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

On the devastating effects of a year in space

brisbanetimes.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#121

Post by pvaldes »

QAPereo wrote: post #115
pvaldes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if we know positively than human body can't stand such travel, then the only answer to colonize mars is sending humans that doesn't have a body. This could solve the problem.

Or just a more ambitious plan, including funding for advanced radiation shielding, a rotating section for gravity etc. we can do it, but it’s going to take a lot of work, money, and time. All people seem to want is a magical billionaire.

Or building a robotic uterus and robotic teachparents, sending a box full of frozen sperm and frozen ovules to mars at full 'delivering pizza velocity' and re-assembling humans directly when reaching destiny

Some interesting moral questions would arise, like how can you volunteer and agree to go to mars if nobody asked you before to send you to the space?

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#123

Post by gozur88 »

vertex-four wrote: post #99
toomanybeersies wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone complains about healthcare. It's a universal thing. In New Zealand, everyone complains about healthcare, even though hospital care is free and doctors visits are really cheap. Everyone in the UK complains about the NHS, people in Canada complain about wait times at hospitals.

Yes, people complain, but in New Zealand and much of Europe you can get your healthcare eventually. Maybe not always to world-best standards (although more often than right-wing newspapers would like to suggest), but good enough. In the US, there are people who can't access healthcare at all - not because there's not enough providers, but simply because they don't have enough money. There's insurance plans that will…

>In the US, there are people who can't access healthcare at all - not because there's not enough providers, but simply because they don't have enough money.

That's not true. We have public hospitals, and we also have Medicaid.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#124

Post by banned1 »

astrodust wrote: post #114
banned1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quality of care must go down for some, right? It's not possible to a) keep the same existing standard of care for all, b) maintain prices, or c) keep the same level of profit for the industry. Something has to give. If [a] and [b] are true, then profits will be lower, and therefore quality will suffer next.

> ... then profits will be lower. Ah, you see, when you remove profit as the primary motivator a lot of problems go away. Here (Canada) the insurance is public, but the hospitals are private, the doctors are self-employed. The insurance companies (plural since each province has their own singular insurer) regulate prices so costs are predictable. If a knee replacement is $X and they expect to do Y of them per year ba…

But the question then would be: what If I want to pay more for even better care? Why wouldn't I be allowed to? Assuming I would be allowed to (unless there is a law against paying more), then providers should be allowed to deliver it (unless there is a law against better). At that point, some will get worse care than others, and because the line is qualitative (since politicians mostly know nothing about care), then this creates worse care for those who can't pay. It is those who we need to solve for.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#125

Post by vertex-four »

gozur88 wrote: post #123
vertex-four wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people complain, but in New Zealand and much of Europe you can get your healthcare eventually. Maybe not always to world-best standards (although more often than right-wing newspapers would like to suggest), but good enough. In the US, there are people who can't access healthcare at all - not because there's not enough providers, but simply because they don't have enough money. There's insurance plans that will…

>In the US, there are people who can't access healthcare at all - not because there's not enough providers, but simply because they don't have enough money. That's not true. We have public hospitals, and we also have Medicaid.

Nope. I know plenty of people personally who are in the situation where they make too much money to be on Medicaid, but not enough to be on health insurance that'll actually cover anything without a deductible in the thousands. Obamacare made things better, but it's still very far from covering what universal healthcare covers for many.

Public hospitals do not treat people for free.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#126

Post by QAPereo »

pvaldes wrote: post #121
QAPereo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just a more ambitious plan, including funding for advanced radiation shielding, a rotating section for gravity etc. we can do it, but it’s going to take a lot of work, money, and time. All people seem to want is a magical billionaire.

Or building a robotic uterus and robotic teachparents, sending a box full of frozen sperm and frozen ovules to mars at full 'delivering pizza velocity' and re-assembling humans directly when reaching destiny Some interesting moral questions would arise, like how can you volunteer and agree to go to mars if nobody asked you before to send you to the space?

Moral quandaries aside, I like how you think.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#127

Post by QAPereo »

crush-n-spread wrote: post #119
QAPereo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m into science, not quasi religious hope in the face of the terror of our own extinction. If we leave Earth, we’ll be solving nothing, we are the problem. At best we’d be delaying something, not solving the underlying issues of what led us to flee Earth. If you think of Mars as a backup for Earth then think again, it needs to be independent of Earth, and that’s a dream for now. Less hope, more rational thought migh…

In your first argument, you argued that we could not colonize Mars. Now you concede that we can colonize Mars, while arguing humans have a fundamental flaw. What is your point, and why do you hold it?

I conceded what now? What I did is something called “arguing in the alternative,” and that only by the narrowest of margins.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#128

Post by SCAQTony »

chrismealy wrote: post #108
SCAQTony wrote: post #85

The first three paragraphs sound like he is a PTSD victim from a forgotten war. The next seven, like a nerve gas victim. With all this in mind. This si more than a red flag for space travel, more has to be done before we even consider establishing a base anywhere off-world. Till then, probes and asteroid mining seem more profitable, safe and mind expanding.

People don't want to accept the truth about humans in space.

I so agree. It would be more worthwhile to terraform the Australian outback or Gobi desert and put a forest and settlers there than oxygenated domes on Mars. Not to say that space exploration should never be an agenda, but rather we select projects that have a national or scientific ROI with little to no harm caused to any individual.

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#129

Post by valuearb »

QAPereo wrote: post #116
valuearb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stripping NASA down to bare metal? The same NASA that’s spending over $2B a launch to build the SLS, when they could buy the same capacity from private launch companies at less than 1/10th the cost? And radiation is not a significant threat, we will have hundreds if not thousands of qualified astronauts fighting over being one of the first to take the relatively minor radiation risks to be the first to go.

we will have hundreds if not thousands of qualified astronauts fighting over being one of the first to take the relatively minor radiation risks to be the first to go Same with the age of sail, which claimed many lives, often for the dubious benefit of a few wealthy assholes who never touched a ship. Are you volunteering to be first to Mars?

Nope, i’m not qualified. Anyone who dies will do it with their eyes open.

Let’s put it this way. If we can land explorers on Mars for $100B at a 5% risk of death, or spent $1 trillion to reduce that risk to 1%, should we wait decades to find funding for the safer plan?

Re: On the devastating effects of a year in space

#130

Post by valuearb »

WillReplyfFood wrote: post #92
valuearb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stripping NASA down to bare metal? The same NASA that’s spending over $2B a launch to build the SLS, when they could buy the same capacity from private launch companies at less than 1/10th the cost? And radiation is not a significant threat, we will have hundreds if not thousands of qualified astronauts fighting over being one of the first to take the relatively minor radiation risks to be the first to go.

The same NASA who subsidized private contractors, so they could reach this price with equipment, science and funds?

NASA didn’t subsidize SpaceX, like commercial customers it signed contracts for specific services, and specifically because SpaceX was cheap. ULA got $1B a year for “readiness” and its launches cost at least double the cost of SpaceX.

If you want to give credit to NASA for cheap private launch systems, then why isn’t it using them, and has it blown $20B in pork trying to replace them?

Post reply on HN