5 ms·

Alot of people react negatively to overt emotional manipulation. Musk's live stream is called "Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species." The only actual informat

Alot of people react negatively to overt emotional manipulation. Musk's live stream is called "Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species." The only actual information in his talk was about the new line of rockets he's building. Transportation is certainly Musk's specialty, but with the information given combined with what we already know about the man's companies, he cannot even begin to address the scope of the opening promise. Human colonization, in this context, is a bait-and-switch.

mikeash 10y ago
If getting stuff to Mars becomes cheap enough, then the rest becomes pretty easy. He's proposing a system for getting stuff to Mars cheaply enough. Characterizing this as "emotional manipulation" is ridiculous. You want to see what emotional manipulation actually looks like, watch an Apple keynote. This is a guy risking his fortune on a crazy dream and presenting his efforts in a technical and factual manner.
- pharrington 10y ago
  Successful terraforming becomes easy once we can send alot of rockets to a destination? We are emperically terrible at sustainably making our own planet more hospitable to human life, how is Mars easier? I'm actually bewildered here; just baby me and spell out how the Mars colonization process works if the only significant requisite is being able to move things from point A to point B. Do not dodge by saying we've colonized land on Earth. Remember, the talk was about a method of transportation, not colonization as the title suggested. Optimism is great; don't let it be a means of deception.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Terraforming isn't necessary. Growing food is probably a necessity, as even this cheap transport isn't that transport, but you can do that in greenhouses. Water is available. Energy is available in the form of either solar or nuclear. Getting the colony to be self-sustaining is hard, but it boils down to getting enough people and infrastructure there that they are able to build everything they need on site.
    - goatlover 10y ago
      We have bases on Antarctica, and they're not self sustaining. Consider that Antarctica is far more liveable and closer than Mars.
      - jboggan 10y ago
        Facilities for re-supply are so close and economical there is no incentive to make them self-sustaining. But it could be done.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Nobody has tried to make them self-sustaining. It's not as if people have tried and failed.
        Alupis 10y ago
        >Nobody has tried to make them self-sustaining. It's not as if people have tried and failed. I'm certain folks have tried on Antarctica (we've had constant human presence there for decades). However, we still failed even under a much more controlled and hospitable environment - Biosphere 2. Biosphere 2[1] failed because of our lack of understanding of our own ecosystems on earth. A minute imbalance led to the entire ecosystem failing. The issue with Mars isn't getting there (or back) - government's have been doing this for more than a decade. The issue with Mars is getting people there, alive... and keeping them alive for the duration of the mission, and then returning them home alive. We're only now starting to explore the effects of microgravity on the human body - and having not figured out how to mitigate some serious issues (such as your eyes losing shape, causing you to go blind[2]), we're not going to be able to seriously consider long duration space travel, let alone inhabit another planet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 [2] http://www.space.com/25392-manned-mars-mission-astronaut-vision.html http://www.space.com/25392-manned-mars-mission-astronaut-vis...
        mikeash 10y ago
        Why are you certain folks have tried to make a self-sustaining Antarctic colony? I don't see why anyone would bother. You can get supplies from the outside. Activity on the continent transitioned directly from exploration to scientific outposts. Biosphere 2 was in many ways more challenging than Mars. It was intended to be totally self-contained with all water and oxygen recycled. On Mars, water can be found outside, and oxygen can be made from the atmosphere industrially. The transit time to Mars with this system is 3-4 months. Astronauts have already spent far more time in orbit than that. There are negative effects, yes, but blindness isn't one of them (and your link doesn't even list blindness as a potential consequence, just impaired vision). It's possible that the reduced gravity on Mars would continue to cause harm, but I rather doubt that it would be so bad as to make the whole venture impossible. Maybe Martians have bad eyesight and shortened lives, but nobody's doing this for their health anyway.
enraged_camel 10y ago
I don't know if you actually stayed for the Q&A session after the video, but this question came up and he addressed it directly. His viewpoint is that SpaceX is a transportation company, not a colonization or habitat company. He drew an analogy to the railroad companies that built the first railroads to California. Once they made California easily accessible, others came after them to settle down to and build the state. Two-way transportation is the biggest obstacle in the way of Mars colonization. That's why SpaceX is focusing on it. But colonization is what gets people excited, and it is the long-term vision, so it has to be the central pitch.
the_watcher 10y ago
> Human colonization, in this context, is a bait-and-switch A switch with what, exactly? If he's just trying to make money, just space tourism alone would be more than enough, since he could charge the same as he'd charge for a Mars trip . Also, if your goal is to colonize Mars, a pretty critical step one is getting humans to Mars. It's not some nefarious plan.
fsloth 10y ago
Having a sustainable transport scheme is a necessity in moving to Mars. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that in practice transport is the hardest problem. But it's psychologically important - without transport there is nowhere to go. Either we become multiplanetary or not - I don't know - but if we become multiplanetary then transport is a necessary step. Building the transport scheme from economically self sustaining processes is only for the better for the robustness of it. The fact that something is marketed does not diminish the utility of a thing.
- XorNot 10y ago
  Well also, once the cost gets low enough, a lot of other space ventures suddenly go from impossible to practical. Sending multiple tons of robotic drilling equipment to Europa to look for life under the ice for example...

mikeash 10y ago

If getting stuff to Mars becomes cheap enough, then the rest becomes pretty easy. He's proposing a system for getting stuff to Mars cheaply enough. Characterizing this as "emotional manipulation" is ridiculous. You want to see what emotional manipulation actually looks like, watch an Apple keynote. This is a guy risking his fortune on a crazy dream and presenting his efforts in a technical and factual manner.

pharrington 10y ago
Successful terraforming becomes easy once we can send alot of rockets to a destination? We are emperically terrible at sustainably making our own planet more hospitable to human life, how is Mars easier? I'm actually bewildered here; just baby me and spell out how the Mars colonization process works if the only significant requisite is being able to move things from point A to point B. Do not dodge by saying we've colonized land on Earth. Remember, the talk was about a method of transportation, not colonization as the title suggested. Optimism is great; don't let it be a means of deception.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Terraforming isn't necessary. Growing food is probably a necessity, as even this cheap transport isn't that transport, but you can do that in greenhouses. Water is available. Energy is available in the form of either solar or nuclear. Getting the colony to be self-sustaining is hard, but it boils down to getting enough people and infrastructure there that they are able to build everything they need on site.
  - goatlover 10y ago
    We have bases on Antarctica, and they're not self sustaining. Consider that Antarctica is far more liveable and closer than Mars.
    - jboggan 10y ago
      Facilities for re-supply are so close and economical there is no incentive to make them self-sustaining. But it could be done.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Nobody has tried to make them self-sustaining. It's not as if people have tried and failed.
      - Alupis 10y ago
        >Nobody has tried to make them self-sustaining. It's not as if people have tried and failed. I'm certain folks have tried on Antarctica (we've had constant human presence there for decades). However, we still failed even under a much more controlled and hospitable environment - Biosphere 2. Biosphere 2[1] failed because of our lack of understanding of our own ecosystems on earth. A minute imbalance led to the entire ecosystem failing. The issue with Mars isn't getting there (or back) - government's have been doing this for more than a decade. The issue with Mars is getting people there, alive... and keeping them alive for the duration of the mission, and then returning them home alive. We're only now starting to explore the effects of microgravity on the human body - and having not figured out how to mitigate some serious issues (such as your eyes losing shape, causing you to go blind[2]), we're not going to be able to seriously consider long duration space travel, let alone inhabit another planet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 [2] http://www.space.com/25392-manned-mars-mission-astronaut-vision.html http://www.space.com/25392-manned-mars-mission-astronaut-vis...
        mikeash 10y ago
        Why are you certain folks have tried to make a self-sustaining Antarctic colony? I don't see why anyone would bother. You can get supplies from the outside. Activity on the continent transitioned directly from exploration to scientific outposts. Biosphere 2 was in many ways more challenging than Mars. It was intended to be totally self-contained with all water and oxygen recycled. On Mars, water can be found outside, and oxygen can be made from the atmosphere industrially. The transit time to Mars with this system is 3-4 months. Astronauts have already spent far more time in orbit than that. There are negative effects, yes, but blindness isn't one of them (and your link doesn't even list blindness as a potential consequence, just impaired vision). It's possible that the reduced gravity on Mars would continue to cause harm, but I rather doubt that it would be so bad as to make the whole venture impossible. Maybe Martians have bad eyesight and shortened lives, but nobody's doing this for their health anyway.

enraged_camel 10y ago

I don't know if you actually stayed for the Q&A session after the video, but this question came up and he addressed it directly. His viewpoint is that SpaceX is a transportation company, not a colonization or habitat company. He drew an analogy to the railroad companies that built the first railroads to California. Once they made California easily accessible, others came after them to settle down to and build the state. Two-way transportation is the biggest obstacle in the way of Mars colonization. That's why SpaceX is focusing on it. But colonization is what gets people excited, and it is the long-term vision, so it has to be the central pitch.

the_watcher 10y ago

> Human colonization, in this context, is a bait-and-switch A switch with what, exactly? If he's just trying to make money, just space tourism alone would be more than enough, since he could charge the same as he'd charge for a Mars trip . Also, if your goal is to colonize Mars, a pretty critical step one is getting humans to Mars. It's not some nefarious plan.

fsloth 10y ago

Having a sustainable transport scheme is a necessity in moving to Mars. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that in practice transport is the hardest problem. But it's psychologically important - without transport there is nowhere to go. Either we become multiplanetary or not - I don't know - but if we become multiplanetary then transport is a necessary step. Building the transport scheme from economically self sustaining processes is only for the better for the robustness of it. The fact that something is marketed does not diminish the utility of a thing.

XorNot 10y ago
Well also, once the cost gets low enough, a lot of other space ventures suddenly go from impossible to practical. Sending multiple tons of robotic drilling equipment to Europa to look for life under the ice for example...