Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

Post by geoffreyhale » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

F_r_k wrote: post #77

remote_phone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer. It’s hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be v…

Hi highly recommend anyone to read Ernst Stuhlinger's (former NASA administrator) letter to a nun in Africa : https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-...

Post by ddevault » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

remote_phone wrote: post #43

ryanmercer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For any exploratory drilling, or covering any real amount of ground, you need humans. For reference, Opportunity Rover has only traveled 45 km/28 mi in 14 years. A human can collect more specimens in a day than ALL of the rovers have to date. If we remove this year's launch window, you have 10 minimum-energy launch windows in the next 21 years. 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2029, 2031, 2033, 2035, 2037, 2039. If we could g…

I was talking to an oncologist yesterday. Her biggest frustration is that Silicon Valley billionaires are spending billions upon billions to send things to space, when there are serious problems on Earth that could be fought, most importantly cancer. It’s hard to argue with her. $400B/yr would fund a lot of research that would benefit humanity a lot better than a coordinated mission to Mars, even though it would be v…

Post by gibybo » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

vibrio wrote: post #93

zimablue wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair cancer is super overfunded and a waste of money to fund relative to lots of more easily cured third world diseases or poverty itself. Always someone with a better case than you.

"waste of money" is strong. Live with a loved one as they progress through rounds of cancer therapies and I suspect you will identify unmet need. It will change you. It's not a cancer vs infectious disease/clean water situation, both goals are valid and possible within reasonable means.

Post by dang » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #32

liberte82 wrote: post #11

Why don't we send a rover to some of these interesting places? It seems like we're constantly making fascinating finds on Mars, then send rovers to the middle of a random rocky desert.

This is hilarious. "Why don't we just send the rovers to the cities and historic sites and other more interesting places of Mars?"

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #61

ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy that always annoys me. It is entirely possible that by spending $400B to safely send people to Mars and live there, especially in a moderately high radiation environment, that we will discover EXACTLY the mechanisms that send cells into cancer states and how to reverse that so they stop. Otherwise we're going to have colonists getting cancer and dying too quickly. Then not only do we get to…

It's also entirely possible that the cure for all forms of cancer is a diet consisting entirely of frosted flakes, and that spending $400B researching the effects of all-cereal diets would also discover the cure for cancer. However, it's far more likely that $400B in cancer research will do more for curing cancer than hoping for side effects from $400B in other research.