Live - Elon Musk: Making Humans a Mutliplanetary Species - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Captain James;51092654]it's dangerous to think about migrating world to world before repairing the one we inhabit for obvious reasons of running from problems instead of dealing with them just begets a cycle to repeat.[/QUOTE] I can understand your concern, but personally I think that's increasingly a nonissue with how much attention climate change and sustainability is getting in the public eye right now, and how much of an international (public and private) effort is being made to try and fix our planet's issues. Plus, on the bright side- advances made in tech for settling mars and/or other space colonies could help us fix things here on Earth, and vice versa.

[QUOTE=OvB;51089807]Can't see SpaceX using nuclear power. That would be heavy as hell. I could see them making use of resources on the planet like Methane to run generators, and also solar, of course. They're going to need methane processors on the planet anyway to refuel their ships, and greenhouse gasses are a beneficial part of terraforming so better to get started early. Pumping the sky full of shit like we do here isn't as much of a concern on Mars.[/QUOTE] at some point an early mars colony will need a nuclear power source, the heat and electricity that could be reliably generated from it for such a long period of time just make too much sense [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Captain James;51092654]The biggest issue with Mars isn't getting there but rather surviving it without it possessing a magnetosphere, even come the day we begin to have crude technology that terraforms planets we would have generations to go when it came to "fixing" it's core. I also think that it's dangerous to think about migrating world to world before repairing the one we inhabit for obvious reasons of running from problems instead of dealing with them just begets a cycle to repeat. Never the less it's an exciting time to be alive to see the stuff of science fiction begin to race towards a tangible, real possibility of future generations being able to colonise other planets for our species survival and advancement.[/QUOTE] from what i understand, if we were to build an atmosphere on mars then most of the radiation issues would be solved in human lifetimes. Current probes in orbit are measuring the rate that mars's atmosphere is being blown off by the sun so this may change, but if we were to create an oxygenated atmosphere within a few generations, we don't really have to worry about it being blown off for millions of years

[QUOTE=Sableye;51094320]at some point an early mars colony will need a nuclear power source, the heat and electricity that could be reliably generated from it for such a long period of time just make too much sense [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] from what i understand, if we were to build an atmosphere on mars then most of the radiation issues would be solved in human lifetimes. Current probes in orbit are measuring the rate that mars's atmosphere is being blown off by the sun so this may change, but if we were to create an oxygenated atmosphere within a few generations, we don't really have to worry about it being blown off for millions of years[/QUOTE] Biggest problem with a nuclear reactor for Mars is getting permission to launch it.

[QUOTE=sYnced;51092467]whatever happen to the group of people volunteering a one-way trip to Mars?[/QUOTE] AFAIK it was some no-name company that will never have the resources to send anyone to Mars.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51095171]Biggest problem with a nuclear reactor for Mars is getting permission to launch it.[/QUOTE] Shouldnt be that much of a problem since we've launched probes powered by RTGs filled with plutonium. [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Roger Waters;51087757]no, the apocalypse is going to be something far more mundane like the exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves resulting in societal collapse and mass-scale extinction. instead of coming out of nowhere like a stroke itll just rumble toward us like prostate cancer.[/QUOTE] That won't totally wipe out humanity though. I very much doubt that even a massive nuclear war would completely wipe us out. We humans are a very tough and adaptable species. The only conceivable threat to the continued survival of the human species is an external threat such as a large asteroid. Even then most of those threats can be negated by technology.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51095171]Biggest problem with a nuclear reactor for Mars is getting permission to launch it.[/QUOTE] This is the #1 reason we've seen so little nuclear tech involved in spaceflight in the past few decades. People are so darn paranoid about nuclear power that even sending up Curiosity with its RTG power source required a special oversight board to plan things out and wrangle with stuff prior to launch.

Another problem with RTG power sources is that we've nearly run out of plutonium to make them

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51095699]Another problem with RTG power sources is that we've nearly run out of plutonium to make them[/QUOTE] All the more reason for us to give the nuclear industry in the US a kick in the pants to start moving towards expansion and innovation again- but first, that's gonna require Congress to actually be more pro-nuclear for once.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51095699]Another problem with RTG power sources is that we've nearly run out of plutonium to make them[/QUOTE] The DOE are retarting production of Pu238 very soon. RTG also aren't what you would use on a space mission like this. They would have to use a nuclear reactor.

[video=youtube;SMTLBhoCM8k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTLBhoCM8k[/video]

Why not just make a big ass railgun to shoot stuff into space? Like really big. Or put like a realgin inside of a railgun make it go faster.

[QUOTE=shrinkme;51099460]Why not just make a big ass railgun to shoot stuff into space? Like really big. Or put like a realgin inside of a railgun make it go faster.[/QUOTE] Human physiology cannot withstand those sorts of instantaneous G-forces.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;51100344]Human physiology cannot withstand those sorts of instantaneous G-forces.[/QUOTE] But what if you put a backwards railgun on the ship so that when the ship goes, the room that the people are in don't move as fast?

[QUOTE=shrinkme;51100437]But what if you put a backwards railgun on the ship so that when the ship goes, the room that the people are in don't move as fast?[/QUOTE] That completely negates any possible advantages of using a railgun.... At that point it would be cheaper to use a rocket [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=download;51097296]The DOE are retarting production of Pu238 very soon. RTG also aren't what you would use on a space mission like this. They would have to use a nuclear reactor.[/QUOTE] Thats a good point but it also brings up an interesting question. What fuel would we use for a space based nuclear reactor? I'm assuming it would have to have similar characteristics to the type of plutonium used in RTGS (the isotope used in RTG's don't need a great deal of shielding due to the type of radiation they emit)

Regarding the railgun, it might be possible in the way that you accelerate it reasonably so that human physiology can weather it. However, I can't say anything about the technical hurdles, it would have to be very large ( a loop which is exited when the velocity is sufficient ). And there might be other problems, as well.

Couldn't you theoretically make the railgun a lot longer so it can accelerate at a slower pace?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51100528]Couldn't you theoretically make the railgun a lot longer so it can accelerate at a slower pace?[/QUOTE] Doubt building a railgun longer than any other man-made structure on the planet is very cost effective :v:

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51100528]Couldn't you theoretically make the railgun a lot longer so it can accelerate at a slower pace?[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that you need to launch it at high enough speeds to battle through the atmosphere, and it even has to stay intact while doing it.

I'll sign up for it. I'm a plumber by trade, I'm sure we'll need irrigation and shit-spots on mars.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51100453] Thats a good point but it also brings up an interesting question. What fuel would we use for a space based nuclear reactor? I'm assuming it would have to have similar characteristics to the type of plutonium used in RTGS (the isotope used in RTG's don't need a great deal of shielding due to the type of radiation they emit)[/QUOTE] They would use HEU for its power density and low weight. It's a fission reaction, there will be lethal amounts of radiation coming off it. Shielding isn't an issue because this is Mars.

my unofficial spanish stream is here: [video]https://youtu.be/GN_tIuwSm-k[/video]

BFR stands for Big Falcon Rocket? Sounds legit.

Just a little over 23 hours to go!

[QUOTE=Morgen;51109684]Just a little over 23 hours to go![/QUOTE] I need to go to the bathroom but I don't want to miss the start

[QUOTE=OvB;51110120]I need to go to the bathroom but I don't want to miss the start[/QUOTE] Don't worry... it's Musk so it will probably start an hour late :v:

Hopefully when they get to Mars in a few years, Then they will capture some images of the surface and film from the surface. This is how Mars really look like: notice the difference. [IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YXyFj3wFBTY/U9WVMrJT9sI/AAAAAAAAFGU/TIIXmyIQHno/s1600/Slide84.JPG[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yJaFPWcqHbo/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Drury;51108964]BFR stands for Big Falcon Rocket? Sounds legit.[/QUOTE] Even better. Big Fucking Rocket, named by Musk himself. :v:

[QUOTE=Kazumi;51110607]Even better. Big Fucking Rocket, named by Musk himself. :v:[/QUOTE] That's what I was getting at :v:

[QUOTE=Bradyns;51100344]Human physiology cannot withstand those sorts of instantaneous G-forces.[/QUOTE] We'd have better luck with a long space gun that doesn't accelerate so fast that human bodies can't handle it, but eventually allows the ship to reach speeds necessary to enter orbit.

[QUOTE=tomatmann;51110318]Hopefully when they get to Mars in a few years, Then they will capture some images of the surface and film from the surface. This is how Mars really look like: notice the difference. [IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YXyFj3wFBTY/U9WVMrJT9sI/AAAAAAAAFGU/TIIXmyIQHno/s1600/Slide84.JPG[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yJaFPWcqHbo/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Looks like Nevada.