News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by olegkikin on Friday October 21, 2016 @10:30PM (#12766748)
Not everything we do is for the monetary incentive.

The goal of Mars colonization is to create a second (eventually) independent base, so humanity has a chance in case of a catastrophic event.

I'd say even if it costs a trillion dollars, it's worth it. US GDP is what, 18 trillion per year?

Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by yongjik on Friday October 21, 2016 @10:50PM (#12766833)
A nuclear-proof bunker hidden beneath Greenland with air/water filter system will be 1000 times cheaper, and will promise a better survival chance in almost any scenario.

If humanity is wiped out on Earth, people in Mars are fucked anyway: they will be one depressurization accident from extinction.

Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by jaggederest on Saturday October 22, 2016 @01:47AM (#12767416)
If you don't think a space colony would have overengineered multiple redundancy against depressurization, you don't understand the psychological effect that vacuum being 6 inches away would have.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by DennisP on Saturday October 22, 2016 @09:11AM (#12768540)
Assuming all the Martians live in a single pressurized structure.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by mortenjorck on Friday October 21, 2016 @10:50PM (#12766831)
Worst case scenario, what would that actually be like? A few hundred people who gave up their lives on earth to live in habitats on an inhospitable planet one day learn that the worst fear of the 20th century came true, and there's nobody left back home. It's just them, the only remaining sentient beings in the known universe, without 99% of the technology that got them where they are now.

How could they even begin to try to rebuild civilization when they can't even go outside without an apparatus that took thousands of years of science to produce? What is the speed divisor for advancement of a society marooned on a world it didn't evolve to live on?

I'm all for Mars colonization, but as a backup plan for Homo sapiens, it kind of sucks.

Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by mrfusion on Friday October 21, 2016 @11:23PM (#12766954)
That's kind of a straw man. Musk envisions a city of a million. No one claims a few hundred is a viable back up.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by edwastone on Saturday October 22, 2016 @11:15AM (#12768993)
Seveneves is a great novel that explore this idea:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22816087-seveneves

Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by ajmurmann on Saturday October 22, 2016 @02:04AM (#12767464)
Sounds like the concept for a great sci-fi novel.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by onewaystreet on Friday October 21, 2016 @10:34PM (#12766765)
> Not everything we do is for the monetary incentive.

It is when a private company is doing it.

Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by DennisP on Saturday October 22, 2016 @09:13AM (#12768554)
It is when a public company is doing it. Privately-owned companies can do whatever the heck their owners want.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by maxerickson on Saturday October 22, 2016 @09:17AM (#12768563)
Public companies can also have whatever mission they want, subject to oversight from the owners.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by DennisP on Saturday October 22, 2016 @11:09AM (#12768959)
Yes but the ownership is open to anyone, so it's a lot easier for activist investors to change the mission to a more profitable one. Musk is keeping SpaceX private specifically to keep this from happening.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ... by pavel_lishin on Friday October 21, 2016 @10:40PM (#12766790)
But this is being driven primarily by one private individual.