SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:53AM (4 children)
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)
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
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
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
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.