but it's only because I don't see the economic need to leave a gravity well for an other.
Well, my opinion is that we currently don't have the resources to achieve that, nor it will happen soon.
but it's only because I don't see the economic need to leave a gravity well for an other.
And the often-used notion of "But people in the past thought X was impossible, but they were proven wrong, therefore if you think that Y is impossible, you'll be proven wrong!" can be (but is not always) a bad logical fallacy.
Fortunately, that was not my point.
Trying to paint the future with today's technology isn't realistic and it must alert when it results in extreme weird scenarios.
Asking which technology will help in 50 years isn't reasonable.
My point is : it is presumptuous to say being sure that an event will (not) happen and how and why.
Unless you're psychic :crystalball: .
You're giving a solution and then showing why this one wouldn't work.
If there was a valid solution at a reasonable cost and success rate, the details would be widely discussed today not sometime in the future.
Numbers won't change that, as fancy as they can be.
...
I would say, unless we get insane economic growth rates on Mars and in the Mars-Earth-trade, we are even a few centuries away from such conditions. It means a 13,383,000% growth from what we can land on Mars today. Or: 16.6% per year for one century.
To check if this will happen:
Next year we would need to land 1050 kg on Mars then.
In five years 1942 kg p.a.
In ten years 4183 kg p.a.
In 50 years 1977.3 tons p.a.
While I agree having millions of people living on Mars is a daunting task, Elon was clearly speaking in the sense of it being a self-sustaining colony.
Bob Clark
You interpret his words as if he was a prophet. I don't see the point. He says what he says and does what he does. Period.
You're not a fan clearly. Is it because you don't like commercial space in general or just because you're a strong supporter of SLS and believe they are opposed to each other?
Bob Clark
You're not a fan clearly. Is it because you don't like commercial space in general or just because you're a strong supporter of SLS and believe they are opposed to each other?
Bob Clark
Personnal attacks are not required...
I can't speak for N Molson, but I'm opposed to baseless advertisements. His achievements thus far, while impressive, are simply too limited to justify him talking about putting millions of people on Mars.
Who was leveling a personal attach against whom?
I've noticed supporters of the SLS generally do not have a high regard for Elon or commercial space.
Millions would be possible if you sent up a couple hundred of the redneck baby factories we have around here. But if they keep house there like they do here I doubt they'd be able to make it long enough to pop out more than 3-4 kids.
Please. Stop that. Now. That's free-flaming, you didn't even read what I posted. :dry:
Personnal attacks are not required.
- "Commercial space" : I don't see in a near future space transportation companies be economically viable. For now, even SpaceX (the only one that actually sent something in LEO) receives "awards" from the governement in form of money, so the "private" word seems to be a little exageration to me. Also, I'd like to see real competition in space ; for now there is nothing like that. Now things may evolve, and I hope to be wrong.
- SLS : I'm deliberately showing enthusiasm in an attempt to balance the "boo, SLS is bad because it is a political rocket that will never fly" position that seems to have contaminated the Forum. Such a project has necessarily political issues, it's inevitable. It will possibly be the most technologically advanced launcher of it's time, and, for now, its developpement follow the schedule. Yes, it costs a lot of money. But I'm convinced that the heavy launcher approach for deep space exploration is more realistic than using dozen of smaller rockets to assemble piece by piece an interplanetary stack. Now I don't say that such a stack has to be launched in one piece, (for Mars it would mean a 350-tons to LEO lifter !!) but several launches with a 130 tons class HLV seem a realistic option to me.
- Elon Musk : the problem is that he reminds me some people that doesn't know where to stop when they speak. He would have said "thousands (10e3)" instead of "millions (10e6)", I would have thought "OK, that's a very optimistic statement, but in 50 years, who knows after all ?". But millions is totally unrealistic. It's a problem of magnitude, and for me, it reveals a tendency of the guy to exagerate everything and bloat numbers, plus a good layer of megalomania. I'm a bit concerned to imagine someone like that be in charge of or put pressure on manned spaceflight operations, where any approximation means crew death.
I take it you were being ironic, but if the colony is to be self-supporting you would certainly imagine births to be encouraged.
Let's say most immigrants are of child bearing years, and call a generation 30 years. Then four generations would be 120 years. If the average number of children is 2, then the population doubles every generation.
Then you could start with 64,000 colonists and have over 1,000,000 in 120 years.
It might be interesting to calculate how long it would take to reach 1,000,000 with a regular influx of new colonists.
No one is required to "like" or agree with Elon or his views.
...
Do we have to call Mr. Musk by his first name?
...
1. Critical math error: there is also a death rate. An average of two births means a stable population, not one that doubles every generation.
2. Putting 64 000 people on Mars is no easy task in the first place.
3. Who says such economic growth is possible at all? Greeland is populated by fewer than 64 000 people, and it certainly does not seem as if it is experiencing an economic miracle. Why should Mars be any different?