Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday November 26 2018, @10:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-forget-to-say-goodbye dept.

Elon Musk Says There's a '70 Percent' Chance He'll Move to Mars:

Elon Musk has talked about personally heading to Mars before, but how likely is he to make the trip, really? Well, he just put a number on it. In an interview for the Axios on HBO documentary series, Musk said there was a "70 percent" chance he'll go to Mars. There have been a "recent number of breakthroughs" that have made it possible, he said. And as he hinted before, it'd likely be a one-way trip -- he expects to "move there."

The executive also rejected the idea that traveling to Mars could be an "escape hatch for the rich" in its current form. He noted that an ad for going to Mars would be "like Shackleton's ad for going to the Antarctic," which (though likely not real) made clear how dangerous and the South Pole journey was. Even if you make it to Mars, you'll spend all your time building the base and struggling to survive harsh conditions, Musk said. And while it might be possible to come back, it's far from guaranteed. As with climbing Everest, Musk believes it's all about the "challenge."

The interview is available on YouTube.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:26AM (17 children)

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:26AM (#766724)

    That's why it's better to do it on the Moon, where you can threaten Earth with multiple large craters if they don't grant you sovereignty of your new country. Not just anywhere, but craters in Dubai's new rich people city, Malibu, the richest areas of New York, .etc.

    Mars will not happen because I don't know anyone truly that gullible and stupid to head there with rich fuckwads like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Two people that have more than demonstrated they don't give two shits about the worker and are heavily, heavily, anti-union. Anybody that heads there without being granted a large tract of land, with zero property taxes for 250 years, and the level of equality perfectly spelled out (meaning living wages or dead rich people), and all the laws and policies decided on beforehand, deserve the lives of slaves waiting for them. Also a requirement, GUNS. I wouldn't go there unless I was granted property, and the rights and ability to defend it.

    As much as those slaves may be pressured to do things to stay alive, the rich elites will absolutely be pressured as well to treat them much better than we are treated on Earth. Requesting a medium sized mercenary force to supplement your private police force is not something that will be there in 6 hours, or 24 hours, or 24 days. It's not even comparable to Roman times because Roman soldiers had roads and the turn around time from a fleeing solider to Rome and that army was less than 90 days. Kill the Roman governor and they were decimating the whole village methodically in a month or two. Mars is easily 6 months before they receive backup, replacement supplies, extra ordnance, or whatever is required to quell the worker riots. Heck, in 6 months the people arriving could be dealing with an entirely new government.

    Which is why only the truly gullible and stupid will head there, the rich will bring large enough private law enforcement with them to start with. Being that far away from Earth, I expect a return to the old ways. Don't listen to Elon Musk? Guards take you away to the airlock, and employee records are doctored to record your unfortunate accident in it. After, the tweet is sent to Earth labeling you a disgruntled pedo.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:43AM (10 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:43AM (#766728) Journal

    That's why it's better to do it on the Moon, where you can threaten Earth with multiple large craters if they don't grant you sovereignty of your new country. Not just anywhere, but craters in Dubai's new rich people city, Malibu, the richest areas of New York, .etc.

    And the Earth can retaliate with well-placed nukes. Good times.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:19AM (9 children)

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:19AM (#766735)

      Maybe. If not obvious, I'm ripping off the scifi book "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlen. It has interesting technological and sociological parallels to a colony on Mars. Not entirely, as Mars has far more gravity though.

      However, well placed nukes couldn't save Earth, because of MAD. More specifically, there were a large number of asteroids situated in lunar orbit that could be automatically set on a collision course with Earth. So that's like saying a few well placed nukes can take out the United States, while overlooking the submarines that will destroy Russia when they attempt it.

      The Moon in this case represents a hilarious disadvantage the Earth has, and that's gravity. It costs a shit ton to get that nuke to the Moon, and isn't guaranteed that the Moon couldn't interfere and shoot it down. On the Moon though, a single stick of dynamite can put a train car worth of ore in lunar orbit. The nuke requires thrusters and navigation to keep on track, while a large asteroid benefits from gravity and "falling" down to the Earth. That nuke requires the ability to evade countermeasures. That asteroid relies on its size to defeat countermeasures. That nuke costs millions. That asteroid costs thousands in energy to put it in lunar orbit, and not all that much more to put it on a trajectory to the Earth. That nuke will irradiate the surface and cause quakes, but might not penetrate the surface to the colony underneath, or defeat the normal countermeasures in place for simply living in space without an atmosphere to protect you. The asteroid is guaranteed to cost billions in damages almost regardless of where it hits, and if it hits a populated city, it will obliterate it.

      Mars on the other hand doesn't have that advantage. Just a little bit less gravity than Earth, but not low enough to create escape velocity with a fire cracker. However, it does have moons, and it is far enough away that I can easily imagine a couple dozen asteroids being hidden, ready at a moments notice to begin their long trajectory to Earth. That's where it could well be a much better idea to keep the nukes for; Handling inbound asteroids.

      In all seriousness though, I don't see anything like this happening. I don't believe that humanity is stable enough to form villages on the moon, much less colonies on other planets. Heinlen's book is an apt comparison, because I strongly suspect that it would begin with a penal colony. More likely, Tesla Private Prisons Inc. Giving it kind of serious thought though, and the business models that will do best on Mars are the ones where they dodge regulations and ethics, like how that Silicon Valley vampire (literally), purchased science performed on some islands outside of US jurisdiction. Mars will not be part of any jurisdictions on Earth, and as a result, will be prime location for high-end corporate/medical R&D that rich people on Earth will pay for.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:41AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:41AM (#766748)

        It costs a shit ton to get that nuke to the Moon, and isn't guaranteed that the Moon couldn't interfere and shoot it down.

        Musk's own Falcon Heavy could deliver a warhead to Mars, if the timing is right. Doing the same with the Moon is much, much simpler. Think that moon people can shoot it down? Now consider that it will be approaching the surface of the Moon with the Earth's escape velocity, about 11.1 km/s, plus or minus the Moon's orbital speed (1 km/s), even if the warhead does not accelerate on its own. Try to shoot *that* down.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:29AM (3 children)

          by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:29AM (#766767)

          Think that moon people can shoot it down? Now consider that it will be approaching the surface of the Moon with the Earth's escape velocity, about 11.1 km/s, plus or minus the Moon's orbital speed (1 km/s), even if the warhead does not accelerate on its own. Try to shoot *that* down.

          Sure. I only have, what, on average 9 hours to do that? How much propellant are you going to use to accelerate it? If you make it go too fast, you also sacrifice mobility. Meaning, it won't be easy to evade, unless you bring more propellant for just that. There is no nuke capable of going to the moon on its own either (yet), but would instead be a retrofitted craft of some kind. Doubtfully designed to evade targets, or built from a purely military perspective.

          In 9 hours I'm pretty sure we could guarantee the Earth's brutal death with a couple dozen (if not more) heavy asteroids on the way there. Do you divert the nuke and attack the first asteroid on the way? Stay the course and add more nukes? You are assuming this nuke could just fly straight and not have to navigate an asteroid field. Ever heard of chaff? With 9 hours Lunar citizens could take asteroids and smash them together creating a cloud of small rocks. Try to navigate through *that*. A rock the size of a quarter could take a nuke at the right velocity. So the faster you send this nuke, the less you can evade, the less you have to withstand a fucking screw taking you out :)

          With lunar escape velocity being what it is, the Moon has a vastly easier time in managing objects in its orbit, and putting them there. I would imagine that mining would be pretty important on the Moon, and why would you *not* attempt to grab asteroids and move them to lunar orbit for processing? That amount of precious metal isn't going to be off limits for any reason, especially since that much gold and platinum could be a game changer for humanity. Some neat tech can be made with platinum, but would result in multimillion dollar water engines that couldn't be made in sufficient capacity to make a real difference. I absolutely believe capturing large asteroids would be the first order of things to be done with the Moon.

          The Moon has quite a few strategic advantages best expressed by the saying, "It's over Anakin! I have the high ground!". Hey, I'm sure it will work out for the super tech advanced Earthlings, their escape velocity requirements, and being at the damn near bottom of the gravity well ;)

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:26AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:26AM (#766885) Journal

            In 9 hours I'm pretty sure we could guarantee the Earth's brutal death with a couple dozen (if not more) heavy asteroids on the way there.

            From where? Lot's of matter on the Moon, but it's at the bottom of a significant gravity well. A rebellious colony won't have the infrastructure to drop that kind of mass on Earth. Anything else is years to decades out and could be easily intercepted by the people with nukes.

            Also, don't forget the atmosphere. It'll stop most of the box car-sized projectiles, particularly, if they're fragments.

            The real danger is that someone on the Moon could dump enough random mass into Earth orbit to take out all the satellites.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @09:47PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @09:47PM (#767057)

              I'd suggest reading the book. Sure, your assumptions on a Moon colony may not match the requirements yet but you may be surprised as the reasonably limited gravity well that the Moon poses.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:48AM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:48AM (#766751) Journal

        It costs a shit ton to get that nuke to the Moon, and isn't guaranteed that the Moon couldn't interfere and shoot it down. On the Moon though, a single stick of dynamite can put a train car worth of ore in lunar orbit.

        They aren't going to shoot down those missiles with dynamite driven-train cars of rock. And the Earth can afford shit tons.

        I don't believe that humanity is stable enough to form villages on the moon, much less colonies on other planets.

        Humanity has already created far more difficult things on Earth.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:44AM (2 children)

          by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:44AM (#766777)

          They aren't going to shoot down those missiles with dynamite driven-train cars of rock. And the Earth can afford shit tons.

          Wasn't implying that they would. Only illustrating the difference between the Earth and Moon as far escape velocity and position in the gravity well WRT Earth. It's trivially easy (really) to send up asteroid sized chunks of the Moon to space. The train car worth is just to illustrate how cheaply we can send finished product from the surface of the Moon to Earth orbit.

          As such, it is entirely reasonable to assume the Moon would be stop #1 for Asteroid capture operations. Why risk the Earth on a mistake, when you can aim for the Moon instead where processing is cheaper? I'm thinking at any one time, there would be dozens of asteroid sized objects in lunar orbit.

          What would really "shoot" the nukes down is a large field of small rocks created by smashing together asteroids. Could that nuke fly through the rings of Saturn without injury? I'm not saying it is guaranteed or anything, but I seriously doubt Earth has nuke delivery technology that can sense and evade rock particles sized between a screw and a baseball. Either one of them capable of taking out a nuke flying faster than Earth escape velocity. Why would a nuke be any more durable or safer than a satellite?

          The high ground the Moon maintains over Earth is quite formidable actually.

          Humanity has already created far more difficult things on Earth.

          What exactly? Australia? I don't think you can compare the difficulties of Earth with either the Moon or Mars colonies. Being on Earth also means being fairly close to some army of some kind that could put a stop to you. Not so easily said or done on the Moon, much less Mars. I think you should read the book I mentioned. One of my favorites from Heinlen.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 1) by deimtee on Tuesday November 27 2018, @10:02AM

            by deimtee (3272) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @10:02AM (#766869) Journal

            If you were running the Moon, and tensions were getting to the point of being nuked, the thing to do would be to take kilotonnes to megatonnes of lunar rock, process into gravel and fire into medium earth orbit, with small dispersal charges in the middle of each load. Think of it as an assisted Kessler Syndrome inderdiction.
            As for incoming nukes, if your radar is good enough to see them several hours away, you could take them out with a boxcar load of coarse sand on the reverse trajectory.

            --
            If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:42AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:42AM (#766889) Journal

            Humanity has already created far more difficult things on Earth.

            What exactly? Australia? I don't think you can compare the difficulties of Earth with either the Moon or Mars colonies. Being on Earth also means being fairly close to some army of some kind that could put a stop to you. Not so easily said or done on the Moon, much less Mars. I think you should read the book I mentioned. One of my favorites from Heinlen.

            How about a seven billion person civilization which just happens to include Australia (and really, Australia isn't a bad comparison in its own right).

            What would really "shoot" the nukes down is a large field of small rocks created by smashing together asteroids. Could that nuke fly through the rings of Saturn without injury? I'm not saying it is guaranteed or anything, but I seriously doubt Earth has nuke delivery technology that can sense and evade rock particles sized between a screw and a baseball.

            The answer is yes, that nuke could fly through the rings of Saturn without injury - we had a wimpy space probe pass through the rings 22 times [nasa.gov] before entering Saturn's atmosphere (the Cassini probe). And current warheads are pretty solid. I believe they could take hits from screw-sized objects going about 2-3 km/s (which is what objects in orbit would be going vs an object coming in at 1.7 km or so). Finally, that's a lot of matter to throw up. You're trying to put enough matter up that the warhead is disabled more than 50% of the time on a single pass through the debris belt. Sorry, that's much harder than you think. It's one thing to take out satellites that have an effective path of millions of kilometers in length. It's another to tag the space craft on its one-way trip in (at best you have a transit path of hundreds of km).

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:32AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:32AM (#766744) Homepage Journal

    That's why it's better to do it on the Moon, where you can threaten Earth with multiple large craters if they don't grant you sovereignty of your new country.

    I love that book. Just read it again last month.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:53AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:53AM (#766755)

    In what possible way can you be treated well on Mars? An extra 10g of chocolate rations on Christmas? An extra liter of water? An extra m^3 of living space? Maybe a hat and thermal socks? Going to space has been described as an extended car camping trip, but where you don't leave the car or roll down the windows.

    Maybe if you had a terminal disease and a few months to live it might make sense to go to get your name in the history books and weren't expected to need many supplies. But then it might look like the stunt it is.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:04AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:04AM (#766759) Journal

      In what possible way can you be treated well on Mars? An extra 10g of chocolate rations on Christmas? An extra liter of water? An extra m^3 of living space? Maybe a hat and thermal socks? Going to space has been described as an extended car camping trip, but where you don't leave the car or roll down the windows.

      What is it with people who think that one would have extremely limited resources just because it's Mars? Sure, if you're after a high standard of living, then being one of the early explorers or colonists on Mars is going to be a bad choice. But the place is huge and the resources required to live on Mars aren't huge.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:24AM (#766765)

        What is it with people who think that one would have extremely limited resources just because it's Mars?

        Because people feel they have limited resources even on earth living better than kings two hundred years ago.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:29AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:29AM (#766768) Journal

      Astronauts on the ISS have coped with it. They could get an upgrade if inflatable modules are sent to the ISS or the next station. On Mars, we could potentially build large habitats [nasa.gov] using similar technology.

      Greenhouses on Mars can supply produce and chemicals. Scaling these up and managing them will be a primary activity for the first colonists, just as the majority of humans participated in agriculture for most of human history.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:52AM

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:52AM (#766779)

      In what possible way can you be treated well on Mars? An extra 10g of chocolate rations on Christmas? An extra liter of water? An extra m^3 of living space? Maybe a hat and thermal socks?

      Sounds just like the thinking of the old guard. "What more scraps do we need to throw down before you worker bees shut the fuck up?".

      It's suuuuuper easy to be treated well on Mars, and on Earth. LIVING WAGES. Living wages are not about being guaranteed luxuries like Chocolate, and your use of "rations" is telling. Living wages are about being paid enough to live adequately. If 10^m of living space is adequate, then that's what the wage is for. Basically, why on Earth (or Mars), would you work for less than what you need? Why would you work for rich fuckers in a near constant state of material deprivation to the extent you literally cannot afford to stop working for those rich fuckers? It's goddamn senseless and stupid, and it most often happens because the employers (run by the Elites) are constantly gaming the system so they don't have to pay a living wage.

      If you want a lot of social programs in place on Mars, then by all means, pay people like they get paid on Earth. If you want to treat them better, just pay a living wage. It's that simple.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.