Rountrip!

A few days ago Elon Musk unveiled SpaceX's plans for landing colonists on Mars.

If nothing else, the man has clearly defined ambitions.

The plan seems interesting, but it leaves plenty of questions. Topmost is how will the spaceship deal with radiation on the trip? Second is how will the colony deal with radiation on Mars? In fact, there doesn't seem to be much work done regarding the colony, beyond a plant for making rocket fuel; and that's needed to get the ships back to Earth to ferry more people to Mars.

The good news is that ships will be going back and forth. Meaning you need not go on a one-way trip.

As the plan doesn't address who pays for what, I wonder if the built-in round trip concept can be sued to sell tickets for people wishing to visit Mars for a few weeks only.

It seems Musk is operating on the notion that if he can provide the means for getting people to Mars, such people as are willing to go will build a colony on their own.

Fair enough, but how? Aside radiation, what about gravity? what about money? Who pays for transportation? Who pays for the colony? How does the colony support itself?

Grandiose as the objective is, at least Musk is approaching it in stages. For starters, the plan is to send a Dragon capsule to Mars using a Falcon 9 Heavy rocket (that's a Falcon 9 with two additional Falcon 9 first stages as boosters). This will test many of the ides for the Mars colony ships. The plan also envisions launching several more Dragons to Mars, and to do so reliably and on schedule. While SpaceX is focused on the transportation, they will invite scientists to send instruments on these trips.

This will be attempted sooner rather than alter, I have no doubt.

We'll see whether it succeeds.

One thing that worries me, though is Musk's penchant for multiple engines. The Falcon 9 has nine on the first stage (ergo the name), and the Falcon 9 heavy has 27! The proposed gigantic booster (bigger than the Saturn V, naturally) proposed for runs to Mars has 42 engines or so.

I worry because these many engines involve complex plumbing to feed them fuel, and complex systems have problems of their own. Also the more things there are in a vehicle, the more things can go wrong.

We'll see.

Meanwhile Boeing claims they can get there first.

Now, Boeing has a lot more experience in the space business, but mainly as a contractor for NASA. Sure, the ULA (United Launch Alliance) operates commercially on is own, but neither it not Boeing will find a financial stake, at least at first, in establishing colonies on Mars. Musk is obsessed with the idea out of personal idealism.

We'll see.

It's pretty similar to the early sea voyages to the Americas. You went. You might not even make it there. You might starve to death in the first winter even after you settle in. It's a crap shoot.

Quote: rxwine

It's pretty similar to the early sea voyages to the Americas. You went. You might not even make it there. You might starve to death in the first winter even after you settle in. It's a crap shoot.

Oh, the risk is understood, or at least I assume it is.

But there are major differences. In the Americas there was no chance of dying of lack of oxygen, or exposure to radiation. The chance of dying due to lack of water was slim. And people knew they could grow food, that's hardly a given on Mars.

Lastly, who paid for trips to the Americas? Often companies set up for the purpose. These companies expected to make money off their investments. What's there on Mars you can't get more cheaply on Earth? And that without accounting for shipping costs.

Consider this:

The Apollo program is often quoted as having cost $11 billion US. A total of nine ships reached the Moon, carrying three people each. That means each trip to the Moon cost $407 million US. If we account only for landings, then there were six successful ones, meaning 12 people walked on the Moon (*), for a cost per person walking there of $916.7 million.

Musk claims he can send people to mars at a cost of only $200,000 each. That would be remarkable compared to Apollo, especially seeing as how a trip to Mars will take nearly 3 months compared to a trip to the Moon taking 3 days. How many people have $200 K to spare? of course, many more can borrow that much or use up their savings if they don't intend to return to Earth.

(*) The Apollo missions 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 all reached the Moon, but 8, 10 and 13 did not land. 8 and 10 by design, 13 due to the oxygen tank explosion in the service module. A few astronauts got to go to the Moon twice, but no one landed more than once.

Quote: Nareed

. What's there on Mars you can't get more cheaply on Earth? And that without accounting for shipping costs.
.

Customized Mars photography!

Actually, I ought to send that idea to NASA. See, someone wants a photo, maybe with their name or own picture somewhere on Mars. Their picture could be transmitted to Mars. The person on Mars takes a picture of it somewhere on the Martian landscape. You know, like someone writes your name on the Martian landscape and takes a pic of it. You pay for it. You get an authentic seal of verification.

One of the few easy money making opportunities to pay for the mission cost. Exclusive! The more exclusive the more people pay. I could easily see someone paying 5k for a single special shot. Or more, depending.

Quote: rxwine

Customized Mars photography!

Not a bad idea, but it could be done by machines just as easily. See the photos taken by the various Mars rovers. And machines don't need a constant influx of flights to bring in food, medication, medical supplies, etc while they gear up their colony to produce such things.

You could also land several rovers all over Mars for a fraction of the cost of sending the necessary number of people.

I don't know about the idea of flying back and forth to mars as a commercial enterprise, but an initial colonization attempt can be justified under basic science research.

In the early days we risked the lives of dogs and chimps. But a chimp just doesn't have the capabilities a human has in such a complex endeavor where new decisions may have to be made on the spot.

(Basic science justification -- it's where you don't know whether anything you do will be a success or pay for itself, but you will learn what doesn't and further scientific knowledge in that way.)

Quote: rxwine

I don't know about the idea of flying back and forth to mars as a commercial enterprise, but an initial colonization attempt can be justified under basic science research.

Oh, sure. There must be well over 10,000 scientists, professional and otherwise, who'd give up half their lives for a year on Mars, and who'd be willing to go and live there the rest of their lives. No question.

But returning the ships and sending them back would be a lot cheaper than sending them all on a one way trip.

And the question remains: who pays for all this? And how does everyone stay alive for a relatively normal lifespan with the radiation and lower gravity?

Maybe 1/3 Earth g is enough to stay healthy, maybe not. And the place to test that would be Mars. We know zero g has deleterious effects and how to ameliorate these. Intuition tells us 1/3 g should be less problematic than zero g, but we don't know this. It could easily be worse.

Quote: Nareed

Maybe 1/3 Earth g is enough to stay healthy, maybe not. And the place to test that would be Mars. We know zero g has deleterious effects and how to ameliorate these. Intuition tells us 1/3 g should be less problematic than zero g, but we don't know this. It could easily be worse.

Maybe 1/6 Earth g on the moon is enough to stay healthy. I don't understand why we are talking about this subject as we have made no attempt to colonize the moon in almost half a century.

Quote: Pacomartin

Maybe 1/6 Earth g on the moon is enough to stay healthy. I don't understand why we are talking about this subject as we have made no attempt to colonize the moon in almost half a century.

Because Elon musk has his sights set on Mars, and he owns a rather large collection of money. He has also managed to launch several satellites into orbit, including prototypes of the Dragon capsule. Chances are he's serious. Chances are, oh, perhaps 40%, he'll attempt the plan he unveiled or something close to it.

For better or worse, long term space occupation will eventually become more and more of a national defense issue. Whether it's on a planet or out in space.

The old, "if we're not doing it" someone else will.