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

Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 111 posts

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#61

Post by rbanffy »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #49
ars wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might not take it, but they would have to make it. Almost no free oxygen on mars. But making oxygen (from rocks presumably) uses lots of energy (electricity - it's basically the same process used to make aluminium from ore).

Which is abundant on Mars as solar energy, with its thin atmosphere.

Not that abundant - Mars is 1.4 AUs from the sun and receives about half the solar energy we get on Earth. Also, keep in mind that, while the atmosphere is very thin, there are very intense sandstorms that can block the sun for months at a time.

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#62

Post by InclinedPlane »

maeon3 wrote: post #25

The future of space travel is mining the asteroid belt and war preparation, anything else is just farting around, without the unobtanium or the fear of death to drive us, there is no reason to leave earth for more than a quick trip. If Elon Musk wants a base on mars, have him start putting missile silos up there, there will be a McDonalds up there in 30 years instead of some decrepit shack with a few science projects…

Space is just a place. All that it takes is people who want to go there and the technology to do so being within their grasp. As technology advances and people grow wealthier colonization of space will become possible, and then it will happen. And once there are people living in space then the entire equation changes again, because once there is an economy in space there will be more reasons to go than just adventure.

Edit: In terms of technology/wealth, imagine a future in, say, 2100 when we have mastered things like automation, 3D printing, etc. When we can fill out a form on a web app, upload a few files and not just have, say, a fully reusable rocket ship pop out the end of a factory but actually a rocket ship producing factory pop out. Such things are technologically possible, and within our grasp. What happens when we have such power? Do we sit at home?

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#63

Post by chc »

ramidarigaz wrote: post #52
chc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food shipments? Water supplies? We're talking about the kind of technology that would allow you to live on Mars. If you need to rely on those, then 1) Your Martian colony is not really independent and thus doesn't carry any survival benefits, and thus 2) You're wasting resources shipping them to Mars. If you don't need those for your Martian colony, then why would you need them for your Earth colony?

If Earth were in a situation of having to segment populations to prevent the spread of disease, all it takes is one little mistake to wipe out an entire intermingling group of people. I'm not saying we wouldn't have the tech to prevent that from happening, but humans are fallible creatures. Is it worth risking the entirety of humanity when we could have a remote colony that would be very well protected from those typ…

Very well protected? The danger specifically from viruses might be somewhat less (though if we're allowing people to travel there, it doesn't seem like much less of a concern), but any other danger you can imagine would be much greater. The remote colony would be no more protected from disaster than one on Earth. On the contrary, since the surrounding environment would be irreconcilably hostile, it would be constantly at risk of one little mistake wiping it out.

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#64

Post by rbanffy »

ramidarigaz wrote: post #22
rbanffy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An expedition to Mars would cost a lot more, with a much smaller expected ROI. I too would love the idea of going to Mars, but, in order to build a sustainable colony, you'd need to put in place a whole lot of infrastructure to make interplanetary travel cheaper. And, right now, it's not even feasible.

Insurance for humanity against disaster is a small ROI? Not trying to offend, but how do you define ROI of a colony on Mars?

The odds of extinction within the next 50 years are still low. A self-sufficient Moon colony would cover most of the disaster scenarios adequately while being a lot cheaper to build than a Mars colony. Besides, having a self-sufficient lunar colony would probably make building a Mars colony much cheaper.

On the Moon, solar energy is abundant (close to the Sun, no atmosphere) and so are the metals used in spacecraft construction. Without atmosphere and with a low gravity, launching cargo to Mars is easier and can be done with a magnetic rail launcher, effectively using solar power to launch a spacecraft to Mars.

I's even greener to go for the Moon first ;-)

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#65

Post by tomjen3 »

philwelch wrote: post #56
pjscott wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that just a fancy rhetorical flourish, or do you actually expect "living unsustainably" to potentially cause our extinction? If so, I would be interested in hearing a mechanism.

By definition, if you cannot live sustainably, you cannot sustainably live. Though sustainability, more or less, is about sustaining current populations and quality of life; most failures of sustainability won't extinct the human race, they'll just kill a lot of people off and deprive us of the massive amounts of energy needed to maintain our present quality of life.

Whenever I hear that argument I want to scream. The logic flaw is so clear:

It is only unsustainable at current technology levels.

The way we lived in 1900 was unsustainable then, but we could survive like that with 2012 tech no issue (less coal burning, improved sanitation, etc). In 100 years it will be sustainable to live like we do today.

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#66

Post by ericd »

philwelch wrote: post #58
pjscott wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can do both. Hell, even Elon Musk can do both; he also runs Tesla Motors, which makes electric cars on Earth. Also, I notice that people are much more likely to condemn space development as frivolous than they are to criticize, say, football or whittling. Does that seem like a double standard to you, too?

Football and whittling are sustainably self-funding.

Football isn't a productive enterprise, regardless of how much money it can extract from the wider economy. Going to mars will most likely result in a large array of new tech which will find unrelated uses on Earth. Think of it like a way to buy a big burst of creativity.

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#67

Post by rbanffy »

ars wrote: post #41
didgeoridoo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scenario that comes to mind is a massive asteroid impact, but your final sentence sums up the objection nicely: identifying and redirecting a space rock seems at least an order of magnitude less difficult & technologically distant than building a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

Even the worst asteroid impact would not render the planet uninhabitable. It might kill lots of people, but it wouldn't kill all of them.

And yet, again, a Moon colony would be handy to counter an asteroid too. The far side could host very powerful telescopes that could map NEOs with unprecedented efficiency and clarity. On Earth, you have a couple hours of sensor exposure. On the Moon, you have two weeks to trace stuff. And most of the heavy parts could be manufactured in situ, be lighter and higher quality (made in a high grade vacuum).

And that's to say nothing about the ability to launch spacecraft from a lower gravity and/or using a magnetic rail. One could even turn the asteroid into dust (which is less dangerous than a ferrous mountain falling from the sky) with a kinetic impactor packing enough energy.

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#68

Post by zobzu »

What makes things go right? What makes wake up and work your best every day?

Well, such inspiring, exciting stuff, as colonizing other planets. Doing that also improves all other areas. Transportation of course. Electronics. Software. Radio. Medicine. You name it.

That is why such projects not a "childish idea" but actually a great plan.

There's only 2 reasons for humans to work hard, and work good:

- fear of death (war)

- f* exciting stuff (and no, software idea 923839 is not nearly exciting enough, and money isn't either)

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#69

Post by philwelch »

ericd wrote: post #66
philwelch wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Football and whittling are sustainably self-funding.

Football isn't a productive enterprise, regardless of how much money it can extract from the wider economy. Going to mars will most likely result in a large array of new tech which will find unrelated uses on Earth. Think of it like a way to buy a big burst of creativity.

OK, I'll bite. Define "productive enterprise".

Re: Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself

#70

Post by philwelch »

tomjen3 wrote: post #65
philwelch wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, if you cannot live sustainably, you cannot sustainably live. Though sustainability, more or less, is about sustaining current populations and quality of life; most failures of sustainability won't extinct the human race, they'll just kill a lot of people off and deprive us of the massive amounts of energy needed to maintain our present quality of life.

Whenever I hear that argument I want to scream. The logic flaw is so clear: It is only unsustainable at current technology levels. The way we lived in 1900 was unsustainable then, but we could survive like that with 2012 tech no issue (less coal burning, improved sanitation, etc). In 100 years it will be sustainable to live like we do today.

The goal should be that in 100 years, it will be sustainable to live like we will 100 years from now.
Post reply on HN