Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars • Hacker News Board

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#121

Post by koide » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 9:22 PM UTC

jpxxx wrote: post #93

nickzarzycki wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am delighted You certainly don't sound like it.

I would sprint through a minefield to be on that first boat out. My wallpaper at one point in life was panoramic prints from the Opportunity rover. I wrote Kim Stanley Robinson a fan letter, signed with a chewed up gelly pen. I am utterly delighted. But the hard part is extremely, extremely, extremely hard. It's not getting there, it's staying there. And scant few people are focusing on what it would actually look li…

I'm not convinced. After all, colonization of far away lands has been done throughout history and in many cases the return trip was as hard as it would be on Mars.

I picture the confinement problem as the most troublesome, but astronauts spend months in orders of magnitude tighter spaces and surviving in relatively good condition.

There's no reason at all you should send untrained people on those first missions and there's also no reason at all not to schedule yearly trips to bring back the people who couldn't stand the pressure.

Now, of course it will be insanely hard, there will be highly complex issues with no apparent solution that will have to be solved via improvisation without the proper means. But humans seem to have done it again and again.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#122

Post by aardvark179 » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 9:35 PM UTC

guylhem wrote: post #120

jpxxx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Elon Musk is a heroic man. His car company is a marvel, and his space program is spectacular. His unfettered ability to speak without a mouth full of funder's cock or a PR minder sitting in the room is refreshing. His visions are grounded in technical and physical reality, his powers of observation are keen, and he has the personality and resources it takes to organize people in service of great accomplishments…

First, a reply to your original post : > In a box, on a dead planet, for life. Sign me up, right now!!! > Can we provide a reasonable quality of life for colonists? I don't care. I would need a) air+water b) food c) a place to sleep d) tools to colonize the planet - like create more living space. For quality of life, if I can get e) book or movies or even f) internet access, great! If I can't that's not a dealbreaker…

I do admire this sort of enthusiasm, but I also wonder if it can survive such a mission. However we don't need to send a mission to Mars to find out, and if anybody truly wants to send people to Mars on anything other than short term suicide mission then we really need to do a lot more research in this area. Build enclosed isolated environments with limited space, resources and comms, and see how teams get on over long time periods if they believe there is no way out.

I'm not convinced that our future as flesh and blood humans is in space, or even on any of the other planets in our solar system, but if we're going to try then we cannot focus solely on the hard technical challenges.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#123

Post by greedo » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 10:25 PM UTC

simba-hiiipower wrote: post #119

greedo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't say I agree that funding this type of endeavor is "one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any rational player in the private sector to take-on." Government does many things marginally better than the private sector, and many things poorly. For example, the Pyramids are a stunning achievemen…

not wanting to get into a philosophical debate here, but even as someone who generally argues for smaller government, i disagree.. people generally discount the significant economic advantages (to all in an economy) that government investments provide; in most cases, investments in transformative projects which otherwise would not have occurred were it up to the private-sector alone. take development of the us inters…

Just because government can do big projects doesn't mean it should.

And Fedex's success depended far more on aviation advances than on the Interstate Highway System. Aviation that was pushed by private industry (while also enjoying support from the militaries of the world).

In the US, the major "infrastructure" type projects that were government driven are often listed as the Erie Canal, the Hoover Dam, and the IHS. Some will throw in the TVS as well, though I consider that more of a state-cooperative effort. Yet we still seemed to have a great deal of scientific progress that in turn led to economic progress before these huge programs were enacted.

The steam engine, the locomotive, the airplane, wireless radio, etc. etc. Goddard didn't have much government support in his initial efforts yet was a pioneer.

I'm not discounting that governments can have a disproportionate impact on some programs. But do we really want to have a government that picks winners and losers as we currently do with alternative energy? I guess we'll find out on Tuesday.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#124

Post by whatusername » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 10:28 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #107

simba-hiiipower wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very cool; thanks for the links. and that would be absolutely amazing; though in some ways (and not to discount musk’s undertaking at all) i feel it speaks more so to a failure of governments (generally speaking) in investing to drive technological advance. it should be the public sector that leads in these types of endeavors. one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in…

Can't say I agree that funding this type of endeavor is "one of the most important functions of a state is its ability and willingness to invest in projects that would be otherwise unprofitable or far too long-term for any rational player in the private sector to take-on." Government does many things marginally better than the private sector, and many things poorly. For example, the Pyramids are a stunning achievemen…

How many tourists would go to Egypt/Cairo if the pyramids weren't there? See also the Sydney Bridge & Opera House, Rio's Cristo Redentor, EifFel tower in Paris, etc

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#125

Post by guylhem » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 10:48 PM UTC

aardvark179 wrote: post #122

guylhem wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, a reply to your original post : > In a box, on a dead planet, for life. Sign me up, right now!!! > Can we provide a reasonable quality of life for colonists? I don't care. I would need a) air+water b) food c) a place to sleep d) tools to colonize the planet - like create more living space. For quality of life, if I can get e) book or movies or even f) internet access, great! If I can't that's not a dealbreaker…

I do admire this sort of enthusiasm, but I also wonder if it can survive such a mission. However we don't need to send a mission to Mars to find out, and if anybody truly wants to send people to Mars on anything other than short term suicide mission then we really need to do a lot more research in this area. Build enclosed isolated environments with limited space, resources and comms, and see how teams get on over lo…

I'm totally motivated and committed to Mars. Would that commitment survive in a mission? IMHO, totally because I'd even say yes to a one-way trip with a time limit (ie your "life support system will stop working in 3 years")

But the idea of an enclosed isolated test environment just doesn't raise the same kind of enthusiasm in me.

Unless there are side benefits (like freedom - ie build a new country from scratch in the middle of say Antarctica!!) I don't know why, but I really don't feel like taking part in the experience.

I guess it's all about selfishness - being on Mars matches my selfish motives. Doing a 10 years test somewhere in a controlled bunker on earth, a sacrifice for the next team who might do the same on real Mars??? I'll pass the opportunity.

That makes me wonder if it would be a good thing to run such an experiment, considering the volunteers would certainly be different (in their reason and personalities) from the ones who would volunteer for a real Mars mission.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#126

Post by pwniekins » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 11:10 PM UTC

"Musk: The problem is that at a lot of big companies, process becomes a substitute for thinking. You’re encouraged to behave like a little gear in a complex machine. Frankly, it allows you to keep people who aren’t that smart, who aren’t that creative."

I nearly cried. This is my company, and it is so very disappointing.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#127

Post by nova » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 11:39 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #97

nova wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in really complex and advanced stuff, patents aren't worth it and companies revert to trade secrets and the take-the-secret-to-the-tomb approach, the very same thing the existence of patents is intended to avoid. And in more accessible industries, where knowledge is abundant, costs low and independent reinvention highly probable, patents stall and block and create monopolies and in general cause economic damage i…

Well, or industries where disclosure is mandated (pharmaceutical and medical devices) by regulatory concerns, providing some additional protection (through patents) to compensate does seem to make sense. But there are a lot of issues with pharma patents, too, like evergreening old drugs by combining two existing about-to-expire into a new drug, or getting approved for a new on-label use, etc. (including really cynica…

Pharma and medical devices should be directly funded by the State (just the research part I mean), just as we do with military research.

And the cost could be shared among the developed countries. And we could direct research towards causes and cures, instead of just treatments.

Drugs get made, researchers paid, companies compete on merit and enjoy a steady income instead on gambling on the next Viagra, we stop killing people in poor countries who can't afford monopolistic prices, and there is one less reason for having patents at all.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#128

Post by rdl » Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 11:49 PM UTC

nova wrote: post #127

rdl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, or industries where disclosure is mandated (pharmaceutical and medical devices) by regulatory concerns, providing some additional protection (through patents) to compensate does seem to make sense. But there are a lot of issues with pharma patents, too, like evergreening old drugs by combining two existing about-to-expire into a new drug, or getting approved for a new on-label use, etc. (including really cynica…

Pharma and medical devices should be directly funded by the State (just the research part I mean), just as we do with military research. And the cost could be shared among the developed countries. And we could direct research towards causes and cures, instead of just treatments. Drugs get made, researchers paid, companies compete on merit and enjoy a steady income instead on gambling on the next Viagra, we stop killi…

Medical devices are far more loosely regulated than pharma, and IMO a lot more innovative (maybe as a result of shorter development/trials cycle, easier testing, and thus lower capital requirements). You literally have hobbyists, garage entrepreneurs, etc. still, which is amazing (and a huge Israeli contribution).

Medical device development is so interdisciplinary that I have zero confidence in the government being able to staff/grant/etc. its development. The only people in government likely to create medical devices would be end users who happen to be hackers, or government employees (at places like NIST) who are technical, need the product personally, and end up developing it on their own as a side project.

Government-funded R&D might work for NIH style long term research which is very structured and well understood, but I think it would be horrible for "hacking", which is what medical device creation largely is. What is really needed for devices is a bunch of bootcamp type programs for non-biomedical engineers to learn about the process, and clinicians posting to the Internet with their problems with current systems. I think today one of the main ways developers find out is when they or a family member/friend goes in for a procedure and they see a need.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#129

Post by vermontdevil » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 12:20 AM UTC

wtracy wrote: post #104

larrydag wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree the state can provide financing it is the private sector that is going to innovate. When you look at the astonishing transportation and exploration break-throughs of humanity it was mostly the private individual (Columbus, Howard Hughs, Lockheed) with the exception of space. Why is that so? Risk. Astronauts from NASA have been saying for years that the cost to launch increased so much because of the ave…

Christopher Columbus had financial backing by the Spanish crown.

Yes but he took on all the risk himself. Even had private investors. So basically the crown didn't have much to lose and a lot to gain.

Re: Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

#130

Post by lavezza » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 2:03 AM UTC

neurotech1 wrote: post #66

jedc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of companies choose to keep their intellectual property as "trade secrets" instead. (Like the Coke recipe, etc.) Just like SpaceX, it can often be better for the company than a patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret

Remember that "Theft of trade secrets" is a federal crime, and use of "stolen" information is subject to a major civil liability. This is why Boeing and Lockheed had to play nice and form United Launch Alliance for the EELV & Space Shuttle Support Contract. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/eelv-program.htm

They formed United Launch Alliance (ULA) for EELV.

They formed United Space Alliance (USA) for the Space Flight Operations Contract.