[Potemkin]

Science follows science fiction.

Only when there's money to be made or national glory to be achieved, One Degree.

[Cookie Monster]

Seriously, though, unless and until a business case can be made for space exploration and colonisation, then it will never happen. Once people see a way of making a profit from, say, mining the asteroid belt, then it will happen incredibly swiftly. Nothing motivates people more effectively than greed. Until then, it's just a few romantic nerds pissing into the wind.

One of the problems is that there is an international treaty which prohibits nationalisation of the celestial bodies. Although it doesn't prohibit private exploitation of resources in outer space, I think the environment is too hostile for exploitation by short-term driven private corporations. Only states could muster the vast resources and invest in such an endeavour for a long duration.

[Potemkin]

One of the problems is that there is an international treaty which prohibits nationalisation of the celestial bodies. Although it doesn't prohibit private exploitation of resources in outer space, I think the environment is too hostile for exploitation by short-term driven private corporations. Only states could muster the vast resources and invest in such an endeavour for a long duration.

In other words, humanity will only expand into space once we have achieved communism on Earth.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Musk want to establish a Mars colony, but there's zero business case for it. He can hope for NASA to pay for it, but I don't see it happening.

Exploration of unknown territory in the 15th century was driven by economic interests. It was about finding new trade routes or lands to plunder. Moreover, unlike the oceans space is an incredibly hostile place to humans (meaning it's very expensive to keep them alive). If it weren't for national pride and inspiration the job of the astronaut would never have existed or only for a very short period of time (for the duration of the Mercury program for example).

The economic case will be made in the future as well. Until then we'll have to help the development along. It's a bit like solar energy. The more knowledge we have and technology is already developed the easier it will be to make the economic case. Then there's curiosity and the simple case for human survival in the long term.

I don't know how high the risk to die for the first explorers was in the 15th century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similarly high or higher than what the risk will be for the first humans that will set foot on Mars.

[Cookie Monster]

Pretty much; or we just change the law when we are compelled to exploit the resources in space.

[Rugoz]

The economic case will be made in the future as well. Until then we'll have to help the development along. It's a bit like solar energy. The more knowledge we have and technology is already developed the easier it will be to make the economic case. Then there's curiosity and the simple case for human survival in the long term.

I don't know how high the risk to die for the first explorers was in the 15th century, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similarly high or higher than what the risk will be for the first humans that will set foot on Mars.

The question is when. For tourism to LEO/Moon for the rich and (robotic) asteroid mining I can see it happen within the next few decades. Colonization however, I don't see what benefit that would bring. Rocket technology for getting to Earth orbit (chemical propulsion) has basically stagnated for half a century. Propulsion efficiency and mass ratios have improved only marginally. Cost improvements will happen, but they won't be nearly as dramatic as Musk promises. In fact Musk's goal is to offer a Mars ticket for $500k. That is total bollocks. It's a 4 orders of magnitude cost reduction. From roughly $5bn per astronaut today (recurring cost only) to $500k . That kind of cost reduction only happens in the semiconductor industry, not in aerospace.

[OllytheBrit]

That looks cool but seems like a waste of time and money.

I thought NASA had its funding cut drastically. So how is it possible that they can afford all this new tech and all the building supplies? :?:

The more shit NASA can dream up, the more their 'research funding' will be increased - which is precisely why they keep dreaming up more shit? QEfuckingD!

[Potemkin]

The more shit NASA can dream up, the more their 'research funding' will be increased - which is precisely why they keep dreaming up more shit? QEfuckingD!

Precisely. What motivates most people is money, either in the form of profits or government grants. And as HL Mencken said, when somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money.

Seriously, unless and until someone finds a way for people to make money - shitloads of it - while colonising space, then it ain't gonna happen. There'll be a few prestige projects, such as landing on the Moon or on Mars, not nothing sustainable over the long term. After all, it wasn't a 'dream' which motivated the conquistadors to get up off their butts and conquer the New World, it was the prospect of gold, shitloads of it. Gold and land, baby, gold and land.

[One Degree]

When Trump chases the Oligarchs out, they must go somewhere. They have the funds. They could live safely on Mars while charging us outrageous prices for raw materials. Mars, future tax haven for the rich.

[Rugoz]

The more shit NASA can dream up, the more their 'research funding' will be increased - which is precisely why they keep dreaming up more shit? QEfuckingD!

To be fair NASA's science division is doing great. It's the human spaceflight part (ISS/SLS/Orion) that eats up $9bn per year and produces little of value, imo.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The question is when. For tourism to LEO/Moon for the rich and (robotic) asteroid mining I can see it happen within the next few decades. Colonization however, I don't see what benefit that would bring. Rocket technology for getting to Earth orbit (chemical propulsion) has basically stagnated for half a century. Propulsion efficiency and mass ratios have improved only marginally. Cost improvements will happen, but they won't be nearly as dramatic as Musk promises. In fact Musk's goal is to offer a Mars ticket for $500k. That is total bollocks. It's a 4 orders of magnitude cost reduction. From roughly $5bn per astronaut today (recurring cost only) to $500k . That kind of cost reduction only happens in the semiconductor industry, not in aerospace.

From memory, Musk's goal is to get this started in 2022 and to get costs down to $200,000 eventually. A significant reduction in costs is supposed to come from reusability and scale (taking 100 people at once). His timescale for establishing a colony is between 50 years and a century.

He's always said that his ultimate objective is to kick this off by showing people that it is possible. His hope is that by having people actually see humans set foot on Mars it will inspire them enough to want to keep it going. Whether that will be the case or not obviously remains to be seen. As mentioned, I take the timescales as a statement of ambition rather than counting on them.

[XogGyux]

It is hilarious and at the same time saddening that people still think "what is the point" or "it is worthless to go to space/planet/moon."
NASA has cost taxpayer about 500bil since its beginning nearly 70+ years ago. Even adjusting for inflation this come up to about 800bil. To put this in perspective, the 60year estimated cost of the F-35 plane is about 1.5trillion, about twice what nasa founding cost for a similar time period.
But... what has nasa done for us?
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/pd ... ff2008.pdf
Here take a look. The discoveries and technologies that NASA has helped us achieve are upwards of trillions of dollars. I'd go further to say priceless.
Just the value of the technologies and discoveries done through the research phase of going to mars, europe (jupiter's moon), out of our solar system, other solar system, other galaxy will always be greater than their cost. We just need to leave our narrow minds behind.

[OllytheBrit]

Precisely. What motivates most people is money, either in the form of profits or government grants.

Seriously, unless and until someone finds a way for people to make money - shitloads of it - while colonising space, then it ain't gonna happen. There'll be a few prestige projects, such as landing on the Moon or on Mars, not nothing sustainable over the long term. After all, it wasn't a 'dream' which motivated the conquistadors to get up off their butts and conquer the New World, it was the prospect of gold, shitloads of it. Gold and land, baby, gold and land.

Not that there's very much difference, only that one is like over the garden fence to next door, and the other is Australia.

[Rugoz]

From memory, Musk's goal is to get this started in 2022 and to get costs down to $200,000 eventually. A significant reduction in costs is supposed to come from reusability and scale (taking 100 people at once). His timescale for establishing a colony is between 50 years and a century.

He's always said that his ultimate objective is to kick this off by showing people that it is possible. His hope is that by having people actually see humans set foot on Mars it will inspire them enough to want to keep it going. Whether that will be the case or not obviously remains to be seen. As mentioned, I take the timescales as a statement of ambition rather than counting on them.

Scale is nice. A typical value for aerospace would be 10% cost reduction every time you double production. You won't get anywhere near a factor 10k cost reduction with that.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Scale is one part of it, @Rugoz. The only question is whether there will be enough people with enough money to make a start. The idea that costs will come down considerably over time, especially as more people - including governments - become interested, is not so far-fetched.

As far as I'm concerned it's only a question of when not if. I'd like to see it get started in my lifetime.

Ultimately, humanity will be divided into those who go and those who stay.

[Rugoz]

Nice video, it gets some things wrong though:

- Humans in the proximity of Jupiter would get fried by radiation, including those wandering around on Europa.
- Airships on Mars? The Martian atmosphere is very thin, 0.6% of Earths.
- Those colonies on Moons/Asteroids won't offer enough gravity for humans to remain healthy.
- If you can build such a massive O'Neill cylinder, why bother building colonies on uninhabitable planetary bodies?
- I think you need more than a breathing apparatus and a jacket to stay alive on Titan.
- Jumping from a cliff on an airless body is not a good idea, even if gravity is low.

Also:
- To have acceptable travel times to the outer planets (to limit radiation exposure) you need super fancy propulsion, like a fusion drive or similar.

[Godstud]

All hurdles to overcome, Rugoz.

[Rugoz]

All hurdles to overcome, Rugoz.

It makes no sense to overcome hurdles for the sake of overcoming hurdles. And some of those hurdles are borderline impossible to overcome.

Note Kaiserschmarrn is the guy who thinks it's too late to do something against global warming, while at the same time he believes in all this space colonization nonsense.

[Godstud]

Going to the moon seemed like an impossible thing, too.

[OllytheBrit]

Going to the moon seemed like an impossible thing, too.

I have my doubts about that too. I'm only 98% that it happened.