
Making Humans a Multiplanetary Species - bergie
http://www.spacex.com/mars
======
danblick
This reminds me of Astro Teller's recent article:

[http://qz.com/536483/why-its-compeltely-ridiculous-to-
think-...](http://qz.com/536483/why-its-compeltely-ridiculous-to-think-that-
humans-could-live-on-mars/)

"""...we live on a planet that is perfect for us, and we seem to be unable to
prevent ourselves from making it less and less habitable. We’re like a bunch
of teenagers destroying our parents’ mansion in one long, crazy party,
figuring that our backup plan is to run into the forest and build our own
house. We’ll worry about how to get food and a good sound system later.
Proponents of Mars colonization talk about “terraforming” Mars to make it more
like Earth, but in the meantime, we’re “marsforming” Earth by making our
atmosphere poisonous and annihilating our natural resources. We are also well
on our way to making Earth one big desert, just like Mars."""

~~~
eli_gottlieb
I think Teller really ought to blame the system and leaders who can actually
change environmental policies rather than, you know, our whole species.

~~~
grondilu
You make it sound like we've been destroying environment only lately and with
current political systems.

Humans have been wrecking havoc various environments ever since Neolithic.
Although there's no definitive proof, there are strong suggestions that they
were at least contributing to the disappearance of the Mega-fauna, for
instance.

Examples of small human settlements in small islands are very characteristic,
IMHO. Everywhere it happened, endemic birds where usually eradicated very
quickly.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_birds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_birds)

~~~
prawn
You were doing pretty well until that Maori culture comment. In their
elimination of a species, are they really that different to man anywhere else?

~~~
grondilu
Fair enough. Edited.

------
tehmillhouse
Judging by the preview image for the live stream (yeah, I wish I had more to
go on, too), this looks to be a long-haul plan for terraforming mars. I
wouldn't hold my breath for the first actual settlements up there.

That being said: Yes. Oh yes. Fuck yes. All my yesses.

~~~
espadrine
I love the idea BUT…

If we can't terraform Earth's deserts, do we really stand a chance with Mars?

I might be mistaken in my analysis. Still, the only way a colony might survive
seems to be by sending tremendous amounts of resources to Mars yearly. They
can never hope to be self-sustaining until either astronomically large amounts
of time or astronomically large amounts of energy are spent.

~~~
sillysaurus3
Not a high chance. Earth has a molten core, which generates a magnetic field
that shields us from harmful cosmic rays. It's been like this for so long that
we've evolved to require this shielding.

Mars has less of a molten core, and a very weak magnetosphere. Therefore
outdoor terraforming seems unlikely. We may have to walk around on Mars inside
shielded colonies only, along with whatever other life we bring: plants,
animals, everything.

More on this:

[https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Earth-have-an-active-core-
whi...](https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Earth-have-an-active-core-while-Venus-
and-Mars-do-not)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Human_health_effects)

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031891439...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031891439900698)

Water seems to be a fairly decent shield, so it's tempting to imagine a human-
made aquatic ecosystem. Fish would probably survive without any extra
shielding besides water, so that's one natural resource we could start
generating, assuming we could transport massive quantities of water to Mars.
Unfortunately, the water would just evaporate or freeze, so we'd need
shielding for that too.

~~~
harperlee
So could we engineer ourselves to be able to withstand more radiation? Perhaps
with advances in cancer treatment and CRISPR-style modifications on the most
fragile parts of the genome we can make us more resilient so we can become a
multiplanetary species...

On the other hand, sending life to Mars, due to that radiation, would make it
evolve much faster, right? Perhaps we can start terraforming it and study the
evolutions of plants and animals there to gain insight in how to overcome our
frailties.

~~~
ema
> On the other hand, sending life to Mars, due to that radiation, would make
> it evolve much faster, right?

The bottleneck in evolution isn't mutations but selection events (~= number of
organisms).

~~~
harperlee
Oh, I didn't know that. But wouldn't a larger mutation probability result in
more variability and hence quicker findings of improvement paths? (plus
avoiding local maxima)

~~~
ema
Sure more variability means stronger selection, but bigger mutations are less
likely to be positive mutations so more selection events need to be spend to
get them out of the gene pool again.

------
perilunar
As Gerard K. O'Neill famously asked, "Is the surface of a planet really the
right place for an expanding technological civilization?"[1]

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill#Space_colo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill#Space_colonization)

~~~
grondilu
Thought about that as well.

There's a nice PBS Space Time episode where they invented a word about it :
"surfacism".

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag)

~~~
perilunar
O'Neill wasn't talking about the clouds of Venus though, he was talking about
colonies in orbit or beyond, made from materials mined from asteroids.

~~~
oniony
Mars is a stepping stone, both figuratively and literally.

~~~
perilunar
The asteroids are the stepping stones. Mars is more like a small hole.

Obligatory XKCD: [https://www.xkcd.com/681/](https://www.xkcd.com/681/)

------
sktrdie
I'm always confused about our priority for us to become a multi-planetary
species. Planets are interesting to us for their resources, but they provide a
far greater risk: they're another huge gravity well. This means that it's
expensive/resourceful to leave these places (as it currently is for earth).

So I'm confused to why not make space habitats our priority instead of other
planets. Certainly inhabiting planets is something that will happen
regardless, I'm just baffled to why it needs to happen before we build
something like a Stanford Torus.

~~~
fsloth
Currently it seems space as an environment is not suitable for humans due to
heavy radiation. Massive shielding needed. Also, from a psychological point of
view - would you rather have your grandchildren stuck in cramped sodacans in
space or colonizing a new world with a sky and mountains and other goodies. A
planet based colony is probably a lot more resilient than a space based one. I
have no opinion as such towards one or another.

------
flexie
Imagine the wealth a company could amass if it succeeded in terraforming mars.
Rare metals, sale of land etc.

This is one of those markets where you have rather high barriers to entry.

~~~
andyjohnson0
I'm really not sure I want companies to have the capability to re-format
entire planets. That sounds like entirely too much power for any organisation
to have, if only given its potential for weaponisation.

And land sale? The Outer Space Treaty [1] prohibits governments from claiming
ownership of planets, so where would the authority to sell land on Mars come
from? Do we really want companies to own planets? Weyland-Yutani (Mars) Inc.
anyone?

Edit: We're not even close to getting a grip on the social and legal problems
of having access to habitable, off-earth environments. I suspect that the
potential for conflict is huge.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty)

~~~
3pt14159
The Outer Space Treaty was written with the party states knowing that it was a
medium term measure. Capitalism will come to The Moon, Mars, and Venus. It
will start with people just building wherever there is available land, like we
did on the frontier, then once a couple thousand or a couple hundred thousand
people are in outer space a new treaty will be formed around the political
realities of the day.

~~~
andyjohnson0
I agree. In some ways the OST resembles the Antarctic Treaty: intended to
mitigate the near and medium-term problems until something new comes along.

And I don't have a problem with capitalism _per se_ , but our legal and
political systems don't seem to be doing a very good job of managing its
excesses.

~~~
3pt14159
Many of our systems deal just fine with capitalism. Most Nato members. Most
Nordic countries. Some of the Americas and some of Asia.

I don't think it is hopeless, but we'll need to reign in the outliers to stop
global warming / Kessler syndrome.

------
Gatsky
Like flying to the moon, colonising Mars isn't a 'bad' idea. It won't harm
anyone, most of humanity will keep on doing what it's doing. It doesn't take
away important resources from environmentalism or other pressing causes,
that's a zero sum fallacy. Musk's point is to push forward relentlessly to a
future which incrementally improves humanity's chance of survival. Even if we
stop messing up earth, an asteroid or a north korean engineered super flu
could still end us while we watch solar powered TV and eat kale chips.

------
bmcusick
Well I don't care about all you naysayers and negative nellies. I'm psyched as
hell by this.

1/ Does humanity need to stop screwing up Earth? Yes. Does Elon going to Mars
make that job any harder? No. Is claiming that people shouldn't try to make
progress on issue X until issue Y is fully resolved total BS? Yes.

2/ Are planets the best place for human colonization off Earth? I have no
idea. I find The High Frontier to be persuasive but I think we can all agree
that landing a few people on Mars is easier than building an O'Neil Cylinder.
Baby steps, people! Even if Mars ends up being a backwater, the infrastructure
that Musk builds to allow its colonization will also allow us to start
developing the rest of the solar system too.

Remember, Elon's going to build a giant reusable rocket that can lift hundreds
of tons into orbit with each launch, and I doubt SpaceX is going to use 100%
of that launch capacity. I'm sure that if Bezos, Bigelow, or some other
billionaire wants to throw a 6,000 cubit meter inflatable space-hab at L5 as a
starter-home for O'Neil colonies, Musk will be happy to sell him that launch.

3/ Will Elon terraform Mars within his lifetime? Probably not! Is that a
reason to never start? No.

4/ Even if the colony doesn't work out, just think of the science! If Musk can
put colonists on Mars he'll also be able to send teams of NASA, ESA, etc.
astronauts for the Martian equivalent of McMurdo Station. And the same for
Venus (in floating habitat at 50km altitude), the Moon, or even the larger
asteroids or outer moons.

5/ If you have a rocket that big, and colonization makes the economics cheap,
just think of the size of the telescopes you can put into orbit. Hubble, eat
your heart out.

------
ryandvm
The guy that sells rockets wants us to embark on a rocket trip so unfathomably
expensive that it could only be paid for by an international conglomeration?
You don't say...

Look, I know that pie-in-the-sky science futurism is kind of our thing here at
HN, but could we at least feign a little pragmatism every time Elon Musk
pitches his plan to move us all to Mars?

------
thatcherclay
Honest question - would you rather see our species capable of transforming
Mars and building a colony there, or be able to create a realistic simulation
environment, one that was capable of arbitrarily slowing down time.

------
taylodl
Mars is a planet of robots and I suspect that will be the case for a very long
time. Robots will have colonized Mars long before we join the party.

------
dharma1
If we succeed (long term), will there be countries in Mars? Governance? Who
will own the land and resources?

~~~
espadrine
It is really no different than it has always been. If a colony on Mars wants
independence, it can draft a military to enforce its independence and/or seek
the diplomatic approval of other nations.

~~~
dharma1
I'm not really sure how this would work.

Suppose SpaceX (or another operator) establishes a colony with people from
various countries - what country (if any) is that colony subject to? Perhaps
all the countries initially, but after a couple of generations?

~~~
espadrine
SpaceX is an american company, so they are subject to their laws.

The situation is similar to Antarctica, which is home to a large number of
small scientific settlements, each following the rules of the country that it
is bound to.

A treaty that some countries have signed acknowledges some country borders,
but they are not enforced in practice, and those territories are home to
settlements from other countries — you even have multi-nationality
settlements.

------
tanktsla
Elon did not get permission from the system. The system says 255.

------
kseistrup
Humans belong to one of the most, if not THE most, destructive species on
Earth. We exploit all resources we can lay our hands on and destroy plants and
animals in the wake of our immense and selfish greed. We would serve the
Universe best if we stayed here on Earth, and possibly even obliterated
ourselves.

~~~
noir_lord
I'm on the other side of this one, while I think it's stupid to wreck the
Earth because we need it I don't see why we shouldn't expand out and use the
resources, they are just rocks waiting for us to do something with them.

~~~
kseistrup
We don't know yet if they're just rocks. And if we can't take care of Earth, I
fail to see how we could ever take care of another planet.

~~~
restalis
For the most activities we embark on, none of us is ready for. We just jump in
and learn on the fly, the journey itself transforms and adapts us. So, maybe
we haven't learned enough about taking care of a planet, but that's not a
reason to hold ourselves back ...isn't it?

~~~
kseistrup
Perhaps not, I just don't see anything good coming out of it.

~~~
restalis
We'll learn something. That's always a good thing.

------
dpina
the youtube placeholder for the stream has some description[1]: "SpaceX
Founder, CEO, and Lead Designer Elon Musk will discuss the long-term technical
challenges that need to be solved to support the creation of a permanent,
self-sustaining human presence on Mars. The technical presentation will focus
on potential architectures for sustaining humans on the Red Planet that
industry, government and the scientific community can collaborate on in the
years ahead."

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1YxNYiyALg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1YxNYiyALg)

