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

Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 140 posts

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#121

Post by hinkley »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #62
hinkley wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re confusing a NASA base with inhabitation. Inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment. What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?

> inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment Most cities aren't visible from LEO in the day; none are, day or night, from the Moon with the "naked" eye. We are centuries from building anything on the Moon visible to the naked eye. And given how often I've seen the shaded part of the Moon in pop culture coloured in with stars, I'm not sure most people would notice the…

On the moon any dust you kick up will travel much, much farther than on earth, and you could hardly build a moon civilization without mining regolith. It's practically crushed ore. With no atmosphere there's going to be less light attenuation (but also less diffusion).

The only discussions I can find about light from the moon being visible on earth, talk about whether we would ever be able to see light on the bright half of the moon and that seems to be pretty impossible. The other side is a lot less illumination. People in cities probably wouldn't see it. But rural people can see the milky way.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#122

Post by giraffe_lady »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60
giraffe_lady wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time.

> Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life. Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.

The problem with manifest destiny was that based on the perceived exceptional character or origin of a specific group, their expansion was considered both just and inevitable.

Reread Mr Bright's post I'm responding to and hopefully it's clear why I find it alarming. Do you think he'd want to stop if we discover life out there? What mechanism would there even be to stop once there's an economic incentive not to?

There are some abominations in our history and it's our responsibility to sincerely repent and learn to avoid repeating them. So far we're simply saying it's different this time.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#123

Post by function_seven »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #115
function_seven wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moon has two sides from our vantage. The near side is the one you see, the far side is the one you don't. It has nothing to do with our distance from the object, just the orientation of that object.

you're probably not familiar with Pink Floyd then.

Well I thought I was somewhat, but that didn't ring a bell. I take my well-ackshually comment back :)

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#124

Post by WalterBright »

olddustytrail wrote: post #35
WalterBright wrote: post #12

> so why not agree to leave it unmarred by any obvious act of humanity, forevermore? How some people hate humanity. Personally, I'd love to see the lights from a lunar colony on the moon. This reminds me of the people who don't want to "pollute" Mars. Sheesh, it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute. It could desperately use people on it, just like the moon. The solar system is ours, and we can and should…

You have no idea whether Mars is a dead rock or not. Even if it now is, you have no idea whether it used to be alive or not. So no, we shouldn't just dump random crap on Mars based on your ignorance.

> You have no idea whether Mars is a dead rock or not.

Sure we do. It's a dead rock. All investigations have turned up nothing.

> you have no idea whether it used to be alive or not.

Scientists have given up on it being alive. They're reduced to looking for evidence of ancient life.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#125

Post by erik_seaberg »

vacuity wrote: post #110
erik_seaberg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Escaping pollution is not a reason for going. Creating habitable areas on/under Mars is clearly harder than maintaining habitable areas on/under Earth. We have people who are much more motivated to do it and we might learn more from it, though.

Granted, I overstated the escaping pollution part. It seems like people are not alarmed enough about climate change and pollution to believe extinction[0] will happen anytime soon. That would mainly be the motivation for rich people, and not just pollution but many other issues they are not interested in solving. Frankly, the least selfish reason to go to Mars is to avoid extinction. Barring that, is it such a great…

The resources are 0.004% of the population of one wealthy country, who devoted themselves to shaping about 400 tons of stainless steel. Nothing constructive comes of starving a project that size, certainly not the global carbon sequestration I'd like to see.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#126

Post by fsckboy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28
fsckboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that aesthetic value of preservation exists basically in every choice we make. Or maybe we can stop believing the ancient superstitions that consider us not to be part of nature.

> maybe we can stop believing the ancient superstitions that consider us not to be part of nature What part of any argument in this thread requires this? Also, being part of something doesn't mean you can't also be distinct from it, for the most part.

the comment I replied to, and the comment he was replying to. Both are talking about the entropy humans hasten being somehow different from the entropy that is occuring without humans.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#127

Post by fsckboy »

vacuity wrote: post #33
fsckboy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

human pollution kills millions a year? the only thing reducing the human population is decreased desire to have children by people who can afford them. Otherwise, more people are born, live longer, and die than ever before.

> Air pollution accounted for 8.1 million deaths globally in 2021 [0] > In 2019, air pollution caused about 6.7 million deaths. Of these, almost 85% are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes. This makes air pollution the second leading cause of NCDs globally after tobacco. [1] [0] https…

my point was that all of the activities that we humans engage in are the activities that create the pollution;

but they are also the activities that extend our life expectancies. You can't separate them.

Claiming that pollution is killing without point out the benefits of what is creating the pollution is lying. Industrialization created the world we all enjoy, the largest population of humans enjoying their lives at the same time as have ever lived. It is the essence of intellectual vacuuity to miss that.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#128

Post by ANewFormation »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #26
thrance wrote: post #14

How much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere for a single rocket launch? How much labor and natural resources does it cost? I think it's extremely selfish to expect others to expend so much energy and time to carry your remains so far away, when you wouldn't know the difference. I also think seeing night lights from a city on the moon would be pretty cool.

> How much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere for a single rocket launch? Approximately equivalent to a trans-pacific jet flight.

The interesting thing about this is that rockets can easily be net negative in terms of CO2 stuff.

One way is in the fuel itself. For instance the Space Shuttle main engine was powered by combustion generated from liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen - the exhaust was literally water vapor.

A second interesting nuance is that any fuel burnt outside of Earth's atmosphere is a carbon reduction, so a hypothetical rocket that could get out of the atmosphere on 50% of its fuel would be net neutral/negative.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#129

Post by bryanrasmussen »

function_seven wrote: post #123
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're probably not familiar with Pink Floyd then.

Well I thought I was somewhat, but that didn't ring a bell. I take my well-ackshually comment back :)

I tend to be somewhat abstruse in references at times, it's a play on the "there is no dark side of the moon, really" quote.

Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side

#130

Post by goatlover »

freejazz wrote: post #70
goatlover wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt MLK Jr had much to say about Mars colonization. Why would he be opposed to it as long as Martian settlers were treating each other equally? I don't like the view that we shouldn't go to space as long as there are problems on Earth to fix. There are always problems to fix. It's an excuse to never explore space. There's no reason that going to Mars would prevent addressing pollution on Earth. I don't even see how…

> I don't even see how they're related You can't see how terraforming Mars and solving Earth's climate crisis could be related? And you want us to consider your opinions at all?

I don't care, but I did say it might in my last sentence.
Post reply on HN