A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space • Hacker News Board

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#21

Post by elektromekatron » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

Screw deserves or ready, you are ready to get somewhere and deserve to be there when you manage to arrive.

You may then fuck it up, and frankly it would be surprising if we didn't kill a few people trying, but that is exploration.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#22

Post by adventured » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 4:45 PM UTC

Bedon292 wrote: post #20

pzxc wrote: post #18

The title should be changed. Elon Musk was not interviewed. A sci-fi author was interviewed about his opinions of Elon Musk re: Mars. Title is very misleading.

The title was previously the title of the article, not sure why someone changed it.

OP here, no idea why it was changed to that either. It's not a conversation with Elon Musk. The title needs to be changed back.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#23

Post by angersock » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 5:00 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

All of those are boring technical problems, all of which can be solved with the application of money. Only physics is standing in the way.

The Earth problems, though, are a great deal more complicated. Even a sufficiently large checkbook can't solve world hunger.

Also, your whole "half the population won't admit to global warming" is some feelgood TED bullshit...I'm betting waaaay fewer than 3B (that's billion) people even remotely give a shit about the climate beyond whether or not it's going to be raining.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#24

Post by angersock » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 5:04 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #19

jessriedel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seems to think that high degrees of collective action are are a particularly good marker for judging whether human beings can accomplish space colonization. But this doesn't make sense because it's the technology and economics, not coordination, that prevents self-sustaining martian colonies. Likewise, ship technology and economic uses for overseas resources sparked European colonization, not a particularly well…

Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart. The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. Your willingness to write off the cooperation of the rest of the human species seems shortsighted. Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat. What happens when the "Old World" find themselves em…

"colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient."

You mean like Antarctica, right?

"Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat."

Rich folks and companies, and maaaaybe governments, will be funding this--the same as all colonization efforts in the past. Consider the colonization of the Americas.

"real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion

These are still very much things to worry about on Earth. Moving to Mars doesn't solve those problems--for the Earthlings. Then again, fuck'em.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#25

Post by thescriptkiddie » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

* Has the most habitable atmosphere of any planet save Earth

* Has billions of tons of water

* Is exposed to unconcerning amounts of radiation

* Has every economic justification for colonization

FTFY

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#26

Post by cma » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 5:39 PM UTC

weavie wrote: post #4

scottmwinters wrote: post #2

Was I the only one extremely disappointed that wasn't actually much related to Musk, nor a serious conversation about the future? It was an interview of a fiction novelist, nothing more.

Possibly. Have you read The Martian? The author has put a ton of research into what it would take to get people to Mars. I'm sure he has a lot of relevant stuff to say about Musks ambitions for Mars travel. I highly recommend reading the book.

I think he was responding to the HN headline, it read "A Serious Conversation with Elon Musk about the Future in Space" before being edited (it isn't a conversation with Musk).

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#27

Post by crusso » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

I'm not sure humanity deserves to be the species that settles the Milky Way

What does that even mean? Especially in the context of how much we've changed to get us this far and how much we would have to change to colonize a galaxy?

You might as well have looked at Homo habilis 2.8M years ago and said, "these creatures don't deserve to surf the Internet."

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#28

Post by swagasaurus-rex » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:24 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #19

jessriedel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seems to think that high degrees of collective action are are a particularly good marker for judging whether human beings can accomplish space colonization. But this doesn't make sense because it's the technology and economics, not coordination, that prevents self-sustaining martian colonies. Likewise, ship technology and economic uses for overseas resources sparked European colonization, not a particularly well…

Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart. The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. Your willingness to write off the cooperation of the rest of the human species seems shortsighted. Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat. What happens when the "Old World" find themselves em…

> The other issue is that human colonization has always been driven by "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion.

This is true, but only after colonization had become an economic feasibility for those who weren't enormously wealthy.

After Columbus 'discovered' the Americas, nobody in their right minds would board the next ship to the Caribbeans because it was not clear there was any reason to go. It took the funding of governments and interested frontiersmen to do the exploration, much like what we will see on any interplanetary colonization.

Only until there is enough infrastructure and a semi-self sustaining economy on Mars, will there be a low enough cost and enough interest by entrepreneurial individuals.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#29

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:29 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #19

jessriedel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seems to think that high degrees of collective action are are a particularly good marker for judging whether human beings can accomplish space colonization. But this doesn't make sense because it's the technology and economics, not coordination, that prevents self-sustaining martian colonies. Likewise, ship technology and economic uses for overseas resources sparked European colonization, not a particularly well…

Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart. The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. Your willingness to write off the cooperation of the rest of the human species seems shortsighted. Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat. What happens when the "Old World" find themselves em…

Yeah, folks like to compare previous terrestrial colonization with interstellar (Mars). Its fabulously incomparable. Folks in the New World could expect food plants, neighbors, congenial weather for growing, even Oxygen. All of which are largely absent on Mars.

Let's plant a colony on the peak of Mt Everest first, as a kindergarten-level test of our readiness for Mars.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#30

Post by imglorp » Wed, Jun 24, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

Setting up a long term lunar habitat would be a very reasonable first step. Having no atmosphere means solar power is more efficient. In some spots, the soil contains water which can be split for air and fuel. Sending a few automated miners to begin producing stores and building buried habitats is something we can accomplish today, before sending anyone to live.