3 ms·

> Elon is building a satellite launching company. s/is building/has built > Nowhere in that endeavor is the technology to permanently move a sufficient number

by cryptoz 12y ago

> Elon is building a satellite launching company. s/is building/has built > Nowhere in that endeavor is the technology to permanently move a sufficient number of people to some other planet. Nowhere in 1999 Google was the technology to autonomously drive cars, either. Yet, Google's cofounders explained their vision in 1999 to collect and organize the world's information. Vision and leadership is an important part of predicting a company's future, and Elon is very clear about this: The purpose of SpaceX is Mars colonization.

harryh 12y ago
If some sort of event (nuclear war, giant asteroid, whatever) killed everyone on Earth then everyone who lived in a theoretical colony on Mars would die too. Maybe not immediately, but the gulf between our current capabilities and what it would take to build a permanent self sufficient colony on a planet like Mars is absurdly large.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  It is possible to build a self sufficient colony on Mars and it is also Elon's stated intention. It is not an easy task and we will have a permanent colony before we have a self sufficient one, if we have a colony at all. 66 years passed between the Wright brothers first powered flight (which lasted only 3 seconds) and landing a man on the moon. That is a huge gulf in technology. Perhaps we will have a self sufficient Mars colony in another 66 years.
idlewords 12y ago
In 1999 it was pretty obvious that if Moore's Law held up as expected, you could do all kinds of stuff within a few years. Until we see rocket fuel doubling in energy every eighteen months, any idea of a Mars mission (let alone colony) paid for with private money is wishful thinking.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  The 'microwave thruster' article posted recently circumvents that problem - no reaction mass necessary. A Mars mission is now supposed to be practical, energywise.
  - idlewords 12y ago
    Oh yeah! And the rocket can use faster-than-light neutrinos to avoid annoying latency when talking to Houston.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  That's assuming conventional rocketry all the way. Have you heard of the phrase "once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere" (Robert Heinlein)? The delta-v from LEO to mars is only ~4.6 km/s assuming you aerobrake once you're in orbit. Or 3.8 if you're doing aerocapture. For comparison, it costs ~10 km/s just to get into LEO. Remember the tyranny of the rocket equation. Saving the rocket fuel required to get into orbit drops the total fuel cost by an absurd proportion. We already have the tech for being able to do at least an order-of-magnitude drop in price to orbit, if not more. Launch loop, etc. (With a launch loop you need ~120m/s additional to get into LEO, but that's peanuts comparatively.) The biggest issue currently is that it's a lot of money to potentially build. And the political components. Yeah, it'd be a huge chunk of change to build. But it's potentially worth it. As crackpot ideas go, the launch loop (or variants thereof), is the one that I am (still) most excited for.

by cryptoz 12y ago

harryh 12y ago

If some sort of event (nuclear war, giant asteroid, whatever) killed everyone on Earth then everyone who lived in a theoretical colony on Mars would die too. Maybe not immediately, but the gulf between our current capabilities and what it would take to build a permanent self sufficient colony on a planet like Mars is absurdly large.

seanflyon 12y ago
It is possible to build a self sufficient colony on Mars and it is also Elon's stated intention. It is not an easy task and we will have a permanent colony before we have a self sufficient one, if we have a colony at all. 66 years passed between the Wright brothers first powered flight (which lasted only 3 seconds) and landing a man on the moon. That is a huge gulf in technology. Perhaps we will have a self sufficient Mars colony in another 66 years.

idlewords 12y ago

In 1999 it was pretty obvious that if Moore's Law held up as expected, you could do all kinds of stuff within a few years. Until we see rocket fuel doubling in energy every eighteen months, any idea of a Mars mission (let alone colony) paid for with private money is wishful thinking.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
The 'microwave thruster' article posted recently circumvents that problem - no reaction mass necessary. A Mars mission is now supposed to be practical, energywise.
- idlewords 12y ago
  Oh yeah! And the rocket can use faster-than-light neutrinos to avoid annoying latency when talking to Houston.
TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
That's assuming conventional rocketry all the way. Have you heard of the phrase "once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere" (Robert Heinlein)? The delta-v from LEO to mars is only ~4.6 km/s assuming you aerobrake once you're in orbit. Or 3.8 if you're doing aerocapture. For comparison, it costs ~10 km/s just to get into LEO. Remember the tyranny of the rocket equation. Saving the rocket fuel required to get into orbit drops the total fuel cost by an absurd proportion. We already have the tech for being able to do at least an order-of-magnitude drop in price to orbit, if not more. Launch loop, etc. (With a launch loop you need ~120m/s additional to get into LEO, but that's peanuts comparatively.) The biggest issue currently is that it's a lot of money to potentially build. And the political components. Yeah, it'd be a huge chunk of change to build. But it's potentially worth it. As crackpot ideas go, the launch loop (or variants thereof), is the one that I am (still) most excited for.