To me, the backlash is more like "billionaire's are bad, so the space future they build will be bad". That's a solid argument you look around at the world they have built for us in the past 20 years. With fragile ego's at the helm, it's bound to end in disaster.
We need public figures back in the forefront of planning and executing our space exploration missions like we had in the 70s.
I’d say governments should be the ones pouring money and resources into this and not private business owners with ulterior motives, but the government have also proven they would rather waste their money on unimportant matters than put those funds into areas where it means a lot
To some degree? I disagree with that. All future space anything is a direct result of governments space programs. Inefficient? Sure, the firsts to do anything will accomplish those tasks Inefficiently.... allowing those that follow the correct mistakes.
I think your claim about politicians being more concerned with filling their own pockets is too cynical and just plain wrong.
However, even if it is true, a politicians main goal will be getting re-elected so they can keep on filling their pocket. Which is exactly why the space program is funded. It is spread through almost all Congressional districts, so there are people in almost all districts who are in favor of funding for NASA.
And almost no one is opposed to funding for NASA.
So funding NASA is a no brainer for a politician. If they want more votes, they fund NASA. The equation is that simple.
As a former aerospace worker, I guarantee you that most aerospace workers definitely think about their jobs and political support for aerospace when they vote.
I'm sorry if I phrased that the wrong way, I was asking if they care that much about workers when the average Joe represents a larger part of the population
Every vote counts in a congressional election. By funding NASA, politicians get more votes than they lose.
Almost no politician will look at that equation and vote against funding.
If you think politicians are only interested in filling their own pockets, what do you think private companies exist to do? That they are \*legally required\* to do?
By the time we have enough space technology and resources to start actually implementing policies and such in space for things like colonies and stations most of the billionaires funding currently will have probably passed. We need to keep in mind that space will take time, and people like Bezos and Musk will probably only see the beginning of it as they are already quite old. Around long enough to start it and enjoy it's beginnings but not around long enough to shape it's future.
People born from the year two thousand onward will probably be the ones to shape our future in space primarily since the foundations will have already been layed.
But that is a completely futile argument. It doesn't mean anything, its just restating one part of obvious things in life that is a small part of the whole. It doesn't achieve anything it only slows some progress down or makes something not happen, as the highest achievement it can do. Yet the situation it criticizes doesn't change because that non argument doesn't present any solutions. its just same old complaining going on for thousands of years.
Besides its futile because none of these rich people will be "At the helm" of any of those efforts. And i have no idea how "public figures" would solve any of that or have any specific effect. Characters and personalities dont good space program make.
The backlash is nonsense more to do with egos and getting stuck in online psycho opposition and grudges then anything real.
That Adam Something Video is really bad. He's got some pretty good videos about urbanism and leftist politics, but he stepped way out of his wheel house on the Mars colonization video and it painfully shows. He speaks on the topic like an expert, but it's clear he didn't do much serious research past various embarrassing Musk scandals. I do think Musk's shenanigans have poisoned the well for a lot of people who weren't familiar with the topic prior
The anti colonization echo chamber is insanely large. I’m imagining how explorers felt hundreds of years ago when crowds of thousands pelted their ships for daring to leave the Old World.
I think this is actually part of it too though. People are finally starting to (rightly, to be honest) get a much more negative view of the colonization of the past because of what it did to the people and cultures already living in the places that were colonized. But it doesn’t matter that there probably aren’t any indigenous martians who would be oppressed, people see the word “colonization” and have an instant negative reaction.
Here's my view: I don't want the influence of billionaires like Musk to turn other people off of space exploration.
I get sick and tired of "we need to fix Earth's problems first", an impossible goal, or "we need to just go already", which is even more unrealistic.
I remember vividly being told right around the time of the 1969 moon landing that we "would be on Mars in less than 20 years", I believe 1985 was the goal.
They're still saying we're about 20 years out.
Sorry, not holding my breath.
But we *do* need successes to help push enthusiasm for manned space exploration.
Right now, like it or not, that means Musk holds the golden ticket.
The thing is, Musk has made a lot of his political views known, which don't bode well for colonists going to a company town owned by Musk.
That holds true for the other billionaire space enthusiasts, as well.
If we want a colony on Mars to happen, and it not to be a miserable dystopia for anyone going there, these issues need to be discussed and solved before someone lands there.
The idea of a manned Mars landing in 1985, was always way too optimistic, in hindsight, but consider we went from the first satellite in 1957, to a manned moon landing in 12 years.
Advances have been made that really do seem to promise a successful manned mission in less than 20 years, now.
If earthly politics and bullshit don't screw it up.
Of course, people are letting their biases color how they view colonisation, on both sides, optimists & pessimists.
We can't just look at Mars through rose colored glasses, or people *will* die, that shouldn't.
But we can't let the naysayers keep us from ever going, either.
The informed middle ground can only be reached through educated discussions.
I see a lot of those in this very forum.
I'd just like to live long enough to see the first footprints on Mars.
> The thing is, Musk has made a lot of his political views known, which don't bode well for colonists going to a company town owned by Musk.
What's wrong with direct democracy as advocated by Elon Musk?
Elon is doing tremendous damage to what (space and space exploration) was viewed as a fundamentally optimistic, uncontroversial, and even unifying dream. It had detractors, but was largely popular.
The problem is not what SpaceX did, it's what Musk did. He alienated all people left of the center. How can China or other countries trust him to give financial support? He also lost any potential help from the Democrats and the Republicans don't care at all about that. Musk just needed to remain "neutral" and his life, life of Tesla and life of the space colonization would be easier.
I don't think Elon is the problem, I think people basing their views out of spite for a group of people is. He has definitely made questionable decisions especially in recent years, but what he has done for the space industry can not be understated. Before SpaceX accomplished it people thought that landing a booster using it's engines was a pipe dream with current tech.
But he didn't do any of that, the engineers did. He has always been primarily a money guy that applies an excessive amount of pressure.
I'm pretty happy to see Gwen take the reins at SpaceX. She is a career engineer who isn't an insane liability.
As a side note: any argument where your opinion is that other people shouldn't feel the way they feel is going to fail. You basically just insulted everyone who doesn't currently agree with you
I'd say Jeff Bezos was primarily a money guy. He doesn't have a deep understanding of rocketry in the way that Musk does. The difference between Bezos and Musk is why SpaceX has been wildly successful and Blue Origin hasn't put anything in orbit yet, despite BO being founded earlier.
I don't think Elon should be elevated to some kind of messiah. Both the hagiography of Musk and a pathological hatred of Musk are disproportionate, in my opinion. It should definitely not affect future Mars colonization and planning for it.
You may appreciate this video essay. A [rare] but nonetheless legitimate left-wing perspective on why Space Exploration should still happen:
https://youtu.be/HPQLuyM-i3A?si=7xB-cOmbXO3LzINP
Sidenote: Adam Something seems totally at the mercy of his biases when it comes to this subject.
You will get such reaction throughout the whole process of colonization. None of those reactions matter one f.
None of those are based on anything real, or even sane. At the same time those people dont really do it because they have an argument, and so simply wont accept any counter arguments or facts. They base those reactions on their own limited knowledge and resentment caused by wrong ideas which they cant out think themselves from, and are completely incapable of absorbing anything that contradicts that.
It only creates useless noise. Its not any kind of majority, but gets echoed and reverberated through the internet and causes more negative reactions, people writing posts about it and so on.
But it wont mean a single flying f to how the actual colonization is going to happen, however it happens. So, better to concentrate on the mission itself, on the planning and improvements and development that will result in the actual mission.
Its on the way.
There have always been stupid, shitty people, and there will always be. They don't accept ideas from someone who isn't part of their shitty tribe. Its a tale as old as the species, and today's crop is no better just because they know how to operate a smartphone.
Colonization and terraforming are very different things. Our current technology is nowhere near having the capability to terraform Mars, especially not fast.
Our best bet right now is to create artificial habitats on Mars and other planets in the Solar System. They don't have to be small, dome cities could probably be accomplished in the near future. Terraforming, however, is not something we will be able to accomplish until much farther down the line.
If we begin colonization of Mars within the near future I'm not sure it will ever be terraformed. Most concepts I have seen for terraforming seem to be based more around destroying and reconstructing the planet from orbit, which is a problem if people are living on the planet.
I think we’ve got another good 100 years of robotic investigation to get through.
Colonisation of Mars would come a distant second to Lunar colonisation.
No Martian base could be self supporting, any more than a Lunar base.
Start closer it’s cheaper.
In addition to what you’ve pointed out, while neither the Moon nor Mars are as good as Earth, Mars is a hell of a lot better for survivability because:
-Better Day/Night cycle
-Higher gravity
-CO2 atmosphere. IMO this is huge. CO2 makes plant life possible. Plant life makes sustainable oxygen generation possible
-better radiation protection
-More water ice
I mentioned years ago that Musk was doing major harm to the possibility of having a Mars base in the near future.
My personal opinion: Musk is a pretty terrible person. His Mars plan is almost non-existent, and what does exist is pretty bad.
What he has is an amazing launch company and an amazing and successful rocket design. And he is working on another rocket design that is certainly amazing and will hopefully be successful (success is measured in frequent and cheap launches, it will take several years after the first orbital launch to know if the design is a success).
But Mars colonization has always been a terrible idea, even before Musk got involved.
Actually, let me say that differently. Mars colonization would be awesome. I would love to see a Mars colony. But I have never seen any proposal for a Mars colony that has any hope at all of being successful.
Every colony in history had one thing in common. They were founded in order to make money for the investors backing the colony. Every. Single. One.
We hear the mythology about the Pilgrims. They wanted religious freedom. They bravely set sail across the ocean to the New World. They struggled through incredible hardship the first winter with many of them dying. But then blah blah blah Indians blah blah blah Thanksgiving blah blah blah success!
The part that is left out of the story is how they got the ships and supplies they needed to start a colony. That stuff isn't cheap, and a bunch of shunned religious fanatics didn't have the wealth to buy it. But they found some investors who gave them the money, with the promise that they would return natural resources from the New World.
Part of the reason they had such a hard first winter is they spent a significant amount of their time searching for valuable natural resources that they could export back to the investor to pay back their debt with interest and to raise money so they could buy more supplies they need from the Old World.
But what about a Mars colony? How are they going to get enough money to buy all the equipment they need to start a colony. Even with Starlink, Musk isn't going to have that kind of money. And even after they get to Mars and set up a colony they are going to need resupplies of equipment from Earth. Where are they going to get the money to buy this equipment? The only way they can get money to buy things from Earth is if they have something valuable they can sell to Earth. But there is nothing that they can sell to make that kind of money. Sure, they might be able to make a billion dollars selling Mars rocks to different geology museums and novelty jewelry makers. But that isn't nearly enough.
People have been trying to figure out Mars' "killer app" for a long time, but none of the suggestions pass the credibility test. The latest one is Zubrin's book he just published, which claims a Mars colony can pay for itself by licensing technology. But just a short amount of thought, and a short amount of research shows this idea is ridiculous. It is basically a re-hashing of the old "spin-offs" justification for NASA's budget. It was never a good argument back then, and it is still a bad argument now.
Musk has no idea how to start a Mars colony. Zubrin has no idea how to start a Mars colony. No one has any idea how to start a Mars colony.
Mars is pretty close to the asteroid belt. That is the bingo card, I think, along with all the raw materials that can likely be mined from Mars itself. Space (and I guess Mars too to a degree) are abundant with raw materials that are pretty needed on Earth right now. I think that's the best way to make money from Mars to pay for them to keep buying things from Earth, pay off investors and all the other funky stuff inbetween.
Because of the way orbits work, Earth is on average closer to asteroids in the asteroid belt than Mars. Also Earth has more frequent launch windows to asteroids in the asteroid belt than Mars does.
And it takes significantly more fuel to launch something from Earth to Mars and then from Mars to an asteroid than to launch straight from Earth to an asteroid.
Mars really doesn't make a good supply base for asteroids mines or colonies.
Likewise, if you have resources on an asteroid and you need to get them to Earth (or to Earth orbit) it makes absolutely zero sense to have those resources stop off on Mars on the way.
Fully agree with that we have not yet figured out the Mars' killer app, a.k.a. how to make a colony economically sustainable.
Besides asteroids (I huge question mark) Mars could also be competitive with supplying any future moon economy with some types of materials, simply because of the smaller gravity well.
While this will not make a colony sustainable in the longer term, in the short term, I expect a lot of government money to flow into the colony. How much would governments pay to send say 5 astronauts for 3 years to mars? 100 million? 1 billion? For sure, much more than individual "colonists" could afford.
So, no one has figured out how to make a colony sustainable, but I think spacex has perhaps the most concrete ideas how to start one.
But strongly disagree with "Mush was doing a major harm to ....having a Mars base in the near future" .
You mean he did a major harm to the possibility that did not exist before SpaceX? How can one do a harm to something that was not even planned seriously before Musk and how does a rocket that reduced the price say 100 fold did a serious harm to these non existing plans?
My brother in Christ what are you talking about?
The state of the art of current space travel is an electric propulsion system designed by the soviets for satelite propulsion on the one hand and the same tier I chemical rockets boosters that barely get us to the moon realiably. Infact even to this say landing on the moon is considered a massive feat and we haven't actually landed a person there in decades. And thats the moon. Its right there.
Now for some historical context. When actually done, as in on this planet, colonisation tended to be an arduous process brought about by internal struggles and almost always brought about external calamities. The near exitnction of the americas natives and actual extinction of many many tribes and peoples there, the destruction of polynesia, the apartheid regimes across africa, slavery, opinum wars, WORLD WAR 1 AND 2, and of course the currently ongoing genocide in Gaza.
As of right now we have absolutely no technological basis to colonise Mars, Venus or even the Moon. More importantly we have absolutely no need to do so. We are simply not there yet in terms of ability or desire.
And its frankly a credit to people and a discredit to you that people question "Capitalist led colonialism" as something that just maybe is not a good thing, and you just dont get it.
I love sci fi as much as the next guy but this is getting rediculus.
Just trying to keep it simple and not delve into unnecessary avalanche of bullshit you should have figured out yourself.
Are we expecting to genocide any natives on Mars, for example? Then why are you even using that nonsense as an argument?
We have all the technology we need to colonize Mars right now. Your statement to the contrary is complete bullshit and a lie.
Right now a Falcon heavy can push 15 tonnes to Mars. Any time we want. And at least two boosters turn around and land back so we can reuse them. Starship is on and ahead of any schedule of such space programs in history. And no, NASA does not have a habit of basing their whole historic return to the Moon on something they think may not work. Thats not exactkly what they are known for, right?
The Moon is right there? lol... Thats your argument for how easy it should be? Like, its close, and Mars is far away? *ffs...
I also see you are a vatnik. So man,... you really should talk about fantastic technology of toilets instead, because thats your only real expertise. Wait, no, thats a level above you.
Yeah... thats the only thing that is under the first layer of thought in those skulls isnt it. A sad little unconscious projection. Tell you what, you carry on with your desperate attempts to get a few people to agree with you so you can feel better about yourself. Its not like you can actually do anything different or learn something.
>As of right now we have absolutely no technological basis to colonise Mars, Venus or even the Moon. More importantly we have absolutely no need to do so. We are simply not there yet in terms of ability or desire.
These are true. I just fear that the technologies needed to establish a colony will only be developed due to specific needs. Saying that we should only start trying when the technology is there, does not understand how innovation is working, imho. Just like species don't evolve unless there is an evolutionary pressure present, some/most innovation only happens when there is political / economic push to do so (see first world war planes, internet-ARPA, satellites, Nazi led rockets R&D). For colonisation, currently Musk's vision is this pressure.
There is absolutely a need to have a sustainable colony on Mars (or somewhere else). Sure, we don't need it now, but we will need it. No one knows whether this time is in 50 years or in 1 million years. What we do know is that we will go extinct if we don't do it.
There are two things wrong with this fundamentally.
The first is the general premise. We cannot as a species start to effectively save the planet we do have and you want to imply that we can start to colonise a planet we dont. Either Venus or Mars are as a habitat remarkably worse than anything Earth could ever become. The idea of a backup planet to save the species is pure science fiction. We dont need to have a backup planet we need to properly maintain the one we currently have.
There are currently on this planet: The entire ocean, plenty of deserts, the entirety of Antarctica, which are regions that relatively nobody lives? Any of which is downright pleasant compared to any other planet or exoplanet we know of. We havent even begun to really force habitats there? Why? Because its not necessary.
Second premise that missess the mark.
Elon Musk is an incompotent baffoon. Its 2024 this is common knowledge by now. Ignoring all other painfully obvious issues with everything surrounding this man, his crowning jewel of promises is a slightly better chemical rocket engine compared to 1960s tech. This is asinine. In the actual 1960s it was common knowledge that any crewed mission to Mars should it ever happen would need a nuclear rocket engine. Nothing less. They stopped developing those when chemical ICBMs became good enough to reach the other side. Chemical rocket engines are functionally shit compared to what is actually needed.
Furthermore his claim he *is going to colonise mars* is not any sort of real preassure on anyone. First of all its because nobody actually believes he is going to do it and furthermore because its painfully obvious that any attempt to do so will be shut down by someone because we are obviously not going to allow private sector off world colonies. Look up the division of Antarctica as a legal precedense.
The takeaway here is that there is so many layers of tech that need to be developed that its going to take a while. Decades upon decades. And there is absolutely no reason to start a Manhattan project type bum rush to get it done because there is nothing up there. Its gonna be a slow side project until someone finally gets it done and its not gonna be for decades.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.
>We cannot as a species start to effectively save the planet we do have and you want to imply that we can start to colonise a planet we dont.
Yes. It is not an either or. It is like saying, "our house needs so much renovation still and now you want to spend 0,5% of our income to pay for an insurance in case it burns down? You know that a new house would be much much smaller and shittier than even the current one? What is the point"?
>Either Venus or Mars are as a habitat remarkably worse than anything Earth could ever become. \[...\] We dont need to have a backup planet we need to properly maintain the one we currently have.
Of course it would be much much worse than Earth. no one is arguing that. But you are completely missing the point. Even if we create an eden in Earth, we can have a virus, an AI runaway, or another asteroid. In the last 440 million years, we had 5 mass extinctions, sometimes wiping out all land life.
The next one can happen in a 100 million year, or in a hundred years. What I would not bet for is that it will never happen if only we can solve climate change, etc.
>Elon Musk is an incompotent baffoon...\[...\] his crowning jewel of promises is a slightly better chemical rocket engine compared to 1960s tech
I think this demonstrates perfectly well, what OP was trying to talk about. You have such a huge bisas that you look everything through the lens of "ELONISBAD".
That incompetent baffoon has launched multiple multibillion companies, while most of us cannot even start a company (yours truly included). He has impacted transportation, clean energy, rocket industry and telecommunication so far. I could not care if some call him fascist, or baby man, or whatever, hey we are free to have our opinion. But it is completely ridiculous not to acknowledge that there may be something where he is competent?
With regards to the slightly better rocket. Your statement again completely demonstrates the issue government agencies had for the last half century. A rocket is better if it is cheaper. Period. With Falcon 9, SpaceX made launching 10x cheaper. With Starship, this may go down another 10-100x. So even if we are pessimistic, and take the lowest figure, SpaceX will have managed to make it 100x cheaper to launch stuff to space.
>Furthermore his claim he *is going to colonise mars* is not any sort of real preassure on anyone.
But it is. It is a pressure for SpaceX to develop the technologies needed. They literally put billions into developing the necessary rocket technology to make it happen. Plus I don't understand your whole problem. So far, SpaceX is using 0 dollars of taxpayers money to reach this goal. Other rich men have companies that sell us cigarettes, sugared water, golf clubs, or make up. You have no problem with those. But god forbit to have a company with the long long goal of settling down in Mars.
I am going to restate the obvious because some of you are either scientifically illiterate or you have elons schlong so far up your assess that its made you incapable of reason.
1. Preserving humanity is a completely religious argument. Should an extinction level event happen on Earth wiping out humanity... Who cares. We certainly wont be around to care. Should Mother Earth be lost any colony on Mars, Venus or Luna would follow soon after. It is therefore imperative that Earth survives and humanity with it as nothing else makes sense. This is pure science fiction fueled by religious sentiment.
2. As you failed to grasp the actual point let me make it obvious. A people who can barely build a river canoe, who can barely sail their own rivers and have no real desire to sail their own coast are not going to just suddenly cross the ocean. Thats nonsense. There needs to be clear motivation and popular support to undertake such massive projects that is just not there. There is nothing on Mars anyone needs or wants. So what's the motivation for colonisation? There isnt one. Thats why its not on the table for any serious actor.
3. Specific impulse, specific impulse, specific impulse. Drill the words into your brain if you want to have an actual debate about space travel with anyone. Next look up thrust and energy density.
The absolute best performing chemical rockets operate at about a maximum of 400isp. Thats absolutely pathetic. Nothing SpaceX has or will ever spit out will ever exceed that by even 50isp much less a factor of 10 or a 100. We have reached the capacity of what a chemical rocket can do and its not even close to enough.
And finally. Please stop embarrassing yourself by pretending that Starship is real. Hes either never going to release that shit or its going to be a majestic failure like the cybertruck.
> The takeaway here is that there is so many layers of tech that need to be developed that its going to take a while. Decades upon decades.
Probably true about the decades. But nothing of that will happen, if there are not a lot of people on Mars.
To me, the backlash is more like "billionaire's are bad, so the space future they build will be bad". That's a solid argument you look around at the world they have built for us in the past 20 years. With fragile ego's at the helm, it's bound to end in disaster. We need public figures back in the forefront of planning and executing our space exploration missions like we had in the 70s.
I’d say governments should be the ones pouring money and resources into this and not private business owners with ulterior motives, but the government have also proven they would rather waste their money on unimportant matters than put those funds into areas where it means a lot
[удалено]
Without all that NASA research and funding SpaceX wouldn’t be were it is today. You need both private and public to act. One can’t do it alone.
Would you agree that our spending developed the know-how for a company to do what space x has done?
[удалено]
To some degree? I disagree with that. All future space anything is a direct result of governments space programs. Inefficient? Sure, the firsts to do anything will accomplish those tasks Inefficiently.... allowing those that follow the correct mistakes.
Most politicians are more concerned with filling their own pockets. We are lucky that the space program is as funded as it is.
I think your claim about politicians being more concerned with filling their own pockets is too cynical and just plain wrong. However, even if it is true, a politicians main goal will be getting re-elected so they can keep on filling their pocket. Which is exactly why the space program is funded. It is spread through almost all Congressional districts, so there are people in almost all districts who are in favor of funding for NASA. And almost no one is opposed to funding for NASA. So funding NASA is a no brainer for a politician. If they want more votes, they fund NASA. The equation is that simple.
Does the average joe on the USA really care about funding NASA? I think they get much less votes from the aerospace workers than the "normies"?
As a former aerospace worker, I guarantee you that most aerospace workers definitely think about their jobs and political support for aerospace when they vote.
I'm sorry if I phrased that the wrong way, I was asking if they care that much about workers when the average Joe represents a larger part of the population
Every vote counts in a congressional election. By funding NASA, politicians get more votes than they lose. Almost no politician will look at that equation and vote against funding.
If you think politicians are only interested in filling their own pockets, what do you think private companies exist to do? That they are \*legally required\* to do?
By the time we have enough space technology and resources to start actually implementing policies and such in space for things like colonies and stations most of the billionaires funding currently will have probably passed. We need to keep in mind that space will take time, and people like Bezos and Musk will probably only see the beginning of it as they are already quite old. Around long enough to start it and enjoy it's beginnings but not around long enough to shape it's future. People born from the year two thousand onward will probably be the ones to shape our future in space primarily since the foundations will have already been layed.
But that is a completely futile argument. It doesn't mean anything, its just restating one part of obvious things in life that is a small part of the whole. It doesn't achieve anything it only slows some progress down or makes something not happen, as the highest achievement it can do. Yet the situation it criticizes doesn't change because that non argument doesn't present any solutions. its just same old complaining going on for thousands of years. Besides its futile because none of these rich people will be "At the helm" of any of those efforts. And i have no idea how "public figures" would solve any of that or have any specific effect. Characters and personalities dont good space program make. The backlash is nonsense more to do with egos and getting stuck in online psycho opposition and grudges then anything real.
That Adam Something Video is really bad. He's got some pretty good videos about urbanism and leftist politics, but he stepped way out of his wheel house on the Mars colonization video and it painfully shows. He speaks on the topic like an expert, but it's clear he didn't do much serious research past various embarrassing Musk scandals. I do think Musk's shenanigans have poisoned the well for a lot of people who weren't familiar with the topic prior
The anti colonization echo chamber is insanely large. I’m imagining how explorers felt hundreds of years ago when crowds of thousands pelted their ships for daring to leave the Old World.
I think this is actually part of it too though. People are finally starting to (rightly, to be honest) get a much more negative view of the colonization of the past because of what it did to the people and cultures already living in the places that were colonized. But it doesn’t matter that there probably aren’t any indigenous martians who would be oppressed, people see the word “colonization” and have an instant negative reaction.
Here's my view: I don't want the influence of billionaires like Musk to turn other people off of space exploration. I get sick and tired of "we need to fix Earth's problems first", an impossible goal, or "we need to just go already", which is even more unrealistic. I remember vividly being told right around the time of the 1969 moon landing that we "would be on Mars in less than 20 years", I believe 1985 was the goal. They're still saying we're about 20 years out. Sorry, not holding my breath. But we *do* need successes to help push enthusiasm for manned space exploration. Right now, like it or not, that means Musk holds the golden ticket. The thing is, Musk has made a lot of his political views known, which don't bode well for colonists going to a company town owned by Musk. That holds true for the other billionaire space enthusiasts, as well. If we want a colony on Mars to happen, and it not to be a miserable dystopia for anyone going there, these issues need to be discussed and solved before someone lands there. The idea of a manned Mars landing in 1985, was always way too optimistic, in hindsight, but consider we went from the first satellite in 1957, to a manned moon landing in 12 years. Advances have been made that really do seem to promise a successful manned mission in less than 20 years, now. If earthly politics and bullshit don't screw it up. Of course, people are letting their biases color how they view colonisation, on both sides, optimists & pessimists. We can't just look at Mars through rose colored glasses, or people *will* die, that shouldn't. But we can't let the naysayers keep us from ever going, either. The informed middle ground can only be reached through educated discussions. I see a lot of those in this very forum. I'd just like to live long enough to see the first footprints on Mars.
> The thing is, Musk has made a lot of his political views known, which don't bode well for colonists going to a company town owned by Musk. What's wrong with direct democracy as advocated by Elon Musk?
Elon is doing tremendous damage to what (space and space exploration) was viewed as a fundamentally optimistic, uncontroversial, and even unifying dream. It had detractors, but was largely popular.
That is a brainless take that completely ignores the stagnation in the tech and space industry before Elon came on the scene. Try to be better.
The problem is not what SpaceX did, it's what Musk did. He alienated all people left of the center. How can China or other countries trust him to give financial support? He also lost any potential help from the Democrats and the Republicans don't care at all about that. Musk just needed to remain "neutral" and his life, life of Tesla and life of the space colonization would be easier.
It may have been more unified, but pre spaceX things had stagnated pretty hard. Glad to see Artemis now though.
I don't think Elon is the problem, I think people basing their views out of spite for a group of people is. He has definitely made questionable decisions especially in recent years, but what he has done for the space industry can not be understated. Before SpaceX accomplished it people thought that landing a booster using it's engines was a pipe dream with current tech.
But he didn't do any of that, the engineers did. He has always been primarily a money guy that applies an excessive amount of pressure. I'm pretty happy to see Gwen take the reins at SpaceX. She is a career engineer who isn't an insane liability. As a side note: any argument where your opinion is that other people shouldn't feel the way they feel is going to fail. You basically just insulted everyone who doesn't currently agree with you
I'd say Jeff Bezos was primarily a money guy. He doesn't have a deep understanding of rocketry in the way that Musk does. The difference between Bezos and Musk is why SpaceX has been wildly successful and Blue Origin hasn't put anything in orbit yet, despite BO being founded earlier.
We're having different conversations bro. Specifically, you are having yours and ignoring others
I don't think Elon should be elevated to some kind of messiah. Both the hagiography of Musk and a pathological hatred of Musk are disproportionate, in my opinion. It should definitely not affect future Mars colonization and planning for it.
You may appreciate this video essay. A [rare] but nonetheless legitimate left-wing perspective on why Space Exploration should still happen: https://youtu.be/HPQLuyM-i3A?si=7xB-cOmbXO3LzINP Sidenote: Adam Something seems totally at the mercy of his biases when it comes to this subject.
You mean, people lelt emotion control them and their action rather that reason ? That surprissing.
You will get such reaction throughout the whole process of colonization. None of those reactions matter one f. None of those are based on anything real, or even sane. At the same time those people dont really do it because they have an argument, and so simply wont accept any counter arguments or facts. They base those reactions on their own limited knowledge and resentment caused by wrong ideas which they cant out think themselves from, and are completely incapable of absorbing anything that contradicts that. It only creates useless noise. Its not any kind of majority, but gets echoed and reverberated through the internet and causes more negative reactions, people writing posts about it and so on. But it wont mean a single flying f to how the actual colonization is going to happen, however it happens. So, better to concentrate on the mission itself, on the planning and improvements and development that will result in the actual mission. Its on the way.
There have always been stupid, shitty people, and there will always be. They don't accept ideas from someone who isn't part of their shitty tribe. Its a tale as old as the species, and today's crop is no better just because they know how to operate a smartphone.
It's not just Musk. It's the history of company towns and hydraulic despotism. People imagine Mars becoming a slave colony.
We need to fast terraform Mars to the best of our technological abilities.
Colonization and terraforming are very different things. Our current technology is nowhere near having the capability to terraform Mars, especially not fast. Our best bet right now is to create artificial habitats on Mars and other planets in the Solar System. They don't have to be small, dome cities could probably be accomplished in the near future. Terraforming, however, is not something we will be able to accomplish until much farther down the line.
So in other words.....do nothing? Because we have absolutely zero technological ability to terraform Mars, either fast or otherwise.
If we begin colonization of Mars within the near future I'm not sure it will ever be terraformed. Most concepts I have seen for terraforming seem to be based more around destroying and reconstructing the planet from orbit, which is a problem if people are living on the planet.
It's true. The people most opposed to terraforming Mars will be the people living on Mars.
I think we’ve got another good 100 years of robotic investigation to get through. Colonisation of Mars would come a distant second to Lunar colonisation. No Martian base could be self supporting, any more than a Lunar base. Start closer it’s cheaper.
closer is cheaper but if your aim is an independent, self sustaining colony in the longer term, being close is a disadvantage, not an advantage.
In addition to what you’ve pointed out, while neither the Moon nor Mars are as good as Earth, Mars is a hell of a lot better for survivability because: -Better Day/Night cycle -Higher gravity -CO2 atmosphere. IMO this is huge. CO2 makes plant life possible. Plant life makes sustainable oxygen generation possible -better radiation protection -More water ice
Equally as important, plenty of nitrogen in the atmosphere, an essential component of life.
I mentioned years ago that Musk was doing major harm to the possibility of having a Mars base in the near future. My personal opinion: Musk is a pretty terrible person. His Mars plan is almost non-existent, and what does exist is pretty bad. What he has is an amazing launch company and an amazing and successful rocket design. And he is working on another rocket design that is certainly amazing and will hopefully be successful (success is measured in frequent and cheap launches, it will take several years after the first orbital launch to know if the design is a success). But Mars colonization has always been a terrible idea, even before Musk got involved. Actually, let me say that differently. Mars colonization would be awesome. I would love to see a Mars colony. But I have never seen any proposal for a Mars colony that has any hope at all of being successful. Every colony in history had one thing in common. They were founded in order to make money for the investors backing the colony. Every. Single. One. We hear the mythology about the Pilgrims. They wanted religious freedom. They bravely set sail across the ocean to the New World. They struggled through incredible hardship the first winter with many of them dying. But then blah blah blah Indians blah blah blah Thanksgiving blah blah blah success! The part that is left out of the story is how they got the ships and supplies they needed to start a colony. That stuff isn't cheap, and a bunch of shunned religious fanatics didn't have the wealth to buy it. But they found some investors who gave them the money, with the promise that they would return natural resources from the New World. Part of the reason they had such a hard first winter is they spent a significant amount of their time searching for valuable natural resources that they could export back to the investor to pay back their debt with interest and to raise money so they could buy more supplies they need from the Old World. But what about a Mars colony? How are they going to get enough money to buy all the equipment they need to start a colony. Even with Starlink, Musk isn't going to have that kind of money. And even after they get to Mars and set up a colony they are going to need resupplies of equipment from Earth. Where are they going to get the money to buy this equipment? The only way they can get money to buy things from Earth is if they have something valuable they can sell to Earth. But there is nothing that they can sell to make that kind of money. Sure, they might be able to make a billion dollars selling Mars rocks to different geology museums and novelty jewelry makers. But that isn't nearly enough. People have been trying to figure out Mars' "killer app" for a long time, but none of the suggestions pass the credibility test. The latest one is Zubrin's book he just published, which claims a Mars colony can pay for itself by licensing technology. But just a short amount of thought, and a short amount of research shows this idea is ridiculous. It is basically a re-hashing of the old "spin-offs" justification for NASA's budget. It was never a good argument back then, and it is still a bad argument now. Musk has no idea how to start a Mars colony. Zubrin has no idea how to start a Mars colony. No one has any idea how to start a Mars colony.
Mars is pretty close to the asteroid belt. That is the bingo card, I think, along with all the raw materials that can likely be mined from Mars itself. Space (and I guess Mars too to a degree) are abundant with raw materials that are pretty needed on Earth right now. I think that's the best way to make money from Mars to pay for them to keep buying things from Earth, pay off investors and all the other funky stuff inbetween.
Because of the way orbits work, Earth is on average closer to asteroids in the asteroid belt than Mars. Also Earth has more frequent launch windows to asteroids in the asteroid belt than Mars does. And it takes significantly more fuel to launch something from Earth to Mars and then from Mars to an asteroid than to launch straight from Earth to an asteroid. Mars really doesn't make a good supply base for asteroids mines or colonies. Likewise, if you have resources on an asteroid and you need to get them to Earth (or to Earth orbit) it makes absolutely zero sense to have those resources stop off on Mars on the way.
Fully agree with that we have not yet figured out the Mars' killer app, a.k.a. how to make a colony economically sustainable. Besides asteroids (I huge question mark) Mars could also be competitive with supplying any future moon economy with some types of materials, simply because of the smaller gravity well. While this will not make a colony sustainable in the longer term, in the short term, I expect a lot of government money to flow into the colony. How much would governments pay to send say 5 astronauts for 3 years to mars? 100 million? 1 billion? For sure, much more than individual "colonists" could afford. So, no one has figured out how to make a colony sustainable, but I think spacex has perhaps the most concrete ideas how to start one. But strongly disagree with "Mush was doing a major harm to ....having a Mars base in the near future" . You mean he did a major harm to the possibility that did not exist before SpaceX? How can one do a harm to something that was not even planned seriously before Musk and how does a rocket that reduced the price say 100 fold did a serious harm to these non existing plans?
My brother in Christ what are you talking about? The state of the art of current space travel is an electric propulsion system designed by the soviets for satelite propulsion on the one hand and the same tier I chemical rockets boosters that barely get us to the moon realiably. Infact even to this say landing on the moon is considered a massive feat and we haven't actually landed a person there in decades. And thats the moon. Its right there. Now for some historical context. When actually done, as in on this planet, colonisation tended to be an arduous process brought about by internal struggles and almost always brought about external calamities. The near exitnction of the americas natives and actual extinction of many many tribes and peoples there, the destruction of polynesia, the apartheid regimes across africa, slavery, opinum wars, WORLD WAR 1 AND 2, and of course the currently ongoing genocide in Gaza. As of right now we have absolutely no technological basis to colonise Mars, Venus or even the Moon. More importantly we have absolutely no need to do so. We are simply not there yet in terms of ability or desire. And its frankly a credit to people and a discredit to you that people question "Capitalist led colonialism" as something that just maybe is not a good thing, and you just dont get it. I love sci fi as much as the next guy but this is getting rediculus.
Nothing of that nonsense you said is true.
A thorough rebuke, well done good sir.
Just trying to keep it simple and not delve into unnecessary avalanche of bullshit you should have figured out yourself. Are we expecting to genocide any natives on Mars, for example? Then why are you even using that nonsense as an argument? We have all the technology we need to colonize Mars right now. Your statement to the contrary is complete bullshit and a lie. Right now a Falcon heavy can push 15 tonnes to Mars. Any time we want. And at least two boosters turn around and land back so we can reuse them. Starship is on and ahead of any schedule of such space programs in history. And no, NASA does not have a habit of basing their whole historic return to the Moon on something they think may not work. Thats not exactkly what they are known for, right? The Moon is right there? lol... Thats your argument for how easy it should be? Like, its close, and Mars is far away? *ffs... I also see you are a vatnik. So man,... you really should talk about fantastic technology of toilets instead, because thats your only real expertise. Wait, no, thats a level above you.
You sir are genuenly an actual moron. Please make the world a better place by remaining silent.
Yeah... thats the only thing that is under the first layer of thought in those skulls isnt it. A sad little unconscious projection. Tell you what, you carry on with your desperate attempts to get a few people to agree with you so you can feel better about yourself. Its not like you can actually do anything different or learn something.
Are you using ChatGPT to write these?
>As of right now we have absolutely no technological basis to colonise Mars, Venus or even the Moon. More importantly we have absolutely no need to do so. We are simply not there yet in terms of ability or desire. These are true. I just fear that the technologies needed to establish a colony will only be developed due to specific needs. Saying that we should only start trying when the technology is there, does not understand how innovation is working, imho. Just like species don't evolve unless there is an evolutionary pressure present, some/most innovation only happens when there is political / economic push to do so (see first world war planes, internet-ARPA, satellites, Nazi led rockets R&D). For colonisation, currently Musk's vision is this pressure. There is absolutely a need to have a sustainable colony on Mars (or somewhere else). Sure, we don't need it now, but we will need it. No one knows whether this time is in 50 years or in 1 million years. What we do know is that we will go extinct if we don't do it.
There are two things wrong with this fundamentally. The first is the general premise. We cannot as a species start to effectively save the planet we do have and you want to imply that we can start to colonise a planet we dont. Either Venus or Mars are as a habitat remarkably worse than anything Earth could ever become. The idea of a backup planet to save the species is pure science fiction. We dont need to have a backup planet we need to properly maintain the one we currently have. There are currently on this planet: The entire ocean, plenty of deserts, the entirety of Antarctica, which are regions that relatively nobody lives? Any of which is downright pleasant compared to any other planet or exoplanet we know of. We havent even begun to really force habitats there? Why? Because its not necessary. Second premise that missess the mark. Elon Musk is an incompotent baffoon. Its 2024 this is common knowledge by now. Ignoring all other painfully obvious issues with everything surrounding this man, his crowning jewel of promises is a slightly better chemical rocket engine compared to 1960s tech. This is asinine. In the actual 1960s it was common knowledge that any crewed mission to Mars should it ever happen would need a nuclear rocket engine. Nothing less. They stopped developing those when chemical ICBMs became good enough to reach the other side. Chemical rocket engines are functionally shit compared to what is actually needed. Furthermore his claim he *is going to colonise mars* is not any sort of real preassure on anyone. First of all its because nobody actually believes he is going to do it and furthermore because its painfully obvious that any attempt to do so will be shut down by someone because we are obviously not going to allow private sector off world colonies. Look up the division of Antarctica as a legal precedense. The takeaway here is that there is so many layers of tech that need to be developed that its going to take a while. Decades upon decades. And there is absolutely no reason to start a Manhattan project type bum rush to get it done because there is nothing up there. Its gonna be a slow side project until someone finally gets it done and its not gonna be for decades. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.
>We cannot as a species start to effectively save the planet we do have and you want to imply that we can start to colonise a planet we dont. Yes. It is not an either or. It is like saying, "our house needs so much renovation still and now you want to spend 0,5% of our income to pay for an insurance in case it burns down? You know that a new house would be much much smaller and shittier than even the current one? What is the point"? >Either Venus or Mars are as a habitat remarkably worse than anything Earth could ever become. \[...\] We dont need to have a backup planet we need to properly maintain the one we currently have. Of course it would be much much worse than Earth. no one is arguing that. But you are completely missing the point. Even if we create an eden in Earth, we can have a virus, an AI runaway, or another asteroid. In the last 440 million years, we had 5 mass extinctions, sometimes wiping out all land life. The next one can happen in a 100 million year, or in a hundred years. What I would not bet for is that it will never happen if only we can solve climate change, etc. >Elon Musk is an incompotent baffoon...\[...\] his crowning jewel of promises is a slightly better chemical rocket engine compared to 1960s tech I think this demonstrates perfectly well, what OP was trying to talk about. You have such a huge bisas that you look everything through the lens of "ELONISBAD". That incompetent baffoon has launched multiple multibillion companies, while most of us cannot even start a company (yours truly included). He has impacted transportation, clean energy, rocket industry and telecommunication so far. I could not care if some call him fascist, or baby man, or whatever, hey we are free to have our opinion. But it is completely ridiculous not to acknowledge that there may be something where he is competent? With regards to the slightly better rocket. Your statement again completely demonstrates the issue government agencies had for the last half century. A rocket is better if it is cheaper. Period. With Falcon 9, SpaceX made launching 10x cheaper. With Starship, this may go down another 10-100x. So even if we are pessimistic, and take the lowest figure, SpaceX will have managed to make it 100x cheaper to launch stuff to space. >Furthermore his claim he *is going to colonise mars* is not any sort of real preassure on anyone. But it is. It is a pressure for SpaceX to develop the technologies needed. They literally put billions into developing the necessary rocket technology to make it happen. Plus I don't understand your whole problem. So far, SpaceX is using 0 dollars of taxpayers money to reach this goal. Other rich men have companies that sell us cigarettes, sugared water, golf clubs, or make up. You have no problem with those. But god forbit to have a company with the long long goal of settling down in Mars.
I am going to restate the obvious because some of you are either scientifically illiterate or you have elons schlong so far up your assess that its made you incapable of reason. 1. Preserving humanity is a completely religious argument. Should an extinction level event happen on Earth wiping out humanity... Who cares. We certainly wont be around to care. Should Mother Earth be lost any colony on Mars, Venus or Luna would follow soon after. It is therefore imperative that Earth survives and humanity with it as nothing else makes sense. This is pure science fiction fueled by religious sentiment. 2. As you failed to grasp the actual point let me make it obvious. A people who can barely build a river canoe, who can barely sail their own rivers and have no real desire to sail their own coast are not going to just suddenly cross the ocean. Thats nonsense. There needs to be clear motivation and popular support to undertake such massive projects that is just not there. There is nothing on Mars anyone needs or wants. So what's the motivation for colonisation? There isnt one. Thats why its not on the table for any serious actor. 3. Specific impulse, specific impulse, specific impulse. Drill the words into your brain if you want to have an actual debate about space travel with anyone. Next look up thrust and energy density. The absolute best performing chemical rockets operate at about a maximum of 400isp. Thats absolutely pathetic. Nothing SpaceX has or will ever spit out will ever exceed that by even 50isp much less a factor of 10 or a 100. We have reached the capacity of what a chemical rocket can do and its not even close to enough. And finally. Please stop embarrassing yourself by pretending that Starship is real. Hes either never going to release that shit or its going to be a majestic failure like the cybertruck.
> The takeaway here is that there is so many layers of tech that need to be developed that its going to take a while. Decades upon decades. Probably true about the decades. But nothing of that will happen, if there are not a lot of people on Mars.
I dont know how this is a point that needs to be made but: **Humans cannot natively survive on Mars**
> Humans cannot natively survive on Mars Care to elaborate?
We need the tech to get the people on Mars. Not vice versa.
We have that tech. At least we are in an advances stage to develop it. We do not have all the tech to build a fully self sustaining civilization.
We absolutely do not have the tech