Mars Colonization Discussion Thread

[DAL59]

He wants to improve life on Earth as well via clean cars, hyperloop, tunnels, AI, and solar panels.  

[tater]

I don't hear him as a messiah in the least. He talks about it the same way I would---"where the %$#@%$# is my Moon base I was promised as a kid?"

Multiplanetary species is entirely descriptive of his aspirational goal of a human colony on Mars. Unlike some here, he doesn't pretend that there is an economic reason, he literally says it's the sort of world he wants to live it---a science fiction future many of us of his age sort of thought we'd already have.

I disagree with the whole Mars thing, myself, but if people were living permanently on Mars, his description would be correct.

 

[DAL59]

Just now, tater said:

he literally says it's the sort of world he wants to live it---a science fiction future many of us of his age sort of thought we'd already have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee#Challenge_and_response

[tater]

5 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

Want to convince me you are not a snake oil salesman Mr. Musk? Prove it financially. Put all your chips into your "Multiplanetary Species" moralizing.

So SpaceX is not launching and reusing rockets?

Snake oil salesman implies no real, positive outcomes at all (past placebo for snake oil).

[Diche Bach]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

I don't hear him as a messiah in the least. He talks about it the same way I would---"where the %$#@%$# is my Moon base I was promised as a kid?"

Multiplanetary species is entirely descriptive of his aspirational goal of a human colony on Mars. Unlike some here, he doesn't pretend that there is an economic reason, he literally says it's the sort of world he wants to live it---a science fiction future many of us of his age sort of thought we'd already have.

I disagree with the whole Mars thing, myself, but if people were living permanently on Mars, his description would be correct.

 

Without economic reasons, Multiplanetary species will never happen. If he was writing books or making video games or movies then the "where the %$#@%$# is my Moon base I was promised as a kid?" approach would be perfectly reasonable.

When you are a millionaire entrepreneur who sells a virtue signalling luxury automobile of questionable environmental impact and sustainability and expanded his empire into space exploration, tapping into the disappointment that 20th century science fiction was too unrealistic is silly.

The ONLY ultimate reason to space is to improve the human condition, and the ONLY proximate reason that makes that ultimate goal tenable is return on investment. If we wait till we really NEED to be in space for whatever reason, it will be too late.

4 minutes ago, tater said:

So SpaceX is not launching and reusing rockets?

Snake oil salesman implies no real, positive outcomes at all (past placebo for snake oil).

Whom and how does this help?

Snake oil sales have no doubt made much money for the principals and their backers. But tampon manufacturers actually provide a valuable service to their customers too. Moreover, their  potential customers are fully half of adult humanity (well not really half, but restricting it to the female "half" a large fraction of that whole).

Edited November 3, 2017 by Diche Bach

[DAL59]

1 minute ago, Diche Bach said:

tapping into the disappointment that 20th century science fiction was too unrealistic is silly.

Isaac Asimov and Artur C Clarke were completely realistic in expecting a spacefaring civilization.  It was just political problems.  

[tater]

The only reason for space exploration is because some people want to do it. The "human condition" is nonsense. He can spend his own money however he likes. He's not selling anything with respect to space except what real companies and entities are willing to spend real money on.

If you want to talk about any externalities, then there could be benefits to, say, something like BFR that go beyond economics. If we found ourselves facing an existential threat, say an asteroid that will impact the Earth, then having a ready capability to put powerful spacecraft into deep space with plenty of dv might save countless lives.

The "backup for humanity" argument is used for space colonization, for example. It is somewhat dubious, because the technologies required for such colonization in fact substantially mitigate the risk of such a crisis (because we can then avert it).

4 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Isaac Asimov and Artur C Clarke were completely realistic in expecting a spacefaring civilization.  It was just political problems.  

No, realism includes the how and why. They didn't count for the human reality of the political system, or what NASA was from the start.

8 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

Without economic reasons, Multiplanetary species will never happen.

This part I agree with, BTW.

[DAL59]

1 minute ago, tater said:

He can spend his own money however he likes

He could also use the boring company(that's the actual name) to drill for oil.  

[Diche Bach]

Just now, tater said:

The only reason for space exploration is because some people want to do it. The "human condition" is nonsense. He can spend his own money however he likes. He's not selling anything with respect to space except what real companies and entities are willing to spend real money on.

If you want to talk about any externalities, then there could be benefits to, say, something like BFR that go beyond economics. If we found ourselves facing an existential threat, say an asteroid that will impact the Earth, then having a ready capability to put powerful spacecraft into deep space with plenty of dv might save countless lives.

The "backup for humanity" argument is used for space colonization, for example. It is somewhat dubious, because the technologies required for such colonization in fact substantially mitigate the risk of such a crisis (because we can then avert it).

Of course Mr. Musk can do and say whatever he likes with in the law.

So can I.

I dislike his approach. I don't trust him, and I suspect he is a snake oil salesman. I provide such commentary anywhere I find his fans and acolytes. I would gladly debate him on a stage before millions, but that seems unlikely.

[DAL59]

Just now, Diche Bach said:

I don't trust him, and I suspect he is a snake oil salesman.

Teslas do function.  So does Solarcity.  And PayPal.  

5 minutes ago, tater said:

because the technologies required for such colonization in fact substantially mitigate the risk of such a crisis (because we can then avert it).

For asteroids yes, but not for global warming, supervolcanos, war, ect.

[tater]

7 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

He could also use the boring company(that's the actual name) to drill for oil.  

No. That's not how oil is drilled.

[Diche Bach]

8 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Teslas do function.  So does Solarcity.  And PayPal.  

Solarcity works? Oh right . . . Tesla's SolarCity Buyout Looking Worse By the Day

Quote

The boondoggle continues

All of this leaves us with a simple question: Why did Tesla buy SolarCity for $2.6 billion if it was just going to shut down most of its valuable operations within a year? 

Tesla didn't need SolarCity to start selling solar in Tesla showrooms or to develop the solar roof, which was actually a Tesla development. It seems to have been a bailout for Elon Musk and his cousins Lyndon Rive and Peter Rive, who would have lost hundreds of millions, if not billions, if SolarCity had failed. 

Teslas have extraordinary comfort, acceleration, and crash safety. As long as you don't want to take a trip into the middle of nowhere, have the money to spend, and are not repulsed by the moral overtones of a fully electric "automobile" which still lacks a proper national refueling grid and whose long-term ecological impact remains to be seen then it seems like a reasonable choice for a car.

PayPal: yes seemingly an extraordinary service provider from my perspective. Elon was one of what? 7 founders? Was he ever one of the lead decision makers and is he even still a member of its executive team? Which is to say: his involvement with PayPal is not the most representative of HIS vision and drive

Edited November 3, 2017 by Diche Bach
Elong ated

[DAL59]

Not my point.  He could also have made normal, gas powered cars. 

We're getting kind of off topic.  I think Mars One is not going to work.  

[tater]

8 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

I dislike his approach. I don't trust him, and I suspect he is a snake oil salesman. I provide such commentary anywhere I find his fans and acolytes. I would gladly debate him on a stage before millions, but that seems unlikely.

Are you a native English speaker? I've had a few cues that you are not. This phrase has a connotation that you seem to be missing. SpaceX is real. It's cheaper than competitors, and doing everything it promised to do. Timing not being spot-on is meaningless with new technologies, and the tight business model they started with (Musk is not in fact that rich, unlike Bezos).

Solar city is nonsense, clearly. Tesla has some issues, but the car market is hard in the US (look at trying to open dealerships, it's rigged against new competitors).

The snake oil thing WRT SpaceX just doesn't work.

[DAL59]

Just now, tater said:

not in fact that rich

19 billion dollars...

[insert_name]

The new world colonies were not profitable and many people died. It turns out that you don't need a rational economic reason, people are irrational, and as a result so are policies in societies composed of people.

[DAL59]

Just now, insert_name said:

you don't need a rational economic reason, people are irrational,

I agree completely.  

[Diche Bach]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

Are you a native English speaker? I've had a few cues that you are not. This phrase has a connotation that you seem to be missing. SpaceX is real. It's cheaper than competitors, and doing everything it promised to do. Timing not being spot-on is meaningless with new technologies, and the tight business model they started with (Musk is not in fact that rich, unlike Bezos).

Solar city is nonsense, clearly. Tesla has some issues, but the car market is hard in the US (look at trying to open dealerships, it's rigged against new competitors).

The snake oil thing WRT SpaceX just doesn't work.

You have yet to answer my question of whom and how SpaceX benefits.

And now you have brought my native language experience into the discussion. Ha! Well that is a bit of a curve ball! 

How did you do on the language portion of your GRE? I scored in the 99% myself, so I suggest that whether I am a "native speaker" or not is not a distraction with which you should concern yourself. Little edification to be gathered there, rest assured . . .

Apparently you are fixated on the specific nature of "snake oil" within the metaphor of "snake oil salesman." This is understandable for someone who is not well-read in English literature broadly, or the full gamut of modern Internet-based parlance across the range of existing tropes. A metaphor can be difficult to comprehend, but they are also a rich part of the English language.

Quote

 By extension, a snake oil salesman is someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is a fraud, quack, or charlatan.

In any event . . . perhaps I am too hard on Mr. Musk. The President (both of the most recent two in fact!) seem to regard him with some respect and admiration, so he cannot be all bad I suppose.

I would adore Mr. Musk if he would propose something practical like a permanent, habitable space station in Earth orbit that can serve as the launching point for the yet to be initiated "space age."

Edited November 3, 2017 by Diche Bach

[insert_name]

Just now, Diche Bach said:

You have yet to answer my question of whom and how SpaceX benefits.

And now you have brought my native language experience into the discussion. Ha! Well that is a bit of a curve ball! 

How did you do on the language portion of your GRE? I scored in the 99% myself, so I suggest that whether I am a "native speaker" or not is not a distraction with which you should concern yourself. Little edification to be gathered there, rest assured . . .

Apparently you are fixated on the specific nature of "snake oil" within the metaphor of "snake oil salesman." This is understandable for someone who is not well-read in English literature broadly, or the full gamut of modern Internet-based parlance across the range of existing tropes. A metaphor can be difficult to comprehend, but they are also a rich part of the English language.

 

I am sure that several major satellite companies, and nasa, and the government don't benefit at all from the massively reduced expenses, and neither do the people they serve. 

[Diche Bach]

Just now, insert_name said:

I am sure that several major satellite companies, and nasa, and the government don't benefit at all from the massively reduced expenses, and neither do the people they serve. 

NASA yes. But who are NASA's "customers?"

"The Government." Are you suggesting that, parts of the government other than NASA benefit from SpaceX?

I am not aware of what proportion of the satellite market Mr. Musk has convinced, and thus, those who are benefiting. It would appear you do not either.

I'm not trying to allege that no one benefits from any Mr. Musk enterprises; not at all. I'm merely attempting to reconcile the marketing with the truth. The marketing being highly moralistic, soaked with environmental religiosity, and a healthy helping of Gen-X Priggishness.

[NSEP]

Wow this thread just exploded. Keep it on track peeps!

[Green Baron]

I don't think Musk actively betrays, he just underestimates difficulties and complexities. He shouldn't at that age and with that experience :-)

Huge engineering projects are not comparable to software projects. Tesla as a company performs bad, yeah, the cars work, but they just can't deliver. Despite of being in the high price category.

SpaceX's record is not that good any more after the err incident. There must be a reason why Ariane and consorts still launch ;-)

[Diche Bach]

2 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

I don't think Musk actively betrays, he just underestimates difficulties and complexities. He shouldn't at that age and with that experience :-)

Huge engineering projects are not comparable to software projects. Tesla as a company performs bad, yeah, the cars work, but they just can't deliver. Despite of being in the high price category.

SpaceX's record is not that good any more after the err incident. There must be a reason why Ariane and consorts still launch ;-)

Thank you! To my rescue once again! 

3 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Wow this thread just exploded. Keep it on track peeps!

I agree. I wouldn't want to be party to driving the thread too far off topic. But I think that, at this point in history, any discussion of Mars Colonization is bound to get embroiled with Mr. Musk and his enterprises. So pardon the brief divergence.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Diche Bach

[DAL59]

Yes.  If you are trying to critize Musk, start your own thread.  Just talk about SpaceX please.

Just now, Green Baron said:

record is not that good any more

It was a problem that had never happened in any other rocket ever.  And it wasn't an actual launch.  SpaceX controls the majority of the launch market.

Just now, Diche Bach said:

He shouldn't at that age and with that experience :-)

He should.  It allows him to do audacious things instead of backing away.

[Green Baron]

3 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Yes.  If you are trying to critize Musk, start your own thread.  Just talk about SpaceX please.

Ay sir O7

Quote

It was a problem that had never happened in any other rocket ever. 

lol. It's always the same, isn't it ? I would be very disappointed if such a company did the same error twice

Quote

 

And it wasn't an actual launch.  SpaceX controls the majority of the launch market.

Are you on their pay roll ?

Edited November 3, 2017 by Green Baron