Science upside for Starship

Re:Science upside for Starship by Ajedi32 on Monday November 22, 2021 @05:12PM (#29312150)

This is the biggest issue with Musk's Mars colonization plans right now. He seems to be taking the approach of "build it and they will come" with his efforts to bring down the cost of getting payload to orbit (and thus the cost of interplanetary transportation), however even if he succeeds at that goal I don't really see how that's going to result in a self-sustaining city on Mars.

We've had the technology to colonize Antarctica pretty cheaply for quite some time now. I don't see any self sustaining cities there; just small research bases. Why should Mars be different?

Musk talks frequently about a self-sustaining Martian city becoming a "backup for humanity" in the case of some global extinction-level event (Asteroid impact, nuclear war, etc), which is all well and good. But who's going to pay for it? In order for Mars colonization to actually happen, it needs to be not only affordable, but profitable!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by dylan604 on Monday November 22, 2021 @05:44PM (#29312472)

Because Antartica isn't really a stepping stone to anywhere. Mars could be a way station for Europa/Io/similar moons.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by Ajedi32 on Monday November 22, 2021 @09:50PM (#29314095)

To what end? "We should colonize Mars because then we could go to Europa more easily" just kinda begs the question; what economic incentive exists for going to Europa?

It's like saying we should colonize Antarctica because then we'd learn things that would make it easier to colonize the North Pole. Doesn't really answer the question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by dylan604 on Tuesday November 23, 2021 @01:37AM (#29315150)

At the end of the day, space is what's next. Humans are explorers. We left the safety of the cave, we built ships to cross the vastness of the oceans. We're now building ships to cross the small section of the vastness of space we can.

So far, it's private money moving that direction. It's not tax dollars. If some uber rich asshole wants to spend his money on this, so be it. It's his money. If it doesn't work out, okay, we learn from it. But not going is just not going to happen. It's part of the human experience to ask "what's next" and then do it. Less adventurous can sit at home. The meek shall inherit the earth, the bold are going to space!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by Ajedi32 on Tuesday November 23, 2021 @09:51AM (#29318423)

By all means; spend your money however you want, but a few billionaires using their personal wealth to fund Mars colonization efforts "just because" isn't going to be nearly enough to build a self-sustaining city there. Musk is talking about sending hundreds of Megatons to orbit every year, for the foreseeable future[1]. He wants an armada of one thousand Starships departing for Mars every 26 months[2]. That's what it would take to build a self-sustaining city on Mars, and it's a multi-trillion dollar effort; not the sort of thing that can be funded by a few wealthy donors.

The only way I can see large-scale Mars colonization happening is if there's a strong economic incentive for that. It isn't going to happen just because a few people want it to, or think it's the "next step for humanity".

[1]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1217986505513172992

[2]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1217993568482025472

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by rbanffy on Monday November 22, 2021 @06:47PM (#29312983)

A self sustaining colony in Antarctica would be a good blueprint for a similar one on the Moon or Mars. Remember Biosphere 2?

[ Parent | on HN ]