Rountrip!

Quote: rxwine

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.

Only if a) there's no way to live of the land, as it were, and/or b) there is no profit at all to be made (or not enough profit).

Theoretically a) should be possible just about anywhere the local gravity wont' kill you or your descendants. If people can adapt to life in 1/3 Earth g, say, but they can't bring children to term healthy enough under such conditions, that's a definite deal breaker. People might still live long stretches in Mars, the Moon, the moons of the gas giants, even mercury, but not permanently. They'd all be places of mostly transient populations.

Point b) is a bigger question. If you recall the start of the Shuttle era, there was much talk about fabrication in zero-g, especially of electronics and drugs. Over 30 years later, nothing's come off it. Still, if you can live of Mars and thrive there, point b) might not be that crucial. Though it's hard to imagine an entire civilization that won't trade with any others.

An old dream of space enthusiasts and SF fans alike, is to move most manufacturing and mining to outer space, where pollution will be a non-issue (there are no ecosystems on the Moon or in orbit). Mining would proceed on the Moon, mars and the asteroids. If it can be done at all, it's a long way off.

The economics are rather simply stated: how much does it cost to ship one pound of anything by the cheapest means available from one side of the world to the other? That's how much shipping one pound of anything from, say, the Moon to Earth, and vice-versa, has to cost for Lunar mining and manufacturing to thrive in trade with Earth.

Arthur Clarke once said space travel would be profitable when the cost of a ticket to earth orbit was about on par with a round-the-world fare. Currently it's at least hundreds of times that.

Quote: Nareed

Only if a) there's no way to live of the land, as it were, and/or b) there is no profit at all to be made (or not enough profit).

I'm thinking in terms of way nations usually operate.

Even if the Chinese or Russians established a "peaceful" base on the Moon, the other major powers would eventually counter with their own.

We may stay for quite awhile in a cooperative phase with other nations, but that may not last forever.

Quote: rxwine

I'm thinking in terms of way nations usually operate.

Even if the Chinese or Russians established a "peaceful" base on the Moon, the other major powers would eventually counter with their own.

We may stay for quite awhile in a cooperative phase with other nations, but that may not last forever.

A better analogy would be the colonization of the Americas. Yes, after Spain and Portugal sent expeditions, many of the other nations of Europe followed suit. Those that didn't pretty much couldn't, like Germany or Italy. But these were hardly government operations. The first Spanish expeditions consisted of private adventurers who expected to keep a big share of the loot. Cortez and Pizarro were in it for the money. The British sent private companies under Royal charters, as well as fully private expeditions.

Granted government was a different business back then, so this may not be an accurate guide. But, still, if there is money to be made on Mars, the asteroids, the Moon, the gas giant satellites, mercury, and even Venus (who knows?), and in orbit, then governments may go and plant the flag, yes, but private industry will follow.

SpaceX has done it. Yesterday they successfully launched a satellite by means of a previously used booster (first stage, the big one with the nine engines).

This is not exactly a world's first, as NASA flew each shuttle dozens of times, and several solid-fuel boosters as well. But it's the first time this is done by a private company. The re-launched first stage was also successfully recovered on a drone ship.

It remains to be seen what savings this entails. The equation is simple:

new first stage > re-used first stage + refurbishing + recovery costs.

Remember, the Shuttle was sold as cheaper by virtue of re-usability, and it ended up as the most expensive launch system in history. So....

Additionally, this time the upper stage fairing (nose-cone) made a controlled re-entry and splashed down somewhere in the Atlantic. It wasn't recovered. Details are sketchy, but it seems the idea is to recover these in the future. The fairing has a thruster and parachutes. Why? Well, each costs a lot of money, though not as much as a Falcon 9 first stage.

Quote: rxwine

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.

Its also the old bomb shelter story. Why should the owner of a bombshelter let his neighbors into his limited shelter when he spent his weekends building a shelter and they spent their weekends on BBQs? So it extends to We told you about Global Warming, Water Pollution, Population Explosion, Fluoridated Water, Mongrelization, Dandruff, ....etc and you didn't listen. So you want to come to our Mars colony now?? Its one billion dollars each.

On the wake of SpaceX's doubleheader (two launches and recoveries over a few days), buzz is building up again for Musk's plans for colonizing Mars. This is something SpaceX is working on, and we could see the first prototype rockets within a decade.

What musk has said little or nothing about is radiation, or at laast the buzz says nothing about it.

That's a very real concern. You may survive a year-long trip to Mars with minimal effects (people have stayed longer than that in space), but it's a big gamble. And once on Mars the radiation problem does persist. I suppose once there you could move underground, or pile up Martian dirt around buildings, and be thus shielded. But you'll find the need to work outside as well, and greenhouses can't be covered in dirt.