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

Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#71

Post by generalizations »

palata wrote: post #31
d_burfoot wrote: post #16

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

> “We need to preserve the far side for exciting science that includes measuring magnetic fields associated with potentially habitable exoplanets and uncovering the mysteries of the unexplored Dark Ages of the early universe—using low radio frequency observations” Does that sound completely crazy? Like... the fact that they want to study it before private companies destroy it for their own benefit? > Moving developme…

We've been able to carve out national parks before, why do you think we can't do that on a larger scale?

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#72

Post by jncfhnb »

h0l0cube wrote: post #68
d_burfoot wrote: post #16

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the mos…

These places surely cannot be scarce in the universal sense? Are they even scarce in our own solar system?

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#73

Post by inglor_cz »

h0l0cube wrote: post #68
d_burfoot wrote: post #16

There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.

> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the mos…

"the installation of telescopes is possible at only three sites"

The far side of the Moon is bigger than Russia. I have my doubts about such a categorical claim as "only three sites are suitable for telescopes".

On Earth, we build observatories in mountainous terrain regularly.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#74

Post by bequanna »

jncfhnb wrote: post #72
h0l0cube wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the mos…

These places surely cannot be scarce in the universal sense? Are they even scarce in our own solar system?

I think it actually might be the best spot because the far side of the moon is always positioned facing away from earth.

Is there anywhere else in the solar system that can claim that?

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#75

Post by belter »

suprjami wrote: post #47
rufus_foreman wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Who gets to own the moon? Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first to the moon and they planted the US flag on it in 1969, so that technically made it US territory. But then when they took off in the lander, the blast blew the flag over. I don't know if that affected the legal status or not.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states there is no claim to sovereignty. https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2017/stspa...

Not signed or ratified by at least 59 countries.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#76

Post by dguest »

Aerroon wrote: post #36
dguest wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a lunapark too. Until then I'm just another stupid scientist. But I'm aware that other people have different interests. I think the people who are calling for areas to be preserved are aware too, which is why they are trying to start a dialogue.

But the dialogue is really this: > I want to study X and to do that I need Y. And you're going to give it to me because it might help our scientific understanding. Probably. Maybe. Science overall is useful, but whether any individual part of it is useful is a lot more questionable. What gets studied is about what a (willful) scientist wants to study. I suspect that people setting up something economically useful on…

Yeah I don't like entitled scientists either.

It's especially disheartening to see my own community come off this way.

That said, I think most of us are aware of the reality: from a funding point of view science is somewhere between a luxury and a trick to teach young idealistic people skills. Those skills can then be repurposed for industry or military applications. We aren't at all shy about pointing this out in grant proposals, so it's sad that people come off as though the scientific community is somehow entitled to anything.

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that science is important, but in a world ruled by markets science funding is always going to be a charity.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#77

Post by augusto-moura »

generalizations wrote: post #71
palata wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “We need to preserve the far side for exciting science that includes measuring magnetic fields associated with potentially habitable exoplanets and uncovering the mysteries of the unexplored Dark Ages of the early universe—using low radio frequency observations” Does that sound completely crazy? Like... the fact that they want to study it before private companies destroy it for their own benefit? > Moving developme…

We've been able to carve out national parks before, why do you think we can't do that on a larger scale?

National parks require a nation, who owns parts of the Moon? Why would they be interested on making "parks" on their part of the land? Think of it more like Antarctica, which actually makes things fine I guess, since Antarctica is basically a big scientific lab, with almost no industrial development

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#78

Post by GolfPopper »

basisword wrote: post #2

While I understand their concerns, it seems a bit crazy to think you have any right to tell people what to do or not do on the moon.

Is it any more crazy than thinking that some corporation, country, or individual has a right to do something on the moon?

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#79

Post by edgyquant »

KyleBerezin wrote: post #40
edgyquant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really a libertarian thing. Society has to balance more than just the wants or concerns of scientists and they have no more right than anyone else to dictate what we do with the moon.

Its a joke. It sounds like a normal libertarian argument, but on the moon. If you want a more serious answer though, we have multiple treaties and moratoriums on what is, and is not allowed in space and on the moon. They were agreed upon because we have mutual interests, and want to preserve humanities future of spaceflight and research. - https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int... - https://www.…

Treaties can be updated or even ignored if new economic or technological realities come into play.

Re: Why Scientists Are Calling for the Moon to Be Better Protected from Development

#80

Post by dotnet00 »

firtoz wrote: post #56
dotnet00 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A species that has the technical capability to mine and transport away ~10^23 kg of mass, is a species that has the capability to replace that mass.

What if they invested too much into greed and not nearly enough into self preservation?

Removing significant percentages of the Moon's mass is a whole different ballgame from climate change on Earth, where even now people will debate if it'sreally anthropogenic.

There would be an immediately noticeable harm with the genuine ability to make Earth entirely uninhabitable, and unlike with climate change, where the mechanisms at work aren't directly relatable, with an orbit change, the mechanisms are pretty relatable to everyone, in the form of seasons and their total disruption.

As such, I don't think the typical ideas of people ignoring the problem in favor of keeping the money flowing apply, as those are all cases where the harm is some unclear time in the future involving the suffering of people who are not the decision makers.

Post reply on HN