Sending humans to Mars seems less attractive to me than sending robots to Ceres. Is there an argument for Mars that doesn't include the phrase "multi-planet species"?
Do we really need more of an argument than "multi-planet species"? And in the case that "multi-planet species" is the goal, is there a better target? I'm not aware of one.
Musk revises Mars ambitions
21–30 of 183 posts
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#22They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do something.
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#23Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really). I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it. It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point whe…
Fake examples:
> It took me forever to find a good font for my webcomic that wasn't comic sans.
I'm astounded that apparently we can't use a perfects good font, lest some bogeyman jump out and make you regret it.
It's a font! For Microsoft Bob's sake. How bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?
> John Smith, 56, was arrested for indecent exposure in a playground while laughing maniacally.
I'm astounded that apparently we can't show our entire bodies in public lest some bogeyman jump out and make you regret it.
It's a body part. I mean, it's how all other animals live - how bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?
> Riots ensue as it is leaked that all Burger King meat has been human meat, this whole time.
I'm astounded that apparently we can't eat human meat lest some bogeyman jump out and make you regret it.
It's meat! For meat's sake. I mean, at the point where a human is dead, why can't we eat the meat? How bad can it really be and why do we need to penalize the usage so?
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#24Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really). I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it. It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point whe…
But if Musk says "Big Fucking Rocket" on stage, TV news can't quote him. That's counterproductive to his goals, but using a heavy implication both allows him a broader audience and lets every adult know they've got the 'cheeky' name for it.
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#25Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really). I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it. It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point whe…
They presumably call it the Big Fucking Rocket at SpaceX. But if Musk says "Big Fucking Rocket" on stage, TV news can't quote him. That's counterproductive to his goals, but using a heavy implication both allows him a broader audience and lets every adult know they've got the 'cheeky' name for it.
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#26I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss SpaceX's ambitions as unrealistic. They were the first to achieve re-usability of the first stage of an orbital class rocket, the first to prove out supersonic retro-propulsion and the first private company to re-fly a spacecraft (the Dragon Capsule). Given that, it seems like they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they say they are going to do somethi…
1) he became spaceX lead because no serious engineer would join beside the team he assembled
2) falcon1 failed 3 times, 4th attempt was their last one before folding
I'm not fond of everything Musk, but he achieved something deep and qualitative.
Also, even if the end smelled like fund-me marketing, the first half was genuinely simple and factual (of course considering it's hindsight).
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#27Last year, it was the Interplanetary Transport System, but now Musk has regressed to using the original, cheeky "code name" BFR, in which the B stands for big, the R stands for rocket, and the F stands for fun. (Not really). I'm always astounded that apparently we still can't say fuck lest some bogeyman (real or imaginary) jump out and make you regret it. It's a fucking word. For fuck's sake. I mean, at the point whe…
Is this an American cultural thing, or are other cultures just as averse to public swearing?
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#28The article does not do his talk justice. It is definitely worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/S5V7R_se1Xc
Agree. I don't entirely agree that he's "revised" so much as got more specific.
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#29Who cares if Musk's predictions are realistic? He is doing us all a tremendous service by keeping Mars in the public conversation.
I still don't see why we should spend $$$ on mars when we have a perfectly good one here millions of light years in any direction. Maybe we should stop treating the only planet that supports life like shit and cherish it.
Re: Musk revises Mars ambitions
#30Who cares if Musk's predictions are realistic? He is doing us all a tremendous service by keeping Mars in the public conversation.
I still don't see why we should spend $$$ on mars when we have a perfectly good one here millions of light years in any direction. Maybe we should stop treating the only planet that supports life like shit and cherish it.
It can seem like a tremendous diversion with the potential to abdicate any urgent need to address our problems at home, operating under the assumption that we'll replace it. But that's obviously flawed thinking, since anything we find nearly habitable will always be a poor substitute for where we evolved to live.