Commercial Spaceflight critical for future human exploration

[neutrino78x]

Well, I've said it several times on here, it is a very simple concept.

The people who founded Jamestown, the first British settlement in North America: were they Royal Navy sailors, or civilians? That's right, civilians.

The people who settled the Wild West of the USA, were they US Army soldiers, or civilians? That's right, civilians again.

The Final Frontier, just like every other frontier, will not be developed by governments, but by individuals. The government may send scouts, to determine the value of the land, to claim it, etc., but the majority of people who come will be individuals who do not work for the government.

If you want sustained human colonization, as seen in Star Wars, Star Trek, and Firefly, you must stimulate private enterprise. Science missions would be done primarily by robots. The humans would go when you intend to create a colony with mostly civilians.

From the Wikipedia Jamestown Settlement entry:

Late in 1606, English entrepreneurs set sail with a charter from the Virginia Company of London to establish a colony in the New World.

--Brian

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Well, I've said it several times on here, it is a very simple concept.

The people who founded Jamestown, the first British settlement in North America: were they Royal Navy sailors, or civilians? That's right, civilians.

The people who settled the Wild West of the USA, were they US Army soldiers, or civilians? That's right, civilians again.

The Final Frontier, just like every other frontier, will not be developed by governments, but by individuals. The government may send scouts, to determine the value of the land, to claim it, etc., but the majority of people who come will be individuals who do not work for the government.

If you want sustained human colonization, as seen in Star Wars, Star Trek, and Firefly, you must stimulate private enterprise. Science missions would be done primarily by robots. The humans would go when you intend to create a colony with mostly civilians.

From the Wikipedia Jamestown Settlement entry:

Late in 1606, English entrepreneurs set sail with a charter from the Virginia Company of London to establish a colony in the New World.

--Brian

It's a bit different I'm afraid. I see the analogy you're trying to make but it doesn't work because going to the moon or mars, much less LEO, requires lots of resources, lots of time, and lots of brainpower. It's not like back in the 1600's when all you needed was a boat, a year's worth of supplies, and an attitude of entrepeunership. Space colonization will probably be taken under by private companies, but the first outposts anywhere will be government outposts. The ISS isn't a private enterprise, it's a joint international venture. The first moon outpost will not be a full fledged colony, but a small base crewed by a few astronauts learning how to survive on the moon.

Robots can learn a lot, but they can't get the experience necessary to figure out how humans would survive on the moon in practice. We need actual people there to do that.

 

[neutrino78x]

It's a bit different I'm afraid. I see the analogy you're trying to make but it doesn't work because going to the moon or mars, much less LEO, requires lots of resources, lots of time, and lots of brainpower. It's not like back in the 1600's when all you needed was a boat, a year's worth of supplies, and an attitude of entrepeunership.

It was a really dangerous proposition back then. These days we have nuclear powered ships and submarines, but back then, if the wind didn't blow, and there was no current in the water, you were stuck. If the wind blew too hard, your ship could capsize or be damaged in many other ways. One of the people who originally left for Jamestown Settlement died on the way there.

Even now, the sea is a dangerous place. I have been in a force 4 typhoon in a submarine. The officer of the deck said the waves were so high that he could not see the crests. The boat rolled 30 degrees in each direction. Once we got about 400 feet underwater, we could barely feel anything anymore, but being underwater is also very dangerous, more so than the surface.

But anyway, if you to Mars using a good plan like Mars Direct, living off the land, it is a lot cheaper. I fully endorse the idea of NASA sending a Lewis and Clark type mission, but the fact remains that if you want an actual colony, most of the people who go will have to be civilians.

We need to modify the Outer Space Treaty so people can own land on Mars.

Robots can learn a lot, but they can't get the experience necessary to figure out how humans would survive on the moon in practice. We need actual people there to do that.

Well the robots are for science. If you just want to learn scientific data about the moon, you don't need humans. In the 60s, yes. Today, no. I would only send humans if the purpose is to establish a new civilization.

--Brian

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

The first people on Mars will be astronauts hired by various space agencies around the world, not average civilians. The same will go for the moon. Before it is colonized by average people it will require a long term moon outpost crewed by a few people.

As for owning land on celestial bodies, I don't have any problem with it so long as it remains private. The danger lies in countries trying to take land and establish military presences there.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Well, I've said it several times on here, it is a very simple concept.

The people who founded Jamestown, the first British settlement in North America: were they Royal Navy sailors, or civilians? That's right, civilians.

The people who settled the Wild West of the USA, were they US Army soldiers, or civilians? That's right, civilians again.

The Final Frontier, just like every other frontier, will not be developed by governments, but by individuals. The government may send scouts, to determine the value of the land, to claim it, etc., but the majority of people who come will be individuals who do not work for the government.

If you want sustained human colonization, as seen in Star Wars, Star Trek, and Firefly, you must stimulate private enterprise. Science missions would be done primarily by robots. The humans would go when you intend to create a colony with mostly civilians.

From the Wikipedia Jamestown Settlement entry:

Late in 1606, English entrepreneurs set sail with a charter from the Virginia Company of London to establish a colony in the New World.

--Brian

It's a bit different I'm afraid. I see the analogy you're trying to make but it doesn't work because going to the moon or mars, much less LEO, requires lots of resources, lots of time, and lots of brainpower. It's not like back in the 1600's when all you needed was a boat, a year's worth of supplies, and an attitude of entrepeunership. Space colonization will probably be taken under by private companies, but the first outposts anywhere will be government outposts. The ISS isn't a private enterprise, it's a joint international venture. The first moon outpost will not be a full fledged colony, but a small base crewed by a few astronauts learning how to survive on the moon.

Robots can learn a lot, but they can't get the experience necessary to figure out how humans would survive on the moon in practice. We need actual people there to do that.

neutrino is right Yuri.

You have to put things into perspective. Traveling across the Atlantic today may be a piece of cake, but back then it was a very risky venture. Remember they were crossing on relatively small wooden sail ships. They may be small and old compared to ships today, but they were the state of the art back then. Being sail ships they were subject to the wind. The stars and the compass was about all they had for navigation. Without refrigeration their food supply as severely limited, thus forcing them to use in-situ as much as possible. Without radio communication ships were essentially on their own. There was a lack of sanitation resulting in higher risk of disease. Many of the first colonists died because they did not have the infrastructure and agriculture to live in the new environment.

NASA's human space travel by comparison while much more expensive is a hell of a lot less risky and much more luxurious. Unmanned probes map out planets, identify resource deposits, and identify potential hazards long before humans arrive. We have light speed communication allowing astronauts to call for help and even communicate with their loved ones. Astronauts eat many of the same foods they do here at home. Things going into space are prepared in a clean room to eliminate any possibility of disease.

I can go on, but astronauts have it easy compared to 16th century sailors. They endured hardships that simply do not exist in the modern world in any modern country. I'd say your odds of surviving are far higher in modern spaceflight.

Also I agree that the first outposts on the moon and Mars will be at least funded by the government in the name of science, however whether it will grow into a space colony will ultimately depend on the private sector. That is how our society does things. While the government can encourage colonization just like they can encourage commercialized manned spaceflight now, ultimately in our society and in most societies the government does not tell people they have have to live there.

 

[DarkenedOne]

The first people on Mars will be astronauts hired by various space agencies around the world, not average civilians. The same will go for the moon. Before it is colonized by average people it will require a long term moon outpost crewed by a few people.

As for owning land on celestial bodies, I don't have any problem with it so long as it remains private. The danger lies in countries trying to take land and establish military presences there.

True the first outpost will most likely be by NASA or some other space agency, but what happens after that. If a colony is ever going to form than they will need colonists. Of course colonists will need transportation up to the colony. NASA is not in the business of transporting non-NASA people. In our society transportation of non-governmental personnel and cargo is handled by the commercial sector, therefore if average citizens are ever to follow than commercial manned spaceflight has to be developed. Colonists will need to BUY transportation from someone.

The same thing is happening right now with space stations. Governments built the first space stations, but now a number of commercial ventures are trying to follow. You have Bigelow Aerospace developing space stations for private use. Of course there is the need for commercial crew transportation.

The ultimate objective of human spaceflight has always been much more than simple exploration. It has always been about expanding humanity out into space, thus giving us far more room to grow and increase our long-term survivability.

 

[flyer456654]

This will be my last post on this thread for I have made my arguments already but will reiterate them.

Risk:
Risk is everywhere. Whether it is a government agency or a business, they all have to deal with the same risks. Governments can just mitigate the risk because they have bottomless pockets (though this is up for debate currently). Governments also do something great, they build the most inefficient, expensive machines on the planet. They can build a machine based on brute strength because they can afford to launch that machine. Corporations have to deal with the EXACT same risks, however they cannot mitigate them with bottomless pockets. For this reason, Corporations have provided us with the most elegant, efficient and (relatively) cheap machines known to man, and I dare you to say otherwise. Since Corporations have been proven to produce better equipment for cheaper prices, this risk can be mitigated using the bottomless pockets of their consumer (the government). If a launch of a falcon 9 heavy is $100 million (taken from their website) and an ARES launch would cost $1 Billion...that means you could buy 10 launches for the price of one, while shooting up about the same amount of payload as 2 ARES launches for each 10 launches of falcon 9 heavy. Basically, the government would choose to launch the falcon 9 heavy over the ARES any day of the week, simply because if one launch fails it doesn't kill their wallet.

So your argument about risk is defeated. The government can mitigate the risks because they can spend as much as they need to. Corporations can mitigate risk by charging their costumer (already established market) a premium on launches, thus using their bottomless pockets to mitigate their own risks.

Costs:
OK one of the biggest arguments you have is that it will be cost prohibitive. As we know, Jamestown was founded by entrepreneurs. Lets say that cost $10000 USD to found (a very very cheap estimate). Given 4% inflation (the accepted normal amount) that $10000 would be $1.9 BILLION in todays money (you can check my math if you so like, 4% a year added to $10000 for 310 years). By the way, that would probably be ONE crossing of the Atlantic. So if you take into account that there was...2 crossings in one year that would be $3.8 BILLION. So the costs might be great in todays value but your argument that they were not as great when it came to Jamestown is defeated. Give $3.8 billion to Spacex and see what would happen.

Now perhaps you were talking about the cost of human life. There have been only a handful of deaths in exploring the cosmos, yet Jamestown lost 50% of their settlers. The cost to found the new world was still higher than the cost to found a settlement in space, yet private companies still went forward with it.

My Argument:
NASA is great for exploration. They are essential to pushing to edge of what is real and what is fiction. What they do not do well is develop the already developed technologies. We have had rockets to get us to the moon for 50 years now. They can putter around with another design of this rocket, or get serious with helping to mitigate risks for startups. It is cost prohibitive, but SpaceX has proven that they are willing to take the risk to develop rockets because there is a need for them. Basically, the drive for profit is to great for the corporations not to get involved. The drive for profit also decreases the costs of launches while increasing the safety. Corporations are better at making technology pioneered by governments, better. We have had the technology and seen what NASA has done with it, now it is time to open it up to the private industry and let the explosion commence.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

neutrino is right Yuri.

You have to put things into perspective. Traveling across the Atlantic today may be a piece of cake, but back then it was a very risky venture. Remember they were crossing on relatively small wooden sail ships. They may be small and old compared to ships today, but they were the state of the art back then. Being sail ships they were subject to the wind. The stars and the compass was about all they had for navigation. Without refrigeration their food supply as severely limited, thus forcing them to use in-situ as much as possible. Without radio communication ships were essentially on their own. There was a lack of sanitation resulting in higher risk of disease. Many of the first colonists died because they did not have the infrastructure and agriculture to live in the new environment.

NASA's human space travel by comparison while much more expensive is a hell of a lot less risky and much more luxurious. Unmanned probes map out planets, identify resource deposits, and identify potential hazards long before humans arrive. We have light speed communication allowing astronauts to call for help and even communicate with their loved ones. Astronauts eat many of the same foods they do here at home. Things going into space are prepared in a clean room to eliminate any possibility of disease.

I can go on, but astronauts have it easy compared to 16th century sailors. They endured hardships that simply do not exist in the modern world in any modern country. I'd say your odds of surviving are far higher in modern spaceflight.

Also I agree that the first outposts on the moon and Mars will be at least funded by the government in the name of science, however whether it will grow into a space colony will ultimately depend on the private sector. That is how our society does things. While the government can encourage colonization just like they can encourage commercialized manned spaceflight now, ultimately in our society and in most societies the government does not tell people they have have to live there.

I'm not arguing any of that really. Neutrino was trying to say that modern day trips to Mars will be just like people crossing the Atlantic, but it's a lot different.

The fact is that I don't think any private company is going to be the first ones to have an outpost on Mars. It is extremely likely that government agencies will go there first, and private companies will follow.

 

[neutrino78x]

I'm not arguing any of that really. Neutrino was trying to say that modern day trips to Mars will be just like people crossing the Atlantic, but it's a lot different.

Speaking as a former submariner, although I was a Pacific (west coast) sailor, crossing the Atlantic by sea still has its dangers (especially underwater), but back then, in the 1600s, it was as dangerous as going to Mars is today. Three thousand nautical miles was an extreme journey back then. That's why a ship is referred to as "she", because she's more than just a ship, she's a beautiful lady, who will take you in her arms and protect you from the harsh sea. A sailor loves their ship like other people love their significant others, it is our home and our life, and the implement we use to tame nature. I imagine it is one of those things you'd have to be a sailor to understand. Man, I loved going to sea. Hated being in the Navy, but loved going to sea.

The fact is that I don't think any private company is going to be the first ones to have an outpost on Mars. It is extremely likely that government agencies will go there first, and private companies will follow.

Perhaps, but my main point is that new lands are settled by civilians looking for a better life and/or profit. Yes, various European military expeditions did go to North America, but actual settlements were made by civilians. The Mars Society (founded by Robert Zubrin) has always endorsed a civilian Mars project in the event that they can raise funding, if the government never sends colonists. Mars is like North America, Earth is like Europe, the asteroids are like The West Indies, and the intervening space is like The High Seas.

Space: the final frontier..... (cue Star Trek theme)

--Brian

 

[rcsplinters]

Guys, of course, you are entitled to your opinions.

I'm not sure an engineer would equate feats in 1492 where mankind had been buiding boats for a couple thousand years or more to flinging colonists across the void to Mars today or even in the next several decades when we have barely 60 years building our "wooden ships" under our belts. Perhaps it might be similar to crossing the Pacific astride a tree trunk with a stick for a paddle. We're not even close, technology wise, to the first expedition by Lewis and Clark where they walked and rode horses around that vast wilderness.

I do not expect colonists on either the moon or especially Mars for a century or more. Mars may cost half a trillion dollars (and many lives, I'm afraid) for the first footprint. With no expectation of return on that investment, no commercial entity will put forth that sort of capital. Only a government can mount that sort of excursion and then only after sustained program building to that specific end.

It occurs to me that one of the key drivers behind our differences of perspective (throwing politics aside) is the assessment of where our technology is incomparison with the mission at hand. When Columbus sailed into the void, he was using technology that was frankly, old hat for the time. Governments fielded entire navys and had for decades and decades. Businesses drove commerce arounds the coasts (the long way around), albeit for a lesser time. The technology of the day was very mature and up to the trip, far more so than our petty sardine cans that we expect men to live in for perhaps years on a mission to Mars, an asteroid or other point of interest. I wish technology was as developed as some seem to believe, however, in my opinion, it simply is not even close.

Columbus took a trip to a place he couldn't see with craft that had long proven themselves to be up to the task in search of known riches (funded by the portugese with government ships as I recall). We contemplate a mission to a place we can see with no known means of conveyance in search of knowledge. Our mission is the greater challenge. I can assure you, colonists will NOT like riding that tree trunk in search of a rare hydrate or the holy grail, an ancient alien bacterial fossil.

 

[edkyle99]

Well, I've said it several times on here, it is a very simple concept.
The people who settled the Wild West of the USA, were they US Army soldiers, or civilians? That's right, civilians again.
--Brian

The earliest Europeans were there for profit, either working for fur trading companies or trapping and selling very valuable fur to them.

There is no fur in outer space. No air or water either.

- Ed Kyle

 

[SteveCNC]

There is no fur in outer space. No air or water either.

- Ed Kyle

That's pretty inaccurate , while I doubt you can find fur , there is definately water and from that can be derived oxygen . Plus since we haven't done full geological surveys everywhere it's hard to say what else may be of value out there . It seems to me that if we have a source of water in a low gravity location we are better off than bringing it up from the large gravity well known as earth .

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Well, I've said it several times on here, it is a very simple concept.
The people who settled the Wild West of the USA, were they US Army soldiers, or civilians? That's right, civilians again.
--Brian

The earliest Europeans were there for profit, either working for fur trading companies or trapping and selling very valuable fur to them.

There is no fur in outer space. No air or water either.

- Ed Kyle

So you're assuming Mars, asteroids, the moon, etc. have absolutely no resources to offer us? I suggest you read Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis. It's a very good book.

Guys, of course, you are entitled to your opinions.

I'm not sure an engineer would equate feats in 1492 where mankind had been buiding boats for a couple thousand years or more to flinging colonists across the void to Mars today or even in the next several decades when we have barely 60 years building our "wooden ships" under our belts. Perhaps it might be similar to crossing the Pacific astride a tree trunk with a stick for a paddle. We're not even close, technology wise, to the first expedition by Lewis and Clark where they walked and rode horses around that vast wilderness.

I do not expect colonists on either the moon or especially Mars for a century or more. Mars may cost half a trillion dollars (and many lives, I'm afraid) for the first footprint. With no expectation of return on that investment, no commercial entity will put forth that sort of capital. Only a government can mount that sort of excursion and then only after sustained program building to that specific end.

It occurs to me that one of the key drivers behind our differences of perspective (throwing politics aside) is the assessment of where our technology is incomparison with the mission at hand. When Columbus sailed into the void, he was using technology that was frankly, old hat for the time. Governments fielded entire navys and had for decades and decades. Businesses drove commerce arounds the coasts (the long way around), albeit for a lesser time. The technology of the day was very mature and up to the trip, far more so than our petty sardine cans that we expect men to live in for perhaps years on a mission to Mars, an asteroid or other point of interest. I wish technology was as developed as some seem to believe, however, in my opinion, it simply is not even close.

Columbus took a trip to a place he couldn't see with craft that had long proven themselves to be up to the task in search of known riches (funded by the portugese with government ships as I recall). We contemplate a mission to a place we can see with no known means of conveyance in search of knowledge. Our mission is the greater challenge. I can assure you, colonists will NOT like riding that tree trunk in search of a rare hydrate or the holy grail, an ancient alien bacterial fossil.

Agreed. I can understand people trying to make the analogy, but it's simply not how it's going to work. Government outposts will be there before any company takes such a big risk at such high costs. I'm not sure if it will be centuries until there are colonies there, but I'm pretty sure it will not be entrepeneuers going to Mars first to try and make a new life.

 

[edkyle99]

There is no fur in outer space. No air or water either.

- Ed Kyle

That's pretty inaccurate , while I doubt you can find fur , there is definately water and from that can be derived oxygen .

There are no readily available resources up there, and none that can be exploited for easy profit, like the fur or tobacco trades.

To get at the water on the Moon, for example, one has to drop down to the lunar surface, mine a large amount of soil, somehow process it with a big heavy plant, and then launch it up from the Moon. Where's the profit?

- Ed Kyle

 

[SteveCNC]

To get at the water on the Moon, for example, one has to drop down to the lunar surface, mine a large amount of soil, somehow process it with a big heavy plant, and then launch it up from the Moon. Where's the profit?

- Ed Kyle

Not true .

Water is available in the form of ice embedded just below the surface , you can get more out of other places but would be harder to process however ice under pressure/temperature of an atmosphere would naturally turn to water and that makes it pretty easy to process in a gravity environment . Weightless environment would throw one more difficulty into the equation but in space water would be worth it's weight in gold or better . Plus most would stay on the moon for use there and the rest sent up for use in space .

 

[SteveCNC]

A thought occurred while watching a commercial on TV on the science channel , if the rings of saturn are mostly ice , how feasable would it be to send a unmanned ship out to collect a load and return it to earth orbit for processing get refueled and do it again repeatedly or even send more than one on a regular cycle . Being unmanned it dosen't matter if it takes 2 years or even more . I was watching a program on carbon nano tubes and I can imangine a net made of those could withstand the impact of the ice while being collected .

Water will be the space commodity that drives business , not much doubt about that . It's needed for survival , fuel , air , everything revolves around it so it can't help but be the most valuable item there is up there . And if you can find a cheaper way of getting it to places like the moon , mars or even LEO than launching from earth , then it's profitable to do so and business will be there .

 

[DarkenedOne]

There is no fur in outer space. No air or water either.

- Ed Kyle

That's pretty inaccurate , while I doubt you can find fur , there is definately water and from that can be derived oxygen .

There are no readily available resources up there, and none that can be exploited for easy profit, like the fur or tobacco trades.

To get at the water on the Moon, for example, one has to drop down to the lunar surface, mine a large amount of soil, somehow process it with a big heavy plant, and then launch it up from the Moon. Where's the profit?

- Ed Kyle

Well first of all there is a significant amount of water ice in places on the moon that are not exposed to sunlight. The amount was something like the size of the Great Lakes.

Also your limiting your profitability analysis to simple resources that could be found in abundant supply here. How about resources like Helium-3? Also have you considered the potential for space tourism. There is also a great deal of money in science as well.

 

[edkyle99]

To get at the water on the Moon, for example, one has to drop down to the lunar surface, mine a large amount of soil, somehow process it with a big heavy plant, and then launch it up from the Moon. Where's the profit?

- Ed Kyle

Not true .

Water is available in the form of ice embedded just below the surface , you can get more out of other places but would be harder to process however ice under pressure/temperature of an atmosphere would naturally turn to water and that makes it pretty easy to process in a gravity environment . Weightless environment would throw one more difficulty into the equation but in space water would be worth it's weight in gold or better . Plus most would stay on the moon for use there and the rest sent up for use in space .

If it was worth the price of gold, it would not be profitable to sell the water because it would cost far more than that to access, extract, and transport. Not to mention the unanswered questions of ownership, commercial mining rights, etc..

- Ed Kyle

 

[SteveCNC]

since you believe it isn't worth much in space , tell me this how much does it cost to send up say 1million gallons of water to LEO from earth's surface ? This is a scenario that would need to be repeated several times a year for a reasonable size population to occupy LEO along with providing fuel for other needs .

Now tell me how much it would cost to take that load of water all the way to the moon and land it on the surface ?

Pennies ? dollars ? millions of dollars ? or maybe even billions of dollars ? by my calculations using SpaceX's estimated cost it would work out to ~45 billion dollars or $45,000 per gallon , hmm profitable ?? maybe

 

[edkyle99]

since you believe it isn't worth much in space , tell me this how much does it cost to send up say 1million gallons of water to LEO from earth's surface ? This is a scenario that would need to be repeated several times a year for a reasonable size population to occupy LEO along with providing fuel for other needs .

Now tell me how much it would cost to take that load of water all the way to the moon and land it on the surface ?

Pennies ? dollars ? millions of dollars ? or maybe even billions of dollars ? by my calculations using SpaceX's estimated cost it would work out to ~45 billion dollars or $45,000 per gallon , hmm profitable ?? maybe

This example, interesting though it is, is not within the context of the original discussion. The original discussion began with an assertion that space exploration would proceed like the European exploration and settlement of North America. The original explorer/settlers were exploiters who profited by selling rare goods, such as beaver pelts, extracted from the landscape, largely back to Europeans. I don't see any resource potential like that in space - nothing that can be readily extracted from space, brought back to Earth, and sold at a profit.

Your interesting example presumes that a space settler would be able to pay more than $300-400 million per year for their water! At those prices, the in-orbit settlement is going to be pretty thinly populated and will never require 1,000,000 gallons per year!

- Ed Kyle

 

[SteveCNC]

I realize it is drifting around the original subject , the question on wether or not there is potential for profit in space which would create an oppotunity for commercial ventures to go after is what I was attempting to answer . Even if Elon is correct in saying the cost per pound could drop as low as $500 that still leaves water coming up from earth priced at over $4,000 per gallon . If it is derived from the moon it could be far cheaper thereby creating an opportunity for commercial venture to cut that price down considerably and still pull in a decent profit .

BTW I never intended to take that water down to earth , it is in space and should stay up there reducing the supply loads needed from earth to support life in space .

 

[Gravity_Ray]

The reason why commercial spaceflight is critical for future human exploration is not just that I think a private company is best suited to take us to space. But once there, they also have an advantage to be in a better place to exploit their environment to make additional money. Something NASA or a nation will have a harder time doing due to laws.

To the few posts above, I'd say water is critical for human space exploration, and ISRU has to be improved for this to happen. But I doubt any time in the near future it would be worth bringing water back to Earth. Actually the only things I see worth bringing back to Earth from a human space colony would be things like software, AI, and maybe some robotics (either robots themselves) or hardware plans. These are the kind of things that a space faring human civilization will have to excel at and things that can transfer well to life on Earth.

All materials in space like you guys said will be mostly needed for furthering more space exploration. Water being key there for fuel and air.

 

[vulture4]

At $500/lb a seat might cost $500,000; based on Virgin Galactic's market surveys, at that price probably at least 20-30 seats per year could be sold. Not a land rush but real progress. ISRU will only help when there is demand. price must come down first, by at least a factor of ten. There is no way to do this without commercial reusable launch systems.

 

[neutrino78x]

I do not expect colonists on either the moon or especially Mars for a century or more.

We could do it today if we used the Mars Direct or Mars for Less methods. Live off the land, it divides the fuel needed in half. You don't build a huge starship, just a capsule with enough food and water to live for 6 months until you arrive on Mars, where the robotic device already went, and already prepared the fuel for the return trip by performing chemical reactions with the martian atmosphere. People live in close quarters on submarines for 3 months at a time; I have been underwater for 87 days before, without coming to the surface or coming into port.

Mars may cost half a trillion dollars (and many lives, I'm afraid) for the first footprint.

That's a highly inflated cost based on Cost Plus contracts with NASA, and it assumes a large starship. If you do it the correct way, it would be more like $50 billion over ten years. That's to establish the initial base, not the cost to go there as a colonist. Going there as a colonist would be maybe $100,000.

With no expectation of return on that investment, no commercial entity will put forth that sort of capital.

Well, you see, The King of Britain solved that problem by creating The London Company. This company was granted land in North America, and they sold it to people. It had value.

See also Sell Mars.

Now, it would help if we changed The Outer Space Treaty to say that you can own pieces of Mars, just as you can own islands in The High Seas.

It occurs to me that one of the key drivers behind our differences of perspective (throwing politics aside) is the assessment of where our technology is in comparison with the mission at hand. When Columbus sailed into the void, he was using technology that was frankly, old hat for the time.

Well, have you ever been to The High Seas, as a sailor (not as a passenger)? I have. Even if you're using state of the art technology, the sea is still a harsh environment, especially a place like the Arctic Circle, or on the surface of the sea during a heavy storm, or underwater. But what I'm saying is, it was worse at that time; even with a state of the art ship, going three thousand miles was a very harsh journey. A nuclear powered destroyer can simply change course and leave the storm, but a sail driven ship could be destroyed.

The technology we are talking about for going to Mars is state of the art for us; chemical rockets and solar power (Zubrin actually wants to use nuclear).

Columbus took a trip to a place he couldn't see with craft that had long proven themselves to be up to the task in search of known riches (funded by the portugese with government ships as I recall).

That's what we're doing. Chemical rockets are proven technology, we have been to the Moon. We have sent probes to Mars. We know it is possible to live on Mars and thrive (initially, survive, but ultimately thrive).

While Columbus was using government ships, Jamestown Settlement, which is what we're proposing on Mars, did not use government ships.

We contemplate a mission to a place we can see with no known means of conveyance in search of knowledge.

This is where you and I disagree. This is why a NASA manned mission to Mars is unlikely. You don't send humans to Mars for knowledge. You send robots for that. You send humans to start a New World. There will likely be communist colonies and libertarian colonies.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

Picture of the floorplan for Mars Direct Habs. Interior living space of 101 square meters. Mass, 25.2 metric tonnes. I believe the Atlas V can carry this to LEO. Also the planned Falcon 9 Heavy. If you didn't have heavy lift, you would simply send the crew separately and have them enter the hab in LEO.

btw another example of how making a three thousand mile journey on The High Seas at the time of the Jamestown Settlement was dangerous is that the chronometer had not yet been invented. The maritime chronometer was invented in the 1700s, but Jamestown was settled in 1606. So, you don't have a reliable way to determine your longitude, especially during the day. Once the chronometer was invented, you would compare the time in your homeport to the time of day (based on sun position etc) and that would tell you you longitude.

These days we use GPS, and have extremely accurate inertial navigation systems for ships and submarines which can track the position of the ship or boat within a centimeter or so.

--Brian