Comment by brooklyndavs | Hacker News Reader

Comment by brooklyndavs | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Agree, I'm interested in the political aspect of this as well. For most of modern history (past WWII lets say) exploration of unknown frontiers (Antartica, space, the moon etc) has been done under nation states with various levels of funding from governments either at 100% public or a public/private mix. This exploration is done usually with the end goal of expanding human knowledge or sometimes for national defense as in the space race and the moon.

What makes me SUPER uneasy about what SpaceX is trying to do with Mars is the 100% private nature of this, at least from an ownership perspective. Is SpaceX trying to claim ownership to Mars, or a least a part of it? Who or what gives them the right to make this claim? Wouldn't humanity as a whole be better served to see Mars the same way we see Antartica?

Additionally, why does SpaceX get to say who goes to Mars and who doesn't? Shouldn't we choose who gets to go on missions to Mars based on expertise in technical and scientific fields vs how much one can pay for a ticket? Why should the ability to go to Mars be based capital? Does a little child who wants to be an astronaut also need to be a billionaire? Ultimately, what gives the super rich the right to leave this planet for a colony on Mars while the rest of us try to figure out how to survive on the planet that they had a large hand in destroying in the first place. Why should we, as a society, even support a colony on Mars that will take many years to be self sustaining in the above configuration.

Hopefully our international bodies wake up and start taking the privatization of space seriously and at least start enacting and enforcing some guidelines, regulations, and treaties around space and bodies in our solar system.

SpaceX isn't standing in anybody else's way. Any and all other interested parties are free to pursue their own plans. Adding guidelines and regulations won't suddenly make it so that other people go, all it'll do is make it harder for SpaceX to do so.

This post sounds to me like sour grapes. "I can't go, so I don't want anybody to go unless we all can." I hope I'm wrong, because that idea terrifies me a bit.

Good, it should be harder for SpaceX and other completely private entities to go since space is identified as a public Common (see my comment above).

Its not sour grapes. When Neil Armstrong went to the moon it was for all Americans and all of Humanity. During the space shuttle missions there was a public effort to try to select a broad representation of cultures, backgrounds, educations, nationalities etc to be astronauts.

However, if the only ultra rich get to go, which it sounds like the case since that would be the only way to fund a private mission, why should everyone left be ok with it? Why should the richest people in the world, most who have had a incredibly large role in environmentally destroying the ONLY planet all of humanity can live on, just leave everyone else to clean up the mess? It would be the ultimate FU to the rest of the 99.9% of humanity.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9792854/neil-degrasse-tys...

'''there was a public effort to try to select a broad representation of cultures, backgrounds, educations, nationalities etc to be astronauts.'''

Oy vey... that might be a sentiment which befits an established enterprise, but it is no way to reach for the stars.

Do you think Magellan or Columbus tried to be inclusive when they were looking to crew their expeditions? Of course not, they selected on whatever capabilities or vices they deemed necessary for their purpose. Did the Vikings go for a multicultural crew when they tried to reach Vinland? Nope. What about Genghis Khan, did he choose his troops by looking at the colour of their skin or their cultural heritage? He probably did, the criteria being 'just as long as they look and talk like me'.

Trying to be culturally sensitive and inclusive might work when trips to Mars are organised by the UN, based on technology and experience from pioneers like the current crop of 'commercial space access providers'. This is not where we are just now, however. Right now the selection criteria are altogether more practical: can you afford it, cope with the stress, have the right capabilities, can you function as a crew in a cramped environment for an extended period, can you handle the possibility of being left 'stranded' on a planet hostile to (our) life?

It's not being culturally sensitive for sensitivities sake. It's about an equal chance of survival. Most fairly intelligent people acknowledge having one planet for the human species is risky right? What if an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth? We better spread out to hedge our bets. Which leads me to...

> can you afford it

Now, if all was fine and dandy on Earth and some rich people want to take the risk of starting a Mars colony with the idea that most of us will be able to travel back and forth in a hundred years go for it.

The problem is, there is an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. Oh, and the asteroid was created with help from some of the people trying to now escape. The asteroid is global warming. I can go into great detail on how global warming is going to make things incredibly challenging for the 9+ billion of us around on Earth in 2050. At least to Elon's credit he's doing some things that might make living in a warmer world a little more sustainable before he jets off to Mars. Most people that will be able to pay the price won't be doing so.

Wouldn't be more ethical to focus on saving the one planet most of us and our kids will live on? Lets say the Mars colony is successful. So successful that you and your families chances of surviving are actually better on Mars vs Earth. What gives you and your offspring the right for that greater chance of survival? Because you are rich? What about executive XYZ who lead company ABC for 20 years and used our air and water as a dumping ground for pollution. What gives them the right to leave? What gives them and their offspring the right to survive and thrive on another planet while us on earth deal with the cost of that pollution. As I said, it would be the ultimate FU to 99.9% of us.

'''It's about an equal chance of survival.'''

I think a spaceship designed for and by those who have the means and will to design such will work just as well for those who lack either, or both [1].

[1] After all, the Golgafringians managed to put their entire middle-management layer, not to mention their telephone cleaners and hairdressers, on one...

What is that fallacy where you draw a dichotomy where none exists? Of course we can do both.

I really don't see many multi millionaires sitting on Mars trying to do subsistence agriculture honestly and if some want to, they are welcome...

You are missing the point. Capital funded the moon missions as well - just in that case it was the capital of the community you belong to, let's say your nation, so you feel involved. Nowadays NASA can't even put a human being into orbit any more - and that's not the fault of SpaceX.

As a "public Common", everybody should be allowed to go there. That's not the same as to claim ownership, which indeed should be publicly and very well regulated.

What purpose will that serve? You make things harder for SpaceX, so... what? Everybody just stays home? Does that make you happier, because we're all equally stuck?

It's the Harrison Bergeron approach to space exploration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

Did you miss the part where they are doing this for NASA? There's already a legal framework in place, in fact, legislation has to be passed just to enable private space flight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight#American_d...

Ah! There is a big difference, I believe between subcontracting LEO for NASA and a frikin Mars mission.

Since so far everything is done for NASA I don't have a problem with it. NASA, like any giant government agency subcontracts out a lot of work to various parties. The whole "Military-industrial complex" thing. In the case of LEO where it's NASA controlled but privately contracted SpaceX is awesome because they are bringing down the cost of launches to LEO. This saves us, the US taxpayer $$$.

The frikin Mars mission is different because from what I understand SpaceX is going with or without NASA. That's the difference between an Apollo mission, where the Saturn V was developed by Boeing and others, and Boeing just going alone.

Personally, I think this legislation is a bad idea and is a direct attack on a global common. It will be interesting to see how this holds up internationally. Its almost like the US saying to the world we open up waters in the middle of the Atlantic (international waters) for resource extraction by any of our corporations. Try and stop us.

>Its almost like the US saying to the world we open up waters in the middle of the Atlantic (international waters) for resource extraction by any of our corporations.

The US doesn't have to do anything for that to happen, since that's the current status quo. Fisheries in international waters are in crisis due to overfishing in part because they are global commons and access cannot be restricted.

Eh from what I am seeing access is fairly regulated.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/permits/highseas.html

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/deep-sea-fish...

Status quo seems to be not good enough on the enforcement end, which leads to illegal overfishing.

Well how about that. I guess my cursory Google search was too cursory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com