8 ms·

Inasmuch as Mars with our current technology offers no back up for civilization, the same can certainly be said for the moon. I would argue over that the moon

Inasmuch as Mars with our current technology offers no back up for civilization, the same can certainly be said for the moon. I would argue over that the moon actually has some benefits Mars lacks, in addition to proximity it has a much lesser gravitational field and therefore a much lower delta V. Moon colony could realistically jumpstart space and vacuum industries beyond LEO, and frankly it would probably give us a chance to test the many technologies we'd eventually need on Mars without having to actually make the trip to Mars. Most of all the moon would be an excellent way station for asteroid mining .

athenot 9y ago
When the topic of Backup for Civilization comes up, instead of Wall-E, I tend to think of Elysium, i.e. the backup option is only for the wealthy, leaving the rest in a worse state. https://www.space.com/22287-elysium-space-station-science-nasa.html https://www.space.com/22287-elysium-space-station-science-na...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- QAPereo 9y ago
  At this point, no amount of money will save you, we need Earth for food at the very least. That may change, but not soon.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > the backup option is only for the wealthy, leaving the rest in a worse state. Like most technology, it flows from the rich to the poor eventually as it becomes cheaper. The important part you omitted is that it leaves the rest in a worse relative state. Their absolute state is no worse, and likely better. Arguing against a backup for civilization (or more appropriately, a backup for the species) because it will be used by the rich is like arguing against a cure for cancer because the rich will benefit before anyone else. In the end, a cure existing still drastically increases the chance the poor might be able to make use of it, from zero to some non-zero amount. This is all also ignoring the fact that when it comes to species level propagation and survival, I would rather Hitler and his closest Nazi associates makes it off world sustainably in the event of a species level disaster than nobody. My commitment to making sure Humanity survives is much more than my commitment to ensuring we are a caring and accepting civilization. We can rediscover valuing life, but once we're gone, the chances we are coming back are essentially nil.
  - ribosometronome 9y ago
    Why is humanity's survival important?
    - kbenson 9y ago
      It's important for the exact same reason you're able to ask that question. Without humanity, who asks why? Humanity is, to the best of our knowledge, the best and possibly only chance of increasing understanding of the universe. I care about that, as well as about our species generally in what is likely an evolved and chemically reinforced way. At some point that may be less true, and I would care less (but would still care). At a meta level, if you truly don't care about the survival of your species (even if only through the survival of your own relatives and loved ones), you're an evolutionary dead end.
      - wellboy 9y ago
        Survival of humanity isn't important universally. The universe doesn't care. But it's the most important thing for humans.
        ars 9y ago
        > The universe doesn't care. And that's exactly why it's important. > Survival of humanity isn't important universally. Unless there is something there that cares about it, there is little reason for the universe to exist - nothing would know the difference. Which is why it actually is important universally. > But it's the most important thing for humans. No, it's more important for the universe to have humans, than it is for humans to have a universe. If the universe did not have humans (or another sentients) then it might as well not exist. AKA: Humans super important to the universe. If humans did not have a universe, then humans would not exist. If humans did not exist then nothing is important to them.
        wellboy 9y ago
        Why are you saying that the universe might not exist if it were not for humans. I have a few questions for you. 1. What if humans become extinct in a few hundred years? Should the universe then not exist anymore and make more lifeforms? 2. What if there are billions of other "intelligent" species in the universe? Why should the universe care about one specific species that is actually not that great, and very destructive. 3. What if this universe is just an experiment, a petridish and we are just one out of billions of parameters. 4. What if our kind of intelligence is really not that impressive, what if intelligence of dark matter entities, which we don't know about anything is much more powerful, what if even that is not that impressive? Again, the universe doesn't care. It is not a person, it doesn't have a plan, it is neutral, unless we met our "gods" one day. Humans are just a blip among much larger things that are happening in the universe.
- mabbo 9y ago
  Elysium isn't about space stations, it's about wealthy enclaves. Those already exist, and our society is becoming more stratified every year. There's no need for the very rich to leave the planet for that. Backing up the species is about keeping a strong diverse stock of human genetics and knowledge somewhere safe from whatever harm might befall the earth. Under those terms, I for one do not care whether it's rich people or poor people. I doubt I'll be in the 0.00001% of the population who are part of it regardless.
- cpeterso 9y ago
  For another take on backing on human civilization, check out Neal Stephenson's novel Seveneves. Humanity evacuates 1500 people to orbit as moon debris decimates all remaining life on the earth's surface. As a story, it's pretty dry, but as a thought experiment, it's very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves
  - prawn 9y ago
    I wouldn't call it dry. I thought the writing style was a little juvenile, but the ideas are generally interesting as you said, the descriptions of technology are fairly detailed and I thought of it as a rollicking adventure by the end. Dry implies flat and drab to me. If anything, I think Stephenson's flaw as a writer is that he comes across as an excited boy who just wants to tell you everything he's been researching, rather than show you naturally with a well-written story.
  - hossbeast 9y ago
    I was totally engaged by Seveneves, right up until the time jump, at which point I completely lost interest. The hard rain stuff at the beginning is totally fascinating.
    - aedron 9y ago
      Same experience. It was like it was written by two different authors (one fantastic and one awful).
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
Mars has atmosphere for aerobraking and ISRU possibilities that the moon does not. In many ways, it is much more practical from a spaceflight standpoint. That's not to say that there aren't possibilities for both, but Mars is seen as the preferred choice for a variety of sound reasons.
- keenerd 9y ago
  The Martian atmosphere is next to worthless for aerobraking human-scale infrastructure. One of the most significant points in the Moon's favor is the (relative) ease with which a space elevator could be built. It doesn't need unobtainium, current structural materials are strong enough.
  - simonh 9y ago
    SpaceX have run the simulations and while Red Dragon is possible, there's no way they can adapt Dragon to land on the Moon without adding an extra stage. That difference is entirely down to Aerobraking. Even the thin atmosphere of Mars makes a huge difference. Anyone who plays KSP can confirm this for you, especially using the Real Solar System mod, though the same lessson is apparent even in the stock game.
    - keenerd 9y ago
      We can also look at delta-V charts. Earth to the Moon is like 16.4km/s, Earth to Mars is like 14.3km/s using every available aerobraking opportunity (6.4km/s saved) and assuming 500m/s for the final powered landing. (The Red Dragon plan called for aerobraking from 6km/s to 540m/s and then switching to thrusters.) Is that 2.1km/s really a whole extra stage? Or can it be met by reducing cargo capacity somewhat? Two interesting points about Red Dragon - it wasn't feasible to put parachutes on it so its aerobraking would have been greatly limited. It wouldn't have much surface to use for deceleration in that case. I'm curious just how long it would have spent aerobraking, SpaceX's docs don't seem to mention that. And it was cancelled a few months ago with the intent of designing a "vastly" heavier lander, for which aerobraking will be that much less practical. edit: But I can do a back of the envelope calculation. Decelerating 6500kg from 6km/s to 540m/s is 116G joules. The diameter is 3.6 meters so a molecule of air in from of the Dragon would be displaced (on average) 0.53 meters. Let's assume the atmosphere is a constant density (0.020 kg/m^3). Assume a drag coefficient of 0.05 (and ignoring the lifting body effect) that is around 200kN of force, tapering down to 1.5kN. That is like 3000 km of aerobraking at maximum atmospheric density and should take around 2300 seconds. But that depends a lot on the deorbit profile. I'm going to need a bigger simulation...
WalterBright 9y ago
You can also rotate the crew on the moon. Can send things to the moon you didn't anticipate. Can send replacement/repair parts. Can't do that for Mars.
- pc86 9y ago
  Of course you can, it just takes a few orders of magnitude longer.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - frandroid 9y ago
    If the one specialist in your mission dies and it takes 8 years to send a new one, that's not called an effective replacement.
    - Teever 9y ago
      Has it ever taken 8 years to send something to the moon?
      - ryandrake 9y ago
        At least in the US, if we urgently needed to send something to the moon in 8 years, we would not be able to do it. Between politically making it happen, deciding who spends the money on it, choosing a contractor that represents the right disadvantaged special interest group, years of contract negotiation, town hall discussions, environmental impact studies, project management failures, budget overruns, pork barrel carve-outs and jobs programs for various congresspeople's districts, etc. it would take way more than 8 years.
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        Depending on how you count, e.g. May 1961 (Freedom 7 flight) to July 1969 (Apollo 11 flight), yes.
    - 9y ago

athenot 9y ago

When the topic of Backup for Civilization comes up, instead of Wall-E, I tend to think of Elysium, i.e. the backup option is only for the wealthy, leaving the rest in a worse state. https://www.space.com/22287-elysium-space-station-science-nasa.html https://www.space.com/22287-elysium-space-station-science-na...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
QAPereo 9y ago
At this point, no amount of money will save you, we need Earth for food at the very least. That may change, but not soon.
kbenson 9y ago
> the backup option is only for the wealthy, leaving the rest in a worse state. Like most technology, it flows from the rich to the poor eventually as it becomes cheaper. The important part you omitted is that it leaves the rest in a worse relative state. Their absolute state is no worse, and likely better. Arguing against a backup for civilization (or more appropriately, a backup for the species) because it will be used by the rich is like arguing against a cure for cancer because the rich will benefit before anyone else. In the end, a cure existing still drastically increases the chance the poor might be able to make use of it, from zero to some non-zero amount. This is all also ignoring the fact that when it comes to species level propagation and survival, I would rather Hitler and his closest Nazi associates makes it off world sustainably in the event of a species level disaster than nobody. My commitment to making sure Humanity survives is much more than my commitment to ensuring we are a caring and accepting civilization. We can rediscover valuing life, but once we're gone, the chances we are coming back are essentially nil.
- ribosometronome 9y ago
  Why is humanity's survival important?
  - kbenson 9y ago
    It's important for the exact same reason you're able to ask that question. Without humanity, who asks why? Humanity is, to the best of our knowledge, the best and possibly only chance of increasing understanding of the universe. I care about that, as well as about our species generally in what is likely an evolved and chemically reinforced way. At some point that may be less true, and I would care less (but would still care). At a meta level, if you truly don't care about the survival of your species (even if only through the survival of your own relatives and loved ones), you're an evolutionary dead end.
    - wellboy 9y ago
      Survival of humanity isn't important universally. The universe doesn't care. But it's the most important thing for humans.
      - ars 9y ago
        > The universe doesn't care. And that's exactly why it's important. > Survival of humanity isn't important universally. Unless there is something there that cares about it, there is little reason for the universe to exist - nothing would know the difference. Which is why it actually is important universally. > But it's the most important thing for humans. No, it's more important for the universe to have humans, than it is for humans to have a universe. If the universe did not have humans (or another sentients) then it might as well not exist. AKA: Humans super important to the universe. If humans did not have a universe, then humans would not exist. If humans did not exist then nothing is important to them.
        wellboy 9y ago
        Why are you saying that the universe might not exist if it were not for humans. I have a few questions for you. 1. What if humans become extinct in a few hundred years? Should the universe then not exist anymore and make more lifeforms? 2. What if there are billions of other "intelligent" species in the universe? Why should the universe care about one specific species that is actually not that great, and very destructive. 3. What if this universe is just an experiment, a petridish and we are just one out of billions of parameters. 4. What if our kind of intelligence is really not that impressive, what if intelligence of dark matter entities, which we don't know about anything is much more powerful, what if even that is not that impressive? Again, the universe doesn't care. It is not a person, it doesn't have a plan, it is neutral, unless we met our "gods" one day. Humans are just a blip among much larger things that are happening in the universe.
mabbo 9y ago
Elysium isn't about space stations, it's about wealthy enclaves. Those already exist, and our society is becoming more stratified every year. There's no need for the very rich to leave the planet for that. Backing up the species is about keeping a strong diverse stock of human genetics and knowledge somewhere safe from whatever harm might befall the earth. Under those terms, I for one do not care whether it's rich people or poor people. I doubt I'll be in the 0.00001% of the population who are part of it regardless.
cpeterso 9y ago
For another take on backing on human civilization, check out Neal Stephenson's novel Seveneves. Humanity evacuates 1500 people to orbit as moon debris decimates all remaining life on the earth's surface. As a story, it's pretty dry, but as a thought experiment, it's very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves
- prawn 9y ago
  I wouldn't call it dry. I thought the writing style was a little juvenile, but the ideas are generally interesting as you said, the descriptions of technology are fairly detailed and I thought of it as a rollicking adventure by the end. Dry implies flat and drab to me. If anything, I think Stephenson's flaw as a writer is that he comes across as an excited boy who just wants to tell you everything he's been researching, rather than show you naturally with a well-written story.
- hossbeast 9y ago
  I was totally engaged by Seveneves, right up until the time jump, at which point I completely lost interest. The hard rain stuff at the beginning is totally fascinating.
  - aedron 9y ago
    Same experience. It was like it was written by two different authors (one fantastic and one awful).

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago

Mars has atmosphere for aerobraking and ISRU possibilities that the moon does not. In many ways, it is much more practical from a spaceflight standpoint. That's not to say that there aren't possibilities for both, but Mars is seen as the preferred choice for a variety of sound reasons.

keenerd 9y ago
The Martian atmosphere is next to worthless for aerobraking human-scale infrastructure. One of the most significant points in the Moon's favor is the (relative) ease with which a space elevator could be built. It doesn't need unobtainium, current structural materials are strong enough.
- simonh 9y ago
  SpaceX have run the simulations and while Red Dragon is possible, there's no way they can adapt Dragon to land on the Moon without adding an extra stage. That difference is entirely down to Aerobraking. Even the thin atmosphere of Mars makes a huge difference. Anyone who plays KSP can confirm this for you, especially using the Real Solar System mod, though the same lessson is apparent even in the stock game.
  - keenerd 9y ago
    We can also look at delta-V charts. Earth to the Moon is like 16.4km/s, Earth to Mars is like 14.3km/s using every available aerobraking opportunity (6.4km/s saved) and assuming 500m/s for the final powered landing. (The Red Dragon plan called for aerobraking from 6km/s to 540m/s and then switching to thrusters.) Is that 2.1km/s really a whole extra stage? Or can it be met by reducing cargo capacity somewhat? Two interesting points about Red Dragon - it wasn't feasible to put parachutes on it so its aerobraking would have been greatly limited. It wouldn't have much surface to use for deceleration in that case. I'm curious just how long it would have spent aerobraking, SpaceX's docs don't seem to mention that. And it was cancelled a few months ago with the intent of designing a "vastly" heavier lander, for which aerobraking will be that much less practical. edit: But I can do a back of the envelope calculation. Decelerating 6500kg from 6km/s to 540m/s is 116G joules. The diameter is 3.6 meters so a molecule of air in from of the Dragon would be displaced (on average) 0.53 meters. Let's assume the atmosphere is a constant density (0.020 kg/m^3). Assume a drag coefficient of 0.05 (and ignoring the lifting body effect) that is around 200kN of force, tapering down to 1.5kN. That is like 3000 km of aerobraking at maximum atmospheric density and should take around 2300 seconds. But that depends a lot on the deorbit profile. I'm going to need a bigger simulation...

WalterBright 9y ago

You can also rotate the crew on the moon. Can send things to the moon you didn't anticipate. Can send replacement/repair parts. Can't do that for Mars.

pc86 9y ago
Of course you can, it just takes a few orders of magnitude longer.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- frandroid 9y ago
  If the one specialist in your mission dies and it takes 8 years to send a new one, that's not called an effective replacement.
  - Teever 9y ago
    Has it ever taken 8 years to send something to the moon?
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      At least in the US, if we urgently needed to send something to the moon in 8 years, we would not be able to do it. Between politically making it happen, deciding who spends the money on it, choosing a contractor that represents the right disadvantaged special interest group, years of contract negotiation, town hall discussions, environmental impact studies, project management failures, budget overruns, pork barrel carve-outs and jobs programs for various congresspeople's districts, etc. it would take way more than 8 years.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      Depending on how you count, e.g. May 1961 (Freedom 7 flight) to July 1969 (Apollo 11 flight), yes.
  - 9y ago