NASA would have spent 2 trillion and 50 years to get to this stage. SpaceX's rapid iterations and fail fast methodology might save the human species
The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality.
His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot – albeit a perfect one – to get an “A”.
Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work – and learning from their mistakes – the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.
EDIT: This is taken from an article about fear while making art. I think that's what's happening here - The SLS team are probably not allowed to blow up their space ship (because it is too expensive). SpaceX are allowed to blow theirs up, and in doing so they can learn a lot more a lot more quickly, and try more daring things to begin with.
Believe if or not, the mechanical engineers were the ones who spent the entire building time making CAD models and calculating torques while the physicists just said "it is approximately a wheel" and start building immediately.
The physicists finished, and it worked beautifully on the first try with no tuning. That part was just luck for sure, but it was still beautiful to watch.
Why would they care about quality? If they learned from their mistakes, they would make two or three pots, each one heavier than the rest (smart students would just make one item, making sure it weighed at least 50 kgs).
This probably would work if the teacher promised them 1 point for each mediocre item produced, 2 for each slightly less mediocre one, etc. with scores such that producing mediocre items at full speed at best gives them a low grade.
That gives the students both an incentive to start producing items soon (so that that can produce, as a safeguard, lots of mediocre items and get a decent grade) and to improve their technique (so that they can reach a higher grade, or finish earlier their work earlier)
A novel and naive idea in the twenty-first century, but a man can dream.
So, I wouldn’t expect that to stay the case if that rule would start to be used.
Possible improvement: the students are simultaneously graded on quality and quantity, where one can tilt heavily in one direction or the other to get a good grade. Students choose their strategy: all in on quantity or quality, or quality leaning towards quantity, et cetera. At the end of the term, the surprise being that the students who leaned towards quantity (maybe number of firings versus mass) produced the most stunning work.
Would you mind elaborating here?
How will reaching a dead planet while we actively kill the literally perfect place for us to survive and foster save the human species, exactly? And how does a fail fast methodology fit in there?
As for not destroying the planet, that’s what his other big company is working on.
I’m not fully on board with his reasoning here, and don’t agree with many of his beliefs, but he is quite explicit and consistent about these reasonings and I don’t think it’s the worst outcome.
2. Many rare materials are common in space. Even if we do not leave Earth, being able to bring those to us would do a great deal.
3. What if we discover life through exploring the cosmos?
4. Nobody settled new lands the first time they sailed the ocean (at least not very successfully). Give it a couple hundred years, maybe less, who knows?
5. Do you really not want to explore the universe? In the literal sense of the word?
I don’t equate visiting another planet or planets with saving the human species. We have vast existential problems, mostly imposed by ourselves, right now on Earth. Let’s say we had a copy of Earth that we could travel to right now in a safe solar system with a healthy star. Is the human species saved? Are our problems solved? If we simply spread our cancerous way of life throughout the cosmos, I’m not sure I find that exciting. It would be much more exciting if we learn to be a sustainable acting and net positive species (in all the ways) while spreading in the cosmos. Getting to another planet is a very small part of all that. It’s exciting of course, but not the solve everything solution the parent and downvoters apparently think it is.
> 3. What if we discover life through exploring the cosmos?
That isn’t under discussion. How does that solve humanity’s problems? I am sure we will find life or evidence of it elsewhere.
> 5. Do you really not want to explore the universe? In the literal sense of the word?
That wasn’t a question I responded to or has anything to do with what I said.
All it takes is one big, unlucky rock hurlting through space hitting this singular planet of ours, and we're gone like the dinosaurs. Eggs in one basket, and all that.
We could probably have a mostly self sustaining colony in caves on Mars within ten years , if we really wanted to. It would just take an absurd amount of money and singular focus and dedication by governments and companies.
Even if that's true (which I highly doubt), a "mostly" self-sustaining colony won't last long if a catastrophe cripples human life on Earth.
Even if it'll take 500 years to achieve, which seems longer than realistic, that's still the blink of an eye on a cosmic timescale.
A comet or asteroid could hit us at any moment and cause our extinction. That's one example of a planet-specific existential risk.
Diversifying life across multiple planets would make it much more likely that we'd survive as a species if something like this happened.
Unlike you, I do not have much confidence that we will change our ways. Humanity consumes and exploits all that it has met, and will likely continue to do so successfully, or die out. Unless we find more to exploit, the latter seems more likely. Ergo the need for spaceships eventually.
Re: the last two points, they appeal to emotion more so than reason.
That redundancy is designed to protect against rare events on that might well be 100,000 years away.
Going to mars to "save the human race" isn't a path anyone is proposing as an alternative to addressing climate change. That's a challenge we face across the next 10-200 years.
Going to mars to "save the human race" is about ensuring that, if a planet-scale disaster strikes the earth in 10,000 years the human experiment continues on.
They're two different challenges that we face, and I see no reason why we can't address both.
It's sad really. But it's the reality we're dealing with.
But I do share your concerns about humans neglecting their ideal habitat, and think we need to be careful about mistaking efforts like colonizing Mars as some kind of panacea abdicating any responsibility to clean up our act at home.
But if we manage to establish self sustaining city on Mars we will be sure that we can survive everything on Earth.
Also, having a working blue print of what to do in the event of a sudden disaster on that scale would certainly be helpful.
Not initially. Maybe after a few days or weeks. The thermal pulse from the impact itself would have instantly charred terrestrial life for some portion of the Americas. And the reentry of ejecta radiated enough heat to ignite forests around the globe.
Anyone on Mars would be sitting lucky, well situated to begin the recolonization of Earth.
Your ROI from doing so is going to be a hell of a lot better.
In comparison to that, colonization is a science fiction fantasy, in search of a problem to solve.
I'm just saying that Mars colonization is a waste of time.
There are many practical reasons for exploring the universe, but IMO we human being explore because we can't help it. As technology advance the smart and fearless people will dream of using the new technologies to achieve goals previous generations can only dream of.
Colonization will happen naturally: explorers come first, set up bases, recruits will arrive later to build infrastructure. Lot of people will die. If a place isn't survivable after several tries we will move to another place and repeat. It will occur over thousand years. But I have no doubt it will.
Money and human effort is fungible, you can spend it on many things. I'd rather it not being spent on pointless pursuits. If someone is going to spend it on pointless pursuits, I suppose they could do that, but they should at least not delude themselves.
Tracking asteroids can be done with terrestrial radar (that was one of the things Arecibo was used for before it collapsed), or it could be done with space-based radar systems. Radar requires a lot of power, so any space-based radar will need a substantial solar array.
Both of these problems are easier when you have a heavy-lift rocket such as Starship or Falcon 9 (regular and heavy versions) available. If we're regularly ferrying stuff back and forth between Earth and Mars, we're going to need a lot of those rockets. Having a space transportation economy would mean rockets are available for other uses, such as the aforementioned asteroid interceptor or space radar delivery platform. These problems are all connected.
Any potential Mars colony is likely to be populated by an early group of scientists and tourists, but there are a lot of other reasons people might want to visit Mars or stay there. Mining of high-value minerals. Filming TV shows and movies. Sports. Claiming the best real estate before someone else does. Establishing a refueling station between Earth and the asteroid belt. Manufacturing heavy space equipment that we don't want to lift out of Earth's gravity well. Some people with mobility issues might rather live in low gravity on Mars than be bound to a wheelchair on Earth. And so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X#Flight_...