21–30 of 152 posts
Is the guy proposing this going himself to set an example?
If there is going to be any kind of colony, it needs some means of sustaining life and babies.
Although we have experienced a sad regression in our space capabilities, there is nothing in principle preventing us from sending humans and basic building blocks there, let them build a decent base, and then instate a regular shuttling service. Even if building the outpost takes 10 years, that's not the same as sending them onto a suicide mission as the article implies.
We're missing a lot of necessary infrastructure for this though, and without it the stated Sept. 2022 launch date might as well be 2122 or even 4022. We'll need a moon base to stage this thing (not only the initial flight but more importantly the supply line), and if we're serious about expanding into the solar system, one or two space elevators are probably a necessity. The political will to build any of these, never mind maintaining them, does not exist. We're too busy propping up corrupt political and financial systems, not to mention the importance of waging an eternal war the expenses of which could provide enough for a decent colonialization program many times over.
Scraping together a suicide team and shooting it roughly in Mars' general direction is not the answer to this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I doubt it would be much riskier than we're currently living our lives here on Earth. You're probably underestimating the risks associated with humans leaving Earth for any considerable period of time. Radiation is the first issue. NASA will not plan a mission that exposes astronauts to higher than a 3% risk of exposure-induced death. Their reports from 2010 based on all the studies done up to that point put th…
> So just getting to Mars would exceed the safe limits This is the problem with your argument that I'm underestimating risks. You're assuming that nobody finds a way to solve this problem or to mitigate the effects of the radiation, and that nobody would be willing to find a way to go even with the health concerns. I know this will be extremely difficult and quite costly, but I think hard work and constant innovation…
Well I can't personally __prove__ it, but I believe the general belief in the science community of prolonged space-travel is that it will most likely mess you up. Probably in more ways than we've even thought of. I don't think, at least with today's tech, that a human can travel to Mars and back and be perfectly okay.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/space-dangers.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_19158_the-6-weirdest-dangers-...
I wonder how many people are willing to take on the real adventure of living in any of the twenty poorest countries in the world, or twenty most tyrannical countries of the world (there is overlap between the two sets) to try to change those from the inside. When I was in high school, going to a high school that was named after an astronaut just after the first moon landing, I thought it was completely natural to hav…
We mostly know the solutions to fixing the most oppressed or otherwise defective parts of the world; we just don't find it worthwhile to implement those solutions. I could solve 90% Equatorial Guinea's problems for The solutions to the most defective countries are all pretty straightforward and widely known; it's figuring out how to turn decent but not ideal countries like Pakistan into really stable first-world countries which would be hard, or figuring out how to stem the long-term decline in the US. (Yes, there are implementation difficulties in a place like Somalia, but it's because the benefit isn't worth the expense in blood/treasure. The cheap solution is to let the 1% of people who could make their lives a lot better by leaving do so.)
The skills required to solve the harder sociological problems don't really have much overlap with the skills to send people to Mars.
Bringing those places up to standard doesn't really give you anything new, although it does help those people. Putting humans on Mars is something we've never done before, and could lead to amazing technologies and opportunities for humanity. Just like I'd rather be a medical researcher than a family practice doctor, I'd rather push the limits of what's possible vs. contribute to more widespread adequacy, although both bring up the mean. I'm glad there exist both kinds of people, though.
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth."
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things -- not because they are easy; but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we're willing to accept; one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win -- and the others, too."
I wonder how many people are willing to take on the real adventure of living in any of the twenty poorest countries in the world, or twenty most tyrannical countries of the world (there is overlap between the two sets) to try to change those from the inside. When I was in high school, going to a high school that was named after an astronaut just after the first moon landing, I thought it was completely natural to hav…
That kind of paternalistic nonsense is what got those countries into the terrible shape they're in to begin with. Continuing it isn't going to fix anything.
I wonder how many people are willing to take on the real adventure of living in any of the twenty poorest countries in the world, or twenty most tyrannical countries of the world (there is overlap between the two sets) to try to change those from the inside. When I was in high school, going to a high school that was named after an astronaut just after the first moon landing, I thought it was completely natural to hav…
Not me. We mostly know the solutions to fixing the most oppressed or otherwise defective parts of the world; we just don't find it worthwhile to implement those solutions. I could solve 90% Equatorial Guinea's problems for The solutions to the most defective countries are all pretty straightforward and widely known; it's figuring out how to turn decent but not ideal countries like Pakistan into really stable first-wo…
I wonder how many people are willing to take on the real adventure of living in any of the twenty poorest countries in the world, or twenty most tyrannical countries of the world (there is overlap between the two sets) to try to change those from the inside. When I was in high school, going to a high school that was named after an astronaut just after the first moon landing, I thought it was completely natural to hav…
I fantasize about doing that sometimes, but usually, you can't get into politics without being a citizen — either due to legislation or because you won't be accepted as a representative by the population, for obvious reasons. But assuming you can get into politics, you'll still have to deal with an enormous struggle for power (be it elections you have to win or powerful people you have to convince) in order to get in…
If you want to change a foreign country for the better and not make a bloody (literally) mess of it, stay away from politics (ok, bribe who you need to to keep you humanitarian organization afloat if needed) and work to improve education, basic healthcare and economic growth by means of bringing foreign investments to businesses in a poor country or things like that. Any other way to do it and you'll probably end up on "the dark side" sooner or later :)
I wonder how many people are willing to take on the real adventure of living in any of the twenty poorest countries in the world, or twenty most tyrannical countries of the world (there is overlap between the two sets) to try to change those from the inside. When I was in high school, going to a high school that was named after an astronaut just after the first moon landing, I thought it was completely natural to hav…
I fantasize about doing that sometimes, but usually, you can't get into politics without being a citizen — either due to legislation or because you won't be accepted as a representative by the population, for obvious reasons. But assuming you can get into politics, you'll still have to deal with an enormous struggle for power (be it elections you have to win or powerful people you have to convince) in order to get in…
If you create a business that solves a local problem (local to the poor country of choice) good enough, and fairly enough, you can create ripple effects. Maybe not at national levels, but at regional and municipal levels.
Not easy, but not impossible.
(At least I hope so when I got my rose-tinted glasses on.)