Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#671

Post by jack9 » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:31 AM UTC

wyager wrote: post #395

ythl wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in my case, I see trying to start a Mars colony as a death trap. It's the illusion of carrying on the human race, but it's really just dooming a bunch of pioneers to a grim fate in an extremely hostile environment. I think making a south pole colony would be hard enough, let alone a Mars one.

I don't understand the abject lack of imagination, or optimism, or whatever it is, that makes some people believe that mildly complicated engineering challenges are somehow impossible. Do you think no one in SpaceX has thought about this for more than five seconds? Obviously it's not completely trivial to sustain humans on Mars, but there is literally no reason to believe we couldn't accomplish it using current level…

> Keeping humans alive on THE MOON starting from now is vastly easier to comprehend than putting a man on the moon starting from 1950

Fixed. Mars is impossible, for now. We haven't kept someone in space long enough to reach mars nor have we developed a sustainable model that's extraterrestrially tested. Mars has more problems than a moon base, not significantly less (there's a few small pros and cons but being so far away is a major con).

> there is literally no reason to believe we couldn't accomplish it using current levels of technology

Except that we have no demonstrable way to do it, any fantasy seems plausible in comparison. At least try to start a closed biological system with a rat and find out how hard that is, then add the lag-time to service problems and a low gravity high radiation environment, etc. The movies have really poisoned the reality for the US population, but maybe it's part of the PR to raise money. I can understand that, but I won't concede that it's doable yet.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#672

Post by watermoose » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:31 AM UTC

I'm incredibly excited about this.

I would actually like to hear more about what happens on Mars: the steps to generate oxygen, food, energy, water, and the fuel for the return trip. What are the various ways that Mars could be terraformed, and what are the ethical and practical considerations?

I know that this comes on the heels of an unfortunate accident, but I'm in the camp that accidents and mistakes can lead to better process with less risk, and sometimes simpler solutions.

And, I'd like to invest in SpaceX. Whether it's in stocks or bonds, I just want to help.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#673

Post by peeters » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:32 AM UTC

kchoudhu wrote: post #210

justrossthings wrote: post #101

Required reading: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Mars-Trilogy-Stanley-Robinson/dp/...

I just finished reading these books for what seems like the millionth time, and Mr. Musk hasn't even begun to answer the questions they raise. What is the legal structure going to be on the 1MM person colony? Who gets to go? What are the transplants allowed to do there? Who rules? Who do the rulers answer to? Are we going to Terraform Mars? If yes, under whose auspices and with what restrictions? FTR: this is Elon Mu…

> I just finished reading these books for what seems like the millionth time, and Mr. Musk hasn't even begun to answer the questions they raise. What is the legal structure going to be on the 1MM person colony? Who gets to go? What are the transplants allowed to do there? Who rules? Who do the rulers answer to? Are we going to Terraform Mars? If yes, under whose auspices and with what restrictions?

Musk has basically stated that he has no interest in being involved at that end. He has said SpaceX is making the transport, it's other peoples' job to figure out what to do what we get there. He likens this to building a railroad into a new frontier. California was barely populated when the Union Pacific was built, and yet it was not the railway's job to govern the colonies that popped up alongside it.

Now it'll obviously be more nuanced than that, but if there is a viable sustained transportation strategy to Mars, you can bet a lot of people

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#674

Post by signa11 » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

wmccullough wrote: post #184

mikeash wrote: post #148

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,…

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.

> some armchair "expert" comes out the woodworks to tell you how it won't work or can't work.

“Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.” - robert-a-heinlein

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#675

Post by peeters » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

tux1968 wrote: post #612

ygra wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A scale model of the engine. It's not full-size yet.

It's full size they just use 27+ of them on the heavy lift version of their rocket, and 40+ on the proposed rocket for lifting the Mars ships off of Earth.

Falcon Heavy will use 27 Merlin engines, not Raptors. The Merlin is already being flown in Falcon 9, and they're producing dozens per year. The Heavy is basically a Falcon 9 with two more Falcon 9 first stage cores strapped on the side as boosters.

Though I think there is talk of moving all Falcon to the Raptors eventually.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#676

Post by salamisultan » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #613

ekianjo wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. HN is not a fanboy driven community usually, so it's where rational and educated conversation can take place. On the contrary I find criticism helpful in this kind of context.

As engineers (or hackers, whatever) we are supposed to be naturally skeptical, in the words of someone wiser than me, "good programmers look both ways when crossing a one way street."

U have to. U never know when some dumb nigger is gonna go the wrong way and commit to their mistake. Fuck Kareem

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#677

Post by Pinckney » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #434

ythl wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think it's many, many orders of magnitude easier to survive on a messed up earth than on a fresh Mars or Venus.

Depends on how messed up it is. Earth ravaged by global warming and pollution? Yeah, still a lot easier than Mars. Earth ravaged by a strike from a gigantic asteroid that sterilizes the crust to a depth of three meters? Mars is probably easier. The chances of the second one are pretty low, but some people think that any chance is too high.

Earth is still more hospitable in the case of your giant asteroid. Those in nuclear submarines and bunkers will survive unless they're very close to the epicenter. When they emerge, they'll find temperatures and atmosphere which are much more hospitable than on Mars. The survivors will also be able to scavenge abundant refined metals from the dead for rebuilding.

We can also start improving these facilities today, if we care about the survival of homo sapiens. Even out the gender ratio at Cheyenne mountain, give it a small nuclear reactor, a hydroponic farm, and a seed bank and we can be reasonably confident in it weathering anything but a very near miss.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#678

Post by qaq » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:41 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #586

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Exactly. HN is not a fanboy driven community usually, so it's where rational and educated conversation can take place. On the contrary I find criticism helpful in this kind of context.

It's helpful when the critic poses at least a fraction of expertise and experience as related to the subject of the people who's idea is being criticised.

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#679

Post by giarc » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:41 AM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #480

giarc wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is likely very efficient with his time. Improving public speaking skills is not an efficient use of his time for someone in his position.

Since his "position" involves advocating for a whole bunch of literal and figurative moon shots, investing in public speaking skills is a HIGHLY efficient use of his time.

And yet there are two companies that live stream product launches and get lots of media attention. Apple and Tesla/SpaceX. So I would say his public speaking skills don't matter to the crowd of engineers and geeks. Maybe, just maybe the product speaks louder than the words?

Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]

#680

Post by nickik » Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

devy wrote: post #141

Can someone with expertise to compare Musk's plan vs. Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed in the early 90s?

Musk defiantly knows about the Mars Direct and he has ideas from it in his presentation.

Mars Direct did not do any refiling in orbit, but rather does multible direct launches. That allows them to use smaller rockets. Zubrin worked under the assumption that the best he could get was a modified version of Shuttle (pretty similar to SLS actually).

Mars Direct assumed a rocket with a normal upper stage that then deployed its payload to mars.SpaceX makes the spaceship itself the 2nd stage.

Mars direct leaves large the hab behind and does a direct fly back with the MAV. In the SpaceX plan you fly back with the hole ship, this gives you the same comforts in both directions.

Mars Direct assumes continually new HABs, MAVs and rockets to be built to keep up the exploration or base building. Its a very good plan if you have a space agency that has a budget every years and wants to continue doing what they are doing.

The SpaceX plan want to massively decrease price and thus makes more extrem choices such as re-usability to not waste anything.

Basically, SpaceX makes a spacetruck that can transport a lot for cheap. Mars Direct aims to deliver what you need for long exploration in the simplest way.

Both are great plans.