5 ms·

> SpaceX's rapid iterations and fail fast methodology might save the human species Would you mind elaborating here? How will reaching a dead planet while we a

• dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
  1. One day we will need to leave Earth. Maybe sooner than later. Would you rather have a spacecraft or not when that becomes a need? 2. Many rare materials are common in space. Even if we do not leave Earth, being able to bring those to us would do a great deal. 3. What if we discover life through exploring the cosmos? 4. Nobody settled new lands the first time they sailed the ocean (at least not very successfully). Give it a couple hundred years, maybe less, who knows? 5. Do you really not want to explore the universe? In the literal sense of the word?
  • bmitc 6y ago
    > 1. One day we will need to leave Earth. Maybe sooner than later. Would you rather have a spacecraft or not when that becomes a need? I don’t equate visiting another planet or planets with saving the human species. We have vast existential problems, mostly imposed by ourselves, right now on Earth. Let’s say we had a copy of Earth that we could travel to right now in a safe solar system with a healthy star. Is the human species saved? Are our problems solved? If we simply spread our cancerous way of life throughout the cosmos, I’m not sure I find that exciting. It would be much more exciting if we learn to be a sustainable acting and net positive species (in all the ways) while spreading in the cosmos. Getting to another planet is a very small part of all that. It’s exciting of course, but not the solve everything solution the parent and downvoters apparently think it is. > 3. What if we discover life through exploring the cosmos? That isn’t under discussion. How does that solve humanity’s problems? I am sure we will find life or evidence of it elsewhere. > 5. Do you really not want to explore the universe? In the literal sense of the word? That wasn’t a question I responded to or has anything to do with what I said.
    • dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
      > If we simply spread our cancerous way of life throughout the cosmos, I’m not sure I find that exciting. Unlike you, I do not have much confidence that we will change our ways. Humanity consumes and exploits all that it has met, and will likely continue to do so successfully, or die out. Unless we find more to exploit, the latter seems more likely. Ergo the need for spaceships eventually. Re: the last two points, they appeal to emotion more so than reason.
    • hypertele-Xii 6y ago
      > I don’t equivocate visiting another planet or planets with saving the human species. All it takes is one big, unlucky rock hurlting through space hitting this singular planet of ours, and we're gone like the dinosaurs. Eggs in one basket, and all that.
      • bmitc 6y ago
        That is a threat, but the time when humans can survive away from a destroyed Earth is so long away that I don’t understand how a fail fast attitude helps.
        • the_duke 6y ago
          It wouldn't be that far off if we had the money and motivation. We could probably have a mostly self sustaining colony in caves on Mars within ten years , if we really wanted to. It would just take an absurd amount of money and singular focus and dedication by governments and companies.
          • jfk13 6y ago
            > We could probably have a mostly self sustaining colony in caves on Mars within ten years Even if that's true (which I highly doubt), a "mostly" self-sustaining colony won't last long if a catastrophe cripples human life on Earth.
        • hntrader 6y ago
• woah 6y ago
  Learning to survive on mars will help our species learn how to survive on future earth
  • AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    There's still plenty of earth we could be learning to survive on without going all the way to Mars. Why not build a self-sustaining colony in Antarctica or under the ocean or something first? Or hell, just a biodome do-over. All of those places are still a hell of a lot more habitable than Mars and have much easier rescue options.
• danpalmer 6y ago
  Elon Musk believes that it’s important for humanity to not be entirely dependent on Earth for its survival. Whether that’s because we destroy the planet, or an asteroid hits, or there’s a terrible virus and we can’t get people to wear masks, doesn’t really matter. The point is that having a second permanent home would make this far less likely to end the human race. It’s a very unlikely thing to happen, but it’s entirely catastrophic if it does, so an expected value calculation could be argued to show that it’s worth it. As for not destroying the planet, that’s what his other big company is working on. I’m not fully on board with his reasoning here, and don’t agree with many of his beliefs, but he is quite explicit and consistent about these reasonings and I don’t think it’s the worst outcome.
• pengaru 6y ago
  Surviving extinction-level events like asteroid strikes likely requires an off-planet human civilization. But I do share your concerns about humans neglecting their ideal habitat, and think we need to be careful about mistaking efforts like colonizing Mars as some kind of panacea abdicating any responsibility to clean up our act at home.
  • Isinlor 6y ago
    Earth even if hit by an asteroid that killed dinosaurs, Chicxulub impactor, would be more habitable than Mars. But if we manage to establish self sustaining city on Mars we will be sure that we can survive everything on Earth. Also, having a working blue print of what to do in the event of a sudden disaster on that scale would certainly be helpful.
    • wahern 6y ago
      > Earth even if hit by an asteroid that killed dinosaurs, Chicxulub impactor, would be more habitable than Mars. Not initially. Maybe after a few days or weeks. The thermal pulse from the impact itself would have instantly charred terrestrial life for some portion of the Americas. And the reentry of ejecta radiated enough heat to ignite forests around the globe. Anyone on Mars would be sitting lucky, well situated to begin the recolonization of Earth.
• ncallaway 6y ago
  Putting humanity on a second planet is about creating a redundancy in case something happens to the earth. That redundancy is designed to protect against rare events on that might well be 100,000 years away. Going to mars to "save the human race" isn't a path anyone is proposing as an alternative to addressing climate change. That's a challenge we face across the next 10-200 years. Going to mars to "save the human race" is about ensuring that, if a planet-scale disaster strikes the earth in 10,000 years the human experiment continues on. They're two different challenges that we face, and I see no reason why we can't address both.
• bane 6y ago
  I'm sorry, a giant asteroid just hit the Earth and wiped out all life on the planet rendering your questions meaningless.
  • vkou 6y ago
    If you want to prepare for that eventuality, instead of wasting your time and money colonizing Mars, you should be spending your time and money on doing asteroid surveys, and working on deflection strategies. It's far cheaper, and will save billions of lives. Your ROI from doing so is going to be a hell of a lot better. In comparison to that, colonization is a science fiction fantasy, in search of a problem to solve.
    • bane 6y ago
      Why not do both?
      • vkou 6y ago
        Because we currently don't do either, and if we're going to pick one mitigating strategy, I'd prefer picking one that actually has a point to it. Money and human effort is fungible, you can spend it on many things. I'd rather it not being spent on pointless pursuits. If someone is going to spend it on pointless pursuits, I suppose they could do that, but they should at least not delude themselves.
        • elihu 6y ago
          Deflecting an asteroid with current technology would involve launching a rocket at it and either imparting enough kinetic energy to nudge it into an orbit that doesn't intersect Earth or blowing it up with a nuclear warhead. Either of those would require a large rocket capable of throwing a substantial payload well outside of Earth's orbit. Tracking asteroids can be done with terrestrial radar (that was one of the things Arecibo was used for before it collapsed), or it could be done with space-based radar systems. Radar requires a lot of power, so any space-based radar will need a substantial solar array. Both of these problems are easier when you have a heavy-lift rocket such as Starship or Falcon 9 (regular and heavy versions) available. If we're regularly ferrying stuff back and forth between Earth and Mars, we're going to need a lot of those rockets. Having a space transportation economy would mean rockets are available for other uses, such as the aforementioned asteroid interceptor or space radar delivery platform. These problems are all connected.
• outworlder 6y ago
  Earth is a single point of failure.
  • chasd00 6y ago
    Just want to say “earth is a single point of failure” beneath a schematic of starship would make a great spacex tshirt if it isn’t one already.
    • gildandstain 6y ago
      "A Pale Blue Point of Failure" if we want to mix Sagan's sense of sublime vulnerability in there
    • kortex 6y ago
      "Two is one, one is none" with a silhouette of both planets behind it.
  • andbberger 6y ago
    By that line of thinking so is the Sun. So what? Earth is pretty robust its us monkeys that are the problem
    • echeese 6y ago
      Hey now, one step at a time.
• frEdmbx 6y ago
  Along with all the other points made is the fact that the US is in a downward spiral with little hope of pulling out. The collapse of the US will likely be very bad for humanity, given the slavers who would replace it. SpaceX, and Musk's other endeavors, are some of the few that could keep the US afloat. Having said all that, right now SpaceX represents by far the greatest progression to decentralizing humanity ahead of any extinction level event.
• Raptor22 6y ago
  You're 100% right, except for one detail: human politics. Unfortunately, the organizations here on Earth actually capable of solving the climate change problem (namely, governments) move too slowly and/or are horribly divided against themselves (see: USA). As an engineer, I look at the problem and I come to your same conclusion; It would be far, far more efficient just to save Earth than to try to colonize and terraform Mars. Unfortunately, Earth politics being what they are (hell, USA has > 500,000 deaths due to COVID and STILL around 45% of the population thinks it's fake or no worse than the flu), our only realistic option for ensuring the continuity of the species is to colonize another planet so that if the governments on Earth collectively decide to ensure its doom, there is another place where humans can continue the species. It's sad really. But it's the reality we're dealing with.
  • bmitc 6y ago
    But those same humans will be supposedly colonizing Mars and elsewhere, bringing the same or even worse politics, which makes me say: if we can't solve our problems here, the perfect place to do so, then what's the point? It's a harsh question but a real one meant to highlight the imbalance of what people get hyped about versus what's really important.