Starship and a Human city on Mars

[uttoxram75]

I stumbled across a twitter argument earlier, it appears some original Musk devotees now believe he is what they call "controlled opposition" and is in fact a see aye a plant, funded and promoted by corporates to champion privatisation and deregulation.

?‍♂️

[Stive Pesley]

An interesting paper about the known and unknown dangers of long term space travel

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/12/1/40

Conclusion

Quote

 there is an urgent need for expanded research to determine the true extent of the current limitations of long-term space travel and to develop potential applications and countermeasures for deep space exploration and colonization

 

Normally you'd expect to do this research first and find solutions before you start building the sexy rockets right? 

 

 

[Wolfie]

18 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I guess this is the bit that doesn't always add up - if he's truly motivated to save humanity then he could extend the short window (which in turn means he has longer to solve the Mars issues)  by using his vast wealth to address a lot of the issues here and now that are hastening the demise of the human race. Wealth inequality is the biggest driver of environmental destruction. Not saying he should just saying it's interesting that he's choosing not to - in preference to the cool optics of colonizing Mars!

 

Using that as a model to support wealth distribution doesn't really work though, does it.

Making the poor richer just increases carbon emissions, looking at that. What it actually shows is that wealth inequality is good at keeping carbon lower if the poor can't afford to consume "stuff".

[Archied]

If I don’t stop with the mars im going to be the size of a starship 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Using that as a model to support wealth distribution doesn't really work though, does it.

Making the poor richer just increases carbon emissions, looking at that. What it actually shows is that wealth inequality is good at keeping carbon lower if the poor can't afford to consume "stuff".

But it doesn't matter how little the "poor" consume if the top layer is massively over-consuming. The studies have shown that the more wealth equality a country has, the lower their carbon emissions are

[GboroRam]

21 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

It will be really, really hard. For some of the reasons you mention and others. And there is zero economic reason to do it. So unless someone like Musk who is absurdly rich, one of the greatest innovators and engineers I've seen, and motivated to save Humanity, it will likely never happen. What we call the "short window" will be closed forever, and sooner or later Humanity will go extinct on Earth.

Energy will come from some Mars-based solar, but there can be long planet-wide dust storms. I suspect there will be in-orbit solar too, just as people are experimenting with here as a means of continuous supply and more efficient than after the incoming radiation is weaker by the time it reaches ground level. There is the possibility of geothermal, but we don't know how easy. So the obvious reliable supply will be nuclear. Relatively small nuclear power plants for use in space and on other planets are in development.

There is a massive difference in Humans living in ZeroG (such as the space station) and Humans living in a gravity environment, even if lower like Mars. So Mars would be much, much healthier than life on the ISS. But there are lots of unknowns, probably the biggest being to do with pregnancy. However, space settlement will not occur in isolation - there is continual progress in other areas. One of the key technologies that I think will help will be artificial wombs, which are becoming ever more advanced and I would expect will be fully capable within 2-3 decades which is the sort of timescale that fits.

Starship will also allow us to build rotating space stations to test a lot of the issues through artificially generated gravity.

Musk is trying to democratize space. The vast scale is intended to make this (relatively) cheap. If you want to "begin again in the offworld colonies" it will cost you the price of an average American house, about $300,000. Yes it's a lot of money, but not if you're building a new home there.

I would ask what general behaviour of Musk on Twitter has been bad? He's been funny and democratic and fairly transparent, and is trying to make it a place where a variety of voices can be heard rather than only "left wingers" and "progressives". Whatever someone's political standpoint, surely that's a good thing? 

 

Round of applause for the off-world colonies line. However, you have to describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about your mother. 

[Wolfie]

12 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

But it doesn't matter how little the "poor" consume if the top layer is massively over-consuming. The studies have shown that the more wealth equality a country has, the lower their carbon emissions are

The top layer (10% of global population) probably includes everyone in Europe and North America.

I'd be genuinely interested to see what countries are being held up as low wealth inequality & low carbon emissions. Unless it's low income (subsistence) countries where the majority is equally poor, it makes no logical sense to me that people get wealthier and yet somehow consume less.

[Carl Sagan]

4 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

An interesting paper about the known and unknown dangers of long term space travel

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/12/1/40

Conclusion

 

Normally you'd expect to do this research first and find solutions before you start building the sexy rockets right? 

Interesting paper I'm sure (thanks), but no in answer to your question. Building a sustainable fully and rapidly reusable rocket is such an extraordinarily hard problem, whether or not we can succeed is the most fundamental question of all. If not, space will never be affordable and accessible.

The paper looks (very quick glance) to be entirely about human health in zero G. This can only be a temporary question/objection because more advanced spacecraft would rotate to generate their own gravity. Starship will take about 5 months to get to Mars, getting a bit faster as the technlogy improves (3-4 months in Zero G will likely be the end goal). If this time proves too long and damaging, what Starship also enables us to do is to finally build giant rotating space stations (maybe 150 tonnes to orbit in one reusab le flight). If humans can't go to Mars safely on Starship, Plan B would be to use the starship engines to turn a rotating space station into a rotating spaceship, so you can make the long-duration journey to Mars without the health issues. 

[Stive Pesley]

18 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

The top layer (10% of global population) probably includes everyone in Europe and North America.

LOL - we wish! Everyone in the top 10% is a millionaire or above

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

5 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Interesting paper I'm sure (thanks), but no in answer to your question. Building a sustainable fully and rapidly reusable rocket is such an extraordinarily hard problem, whether or not we can succeed is the most fundamental question of all. If not, space will never be affordable and accessible.

The paper looks (very quick glance) to be entirely about human health in zero G. This can only be a temporary question/objection because more advanced spacecraft would rotate to generate their own gravity. Starship will take about 5 months to get to Mars, getting a bit faster as the technlogy improves (3-4 months in Zero G will likely be the end goal). If this time proves too long and damaging, what Starship also enables us to do is to finally build giant rotating space stations (maybe 150 tonnes to orbit in one reusab le flight). If humans can't go to Mars safely on Starship, Plan B would be to use the starship engines to turn a rotating space station into a rotating spaceship, so you can make the long-duration journey to Mars without the health issues. 

I wasn't saying that there weren't theories and ideas about how we could create artificial gravity - but these things are such obvious pre-requisites that I'd expect them to be being worked on in parallel - is that the case? Everything I've read suggests that the size and cost is too prohibitive

https://www.wired.com/story/the-problem-with-spinning-spacecraft

[Wolfie]

32 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

LOL - we wish! Everyone in the top 10% is a millionaire or above

 

 

You're saying 10% of the world's population are millionaires??

The actual number is about 1.1%, which means the other 8.9% of that top 10% in the graph you posted are the generally well off but not rich - like most of Europe and North America (probably).

I suspect you're a lot nearer the top of that graph than you think.

 

(Off topic, I know. Sorry)

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

You're saying 10% of the world's population are millionaires??

The actual number is about 1.1%, which means the other 8.9% of that top 10% in the graph you posted are the generally well off but not rich - like most of Europe and North America (probably).

My bad - I misread a key on the graph I looked at. It's me eyes!

 

[TigerTedd]

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

I wasn't saying that there weren't theories and ideas about how we could create artificial gravity - but these things are such obvious pre-requisites that I'd expect them to be being worked on in parallel - is that the case? Everything I've read suggests that the size and cost is too prohibitive

https://www.wired.com/story/the-problem-with-spinning-spacecraft

I think the point is that we know there are viable solutions to that. We don’t need to build a rotating space station to know that it’ll work to create artificial gravity. But what we don’t know is whether or not it’s possible to get the space station up there in the first place. 

People say ‘in 50 years time we’ll have the technology to do this or that’. Well we only get that technology of someone puts in the investment to develop it.

Im thoroughly disappointed that we’re not living in Back to the Future 2 right now. Where is the investment into hover cars and hover boards. We need a few more eccentric billionaires with an obsession to make them a reality. 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

Im thoroughly disappointed that we’re not living in Back to the Future 2 right now. Where is the investment into hover cars and hover boards. We need a few more eccentric billionaires with an obsession to make them a reality. 

To be clear, I'm all for eccentric billionaires ploughing their fortune into advancing the world in cool and unusual ways, I'd just rather they did it with a modicum of humility, rather than excessive hubris.

I mean - it's not a mutually exclusive thing to WANT to see a Mars colony and also WANT Elon Musk to just shut up while he's about it

 

 

[Comrade 86]

Vaccines and philanthropy! What the hell is he thinking? Come on Bill, just join Branson, Bezos and Musk in space. You can afford it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64499635

[Stive Pesley]

34 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Vaccines and philanthropy! What the hell is he thinking? Come on Bill, just join Branson, Bezos and Musk in space. You can afford it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64499635

Yeah! And have you tried being an outspoken amateur edgelord rather than just being so low key all the time with your so-called "philanthropy"?

 

[Archied]

42 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Vaccines and philanthropy! What the hell is he thinking? Come on Bill, just join Branson, Bezos and Musk in space. You can afford it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64499635

There’s more money in vaccines 

[Comrade 86]

43 minutes ago, Archied said:

There’s more money in vaccines 

There's no money in vaccinating the third world. Never has been, never will be. 

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

There’s more money in vaccines 

There’s a lot more money in medicating ongoing chronic conditions. 

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Yeah! And have you tried being an outspoken amateur edgelord rather than just being so low key all the time with your so-called "philanthropy"?

Also disappointing that rather than calmly reflecting on how what he's trying to do has been 'inverted' and why, he's not instead reacted by labelling all his detractors nonces.

Poor show really.