It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth • Hacker News Board

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#271

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #105

save_ferris wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that great advancements have cost. The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. If people start to think that space exploration could yield a solution to an increasingly uninhabitable climate on Earth, it could create a scenario where we spend even more on space exploration and less on addressing Earth's climate.

>The argument is that focusing on space exploration deflects from facing the realities of climate change on our planet. Does it? It's not an either/or proposition. Researching and developing technologies to allow humans to live in space in a sustainable way seems like it would almost certainly also create applications of such technology that can benefit us on Earth. Whether that's methods to scrub the atmosphere of a…

>As an aside, I'd point out that even if we start colonizing space habitats, other planets and/or even planets around other stars, there are no technologies available or imagined that could transport colonists from the Earth faster than birth rates would replace them and continue population growth.

Yeah, you should avoid needing that but it is certainly not impossible given high enough tech level & in-space infrastructure. Launch loops and orbital elevators should have more than enough capacity to enable that.

For a science-fiction-backed-by-real-science account of it might go, see this Orions Arm article: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/49b46fd2198ed

Much bigger problem actually is where to put those billions once you have to move them in a hurry off a planet.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#272

Post by cma » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

johnmorrison wrote: post #13

This is frankly a blatantly wrong and quite foolish argument. Space exploration has already created many significant benefits for humanity on Earth , by advancing hundreds of new technologies with terrestrial applications and launching satellite networks that support a safer, more peaceful world for humans, with improved agricultural efficiencies as well as advanced warning and a better understanding of extreme weath…

> provide net benefit at all to the people of Earth.

Are you saying there might be an overall net benefit, but not a net benefit to everyone individually? I'm fine with extra support for the disabled even if everyone else doesn't necessarily get an individual net benefit from it. Everything doesn't need to be pareto optimal, it is just a no brainier when it is.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#273

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #116

keiferski wrote: post #92

I don't know, I can't help but feel like nearly all of our solutions to contemporary problems involve space travel, specifically self-contained space travel (i.e., when spaceships become within an order of magnitude as affordable as houses or automobiles.) The universe is essentially limitless from a human point of view, so to be perpetually stuck on Earth seems like a failure of perspective. - Oppressive government…

You are really underestimating exponential growth in your assertion that there is no such thing as overpopulation on a universal scale. If human population is doubling say, every century, then the time it takes for us to go from populating the earth to the entire galaxy in less than 4000 years[1], and from there to the entire universe in less than another 4000. [1]: There are a few trillion planets in our galaxy. If…

>If you asssume the mean population supported by a planet is within an order of magnitude of what Earth can support the math holds

Theoretically if you shred earth for material and build habitats from that, it can definitely support much more than a magnitude more.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#274

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

phizy wrote: post #167

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single correct thing in that, I believe! Life on Earth has evolved to live in hundreds of dissimilar environments. Heavy salt is toxic, yet fish manage the ocean. Yellowstone has life in mud pots at hundreds of degrees. Air doesn't exist underground yet bacteria thrive there. Hell, there are living things on the surface of the space station. To get people to tolerate more salt, we'd have to have a fish's abilit…

>In 40 generations of space colonization, that's 40 times 30,000 times however long it takes to rebuild the capability on each colony. Assuming each generation survives. Stop making that assumption, and see how many ways there are for you to reach a similarly empty universe. >It's not optimism; its simple observation of what we have already on Earth in existing life forms. I wish you'd observe that none of Earth's li…

>I wish you'd observe that none of Earth's lifeforms have colonies on other planets. Goldfish didn't colonize other worlds, is that then a strong argument that Goldfish don't exist?

I would not be so sure about dolphins. ;-)

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#275

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #174

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That thinking is about a decade out of date. The number of expolanets that are in the habitable zone grows geometrically. Some think every star has some planets. Simple chance makes it possible to find agreeable destinations nearly everywhere. And 'evolutionary adaptation' is irrelevant. We can change ourselves (are changing ourselves) genetically already. That will only increase. The result will be a species more ad…

You're ignoring what I believe to be the most important point: how do we know that is actually possible to build an interstellar colonial vessel? Or, to bring a concrete element to the question: all known rocket fuels require some nonrenewable Earth resource. How much fuel does it take to launch a vessel built with currently-known technology that would be capable of landing a living human being on a hypothetical plan…

Well, the ideal chemical rocket fuel is hydrogen + oxygen - eq. the two things that make up water. Thats perfectly renewable once you pump some energy into it to split water into the two.

Methane + oxygen popular in the new generation of rockets is not much different, you basically add some carbon to the process & Methane can be made on Mars from local resources.

Best fuel for nuclear thermal rockets is again hydrogen, abundant everywhere.

Current Ion Engines run on noble gases, but supply does not seem to be a problem so far.

Sure, the uranium needed for Orion and Nuclear Salt Water rocket indeed is not really renewable but given the performance &opening the way to grab more of it from space make it a non-issue as well.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#276

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

cthalupa wrote: post #231

defterGoose wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| I don't know You certainly don't. You have a serious misunderstanding of the sheer scale involved in space travel. Its great to think that an individual will be able to pack up their space car in 200 years and move on out west to mars or something, but there literally wont be anything to do but crash land once you get there, or maybe if you're lucky, walk around for a few hours before suffocating. Im not saying it'…

Terraforming planets in a meaningful way anytime soon is a pipe dream, but someone in 200 years very much could get in their space car and go to a different space habitat. O'Neill cylinders have already been mentioned here. There's no scientific reason we are aware of that would make living in artificial habitats worse than living on a planet, and a lot of reasons that it would be better. It's just that those of us t…

>Someone born on an O'Neill cylinder or similar will likely have no such compunctions.

"You can't really control the weather, it varies by the year and there is earthquakes and flash floods at random ? Not to mention no Free-Fall-Racing ? How the hell have you survived till now down there ??"

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#277

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:47 PM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #111

freeqaz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we captured an asteroid we would immediately double or triple the world's supply of metals like platinum. They simply are not plentiful for us on the crust. I like to believe that we can achieve this within our lifetime. Having the price of certain rarer metals come down significantly would be amazing!

Are there projects that required more rare metals than exist on earth? I agree that it would be nice to have more things, but I'm skeptical of the numbers working out. The Apollo program brought back ~850lbs of moon rocks and cost ~$150bn. Obviously the primary purpose of the program wasn't mining, but I think what I said above applies. It might work out and we might get a lot, but we should make investment choices w…

From the top of my head making all wires out of gold you would get much better conductivity & avoid the issues copper has with oxidation. I'm sure there are examples for other currently expensive materials.

Also aluminum used to be super expensive and only used for jewelry until it became dirt cheap and is used for about anything.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#278

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #99

aeturnum wrote: post #88

I agree that for every resource we need, getting that resource on earth (if it exists on earth) will always make more sense than seeking it in space. Humanity should always seek to fulfill its needs from terrestrial sources. We shouldn't mistake space exploration for infrastructure building. At the same time - this doesn't mean we shouldn't explore space! Just that we should understand that exploration as low-to-no-r…

Once the bulk of humanity is 'in space' (on planetary bodies or in stations outside of earth) then the goalposts change! Sending things back to sad ol earth becomes unsupportable.

Well, Earth has one big advantage for sending something back - the atmosphere! Free deceleration and semi automatic landing system (add parachutes & airbags as necessary)!

Just make sure to choose the right entry angle and speed, or else the locals won't like you. Either for burning op their packages or due to delivering them rather too directly to the surface at high speed.

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#279

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

brundolf wrote: post #7

"He’d captured strange and distant worlds in greater detail than ever before. They were beautiful, magnificent, full of awe and wonder. But beneath their sublime surfaces, there was nothing. No love or hate. No light or dark. He could only see what was not there, and miss what was right in front of him."

Nothing busy settlers with space habitats can't fix. Wait a few hundred years and you might get a place even more vile than Tatooine! ;-)

Re: It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

#280

Post by m4rtink » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

pedroma wrote: post #137

Santosh83 wrote: post #17

Unfortunately it looks like when we finally make it as a space-borne species, we won't be going as humans or Earthlings but as Americans or Chinese or Russians or... and carry our conflicts out into the solar system as well.

My guess is it stops mattering the further civilizations stray from Earth. You'd more likely to be treated as an Earthling or Martian or whatever once you zoom out.

Longer term you might even meet aliens - completely foreign and different from yourself! Only to find out afterwards it's just some other human colonists that have adapted to their favorite environment.