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

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#391

Post by saudioger » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:01 AM 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…

My plumber thinks we should spend the money on better toilets.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#392

Post by godber » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:10 AM UTC

FranOntanaya wrote: post #164

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.

#1) The need for a large ellipse of flat plains with a minimal amount of hazardous rocks/slopes. Landing accuracy is constrained by our knowledge of the Martian atmosphere. Odd features tend to be on the opposite end of the ground hazard spectrum. #2) Planetary protection. Mars his a Category V target: it has potentially habitable niches, it has an atmosphere able to carry biological contamination anywhere, and we wa…

The #1 reason here is one of the most important. You have to be able to draw your landing ellipse in a spot that you can be confident the rover can safely land. Technological advances have shrunk the size of this ellipse considerably, check this image from JPL for comparison of past missions:

https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images/?ImageID=439...

Another reason is the decisions are made ... ok, perhaps only influenced by committee ... you have to satisfy at least a significant subset of the Mars research community with your site selection. See this site for public information on the process:

https://marsnext.jpl.nasa.gov/

There are a number of other hard engineering concerns, like limits on latitude based on heating (or solar power) requirements, e.g. if you go to far north or south you have to use all your available power to heat the spacecraft and won't have any left to do science. I don't remember the exact values, but I think existing technology puts you in a +/- 60 degrees from the equator. I think it was even less than that, but I don't recall exactly.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#393

Post by Jedd » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:15 AM UTC

ivm wrote: post #382

Jedd wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The downvotes for simply having another vision of a better future are silly. It's hubris to declare that your vision inherently provides a better future . Happily you are completely free to start your own project(s) to 'solve Earth's problems' too -- it won't get in the way of what others (in this case, Musk) is doing, and you can look forward to basking in the glory of curing cancer, etc. Unless the problem is tha…

> your vision inherently provides a better future I didn't say that, I said that there are different visions of a better future. I also didn't say that I have a problem here, only that I would prefer things going another way. You are attacking a comment I didn't write and had no intention to write.

> I didn't say that, I said that there are different visions of a better future.

You agreed with GP who stated they would prefer Elon Musk had started a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX, and you said 'I would prefer solving Earth's problems too'.

(Personally I'd prefer cancer research wasn't conducted by 'a firm' at all, but that's aside.)

What was the 'better' in reference to a 'better future' mean?

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#394

Post by posting2fast » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:27 AM UTC

darpa_escapee wrote: post #200

pc86 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An oncologist wishing more money was spent on cancer? In other news, water is wet. First of all, the optimal place for me to spend my money is not necessarily the optimal place for someone else to spend theirs. We can't know for sure, of course, but who were would have preferred Elon Musk start a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX? Secondly, there is no universal "cancer" that we can fight. There are hundreds of…

I'd argue that there are many problems endemic to the way we've structured society that spell out our doom on Earth, and if they aren't fixed here, will spell out our doom on other planets. We should fix our problems here, today, before exporting them elsewhere. Nevermind the fact that the after almost any type of disaster, the bottom of the ocean is infinitely more habitable than Mars. Mars as a holdout for humanity…

You get downvoted because you are 100% correct, and it's kind of shameful for adults to even need this pointed out to them. Without knowing, you're uncovering years, sometimes decades of self-deception.

"why Mars? because it's next", "exploration if a survival trait" and all such stuff is what kids tell to each under under the bed cover -- you just turned on the light, and only the best of them don't resent that.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#395

Post by sidcool » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:28 AM UTC

The little kid inside me is jumping up and down, like I have seen Santa. My belief in Mars hosting simple life forms is stronger than ever now. May be NASA already has data for it, but hasn't finished yet sifting through it. Amazing news!

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#396

Post by mighty_atomic_c » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

evanlivingston wrote: post #209

pc86 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An oncologist wishing more money was spent on cancer? In other news, water is wet. First of all, the optimal place for me to spend my money is not necessarily the optimal place for someone else to spend theirs. We can't know for sure, of course, but who were would have preferred Elon Musk start a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX? Secondly, there is no universal "cancer" that we can fight. There are hundreds of…

I think the dialogue quoted here demonstrates the underlying issue that is lost in futurist thought. No one "pioneered the west". Various groups of people with powerful technology traveled west and stole land from other groups of people. They also traveled south and east and used that technical and economic power to enslave other humans and forced them to develop the west. Development and progress for progress' sake…

> No one "pioneered the west". Various groups of people with powerful technology traveled west and stole land from other groups of people.

The people crossing the land bridge to North America from Asia pioneered the west. Or perhaps they considered it East since that's the direction they took to get here. Anyway, I think the point is that humans have an insatiable desire to explore. We have adapted to so many adverse climates here on Earth. And we got around quick with just a lot of bravery, teamwork, and cleverness. I've read that early peoples coming out of Africa swam from the eastern portion towards modern-day Yemen, and then there are the incredibly skilled Polynesian sailors of the Pacific.

> ... without prioritizing equalizing the gains of science and exploration and those gains actively stratify society further.

Technology is all about tools. Science is a process by which we build knowledge. They are not good or evil on their own, that is ultimately a reflection of whomever leverages these tools. I agree that equitability is not a default; privileged few can use their advantages to gain influence, and then repeat until monopoly or oligarchy come to pass.

> I am trying to make a case for focusing out scientific efforts of improving the lives of everyone on the planet. Without spreading the achievements of science and technology to everyone on the planet, humanity is doomed.

Sure, that's a reasonable thing to argue for and I broadly agree. Not all technology benefits humanity; making better bombs with science and technology does harm. Better surveillance measures undermines privacy, and these abuses of science and technology can stalk and kill just as readily as they can benefit us all. It all depends on how it is used.

But space exploration is something that really benefits humanity! There was a boon of technology that benefitted everyone in the wake of the hubbub of the space race. I don't know how it rates with all the other things we could possibly spend money on improving society, maybe below feeding the desperately hungry and below ecological restoration of course. But space has been a great, diverse source of technology, an infinite fount of curiosities, and I believe that if many more people gaze at the Earth from orbit, that a more global perspective will emerge, and this in turn could help direct funds to better causes.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#397

Post by mighty_atomic_c » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

omegaworks wrote: post #276

civilitty wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very tough to explain to someone who hasn't worked on large multidisciplinary projects with mandates to push some sort of boundaries like in exploration, science, and technology. This isn't some theoretical discussion by futurists, there is ample evidence that these kinds of ventures have systemic effects that touch literally every person, socioeconomic class, and daily activity. Academia and private industry ha…

We need a mandate to solve the climate issue and create a sustainable economy on this planet. We humans have a biological human desire to remain alive and eat food. I would argue that that is a stronger innate, biological human desire needed for basic evolutionary survival then that for exploration.

It is a matter of order. First, we learn how to terraform ourselves out of our inadvertent unhelpful terraflopping, then we use that learning to terraform anywhere we go. :)

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#398

Post by tbabb » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

xelxebar wrote: post #388

tbabb wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything about the Drake Equation, the Great Filter, and the Fermi "paradox" strike me as extremely sloppy logic, from which nothing but unfounded conclusions can be drawn. We have essentially zero data on the prevalence of life in the universe. There is no "absence of life" to explain, because we don't actually know whether life is absent. We more or less completely lack the scientific capability to detect extraso…

To my mind, the Fermi Paradox isn't so much about explaining an absence of life. It's the simple observation that, if life were abundant in the universe, the naïve expectation is that we'd see it everywhere, but we don't, so what gives? Intuitively, I see it like a bunch of homemade pickles. Say we have 100 jars of homemade pickles but are not sure whether they actually picked nicely or spoiled. If we try a jar and i…

> if life were abundant in the universe, the naïve expectation is that we'd see it everywhere, but we don't

No, that's my point: We don't see it because we can't; we don't have the technology. The fact that we see no aliens has nothing to do with the number of aliens, and everything to do with the fact that are more or less incapable of looking.

It would be like saying, "if butterflies were abundant in my garden, I'd see them everywhere, but I don't, so what gives?" when you are blind, and also stuck inside your house. There is nothing to explain. We can talk about seeing (or not seeing) butterflies when you are able to see at all.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#399

Post by posting2fast » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:44 AM UTC

pixelbash wrote: post #254

darpa_escapee wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, given the last asteroid induced extinction event, the south of France, the midwest US, and the bottom of the ocean would still have been more habitable than Mars.

Not for the ones that experienced it first hand.

Right. What about those who die of hunger or thirst? Every fucking day? What about those who die from the results of war profiteering, wars of aggression? Agent Orange? Depleted Uranium?

"Hey, cancer sucks" "ohhhh, of course an oncologist would say that".... how come in that case of someone dying of cancer, the person who experiences it first hand isn't a concern?

Many talk about the species because they can't even look a single human in the eye, and aren't very alive in the first place, that's the pattern I see. And I learned from Woody Allen that you should never trust a naked bus driver.

Here's the thing, the things humans do to other people, that we don't prevent because hey, it's easier to ignore them, and something like an asteroid or exploding star, are in completely different leagues. You need to deal with the first to even be a human, and you will not be able to avoid some form of the latter either way, at the latest with the heat death of the universe. For that to be a loss, you have to have faced the first part. Otherwise, it's a blessing, both for those who go extinct as well as for the rest of the universe who is spared their company.

Going to Mars (and being thorougly distracted by it, like war with less destruction of property) to "save the species" is beyond cute, it's deranged. It's like running without pants to work because "time is money". That may be true, but when you spend the day in a cell for running around without pants, you're not saving money.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#400

Post by ivm » Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 4:50 AM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #393

ivm wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your vision inherently provides a better future I didn't say that, I said that there are different visions of a better future. I also didn't say that I have a problem here, only that I would prefer things going another way. You are attacking a comment I didn't write and had no intention to write.

> I didn't say that, I said that there are different visions of a better future. You agreed with GP who stated they would prefer Elon Musk had started a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX, and you said 'I would prefer solving Earth's problems too'. (Personally I'd prefer cancer research wasn't conducted by 'a firm' at all, but that's aside.) What was the 'better' in reference to a 'better future' mean?

Better than now.