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

A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#31

Post by ethbro »

frank-weindel wrote: post #14
ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction. Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought…

> Great Filters

Quick link for those who haven't read Fermi paradox et al. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

Inline summary for the lazy: If we don't see intelligent life, and the universe is as old as it is, then it must be unlikely for life to persist to a stage where we could detect it. This unlikeliness can come in two forms: either it's unlikely to ever be created (hurray, we won!) or there's some future stage that's it's unlikely to pass (uh oh us).

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#32

Post by david-given »

frank-weindel wrote: post #14
ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction. Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought…

!Mars != !Space.

Mars is a dusty, barren deathtrap of a rock that's at the bottom of a very deep hole. The only thing to do on Mars is to _be_ on Mars. It's not (plausibly) terraformable, sustaining life there will obvious continuous and hugely expensive technical input, there are no resources there worth going there for, and once you've gone there, to get back you have to climb out of a hugely deep hole.

Meanwhile the solar system is full of places that are easier to get to, more hospitable, more profitable, and which you can get away from. Asteroids. Comets. Ceres. The moon, even. Further afield, the rings of Jupiter and Saturn --- the radiation's a bit rough, but if you can survive there, you've got it made. Hell, if you're into planets, Venus is a better option. Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment?

Mars is fascinating, and there should absolutely be a science station there eventually, but it's not colonisation material. I certainly don't think it should be a priority right at this moment. With our current state of the art, I believe the Moon to be a much better choice.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#33

Post by jessriedel »

ryandvm wrote: post #19
jessriedel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seems to think that high degrees of collective action are are a particularly good marker for judging whether human beings can accomplish space colonization. But this doesn't make sense because it's the technology and economics, not coordination, that prevents self-sustaining martian colonies. Likewise, ship technology and economic uses for overseas resources sparked European colonization, not a particularly well…

Pardon the pun but Europe and Mars are worlds apart. The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient. Your willingness to write off the cooperation of the rest of the human species seems shortsighted. Especially since it's the people of Earth that will be funding this lifeboat. What happens when the "Old World" find themselves em…

You still haven't shown that there is an importance difference between the New World and Mars that justifies your focus on collectivism.

> The difference between all previous human colonization and Mars is that in the past colonies were at least theoretically self sufficient.

The colonies on mars are only useful as an insurance policy against global catastrophe when they are economically self sufficient.

> The other issue is that human colonization has always been driven by "real" pressures like limited resources, war, or economic expansion. Mars solves none of those.

Right, just like European colonization.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#34

Post by Numberwang »

david-given wrote: post #32
frank-weindel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction. Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought…

!Mars != !Space. Mars is a dusty, barren deathtrap of a rock that's at the bottom of a very deep hole. The only thing to do on Mars is to _be_ on Mars. It's not (plausibly) terraformable, sustaining life there will obvious continuous and hugely expensive technical input, there are no resources there worth going there for, and once you've gone there, to get back you have to climb out of a hugely deep hole. Meanwhile t…

"Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment?"

Please expand on this.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#35

Post by lisper »

david-given wrote: post #32
frank-weindel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction. Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought…

!Mars != !Space. Mars is a dusty, barren deathtrap of a rock that's at the bottom of a very deep hole. The only thing to do on Mars is to _be_ on Mars. It's not (plausibly) terraformable, sustaining life there will obvious continuous and hugely expensive technical input, there are no resources there worth going there for, and once you've gone there, to get back you have to climb out of a hugely deep hole. Meanwhile t…

> Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment?

Nope, that's news to me. According to:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_clima...

the minimum temperature on Venus is 870F, well above the melting point of lead. Do you know something that UCSD doesn't?

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#36

Post by nomailing »

weavie wrote: post #4
scottmwinters wrote: post #2

Was I the only one extremely disappointed that wasn't actually much related to Musk, nor a serious conversation about the future? It was an interview of a fiction novelist, nothing more.

Possibly. Have you read The Martian? The author has put a ton of research into what it would take to get people to Mars. I'm sure he has a lot of relevant stuff to say about Musks ambitions for Mars travel. I highly recommend reading the book.

> How do you have a spinning part and a non-spinning part? Because you're going to want your solar cells pointed at the sun.

Isn't that completely wrong? The full station could just be spinning as a rigid-body, while always the same side (with solar cells) can be oriented towards the sun. It is no problem if the solar cells are rotating around an axis, if that axis would be perpendicular to the solar panel and pointing towards the sun, right?

So I am doubtful that he did a lot of research into this. But I am really not an expert, so please correct me if I am wrong...

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#37

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

>Earth might get a flat tire

There is no possible "flat-tire" existential risk scenario which makes moving to Mars cheaper (man hours) than just fixing whatever happened on earth.

IMO that kills the whole thing right off the bat.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#38

Post by aardvark179 »

lisper wrote: post #35
david-given wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

!Mars != !Space. Mars is a dusty, barren deathtrap of a rock that's at the bottom of a very deep hole. The only thing to do on Mars is to _be_ on Mars. It's not (plausibly) terraformable, sustaining life there will obvious continuous and hugely expensive technical input, there are no resources there worth going there for, and once you've gone there, to get back you have to climb out of a hugely deep hole. Meanwhile t…

> Did you know that there are parts of Venus which are a shirt-sleeve (and breathing mask) environment? Nope, that's news to me. According to: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_topics/teach/sp_clima... the minimum temperature on Venus is 870F, well above the melting point of lead. Do you know something that UCSD doesn't?

They aren't on the ground.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#39

Post by benihana »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #37
ryandvm wrote: post #12

I'm incredibly optimistic about the disruption Elon Musk is bringing to the automotive and battery industries and the commercialization of space transport. Amazing guy. That said, I'm starting to think that Mars is going to be his Spruce Goose ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules ). It's crazy, it's expensive, and at this point, it's an unnecessary moonshot that makes literal moonshots seem reasonable.…

>Earth might get a flat tire There is no possible "flat-tire" existential risk scenario which makes moving to Mars cheaper (man hours) than just fixing whatever happened on earth. IMO that kills the whole thing right off the bat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc4HL_-VT2Y

We (complex life) couldn't recover from something like that. Maybe simple life could hide deep in the earth and emerge when it's safe thousands of years later.

Re: A Serious Conversation about the Future in Space

#40

Post by tanishq1 »

ethbro wrote: post #31
frank-weindel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like someone has lost all hope for humanity and at that we should just accept our "inevitable" self-destruction. Even if the dream of colonizing mars is farfetched beyond fixing all of the problems we currently have on earth, it doesn't mean its not worth striving for. Goals like this drive people to do their best work and come up with creative solutions to problems that would otherwise never have been thought…

> Great Filters Quick link for those who haven't read Fermi paradox et al. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter Inline summary for the lazy: If we don't see intelligent life, and the universe is as old as it is, then it must be unlikely for life to persist to a stage where we could detect it. This unlikeliness can come in two forms: either it's unlikely to ever be created (hurray, we won!) or there's some futur…

To elaborate on the future stage, Carl Sagan suggested that technological civilizations tend to self-destruct (e.g. perhaps nuclear war.)
Post reply on HN