Tesla Model 3
- Thread starter USAEBIKECO
- Start date
- Status
markz
100 TW
Arlo1 said:
Well the scenario went like this.
BN - There is in infinite supply of oil on Earth.
NDT - No there is not, there is a finite amount.
BN - Agrees but says, something like we are good for a long long long time. "In our lifetime"
Of course they are like in their late 50's early 60's.
Another point to mention is that NDT talks a lot of how much easier it is to solve Terra's problem then colonizing Mārs.
Basically if you binge watch NDT, he repeats himself over and over and over again.
markz said:
Yeah I think I agree with all of that. But that's not the only reason to make humans a multi planet species. What happens when a big meteorite or something else wipes out all the humans on earth? Also what about traveling to the edge and beyond our solar system... If we are ever going to think about real space travel we need to get working on it and get some data from shorter trips first. I think a moon base and a mars colony are both a must! But the topic I was pointing out is yes we have lots of oil its LOTs and LOTs and we would never run out because we will die from the poisen and climate change that comes from burning it before we can burn it all!
markz
100 TW
Arlo1 said:
Totally off topic, I'd assume. But Neil has an answer to all of that. Asteroid, easier to deflect. Multi-planet, perhaps, but Neil says the only reason usa went to the moon was because of russia's sputnik, a warhead used to get to "space". Cost prohibitive, who do you select, travel time. edge of system, maybe 1000yrs or 500yrs. I say moon too, perhaps a telescope, mining. Neil says the next trillionaire will be the one who can mine space. Last point, climate change. Easier to heal the planet then Mars.
I am all for exploring and colonizing other planets. BUT - when you talk about survival of the human race, it is much much much easier to survive on Earth after a big meteor impact than on any other planet.Arlo1 said:
Global winter that destroys all our crops and causes an ice age? Earth is still warmer, has less radiation and has far more resources than Mars.
Runaway climate change? Again, Earth will be more hospitable than any other planet in our solar system.
Guys its easy to say we can solve for the things we see coming.
But what happens when something comes that we don't see coming. Its the all your eggs in 1 basket attitude. If some of them are on another planet then the human race has a better chance.
Oh and as for solving for things like Climate change how are we doing with that? Oh yeah we can't even agree its real as its already killing us off.
But what happens when something comes that we don't see coming. Its the all your eggs in 1 basket attitude. If some of them are on another planet then the human race has a better chance.
Oh and as for solving for things like Climate change how are we doing with that? Oh yeah we can't even agree its real as its already killing us off.
TheBeastie
1 MW
I see a constant flow of this kind of stuff as I guess social media finds them entertaining.
Twitter and Facebook are just riddled with videos of people showing scary flaws in their Tesla's
https://twitter.com/Trumpery45/status/1051362781411209216
Twitter and Facebook are just riddled with videos of people showing scary flaws in their Tesla's
https://twitter.com/Trumpery45/status/1051362781411209216
I don't really buy that. About the only thing that being on another planet would help us with would be a collision between the Earth and something that pulverizes it completely. And since we've been here about 4 billion years without that happening, odds of it happening in another 4000 are pretty low.Arlo1 said:
If your goal is to give humanity a better chance, investing in things like population control, mitigation of climate change and research into disease is a much better use of that money.
(Not to say that space exploration isn't good in many other ways.)
Humans have not been here for 4 billion years.billvon said:
There would be a lot of things to wipe us out. You are thinking small potatoes....
What about something that kills 90% of us on impact and makes it impossible to grow food so the other 10% die from starvation?
There is an infinite number of possibility than CAN happen. To many people think like you and can't accept they don't know what will happen then when it comes it totally blind sides you guys.
Right. But the planet has been.Arlo1 said:
If that happens, then any place on Earth will still be far, far, far more habitable than Mars.
Ask yourself this. If a meteor hits your home and destroys it - but you escape in time - would you rather be on Mars or Earth?
Uh huh.
Fast forward 50 years. We have bases on the Moon and Mars. Then a passing black hole tweaks the sun and increases its output by a factor of 25 for a decade or so. In the few minutes before you fry on Mars, you think "gee, and to think I thought I knew how to save humanity . . ."
We should plan for (and work to prevent) the likely disasters, not the unlikely ones.
jonescg
100 MW
Awesome, it was about time someone properly derailed this thread :lol:
billvon said:
Haha Trick question.
I was amusing I was living in a space camp on mars. And my home here on earth was destroyed.
What the goal is to have 2 or more planets with humans on them and if one gets wiped out the other will survive.
Right. If your home on Mars was destroyed, you are dead instantly. If your home on Earth is destroyed, you would have to move.Arlo1 said:
Let's take a realistic worst-case. A dinosaur killer scale meteor hits the Earth. Tsunamis destroy much of the coasts. Billions die from the impact, the shock wave and the tsunamis. A pall of dust is blasted into the atmosphere that cools the planet (and blocks the Sun) for decades. Oh no! Everyone is going to die! Quick, get to Mars! We can build some high tech habitats and live there!
Except those high tech habitats are a thousand times easier to build right here. No matter what happens to the Earth, there will still be water and air. There will still be dirt and oil and uranium to be found. A self-sufficient undersea habitat, 500 feet deep, is several times easier to build than a similar Martian habitat. As is a mountaintop habitat, or a habitat in a deep mine, or under a mountain.
So if your goal is for humanity to survive anything Nature can throw at us, your best bet is to build 1000 of those habitats for the cost of a single habitat on Mars.
All that being said, there is still tremendous value in exploring space, and that should be a high priority for us. Not for "species preservation" or anything, but for what we will discover, learn and create.
You keep bringing up single scenereos that you have confidence humans can overcome here.
While forgetting the goal is to have self sufficient humans on another planet. The chance what's left of the humans will be able to rebuild after something really bad happening is impossible to predict because you don't know the extent of the damage to the planet.
While forgetting the goal is to have self sufficient humans on another planet. The chance what's left of the humans will be able to rebuild after something really bad happening is impossible to predict because you don't know the extent of the damage to the planet.
Right. And once we tackle even the Moon, then the technology to transport people and material safely develops a lot more rapidly. There are all kinds of benefits for space exploration.Arlo1 said:
Well, specifically I brought up the worst event in the past 100 million years, which seems like a good "worst case" scenario.
Right. And I am saying for the next 50 years or so, it will be much easier for humans to be self sufficient here than anywhere else - even in that worst case scenario.
billvon said:
Are you one of "those people" who don't think we made it to the moon yet, or are you just saying a moon base would be wise?
It will take a few years to make mars work and I would say about 50 years until its at a point its got a population of above 100 people.
Just saying a moon base would be a good idea - provided we have a mission objective for it. (i.e. a radiotelescope on the far side, or a mine for fuel for orbital operations.)Arlo1 said:
Probably. And probably ~100 years before it is truly self sufficient.
Hillhater
100 TW
But likely much longer..billvon said:
There are still large areas of this planet where it is not possible to have self sufficient communities,...even with a breathable atmosphere, human tolerant temperatures, radiation levels, etc etc.
geckocycles
1 W
Sadly we canceled our model 3 order. We waited for 2 years to get our $38000 car. Then our number finally came up and it was going to cost us close to $60000 if you really wanted to drive it.The tesla was going to cost us $760/mo with $10K down. We got our $1000 back in 2 days! Sad that we waited for 2 years and put up with all the delays for nothing.
We leased the I3 4 years ago but after we moved found that it didn't have the range needed anymore, so it sat for a year and was turned in with only 7000 miles on it.
They put in a charge station at my wifes work so now the I3 was being considered again. We bought a used BMW certified one with 11000 miles on it for $17300 with extended warranty.
For me the Tesla was more practical for lots of reasons but the final hidden costs were not.
We leased the I3 4 years ago but after we moved found that it didn't have the range needed anymore, so it sat for a year and was turned in with only 7000 miles on it.
They put in a charge station at my wifes work so now the I3 was being considered again. We bought a used BMW certified one with 11000 miles on it for $17300 with extended warranty.
For me the Tesla was more practical for lots of reasons but the final hidden costs were not.
- Status
Similar threads
