6 ms·
What? What exactly is the benefit of SpaceX specifically? What was won here? Is there a point at which it starts being a large price? If we don't know the impa
by dmbche 4y ago
What? What exactly is the benefit of SpaceX specifically? What was won here? Is there a point at which it starts being a large price?
If we don't know the impact of it on the habitat, how is it a "small price"?
- myth_drannon 4y agoThe benefit is, when Earth is polluted beyond help, Musk and his progeny can escape our planet and live on Mars.
- skrowl 4y agoWe're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction Being on multiple planets (and eventually multiple solar systems) prevents a species from going extinct if something catastrophic happens to their home world
- vkou 4y ago> We're one killer global war / pandemic / etc away from extinction No, we're not. And whatever we end up doing to the Earth, it's still going to be vastly more suitable for human life than anywhere else in the solar system. If you care about preventing extinction, stop looking at the stars, and start digging bunkers. Or building undersea cities, or whatever.
- ben_w 4y agoAll true, but I say a backup plan is better than no backup plan, especially as this is one (admittedly rich) sci-fi nerd's hobby project. As even that specific nerd is also doing a big project to reduce environmental damage, this isn't an "either/or", it's an "and".
- jliptzin 4y agoThe sun is gonna blow up anyway and eat the whole solar system
- ben_w 4y agoYeah, but even the sun getting too hot for complex life on Earth in particular is something like 2 billion years before that.
- timeon 4y agoWhy is this important?
- apendleton 4y agoEven assuming an absolute worst-case scenario climate-wise (no mitigations whatsoever, massive sea-level rise, etc.), Earth will still be dramatically more hospitable to human life than Mars for the entirety of Musk's lifetime, and very likely his children's and grandchildren's lifetimes as well, barring some mass-extinction event like a nuclear war. Even if a colonization effort begins soon, living on Mars is likely to be extremely difficult for centuries -- we can't breathe the air or grow anything in the soil, our biology is likely ill-adapted to the gravity, there is no liquid surface water, etc. -- and the idea that there will come a point in the foreseeable future where it makes sense to escape there because it's easier than being here (because of pollution or whatever other reason) is difficult to fathom.
- ben_w 4y agoThe minimum level of pollution where Mars looks good on that basis is: 1. killed literally, not metaphorically, everything 2. and literally boiled off all the oceans, rivers, and lakes, top the bottom 3. and strip mined literally, not metaphorically, everywhere to a depth of 3,000 km 4. and removed almost everything from the atmosphere except the current level of CO2/m^3
- NoGravitas 4y agoYeah, I'll believe Mars colonization makes sense once the much closer and more hospitable environments of interior Antarctica and the ocean floor are settled.
- ben_w 4y agoOcean floor is a different kind of problem, and Antarctica (and Greenland) have settlements. But for similar reasons, I think we should aim for the Moon before Mars: closer, so when (and it is "when" not "if") something goes fatally wrong, it will be easier to get help. That said, if Starship delivers on Musk's vision, we'll probably get both.
- yamtaddle 4y agoYes, but if Earth suffers several unlikely global catastrophes at the same time, it might almost be harder to live here than on Mars!
- Litost 4y agoI guess it's always worth having a Plan B, but Nate Hagens and Kim Stanley Robinson (sci-fi writer of the Mars Trilogy) discuss this and don't necessarily agree, obviously depending on what definition of "polluted beyond help" you're using etc. [1] Nate Hagens (00:43:15): "And to me it's very smart and famous people, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk among them say, "We're screwing up Earth. Climate is going to be bad. We need to colonize outer space and head to Mars." And that makes just zero sense to me, because on the worst thermonuclear runaway-climate scenario, Earth is still going to be a paradise next to Mars. I mean-" Kim Stanley Robinson (00:43:43): "I agree with you completely. That is a case that has to be made. And the thing about people like Hawkings, the thing about people like Elon Musk is they're smart, they aren't that smart. They aren't wise, they aren't philosophers, and they're not ecologists. Very often physicists will assume that ecology is just physics in action, and that they've got it all sussed out because they know the rules of physics and they can do rocketry. But you can't do plant biology just knowing rocketry. It's more complex, it's more interconnected, it's a more-complex science. And many physicists will arrogantly say that, "Because I know the laws of physics, I know everything." But they don't know how a marsh works. They haven't studied biology enough to understand their own ignorance. So how smart are you if you don't know how ignorant you are?" [1] - https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanley-robinson https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/66-kim-stanle...
- pjscott 4y agoEven a "polluted beyond help" Earth would be easier to live on than Mars. We have liquid water, a nice thick atmosphere that isn't 95% carbon dioxide, a better ionosphere, easy access to nitrogen as a synthetic fertilizer feedstock, and various other advantages. Musk knows this; he's not an idiot, nor is he a cartoon villain motivated by a desire to be Evil. It bothers me when people just make up outlandish accusations.
- NoGravitas 4y agoActually, the available evidence does suggest that Musk is an idiot.
- taejavu 4y agoWhat was won is a small but vital step toward humans becoming a multiplanetary species. From this angle, the impact of this launch is obviously a small price.
- dmbche 4y agoWhat was the step? In this specific explosion?
- taejavu 4y agoOne less explosion before they figure out how to fly and reuse the rocket. You understand how learning works, right?
- dmbche 4y agoThanks for the snark You understand that this test was too early, proved nothing and had little to no way to mitigate the likely explosion that they expected? And that the impact on the nearby residents, the wildlife were not taken in consideration? But it's fine because "surely they learned something"?
- taejavu 4y agoYou're welcome. That's correct, it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
- dmbche 4y agoYou'd be great at the head of a totalitarian regime! You should move next to the test site, I'm sure you'll be glad to be one of the people affected.
- taejavu 4y agoI tried, but turns out they won't let people live too close to a rocket launch site. Something about safety concerns. Who knew?!
- B4CKlash 4y agoThere's something deeply ironic about a person commenting from a highly-engineered device, operating on a highly-engineered network, sitting inside of a highly-engineered building, in a highly-engineered city debating the merits of progress.
- dmbche 4y agoI'd love for you to make a link between the "progress" here and what you mentionned!
- Clamchop 4y agoI read their comment as underlining the uncertainty about what the cost or the reward is. Maybe we can't flippantly declare that it's "a small price" if we don't know what we're paying or what we're going to get in return. (I have no position on that.) Didn't spot any ludditism.
- rio517 4y agoNo everyone is aware, but SpaceX mass to orbit is close to the rest of the world put together. Hey are massively reducing costs to access space. The point of the starship is to continue to reduce costs.
- dmbche 4y agoBut why? When costs are low... What then? Tourism?
- couchdive 4y agohonestly, this is all to plunder the solar system further. Mining asteroids, etc. Of course the R&D is tax payer publicly funded and the future profits privatized. This is the way it has always been.
- dmbche 4y agoI guess I just don't see the point. We're not leaving earth, no one wants to life in orbital stations or habitats - nonobstant all the issues with making that happen, so why plunder the solar system? There is more matter to plunder on earth than we would need to cover the whole globe with people, what's the point of trying get our great-great-great-great-grandkids to mine asteroids? Even more questionable if it makes our own and the life of the people coming next to be measurably worse
- Ancapistani 4y agoAccess to orbit is a requirement for our current level of technological civilization. SpaceX's launch capability is not only much greater than that of competitors (including states), they're using methane fuel and do not use solid fuel boosters. For context, ESA's Ariane 5 uses solid fuel boosters (ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene) and a liquid fuel second stage (monomethylhydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide). NASA's SLS uses solid fuel boosters of the same composition and Ariane 5's. So does JAXA's H3. If, as a species, we're going to be launching things into orbit, doing so using the SpaceX's tech is significantly cleaner than what we're using today. That's true even before considering reuse.
- dmbche 4y agoWhen was it determined that access to orbit was a requirement? And a requirement to what? I feel like many are living in a world of sci fi. Our orbit is already littered with orbital trash, we are worried we wont be able to leave orbit if it keeps going. I don't see how this is justifiable in any way. There are very few worthwile things to do in space.
- Ancapistani 4y ago> When was it determined that access to orbit was a requirement? I’d say for the general public, some time in the 90s. For states, as far back as the 60s or 70s I’d say. > And a requirement to what? Off the top of my head? Current uses would include communications, navigation/positioning, remote sensing, research, and exploration. Future uses will almost certainly include access to the resources of the rest of the solar system. In the grand scheme of things, we’re not that far away from being able to capture, relocate, and mine asteroids. Many of those contain resources that are extremely rare or difficult to obtain on Earth. For example - I think we can agree that moving automobiles from ICE to EV will be a good thing for our biosphere. Cobalt is one of the raw materials that is in short supply. There are two near-Earth asteroids that combined are believed to exceed the Earth’s reserves for cobalt: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/10/19/the-age-of-space-mining-just-got-closer-as-scientists-discover-two-asteroids-whose-precious-metals-would-exceed-global-reserves/?sh=32649b18713b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/10/19/th... If SpaceX does succeed in driving down the cost to orbit, mining those (and others like them) will be much more practical. > Our orbit is already littered with orbital trash, we are worried we wont be able to leave orbit if it keeps going. We’re a long way from risking Kessler Syndrome, and have the technology and experience to prevent it from occurring.