Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species

[Wrath]

You camps upwards of a hundred people might be able to pull this one off.

Elon Musk gave an interesting speech today concerning his plans to fly off to outer space. The new spaceship will fly anywhere in the solar system, no experience required.

playa.png

So like, the opposite of ultralight backpacking?

Elon spoke for about an hour spelling out how and why we should not only fly to Mars but build a city there. Highlights included new rocket designs, orbital refueling, the flight’s “party like” atmosphere, and giving a special thanks to NASA for their faith in SpaceX during the company’s shaky start.

saturn.png

spaceship.png

Afterwards the second question was about how Burning Man had shit everywhere and what to do about all of the martian city’s poop.

[Wrath]

cluster.png

scale.png

tank.png

[Wrath]

Poop question at 1:28:11.

[BBadger]

Dumbest idea ever. This will never happen and it's a total waste of resources. It's bad enough we waste so many resources on the International Space Station to station humans to study how more humans can study how more humans can study how they may waste time in space, when we really should be putting the money into telescopes, probes, rovers, and satellites.

We will not find any place that we can visit that will even approximate even some of least habitable places on Earth. Nothing less than a planet-killing event on this planet will make habitation off Earth even slightly worthwhile. Even then, what the hell will people even do?

The only thing these space ships will be useful for is space tourism. Hang out on the barren hellscape that is Mars, where after a couple weeks seeing the same red rocks is going to get pretty old. "Shucks, I can see the same kinds of dry canyons back on Earth, and at least the sky is blue and I don't have to put on this stupid suit." But actually bothering to inhabit some of these places? It'll be a world of boredom and cabin fever.

[Popeye]

Dumbest idea ever. This will never happen and it's a total waste of resources. It's bad enough we waste so many resources on the International Space Station to station humans to study how more humans can study how more humans can study how they may waste time in space, when we really should be putting the money into telescopes, probes, rovers, and satellites.

We will not find any place that we can visit that will even approximate even some of least habitable places on Earth. Nothing less than a planet-killing event on this planet will make habitation off Earth even slightly worthwhile. Even then, what the hell will people even do?

They said pretty much the same thing about Alaska, Australia and New Zeeland, not to mention the west coast of the US. How are they doing now?

[BBadger]

They said pretty much the same thing about Alaska, Australia and New Zeeland, not to mention the west coast of the US. How are they doing now?

Not even remotely equivalent.

- Do any of those places not feature a breathable atmosphere?
- Require traveling through interstellar radiation to reach?
- Require living in a pre-fabbed space capsule because you can't build shelter anywhere without specialized life support?
- Not have a planetary magnetic shield that protects you from solar radiation?

The best part about all those other places: people could actually eke out a living off the land. You're not stuck in an apartment building made of space capsules for your entire duration. You can't do that on Mars, or Venus, or Europa, or the Moon, or empty space. You can't even grow anything outside the hydroponics lab that needs outside power. Even Alaska has a growing season, and you can at least breathe the atmosphere!

It'll suck too, because the gravity will probably be lower so you can't as easily throw yourself off a balcony to end it all.

[Wrath]

it's a total waste of resources

...says the burner.

[Ratty]

Funny.

[Token]

That is one fucking amazing beer keg, this is!

I want one full of Pliny The Elder!

[ygmir]

maybe we can send drones to bomb Mars, vaporizing sub surface water and gasses, then terra form it?

[Captain Goddammit]

Someone has been watching too much Star Trek.

[ygmir]

Someone has been watching too much Star Trek.

there is no such thing as "too much Star Trek"........

[Popeye]

They said pretty much the same thing about Alaska, Australia and New Zeeland, not to mention the west coast of the US. How are they doing now?

Not even remotely equivalent.

- Do any of those places not feature a breathable atmosphere?
- Require traveling through interstellar radiation to reach?
- Require living in a pre-fabbed space capsule because you can't build shelter anywhere without specialized life support?
- Not have a planetary magnetic shield that protects you from solar radiation?

The best part about all those other places: people could actually eke out a living off the land. You're not stuck in an apartment building made of space capsules for your entire duration. You can't do that on Mars, or Venus, or Europa, or the Moon, or empty space. You can't even grow anything outside the hydroponics lab that needs outside power. Even Alaska has a growing season, and you can at least breathe the atmosphere!

It'll suck too, because the gravity will probably be lower so you can't as easily throw yourself off a balcony to end it all.

Considering the difference in technology between now and when Alaska was purchased or New Zeeland/ Australia discovered it is very much comparable.
No one knew what those places would add to world economy until we went there and tried different things. Alaska (Sewards Icebox) produces over half of the US fish and look at the oil and mineral wealth. No one thought about that at the time Seward "threw away" money to purchase it. There where similar complaints about the Louisiana purchase and the annexation of Texas. Was acquiring Oregon from Great Britian not a good idea?

Yor're right about the gravity
If you are bored to death with new experiences, being one of the first in a new place or testing yourself against who knows what it would be harder to die by gravity. There are other ways

[BBadger]

it's a total waste of resources

...says the burner.

Yeah, that's about the same as space tourism. Spend a week or two in an inhospitable place with all the gear and supplies trucked in from elsewhere and have some temporary fun. That is where all this is going.

Actually living at and inhabiting the place in any permanent sort of way? Get fucking real. At least in Black Rock desert there's a breathable atmosphere and you can drive into town to get away from the bleakness of the area when there isn't an event going on.

Considering the difference in technology between now and when Alaska was purchased or New Zeeland/ Australia discovered it is very much comparable.

Not in the least. Did the explorers need air respirators? Did they visit a land with zero capability to provide any sustenance?

The real problem with any comparison to prior explorations is that there is no prospect of doing anything out there without all the pre-fabbed technology you have to bring from home. There is no pioneering. There is no harvesting the local resources. You can't even roam that far around.

The closest thing would be the stations in Antarctica, and even that is a luxury compared to the wastelands that is any other place in outer space. We don't see people lining up to spend years of their lives living among the ices of Antarctica,

No one knew what those places would add to world economy until we went there and tried different things. Alaska (Sewards Icebox) produces over half of the US fish and look at the oil and mineral wealth. No one thought about that at the time Seward "threw away" money to purchase it. There where similar complaints about the Louisiana purchase and the annexation of Texas. Was acquiring Oregon from Great Britian not a good idea?

Terrestrial land with trees, water, natural resources, and AIR!? Land that people could build accommodations without having to truck them in? Places where people could actually do something? Great idea! The fact that those resources can be transported by ship, vehicle, or even foot is wonderful too! No need to lift those resources from the surface of a planet, transport them millions of miles to Earth or elsewhere to use them.

And what, pray tell, is of any value on Mars or Venus, or the Moon that can't be harvested for cheaper and in greater quantities back here on Earth? A bunch of rocks? Helium?

Even if there is something worth harvesting on planets or moons millions of miles away, do you even need humans for that? I don't think so. Spend the money on rovers, telescopes, probes, satellites, hell, even robots that could harvest stuff.

No need to send the meatbags up there with all the life support under this arrogant assumption (note: not saying that you're arrogant) that having a human around will make the process more effective.

This will never happen anyway. All this is for space tourism and that's it.

[maladroit]

Book me a one-way flight, on the condition that I have a fully stocked electronics prototyping lab and my waking hours are not all assigned to pre-determined missions.

You can't offer an engineer a better deal than having time to work largely uninterrupted on stuff that solves problems in creative ways with restricted resources. I think the availability of large open areas with shirtsleeve environment would happen pretty quickly.

I'll just make an LED Man that displays burning animations on it once a year.

[Popeye]

Considering the difference in technology between now and when Alaska was purchased or New Zeeland/ Australia discovered it is very much comparable.

Not in the least. Did the explorers need air respirators? Did they visit a land with zero capability to provide any sustenance?

The real problem with any comparison to prior explorations is that there is no prospect of doing anything out there without all the pre-fabbed technology you have to bring from home. There is no pioneering. There is no harvesting the local resources. You can't even roam that far around.

When all these places where discovered state of the art technology was sailing ships, muzzle loaders and axes/saws. No steam. Pigs where dropped off on uninhabited islands to be harvested later. Compare this with todays state of the art and knowledge, PV, medical (scurvy?), chemical (we can make and recycle air now), food preservation, engineering (we can build rockets and starlight drives are or soon will be feasible), post Newtonian physics, etc. etc. etc.
Consider the amount of effort (cost) to send Cook around the world, then consider
the effort needed to send someone around the solar system. Can't prove it but they at least appear comparable considering different levels of technology.

No one knew what those places would add to world economy until we went there and tried different things. Alaska (Sewards Icebox) produces over half of the US fish and look at the oil and mineral wealth. No one thought about that at the time Seward "threw away" money to purchase it. There where similar complaints about the Louisiana purchase and the annexation of Texas. Was acquiring Oregon from Great Britian not a good idea?

Terrestrial land with trees, water, natural resources, and AIR!? Land that people could build accommodations without having to truck them in? Places where people could actually do something? Great idea! The fact that those resources can be transported by ship, vehicle, or even foot is wonderful too! No need to lift those resources from the surface of a planet, transport them millions of miles to Earth or elsewhere to use them.

And what, pray tell, is of any value on Mars or Venus, or the Moon that can't be harvested for cheaper and in greater quantities back here on Earth? A bunch of rocks? Helium?

We don't know and won't know until we go there. BUT, if nothing else, there will be problems to solve spurring us to deeper thought, new inventions, new theorys and betterment for mankind.
Are you better off for having solved problems you found at the Burn?

Even if there is something worth harvesting on planets or moons millions of miles away, do you even need humans for that? I don't think so. Spend the money on rovers, telescopes, probes, satellites, hell, even robots that could harvest stuff.

No need to send the meatbags up there with all the life support under this arrogant assumption (note: not saying that you're arrogant) that having a human around will make the process more effective.

The cost of sending meatbags, technology, air, whatever is pretty high right now but will drop and become cost effective as the infracstructure is built. The first guy to drill an oil well probably went broke because he did not have a good way to refine and market. Most people would like to have an oil well today.
New technologies which will be discovered because of the problems we will be forced to solve to stay alive in space will benefit everyone.
Use your imagination and dream. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

This will never happen anyway. All this is for space tourism and that's it.

It will happen. Hope I live to see it. And yes, I would go. In fact I would skip the Burn for a one way ticket

[GreyCoyote]

BBadger, I loves ya like a brother, but man... you just described Everest... and boy howdy do they line up for that.

Mankind are born nomads. Show us a mountain and we will climb it. An ocean and we will swim it. A gravity well and we will escape it. I can honestly look you in the eye and say I'd happily take a one-way ride to Mars if meant there was beer, the Swedish Bikini Team, or I would make a really cool grease stain upon re-entry.

[Captain Goddammit]

Saying that inhabiting Mars or some other space-place is as feasable now as exploring new parts of Earth a few hundred years ago is near troll-level absurdity.
It's a fun dream...

[Popeye]

Saying that inhabiting Mars or some other space-place is as feasable now as exploring new parts of Earth a few hundred years ago is near troll-level absurdity.
It's a fun dream...

Not today but soon, hopefully in my lifetime, almost definitely in yours.

[ZigZag]

I don't know about any of that habitation stuff, but I think that cargo ship design looks a lot like my vibrator.

[ygmir]

I don't know about any of that habitation stuff, but I think that cargo ship design looks a lot like my vibrator.

so, it's heading for the 7th planet?

[Captain Goddammit]

Not today but soon, hopefully in my lifetime, almost definitely in yours.

Almost definitely?
It's not your fault, it's just a chemical imbalance. Help is a available.

[ACfromSAC]

I've thought about that one way trip to Mars and for a long time I thought I would jump at the opportunity but have since decided that being one of the pioneers of that one way voyage simply wouldn't be worth it for me. What I would absolutely love to do is partake in space tourism in my lifetime. I doubt it will happen, but a voyage to the surface of the moon would be my dream space tourism destination. Second would be a trip around the moon with no actual touchdown on the surface, third (and hopefully more realistically) would be a trip out to deep space at a distance far enough from earth that I could look out and see the entire circumference of the globe at once. That would be absolutely amazing. Here's to hoping!

[Traveller in Time]

I would be happy if they placed a WEBcam on the moon.

About real long distance, other stars, I think it is not going to happen . . . soon . . . however not unlike a camera on the moon may give a feeling of presence . . .

How about our signals rushing out into the universe. It may be ever some alien Seti listening decoding and watching our presence as if they were close. Not immediate but some part of us is traveling at light speed toward all stars.

Dreaming about meeting the BORG (the Star Trek version) does no harm, will even accelerate developments toward big generation ships.

[Popeye]

Not today but soon, hopefully in my lifetime, almost definitely in yours.

Almost definitely?
It's not your fault, it's just a chemical imbalance. Help is a available.

I figure I've got another 20 or so left. You look like your still a kid so maybe 60 for you. Should be flying to Pluto by then.
Besides, chemical imbalances can be fun.

[Token]

Current reality:

We have the tech today to pull this of from a machine perspective. We may even have the money for it.

We DO NOT have a way to survive cosmic radiation while doing it at this time. Biologically, this will fail.

Will we learn enough new physics to solve the radiation problem in our lifetimes? That's the big question.

[Captain Goddammit]

I figure I've got another 20 or so left. You look like your still a kid so maybe 60 for you.

Dude I'm from the '60s. I might even be older than you. Amazing how you don't age as poorly when you don't do drugs!

[maladroit]

The webcam-on-the-moon idea does bring BBadger's opinion home a little more. What is a webcam on the moon going to see? Go back in time and have Neil Armstrong put one on the moon facing some interesting moonscape. 50 years later, compare the last image to the first image received...you're not going to see any difference. Nothing happens. If you aim the camera at the stars, well, we have telescopes down here too. There are no trees to grow, no water to erode a stream bank, no animals to happen by, no weather to alter the appearance in any way.

I'm not denying that a Mars webcam would be just as boring. But we use the rovers and THAT's super interesting. Waiting for cool things to happen, waiting for resources to appear, that's a death sentence on Mars. We'd have to explore and learn and adapt. For some, that's exciting.

[Traveller in Time]

Experiencing the blinding sun sets and rises, empathizing the sucking vacuum. Over years some high velocity particle will redistribute some of the dust. A serenity of a lifeless hump of rock.

Seeing the earth rotate in the sky. The night showing patterns of cities and roads. Faint but ever glowing auroras, thunder storms cloud formations ice and green during seasons. Don´t think it will be that boring.

[BBadger]

When all these places where discovered state of the art technology was sailing ships, muzzle loaders and axes/saws. No steam. Pigs where dropped off on uninhabited islands to be harvested later. Compare this with todays state of the art and knowledge, PV, medical (scurvy?), chemical (we can make and recycle air now), food preservation, engineering (we can build rockets and starlight drives are or soon will be feasible), post Newtonian physics, etc. etc. etc.

There is nothing out there except scenery for tourists. When explorers were seeking out new lands to subjugate and colonize, the main criterion for bothering with these lands was whether you'd actually gain something by having people there, rather than not. That means: 1) they could set productive colonies to actually do something; 2) the land and its resources were not so absolutely worthless that the colonies could be self-sustaining and grow; and 3) there was something of value that the colonizing nation could utilize.

Consider the amount of effort (cost) to send Cook around the world, then consider the effort needed to send someone around the solar system. Can't prove it but they at least appear comparable considering different levels of technology.

Feasible. Worth it? Hell no -- except maybe for tourism. Is it worth housing people on the surface of barren wastelands of other planets and moons if they're not paying for the privilege? Nope. Because what, pray tell, are they going to do out there? What is there even to reap?

We don't know and won't know until we go there. BUT, if nothing else, there will be problems to solve spurring us to deeper thought, new inventions, new theorys and betterment for mankind.

You don't need to waste resources shuttling to and hoteling meatbags on other planets to get any of those things done. There's nothing special about having humans present, and in fact it's a liability. Humans are evolved to live on planet Earth, and having to recreate the such conditions in other places is a huge resource drain in terms of weight, volume, and cost.

Look at how long the rovers on Mars have been able to carry out experiments. The total program cost of the Mars Exploration Rover was about $820 Million. Compare that to the cost of a SINGLE shuttle flight for the International Space Station (in low-orbit around Earth!) at $1.3 Billion. The ISS itself, without shuttle flights, is about $100 Billion. Why? Because accommodating humans in space is resource intensive. Deorbit that piece of shit and let's move on.

Now imagine the costs of sending more meatbags across the solar system to mosey around on the surfaces of other planets. What a total waste of space funding.

Are you better off for having solved problems you found at the Burn?

For the most part, no. Or not outside the context of more BM stuff anyway. It's kind of like people on the International Space Station studying stuff about how to house more people on the ISS. Kind of a circular purpose.

Also, just because some sort of task creates problems that you may learn from doesn't mean that task is required to learn the same things. People like to credit the Moon missions for pushing technologies, but those technologies would have come anyway and many of those technologies were developed for war, not for sending meatbags to plant flags on moons and take pictures.

I mean, yeah, it was cool and all that we sent some folk to the moon, took some pictures, brought home some rocks, and left some MOOP. However, the Moon was just some place to visit, poke around a little bit, and then leave. We have better things to do on Earth.

Even for BM, I can only attend because it is so close by. Were I on the East Coast I probably wouldn't bother unless someone had arranged some plug-and-playness to accommodate me. In a place like Mars, it'd be even worse. What exactly does anyone even do up there? Hang around? Look at red sands? There's really nothing there that you won't be getting bored of after a few weeks.

Outer space will simply be a tourist destination for (rich) regular folks, nothing more serious.

The cost of sending meatbags, technology, air, whatever is pretty high right now but will drop and become cost effective as the infracstructure is built. The first guy to drill an oil well probably went broke because he did not have a good way to refine and market. Most people would like to have an oil well today.
New technologies which will be discovered because of the problems we will be forced to solve to stay alive in space will benefit everyone.
Use your imagination and dream. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

These are just platitudes. Things can be improved back here on Earth too, where resources are far more plentiful, easier to access, and don't require life-support to even breathe the atmosphere, assuming that there is one. For the resources we'd be wasting trying to house meatbags in outer space we could be setting up telescope arrays, sending out probes and rovers, studying all the cool life here on Earth.

Bothering to keep humans out in space is just profligacy. There's nothing out there except scenery. It'll be a great tourist attraction for whomever visits, but nothing more.

This will never happen anyway. All this is for space tourism and that's it.

It will happen. Hope I live to see it. And yes, I would go. In fact I would skip the Burn for a one way ticket [/quote]

Well if the weight allowances allow it, bring a gun, so you can end it all when cabin fever sets in. Or you can just go outside without your suit.

BBadger, I loves ya like a brother, but man... you just described Everest... and boy howdy do they line up for that.

Yes, very much like Everest in the sense that nobody goes there to live, but only to visit as tourists. Long term habitation? Colonization? Doesn't happen.