I think this is a good long-term goal, but one thing that's missing from this analysis is the urgency of the thing. Right now, we've never even put one person on Mars, and keeping any significant Martian population alive would be a considerable expense. The cost in human labor and materials would certainly have to be diverted from other enterprises, as is the case with all economic actions.
Given that we are on an exponential growth curve both in terms of technology and wealth, it seems likely to me that by the natural course of things 100 years from now maintaining an extraplanetary base on Mars would be much cheaper and easier, and would disrupt our growth rates much less, if at all. It may be that by acting now, it would take us 200 years to create a self-sustaining population on Mars, whereas if we wait 100 years, we'll be able to get something up and running in just an additional 50 years, thus better insulating us from disaster (consider that until the Mars colony is completely self-sufficient, it will likely be wiped out by any disaster on Earth, even disasters that aren't a real threat to our species, as long as we don't have enough surplus wealth to sustain an expensive Mars colony).
The opposing viewpoint is that since we're decelerating our technological progress and achieving new wealth by pursuing more and more trivial enterprises (come on, it's a messaging app!), a new kind of space race that inspires generations to come might exponentially accelerate our progress, just like the last space race did!
The idea that sending people off to live on a cold, lifeless world with no shielding from deadly solar winds is some noble endeavor, but enabling people living on this warm, green, living world to communicate with each other is "trivial" is such an incredibly backwards way of thinking.
I may have misspoke, but there is a real danger from solar radiation on Mars:
"Solar storms are not dangerous to humans on Earth’s surface. These storms are awesome to contemplate, but they cannot harm our human bodies as long as we remain on the surface of Earth, where we’re protected by Earth’s blanket of atmosphere. Remember, there’s every reason to believe that storms on the sun have been happening for billions of years, since the sun and Earth came to be. If that’s so, then all life on Earth evolved under their influence.
What is the danger of a solar storm in space? Very high-energy particles, such as those carried by CMEs, can cause radiation poisoning to humans and other mammals. They would be dangerous to unshielded astronauts, say, astronauts traveling to the moon. Large doses could be fatal."
Mars isn't "space." It has an atmosphere. It's thin, but it's enough to stop solar flares from killing people on the surface.
Earth's magnetosphere could disappear today, and whatever other chaos that causes, Earth's atmosphere would still deflect most charged and uncharged particles from space. The magnetosphere has no effect on the uncharged particles, remember.
The moderate-level long-term cosmic radiation will probably be an issue for colonists, making cancer quite likely for anyone spending 40+ years there.
> The moderate-level long-term cosmic radiation will probably be an issue for colonists, making cancer quite likely for anyone spending 40+ years there.
But instead of saying that, you decided to say:
> This is plain silly. "Solar wind" is absolutely no danger to people on the surface of Mars, at all.
instead. So, uh, I guess you win one Internet for pedantry.
For people designing Mars missions, the distinction between solar radiation and cosmic radiation is really, really, really important. (In fact, CMEs often decrease cosmic radiation.)
That's false. Because Mars has no magnetic field, and because its atmospheric pressure is only 0.06 that of Earth, the radiation level at the surface is occasionally life-threatening. In the event of a solar storm, human astronauts would have to take shelter underground. And the cumulative radiation levels in normal circumstances pose a danger over time, even in the absence of a solar storm:
Really? We're "decelerating our technological progress"? That's a bold enough claim that I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for it beyond, "someone made a dumb iPhone app instead of curing cancer".
Agreed. The best minds in one area (marketing, business, etc) don't apply to other areas (cancer research, physics, rocket science). Put Biz Stone to work at NASA and I'll bet he could make communication at NASA 10x better, but he's not going to be changing the fan belt on an Apollo booster any time soon.
That of the 1950/60/70s. The last space race and the cold war provided us with plenty technologies (transistor, computers, GPS, internet) that are still the main drivers of progress nowadays.
I think this point of view ignores all the boring, unsexy, non-headline-grabbing progress that has developed 1950s inventions into what we have today. Progress is the aggregate of millions of very small advances.
Yes, and you could also argue that if our progress rate was sampled at a rate proportional to the total duration of human progress, the period from the 1950's to today is really one sample and the curve at this moment is just beginning to look like a hockey stick.
I think the goal requires many technologies that aren't mass produced at the moment but which such technologies would be highly valuable and required to reaching a sustainable environment here on Earth.
It seems like that argument's always going to apply though. The only way we're going to get better at sending people to Mars is to actually start doing it.
That's not necessarily true at all. Imagine in 1900 I said, "We'll never get better at making digital music players until we start making them!", and then poured a bunch of money into single-purpose digital music players, at the expense of general purpose computing. Digital music players came around as a natural consequence of general purpose computing, not the other way around.
Additionally, at one point along our exponential growth curve, it became inexpensive to dedicate enough research funding to the creation of a digital music player that we got the beginnings of modern MP3 players. I don't see any reason why going to Mars will be particularly different - it's not like there's no overlap between the technology we need to survive there and the technology we need to thrive here.
There was a positive feedback loop between music technology and computing technology. Without efforts at playback and recording of music, the mercury delay lines that were used to make some of the first computers would have been impossible. Without the massive popularity of transistor radios it would have taken much longer to develop the semiconductor technology used in more modern computers, and without the Walkman the stabilized tape recorders early hobbyist computers used for storage would probably have been impossible (when audio skips it's annoying, when data skips it breaks your program). Same story for CDs; if ARM is the way forward for general-purpose computing, it wouldn't've happened without portable music.
"keeping any significant Martian population alive would be a considerable expense"
Getting a population to Mars would be a considerable expense. Keeping them there would have to be free, or the whole thing isn't ready to go yet. Free, that is, in the sense that the whole population is capable of being self-sustaining. If they aren't then the whole "backup human race" idea fails, if Earth dies and then they inevitably die too.
Also, there's no point in sitting back and just waiting for something to happen. It doesn't work to discourage all the specific people who want to invest in the tech from doing so because "someone" will get to it eventually.... "someone" won't if all the interested parties have been counseled to wait for "someone" else to do it.
Getting a population to Mars would be a considerable expense. Keeping them there would have to be free, or the whole thing isn't ready to go yet.
Putting aside the offsite-backup-for-humanity angle, if it becomes practical to send a significant population to Mars, wouldn't it consequently also be at least as practical to keep sending them stuff?
I have always assumed that any Martian colony would be receiving regular supply dumps from Earth for decades or centuries before becoming self-sustaining.
> Putting aside the offsite-backup-for-humanity angle, if it becomes practical to send a significant population to Mars, wouldn't it consequently also be at least as practical to keep sending them stuff?
Not really, not with the expense that would entail. The only viable Mars colonization model assumes the creation of most needed commodities out of local resources.
> I have always assumed that any Martian colony would be receiving regular supply dumps from Earth for decades or centuries before becoming self-sustaining.
It such a colony required substantial supply dumps from Earth, and if this were anticipated in the planning stages, the colony wouldn't be funded in the first place. Transferring anything massive from Earth to Mars is extraordinarily expensive and will continue to be so.
Musk believes the cost can be US$500,000/immigrant. Assuming 100 kg/immigrant plus an absurdly low 1kg/day supplies and 150 days of travel gives a maximum transport estimate of $2,000/kg.
This is extraordinarily expensive, yes, but not out of the realm of question. Saffron is $1,100–11,000/kg, for example.
A colony of 1 million is also very unlikely to have the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and high-end chips which are cost competitive with Earth. Assuming a core weighs 20 grams, the shipping cost is $40.
Of course, this is as public-private partnership. Assuming the real cost is $2 million / immigrant gives a shipping cost of $200 - which is still going to beat the cost of starting and maintaining a set of fabs on Mars.
If Musk is right about the cost, then there will be goods exported from Earth to Mars. If Musk is wrong about the cost, then it's not practical to send a significant population to Mars.
> A colony of 1 million is also very unlikely to have the ability to produce pharmaceuticals and high-end chips which are cost competitive with Earth.
Well, cost-competitive with products imported from Earth, which is an easier standard to meet. Maybe Mars colonization will finally bring 3D printing into its own. People will discover they need an exotic part, so they radio earth for -- not the part itself -- but a diagram of the part, delivered by radio. Then they print it using local raw materials.
As to high-end technology, I think at least at first, the colonists will have to do without a ready supply of integrated circuits. They will have to live in a pre-iPod society for a while, more's the pity. :)
I can imagine an interview room twenty years form now -- a candidate says, "I'm willing to put up with many discomforts, even danger, to be among the first to colonize Mars." A few facts are delivered, then, "What? No cell phones? Are you serious?"
> If Musk is right about the cost, then there will be goods exported from Earth to Mars. If Musk is wrong about the cost, then it's not practical to send a significant population to Mars.
With a degree of resourcefulness by the colonists, I think there will be local exploitation of raw materials and production of needed goods, relatively quickly. Especially if every idea for small-scale local production, like 3D printers, is taken advantage of.
I see no reason for why Mars colonization is needed to "finally bring 3D printing into its own."
Anything appropriate for a Mars colony would be as appropriate for overwintering in Antarctica, or for the residents of various islands from the Cook Islands to Saint Helena, or similarly isolated place.
Presumably there's a cost-benefit matrix. Denser processors mean less needs to be shipped to Mars, but the harder it is to make locally. You mention "pre-iPod society" as if digital entertainment was the main loss. Pre-iPod also a pre-GPS-everywhere society, and pre-Internet-of-things society. Wifi embedded in every device may make a colony more likely to succeed. I would like a faulty CO2 scrubber to be able to notify the colony network, and wifi is cheaper than building cables. With that network in place in order to survive, a mobile device with phone-like communications is likely not only trivial but essential.
Regarding 'resourcefulness' - that's besides the point. A self-sustaining colony requires a huge number of people. (Who builds the fab units? Who are the doctors? Who repairs the sewage systems? Who takes care of food and O2 production? Who spends the 20 years to educate the next generation to the PhD level needed to support a high-tech frontier?) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576513... estimates 40,000 people, which is a shot in the dark for the minimum size. Musk proposes 1 million; his cost numbers don't work out with only 40,000 people.
Any rocket technology which is cheap enough to deliver 40,000 people for a self-sustaining colony on Mars is one which can support trade between the planets. Someone will want saffron. Someone will want white truffles. (Both are already in the $1000s/kg range.) Maybe not the first generation, who all volunteered, but surely the second.
Most nations on Earth engage in trade. I'm sure Mars would do so as well. Because of the expense involved, soon the only thing Mars would ship in would be computer components that require a large fab.
There's a difference between "can be self-sustaining" and "is self-sustaining." A successful Mars colony would engage in trade with Earth.
Keeping them there would likely have to be profitable, otherwise the considerable expense of putting them there would be very hard to justify.
Some predictable and unpreventable existential crisis might do that, but I can think of few cases where setting up a dozen similarly sized self-sufficient colonies on the Earth (in Antarctica, buried in the middle of the Great Victoria Desert, etc.) wouldn't be a better strategy with higher chance of success.
Given that we are on an exponential growth curve both in terms of technology and wealth, it seems likely to me that by the natural course of things 100 years from now maintaining an extraplanetary base on Mars would be much cheaper and easier, and would disrupt our growth rates much less, if at all. It may be that by acting now, it would take us 200 years to create a self-sustaining population on Mars, whereas if we wait 100 years, we'll be able to get something up and running in just an additional 50 years, thus better insulating us from disaster (consider that until the Mars colony is completely self-sufficient, it will likely be wiped out by any disaster on Earth, even disasters that aren't a real threat to our species, as long as we don't have enough surplus wealth to sustain an expensive Mars colony).