Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just an idea: sentiment analysis has gotten pretty accurate. What if HN included sentiment in the sort algorithm? The post score you see would stay the same (upvotes minus downvotes). You'd just multiply the sort score by, for example, 1.25 for posts positive in tone and 0.8 for posts with negative tone. So if two comments have about the same number of upvotes, the nicer one appears higher up. Criticism or disapprova…
I am currently doing a (simple) sentiment analysis for the complete reddit comment set. Perhaps when I am done with that, I can have a look at the HN corpus (where to download?) for correlations between upvotes and users, though I doubt that rating post quality by sentiment is easy. But it could be useful to look at the comment history of a user. When someone who is an overall positively minded contributor (with a hi…
Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#982Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there's even a small chance of success in establishing a self-sustaining colony [...] then any degree of personal risks levied on individual colonists are "worth it" from the species level No, the risk v reward curve has to be better than an equivalent risk v reward curve for a terrestrial species survival project to justify the mission. I would argue that just about any PhD in epidemiology, disaster relief, or…
I think no amount of geopolitics PhDs will reduce the chance of wiping out humanity through nuclear war more than Mars colonization does. I think it may take some time - centuries even - for colonizing Mars to "pay off" in terms of reduced extinction risk. But I think in the long term - say 500 years from now - we will indisputably be safer as a species if we started colonizing Mars 500 years ago than if we didn't. A…
I would increase that number if someone could tell a story with even a whiff of truth about how it could happen.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#983Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No ground in reality"? Sure, the plan is extremely ambitious. But it relies on no fundamentally new technology and comes from someone with a proven track record in the field. They're talking at almost seven years before the first Mars launch with this system. I'll remind you that seven years before Apollo 11, this was the state of the art for American spaceflight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_LV-3B Further, M…
The technology to put people on Mars is not fundamentally new. The technology to make such a colony self sustaining is. We've never built any habitat which is entirely self sufficient even just in food, water, and air. Even the ISS needs resupply to generate breathable air. Even simple problems like "how do we replace failed bolts" will require resupply from earth for a long time. I'm also dubious of the economics of…
This is, thank god, incorrect. We have closed loop systems for food, water and air.
I have in front of me a shelf of books relating to closed loop systems. They were designed for two purposes, space travel on one side, and on the flip side as a final resort against nuclear annihilation. I can give you sources to look up if you're interested.
The details were worked out in the 70s and 80s, but the projects were closed down when the West began to lose faith, no thanks to exponential energy shocks but that is a separate story for another day.
> Even simple problems like "how do we replace failed bolts" will require resupply from earth for a long time.
I would not call the manufacture of steel bolts a simple problem except in a colloquial sense.
This is something different to food/air/water, but we should be able to accomplish this in a new closed loop project.
The secret to space colonization and closed loop systems is not physics, but chemistry, knowing the correct procedures for the synthesis of new compounds from more basic elements.
> I don't see a Mars colony ever being a rational investment for those of us on Earth
This is another subject again, but many rare things exist in abundance in space that could be used to create an economy unlike that of Earth, such as platinum and the isotope helium-3. Then there is the ability to use nuclear systems in a way we cannot without political and environmental problems on our home planet.
To lift all restrictions on the use of nanotechnology, biotechnology and nuclear engineering would unleash a torrent of creativity from our society that is presently bound up in other things.
This is something that is not anybody's area of expertise. It is the area in which businessmen are going to have to come up with exploits.
And let us not forget one important thing from geopolitics. He who controls the skies, controls the earth. So going up is not really an option. The full weight of military support should be behind any spacefaring entrepreneurs. You want Iran or Korea slinging rocks at our cities? You do not need nuclear weapons if you have that much kinetic force on your side! You cannot be at the Apex if there exists a rock hanging over your head.
Fortunately our enemies disapprove of science fiction, or we'd be in a spot of trouble!
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#984Some 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,…
Agree, I wrote a medium article about exactly this phenomenon partly inspired by you: https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/the-crab-people-and-space-expl... I've been annoyed by this attitude for quite some time now. You see it all the time. Same deal with Tesla an Model S. Because not everybody can afford it, and because not all power is renewable an electric car like Tesla Model S seems like some sort of terrible crime. W…
I understand where you're coming from. But it is not about all negativity per se.
I am quite negative about our progress over the past few decades. But that is because I think we could be doing much, much more.
I think it is a combination of seemingly opposite attributes that is the most helpful here. Enough optimism to have faith in the future, and enough pessimism in another part of the brain to catch the bugs before you get taken down by the obstacles.
So please don't throw me in with the crab people! :-)
Elon Musk has given us a torch for the first time in a long, long time, and if he falters, our cadre shall pick up the fire and continue on.
AD ASTRA.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#985Can someone with expertise to compare Musk's plan vs. Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed in the early 90s?
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#986The Mars colonial fleet would depart en-masse - about 1000 ships
All glory to the Empire!
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#987After having read all several trillion comments in this, I can summarize: everyone shits on Elon because he's doing new shit, and they either misunderstand the gravity (ha ha) of the situation or are just salty as fuck, and almost everyone here in the HN community is essentially repeating this ad infinium. In short, King Elon for World Emperor 2016.
Here is evidence:
I wouldn't have believed it if I had not seen it.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#988Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No ground in reality"? Sure, the plan is extremely ambitious. But it relies on no fundamentally new technology and comes from someone with a proven track record in the field. They're talking at almost seven years before the first Mars launch with this system. I'll remind you that seven years before Apollo 11, this was the state of the art for American spaceflight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_LV-3B Further, M…
The technology to put people on Mars is not fundamentally new. The technology to make such a colony self sustaining is. We've never built any habitat which is entirely self sufficient even just in food, water, and air. Even the ISS needs resupply to generate breathable air. Even simple problems like "how do we replace failed bolts" will require resupply from earth for a long time. I'm also dubious of the economics of…
Use that gray stuff in your head to think of a way to do it. It depends on the type and grade of bolt and how it's holding the things together. You could broach & thread the hole and replace your broken bolt with a larger bolt.
Then you can collect your metals, melt them down, work the metal with some oils to imbue it with some carbon, and make reclaimed bolts.
With power, a lathe, and time you can build anything round. With some more tools you can build anything of any shape.
Just recycle everything.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#989After having read all several trillion comments in this, I can summarize: everyone shits on Elon because he's doing new shit, and they either misunderstand the gravity (ha ha) of the situation or are just salty as fuck, and almost everyone here in the HN community is essentially repeating this ad infinium. In short, King Elon for World Emperor 2016.
The name 'Elon' already comes from a book in which it was the title for the Leader of Mars. It was written by Wernher von Braun... Here is evidence: http://imgur.com/a/yhvDH I wouldn't have believed it if I had not seen it.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#990I'd really like to see us taking space seriously. While I'm still here. One of my earliest strong memories was the last moon landing. This was followed by years of "Tomorrow's World" and "Horizon" telling us about the Moon bases, Mars bases and orbital platforms that would soon follow. We got Skylab and some very interesting probes. I'm a tiny bit disappointed in that. We were meant to be en route to Starfleet Comman…
I was so inspired by Elon saying "people have this expectation that technology just continues to improve on it's own," before going on to talk about ancient civilizations reaching peak technology and backsliding hard.
It's like "well the others are going to cure cancer, fix the internet, make it so that machines can talk with us and make gold fall out of the sky".