4 ms·

So this is the part I don't get, re: "What's pushing us to go to Mars?", some time ago someone said the same of going to the Moon. There was no good main reaso

So this is the part I don't get, re: "What's pushing us to go to Mars?", some time ago someone said the same of going to the Moon. There was no good main reason for going to the moon, other than the US and the USSR having who's got a bigger dk war. The reality I feel, is this time we do have a good reason, to actually kick start off-planet habitable zones that we'll reap the benefits years and years into the future

anonymouzz 8y ago
I don't understand these naysayers. I'm not trying to be mean here, but is there anything more to that than an old guy complaining about how it was awesome in his time and age, and how we get everything wrong nowadays? I'm genuinely asking - are astronauts talking about space programs similar to actors and celebrities taking about moral or political issues? I.e. just famous but not so smart people? Also, Elon's take on this three years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8UKBAOfGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8UKBAOfGo
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  I disagree somewhat with what this astronaut is saying, but generally speaking I think astronauts are supposed to be quite intelligent, especially about issues related to space. I was under the impression that each of them had excellent skills and knowledge in at least one area that benefits their missions and of course strong understanding of space-related things. So, to answer your question I don't think it's the case that it's similar to celebrities talking about moral and political issues in any way. I assume that he's pretty well informed but just has a totally different view that's less forward-thinking than others of his astronaut brethren.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    They're supposed to be quite intelligent about a very specific scenario: operating a specialized vehicle in launch, low/zero gravity, and landing. I wouldn't look to them for understanding or insight into the geopolitical or economic role their missions might be a part of. When listening to experts it's always very important to remember precisely what their expertise happens to be.
    - greenyoda 8y ago
      Astronauts also have first-hand knowledge about the risks of sending people into space, and have had friends that died or almost died on space missions. So they have a much more concrete concept of the cost-benefit tradeoffs of space travel than the rest of us.
      - ineedasername 8y ago
        Okay, but even if I concede that point, that doesn't translate into a strong strategic view of the value of initiatives. To say otherwise is like saying a soldier that's been in battle has the same strategic view of things as a general in overall command. The soldier is more informed than the average person, but far from an expert level knowledge of the big picture. And that may be besides the point: It seem to me this astronaut didn't make make a cogent argument from the perspective of cost-benefit tradeoffs and risk of human lives. Instead he raised vague criticisms: "It's ridiculous" and "what's the imperative... I don't think the public is that interested" In fact available data directly refutes this astronaut's view: at least one survey from a few years ago found widespread support (about 75%) for a manned mission [0]. As of this year interest has declined somewhat [1], but still 63% rate mars as important or higher. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-manned-mars-mission https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-america... [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-americans-say-nasa-should-focus-on-earth-not-mars https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-americans-s...
cbanek 8y ago
I think it was more "who has a bigger rocket who can hit a precise target with a nuclear weapon" war. Going to the moon just proved the capability without nuking someone. I don't think people really understand the tyranny of the rocket equation and the propellant mass fraction. For the space shuttle, about 80% of the mass was fuel. Propellant mass fractions are typically around 0.8 to 0.9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_mass_fraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_mass_fraction Going to Mars with people implies we're going to bring those people back. We've never launched something off of Mars before, and getting up to escape velocity on another planet (more than 2x the gravity of the Moon) isn't an easy task. The slower you go on the return trip also means you need more consumables (air, food, water) for the travelers. Not only do you have the mass to go up, but you have to land with that mass in order to launch again from the surface. I think the future is automated settlements. A group of robots 3d printing and producing things automatically (things like methane fuel, simple parts, what if we could build a rover on Mars) would be a huge boon and start bootstrapping Mars for human settlement. We would need to take a huge amount of stuff to start doing anything interesting on Mars. Something that would take lots of trips, before we could support just a few people. People are generally quite fragile and more of a liability: limited life span, unable to easily repair, get sick or ill, bored or depressed easily...
indigochill 8y ago
My intuition suggests this is physically impossible. My assumption is that these habitable zones would be required to generate the necessities of life in an environment devoid of any of them. Nutrients, oxygen, water... we could make recycling them very efficient, but there's always some loss. And even if you had zero loss, that's insufficient. If you're going to make a habitable zone that can support new population, you need to operate at a surplus. The other option if you can't manufacture these resources from nothing is to import them. But that's extremely expensive. That's not a problem if the recipient is generating something of roughly equivalent value, such as mining valuable resources that can be shipped back (classic colonialism), or conducting important research (as in the case of the ISS), but if the recipient isn't generating anything of value besides somewhere to run later, then it never really gets there because it relies entirely on receiving continued shipment from the motherland. I'm happy to be set straight on any of the above points, but these are the doubts that come to mind whenever someone argues the moon or Mars have potential as off-planet habitable zones.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > My assumption is that these habitable zones would be required to generate the necessities of life in an environment devoid of any of them. Mars is not "devoid" of these things. It requires some energy to get them into usable form, but all of the basic chemical elements needed for life are there on Mars. Similar remarks apply to many other planets and similar objects (like satellites of the gas giants).
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
> ... to actually kick start off-planet habitable zones that we'll reap the benefits years and years into the future I think it's hubris to think we'd even get close to getting that correct.

anonymouzz 8y ago

I don't understand these naysayers. I'm not trying to be mean here, but is there anything more to that than an old guy complaining about how it was awesome in his time and age, and how we get everything wrong nowadays? I'm genuinely asking - are astronauts talking about space programs similar to actors and celebrities taking about moral or political issues? I.e. just famous but not so smart people? Also, Elon's take on this three years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8UKBAOfGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8UKBAOfGo

hnmonkey 8y ago
I disagree somewhat with what this astronaut is saying, but generally speaking I think astronauts are supposed to be quite intelligent, especially about issues related to space. I was under the impression that each of them had excellent skills and knowledge in at least one area that benefits their missions and of course strong understanding of space-related things. So, to answer your question I don't think it's the case that it's similar to celebrities talking about moral and political issues in any way. I assume that he's pretty well informed but just has a totally different view that's less forward-thinking than others of his astronaut brethren.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  They're supposed to be quite intelligent about a very specific scenario: operating a specialized vehicle in launch, low/zero gravity, and landing. I wouldn't look to them for understanding or insight into the geopolitical or economic role their missions might be a part of. When listening to experts it's always very important to remember precisely what their expertise happens to be.
  - greenyoda 8y ago
    Astronauts also have first-hand knowledge about the risks of sending people into space, and have had friends that died or almost died on space missions. So they have a much more concrete concept of the cost-benefit tradeoffs of space travel than the rest of us.
    - ineedasername 8y ago
      Okay, but even if I concede that point, that doesn't translate into a strong strategic view of the value of initiatives. To say otherwise is like saying a soldier that's been in battle has the same strategic view of things as a general in overall command. The soldier is more informed than the average person, but far from an expert level knowledge of the big picture. And that may be besides the point: It seem to me this astronaut didn't make make a cogent argument from the perspective of cost-benefit tradeoffs and risk of human lives. Instead he raised vague criticisms: "It's ridiculous" and "what's the imperative... I don't think the public is that interested" In fact available data directly refutes this astronaut's view: at least one survey from a few years ago found widespread support (about 75%) for a manned mission [0]. As of this year interest has declined somewhat [1], but still 63% rate mars as important or higher. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-manned-mars-mission https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-america... [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-americans-say-nasa-should-focus-on-earth-not-mars https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-americans-s...

cbanek 8y ago

I think it was more "who has a bigger rocket who can hit a precise target with a nuclear weapon" war. Going to the moon just proved the capability without nuking someone. I don't think people really understand the tyranny of the rocket equation and the propellant mass fraction. For the space shuttle, about 80% of the mass was fuel. Propellant mass fractions are typically around 0.8 to 0.9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_mass_fraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_mass_fraction Going to Mars with people implies we're going to bring those people back. We've never launched something off of Mars before, and getting up to escape velocity on another planet (more than 2x the gravity of the Moon) isn't an easy task. The slower you go on the return trip also means you need more consumables (air, food, water) for the travelers. Not only do you have the mass to go up, but you have to land with that mass in order to launch again from the surface. I think the future is automated settlements. A group of robots 3d printing and producing things automatically (things like methane fuel, simple parts, what if we could build a rover on Mars) would be a huge boon and start bootstrapping Mars for human settlement. We would need to take a huge amount of stuff to start doing anything interesting on Mars. Something that would take lots of trips, before we could support just a few people. People are generally quite fragile and more of a liability: limited life span, unable to easily repair, get sick or ill, bored or depressed easily...

indigochill 8y ago

My intuition suggests this is physically impossible. My assumption is that these habitable zones would be required to generate the necessities of life in an environment devoid of any of them. Nutrients, oxygen, water... we could make recycling them very efficient, but there's always some loss. And even if you had zero loss, that's insufficient. If you're going to make a habitable zone that can support new population, you need to operate at a surplus. The other option if you can't manufacture these resources from nothing is to import them. But that's extremely expensive. That's not a problem if the recipient is generating something of roughly equivalent value, such as mining valuable resources that can be shipped back (classic colonialism), or conducting important research (as in the case of the ISS), but if the recipient isn't generating anything of value besides somewhere to run later, then it never really gets there because it relies entirely on receiving continued shipment from the motherland. I'm happy to be set straight on any of the above points, but these are the doubts that come to mind whenever someone argues the moon or Mars have potential as off-planet habitable zones.

pdonis 8y ago
> My assumption is that these habitable zones would be required to generate the necessities of life in an environment devoid of any of them. Mars is not "devoid" of these things. It requires some energy to get them into usable form, but all of the basic chemical elements needed for life are there on Mars. Similar remarks apply to many other planets and similar objects (like satellites of the gas giants).

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

> ... to actually kick start off-planet habitable zones that we'll reap the benefits years and years into the future I think it's hubris to think we'd even get close to getting that correct.