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

Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 351 posts

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#311

Post by ethbr0 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #289
qwytw wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel this is only a partially true, at least in democratic countries governed by rule of law, because the threat is mostly only theoretical. While modern states are significantly more powerful they are generally governed by more rational actors who (both because of that and better access to information) are much better at estimating the consequences of their actions compared to medieval kings or other autocrats. Wh…

I think I totally agree, and see this as a substantial difference between corporations and feudal lords. They have entirely capitulated on force and are comfortable in this position. You say they only maintain this position by choice, but what choice do they have otherwise? It is hard to imagine Apple, Google, Facebook having any success if they changed their mind and decided to challenge national governments like US…

It has pros on both sides. MAMAA wouldn't have their profit margins if they had to fund a private security force to enforce their contracts and protect their assets.

They get the freedom to focus on their business, within the bounds of the law, by ceding violence authority to the government. And in return, the government establishes and enforces those laws.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#312

Post by ncmncm »

mannerheim wrote: post #305
ncmncm wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You start by shipping a million tons of freight to Mars, while I do meaningful stuff at places that are not a waste of time and effort. By the time you are ready to supply fuel FOB at Mars, I have sent a million tons to places worth sending it to, instead. Maybe my million tons of freight includes a liquid methane sump on Titan, where I don't even need to synthesize, never mind liquify the stuff; it is sloshing aroun…

You seem pretty contentious here; I'm just making a case that Mars makes sense as a destination, not trying to convince you that this is something you need to pay for. IMO, the numbers work out for it being a hub for traffic to the belt and outer planets. Maybe you don't agree. That's fine. Again, I'm not asking you, personally, to start backing this. Just stop spouting off nonsense like 'if you can't get somewhere f…

I have said nothing even vaguely like that, and cannot guess where you got it from. But it is a simple fact that:

Any trip to the outer Solar System that stops at Mars is, energetically, much more costly that one which does not stop at Mars.

In addition, getting stuff to Mars is itself a huge expense that completely swamps any imagined benefit of extracting fuel and launching it to stop by for.

If you want to go to Mars, go without promoting obvious falsehoods about any value it has as a transport hub. It has none. Period.

If, to make sense, your Mars story needs for Mars to be a useful transport hub, then it fails, and you need a different story.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#313

Post by ethbr0 »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #300
ethbr0 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The suspicion I have about self sufficiency pessimism is that it's an apples to oranges comparison. Are there any modern analogies? As near as I can tell, it hasn't been required after the 16th century, due to access to relatively timely transportation. And if it hasn't been required, then how are we to look at existing practice and say we're bad at or incapable of it?

Comparison to what? We don't need an analogy. This is a novel environment and it can be evaluated on its own.

Self sufficiency failing on Mars vs what kind of self sufficiency we can manage now (while living on Earth and no needing to prioritize it)

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#314

Post by mannerheim »

ncmncm wrote: post #312
mannerheim wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem pretty contentious here; I'm just making a case that Mars makes sense as a destination, not trying to convince you that this is something you need to pay for. IMO, the numbers work out for it being a hub for traffic to the belt and outer planets. Maybe you don't agree. That's fine. Again, I'm not asking you, personally, to start backing this. Just stop spouting off nonsense like 'if you can't get somewhere f…

I have said nothing even vaguely like that, and cannot guess where you got it from. But it is a simple fact that: Any trip to the outer Solar System that stops at Mars is, energetically, much more costly that one which does not stop at Mars . In addition, getting stuff to Mars is itself a huge expense that completely swamps any imagined benefit of extracting fuel and launching it to stop by for. If you want to go to…

This is what you said:

> If you can't get there without a stop at Mars, then you really, really can't get there with a stop at Mars. Stopping at Mars costs extra.

This is as asinine as saying, if you can't get somewhere without a stop at the gas station, then you really, really can't get there with a stop at the gas station. Stopping at the gas station costs extra.

After all, it costs fuel to take an exit on the freeway and go to the gas station. It costs fuel to leave and go back on the freeway. It costs extra! Energetically, any trip where you have to make a detour to a gas station, costs more than a trip where you don't make a stop there.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#315

Post by ncmncm »

mannerheim wrote: post #314
ncmncm wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have said nothing even vaguely like that, and cannot guess where you got it from. But it is a simple fact that: Any trip to the outer Solar System that stops at Mars is, energetically, much more costly that one which does not stop at Mars . In addition, getting stuff to Mars is itself a huge expense that completely swamps any imagined benefit of extracting fuel and launching it to stop by for. If you want to go to…

This is what you said: > If you can't get there without a stop at Mars, then you really, really can't get there with a stop at Mars. Stopping at Mars costs extra. This is as asinine as saying, if you can't get somewhere without a stop at the gas station, then you really, really can't get there with a stop at the gas station. Stopping at the gas station costs extra. After all, it costs fuel to take an exit on the free…

I am going to leave this here for you to be, on your own schedule, gravely embarrassed at having written it.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#316

Post by spaetzleesser »

Tepix wrote: post #182
uwuemu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A probe based on nuclear pulse propulsion could do it in around 50 years, with today's technology. It's not that we can't do it fast (within one average human lifespan), it's that the project would be very expensive and something like Nasa has a relatively tight budget. I mean we, as humanity, have to have an eccentric billionaire start a Martian fire (SpaceX Starship) under our lazy asses to even start to think abou…

We do in fact have another billionaire, Yuri Millner, to push humanity towards the goal of reaching other stars with his "Breakthrough Starshot" initiative.

As far as I know this would be cell phone sized with no way of slowing down. It would cross entire solar systems within a few hours.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#317

Post by ncmncm »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #286
ncmncm wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While US gov't put in $billions. But who kept ownership? Mars hype turns out to be good for drawing money out of governments. ITER is a dead end, no matter what, so not a useful data point.

>While US gov't put in $billions. There is a difference between buying something and putting in money. If I buy a cheeseburger, I can't say I "put in" $5 to McDonalds and should have some ownership. If I pay my contract plumber to fix my toilet, I don't own their business either. I think you will be hard-pressed to find any substantial examples where the US gov wasn't buying something from SpaceX.

McDonald's won't go bankrupt if you elect not to get the large fries. SpaceX would have gone bankrupt several times if NASA hadn't kicked in at a crucial moment.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#318

Post by ddingus »

ethbr0 wrote: post #204
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely, objectively, incorrect. You might as well argue that you can build a self-sustaining base on Antarctica. Of course you can't, because Antarctica can't support life. No amount of shouting into a bullhorn about adventure will change that. It might be possible with an absolutely epic effort to airlift soil, nuclear reactors, nuclear and other fuels, machinery for every eventually (including chip fabs…

At the end of the day, profit determines reality. And that's where futurists have always screwed up, because profit funds solutions. Nobody has colonized Antarctica not because it's impossible, but because it's difficult enough and useless enough that we all agreed on a treaty prohibiting it. In contrast, we constructed the 63 radars (some with bases) of the DEW line in the late 1950s in under 3 years, with part of t…

Seems to me we are nowhere near the level of maturity needed to even suggest colonization.

Our basic priorities are not in order and that is true for a lot of the world.

Tons of people need solutions now to problems we can solve, and we do not solve them because those priorities are not in order.

And with that, there goes that justification.

Higher priority items include:

Not shitting where we eat,

A much reduced focus on killing one another.

There are many others.

I agree with the other commenter.

It may be very frustrating and disappointing to get married to those ideas. No one reading here is going to see them.

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#319

Post by ahonhn »

prox wrote: post #252
divbzero wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Stars with a mass of less than 0.25 solar masses do not evolve into red giants.… Toward the end of the blue dwarf phase, Proxima will become considerably more luminous, reaching up to 2.5% of the Sun’s luminosity. Once it runs out of hydrogen fuel, it will evolve into a white dwarf, skipping the red giant phase, and gradually lose all its heat energy.” So we just need to tackle climate change and learn to live susta…

A good place to learn how to reverse entropy.

Just read Asimov's "The Last Question" yesterday and then this discussion pops up today on HN :-)

Re: Earth-like planet spotted orbiting Sun’s closest star

#320

Post by rbanffy »

psd1 wrote: post #117
HWR_14 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pointing at frail people with wrinkly faces and laughing, same way we do today with antivaxxers. Except those people are more likely to be too poor to afford it instead of unwilling to take it.

Or, worse, the young will never get any power because the old will not relinquish control. Then you have the "surfeit of princes" problem. This isn't just grand political power: imagine being unable to progress in your career because geriatrics above you aren't retiring. That's just one possible secondary effect. We could enumerate many others.

I’m guessing we have to choose between capitalism and eternal youth.

I’m totally ok with a post-scarcity socialist society.

Post reply on HN