Um… it’s no scarier than the simulation hypothesis. It just demonstrates the hazards of only talking to people who already agree with you.
Yeah, American automakers, being private entities, almost never need to dip into public coffers when their ambitions outstrip the market!
Back in high school forensics class we had a collection of materials called squirrel killers. Basically, they are arguments that seem reasonable but could easily be shown to have no real merit and/or no bearing on the topic. We used them as preparation and training tools for what we might run across in a debate. They taught us how to spot bad positions and avoid them ourselves as well as how to counter them by being prepared for them. The first section in these collections usually contained the counter arguments based on lack of political will.
It wasn’t until years later, on the internet, that I began seeing these arguments used by seemingly serious people.
I think the 450k year thing is more of a proof of concept thing that we have to eventually move on out or have the capacity to, not necessarily that a fraction of humanity living a little further out from the Sun will preserve the species past that event. A Mars colony would be a stepping stone/foothold for further expansion into the solar system and beyond. I would certainly hope that if humans exist in any recognizable form in 450k years that this solar system is fully inhabited.
You say that maybe in 450k years interstellar travel will be possible. Well, when is it ok for folks to start working on that? Haven’t we already by launching the first rocket and continuing to progress? Colonizing Mars would be a step along the way. You say there is no compelling justification right now. Well, when? I say this while not disagreeing that Musk’s particular plan with it’s estimated specifics isn’t especially likely in the time frame given. But it’s the right idea to start.
I see a little (c’mon little, go easy on me) parallel with big inspirational ideas vs. the details with recent events. I didn’t think Bernie could fix all the problems if he were elected (details in the way, naturally), but I thought it would be a good start to have someone in power with the right vision, that draws out others to the cause, inspires. Even now I think progressive ideas are more widely acknowledged because he ran - and that is progress. If I could travel back in time I wouldn’t tell him not to run because he would fail.
3 Likes
SpaceX’s current plan is to send a unmanned Red Dragon spacecraft to Mars in 2018. NASA is estimating that Musk & SpaceX is spending around $300 million for this first mission. For reference, Elon Musk is apparently worth around $11.4 billion.
If it all went well, there would be another unmanned mission in 2020 and then a 3rd one in 2022. That last one would be the first test of the complete system and would be sending cargo and equipment to Mars.
Then if everything went smoothly, optimistically 2024 would be the earliest that SpaceX would be sending people. However, it’s quite likely that everything won’t run smoothly, such as the recent explosion of the Falcon 9 rocket and that date would be pushed back.
3 Likes
Now. Way upthread, I wrote:
If I’m not mistaken, there are indeed people working toward both of those things.
I realize travel to Mars isn’t mutually exclusive with baby steps toward interstellar travel. And with Prox thousands of years away at current achievable speeds, we really are talking about baby steps. Maybe not even that. But I do still think it’s worthwhile, even if it never leads to viable interstellar travel for biological beings.
I don’t object to interplanetary travel in the short term, I just think it’s way premature to seriously ponder doing it at colonization scale. Given the current state of affairs here on Earth, prima facie it looks prohibitively expensive, regardless of how it’s funded, and there are numerous technical hurdles that have yet to be dealt with (even if I agree they are ultimately not insurmountable).
On the one hand I have to admire Musk’s ambition, his willingness to set the bar very high, on the other I think ambition cranked up to 11 is counterproductive because he’s talking about a huge colonies before a single human being has even set foot on Mars, before a viable vehicle for the journey exists, and while rocketry/propulsion is in its infancy. So, on balance, my main reaction is skepticism.
(I saw @Matthew_Fabb’s reply when I was just about finished writing this and thank him for the specifics. Still sounds a bit over-optimistic, but more realistic than talk about stellar near-collisions 500k years in the future.)
2 Likes
The short term goal does seem to get a crew of 100 people to Mars. The idea of colonizing Mars is definitely a very long term goal and an insanely ambitious one at that. However, in trying to convince 100 people to go to Mars and for them to pay $200,000 each for the privilege, it helps to have these kinds of long term goals. Even more so if the first one is successful, in trying to get the next crew of 100 and the next one after that, etc.
As others have mentioned Musk is focused on the transportation system and he will need other companies involved to help work out systems for people to survive on Mars. So having a crazy long term goal will hopefully provide some excitement to building these kinds of systems.
Also note that Elon Musk isn’t exactly shooting for the stars and ignoring the problems on Earth. The money to fund SpaceX is coming from building an electric vehicles. He’s also bought out a solar panel company, in hope to streamline the purchase and installation of solar panels for home owners, along with batteries that can store the energy. There are a lot more problems here, but climate change being a pretty major one the world if facing.
1 Like
We absolutely must colonize the other planets, because we are running out of helium on Earth, and would be unable to sustain a zeppelin renaissance without mining the gas giants for it.
3 Likes
Well, that’s if you think short term and abide by the treaties signed with the Mole People. If you consider their underground helium supplies worthy of a sustained subterranean battle over the long term then you’d see our zeppelin-based society will rule the world, they’ll never be able to reach us.
1 Like
There are millions of people who are excited about colonising Mars. Why is that? Have you considered they may see an advantage you don’t?
This must baffle you. Well, you are not the only one baffled: I don’t get how someone can’t see the enormous benefits for earth of colonising Mars. Take almost any random problem on earth (wars, global warming, hunger, education, terrorism), and Mars colonisation has a reasonable chance of improving things. Not solving all problems - that will never happen. Just more chance of solution than not going.
Say you have $100B to spend, and you wanted to better the world. What would YOU do with that.
- Feed the poor? (and when the funds run out a year later? Find another $100B lying around?). Maybe we get people excited about new ways of growing crops? Agriculture is not exciting enough? How can we get people excited about growing food more efficiently?
- Improve our education system? Do you have a plan of how that would be done? You think putting an ipad in front of every tenth human will make a dent? Try actual things you could buy with $100B and do fast forward 10 years. Maybe we show young kids where studying science gets them? What help can we give our teachers to help them excite kids about science?
- Stop wars? Ummm, so where do I put this money for doing that, maybe build a huge bomb that will deter everyone into submission? Maybe we think of some goal that will excite people away from other “thrills” and “passions”. Name occupations that excite kids: fireman, policeman, astronaut, soldier, truck driver. Now name those that excite adults. Notice the overlap is quite small?
- Stop global warming? so, any plan where to stuff the wads of cash to make that happen? Maybe we show people how difficult it is to live in a really hostile environment, and they gain some appreciation for HOME?
- Pour into research? Great. Lets give $1B to whoever solves cancer. Umm, they have that motivation already, and it still hasn’t been solved, why is that? Because its hard, and because it needs more bright minds to get into the field. I’m sure the $1B reward will excite the budding 9 year-old scientist who is destined to solve cancer.
- Give to the poor. Nice, but divvy it up and see how much each one gets, and then try and see if you’ve changed the world. Maybe we should get more kids to be excited about education, be productive workers, pay taxes and turn that one time $100B into a yearly $100B in taxes that can help the underprivileged.
People are mesmerised by the number of zeros in a billion, because they can’t even imagine it. But in a global perspective, it doesn’t go very far, and Mars colonisation would be one of the best investments to put it in for future of THIS planet. And then you also have a second home if you are one of those concerned with an extinction level event - but for most people that is too theoretical and irrelevant.
2 Likes
No, that’s me calling him to being an asshole for criticizing people trying to do real things while all he’s done is make-belief.
My argument is very short:
Well, biology doesn’t mean a damned thing if engineering knowhow to get there doesn’t exist, so Mr. Robinson’s argument ends here.
1 Like
The engineering doesn’t mean a damned thing if the biology can’t sustain life once you’re there.
2 Likes
This is why we need to work on uploading our consciousness into computers instead of terraforming.
Calling him an asshole as a response to his argument does seem to be ad hominem.
Did you actually read the interview?
But that’s exactly what Elon Musk is afraid of
Dude, read my reply. My claim to him being an asshole is outside of my actual argument.
I know ad hominem defense is forum’s favorite tool, but hammer, this ain’t the nail.
As the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire was being played out, the phrase that stuck in the history books was, “failure of imagination”. And that’s where setting the bar becomes important today. “Man, moon,decade” was a concise frame for the minimum acceptable standard, back in the day.
“Men&women, Mars, Eventually” misses that mark be several measures. Most of which are pretty obvious to anyone who’s seriously studied these topics.
The robot probes today are much better than what that older generation had to work with, and the mass media too, much better able to dessiminate the experience. Back then we needed a human to vouch for the project, make it relevent, convince us of how versital this tech could be.
I would argue that today’s imagination is superior to that of the 60s. When those of us on the ground can cathect with our probes in real time through our phones, it makes things so much richer than having to listen to Walter Cronkite and Buzz Aldrin distill the experience for us.
It takes more imagination to experience space through robotic probes than it does to experience it vicariously though the minds of astronauts. But we’ve got that imagination, and the space that we can then explore is so much bigger!
1 Like
If we can even get there. So, first things first!
We can get things there, but not people. If we focused more on the biology, we’d get people there as well. Only a handful of people have survived in space for the time it takes to get from the Earth to Mars, so we’re still learning the effects of long term space travel on the human body. Also space travel requires pristine conditions, so it’s possible to not be able to leave as planned. We need to know how to sustain life on Mars for longer than the longest human life has been sustained in space. Biologists, the ball is in your court.
4 Likes
Mars is not the solution to any Human problem save one: The complete extinction of the species
Even our complete extinction would not necessarily be prevented if such an event happened while the Martian and other colonies were still dependent upon Earth for resources.
This topic has engendered a lot of heated responses but the truth of the matter is simple. We are abusing the Earth. We are utilizing its resources without any respect for the future of the planet or our future living on the planet.
I will start this essay with a simple premise: The Earth does not need us. If a comet struck the Earth tomorrow, we would be extinct and that would be the end of it. To put it even simpler, we do not matter to the Earth in any way.
- If we keep abusing the Earth, pretending climate change isn’t real (though most scientists agree it is);
- if we keep polluting the layer of air protecting the planet and responsible for all significant life to exist;
- if we keep polluting the vital natural resource of water, of which 99.99997% of it is inaccessible to us;
- then we will eventually drive ourselves to extinction, anyway. Either we will alter the climate, increase deforestation, over-populate the planet, exhaust our food supplies, over-fish the oceans, create toxic levels of pollution or completely destroy the watersheds of the planet.
- We live precariously, at best, and unless we start thinking better, more holistically, with more vision, and concern for the future of humanity as a whole, rather than as nation-states, we are doomed. It’s only a matter of time. Innovation is only one of the things we need to do better.
What does that have to do with Elon Musk? Nothing in particular, except he has the idea he can crowdsource his way to another planet. He believes he can innovate a way to Mars in such a fashion that all of the difficulties associated with leaving the Earth can be overcome. Difficulties which, to date have been considered significant, challenging and in most cases insurmountable.
There is inherently nothing wrong with his desire to create a means to leave the Earth. In essence, if we are to make an opportunity for humanity to live on other planets, someone must do the work. Since no governments have stepped in due to nationalistic tendencies toward conquering Earth’s resources in a particular nations name, an independent whose vast wealth allows him to experiment with the idea in ways previously thought to be the province of governments.
Is he correct in thinking this? Perhaps. But it is a much greater endeavor both in terms of technology, in terms of physics, in terms of biology, in terms of ethics than any single mind can hope to comprehend of, let alone consider singularly. Don’t believe me? Consider these ideas, don’t worry, I am certain I won’t cover them all:
Leaving the Planet:
- Earth’s gravity well is one of the first major hurdles we must overcome if we are to do anything significant off-planet. Since we have no offworld manufacturing facilities (say like we should have on the moon even before heading to Mars) everything has to escape Earth’s gravity well.
- Currently even with SpaceX’s advances in space flight into low-Earth orbit, it still costs over a $1,000 a pound to move something into low-Earth orbit. A gallon of water weighs 8.34 pounds. A Human being, under ideal conditions, needs at least a half a gallon of water a day to survive. The most expensive water you would ever drink, I promise you. Using this number, you can determine just how much it will cost to get people, tools, equipment and other resources offworld.
Once in Space:
- Radiation: Even when we can move something into space, at our fastest speeds it will require ships shielded enough to protect the crew and passengers from radiation and cosmic particles for many months at a time. At the fastest speeds and launching at closest points of approach it will take 150 to 300 days for anything launched from Earth to reach Mars. Adding insult to injury said materials capable of providing shield are very heavy. (See: Problem #1) Long-term exposure to radiation is one of the most dangerous and persistent hazards in space.
- Micro-meteor strikes would be an unpleasant second. Traveling at many times the speed of sound, and added to the velocity of the ship in transit could mean impacts with incredible amounts of energy being delivered to the spacecraft in question. Multiple this by the volume of the ship in transit, the number of passengers and you see such a ship will require a significant amount of protection and or redundancies to keep it safe during transit.
When we get to Mars
- When we get to Mars, the radiation problem hasn’t gone away because Mars does not have an appreciable magnetic field. Our planet’s magnetic field protects the Earth from solar radiation, solar wind and other exotic high energy particles inimical to human life. We know the magnetic field is there because of the display of the auroras over the poles of our planet. Without such protection, the surface of Mars will always be a hostile environment unless all dwellings are equipped with radiation-resistant habitation. In most cases, it would make more sense to build underground, which would require equipment capable of performing such earth-moving. (See: Problem #1)
- Living on Mars will become another issue: It’s low gravity will reduce the capacity of anyone living there from eventually leaving the planet without dire consequences. Thus it is likely to be a one way trip, for the foreseeable future. What are the long-term ramifications for someone to live under the Martian gravity for the rest of their lives? Will their bodies function normally? Will they lose strength, physical vitality? Will their organs continue to function normally? None of this can be known before we go. It can only be theorized, at best, extrapolated perhaps from astronauts in orbit for prolonged periods.
Ethical Questions
- A minor ethical question becomes the issue of terraforming. Should humanity be bringing our ecosystem to other worlds? In our current state of space travel it isn’t an issue since most worlds in our solar system are uninhabited or are barely habitable to life as we know it. But should we discover a means to move between the stars, should we consider the ramifications of moving our ecosystem to other worlds?
- What about the potential threat of other ecosystems moving backward towards Earth? Should all space travel be one-way to prevent possible incursion from alien organisms taking hold on Earth, with no means of biological restraint in place? Granted the threat of this would be very small, but it is always a potential possibility. With humanity seeking worlds like Earth, the threat of xeno-contagion rises if a planet shares more characteristics with Earth.
I am not trying to get into every aspect of the problems with moving toward Mars, because every difficulty we have on Earth, we will have on Mars. We will need to feed, clothe, protect, and defend the people living on Mars, the same way we do on Earth, only better.
If indeed, humanity wants to move into the Solar System, inhabiting other planets and moons away from Earth, our ability to create resources, reuse resources, utilize effectively every atom of materials we bring with us or ship from Earth, for the foreseeable future implies not only do we have to become far more efficient than we have ever been in our management of said resources, but that we have to have a paradigm shift in our ability to relate to each other, to deal with the deprivations of the bounty of the Earth and to consider every movement into the Solar System as a means to protect the humanity which may come to live there, possibly for the rest of their lives.
A Final Word
Moving out into the solar system will require a viewpoint far removed from our current model of “eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate” which has been our operating system as a species for as long as we can remember. Protecting the Earth is not part of a program instead of moving into space, it needs to become part of the program OF moving into space.
We will need to enhance our ability to support the Earth because as we move into space, the Earth will become the lifeline of humanity as it moves into the solar system. The places we will go will have the potential to improve our opportunities for survival, but none of them will offer us the surfeit of resources the Earth can provide, if we take care of it today. For exo-humanity to thrive, we must protect our home planet for as long as possible. Like it or not, we are likely to depend on Mother Earth for centuries to come.
Part of this essay and an opportunity to see just how enormous the undertaking of moving to Mars could be can be sourced here: Could Superman Terraform Mars?
While the underlying premise may seem silly or specious, I assure you the research undertaken was taken from serious sources.
3 Likes
