Starship and a Human city on Mars

[Day]

4 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

At least Elon has set himself a realistic goal. 

Really? 12 years ago.

 

[TigerTedd]

Just now, David said:

Really? 12 years ago.

 

I was being facetious. But even Elon’s goal is more realistic than hoping the world’s leaders will ever come together and do something useful for humanity. We’re basically just waiting for crack pot billionaires to make ‘saving the world’ their latest project.

But of course a lot of them became crackpot billionaires by burning the world in the first place. So we might be waiting a while. 

[Day]

3 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

I was being facetious. But even Elon’s goal is more realistic than hoping the world’s leaders will ever come together and do something useful for humanity. We’re basically just waiting for crack pot billionaires to make ‘saving the world’ their latest project.

But of course a lot of them became crackpot billionaires by burning the world in the first place. So we might be waiting a while. 

I think it terms of realistic goals, both would be on par, along with myself bagging a date with Cheryl Cole. 

I'm with you on that he can spend his money how he likes, I see him as someone that has a lot of "nerd" in him and the money to attempt to bring science fiction to reality, fair play. 

Boys with toys on a much grander scale, his Boring company bringing out things like flamethrowers, all points towards that theory. 

[Carl Sagan]

7 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

A lot of people have a go at musk for spending his money on space when he could be spending it solving other problems.

But it’s not really Musk’s responsibility either way. He could be spending his money on hookers and yachts as many Uber rich people do. He’s decided that the space problem is important to him and he wants to devote a lot of resource to solving it. Many people will say it’s not the most pressing concern right now, but as @Carl Sagan it is, nevertheless, a concern that needs addressing. If Elon doesn’t do it, who will.

War, famine, global warming, wealth inequality, etc. these are all problems too. But it’s not only Elon’s job to fix them. There are other billionaires out there who could stick their billions behind these causes (like bill gates is very into his vaccines). Or, heaven forbid, world governments might even try to solve them. But now I’m just being fanciful. At least Elon has set himself a realistic goal. 

Exactly this. As an example, when Musk paid whatever it was ($45bn?) for Twitter, there was vitriolic condemnation from many Musk haters saying why doesn't he use that $45bn to solve world poverty instead? Yet, curiously, I didn't hear a single one of those critics ask why the people Musk gave the $45bn to, didn't then use it to solve world poverty. The inescapable conclusion has to be that these people are simply more interested in hating on Musk than actually doing anything to solve world poverty.

[Highgate]

Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 

I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 

As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  

3 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Exactly this. As an example, when Musk paid whatever it was ($45bn?) for Twitter, there was vitriolic condemnation from many Musk haters saying why doesn't he use that $45bn to solve world poverty instead? Yet, curiously, I didn't hear a single one of those critics ask why the people Musk gave the $45bn to, didn't then use it to solve world poverty. The inescapable conclusion has to be that these people are simply more interested in hating on Musk than actually doing anything to solve world poverty.

I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 

[TigerTedd]

12 hours ago, Highgate said:

Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 

I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 

As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  

I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 

I agree with like 99% of what you’re saying. Elon is a bit of a t***. And I think there’s definitely more than a bit of vanity about having a city called muskville on mars. Rather than saving the world. Even if that happens to be an accidental side effect. If it’s a vanity project, then at least it has some benefits to humanity rather than just a giant platinum statue or something. 

but the 1% I don’t agree with is that there is a small window of opportunity. And that’s just because I’m selfish and would love to see a man (or woman) land on mars in my lifetime. Clocks ticking. 

[Carl Sagan]

So @Highgate doesn't hold with the "short window" argument, but if I've got this right (apologies if not) neither does @TigerTedd. Yet before the perfect storm that was Elon, there seemed no hope whatsoever of Humans becoming multiplanetary. Here's the opening of the space chapter of a book I wrote a few years ago about the future:

Look at that extraordinary progress in powered flight from 1903 to 1969. And then the regression so that we nowadays can't send anyone to the Moon - instead we can only go a thousandth of the way there to the ISS. You might think, "so space travel has stalled a bit - so what?"

But then think about the intervening time. Think about technological progress which can be measured in many ways, but an easy marker is Moore's Law. By a conservative measure, computers are now more than a billion times faster than in 1969 - that puts the extraordinary regression in space capabilities into context. Other technology is a billion times better, yet spaceflight is worse? Doesn't that tell you something about the potential future of spaceflight?

In 2000, we had the richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, who dreamed of a human future in space, create his own rocket company Blue Origin. Twenty-four years on, it has proved so hard they are still yet to send a single gram of anything into orbit! In 2014, NASA gave experienced aerospace company Boeing $4.2 billion to build a small spacecraft to take Humans to the International Space Station. Have they succeeded? No! A decade on, even now they might give up on the project given the problems that have beset Starliner.

It is only the combination of Musk's extraordinary visionary engineering and business mind, and his passion for the future, that sees us where we are today. If he were to go, that may very well still be the end. If he stays it will still be incredibly hard and needs vast resources. Just in the last couple of weeks he has moved the incorporation of SpaceX from Delaware (where most US companies are incorporated) to Texas, in order to protect it. The Delaware courts forbade him receiving his Tesla compensation package, which his court documents stated he would use to fund an interplanetary space program, so that money is currently not available. A vote of Tesla shareholders is now being held to see of he can move Tesla from Delaware to Texas. But this is why SpaceX is the most valuable privately held company in the world, because shareholders or bureaucrats would end its mission if given half the chance. I don't believe any other Human would have kept the business in that form, as it makes funding so incredibly difficult.

These are some reasons the window is unlikely to remain open for long.

 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Just in the last couple of weeks he has moved the incorporation of SpaceX from Delaware (where most US companies are incorporated) to Texas, in order to protect it. The Delaware courts forbade him receiving his Tesla compensation package, which his court documents stated he would use to fund an interplanetary space program, so that money is currently not available. A vote of Tesla shareholders is now being held to see of he can move Tesla from Delaware to Texas. But this is why SpaceX is the most valuable privately held company in the world, because shareholders or bureaucrats would end its mission if given half the chance.

Musk incorporated in Delaware because their tax laws are favourable, now he's being held to account by those same laws and the $51b compensation package he negotiated and agreed for himself has been found to be grossly unfair and that he misled the shareholders - he's (true to form) crying like a spoilt rich kid that it's all so unfair. He really doesn't like it when his insane wealth doesn't allow him to act with impunity does it? The more you look into his behaviour, the more crooked he looks

So do you think it's OK that he totally misled his shareholders and awarded himself $51b because he wants to invest that in his space-faring program? Would it be OK if he robbed a bank? 

I mean he's a visionary engineer and entrepreneur right? Why does he have to resort to the actions of a criminal to fund this stuff? Can't he just use his visionariness?

PS can you ask your hand model to clean their fingernails - the one in that picture is giving me the ick

[Highgate]

11 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

But then think about the intervening time. Think about technological progress which can be measured in many ways, but an easy marker is Moore's Law. By a conservative measure, computers are now more than a billion times faster than in 1969 - that puts the extraordinary regression in space capabilities into context. Other technology is a billion times better, yet spaceflight is worse? Doesn't that tell you something about the potential future of spaceflight?

And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 

The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?

Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 

[TigerTedd]

5 hours ago, Highgate said:

And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 

The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?

Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 

You both make such good points. I’m so torn.

Unless you really buy into the necessity of humans being a multi planetary species, and I’m not sure that I do, the only reason to go to mars is to say we did it. Then I can see us not doing it again for generations. There’s not really anything we can do that robots can’t, so why risk human lives. 

[Carl Sagan]

8 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

You both make such good points. I’m so torn.

Unless you really buy into the necessity of humans being a multi planetary species, and I’m not sure that I do, the only reason to go to mars is to say we did it. Then I can see us not doing it again for generations. There’s not really anything we can do that robots can’t, so why risk human lives. 

 

14 hours ago, Highgate said:

And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 

The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?

Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 

We'll have to agree to disagree. In the heady days of Apollo and just after, people were planning for massive O'Neill orbiting colonies and Mars in the 1980s or 1990s. Yet Human spaceflight went backwards for decades. The occasional brilliant robotic systems fired off towards Mars or the outer solar system are like surviving off scraps - a tantalising glimpse of what might have been, had we progressed. By now we should have orbiters around every planet and swarms of robotic probes everywhere. The most impressive robotic probes are perhaps the Voyagers from the 1970s, still going strong despite having travelled so far they have crossed the heliosphere, where the influence of the Sun is overcome by that of the rest of the Galaxy. Voyager 1 is almost a light day away. I presumed by now that Human spaceships would long ago have overtaken it, but we cannot get beyond low Earth orbit!

[Ram-Alf]

Wow that's some distance away...Specsavers my arse 😁

https://news.sky.com/story/record-breaking-quasar-500-trillion-times-brighter-than-the-sun-discovered-13075866

[Stive Pesley]

 

They've never been to Heanor on a Saturday night

[Carl Sagan]

14 hours ago, Ram-Alf said:

Wow that's some distance away...Specsavers my arse 😁

https://news.sky.com/story/record-breaking-quasar-500-trillion-times-brighter-than-the-sun-discovered-13075866

Interesting astronomy piece. What it doesn't seem to say anywhere is that, the further away you look the further back in time you go. So what we're seeing was 12 billion years ago. With the Big Bang thought to be 13.8 billion years ago, this was happening early in the universe (even today, if our theories are right we're still VERY early considering how far ahead the universe has to go). This will feed into ideas about early galaxy formation - a fascinating emerging problem with astronomers' ideas is that the new James Webb Space Telescope has found too many big early galaxies to fit with our understanding: https://phys.org/news/2023-05-james-webb-massive-galaxies.html. There shouldn't have been enough time for such large galaxies to form.

Even the terminology in the article shows the shift in our thinking/understanding over recent decades. When I was growing up, quasars were mysterious incredibly bright distant objects and the actual existence of black holes was still being questioned, whereas now we understand quasars are generated by the accretion disks around supermassive black holes that are devouring lots of matter at the centre of galaxies.

[ariotofmyown]

On 15/02/2024 at 00:09, Highgate said:

Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 

Welcome Highgate, you must be new here!

[Ram-Alf]

8 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Interesting astronomy piece. What it doesn't seem to say anywhere is that, the further away you look the further back in time you go. So what we're seeing was 12 billion years ago. With the Big Bang thought to be 13.8 billion years ago, this was happening early in the universe (even today, if our theories are right we're still VERY early considering how far ahead the universe has to go). This will feed into ideas about early galaxy formation - a fascinating emerging problem with astronomers' ideas is that the new James Webb Space Telescope has found too many big early galaxies to fit with our understanding: https://phys.org/news/2023-05-james-webb-massive-galaxies.html. There shouldn't have been enough time for such large galaxies to form.

Even the terminology in the article shows the shift in our thinking/understanding over recent decades. When I was growing up, quasars were mysterious incredibly bright distant objects and the actual existence of black holes was still being questioned, whereas now we understand quasars are generated by the accretion disks around supermassive black holes that are devouring lots of matter at the centre of galaxies.

I find space fascinating with the trillions upon trillions of stars, Planets and Galaxies out there, As you say, With the James Webb Telescope we are begging to understand what's out there 👍

[Stive Pesley]

Well they did it!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68377730

The fact that it didn't go too smoothly and it's still (as yet) not 100% certain that everything is OK, just proves how difficult this stuff is. Excuse my pessimism if I stick to my belief that we won't get to Mars any time soon

[Comrade 86]

On 23/02/2024 at 09:09, Stive Pesley said:

Well they did it!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68377730

The fact that it didn't go too smoothly and it's still (as yet) not 100% certain that everything is OK, just proves how difficult this stuff is. Excuse my pessimism if I stick to my belief that we won't get to Mars any time soon

Tad cynical Stive. I think proving that the same mission accomplished a half a century ago is repeatable, clearly indicated that we have got this intergalactic thing nailed. Also, Intuitive are just upstarts, so imagine what Musk can achieve with $20 billion of the US taxpayers money. Let's be honest. Mars is just the same as the Moon, only red. Imagine walking to the corner shop to grab milk, but then you think what I really need is some sour snakes, sink unblocker and a turkey crown. What do you do? You walk to the supermarket the other side of the road. Am I right? Going to Mars is just like that, so stop with your catastrophising and just be grateful as your personal light of consciousness burns brighter tonight.

[Eddie]

Moon probes prefer kipping on their sides.

Beautiful plumage.

[Carl Sagan]

Here's a simple video showing the initial design of the Starship. All the space above where they place the battery back (22 seconds) will be the cargo hold or, ultimately, crew quarters.