Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

80,000 Person Mars Colony Possible by 2040

Mars Space Colonization Elon Musk

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

http://nextbigfuture...olation-of.html

 

 

"[Elon Musk] is hopeful that the first people could be taken to Mars in 10 to 12 years. Elon think it is certainly possible for that to occur. He says the thing that matters long term is to have a self-sustaining city on Mars, to make life multiplanetary.

Here I have combined various statements from Elon Musk with my own extrapolation of developments towards and eighty thousand person Mars City by 2040.

What difference does it make?


#2
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • LocationCanada

Why would we make human civilization multiplanetary if there is no economic incentive to do so. Saying we could have 80000 people there is nice, but we would need some type of resource that would push us to do so. Take a look at Antarctica. Nice big space but we don't put people there because we don't have economic reason to do so!

 

We should stick to colonizing the moon first, as it actually has some resources like Helium-3 that we might actually use and thus support some colonies. 



#3
TheAsianGuy_LOL

TheAsianGuy_LOL

    What's Up Homies

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • LocationThe Stars of Which to be Settled

Don't know, emotions reel in more than efficient thinking. Anyways, It is a good incentive. We might even find resources on Mars. Remember, we haven't dug holes in it yet lol.


"We know Everything, but not Everything"~ Me

"Don't question what I know, question what I don't know."~ Me

"Fear kills more dreams than failure ever will"~Italian UFO


#4
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

Why would we make human civilization multiplanetary if there is no economic incentive to do so. Saying we could have 80000 people there is nice, but we would need some type of resource that would push us to do so. Take a look at Antarctica. Nice big space but we don't put people there because we don't have economic reason to do so!
 
We should stick to colonizing the moon first, as it actually has some resources like Helium-3 that we might actually use and thus support some colonies.

 
Aside from helium-3, there is no other reason to go to the moon. A quote from the Manifold series might be of importance here:
 

If you found the richest Lunar ore on Earth you would throw it out as slag.


There's no carbon or nitrogen on the surface, it would all have to be carted to the base there. That wouldn't give you something self-sustaining in an emergency as opposed to a colony on Mars.

And even if there's helium-3 there, so what? Current experimental reactors (including the upcoming Lockheed Martin reactor) tend not to need helium-3.

What difference does it make?


#5
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • LocationDeep Space

Explore and Exploit Asteroids and Comets

 

(the economics will make it so, its getting there w/ cheaper transport tech)


We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#6
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
I think musk is thinking about building a backup to terrestrial civilization.

#7
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,123 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

Why would we make human civilization multiplanetary if there is no economic incentive to do so. Saying we could have 80000 people there is nice, but we would need some type of resource that would push us to do so. Take a look at Antarctica. Nice big space but we don't put people there because we don't have economic reason to do so!
 
We should stick to colonizing the moon first, as it actually has some resources like Helium-3 that we might actually use and thus support some colonies.

 
Aside from helium-3, there is no other reason to go to the moon. A quote from the Manifold series might be of importance here:
 

If you found the richest Lunar ore on Earth you would throw it out as slag.


There's no carbon or nitrogen on the surface, it would all have to be carted to the base there. That wouldn't give you something self-sustaining in an emergency as opposed to a colony on Mars.

And even if there's helium-3 there, so what? Current experimental reactors (including the upcoming Lockheed Martin reactor) tend not to need helium-3.

 

 

 

The Moon could be a "beautiful" source of minerals and energy, a top Chinese scientist has told the BBC.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25141597

 



#8
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts

We can't get 80,000 people to Mars by 2040. Assuming that nobody will get there before 2020, we'd have to move 4000 people a year over there. We simply don't have that many sufficiently large spacecraft.



#9
kre8noys

kre8noys

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in time.

Won't happen, 10 perhaps? certainly not 80 000 there's no political drive to colonize mars, the cost would be enormous, the cheaper I've heard to send  humans  on mars is  30 billions if i remember correctly with the cargo and all. With the small spacecraft we have  we're talking about 8 person per crafts, 10 000 crafts will have to be sent at the cost of 300 000 000 000. 

 

Just can't see it happening.



#10
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

We can't get 80,000 people to Mars by 2040. Assuming that nobody will get there before 2020, we'd have to move 4000 people a year over there. We simply don't have that many sufficiently large spacecraft.

 

We don't have that many spacecraft now. In 40 years, who knows?


I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#11
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts

 

We can't get 80,000 people to Mars by 2040. Assuming that nobody will get there before 2020, we'd have to move 4000 people a year over there. We simply don't have that many sufficiently large spacecraft.

 

We don't have that many spacecraft now. In 40 years, who knows?

 

25, you mean? Let's assume that every decade the maximum occupancy of spacecraft will increase tenfold every decade and we can average five launches per year between 2020 and 2040. Spacecraft can now carry about ten people, so the Mars colony would have at most 500 by 2030. Only a few thousand more will join them in the next decade at that rate. A colony of 80,000 on Mars would be something for the 2060s,  at least.



#12
PrimordialBeing

PrimordialBeing

    Why are you bothering to look at this? Go read my post.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,468 posts
I can only see about 10,000 people living on Mars by 2040. I think that once we get going with really sending people to colonise Mars and maybe the Moon, we'll have 80,000 on Mars by about 2060, or 2080 at the latest.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for life" -Terry Pratchett
"And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you"-Friedrich Nietzsche
"The biggest risk is not taking any risk.. In a world that is changing quickly, the only strategy that is guaranteed to fail is not taking risks* - Mark Zuckerberg

#13
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
I think it's possible, except the 80,000 people part. No way will there be that many people on Mars so soon.

#14
FutureGuy

FutureGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts

I don't see this happening at all, not that soon.



#15
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • LocationCanada

Explore and Exploit Asteroids and Comets

 

(the economics will make it so, its getting there w/ cheaper transport tech)

 

The economics of getting metals from comets is still quite far off. There are still plentiful amounts of minerals on planet Earth, some of the minerals are found in low grades though and require higher mineral prices for us to find them profitable to extract. 



#16
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

We don't have that many spacecraft now. In 40 years, who knows?


Exactly. Musk said he didn't plan on doing something this large scale alone.


What difference does it make?


#17
JCO

JCO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • LocationWA, USA

 

Why would we make human civilization multiplanetary if there is no economic incentive to do so. Saying we could have 80000 people there is nice, but we would need some type of resource that would push us to do so. Take a look at Antarctica. Nice big space but we don't put people there because we don't have economic reason to do so!
 
We should stick to colonizing the moon first, as it actually has some resources like Helium-3 that we might actually use and thus support some colonies.

 
Aside from helium-3, there is no other reason to go to the moon. A quote from the Manifold series might be of importance here:
 

If you found the richest Lunar ore on Earth you would throw it out as slag.


There's no carbon or nitrogen on the surface, it would all have to be carted to the base there. That wouldn't give you something self-sustaining in an emergency as opposed to a colony on Mars.

And even if there's helium-3 there, so what? Current experimental reactors (including the upcoming Lockheed Martin reactor) tend not to need helium-3.

 

 

I agree that the H-3 argument is a poor one depending on technology that may not become useful. In the past I believed that most plans to mine the Moon would not prove viable. The reason was I could not see how you could get the ore mined to a place it was consumed cheaper than you could get from another source. This changed when I heard about a lunar space elevator.  A lunar SE would extend through L1 and continue over half the distance back to Earth. This would simplify getting the ore from the Moon back to Earth. All you would need to do is build a cheap single use lifting body on the Moon from the materials available, place the more valuable ores inside and transport it up the elevator. It would require very little attitude adjustment fuel if any to reach the Earth's atmosphere and as the cargo would just be ore all you would need to accomplish is a controlled crash to succeed.

 

As for carbon it would only need to be shipped in at first. Once a sustained mining operation was set up all the additional carbon needed could be recovered from the volatiles  present in the lunar regolith.


Confirmed Agnostic - I know that I don't know for sure and I am almost certain no one else does either.


#18
TheCarlagas

TheCarlagas

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationMexico City

Well, the thing is, if we don't colonize other planets, the mankind will go extinct very soon.



#19
KaRdAsHeV~sCaLe

KaRdAsHeV~sCaLe

    0.72 on the Kardashev scale and slowly getting more advanced

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in this universe

I do not think that 80,000 people will be on Mars this century. Probably next century


Counting down the days until 2050: 12,499 Humanity = 0.72 on the Kardashev scale
Counting down the days until 2100: 30,761
Counting down the days until 3000: 359,479


#20
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts

Well, the thing is, if we don't colonize other planets, the mankind will go extinct very soon.

No. Even in a nuclear war, a few million people at the very least would survive.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Mars, Space Colonization, Elon Musk

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users