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

How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#111

Post by dillona »

Cushman wrote: post #78
colanderman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "wars" we're involved in now could be solved more cost-effectively by literally paying our enemies not to fight. Thereby creating a nation of people dependent on our aid, who, when we cease sending aid due to budget constraints, will likely decide to start a war anyway . cough North Korea cough Not saying that line of reasoning is totally invalid, but it's definitely not so clear-cut that you can use it in an ana…

You're gonna need a really strong argument to convince me that, all else being equal, building things is more damaging to a nation than blowing things up.

He's not talking about building things, at least I don't think.

One of the most effective things that has been done to slow down America's middle-eastern conflicts is paying people not to fight. When I say that, I don't mean building schools and hospitals. I mean giving people cash money in exchange for them not shooting our men and women.

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#112

Post by huxley »

pemulis wrote: post #102
redthrowaway wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intervention in Libya cost about $2.7BB[1]. With things heating up in Syria, and the need to further isolate Iran, we could be looking at another "low-intensity" operation there in support of the pro-democracy dissidents. Now, what would be more cost-effective: a similar campaign in Syria, or paying Assad $1BB to fuck off to Venezuela and stay there, and a further $1BB distributed to military commanders to get th…

The total wealth of the Assad regime and their associates is in the hundreds of billions. You would have to pay them several trillion dollars at a minimum, though I doubt even that would be enough to convince them to leave.

Citation needed, sounds a bit tinfoily.

Not that I agree with the idea of paying off people, but Syria's total GDP is only about US$60 billion, hard to imagine that it would take "trillions".

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#113

Post by fennecfoxen »

seagreen wrote: post #80
VMG wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me that on a tech site you are getting downvotes for this. Human space travel is a waste of money from a scientific standpoint. Why a libertarian magazine like reason.com supports human space travel at all is a mystery to me.

It's probably just a tribal thing. Libertarians know they'll do better as a group if there are places to run. Unmanned space travel doesn't help from this perspective.

Eh. Libertarians can be dreamers too. There's a vein of transhumanism and immortality-seeking in certain parts of the movement (which I don't particularly respect, but that's another matter).

But say you're a Libertarian and have some ideas about how society ought to be structured. Meanwhile, society is clearly structured a certain way which (according to your worldview) is not consistent with that (e.g. the US government, undue tax burdens on the private sector, and bureaucracies like NASA) and it's not particularly likely that you're going to see massive restructuring of it in the near future.

Why would that stop you from taking issue with specific irrational policies of those bureaucracies? If space travel (or carbon-reduction or whatever-you-want) is clearly a goal of society, then you might as well try to cope with reality and at least try to make sure they go after that goal as effectively as possible, and limit the damage it's going to do.

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#114

Post by estevez »

javajosh wrote: post #98
mechanical_fish wrote: post #58

Mars is key to humanity’s future in space. It is the closest planet that has the resources needed to support life and technological civilization. ... well, except for air, and food. But there's water! Which we can detect with sensitive instruments! This whole article has no point. As everyone in the military knows full well, if the benefit is great enough humans will happily risk other human lives, even expend lives,…

"...there's nothing for humans to do in space that is worth so much as a single human life" Wrong. In the long run, even if we achieve some sort of utopia, all life will be destroyed by natural catastrophe. The only way to avoid this fate is to find other places to live. Mars is one of those places; so are the various exoplanets we are finding. Indeed, this is humanities greatest challenge. Can we harness the incredi…

> all life will be destroyed by natural catastrophe.

I'm going to disagree with you there.[1]

A bit tongue in cheek, but regarding your larger point, I think that thinking about preserving life in our corner of the universe solely in terms of keeping meat puppets alive in interstellar space is a rather parochial way to think. We already know of two forms of life that are far better suited to the void, autonomous robots and bacterial spores, why not get them out first?

[1]: http://worldcat.org/title/impossible-extinction-natural-cata...

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#115

Post by Cushman »

dillona wrote: post #111
Cushman wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're gonna need a really strong argument to convince me that, all else being equal, building things is more damaging to a nation than blowing things up.

He's not talking about building things, at least I don't think. One of the most effective things that has been done to slow down America's middle-eastern conflicts is paying people not to fight. When I say that, I don't mean building schools and hospitals. I mean giving people cash money in exchange for them not shooting our men and women.

In one sense, yes; in another sense, if I'm paying somebody to not blow up convoys, they're going to do something else. That might as well be building a school.

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#116

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

stinkytaco wrote: post #105
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I have never understood this argument. What's so special about "humanity" that it needs to be preserved? You're born, you live, you die. A species arises, it has its time on Earth, then it's extinct. Why are humans so special that we should bother about eventually going extinct in hundreds of thousands of years?

Biology? Because billions of years of evolution have made us all think: "We should have kids and hang around long enough to make sure they have kids too. That way we can keep this caravan rolling." That's a pretty big motivator.

Sure, I get that. That's my I included the "hundreds of thousands of years" modifier. I want my kids to grow up, be happy and have their own kids if they want to, but I really don't care about what happens 100 generations down the road.

That's the perplexing part.

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#117

Post by billswift »

retroafroman wrote: post #76
Cushman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the same situation. Our military is geared up to fight yesterday's war; the "wars" we're involved in now could be solved more cost-effectively by literally paying our enemies not to fight. The next real war, if it happens, will be fought almost entirely with semi- and fully-autonomous machines. All of the lessons we've learned will be pointless. Similarly, NASA is geared up for yesterday's space race. We…

Paying enemies not to fight would probably just result in a lot more enemies who want to get paid all of the sudden.

"Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane."

Rudyard Kipling

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#118

Post by huxley »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #10

This article answered for me one of those things I'd always wondered but never took time to figure out: why no one has been back to the moon even though our technology has advanced exponentially in the last 40 years. An irrational emphasis on risk makes perfect sense. Still doesn't explain why no other country has done it, though. Well, except for the boring explanations about high costs and no immediate benefits bes…

How about moon dust that eats away at your equipment, sticks to everything, and can cause iron poisoning (and possibly a lung disease similar to silicosis)?

“The dust was so abrasive that it actually wore through three layers of Kevlar-like material on [Apollo 17 astronaut] Jack [Schmitt]’s boot,” Taylor says.

That abrasion happened over 3 moonwalks (each lasting a bit over 7 hours).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.ht...

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#119

Post by redthrowaway »

brudgers wrote: post #101
redthrowaway wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the possible exception of economic, although the two are often difficult to distinguish.

Yes, military missions and economic missions are difficult to distinguish.

Wars undertaken for political purpose vs wars undertaken for economic ones.

Re: How Much Is an Astronaut's Life Worth?

#120

Post by arctangent »

VMG wrote: post #62
jordanb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA is a political organization, but that's why the manned space program exists. It long ago ceased to make sense from a cost/scientific-benefit perspective. Manned flight continues only on the argument that it excites the public and fuels interest in space. Bearing that in mind, the entire thing is showboating on TV, and it's pretty silly to angst if over this, that, or the other bit of it is compromised by politic…

It amazes me that on a tech site you are getting downvotes for this. Human space travel is a waste of money from a scientific standpoint. Why a libertarian magazine like reason.com supports human space travel at all is a mystery to me.

> Human space travel is a waste of money from a scientific standpoint.

It's hard to weigh up the relative merits of spending money on human space travel now over spending (perhaps less) money a few tens or hundred years from now to achieve the same effect.

But if mankind doesn't eventually colonise other planets then we're almost certainly going to be wiped out by a big rock hitting our planet and killing every last one of us.

By the time we spot such a killer rock it would probably be far too late to start thinking about how we might go about travelling in space. We need the ability now, just in case.

Post reply on HN