Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with space elevators is that the cable (or the pipe, as you propose) needs to be able to hold itself together. Imagine taking a 4000 km long elevator cable and holding it up by one end: it would snap under its own weight instantly. That's about what your cable material needs to be able to take. The weight of the car is trivial in comparison.
Does it have to support its entire weight? At some point, won't the pipe have enough centrifugal force that would be supporting it?
Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
951–960 of 1001 posts
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#952I wrote a brief blog post on some of the major challenges to get this going. Musk's hesitancy to a deadline is great. :) It makes sense, hard to predict the future. http://engineersf.com/12-reasons-spacex-wont-fly-a-manned-mi... There's a ton of cool problems lurking around the corner. I hope humanity backs the public part of this public-private partnership. 1. Cargo Capacity — Scaling is Hard. 2. Proper Maintenance…
It looks like SpaceX is choosing a high delta-v trajectory specifically to reduce the danger of 5, 11, and 12. Particularly muscle, bone, and eyesight loss would be a big problem on a Hohmann tranfer orbit to Mars but not on the trajectory SpaceX is proposing. 8 is silly since nowhere people live is going to be microbe free but the long term health effects of Mars gravity are still utterly unknown and that's somethin…
The bigger concern I have is for children that are born on Mars -- if you want to have a self-sustaining population there, you're going to be raising children there, and physical growth in a low-g environment isn't something we can test in the timeframe Musk has in mind.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#953Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#954Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX is showing that this sort of thing is within reach. Before the last few years, I would have looked at the current state of the art and politics of rocket technology and space exploration and dismissed this plan as a fanciful dream that could never happen. SpaceX has been killing it, though. They've been building new engines, landing rockets, and it's only a matter of time until they re-fly one; this is the sor…
Yeah, SpaceX is doing good work, being economical like many other space agencies and yet being able to land back the stage 1 booster. Of course, they haven't reused even one yet, and have not studied the effects of multiple reuses. But going from this to imagining a space taxi and a space settlement? There is so much work that needs done first, effect of radiation on people? Effect of lower gravity? Effect of high co…
Musk is pointing out, correctly, that this is possible with existing rocket technology -- at least the transportation. Keeping people alive once they're there is apparently somebody else's problem, but until we have the materials science for a space elevator, an obscenely heavy lift vehicle will probably have to do. Ultimately he's going to be asking a lot of people to climb on top of a monstrous Engine and hope that it explodes correctly, and I hope that his conscience is clear when that day dawns. Probably you are right that we're going to have a hell of a time keeping people alive on Mars, but we seem to have a tough time of that here as well.
This is not science fiction. There is no new physics required, just some fiendishly difficult engineering challenges. The Wright Brothers were able to build their plane because there was nothing physically stopping them. They had the scientific knowledge and the dedication, and everything else followed. Really it's not that people -- even Presidents -- haven't been talking about doing this and working on details and preliminaries for decades. This is news precisely because it's not science fiction. This time, it could actually happen.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#955Earlier quoted context omitted.
what makes you believe you have a better idea of what a good allocation of resources (and Elon Musk's / SpaceX's skills) would be? Same reason as anyone else I suppose. Not really sure how to answer that without sounding like a douche. If you're so smart and good at allocating resources, what prevents you from pursuing that other project instead of demanding from other people to follow your lead? I mean that's exactl…
>I mean that's exactly what I'm doing... You're not advocating for something your advocating against something.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#956Watching live the announcement and presentation by Elon on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1YxNYiyALg Where the hell did they get this audience from? Is this hosted on a frat house with some academic invites? There's a dude jokingly saying that burning man felt like mars with a lot of shit and no water, there's a guy plugging his comic book, there's a guy making a joke on how we should send Michael Cera to Mars, a g…
It's super weird, also that refueling question: People have to wait weeks in space to just get refueled? Why not send 4-5 tankers (supposedly reusable) up first and then refuel almost instantly? That thing seems really low scale/budget.
There might be practical considerations, too, like if someone is on the ship for a couple days and then realizes that spending months on a ship or living on Mars is just not for them, they can get transferred to the next convenient ferry back to the surface.
We're probably overthinking this, though; what order the passengers, fuel, and cargo load is a pretty minor detail that could easily be revised when the plan is closer to completion.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#957I'd really like to see us taking space seriously. While I'm still here. One of my earliest strong memories was the last moon landing. This was followed by years of "Tomorrow's World" and "Horizon" telling us about the Moon bases, Mars bases and orbital platforms that would soon follow. We got Skylab and some very interesting probes. I'm a tiny bit disappointed in that. We were meant to be en route to Starfleet Comman…
I was so inspired by Elon saying "people have this expectation that technology just continues to improve on it's own," before going on to talk about ancient civilizations reaching peak technology and backsliding hard.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#958Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a quite-active, and largely effective, moderation effort by @dang and ... I forget the other mod, scbc or something like that. I've been making comparative studies of a few communities (HN, Reddit, G+, Imzy, Ello), and it's interesting to see how various ones work. In particular, there's a tremendous culture against the types of even indirect personal attacks at HN which fly in spades elsewhere. I saw @d…
and what level of derailment would you call this thread? it has probably two comments on the video contents, and all the rest is about which community stays on topic better. the irony is too damn high
That said: discussions can be about the nominal topic, or they can drift, naturally, to other areas of interest. I find the meta-topic of "where is a good place to discuss the things I'm interested in discussing" to be generally on-topic. HN isn't a bad place for that.
With the ability to collapse threads baked into the HN page design, if you're not interested in a discussion, you can simply collapse it an move on.
On which: I'm increasingly hitting long threads from the bottom, for a few reasons:
1. The top-ranked post often isn't particularly on-topic, and attracts diversions posted for visibility.
2. It's easier to tell if a thread is of little concern if you follow it from the bottom.
3. It's easier to track a conversation from bottom to top and collapse going up, than it is to backtrack back to the top and collapse that. There's a subreddit which runs the collapse bars down the side of the thread, allowing a subthread, or entire thread, to be collapsed in one go.
4. There are often downvoted or flagged items which I feel are incorrectly tagged. It's usually faster to assess if something has some merits than to see if it's solid, and I'll nudge stuff up -- even if I substantially disagree with it -- if it seems it's been overly penalised.
HN, as with other online discussions, does poorly for deep and complex posts. One standout was The Edge Question issue a few years ago. There were a handful of comments on the first few essays, but given that there were ~100 - 150 total responses, it's not the sort of thing you can digest quickly.
I've tracked down other issues of the Question and gone through it. I have to say on balance I'm fairly disappointed in the quality -- much is narrow self-promotion of research, another large set is rampant speculation. The short an humerous responses are often disarmingly refreshing. And every so often there's something quite good. Sturgeon's quality estimate though seems generous.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#959Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prove it, with actual hard evidence. Show me real, actual, living life that exists right now. Until then, it's hypothetical and it would be insane to put our species at risk of extinction if there is the possibility that we're the only life in the universe.
Maybe we're speaking past each other or using terms with different definitions. Either that or you're arguing from a sort of Cartesian standpoint. Because you're question has obvious answers: dolphins, trees, literally everything underneath the umbrella term of "biosphere"... And if you only mean conscious life, (1) I'm not sure why that is a special consideration, but I am familiar with the discussions around this p…
Sure we may cause environmental damage to get there, but I think that is far outweighed by the benefit of being a multi-planet species.
Re: Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species [video]
#960Earlier quoted context omitted.
The technology to put people on Mars is not fundamentally new. The technology to make such a colony self sustaining is. We've never built any habitat which is entirely self sufficient even just in food, water, and air. Even the ISS needs resupply to generate breathable air. Even simple problems like "how do we replace failed bolts" will require resupply from earth for a long time. I'm also dubious of the economics of…
A very rational argument for colonizing Mars is, we're 1 solar flare, 1 gamma ray burst away from total extinction. Having presence on a second planetary body is the best way we have to insure ourself against planet-sized cataclysmic events. Also, why would someone do this? Same reason people crossed the Atlantic, to take part in something greater than themselves. That's why I want to do it. Don't care it's cold and…
>Same reason people crossed the Atlantic, to take part in something greater than themselves.
People crossed the Atlantic because they wanted gold, or slaves, or timber, or land, or because they wanted to escape from religious persecution, or because they were slaves or prisoners transported against their will (by someone who wanted gold, or timber, or land). They received resupply, not as charity, but from companies which expected to receive gold, tobacco, timber, or other goods in return from their investment.
Colonization is driven by economics. That's why thousands live permanently in Norilsk, Yellowknife, La Rinconada,and Kalgoorlie, but nobody lives permanently at Amundsen-Scott, under the sea, or in LEO. If history is any guide, "how will this turn a profit" is the question any Mars colony needs to address if it is to have any hope of prospering.