1 hour ago, Hummin said:

What about natural protection?

The Moon has lava tubes, and Mars has volcanic formations and possible cave systems too. I read about these ideas years ago already as possible solutions. Would that not be one of the possible answers against radiation, micrometeorites, and extreme surface exposure, instead of only thinking about exposed structures?

And what about subsurface ice or frozen water deposits, especially on Mars? Not only as a water resource, but maybe also as part of the thermal question, if used carefully.

I am asking more than claiming. It seems to me the long term answer may be to use the planet or Moon itself as protection, not build everything fully exposed on the surface.

Living at least 6 meters underground? Short stays on the surface without protective clothing that has not been invented yet? In the case of Mars, a trailblazing crew of a dozend earthlings would have to be supplied from the earth, because on Mars there is nothing that would suppurt human life.

The energy question: To launch a rocket to Mars the chemical energy needed would be staggering. To "slow down" the rocket upon arrival on Mars would be staggering. To bring back someone from Mars would be staggering again. We are technically not be able to accomplish this.

PS: Who would want to live on a planet 6 meters below ground? Most of the time.

Where would Elon recruit such "volunteers". From a mental institution, promessing them free snacks on Mars?

But there is hope. In February, Elon has decided to go for a "Moon Endevor", basically scrapping his "Mars delusions".

38 minutes ago, swissie said:

Living at least 6 meters underground?

I think you will find more recent studies suggest special plastic double layer walls, with water stored in between two layers of the walls. And then outside the walls only about 1.5 meters of regolith. That's just one of various possible concepts.

6 meters?? Not necessary if other shielding added.

Viable engineering approaches include multiple layers for the wall/ceiling, such as ~1.5 meters regolith, then two thin plastic walls separated by about 10cm, with water stored in between the walls in that 10cm separation. And then a final thick plastic layer with embedded metal mesh, and an electric current run through the mesh to create an electric barrier - an electric shield in effect. ... This is just one such idea and there are others - likely superior to that speculation of mine.

Sure - one could live 6-meters underground, but why, when there are alternatives? But as i suspect you agree, there are deeper issues.

38 minutes ago, swissie said:

The energy question: To launch a rocket to Mars the chemical energy needed would be staggering. To "slow down" the rocket upon arrival on Mars would be staggering. To bring back someone from Mars would be staggering again. We are technically not be able to accomplish this.

Absolutely not there yet. But serious studying is ongoing to figure this out.

For example ... Propellant production (to allow rockets such as a future Starship derivative) to refuel a rocket on Mars is theoretically possible. Propellant production on Mars relies on In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), which extracts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and water ice from the subsurface; consequently, landing sites are being carefully selected with local ice accessibility in mind. Through electrolysis, water is split into hydrogen and oxygen; the hydrogen is then combined with carbon dioxide in a type of Sabatier reactor to synthesize methane (CH4). Early Starship missions will likely carry the industrial hardware required to perform this synthesis on-site. This capability to manufacture both fuel and oxidizer (LOX) is one of the reasons why methane was chosen for Starship as part of the propellant, as it enables a closed-loop refueling system for return missions, eliminating the need to haul return propellant from Earth. ....

Again , obviously there are other massive factors and very difficult challenges, but this is seriously being examined.

38 minutes ago, swissie said:

PS: Who would want to live on a planet 6 meters below ground? Most of the time.

As noted less than 6-meters is viable ... still , the distance under ground aside, I think we agree, who would want to live on Mars or on the Moon, which are IMHO ugly places to live compared to earth?

Not me.

Even if living on the surface with some radiation shielded accommodation, I for one, would not want to live there. It can't possibly (IMHO) compare to earth.

38 minutes ago, swissie said:

Where would Elon recruit such "volunteers". From a mental institution, promessing them free snacks on Mars?

I suspect some of the young may find it appealing, but I suspect, IF development continues (and that is a BIG 'if' ), we are over a century away from creating a Martian habitat of suitable structure with facilities, to make such adequate for a self sustaining civilization.

38 minutes ago, swissie said:

But there is hope. In February, Elon has decided to go for a "Moon Endevor", basically scrapping his "Mars delusions".

One step at a time, I guess.

1 hour ago, swissie said:

Living at least 6 meters underground? Short stays on the surface without protective clothing that has not been invented yet? In the case of Mars, a trailblazing crew of a dozend earthlings would have to be supplied from the earth, because on Mars there is nothing that would suppurt human life.

The energy question: To launch a rocket to Mars the chemical energy needed would be staggering. To "slow down" the rocket upon arrival on Mars would be staggering. To bring back someone from Mars would be staggering again. We are technically not be able to accomplish this.

PS: Who would want to live on a planet 6 meters below ground? Most of the time.

Where would Elon recruit such "volunteers". From a mental institution, promessing them free snacks on Mars?

But there is hope. In February, Elon has decided to go for a "Moon Endevor", basically scrapping his "Mars delusions".

Nothing is impossible. It only takes longer time. If there is will and resources, the technology will come, and people are willing to leave Earth even if they know it will be a one way ticket.

For normal people, Mars sounds insane. But pioneers, special soldiers, scientists, engineers, and elite performers do not think from the same frame as normal people. They think from mission, drive, discipline, and what must be solved next.

I have read multiple stories about people who are actually training, studying, and hoping to be the first pick for the future crew. There are kids growing up today dreaming of being among the first Mars explorers. Some are already studying, training, building rovers, joining Mars analog missions, and shaping their lives around that dream.

Investors also see future potential before normal people see it. If you read Columbus history, exploration did not move forward only because one man had an idea. It also needed people in power and finance who had the drive, hope, and willingness to back something uncertain.

Musk does not hesitate the risk for what he believes is the future. There will always be people willing to go if they believe the mission is worth it.

So the idea that nobody would go is wrong. Humans have always had explorers who accepted risk before the rest of society understood why, if ever. Progress happens because some people do not stop at impossible or difficult. They see the mountain and start climbing.

44 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

I think you will find more recent studies suggest special plastic double layer walls, with water stored in between two layers of the walls. And then outside the walls only about 1.5 meters of regolith. That's just one of various possible concepts.

6 meters?? Not necessary if other shielding added.

Viable engineering approaches include multiple layers for the wall/ceiling, such as ~1.5 meters regolith, then two thin plastic walls separated by about 10cm, with water stored in between the walls in that 10cm separation. And then a final thick plastic layer with embedded metal mesh, and an electric current run through the mesh to create an electric barrier - an electric shield in effect. ... This is just one such idea and there are others - likely superior to that speculation of mine.

Sure - one could live 6-meters underground, but why, when there are alternatives? But as i suspect you agree, there are deeper issues.

Absolutely not there yet. But serious studying is ongoing to figure this out.

For example ... Propellant production (to allow rockets such as a future Starship derivative) to refuel a rocket on Mars is theoretically possible. Propellant production on Mars relies on In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), which extracts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and water ice from the subsurface; consequently, landing sites are being carefully selected with local ice accessibility in mind. Through electrolysis, water is split into hydrogen and oxygen; the hydrogen is then combined with carbon dioxide in a type of Sabatier reactor to synthesize methane (CH4). Early Starship missions will likely carry the industrial hardware required to perform this synthesis on-site. This capability to manufacture both fuel and oxidizer (LOX) is one of the reasons why methane was chosen for Starship as part of the propellant, as it enables a closed-loop refueling system for return missions, eliminating the need to haul return propellant from Earth. ....

Again , obviously there are other massive factors and very difficult challenges, but this is seriously being examined.

As noted less than 6-meters is viable ... still , the distance under ground aside, I think we agree, who would want to live on Mars or on the Moon, which are IMHO ugly places to live compared to earth?

Not me.

Even if living on the surface with some radiation shielded accommodation, I for one, would not want to live there. It can't possibly (IMHO) compare to earth.

I suspect some of the young may find it appealing, but I suspect, IF development continues (and that is a BIG 'if' ), we are over a century away from creating a Martian habitat of suitable structure with facilities, to make such adequate for a self sustaining civilization.

One step at a time, I guess.

The "energy question" was not verifyably addressed. With good reson. To extract water from martian glaciars is possible. Maximum recovery rate is 98%, The remaining 2% will have to come from earth. Every onion, every french fry and every hamburger will have to be imported from the earth.

I woulden't want to live in a place like this. The little "blue planet" is the only home we will ever have, regardless what Elon says.

Truly, it's the only home we will ever have. To construct "new homes" for humanity is an exercise in futility, regardless what Elon says, there is not enough money in the world to make it possible. And there is also not enough conviction for us earthlings to leave our "unice blue planet". As it is truly unike, regardless what Elon Musk "envisions " in his "disturbed" sleep.

28 minutes ago, swissie said:

The "energy question" was not verifyably addressed. With good reson. To extract water from martian glaciars is possible. Maximum recovery rate is 98%, The remaining 2% will have to come from earth. Every onion, every french fry and every hamburger will have to be imported from the earth.

I woulden't want to live in a place like this. The little "blue planet" is the only home we will ever have, regardless what Elon says.

Truly, it's the only home we will ever have. To construct "new homes" for humanity is an exercise in futility, regardless what Elon says, there is not enough money in the world to make it possible. And there is also not enough conviction for us earthlings to leave our "unice blue planet". As it is truly unike, regardless what Elon Musk "envisions " in his "disturbed" sleep.

The progress with AI and robots over the last decade may also change the whole picture.

The need for human boots on the ground will be much smaller in the future. Robots could prepare, build, test, and maintain a lot before humans ever arrive.

Any piece of junk (or not) is worth what the guilable are willing to pay or not. Simple.

The question to be answered is:

Is SpaceX worth THREE TRILLION, this year...

It has already hit over three trillion earlier this month.

But there is hope. In February, Elon has decided to go for a "Moon Endevor", basically scrapping his "Mars delusions".

One step at a time, I guess.

I'm a big fan of Elon. But not when it comes to Mars. I object to any plan that gives the zillionaires hope that there is a Plan B if we make earth uninhabitable. They'd take all the hot chicks and skeedaddle.

I did not purchase (yet) any Space-X shares. While I was VERY interested, the IPO price struck me as a bit high - albeit I could be totally out to lunch and have missed an opportunity.

When I look at the week's prices for Space-X, I note SpaceX’s (SPCX) market debut has seen intense volatility, beginning with an IPO price of $135, an opening trade of $150, a climb during the week to a high of $225.64, and a subsequent correction to close yesterday at $154.59.

While my recollection from decade of trading is that such post-IPO swings are not unusual, part of the Space-X correction may reflect the company’s recent (post IPO) announcement of a $20 billion bond issuance to refinance an existing bridge loan. While the need for this refinancing was disclosed in the IPO prospectus as part of the company's capital structure management, this detail of an upcoming refinancing, may have been overlooked by many market participants during the initial Space-X going public euphoria.

I speculate another factor possibly driving the stock’s price swings is its relatively low initial public float of approximately 4%. The remaining 96% of shares are held by Elon Musk, major institutional investors, and employees who are subject to staggered, performance-based, and time-restricted lock-up periods that prevent the bulk of the company's equity from entering the market during these early stages.

My speculative view is that we may see more share price volatility, with price support levels develop around $150/share, with the much less possible chance of a secondary floor (ie market support level) being tested at the $135 IPO price, should the stock face further downward pressure.

Obviously, 100% speculation by myself.

Edited June 23Jun 23 by oldcpu