James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars' • Hacker News Board

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#51

Post by silvester23 » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #37

silvester23 wrote: post #22

Most of this reads as "this is how it worked for me so it must work like this for everyone". I understand he "enjoys controversy" but it's hard to take someone seriously who says things like "Oh, politicians should just ignore the protests and keep their minds straight. It will go away. It always does. They’ll find another big issue after a little while and switch to something else.", as if protests have never effect…

I read it as sarcasm and cynicism. For someone at 100 years of age and having been involved in several environmental movements it can be exhausting to think of another protest failing. I suspect he'd like it to work but seems more interested in folks making the politicians pay attention by other means.

That's almost diametrically opposed to "politicians should just ignore the protests", though.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#52

Post by unicornmama » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

hising wrote: post #6

He may be a smart dude, but this answer is out there: > "DER SPIEGEL: Cancer is a silent killer that might get diagnosed long after the exposure, when it is too late. > Lovelock: I've had 10 cancers in the last few years and it hasn't been very bad. They just appear and grow. If you go to a good oncologist nearby, they'll take it out. It's just unfortunate for people who let it happen and it grows and grows until it'…

What exactly is wrong here? Many cancers are now treatable - no longer a death sentence. Cancer treatment improvements have snowballed.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#53

Post by socialdemocrat » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

zerr wrote: post #44

nixarn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Mars has an atmosphere unlike the moon, it has water in some form and quantity and has approximately the same length of the day as Earth, plus it has gravity much closer to Earth than what the moon has.

There's the plenty of places on Earth which are uninhabited due to climate conditions. What makes Mars a better place?

Nobody has EVER suggested we should colonize Mars to save ourselves from global warming expect people against colonizing Mars.

We can survive global warming for sure. If we can build habitats on Mars we can do it on Earth. However there are many conditions far worse than global warming which we cannot protect ourselves from: All out nuclear war. Asteroid hitting earth etc.

It is stupid to put all eggs in one basket. Colonizing other planets in the solar system safeguards our future.

You got to start early because it is a very time consuming effort. You cannot suddenly begin colonizing Mars once you discover an asteroid on collision course. It will be too late.

It is an effort that will likely take far more than 100 years to complete.

Humanity also risk regression. Global warming while not killing us could cause such regression in our technological ability and science that we simply loose the ability to send things into space. We have been in dark ages many times before in history. It can happen again.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#54

Post by jcranmer » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

s_dev wrote: post #16

shadowgovt wrote: post #2

Honestly, the moon is a much better goal.

Moon has nothing useful on it other than H3 -- and it doesn't really make us a multi-planet species in the sense we're protected from cosmic dangers (gamma ray burst, red dwarf etc) as the moon is relatively as vulnearable as the Earth to these.

I think you meant Helium-3 instead of H₃ (an ion mostly found in gas clouds in space) or Hydrogen-3 (an isotope with a half life of a decade or so).

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#55

Post by keanzu » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

Perhaps it might have been possible in some long distant past to underestimate Elon Musk and write him off as a crazy person. That time is gone. If Musk appears to be doing something crazy you've not understood it.

> It’s crazy, completely crazy. Elon Musk has read too much science fiction. He got carried away with it. If I were in his position, I would not waste my fortune on colonizing Mars. And all they would learn is how awful it is up there: You can't breathe the air, the pressure of the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of what we have on Mount Everest.

Instead of straw manning Musk and implying he doesn't know about the composition of Mar's atmosphere, try steel manning him and trying to figure out what he's doing.

Musk has captured the imagination of financiers, engineers and the public and gotten them all pulling in the same direction - into space. Musk is marketing, that's his core skill. Mars is the sales pitch that drives SpaceX.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#56

Post by melling » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

unicornmama wrote: post #52

hising wrote: post #6

He may be a smart dude, but this answer is out there: > "DER SPIEGEL: Cancer is a silent killer that might get diagnosed long after the exposure, when it is too late. > Lovelock: I've had 10 cancers in the last few years and it hasn't been very bad. They just appear and grow. If you go to a good oncologist nearby, they'll take it out. It's just unfortunate for people who let it happen and it grows and grows until it'…

What exactly is wrong here? Many cancers are now treatable - no longer a death sentence. Cancer treatment improvements have snowballed.

According to Craig Venter, early detection is what we need to eliminate cancer: https://youtu.be/iUqgTYbkHP8?t=15m37s

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#57

Post by leftyted » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

silvester23 wrote: post #22

Most of this reads as "this is how it worked for me so it must work like this for everyone". I understand he "enjoys controversy" but it's hard to take someone seriously who says things like "Oh, politicians should just ignore the protests and keep their minds straight. It will go away. It always does. They’ll find another big issue after a little while and switch to something else.", as if protests have never effect…

Oh I don't know. I think it's refreshing to hear someone call global warming a serious threat while at the same time dismissing activists as noisy children participating in a fad.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#58

Post by EthanHeilman » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:29 PM UTC

e2le wrote: post #20

nixarn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Mars has an atmosphere unlike the moon, it has water in some form and quantity and has approximately the same length of the day as Earth, plus it has gravity much closer to Earth than what the moon has.

The moon also has water and it's a lot closer. Whatever goes wrong on Mars, it might be months or years before they receive help. Building the technology and experience with something a lot closer might be a better option before moving onto bigger things.

Thats the value of Mars. It forces whatever is built there to be sufficient and is largely a one way trip. A moon base will probably function more like a research station on Antarctica. New supplies will be shipped, people will transition back home every 4-12 months.

For health reasons you'll want to avoid people spending too much time on Lunar gravity. A similar issue exists on Mars, but causes the opposite result. Due to the time scales involved with sending someone to Mars and returning them, it will be a larger health risk for them to return to Earth than stay on Mars (3-9 month trip to Mars + mission time + 3-9 month trip back).

Think about the impact on culture as well. The sort of perspective you have working at a job site that you will only spend 4 months at is very different from the sort of perspective you have working at a home you expect to die in 30 years later. People that don't expect to come back to Earth may have kids on Mars. Most of the Martian kids will not be able to come back to Earth because of cost and health reasons.

A Mars research station is far more dangerous, more likely to fail, but if it succeeds is far more likely to result in long term habitation of an other planetary body.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#59

Post by s_dev » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:30 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #54

s_dev wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moon has nothing useful on it other than H3 -- and it doesn't really make us a multi-planet species in the sense we're protected from cosmic dangers (gamma ray burst, red dwarf etc) as the moon is relatively as vulnearable as the Earth to these.

I think you meant Helium-3 instead of H₃ (an ion mostly found in gas clouds in space) or Hydrogen-3 (an isotope with a half life of a decade or so).

I did -- thankyou. He3.

Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'

#60

Post by socialdemocrat » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #34

nixarn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Mars has an atmosphere unlike the moon, it has water in some form and quantity and has approximately the same length of the day as Earth, plus it has gravity much closer to Earth than what the moon has.

Mars’ atmosphere is less than 1% the density of Earth’s. It’s completely unusable for any practical purpose and would likely cause more problems (dust and erosion) than it would help.

No offense, but you could not possibly be more wrong. While just 1% the quantity of CO2 is enormous and large important resource. With CO2, ice and martian soil you got everything to get plants to grow. Nothing can grow on the moon unless you import carbon.

Also CO2 can be used with electrolysis of water and sabatier reaction to produce methane which can be used as rocket fuel. The fact that the atmosphere is almost pure CO2 makes this much easier to do than on earth. This is also important feedstock for producing plastic.

If you want to build any advance industrial base, you need to be able to produce plastic. This is a huge disadvantage of the moon. You are limited to metals and rock.