Posts
7733
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY
US
Edited Date/Time
7/5/2017 8:56pm
Great TED talk with Elon Musk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_future_we_re_building_and_boring
https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_future_we_re_building_and_boring
Colonizing other planets is as old as comic books, but the idea has remained there for good reason.
Multi level underground freeways? Under Los Angeles? With elevators as on ramps? I really think that he's a practical joker. He's trying to see how ridiculous he can get and still attract money.
Thanks for posting that.
The Shop
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/air-force-study-says-us-governm…
A snippet:
This concept has found at least one powerful political backer. On Monday, during a series of briefings on the subject in the US Senate Building, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich spoke in favor of the concept. He questioned whether the US Office of Management and Budget should allow the government to purchase expendable rockets now that lower-cost, reusable options are becoming available.
According to NASA Watch, Gingrich was also critical of the space agency’s development of the Space Launch System. This NASA heavy-lift vehicle runs counter to the trends cited in the Air University report in that it is both very expensive to launch (at least $1 billion) and will launch at most once per year. Gingrich predicted the NASA rocket could become a “museum piece” due to this high cost and low flight rate.
What is the real practical value of manned flight to Mars? It's research. He says we need to do this so that when Earth goes dead, humans will have another place to live. In other words, let's colonize a dead planet, so we have a place to go when our planet goes dead. What?
Here's what bothers me: Musk didn't directly answer how SpaceX plans to pay for its Mars missions, but he said it will be "a huge public-private partnership." There are public and private organizations interested in funding the mission, Musk said.
Article
You said he does not use government money. That's very far from accurate. He gets $7500.00 from the taxpayers for every one of of his cars that gets sold to a rich person. He also gets taxpayer subsidies for every one of his solar panels that gets sold. Now he wants the taxpayers to help pay for millionaires to travel to Mars.
I don't doubt that he is a genius but my gimlet eye comes out when anybody starts talking "public, private partnership".
Because of your interest in technology, you may not really care that much about this aspect of it. And that's fine but it's this aspect that takes some of the shine off of him for me. Plus I'm exceedingly boring and practical.
Google "Musk subsidies" for an eye opener. It's in the billions.
http://electrek.co/2016/10/10/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-challenges-big-coal-toe-to-toe-without-subsidies-after-called-fraud/amp/
I'm generally opposed to government involvement in the private sector, but I do support government subsidies for innovation. Especially when you look at all the other ways are tax money is blown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Regarding Mars, I think the plan is to return it to a living planet which it seems a lot of experts think can be done. But I don't pretend to understand how that would be possible any more than I pretend to understand all the dynamics of climate change. I am skeptical on both. However, I certainly don't think it would hurt trying to find a 2nd option to earth should we discover an asteroid heading our way at some point.
Also, from everything I've seen so far Elon's Mars plans do not include any government subsidies. The Government has their own Mars plan and it doesn't include SpaceX. Donald Trump has made it law that NASA must get people to Mars by 2033 and they have already laid out their plan on how they are going to do it. It will be using the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion capsule (at least in the early stages of the project) which both are developed by a few big name Aerospace companies which will be getting a lot of government money. SpaceX isn't one of those companies. Also, I believe SpaceX is shooting for getting there in the 2020, 13 years before NASA.
IMHO.
Plus, to the point, it's not like your taking a person and putting him on Mars as he evolved on Earth. Technology is the equalizer and levels the field a bit to at least allow us to transplant somewhere else.
There's been no long term exposure studies done by anyone's governments on the effects of low or zero g.
Your assumptions may prove right... OR, as life has proven over and over again, via examples of creatures at the bottom of the ocean and the top of the highest mountains, it will adapt and evolve to ambient conditions. Mars has something close to 0.4g's of Earth gravity, meaning you can jump higher and carry more. In turn your bones and muscles wouldn't be as taxed and may become less sturdy. Play this out over a couple of generations (a la The Expanse, tho I haven't watched beyond season 1) and the humans born and raised on Mars will no longer be able to come back and live on Earth as 'normal' humans do today due to physical changes.
Go further with it, and eventually (barring artificial gravity) there may be subsets of humans who differ in their appearance and physiology so much that we break down into different species - Mars humans, Earth humans, humans who only live in 0g. Sci fi? Maybe. But science can't tell us no at this point based upon such limited experience.
I'm a 'crack some eggs to make an omelet' kind of guy - only one way to find out which is to start doing it.
I think he knows this too, but if he can get enough people to jump on board a go for any number of reasons it doesn't really matter.
Terraforming could take on the order of millions of years. The single biggest thing that Mars has against it in this case is that it DOESN'T HAVE A MAGNETIC FIELD.
If you go through the trouble and jumpstart a greenhouse gas effect somehow (trees, algae, etc) there is nothing keeping the atmosphere there. It's why Mars doesn't have an atmosphere today, it's all blown off in the solar wind.
My comment is, it doesn't matter though. I don't think it should be an expectation that people go to mars and walk around with flip flops and a t shirt - if humans have a self sustaining colony there that indefinitely requires space suits and underground cities, hey no biggie. We're still getting out there and doing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
Government subsidies are very important in developing new technologies and sometimes creating completely new industries. As a people we should support this with our tax dollars. The technology invented today could be the industries your children work in tomorrow.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-ipo-tesla-tsla-investors-early-access-…
Currently home energy storage systems aren't cost effective but within the next 4-6 years I have a feeling the cost will drop significantly. We would still need hydro, nuclear, wind and natural gas powered plants for the near future but we could easily eliminate gas and nuclear sooner than later.
Pit Row
1) Non-renewable resources by definition are limited. It is a fact that we will eventually use up all of the liquid dinosaurs (oil) and coal if we keep using it, even if it takes another 1000 years to do it.
2) Using non-renewable resources pollute the air that we breath.
3) What if 1000 years down the road we find some magnificent use for oil that we can’t even comprehend today, but since our ancestors burned it all up in their cars we have none left.
4) Being dependent on resources from outside countries is extremely risky.
We now have the technology to make this possible. We just need the will. China... CHINA of all countries... are making great strides in solar production. They may be clean before we are in the USA and if we don't get on board soon China will run us right over in this area. They're doing it because it's cheaper and it's sustainable. A byproduct is a clean environment.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/nasa-seeks-industry-help-with-l…
That said, the Moon is a logical stepping stone. I think there are as many good reasons to establish an outpost there as bad ones to skip it. However, I think the bottom line is the distance - 3 days versus 5-18 months of travel (depending on who you talk to). You can't get away from the idea that it's in our backyard.
Elon might not want to go but per this article, and others I've seen, some companies (and countries) are going to make it happen in the relative short term.
Fingers crossed humans will be on two extra-earth bodies within the next 50 years, or sooner!
"Then there's Tesla. Tesla loses money on every car they sell even with government subsidies! In other words it's a tax farm and yet it loses money even after stealing funds for every car from the taxpayer! Those subsidies, by the way, will eventually expire and when they do the company will lose even more money per vehicle sold. The only reason Tesla is still in business is that it, like Netflix keeps going back to the bond market and convincing them to pour more cash on a bonfire and, by the way, their total debt load is now greater than their annual revenue! This is a company that, on a current operating basis is an outrageous zero and exists only because it manages to convince the bond market and steal from the taxpayer." So there you have it , not everyone is so enamored by mr musk...
I wonder if i can short tesla?
Why do so many people back and invest in Tesla if it's so toxic? A great analogy for Tesla is they are the first to perfect and successfully sell word processers while everyone else is still selling typewriters. Who would you rather invest in?
Amazon is another great example. Just 10 years ago everyone thought Walmart was invincible to any competitors but an internet company named Amazon built warehouses and distribution across the country (technically still building) and at this point will surpass Walmart without any real brick and mortar stores very soon. All while not making a profit until they had distribution on every corner of the globe.
That said, I love buying and selling Tesla stock 4-6 times a year because of its volatility from misinformed talking heads.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-robot-software-will-make-tes…
Do you have a plan on how to trade the Model 3 hit or miss on production startup scheduled for July?
If I was still trading I would not expect a big selloff if he misses because he almost always does on startups. The faithful are used to being disappointed but it may prove to be a buy point. If he hits, and production starts on time I would expect a surge. So there's the question: are you a buyer ahead of that news?
Post a reply to: Save us Elon!