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: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Monday November 26 2018, @11:15PM (32 children)
No he won't. The staff will be doing that, or excuse me, servants. He will be making decisions about what others will be doing. So, yes, absolutely an escape hatch for the rich. Anybody stupid enough to sign up for that trip, with the possibility of no return, is signing up to be on Musk's good side permanently. Either that, or no oxygen for them.
The only really good thing about it, is that those indentured servants can rise up and kill all the rich that make it there. Then afterwards, try to keep humanity going on Mars.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 26 2018, @11:59PM (18 children)
With no way to pay for supplies to be sent to them, because all the rich people are dead? Luck with that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:26AM (17 children)
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.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:43AM (10 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, @10:45PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:48AM (3 children)
They aren't going to shoot down those missiles with dynamite driven-train cars of rock. And the Earth can afford shit tons.
Humanity has already created far more difficult things on Earth.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:44AM (2 children)
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.
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
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.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @11:42AM
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).
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
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)
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.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:12AM (12 children)
Villages don't work like that.
If Elon manages to get (say) 500 people to Mars, and they manage to set up some sort of workable living conditions they will be in effect a village.
If Elon turns out to not be capable of running the joint, he won't be running the joint.
If he won't give up power voluntarily the rest of the people will just ignore him and go about their lives. I don't think violence will be needed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:34AM (2 children)
Until, like TMB pointed out, the rich people stop sending supplies. I'm pretty sure when ol' Elon is controlling the access codes to the oxygen tanks, and communication channels to/from Earth, that the village may decide it is best to do what he says. You mention that violence won't be needed, but violence has always been needed to fend off oppressors. Not too many villages survive attempts to subjugate them, hence nations and armies are required.
This isn't Earth either. That village will most likely be heavily dependent on Earth for a few generations at least. Until you have sizable underground populations, and local vs terrestrial source for air, water, and basic materials, you will require a good relationship with Earth. That really translates into how happy Elon Musk's board members and shareholders are.
All of this assumes a privatized exploration of Mars. Why wouldn't the world governments simply take all that way from Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the moment a viable human habitat was demonstrated?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:10AM (1 child)
Who the hell would go under those conditions? You would need to be stupid.
On Earth. There is going to be no-one external to the settlement, so any oppressors are going to be internal, and it is not hard to make a tiny minority come to heal without actual violence.
Oh absolutely. And yes, they will need to make sure they continue to be supplied.
Good point. Why indeed?
(Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Tuesday November 27 2018, @03:23PM
Lot's of people buy hard -and software from vendors and/or have accounts on Cloud services and/or social media firms that control pretty much their entire life. Lot's of people are stupid.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:11AM (8 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:32AM (6 children)
I don't see why it would be. That just seems like a very US-centric way of looking at the world.
We are not going to dump some people on Mars, then not have any contact with them at all for 4 years are we? The locals are probably not going to murder them either.
Of course there is a possibility of internal strife, but I don't see why everyone seems to think there will be violence.
There are plenty of better ways to settle community differences.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday November 27 2018, @03:10AM
Ahh, yes, because we perfected that on Earth right? All of the people came together and calmly explained to rich oligarchs that bought up the housing and increased prices by 400%, that they needed to stop, or the average people would be a in a lot of pain. Then they did stop, and the people rejoiced in their evolved and enlightened conflict resolution process. Then they started mining color crystals, riding unicorns, and firing Care-Bear-Stares at everyone within eyesight :)
The people often settle differences through the act of protesting, or grinding the Elite's gravy train to such a halt, that the minimum was doled out to shut them back up. THAT was the evolved thing to do, peaceful protesting and shutting down the factory until the rich fuckers that owned it could be convinced to come closer to the living wage. AFAIK, community differences are NOT settled, but have become entrenched and endemic with no solution in sight. We're more divided than ever. Oddly enough, I think the Internet actually weakened our ability to organize. Things start out peaceful, but then the Elites bring the violence, and you are back at violence being the one true thing that brings changes. That is absolutely true. Read up on the history of Unions in the United States, and how corrupt Chicago police moonlighting as enforcers shot union members protesting in the back. Ohh, and the Coal Police [wikipedia.org] were a real thing. How do you settle community differences with the rich and Elite in your community, when they just send the Coal and Iron Police to kill you?
I wish we lived in your world, but in this one words, ethics, morals, and integrity mean jack, diddly, and shit. The only thing that will stop the sociopaths in the Elites from abusing us is a rock at sufficient velocity to the cranium. Either that, or we abolish the NLRA, and enshrine very serious protections for protesting into the law. To the point, that law enforcement needs to step the fuck back, and have ZERO power to stop a protest. Even if it is crippling businesses. Give the power back to the dock workers to shut down the whole port, and declare some cargo "hot" and refuse to move it.
All of this because some rich sociopaths object to paying living wages to people, preferring to keep them captured and indentured through debt, laws, or force. That's all union members ever asked for; Living Wages, reasonable job safety, and the 8-hour day. (The last of which mothers and children died for in the streets to get it for us).
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 27 2018, @07:03AM (4 children)
The New World is more than just the US. For example, Christopher Columbus founded a colony in the Caribbean that turned out to be a mess as well. And the Vikings had their own problems including failed settlements in Greenland and Nova Scotia, and some serious tribulations in Iceland.
And funny how I can mention concrete historical examples, and yet, you "don't see why"?
You're already answered why, because there is internal strife.
And humans often don't employ those better ways.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Blymie on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:30PM (3 children)
I think the real problem will be living space.
If people can just leave, and form their own community? For example, if people could just go out into the wild and start their own farm? Things get much easier. It helps reduce friction, enables dissidents to leave for a 'new place' that's 'better', even if it's only in their mind.
Another thing is, external strife. The more the environment is trying to kill you, the more closely a community will huddle and protect each others. Conversely, I think the less likely people are to tolerate slackers in such situations.
It might be best to look at say... Canada, when it was first colonized. Not in cities, but in smaller communities.
For example, I read a newspaper that every week places articles from their archives, going back 125+ years. You'll see that they were literally stranded, there was no rail here, and of course no motorized equipment, the snow was too high for horses to get through, and so you'd really only have snowshoes to get through to the next settlement.
And 50+ miles of trek through the snow, back before antibiotics, with wolves, bobcats, coyotes, and other such .. and with NO way for ANYONE to ever ever rescue you? People obviously didn't like the idea.
In these articles, they all seemed to have a local family doctor. And they stored up supplies for the entire winter. They were quite literally stuck in that village for 5+ months, and you could see the rejoice as they finally cleared the path to the next town in Spring. Many of those older articles talked about all the chocolate, and other such things they'd buy as the men finally cleared the road and were getting their horses ready for a trip to the 'big town'.
What's my point in all this? Well, that little village surely handled things differently than other places during those cold spell. There was no rescue, there was no communication with the outside world, no way to call for help.
Really, it's the closest to what being on Mars might be like -- that life 125+ years ago. No rescue. No external help. 100% internal reliance, etc.
So this is what might be a good thing to look for.
Another (sorry for being so verbose), is that NASA has 1/2 a century of picking people, psychologically, that are 'easy going', in that they are able to tolerate others amicably, don't tend to pester/annoy others.. and while they "get the job done", are low maintenance/high performance/high tolerance personalities.
I suspect that any colony for Mars will be similarly picked and vetted. This isn't perfect of course, but is many, many times better than random chance.
Point is.. research into these things, and using existing data (like NASA and other space agencies use and collect) can help dramatically for a new colony.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:36PM (1 child)
Hmm... just to add here.
On the whole "other village" thing, a lot of research can be put into 'vertical tech', as in.. technology that all stems from easily built components. There is this:
https://www.opensourceecology.org/portfolio/tractor/ [opensourceecology.org]
Part of the premise is this:
"The current practical implementation of the GVCS is a life size LEGO set of powerful, self-replicating production tools for distributed production."
Essentially, all of their open source machinery has a goal of all using interchangeable, easily manufactured parts. They share the same engines too, at least last time I looked in depth.
My point here is that, if you can locate mineable materials, you're much of the way there. What Mars really needs, is to have:
- raw materials on Mars
- enough "stuff" to bootstrap local production
- a core set of technology that is simple, enables survival, but requires as low tech as possible to build
The tech can be worked out here.
I'm not saying "this is simple", but what I am saying is "this is a solvable problem".
And I think that with people going to the Moon, SOME of this might be a good beta test for the tech in question.
Anyhow.....
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:41PM
And I suspect a response to the above will be "But.. but... it's impossible to be non-dependant upon Earth!"
Well, this obviously isn't true. But it is true in the short term.
However? The goal here is to reduce that dependence to key things. For example, if you can mine local materials, you don't need to import circuit boards. Support beams and metal for structures. Parts for motors. On and on.
If you can get 'required goods' down to tiny things, like sending high-end CPUs/RAM/chips and components, things like that? Then you take a small thing (a CPU) and can turn it into a big thing (a computer) with local materials.
That's goal #1. Goal #2 is to make your own CPUs, which of course is easy to do...
(You don't need the best of the best for CPUs/RAMs to start.)
(Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Tuesday November 27 2018, @03:29PM
I once asked my PO when I was doing contract work at Nokia: why didn't Finland ever send astronauts to the ISS? His reply was that there's no sauna there. Duh. However. He also added that his country is very socialist because, basically, when in the winter it's minus 20 and you can't afford the heating cost: you are dead a few days later. So they need socialism to sustain their population, basically. That, and that this minus 20 is the reason for the sauna's: if everything is broken in your house, you can still spend the night in your sauna and survive.
I guess it's similar to your Canada-example.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 27 2018, @03:05PM
So did Jonestown [wikipedia.org], though for a slightly different reason. Still, a single-person-in-control colony can face such things too.
This sig for rent.