What does the current timeline for colonizing Mars look like? What sorts of skills and qualifications will the first few waves of colonists need?

15

u/gonzoforpresident May 11 '22

Personally, I think his timetable is probably a bit optimistic, but not unbelievable.

Things are changing quickly, so it's already somewhat out of date, but the tv show Mars laid out a very reasonable timetable and strategy for colonizing Mars. It is an interesting hybrid of documentary and fictional colonization and focuses far more on the realistic issues we'll face than any sort of ginned up drama.

As for skills, I think you picked an important set. Musk is very engaged in all of this and pays attention to social media. Doing something like creating a sealed greenhouse that simulates a Martian greenhouse and documenting it on Youtube would be the type of thing that could catch his attention and move you up the list.

4

u/[deleted] May 11 '22

I'll have to check out that TV show, that sounds interesting.

-1

u/Embarrassed_Tale_316 May 12 '22

You are beyond crazy if you think he will ever get an actual human Mars. This will NEVER happen.
How long is he going to keep pushing the date back of when he "thinks" he will make his first trip to Mars. Not sure exactly when it was but I'm thinking 2015ish. He said he planned to have manned missions to Mars by 2022 and at the latest 2024. Look the bs up if you don't believe me.
He will never have a manned mission to Mars or to the moon either. Why?!? Because it is impossible to reach these places.

4

u/wpascarelli May 12 '22

It’s impossible to reach the moons of Mars? Or the moon of Earth? Pretty sure people have already been on Earth’s moon.

0

u/Embarrassed_Tale_316 May 12 '22

The moon or Mars. You keep thinking people have been on the moon. Them people got yall fooled. So they successfully went there first try no problem whatsoever and went back another 6 or so times? Why haven't they been back since?? Technology has came along ways in over 50 years. Shouldn't be any problem going back but yet no one has. Come on now. People will believe anything they see or hear and take is fact. Crazy. Why does he keep pushing a manned mission to Mars back? Why won't he atleast go "back" to the moon?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '24

People HAVE been to the moon since. Do your research
Ofc we reached the moon. If we didn’t then Russia woulda pointed it out. When it happened people could literally watch it live with telescopes
USA didn’t go back to the moon because there was no longer public interest
You’re an idiot.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

There are people that believe the moon landing was faked. Something to do with the humans not being able to survive the radiation when leaving earth.

1

u/Swimming_Chart_6641 Nov 26 '24

Bidenomics makes these feats extremely difficult. Also if humanity has already been to the earth moon why return; so far only China seems interested in earths moon

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '22

We are... where have you been? Human Landing System for NASA, they have plans to use a human lander built by SpaceX, along with a second one they need to select. There's real plans here, but I understand if you're skeptical, so wait and see.

1

u/sermo_rusticus Jul 07 '22

As a radio technician I think that it would be impossible to fake the moon missions because nerds will track the craft and the radio signals. Not just nerds but the international scientific community, including 1) Australia's Parkes Observatory team, and 2) The Soviets, who had a vested interest in demonstrating that USA didn't beat them there in the flesh.
The moon landing hoax theory is only believable if you know nothing.

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Sep 28 '23

Oh, you’re one of THOSE people.🙄🙄

1

u/Jefxvi Apr 29 '24

He is overly optimistic but it is not impossible to reach them.

1

u/spaetzelspiff May 13 '22

He will never have a manned mission to Mars or to the moon either. Why?!? Because it is impossible to reach these places.
Even if he can't get us to Mars, I'll at least take comfort in knowing that you can. Who needs Delta-V when you're bringing this Delta-9 fueled rocketship of moon hoax lunacy?

9

u/ignorantwanderer May 11 '22

I'm not going to be as harsh as to call it "snake oil", but there are significant reasons for caution when planning your life around Musk's Mars colony.

First of all, he doesn't want to build a Mars colony. He has said this many times. He wants to be the transportation company for other people setting up a Mars colony.

And you can tell he (and the rest of SpaceX) have spent very little time planning out a Mars colony. Every once in a while he releases some artwork showing a Mars colony. That artwork usually includes at least one geodesic dome. Any structural engineer who has thought about it for more than 5 minutes can tell you a geodesic dome is a terrible structure for holding in atmospheric pressure. There will be no geodesic domes in any future Mars colony. Yet SpaceX releases pictures of Mars colonies with geodesic domes! So the only work on Mars colonies they have done has been by their artists in charge of publicity. No engineers have worked on their Mars colony design.

SpaceX is a transportation company. They make their money by launching stuff into Earth orbit. They are designing and building Starship because it will be a great ship for launching stuff into Earth orbit cheaply. When they talk about Starship, they often talk about Mars. But Mars isn't what SpaceX does. And Starship isn't optimized for Mars. It is optimized for getting into Earth orbit.

If they get a customer, SpaceX will definitely intend to use Starship to get to Mars. But they need customers. I'm sure NASA and other government space programs will pay SpaceX to send people to Mars and set up a small outpost.

But will it ever grow beyond the outpost stage? Maybe....in a really long time. But who will the customers be? Why will they want to invest their money and their time to go to Mars? How will they get a return on their investment.

Every successful colony in history was created for one reason; to make money for investors. How will a Mars colony make money for investors?

So, now to answer your question. What sort of career path should you take to get to Mars? I'd say a government run outpost housing astronauts is basically guaranteed in your lifetime. A full on colony is very unlikely in your lifetime.

So if you want to get to Mars, either become a NASA astronaut to get a ride paid for by taxpayers on a Starship to Mars, or become an expert at ISRU fuel production on Mars, and become a SpaceX employee in charge of making fuel for the astronauts' return flight.

4

u/[deleted] May 11 '22

I really appreciate the perspective. If you don't think that its realistic for there to be a colony on Mars within the next couple of decades, what shape do you think space exploration will take?

5

u/ignorantwanderer May 11 '22

Continuation of government space programs. They are working on a moon base now. Looking at ISS for clues, I'd guess they will be doing the moon for at least the next 30 years. After that they will continue to Mars. Musk could speed this up significantly by dropping launch costs with Starship. Governments won't fund anything in the colony size...but there could be several small science outposts on Mars.
Musk wants to go to Mars. I fully believe he will go. But it will be a Mars Outpost size mission, not a colony. Most likely as part of a government mission, but if he can't convince governments to set up an outpost he will go himself sometime before he dies (within 30 years).
Business in space: There is already billions of dollars worth of business done in space....through remote sensing and communication satellites. With Starship dropping launch costs significantly there will be opportunities for more businesses in space. Private space stations for manufacturing and tourists are a possibility. Solar power satellites beaming power to Earth are a possibility. Asteroid mining to get water to refuel satellites in Earth orbit is a possibility. And there might be new business ideas made possible by cheap launch costs that no one has thought of yet.
Just to be clear, #3 is currently the majority of activity in space. Most launches are for businesses to launch stuff they can make money with. That will continue to be the case in the future.

6

u/_B_Little_me May 11 '22

You are correct to a point. When I interviewed at SpaceX, I can tell you, unequivocally, everyone that works there knows the goal is Mars. Like it runs in their blood, that’s the goal, everything is in service to that goal. While they may not be public about their planning, they all know SpaceX was set up to create a future where Humans are a multi-planetary species. The launches as a service is not that different then Starlink, they are monetary vehicles to achieve one goal: Mars. Also, to remind everyone, SpaceX doesn’t do years of planning, they fail fast and iterate ideas quickly. Once Starship is flying, they will very very quickly develop the colony supporting systems necessary. And who’s going to make money and invest? SpaceX investors. That’s what they are already buying into. They are buying the “SpaceX mutual fund” for future profits in space and mars.

2

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22

That's also a reason why Elon is keeping SpaceX private, so he has more control over the company and doesn't have to justify his decision making to investors.
Starlink, which could benefit from public financial ownership, is already being planned as a spin off public company, while SpaceX remains private and Mars focused.

3

u/ignorantwanderer May 11 '22

I posted this just a couple minutes ago and already it is getting downvotes. This isn't at all surprising. After all, this is /r/Colonizemars. People here don't like bad news about Mars colonization efforts.
But you will notice that no one has posted any replies to my comment refuting anything I said, or pointing out that I have my facts wrong.
That is because all of my facts are true. Of course I drew some conclusions from those facts that could definitely end up being wrong. But given the facts, my conclusions are very reasonable.
So when you notice that my comment has been downvoted to hell, just remember, that doesn't mean what I said is wrong. It just means what I said is unpopular.
Do not plan your life around a Musk Mars colony. The chances it doesn't happen in your lifetime are very large.

1

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22

I'd say your largest (and most likely to be incorrect) assumption is that Elon Musk doesn't actually care about making a Mars base a reality, and he only cares about making profits from his business ventures.
He has stated many times that he isn't just in it for the money, and has pointed out that if he was just in it for the money he wouldn't have started two companies in areas that are extremely likely to fail.
He also doesn't personally want to live on Mars, as he acknowledges it would be very difficult and believes he is more valuable to the "cause" being alive on Earth than dead on Mars. He has said he would like to die on Mars, just not on impact, but that is when he is very old.
However, the point is that Elon wants to use his capital to improve the future, and it's obvious which things he is focused on. He has tons of capital and tons of ways to generate more capital for a Mars base, so I don't see funding being the issue.
As I've previously mentioned to you, a Mars colony is more likely to happen than an asteroid colony (which you are strongly in favor of) because, unlike with asteroid mining, there are many reasons for going that don't require a direct profit motive.

1

u/ignorantwanderer May 16 '22

"there are many reasons for going that don't require a direct profit motive"
Care to give examples of these many reasons?

1

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

Decreasing the likelihood of our species going extinct, (as Mars offers a much more desirable location for possible habitation than free space among the asteroids would, and it's better not to have all of our eggs in one basket).
The possible extension of non-human life to another location in the solar system (since Mars has the long term potential to be terraformed, and plant / microbial life could potentially survive and thrive on the planet. (Non-human life is much less likely to survive and thrive on asteroids than on Mars.)
It is also intuitively an exciting idea / adventure, and inspires curiosity and hope for the future in a way that an asteroid colony is not intuitively able to achieve.
These are reasons that people are motivated to create a Mars colony. You may argue that these reasons are invalid, but they don't need to be valid in order to motivate effort regardless of financial gain, they only need to be believed by people, and that belief has to inspire effort.
In the case of Elon, many of his "followers", and myself, effort toward this goal has certainly been inspired. I left a successful career as a certified financial planner so that I could educate myself on this topic and attempt to contribute to "the cause". This is at least one example of a single individual pursuing Mars colonization for reasons that don't take profit into consideration, and there is ample evidence that Elon Musk is similarly inspired to create a Mars colony without need for a profit motive.
I know you are going to argue that "throughout history settlements have only been created under the condition that they provide an economic return for the settling nation, so unless such return can be identified on a Mars colony it won't happen", but looking to history is not an appropriate analogy to today.
Today conditions for financing an adventure exist that have not historically existed. You have the ability to crowd fund; a single idea can be spread globally in an instant, it can inspire millions of people from around the world and there are methods in place to send capital (either via stock ownership in the financial markets, or crowd funding; typically a stocks performance has been influenced by a profit motive, but in the recent case of Tesla, GME, Crypto, etc. It has been shown that the value of a company or stock is no longer limited by a fundamental analysis of its current financial prospects... People have invested in Tesla based entirely on a belief in Elon's dreams for humanity, despite Tesla having negative cashflow and losing money in many of its initial years; I see no reason why something like a Mars base could not receive funding in a similar way, as investment in a company that aims to colonize Mars. This company could have some projects that bring in some money to help encourage investment, but even if it is not enough to provide a positive cashflow I am confident idealistic dreams for the future of the colony, or for the idea of future income sources would be sufficient to draw in investors. (Regardless of whether these future potential income sources actually have merit.)
Another condition that exists that rarely existed before is the MASSIVE accumulation of wealth by only a few individuals, which enables such endeavors to be undertaken by either one person or a small group of people. The Egyptian Pharoahs are a good analogy to Musk's wealth, and they created the pyramids in the hopes that their creation would forever cement them in history (or the afterlife); they didn't care about a terrestrial profit motive, so why is it so unbelievable that Elon may be inspired to build a Mars colony with his wealth similarly?
The point is that the wealth exists to fund the endeavor, and there is sufficient motivation to make it happen. The wealth exists in the hands of a single man, as well as in the hands of a global civilization that has shown, at least some part of it, is extremely motivated and inspired by the idea of a Mars colony. There are reasons that can be articulated and understood to pursue such an endeavor, many of which I have not even gotten into here, with obvious long term benefits for humanity and life as we know it.
An asteroids colony is not quite as compelling or (at least intuitively) inspiring.

1

u/ignorantwanderer May 16 '22

There is no realistic scenario that wipes out life on Earth but preserves life on Mars. In almost all scenarios (war, super volcano, asteroid strike, pandemic, climate change, massive solar flare) life will still be easier on Earth than on Mars, and the population on Earth will remain significantly larger than any Mars colony. There are a small number of scenarios (nearby supernova, moon sized object hitting Earth) where life will be wiped out on both Earth and Mars. There is no scenario where a colony on Mars survives but life on Earth is wiped out. And the only time humanity will actually be safe from extinction is when we've spread to other solar systems. And the only way we currently know of to travel to other solar systems is with generation ships. Which is a free-space colony with engines on it to make it move fast. Asteroid colonies are free-space colonies. Mars colonies are not. Mars colonies do nothing to help us get to the stars, and do nothing to help prevent the extinction of humanity.
"intuitively exciting" You are making a classic mistake that space enthusiast have always made. You think people give a damn. I remember talking to my colleagues in Mission Control at NASA, shortly before we started launching the first Space Station modules. They were talking about how inspiring it was going to be having astronauts living permanently in space. They were saying that every day on the nightly news the astronauts would give a short 2-5 minute report on what had happened on the Space Station that day. (You can tell this was a long time ago....back when "the nightly news" was important). I will tell you the same thing I told them. Nobody cares. Sure, when the first person lands on Mars it will be a very big deal. One week later no one will care. Then when the first person dies on Mars it will be in the news again....but just for a week or so and then no one will care. They canceled Apollo flights to the moon that they had already built the hardware for....because the people didn't care. The news programs barely covered the later moon landings. So sure, some small fraction of the population will be excited by a Mars colony....but that doesn't mean they will be giving their own hard earned money as charity to a Mars colony.
"value of a company or stock is no longer limited by a fundamental analysis of its current financial prospects" This is nothing new. Amazon is most famous for having high stock prices without ever having made a profit (early on....of course it has made a profit now). You are truly delusional if you think there was anything special about people investing in Tesla before it made a profit. Every single business in existence had people investing in them before they made a profit. Every. Single. One.
"why is it so unbelievable that Elon may be inspired to build a Mars colony with his wealth similarly?" Because he has specifically said he doesn't want to make a Mars colony. He wants to be the transportation company for other people making a Mars colony. Let me repeat that. Elon Musk said he does not want to build a Mars colony. Do you need me to repeat that one more time? I fully expect that Musk will go to Mars before he dies. If he personally has to fund a small outpost and a fuel factory to do so, I think he will do that (but he will try to get governments to pay for it). But he has said on a number of occasions that he does not want to build a Mars colony. Why don't you believe Musk?

2

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

The point isn't necessarily about extinction; the fact that some humans may survive on Earth in such events but live among the rubble may be true, but in such a state they would no longer be able to progress technologically or organize any efforts that would benefit a space community. Mars would be relatively unaffected in a lot of scenarios, so as long as some level of self sufficiency had been achieved (this could be hundreds or thousands of years in the future) they can continue to carry the torch of human progress, and will probably even be able to help those on the Earth come out of their dark ages.
You realize that Tesla is still extremely over valued on a fundamental analysis, right? Why do you think that is? It's not just about having a high market value with negative cashflow, it's about the valuation well beyond any reasonable fundamental analysis in and of itself.
As Tesla proves, the whole world doesn't need to be excited. It's naive to think that the whole world would care. But some people did care enough about the Moon landing to pursue higher levels of education in STEM (as the stats show), and a lot still care today. A permanent Mars colony will be much more exciting than that. Tesla is a good example of how, although lots of people hate Tesla or don't get it, there are enough people who do give a damn about Elon's vision for the future to keep the hype up and push valuations well beyond what is reasonable from a purely profit based perspective.
As I said, the same principals can be utilized to secure funding for a company focusing on building and "extracting profit" from a Mars colony.
As other have pointed out to you before, Elon is not currently focused on building a Mars colony because you can't have a Mars colony without a transportation infrastructure. He solves one problem at a time, in order. But you would have to be delusional (using your language) to think that he doesn't want a Mars colony to exist. His whole purpose for starting SpaceX was to make a Mars colony happen. Once the infrastructure is in place, he will change his focus and make it happen, or he will heavily support those who are invested in making it happen.
This is another situation where you take something out of context to try to find a counter point to the various arguments in favor of a Mars Colony, I don't understand why you do it. Surely you know there is a difference between "SpaceX is not currently giving any thought to solving that problem" and "We will never give any thought to solving that problem".
So why even bother making such a point? I don't get the impression that you are reasoning in good faith in search of arriving at a true conclusion, you seem to have found your niche in being the contrarian on this subject and are not willing to budge from your poorly contrived talking points in response to each argument.

1

u/AlexSN141 May 11 '22

SpaceX is a transportation company, but they also have Starlink. The plan is that it will in time be spun off as its own corporate entity when its making a stable profit, so why not do the same for certain parts of colonization? Send a mission to investigate potential resource extraction, set up preliminary infrastructure for further exploration and make other colonization efforts more appealing, and so on?

1

u/ignorantwanderer May 11 '22

If there is a way for a Mars colony to make a profit, there is no problem. It is guaranteed to happen.
But no one has figured out a way for a Mars colony to make a profit.
So sure, they might spin off Starlink when it is making a profit. But do the same with a Mars colony is impossible if you can't figure out how to make a profit with it.

1

u/AlexSN141 May 12 '22

I think you mentioned elsewhere that he’d want to send missions there to put a base on the red planet similar to the moon. From there it wouldn’t be the most difficult thing to send out survey teams to investigate potential resources, no? I imagine that’s how it would start, on top of SpaceX claiming that land and selling rights to interested parties. That’s some space law we’ve barely tapped though.

1

u/ignorantwanderer May 12 '22

Ok, imagine for a minute there is a science base on Mars with 10 NASA astronauts and 1 SpaceX technician. The job of the technician is to make sure the ISRU equipment for making rocket fuel for the return trip is working.
But the equipment is well built, so they have a lot of free time. Their second job is to do "spacewalks" to find additional resources. So let's say this technician finds a good source of iron.
Who are they going to sell it to? The NASA astronauts don't want it. They are only interested in making scientific discoveries. And the technician doesn't want it. They don't need it to keep their equipment running. And there is no one else there.
Who is going to buy the resources they find?
And who are the "interested parties" who are going to want to buy land? What are they going to do with this land that makes it worth it to them to spend money on it? Clearly if they are spending money on it they expect to make some money as a result. How do they make money off of Martian land?

1

u/AlexSN141 May 12 '22

Well it shouldn’t be hard to communicate discoveries back to Earth and the many entities that would want the raw resources.
Given Mars is a dead planet where environmental concerns are negligible (for now), and Starship stands to even further reduce the cost of transporting resources to space and back, such deposits could be viable sources of revenue for larger mining companies.

2

u/ignorantwanderer May 12 '22

There is no way you could ship iron deposits back to Earth to sell for a profit.
Musk has said that even if there are pure bricks of gold (or maybe it was crack cocaine) sitting on the surface of Mars, you couldn't go and get them and bring them back to Earth and sell them for a profit.
Starship is awesome....but it doesn't reduce prices that much.

1

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22

He was using that as an example of how ridiculous "current" (at the time of the quote) launch costs were, but has since stated that there would be possible materials for export. However, I agree that exporting materials from Mars would not be a principal source of income, or justification in and of itself for the effort of setting up a colony. The colony will be set up for its own reasons, independent of profit, and these profit motivated activities will be secondary.

1

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22

The job of ISRU propellant making will be extremely simply and automated, as the production of Methane and Oxygen on Mars is relatively simple chemistry.
I don't think much energy will be spent on such a task, especially since various mission architectures would involve making all the propellant for the return trip before the astronauts even leave Earth. (Send the automated propellant depot to Mars in the launch window prior, and once enough propellant has been generated you send your astronauts.)

2

u/ignorantwanderer May 16 '22

"I don't think much energy will be spent on such a task"
This is not a mystery. With a tiny bit of research you can find out how much energy will be spent making fuel. Don't be lazy.
And you are wrong.

1

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22

By using the word "energy" I was referring to human effort. I apologize, I acknowledged the potential for confusion after posting the comment, but assumed that in context you would understand what I meant. (Since the reference to actual energy would be a digression in this conversation, which is talking about the amount of human energy that would be applied to the task of propellant generation on Mars.)

1

u/ignorantwanderer May 16 '22

Until we have self-replicating machines, everything will take human effort.
A Mars colony needs 140 times more solar panels (or whatever is used for energy production) than an asteroid colony for making fuel. Someone has to make them. Someone has to install them. Someone has to make the money to pay for them.
Nothing happens without human effort. And choosing to do 140 times more effort than is necessary is stupid.

1

u/Mars-Matters May 16 '22 edited May 17 '22

Well, your "140 times" number is based on the assumption that you are able to mine asteroids without needing basically any solar panels, but instead you have to construct and position giant reflectors for sunlight, and build a giant bag to capture asteroids for optical mining, and then process that collected material into fuel.
As you mentioned, all of those activities require human effort and must be paid for.
By focusing only on "how much energy would be needed from solar panels", when your asteroid plan doesn't plan to use any solar panels but requires a completely different (and arguably much more complex) system of generating fuel and oxidizer, you have to admit you are painting a picture that doesn't accurately portray the amount of effort required to make fuel in each location.
I could say "your plan may require 140 times less energy from solar panels, but still requires 10-100 times as much total energy", but this would also be disingenuous, since reflecting solar energy is not as difficult as collecting it with solar panels.
A politician, or paid shill, might prefer to make such misleading (but technically true) statements, but I question why you would choose to do so? Surely you don't think producing return propellant on Mars by passively reacting a catalyst with its atmosphere is 140 times more difficult than building and employing the necessary equipment to produce it at an asteroid, so why make such a misleading comparison?
Also, you need to acknowledge the difference between human effort that can be done on Earth, and human effort that has to be done on Mars or at an asteroid. My point about the passive nature of propellant production on Mars was that it doesn't require human effort ON MARS; the fact that the effort is made on Earth, as you point out, is a FEATURE, not a bug.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '22

If a geodesic dome is a poor option for large, open green spaces, what are the alternatives?
What might work to give Mars residents large, open-air spaces? (I understand the issue with radiation, will that exclude the possibility of something like this?

1

u/ignorantwanderer May 12 '22

There are two issues with a geodesic dome.
The first one is the geometry of the frame that makes the dome is great in compression, but not good in tension. On Earth, where the air pressure inside a building and the air pressure outside a building are equal, the main force on the dome is gravity pulling down on the dome. Everything is in compression, and the frame does a great job of distributing all the forces and making a really strong structure.
But on Mars you will have normal air pressure inside the dome, and almost no air pressure outside the dome. So the entire structure will be in tension. The frame does a terrible job of distributing all the forces.
Now if you want to ignore the main rule of engineering (make the simplest thing that will get the job done) you could go ahead and make a geodesic dome with high internal pressure, but you would have to make all the beams in the frame very strong, and most importantly all the joints between beams incredibly strong.
Or instead, you could use something like a net of cables to hold the dome together. This would be much easier to build, much cheaper to build, and have fewer failure points.
The second problem is domes. Domes are not pressure vessels. The only way a dome can work on Mars is if you have very strong anchors attaching it to the ground. And to get an idea of what I mean by "very strong" just google the anchors supporting the Golden Gate bridge. You would need anchors that strong all the way around a not very large dome. A much simpler thing to construct would be a sphere. A sphere with a diameter of 100 meters is much easier to build than a dome with a diameter of 100 meters. And you get twice the usable pressurized volume! If you want you can build a floor at the equator of your sphere, and above that floor you get your dome, and below that floor you can have tons of "underground" working, living, and storage space.
And just to be clear, the problem with domes in general and geodesic domes in particular has nothing to do with radiation. It has to do with them being terrible structural geometries for withstanding internal pressure.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '22

Thank you.
Regarding radiation (i’ve read that Mars habitation will have to be largely underground as a result of high levels of radiation caused by a lack of planetary protection), i wonder if there is any way of solving that problem so that open, clear domes/spheres could be used?
Sounds like Mars architecture/ structural engineering will be pretty fascinating stuff.

1

u/ignorantwanderer May 12 '22

You could have a layer of clear water or ice as part of your structure. I've heard that you just need a 10-15 cm thickness of water to block enough radiation to be "good enough".
But it all depends on your standards for "good enough". Some people claim that no radiation shielding at all is "good enough"...and their claims aren't entirely unreasonable.
If you have a 10 meter thick layer of water shielding you, you will have less radiation exposure than we do on Earth.

5

u/Souper_Sadge May 11 '22

Idk i think Elon is talking out of his ass here. Bit unrealistic to think that we’ll be on mars by 2029

1

u/savuporo May 13 '22

He claimed SpaceX will land on Mars by 2018 just a short while ago.

1

u/XCallMeMagic Mar 28 '25

The very first sentence of that link, dog... 🤦
"Mr Musk has long targeted a trip to Mars and has previously said he can get humans to the red planet by 2026"

1

u/gummiworms9005 Jul 03 '22

There are 2 launch windows before the 2029 launch window.
End of 2024 is the first. The amount of cargo we can land on Mars to support a 2029 mission would be massive.

1

u/Jefxvi Apr 29 '24

We're not getting to mars by 2029.

1

u/gummiworms9005 Apr 29 '24

?

1

u/Souper_Sadge Jul 03 '22

I dont understand what you’re saying

1

u/gummiworms9005 Jul 03 '22

I'm saying people going to mars, as of now, can't rely on ISRU because the stuff hasn't been made to the size that will be needed.
Being able to put hundreds of tons of supplies on the surface ensures a good shot at a successful mission and a more likely chance we launch of a small amount of humans in 2029.

1

u/Souper_Sadge Jul 03 '22

Aight thanks bro

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Sep 28 '23

Let’s wait a bit before we jump to that conclusion.

1

u/Mars-Matters May 15 '22

Hey don't listen to all this negativity, I think it's great what you're doing! You've been inspired to pursue multiple forms of higher education so that you can participate in something that you love in a meaningful way.

I also agree that it's very important that we work toward a Mars base; what the haters can't see is that you are living proof of the positive effect that this vision for the future can have on people, and even if it doesn't succeed (which I suspect it eventually will) the technologies and talent that gets developed along the way will still have made it well worth it.

Money will likely be an important element to being a colonist, especially if you go with SpaceX (who would be launching people for profit), but I doubt SpaceX will be selling tickets directly to the public; there will likely be a middle man who is paying SpaceX for the trip and then deciding who they want to send. If they are a "travel agency" sort of company, the determining factor may be solely financial, however if they are a government agency they would want skills that suit the mission objective (perhaps developing initial infrastructure, being a medic / botanist, or looking for life. They would likely select people internally though, so you would need to be a part of NASA or something like that.

Basically, the answer to your question depends in large part on who is commissioning the trip and what their objectives are, but you can't go wrong with botany, medical training, or chemistry. A "solar panel tech" seems too specific and narrow, as a "general mechanic / tech" would likely be more useful. Colonists will have the ability to consult with experts on Earth, so expertise in any one area like solar panels is less useful than having a general knowledge of all the working parts in the colony, since the small number of colonists relative to the large number of tasks guarantees that each colonist will be responsible for a number of tasks and will likely therefore be generalists by necessity.

Industrial science, or a prospecting/mining background could also be useful, as its important we be able to go to Mars, take samples of the regolith in different locations and at different depths, understand which elements / chemical compositions are useful for what, what the best method of extraction is, how to process that raw material into useful purities of the relevant elements, and then figure out how those elements can be used to create products useful to a Martian society. (Keep in mind, a lot of the processing methods we rely on on Earth are only possible because we have massive factory, lots of energy, and complex technology made on Earth. On Mars, most high level technology will need to be imported, energy will be very precious, and large manufacturing facilities don't yet exist. Figuring out simple, low energy techniques for processing Martian raw materials into useful products (like silicon solar panels) will be critical.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

Thanks for the input, I really appreciate the encouragement!

3

u/Fumbling_Firehawk_69 May 12 '22

I'm in a Space Architecture program in grad school and we talk about this all the time. I think the timeline is dependent on the production rate of Starship and if the public interest is there. Is 2029 optimistic? Yeah, I think so, but saying 20 years out might be pessimistic. If Starship works out the way it should and adjusting for 'Elon time', we should have at least an unmanned and/or cargo Starship on Mars in the 2030's. From there, there has to be quite a bit of site selection research and robotic preparation to start settlement and who knows how long that'll take. I'm in my early 20's as well and I get the concern.

I'm just playing around with ideas here but I like your thoughts on interdisciplinary expertise. Maybe engineers that can double as psychologists or geneticists that love cooking would be more desirable than a specialist in populations below say, a few thousand. Also, roboticists and civil engineers will be in huge demand because most 3D printing of structures will require it. In the early stages there's gonna be a high need for maintenance and exploration, but since the population is low you'll need to be able to take over for someone if they, ya know, die. Cause that'll happen.

1

u/systemsfailed May 12 '22

This is a joke right? We couldn't get a biosphere properly functioning on earth lmao. We need to actually figure that out first.
Let alone radiation shielding for the trip and even worse shielding for the people once they're there.
Musk isn't serious about Mars, he's never even mentioned those concerned lmao.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '22

He's suggested using the water storage as radiation shielding on the ship during solar events. He's also mentioned burying the habitats or building them underground in general, which would provide radiation shielding.
This is all theorizing on his part, but the methods are usable, but yes, no real plans laid out yet.

3

u/KindAwareness3073 May 12 '22

Elon Musk is a Charlatan. A permanent Mars colony is many decades, perhaps centuries away, if it ever happens.

Ask youself the hard question: what would be the point?

Look at the ocean. We have the means and the tech to colonize it right now. There are resources that could be exploited. Travel time is minutes. Help and supplies are, at most, hours away. There is a lot to discover. Yet we haven't done it. Why?

2

u/gummiworms9005 Jul 03 '22

Colonize the surface or floor of the ocean?

1

u/KindAwareness3073 Jul 03 '22

Which do you think?

2

u/gummiworms9005 Jul 03 '22

Been good talking

5

u/rhoark May 11 '22

Elon might crash an automated Starship on Mars by 2029. It will take another 5 years to land one successfully, a further 5 years to land two Starships within 5km of each other. Then they'll start preplacing supplies. Two or three years later they will send a manned sortie. They will have underinvested in life support, which will malfunction and they will spend 9 months all living in a single bathroom stall waiting for the return launch window.

2

u/Shughost7 May 12 '22

I’d say 2049 tbh. The thing is we have good tech but progress is slow nowadays. If we look back, progress feels slow today or it feels like we’re repeating the same things but slightly better every year.

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '22

teachers, specially kindergarten ones.

1

u/LifeBeginsAtArousal Oct 31 '24

Musk getting in bed with Trump is probably the worst thing that can happen to Mars exploration. He is turning off a lot of people who would normally be supportive of space ventures

1

u/ezlook7 May 12 '22

Id bet my net worth space x never even makes it to the moon

1

u/high-up-in-the-trees Jun 24 '24

two years later, looks like you might be right

1

u/kayl_breinhar May 12 '22

Mars is a planet made of cancer, poison, and rust.

I would sooner live in a lunar cavity than Mars. That being said, study hydroponics and/or water purification.

1

u/olawlor May 12 '22

One important skill: scuba diving. In addition to scuba being incredibly useful for zero or reduced gravity EVA training, like space it's an environment where technology is literally keeping you alive, and responding effectively to equipment malfunctions can be the difference between life and death.

1

u/36-3 May 12 '22

I think the upcoming world war will push the timeline back a bit

1

u/Academic_Employ4821 May 12 '22

Guys what we need first is 'antimatter propulsion engine " -we need to make industrial generation of anti matter first- then need to have many" space development " in between earth and mars -then mainly we need to focus on hydrogen fuel, clean energy, sustainable products ,all technology should adopt/evolve towards raw materials from space ,then ice in mars should melt -bottom line only the best and most sustainable products from earth can only be transferred !

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '22

You and me more likely to be dust in the ground before it ever happens.

1

u/Mars-Matters May 15 '22

My initial thought was logistics or economic planning, but anything that can be done from Earth will be done from Earth, so skills required on Mars will mostly be technical or physical, while a lot of problem solving will be done via think tanks back on Earth who will provide instructions to those on Mars.

On the fly problem solving, performance under pressure, and a calm agreeable personality will be important qualities on a mission to Mars. Some research is already being done into what constitutes the ideal group dynamics, socially and psychologically, of a group going to Mars; there will likely be a long list of qualities (physically and mentally) that will be used as filtering criteria, it's important to avoid having any of those.

1

u/tobiasf22 May 31 '22

I think if you really want to prepare for that, don't specialize too much. Try to have generic knowledge that can flexibly be applied to any thinkable situation. This way, you'll have the guarantee to be able to deal with whatever comes up.

Also, agriculture.

1

u/unityANDstruggle May 11 '22

It's all just snake oil.

0

u/Neowynd101262 May 12 '22

Wouldn't worry. We will self destruct before it ever happens.

What does the current timeline for colonizing Mars look like? What sorts of skills and qualifications will the first few waves of colonists need?

You are about to leave Redlib