131–140 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.
What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.
What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interplanetary space travel is going nowhere fast because there is no profit motive. This is so very true. We can do it for Science, and for fun, but not much else.
What happens when earth goes to actual shit and rich people want out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earth has too much baggage (humanity, politics) to suggest that it's self-evidently prudent to develop something on earth first.
Those won't be going away when we send humans to Mars. If that stuff is really a problem, start a colony in Antarctica. It'd be much easier to achieve livable conditions there than Mars, and your life support won't be tens of millions of miles away.
Antarctica: breathable air, much warmer than Mars, more insolation, low light-speed lag, water.
Mid-ocean: much much warmer than Mars, high pressure, low light-speed lag, lots of water. No breathable atmosphere but some oxygen can be extracted.
Emi Koussi: hugely warmer than Mars, breathable atmosphere (at 10K feet), no significant water, low light-speed lag.
Build your domes in each of those locations, run them for ten years: then you have real data, plus emergency evac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no true proofs outside of realm of math at all. SpaceX odds for going to Mars are, however, better than anyone else's.
You mean besides all the agencies that have already gone to Mars?
Otherwise sending a drone to plant a plaque on Mars has certainly been possible for SpaceX for some years now.
Also.. wouldnt a sun-shade providing drone with a water-ice container as ray shield always be superior?
> ...then why not go to other places on Earth as well? I'm addressing this because I know someone will ask. Honestly my first reaction was to laugh, then I made sense of it. Economically this does not make sense. Price points do not make sense for this, even from the most ambitious startups. You'd want to use a space plane. BUT I still think it is a good idea. The reason being is that this is a quick way to get his t…
Here is what Elon said on instrgram, "Fly to most places on Earth in under 30 mins and anywhere in under 60. Cost per seat should be about the same as full fare economy in an aircraft. Forgot to mention that." Source : https://www.instagram.com/p/BZnVfWxgdLe/?hl=en&taken-by=elon...
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"?
Mars is way closer. Mars has a more terrestrially-similar gravity level. Mars has way more solar power. Ceres is basically vacuum, can't aerobrake. And its gravity well is so small you also can't take advantage of the Oberth effect. Mars' atmosphere shields you from the vast majority of solar radiation (so no risk of death from acute radiation poisoning), from all micrometeorites, and even a significant amount of gal…
Two questions:
1) How exactly does this work, when the mean surface temperature on Mars is below freezing? [0] I don't know a lot of plants that can grow very well in below freezing temperatures with a ton of CO2. Evergreen trees come to mind, but you won't find too many of them above the arctic circle.
2) If we cannot even properly manage the atmosphere on our own planet, why do you think we'd fare any better on another planet?
To put it another way: why aren't we aggressively working to terraform Earth back into a usable state than talking about doing this on another planet where resources are much more limited and everything needs to be built locally or shipped in from another planet?
[0] https://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars....
I'm absolutely ecstatic that Musk is talking about the Moon. Mars is great, but Luna is near & here, and honestly, it's a strategic location (not just militarily) as the it's at the top of Earth's gravity well with a minimal well of it's own - great basecamp for interplanetary missions. If we can't occupy the Moon, why should we shoot for colonizing Mars?
Another interesting aspect of a moon base -- would it be easier and/or cheaper to produce propellants there instead of sending four rockets up to fuel each Mars-bound ship?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those won't be going away when we send humans to Mars. If that stuff is really a problem, start a colony in Antarctica. It'd be much easier to achieve livable conditions there than Mars, and your life support won't be tens of millions of miles away.
This. If you can't support a colony in Antarctica, or in the middle of the ocean, or on Emi Kousi in the Sahara, you can't do well on Mars. Run those as a test. Antarctica: breathable air, much warmer than Mars, more insolation, low light-speed lag, water. Mid-ocean: much much warmer than Mars, high pressure, low light-speed lag, lots of water. No breathable atmosphere but some oxygen can be extracted. Emi Koussi: hu…