SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If I died today it'd be a holiday... on Mars. Elon Musk has suggested that the first Martian settlers should be prepared to die:
The first people who fly with SpaceX to Mars should be OK with the possibility that the decision could cost them their lives, company founder and CEO Elon Musk said. SpaceX aims to ferry 1 million people to the Red Planet over the next 50 to 100 years using the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), a rocket-spaceship combo that Musk unveiled Tuesday (Sept. 27) during a talk at the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Guadalajara, Mexico. (Well, he unveiled the ITS in concept; neither vehicle has been built yet.)
Musk painted a picture of a not-too-distant future in which 1,000 or more ITS spaceships, each loaded up with 100 or 200 settlers, zoom off toward Mars simultaneously from Earth orbit. But it's naïve to expect that everything will work perfectly from the start, he said. "I think the first journeys to Mars are going to be really very dangerous. The risk of fatality will be high; there's just no way around it," Musk said at the IAC, adding that, for this reason, he would not suggest sending children on these flights. "It would be, basically, 'Are you prepared to die?' If that's OK, then, you know, you're a candidate for going," he said. Musk said he'd like to go to Mars, but it's unclear if he'll be among the Red Planet vanguard.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday October 02 2016, @05:48AM
People are adaptable, at least to some extent. If man CAN live on Mars, then people will figure it out.
Yes, people are adaptable to some extent. But they cannot live without air, water, food, shelter, sunlight, vitamins and drugs. On Earth all that is either available in most locations, or can be arranged on site. On Mars none of that is readily available. People cannot survive as an isolated colony in places like Antarctica or Sachhara - everything must be flown in.
But a better question to ask is "why." Specifically, at this age of Earth's civilization, when we barely manage to live on the planet that we are adapted to. Do we have thermonuclear reactors? No. Do we have autodocs? No. Do we have hibernation? No. Do we have AI that can control all those robots that are supposed to build a city for the colonists? No. Finally, do we have a financially reasonable way of sending people to other planets? Again no. It's OK still, but now you have to have a really good reason to go ahead with this plan - say, if the Earth is going to be destroyed soon and you need a seed of the human race off site. But there is no such good reason either. There is no reason whatsoever.
Then what do we see here? First and foremost, we see a PR campaign that is aimed at mitigating the damage from the explosion. Never forget, Musk is an excellent wheeler and dealer. His name is his main asset. So they had an accident? Roll out the PR cannons and start firing the vaporware left and right. Anything to keep the name of the man in the news, in the circulation, and in positive light (possible, since they control the news.)
There is not much beyond that. What kind of an Earthling will agree to fly to another planet and live there like a caveman, and commit his children to live likewise? We do not yet have the technology that would make life there palatable. There is no oil on Mars, for example, and most organic chemistry is oil-based. (Forget about oil as the fuel - just the necessities, like paints, drugs, plastics - you cannot make wire without plastic, and you cannot make electronics without wires.) We need decades of robotic exploration of Mars before we know what is there, what isn't, and how we can use existing resources. It is way too early to fly anywhere, and there is no pressure to fly either - this Earth is not overpopulated by any measure; it suffers primarily from mismanagement - and the mismanagers will fly to Mars among the colonists, be sure of that. Humans should not try to live on other planets until they learn how to happily live on their homeworld. We are still pretty far from that goal.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @06:34AM
"Nay! Nay, I say!"
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @10:32AM
But a better question to ask is "why."
Even better question is "why not?" This time it's not even a government but a private corporation (talking about) doing it, so there shouldn't be any "using our tax moneys"-related complaints. I guess SpaceX and Musk should spend their money on hookers, drugs, expensive racing cars and yachts, like normal rich people, instead of doing something potentially useful for the human race.
It's OK still, but now you have to have a really good reason to go ahead with this plan - say, if the Earth is going to be destroyed soon and you need a seed of the human race off site. But there is no such good reason either. There is no reason whatsoever.
Yeah, what idiot makes backups before the disks start to die, or goes to regular health checkups before a debilitating illness. Smart people wait until the last moment, or even slightly longer! Yee-haw!
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Sunday October 02 2016, @02:14PM
Yes, people are adaptable to some extent. But they cannot live without air, water, food, shelter, sunlight, vitamins and drugs. On Earth all that is either available in most locations, or can be arranged on site. On Mars none of that is readily available.
Everyone already knows that.
But a better question to ask is "why." Specifically, at this age of Earth's civilization, when we barely manage to live on the planet that we are adapted to.
Bad assumptions means your conclusions are garbage. We are thriving, not barely surviving.
Do we have thermonuclear reactors? No.
Actually, yes we do. Fission reactors are thermonuclear by definition. They are nuclear and generate energy from the heat of the nuclear reactors.
Do we have autodocs? No.
Yes, we do. We call them "doctors".
Do we have AI that can control all those robots that are supposed to build a city for the colonists? No.
Given that human intelligence is more than sufficient for these tasks, it's not even a real problem.
Finally, do we have a financially reasonable way of sending people to other planets? Again no.
I think this demonstrates the bankruptcy of your argument. This is all subject to change. And once change happens, your argument is invalid.
What kind of an Earthling will agree to fly to another planet and live there like a caveman, and commit his children to live likewise?
I'm sure that if you looked, you'd be able to answer that question. And for that matter who doesn't live like a caveman on Earth? Our homes are very much like those of any primitive people that uses shelter.
We do not yet have the technology that would make life there palatable.
Yet. It's not going to be a hard problem.
There is no oil on Mars, for example, and most organic chemistry is oil-based. (Forget about oil as the fuel - just the necessities, like paints, drugs, plastics - you cannot make wire without plastic, and you cannot make electronics without wires.)
The Sabatier reaction [wikipedia.org] is the obvious rebuttal. It can make methane from CO2 and hydrogen, the latter obtained from electrolysis of water. And once you have methane, you can convert it into ethylene which is the basic feedstock for a lot of plastics. Notice that this discovery is over a century old.
We need decades of robotic exploration of Mars before we know what is there, what isn't, and how we can use existing resources.
Decades of robotic exploration is a few months of human exploration. If we're sending people to Mars, might as well knock this obstacle out with the fastest explorers around.
It is way too early to fly anywhere, and there is no pressure to fly either - this Earth is not overpopulated by any measure; it suffers primarily from mismanagement - and the mismanagers will fly to Mars among the colonists, be sure of that.
Sure, they are. There is this religious assumption that even if we build thriving colonies on Mars, that somehow the wrong people will sneak into the colony. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that your "mismanagers" are actually the most successful managers of resources on Earth. Orwellian contrariness that often comes with these sorts of beliefs.
Humans should not try to live on other planets until they learn how to happily live on their homeworld.
Says the wannabe roadblock. Since you haven't apparently learned to live happily on Earth, perhaps we should indeed keep you from leaving. I don't have that problem, for example, so I'm good to go. And I'm sure there are plenty of other people who have handily solved that problem as well. It shouldn't be too hard to find volunteers.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday October 02 2016, @02:23PM
I can think of a valuable reason "why". Mind you, I don't work in a space business, so this is just my own opinion:
The 7 billion people living on Earth do not sufficiently appreciate the ecosystem that nurtures and sustains us. Because it has worked for all of our history; it seems logical that it will continue working forever as well. It's "background information".
If all school children in the world get lessons on how incredibly hard it is to maintain even a minimal regenerative life support system just for oxygen and water,
if they get taught how long lichens take to weather down rocks to soil, if they get taught that the perchlorates on Mars have to be neutralized before any plants and nematodes and meal-worms can even grow, etc. etc.,
then maybe our next generation will have a better appreciation of why WE MUST NOT FUCK UP THE ONLY WORKING BIOSPHERE WE HAVE.
On the Moon and Mars, astro/cosmo/taiko/??-nauts will have to eat stones. How far has our geology and agriculture sciences advanced on this topic? Not bloody much I suspect (I realize they'll have to get CHON volatiles from carbonaceous chondrites, as well).
I sincerely believe that this appreciation of our nurturing planet is necessary for the human race to survive this century. It's not going to be like previous centuries.
This has all kind of moral and philosophical and religious overtones, as well:
- I don't believe in Death Cults
- I believe we, humanity, are worthy enough to be allowed to live and prosper
- But, God the Father won't drive to the Celestial Toy Shop for us, to buy us a sparkling new world after we finally manage to break this current one
(Consider these just my personal, irrational, religious background)
- From these (irrational) arguments I conclude that we have a duty to try to survive and not just give up and play the "blame game" and wish for some authority figure to fix us a new world.
And, small Moon and Mars bases would be high-profile events that could maybe "open people's eyes". Let's see the footage of Shenzhou 11 when it docks with Tiangong-2 to see what the Chinese are up to.
What do you think of this?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 02 2016, @02:30PM
Ask Sonia "why". http://time.com/3716823/mars-one-space-travel-finalist/ [time.com]
When the request for volunteers went out some years ago, they were overwhelmed with volunteers. For every person wanted, they had more than a thousand applicants. These are people who are willing to die for the cause. Ask them. No one is expecting conscripts to go, after all.
As for the threat to life on earth - it's out there. There are more than enough rocks large enough to destroy life as we know it. NO ONE KNOWS if and when one of them is going to strike the earth. The smart money is on planting the seed BEFORE you know you need it. The day after the astronemers agree that, yes, that huge rock will hit the earth in a couple months, it's to late to build the infrastructure necessary to plant man on Mars.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday October 02 2016, @08:00PM
Musk was scheduled to lay out these plans when he did before the explosion happened. Not saying it doesn't double as PR though.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]