But it did! There were very basic, underfunded French colonies in North America for example for at least a hundred years before they really sent a lot more people and realized the wealth that could be had. At the same time the colonizing countries also had great internal issues, but had they known how much profit could've been made from investment, undoubtedly they would've been colonizing in full force much earlier.
? New environment, new markets, new needs = lots of new and potentially huge opportunities. I'm asking myself the complete opposite question.
Go for the knowledge, but as far as ordinary human things are concerned there is no reason to go.
Until you can make an economic case for settling the poles you won't be able to make one for Mars - and the poles are LOT easier to live on BTW.
We have a base on the poles for the same reason we'll have one on Mars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_Antarctic_Territory
One could also look at the interior of Greenland, which is Danish territory. No serious development of any kind occurs there - it's all along the coasts.
The treaty sets aside territorial claims whilst it's in force. All the claims for all countries are still there, just neutered.
That is legal in Antartica. It's just really expensive and there aren't a lot of people who want to do it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/white-dese...
I don't think you need to make martian mining illegal to discourage the industry. At $500 a lb, no raw materials will be coming to earth from Mars and time soon.
Where do you get that? Tourism is back near pre-bust 40,000, mostly American, a year. The expensive hotel is fully booked 2 of its 4 weeks. With near 40 treaty countries almost no binding changes are agreed, and regular plans to limit numbers remain just that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30709924 https://www.yahoo.com/news/antarctica-concerns-grow-tourism-... (2013)
What can be 3d printed on the moon (from plans made on earth) and lifted to a useful place above LEO?
I'm in favor of human off-world activities, but I think it's a joke to make some kind of free-market argument. We should do it because we should do it, not because of invisible hands.
Given the cost per ticket (how many young people have a few spare $100k lying around?), the considerable risk of unscheduled rapid decommissioning and the guaranteed high level of radiation exposure (worse for longer expected remaining lifetime) I would look for older (50+) people without dependents.
Remember the Venn diagram that Elon showed? Spacex is going to lower the cost of going to Mars so that billionaires can afford to go. Then lower the cost so millionaires can afford to go. Continue lower the cost until more people can afford to go. Eventually, more people can afford to go to Mars and return safely to Earth.
Why would you go to Mars? Because its there. And because I can.
Space research industry.
With all these people going to Mars there will be demand for new and advanced technology.
And there's probably more industry that will sprout that we cannot foresee now. Its a whole new frontier out there.
Brand new market, which means no competitors and high demand for everything. Kind of like how everything was way overpriced in Clondyke during the gold rush.
I guess if you could produce materials on mars it would be much easier to build and deploy gigant structures into space (lower gravity and escape velocity)
Mining is something that is always mentioned in scifi, but I am not sure how profitable it would be, I guess if propellant can be mined on mars it would be pretty doable.
Performing activities that would be environmental risks on earth would be relatively low risk on mars, due to the fact that it is already a wasteland.
Tourism would be a thing as well which would require many trades of comfort
The hard part would be missing the fresh air, green fields and blue skies of home. But, if there's an eco-catastrophe on Earth, there may be nothing to go home to.
Albert Einstein used thought experiments about trains and elevators to came up with general relativity and how we view gravity. We wouldn't have accurate GPS if it wasn't for him.
It isn't possible for us to imagine what people will discover after being inspired by that journey to Mars.
If you have enough money you could buy your own space island and stay there.
Lack of regulation?
The only way this would make sense is if one's objection to regulations was purely ideological and not grounded in any sort of reality-based cost-benefit analyses. Setting up shop in a failed state is far easier than setting up shop on Mars, and that will remain true for the foreseeable future (and probably forever, or until no failed states exist).
I don't know what the analogous economic engine could possible be on Mars. If Mars is going to grow, we need to be able to imagine someone saying "I'm moving my family to Mars in search of a better life. I just don't see that happening. Series or L2 station? Sure, someone has to refine the iridium before we send it down the gravity well. But why would an entrepreneur want to set up shop on Mars?