Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

> Mars colonization isn't happening. SpaceX's Starship might be flying within the next year, yet there has been no substantial development of Martian habitat technology.

"Isn't happening" was similarly a slam against the Falcon 9's reusability prospects not long ago. It should hardly be shocking that no one's making Mars habitats until the details of getting them there are known; it's entirely possible Starship will receive significant redesigns during development, just as F9 did.

> Are they building a bridge to nowhere?

Yes, just as ship captains in the 1500s largely didn't build their own colonies in the Americas. The Mayflower made other trips back and forth, providing transport to settlers who were responsible for deciding what to bring and how to use it.

View on HN

> "Isn't happening" was similarly a slam against the Falcon 9's reusability prospects not long ago.

Not so. SpaceX was visibly investing in reusable boosters more than 10 years ago. Everything SpaceX has actually spent serious money on is something that has a mundane commercial application, reusable boosters particularly. There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats.

The "if you build it they will come" argument doesn't make sense. If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready. The Europeans who sailed to America packed their ships with a bunch of commercially available supplies and hoped for the best. There is no commercially available Martian habitat, countless billions of dollars and many years of development will be necessary. That's presently not happening. Even if it starts tomorrow, that development would be laughably far behind Starship development.

They're not building a rocket for customers they think maybe might exist in 20 or 30 years.

> SpaceX was visibly investing in reusable boosters more than 10 years ago.

And their competitors laughed at the idea. ULA doubted SpaceX's reusability prospects as recently as 2020 (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-roc...).

> There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats.

Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis. If SpaceX can get Starship to Mars, the idea that NASA wouldn't bother to buy some flights for some Mars landings seems nonsensical.

> If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready.

So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing.

> And their competitors laughed at the idea. ULA doubted SpaceX's resuability prospects as recently as 2020

Well take that matter up with them. I wasn't among those laughing at their plan to develop reusable boosters. Reusable boosters have clear commercial application. Everything SpaceX has actually put serious money behind is something that has near-term commercial value.

> Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis.

SpaceX won a contract. How much have they actually spent in developing lunar-specific equipment? I doubt they even expected to win that contract.

> So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing.

A serious Mars colonization effort a century from now obviously won't be using Starship, unless rocket development severely stagnates between now and then. So if you're conceding that sort of timeline, let me reiterate my point: Starship will never bring a colony to Mars. There is presently no serious effort underway to colonize Mars.

They are investing heavily in Starship. A spacecraft capable of getting to Mars.

> won't be using Starship

I wouldn't be so sure. Practically every non-SpaceX workhorse spacecraft in use today has roots in rockets developed in 1960s. That's 60+ years ago. Some are even earlier: Delta is the latest version of Thor from 1950s. Soyuz rockets were designed in 1960s. RD-180x series were built for Buran and is based on the NK-33 from 1960s.

It's not so difficult to imagine that 60 years from now, in the year 2082 we might be able to get people to Mars, perhaps using Starship.

> Starship will never bring a colony to Mars

Obviously. It will start with a small crew. Probably after we mastered getting to the moon.

Maybe what's needed isn't actually all that sophisticated, and is mostly old technology that's been used for decades?

I mean, a Mars habitat could be something as simple as: find a lava tube, unroll a giant plastic bag, inflate it with air so it's snug up against the walls, and put an airlock at one end? It'd be underground, away from radiation. It could be insulated to keep heat in.

The environment could be maintained by similar equipment to what's on ISS, but some of the problems would actually be easier on Mars because there's an available atmosphere and a landscape that can provide resources. No need to bring extra oxygen, and maybe not even extra water.

Obviously there's a lot of little details you'd need to work out, but Mars is a less hostile environment than ones we've already sent people to, like the moon or even low Earth orbit.

I don't think this is "20 or 30 years out". I think it could happen pretty quickly, assuming Starship meets expectations.

I think there is an economic problem, though: the first Starships to Mars are going to be stuck there for a long time because they won't have fuel for the return trip. Reusable ships are great, but if it's 10-20 years before any of them come back that kind of hurts the argument that reusability will make going to Mars cheap and convenient.

Starship is pathetically inadequate to colonize Mars with, even if it were a good idea to try. There will be no colony on Mars. It is just possible a can could be placed there for a few people to squat in for a few months at a time. But there would be no reason to put them there. Mars is a dump, with nothing of interest to offer.

Starship is probably adequate to support a smallish Moon base, along McMurdo lines. The moon offers much of interest, particularly its billion-year-old lava tubes.

Why would the Moon’s lava tubes be of interest, but not the ones on Mars?

Because you could use them to build an industrial base with workers returning regularly like on an oil platform. You can also use the moon base to build spaceships without regards for aerodynamics. Or send material relatively cheap into orbit for assembly there.

Any on Mars have been subject to weather, so are ordinary caves.

Lunar lava tubes are wholly unique. They will probably be filled with incredible filigreed crystal structures grown by differential vacuum sublimation over uninterrupted hundreds of millions of years.

“There might be pretty crystals” is an odd thing to hang a space program on.

It's exciting to imagine various public and private ventures all booking rides on Starship to Mars, or more realistically in the short term, to the Moon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com