4 ms·

I've been thinking about how to phrase how I feel about this topic for a while and it's hard because there are so many nuances and facets to it. Ultimately I t

I've been thinking about how to phrase how I feel about this topic for a while and it's hard because there are so many nuances and facets to it. Ultimately I think it is absolutely crazy to think that making earth's life multi-planetary is something we should start now for any other sake than inspiring our young people; because by any other measure, we could do something else to solve the long tail risks multi-planetary life solves starting with living deep underground or under the water and powering everything with nuclear reactors. But nobody wants to do that for obvious reasons. Furthermore, there are many other long tail risks that we can invest in to decrease the likelihood of extinction. But Elon Musk knows this. In fact one of his other businesses is devoted to helping stop climate change! So what is this really about? I think it's about history books and status. Nobody will read about the billionaire that funded think tanks. They'll read about the one that got people to Mars first. That's my best guess, anyway. Because it's so clearly obvious that going multi-planetary in 100 years will be vastly cheaper for us and there is no way any of this math makes sense to do it now unless you just want to do it for coolness sake or maybe, MAYBE, inspiring young people will get us to 100 years from now faster. Doubt it though.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
> I think it's about history books and status. Nobody will read about the billionaire that funded think tanks. They'll read about the one that got people to Mars first. That's my best guess, anyway. A place in history might be a component of the motivation, but I think the core reason is simpler. In his eyes, nobody was taking the idea remotely seriously or actually trying to accomplish it, which was largely true — the closest anybody ever got prior to SpaceX was a bunch of handwaving around paper rockets. Certainly no company made it their flagship goal, and even if NASA had technically at some point, whiplash from changing presidential administrations and being so married to traditional aerospace contractors whose primary interest was keeping the money flowing tied NASA’s hands and feet on the matter. > Because it's so clearly obvious that going multi-planetary in 100 years will be vastly cheaper for us and there is no way any of this math makes sense to do it now unless you just want to do it for coolness sake or maybe, MAYBE, inspiring young people will get us to 100 years from now faster. Not necessarily. Technology doesn’t improve on its own, particularly when it’s highly specialized. For there to be leaps in launch and spacefaring technology, some entity (preferably multiple entities) have to be pushing it, and to make progress at a decent pace not be afraid to stray from the path of the well-known. Crewed spaceflight stagnated for a whopping 40ish years thanks to it getting put on a back burner last time, what’s to stop it from getting stuck for a whole century, or in the worst case getting left behind entirely as the can continually gets kicked down the road? Musk has spoken about this in the past, with concern that the window we have now may not be around forever, and how without someone pushing progress on making crewed spaceflight and settlements beyond Earth’s surface commonplace, it may end up never happening, and I think that concern is warranted.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? > with concern that the window we have now may not be around forever Right, but there is the opposite concern as well. By trying to do this too soon we underfund arms control or climate change response at the margin and we suffer extinction or societal decline. For me it's about resources. It's true technology takes actual effort, but it generally speaking takes less effort over time due to exponential tech. If the folks involved in the manhattan project had just ONE modern computer it probably would have halved the timeline / resources required. My argument is that if the goal is species survival there is much, much, much lower hanging fruit to go after.
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
    > Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? Mars, or any location well beyond easy reach of the Earth-Moon system for that matter, act as forcing factors for the development of truly independent self-sustainability, and thus also all of the various technologies required to do such a thing. Even on the moon, the presence of a eject lever (ability to return to Earth relatively quickly and easily) and fast and “easy” resupplies greatly reduce the impetus to become self-sufficient. Mars would also serve as a great stepping stone to vastly larger and more ambitious spacecraft. Its reduced gravity and aerodynamically insignificant atmosphere along with the raw materials available on Mars along with a relatively temperate climate and Earthlike day-night cycle make it a good candidate for use as a shipyard for building and launching extremely large interplanetary freighters and the first permanently spaceborne non-orbital crewed crafts — something that’s not feasible in Earth’s orbit due to the need to tow all the raw materials in, and less suitable for the Moon due to its greater extremes and deficiencies in readily available resources. So in short, Mars is really more of a starting point in humanity’s permanent inhabitance and traversal of space with potential for huge gains in science and technology applicable to problems on Earth than it is a goal in and of itself. > Right, but there is the opposite concern as well. By trying to do this too soon we underfund arms control or climate change response at the margin and we suffer extinction or societal decline. > For me it's about resources. It's true technology takes actual effort, but it generally speaking takes less effort over time due to exponential tech. If the folks involved in the manhattan project had just ONE modern computer it probably would have halved the timeline / resources required. My argument is that if the goal is species survival there is much, much, much lower hanging fruit to go after. The resources being sunk into space right now are couch change relative to practically everything else, and a company like SpaceX pursuing long-term settlement of Mars would only increase that to pocket change (at least in terms of usage of taxpayer funds). Vastly larger sums are spent on the military and even wasted on utterly broken government contracting and procurement, like the $20,000 routers that were purchased for hundreds of tiny libraries in WV[0] where $60 consumer grade routers would have sufficed. There is no lack of resources, only rampant mismanagement, waste on titanic scales, and lack of will. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-w...
graphpercolator 5y ago
The whole idea is so absurd. The longest stay in space currently is 14 months and Mars is nearly two years away. Going to Mars is just a super charging station for Musk's narcissistic supply.

kitsunesoba 5y ago

> I think it's about history books and status. Nobody will read about the billionaire that funded think tanks. They'll read about the one that got people to Mars first. That's my best guess, anyway. A place in history might be a component of the motivation, but I think the core reason is simpler. In his eyes, nobody was taking the idea remotely seriously or actually trying to accomplish it, which was largely true — the closest anybody ever got prior to SpaceX was a bunch of handwaving around paper rockets. Certainly no company made it their flagship goal, and even if NASA had technically at some point, whiplash from changing presidential administrations and being so married to traditional aerospace contractors whose primary interest was keeping the money flowing tied NASA’s hands and feet on the matter. > Because it's so clearly obvious that going multi-planetary in 100 years will be vastly cheaper for us and there is no way any of this math makes sense to do it now unless you just want to do it for coolness sake or maybe, MAYBE, inspiring young people will get us to 100 years from now faster. Not necessarily. Technology doesn’t improve on its own, particularly when it’s highly specialized. For there to be leaps in launch and spacefaring technology, some entity (preferably multiple entities) have to be pushing it, and to make progress at a decent pace not be afraid to stray from the path of the well-known. Crewed spaceflight stagnated for a whopping 40ish years thanks to it getting put on a back burner last time, what’s to stop it from getting stuck for a whole century, or in the worst case getting left behind entirely as the can continually gets kicked down the road? Musk has spoken about this in the past, with concern that the window we have now may not be around forever, and how without someone pushing progress on making crewed spaceflight and settlements beyond Earth’s surface commonplace, it may end up never happening, and I think that concern is warranted.

3pt14159 5y ago
Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? > with concern that the window we have now may not be around forever Right, but there is the opposite concern as well. By trying to do this too soon we underfund arms control or climate change response at the margin and we suffer extinction or societal decline. For me it's about resources. It's true technology takes actual effort, but it generally speaking takes less effort over time due to exponential tech. If the folks involved in the manhattan project had just ONE modern computer it probably would have halved the timeline / resources required. My argument is that if the goal is species survival there is much, much, much lower hanging fruit to go after.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  > Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? Mars, or any location well beyond easy reach of the Earth-Moon system for that matter, act as forcing factors for the development of truly independent self-sustainability, and thus also all of the various technologies required to do such a thing. Even on the moon, the presence of a eject lever (ability to return to Earth relatively quickly and easily) and fast and “easy” resupplies greatly reduce the impetus to become self-sufficient. Mars would also serve as a great stepping stone to vastly larger and more ambitious spacecraft. Its reduced gravity and aerodynamically insignificant atmosphere along with the raw materials available on Mars along with a relatively temperate climate and Earthlike day-night cycle make it a good candidate for use as a shipyard for building and launching extremely large interplanetary freighters and the first permanently spaceborne non-orbital crewed crafts — something that’s not feasible in Earth’s orbit due to the need to tow all the raw materials in, and less suitable for the Moon due to its greater extremes and deficiencies in readily available resources. So in short, Mars is really more of a starting point in humanity’s permanent inhabitance and traversal of space with potential for huge gains in science and technology applicable to problems on Earth than it is a goal in and of itself. > Right, but there is the opposite concern as well. By trying to do this too soon we underfund arms control or climate change response at the margin and we suffer extinction or societal decline. > For me it's about resources. It's true technology takes actual effort, but it generally speaking takes less effort over time due to exponential tech. If the folks involved in the manhattan project had just ONE modern computer it probably would have halved the timeline / resources required. My argument is that if the goal is species survival there is much, much, much lower hanging fruit to go after. The resources being sunk into space right now are couch change relative to practically everything else, and a company like SpaceX pursuing long-term settlement of Mars would only increase that to pocket change (at least in terms of usage of taxpayer funds). Vastly larger sums are spent on the military and even wasted on utterly broken government contracting and procurement, like the $20,000 routers that were purchased for hundreds of tiny libraries in WV[0] where $60 consumer grade routers would have sufficed. There is no lack of resources, only rampant mismanagement, waste on titanic scales, and lack of will. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-w...

graphpercolator 5y ago

The whole idea is so absurd. The longest stay in space currently is 14 months and Mars is nearly two years away. Going to Mars is just a super charging station for Musk's narcissistic supply.