Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

spiegel.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 330 posts

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#291

Post by slowhand09 »

est31 wrote: post #163
neaden wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of sad that you consider land being left in it's natural state as a waste. We have more then enough land for crops and everything else, we can just let some of it exist.

Not all of the federal lands are national parks. I'm not advocating for their dissolval. Only talking about the parts that are literally barren. You could e.g. put solar farms there that generate H2 or methane and fix the renewable energy problem. If you check the satellite photographs, so many parts of earth are yellow. I want them to be green and teeming with life, just like the other parts.

Not disparaging your idea, but we should always consider the law of unintended consequences.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#292

Post by CrazyStat »

rapnie wrote: post #263
CrazyStat wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to move to a planet that is essentially uninhabitable? Where even in the best scenarios we would live really harsh lives after a long and dangerous voyage. The point of colonizing Mars (for Musk) is not to move there when Earth becomes inhabitable. It's too remove the single point of failure for the species that…

> With a self-sustainable (even if harsh) Mars colony How realistic is this self-sustainability? Where any moderately complex spare parts can be produced on Mars, instead of having to be supplied from Earth with yet another ultra-expensive supplies mission? Imho we are talking hundreds of years here. Until then our burning home base Earth remains a single point of failure. Better douse the fire first. Until then putt…

Relying on spare parts from Earth for anything important is impossible, since it takes months to years for a one-way trip depending on where in their orbits the two planets are.

I'm just speculating now, but I think this might be one reason Musk is so interested in robotic manufacturing (e.g. the failed "alien dreadnought" vision for the Model 3 production line). If you have mostly automated, flexible manufacturing systems that can be computer controlled and require minimal human expertise to operate then all you need is the computer files for whatever spare part you need to build. Set up 3-4 of these manufacturing centers at different spots for redundancy and you don't have to worry so much about spare part availability.

The first effort (Model 3 assembly) was a disaster though.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#293

Post by Robotbeat »

AlexandrB wrote: post #289
leto_ii wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply :D If at least the hyperloop project manages to get off the ground (pun sort of intended) that would still be a nice contribution to human progress. I'm not at all sure about the long-haul rockets though. I think having rockets near population centers is extremely dangerous to begin with. Secondly, I'm not sure the cost-benefit ratio makes sense. Transport aboard a rocket must be ex…

> If at least the hyperloop project manages to get off the ground (pun sort of intended) that would still be a nice contribution to human progress. I don’t agree. We already have maglev, is hyperloop going to be cheaper to build/operate? If not, why would the marginal speed increase prompt governments to invest in this kind of infrastructure vs. traditional rail or maglev? The problem is not that hyperloop won’t work…

Hyperloop is supposed to be significantly cheaper to build and operate due to reduced diameter, reduced impact on environment from noise (really fast maglev and high speed rail can be an acoustics problem, particularly near tunnel orifices), and increased efficiency particularly at the high end (energy consumption per kilometer at high speeds is proportional to speed squared, and as you approach transonic speeds, it gets worse, so pumping almost all the air out can help dramatically... neglecting air friction, and depending on the exact technology, maglev itself is can actually be MORE efficient per ton-mile at high speeds than low).

Hyperloop's infrastructure cost is hopefully being solved by The Boring Company (although if they make more than incremental progress in tunneling efficiency, all sorts of tunnel projects in the US--which has particularly bad tunnel infrastructure costs--should improve). Also, if Hyperloop succeeds, it might help loosen the political restraints.

Personally, I think The Boring Company is more likely to be successful than Hyperloop itself. There's a lot of really hairy engineering required for super high speeds. BUT the Hyperloop student competition's 10km track could push the state of the art in rail speed, and that may have interesting consequences.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#294

Post by dwild »

Robotbeat wrote: post #193
leto_ii wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna take the risk of being extremely unpopular and I'll say that Musk is completely overrated. I think he's nowhere near the level of people that we usually think of as geniuses. In certain ways he's good at marketing and hyping things up, but a lot of his ideas, especially the Mars one, are nonsensical. Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to…

Musk's skill is not pure genius. He's relatively smart, but nothing Earth-shattering. And he's also not particularly good at marketing... What he's good at is executing on ideas that people think are absolutely crazy. And he leans into the craziness a bit beforehand by choosing to describe stuff in a way that sounds a bit unbelievable ("hoverslam onto a droneship" = land under constant deceleration on a barge with st…

> And he leans into the craziness a bit beforehand by choosing to describe stuff in a way that sounds a bit unbelievable

He did was able to build a car company and a rocket company. Sure you found example that are less crazy than what he said, but you forget the actual crazy stuff he did.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#295

Post by dwild »

rapnie wrote: post #263
CrazyStat wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to move to a planet that is essentially uninhabitable? Where even in the best scenarios we would live really harsh lives after a long and dangerous voyage. The point of colonizing Mars (for Musk) is not to move there when Earth becomes inhabitable. It's too remove the single point of failure for the species that…

> With a self-sustainable (even if harsh) Mars colony How realistic is this self-sustainability? Where any moderately complex spare parts can be produced on Mars, instead of having to be supplied from Earth with yet another ultra-expensive supplies mission? Imho we are talking hundreds of years here. Until then our burning home base Earth remains a single point of failure. Better douse the fire first. Until then putt…

> Imho we are talking hundreds of years here.

So we are already hundreds of years late, aren't we? Let's start right now to make this happen.

> Better douse the fire first.

Here we are again... the good old, well there's something else wrong, lets just fix that other thing wrong and ignore everything else.

Why not working on both? What stop us from working on both? I would be happy to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you could do more to "douse the fire". We sadly can't stop doing 100% of what we do to fix everything.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#296

Post by dwild »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #131
34679 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no future event that would make earth as uninhabitable as Mars is today. Wouldn't that imply if we can make Mars habitable, then we'll be capable of dealing with whatever problems arise here on Earth? Think of it as a nice test run without the immediate fate of humanity's only biosphere at stake.

The costs involved in turning Mars into an experimental environment, call it a "twin", would likely eclipse the sum total of human activity to date (300k years worth) by several orders of magnitude.

> The costs involved in turning Mars into an experimental environment

I think it would be more realistic to say, if we are able to live on Mars instead of making Mars livable. Being able to live on Mars won't require "the sum total of human activity to date (300k years worth)"

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#297

Post by njarboe »

leto_ii wrote: post #244
Robotbeat wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rockets for long haul flight is still a goal of SpaceX's. They are pursuing that as a kind of secondary market (which would have a LOT more demand than Mars missions) for their Mars rocket. In fact, they're more serious about that now than ever. Hyperloop is making progress. It wasn't a priority for Musk; he didn't start a Hyperloop company, but open-sourced the idea and let others run with it. Those companies ha…

Thanks for the comprehensive reply :D If at least the hyperloop project manages to get off the ground (pun sort of intended) that would still be a nice contribution to human progress. I'm not at all sure about the long-haul rockets though. I think having rockets near population centers is extremely dangerous to begin with. Secondly, I'm not sure the cost-benefit ratio makes sense. Transport aboard a rocket must be ex…

The SpaceX landing pads at Cape Canaveral are 10 miles from populated areas and 50 miles from the large city of Orlando. So we are already landing them near population centers.

With fully reusable rockets, one gets to the point where they are better than airplanes because you can use them more (10 flights per day from Sydney to New York and back instead of the 1/2 round trip per day you currently get with airplanes). They cost similar amounts to build, but can make much more revenue/time. Also for long trips (1/2 way around the world) the fuel used/passenger will also be similar.

This is of course future tech, but could be coming in the next few years. Elon Musk say first orbital tests coming this year.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#298

Post by dwild »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #143
wrsh07 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true of nuclear winter or a major impact event? Wouldn't either of those render the Earth temporarily uninhabitable? Is the argument that it would be easy enough to build on Earth places to survive such events rather than going to Mars?

Yes it includes all those examples. Humans could endeavor to build many vast underground or undersea habitats (mineshaft gap!) that serve as a protective function for, I dunno 1 millionth(?) the cost of sending a terraform crew Mars with probably a million X more capacity to support humanity, plus the ability to use it and iterate on it right now. Doesn't sound very sexy though right? Kind of like all the data engine…

> I'll do a little pre-buttal here about what kind of science we're "losing out on" by not pursuing more space: Building for underground or undersea habitats has significantly less research put into it than space habitation, so you'd see an equivalent boom in research/technology development that has dual use as we did in the 1950s likely.

This is so absurd. You aren't losing anything by pursuing more space. What's up with all the binary stuff in theses discussions? Why every time someone talks about no doing something, the argument are that binary?

You know you can do both right? It's not space or water. We don't have a thresold where we have to choose between one or the other. Research into underground and undersea habitats doesn't happen because we are unable to make them happen, not because we love space.

Our society is interested into space, just like you said, it's "sexy". It's also filled with potential, space mining for example is worth trillions. It's also filled with unknown, there's reasons why stars are so much filled with legends, stories and mythology. That's what make space something that sell, unlike underground or undersea.

So the alternative isn't underground or undersea research, it's no research at all.

You can make undeground or undersea research sexy. Go for it! I'll be the first one to support your cause, more research is always better. Please stop arguing for less research....

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#299

Post by danw1979 »

Semaphor wrote: post #272
heeen2 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you underestimate how far apart galaxies are.

I think once we manage to colonize our entire galaxy, the next galaxy won't be that far away.

Andromeda ? It's closer than you think !

(to the tune of The Specials' Enjoy Yourself)

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#300

Post by Supermancho »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #184
Seenso wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Musk appears to be doing something crazy you've not understood it. That's a pretty ridiculous attitude. You're literally talking about Musk like he's a god or something. He's a regular guy, not some kind of superman: he makes mistakes, has limited understanding, and is often wrong.

Sure, but he's been right on enough deeply contrarian bets that the kind of 'common sense' dismissal we'd apply to most people making the kind of claims he's made are clearly the wrong heuristic. It's not that he's never wrong. It's that how outlandish his statements are is not a good indicator of how likely he is to be wrong.

> It's that how outlandish his statements are is not a good indicator of how likely he is to be wrong.

What someone considers outlandish, is subjective. By my observation (of topics I think are interesting), he's wrong all the time. Same as Nostradamus, although Musk probably isn't as crazy.

Post reply on HN