Live data from Hacker News

Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

bbc.co.uk

461–470 of 495 posts

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#461

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…

We could have both if the defensive budget was cut by a percent or two

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a false dichotomy that always annoys me. It is entirely possible that by spending $400B to safely send people to Mars and live there, especially in a moderately high radiation environment, that we will discover EXACTLY the mechanisms that send cells into cancer states and how to reverse that so they stop. Otherwise we're going to have colonists getting cancer and dying too quickly. Then not only do we get to…

I look forward to seeing the summary of this discussion thread on n-gate. If Earth were hit by a dinosaur killing asteroid it would be more habitable than mars before, during, and after. Any ridiculous boondoggle might have beneficial side effects. There’s no evidence, however, that spending money on a boondoggle is a more effective way of generating positive side effects than spending the same money on something sen…

My thoughts exactly about n-gate.

There's this funny assumption that the Earth might get hit by an asteroid but such an event can't happen to Mars. I'd like to know why Mars is asteroid-safe. Also what's the rationale in going to what in fact is an extinct planet to deal with the possibility of extinction in this of ours, which despite the bad press has been sustaining life continuously for billions of years.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't know for sure, of course, but who were would have preferred Elon Musk start a cancer research firm instead of SpaceX? I would have preferred that. EDIT: Sure, downvote me for honestly answering a question. I don't really care about colonizing space right now, I care about a lot of other problems here on Earth. Perhaps you think that's short sighted, but I'd rather Musk have started another Simons Foundatio…

Asteroid. Clathrate gun hypothesis. One-in-a-billion solar event. Planet-wide nuclear war. Random destabilization of the Earth's core. There are a lot of things that wouldn't kill you on Mars.

Maybe I should clarify my point: all the things that will realistically kill everyone reading this comment are not unique to Earth. Some of the things you've mentioned are quite literally so astronomically unlikely that worrying about them is unproductive. And in any case, each of the extinction scenarios you've listed is also fully plausible on Mars.

Scores of people die from cancer, heart disease, obesity, malnutrition, vehicular accidents or warfare every day. In my opinion, there's a sort of messianic hubris involved in the idea that we should colonize an utterly foreign, unfamiliar and inhospitable environment for the sake of our species, when everything that actually threatens our species comes from our own biology and the way we treat each other.

The current state of Mars is a vastly more hostile environment than even the worst, most pessimistic scenarios offered by Earth's paleoclimatology. We completely lack the technology to terraform Mars' environment to our needs. It is strictly easier for us to develop the technology, lifestyle changes or sociopolitical reforms necessary to continue thriving here on Earth than it is to learn how to adapt to Mars or to terraform its environment to approximate Earth's.

You and I are probably going to die from cancer, heart disease or random accidents. On a long enough timeline, everyone we know is probably going to die from one of those things. But sure let's go to Mars, where the things that kill approximately everyone apparently aren't an issue.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person I responded to, in the part that I quoted, brought up people without electricity and plumbing as a contrast to spending efforts on exploration. It looks like an either/or to me. > People are simply arguing against spending more on it when we have more pressing issues to contend with. But this argument happens every time the issue of funding space exploration comes up. Every single time. Without fail. Not a…

Dismissing an argument because it's often repeated by many people sounds like you're making an argument against popularity, maybe even a fallacy fallacy. Other than the link at the end of your post, I don't think anything you said actually challenges the opposing argument.

I'm not dismissing it because it's repetitive; I'm criticizing the people that make that argument because they've been responded to over and over again, and yet they still make exactly the same argument while, themselves, ignoring the counterpoints.

But okay, here are a few reasons:

1. Because it's difficult. As Kennedy famously said, we choose to go not because it is easy, but because it is hard [1]. We will need to develop and improve a lot of technology, engineering, and science to get to Mars and build a self-sustaining colony there.

2. The technological developments required to get there and stay there will help further improve life on Earth. A number of technologies have been spun off from past NASA efforts [2] [3]. Mars is a harsh and challenging environment; past efforts like Skylab have been stepping stone experiments towards longer-duration stays in space, and Mars is the next step in that progression. We will learn a great deal about the biological effects of interplanetary travel (necessary if we wish to eventually extract resources from other bodies in the solar system) and agriculture in extremely harsh environments (necessary if we wish to stabilize regions on Earth impacted by global warming). You can see this in action right now: SpaceX is driven to get to Mars, and to get there, they're developing technology that's making it safer and less expensive to get payloads into orbit. If they pull off their planned global communications network as another step towards Mars, that will be a huge benefit for humanity on Earth.

3. It's the only way to begin answering the question, "how rare is life in our solar system?" We already know that Mars had the necessary conditions for life. We don't know if life ever developed there. We don't know life might still be present there. We don't know what forms it may take, how it may be different -- or not at all different -- from life on Earth. One of the oldest questions humanity has is, "are we alone in the universe?", and if we hope to ever answer that, we'll need to venture into space.

4. It will inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. I think a lot of people assume that scientists and engineers are just sort of a thing that happens. No, they come from dedicated college students, and dedicated college students come from kids with dreams. Science fairs and after-school programs aren't enough; you have to give young kids something really big and really cool to dream about, and then they'll want to be part of that dream. The Apollo program gave us a three-fold increase in PhD students in US universities. You like Amazon? Apollo helped helped provide the fertile ground from which Jeff Bezos found the inspiration to build Amazon [4]. I don't know if the effects of all these new scientists and engineers can be overstated; people say, "we should cure cancer instead of going to space", and I say, "if you want to cure cancer, go to space." I grew up on Neil Armstrong and the moonrise photo and Scotty from Star Trek; I'll probably never get to fulfill my dream, but I got in to software development at the age of 8 because it was the closest I could get to being in a futuristic space ship.

5. Because it is historic. You want to make America great? Do something great. Dr. Zubrin described this really well; in 500 years, nobody will even remember who the President of the US was. But they'll remember -- and celebrate -- the year we went to Mars. Somebody will do it, eventually. China has the resources. India has the potential. Russia has the capability. If America doesn't get there first, I think it'll be time to admit that our great democratic-capitalist experiment has failed. It'll mean we, as a population, have become uninspired and lazy and complacent and lost the spirit of exploration that got us in here in the first place.

6. Because it is possible. We have the technology and science right now to get us there. We just have to try. We aren't still crossing vast bodies of water in wood-hulled ships. Mars is within reach now, so why aren't we reaching for it? What is holding us back? Cynicism? As Dr. Zubrin says, if we can do a great thing, then we should.

7. It will be a "remote backup" for humanity. There are still any number of things beyond our control that could wipe out most life on Earth, set human progress back a thousand years or more. If we expand into space, if we build a self-sustaining colony on Mars before that happens, not only will we develop more technology that will further reduce the chances of that happening, but if it does happen, we'll have much better chances of rebooting civilization on Earth. But it's going to take time for us to develop that far, so we should start as soon as possible.

8. A Mars colony will become a new experiment in human society. Look, there's just no way that a Mars colony will be governed entirely, long-term, by any government on Earth. It's going to need to develop its own governance. What will that look like? Technology is a fundamental part of life on Earth now; how might the next colonial government, full of scientists and engineers, incorporate it into government? What new solutions might they find to the political problems of Earth? We don't know yet. There's only one way to find out.

All of these points have been stated before, more eloquently, by other people before me.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

[2]: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

[4]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/16/apollo-legac...

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#465
post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

You do realize that what you're proposing isn't in direct contradiction to the Fermi paradox, but is one of the most popular solutions to it? The Fermi paradox is the observation that, based on the size of the universe, we'd naïvely expect to observe several alien lifeforms. That's it. It doesn't imply a "Great Filter", or any other solution. It's just the observation. The "Great Filter" theory is a commonly mentione…

No, I am not proposing that the universe is full of life, nor am I proposing that it is empty of life. I am objecting to the notion of "drawing conclusions about how much life there is based on how much life see," because we are blind.

A universe empty of life is just as compatible with our observations as one that is full of it. We should not "expect" anything at this point.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#466
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curiosity cost $2.5 billion. The next generation rover, Mars 2020, is based on the same design. Where is this technological leap in rover technology?

> Where is this technological leap Umm Moore's Law? Curiosity was a big leap from Opportunity and Mars 2020, while built on the same platform, has a laundry list of upgrades. Meanwhile, a manned mission is likely to be a trillion dollar project and even if they come in at half a trillion, that's still literally hundreds of $2 billion rovers.

Where's your data to back up that a manned mission would be a trillion dollars? You can't just throw out random numbers and then use the random numbers you guessed at as a reason to not do something.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#467
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…

> Without spreading the achievements of science and technology to everyone on the planet, humanity is doomed.

Forget ethics/morals for a second - this is just patently _false_. It depends on your definition of "doomed", but humanity as a whole needs only a few people to survive in order to not be doomed (defined as extinct).

It'd be easier to argue your case without hyperbole.

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“If we somehow transplanted Canada’s healthcare system and costs” Get back to me when you’ve convinced US healthcare workers to take a 30-50% pay cut. Until then, US healthcare will remain more expensive than developed countries that don’t routinely compensate doctors and nurses at the level we do.

This is incorrect. The cost of care in this country is not a function of salary; it's a function of grotesque inefficiencies in the system. When I dug into this during the attempt to repeal the ACA, what I found was the US pays 50% to many times more per capita for much worse outcomes than any other first world nation, with comparisons against Japan being particularly bleak. Furthermore, that is the result of systemi…

In the news today: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/398967-us-t...

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#469
post #410

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.

The water's a mile down. Duh. Here's a clue for you: the people who make these decisions as to where to send rovers are intelligent. That's why their choices aren't the choices you would make.

Personal attacks are not OK on this site.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Liquid water 'lake' revealed on Mars

#470
post #359

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…

> For any exploratory drilling, or covering any real amount of ground, you need humans. No, you don't. > For reference, Opportunity Rover has only traveled 45 km/28 mi in 14 years. That's true, but that is because of budgetary constraints, not technical ones. If you put the same amount of money into a rover as it would take to send a human, you could cover a LOT more ground with autonomous rovers. This is self-eviden…

> I used to work on the Mars Rover program.

I just need to thank you for that and hope that you're still somehow involved in making us a more-than-one-planet species. I don't really care whether it's another planet, a space station or whatever else can ensure our survival past this beautiful blue aqua ball.

On topic, there is no debate that robotics is the key to exploring space, magnitudes of orders faster and farther than we could in flesh and blood. We could —and probably will— swarm this whole solar system or even close stars with armies of tiny (dare I say nano) drones.

A human being is a sniper bullet — one big shot, extremely powerful and focused. A swarm of robots is a fragmentation grenade — small impacts in all directions of space. If you needed to blast/repaint a whole room and only had one shot, which would you use?

Post reply on HN