13 replies to this topic

[Guyverman1990]

The website predicts that Mars will become a permanent human residence by 2059. Personally, I think it's way to soon. I think a more realistic date will be 2079-2089. I think that living The Moon will definitely be by 2059 though.

[SG-1]

I think this goes under, "Culture, Economics & Politics of the Future".

I disagree, we would have the technology by then for sure. Unless some really depressing depressions happen and keep the entire world poor as Greece, 2059 is a long time away. If you take the singularity (probably best served with a grain of salt) the technology in 2059 will be crazy.

While its hard to ship more than a ton of material onto Mars because of the thin atmosphere, by 2059 it will be easy. Massive parachutes are boring. What about a powerful fuel source that we could use to slow down to a near hover as we enter in. Or space cranes. We could just lower a space elevator down to the surface by the 2060s. A string lowered to the surface with an end sticking out into space would be able to hold its position straight up. So it is possible, we just need strong material to hold the tension.

The technology for creating a self-sustaining base is probably not going to happen by then, but hopefully that won't matter because we will be able to ship supplies that would last a long time by space craft. Exercise would be easier to do so physical problems will be limited to the trip over there. The spaceship could rotate to create the needed gravity, rigorous exercise and even stasis would be used on the trip to Mars. Which would probably be close to 6 months.

Edited by SG-1, 12 April 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[eacao]

I do doubt that Mars will be colonised by the year 2059 as well. I don't know when humans will first land on Mars, could be 2032 like NASA says (though I think we have a better chance of dying from a plane crash) or it could be in 2025 like Musk says (...). Colonsing is a completely different topic. First of all, we need an insentive.

Curiosity, the want to colonise space because it is good is just not good enough for very obvious reasons, curiosity is what has spurred all space missions post the cold war, but sending humans to live on Mars is not going to be because of curiosity

Fear. What got America to the moon, since it was a competition with the USSR was because of fear, but that is unlikely. The US is unlikely to be in any economic state to race to Mars anytime soon and I doubt China would want to colonise Mars (though it isn't impossible. The bigger problem that while China is growing incredibly fast, it is doesn't make landing on Mars any easier). A bigger fear would be an asteroid but seing as how slow we are to respond to catastrophes in the making (which we are making) it is unlikely we would ever respond to an asteroid threat which we can't see, in an endevour as expensive as a Mars colony.

Profit. Making money is an enormous insentive for almost all humans and all nations. But there is nothing worth going to Mars for. Everything on Mars, the iron, hydrogen for fusion, gold and platinum and whatever else is easier to get from Earth, if it is in short supply on Earth, the Moon and if it is in short supply there, asteroids which don't have an atmosphere and a much weaker gravity. If they aren't on those three bodies, it won't be on Mars either.

While the technology to colonise Mars will in all likelyhood exist in 2059 (most of it exists today), the limiting factor and the wait factor will be why should we go there. While the answer as to why will likely be obvious to many of you, it does not make economic sense. And since our economy is what makes our technology run, it dictates our technological advancement and is (theoretically, though human greed corrupts the system) the most efficient way of distrubuting resources to different technological projects and progression. And colonising Mars doesn't make much sense.

[SG-1]

Yeah I guess citizen colonization is far off. I was talking about a permanent settlement. A person going to Mars, would most likely not come back.
Whether or not that happens depends on the economy, and we might have no real reason to do it. "Choosing to do these things because they are hard" will not cut it for a trip to Mars.

Edited by SG-1, 12 April 2012 - 04:50 AM.

[Logically Irrational]

I think it depends a lot on social values as well. If what the timeline says about resource depletion and all that comes true, you may have a society in the 2050s acutely aware of the limits of their little rock, as well pervasive sense of the importance of technology (the result of exponential progress in a number of fields).

This is of course speculation, but supposed in 2059 we have some strong AI working in various fields of science (which seems pretty certain) alongside humans. They wouldn't be concerned with economics in the way we are, outside of programming restrictions. Considering how much cheaper space travel would be by then, combined with societal change, 2059 may not be so improbable for a manned outpost on Mars.

[CyberMisterBeauty]

What??You created two topics about the same thing?Why?

[GNR Rvolution]

Erm, accident maybe? Not sure if you can delete a thread once you've created it? Does it really matter? Chill.

[Guyverman1990]

What??You created two topics about the same thing?Why?

It was an accident. I tried to fix the title, but ended up making a separate thread.

[Logically Irrational]

I'm going to try resurrecting this thread. I'm curious what people's opinions of this subject are now that Planetary Resources has been unveiled. Anyone change their mind? Does this make a Mars colony in the 2050s any more likely or does it not change much of anything?

[GNR Rvolution]

I'm going to try resurrecting this thread. I'm curious what people's opinions of this subject are now that Planetary Resources has been unveiled. Anyone change their mind? Does this make a Mars colony in the 2050s any more likely or does it not change much of anything?

Well I guess that if PR actually do what they say they are going to do then a human residence on Mars is going to be less likely. If their focus is on asteroid mining I guess the next logical step might be to turn to the capture and colonisation of these space rocks. Which means that the focus on Mars may dim somewhat, what would be the point of going there? However, saying that, I'm still highly sceptical that PR can do what they are suggesting, but I'm more than happy for them to prove me wrong...

[Logically Irrational]

We'll see. But isn't the whole point of the initial stage of PR's plan to open up space in general. I feel like fuel depots and whatever else they're doing to make space travel much cheaper would encourage at least government institutions to try for Mars. It wouldn't just be private interests operating out there.

[eacao]

I'm going to try resurrecting this thread. I'm curious what people's opinions of this subject are now that Planetary Resources has been unveiled. Anyone change their mind? Does this make a Mars colony in the 2050s any more likely or does it not change much of anything?

It doesn't make it more or less likely until they either succeed or fail, as yet, the unveiling, I think, hasn't changed a thing.

[kjaggard]

http://mars-one.com/en/

[Raklian]

http://mars-one.com/en/

Already discussed here in the forum somewhere.