. Beyond that I think you'll have lots of hands on type people who enjoy solving problems and creating things. I imagine you'll also have many libertarian leaning individuals who see it as an opportunity to be part of something that will, all but certainly, end up with its own entirely distinct political system that will likely be left libertarianism.

In some ways today I think even SpaceX as a business is an example of this mindset. They are attracting some of the top engineering and computational talent in the world. Yet the pay is terrible relative to what these individuals could make elsewhere, the hours and work are absolutely brutal, and they'll never likely receive any personal accolades for what they're doing. It's just really enjoyable being a part of things that are important for many people - and I think colonizing another planet will be, by a wide margin, the single most important thing humanity has ever done.

Once the initial settlement and foundation are established then you have countless reasons for people to tour or visit it. Sports, science, and many other fields will offer opportunities and possibilities absolutely unlike anything on Earth. And the early colonization will have a very nice selection bias towards traits. You'll have tech minded people with an adventurous and freedom seeking personalities who have also shown themselves capable of playing our little game back on Earth well enough. Think of something like Silicon Valley. The main draw in such an area is really nothing but the people and the possibilities that entails. Then there will of course be everything from science to sports that will be unlike anything possible on Earth. Ultimately I think there will be [many] people who want to build 'it' and from there, if you build it they will come.

I definitely agree that complete self sustenance would be a longterm goal. There's a priority list a million items long and demanding self sustenance as immediately as possible would likely be incredibly inefficient. Though self 'reliance' as a sort of weaker version is definitely an immediate given. The orbits between the two planets are only optimally aligned for a window every couple of years. Future propulsion technologies might render this less relevant, but for now - the people that will go there won't be coming back any time soon.