|
|
|
|
|
|
by jellicle
641 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, at great expense, we bring in tons of life-sustaining supplies from habitable parts of Earth so that people can live briefly at the South Pole or on top of Everest. In the absence of those supplies, of course everyone on Everest or the Pole would die, quickly. And the South Pole and the top of Everest are way, way, way, way, way, way, way more habitable than Mars is. And there are no nearby habitable areas on Mars to get supplies from. I don't know how I can spell this out for people: when Musk wakes up from a drug-addled haze and says "we're going to colonize Mars in two years" what he means is something like "I'm really high right now" or perhaps, if we grant him a little cunning, "I want my share price to stay high so I'll say some bullshit". It should not be interpreted as a factual statement. |
|
|
This part is unfair -- way too simplistic and dismissive. Elon is not drug-addled. He has high executive function, and is very consistent about his big ideas.
Elon is simply a smart guy with wild ideas (so far, so common) but, crucially, he commands and commits enormous resources toward his best attempts at making them happen.
That's what sets him apart from you and me, and it's a big deal. He deserves a lot of credit for the logistical success of diverting US government tax revenue to his attempts.
This article is a good summary of why the Mars thing is implausible. I love the phrase "Frozen Airless Radioactive Desert Hell" and hope FARDH becomes a thing.
For Elon to be right about Mars (at least on anything near his timeline), a lot of sufficiently-advanced technology will have to be invented soon. If there's a 1% chance of him being right, maybe there's a reasonable amount of public funding for it.
TBF, even if there's a 0% chance, there are probably enabling technologies that will succeed, and have enough value to make the investment worthwhile.