Live data from Hacker News

Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

bbc.com

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#51
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the moon.

We brought those astronauts home after the mission. What's the point of a suicide mission to Mars?

This seems like a reasonable point to me. We went to the moon a long time ago. Most people alive today were born after we abandoned the moon.

If we're even hazily serious about Mars, it seems like we should spend a couple of decades practicing on the moon. Mars does have a bit of atmosphere (0.6% of Earth's), but with a travel time 100x larger, minor issues quickly turn fatal.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#52
post #38

If a decent-sized asteroid hits the earth, humanity simply ends. That is an unacceptable risk. We become multi-planetary for survival.

True, but it's going to be hard to convince a small group of people to live a miserable, unrewarding live in an unforgiving desert in the off-chance humanity ends in sudden catastrophe.

Elon Musk is already working on that problem.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#53
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the moon.

We brought those astronauts home after the mission. What's the point of a suicide mission to Mars?

Why do you think it would be suicide? Very risky yes, but the plans being proposed do include provision for returning the crew to a Earth.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#54
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that we didn't need it to get to space. There were cheaper alternatives.

I don't understand the cost argument. NASA is allocated less than half a percentage point of your federal budget. $20B is nothing to the United States Government. You could double their budget and DOD would still be spending 16x more. NASA is cheap. Direct your ire at Rockwell, not NASA.

The main problem is not wasting 20B/year, but that this puts a super conservative, risk averse incumbent in the driver seat for technology development which shuts out competition.

SpaceX used up 1B in the first 10 years; I would rather spend that 20B/yr to fund 200 spacex-es. My 2c.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#55
post #38

If a decent-sized asteroid hits the earth, humanity simply ends. That is an unacceptable risk. We become multi-planetary for survival.

True, but it's going to be hard to convince a small group of people to live a miserable, unrewarding live in an unforgiving desert in the off-chance humanity ends in sudden catastrophe.

Uh, no, it's not. There are a great number of people who say they would be willing to live on mars under those conditions basically just for the novelty of it. There are a great number of challenges with colonizing mars. Getting a small group of competent people is not one of them.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#56
post #20

> 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?

To me the existential risk argument is good enough. We'll probably want generation ships too, to live without a planet, but Mars is close enough we can get going on some terraforming ideas and within a short timespan create a real last, best hope for humanity should one of several disasters befall Earth.

Here's another benefit: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" people can leave. And pioneer-spirited in general. Before NA was so colonized, the US used to have a doctrine that if you went out West far enough and worked a piece of land (alone or with a small community) it was yours. Such opportunities aren't around anymore, everything is claimed. On the larger scale, competition in governance models is probably a good thing, if the colony can be made self-sufficient they can get out from the political thumb of whichever parent nations helped set them up.

Of course if I had to pick one future tech to focus on it'd be brain emulation since besides greater consequences that seems feasible on a shorter time scale than terraforming a planet enough for say a million people to live without a dome / in a crater / underground. Non-ems will still probably want to go to Mars but there'd be less urgency for ems who haven't retired. But crater life seems doable even before ems, and we don't need to pick just one thing.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#57
post #38

If a decent-sized asteroid hits the earth, humanity simply ends. That is an unacceptable risk. We become multi-planetary for survival.

True, but it's going to be hard to convince a small group of people to live a miserable, unrewarding live in an unforgiving desert in the off-chance humanity ends in sudden catastrophe.

Some people would see that as a highly desirable vacation from the overcrowding here on earth.

To each his own.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#58

With 7 billion people on the planet and that number only growing, it seems likely that we either find more room for people somewhere or face a massive population die-off event at some point. The humane answer is look for more room to put this burgeoning population of humans. The other answer is likely a case of hell to pay for most people on the planet. Even those who survive will likely be facing serious hardships a…

There are lots of deserts on earth that is pretty much uninhabited. If you are concerned about room for people, you can relax until these places are full as well.

Even the most inhospitable parts of the Sahara desert is much more hospitable than Mars. Its also much more accessible.

There are plenty of good reasons for humans to go to Mars, but getting access to more space for people isn't one of them.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#59
post #58

With 7 billion people on the planet and that number only growing, it seems likely that we either find more room for people somewhere or face a massive population die-off event at some point. The humane answer is look for more room to put this burgeoning population of humans. The other answer is likely a case of hell to pay for most people on the planet. Even those who survive will likely be facing serious hardships a…

There are lots of deserts on earth that is pretty much uninhabited. If you are concerned about room for people, you can relax until these places are full as well. Even the most inhospitable parts of the Sahara desert is much more hospitable than Mars. Its also much more accessible. There are plenty of good reasons for humans to go to Mars, but getting access to more space for people isn't one of them.

If you are concerned about room for people, you can relax until these places are full as well.

"Dig your well before you are thirsty." -- Proverb from somewhere or other.

If we wait until we have completely run out of "room" -- and I am not really thinking of just warehousing people, but room to grow the food for them, etc and support the high quality of life that people in first world countries generally have and people in developing countries generally aspire to -- then you pretty much guarantee failure of that path. Developing options elsewhere takes quite a lot of time and resources. It won't happen overnight.

Re: Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says

#60
post #41

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.

According to Wikipedia: "The goal, as presented by NASA to Congress, was to provide a much less-expensive means of access to space that would be used by NASA, the Department of Defense, and other commercial and scientific users." [1] So yes, if the goal was for it to be cheap and it turned out to be expensive, then it was pretty clearly a failure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Concepti...

I apologize for not providing data to back this up, but I recall reading about how the space shuttle project was derailed by political meddling. Certainly before faulting NASA too quickly, we should probably have some insight into exactly what happened.
Post reply on HN