This speculative SpaceX timeline reveals roughly when, where, and how Elon Musk plans to colonise Mars

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

It isn't optimistic enthusiasm that is lacking, it is evidence of actual, near term economic opportunities - and Mars doesn't have them.

In essence what you are saying is that despite inevitable technological advancements, new knowledge etc etc, we should sit on our hands, stagnate on planet Earth, and not explore anymore. The same reasons European man discovered the Americas and Australia, the same reasons we established the ISS, the same reasons that man climbed Mnt Everest, the same reasons we explore the Antarctic and the bottom of the seas, will be the reasons that in time, we will go to the Moon again, we will land men on Mars, we will establish bases there, we will leave the solar system and we will land on an extra solar planet. That's the reality, that's what will happen, and my only regrets is that I wont be here to see and marvel at such endeavours. Please note, I put no time on when I believe these things will happen, but given the time, they will.

Edited October 20, 2018 by beecee

[Ken Fabian]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

In essence what you are saying is that despite inevitable technological advancements, new knowledge etc etc, we should sit on our hands, stagnate on planet Earth, and not explore anymore. The same reasons European man discovered the Americas and Australia, the same reasons we established the ISS, the same reasons that man climbed Mnt Everest, the same reasons we explore the Antarctic and the bottom of the seas, will be the reasons that in time, we will go to the Moon again, we will land men on Mars, we will establish bases there, we will leave the solar system and we will land on an extra solar planet. That's the reality, that's what will happen, and my only regrets is that I wont be here to see and marvel at such endeavours. Please note, I put no time on when I believe these things will happen, but given the time, they will.

No, I am not saying that we should sit on our hands - but I do think the kinds of technological advances that make real differences are no more likely to come from trying to go to Mars than from broad, ongoing support of R&D here on Earth. Less likely, because Musk's Mars efforts will be a tiny part of overall R&D, and the breakthroughs needed to make Mars colonies work are not in refining the technologies we have, but true breakthroughs - the sort that don't come on demand. My unwillingness to cheer this project on is not unthinking Luddite style resistance to change.

We went to the top of Mt Everest - but I don't consider the adventure tourism that has arisen there any kind of valuable advance for humanity. Please don't mistake landing on the moon for opening up new opportunities for living on the moon - it hasn't delivered that, not because of lack of optimism, nor even excessive pessimism; rather, it is based on realism.

Exploring is fine, I support it, but not unthinkingly. I have reasonable expectations of what it will deliver - and those are not great colonial opportunities. Colonising Mars, however, is not any kind of genuine opportunity. I'm not convinced it is even valid and worthwhile or even  counts as exploration as such, even if it will likely incorporate some. How things turn out in the future is up for grabs, but a failed Mars colony - and I think this attempt is doomed to fail, likely in the actual nuts and bolts planning, hopefully not in the execution - is as likely to be the pivot point that brings home the reality of how difficult space actually is as be the inspiration for grand space visions.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Exploring is fine, I support it, but not unthinkingly. I have reasonable expectations of what it will deliver - and those are not great colonial opportunities. Colonising Mars, however, is not any kind of genuine opportunity. I'm not convinced it is even valid and worthwhile or even  counts as exploration as such, even if it will likely incorporate some. 

Irrespective it will in time be done.....And of course your attempt at ignoring the benefits that do come from such exploration, won't make any difference, thankfully. Reasons for going back to the Moon, let me see...Lunar geology would be near the top, effects of the the Lunar environment on the old LM's....astronomical observations free from atmospheric disturbances and the far side of the Moon, would have no radio and other EM interference from Earth...mining in general after establishment of a colony/outpost and particularly Helium 3.....Launching platform for rockets noting the Moon's 1/6 gravity.......Earth observations, weather etc, learning to live in space......and finally just because its there and the human nature to want to achieve things.Going to Mars, again will certainly also happen in time. Again, benefits, because its there and a challenge, the fact as I have already mentioned re Earth's use by date....looking for ETL.....and what an inspiration to the younger generation!

Edited October 20, 2018 by beecee

[Prometheus]

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I suppose the ethics of promoting something that isn't going to work requires disclaimers.

It's your opinion that it's not going to work, not a fact. I wasn't around but was it not the case many people thought it was not possible to put a man on the moon in the time frame set out by Kennedy?

 

11 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I would presume there are intentions for use of BFR's that do have genuine commercial prospects - although like a lot of 'commercial' aerospace activities, those rely heavily on government contracts, ie taxpayers ultimately footing the bill.

Do you have figures? According to this less than a quarter of the global space economy is from public sources. Maybe you know of more reliable sources?

 

11 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Asteroid mining presents a whole lot of other difficulties so probably not

There are already at least 3 asteroid mining companies in existence. My impression is that this is one of the most economically viable space ventures. Again, reliable figures hard to come by so would appreciate any you have.

[Ken Fabian]

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Do you have figures? According to this less than a quarter of the global space economy is from public sources. Maybe you know of more reliable sources?

The line between government and commercial gets blurry for things like communications satellites when governments are major shareholders and guarantors in commercial ventures, but, yes, I may well be wrong about how much taxpayer money is involved. Near Earth activities do have a large commercial component. However, activities that go beyond near Earth, that are not driven by revenues from customers on Earth will tend to be more taxpayer funded than genuinely commercial. But this is not my principle problem with plans for colonising Mars.

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

It's your opinion that it's not going to work, not a fact. I wasn't around but was it not the case many people thought it was not possible to put a man on the moon in the time frame set out by Kennedy?

Colonising Mars is a lot bigger undertaking. There is not a Cold War arms race to spur things along and justify taxpayer spending this time. I find myself incapable of unquestioningly sharing the optimistic enthusiasm - I have material concerns that make me question the feasibility.

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

There are already at least 3 asteroid mining companies in existence. My impression is that this is one of the most economically viable space ventures. Again, reliable figures hard to come by so would appreciate any you have

Like Mars colonies, asteroid mining is currently and for the foreseeable future, far more hype than substance, again. Grand space dreams are full of it.

Estimates of enormous value in precious metals like platinum contained in metallic asteroids are almost certainly based on their presence in nickel-iron meteorites. Over 100 ppm of platinum group metals in some samples, mostly associated with the nickel (higher nickel content, higher platinum content). As placer deposits on Earth that would be "WOW". As a trace component of nickel-iron alloys it is not. Alloys of metals are easy to make, but unmaking them is very difficult; extracting platinum from nickel-iron would probably be a challenge for a refinery in the middle of a major industrial district on Earth. Even separating the nickel from the iron by means that are economic will be challenging - and there is no reason to think we will find pure iron or pure nickel. On the contrary, all the meteorite samples known have nickel-iron mixtures. It is not only vastly improved space technology that has yet to be developed.

Nasa's Osiris Rex will, at best, return 2 kg of asteroid material, at a cost of US$1 billion. $500 billion per metric ton. Pig iron sells for $400 per ton. Delivered to a sea port of your choice. Nickel is worth more - $15,000 per ton. Platinum a lot more - $26,000,000 per ton. Of course it won't be - can't be - done anything like Osiris-Rex, but then, we don't know how to do it, except as vague hopes that every kind of technology will have improved enough. One day. There is no viable means to mine asteroids.

Dreams, not plans. Hype, not substance.

 

My own view is that asteroid mining will need to be based on bulk commodities not precious metals, beginning with delivering minimally processed crude nickel-iron for lower cost than any Earth based supplier of nickel-iron alloys. Under $5,000 per ton? Probably needs to be cheaper than that. There could be pleasant surprises - rarer materials that have high value. Actual mining projects will still need to be based on what is known, not on hopes like that.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Ken Fabian

[mistermack]

I agree about Mars, but I wouldn't write the Moon off. It's so much easier to get on and off the Moon, and I don't believe that there's nothing there of any use. For a start, there's Moon Rock. And there's clean Solar energy in abundance. And there is apparently substantial quantities of water in craters at the poles. But another huge difference between the Moon and Mars is the time it takes for signals to travel.

The Moon, it's just over a second. Mars takes an average of 14 MINUTES. So if you want to control a machine on the Moon, you can do it live, sitting in a chair in Houston. On Mars, you either have to be there, (huge difficulty there) or have computers that are hugely intelligent, which we don't have either. 

So you can do a huge amount of work on the Moon with remote controlled machines, which will be getting better and better year on year. 

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

  But this is not my principle problem with plans for colonising Mars.

Colonising Mars is a lot bigger undertaking. There is not a Cold War arms race to spur things along and justify taxpayer spending this time. I find myself incapable of unquestioningly sharing the optimistic enthusiasm - I have material concerns that make me question the feasibility.

You seem to have taken anything beyond LEO personal? No one least of all me, is unquestionably optimistic about any venture to the Moon, or where no man has gone before...It should and will be done with the utmost safety and care of the astronauts involved particularly with regards to health. That doesn't mean that lives may not be lost. What worthwhile human endeavour has ever succeeded with some loss of life?

Quote

Like Mars colonies, asteroid mining is currently and for the foreseeable future, far more hype than substance, again. Grand space dreams are full of it.

Humanity since we evolved from swinging in the trees has had dreams, and many of those dreams have been fulfilled and  are responsible for where we are today as far as technical advancement is concerned.

Quote

Dreams, not plans. Hype, not substance.

Optimism and realism not pessimism is why we will go back to the Moon, and go where no man has gone before. We[humanity] will do these things not because they are easy: we will do them because they are hard. JFK. All in good time, and the longer we can survive as a species, the further we will go...100, 1000, 10,000, or a 100,000 years...lets consider a 1,000,000 years.

Edited October 20, 2018 by beecee

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

.Like Mars colonies, asteroid mining is currently and for the foreseeable future, far more hype than substance, again. Grand space dreams are full of it.

"I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society" Lord  Kelvin:

 

That was in 1896, less then a decade before the first ever manned flight.

[mistermack]

It's fair to point out that people have been wrong in the past. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that everything is going to be feasible in the future. Kelvin got it wrong, that's all. What made his pronouncement wrong was the extreme progress of the internal combustion engine. Who can tell if a revolution is just round the corner?

If they made a similar jump with rocket propulsion, it might all change. But you can't plan for that. 

What I would be doing now, if I was in charge of the world's space program, is going back to the Moon, with a view to manufacturing lego-type units that slot together in space from Moon materials, so that you can build a decent sized space station with artificial gravity and effective shielding, that can grow and grow. You have to find materials on the Moon, it's just far too costly to launch everything up from Earth. 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's fair to point out that people have been wrong in the past. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that everything is going to be feasible in the future. Kelvin got it wrong, that's all. What made his pronouncement wrong was the extreme progress of the internal combustion engine. Who can tell if a revolution is just round the corner?

If they made a similar jump with rocket propulsion, it might all change. But you can't plan for that. 

What I would be doing now, if I was in charge of the world's space program, is going back to the Moon, with a view to manufacturing lego-type units that slot together in space from Moon materials, so that you can build a decent sized space station with artificial gravity and effective shielding, that can grow and grow. You have to find materials on the Moon, it's just far too costly to launch everything up from Earth. 

Yes to all of that.

[Ken Fabian]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

"I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society" Lord  Kelvin:

 

That was in 1896, less then a decade before the first ever manned flight.

It seems to me you are saying you think attitudes like mine have stood in the way of progress since pre-history. That could not be more wrong and completely misreads the nature of the issues I have with this and other grand space dreams.

It's not like me objecting to a Columbus using, existing, proven technology to try to reach India,  but more like seeing someone with a bark canoe proposing it and me shaking my head at it. Except across this 'ocean' there is a desolate wasteland on the other side - we already know that; exploration has been ongoing for some time. It doesn't make sense to me attempt to plant a colony on Mars, no matter how I look at it. You could try addressing some of the issues I've raised for why I think that rather than making this about my lack of enthusiasm for what looks like serious overreach.

Colonising Mars is overreaching. There is plenty of room for goals in space and on Earth that are not overreaching and still advance us significantly and I support most of them. Even Musk and SpaceX can be extremely successful and never develop the BFR as invisaged; if they end up well short of that and don't ever do the Mars missions, but still develop a bigger than before, reusable launch vehicle that lowers costs to LEO that can be a great success. In that sense, sure, the overreach can still land SpaceX further along in bringing down space launch costs - except that I don't think it will be the overreaching of ambition that is the crucial factor that delivers the results, or believe that aiming a bit shorter, say just aiming for a big, reusable launch system without the Mars hype, could not deliver the same.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

It seems to me you are saying you think attitudes like mine have stood in the way of progress since pre-history.

I'm saying that its attitudes of curiosity, a sense of going where no one has gone before, and the sense of adventure that is responsible in large part for where we are today.

Quote

It doesn't make sense to me attempt to plant a colony on Mars, no matter how I look at it. You could try addressing some of the issues I've raised for why I think that rather than making this about my lack of enthusiasm for what looks like serious overreac

I've addressed your argument re political and economical concerns as temporary and changing. Your other points appear just your opinion.

Quote

Colonising Mars is overreaching. 

At this time, yes......but I have not put any time frame on when we should put a man on Mars, or establish a colony.....Let me ask you a question.....Will we have landed a man on Mars by the year 2118? Let me ask you another....Where do you believe we'll be in the year 3000?

[Ken Fabian]

Musk is dreaming - the timeline he has proposed won't work. With technologies within his/our reach, a Mars colony is not going to be viable. I don't know when or even if we will put people on Mars. It would be a notable achievement but not necessarily something that leads to where you think it will go. I see nothing inevitable in Mars colonies nor any great loss if we don't end up with them; when all is said and done it's a wasteland and the opportunities there are greatly exaggerated. The potential for being a viable backup planet in case Earth is rendered uninhabited is, with the real technologies within reach, unreachable. The threshold size for true self-reliance under such conditions is, I think, going to be that of a substantial nation, population and economy. I think that can only be an emergent outcome from a long history of being a successful - economically successful - outpost. If it isn't economically successful as part of the Earth economy it will fail to thrive and self-reliance will not occur - to become one more ghost town in one more place that began with high hopes.Terraforming Mars is just fantasy.

Maybe we will get good at living in wastelands - but I think our technology will have to be extraordinary to be able to have a productive, advanced economy and society somewhere as desolate and unforgiving as Mars. That level of capability would make space habitats possible, in which case, why Mars at all?

I  think you saying the political and economic concerns are temporary and will change is one more example of wishful thinking - hype - and does not address the practical concerns I have raised with Musk's Mars ambitions - from the proposal to run things on solar when months long, planet wide dust storms are a regular occurrence to how such a colony, that can't even engage in return physical trade, pays for the continuing supplies they will require, they go unanswered.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Ken Fabian

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Musk is dreaming - the timeline he has proposed won't work.

I  think you saying the political and economic concerns are temporary and will change is an example of wishful thinking - hype - and does not really addresses the concerns I have with Musk's Mars ambitions - 

Whether Musk, or Lansdorp or NASA or anyone else is dreaming or not, we will put a man on Mars....colonies, I'm not sure when, but again, given the time...

And no I'm not dreaming, political climate and economical conditions do and will change. Your concerns are real, at least some of them, but you are completely forgetting the human need to do what, and go where we have not gone before. 

Even if science is able to halt any potential devastating effects of climate change and change general attitudes in looking after this planet, we still will undertake all those difficult  things that will quench our search for adventure,  improve and add to our science, and knowledge, and spread our seed beyond Earth.

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Even if science is able to halt any potential devastating effects of climate change and change general attitudes in looking after this planet, we still will undertake all those difficult  things that will quench our search for adventure,  improve and add to our science, and knowledge, and spread our seed beyond Earth.

Well, you are advocating for Mars as an adventure or discovery study, which is fine, as pretty much all of manned missions have been about that rather than practicalities or scientific research. As such, I do feel that the the practical benefits of putting folks on Mars are vastly overrated. After all, it is still tied to the same solar system and is more hostile than the most inhospitable parts on Earth. Some of the implied arguments that seem to underly the Mars colonization argument seem to be an Noah's Ark argument. If things go bad on Earth we can send some survivors on a different planet. Yet, I do not see that there is a single scenario were making Mars hospitable is going to be easier than preventing issues on Earth. After all, if climate change turns catastrophic, the situation would still be better than on Mars, for example. 

So yes, I agree a Mars mission is a cool adventure/discovery/exploration type project, but I also agree with Ken that there is likely limited practical benefit that could not be reached elsewhere with far less investment. The most important bit, in my mind at least, is that in all scenarios folks need to survive on Earth first. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by CharonY

[beecee]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

So yes, I agree a Mars mission is a cool adventure/discovery/exploration type project, but I also agree with Ken that there is likely limited practical benefit that could not be reached elsewhere with far less investment. The most important bit, in my mind at least, is that in all scenarios folks need to survive on Earth first. 

I'm sure there are also scientific advantages in going to Mars also....Robotic missions confirmed the presence of water...How much more would boots on the Red Planet possibly confirm or find..ETL? I dont know. It is far more then a cool adventure of discovery of which I'm certain, and just the fact that NASA and others at this time are doing research into aspects of such a long dangerous trip, is in itself beneficial to mankind....the efforts to protect from the radiation problem come to mind. And again as a reminder, I'm not putting any time factor on any of this. If we can survive our follies here on Earth and any potential catastrophic disaster like a meteor hit, say for another 10,000 years, where will we be? 

I have already conceded that Ken, [and yourself] have some valid points, I just don't believe that will stop man, or should stop man, from going where he has never gone before. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by beecee

[CharonY]

I think neither of us is arguing against the likelihood that folks will at least try it. It is more a viewpoint derived from a cost/benefit and likelihood scenario to balance things out a bit. Folks are weirdly enthusiastic in leaving Earth behind and I think that hyped that benefits a tad too much. Rather obviously, much of the research related to Mars colonization will have to be performed on Earth, for example. I.e. the motivation might be  driver, but is not really a reason in itself, if that makes sense. That being said, I think I am also quite biased toward Earth exploration. I think I just got more attached and fascinated by it rather than something that at some point could have had life.

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 Folks are weirdly enthusiastic in leaving Earth behind That being said, I think I am also quite biased toward Earth exploration. I think I just got more attached and fascinated by it rather than something that at some point could have had life.

Funny you should mention that. In 1974 I achieved 15 years service for the company I worked for and with which I did my apprenticeship....I was still a single man at that time and decided to take my 15 weeks leave and do something "different" To make a long story short, I ended up flying over to Panama, to meet up with a 3 masted, square rigged barquentine and sailed back to Sydney making many fantastically interesting stops on the way, not the least being a stop at the Galapagos Islands for three days.....the best 4 months of my life even to today. 

Quote

I think neither of us is arguing against the likelihood that folks will at least try it. It is more a viewpoint derived from a cost/benefit and likelihood scenario to balance things out a bit.

Costs/benefits also probably will improve over time. Musk's reusable/returnable rocket was a starter and as yet I don't believe the full benefits of that have yet been borne home.

Edited October 22, 2018 by beecee

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Costs/benefits also probably will improve over time. Musk's reusable/returnable rocket was a starter and as yet I don't believe the full benefits of that have yet been borne home.

I think we are talking about quite different scales here.  I mean, I do not see  autonomous deep sea habitats, either, for example. Shooting something to Mars is the easiest feat out of the whole thing.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

the best 4 months of my life even to today. 

In a way that reflects partly sentiment. We have a whole planet that is relatively easily accessible to explore and preserve. Our whole lifetime is insufficient to explore the vastness of it. Compared to that sitting in an artificial habitat amidst rocks just seems so... boring. Like a highly exclusive travel to a spot for elites with really not that much to do, compared to a cheapo road trip which allows you to experience things.

But again, I am a biologist, and I guess there are other folks who would prefer deep conversation with rocks.

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But again, I am a biologist, and I guess there are other folks who would prefer deep conversation with rocks.

I recall one of the men who walked on the Moon describing it as "magnificent desolation"  

[mistermack]

I don't think there will ever be a colony on Mars in the self-sustaining sense. It might be a great place to site retirement homes though. 

One third gravity might be great for the elderly, and they don't go out much. 

I still think that if you want a colony, a space station is the way to go. I can't imagine anyone ever bringing up children in one third gravity. Or even going through a pregnancy in low gravity. Who's going to take risks with their unborn child? Even if they have done it with apes. (which is also dubious morally). 

But you could have a huge space station orbiting Mars, with 1g of artificial gravity, and people could operate machinery on Mars from the Space station in real time. You could exploit the resources of Mars without having to live on it. You would have to solve the problems of landing and launching stuff on and off Mars in an economical way though.

[Ken Fabian]

SpaceX may not end up with the re-usable giant rocket they envisaged - I will be surprised if they do - but they could very well end up with a useful heavy lift system, to service Near Earth space activities and launches of bigger and more numerous robotic probes/astronomical instruments - which may always have been the realistic rather than dream goal for the company. Improved tunnelling technology for the HyperLoop company, but not necessarily the grand dream transport system. Could well be that within these companies that, whilst certainly in their thinking, the extreme successes have never been expected, nor even necessarily their principle goal; it gives these companies a big PR boost and lots of public interest.

There are things still to do in space, including closer examinations of Mars and moons of Jupiter and Saturn looking for evidence of past or present life. Cooperative efforts to develop meteor defence - or uncooperative efforts to militarise space seem to offer more realistic near term possible opportunities for a space tech company - although I would not welcome the militarisation; if nothing else that suggest moving towards the kind of world that is still not managing it's big issues effectively (and possibly handling them worse as things like climate instability start to bite). I do think a stable, healthy Earth economy is a requirement for some of the more ambitious space enterprises, to both kick off and succeed.

And, yes, there are the valuable on-world explorations - including the very small, like the astonishing and still surprising biochemical machinery of life, which looks profoundly important to future agriculture and medicine, and things like the complex nature of films and surface interactions, that may deliver much improved electrical devices, energy storage and efficiencies of use.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Ken Fabian

[Prometheus]

On 10/20/2018 at 11:02 PM, Ken Fabian said:

My own view is that asteroid mining will need to be based on bulk commodities not precious metals, beginning with delivering minimally processed crude nickel-iron for lower cost than any Earth based supplier of nickel-iron alloys. Under $5,000 per ton? Probably needs to be cheaper than that. There could be pleasant surprises - rarer materials that have high value. Actual mining projects will still need to be based on what is known, not on hopes like that.

It would be a major advantage if the whole operation could be automated. It could also competitive for building space stations - no need to lift all that material up from Earth if we can grab it elsewhere. It might be one of those markets that creates demand just by being available. It seems there are investors who think it's worth a punt.

 

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

But again, I am a biologist, and I guess there are other folks who would prefer deep conversation with rocks.

How much would your opinion change if evidence of past life is found on Mars or beyond - or even some kind of simple life?

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

How much would your opinion change if evidence of past life is found on Mars or beyond - or even some kind of simple life?

In all honesty, I would extremely excited to get my hands on them in order to understand their lifestyle and their deviation from life that we know. The chances of finding living specimen are slim, however. I am also not sure whether it would be necessary to study them on Mars, though. If the question is whether it would make sense to create a research station in order to search for them, then I would think it depends on the likelihood of their presence. Indirect evidence are somewhat less exciting to me, if we cannot use it to get information on their physiology (like some of the putative microbial fossils on Earth where it is still disputed whether the formations are actually biological or not),

But this would be in my mind a highly specialized mission, and not the grandiose human outpost that seems to be the general vision outlined in OP.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

But this would be in my mind a highly specialized mission, and not the grandiose human outpost that seems to be the general vision outlined in OP.

But as I have mentioned many times the "grandiose human outpost" is going to get less and less "grandiose" as time goes on. 

As yet, I have not put a time frame on any of these events. Let me now change that......Return to the Moon? within 50 years. A Lunar outpost, 100 years. Feet on Mars, a 100 years. Outpost on Mars, 150 years.

I have given myself plenty of leeway in all those predictions.