Discussion Earth: Space colonization a myth - ESA director.

[N_Molson]

I'm confident it's a matter of time. If we're wise enough not to destroy ourselves before.

However, I'm strongly again the use of the "post-1492 America colonization" comparison, and also that 'frontier' thing which is related to the (not native) american culture (because that's what we call a 'foundation myth', you have those in all cultures as they are essential to provide individuals a 'group-identity'), and deeply rooted in american minds. I like Ray Bradbury's books, but they depict reality as well as does The Lord Of The Rings.

 

[Andy44]

Having 1000 astronauts on Mars would already be hard to solve as engineer at the current knowledge, don't you agree? And still... we can imagine it, and we can even successfully simulate such settlements.

Sure, imagining is fun, it's why I am on this forum to begin with!

But the fact is that colonizing Mars is way harder and more expensive than colonizing Antarctica. One is a (cheap) plane ride away, the other is months through a radiation field with no chance to turn around or be rescued (on a very expensive space vehicle). One has air and water, the other might have a few drops of water, but you'll need a lot of energy just to get it out of the land. And no air other than what you bring or manufacture.

Then there is the devil in the details. How do you raise children in an environment where not knowing how to use a pressure suit without puking in it is fatal? How do you live when one guy with a suicidal grudge and a wrench can expose half the settlement to near-vacuum? These are not insoluable problems, but they are not trivial, either.

Treaties schmeeties...if we need to colonize Antarctica we will ignore or renegotiate treaties as required. Same goes for the space law that prevents people from owning land on Mars. International law gets ignored on a weekly basis as it is anyway.

 

[Urwumpe]

And then, if you look at the opposite side of Earth, colonizing the arctic is everything but a myth. Despite it being much harder than in the Antarctic, because you don't even have much solid ground available. But what you have there is economic interests, that you don't yet find for the Antarctic.

And still..... http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27910375

 

[C3PO]

However, I'm strongly again the use of the "post-1492 America colonization" comparison, and also that 'frontier' thing which is related to the (not native) american culture (because that's what we call a 'foundation myth', you have those in all cultures as they are essential to provide individuals a 'group-identity'), and deeply rooted in american minds.

IMHO the main reason why you can't compare those two scenarios is the economical aspect. A vast majority of the pioneers emigrated to get away from poverty or at least to be better off economically. Unless something drastically lowers the price of space flight, the people that can afford a ticket to Mars have enough money to live on Earth in relative luxury (compared to Mars) for 20+ lifetimes.

 

[n122vu]

 

[jedidia]

In my mind a colony is a place you go to spend the rest of your life, unless you change your mind and move somewhere else.

You know, the meaning of the word "Colony" during imperialistic times was simply that of an area geographically unattached to your nation, where you controlled the exploitation of resources

IMHO the main reason why you can't compare those two scenarios is the economical aspect. A vast majority of the pioneers emigrated to get away from poverty or at least to be better off economically.

A much bigger economic factor: They went there by their own means.

Anyways, sometimes I wonder that nobody ever seems to talk about manufacturing capabilities when it comes to this topic. I think the real key to opening up space is not to make more economic launch vehicles, but the ability to produce them much more cheaply. How, I don't know. But I do believe the breakthrough to get us out of LEO won't be rocket technology, it will be manufacturing technology. The real problem is not that the technologies would be too expensive to research, it's that all that high-tech stuff is so darn expensive to manufacture too, which also makes the investments into the research a questionable undertaking.

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyways, sometimes I wonder that nobody ever seems to talk about manufacturing capabilities when it comes to this topic. I think the real key to opening up space is not to make more economic launch vehicles, but the ability to produce them much more cheaply. How, I don't know. But I do believe the breakthrough to get us out of LEO won't be rocket technology, it will be manufacturing technology. The real problem is not that the technologies would be too expensive to research, it's that all that high-tech stuff is so darn expensive to manufacture too, which also makes the investments into the research a questionable undertaking.

I agree there - but I think the real magic will be infrastructure. Currently we don't have it, our rockets and spacecraft have to bring almost everything they need with them. Which makes them expensive. If we could make the task for the rocket simpler by putting it on a cheaper infrastructure, the costs would drop. Same would happen to Spacecraft... building a Mars cycler would be expensive, but having one or two of those would make spacecraft to Mars and back much cheaper.

 

[Andy44]

And if there is a large enough economic incentive, than the infrastructure builds itself. Oil companies figure out how to build big in remote locations, they innovate new extraction and refining technologies. Colonizing the Americas benefitted from the existence of a lucrative shipping industry, which already had thousands of ocean-going vessels and experts to build, maintain, and crew them.

If we ever colonize Antarctica, as your linked article suggests, the oil or other mineral industries will drive the technology needed and produce the money to sustain it.

The problem with off-world colonization is the elephant in the room (which we are actually discussing in this thread).

 

[Urwumpe]

Oil companies figure out how to build big in remote locations, they innovate new extraction and refining technologies.

Sorry, but thats Reaganism. In reality, without getting some serious amount of tax payers money, the oil industry would not even exist in its current form - you don't think that all those pipelines and oil terminals are build from private investors money, do you?

Such infrastructures are the lubrication of the economy - yes, they are necessary for many ventures to work. Without the really expensive work being done by the public, the private companies can't invest into their own luck. It is no black-white world there.

If you want private companies to invest into Mars, you need to invest into public infrastructures. That benefit all companies the same and create competition.

 

[Andy44]

Sorry, but thats Reaganism. In reality, without getting some serious amount of tax payers money, the oil industry would not even exist in its current form - you don't think that all those pipelines and oil terminals are build from private investors money, do you?

Such infrastructures are the lubrication of the economy - yes, they are necessary for many ventures to work. Without the really expensive work being done by the public, the private companies can't invest into their own luck. It is no black-white world there.

If you want private companies to invest into Mars, you need to invest into public infrastructures. That benefit all companies the same and create competition.

"Reaganism"? That's a thing?

You are missing the point. There is no oil or its economic equivalent on Mars.

 

[Ghostrider]

they depict reality as well as does The Lord Of The Rings.

Book or movies? Because the movies took some liberties with historical facts...

 

[Urwumpe]

"Reaganism"? That's a thing?

You are missing the point. There is no oil or its economic equivalent on Mars.

There is also almost no oil in Germany. Or any economic equivalent in the category of primary industry. Economics are not that simple, as you put them there. Investments are an gamble. As long as you have to believe, that you will never make a profit on Mars, nobody will do it. But have some realistic chance to make large profits with all competition being years behind in the gamble, and Mars can be very attractive.

 

[fsci123]

You are missing the point. There is no oil or its economic equivalent on Mars.

Yeah, the only real thing of value on Mars is tourism.

 

[Andy44]

There is also almost no oil in Germany.

No, but there is beer. Maybe not a beer volcano, but still...

 

[Donamy]

We will claim it for Queen and country.

 

[Urwumpe]

No, but there is beer. Maybe not a beer volcano, but still...

OK, but aside of beer.....

 

[Andy44]

OK, but aside of beer.....

Well, look back on history: why was Germany settled in the first place? Without looking it up I am guessing it migrating tribesman who found it is a good place for livestock, etc., and they were probably driven by various pressures such as conflict with various other tribes and the search for fertile land and game to hunt.

Nobody had to build spaceships or C-130s to get to Europe; they likely just walked there.

So while Germany may not have much in the way of mineral riches, it has the benefit of being a fairly easy environment for human life, and it's in a central location in human civilization.

Antarctica is a harder place to get to, harder place to thrive in, and it's not a crossroads for any trade routes.

And Mars is like Antarctica, but even worse.

So while Germany is one of the places people come from and is home to many, Mars is one of the places people must go to, and they need a reason to do so.

 

[Urwumpe]

You should never read the Romans descriptions of Germania then. They had been not sure, if really humans lived there. East of the Rhine was the wilderness of uncultivated monsters. Legions disappeared there.

In reality, the variable that made Germany economically powerful even before the Roman Empire ended had been trade. Nobody would think of the Germans as traders, but thats what we have always been in the end. We can maybe also produce our own products, but if this isn't enough, we take from China and sell in France... and copy chinese porcellain in cheap saxonian workshops....

If you look at settlements around 0 AD, you can quickly see that the biggest trade routes in Europe are already existing. The many large rivers in Germany helped also a lot in North-South direction.

(In case why you wonder what this has to do with Mars - where humans are, you will need services. And tertiary sector is always, where the cash is in the end)

 

[C3PO]

A much bigger economic factor: They went there by their own means.

That was exactly what I tried to explain. They saved up for a one way ticket because there was a chance of a better life in the long run.

But I do believe the breakthrough to get us out of LEO won't be rocket technology, it will be manufacturing technology.

Accelerating mass ~12 km/s using current rocket tech is expensive no matter how fancy your manufacturing chain is. Transporting shipping containers or crude oil is unbelievably cheap because you have very specialized ships (unable to transport any other cargo) moving large volumes. But they don't show up on your doorstep. You need other systems to collect/distribute the cargo from/to individual customers. The Mars cycler is an example of similar infrastructure. It needs other systems on both ends to make it work. But things like this only make sense if the volume of cargo (manned or not) is large enough.

The real problem is not that the technologies would be too expensive to research, it's that all that high-tech stuff is so darn expensive to manufacture too, which also makes the investments into the research a questionable undertaking.

Wrong. High-tech stuff can be manufactured very cheap if the volume is big enough. But it's the volume that makes investment in efficient manufacturing equipment possible. Flexible manufacturing equipment can help lower cost of non-mass-produced products, but that still can't beat mass-production on price. BMW was one of the frontrunners in building cars to preordered specs on a single production line, but they aren't exactly known for being cheap.

I like the Antarctic research station comparison, because IMHO the situation on Mars will be similar.
First we had the explorers. Check! We're exploring Mars right now, only without humans presence. Very sensible if you think about the survival rate among explorers in the past.
Next step is research stations. Well, check.... kinda. MSL (Curiosity) is doing research using several different sensors. Maybe humans will go to Mars to do some of the research but I imagine that cheaper and better sensors and faster data transmission will arrive earlier than safe interplanetary space travel.
Then we have colonization. Your guess is as good as mine. So far most visions have been: Collect underpants ---> ______ ---> Profit! If people decide to colonize Antarctica we have no way of knowing what their reason will be, because we don't know the circumstances. And we know next to nothing about Mars as is.

That said, I'm convinced that humans will try to go to Mars. It's just to tempting to forget about. Some time in the future the situation will change enough that someone gives it a go. Probably someone that's willing to accept higher risk than today's "1st world" space agencies.

---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

The problem with off-world colonization is the elephant in the room (which we are actually discussing in this thread).

Doesn't the fact that we're discussing it disqualify it as 'the elephant in the room'? :lol:

 

[jedidia]

Wrong. High-tech stuff can be manufactured very cheap if the volume is big enough.

That's not the only factor. There's a reason we don't have supersonic passenger planes (anymore), for example: building and maintaining them is too expensive, an expense their advantages cannot justify, no matter how many of them we build. If these costs were significantly reduced, we would have supersonic passenger planes. Any kind of reusable spacecraft is essentially facing the same conundrum. This problem could potentially be fixed by new manufacturing and material technologies (I kinda group them together, because new material technologies always require new manufacturing technologies if they are to be produced economically).