Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SCSN]

Every now and then something with actual historical significance gets broadcasted. I believe this to be one such occasion:

[AdrianHealey]

I actually estimate to be a big waste of money. Not because it will ever be impossible, but because it doesn'tmake sense in 1912 to spend money on a global self-driving electric card. Sometimes, just because you can think it, doesn't mean we have the capital wealth to back the idea up.

[thespaceinvader]

I suspect he (and we) would be far better off chucking this money at nuclear fusion research.

[blueblimp]

I was hoping for some discussion of how the self-sustaining Mars colony would work. I get that just transporting people there is a very hard engineering problem in itself, and it's impressive that they've made a plan for that part, but the actual living-on-Mars bit sounds way harder. It doesn't even sound that easy to me to build a truly self-sustaining colony in an inhospitable area here on Earth (e.g. Antarctica). Anything the colony needs would need to be 100% obtainable on Mars, indefinitely.

Also it seems to me that given appropriate colony design, you might be able to cut down on transportation costs. He talks about sending 1 million people to Mars, but do you really need to send that many? If the colony is truly self-sustaining, it should be possible for the colonists to have kids on Mars, and that can grow the colony population exponentially. Granted, even with exponential growth, the long generation time of humans limits you somewhat. e.g. If you send 1000 people and in each generation women average 4 children each, then after 10 generations (about 250 years) you'd have 1 million children being born. (A fertility rate of 4 might actually be low for a frontier society on Earth, but presumably Mars wouldn't be as hospitable.)

If the colony is truly self-sustaining, then it's an investment, which makes it easier to justify the cost.

[Witherweaver]

I was hoping for some discussion of how the self-sustaining Mars colony would work. I get that just transporting people there is a very hard engineering problem in itself, and it's impressive that they've made a plan for that part, but the actual living-on-Mars bit sounds way harder. It doesn't even sound that easy to me to build a truly self-sustaining colony in an inhospitable area here on Earth (e.g. Antarctica). Anything the colony needs would need to be 100% obtainable on Mars, indefinitely.

Also it seems to me that given appropriate colony design, you might be able to cut down on transportation costs. He talks about sending 1 million people to Mars, but do you really need to send that many? If the colony is truly self-sustaining, it should be possible for the colonists to have kids on Mars, and that can grow the colony population exponentially. Granted, even with exponential growth, the long generation time of humans limits you somewhat. e.g. If you send 1000 people and in each generation women average 4 children each, then after 10 generations (about 250 years) you'd have 1 million children being born. (A fertility rate of 4 might actually be low for a frontier society on Earth, but presumably Mars wouldn't be as hospitable.)

If the colony is truly self-sustaining, then it's an investment, which makes it easier to justify the cost.

Pretty sure all we need to do is send Matt Damon...

[Seprix]

Terraforming Mars sounds like such a Phillip K. Dick thing to do (and if there are aliens on Mars, it would also be a dick thing to do).

[Kirian]

I suspect he (and we) would be far better off chucking this money at nuclear fusion research.

I think this is the correct stance.

There are three major existential threats to the existence of humans on Earth, all of which are good reasons to become multiplanetary: global thermonuclear war, runaway climate change, 10 km asteroid.  (Supervolcano might also be on the list, but it's hard to say.)

The second could be partly if not completely neutralized by fusion energy and carbon capture.  The others can only be survived by establishing a self-sustaining and reproducing and growing extraplanetary colony.

Fusion energy would likely have remarkable benefits beyond the existential threat, however.  At this point the applicable terrestrial infrastructure gains from manned space travel are low, though the scientific gains remain high.  The scientific and infrastructure gains from fusion energy would be world-changing.

Nearly unlimited free energy would also remove one of the major problems of building a self-sustaining extraplanetary colony.  If we dump a fusion reactor and robotic construction apparatus on the surface of Mars first, getting humans to survive there is now 100% easier.

Fusion research, meanwhile, isn't getting funded at nearly the levels it needs to be.  We have already achieved breakeven.  There is no reason why we shouldn't be spending trillions on scaling this up right now.

Oh right, we have to spend those trillions on standing armies.

The real existential threat to humanity?  Humans.

[Kirian]

The US contribution to ITER is about 3 hours of our military budget.  Do you even prioritize, bro US government?

[silverspawn]

I suspect he (and we) would be far better off chucking this money at nuclear fusion research.

I think this is the correct stance.

There are three major existential threats to the existence of humans on Earth, all of which are good reasons to become multiplanetary: global thermonuclear war, runaway climate change, 10 km asteroid.  (Supervolcano might also be on the list, but it's hard to say.)

A good friend of mine (physician) named bio-weapons as the biggest threat to humanity (specifically "the most legitimate threat of total extinction"). Do you have opinions on that?

[Kirian]

I suspect he (and we) would be far better off chucking this money at nuclear fusion research.

I think this is the correct stance.

There are three major existential threats to the existence of humans on Earth, all of which are good reasons to become multiplanetary: global thermonuclear war, runaway climate change, 10 km asteroid.  (Supervolcano might also be on the list, but it's hard to say.)

A good friend of mine (physician) named bio-weapons as the biggest threat to humanity (specifically "the most legitimate threat of total extinction"). Do you have opinions on that?

I'll admit I hadn't considered that.  I guess it goes right in with nuclear war though.  The difference is that bio weapons just aren't there yet, while nuclear war is... well, 30 seconds away if someone decides to launch the first volley.

[blueblimp]

I suspect he (and we) would be far better off chucking this money at nuclear fusion research.

I think this is the correct stance.

There are three major existential threats to the existence of humans on Earth, all of which are good reasons to become multiplanetary: global thermonuclear war, runaway climate change, 10 km asteroid.  (Supervolcano might also be on the list, but it's hard to say.)

A good friend of mine (physician) named bio-weapons as the biggest threat to humanity (specifically "the most legitimate threat of total extinction"). Do you have opinions on that?

Bio-weapons are a huge threat w.r.t. killing a lot of people. I gotta think a population could survive by isolating themselves on some island, though, so I doubt it would result in complete extinction.