People always ask what the business case(s) are but Zubrin is right, that doesn’t matter if you are motivated by ideology. What is the burn rate?
Snark aside, there still needs to be a local economy for there to be community. There are any number of ways this can play out but much like everything else in the future, not with detailed specificity. Off world local economies will still need strong ties to ones on Earth as well, even if there are not a lot of material exports.
Your views don’t reflect the relevant factors which will drive initial settlement. It is relevant that the initial seat costs will be the highest before coming down. The first seats will therefore mostly be affordable mostly only to the largest countries. The motivation of countries will
mostly be national pride and not profit. As flight rate goes up and ticket prices go down, wealthily, private individuals will follow. Again, not for wealth but for personal significance. They will tend to have lived long enough to have saved up the necessary prices and so retirees will tend to be over-represented. And, active retirement communities are sustained on Earth despite the people living there not producing a profit. ISRU of the bulky but simpler material will lower costs thereby reducing the hurdle to any business case.
“Your views don’t reflect the relevant factors which will drive initial settlement.”
I didn’t go into what my views are on what will drive first steps or whether or not I agree with ideologically driven settlement or how people will make money or sustain themselves during this process.
I do think that however things play out, what I said is exactly right. No one will be totally self sufficient and local trade will be necessary as well as, at least with current destinations, trade with Earth. Communities can’t exist without it.
You seem to agree with ideological driven settlement, which is fine, but for that to be sustainable, you need both a trade connection to Earth and your neighbors.
You don’t need a fully functional and mature settlement to have an economy. All you need is a solution to one of your neighbors problems that you can solve and sell them for more money than it costs for you to solve the problem or a product or service that isn’t limited by time that solves a problem for your Earthly neighbors.
People always ask how to make money in space and the answer isn’t some grand scheme to mine asteroids, even if that is a long term goal, but to solve the problems of companies and countries already working in space or would like to. Economies will grow naturally without any planning but they will also grow by some people having a plan, and they don’t have to be big plans.
When speaking of profits, how do you determine them when the reason for existence is ideological? For one, you ignore the sunk cost of travel and setting up a home and focus on the expenses and sales at the destination.
Are Earthly farms profitable? Sure, but look at the challenges in starting a farm rather than stepping into a functioning farm. Someone can go spend millions and start a farm and make some money but it would take a long time to make that money back, which doesn’t matter if someone just wants to be a farmer, has the means to do so, and is content with the money they do make vs the alternative ways they could have spent that money.
Yes. A seat on a rocket could cost as much as 5 million dollars.
The question is, if you could raise 5 million dollars for the one-way trip, who among the people at work would send?
A local economy on Mars will depend on people identifying a need and fulfilling it at a profit.
Martians need food. They need air. Someone’s going to make a living farming on Mars. Someone’s going to grow Rice and ducks and tilapia, someone else will grow wheat, other people will be growing algae in vats.
Martians need homes. Besides the infrastructure provided by the Boring Company, they’ll need to outfit their dwellings, and fix things as they break.
They’ll need to extract raw materials and refine them and produce rocket fuel and oxygen and maybe plastics and base metals. And they’ll need to manufacture things on site.
And they’ll need all of the occupations of city life from dentists to barbers to restaurants and hardware stores.
All these needs will be seen to by the population that’s there. At some point over a certain number of people you get a growing local economy.
You are correct. But the commercial space ideologue will counter with, “But, how will the settlers afford to pay for their necessary items if no one is making money from Earth markets? Can a Martian economy survive by everyone just selling pizzas to each other”? My answer would be that these wealthy people have make the money before they go to Mars. They made the money in Earth markets at a previous time. And then, with their savings, they pay for their living. And these communities survive and grow for decades so far.
Yes, you make the ideological case vs the economic case. IMO, you need both but having an economic case isn’t quite the same as making enough money at your destination to fund it, but rather to sustain it.
“Building a new human society also means the settlers must also go with the intent of raising healthy and well-adjusted children. Future space colonists must remember that they are not really exploring the unknown. What they are really doing is building new societies for their children and children’s children. Such an effort carries great responsibility, and if we shirk that responsibility, our descendants will curse our memory.”
Well that very important for New World. One can think they going to places which were better to farm, if for other reason than more land farm.
It was also expensive to cross the ocean, whereas in sense children are cheap able bodies. And people had inherent long view of everything.
It seems with Mars you could all kinds of different people, but it seems a shortage of farmers.
It seems farming is needed a lot, but what looks like, I don’t know, tend think all kinds different ways of doing it.
The Moon is different, unless there vast amounts water, it’s not settlements. It seems most people working on the Moon, are living on Earth. The Moon will have more mechanics, which also case Mars.
One could say farmer have to be mechanics, but more miners than farmers.
It seems a lot things to do on Mars or Moon is exploration.
Or NASA should explore Moon and Mars, so that we can actually get to the point of a serious amount exploration of the Mars and the Moon.
The Pilgrims intended to end up much further south. Their backers intended for the colonists to make their investment back by producing indigo and tobacco for shipment back to England. It didn’t happen in Massachusetts and half the colonists didn’t survive the first winter.
If you want space colonization to be on an economic basis, you’ll have to find something that they can produce on Mars valuable enough to pay for transportation back to Earth.
There’s still the unsettled question as to whether humans can survive and reproduce in the fractional gravity and higher radiation of all the plausible sites in our solar system. We aren’t going to be floating down the canals of Mars anytime soon. Bummer, that.
Active retirement communities don’t produce anything and yet the resident have the money that they need in order to sustain themselves. Why do communities on Mars have to have a material product for export?
Because it’s easier to export from Mars?
It’s not as easy as from our Moon, but maybe
it could it could export from Mars cheaper than the Moon.
So, could look at Mass drivers or cost of rocket fuel.
Roughly Mass driver to be cheap enough have export a lot. And say one is not exporting much, so how much does rocket fuel cost?
CO2 should be cheap and could have CO fuel rocket and then how much is LOX.
If a Martian, whether exporting not, you probably want oxygen to be fairly inexpensive.
If growing plants, they make oxygen, other than the cheapest way to get oxygen is splitting water.
I think that Mars water has to be $1 per kg or less.
Or if water costs more, no one is living on Mars.
$1 per kg is very expensive compared to Earth but pretty cheap compared Lunar water.
Then how does electrical power costs, you might also not living on Mars if electrical costs more than hundred times the cost of Earth, but say it’s 10 times 15 cents. $1.50 per Kwh.
It’s looking like about $50 per kg payload. which cost about much get Mars from if Musk get his starship going. Or not cheaper to export.
But if have cheaper water and power, it could be $5 per kg to get to Earth.
Anyhow, if you are Martian you want cheaper water and cheaper power. And also makes Mars cheaper place to export from.
And I think Venus orbit is important to Martians- because it gives average window to Earth of 1 year rather than 2.1 years. And what Venus orbit needs is water. And water in Venus orbit is worth $100 per kg. And Venus orbit could be a place to export a lot Mars water, or one make a mass driver which could have enough traffic, to be worth making.
And that would make Mars a better place to export [a lot things] from.
But eventually, Venus will get even cheaper water from somewhere else than from Mars [or the Moon] and that would be even better for Mars.
What?
I’m questioning the assumption that the Moon or Mars will be exporting any material produce including propellant. Rather, I propose that the near to intermediate term source of revenue will be from government space budgets and private savings for products and services to those people who will go to the Moon and Mars. That’s a limited demand but will be an actual demand. SpaceX isn’t requesting from others the provision of propellant anywhere nor is anyone else (really). But when Starship starts delivering people to the Moon and Mars, for sure those people will need goods and services.
–I’m questioning the assumption that the Moon or Mars will be exporting any material produce including propellant.–
I assumed Moon would export, LOX and lunar water to Low lunar orbit.
Some thought Lunar rocket fuel to LEO, which didn’t think likely in near term.
My assumption is to mine lunar water, you have to get to 1000 tons of lunar water mined per year, and exporting to Low lunar orbit increases the market for lunar rocket [and water]
but it possible one doesn’t need to get 1000 tons mined in year as quickly or there is more demand at lunar surface.
Lately I been thinking about whether Musk will want to use the Moon in regards to having settlements on Mars. If something like that were to happen- there is no shortage of demand, and you would going to say 50,000 tons of water per year, quickly.
But it doesn’t eliminate exporting to low lunar and could bring lunar export rocket fuel to Earth LEO, faster.
But I have been interested in what least amount value could mineable, it it seems Musk would only get involved if was an overly optimistic amount of lunar water AND lunar CO2 found on the Moon.
In terms of Mars, I was thinking you have mine millions of tons of water per year. And you a lake, and people would live around and IN the lake. You sell real estate in terms having water rights that go with land property.
So, mining million of tons [and people immediately buy as part buying estate, you have Mars water be at $1 per kg or less.
Of course if have a lot water available one use it for coolant for nuclear reactor and you sell hot water.
Though Musk might use SPS for Mars and focus as much on nuclear energy.
Active retirement communities don’t produce anything and yet the resident have the money that they need in order to sustain themselves.
But please note that active retirement communities are integrated into local environments and economies in manners no extraterrestrial location can match. Active retirement communities require mild climate, access to power grids, communications networks, transportation infrastructure, labor markets, high quality medical care, cultural and sporting events, etc. The moon, Mars, etc. offer none of that.
When you make presentations to AARP conventions and events or publish articles in AARP The Magazine do you get a lot of positive responses?
I propose the active retirement community analogy as not a complete analogy. My point is limited to illustrating the point that it is not necessarily mandatory that an off-Earth community can only survive by mining some material product. Off-Earth communities won’t be reasonably competing to provide the same cost-effective value that terrestrial active retirement communities provide. Rather, the people first living off-Earth will be high net worth people who are motivated by something other than the desire for a pleasant lifestyle. They will be drawn from the 1% of the 1%ers (in terms of wealth & motivation) and so AARP would be a good sampling.
As for the infrastructure, instead of drawing an equivalency to active retirement communities on Earth having access to cost-effective infrastructures, we all understand that we will have to construct our own infrastructure to support a base –> settlement. The $/kWh will be much higher than that on Earth. We won’t have KB constructing lunar habs. Rather, the components of the infrastructure will need to be developed and tested and then the iterative production of units will still be expensive but not as much as the full prototypes.
As for medical care, I address how high-quality medical care of the right type can be available at each level of development: DevelopSpace.info/medical
Oh, and the “labor markets” will be primarily the settlers themselves with the provision of labor (or the financial equivalent) will be a requirement for going to an off-Earth settlement. There can be no space for free loaders or poor people in the first decades.
As for the infrastructure, instead of drawing an equivalency to active retirement communities on Earth having access to cost-effective infrastructures, we all understand that we will have to construct our own infrastructure to support a base –> settlement.
Oh, and the “labor markets” will be primarily the settlers themselves with the provision of labor (or the financial equivalent) will be a requirement for going to an off-Earth settlement.
Doug, when Musk says he wants to retire on Mars I think he means that literally, as in having the leisure time and amenities that men of his means are accustomed to (and attractive women to share them with). That’s fine with me; he’s earned all that and more.
I don’t think retirement to him means he works 100+ hours a week building infrastructure while sleeping in a bunkroom with a dozen other guys.
I think you badly overestimate the number of wealthy people willing to use that wealth to support themselves on what amounts to a hellhole.
Again, if you disagree pass up a few AIAA meetings and go to some AARP meetings instead.
No offense to Zimmerman, but the Pilgrims analogy is maximally inapt. Part of the problem is, it’s a foundational myth along with Jamestown (which actually failed, but was rescued at the last second) and the Lost Colony (because maximally romantic). A much better case study, with greater relevance to Mars is the so-called Popham Colony (actually “Fort St. George”) at the mouth of the Kennebec River in Maine in 1607. It didn’t “fail,” as such, so much as was given up. But it would have worked out.
They set out with 100 colonists (mostly ex-soldiers, with several artisans, and “a few men of quality”). After getting started, it was decided they couldn’t be ready in time for winter, so one of the leaders returned to England with half the men, and, while there, inherited a title and decided not to go back). The only man who died that winter was George Popham himself. The rest survived, and, leaderless, decided they wanted to go home. In the absense of rescue, the 45 men built an ocean-going sloop, and successful returned to England. The sloop was sold for a profit and made several more transatlantic crossings.
A group of settlers on Mars who could build an interplanetary vessel and bug out if things went badly, is pretty much what you want. And if things don’t go badly, they will succeed on Mars.
PS: Another thing they don’t teach in school is the coast of NE already had entreprenurial settlers by the time the Pilgrims got there. Plymouth was set up just a few miles from a large whorehouse stocked with Indian maidens to survice the fishing fleets of the Grand Banks, and river traders going back and forth to the Huron lands in the fur trade. The religious nasties in Plymouth forced the proprietor out. He went back to England and sued their asses.
Well, if so, they wouldn’t have been maidens for long.
I’d guess there would have been a fairly high turnover, as the former maidens would have moved on as soon they earned as many pots and pans as they needed. Fucking stinky, hairy, space-alien looking British and Dutch invaders can’t have been pleasant. Then new maidens would take their place, as the market for pots and pans was probably high.
I’d also guess this is part of why the Indian lads started slaughtering the palefaces. I’m sure an Indian maiden would be prettier and would smell better than your average English girl.
Some evidence in this direction, the Delaware Indians had no trouble intermarrying with the Forest Finns abandoned in the Delaware valley by the Swedes. Not only did the Finns look much more like Indians than the Dutch and Swedes, but they had all these terrific ideas about ways to live in a Boreal forest. It’s likely the American “frontier lifestyle” orginated with the Forest Finns and Delawares.
Plymouth was set up just a few miles from a large whorehouse stocked with Indian maidens to survice the fishing fleets of the Grand Banks, and river traders going back and forth to the Huron lands in the fur trade.
Yes, yes, in native language it was known as “Plentifutuk”. I believe it’s called Foxwoods now….
No one has yet said it.
The most fundamental reason for an old person, like me (old, but not that old), to go to Mars, by the simple fact that they can afford a seat, is that they can die there as a person totally free from all the total B.S. back wherever that was, free of all whoever they were.
“Finally, some peace.”
That will be my Martian business model. My contribution to the Martian economy.
Don’t have to feed them, no drain on resources.
How would you go with a bearnaise sauce and a burgundy? I believe the rule of thumb is to marinate one hour per decade.
As opposed to the Donner Party I presume?
People always ask what the business case(s) are but Zubrin is right, that doesn’t matter if you are motivated by ideology. What is the burn rate?
Snark aside, there still needs to be a local economy for there to be community. There are any number of ways this can play out but much like everything else in the future, not with detailed specificity. Off world local economies will still need strong ties to ones on Earth as well, even if there are not a lot of material exports.
Your views don’t reflect the relevant factors which will drive initial settlement. It is relevant that the initial seat costs will be the highest before coming down. The first seats will therefore mostly be affordable mostly only to the largest countries. The motivation of countries will
mostly be national pride and not profit. As flight rate goes up and ticket prices go down, wealthily, private individuals will follow. Again, not for wealth but for personal significance. They will tend to have lived long enough to have saved up the necessary prices and so retirees will tend to be over-represented. And, active retirement communities are sustained on Earth despite the people living there not producing a profit. ISRU of the bulky but simpler material will lower costs thereby reducing the hurdle to any business case.
“Your views don’t reflect the relevant factors which will drive initial settlement.”
I didn’t go into what my views are on what will drive first steps or whether or not I agree with ideologically driven settlement or how people will make money or sustain themselves during this process.
I do think that however things play out, what I said is exactly right. No one will be totally self sufficient and local trade will be necessary as well as, at least with current destinations, trade with Earth. Communities can’t exist without it.
You seem to agree with ideological driven settlement, which is fine, but for that to be sustainable, you need both a trade connection to Earth and your neighbors.
You don’t need a fully functional and mature settlement to have an economy. All you need is a solution to one of your neighbors problems that you can solve and sell them for more money than it costs for you to solve the problem or a product or service that isn’t limited by time that solves a problem for your Earthly neighbors.
People always ask how to make money in space and the answer isn’t some grand scheme to mine asteroids, even if that is a long term goal, but to solve the problems of companies and countries already working in space or would like to. Economies will grow naturally without any planning but they will also grow by some people having a plan, and they don’t have to be big plans.
When speaking of profits, how do you determine them when the reason for existence is ideological? For one, you ignore the sunk cost of travel and setting up a home and focus on the expenses and sales at the destination.
Are Earthly farms profitable? Sure, but look at the challenges in starting a farm rather than stepping into a functioning farm. Someone can go spend millions and start a farm and make some money but it would take a long time to make that money back, which doesn’t matter if someone just wants to be a farmer, has the means to do so, and is content with the money they do make vs the alternative ways they could have spent that money.
Yes. A seat on a rocket could cost as much as 5 million dollars.
The question is, if you could raise 5 million dollars for the one-way trip, who among the people at work would send?
A local economy on Mars will depend on people identifying a need and fulfilling it at a profit.
Martians need food. They need air. Someone’s going to make a living farming on Mars. Someone’s going to grow Rice and ducks and tilapia, someone else will grow wheat, other people will be growing algae in vats.
Martians need homes. Besides the infrastructure provided by the Boring Company, they’ll need to outfit their dwellings, and fix things as they break.
They’ll need to extract raw materials and refine them and produce rocket fuel and oxygen and maybe plastics and base metals. And they’ll need to manufacture things on site.
And they’ll need all of the occupations of city life from dentists to barbers to restaurants and hardware stores.
All these needs will be seen to by the population that’s there. At some point over a certain number of people you get a growing local economy.
You are correct. But the commercial space ideologue will counter with, “But, how will the settlers afford to pay for their necessary items if no one is making money from Earth markets? Can a Martian economy survive by everyone just selling pizzas to each other”? My answer would be that these wealthy people have make the money before they go to Mars. They made the money in Earth markets at a previous time. And then, with their savings, they pay for their living. And these communities survive and grow for decades so far.
Yes, you make the ideological case vs the economic case. IMO, you need both but having an economic case isn’t quite the same as making enough money at your destination to fund it, but rather to sustain it.
“Building a new human society also means the settlers must also go with the intent of raising healthy and well-adjusted children. Future space colonists must remember that they are not really exploring the unknown. What they are really doing is building new societies for their children and children’s children. Such an effort carries great responsibility, and if we shirk that responsibility, our descendants will curse our memory.”
Well that very important for New World. One can think they going to places which were better to farm, if for other reason than more land farm.
It was also expensive to cross the ocean, whereas in sense children are cheap able bodies. And people had inherent long view of everything.
It seems with Mars you could all kinds of different people, but it seems a shortage of farmers.
It seems farming is needed a lot, but what looks like, I don’t know, tend think all kinds different ways of doing it.
The Moon is different, unless there vast amounts water, it’s not settlements. It seems most people working on the Moon, are living on Earth. The Moon will have more mechanics, which also case Mars.
One could say farmer have to be mechanics, but more miners than farmers.
It seems a lot things to do on Mars or Moon is exploration.
Or NASA should explore Moon and Mars, so that we can actually get to the point of a serious amount exploration of the Mars and the Moon.
The Pilgrims intended to end up much further south. Their backers intended for the colonists to make their investment back by producing indigo and tobacco for shipment back to England. It didn’t happen in Massachusetts and half the colonists didn’t survive the first winter.
If you want space colonization to be on an economic basis, you’ll have to find something that they can produce on Mars valuable enough to pay for transportation back to Earth.
There’s still the unsettled question as to whether humans can survive and reproduce in the fractional gravity and higher radiation of all the plausible sites in our solar system. We aren’t going to be floating down the canals of Mars anytime soon. Bummer, that.
Active retirement communities don’t produce anything and yet the resident have the money that they need in order to sustain themselves. Why do communities on Mars have to have a material product for export?
Because it’s easier to export from Mars?
It’s not as easy as from our Moon, but maybe
it could it could export from Mars cheaper than the Moon.
So, could look at Mass drivers or cost of rocket fuel.
Roughly Mass driver to be cheap enough have export a lot. And say one is not exporting much, so how much does rocket fuel cost?
CO2 should be cheap and could have CO fuel rocket and then how much is LOX.
If a Martian, whether exporting not, you probably want oxygen to be fairly inexpensive.
If growing plants, they make oxygen, other than the cheapest way to get oxygen is splitting water.
I think that Mars water has to be $1 per kg or less.
Or if water costs more, no one is living on Mars.
$1 per kg is very expensive compared to Earth but pretty cheap compared Lunar water.
Then how does electrical power costs, you might also not living on Mars if electrical costs more than hundred times the cost of Earth, but say it’s 10 times 15 cents. $1.50 per Kwh.
It’s looking like about $50 per kg payload. which cost about much get Mars from if Musk get his starship going. Or not cheaper to export.
But if have cheaper water and power, it could be $5 per kg to get to Earth.
Anyhow, if you are Martian you want cheaper water and cheaper power. And also makes Mars cheaper place to export from.
And I think Venus orbit is important to Martians- because it gives average window to Earth of 1 year rather than 2.1 years. And what Venus orbit needs is water. And water in Venus orbit is worth $100 per kg. And Venus orbit could be a place to export a lot Mars water, or one make a mass driver which could have enough traffic, to be worth making.
And that would make Mars a better place to export [a lot things] from.
But eventually, Venus will get even cheaper water from somewhere else than from Mars [or the Moon] and that would be even better for Mars.
What?
I’m questioning the assumption that the Moon or Mars will be exporting any material produce including propellant. Rather, I propose that the near to intermediate term source of revenue will be from government space budgets and private savings for products and services to those people who will go to the Moon and Mars. That’s a limited demand but will be an actual demand. SpaceX isn’t requesting from others the provision of propellant anywhere nor is anyone else (really). But when Starship starts delivering people to the Moon and Mars, for sure those people will need goods and services.
–I’m questioning the assumption that the Moon or Mars will be exporting any material produce including propellant.–
I assumed Moon would export, LOX and lunar water to Low lunar orbit.
Some thought Lunar rocket fuel to LEO, which didn’t think likely in near term.
My assumption is to mine lunar water, you have to get to 1000 tons of lunar water mined per year, and exporting to Low lunar orbit increases the market for lunar rocket [and water]
but it possible one doesn’t need to get 1000 tons mined in year as quickly or there is more demand at lunar surface.
Lately I been thinking about whether Musk will want to use the Moon in regards to having settlements on Mars. If something like that were to happen- there is no shortage of demand, and you would going to say 50,000 tons of water per year, quickly.
But it doesn’t eliminate exporting to low lunar and could bring lunar export rocket fuel to Earth LEO, faster.
But I have been interested in what least amount value could mineable, it it seems Musk would only get involved if was an overly optimistic amount of lunar water AND lunar CO2 found on the Moon.
In terms of Mars, I was thinking you have mine millions of tons of water per year. And you a lake, and people would live around and IN the lake. You sell real estate in terms having water rights that go with land property.
So, mining million of tons [and people immediately buy as part buying estate, you have Mars water be at $1 per kg or less.
Of course if have a lot water available one use it for coolant for nuclear reactor and you sell hot water.
Though Musk might use SPS for Mars and focus as much on nuclear energy.
Active retirement communities don’t produce anything and yet the resident have the money that they need in order to sustain themselves.
But please note that active retirement communities are integrated into local environments and economies in manners no extraterrestrial location can match. Active retirement communities require mild climate, access to power grids, communications networks, transportation infrastructure, labor markets, high quality medical care, cultural and sporting events, etc. The moon, Mars, etc. offer none of that.
When you make presentations to AARP conventions and events or publish articles in AARP The Magazine do you get a lot of positive responses?
I propose the active retirement community analogy as not a complete analogy. My point is limited to illustrating the point that it is not necessarily mandatory that an off-Earth community can only survive by mining some material product. Off-Earth communities won’t be reasonably competing to provide the same cost-effective value that terrestrial active retirement communities provide. Rather, the people first living off-Earth will be high net worth people who are motivated by something other than the desire for a pleasant lifestyle. They will be drawn from the 1% of the 1%ers (in terms of wealth & motivation) and so AARP would be a good sampling.
As for the infrastructure, instead of drawing an equivalency to active retirement communities on Earth having access to cost-effective infrastructures, we all understand that we will have to construct our own infrastructure to support a base –> settlement. The $/kWh will be much higher than that on Earth. We won’t have KB constructing lunar habs. Rather, the components of the infrastructure will need to be developed and tested and then the iterative production of units will still be expensive but not as much as the full prototypes.
As for medical care, I address how high-quality medical care of the right type can be available at each level of development: DevelopSpace.info/medical
Oh, and the “labor markets” will be primarily the settlers themselves with the provision of labor (or the financial equivalent) will be a requirement for going to an off-Earth settlement. There can be no space for free loaders or poor people in the first decades.
As for the infrastructure, instead of drawing an equivalency to active retirement communities on Earth having access to cost-effective infrastructures, we all understand that we will have to construct our own infrastructure to support a base –> settlement.
Oh, and the “labor markets” will be primarily the settlers themselves with the provision of labor (or the financial equivalent) will be a requirement for going to an off-Earth settlement.
Doug, when Musk says he wants to retire on Mars I think he means that literally, as in having the leisure time and amenities that men of his means are accustomed to (and attractive women to share them with). That’s fine with me; he’s earned all that and more.
I don’t think retirement to him means he works 100+ hours a week building infrastructure while sleeping in a bunkroom with a dozen other guys.
I think you badly overestimate the number of wealthy people willing to use that wealth to support themselves on what amounts to a hellhole.
Again, if you disagree pass up a few AIAA meetings and go to some AARP meetings instead.
No offense to Zimmerman, but the Pilgrims analogy is maximally inapt. Part of the problem is, it’s a foundational myth along with Jamestown (which actually failed, but was rescued at the last second) and the Lost Colony (because maximally romantic). A much better case study, with greater relevance to Mars is the so-called Popham Colony (actually “Fort St. George”) at the mouth of the Kennebec River in Maine in 1607. It didn’t “fail,” as such, so much as was given up. But it would have worked out.
They set out with 100 colonists (mostly ex-soldiers, with several artisans, and “a few men of quality”). After getting started, it was decided they couldn’t be ready in time for winter, so one of the leaders returned to England with half the men, and, while there, inherited a title and decided not to go back). The only man who died that winter was George Popham himself. The rest survived, and, leaderless, decided they wanted to go home. In the absense of rescue, the 45 men built an ocean-going sloop, and successful returned to England. The sloop was sold for a profit and made several more transatlantic crossings.
A group of settlers on Mars who could build an interplanetary vessel and bug out if things went badly, is pretty much what you want. And if things don’t go badly, they will succeed on Mars.
PS: Another thing they don’t teach in school is the coast of NE already had entreprenurial settlers by the time the Pilgrims got there. Plymouth was set up just a few miles from a large whorehouse stocked with Indian maidens to survice the fishing fleets of the Grand Banks, and river traders going back and forth to the Huron lands in the fur trade. The religious nasties in Plymouth forced the proprietor out. He went back to England and sued their asses.
Well, if so, they wouldn’t have been maidens for long.
I’d guess there would have been a fairly high turnover, as the former maidens would have moved on as soon they earned as many pots and pans as they needed. Fucking stinky, hairy, space-alien looking British and Dutch invaders can’t have been pleasant. Then new maidens would take their place, as the market for pots and pans was probably high.
I’d also guess this is part of why the Indian lads started slaughtering the palefaces. I’m sure an Indian maiden would be prettier and would smell better than your average English girl.
Some evidence in this direction, the Delaware Indians had no trouble intermarrying with the Forest Finns abandoned in the Delaware valley by the Swedes. Not only did the Finns look much more like Indians than the Dutch and Swedes, but they had all these terrific ideas about ways to live in a Boreal forest. It’s likely the American “frontier lifestyle” orginated with the Forest Finns and Delawares.
Plymouth was set up just a few miles from a large whorehouse stocked with Indian maidens to survice the fishing fleets of the Grand Banks, and river traders going back and forth to the Huron lands in the fur trade.
Yes, yes, in native language it was known as “Plentifutuk”. I believe it’s called Foxwoods now….
No one has yet said it.
The most fundamental reason for an old person, like me (old, but not that old), to go to Mars, by the simple fact that they can afford a seat, is that they can die there as a person totally free from all the total B.S. back wherever that was, free of all whoever they were.
“Finally, some peace.”
That will be my Martian business model. My contribution to the Martian economy.
Don’t have to feed them, no drain on resources.
How would you go with a bearnaise sauce and a burgundy? I believe the rule of thumb is to marinate one hour per decade.