591–600 of 1001 posts
Any reason why you couldn't put a tanker in geo-sync orbit connected to a very (very) long fuel pipe somewhere on earth? The idea being you can pump fuel up instead of launching it? Kind of like a space elevator for fuel! :)
This new launch vehicle has a realistic chance of getting people and materials to Mars in sufficient quantities to build an outpost. I'd like to hear more about how they plan to build a self-sustaining colony on Mars though. There are some pretty big challenges to overcome, such as the relative lack of Nitrogen. A colony is going to have to grow plants but, to do that on Mars, we're going to need a way of fixing Nitr…
2% of a very low pressure may not seem like much but in total that's about half a trillion tonnes, or half a million cubic kilometers of Nitrogen. It'll be a very long time before that resource is depleted. Additionally, Mars has nitrates, which can be mined and exploited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terraforming isn't necessary. Growing food is probably a necessity, as even this cheap transport isn't that transport, but you can do that in greenhouses. Water is available. Energy is available in the form of either solar or nuclear. Getting the colony to be self-sustaining is hard, but it boils down to getting enough people and infrastructure there that they are able to build everything they need on site.
If terraforming is not possible and the Mars colony requires sealed and pressurized buildings, why does it need to be on Mars? Just build it on earth. And if earth runs out of mineable resources, mine asteroids instead, and build your colonies inside those asteroids.
The point is to make humanity resilient to what would otherwise be an exctinction-level event, such as an engineered superplague, weaponized nanorobotics, or a massive asteroid impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't like it, then you're free to go do whatever it is you do like. Right. And as what appears to be the loudest voice in this discussion, it's also my prerogative to advocate for what I believe to be a better allocation of resources. Lets not pretend there is not competition for attention, capital and enthusiasm for vision based projects. That I advocate for one over another - in competition - is exactly wha…
> it's also my prerogative to advocate for what I believe to be a better allocation of resources. Honest question, not trying to be rude: what makes you believe you have a better idea of what a good allocation of resources (and Elon Musk's / SpaceX's skills) would be? If you're so smart and good at allocating resources, what prevents you from pursuing that other project instead of demanding from other people to follo…
Same reason as anyone else I suppose. Not really sure how to answer that without sounding like a douche.
If you're so smart and good at allocating resources, what prevents you from pursuing that other project instead of demanding from other people to follow your lead?
I mean that's exactly what I'm doing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting back is actually much easier, and we won't send anyone until there's a return ship ready for them on the ground. Mars escape velocity is ~5 km/s compared to 11 km/s for Earth, so right off the bat it takes half as much delta-v to get off Mars. The numbers get even more attractive when you consider that Mars's atmosphere is so thin you can use vacuum-optimized engines on the surface. It's a near-certainty that…
What I meant is, until Mars is self-sustaining and eventually capable of recolonizing Earth. Colonists rocketing back to a nuclear wasteland or planet infected with super-viruses won't protect us from extinction. And it's much easier and cheaper just to have underground bunkers than to bring a few people back from Mars on a rocket right after some disaster.
This new launch vehicle has a realistic chance of getting people and materials to Mars in sufficient quantities to build an outpost. I'd like to hear more about how they plan to build a self-sustaining colony on Mars though. There are some pretty big challenges to overcome, such as the relative lack of Nitrogen. A colony is going to have to grow plants but, to do that on Mars, we're going to need a way of fixing Nitr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you know...discovered [1] Also, show me the species on other planets. Far as we know there aren't any and none of the planets seem to be habitable. Stop living in fantasy land. [1] http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-animal-species
>>Also, show me the species on other planets. Exactly, lets go there and see for ourselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're my hero! This attitude is why I quit regularly contributing to this site. Any time any single person does something positive, some armchair "expert" comes out the woodworks to tell you how it won't work or can't work.
What would you prefer? Rolling applause for every idea anyone presents? One benefit of criticism is we might get to read an angle of attack we hadn't thought of and thereby improve our ideas and designs. Sure, when people blow off an idea by saying "pointless, let's save the baby dolphins first" I don't find those comments helpful, but HN almost always has far more in-depth critiques. Edit: fixed a word
Here to the crazy ones.
Some of the comments here make me think of crabs in a pot pulling down the ones who try to climb out. Nobody's making you participate in this venture. If you don't like it, then you're free to go do whatever it is you do like. You might think Musk could better direct his efforts and resources elsewhere, but most other billionaires don't do anything all that interesting, they just invest their money in mundane stuff,…
> Nobody's making you participate in this venture. If you don't like it, then you're free to go do whatever it is you do like. I can't agree more. I've seen HN degrade into that kind of discussion over the last 2 years and it really disappoints me. Part of me wishes HN had a really strong moderator that slapped down nay-sayers. If you're not contributing something valuable, comment deleted.
Slapping down dissenting opinions leads to an echo-chamber. One mans sceptic is another's "nay-sayer", I think community moderation (via votes) is filtering high value comments rather well,so specific moderation is hardly required: egregious flaming excepted.
> If you're not contributing something valuable, comment deleted
Just because you disagree with a given opinion does not make it worthless.