News Elon Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars.

[N_Molson]

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.

 

[T.Neo]

Narrow minded techno-pessimistic views are not required to be fairly sure that there won't be over a million people on Mars by the end of the century- it makes fairly good sense in any case. It's not only about technology (though that's a big factor). The major issues lie in logistics and economics.

A million people is a really large number to send to a place like Mars. Just consider, for a second, that over a century, that would be an influx of 10 000 people per year, or over 3 large (8-person) shuttle crews a day. Is there some sort of law that will always make such a feat impossible? Of course not. Is it impossible right now? Of course it is. Is it something that is difficult to achieve in a realistic scenario? Most definitely.

Furthermore, the economic issues of such mass-scale immigration to Mars has to be assessed. Assuming now that a suitable transit infrastructure is in place and Musk's $500 000 ticket price have been achieved (in effect, bypassing the massive problems facing these topics), such an immigration rate of 10 000 a year would mean a $5 billion a year industry; there would have to be a sizable demand for tickets to emigrate to Mars.

There is no such billion-dollar demand for immigration to Greeland, Baffin Island, or even places like the Namib or Atacama. Detailed comparisons between the habitability of these regions and of Mars is not necessary in this case beyond noting that they are all sparesely inhabited or uninhabited, regions that are hostile to human life. Objectively, Mars is no different from these regions in this regard. Thus the question must be asked of why it would garner such an immigration rate whereas the aforementioned regions on Earth are regarded as unimportant and support relatively small populations.

Furthermore the cost of emigrating to Mars, at $500 000, while very low in modern spaceflight terms, it is still quite high and would prohibit many people from emigrating if they did indeed want to go. In addition, the conditions of living (at least in an early colony) would likely be fairly poor; even with basic needs (hopefully) taken care of, availability of various items and supplies would likely be highly limited due to the cost of import from Earth. If there were any remaining romanticism regarding colonisation, it would likely be dealt a heavy blow by the reality of living on Mars (perhaps in a similar manner to how interest in the Moon, which had captivated humanity for millenia, waned unfortunately post-Apollo).

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. I could just as well say, for example, that since people believed heavier-than-air flight to be impossible, it should be possible to build a fully functioning radio tower with nothing but bars of soap...

Sure, Musk wants to put millions of people on Mars; that's awesome. I want millions of people on Mars too. Heck, hundreds of millions. Billions! I want to see Mars made habitable, and Venus... I want a holiday home in Xanthe Terra. I want Moon-domes, and to populate the forests of Ulfrun Regio with elephants and Sumatran rhinoceros. Heck, I want a fleet of Battlestars with which to explore nearby star systems! I call dibs on KX Librae.

But you don't see me making any sort of serious talk about that.

 

[icedown]

So the guy is blowing some smoke. He's a salesman. When is the last time someone try to sell you something by telling you what it can really do rather than what it could possibly do under perfect circumstances.

Will he make good on all the promises? I doubt it, but I've been wrong before. What I do think though is that he will at the very least start to drive down the price of launching to space. He's at least trying to push forward rather than hold things up, and he's putting his money where his mouth is.

 

[Jarod]

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: .

 

[Urwumpe]

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: .

Well, do you need to be a psychic for that? As said often before, going to Mars isn't about weight or technology, but first of all about logistics. one million humans are "just" about 75 million kg of payload by statistics. Sounds like a lot, but then, our current container ships haul 16000 TEUs at maximal 20,000 kg each without problems (320 million kg). Technology for the plain mass problem exists. But humans are no Chinese Running shoes. Getting payload to Mars works, but as you can see in case of Curiosity, landing just 900 kg on Mars is a real risky challenge today. A lot would have to happen from this right direction to get to a technology that can land 75,000 tons of payload.

And that is just for some human corpses on Mars, not living beings. And also not active, working beings on Mars. Now you have two choices: Build up the required industry for sustaining one million people on Mars, which would be even in optimistic estimates terribly hard to do in the next century, or at least try to be as self-sustained as possible, but haul many thousand tons of cargo to Mars every day.

In terms of the effort needed, think of the Berlin Airlift, which was for twice the number of people, was never expected to completely sustain them and was still on Earth, and also aimed for mere 1700 calories per person. Not enough for EVA. Your astronauts would already be starving for the time to the next launch window to Earth without such hard work.

The house number was 1534 tons per day for Berlin plus 3475 tons of coal and gasoline. For Mars, this means you have to punch about the same cargo (for one million people, since they require more resources than people on Earth) per day through just one small launch window every 500 days. Even if you just expect 2000 tons per day for the one million Mars astronauts and an extremely optimistic Mars launch window of 30 days width: It means you have to launch over 30,000 tons of cargo every day during the launch window to Mars and land it on mars at the same rate.

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.

 

[Jarod]

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.
Today you have a lot of irrealistic plans by people who make assumptions about what could be developed in a given timeframe or what it will cost.
Any assumptions you make about how a solution could be devised, could be false.
Elon Musk didn't give any numbers or strategy, I'm sure he'll talk about details if he sees a solution coming in the future, that doesn't have to stop him to talk about what he wishes.

 

[Urwumpe]

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.

That is the problem actually: I never gave a solution and showed why this one wouldn't work.

I described the problem and its context.

Understanding the problem is 2/3rd of its solution.

What I showed is the magnitude of solution required. There are constants in the problem, that you can't change.

A nice information towards a solution for the problem would be describing another aspect of economics there:

How much Martian economic growth could be achieved by investing a defined fraction of the terrestrial GDP into Mars?

As I have described above, you need a high, but actually achievable constant growth to get to one million people living on Mars at a time. Now the question is, what is the price for such a growth?

Anyway, It is obvious: Elon Musks wallet doesn't contain the money and will likely never have it, unless he experiences Zimbabwean inflation rates.

 

[webtek]

I respect that a person has visions for going to mars, but in my opinion, the main problem is time. He could talk all day about how someday, we MIGHT go to mars.

If a project were to be run in the manner, the time between when it is announced and when it would be done would be too far apart. The public and the government would lose patience for the program.

I would instead try to figure out how to go to Mars first. That means getting rockets into LEO, getting reputation, developing technologies, etc. After all of that, if he is sure he can succeed, he could talk about it to the public all he wants.

 

[RGClark]

...
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

 

[N_Molson]

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.

 

[RGClark]

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

 

[Codz]

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

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.

 

[N_Molson]

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. To be clear about my positions and avoid misunderstandings :

- "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.

 

[icedown]

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.

 

[RGClark]

Personnal attacks are not required...

Who was leveling a personal attack against whom?


Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

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.

I've noticed supporters of the SLS generally do not have a high regard for Elon or commercial space.

Bob Clark

 

[N_Molson]

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.

Please. Stop that. Now. That's free-flaming, you didn't even read what I posted. :dry:

 

[RGClark]

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.

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.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

Please. Stop that. Now. That's free-flaming, you didn't even read what I posted. :dry:

No one is required to "like" or agree with Elon or his views. Nor is that required of commercial space. Asking the question in regards to either is not a criticism.

Bob Clark

 

[T.Neo]

Personnal attacks are not required.

I doubt anyone is attacking personnel. :tiphat:

- "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.

I have replied in a more appropriate subforum.

- 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.

There's no indication that it is megalomania or exaggeration. "I want to put millions of people on Mars" sounds way cooler and garners far more interest than "next year we hope to launch one or two rockets". It does not necessarily have anything to do with how Musk treats spaceflight 'reality' (we hope). But the fact that he constantly does say such things certainly erodes his credibility to those who look at his statements in a more serious (i.e. critical) manner.

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.

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?

4. Making a Mars base self-sustaining is quite hard considering the requirements simply to keep people alive.

No one is required to "like" or agree with Elon or his views.

Do we have to call Mr. Musk by his first name?

 

[icedown]

I've been thinking about why he would say that. Like you guys have pointed out, anyone that has any idea about what it's gonna take knows he is blowing smoke. But he has to have a reason to use millions and I don't think it was on a whim either now.

I don't think that statement was directed at people who have an active interest in mars. I think it may be a subtle way of saying to the general public "Travel to space and mars isn't going to be only for the elite astronauts much longer" Put it in the mind of Joe Public that he could possibly go to mars( or at least hopefully a couple pesky neighbors will go) and you could start getting the general population behind you.

Public interest in mars isn't the best, let alone support for manned missions. This is due to a lot of people have the attitude of "What does sending a bunch of nerds to mars do for me?", and don't expect it to have any effect on their life in the foreseeable future. You change that thought to this is going to happen, in my lifetime, and I might be able to do it(or at least go to space), you will have a powerful force behind you to get things going.

I would also like to note that I have no personal opinion on the guy but I support anyone that is actually trying to do something to bring space travel from a distant wish to a common reality.

 

[RGClark]

...
Do we have to call Mr. Musk by his first name?

For native english speakers Elon is a much more pleasant sounding name.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 PM ----------

...
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?

Good point. It may be the number of deaths would be made up by the influx of new colonists.
The growth rate in the U.S. after the first few decades was doubling every 20 to 25 years.
It is critical for such predictions that the costs to space would be cut dramatically. Elon believes they can be cut to the $100 to $200 per kilo range by reusability. This would be a revolutionary technical change if true. It would be like overseas airline flights that cost $1,000 now, suddenly being cut to the $10 to $20 range.
It would mean manned space flight becomes routine. There would be a much greater desire to travel to space and to settle, literally, a new world than to travel to Greenland.


Bob Clark