Erik I love your optimism in this post. But while optimism is the best mental stance for a happy and useful life, it can result in naive battle plans. For example:
Re "Another possible obstacle is political regulation based on concerns around space privatization by billionaires" - yes, this is a likely and dangerous obstacle. The US government can kill the private space sector in the US anytime with unfriendly overregulation, and is all too likely to give in to cultural pressures against private spaceflight.
Musk & Bezos &co. should really consider preparing to move offshore just in case. I'm not joking.
To me the *only* thing that can keep the US on track to the Moon, Mars and beyond, is competition with China. Therefore, even though I dislike certain aspects of today's China, I'm a big fan of the Chinese space program. And if the West can't compete, then well, here's to China.
Erik I’m also an Up (and very proudly and unapologetically so), but perhaps stop using the terms Up and Down? They can be interpreted, um, differently, you know. Suggest Cosmists and Terrans.
Erik, it's really impressive how you've synthesized and focused this info into a digestible reading pleasure (versus just making one's head spin).
I'd love to see humans living on Mars, and if such a program succeeds, I think it will pay off in science and technology advances. (Perhaps adapting to Mars will facilitate adapting civilization to Earth's future?)
It seems there's a chain of things to pull off to achieve success. Isn't there some kind of analysis that mathematically / statistically determines the chances of success by factoring in the various dependencies? If there is, the result might be interesting. Perhaps the most likely "failure mode" would be in keeping to schedule?
Thank you Alex - appreciate that. Yes, in terms of the actual probabilities, perhaps we can consider a kind of "hard step" model similar to the one Hanson uses for estimating alien life: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/08/new-hard-steps-results.html. For example, if Starship works for LEO, I think the probability of Mars goes way way up. Similarly, if they can then land safely a Starship on Mars, I think the probability gets close to guaranteed. But we won't know until we pass those steps. As to how hard these steps actually are, I wish I could give solid numbers.
Great piece. Has any work been done on the likely psychological effects on the pioneers of being removed from their home planet for long stretches/the rest of their lives?
Thanks! I know of the infamous biosphere experiments, as well as a number of Antarctica testing, but all except biosphere have been, AFAIK, “mission based” not “settler simulations.” But my suspicion is that this is like asking “what will the pilgrims think of being removed from their continent for the rest of their lives?”
Oof, great catch. Yeah not sure what I was thinking, if I had planned to make the conversion and just forgot to or just never noticed it. I've adapted the paragraph to have a more explicit link that allows for the judging of actual rooms by cubic meters so people can get a sense of the space.
I think the effects in the literature will end up being overstated - it's quite difficult to give a mouse cancer reliably with space-like radiation, and what mouse model you use has a big impact. Generally it's harder to get cancer in the wild than in the lab, and the lab effects aren't that large. A comparison I've made before is tacrolimus - a medication we know *should* give you cancer, but doesn't, so dermatologists have people use it on their faces all the time.
Looks to be that way. I wouldn't be surprised if people ended up privately paying SpaceX to go, even on the first ship. Alternatively, NASA might pay SpaceX for seats for astronauts.
No man has ever walked on the moon. A city on mars is a pipe dream. Get yer facts straight. Building future worlds based on current lies is pure madness.
Maybe I'm showing my background as a peak oil doomer, but I read through a bunch of the linked materials to try and learn more about how they plan to power this hypothetical city on Mars. I did not find anything substantial, but there are some 3D renderings that look like they contain solar panels.
Talking out my ass here since I don't know the numbers, but it seems powering a small city on Mars is a hefty burden to place on some solar panels. Water will need to be "mined" as ice, heated, and I assume purified. All living spaces need to be pressurized, which obviously costs energy. Plus you have to operate, I assume, some kind of technology to produce breathable air, right? And all on a planet farther from the Sun than Earth, meaning you get less energy per solar panel. Plus the dust storms on Mars would increase maintenance costs of everything, including the solar panels.
Maybe they'll ship nuclear reactors?
As an aside, I did not find any mention of the name Starbase Alpha in the NASA white paper, but thankfully it included a diversity and inclusion statement about how a NASA/SpaceX cooperation would increase opportunity for "marginalized and underrepresented groups" to participate in space programs. Maybe it's best if SpaceX did this one alone.
It's fascinating to contemplate how this could play out, particularly once the barriers to access (financial and practical) are lowered sufficiently. Could we see an equivalent to the way "the New World" was perceived by Europeans in the 17th Century, with dissident communities pooling their resources to set up independent colonies on Mars with the explicit intention of escaping earth governance?
In the shorter term the governance question is more likely to play out in the way it did with American-expansion communities in the 19th Century like Deadwood. Such communities were driven by the opportunity to make fortunes and existed and functioned outside the boundaries and legal framework of the United States.
Hopefully the first Mars colonies won't be as lawless as Deadwood, although it is amusing to contemplate the Martian equivalent of Al Swearingen (Ian McShane's character in the 'Deadwood' TV series).
Erik I love your optimism in this post. But while optimism is the best mental stance for a happy and useful life, it can result in naive battle plans. For example:
Re "Another possible obstacle is political regulation based on concerns around space privatization by billionaires" - yes, this is a likely and dangerous obstacle. The US government can kill the private space sector in the US anytime with unfriendly overregulation, and is all too likely to give in to cultural pressures against private spaceflight.
Musk & Bezos &co. should really consider preparing to move offshore just in case. I'm not joking.
To me the *only* thing that can keep the US on track to the Moon, Mars and beyond, is competition with China. Therefore, even though I dislike certain aspects of today's China, I'm a big fan of the Chinese space program. And if the West can't compete, then well, here's to China.
Erik I’m also an Up (and very proudly and unapologetically so), but perhaps stop using the terms Up and Down? They can be interpreted, um, differently, you know. Suggest Cosmists and Terrans.
haha that's not exactly my first thought but perhaps it's others
Erik, it's really impressive how you've synthesized and focused this info into a digestible reading pleasure (versus just making one's head spin).
I'd love to see humans living on Mars, and if such a program succeeds, I think it will pay off in science and technology advances. (Perhaps adapting to Mars will facilitate adapting civilization to Earth's future?)
It seems there's a chain of things to pull off to achieve success. Isn't there some kind of analysis that mathematically / statistically determines the chances of success by factoring in the various dependencies? If there is, the result might be interesting. Perhaps the most likely "failure mode" would be in keeping to schedule?
Thank you Alex - appreciate that. Yes, in terms of the actual probabilities, perhaps we can consider a kind of "hard step" model similar to the one Hanson uses for estimating alien life: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/08/new-hard-steps-results.html. For example, if Starship works for LEO, I think the probability of Mars goes way way up. Similarly, if they can then land safely a Starship on Mars, I think the probability gets close to guaranteed. But we won't know until we pass those steps. As to how hard these steps actually are, I wish I could give solid numbers.
Great piece. Has any work been done on the likely psychological effects on the pioneers of being removed from their home planet for long stretches/the rest of their lives?
Thanks! I know of the infamous biosphere experiments, as well as a number of Antarctica testing, but all except biosphere have been, AFAIK, “mission based” not “settler simulations.” But my suspicion is that this is like asking “what will the pilgrims think of being removed from their continent for the rest of their lives?”
I found this link to an isolation experiment carried out in Russia.
Interestingly it seems that the more time went on, the less dependent on contact with 'home' the volunteers became.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2021.751170/full?utm_source=fweb&utm_medium=nblog&utm_campaign=ba-sci-fphys-off-world-experiment-isolation-mars-communication
isn't the "How much space is enough?" chart in square meters? as opposed to the cubic meters given for Starship forward space?
Oof, great catch. Yeah not sure what I was thinking, if I had planned to make the conversion and just forgot to or just never noticed it. I've adapted the paragraph to have a more explicit link that allows for the judging of actual rooms by cubic meters so people can get a sense of the space.
Radiation risk needs a lot more work.
I think the effects in the literature will end up being overstated - it's quite difficult to give a mouse cancer reliably with space-like radiation, and what mouse model you use has a big impact. Generally it's harder to get cancer in the wild than in the lab, and the lab effects aren't that large. A comparison I've made before is tacrolimus - a medication we know *should* give you cancer, but doesn't, so dermatologists have people use it on their faces all the time.
So is the plan to just send volunteers to Mars and hope for the best?
Looks to be that way. I wouldn't be surprised if people ended up privately paying SpaceX to go, even on the first ship. Alternatively, NASA might pay SpaceX for seats for astronauts.
No man has ever walked on the moon. A city on mars is a pipe dream. Get yer facts straight. Building future worlds based on current lies is pure madness.
The irony of calling the "Downs" (esp. Bernie) progressives..
Maybe I'm showing my background as a peak oil doomer, but I read through a bunch of the linked materials to try and learn more about how they plan to power this hypothetical city on Mars. I did not find anything substantial, but there are some 3D renderings that look like they contain solar panels.
Talking out my ass here since I don't know the numbers, but it seems powering a small city on Mars is a hefty burden to place on some solar panels. Water will need to be "mined" as ice, heated, and I assume purified. All living spaces need to be pressurized, which obviously costs energy. Plus you have to operate, I assume, some kind of technology to produce breathable air, right? And all on a planet farther from the Sun than Earth, meaning you get less energy per solar panel. Plus the dust storms on Mars would increase maintenance costs of everything, including the solar panels.
Maybe they'll ship nuclear reactors?
As an aside, I did not find any mention of the name Starbase Alpha in the NASA white paper, but thankfully it included a diversity and inclusion statement about how a NASA/SpaceX cooperation would increase opportunity for "marginalized and underrepresented groups" to participate in space programs. Maybe it's best if SpaceX did this one alone.
> 1,677,950,000
This is a billion, not a trillion.
Much appreciate you catching that, thanks
It's fascinating to contemplate how this could play out, particularly once the barriers to access (financial and practical) are lowered sufficiently. Could we see an equivalent to the way "the New World" was perceived by Europeans in the 17th Century, with dissident communities pooling their resources to set up independent colonies on Mars with the explicit intention of escaping earth governance?
In the shorter term the governance question is more likely to play out in the way it did with American-expansion communities in the 19th Century like Deadwood. Such communities were driven by the opportunity to make fortunes and existed and functioned outside the boundaries and legal framework of the United States.
Hopefully the first Mars colonies won't be as lawless as Deadwood, although it is amusing to contemplate the Martian equivalent of Al Swearingen (Ian McShane's character in the 'Deadwood' TV series).