Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Will We Get Off Mars?

news.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#61

Post by DarkTree »

Nadya wrote: post #58
Pinckney wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the perpetuation of Homo Sapiens a moral imperative?

Why is being nice to others a moral imperative? In fact - why should any decision be based off morals? The continuation and survival of the human race is the top priority among a large population of people. Some contribute by researching new medicines (Why do this?), others improve quality of life for others (Why do this?), others have children (Why do this?), and others look for a way to get us away from a potential…

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but I think there are some key differences with your analogy.

The goal of colonizing another planet would give a small subset of people the ability to continue living if the people on Earth were to destroy themselves. This is a hypothetical situation that -if it happens- will kill off almost everyone, dragging hopes, dreams, money, infrastructure, standards of living (basically everything that makes life enjoyable) with it. So if that is destroyed, why does it matter if humans continue living as a species? Especially on an extremely harsh planet.

Your analogous examples differ because all of those things -medicine, quality of life, children, even sustaining our environment- help us now. We do those things to make our own lives longer, improve our own children's lives, and make our quality of life greater, not some hypothetical future civilization away from Earth. You're right that humanity's best interest is survival, but I think way more people are concerned with their own survival and I think that's where the true incentives for those examples lie.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#62

Post by Armisael16 »

madaxe_again wrote: post #22

The whole single-purpose type solution that seems to consistently be proposed here bothers me. I mean, yes, I understand that one has to start somewhere , and that the conditions one would need to meet on other bodies would be radically different - but as an engineer "niche" solutions bother me, and type solutions are almost universally better. I fear that for as long as we un-necessarily bind ourselves to limited an…

The hardest part of any Mars flight is simply getting from Earth's surface to LEO. That step literally costs more delta-v than the rest of the mission combined, and nuclear rockets really aren't up to that challenge - NTRs don't have the TWR, and I don't really think Orion needs explaining on that front.

The other thing is that we can get to Mars with chemical rockets. Using an NTR wouldn't make the journey meaningfully faster - we'd just bring a larger payload - and while I'm sure that almost everyone would rather triple engine Isp, personally I'd rather just go to Mars already instead of waiting for another couple decades.

If we do start spreading out into space, the vast majority of our early trips will be to the moon or to Mars. Don't overengineer the problem - an cheap and adequate rocket now is better than an excellent rocket later.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#63

Post by Amezarak »

dimitriye98 wrote: post #29
lisper wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Why? The truth is that Mars is a pretty miserable place for humans. It's cold. It's dry. It's dusty. I just came back from a trip to northern Canada, and it was a pretty bleak, desolate place, but it's a tropical paradise compared to Mars. So what makes Mars so cool? I really don't get it. The only thing I can imagine is that people think it's cool because they have no clue what it would really be like.

Well, if we get a self-sufficient mars colony up, nuking ourselves will become survivable.

So why colonize Mars, and not the Moon?

The Moon is much closer and you're facing similar problems - low gravity and virtually no atmosphere or no atmosphere. At the same time you eliminate the long trips that would complicate Mars colonization.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#64

Post by rjmunro »

Why do we have to send the whole ascent vehicle in advance? Why not just send the fuel tanks and some fuel making equipment, then use the cabin, life support, maybe even the rocket motors etc. from the descent vehicle to finish the craft?

Going even further, if a combined descent/ascent vehicle could bring down empty fuel tanks, the fuel making equipment could stay on mars and make fuel to supply the next mission.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#65

Post by Pinckney »

Nadya wrote: post #58
Pinckney wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the perpetuation of Homo Sapiens a moral imperative?

Why is being nice to others a moral imperative? In fact - why should any decision be based off morals? The continuation and survival of the human race is the top priority among a large population of people. Some contribute by researching new medicines (Why do this?), others improve quality of life for others (Why do this?), others have children (Why do this?), and others look for a way to get us away from a potential…

"The continuation and survival of the human race is the top priority among a large population of people. Some contribute by researching new medicines (Why do this?), others improve quality of life for others (Why do this?), others have children (Why do this?), and others look for a way to get us away from a potentially doomed planet in case of disaster scenarios."

The vast majority of medical research goes to diseases that pose no existential threat to Homo Sapiens. Even Malaria, which kills upwards of 500,000/yr, does not pose any existential threat. Late-life diseases such as alzheimers have no effect whatsoever on Homo Sapiens, yet receive substantial funding. No, medical research largely serves to decrease human suffering, a goal which I do regard as noble.

Likewise, why does increasing quality of life matter? Humans will continue to reproduce even in conditions of abject poverty. What does quality of life have to do with anything? (You, after all, seem to think putting humans in a thin metal tube and hurling them through space to live out their life on a cold, barren rock is important. Surely you don't think this would increase their quality of life).

As for children, I have no clue what people see in them. But they seem to reproduce because having children makes them happy, not out of some perceived obligation to Homo Sapiens.

My point isn't that you need to share my morals. My point is that you should acknowledge your morals are not universal.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#66

Post by yongjik »

dimitriye98 wrote: post #29
lisper wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Why? The truth is that Mars is a pretty miserable place for humans. It's cold. It's dry. It's dusty. I just came back from a trip to northern Canada, and it was a pretty bleak, desolate place, but it's a tropical paradise compared to Mars. So what makes Mars so cool? I really don't get it. The only thing I can imagine is that people think it's cool because they have no clue what it would really be like.

Well, if we get a self-sufficient mars colony up, nuking ourselves will become survivable.

It's much cheaper to make global superpowers economically dependent on each other, so that "nuking ourselves to extinction" event does not arise. With the added benefit of better economy. (Well, to be fair, trying to send a dozen people to Mars will also generate a lot of economic activity, so maybe it's a moot point.)

Also, even with the worst kind of nuclear war we can imagine, the number of people still clinging to the edge of survival on, say, New Zealand will easily surpass the biggest Martian colony we can optimistically imagine for the next 300 years.

So, if we're really that worried about our survival as a species, build a nuclear bunker in New Zealand. Actually, build one in every nation on earth. I'll bet it will be still cheaper than going to Mars.

Going to Mars is "cool", and I do want to see it in my lifetime, but treating it as some kind of insurance for mankind just doesn't make sense.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#67

Post by xorcist »

dimitriye98 wrote: post #29
lisper wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Why? The truth is that Mars is a pretty miserable place for humans. It's cold. It's dry. It's dusty. I just came back from a trip to northern Canada, and it was a pretty bleak, desolate place, but it's a tropical paradise compared to Mars. So what makes Mars so cool? I really don't get it. The only thing I can imagine is that people think it's cool because they have no clue what it would really be like.

Well, if we get a self-sufficient mars colony up, nuking ourselves will become survivable.

If that was the end goal, it would be far easier and far far cheaper to colonize the bottom of the ocean, or deep cave systems. That's just as safe from nuclear war as Mars and much more livable.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#68

Post by rurban »

lisper wrote: post #25

This is probably not going to be a very popular position but I'm going to say it anyway: there is no rational reason to bring a human back from Mars. In fact, there are precious few rational reasons to send a human to Mars to begin with. Robot technology has advanced to the point where they can do all the science better than we can. The only reason to send humans to Mars is to colonize, and if we're going to think se…

Well Ron, you've got a big advantage over all the other folks here. You've almost been there already by yourself with your remote agent for the DS1. (Ron built the remote agent SW when he was at the JPL/NASA: http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html)

So your opinion is a good one, but will not impress the big masses. The same held for the moon. A purely political accomplishment for the US. And a big one.

Colonizing the Mars with the current rocket tech will not work. But maybe with the upcoming ion drives. They look good.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#69

Post by lisper »

rurban wrote: post #68
lisper wrote: post #25

This is probably not going to be a very popular position but I'm going to say it anyway: there is no rational reason to bring a human back from Mars. In fact, there are precious few rational reasons to send a human to Mars to begin with. Robot technology has advanced to the point where they can do all the science better than we can. The only reason to send humans to Mars is to colonize, and if we're going to think se…

Well Ron, you've got a big advantage over all the other folks here. You've almost been there already by yourself with your remote agent for the DS1. (Ron built the remote agent SW when he was at the JPL/NASA: http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html ) So your opinion is a good one, but will not impress the big masses. The same held for the moon. A purely political accomplishment for the US. And a big one. Colonizing…

> You've almost been there

DS1 didn't go to Mars. I did work on the research program that was the precursor to the Sojourner mission, but I didn't work on any of the Mars missions themselves. So I haven't been to Mars any more than anyone else.

Re: How Will We Get Off Mars?

#70

Post by greglindahl »

phire wrote: post #48
jackgavigan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ..lifting a Dragon 60m into the air to integrate it back onto its launcher. Why would you need to do that? Why not land the Falcon (Edit: Actually, it might be a Raptor) with the Dragon already on top of it?

Raptor is the engine. Though it's unlikely anything baring the Falcon name will ever leave low earth orbit, it's just too specialised for the job of leaving earth's surface. It's not even designed to stay in LEO, they go out of the way to make sure it falls back into earth's atmosphere within a orbit or two (often less than a single orbit). You want to design a new craft from the ground up with the job ascending from…

I know what you meant to say by "unlikely anything baring the Falcon name will ever leave low earth orbit", but note that the Falcon 9 upper stage drops off the satellite in Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) for every geosynch launch. Presumably DSCOVR's launch to L1 also involved some kind of not-low transfer orbit. And the 2nd Falcon heavy launch is planned to send the upper stage to much higher than LEO, where it will drop off a variety of small satellites, including Lightsail-B.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit

Post reply on HN