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.
While I agree with the principle that humanity needs to be a multi-planet species if we're going to make it past all the Great Filters, I honestly don't think we're ready as a species. Technologically or organizationally. We can't even get half our population to admit that the climate is warming, but somehow we're supposed to get our shit together enough to colonize an entire planet?
And from a technological perspective, I'm continually amazed that the same people that fret and wring their hands about climate change seriously believe colonization of Mars is not going to be the most painful thing humanity has ever done. It will be fraught with death, expense, and replete with economic and social chaos. Ending all wars, enacting global healthcare and welfare policies, and rolling back climate change on Earth would be a cakewalk compared to building self-sufficient colonies on a planet that:
* Has no breathable atmosphere
* Has little usable water
* Is bombarded with deadly radiation
* Has no economic justification for colonization
The only reason to be going to Mars is that, statistically, in the next couple dozen million years the Earth might get a flat tire. I don't know - from what I've seen so far, I'm not sure humanity deserves to be the species that settles the Milky Way...
Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction.
Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought of. This is the exact kind of drive we need if we are to even have the chance at becoming interplanetary. Maybe we end up just getting to Mars and setting up an "antarctic" like lab that is occupied by teams for months at a time? That's fine. The innovation that got us even there would have been amazing. Maybe the goal then shifts to self-sustaining interplanetary spacecraft. Humanity isn't done yet, and not shooting for the far reaches of the galaxy is a waste of time that we cannot spare.
Musk Co. isn't just focused on that interplanetary goal. There's a lot that is also being done to make this planet better and prolong its life. These are honorable and not nearly as farfetched goals. Musk's drive to solve these problems is a real inspiration to many and may be our only chance in hell to pass through the Great Filters.
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 coordinated European monarchy.
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."
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.
I'm a fan Elon Musk. But I think people are exaggerating that Mars mission. For me it looks like a goal for SpaceX employees. You have to somehow motivate people to work harder. Maybe I'm just a little cynical, but Elon is too smart to believe in this mission.
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.
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.
Seeing this title on HN makes me sad. I don't care if that's the article's title - when a title says "A serious conversation about the Future in Space", I'm expecting a serious conversation, not an advertisement.
Does the interviewer, or anyone for that matter, actually think Elon Musk will be the first person on Mars? Seems like a weird question to ask, I guess its just for the headline. I think I remember him saying something like not wanting to risk the fate of the company just for the experience of going. I could be completely off on that though.
Even the interviewer seems confused between whether he's saying Elon Musk has the means to send someone to mars or the ingenuity of Mark Watney to survive there.
That is definitely odd, though it does make some sense in this case. Andy Weir has done a huge amount of research about traveling to Mars, and asking for his opinion about Elon's ideas is interesting. I would definitely prefer if they did not mention the interviewer's book though.
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.
[+] [-] ryandvm|10 years ago|reply
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.
While I agree with the principle that humanity needs to be a multi-planet species if we're going to make it past all the Great Filters, I honestly don't think we're ready as a species. Technologically or organizationally. We can't even get half our population to admit that the climate is warming, but somehow we're supposed to get our shit together enough to colonize an entire planet?
And from a technological perspective, I'm continually amazed that the same people that fret and wring their hands about climate change seriously believe colonization of Mars is not going to be the most painful thing humanity has ever done. It will be fraught with death, expense, and replete with economic and social chaos. Ending all wars, enacting global healthcare and welfare policies, and rolling back climate change on Earth would be a cakewalk compared to building self-sufficient colonies on a planet that:
* Has no breathable atmosphere
* Has little usable water
* Is bombarded with deadly radiation
* Has no economic justification for colonization
The only reason to be going to Mars is that, statistically, in the next couple dozen million years the Earth might get a flat tire. I don't know - from what I've seen so far, I'm not sure humanity deserves to be the species that settles the Milky Way...
[+] [-] frank-weindel|10 years ago|reply
Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought of. This is the exact kind of drive we need if we are to even have the chance at becoming interplanetary. Maybe we end up just getting to Mars and setting up an "antarctic" like lab that is occupied by teams for months at a time? That's fine. The innovation that got us even there would have been amazing. Maybe the goal then shifts to self-sustaining interplanetary spacecraft. Humanity isn't done yet, and not shooting for the far reaches of the galaxy is a waste of time that we cannot spare.
Musk Co. isn't just focused on that interplanetary goal. There's a lot that is also being done to make this planet better and prolong its life. These are honorable and not nearly as farfetched goals. Musk's drive to solve these problems is a real inspiration to many and may be our only chance in hell to pass through the Great Filters.
[+] [-] jessriedel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crusso|10 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] imglorp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] npizzolato|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgregd|10 years ago|reply
I'm a fan Elon Musk. But I think people are exaggerating that Mars mission. For me it looks like a goal for SpaceX employees. You have to somehow motivate people to work harder. Maybe I'm just a little cynical, but Elon is too smart to believe in this mission.
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|10 years ago|reply
There is no possible "flat-tire" existential risk scenario which makes moving to Mars cheaper (man hours) than just fixing whatever happened on earth.
IMO that kills the whole thing right off the bat.
[+] [-] IndianAstronaut|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elektromekatron|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thescriptkiddie|10 years ago|reply
* Has billions of tons of water
* Is exposed to unconcerning amounts of radiation
* Has every economic justification for colonization
FTFY
[+] [-] angersock|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] scottmwinters|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weavie|10 years ago|reply
I highly recommend reading the book.
[+] [-] stephengillie|10 years ago|reply
Seeing this title on HN makes me sad. I don't care if that's the article's title - when a title says "A serious conversation about the Future in Space", I'm expecting a serious conversation, not an advertisement.
[+] [-] Bedon292|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kraftman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] outworlder|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamtj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kraftman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bedon292|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bra-ket|10 years ago|reply
Luckily some labs are working on it: https://www.quora.com/Is-research-on-nuclear-propulsion-syst...
[+] [-] pzxc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bedon292|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter303|10 years ago|reply