Mars and Off Planet Colonization - Pros and Cons Discussion

[JB47394]

We disagree on the purpose of the founding. SpaceX was initially started with Elon's money alone. The profit goals came up AFTER he realized how much money he was burning on rocket development and needed to bring in outside investors.

Notice that I said "healthy commercial venture" and you interpreted that as "profit". His goals with Tesla and SpaceX are not profit. His goals are his missions to put electric cars on roads and people on Mars. To achieve those goals, he has to manage the available resources. Money is a resource. People are a resource. Factories are a resource. Lithium is a resource. He manages all of the most essential resources in order to achieve his goals. They're a means to an end.

I think you're being myopic to idealism and daniel is being myopic to pragmatism. I assert that the reason that Elon succeeds is that he's a practical idealist. Which is why I say that you're both wrong and you're both right.

 

[Unclepaul]

Elon's point is that there have been several events already on Earth that would have wiped out the human population.

Odds are strong, that something horrible (Man caused or Nature caused) that could wipe out human civilization could happen again.

If that happens, then precious mankind would become extinct.

He feels that the solution is for mankind to become interplanetary. That way if one planet gets wiped out, mankind will continue on the other planets.

There is enough money and resources on Earth to allow us to become interplanetary. Foolish not to do it.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Notice that I said "healthy commercial venture" and you interpreted that as "profit". His goals with Tesla and SpaceX are not profit. His goals are his missions to put electric cars on roads and people on Mars. To achieve those goals, he has to manage the available resources. Money is a resource. People are a resource. Factories are a resource. Lithium is a resource. He manages all of the most essential resources in order to achieve his goals. They're a means to an end.

I think you're being myopic to idealism and daniel is being myopic to pragmatism. I assert that the reason that Elon succeeds is that he's a practical idealist. Which is why I say that you're both wrong and you're both right.

I don't think I said what you think I meant. But whatever, I don't care if you think I'm wrong about my opinions, as long as there's no dispute on the facts.

 

[Grendal]

There are many legitimate uses for space, and SpaceX is an excellent resource for those uses: Satellites for communication, geolocation, and Earth research, robotic exploration of other worlds, space telescopes, etc. I contend that sending people to Mars is not one of them.

Yes. Elon's goal is to build a self-sustaining colony on Mars. He may, or may not, spend all the riches he gathers on building a colony on Mars. If SpaceX succeeds in building a fully reusable orbital rocket that can put 100 tons of mass into orbit regularly then that opens up space for industrialization. Specifically making a colony on Mars is overall not that important compared to creating Starship. With Starship many science fiction stories can become reality. The vast amount of scientific papers about the possibilities of space become reality. Maybe a colony on Mars or the Moon could become reality. We can't know until SpaceX gets Starship up and running. Even the failed test with Starship gave a very good impression that the system will work. That paints a very optimistic future. The big fact is that, at some point, humanity needs to become a spacefaring species. The problems on Earth are not the problems in space. Humanity cannot damage space. It's too big. It's all going to happen long after my life is over but I'm hopeful and optimistic. If humanity gets stuck on Earth, then I am less optimistic.

 

[JB47394]

The problems on Earth are not the problems in space. Humanity cannot damage space. It's too big.

Of course humanity can damage space. We can damage anything that comes within our sphere of influence, and the universe is fundamentally only as big as that. As evidence, we're knocking on the door of Kessler Syndrome. That's how you damage space. If something can't be changed by us, then it's probably not very interesting to us, and when we change things we inevitably damage them. That's a philosophical observation that relates to the fact that the universe is hostile to us, we want to not only live, but thrive, so we change the universe. Sadly, we never know when to say enough is enough.

Consider our first physical interaction with Jupiter. We flew a spacecraft into its atmosphere. Our inaugural interaction was to use it as a dump. We did it because Jupiter is so incredibly large that we can't possibly damage it. That was the thinking that led to use damaging Earth. How do you damage an entire planet? And there are still plenty of people who don't think we have.

Space exploration to date has been an exercise in dumping crap all over the place. How many boosters are in the ocean? How many satellites and space station parts did we dump in the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean? We've got rocket stages from the 1960s still orbiting the sun, and certainly there are bits and pieces of various vehicles splattered across the Moon, Mars, Titan and elsewhere. We don't worry about dropping our rubbish everywhere because the places we visit are so danged big. Surely we can't damage them.

So if we pursue asteroid mining, you can be sure that there will be side effects and accidents. The side effects may be many tons of pebbles and rocks that end up headed towards the Earth and Moon. Perhaps that makes LEO space stations impractical as more and more of the things end up in orbit around Earth. An industrial accident may take the form of a payload of precious asteroid material headed for pickup in the Pacific Ocean instead wandering over to land on a suburb of London. Oops. The industrialists will blame union labor, and the unions will blame the atrocious working conditions. Nothing will change because the motive force here is people, and we carry around the same primitive attitudes that have always hampered us.

 

[daniel]

Elon's point is that there have been several events already on Earth that would have wiped out the human population.

Odds are strong, that something horrible (Man caused or Nature caused) that could wipe out human civilization could happen again.

If that happens, then precious mankind would become extinct.

He feels that the solution is for mankind to become interplanetary. That way if one planet gets wiped out, mankind will continue on the other planets.

There is enough money and resources on Earth to allow us to become interplanetary. Foolish not to do it.

When I look at the history of the human race, I see unimaginable cruelty to each other and utter disregard for the environment that gives us life. Every time a group of people encounter a weaker group of people, they attack them, kill them, take their stuff, and force the survivors to work for them. In the name of profit, they foul the air, the land, and the water. We have known for several decades that we're causing unacceptable climate change, and we've done nothing to slow the damage. The thing that wipes out the human race won't be a meteor or a supernova. It will be us.

I see no benefit in sending a handful of us to Mars to do the same things there: To pollute another planet and have wars there. Because anybody who thinks that people will suddenly become peace-loving and altruistic and sharing just because they're on Mars is living in a fantasy world.

Let's try to stop destroying the Earth instead of spending an obscene amount of money to send a handful of people to live in what can only be described as a man-made hell on another world.

 

[JB47394]

Let's try to stop destroying the Earth

Now who's being the optimist? We won't stop destroying the Earth until we address some serious mental problems inherent in homo sapiens sapiens. Think of all the problems you could spot in violent criminals, politicians, their extreme right and left wing followers, whole societies that are still stuck in literal tribal conflict, bankers who can never have enough money, and so on. It extends to cat ladies, incels, hoarders, addicts of all varieties - the list is endless.

To take a page from science fiction, we need to become like Gene Roddenberry's Starfleet civilization before we go any farther. And I mean that at an organic level, not some weird medicated, dystopian future. We can't be an entire civilization on lithium, Clozapine, Prozac, Zoloft, Zyprexa, etc. We need to be inherently good people on a firm mental foundation.

 

[Grendal]

Of course humanity can damage space. We can damage anything that comes within our sphere of influence, and the universe is fundamentally only as big as that. As evidence, we're knocking on the door of Kessler Syndrome. That's how you damage space. If something can't be changed by us, then it's probably not very interesting to us, and when we change things we inevitably damage them. That's a philosophical observation that relates to the fact that the universe is hostile to us, we want to not only live, but thrive, so we change the universe. Sadly, we never know when to say enough is enough.

Consider our first physical interaction with Jupiter. We flew a spacecraft into its atmosphere. Our inaugural interaction was to use it as a dump. We did it because Jupiter is so incredibly large that we can't possibly damage it. That was the thinking that led to use damaging Earth. How do you damage an entire planet? And there are still plenty of people who don't think we have.

Space exploration to date has been an exercise in dumping crap all over the place. How many boosters are in the ocean? How many satellites and space station parts did we dump in the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean? We've got rocket stages from the 1960s still orbiting the sun, and certainly there are bits and pieces of various vehicles splattered across the Moon, Mars, Titan and elsewhere. We don't worry about dropping our rubbish everywhere because the places we visit are so danged big. Surely we can't damage them.

So if we pursue asteroid mining, you can be sure that there will be side effects and accidents. The side effects may be many tons of pebbles and rocks that end up headed towards the Earth and Moon. Perhaps that makes LEO space stations impractical as more and more of the things end up in orbit around Earth. An industrial accident may take the form of a payload of precious asteroid material headed for pickup in the Pacific Ocean instead wandering over to land on a suburb of London. Oops. The industrialists will blame union labor, and the unions will blame the atrocious working conditions. Nothing will change because the motive force here is people, and we carry around the same primitive attitudes that have always hampered us.

I get your point but space is still much bigger than you can comprehend. Everything we have in orbit is a miniscule (0.01 %) at most. Most of that is due to the limitations of hardware and a lack of ability to clean up LEO. If we're going to be using LEO as much as we expect then a clean up will happen.

Sure we dropped a satellite into Jupiter. There are probably something like 100 asteroids that fall into that massive gravity field every day. That was nothing. Certainly not enough to be considered pollution. For that matter, on average, 17 asteroids fall into our atmosphere every day. When they and rocket debris hit the Earth it is mostly burnt up. Sometimes a chunk does manage to land though.

So while I do consider it important, it's minor compared to the vast amount of waste humans have done to Earth over the millennia since industrialization. I am not against cleaning up Earth. I am just against cleaning the Earth to the exclusion of exploring and colonizing space. I would love to see a 1% effort of humanity to clean up our environment. I expect, like the money spent on getting into space, the money spent on "cleaning things up" is far less than 1%.

 

[JB47394]

I get your point but space is still much bigger than you can comprehend.

And I get yours, but remember that the universe is only as big as the part that we can reach. Unless we discover some new physics, we won't travel to other stars (I don't believe generational ships have any real purpose). Within our solar system, I figure that we'll end up being able to dismantle the entire thing and build whatever we're going to build with it. That's a scale that we can certainly comprehend.

Yes, if we had jump drives or warp drives or some such thing, then our accessible universe would be much larger. Countless planets, moons and so on. Oddly, I suspect that we'd probably lose a lot of humanity to the stars. They'd head out, find a nice spot and never come back.

That was nothing.

Which is exactly what we have said for all of human history about Earth; that we can beat on it any way we want because it's so darned big. And people who said that were right for about 10,000 years. In time, we grew in power as a civilization. That process will continue.

I am just against cleaning the Earth to the exclusion of exploring and colonizing space.

But we aren't cleaning the Earth. That means that when we go off planet, we're going to make a hash of the solar system. It is the mindset that is the problem. We don't clean up stuff, we only exploit stuff, and we'll do it right through the point where it's unhealthy for us. It makes no sense to apply that to the solar system.

I'm not even sure that it'll take that long to mess up the solar system. With AI and robotics coming along, we may be able to throw a factory down on the Moon and tell it to start cranking out robot workers that will crank out more robot workers and when we have enough, we can tell them that they should set about turning the moon into a huge space station. After that, we can go after the resources of Mars or Jupiter. Self-replicating robots are a powerful thing.

 

[daniel]

Now who's being the optimist?

I did say "try."

We won't stop destroying the Earth until we address some serious mental problems inherent in homo sapiens sapiens. Think of all the problems you could spot in violent criminals, politicians, their extreme right and left wing followers, whole societies that are still stuck in literal tribal conflict, bankers who can never have enough money, and so on. It extends to cat ladies, incels, hoarders, addicts of all varieties - the list is endless.

Which is just one more reason why a colony absolutely dependent on environmental containment in a near vacuum, and where walking away is not an option, cannot succeed. Sure, they'd start with people who've passed every sort of mental evaluation, but people change, and the next generation is a crapshoot. Greed and violence become crime and war, and one suicide bomber can exterminate the whole colony. And they're all living in an underground hell where they can never get away from each other, never breathe fresh air, never see the sun, and where the few certified to use space suits to do needed outside work have a lifetime limit of such work due to cosmic ray exposure.

To take a page from science fiction, we need to become like Gene Roddenberry's Starfleet civilization before we go any farther. And I mean that at an organic level, not some weird medicated, dystopian future. We can't be an entire civilization on lithium, Clozapine, Prozac, Zoloft, Zyprexa, etc. We need to be inherently good people on a firm mental foundation.

Gene Roddenberry shares this with Karl Marx: That for either of their visions to work, human nature must change completely.

There's a reason why Biosphere II failed: Human nature.

 

[JB47394]

And they're all living in an underground hell where they can never get away from each other, never breathe fresh air, never see the sun, and where the few certified to use space suits to do needed outside work have a lifetime limit of such work due to cosmic ray exposure.

I'm sure life on Mars can be made comfortable. We're really good at solving problems. And I don't mean vast enclosed spaces with oaks and swimming pools. It might mean lots of virtual reality use or some other means. Virtual reality may also solve the issue of suit time, with people in the colony remotely operating rovers, robots and sundry other equipment that is purpose-built for the environment of Mars.

But first, let's get Biosphere 2 working. Or build a self-sustaining enclosed colony in Antarctica. Now that would be something.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

When I look at the history of the human race, I see unimaginable cruelty to each other and utter disregard for the environment that gives us life. Every time a group of people encounter a weaker group of people, they attack them, kill them, take their stuff, and force the survivors to work for them. In the name of profit, they foul the air, the land, and the water. We have known for several decades that we're causing unacceptable climate change, and we've done nothing to slow the damage. The thing that wipes out the human race won't be a meteor or a supernova. It will be us.

I see no benefit in sending a handful of us to Mars to do the same things there: To pollute another planet and have wars there. Because anybody who thinks that people will suddenly become peace-loving and altruistic and sharing just because they're on Mars is living in a fantasy world.

Let's try to stop destroying the Earth instead of spending an obscene amount of money to send a handful of people to live in what can only be described as a man-made hell on another world.

I don't think you realize that your views on human nature are exactly the reason why we need a backup home.

Notice that regardless of how you view human nature, we'd STILL NEED a backup home! If we destroy earth, then we need a second chance to get it right. If we DON'T destroy earth, then we need to ensure that the human consciousness survives against large space rocks!

ONLY if you want humanity to end would it make sense to NOT have a backup home! Letting humanity and its sins disappear into the cold ether.

 

[daniel]

I don't think you realize that your views on human nature are exactly the reason why we need a backup home.

Notice that regardless of how you view human nature, we'd STILL NEED a backup home! If we destroy earth, then we need a second chance to get it right. If we DON'T destroy earth, then we need to ensure that the human consciousness survives against large space rocks!

ONLY if you want humanity to end would it make sense to NOT have a backup home! Letting humanity and its sins disappear into the cold ether.

No species endures forever.

And in practice, a Mars (or Moon) colony would be totally dependent on Earth. If civilization crumbles on Earth (not just extinction, but global economic collapse) anybody on Mars or the Moon without a return ship available would die.

There just are no "backup homes." They are a sci-fi/fantasy dream. Fine for escapist literature, along with vampires, werewolves, wizards, flying kung-fu masters, etc., but not a solution to a catastrophic destruction of Earth.

I'm sure life on Mars can be made comfortable. We're really good at solving problems. And I don't mean vast enclosed spaces with oaks and swimming pools. It might mean lots of virtual reality use or some other means. Virtual reality may also solve the issue of suit time, with people in the colony remotely operating rovers, robots and sundry other equipment that is purpose-built for the environment of Mars.

But first, let's get Biosphere 2 working. Or build a self-sustaining enclosed colony in Antarctica. Now that would be something.

Most people find virtual reality oppressive after a while, and many people find it induces motion sickness pretty quickly. And it's no substitute for real experiences. A Mars colony would be a prison without guards, without an outdoor exercise yard, and without modern medicine. (Medical care in most prisons is abysmal, but in a Mars colony it would be worse. There would be no diagnostic machinery, just a very basic lab and probably a few hundred of the most common medicines, and a re-supply of ones that run out or run low would take a couple of years -- travel time and waiting for a launch window. Acceptable to a healthy person who expects to return to Earth in 2 or 3 years and is willing to take the risks. Not acceptable if you're a young couple planning to remain there and start a family.)

A research station would be obscenely expensive and risky, but possible. A colony, no way.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

No species endures forever.

And in practice, a Mars (or Moon) colony would be totally dependent on Earth. If civilization crumbles on Earth (not just extinction, but global economic collapse) anybody on Mars or the Moon without a return ship available would die.

There just are no "backup homes." They are a sci-fi/fantasy dream. Fine for escapist literature, along with vampires, werewolves, wizards, flying kung-fu masters, etc., but not a solution to a catastrophic destruction of Earth.

The point wasn't whether or not backup homes are possible (that's a separate discussion). The point was that regardless of whether or not we're good stewards of our planet, a backup home is needed. Something that your constant pessimism does NOT refute.

From the first sentence, it seems that you're okay with humanity perishing (either through self-destruction or a lack of preparation against large space rocks). You're failing the zeroth law of robotics.

 

[daniel]

The point wasn't whether or not backup homes are possible (that's a separate discussion). The point was that regardless of whether or not we're good stewards of our planet, a backup home is needed. Something that your constant pessimism does NOT refute.

Whether or not a "backup home" is possible, is an absolutely essential point in the discussion. If a backup home is not possible (as I contend) then trying to create one is a waste of resources that could otherwise have been put into combating the greatest threat to our continued existence, which is our own mismanagement of resources here on Earth.

The fact that I do not consider humanity to be the ultimate achievement of the universe, is a separate point.

And FWIW, there is no "zeroth law of robotics." And in any case, Asimov's "laws of robotics" were created precisely to demonstrate that "laws of robotics" cannot achieve the desired end of protecting us from our own robots.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Whether or not a "backup home" is possible, is an absolutely essential point in the discussion. If a backup home is not possible (as I contend) then trying to create one is a waste of resources that could otherwise have been put into combating the greatest threat to our continued existence, which is our own mismanagement of resources here on Earth.

The fact that I do not consider humanity to be the ultimate achievement of the universe, is a separate point.

And FWIW, there is no "zeroth law of robotics." And in any case, Asimov's "laws of robotics" were created precisely to demonstrate that "laws of robotics" cannot achieve the desired end of protecting us from our own robots.

Then you've placed the cart before the horse. You've decided that since something isn't possible/practical, then we shouldn't be wasting time/energy towards it. You think you're being rational. But remember that it's the irrational people that have driven progress and innovation.

 

[Unclepaul]

When I look at the history of the human race, I see unimaginable cruelty to each other and utter disregard for the environment that gives us life. Every time a group of people encounter a weaker group of people, they attack them, kill them, take their stuff, and force the survivors to work for them. In the name of profit, they foul the air, the land, and the water. We have known for several decades that we're causing unacceptable climate change, and we've done nothing to slow the damage. The thing that wipes out the human race won't be a meteor or a supernova. It will be us.

I see no benefit in sending a handful of us to Mars to do the same things there: To pollute another planet and have wars there. Because anybody who thinks that people will suddenly become peace-loving and altruistic and sharing just because they're on Mars is living in a fantasy world.

Let's try to stop destroying the Earth instead of spending an obscene amount of money to send a handful of people to live in what can only be described as a man-made hell on another world.

It is not just humans that act this way, but all of Nature. Animals attach each other just as Humans do. What ever species is most powerful will extend their territory by invading their neighbors. Animals do this (Lions, Cheeta, Hyenea, Insects do this. Locust ants, frogs, aligators, monkeys. Fish do this, Coral does this, Whales, Starfish, Jelly fish. Plants do this. They spread out to gather all the Sunlight, and blot out the slower growers, Vines kill their climbing hosts, moss blots out grass, grass edges out weeds, etc.

Nature as well. Lighting storms cause fires that burn whole species, including plants, animals, insects, birds...total disaster.
Rain floods all, Wind drys up the rivers, Sun parches the Earth, Earthquakes terraform the planet, Moon's gravity creates massive crashing waves, etc.

On a larger scale, asteroids crash into planets, Suns go SuperNova and destroy their Solar Systems, Black Holes consume all, Planets collide, Stars provide both life and death. Gravity crushes, Water pressure crushes, Atmospheres spin off into Space, Aliens lurk around every courner.

Guess my point is "THIS IS THE WAY". Humans do their share of good and evil, but so does nature.

 

[JB47394]

And FWIW, there is no "zeroth law of robotics."

Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Asimov once added a "Zeroth Law"—so named to continue the pattern where lower-numbered laws supersede the higher-numbered laws—stating that a robot must not harm humanity. The robotic character R. Daneel Olivaw was the first to give the Zeroth Law a name in the novel Robots and Empire;[19] however, the character Susan Calvin articulates the concept in the short story "The Evitable Conflict".

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thank you for spelling it out. I didn't consider his lack of "Foundation" knowledge to be important enough to distract from the main point.

 

[daniel]

Thank you for spelling it out. I didn't consider his lack of "Foundation" knowledge to be important enough to distract from the main point.

So a knowledge of classic science fiction is critical to discussing the plausibility of colonizing space? Very telling. I guess you have to be into make-believe to think that people could actually make a life in a place with no atmosphere to speak of, only trace amounts of water, toxic regolith in place of soil, no magnetosphere, and no resources. Good to know.

And FWIW, I read some of Asimov when I was little, but I've never read Foundation. The premise (that human behavior in the aggregate could be predicted for millennia into the future with mathematics) is too extreme for me to be able to suspend disbelief. I prefer my science to be actual science, and my fantasy to make no claims of being science.