Why Elon Musk Wants To Bring People to Mars—and Go There Himself • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by philwelch » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 7:23 AM UTC

meric wrote: post #90

philwelch wrote: post #55

> In January, Newt Gingrich’s space ambitions were mocked by many experts as well as the public, particularly his vow that a moon colony would be established by the conclusion of his “second term.” Musk isn’t committing to a timeline nearly so ambitious; when pushed by Wright, he suggested that this could be a reality within the next 30 years. Gingrich's moon base by 2020 is probably less ambitious than Musk's Martia…

You're forgetting the economy and number of technological achievements grows exponentially. At 4% per annum growth the world economy will be triple the current size in 30 years. (assuming no technological singularity event). An economy triple the current size doesn't seem like it can easily afford a colony on Mars either but I think Elon Musk thinks my assumption is wrong.

The economy is irrelevant. Technology just takes time to develop sometimes; nine women can't have a baby in one month.

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

#92

Post by Jabbles » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 10:46 AM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #20

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that with authority. Care to share your reasoning? Folks went as far (in terms of travel time) to desolate places to make a future before. You are likely descended from some of them.

No human being has ever settled in a place which was not previously the habitat of a billion years of successful organic life-- and we have failed to settle in a number of places which are. To think of Mars as just the new New World is a romantic idea, but there is no basis for the comparison. Populating another world will be the most significant undertaking of humanity by orders of magnitude; to assume it can be don…

Hawaii isn't too badly populated for being 28 million years old.

Life quickly develops on any new land that appears on Earth. But without Oxygen I'm skeptical that we could accomplish similar on Mars in the near future.

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

#93

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 2:47 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #61

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The thin air mitigates the distance issue somewhat. Anybody know how much? Solar intensity reduces by the square if distance. If the advantage of thin air multiplies available sunlight at ground level, it may be close to break-even or even better?

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

#94

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 2:54 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #78

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're smart. We live almost entirely in structures and cities that are very remote from the idyllic world you describe. When was the last time you saw your food grow? There are technological hurdles to living on Mars, but not much we already don't know how to handle. Food, water, air - that's the minimum, and thats not all that hard given raw materials and energy, which is abundant on Mars.

...really? How many cities run on recycled air produced from rocks? On recycled water from melted permafrost? With 100% solar power? Eating entirely food grown using the same? With the risk that if any ine of those things fails, everyone living there will certainly die? To this you compare the fact that I eat cows fed grass from a hundred miles away, brought to me using energy we literally just dug out of the ground…

I'll just answer with this: nobody who goes will be thinking like that. Sure there are problems, but really, all of them are solvable - we're not 16th-century folks grappling with science, we're 3rd-millenium folks with centuries of science behind us.

Graphene filters to purify sublimated water-ice. Solar cells manufactured from sand and plastic. Oxygen siezed from rocks, lots at first but then just recycled thru green growing things.

Plenty of folks starved in the New World when their support systems ran out, doesn't matter whether it was oxygen or food, dead just the same. The point is, they were willing to take the risk with a whole continent to win.

Now its a whole planet! With different challenges, different storms and temperatures. Without challenges like locusts, floods, communication issues, pesky natives to deal with.

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

#95

Post by ericd » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 8:48 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #69

ericd wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You're not left with anything new at the end of a football game.

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

#96

Post by philwelch » Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 12:12 AM UTC

ericd wrote: post #95

philwelch wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're not left with anything new at the end of a football game.

You have recordings and accounts of the game that can be published or resold, and potentially fond memories of an enjoyable experience. The same criticism could be made of live theatre or concerts. Is the presence of physical artfacts after the fact your criteria for a "productive enterprise"? How do you reconcile this value judgment with the fact that experiences, rather than possessions, tend to be a bigger factor in human happiness?

It's very hard to justify that something is "frivolous" or "non-productive" when it contributes materially to the happiness of a lot of people. People can deeply enjoy football, it can strengthen family and community bonds or just make for a fun evening. We don't live in a bleak dystopian society where we do nothing all day but provide for each other's physical needs. Football is no more frivolous or non-productive than easily most of the economy.

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

#97

Post by ericd » Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 12:49 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #96

ericd wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not left with anything new at the end of a football game.

You have recordings and accounts of the game that can be published or resold, and potentially fond memories of an enjoyable experience. The same criticism could be made of live theatre or concerts. Is the presence of physical artfacts after the fact your criteria for a "productive enterprise"? How do you reconcile this value judgment with the fact that experiences, rather than possessions, tend to be a bigger factor…

Yeah, I get all that, and I'm a fan of movies, theatre, and even the occasional football game. But I think that entertainment in general is less worthy than anything that moves knowledge and understanding forward. To your original comment, it's a bad idea to try to derive something's true worth from its profitability, especially in the short term.

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

#98

Post by Gormo » Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 6:40 AM UTC

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.

So "sustainability" is just a tautology?

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

#99

Post by philwelch » Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 6:57 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #97

philwelch wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have recordings and accounts of the game that can be published or resold, and potentially fond memories of an enjoyable experience. The same criticism could be made of live theatre or concerts. Is the presence of physical artfacts after the fact your criteria for a "productive enterprise"? How do you reconcile this value judgment with the fact that experiences, rather than possessions, tend to be a bigger factor…

Yeah, I get all that, and I'm a fan of movies, theatre, and even the occasional football game. But I think that entertainment in general is less worthy than anything that moves knowledge and understanding forward. To your original comment, it's a bad idea to try to derive something's true worth from its profitability, especially in the short term.

I wasn't trying to derive anything's "true worth"--I was just saying that football is self-sustaining.

And actually, movies and professional sports have advanced our understanding and technology a great deal, be it by advancing camera and computer imaging technologies or by advancing our medical knowledge by giving us more experience dealing with certain types of injuries. The competitive nature of professional sports also gives us insights into the most effective ways to train, condition, and give nutrition to the human body.

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

#100

Post by ericd » Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 10:36 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #99

ericd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I get all that, and I'm a fan of movies, theatre, and even the occasional football game. But I think that entertainment in general is less worthy than anything that moves knowledge and understanding forward. To your original comment, it's a bad idea to try to derive something's true worth from its profitability, especially in the short term.

I wasn't trying to derive anything's "true worth"--I was just saying that football is self-sustaining. And actually, movies and professional sports have advanced our understanding and technology a great deal, be it by advancing camera and computer imaging technologies or by advancing our medical knowledge by giving us more experience dealing with certain types of injuries. The competitive nature of professional sport…

OK, you just seemed to be saying that those things were better because they could support themselves financially.

I don't think they're on the same order of magnitude in terms of knowledge gained - those are mature industries, space travel isn't anywhere near, so the gains should be much more dramatic and broadly applicable.