7 ms·

Bezos pointed out that the moon is conveniently located, reachable in just a couple of days with the right rocket. Scientists have determined that it has deposi

• ggg9990 8y ago
  Does it matter? There’s no point to any of this, it’s fun stuff for rich guys like golfing or art collecting. Mars or Moon is just a matter of preference like Pebble Beach vs. St. Andrews.
  • bhhaskin 8y ago
    No point to any of this? Except you know a permanent human settlement off the planet and the trillions and trillions of dollars floating around out there in asteroids. Humans have no future if we don't get off our little fragile planet. I would honestly say it is one of the few things that do matter.
    • musage 8y ago
      Permant != self-sustaining, just extending to moon or Mars isn't "getting off" Earth anymore than you putting your fingertip on a bookshelf doesn't mean you're now "on the bookshelf". Whatever we build there, will be a lot more fragile than what we have here. If we can't keep from destroying a rich ecosystem, what would keep us from destroying any ecosystems we build on much less solid ground? That said, I don't disagree that it matters, just not in quite the way you put it, that's a fantasy to me, a way to avoid the responsibility we actually do have, the responsiblity that is actually real. At the very least, mining asteroids beats scouring for ever more elusive resources on Earth. But humans living in hollowed asteroids isn't a solution to overpopulation and pollution. We can't build housing on Earth, but it's going to be so different once "we're in space". Yeah, right. Prove you can do it here or I don't believe it for a sec.
      • sgc 8y ago
        Pretty spot on. I have never seen any modicum of common sense in people claiming going to extremely hostile environments to make them like where we live is somehow a better solution than - by comparison- just tweaking what we already have. It is just giving up on most of humanity.
        • ncallaway 8y ago
          I'm a pretty avid fan of colonizing other bodies in the solar system (Mars, Moon, etc). That said, I don't know _anyone_ who would advocate for colonizing Mars is a better solution that tweaking what we already have. It's a different solution addressing a different problem. We should _absolutely_ be improving and addressing the problems that we have on Earth. I 100% agree with that. I don't see how that precludes us from _also_ starting the process of colonizing another planet.
          • sgc 8y ago
            There is definitely a group of people who think humanity cannot survive without becoming a multi planet species - now. I am not against exploration and colonization at all, but I think it should receive the mindshare and financial backing of an experiment, and not a proper solution to the current existential crisis of our species. I wish we could capture people's imaginations with incredible fixes to our own planet's problems the way we manage to do with space exploration. It is obvious why this is difficult, but without it we will partisan bicker ourselves towards extinction. It sounds like we agree at any rate.
        • gremlinsinc 8y ago
          I think from a scientific standpoint the more we learn through trying to terraform Mars, the more use we could get out of it centuries from now when we do embark to the stars and colonize a much better planet, one that might not need much terraforming at all really, maybe seeding some familiar life forms from earth and eco-systems at most. Eventually, we should become a space-faring civilization if it is actually possible (big IF) there.
      • 8y ago
    • okonomiyaki3000 8y ago
      Other than as very early stepping stones to some kind of extra-solar settlement on a less "fragile" planet, these things are no sort of solution for human futures. They are all far more fragile than earth and no settlement on mars, the moon, the Lagrange points, or any other body in this solar system will last long if something like an asteroid wipes out civilization on earth.
      • okonomiyaki3000 8y ago
        I wonder if I was truly wrong in this post or if I'm only voted down for stating a truth that nobody wants to admit.
    • ggg9990 8y ago
      There are much more plausible clear and present dangers to humanity than our failure to get off our fragile planet. It’s like people on a plane that is listing because everyone on board is sitting on the left side wondering how they can built a small craft to transport them to another plane 2 miles away in the sky.
  • matte_black 8y ago
    At the very least, it would allow for us to create a new data center located off Earth to reach greater levels of reliability and redundancy, even if you believe humans have no point in being there.
    • ianamartin 8y ago
      Something something, cold storage. If you can tolerate the latency. But it would be “cheap” once established because cooling would be easy.
      • rpcope1 8y ago
        > But it would be “cheap” once established because cooling would be easy. I would imagine that if you put a datacenter in orbit or on the moon (or pretty much anywhere else in space), cooling would actually be significantly more difficult, if for no other reason than that in a vacuum the only way of getting rid of heat is via radiation. On earth, you can at least dump the heat out (much more efficiently) via convection into the atmosphere or conduction into a large body of water, or something similar.
    • ggg9990 8y ago
      What data would be worth preserving through an event that obliterated every data storage location on earth?
      • matte_black 8y ago
        Financial records, block chains, the knowledge of mankind, etc.
  • dwaltrip 8y ago
    The rich, the reckless, and the wildly curious go first. This isn't surprising. Others will follow in their footsteps. Would you like to see the most stars ever viewed by a human on the dark side of the moon? Ride a rover to the top of Mount Olympus? Learn if microbial life ever thrived in the ancient waters of Mars? Witness the development of new advanced technologies that raise the quality of life for all humans living back on Earth? I sure as hell would.
• phnofive 8y ago
  I honestly feel like those boosting Mars as an objective are doing so _because_ it's so far off. Blue Origin has been quietly, diligently working on the hard, boring problems and isn't going for flash - pretty much in line with Bezos approach to most things - but folks will nonetheless be impressed with the achievement, even if the implementation is ignored.
• hndamien 8y ago
  The moon has no atmosphere, so living on it seems less friendly and far more dangerous. Long term, terra forming is not going to happen, because it won't hold an atmosphere. That said, as a moon base it has a lot of things going for it, but I'm not sure if there are significant advantages of going there as a stopping point before going elsewhere, when you can achieve many things in orbit with some advantages of not having to take off again.
  • flukus 8y ago
    For all intents and purposes the martian atmosphere is no different to the moons, it's 0.6% of earths atmosphere.
    • rdtsc 8y ago
      > For all intents and purposes the martian atmosphere is no different to the moons Not sure I agree with all intents and purposes. Maybe just some of them? Like say if the intent is to extract CO2 or N2 from the atmosphere, then you'd find more on Mars. Those two things are pretty important for growing things and breathing. Another intent and purpose could be to airo-break the space craft as it flies in for a landing. Though it is probably more annoying than it helps, in the sense that Mars has enough atmosphere that you need to deal with it, but not enough to be helpful in the final descent phase.
    • mdorazio 8y ago
      Except 0.6% vs. 0% is a huge difference. For example, on Mars you have the option of making rocket fuel from the atmosphere or compressing and scrubbing it slightly for use in greenhouses. Not possible on the moon without basically baking rocks. Mars also gives you the option of aerobraking to shed velocity when landing, which is a big saver on fuel for delta-v requirements. And even though it's nowhere near as good as Earth's atmosphere for blocking harmful radiation, it's still way better than the moon. On the other hand, the moon has a lot going for it for manufacturing. It's at the top of Earth's gravity well and has low gravity itself without being microgravity. That lets you move massive things around easily and shoot them out of launchers to get back to earth without all the problems that come with "zero-g" conditions. It's also a lot closer to the sun than Mars is, so solar panels give you up to 50% more power for the same area. You also don't have to contend with dust storms (though moonquakes could be an issue).
• tjmc 8y ago
  Regarding the “breathable air”, where’s the nitrogen and carbon dioxide going to come from? Pure oxygen is not an option. IIRC there’s only trace amounts of carbon in moon regolith. So if you want plants and an artificial biosphere would you have to bring it all with you?
  • roywiggins 8y ago
    Do you really need much nitrogen? They used pure oxygen on space missions and other than the catastrophic problem of fire, astronauts breathed it okay. Might have problems long-term though.
• matte_black 8y ago
  Try not to put too much stock on what Elon Musk says. The man rants about whatever happens to be on his mind: candy companies, media rating companies, tunneling companies, hyperloops, etc... doesn't mean you should take it seriously.
  • rdtsc 8y ago
    > Try not to put too much stock on what Elon Musk says. This is one of those cases where I am not sure if it was sarcasm or not. Musk managed to fly about a dozen missions to the ISS, launched an object into an orbit around the sun, and had about 20 successful launches just last year. It would seem when it comes to the space travel domain, if we should put any stock anywhere, putting it on what Musk says is a good bet...?
    • matte_black 8y ago
      For Space stuff, sure, but not because of Musk, but rather the good people working at SpaceX.
      • rdtsc 8y ago
        Ok but then shouldn't we not listen to Bezos either and wait to talk about this until Blue Origin's good people have launched, landed and returned a spacecraft from the moon?
        • matte_black 8y ago
          Sure, but Bezos doesn’t have a record of threatening to start companies on a whim and then either poorly executing or not executing at all. I know which one I can count on.
• posterboy 8y ago
  > Can someone explain what advantage colonizing Mars has compared to Moon It raises more interest. Mars is farther, thus sounds bigger, it also is bigger. The idea is more ambitious. It's appealing to the audience.
• TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The moon: - Much lower g ~1/6th g - 2 week long nights and days. - Extremes in temperature: -280 to +260F - Questionable mineral deposits and water is more isolated. - Much smaller surface area. - Zero potential for terraforming. - Zero atmosphere. - Aesthetically homogenous. - Very poor 'weather' - in that it practically rains asteroids on the moon. Granted this is all over the moon, and so any given individual or building's chances of getting hit are extremely low, but as we increase the number of people/buildings, getting hit by asteroids will be a regular occurrence. - Plant growth would need to be 100% driven by external support. ----- Mars: - 1/3rd g - Day and night cycle near identical to Earth - Reasonable temperature ranges. About -100 to +70 F, varying depending on the seasons - which it also has 4 of, like Earth. - Extremely rich mineral deposits. The most evident being the planet's color, which is caused by iron oxide - rust. - Water everywhere. The soil is moist containing about a liter of water per cubic foot. Something "The Martian" accidentally got wrong, as this was a major discovery of Curiosity, after the book had been written. - Surface area oddly near identical to the land area of Earth. - Huge potential for terraforming - from creating magnetic fields in various ways to simply nuking the poles, which are made of dry ice (CO2), and letting it thicken up the atmosphere - A thin atmosphere, but an atmosphere comprised mainly of handy CO2. For instance the Sabatier Reaction can be used to create methane with a byproduct of water from hydrogen and CO2 - both widely available on Mars. - Aesthetically diverse - at one time orders of magnitude more. We'll be exploring and discovery Mars' secrets for decades and perhaps centuries once we get feet on the ground. Our rovers and probes have only scratched the surface, figuratively and literally. - Excellent weather. Hit by relatively minimal asteroids and the thin atmosphere makes even the worst storm on Mars feel like a slight breeve - the one key thing "The Martian" faked. Come to think of it, a hard sci fi book having to rely on an impossible event to trigger a catastrophe on Mars is a pretty good sign. - Martian soil actually contains everything that's needed to natively grow plants! [1] Sourcing this point since it borders on unbelievable. [1] - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/can-plants-grow-with-mars-soil https://www.nasa.gov/feature/can-plants-grow-with-mars-soil
  • perilunar 8y ago
    Asteroids: - create whatever level g you want - create whatever day-night cycle you want - create whatever atmosphere and temperature range you want - create as much surface area as you want, potentially millions of Earth's worth - no need to terraform: build the habitat you want from the start - solar power continuously available - wide variety of mineral deposits available - plenty of water available