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This discussion has been archived.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: 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).