Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars • Hacker News Board

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#121

Post by danielamitay » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:33 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…

A letter from an associate director of science at NASA in 1970 answering this question: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#122

Post by sorrymate » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #64

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…

The real question here is why bother spending 1% of our GDP on space exploration? What tangible benefits is it going to bring, and why are those benefits worth more than the benefit that will come from spending 1% of our GDP on something else?

The tangible benefits of research in space exploration are real and benefit us all. This infographic describes a list of products who's foundation was based on NASA research. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?i...

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#123

Post by rad88 » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #96

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…

A sufficiently sized meteor could wipe out all life on Earth as we know it - or play "Pick your end of days scenario" between WW3, superviruses, or whatever. Having a few backup humans on the Moon or Mars is more beneficial to the survival of the human race than curing cancer is. Curing cancer saves individuals - establishing an off-Earth colony of humans could save all of humanity. Are the chances of a mass extincti…

It could not save "all of humanity". Humanity would be down there on Earth dying. In the end who you would save would again be individuals -- a few people on the moon. The question is could you save more people in space in a hypothetical end of world scenario than you could people on Earth dying in a very real scenario today.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#124

Post by pvaldes » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

beamatronic wrote: post #79

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…

There are populations of humans on this planet that have very low cancer rates. All we have to do is adopt their lifestyle. Eat right and exercise. That’s probably 90% of it right there. Don’t need to spend any money.

Eat right, exercise and do not live in a environment plenty of carcinogenic substances like a cit... oh, wait.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#125

Post by wilsonnb2 » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

sorrymate wrote: post #122

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question here is why bother spending 1% of our GDP on space exploration? What tangible benefits is it going to bring, and why are those benefits worth more than the benefit that will come from spending 1% of our GDP on something else?

The tangible benefits of research in space exploration are real and benefit us all. This infographic describes a list of products who's foundation was based on NASA research. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?i...

You can't just point to a list of inventions that came from research in space exploration - you also have to make a case that these inventions would have otherwise not come about, or at least would have come about much later.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#126

Post by forapurpose » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #95

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…

This is peculiar logic if you break it into its most fundamental. Dealing with cancer's entire purpose is extending the average human life expectancy. Right now cancer is the cause in about 12.5% [1] of all deaths. And the average years of life lost from cancer victims is 15.7 [2]. So if we completely eliminated all cancer we'd expect to extend the life expectancy for everybody by 0.125 * 15.7 = 1.97 years on average…

FWIW, far more productive time is lost to cancer, and there is also great suffering (which is important; life != yearslived). There are sick patients, their families, plus all the resources consumed for treatment.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#127

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #109

vibrio wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Unfortunately, they compete for the same funding. We have a much more pressing issue than either: lack of working antibiotics... Cancer unsolved does not cause too many issues (it is a terrible disease nonetheless), while solving third world medical problems is mostly matter of goodwill and logistics (and comparatively cheap). But if we hit a new resistant superbug... That will decimate everywhere, everyone. Think pl…

> But if we hit a new resistant superbug... That will decimate everywhere, everyone. Think plague combined with malaria. Talking about multidrug resistant strains of bacteria. If just one becomes reasonably virulent we are really out of luck.

AFAIR this is a bit of a dramatization. The primary threat of superbugs isn't a new super plague (which is unlikely). The danger is that a big part of our medicine will suddenly revert to preindustrial mortality rates - surgeries that are routine today will become life-threatening, including probably anything you do at the dentist's. Imagine getting a cut in the kitchen, going to hospital for stitches, and ending up in a body bag. This alone will be both seriously deadly and disruptive to the economy. It is a serious issue indeed.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#128

Post by dekhn » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #114

dekhn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists have excellent language to describe these sorts of things (ambiguity and confidence in guess). For example, from the actual paper's abstract: """Quantitative analysis of the radar signals shows that this bright feature has high relative dielectric permittivity (>15), matching that of water-bearing materials. We interpret this feature as a stable body of liquid water on Mars.""" It's absolutely true that we…

> """ Python? Scala?

I use triple quotes when quoting, because many things I copy-paste have subquotes (either "..." or '...') or contractions (don't).

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#129

Post by DC-3 » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

larkeith wrote: post #116

CPLX wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience has been that Monty Python and Douglas Adams references are the clear exceptions to the no humor rules on HN, though I don't suppose you'll find that written down anywhere.

From what I've seen, a bit of reasonably mature humor seems acceptable, it's just multiple posts devoted to jokes derailing the conversation where it's frowned upon. I quite like this system, as it prevents Reddit-esque threads with the same tired memes being repeated back and forth ad nauseum , but still allows for a bit of levity to lighten the conversation and provide some mental refreshment. And yes, I realize I…

So long as you define 'mature' to mean 'in line with the average HN reader's ego and self-image', you're pretty much on point.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#130

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

beamatronic wrote: post #81

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of reasons. The first is that to make a mission to Mars cost effective, we have to wait about 18 months for Earth and Mars to line up in the right positions, otherwise it costs too much in rocket fuel to be worthwhile. The second is that the missions lag behind the discoveries - it's much easier to analyze pictures and spectographs than it is to design a mission, secure funding for it, and then do it. Sendin…

We have a proven design in Spirit/Opportunity. There should be an assembly line cranking them out.

And rockets too, while firing 30 at the same time for redundancy?

This is not a valid argument at all. You need different designs that will not fall in the same way. We could e.g. send Lockheed, United Space, SpaceX, Russian, ESA and CSA designs for all of the components at the same time, then it is perhaps possible that at least one week make it. The cost will be huge though.