Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 09:04:43 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / SpaceX puts 4 people in orbit
murder
Member
Wed Sep 15 19:41:52
http://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1438295586973708288

murder
Member
Wed Sep 15 19:42:03
Unlike Branson and Bezos, these people are way out there.

http://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1438285724407644161
murder
Member
Wed Sep 15 19:42:52
Dragon and the @inspiration4x crew will orbit Earth for three days at an altitude of ~575 km, flying farther than any other human spaceflight since the Hubble missions.

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Sep 15 19:45:09
Spacex rocks
Habebe
Member
Wed Sep 15 23:11:00
I just wish other space companies could atleast do SOMETHING noteworthy, spacex really has no competition, not even governments.
Cloud Strife
Member
Fri Sep 17 04:57:50
Governments put people in orbit 60 years ago, and have since then have sent craft to every planet in the solar system, and a large number of other bodies besides.

These companies exist only to make rockets cheaper, a technology that has existed since WW2. In fact, there is no fundamentally new technology in anything that SpaceX has developed.

Still, they make a good rocket.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 17 05:38:00
CS
NASA is not going to commercialize space faring. They had 60 years to do that, it will never happen. You have to be a navy seal and an MIT engineer or whatever to even get a chance. Even the Artemis program, has all the hallmarks of the Antarctica _research_ station.

We need to bus people by the hundreds to the moon and have them build a fueling station/colony there and then by the thousands to mine and colonize the system. All the energy and materials are out there to build all the stuff we need on site. We just have to accept attrition to conquer this frontier like every other frontier. The harsh reality is that NASA astronauts are too valuable for this and NASA has to spent exorbitant amount of resources to make it safe and that will ultimately slow everything down.

There are millions of people qualified enough for the job. Let's fucking go already!

murder
Member
Fri Sep 17 07:24:46

OK the tourists in space are now so bored out of their minds from circling the Earth over and over again in a tiny capsule with nothing to do that they've resorted to playing strip poker.

It's true. :o)

I guess there's only so many times you can say "Look, there's Florida! That's America's penis!" before you start to lose it.

murder
Member
Fri Sep 17 07:30:46

"We need to bus people by the hundreds to the moon and have them build a fueling station/colony there and then by the thousands to mine and colonize the system. All the energy and materials are out there to build all the stuff we need on site. We just have to accept attrition to conquer this frontier like every other frontier."

If we're prepared to accept attrition, there's plenty to be mined at the bottom of the ocean.

jergul
large member
Fri Sep 17 08:16:23
SpaceX's kerosene is the wrong type of fuel for mass space travel.

We do have a global warming issue. Lifeboat strats that deliberately take a crap on that should not be allowed to proceed.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 09:13:09
jergul:

I don't see going into space as a lifeboat.

For all Musk's talk about going to Mars, who wants to go to Mars and never have a good meal again - which is what is going to happen.

Long time before you get to eat anything that isn't optimised for absolute efficiency of input resources to outputs.


Interested to see if Musk's launch capability can space based solar transformatively better than land based or other power.

Suspect not though.
Cloud Strife
Member
Fri Sep 17 12:09:08
Space based power generation might be useful for stuff already in space. I don't see how it could be economical and safe to transmit it to the ground. I guess the idea is some Rube Goldberg laser from space to a solar receiver? Sounds about as safe and easy as a hyperloop.

`OK the tourists in space are now so bored out of their minds from circling the Earth over and over again in a tiny capsule with nothing to do that they've resorted to playing strip poker.'

This is a right of passage for all astronauts.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Sep 17 12:27:39
"I don't see how it could be economical and safe to transmit it to the ground."

Safe maybe, but ya theres no way thats economically useful. A solar panel in earth orbit gets 4x the energy of one on the earth, roughly. And costs WAY more than 4x.
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 17 12:35:50
Seb, While that's mostly still true, they are making studies to get better food to astronauts.

But I think your point was about more than just food, and yeah, that's a lot to give up.

http://www...ood-in-space-alain-ducasse-876
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 14:17:50
Sam:

I think the argument for it is also partly based on duty cycle being 100% of stored capacity.

I agree it doesn't really work. Perhaps if you can build large solar arrays on the moon using in situ materials and beam power back to earth.

Honestly I think there are relatively free things you can actually usefully do in space that generate a decent ROI.

Asteroid mining is a long long way off.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Sep 17 14:48:29
True seb, it would work through the night, which makes it significantly better than 4x vs a surface panel.

But ya, not enough to justify the massive cost of both launch and maintenance. Offshore wind turbines are bad enough...
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 17 15:06:18
Sam, Denmark actually has a plan to use an offshore "energy island" that looks interesting.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Sep 17 15:22:41
I mean... offshore wind is OK... just maintenance is a bitch. Thats why theres such a push towards fewer superlarge offshore turbines. Less mx.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 17 15:34:23
"who wants to go to Mars and never have a good meal again - which is what is going to happen."

You need to be hungry for other things that food. People our age are not that hungry, we have grown fat and comfortable, mindful of risks. We are too old and have too much invested on this rock, conquering space is for young people!
Habebe
Member
Fri Sep 17 15:37:49
Sam, Fair enough. Denmark's island plan benefits greatly from convienience of location.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 17 16:32:46
Nim:

What exactly would you be hungry for that you can find on Mars though?

It isn't going to be like homesteading in frontier states where you can work individually to carve out your own existence from the land.

It's going to be so fucking precarious an existence dependent on communal shared infrastructure that I think it will in practice by necessity be one of the most restrictive and illiberal societies ever.

Maybe we will invent some technologies that can change that. Maybe we can do most of the bootstrapping of a viable support infrastructure and biomass creation remotely over a free decades and then go.

But any time soon... urgh.

Best place to build utopia is here on earth. It's just that it's a complex political and social problem not a technological one.

There's a strand of the mars colony advocates that are folk with a technical bent imagine that by going to Mars with like minded people they can turn those complex socio political issues into a technical one with a merely complicated solution: if we can go to Mars, and we can make it habitable, then we will be free of the complex socio political problems that prevent is living as we would like on earth.

In practice I think it just adds technical challenges that exacerbate socio political ones.

We shall see of course, but I think sea steading looks vastly more practical and that's not really viable either.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 17 18:31:38
Seb
"What exactly would you be hungry for that you can find on Mars though?"

You have to ask these people, but for the sake of what I am saying not important that you nor I can answer or explain it. Even if a small percentage of these people are for real and not just answering a poll, that would be more than enough.

http://tod...cans-interest-living-mars-poll

http://www.newscientist.com/article/2179922-a-third-of-us-would-go-one-way-to-mars-but-it-may-shrink-your-brain/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 17 18:35:58
I think the moon should be an easier sell, you could make a couple of years of duty on the moon, building the base/colony there and then return back.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Sep 17 20:26:54
"What exactly would you be hungry for that you can find on Mars though?"

Glory.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 09:37:40
Nim:

Oh I don't doubt there are people who think they want to go.

I think though it's limited and based in at least some cases on a kind of romantic view.

Will be interesting to see - if it happens - how many change their minds as the pitch becomes more real, after they land, and then after accounts of life in the frontier filter back.

I think the big issue with Mars colony will be the international humanitarian mission to repatriate those with buyers remorse after the first few months.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 09:39:34
Oh yeah, moon is a different issue.

I can see potential benefits there - you are close enough that there's the prospect of real economic exchange in principle and a few potential niche areas where it makes sense.

The big thing is that most of this can be done remotely so not huge need for colonists.

More like working on an off shore oil platform.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 09:41:04
Sam:

"Glory"

Or death. The big problem with large scale access to Mars is the people that will most give you that validation will be going along with you.

And if it collapses, it's the largest shared Darwin award ever.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 09:43:26
I suspect colonising mars is a project best suited to insane totalitarian govts (cf Man in the high castle, book not TV) not libertarian homesteaders.



Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Sep 18 10:13:19
"on a kind of romantic view."

Absolutely! I am counting on it :)

"how many change their minds as the pitch becomes more real"

, after they land, and then after accounts of life in the frontier filter back."

Sure of those people who said yes, a much much smaller percentage would actually do it. However once they are there, too late :P

I am not trying to hide my acceptance for attrition. I am not trying to be a cold hearted bastard, but I don't want to stand in the way of young people and their dreams. Especially not when they are not even on this planet. Then their dreams can't ruin anything nice. It's a philosophical pov, it's not always obvious how this is exactly going to be facilitated technically or economically...

"I can see potential benefits there"

I'll take it! If Mars or beyond ever is going to be anything but a dream, we have to establish ourselves on the moon. I hope I can use a telescope one day to see that small budding lunar colony :,)

I just want us to go to space, I don't really care about the future social or solar-political ramifications ;)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Sep 18 10:33:57
"The big thing is that most of this can be done remotely so not huge need for colonists."

Just give us an inch on the moon. It is true we need some reason to be there in the first place. Tourism and adventurism, maybe we will figure out a physical rehabilitation form on the Moon, some people with certain sicknesses would feel better in the gravity of the moon. Niche things, but you start with stuff like that and you need people there for extended periods. Some form of economic base has to be there on the moon for people to live there. Otherwise as you say, it will just be robots and sometimes we launch service robots to service the mining robots.

I grant you I have a hard time imagining this all taking place very quickly or at scale. But philosophically I think if people want to go there, let's figure out a way for them to do it cheap. Let them figure it out the meaning when they get there.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 18 10:56:06
I eagerly await carbon compensation schemes to be included in the cost of these projects.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Sep 18 11:11:39

"Glory"

Or death. "


Well ya. Glory requires defeating a chance of death.
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 18 12:32:40
Nim:

I'm not looking to stand in the way of it; but I do think it's not a good use of resources given the problems we have here on earth and echo Jergul on the carbon point. A rocket launch is a huge amount of co2.

And the mismatch between the utopian groups that think a colony in space is condusive to greater individualism are very very mistaken.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Sep 18 13:31:43
Obviously not pure individualism, but definitely a chance for small groups of intelligent risk-takers to break away from the bureaucratic mass mediocrity of large welfare states.
Cloud Strife
Member
Sun Sep 19 05:30:39
`But ya, not enough to justify the massive cost of both launch and maintenance. Offshore wind turbines are bad enough... '

And the safety aspect, that I think you and Seb haven't picked up on.

I mean, you can't just ignore the fact that this entire boondoggle relies on a death ray that could be compromised by a prism hanging from a balloon.
murder
Member
Sun Sep 19 12:51:15

"I suspect colonising mars is a project best suited to insane totalitarian govts (cf Man in the high castle, book not TV) not libertarian homesteaders."

They'll be fine as long as some corporation is paying for everything. It's over the minute someone tries collecting taxes.

But just think of the fun of a shootout on Mars with all these idiots carrying guns. :o)

Cloud Strife
Member
Sun Sep 19 13:53:23
I suspect they'll mostly be confused by the lack of naturally occurring roads, power lines, and water mains on which the libertarian ideology depends.
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 19 14:43:13
Cloud:

I'm aware of the safety issue yes.

Doesn't need to be a death ray though you can get the power density down to a reasonable level depending on how big the recieving antenna is. But then you are reliant on really good grids.

Let's just say I'm pretty skeptical about what you can actually reasonably do in space.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Sep 19 17:14:27
muhhhhhhhh roadsssssssss
murder
Member
Sun Sep 19 17:15:37

"Perhaps if you can build large solar arrays on the moon using in situ materials and beam power back to earth."

Why bother with solar arrays? Just build a ton of nuclear reactors. You don't even need to worry about safety regulations.

jergul
large member
Sun Sep 19 17:36:29
lol. Bart Simpsons to the moon!
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 20 12:00:16
murder:

I'm referring to an idea where you can send up machines that can make crap solar panels out of lunar regolith.

http://www...s/annual/jun00/433Ignatiev.pdf

They are not great cells, but you basically just have a few mobile factories churning them out and integrating them and you have basically just churn them out indefinitely.

Space is actually pretty shit for nuclear reactors - you need huge radiators to get rid of waste heat; but you'd need much more complex supply chain, or need to ship up lots and lots of nuclear fuel. Why on earth not to that... on earth. You put so much losses.



show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share