7 ms·

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amaz

by ryandvm 11y ago

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable. While I agree with the principle that humanity needs to be a multi-planet species if we're going to make it past all the Great Filters, I honestly don't think we're ready as a species. Technologically or organizationally. We can't even get half our population to admit that the climate is warming, but somehow we're supposed to get our shit together enough to colonize an entire planet? And from a technological perspective, I'm continually amazed that the same people that fret and wring their hands about climate change seriously believe colonization of Mars is not going to be the most painful thing humanity has ever done. It will be fraught with death, expense, and replete with economic and social chaos. Ending all wars, enacting global healthcare and welfare policies, and rolling back climate change on Earth would be a cakewalk compared to building self-sufficient colonies on a planet that: * Has no breathable atmosphere * Has little usable water * Is bombarded with deadly radiation * Has no economic justification for colonization The only reason to be going to Mars is that, statistically, in the next couple dozen million years the Earth might get a flat tire. I don't know - from what I've seen so far, I'm not sure humanity deserves to be the species that settles the Milky Way...

frank-weindel 11y ago
Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction. Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought of. This is the exact kind of drive we need if we are to even have the chance at becoming interplanetary. Maybe we end up just getting to Mars and setting up an "antarctic" like lab that is occupied by teams for months at a time? That's fine. The innovation that got us even there would have been amazing. Maybe the goal then shifts to self-sustaining interplanetary spacecraft. Humanity isn't done yet, and not shooting for the far reaches of the galaxy is a waste of time that we cannot spare. Musk Co. isn't just focused on that interplanetary goal. There's a lot that is also being done to make this planet better and prolong its life. These are honorable and not nearly as farfetched goals. Musk's drive to solve these problems is a real inspiration to many and may be our only chance in hell to pass through the Great Filters.
- ethbro 11y ago
  > Great Filters Quick link for those who haven't read Fermi paradox et al. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter Inline summary for the lazy: If we don't see intelligent life, and the universe is as old as it is, then it must be unlikely for life to persist to a stage where we could detect it. This unlikeliness can come in two forms: either it's unlikely to ever be created (hurray, we won!) or there's some future stage that's it's unlikely to pass (uh oh us).
  - tanishq1 11y ago
    To elaborate on the future stage, Carl Sagan suggested that technological civilizations tend to self-destruct (e.g. perhaps nuclear war.)
- david-given 11y ago
  !Mars != !Space. Mars is a dusty, barren deathtrap of a rock that's at the bottom of a very deep hole. The only thing to do on Mars is to _be_ on Mars. It's not (plausibly) terraformable, sustaining life there will obvious continuous and hugely expensive technical input, there are no resources there worth going there for, and once you've gone there, to get back you have to climb out of a hugely deep hole. Meanwhile the solar system is full of places that are easier to get to, more hospitable, more profitable, and which you can get away from. Asteroids. Comets. Ceres. The moon, even. Further afield, the rings of Jupiter and Saturn --- the radiation's a bit rough, but if you can survive there, you've got it made. Hell, if you're into planets, Venus is a better option. Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment? Mars is fascinating, and there should absolutely be a science station there eventually, but it's not colonisation material. I certainly don't think it should be a priority right at this moment. With our current state of the art, I believe the Moon to be a much better choice.
  - Numberwang 11y ago
    "Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment?" Please expand on this.
jessriedel 11y ago
You seems to think that high degrees of collective action are are a particularly good marker for judging whether human beings can accomplish space colonization. But this doesn't make sense because it's the technology and economics, not coordination, that prevents self-sustaining martian colonies. Likewise, ship technology and economic uses for overseas resources sparked European colonization, not a particularly well coordinated European monarchy.
- ryandvm 11y ago
  Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart. The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. Your willingness to write off the cooperation of the rest of the human species seems shortsighted. Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat. What happens when the "Old World" find themselves embroiled in World War III thirty years into the colonization of Mars and a fungus kills all your monoculture rice? My guess is that if it comes down to winning a war or shipping 5 million tons of corn to Mars, well, you guys are going to be eating a whole lot of Soylent. The other issue is that human colonization has always been driven by "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion. Mars solves none of those. At best you can risk a high likelihood of dying from freezing, starving, depression, and/or cancer in order to avoid: asteroid impact, global pandemic, or killer robots. Scratch that - the killer robots will definitely find you on Mars.
  - angersock 11y ago
    "colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient." You mean like Antarctica, right? "Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat." Rich folks and companies, and maaaaybe governments, will be funding this--the same as all colonization efforts in the past. Consider the colonization of the Americas. "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion These are still very much things to worry about on Earth. Moving to Mars doesn't solve those problems--for the Earthlings. Then again, fuck'em.
  - swagasaurus-rex 11y ago
elektromekatron 11y ago
Screw deserves or ready, you are ready to get somewhere and deserve to be there when you manage to arrive. You may then fuck it up, and frankly it would be surprising if we didn't kill a few people trying, but that is exploration.
angersock 11y ago
All of those are boring technical problems, all of which can be solved with the application of money. Only physics is standing in the way. The Earth problems, though, are a great deal more complicated. Even a sufficiently large checkbook can't solve world hunger. Also, your whole "half the population won't admit to global warming" is some feelgood TED bullshit...I'm betting waaaay fewer than 3B (that's billion) people even remotely give a shit about the climate beyond whether or not it's going to be raining.
imglorp 11y ago
Setting up a long term lunar habitat would be a very reasonable first step. Having no atmosphere means solar power is more efficient. In some spots, the soil contains water which can be split for air and fuel. Sending a few automated miners to begin producing stores and building buried habitats is something we can accomplish today, before sending anyone to live.
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
>Earth might get a flat tire There is no possible "flat-tire" existential risk scenario which makes moving to Mars cheaper (man hours) than just fixing whatever happened on earth. IMO that kills the whole thing right off the bat.
- benihana 11y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y We (complex life) couldn't recover from something like that. Maybe simple life could hide deep in the earth and emerge when it's safe thousands of years later.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    Makes my point. After that event you now have an earth that is about as habitable as Mars is today. That is also the absolute worst case scenario that is theoretically possible, literally a one in a billion year event. That is something we can plan for and build for now with: Anti-Asteroid technology, "Fallout" shelters/biodomes etc... Or hell, a fucking Dyson sphere (or series of them) is a million times easier/better than trying to terraform Mars. Oh and by the way, Mars has the same risks of Asteroids as earth does so we wouldn't be out of the woods just by being on Mars. The reality is, people like space shit and want to go to space. There is just no good reason to do it as flesh and blood humans.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      I agree with this. If the survival of the species is the goal we'd be far better off building a deep bunker complex on Earth than trying to get a self-sufficient colony going on Mars.
    - visarga 11y ago
      Why bother with planets when we could live in space. There are lots of asteroids filled with materials floating around. If we make it economically feasible to do asteroid mining, we could expand population 1000 times. Think of what would a constellation of self-sufficient asteroid colonies and ships do for human freedom.
dgregd 11y ago
> Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose I'm a fan Elon Musk. But I think people are exaggerating that Mars mission. For me it looks like a goal for SpaceX employees. You have to somehow motivate people to work harder. Maybe I'm just a little cynical, but Elon is too smart to believe in this mission.
thescriptkiddie 11y ago
* Has the most habitable atmosphere of any planet save Earth * Has billions of tons of water * Is exposed to unconcerning amounts of radiation * Has every economic justification for colonization FTFY
crusso 11y ago
I'm not sure humanity deserves to be the species that settles the Milky Way What does that even mean? Especially in the context of how much we've changed to get us this far and how much we would have to change to colonize a galaxy? You might as well have looked at Homo habilis 2.8M years ago and said, "these creatures don't deserve to surf the Internet."
- adventured 11y ago
  It's premised on the belief that humans are unworthy. It's a meaningless statement, that only reveals what opinion the person holds of humanity, while lacking any objective foundation of comparison. It's just as likely that we are the most worthy of any species in the Milky Way or universe. Which is to say, every other intelligent life form in the galaxy is worse, or perhaps drastically worse. In my counter opinion, I regard the human race to be truly extraordinary and good overall. I'm aware of no finer species that should settle the Milky Way instead.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    I dunno. I think it's just a matter of time before the dolphins start exploring the cosmos.
npizzolato 11y ago
What I find amusing is that there are a whole ton of disaster scenarios for Earth that still leave Earth in a more hospitable condition than Mars.
IndianAstronaut 11y ago
Titan in many ways is a much better candidate for colonization. It has water and an actual atmosphere.

by ryandvm 11y ago

frank-weindel 11y ago

Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction. Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought of. This is the exact kind of drive we need if we are to even have the chance at becoming interplanetary. Maybe we end up just getting to Mars and setting up an "antarctic" like lab that is occupied by teams for months at a time? That's fine. The innovation that got us even there would have been amazing. Maybe the goal then shifts to self-sustaining interplanetary spacecraft. Humanity isn't done yet, and not shooting for the far reaches of the galaxy is a waste of time that we cannot spare. Musk Co. isn't just focused on that interplanetary goal. There's a lot that is also being done to make this planet better and prolong its life. These are honorable and not nearly as farfetched goals. Musk's drive to solve these problems is a real inspiration to many and may be our only chance in hell to pass through the Great Filters.

ethbro 11y ago
> Great Filters Quick link for those who haven't read Fermi paradox et al. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter Inline summary for the lazy: If we don't see intelligent life, and the universe is as old as it is, then it must be unlikely for life to persist to a stage where we could detect it. This unlikeliness can come in two forms: either it's unlikely to ever be created (hurray, we won!) or there's some future stage that's it's unlikely to pass (uh oh us).
- tanishq1 11y ago
  To elaborate on the future stage, Carl Sagan suggested that technological civilizations tend to self-destruct (e.g. perhaps nuclear war.)
david-given 11y ago
!Mars != !Space. Mars is a dusty, barren deathtrap of a rock that's at the bottom of a very deep hole. The only thing to do on Mars is to _be_ on Mars. It's not (plausibly) terraformable, sustaining life there will obvious continuous and hugely expensive technical input, there are no resources there worth going there for, and once you've gone there, to get back you have to climb out of a hugely deep hole. Meanwhile the solar system is full of places that are easier to get to, more hospitable, more profitable, and which you can get away from. Asteroids. Comets. Ceres. The moon, even. Further afield, the rings of Jupiter and Saturn --- the radiation's a bit rough, but if you can survive there, you've got it made. Hell, if you're into planets, Venus is a better option. Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment? Mars is fascinating, and there should absolutely be a science station there eventually, but it's not colonisation material. I certainly don't think it should be a priority right at this moment. With our current state of the art, I believe the Moon to be a much better choice.
- Numberwang 11y ago
  "Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment?" Please expand on this.

jessriedel 11y ago

You seems to think that high degrees of collective action are are a particularly good marker for judging whether human beings can accomplish space colonization. But this doesn't make sense because it's the technology and economics, not coordination, that prevents self-sustaining martian colonies. Likewise, ship technology and economic uses for overseas resources sparked European colonization, not a particularly well coordinated European monarchy.

ryandvm 11y ago
Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart. The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. Your willingness to write off the cooperation of the rest of the human species seems shortsighted. Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat. What happens when the "Old World" find themselves embroiled in World War III thirty years into the colonization of Mars and a fungus kills all your monoculture rice? My guess is that if it comes down to winning a war or shipping 5 million tons of corn to Mars, well, you guys are going to be eating a whole lot of Soylent. The other issue is that human colonization has always been driven by "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion. Mars solves none of those. At best you can risk a high likelihood of dying from freezing, starving, depression, and/or cancer in order to avoid: asteroid impact, global pandemic, or killer robots. Scratch that - the killer robots will definitely find you on Mars.
- angersock 11y ago
  "colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient." You mean like Antarctica, right? "Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat." Rich folks and companies, and maaaaybe governments, will be funding this--the same as all colonization efforts in the past. Consider the colonization of the Americas. "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion These are still very much things to worry about on Earth. Moving to Mars doesn't solve those problems--for the Earthlings. Then again, fuck'em.
- swagasaurus-rex 11y ago

elektromekatron 11y ago

Screw deserves or ready, you are ready to get somewhere and deserve to be there when you manage to arrive. You may then fuck it up, and frankly it would be surprising if we didn't kill a few people trying, but that is exploration.

angersock 11y ago

All of those are boring technical problems, all of which can be solved with the application of money. Only physics is standing in the way. The Earth problems, though, are a great deal more complicated. Even a sufficiently large checkbook can't solve world hunger. Also, your whole "half the population won't admit to global warming" is some feelgood TED bullshit...I'm betting waaaay fewer than 3B (that's billion) people even remotely give a shit about the climate beyond whether or not it's going to be raining.

imglorp 11y ago

Setting up a long term lunar habitat would be a very reasonable first step. Having no atmosphere means solar power is more efficient. In some spots, the soil contains water which can be split for air and fuel. Sending a few automated miners to begin producing stores and building buried habitats is something we can accomplish today, before sending anyone to live.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

>Earth might get a flat tire There is no possible "flat-tire" existential risk scenario which makes moving to Mars cheaper (man hours) than just fixing whatever happened on earth. IMO that kills the whole thing right off the bat.

benihana 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y We (complex life) couldn't recover from something like that. Maybe simple life could hide deep in the earth and emerge when it's safe thousands of years later.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  Makes my point. After that event you now have an earth that is about as habitable as Mars is today. That is also the absolute worst case scenario that is theoretically possible, literally a one in a billion year event. That is something we can plan for and build for now with: Anti-Asteroid technology, "Fallout" shelters/biodomes etc... Or hell, a fucking Dyson sphere (or series of them) is a million times easier/better than trying to terraform Mars. Oh and by the way, Mars has the same risks of Asteroids as earth does so we wouldn't be out of the woods just by being on Mars. The reality is, people like space shit and want to go to space. There is just no good reason to do it as flesh and blood humans.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    I agree with this. If the survival of the species is the goal we'd be far better off building a deep bunker complex on Earth than trying to get a self-sufficient colony going on Mars.
  - visarga 11y ago
    Why bother with planets when we could live in space. There are lots of asteroids filled with materials floating around. If we make it economically feasible to do asteroid mining, we could expand population 1000 times. Think of what would a constellation of self-sufficient asteroid colonies and ships do for human freedom.

dgregd 11y ago

> Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose I'm a fan Elon Musk. But I think people are exaggerating that Mars mission. For me it looks like a goal for SpaceX employees. You have to somehow motivate people to work harder. Maybe I'm just a little cynical, but Elon is too smart to believe in this mission.

thescriptkiddie 11y ago

* Has the most habitable atmosphere of any planet save Earth * Has billions of tons of water * Is exposed to unconcerning amounts of radiation * Has every economic justification for colonization FTFY

crusso 11y ago

I'm not sure humanity deserves to be the species that settles the Milky Way What does that even mean? Especially in the context of how much we've changed to get us this far and how much we would have to change to colonize a galaxy? You might as well have looked at Homo habilis 2.8M years ago and said, "these creatures don't deserve to surf the Internet."

adventured 11y ago
It's premised on the belief that humans are unworthy. It's a meaningless statement, that only reveals what opinion the person holds of humanity, while lacking any objective foundation of comparison. It's just as likely that we are the most worthy of any species in the Milky Way or universe. Which is to say, every other intelligent life form in the galaxy is worse, or perhaps drastically worse. In my counter opinion, I regard the human race to be truly extraordinary and good overall. I'm aware of no finer species that should settle the Milky Way instead.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  I dunno. I think it's just a matter of time before the dolphins start exploring the cosmos.

npizzolato 11y ago

What I find amusing is that there are a whole ton of disaster scenarios for Earth that still leave Earth in a more hospitable condition than Mars.

IndianAstronaut 11y ago

Titan in many ways is a much better candidate for colonization. It has water and an actual atmosphere.