A long story about Elon Musk.
[Update a couple minutes later]
And here’s a video interview with him.
77 thoughts on “Retiring On Mars”
Comments are closed.
A long story about Elon Musk.
[Update a couple minutes later]
And here’s a video interview with him.
Comments are closed.
Yeah, gravity is such a drag. We should have congress repeal it.
You’re back in wet blanket mode Presley. What’s wrong with the wealth of the solar system for everybody?
Did you write Carter’s malaise speech? Just wondering.
Apparently, you think it’s such a blast we should go out in search of more of it.
Wet blanket my ass. Commercial space stands a better chance of breaking out of the government bind at any point in time in its history because a decade ago she got serious about addressing a real problem facing a real industry with a real shot at sustainable growth and return. Is it too much to ask that the same seriousness at least form the bedrock of market expansion beyond LEO? Or do we just not care how much money and opportunity is wasted in pursuit of a private sector Apollo 11?
I’m a bit pessimistic and I think I have the right to be. NASA isn’t the only organization dropping the ball in making the case for space.
This is non-sequitur, and a pretty bold case considering you’re advocating diverting investment away from avenues that have a chance–however dicey–to pay out in favor of some silly aspiration. There’s uncountable wealth up there, and Americans deserve not only a government agency, but a private sector, with a clear enough vision to exploit it. Playing The Oregon Trail on Mars doesn’t cut it.
Is it too much to ask that the same seriousness at least form the bedrock of market expansion beyond LEO?
Now I can support this statement. Which is why…
What’s wrong with the wealth of the solar system for everybody?
…does follow.
you’re advocating diverting investment away from avenues that have a chance
I’d like to say emphatically that you’re wrong, but on reflection you may have a point. “Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternate uses,” which Sowell repeats for emphasis so many times in his books that you might get the idea it’s an important point or something.
However, if my advocacy coincides with what you might advocate you’d hardly have a reason to argue against it? Low cost to orbit? Check. We both agree. A ship to transport people? Another check perhaps? It can be used to go anyplace in the inner solar system even if we disagree as to where that might be.
You advocate market expansion. Hey, more agreement!
Do you want to stop others from choosing where they want to expand to? That’s not quite supportive of free enterprise is it?
What seems to be the hangup? What’s the difference between advocating mars or someplace else? Uh… gravity? Is that the hangup? I would think effectively dealing with 0.38g, with a SSTO RLV for example, would expand our market as opposed to not dealing with it. Including mars in the sphere of economic activity should be better than excluding it. Especially considering nobody is saying we should exclude space to colonize mars. Having a colony on mars actually opens up markets since transportation to mars then becomes a profitable venture.
No, it doesn’t follow, unless you can find someone arguing that the wealth of the solar system shouldn’t be for (I assume you mean open to, we’re not redistributionists, after all) everybody.
Not all destinations are equal. The best even lab study can get out of electric propulsion presently is no better than 500 Isp. With that engine, the mass ratio from LEO to the lunar surface and back is 5 times less than that needed for a one way trip to make orbit at Mars.
I also advocate sound business, and the freedom of free men and women to throw cold water on dumb ideas.
Why not? Don’t we have a business and financial press that does exactly that on a day to day basis? Or do you think free enterprise is nothing more than cheerleading any enterprise, at anytime, regardless of their prospects for success?
So following your reasoning–that demonstrating technology to deal with any problem posed leads to market expansion–we should all have jetpacks by now.
Why? We don’t include the Mariana trench or the craters of active volcanoes in the sphere of economic activity in any substantial way. Simply because something exists doesn’t mean that it brings market value. This is why you simply can’t load a ship with goods, sail into any arbitrary port, and expect to make enough sales to cover your costs.
Certainly, if you can cultivate a demand to live on yet another heavy rock that’s is presently 5 times–at least–more expensive to reach than the Moon, a lighter rock with most if not all of the generally required amenities you’d encounter on Mars.
we should all have jetpacks by now
Now yer talkin’ Ok. Go ahead a be a wet blanket.
Why do you hate gravity wells and atmosphere so much? They may make rockets more expensive, but they make life support so much easier, and if the goal is to *live* in space, highly-expandable long-duration life support is rather important. You sound like you are demanding that we aim for O’Neill colonies or nothing.
I look at Mars, and I see resources that deep space doesn’t have. CO2 in abundance, soil, and minerals, and plenty of H2O if you can drill for it. Not anything worth exporting back home, but then, there’s not much anything worth exporting back home in deep space, unless you take the really favorable business cases of breaking up metallic asteroids. You can argue that you can get all of those things here for a heck of a lot less… but what’s the difference between *wanting* to live in deep space, and *wanting* to live on another planet, and the willingness to produce earthly value sufficient to be able to afford to do so?
The best even lab study can get out of electric propulsion presently is no better than 500 Isp.
Ken, that’s incorrect. Ion propulsion on Deep Space 1 was about 1500 seconds. Wikipedia claims that they have Hall effect thrusters which achieved ISP of 8,000 seconds.
That’s only true on one world. Earth. There is no habitable biosphere anywhere off this rock, so we might as well stop pretending life support isn’t going to be troublesome no matter where man choses to spread. If man chooses to conquer space at all.
“O’Neill colonies” are just three form factors that any space-based habitat that induces gravity through rotation inevitably take. I make no judgement as to the size and distribution, or whether larger and larger structures emerge organically as a consequence of natural growth or in whole pieces as a consequence of design.
We don’t know much of what deep space has to offer vis a vis Mars because Mars is by far the most chemically well understood planet other than ours. We do know there’s abundant water on the Moon (the jury’s still out on the endogenous supply). Abundance of CO2 and other volatiles is not well known at all.
Volatiles we have plenty of right here on Earth. What the Earth sphere has to offer is an abundance of solar power and mineral resources you can mine as dirty as you like. Still remains to be seen if and when a two way flow of trade between space and Earth becomes feasible, but you certainly have a better shot building such an economy close by than on another planet.
Once again, there is no Earth-like biosphere within reach off of…well…Earth. We can stop pretending that life off world will be in any substantial way analogous to life here on the surface.
That was me, not Ken, and my mistake entirely. I don’t see the specific impulse of 8000 sec in the article, but a one way jaunt from LEO to Mars orbit using that max configuration is ten percent more costly as a round trip between LEO and the Moon. At 3,000 seconds, the penalty is 40 percent.
but a one way jaunt from LEO to Mars orbit using that max configuration is ten percent more costly as a round trip between LEO and the Moon. At 3,000 seconds, the penalty is 40 percent.
With aerobraking, Mars actually comes out a little ahead. I think it’s a bit of irony, given the discussion in this thread, that Mars is easier to get to than the Moon in terms of delta v (you still have six months or so extra travel time, so the trip isn’t easier in every way) precisely because it has a significant gravity well.
Presley, the money quote, such as it is:
An exhaust speed of 80 km/s corresponds to an ISP of 8,000 seconds (divide by 9.8 m/s^2).
Wikipedia indicates Hall thrusters have a 100% extensive operational record. Just the thing for going between planets. So do we need nuclear power or can solar provide enough for them and a radiation shield as well?
Full thrust wouldn’t feel much different from zero G.
you certainly have a better shot building such an economy close by than on another planet.
That’s not entirely true on earth and would not be for the same reason in space. Consider the route food takes on this planet.
Also, the economy includes things that don’t required physical transport such as information, software, entertainment, other services, etc.
Not even close. I compared a round-trip to and from lunar orbit with a one way trip to Martian orbit.
Or petroleum, for that matter. It’s cheaper to ship to nearer markets than farther ones. Fungibility is achieved in the commodities market by building baskets of crude or food products from a variety of sources. So not sure exactly what you mean by “that’s not entirely true on Earth.”
Do you seriously believe any of that economic activity is possible without a foundation in the transformation of energy and raw resources? Or does economics somehow escape the laws of thermodynamics? Certainly you could conceive of a Martian colony that survives solely on the trade of services and entertainment. But it might be easier to imagine an Appalachian quality of life at a Beverly Hills cost of living.
not sure exactly what you mean…
Yes, you do seam to miss the point a lot. Equating oil and food for example so you could miss the point that sometimes we get things from farther away when they could be grown closer. Actually, we do the same with oil. So my point that we already do on earth what you claim will not be done in space is valid.
Do you seriously believe any of that economic activity is possible without…
Well, since all economic activity is currently restrained, but like air commonly not noticed… Yes… seriously. Economic activity is ALWAYS restrained, it’s built into the definition…
“Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternate uses.”
You are giving me a better appreciation of why Sowell felt the need to repeat this phrase so often.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t think it makes sense. It only matters if those engaged in the economic activity believe it makes sense and continue it. Just because you lack the imagination to see how an economy can grow on mars doesn’t change the fact that others can make it happen.
Your argument is that we shouldn’t have a trucking and shipping industry because locally produced products are cheaper to make… but you are not taking in account how capital investment can make a mockery of that kind of logic and does so every day of our lives. You really should pick up a copy of Sowell’s ‘Basic Economics’ to rid yourself of this short sighted thinking.
Capital investment BTW is why an American worker at ten times the pay can produce a product cheaper that some third world worker. When a third world worker does get the job it’s because we find better places to put our scarce resources. There are many people in the world that work cheaper than the Chinese but they aren’t taking the work away from the Chinese for the same reason.
Your pronouncement that investment in mars makes no sense in no way makes it so. Time will tell.
Martians will probably declare the time when the sun is between them and the earth a world wide holiday. Finally, some elbow room.
It’s a polite way of inviting you to clarify a remark that doesn’t yield a generous interpretation. For example, suggesting that transportation costs don’t matter.
Then I invite you to clarify.
I believe I made that point.
Um, no. Simply because you’ve decided to hobble the conversation with yet another non-sequitur doesn’t mean your point is valid, or even makes that much sense.
Once again, I don’t even know where to begin to parse this.
“Smarter than the average bear.” See? I can quote people, too. Fist-pumping Sowell has next to nothing to do with whether or not this Mars obsession is folly or what.
Certainly. If enough people believe, you could sell an Ethiopian quality of life for an Upper East Side cost of living.
Apparently my imagination isn’t the only one crapping out today, since you’ve yet to offer even a sliver of a vision of how your would be Martians can prosper.
Really? I thought I’d just pointed out that the even geographical distribution of agricultural supply and demand fully explains fungibility in the commodities markets, just as it does in the petrol business.
So I’m not taking into account how acquiring agricultural commodities near markets makes a mockery of selling said commodities in those markets? Are you even trying to make sense?
And I’d suggest you put down the pop lit, pick up a copy of Microeconomics, read even more broadly after that.
The word your groping around for is “productivity,” and it is the consequence of a number of variables including and aside from savings.
Your pronouncement that investment in mars makes no sense in no way makes it so. Time will tell.
Then you’re free to make a case for investment on Mars. That’s usually what folks trying to raise capital for their pet projects do. So right here and now, Ken. Make the business case for Mars.
you’ve yet to offer even a sliver of a vision of how your would be Martians can prosper
Not that I have to, but ask anybody if I’ve been a wall flower on the subject.
I’d suggest you put down the pop lit
Your elitism is showing. Karl Marx wrote a book too. Perhaps you’d like to teach me economics from that? If the foundation is crap, the conclusions are likely to be crap or worse. I happen to like what Sowell has to say, although I wish he wouldn’t repeat himself so much. He makes sense to my simple mind. His conclusions clearly follow his arguments and the data.
You, Presley, often make sense as well… however, always with a certain kind of tunnel vision that makes your conclusions end up wide of the mark.
The word your groping around for is “productivity”
No, I said exactly what I meant to say and you don’t have to be an arrogant ass. The unit cost is what is lower, not necessarily the total output although usually that’s the case.
So did Dr. Seuss, what’s your point?
I’d much rather get past your the irrelevant aphorisms you see fit to litter in each of our exchanges. I know who Sowell is, I know what he says, and none of it is either here nor there.
Okay, I’ll bite. Exactly what the hell are you trying to say here?
Exactly what the hell are you trying to say here?
When you try to tell me that I’m groping for the word productivity it reveals that you did not understand what I said.
Capital investment doesn’t just mean more productivity. The key point, which you seem to slip past you even though I thought I expressed it clear enough… people make the false assumption that lower labor cost means lower unit cost.
I am saying that lower labor cost does not equal lower unit cost. They are two different things, so if your goal is lower unit cost, lower labor is not always the right choice.
Trust me, when I don’t understand what you’ve just said, I make note of it. That’s usually when you spill some unintelligible technobabble.
When did I say as much? I was offering you a less wordy way of expressing this little tangent: “Capital investment BTW is why an American worker at ten times the pay can produce a product cheaper that some third world worker.” To that, I pointed out “[productivity] is the consequence of a number of variables including and aside from savings.”
You said “the unit cost is what is lower, not necessarily the total output although usually that’s the case.” I’d be surprised that when you wrote this, you even grasp your own point.
I’m sure somebody somewhere does. Who cares?
When did I say as much?
When you tried to put words in my mouth.
Chapter and verse, please.
Read your own comments Presley, this time for comprehension.
In other words, you’re full of it. We’re done here.
Why yes, I do have brown eyes. How kind of you to notice.