2022/08/07 - Assume no transit
2024/09/26 - First uncrewed launch (X tons of supply)
2026/11/15 - Second uncrewed launch (X2 tons of supply)
2029/01/03 - Third uncrewed launch (X3 tons of supply)
2031/02/22 - First crewed launch (X4 tons of supply, Y tons of people)
2033/04/11 - Second crewed launch (X5 tons of supply, Y2 tons of people)
2035/05/30 - etc...
... [2]
This way we can compare progress and keep pushing the schedule out as each transfer is missed to give a more realistic sense for what we're trying to do here.
My sense is that if people would really to dig into the numbers (and I'm sure someone has) to calculate out the tonnage and delta-v required and how that translates to resources (money, energy, humans) over time (esp considering regulations and safety factors) then I think we would get a more realistic sense of we're trying to do here and realize how insane it is to think we'd have anything resembling a "colony" by 2050 (14 transfer windows).
A 2050 Moon colony is a far more realistic prediction, though also somewhat far fetched unless we've solved the problem of economic and political instability.
There are absolutely exploitable resources there; they are just irrelevant to an Earth-centric economy because of the prohibitive cost of hauling them out of Mars' gravity well and down to Earth. But if you've gone to Mars to be independent there, Earth's economy will become similarly irrelevant to you.
Radiation on Mars is actually not that bad[1], it's comparable to the radiation levels in Ramsar, Iran, where people live happily to a normal age without elevated cancer rates. The perchlorates in Martian soil won't be hard to deal with either[2].
[1] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/10/20/omg-space-is-f...
[2] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/04/20/even-the-dirt-...
> Excitement cannot overcome a lack of exploitable natural resources at the destination.
In context ("the more SpaceX progresses, the more people will get excited about space and investment money will be thrown at space technology"), I assumed your point was that natural resources on Mars cannot be economically relevant to Earth-based investors, and therefore no such investment money will be "thrown" at Mars colonization regardless of how "excited" people are about the idea. Hence the substance of my reply.
Did you instead mean to say that air, water, food, and radiation shielding are intractable problems for Mars colonization?
Without local resources, whether economic or life-sustaining, you're not really a colony, but a scientific expedition or military outpost or both.
Both of which put you under the political authority (and reliance for survival) of your sponsoring entity, which to me largely quashes the whole sovereignty appeal.
That isn't to say that there won't be "true believers" who buy into the idea of starting a colony, as it's sold by Elon or NASA or the US Space Force or whoever. I'm sure they'll find volunteers.
My original comment explicitly (see: "if/when independent survival is [...] feasible") takes no position on this matter.
Since "independent survival" will never be feasible on Mars, your comment sounds like pure fiction.
It's not like you can just go out in the wilderness and kill an animal for food, or find a river to drink from. You can't even breathe there.
"Independent survival" is barely even feasible on Earth.
You will always be dependent on the facilities, supply ships, etc.
Then there's the question of protecting what you have, without having any authorities, law enforcement, etc. to help you.
If you go there, it will most likely be an experience as in the old mining towns, where a single company owned everything, (factory, shops, residential areas, recreational areas, etc), and the workers will mainly be paid in "company bucks", that can only be used there.
For most people, it'll be like a dystopian neo-feudalistic nightmare, you can't wake up from. One where you can't even quit your job, because there's nowhere else to go. Indentured servitude on another planet.
But the Elon fan boys will no doubt be happy to sign up for it anyway.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you think I mean by "independent survival", but just to be clear: I'm not talking about, like, one dude striking out for a life of rugged solitude in the great Martian outdoors.
> There are absolutely exploitable resources there; they are just irrelevant...
Because I haven't read of any human-sustaining resources except some ice. Rather that analyzed samples of the soil and atmosphere are too toxic and radiation at the surface too high.
I'm not convinced it's intractable, though, especially with a few more decades of progress in industrial automation.
And IMO, the more SpaceX progresses, the more people will get excited about space and investment money will be thrown at space technology. I invested some money in Rocket Lab, because they are a public company and the next best thing after SpaceX IMO.