SpaceX has now successfully launched humans into orbit and rendezvoused with an orbital station.
Of course, it’s a different vehicle than what they hope to one day take to Mars, but that’s still a huge step for any spacefaring organization to have made, especially when the stated overarching goal is to move huge numbers of people to a new planet.
Successful human spaceflight on reusable hardware > lower cost to orbit of personnel > increased economic activity in orbit > construction of manufacturing facilities > scale up of materials, capability, endurance and knowledge > ability to construct and launch Mars ships and supply a colony
To add to this: Completing the demo mission unlocks a ton of funding through the commercial crew program, the profits of which SpaceX can reinvest in their other efforts.
The problem of getting to Mars is bigger than “just do more spacey stuff in space” though. There are some massive physical limits, in terms of fuel efficiency, that make it really really hard to get there and come back. That’s the main challenge and I don’t think SpaceX moved us particularly closer on that point.
I’m in my forties and I don’t expect to see us on Mars in my lifetime, except on some poetic suicide mission (nice sidestep of euthanasia laws: “I’m not dying, I’m going to Mars!”). We might make something a bit more useful out of the Moon, though, if we don’t screw up too much.
In case you’re wondering why I, and others, are downvoting you: it sounds like you don’t have an even basic understanding of the technical aspects of a Mars mission, yet are spouting off — seemingly very confidently — statements of feasibility. Your comment doesn’t add to the conversation, and is at complete odds with nearly universal scientific and engineering consensus. SpaceX is going through billions of dollars with explicit near-term goal of a Mars mission. Perhaps, next time, try asking questions, rather than throwing baseless assertions.
Why is coming back particularly challenging? Isn't it by definition easier because Mars is less massive than Earth? It seems like what you're talking about here is a different problem: getting enough resources and manpower to Mars to be able to bootstrap what's needed for return trips. But it seems like that is pretty inductive and just a matter of time once an economically sustainable one-way flow of people and goods opens up. (Knowledge, obviously, being instantly transferable already.) This will certainly be challenging and all but certain, and especially fragile to start, but it seems more in reach than ever before in my lifetime.
It's also worth mentioning that coming back isn't necessarily a fixed requirement. I would happily live a shorter live on Mars - with the risk overhead of being stranded in the event of a catastrophic failure - for the chance to be one of the first Martian settlers.
Foreign colonists in the Americas (ignoring any political aspect of this) faced disease, starvation and attacks from natives but still colonised America because of a dream they had.
Wasn't it more that trying things in [the continent of] America seemed more likely to yield success than staying with what they had where failure was relatively certain. Like religious persecution at home was certain for the Pilgrim Fathers, but in all likelihood they could form colonies where they could freely practice their religion by risking it in North America. For others it was abject poverty at home, or try carving out a piece of frontier.
Seems like colonising Mars is the other way around, we stand more chance of fulfilment on Earth and failure going to Mars?
Some of us have an explorational spirit, a desire to be pioneers at all costs - isn't that why we want to go? Maybe it's toxoplasmosis.
Not how things are going. Being able to eject oneself from the political and cultural norms of Earth is becoming more and more attractive concept. All of the technology and knowledge, but, potentially, with none of the baggage.
One critical junction will be how much the Mars colony can avoid the smuggling in of bad ideas and ideologies. If done well, this could result in a radical divergence between the cultures, and wealth, of the two planets.
Lower cost to orbit, sure. Increased economic activity in orbit? Where does that part come from?
It's not like we haven't sent people to the ISS before. And it's not like SpaceX hasn't managed to reuse hardware before. It's basically just a mix of those two things.
Really the most significant things about this were that astronauts were launched to space from the US and it was a private company. And out of those, the first thing is really more symbolic than anything else.
The ISS is about 400 km from the surface of the Earth. Mars is like what, 225 000 000 km?
> Lower cost to orbit, sure. Increased economic activity in orbit? Where does that part come from?
Lower cost to orbit translates pretty directly to increased economic activity in orbit, since said economic activity is less expensive to do (and therefore more accessible to more people).
But agreed. This ain't a huge achievement... yet. It's essential groundwork for that achievement, though.
I'm not so sold on the planetary backup drum beat. If we can live on Mars we can live on an Earth affected by basically anything using the same tech. The only real bonus is there'd be less people there to support, which feels like running away and letting the planet burn.
