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

Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 150 posts

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#141

Post by ben_w »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #99
jerf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't come up until space is truly independent of Earth, resource wise. That will be long enough that by the time it happens, they may not have any connections to Earth. Plus, back on Earth, you have all the normal limitations of the gun barrel. If Nigeria doesn't like what Brazil is doing in space, Nigeria is still going to find it challenging to threaten the Brazilians doing space work with guns. And to the…

There are countries today that are still very much dependent on global trade who have still gotten or fought for their independence.

There's multiple levels of "dependent".

I won't say there's never been a country that has fought for independence while simultaneously needing global trade for 100% of their food and water[0], but there definitely hasn't been a case of a country needing global trade for the literal oxygen they breathe.

Two moons colonies, one that has farms and one that doesn't, I would expect to have very different prospects.

[0] Though I've never heard of such a case, my history isn't good enough to make that claim. And no, mere famine isn't a strong enough example for this, those can be monstrously catastrophic without being existential.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#142

Post by JohnMakin »

dotnet00 wrote: post #128
JohnMakin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure that it's been proven these distances are navigable on human timescales. I know solar sails have been theorized, but aren't we very far from seeing that kind of technology as a reality? Say we spend ~100 years going to a planet to collect data. What then? What do we do with that data? If the universe is teeming with intelligent life - it would have to be very VERY local in our galaxy to make any kind…

To be clear, by "in a hundred years" I don't mean that with current technology it'd take the sail a hundred years to get there, I mean that by improving the tech for a hundred years with an extrasolar destination in mind, we'd be able to send a probe that arrives there on human timescales. Currently there have only been low-orbit tests of solar sails, they need much more development to go interstellar, but not so muc…

Thank you for explaining this

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#143

Post by jfengel »

londons_explore wrote: post #35
jfengel wrote: post #21

I personally don't much care what we develop on the moon. It's a rock. I'm more concerned with Mars. Mars potentially had life, once. There's even a vague chance that it might still, somehow. Evidence for either would be extremely precarious. Unlike the Moon, every bit of waste vented into the atmosphere is going to be carried around the entire planet by the wind, tainting everything. If it were up to me, I'd declare…

I would argue that there is very little value to us of a few bacterial cells who might exist down some cracks on mars. There will never be a time we have fully searched for life there, and even if there was something there to find, I think we could probably identify it even with contamination from us.

The existence of a second kind of life somewhere in the universe would be extraordinary. It would double the number of life-creating events we'd be aware of. It would take the number of off-earth origins of life from 0 to 1.

To the degree that it's different from ours, it would vastly expand the scope of what we understand "life" could be. Or to the degree that it's similar, that would tighten the boundaries a bit. Even if it turns out to be just meteorite-driven contamination from earth, it would be hugely informative to know it could work.

Of course there's no need for us to look forever. A century would more than do it. Even a decade of really concerted effort would be hugely informative; we'd either find it or not.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#144

Post by jerf »

ben_w wrote: post #141
kjkjadksj wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are countries today that are still very much dependent on global trade who have still gotten or fought for their independence.

There's multiple levels of "dependent". I won't say there's never been a country that has fought for independence while simultaneously needing global trade for 100% of their food and water[0], but there definitely hasn't been a case of a country needing global trade for the literal oxygen they breathe. Two moons colonies, one that has farms and one that doesn't, I would expect to have very different prospects. [0] Th…

Yes, a space colony would be very unlikely to ever be "fully" independent of Earth. Why would they cut off trade? Surely cutting off relations to Earth would always come with some price.

But, there's prices, and there's prices. Earth history can tell you all about that.

I mean, we're witnessing how this is a continuum and not a binary thing right now, as East and West are decoupling. Will they decouple fully? Doubt it. Will they perhaps recouple someday? Perhaps. Is there a price to this decoupling? Yes, on both sides, but apparently the sides consider it worth it, because it's happening.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#145

Post by ajmurmann »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #122
ajmurmann wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue might be landing anywhere near it to construct the telescope. We are probably pretty far away from landing on the near side of the moon and then building roads or train tracks to the far side and creating a flat area.

When in orbit around the moon, you have complete freedom to choose the landing site. If you're worried about communication, a relay satellite is way cheaper and easier than cables or roads. There's no need to build roads or tracks from the near side to the far side.

Don't you need a large flat area to land safely?

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#146

Post by ben_w »

ajmurmann wrote: post #145
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When in orbit around the moon, you have complete freedom to choose the landing site. If you're worried about communication, a relay satellite is way cheaper and easier than cables or roads. There's no need to build roads or tracks from the near side to the far side.

Don't you need a large flat area to land safely?

In principle, no; in practice, a few recent attempts to land on a mild slope have immediately fallen over, so we clearly need some practice.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#147

Post by odyssey7 »

dguest wrote: post #11
acimim_ha wrote: post #4

> locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. Doesn't get me particularly excited personally. Scientists should be aware other people have different interests. I want a futurama lunapark. In the end, government is going to decide. After some war/conflicts. Just like on Earth.

I want a lunapark too. Until then I'm just another stupid scientist. But I'm aware that other people have different interests. I think the people who are calling for areas to be preserved are aware too, which is why they are trying to start a dialogue.

This dialogue from Smithsonian Magazine seems somewhat confused. Protecting the moon from development is a valid position to take; and somehow, to the contrary, the article promotes various scientific development projects. It's disingenuous to advocate for position A while calling it position ¬A.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#148

Post by odyssey7 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #55

So many commenters seem to be missing the point of this article. None of this is about "preserving the environment". Its about how to allocate the moon's scarce natural resources, such as sites with cold temperatures necessary for astronomy, areas with no radio interference for radio astronomy, and mining sites rich in natural resources such as helium-3. Some of these sites overlap with each other and would require c…

Instead of "scientists are calling for the moon to be better protected from development," it could have been titled: "scientists say they deserve first dibs on developing the lunar surface."

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#149

Post by gwbas1c »

jncfhnb wrote: post #135
gwbas1c wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they even scarce in our own solar system? That doesn't really matter at the moment, because even if places like these are common, the only practical ones we can reach are on the moon.

But a lot more of them would be practical if we had a launchpad on the moon, no?

We don't have one now.

Let's not let our imaginations run away. There's a lot more that needs to happen to have a launchpad on the moon compared to an observatory.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#150

Post by suprjami »

belter wrote: post #75
suprjami wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states there is no claim to sovereignty. https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2017/stspa...

Not signed or ratified by at least 59 countries.

But it is by the US, which is the discussion point here
Post reply on HN