Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#91

Post by kseistrup »

restalis wrote: post #84
kseistrup wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know yet if they're just rocks. And if we can't take care of Earth, I fail to see how we could ever take care of another planet.

For the most activities we embark on, none of us is ready for. We just jump in and learn on the fly, the journey itself transforms and adapts us. So, maybe we haven't learned enough about taking care of a planet, but that's not a reason to hold ourselves back ...isn't it?

Perhaps not, I just don't see anything good coming out of it.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#92

Post by [deleted] »

kseistrup wrote: post #89
feintruled wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an irony here in that we are the only beings we (yet) know of that in any way appreciate the universe on an aethestic level, on subjective criteria we have determined ourselves. So we would be obliterating ourselves to save the universe for... ?

… to save the Universe for the death and destruction that follows almost everything we do. All other life on Earth would thrive if we were not here.

[deleted]

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#93

Post by kseistrup »

hawski wrote: post #58
kseistrup wrote: post #44

Humans belong to one of the most, if not THE most, destructive species on Earth. We exploit all resources we can lay our hands on and destroy plants and animals in the wake of our immense and selfish greed. We would serve the Universe best if we stayed here on Earth, and possibly even obliterated ourselves.

Every species on Earth exploits all resources it can lay its "hands" on and destroy plants and animals in the wake of its immense and selfish greed. We are just better at it.

You're right. We're too good for our own good.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#94

Post by fsloth »

sktrdie wrote: post #76

I'm always confused about our priority for us to become a multi-planetary species. Planets are interesting to us for their resources, but they provide a far greater risk: they're another huge gravity well. This means that it's expensive/resourceful to leave these places (as it currently is for earth). So I'm confused to why not make space habitats our priority instead of other planets. Certainly inhabiting planets is…

Currently it seems space as an environment is not suitable for humans due to heavy radiation. Massive shielding needed. Also, from a psychological point of view - would you rather have your grandchildren stuck in cramped sodacans in space or colonizing a new world with a sky and mountains and other goodies. A planet based colony is probably a lot more resilient than a space based one. I have no opinion as such towards one or another.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#95

Post by CoryG89 »

perilunar wrote: post #57
gambiting wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's literally 0 chance that mining anything on Mars and bringing it back to Earth would be profitable. Obviously mining is still going to be important to build things on Mars, but sending any metals over, no matter how rare, is just crazy.

Maybe not Mars, but asteroids definitely. Platinum is $33k per kg. Bringing back a tonne would net you $33 million.

I think the point is that while it may be worth $33 million, it would take much, much more than that to get it safely back to Earth.

Also, the price of platinum is currently driven by the knowledge that it's naturally scarce and the likelihood of a large amount of "new" platinum coming on the market is low. If this ever changes (we somehow figure out how to profitably bring back a tonne of platinum), then the price would likely crash, as the amount out there in space is essentially infinite.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#96

Post by JoeAltmaier »

kseistrup wrote: post #89
feintruled wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an irony here in that we are the only beings we (yet) know of that in any way appreciate the universe on an aethestic level, on subjective criteria we have determined ourselves. So we would be obliterating ourselves to save the universe for... ?

… to save the Universe for the death and destruction that follows almost everything we do. All other life on Earth would thrive if we were not here.

Not substantiated in geologic history. Life collapsed repeatedly.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#97

Post by Pica_soO »

apatters wrote: post #45
tehmillhouse wrote: post #2

Judging by the preview image for the live stream (yeah, I wish I had more to go on, too), this looks to be a long-haul plan for terraforming mars. I wouldn't hold my breath for the first actual settlements up there. That being said: Yes. Oh yes. Fuck yes. All my yesses.

I'm just as impressed by SpaceX's achievements as the next guy but the Musk fanboyism is really getting out of control here. He's not going to terraform Mars, because we have no idea how to do it, the cost would likely be measurable in "percentage of all human GDP" terms, and it would take longer than a single human life, it'd probably have to be the longest-haul plan humanity had ever undertaken. If the announcement…

Generation Nay, that is what they will call us.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#98

Post by khoury »

CoryG89 wrote: post #87
khoury wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the concept of "owning" even exist outside of earth? Interesting times.

Ask the flag they planted on the moon.

Well, to us, it means something of course. But to others, who knows? It's kinda naïv (and a bit cute) of us to just assume we can go ahead and start "owning" things in the universe now. But hey, maybe that's how it works out there too. We'll see :)

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#99

Post by andyjohnson0 »

ccozan wrote: post #69
JBReefer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the weather is much nicer, even in Saskatchewan! You get all the air you can breath! Honestly though - isn't Venus more likely to take well to terraforming

Venus - like Mars too, is missing an essential element for terraforming: water. On both planets this is long lost, and the constituent elements, espcially hydrogen, is gone from the surface. Unless there is a way to massively mine the rocks for the hydrogen and oxigen, there is no other way to terraform a planet like Mars or Venus. I am afraid that would put the terraforming efforts like hundreds of years ahead.

Mars has plenty of water:

"More than five million cubic kilometres of ice have been identified at or near the surface of modern Mars, enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters (115 ft). Even more ice is likely to be locked away in the deep subsurface." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

#100

Post by JoeAltmaier »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #10
flexie wrote: post #7

Imagine the wealth a company could amass if it succeeded in terraforming mars. Rare metals, sale of land etc. This is one of those markets where you have rather high barriers to entry.

I'm really not sure I want companies to have the capability to re-format entire planets. That sounds like entirely too much power for any organisation to have, if only given its potential for weaponisation. And land sale? The Outer Space Treaty [1] prohibits governments from claiming ownership of planets, so where would the authority to sell land on Mars come from? Do we really want companies to own planets? Weyland-…

I think the Martians will determine what their laws are. You can only legislate over what you can control. All the 'space laws' are whistling in the dark.
Post reply on HN