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

A rough guide for going back to the Moon

research.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#71

Post by KylerAce »

bayindirh wrote: post #64
somenameforme wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like b…

> In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. Love the (sorry, but greedy) take. Maybe we shouldn't expand infinitely. I don't see our species as that special. Maybe we should stay a bit modest, and errm, down to the earth in our ambitions. Both humans and resources can't be in infinite number at the…

Why should we not expand into space? To make sure that all the lifeless rocks in it stay lifeless? If earth were twice as large would you say that logically we should only inhabit half of that earth or do you believe that human beings have a natural claim to everything that can be reached via boats and legs but not via rockets? Personally, I would like a future where I can see other planets with my own eyes and dislike a future where the entire species is dependent on one planet being habitable.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#72

Post by scrumper »

mesrik wrote: post #57
scrumper wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we really went there, quite a few times in the 1970s. We have been again, also several times, with rovers and landers. As for why not humans since then? There's bugger all there to justify the extreme cost (at this time). It's an unpleasant ball made from tiny abrasive dust particles that is more easily explored with robots. The prestige thing is done; until we set up some base there in support of some broader mi…

Also to get the mood and sense how it felt following those flights media outlets back then there is great site https://apolloinrealtime.org/ I've listened through those flights few times and it still each time takes me back to memories still giving me goosebumps. Especially Apollo 11 when I was nine year old kid listening tiny battery radio all nights at our summer cottage attic.

I don’t usually get parenting right but the stars lined up for this one: I got hold of the Lego Saturn V kit (1969 pieces!) and my two kids and I built it over a few days while listening to this in the background. Last piece on right about the time “the Eagle has landed.”

It is a fantastic site.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#73

Post by WalterBright »

fodkodrasz wrote: post #50
dfgknionio wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you think a space industry is useful in general, there is no reason for humans to be involved. Robots are superior to humans for this application today and will only become more superior in the future.

Why pursue space exploration if all we can do is send robots there? The only meaningful thing for humanity is sending Humans to places. Gathering more resources so the overlords can have more humans enslaved with shinier golden handcuffs, who can consume more so number line goes up is not a meaningful goal to pursuit, and robotic-only commercially rationalized spaceflight has only this to offer. Scientific discovery,…

> Gathering more resources so the overlords can have more humans enslaved with shinier golden handcuffs

Very funny!

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#74

Post by WalterBright »

dfgknionio wrote: post #55
fodkodrasz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why pursue space exploration if all we can do is send robots there? The only meaningful thing for humanity is sending Humans to places. Gathering more resources so the overlords can have more humans enslaved with shinier golden handcuffs, who can consume more so number line goes up is not a meaningful goal to pursuit, and robotic-only commercially rationalized spaceflight has only this to offer. Scientific discovery,…

What is the point in having a colony of maybe dozens of people completely dependent on shipments from Earth? Building a self-sustaining colony is so far outside the realm of possibility that it isn't worth thinking about, and building a symbolic outpost serves no practical purpose.

> What is the point in having a colony of maybe dozens of people completely dependent on shipments from Earth?

The Jamestown colony relied on shipments from England.

> Building a self-sustaining colony is so far outside the realm of possibility that it isn't worth thinking about

And look at what America became.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#75

Post by rf15 »

somenameforme wrote: post #29
bluGill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in…

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like b…

> space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy

...of a density so low that it is 0 on average.

space has practically infinite nothing.

I know the pretty pictures always show the planets all nice together, but in reality there's this huge, irradiated, projectile-infested nothing that you and I cannot deal with, even with current tech.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#76

Post by wavemode »

bdamm wrote: post #61
wavemode wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy The Earth has more land than mankind will ever need. The Earth has effectively infinite energy from the Sun. And most of the resources we need are derived from biological matter, which Space lacks.

Ah, but humanity is an expansive and consuming force, as is natural since most forces in the universe are entropy increasing ones. And since amino acids have been discovered on asteroids and tardigrades and fungus have been shown to survive space travel, we can't even say that Space provably lacks biological matter. Expanding (back?) into space is our manifest destiny, and good for the price of real estate too since…

Population growth has been slowing for a long time, and is actually already below replacement level in most parts of the world outside Africa. It's unlikely that we will ever reach a global human population of even 11 billion. Some estimates put the peak at under 9 billion.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#77

Post by WalterBright »

tempfile wrote: post #35
dabluecaboose wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard a lot of arguments against human space exploration, but "We could put that energy into working less" is probably one of the more out-there arguments that's hard to take seriously.

Work is a necessary evil. If it is not necessary, then it is just a regular evil. There are no credible arguments that going to the moon is necessary, or supports some other necessary goal. Of course by work, I mean work directed by somebody else to serve their ends, in exchange for money to live your own life. If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then sur…

> Work is a necessary evil.

I get fulfillment via work.

> Working less is the pretty much the only thing we should be putting energy into.

A life without purpose leads to sloth and early death.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#78

Post by bluGill »

somenameforme wrote: post #29
bluGill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in…

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like b…

You fail to comprehend just how large space is. Almost all of space is well out of reach. There is zero reason to think we will ever be able to overcome the laws of relativity, which in turn mean we will never be able to reach the stars. I know, this negative comment makes you mad, but there is every reason to think it is the case.

A SciFi generation ship could maybe do that to the closest stars before it fails completely - but we have reason to think those stars will have any planet we can terraform. (ignoring the ethics if life exists - we don't have the technology to detect life on other planets)

Mars is the only planet that could potentially support human life. Even then the best parts are about as nice as Antarctica - not very nice. Which is to say a catastrophic failure of life support gives you seconds to get the backup [scuba type gear?] working as opposed to guaranteed death. Mars is a lot smaller than earth and has much less energy (less sun). Thus there isn't much potential there.

Everything else we can reasonably reach is much harder to work with than Mars.

Face it, earth is all we get: make it last.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#79

Post by WalterBright »

fodkodrasz wrote: post #52
MiloLeo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then surely it is a moral obligation for us to do that. I wonder what this would look like. I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends.

> I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends. like out-of-control global warming, depletion of freshwater reserves, destruction of soil, mass surveillance, extremely uneven distribution of resources. I mean all previous innovations which were supposed to allow working less somehow never…

> I mean all previous innovations which were supposed to allow working less somehow never materialized in working less, and the quality of life improvements are greatly questionable,

The bone evidence of pre-Columbian Indians in America is one of periodic starvation. For the colonists, the bone evidence is one of extremely hard labor and short lives.

America's poor have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#80

Post by WalterBright »

ramesh31 wrote: post #9
bluGill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in…

>"There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science)." The arguments are entirely romantic. But then, what exactly is life without romance? That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete.

> That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete.

What??? I bet you consume large quantities of art and romance, like everyone else. Like look at the tremendous choices you have for entertainment.

Post reply on HN