Elon Musk believes upto 1 million people to be living on Mars within 100 years

greenpilot

I can see the Kerrygold ad now... "Who's bringing the horse to Mars?"

ScumLord

Sham.no2 wrote: »

My theory, the Mars colony will become large and self sustainable eventually opting for self governance and independence from whichever country is ruling over them(USA more that likely) sparking a big clusterf*ck of a civil war/power struggle because as humans we can't have a good thing without screwing it up completely!

If we did send a colony to mars it would undoubtedly be an international effort. It may be mostly Americans but they'd need some support. Mars would be completely dependant on earth for a long time. If the planet had resources they could sell or trade they could set themselves up as an independent state. I doubt they will find any thing of worth and will just end up becoming a tourist attraction.

eeguy

ScumLord wrote: »

If we did send a colony to mars it would undoubtedly be an international effort. It may be mostly Americans but they'd need some support. Mars would be completely dependant on earth for a long time. If the planet had resources they could sell or trade they could set themselves up as an independent state. I doubt they will find any thing of worth and will just end up becoming a tourist attraction.

There's probably enough mineral wealth for them to build a decent economy from mining. No transportation to earth, but it could be a case where we just send the tools and they locally source the materials.

ScumLord

eeguy wrote: »

There's probably enough mineral wealth for them to build a decent economy from mining. No transportation to earth, but it could be a case where we just send the tools and they locally source the materials.

They could mine for their own needs, but if we start mining asteroids as well then Mars resources are no good for exporting, which means a mars colony has very few trade opportunities. Getting resources off a planet is extremely costly a planet just couldn't compete with a mining operation in space.

Even in an economy like star treks where money doesn't exist it's not going to make mining on a planet feasible when it would take less resources to mine asteroids.

Maximus Alexander

ScumLord wrote: »

They could mine for their own needs, but if we start mining asteroids as well then Mars resources are no good for exporting, which means a mars colony has very few trade opportunities. Getting resources off a planet is extremely costly a planet just couldn't compete with a mining operation in space.

Even in an economy like star treks where money doesn't exist it's not going to make mining on a planet feasible when it would take less resources to mine asteroids.

Why would they need to trade with Earth? Earth gets on all right without trading with other planets.

ScumLord

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why would they need to trade with Earth? Earth gets on all right without trading with other planets.

Because earth has all the stuff they need and want. A mars colony is going to be relatively small for probably a decade or more. They're going to have to work out ways of getting the basics like water and power set up first, then produce some sort of food. But unless they want to live on potatoes or whatever other thing they can produce they're going to have to import food, especially if they're going to be taking in visitors.

There's going to be a lot of stuff they just won't be able to produce so will need to import it. Either we're giving them the stuff for free, or there's going to have to be some sort of trade. Mars probably has nothing worth trading, especially once it's transported to earth.

The alternative of colonies in space can send a shipment of gold for example to earth with minimum fuel. Even though each shipment would devalue the gold it's still something rare on earth.

A space colony could even set up production. They could produce everything from CPUs to artificial meat. It may even be possible that some manufacturing of heavy things could be more cost effective in space.

eeguy

ScumLord wrote: »

The alternative of colonies in space can send a shipment of gold for example to earth with minimum fuel. Even though each shipment would devalue the gold it's still something rare on earth.

Yup. Gold platinum tantalum etc. Sure if the aim is reusable rockets, then it makes sense to fill them up for the homeward journey too.

All the things that are rare and difficult to extract.
Imagine the cost of getting to Mars if the rocket coming back was full of gold.

I suppose mining would be easier with the gravity difference. Not too worried about pollution either on a dead planet with a toxic atmosphere plus the lack of NIMBYs.

ScumLord

eeguy wrote: »

All the things that are rare and difficult to extract.
Imagine the cost of getting to Mars if the rocket coming back was full of gold.

This is where our economy clashes with the benefits of space. Resources are abundant but once we start sending them back to earth we devalue them. There's something like an olympic swimming pools worth of gold available on earth. Sending back tons of gold from mars, or worse asteroids (less cost) would drastically affect gold's value here. Gold is only worth money because it's rare, reduce that rarity and it's price goes down. So every shipment you send back you make less profit on it to the point you might as well be sending back water.

It makes space mining worthless to any company. Unless we start major manufacturing in space and our resource consumption skyrockets.

Raging_Ninja

The real value of Mars long term would be in terraforming - heating it to an extent where there is liquid water on the surface and adding gasses to the atmosphere to make it breathable. A space elevator on both planets would help kick-start trade and migration and would be economical. Get to escape velocity and you are half way to everywhere.

Strip mining rocks would provide many rare heavy metals which are hard to come by on Earth. Gold is just thinking too small.

Fox_In_Socks

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The real value of Mars long term would be in terraforming - heating it to an extent where there is liquid water on the surface and adding gasses to the atmosphere to make it breathable. A space elevator on both planets would help kick-start trade and migration and would be economical. Get to escape velocity and you are half way to everywhere.

Strip mining rocks would provide many rare heavy metals which are hard to come by on Earth. Gold is just thinking too small.

Where's my shovel?

Karen Harty

I would love to go to Mars for a bit of peace and quiet away from everybody and all problems.

Junkyard Tom

He's no Arthur C. Clarke.

Hulk Hands

Wibbs wrote: »

He is a very good promoter and has tapped into a certain strata of the nerdsphere who do seem to see him as a near messiah.

*awaits flames from the faithful*

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh oh the fans are here.

Wibbs wrote: »

But yeah it's the general ignorance of those who are his fanbase. A fanbase that really shouldn't be nearly as ill informed as they're mostly the more nerdy types. Hell the fact he even has fans…

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't but by god there is serious nerd worship of this guy far beyond the CV.

You sound like a copywriter for one of his PR companies. What does impress me about the guy is the myopic loyalty he inspires in so many, who seem to want him to be Tony Stark. Something another reality distortion field purveyor Steve Jobs was never able to project to nearly the same degree.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's a major puff piece and quite literally a pipe dream. Again a perfect example of the Musk Effect. He really impresses me on that front I have to say.

How many times do you want to make this point? All I can see is a few people trying to debate the idea, and by extension because it's his belief, a few people debating whether or not they like him. Im only seeing one person here obsessing over their like (or dislike) for him. I knew before I clicked on the thread who it's biggest contributor would be.

And before i'm accused, no im not an Elon fanboiii. The Mars thing sounds silly to me in the timeframe he's talking, but tbh i'm not really arrogant enough to think I can hold an informed opinion on it

Wibbs

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The real value of Mars long term would be in terraforming - heating it to an extent where there is liquid water on the surface and adding gasses to the atmosphere to make it breathable.

Which would involve recharging the now dead planetary core, building up the oul vulcanism, getting a magnetosphere in place to ward of the searing radiation. Moving it closer to the sun would help too. Increasing Mar's gravity would be a major help. Are these technically possible? Maybe for some, unlikely for others, but extremely debatable in practical terms. This is not a Star Trek episode. If anything Venus might turn out to be easier to terraform.

ScumLord wrote: »

Because earth has all the stuff they need and want. A mars colony is going to be relatively small for probably a decade or more. They're going to have to work out ways of getting the basics like water and power set up first, then produce some sort of food. But unless they want to live on potatoes or whatever other thing they can produce they're going to have to import food, especially if they're going to be taking in visitors.

IF food will even grow in actual Martian soil

josip

Wibbs wrote: »

IF food will even grow in actual Martian soil

There was another documentary a while back that showed it could.

eeguy

Wibbs wrote: »

IF food will even grow in actual Martian soil

Call in Mark Watney.

Wibbs

Hulk Hands wrote: »

How many times do you want to make this point? All I can see is a few people trying to debate the idea, and by extension because it's his belief, a few people debating whether or not they like him. Im only seeing one person here obsessing over their like (or dislike) for him. I knew before I clicked on the thread who it's biggest contributor would be.

Jeeebus I'm being stalked. OH and it's not "his belief", though again the fans seem to think it's attached to him. He's parroting a notion that's been long in play. He's not even name checking the top end thinkers and indeed doers who mooted it before him. Hell, Werner Von Braun was wittering on about it in the late 40's and nudged into the idea in the 1930's.

And before i'm accused, no im not an Elon fanboiii.

IIRC you kinda are.

The Mars thing sounds silly to me in the timeframe he's talking, but tbh i'm not really arrogant enough to think I can hold an informed opinion on it

It's hardly arrogance to point out major holes/clear flimflam pieces/state the bloody obvious these days, or is it? Maybe it is. Doff the cap when your "betters" pronounce, even when it's cleverly wrought bullshít. And not so cleverly. One of the earlier links is beyond risible on the bullshíte scale. It seems written by a geek in the manner he thinks the "cool kids" would write. Typical line; Time for the heat shield to be in the shit. And the use of the word "rad". Yep…

The joke is I hope his BS isn't BS and his company does make it to Mars, even in a "low level" way. I'd see it as a major plus and kudos if they safely landed ten people on Mars and got them home/set them up there in the next two decades. Like mind altering, ground breaking, holy fcuksticks batman major plus and kudos. I'm just not seeing it at the mo. Too many "eh… hang on… wut?" stuff going on.

josip wrote:

There was another documentary a while back that showed it could.

Really J? Yay! . I seem to recall a few earth bound experiments using Martian soil analogues that reckoned it might, but I wasn't sure it was definitive. Very cool if it is.

josip

Wibbs wrote: »

....Really J? Yay! . I seem to recall a few earth bound experiments using Martian soil analogues that reckoned it might, but I wasn't sure it was definitive. Very cool if it is.

Pretty sure it was definitive, they got Sean Bean to narrate part of it.

Junkyard Tom

josip wrote: »

Pretty sure it was definitive, they got Sean Bean to narrate part of it.

Shirley the only way it could be definitive is if they actually sent out a little pod with seeds, water, and air, in it and were able to introduce martian soil?

We have extremely harsh deserts here where you'll barely get a lichen to grow never mind a spud.

josip

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Shirley the only way it could be definitive is if they actually sent out a little pod with seeds, water, and air, in it and were able to introduce martian soil?

We have extremely harsh deserts here where you'll barely get a lichen to grow never mind a spud.

This is what they did I think. The seeds originally came from earth and they used martian soil enriched with nutrients, which afair also came from earth.
I believe it was a variety of tuber they managed to grow.

Junkyard Tom

josip wrote: »

This is what they did I think.

A quick google only shows they did simulations of growing food in soil, thought to be like Martian soil, on Earth.

I think Musk is the one planting seeds. He's planting seeds in the minds of young people who could imagine themselves living on Mars when they're grown-ups. No bad thing to inspire young people but it doesn't make what Musk predicts anything more than science-fiction.

josip

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A quick google only shows they did simulations of growing food in soil, thought to be like Martian soil, on Earth.

I think Musk is the one planting seeds. He's planting seeds in the minds of young people who could imagine themselves living on Mars when they're grown-ups. No bad thing to inspire young people but it doesn't make what Musk predicts anything more than science-fiction.

No, it was definitely on Mars.
I found a link to part of it.
https://youtu.be/UFtpibohxg0

Capt'n Midnight

eeguy wrote: »

Love that him and Jeff Bezos are putting their money into science, unlike so many other billionaires that just hoard it or fritter it away on sh*te.

Don't forget they are spending an awful lot of taxpayers money too.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

And that's not including income from NASA & Co.

Capt'n Midnight

YFlyer wrote: »

Computer processing speed won't make the JCB work any faster.

The fastest JCB was clocked at 350.092 mph (563.418 km/h)

Junkyard Tom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Don't forget they are spending an awful lot of taxpayers money too.

Just about every single modern technological advancement we enjoy was invented or rapidly advanced by means of public money.

Look at DARPA's advances in robotics - there is little doubt the robotics advancements they're making will be the 'private enterprise' assistance-bots of the future.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

Realistically you're looking at "Landing in Australia" levels of risk in this trip.

Oz was easy.

Air means you'll survive for three minutes.
Water for three days.
Food is handy too.
And wood means you have fuel , tools and building material.
And because there's people already living there you know the locals have sussed out all the problems. And in the case of Oz killed off many of the top predators too.

Mars has no air/water/food/fuel/structural material. It's also a low energy environment, and you are going to need to use a lot of that energy to make breathing gas, and recycle water, and keep the temperature of you and the plants above bloody freezing. You can't use wind turbines because there isn't anything like a sea breeze and there's all that sharp gritty dust. Solar doesn't work so well during the dust storms, that and being so much further from Mr Sun means energy is a big issue.

An asteroid might be a better home. There's two of them orbiting Mars. And you'd save a lot of mass because you can aerobrake but don't have to handle reentry. And lots more solar than at the surface. And you could even go to other places because you aren't stuck at the bottom of a gravity well.

Like Oz, Mars would be a prison for the first arrivals. Whatever about the cost of getting there, the cost of returning would be insane.

silverharp wrote: »

the difference in gravity alone would make it fairly toxic for humans. it would be much easier to build a city in the middle of the Sahara or in Greenland or under water, the quality of life would be cr@p on Mars

Asimov story Sucker Bait IIRC was about a planet that was almost too good to be true.

Here trace elements like selenium and iodine levels affect cattle and people
https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/soil--soil-fertility/trace-elements/

Everyone is agreed that too much fluoride is not good, the only debate is how much is too much. When it comes to things like Beryllium and Arsenic you don't want them in your veg.

Hammer89

Elon Musk sounds like a pimp from New York in the 70s. Did he walk into the convention with a cane and goldfish swimming in the sole of his platforms?

Capt'n Midnight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Just about every single modern technological advancement we enjoy was invented or rapidly advanced by means of public money.

Look at DARPA's advances in robotics - there is little doubt the robotics advancements they're making will be the 'private enterprise' assistance-bots of the future.

And the moon landings led to non-stick pans and that other good stuff and DARPA funding led to ASIMO :rolleyes:

Look at the advances in semiconductors funded by consumer electronics. DARPA aren't paying for Intel fabs or the ones in China.

The peace dividend from Defence funding could provide lots of benefits.
Look at the whole consumer electronics things from Japan.

Look at how much medical research goes on in state funded Universities and Hospitals. And look at how much they get paid compared to the funds hovered up by Big Pharma. And look at how quickly Big Pharma products are dropped in favour of generics once the patents expire.

Junkyard Tom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Look at the advances in semiconductors funded by consumer electronics.

True enough, the forces unleashed by consumer demand can be formidable. We can get a very decent smartphone now for around €100. A phone with similar functions to a current €100 would have cost maybe 5 times that only a few years ago.