31–40 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it did go to space, numerous times. Just because the budgeting projections were way off doesn't make it a failure.
I think the point is that we didn't need it to get to space. There were cheaper alternatives.
Robotics have improved exponentially since the moon landing - where before humans may have been necessary, autonomous landers etc. are now cheaper and more capable. Why risk the lives?
I couldn’t convince anyone. Perhaps if some of the people realize how much time has past, they’ll realize that we can move much faster with robots:
So this is the part I don't get, re: "What's pushing us to go to Mars?", some time ago someone said the same of going to the Moon. There was no good main reason for going to the moon, other than the US and the USSR having who's got a bigger d k war. The reality I feel, is this time we do have a good reason, to actually kick start off-planet habitable zones that we'll reap the benefits years and years into the future
My intuition suggests this is physically impossible. My assumption is that these habitable zones would be required to generate the necessities of life in an environment devoid of any of them. Nutrients, oxygen, water... we could make recycling them very efficient, but there's always some loss. And even if you had zero loss, that's insufficient. If you're going to make a habitable zone that can support new population,…
Mars is not "devoid" of these things. It requires some energy to get them into usable form, but all of the basic chemical elements needed for life are there on Mars. Similar remarks apply to many other planets and similar objects (like satellites of the gas giants).
Robotics have improved exponentially since the moon landing - where before humans may have been necessary, autonomous landers etc. are now cheaper and more capable. Why risk the lives?
So far, no robot we've sent has been better at tool use than a human. Sure, they don't require life support or consumables, so their longevity is extraordinary, but man, there are so many things that took decades to test for with the robots that a single manned mission would've been able to solve in a few days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the cost:benefit ratio to long term colonization of an inhospitable planet?
I imagine many had a similar view of sailing across the Atlantic before word spread of riches in the New World.
Settling mars is like colonizing the Sahara desert, except this time with no oxygen or camels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the cost:benefit ratio to long term colonization of an inhospitable planet?
I imagine many had a similar view of sailing across the Atlantic before word spread of riches in the New World.
The value proposition just isn't there for colonization of Mars. If you want to say you did it for bragging rights, then just say it. Anything else is foolishness.
Anders went to space in ‘68. I think he’s lost the spirit of adventure he must have had to do so. Putting a human on Mars will be one of the pinnacles of human achievements, even a small ultimately failed colony an unbelievable achievement. I support both wholeheartedly.
On Apollo 8, which got to orbit the Moon but not land there. Anders didn't get any further Apollo missions, so he never got a chance to actually land on the Moon. I wonder if that might be coloring his opinions.
If a decent-sized asteroid hits the earth, humanity simply ends. That is an unacceptable risk. We become multi-planetary for survival.
Robotics have improved exponentially since the moon landing - where before humans may have been necessary, autonomous landers etc. are now cheaper and more capable. Why risk the lives?
Life risk aside, the rovers are in many ways significantly less capable than humans. For instance, it took decades for us to send a rover than could "see" just a bit into the martian rocks by hitting them with a laser or using a small drill. During the moon landings, you just had an astronaut hit one with a rock pick and look inside. It took decades for us to be comfortable sending a rover with a small shovel which c…
For the same amount of money as sending humans to Mars, we can develop better robots. Those robots will also be useful on earth of course.
From HN in 2014:
Someone dying is devastating. Trying to conquer space a handful of people at a time is the slow and dangerous way of accomplishing this task. We should be building machines to explore the solar system. This can be done for a fraction of the cost, time, and it will allow him to allow us to iterate quickly. In 100 years, more humans will live off earth if we iterate with machines, etc now than if we move slowly trying to reduce the risk in order to keep humans safe.
> Musk and Bezos, they're talking about putting colonies on Mars, that's nonsense. Probably kind of people which were telling "They're talking about landing rockets, that's nonsense".
What is the cost:benefit ratio to long term colonization of an inhospitable planet?
Huge, absolutely huge. We are resource constrained on earth. We are at risk of extinction from a huge number of not-that-small probability events. We could all do with some inspiring things in our lives.
It's so huge it's hard to quantify, because it starts bringing in to question fundamental values. What do you think we, as a collection of smart and capable people, as a nation, as a civilization, as a species, or otherwise ought to be trying to achieve?
The maximum happiness for the maximum number of us possible? Gaining access to another planets resources and a defense against extinction events is almost certainly a step in the right direction?
The most impressive legacy possible? Colonizing another planet seems to be our best shot at that.
Making the next generation proud of us? Well, I mean, look at things we admire the previous generation for. I think the moon landing is up their and it's a hell of a lot less impressive.
Minimizing human suffering? Well yes, then I suppose you don't want to colonize mars, instead you want to start a nuclear war or burn a lot of coal or something.
Maximizing some reasonable average of human suffering and happiness? Well, that's a vague goal so it's harder to argue to, but the benefits are clear, both in longevity of our species and happiness of the members of it. I think it's pretty clear that inspiration and achieving grand goals is very important to human happiness.
Of course, the first thing I said is the issue. What's the expected utility of attempting colonization. Colonizing mars is pretty unlikely to succeed, so it's far lower than the utility of a successful colonization. Still, I think supporting SpaceX is probably a worthwhile investment for our species/civilization/nation/... currently.