... - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: cleaningOut
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 06:11:07 am
content: ///

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 06:23:23 am
content: So he fired someone because they could not agree on a salary? What's wrong with that?Also, I'm sure there is more to this story than written.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 06:38:56 am
content: "They said I couldn't fire a guy for being in a wheelchair. Did it anyways. Ramps are expensive!"-not a quote from Elon Musk.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 07:23:06 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on November 22, 2017, 06:38:56 amAnd THAT is illegal under Federal law - the ADA act among other things. Lots of lawyers making lots of money off of ADA lawsuits. Lots of small businesses going out of business after being sued.California, for example, is an employment-at-will state. You can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. OTOH, you don't have a contract so you can walk out at any time for any reason or no reason at all. It always seemed fair to me. In Silicon Valley, you change jobs by turning in the wrong driveway in the morning. If you have any skill at all, somebody is hiring.https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employment-at-will-in-california.aspxNo reason for me to have any feelings one way or the other about Elon Musk. He is doing great things in many areas; cars, batteries, solar, space, etc. He seems to be the real deal! He has recoverable rockets, something NASA never even attempted. He hasn't launched flights to the Moon and back but I wouldn't be surprised if he had the capability.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 09:21:13 am
content: Do you dislike his behaviour, goals or anything in particular about him? Against whom are you comparing him? Nameless faceless consortiums that own/control most other giant companies, putting in CEOs that have instructions to milk that teat vigorously?It seems to me that he's trying to make money while giving a fair bit of damn about other concerns, so, yeah, a definite plus as far as I'm concerned. There are dubious projects, sure, but other companies have them as well, we just don't hear about them that much.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 09:40:29 am
content: No he probably fired him because he is a "business columnist" AKA, not really necessary part in any company. He writes about other people's work. Apparently, that is not an essential part of building cars.That being said, I dont like the management style of Musk. There are too many sources stating he just pushes people too much, even by american standards. You know, "Stressla Motors".

author: expinkolator
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 02:28:46 pm
content: Quote from: cleaningOut on November 22, 2017, 06:27:38 amSure but when he fires them by the thousand you have to wonder how well the business is doing.The business that was staying afloat by issuing junk bonds. Junk bonds Musk personally guaranteed and then to make sure he wouldn't have to pay out on that guarantee he used $2.6 billion of Tesla investor money to buy the company with bullshit claims of great business synergy and profitability between the two and then started firing by the thousand to slow down the rate it haemorrhages money.Musk worshipped by so many fools as a technological visionary is more of a con man.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 03:01:54 pm
content: Quote from: expinkolator on November 22, 2017, 02:28:46 pmSorry, what profitability?Zip2 wan't profitablePaypal wasn't profitable in 2002Tesla doesn't make profitSpaceX is burning money faster than hydrogenMaybe solar city is profitable. But then again, how hard it is to make solar power not profitable?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 03:31:38 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 22, 2017, 03:01:54 pmI smell a dislike of MuskBesides, if you're honestly looking at the profitability of both new technology startups and Silicon Valley short term, you're grossly misunderstanding how both work. Just look at Paypal's current half a billion profit.Of course, unlike Musk's endeavours, most Silicon Valley companies are never intended to be profitable in the first place. A typical business model is to do something new and exciting and get taken over by one of the big boys who do turn a profit. If you don't succeed, try again in 3-6 years. Few ever intend to grow big on their own.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 08:42:46 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 22, 2017, 03:01:54 pmWell, Vivint is in the same business as Solar City and they aren't making money either. Part of the reason is they are fronting all of the costs against future revenue. They provide and install an entire system and get back something like $0.15/kWh generated.An 8 kW array like the one I had at my last house costs Vivint about $22,400 to install. I bought on the order of 1000 kWh/month or about $1800/year. It takes about 12.4 years to break even. This is not the kind of investment I would make. I am taking their $2.80/watt cost from here:https://www.vivintsolar.com/newsroom/press-releases/vivint-solar-announces-second-quarter-2017-resultsThe standard contract duration is 20 years so, eventually, they get their money back. In my favor, I get rid of $0.35/kWh PG&E costs, replace them with $0.15/kWh and put no money into the equipment or installation. Pretty sweet deal!If I had to part with $22k in exchange for a payoff 12 years down the road, I would have never installed solar. Where I worked, if you couldn't get payback in 2 years, the project was dead on arrival.This will be the situation for all "Power Purchase Agreement" installations. Of course there are some people paying full price and pocketing all of the profits. Generally, they will install smaller arrays and come up with less than optimal savings. They also own the equipment and are responsible for maintenance.Then there was Solyndra - a complete financial debacle costing the taxpayers about a half billion dollars with essentially nothing delivered:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolyndraThese emerging technologies are all money losers. What we need to decide is whether it is worth the startup pain for the gains down the road. I think everybody likes solar but they have no idea how much it has cost. It is nowhere near competitive with conventional technologies but it has the advantage of being 'clean'.The current Tesla plant started life as a GM factory in 1962 that lasted until 1982. It was then reopened as the NUMMI plant (GM & Toyota joint venture) in 1984 and continued until 2009. In 2010 Tesla took it over.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Factory#FacilitiesThe factory was always a money loser for GM due to poor quality and strikeshttp://autointell.com/nao_companies/general_motors/gm-manufacturing/gm-nummi/gmnummi.htmThe point is, Silicon Valley is an expensive place to live and an expensive place to manufacture. Tesla would have had a better situation had they gone to Albuquerque as they originally planned. I suspect California dumped more money into the project than New Mexico could afford.Tesla isn't the only auto maker to lose money. GM needed a huge bailout (Ford didn't) and the consolidations over the last 20 years shows just how tenuous auto manufacturing can be.Nobody makes money in the space program. There are no products, no sales, no profits. Yes, it could be considered a boondoggle were it not for the fact that we absolutely must achieve locational diversity if we are to survive. It's pretty clear that NASA is a dead issue so somebody has to work on it. The fact that SpaceX can recover the launch vehicles is pretty slick. NASA never tried to do it!What the space program has done (and continues to do) is spin off technology. Integrated circuits came about when NASA needed smaller computers. These chips have come a long way in the last 50+ years but the impetus was originally NASA. Of course there have been a multitude of other developments along the way.I am amazed at how much Elon Musk has created/developed. I assume he is making a bundle of money and good for him. The detractors have created what, exactly?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2017, 08:49:12 pm
content: We also shouldn't forget Musk is trying to get humans to Mars. I suspect that's not a catchy sales phrase, but the reason for the entire endeavour. We need to get moving and since the space race is long dead, someone else needs to do it. It's all about making it possible, rather than turning a profit.There's something to be said for furthering the human race, rather than furthering your pocket. Not everyone is driven by earning the most money.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 12:54:33 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on November 22, 2017, 08:42:46 pmThat "Pretty sweet deal" is only possible because State or the Feds are fronting the cost. In my State, since subsidies stopped, I no longer see those solar panel installation company trucks driving around anymore. Their near by outlet closed within a couple of months after subsidies ended. In my view, Solar is a real solution only when it becomes economically viable.Same for cars that Mr. Musk makes. In the US State of Georgia, on top of the Fed's $7500 per car subsidy, the State subsidize another $5000. That is $12500 total per car that tax payer is paying. Tesla's sale crashed big time (dropped 90% in sales) when Georgia withdraw its $5000 subsidies. Even at $7500 Fed subsidies, Tesla cannot sustain itself. I don't have the economic stats of that State, but I think it is a good bet that some of those tax paying Georgians can't even afford a new car themselves while they paid for someone else's shinny new toy.While looking up the exact number for Georgia, I ran into this "QZ" magazine article (linked below) indicating that Tesla's reliance on subsidies is not just a USA phenomenon. The same happened in Hong Kong, and in Hong Kong's case, the drop is 100%:Maybe Tesla doesn’t need tax breaks, but they sure help. The end of one tax credit in Hong Kong raised the effective price of a Tesla Model S 60 from $72,900 (HK$570,000) to $118,400 (HK$925,500), similar to the cost of a Mercedes-Benz. After the policy took effect in April, first-time Tesla registrations fell from 2,939 in March to zero the next month. The US saw a comparable drop when the end of a $5,000, Georgia state tax credit in 2015 sent EV sales down 90% over the course of a year.In the US, a federal rebate program gives buyers of electric vehicles a $7,500 tax credit for the first 200,000 electric vehicles (EV) a carmaker delivers. The credit gradually phases out once the manufacturer passes the 200,000 mark. Tesla has already sold more than 100,000 cars in the US.https://qz.com/1025713/teslas-tsla-drop-in-hong-kong-sales-after-the-expiration-of-tax-incentives-wont-really-matter-for-electric-vehicles-in-the-long-run/So, I think this whole Tesla car may not even be a viable product once it has to stand on its own economics. We should stop all subsidies so technology company can begin developing real economically viable solutions rather than wasting tax payers money and pretend to be contributing to society.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 01:04:38 am
content: Isn't that the point? Developing a technology is expensive. Because it's desirable for everyone to have this technology become viable in the long run, current products are subsidized. There's no way a newly developed product can compete with something with over a 100 years of development behind it, and be as cheap when produced in relatively tiny numbers. Governments realize we can't really wait around for it to happen if we want to address our greenhouse woes, so one needs to accelerate the solution. The same applies to solar power. That's even a geopolitical issue, as being dependent on fossil fuels makes you vulnerable. Even if you don't believe in scientific consensus, the politics are very real. That's the reason the US started investing in domestic oil, but everyone knows it can't last.Besides, a few major car manufacturers needed massive injections to stay afloat quite recently, so it's not as if the traditional car manufacturers have a very bulletproof business model.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 02:47:00 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on November 23, 2017, 01:04:38 amWe have different views of the role of government. I suppose that is why it is nice there is over 140 different countries each with its own government so there is a diversity of views and choices.Science is not define by consensus but by facts. It was the general consensus that the earth was flat not so many years ago. Even when facts are not in disagreement, choice of solutions are often the bones of contention. Physicist as renounced as Freeman Dyson has major contention to the assumptions of and solution to global warming. So, "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.(Freeman Dyson is the one who proposed an idea now called the Dyson Sphere. Dyson Sphere is featured in a StarTrek TNG episode with Scotty from the original StarTrek):http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishmentWhile we argue about warming or not warming, on another front, hard data exist that living standard of countries is directly proportional to their energy consumption. That implies increase in energy cost will result in decreases living standard. Lower living standard is correlated to lower average life expectancy. So, higher energy cost = more human deaths.So, while we are here and if we want to be here longer, we need economically viable solutions for us to use. Governments have not been a source of good economics management, so they are the last direction I would look to develop economically viable solutions. Private companies on the other hand live or die by their ability to manage economically. They are a far better choice to develop real economically viable solutions - without government mocking it up by putting its proverbial finger on the scale.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 02:48:47 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on November 23, 2017, 02:47:00 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 03:01:50 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on November 23, 2017, 02:47:00 amThere wouldn't be any battery cars if there wasn't a market and there wouldn't be a market unless the technology was proven. So, for some period of time, the technology gets a cash infusion to get the cars on the road and build customer acceptance. GM has been at the forefront of all-battery cars like the Chevy Spark EV and the Chevy Bolt. Were it not for the discounts, I sure wouldn't be driving a Bolt and neither would anyone else. As a result, they wouldn't be manufactured. Economies of scale don't start on the first day.So, it comes down to whether, in the long run, battery cars are worthwhile. Various levels of .gov think they are. In my county, there is a county tax credit, a state tax credit and a federal tax credit. I think the total is $10k. I don't buy the cars (I have leased them) so I don't personally get the tax breaks.Why lease? I don't want to own any future problems with the batteries. I'll drive them for 3 years and turn them back. Still, I wish I had bought the Spark EV - what a kick to drive!It is absolutely the purpose of .gov to help promote these technologies. If there was no promotion, there would be no progress. Why? Because the stockholders (me) wouldn't let the companies get involved with unprofitable (initially) tech. I'm a stockholder and I expect the companies to enhance my retirement, not crash it by taking huge risks. One of the downsides to a capitalist economy is that nothing is EVER done for the greater good!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 03:10:19 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on November 23, 2017, 02:47:00 amYou could just have said you don't agree with scientific consensus. That would've conveyed the message just fineThe fact that there are outlier scientists only proves the scientific model is in force and functional and the results are properly questioned and reviewed, rather than blindly accepted, which makes it more likely to be correct. The Earth being thought of as flat in the middle ages is a myth, see the link added to this post.However, even if you just believe the living standard should be protected to further the nation and its people, electric cars and solar power are the way to go. We've all seen where oil prices are going and it's not going to get better. As such, you will appreciate an effort to liberate the nation from that burden. Again, even if you flat out refuse to see any connection between global warming and greenhouse gas production, it's still a vital geopolitical move to go electric. Domestic oil will run out, and will become increasingly expensive, which isn't great news for the nation consuming the most by far. Adapt or surrender. No one complains the armed forces aren't turning a profit either.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 03:14:29 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on November 23, 2017, 02:47:00 amYou’ve created quite the ideological based straw man there - a false choice. Government subsidies to encourage development and adoption of new technologies != government economic management of a company (which I’ve seen no one here ever advocate).The historical facts show that almost every ongoing revolutionary new technology introduced in the last 150 years has had some degree of initial and/or ongoing government subsidy. The petroleum industry, nuclear power, hydro power, the gasoline automobile, commercial aviation, pharmaceuticals, the internet, etc, etc, etc.The utopian Randian world you promote has never existed and is not what brought us the technological advances we currently enjoy.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 08:12:22 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on November 23, 2017, 03:14:29 amThe tax deduction for R&D is another way that .gov subsidizes companies. It isn't overt, it's just an acknowledgement that R&D should be undertaken and the costs offset by a reduction in taxable income.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 10:18:43 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on November 22, 2017, 03:31:38 pmWhat? No.The guy is a visionary. I would like to live in the future, that he envisions.Doesn't mean that he made profitable companies though...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 10:34:40 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 22, 2017, 03:01:54 pmHave you noticed that most companies who entered the solar power market exited it in bankruptcy?I don't know who well Solar City is doing financially, but in a booming market most companies lose money and go bankrupt.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 10:49:46 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 23, 2017, 10:34:40 pmNonsense. There are literally thousands of solar PV companies -and there has only been a handful of bankruptcies - at most a very small fraction. That small fraction does get a lot of publicity - but meanwhile thousands of other companies quietly do their business.How many electronics companies have gone bankrupt?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2017, 11:27:40 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on November 23, 2017, 10:49:46 pmThere are a lot of small companies doing installations around the world who I'm sure are doing fine. Try looking at what has happened to US, German, and Chinese manufacturers of solar cells and panels over the past few years and you'll see a blood bath. The companies who still seem to be doing well are mostly in China, but plenty of Chinese makers have been driven out of the market. So far it looks like inverter makers have been more stable. However, the cheaper Chinese inverters have been gradually working out most of their earlier reliability issues, and are looking increasingly solid. They are probably going to reach a tipping point where someone like GroWatt is seen as a reasonable alternative to someone like SMA, and will start to define a baseline price for an inverter. How many makers will be able to live with GroWatt's pricing?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 12:17:01 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 23, 2017, 11:27:40 pmThe facts are that there are thousands of solar installation companies doing fine.There arescores of solar PV manufacturers doing welland no, they aren't all in China. There have only been a handful of bankruptcies of solar PV manufacturers over the past 10 years as PV has become a commodity product -normal attrition - just as always happens with a new growth industry. And just as has happened in many other manufacturing arenas China has come to dominate the overall production numbers - both because of their cheaper manufacturing cost and because China itself is the largest market for new solar installations.There continues to be only a handful of large inverter manufacturers and most seem to be continuing to do well. I know of none that have gone bankrupt.Your initial statement that "most companies who entered the solar power market exited it in bankruptcy" continues to be nonsense and unsupported by the facts.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 01:04:00 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on November 24, 2017, 12:17:01 amI was sloppy in my original wording. I was thinking of equipment makers, especially cell and panel makers, when I wrote that comment. Tesla's SolarCity operation cuts across the lines, making panels and providing services. It appears to have been failing when Tesla stepped in. It had shrunken considerably between 2015 and 2016. I don't know whether it was manufacturing or services which drove that large decline, but across the industry the makers seem have had a much tougher time than the service companies.Quote from: mtdoc on November 24, 2017, 12:17:01 amThat page hasn't been updated for a couple of years, which is a pity. I wonder what the current picture looks like? The long list of production facilities they list seems misleading. Some of those names seem to have been consolidated well before the end of their timeline. For example, they list a Bosch plant from 2013 to 2015, but I believe the Bosch plants went to SolarWorld in 2013. Incidentally, SolarWorld went bankrupt earlier this year.Quote from: mtdoc on November 24, 2017, 12:17:01 amYou greatly understate the number of solar operations closing down or being sold off in the last decade, but the attrition you refer to is what I was originally getting at. I responded to someone implying it was easy to make money in a booming sector. In reality the growing size of a market attracts smart and/or well funded players, who make life very hard for those who aren't as sharp. The resulting shakeout is usually bloody.Quote from: mtdoc on November 24, 2017, 12:17:01 amWhich I agreed with. There have been bankruptcies, but only among the incompetent. I think a shakeout will come, as the low cost producers products are maturing.Quote from: mtdoc on November 24, 2017, 12:17:01 amYeah, the huge number of small installation companies does make my original statement inaccurate, but the cells and panels businesses have been a blood bath.

author: expinkolator
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 03:40:20 am
content: Quote from: cleaningOut on November 24, 2017, 03:08:12 amYou must have a really low head for so much to fly over it.Sacking staff from an insolvent company is not a bad idea. Using $2.6 billion of Tesla investor's money to buy such an insolvent company is also a good idea if you were the one who personally guaranteed the junk bonds it had been issuing to keep afloat. For Tesla investors - not such a good idea.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 08:14:46 am
content: I'm a bit dubious about Musk.It is, I think, an Australian thing-----we've never had the entrepreneur worship thing going like the USA.We look for "feet of clay" in these much vaunted individuals, & a big enough percentage of entrepreneurs have revealed such failings, to make it a good working rule.As far as SpaceX is concerned, how far would Musk have got if he had to start from scratch, without NASA doing the "hard yards" years ago?Of course, it doesn't hurt having government contracts.The private sector in the USA has had its mouth clamped fast on the public teat since the Nineteenth Century, when the Railways were built.In the 20th, such firms as Boeing made military aircraft as their " bread & butter".Civil Aviation has been the beneficiary of this experience, so it is not such a bad thing.Would the original Boeing 707 jetliner have ever appeared without all the development work done on theB47 & B52 bombers?Of course, the Comet was the first real jet airliner, but was before its time.De Havilland, even though they were making military fighter aircraft, had no experience in multi engined heavy jets.(really, when they started its development few, if any, people did)They built the Comet from scratch, making the technology up as they went along.The poor old Comet in the end, was a failure.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 08:21:57 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 23, 2017, 10:34:40 pmHow unsuprising is it that companies in a turbulent new market go through the cycle faster than usual?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 08:46:10 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on November 24, 2017, 08:14:46 amNothing is developed in a vacuum and it's always based on the hard work of others. The Comet was built on the work of both English and German war time engineers. In fact, a lot of our modern technology can be traced back to the German war effort, including the moon landings and anything else space related.You can't get more "foot in the clay" than making the first useable rocket that lands upright. Many people like to talk, but very few people can walk the walk. You can't deny Musk is doing things others don't. Whether it's commercially viable is another story, but no one will care in 50 years, yet we'll still benefit from the progress made. I don't think many people understand how hard it is to do things that haven't been done before, and how much more time and energy is involved compared to replicating something that's been done.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 03:40:34 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on November 24, 2017, 08:46:10 amI agree. I'm not saying Musk is always right but at least he doesn't do things half assed. Doing things half assed is a guarantee for failure.

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 04:14:33 pm
content: I have a lot of respect for Musk. The way he made the electric car feasible, not by pressing our 'green' buttons, but by making a battery powered car that leaves any ordinary Porsche in the dust, is next to brilliant.What I fail to understand is his whole SpaceX enterprise. Why on earth the very same guy that came up with the Tesla Roadster puts money and effort in an 8 year old's pipe dream is beyond me. Colonizing Mars? Becoming a multi-planet species? Get real. We're not even able to manage one planet. I say put that effort and money in making this planet a nice place to live. Much less sexy, but a way better ROI.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 04:17:41 pm
content: Quote from: woody on November 24, 2017, 04:14:33 pmWhy not both?Besides, it's not a pipe dream if you make it happen. That what I think is neat about what he does. Rather than moaning about the state of space flight and lack of interest of governments, he just tried to rent a rocket and decided building his own would be better. Get real? Sure. Give the guy a few years.

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 04:34:09 pm
content: It is not so much that I do not see him realize this (he most likely will) as it is that I do not see any advantage in it. Why would we want to be able to fly to Mars (which takes a year, Musk is not going to change the basic physics) to try and make that planet habitable, one rocket payload at the time, while we live on a beautiful planet with all the resources we'll ever need available to us. It takes billions of years before our sun explodes and we _need_ to relocate (and not to Mars). We can live here for many more moons if we manage to clean up our act. The mother ship is where the money and effort should go first. Not into the lifeboat.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 05:01:36 pm
content: Quote from: woody on November 24, 2017, 04:14:33 pmHave you been following along with the 'locational diversity' argument? If we don't get off this planet and colonize another, we are doomed to extinction at some point.Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking have both talked about this concept although their ideas of causation are different. Feynman seemed worried about foreign object impacts and Hawking is worried about climate change.https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/20/15836426/stephen-hawking-colonize-other-planetsHawking suggests we have less than 100 years to get somewhere else. The US space program is about 50 years old and we have made great progress but much is left to be done, only the US can do it and we have lost the will.Maybe somebody with vision and money can improve our outlook.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 05:02:09 pm
content: Quote from: woody on November 24, 2017, 04:34:09 pmUntil the next dinosaur killer asteroid decides to blow us back to the stone age, or some other catastrophe manages to take us out.I personally don't understand the Mars fixation though. I think we should expand into Earth orbit first, then the Moon, and finally the asteroid belt. By time we're done with that we should be able to handle Mars.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 05:05:59 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on November 24, 2017, 05:02:09 pmWhat's interesting about the asteroid belt? It's the one place where impacts and collisions happen a lot.Also, due to Mars' atmosphere, you are protected against a lot of things without trying. The Moon doesn't has an atmosphere, magnetosphere and the dust wreaks havoc on technology due to it being razor sharp. Gravity is also more favourable and less likely to bring huge medical problems.The only reason not to go to Mars is pretty much the distance, which means you have to establish a permanent base right away. A permanent base on the Moon wouldn't be much easier, though, you just get more leeway when you cock up and keep a rescue rocket ready.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2017, 06:05:51 pm
content: Quote from: woody on November 24, 2017, 04:14:33 pmI agree. We'll never find a better planet than Earth. Even in it's semi damaged and resource depleted state, it's orders of magnitude better suited to support human life than any other reachable planet will ever be. Evolution has seen to that.The physicists and engineers who propose this seem to have a very poor grasp of human physiology and its requirements for long term survival.Why should we expend vast resources on ill fated quests to colonize and make habitable another planet when we haven't even demonstrated an ability to provide good stewardship to the one planet uniquely suited to supporting human life?Are we no better thanBill Peets Pollutians?