Category Archives: planetary chauvinism

The Outer Edge

For the planetary chauvinists in the space movement, the prospects are not bright. In our Solar System only two planets (Mars and Venus) are suitable for human colonization, though colonizing Venus would require terraforming that planet (which would take at least some 200 years). On the other hand suitable planets in other planetary systems are minimally several light years away from us, and any journey to those exo-planets will take a period comparable to terraforming Venus. And in case we arrive at a yet uninhabitable planet, we would need to terraform it anyway.

Well, this analysis assumes that our understanding of our Solar System is complete. Unfortunately, our understanding Solar System is far from complete. As far as we know, there are four terrestrial and four giant planets in our Solar System. (Regardless whether you consider Pluto as a planet or not – we do not chose a side in that controversy -, Pluto is unsuitable for colonization.) The giant planets are unsuitable for colonization, and can’t be terraformed and Mercury is too close to the Sun.

Nevertheless there are still people looking for new planets within our Solar System. The question is whether such planets might exist? Depends on what you are looking for. If you consider Pluto and similar objects as planets, then you could expect the discovery of many planets during the next few decades. However, if you are looking for something more substantial, it will be much harder.

The point is that massive objects are exerting gravity upon each other: the orbits of objects in our Solar System are the result of complex interaction between the several planets and the Sun. Scientists consider the Solar System as a chaotic system, i.e. a small change in the configuration of the Solar System, will have enormous consequences for the orbits of all Solar System objects.

At this moment planetary scientists are able to explain the orbits of the planets at the hand of all known planets. (The so-called anomaly of the orbit of Uranus has been solved, after the mass of Neptune was determined more accurately.) Consequently the gravitational effect of any trans-Neptunian planet on the known planets should be negligible. Either because such planet has a small mass (as in case of Pluto) or because such planet is located at large distance from the known planets.

But if you are a planetary chauvinist looking for planet suitable for colonization, you want this distance to be as small as possible. Hence what is the minimal distance at which a planet might be located?

Many astronomers have proposed trans-Neptunian planets in the last two decades. Computer simulations performed by Rodney Gomes showed that a Mars-sized planet could exist at 53 AU, and a Neptune-sized planet at 1500 AU. An Earth sized planet could exist in between. Calculations done by Lorenzo Iorio show that a planet twice the mass of Earth, should have a minimal distance from the Sun of 496 to 570 AU. An Earth-sized planet might consequently exist somewhere between 53 and 500 AU from the Sun.

(Recent empirical evidence seems to rule out Saturn-sized planets up to 10,000 AU from the Sun, and Jupiter-sized ones up to 26,000 AU.)

Even in the optimistic case that we find a Earth-sized planet within 500 AU from the Sun, the planetary chauvinist has to face an important issue. At such a distance away from the Sun, the planet is most likely to be covered with ice of frozen water, nitrogen and similar substances. In other to terraform such planet, one would need to heat it up.

At first glans Solar power seems to be unsuitable for this task. However, by using a vast amount of space mirrors it might be possible to concentrate enough Solar power to heat up a planet. The important question is, of course, how much we want to spend on Solar mirrors to make a far-away planet inhabitable for humans.

Elon Musk’s Mars plan scrutinized

South African entrepreneur Elon Musk announced his plan to colonize Mars some time ago. In this post I will critically review his plan and I will compare with that other plan to colonize our Red neighbour by 2023. Of course, we of Republic of Lagrangia are quite sceptical about any plan of colonizing Mars, however for a discussion of our position we will refer to this post.

The Huffington post devoted an article to Elon Musk’s plans. According to this article Musk wants that prospective colonists should pay half a million dollars for their ticket to Mars. This amount is both too low and too high. First I will explain why it is too low. We all know that (manned) spaceflight is a very expensive enterprise, for comparison: it takes 7.5 million USD a day to keep one man on the International Space Station. Actually Dennis Tito got a huge discount for his trip to the ISS, he paid 20 million USD for something less than 8 days on the ISS.

We might assume that the costs of a manned trip to Mars will be at least of the same order, perhaps a little bit more. An educated guess for the costs of a Mars mission might be 15 million USD per crew member a day. Further Musk wants to start with 10 people, most Mars missions assume a minimal mission duration of 501 days. Total costs will be 7.515 billion USD. If Musk is seeking to fund his colonization plans with the sale of tickets only, he has to raise the price enormously or he has to find additional funding.

On the other hand the ticket price is much to high. Only multimillionaires can afford to pay this without being declared bankrupt. Unfortunately the number of multimillionaires willing to pay such amount of money in order to emigrate to an extra-terrestrial desert, will be probably very low. It would surprise me, if it would be more than a few hundred (on the whole planet).

And why should the very wealthy want to emigrate to another planet anyway? History learns us that it are the poor and disadvantaged who are most likely to emigrate, looking somewhere else for better chances in life. Yes, rich people emigrate also, but mostly to places with high and expensive services, which Mars totally lacks.

The people who are most willing to emigrate to Mars are educated young people who have not much money, and therefore almost nothing to lose. How would these people be able to pay their ticket? Not at all. Of course someone else might pay for their ticket, but why? Well it might happen that the multimillionaires who are willing to emigrate to Mars, are looking for personal on their Martian estates.

In the early days of the colonization of the America’s there was an institute called indentured servitude. Under this system young people were transported from Europe to America, while their journey was paid by someone else, mostly by a ship captain. However this was not a gift but a loan, which had to be paid off. So in return for the trip, the so-called indentured was obliged to work for several years, usually seven, in order to repay the debt. When an indentured servant arrived in America, the ship captain usually sold the indenture to people who were looking for cheap labour.

In fact indentured servitude is a kind of (voluntary) temporary slavery. It’s not hard to imagine how a spacecraft is launched from Earth with a crew of ten, of which nine are the servants of the tenth person. Since 500,000 USD for each immigrant is a lot of money, even for the very rich, those who are paying someone’s else ticket will see this as an investment. And investments are motivated by return on investment, so it’s more than likely that wealthy Martians will make their indentured servants work hard.

Maybe this is what Musk really wants: a Mars covered by large domed estates, owned by wealthy terrestrial tax-refugees, on which (nearly) all work is done by contract slaves. Sounds to me as a quite feudalist society.

Of course there are other ways to fund Musk’s dreams of establishing a colony on the Red planet with 80,000 residents. Since we can safely assume that no one will pay 500,000 USD for an one-way ticket to Mars, he should think of lowering the ticket price. However this means even less money to fund his expensive ambitions.

One solution is to use a lottery system. Suppose that there on this planet some several hundred thousand to a few million people who might be willing to emigrate to Mars, but we know there is only place for ten on the first manned spaceflight to the Red planet. Now it is possible to sell lottery tickets to everyone interested, instead of winning a large sum of money you will win a trip to Mars. What would be the price of such lottery ticket? Selling one million tickets for 10,000 USD would raise 10 billion USD, which would be enough for a manned mission to Mars (this amount is higher than 7.5 billion I mentioned above, however that was a minimal estimate).

If Musk managed to collect enough funding for his Mars program, he has only enough for sending people to Mars and setting up a colony. However he lacks any idea how such Mars colony would survive economically, the colonists should still need to import stuff from Earth. This is especially true if the colony only has a few dozen members, but also in case of just 80,000 colonists. This means that the Martians should have to export stuff to Earth in exchange for the necessary imports. The only suitable economic activity we can think of on Mars, at least in first decades after the first landing, is mining. (Transit time between Mars and Earth make space tourism very unlikely.) However mining on Mars would never be able to compete with Asteroid mining.

Our conclusion is that Elon Musk’s plan for the colonization of Mars is just another heavily flawed proposal for a manned mission to Mars by private “space” groups. Musk shows no sense of realism, either in regard of the total mission costs or what people are reasonably willing to pay for a ticket. Actually we believe that Musk suffers from what is known as planetary chauvinism, a very dangerous condition.

Planetary chauvinism

This post was originally posted on on July 31, 2012

In this post I will deal with the subject of planetary chauvinism and more specifically I will explain what planetary chauvinism is and why it is dangerous.

Essentially planetary chauvinism is the idea that human life should be based on the surface of a planet or planet-like object, such as the moon. In several earlier posts I have presented my objections against terraforming, lunar settlement programs and the colonization of Mars. All of these “space” colonization proposals are based on planetary chauvinism.

The origins of planetary chauvinist attitudes are simply based on psychology and ignorance. Many people believe that since humans have always lived on a planetary surface for ever we should do so in the future. Of course this is a logical fallacy, some practices we humans have done for centuries, slavery for instance, are now universally rejected or abolished. The other pillar of planetary chauvinism is ignorance, although many are familiar with space station like mir and the ISS, not very much people seem to know about the designs of space habitats capable of accommodating several thousands of people. Nor are there many people who realize that asteroids instead of planets or the moon are the true treasures of our solar system.

The question is why planetary chauvinism is dangerous. Many so-called “space programs”, regardless whether they are pursued by governments or private parties, are focused  on creating permanent bases on the moon or Mars. Although a lot of people seems to know about the dangers of low gravity on human health, the simple solution, rotating space habits in free space, is almost unknown outside the space advocacy movement. Not only is the low gravity of the moon and Mars a problem, but space habitats are actually cheaper than terraforming Mars, building domed cities on the moon. Why should we waste money on settling other planets, while with less money we can do the same job with free space habitats?

But the main danger of planetary chauvinism is that it will undermine the public support of any future space settlement program. Many ordinary people nowadays associate space colonization with settlements on Mars or on planets in other system. Since most people understand that these projects are costly and will take centuries to complete, they will tend to argue not to spend any money on those projects, regardless whether this is through taxation or private donations.

Planetary chauvinism with its narrow mind undermines the attempts to show the general public the real prospects of space development programs: the utilization of the resources from Near Earth Objects and the creation of space habitats. And by doing so planetary chauvinism is working against any serious space settlement program, therefore it is important to combat planetary chauvinism.