|
Not for nothing but Jeff Bezos is building a big gently caress off moon rocket too.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Colonizing Mars is so ridiculously difficult so specializing in one area while ignoring the others makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The ones that Musk has hired to figure out how to get to Mars. Hopefully it's like a lot of space stuff and it'll have a decent economic multiplier and some cool stuff will be discovered as side products, even if the direct result is just someone planting a SpaceX flag on Mars and going home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Also not much of a lifeboat if it cannot survive without earth. I don't even know what you are objecting to? Like should we arrest elon musk for trying to build a space colony because he isn't building on day one a perfect replacement for earth? Was he tasked with that project? Are you demanding someone invent a wizard and build a mars colony no one has to do any work on first before it's done? Long term settlement was always going to build on earlier progress. The literal first person on mars in human history is not going to go and build a fully formed self sufficient city single handedly. But he is step one in the process that results in that eventually down the road. A guy on mars that needs a waterpurifier and can't make the filter is a lot less steps from being a live boat than not having any colony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Why does whether it's worth doing or not matter at all? Obviously to Musk it's worth doing, and it's his money, so who cares? Why does that drive a bunch of goons who have no idea what they're talking about to repeatedly say that he's delusional? I seriously don't understand these threads and how some people get so upset at the idea of even trying to take steps into space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:
You see it a lot about a lot of topics, it is very important to some people that the world they grew up in is the only possible world and any social, scientific or technological change is bad or fake or stupid or temporary or will be undone or whatever. Every trend is done exactly when they are 10 and will be stagnant forever, except ones that have gone on which will stop any second now and are fads anyway that are going to go back to how they were very soon too. If spaceX made some progress in space technology it's all fake, and will go away soon and return the world to the 90s and also alf will come back and everyone will stop talking about current social issues and go back to the good old days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The ones that Musk has hired to figure out how to get to Mars. no, i'm just asking because your analogy makes it sound like space colonization is agreed-upon scientific consensus, so i was asking for sources.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't even know what you are objecting to? Like should we arrest elon musk for trying to build a space colony because he isn't building on day one a perfect replacement for earth? Was he tasked with that project? Are you demanding someone invent a wizard and build a mars colony no one has to do any work on first before it's done? Long term settlement was always going to build on earlier progress. botany posted:no, i'm just asking because your analogy makes it sound like space colonization is agreed-upon scientific consensus, so i was asking for sources.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
It is odd, though, that Musk's ideas usually have believable money-making business plans, even if the tech is advanced. Like, he understands that an endeavor won't succeed unless it makes a profit somehow. Make cheaper electric cars through centralized manufacture of batteries? Makes sense. Offer cheaper satellite delivery by reusing rocket parts? Makes sense. Even hyperloop trips could reasonably succeed if they can undercut short-hop plane flights while being more desirable than bus rides. Mars colonization seems like an exception. People pay for a ticket, but then what, to cover incremental costs? And if there's ever any loss of life on a Mars ship or in a settlement (many rockets have failed up to this point, and it will happen too with manned craft), people might not even buy tickets. Maybe once the settlers are there, SpaceX will sell $1000 lemonade? And to make this profitable long term, they would need to have hundreds or thousands of quite wealthy, risk taking people willing to live in cramped conditions on Mars, for what is effectively a high risk thrill ride and status symbol, buying tickets year after year without interruption. fritzgryphon fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I don't fault Elon Musk for wanting to build a Mars base. But honestly even if he builds a successful Mars base I don't think that will have any real impact on future space colonization. Your town can trade with other towns. It would take centuries for the colony to not be a large resource drain on Earth and actually start sending something back. I think any advance in extraterrestrial resource collection and manufacturing is going to be accomplished by fields not initially related to space exploration, like robotics or maybe some revolutionary new form of 3D printing. The best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, the second best time is now. If it's gonna take centuries we better get going asap. Like it will be weird if it actually takes us hundreds of years since I'm not actually clear what bootstrap problem we actually plan to encounter that makes it harder than inventing the things in the first place and starting at 1900 levels of technology but even if centuries is right, it's better to get going right now and be done in 2317 than put it off and not be done till 2417.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
fritzgryphon posted:It is odd, though, that Musk's ideas usually have believable money-making business plans, even if the tech is advanced. Like, he understands that an endeavor won't succeed unless it makes a profit somehow. Make cheaper electric cars through centralized manufacture of batteries? Makes sense. Offer cheaper satellite delivery by reusing rocket parts? Makes sense. Even hyperloop trips could reasonably succeed if they can undercut short-hop plane flights while being more desirable than bus rides. You can't think of any business model for the only train in and out of a town and also the train company owns the town? The question doesn't seem on how spaceX would make money. The question would be in 50 years on how they transition out of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Right, and they would (will?) be running a race against time. The number of wealthy thrill seekers willing and able to be price gouged in an uncomfortable resort can't be huge. Worse, the novelty and status of a stay on Mars goes down with each person who visits. Can they fill the seats for 50 years? I guess Musk personally doesn't have to worry about that time frame, so maybe that's the answer? Not against the idea, of course colonization will happen eventually. I always just thought the first colony would be a government program, just expected to lose money in the interest of science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Why is human colonization a necessity? Our robots will get better at a far faster pace than our astronauts. The best human astronaut has likely already been born and maybe even died. We already have a bunch on Mars, and we can send others with far less risk and supplies, and we'll be able to send them to Venus and Io and on comets and maybe even into the upper atmosphere of stars and other places where we really wouldn't want to go. And if there's something there that we want, I'm sure it's easier for automated miners than to have all the conveniences necessary to support people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
botany posted:no, i'm just asking because your analogy makes it sound like space colonization is agreed-upon scientific consensus, so i was asking for sources. There's plenty of literature out there about the practicality and feasibility of space colonization. No it's not a scientific consensus, because it's an engineering issue. That's not what I meant by my analogy and I apologize. What I meant was all the hot takes of "hmm obviously these highly educated scientists and engineers haven't considered issues x y and z, but I, a brilliant goon, have, and that is why they will fail". Usually these are simplistic issues that they obviously have considered, and to me it sounds like an idiot telling a climatologist that he hasn't taken into account the fact that it's still cold in some places. Like seriously one of the first posts on this subject ITT was "actually, Mars isn't very hospitable". No poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Why is human colonization a necessity? Our robots will get better at a far faster pace than our astronauts. The best human astronaut has likely already been born and maybe even died. We already have a bunch on Mars, and we can send others with far less risk and supplies, and we'll be able to send them to Venus and Io and on comets and maybe even into the upper atmosphere of stars and other places where we really wouldn't want to go. And if there's something there that we want, I'm sure it's easier for automated miners than to have all the conveniences necessary to support people. One, because nobody gives a gently caress about robots and nobody pays for poo poo they don't give a gently caress about. And two, because the point of the exercise is to get people off the one life bearing rock they seem intent on murdering. Making robots do it defeats the purpose. Once people can live on *two* life bearing rocks, the chances of us completely wiping ourselves out greatly diminishes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Why is human colonization a necessity? Our robots will get better at a far faster pace than our astronauts. The best human astronaut has likely already been born and maybe even died. We already have a bunch on Mars, and we can send others with far less risk and supplies, and we'll be able to send them to Venus and Io and on comets and maybe even into the upper atmosphere of stars and other places where we really wouldn't want to go. And if there's something there that we want, I'm sure it's easier for automated miners than to have all the conveniences necessary to support people. Step one is realizing we can just not have humans and just have robots. Step two is realizing we can just not have robots and just have nothing. Step three is realizing Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance. There isn't really any point to humans doing anything when you get right down to it. There isn't any combinations of actions that we could ever do that objectively get us anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Step one is realizing we can just not have humans and just have robots. this is one of the dumbest hot takes on these forums
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Mulva posted:One, because nobody gives a gently caress about robots and nobody pays for poo poo they don't give a gently caress about. I don't buy Mars as an existential insurance policy. The amount of investment that it would require to develop a sustainable Mars colony to the point where it wouldn't be completely hosed if Earth nuked itself is so unbelievably high that it's not really worth considering. It ends up being a bunch of nerd-wank that let's people ignore actual problems on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:It ends up being a bunch of nerd-wank that let's people ignore actual problems on Earth. Elon Musk seems to be the guy most directly working on getting humans to mars and he seems to manage to also be funding it with a bunch of super environmentally friendly eco companies working on solving earthbound problems. Lots of famous space people that talked up the virtue of spreading out humanity seemed extremely concerned with 'actual earth problems".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Elon Musk seems to be the guy most directly working on getting humans to mars and he seems to manage to also be funding it with a bunch of super environmentally friendly eco companies working on solving earthbound problems. Lots of famous space people that talked up the virtue of spreading out humanity seemed extremely concerned with 'actual earth problems". calm down elon
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
wide stance posted:Colonizing Mars is so ridiculously difficult so specializing in one area while ignoring the others makes perfect sense. Exactly. Of all the things you could be doing in space, you want to build a town on Mars and live in it? There are lots of nice towns on Earth! If you want to do science eating packaged food and living on government largesse just go to Alaska. Meanwhile there are useful things to be doing in space like ending wasteful and destructive rare earth mining. Those things need resources that will be ate up by expensive and pointless vanity projects like colonies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Exactly. Of all the things you could be doing in space, you want to build a town on Mars and live in it? There are lots of nice towns on Earth! If you want to do science eating packaged food and living on government largesse just go to Alaska. Don't you think there would be other people saying we are wasting precious neodymium making videogames for babies when we could be using it for something real like colonizing the universe? Instead of the other way around? (or some middle thing where we might want to do both and all technological progress in all directions helps all other progress and there are few cases where anything really ends up being exclusionary to anything else in any meaningful long term way)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Why are you so concerned about what SpaceX does with its own money?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:The amount of investment that it would require to develop a sustainable Mars colony to the point where it wouldn't be completely hosed if Earth nuked itself is so unbelievably high that it's not really worth considering. It ends up being a bunch of nerd-wank that let's people ignore actual problems on Earth. Two more things. One, "Wow that's a really long time and is going to take a nearly insane amount of effort" some say. True, and it'll be just as true in a century when some other guy is saying that same thing. If we started now we'd be done by then. How about the military saaaay accepts that there is more of a need for cyber security than manned jet fighters, that'll save trillions of dollars over the next few decades [And that is a very intentional t in trillions] we could spend on the development of space and employ more people than the programs to make those jets. Christ, we could fund a manned colony to Mars in the next 50 years and save money while losing absolutely zero capacity to murder the rest of the planet. Resources have and never will be the problem. It's will, plain and simple. If we want to do it we can do it. If we don't, we can't. And two, and most importantly, the problems on Earth that are killing us and the planet *now* being inescapable hasn't actually caused us to deal with them, has it? You talk about colonization being an excuse to not deal with them like we loving need one. Guess what, we don't. We can just lie here in apathy until we all die out and go "Well, guess that happened" as our parting statement. We don't need any excuse or justification to pull that off. Build a colony, don't build a colony, we'll still be massive self-destructive gently caress ups. The only thing spreading out the gene pool does is buy time for the statistically unlikely but still possible chance that we gently caress up the very act of loving up and find a way to live with ourselves before we suicide as a species.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
You know how else thinks SpaceX sucks and is a waste of time and money? It's Ron Paul, congrats! https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/for-some-reason-ron-paul-has-taken-to-fox-news-to-skewer-spacex/
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Sounds like he's mostly against a private company having a monopoly. Which sounds strangely sensible for a libertarian Republican, normally it's "if they're the only ones who can provide the service, they should be able to charge what they like, and if it becomes too high, someone else will be incentivized into developing launch technology." I guess that changes when it's public money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Ps. I can argue about space for hours but I do hope this thread eventually can morph into being various discussions on whatever stories are coming out and not just solely abstract fights on hypothetical science stuff for the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:There's plenty of literature out there about the practicality and feasibility of space colonization. No it's not a scientific consensus, because it's an engineering issue. That's not what I meant by my analogy and I apologize. Most objections relate to the economics of it - not engineering or science. Of course it's technically possible to build a base on Mars. The question is how to fund Musks plan to plunk down a million people there and make it self-sufficient. It will cost trillions before it's self-sufficient. It's not that crazy to question that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Bates posted:Most objections relate to the economics of it - not engineering or science. Of course it's technically possible to build a base on Mars. The question is how to fund Musks plan to plunk down a million people there and make it self-sufficient. It will cost trillions before it's self-sufficient. It's not that crazy to question that. Has anyone told musk he needed to make it self sufficient? He seems to be under the impression he owns a spaceship company that would run supplies. Forming a space country with no tie to earth is absolutely a trillions dollar project and would never be step one of any plan. No one is going cold turkey day one. They will ship food for years till they get the grow lights set up in a tunnel. They will need water until they start melting ice. Etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Oh yes, I forgot. There are unlimited resources for space exploration. How silly of me. Not only are all goals attainable, they're all equally attainable and equally desirable. You must be difficult to decide on a place to eat with. It may be technically true that you can visit many restaurants...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oh yes, I forgot. There are unlimited resources for space exploration. How silly of me. Not only are all goals attainable, they're all equally attainable and equally desirable. Like what is your solution? seize elon musk's money and companies and redirect them? If we are seizing his money or dictating him to only the most important topic why is your thing the most important topic instead of world hunger or building schools or fixing roads or something? If you mean your thing is more profitable then maybe you have yourself a chance to make your own company and get rich. We don't have some guy or counsel or something or with full totally authoritarian communism where there is anyone that gets to rank all the things people could work on and decide we need to finish task one before starting task two.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
I think other goals are better. I think you're so excited to argue about space you didn't really pay attention to what anyone opposite you is saying. You're still doing it with your ridiculous seize SpaceX straw man. Can you point to anyone saying that except you and people who agree with you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Meanwhile there are useful things to be doing in space like ending wasteful and destructive rare earth mining. Those things need resources that will be ate up by expensive and pointless vanity projects like colonies. Should have stopped engaging with him right here at this. Mining resources with robots in space would help drive colonization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think other goals are better. I think you're so excited to argue about space you didn't really pay attention to what anyone opposite you is saying. It's not your tax dollars colonizing mars. It's a private company. You can call them up and ask them to change to asteroid mining of rare earth minerals or something but I don't know what you can do beyond that. You can declare his company is suboptimal, but every single company is that. You can point to nearly every company on earth and declare the resources it uses could be used better, spaceX isn't directly preventing anyone from asteroid mining anymore than sony is or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Okay let's turn this around. When presented with reasons why other allocations of resources might be better, you've made an argument that activities aren't mutually exclusive. While real-life space funding flies in the face of that argument, let's table that for the moment. Let's ask instead: why colonize Mars? What is the benefit? To whom? What would success look like? Take asteroid mining as a counterexample. The why is obvious, to make currently rare elements plentiful or environmentally damaging element production obsolete by bringing native metals from deep space to Earth. (The physics of this endeavor is actually less understood than landing humans on Mars, I would note for those of you who haven't bothered to differentiate me from people who complain about resources for our homeless vets or whatever.) The benefit is abundance of rare earth metals like neodymium that are important for green energy Industries but difficult to extract economically without environmental damage. Those who benefit are everybody, at least everyone who is in the distribution chain or the supply chain for energy or energy intensive products like cars. If you own a car in the year 2100, asteroid capture might improve your living standards by making fuel, transport, and clean air more abundant. Success looks like capturing an asteroid and returning rich ore or native metals to the surface of the Earth at an economic price. Let's run this down for colonization of Mars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Okay let's turn this around. When presented with reasons why other allocations of resources might be better, you've made an argument that activities aren't mutually exclusive. While real-life space funding flies in the face of that argument, let's table that for the moment. I don't know how to engage with this because it applies to nearly everything. I ate a sandwich for dinner but I could have eaten yeast paste and used the sandwich money and resources more optimally. "Something is better" is an argument for literally any task. There is no direct connection. Virtually nothing people spend money on is the perfect optimal use and I can't defend anything on that standard. You posted a lets play of rule the waves but you could have spend that time feeding homeless. Who cares though? You can do that forever about anything till no one can do anything because some hypothetical action is better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Haha wow. I just asked you to make a basic case for colonizing Mars. You know I really expected something decent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't know how to engage with this because it applies to nearly everything. I ate a sandwich for dinner but I could have eaten yeast paste and used the sandwich money and resources more optimally. "Something is better" is an argument for literally any task. There is no direct connection. Virtually nothing people spend money on is the perfect optimal use and I can't defend anything on that standard. You posted a lets play of rule the waves but you could have spend that time feeding homeless. Who cares though? You can do that forever about anything till no one can do anything because some hypothetical action is better. edit: Like if Arglebargle III came back was like "Psych, I lied, Z is actually better than both X and Y" then call them out about bad faith posting, but an endless parade of people offering ever improving ideas is actually a good thing. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
The main reason is for living space, simple as that. At some point in the future, barring the apocalypse, the Earth just isn't going to be able to support the entire human population. It could be in a hundred years, or a thousand, or a million, but it's going to happen eventually. It will come even sooner if global living standards improve thanks to extraterrestrial mining. We don't have the capability of just plopping down a self sustainable million-person colony on Mars right now, but we do have the capability to start taking steps in that direction. And if we can start taking steps, however small, to avoid a future catastrophe, it would be foolish not to. It's not something that's going to have an benefit in the near future, and expecting one is incredibly short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Has anyone told musk he needed to make it self sufficient? He seems to be under the impression he owns a spaceship company that would run supplies. Forming a space country with no tie to earth is absolutely a trillions dollar project and would never be step one of any plan. No one is going cold turkey day one. They will ship food for years till they get the grow lights set up in a tunnel. They will need water until they start melting ice. Etc etc etc. Well if he can find people who can afford to pay him to ship stuff to them on Mars then that's great. More power to him. I'm just exceedingly skeptical that more than a handful of people can afford and are willing to do that so it's hard to see how it would ever grow into what he visions. At any rate I'm more in Bezos camp - develop infrastructure with utility and value for people on Earth. It may or may not require a human presence in space but I don't see that as a goal in itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 23:41
|
|