4 ms·

The way I see it, there are two goals to human space travels. The first, very distant one, is to seed ourselves among the stars to avoid being erased from exis

by nolok 7y ago

The way I see it, there are two goals to human space travels. The first, very distant one, is to seed ourselves among the stars to avoid being erased from existence by anything that would threaten our existence on earth, from man made cataclysm to natural event. The second, with much more immediate result on a human scale, is that every time we face such a challenge it's only an opportunity for us to develop a new technology. Eg sure lower gravity will be an issue, until we figure out how to regulate gravity on a ship / base. That might seem far fetched but just looking at the tech invented to put human on the moon how many of those were far fetched beforehand ? Give people a challenge for tomorrow and watch them work at solving it.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
We can just let our machines carry our legacy after humanity is gone.
mr_crankypants 7y ago
I honestly think that both of those are weak reasons. The first is a problem for other generations; on our own time scale we should focus on the problems that affect us on our own time scale. The second is just not compelling; space exploration is hardly the only endeavor that produces spinoff technology, and it's far from certain that it's the best or most productive way to do so. There has only ever been one goal that has actually driven us to push our horizons further out into space, and I think it's the only one that really makes sense: We do it for the challenge and for the adventure. As John F. Kennedy so famously put it, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills."
- nolok 7y ago
  Challenge ? For the individual and its patrons, sure. The country or company ? Its lured by the competition and wanting to be the one winning the prize. But as a society ? When the inevitable "why fund space travel / fundamental physics / ..." question is asked ? Side gains is where it's at.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  I honestly think the first one mentioned will become a "primary" reason as soon as the first largish "came from the direction of the sun" doomsday asteroid slams into us, and makes us rethink some of our priorities. Assuming we survive the event - and assuming it isn't "The Killer Event". You know - something largish that takes out 3-4 major cities, and we didn't see until much too late (like the near-space flyby we just had - though it was smaller). Then again - we are talking human society here - so even that probably wouldn't cause us to sit up and think "you know, we're kinda sitting ducks here" and do something about it collectively. I mean, look at the number of natural disasters that happen all over the world virtually every year in the same spots, yet do people really do anything to improve their chances next time, or do they say "it won't happen again next year" - and it doesn't, until a few years later when it does. We're such a short sighted species for these kinds of things, and the dumb thing is, we know for absolute certainty that these events will happen, but because we don't know when, for some reason we decide to put off what we should be doing NOW, because when it happens, we'll either not survive the event (and everything we have ever done was all for naught - a footnote at best), or what remains won't have the means, perhaps ever, to rise to a similar level of technology to prevent it happening again.
  - WallStUrinal 7y ago
    Why should anyone care if people 300 or 400 years from now get wiped out by an asteroid?
  - Vi0 7y ago
    Why does propagating human genetics to a different planet/solar system give human existence meaning?
  - microtherion 7y ago
    It's really hard to conceive of any disaster which would leave Earth less habitable than Mars.
- dahdum 7y ago
  > There has only ever been one goal that has actually driven us to push our horizons further out into space, and I think it's the only one that really makes sense: We do it for the challenge and for the adventure. Individuals may think like that, but I think you're downplaying the Space Race. There was immense fear of the Soviet space domination, it was seen as an existential threat. If there could be only one goal driving us to those furthest horizons, it'd have to be conflict. From the same speech as your quote: "For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding: JFK to Congress "If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. . . . Now it is time to take longer strides—time for a great new American enterprise—time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth"
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
I can get behind that, but really we ought to colonize Antarctica first (as in, with a self-sustaining colony). It's a much easier target and still presents significant challenges.
- nolok 7y ago
  Sadly what I know of humanity tells me that we won't do that without ruining it to drill for resources like oil, so I say let's leave at least one place untouched back here on earth until we have a backup plan somewhere.
  - Balgair 7y ago
    Who knows! Antartica used to be super moist and wet, so the oil resources may be there. I mean, if you can find a way to get under the mile of ice, there is likely to be a lot of resources just sitting there for the taking. It is an entire virgin contient afterall.
- colordrops 7y ago
  There isn't the forcing function of being really hard to get there, so it doesn't interest people to build self contained habitations on earth. It was tried a few times without much success, for example with the Biosphere project.
  - Balgair 7y ago
    To be fair, Biosphere was a bit of a planning disaster. It was not meant to be a trial run for a self-sustaining greenhouse per se. It was more of a 'save the earth in a nano-way' project. They had a rainforest section, a desert section, etc. They did learn a LOT about plant biology, weather interactions, and microbiota, though mostly via failure, which was still SUPER useful. However, just building something like Biosphere was incredibly difficult and laor intensive. Trying to do that constuction on Mars would be a LOT more difficult still. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
Balero 7y ago
Manufacturing in micro-gravity could also provide some interesting benefits.
7952 7y ago
Being able to sustain human life with minimal inputs is a ridiculously useful trick if we can pull it off. It could be an answer to environmental threats. learning how to survive on Mars could teach us how to live on earth.
Balgair 7y ago
To get a self-sustaining Mars base working and to be able to leave the base and go back to Earth would require some real nifty engineering and automation. Stuff that would transfrom the Earth before lift-off. Think about it. To get off of Mars, you have two options really. Land the take-off rocket with the fuel in it or land it dry and then fuel it up. Landing a take-off rocket wet is super hard, especially on what amounts to virgin regolith. Fueling up the rocket means you make the fuel on the surface and transport it to the rocket. Also, super hard. Supposing that you did manage to find a good pocket of the raw materials that you need for the fuel, you still have to have astronauts do that mining, or you need to invent reliable robots to do that for you. Such robots would completely transform the mining and resource extraction economy of the Earth. Then you need to get that fuel to the rocket somehow. Again, either you use astronauts or you invent a hell of a self-driving tanker, which, again, transforms the lives of all humans on Earth. There is the other issues of building the landing pad, the job site for mining extraction, the issues when the fuel spill everywhere with Earth 8 lightminutes away, the scientific issues of just mining willy-nilly into the regolith, the static electricity issues of super dry and thin air, yadda yadda yadda. Even with astronauts on Mars directing all the chaos, it's a nightmare of logistics and black-swan events to refuel a rocket. Like, comparing the Apollo missions to the eventual Ares missions is foolhardy. The tech we got out of going to the moon is going to seem like brightly colored wood blocks compared to the F-35 that is the tech the Mars missions require.
- Armisael16 7y ago
  ...or you don’t dig your fuel out of the ground but rather extract it from the atmosphere. Methalox rockets use CH4 + 2O2 -> 2H2O + CO2 The carbon and oxygen needed can be extracted from the atmosphere; the rocket only needs to bring the hydrogen - just 1/12th of required fuel mass.
  - Balgair 7y ago
    I mean still, you gotta have robots handling fuel on an alien world and you still gotta land the rocket on something other than some random patch of dirt. Yeah, you can engineer things this way and that, make the rocket land on just about anything solid, reduce the fuel you land, make robots that are more reliable or expendable. Anyway you look at it the engineering challenges are massive. No matter what you're going to try, it affects Earth much more than than the way Tang and freeze-dried ice-cream did.

by nolok 7y ago

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

We can just let our machines carry our legacy after humanity is gone.

mr_crankypants 7y ago

I honestly think that both of those are weak reasons. The first is a problem for other generations; on our own time scale we should focus on the problems that affect us on our own time scale. The second is just not compelling; space exploration is hardly the only endeavor that produces spinoff technology, and it's far from certain that it's the best or most productive way to do so. There has only ever been one goal that has actually driven us to push our horizons further out into space, and I think it's the only one that really makes sense: We do it for the challenge and for the adventure. As John F. Kennedy so famously put it, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills."

nolok 7y ago
Challenge ? For the individual and its patrons, sure. The country or company ? Its lured by the competition and wanting to be the one winning the prize. But as a society ? When the inevitable "why fund space travel / fundamental physics / ..." question is asked ? Side gains is where it's at.
cr0sh 7y ago
I honestly think the first one mentioned will become a "primary" reason as soon as the first largish "came from the direction of the sun" doomsday asteroid slams into us, and makes us rethink some of our priorities. Assuming we survive the event - and assuming it isn't "The Killer Event". You know - something largish that takes out 3-4 major cities, and we didn't see until much too late (like the near-space flyby we just had - though it was smaller). Then again - we are talking human society here - so even that probably wouldn't cause us to sit up and think "you know, we're kinda sitting ducks here" and do something about it collectively. I mean, look at the number of natural disasters that happen all over the world virtually every year in the same spots, yet do people really do anything to improve their chances next time, or do they say "it won't happen again next year" - and it doesn't, until a few years later when it does. We're such a short sighted species for these kinds of things, and the dumb thing is, we know for absolute certainty that these events will happen, but because we don't know when, for some reason we decide to put off what we should be doing NOW, because when it happens, we'll either not survive the event (and everything we have ever done was all for naught - a footnote at best), or what remains won't have the means, perhaps ever, to rise to a similar level of technology to prevent it happening again.
- WallStUrinal 7y ago
  Why should anyone care if people 300 or 400 years from now get wiped out by an asteroid?
- Vi0 7y ago
  Why does propagating human genetics to a different planet/solar system give human existence meaning?
- microtherion 7y ago
  It's really hard to conceive of any disaster which would leave Earth less habitable than Mars.
dahdum 7y ago
> There has only ever been one goal that has actually driven us to push our horizons further out into space, and I think it's the only one that really makes sense: We do it for the challenge and for the adventure. Individuals may think like that, but I think you're downplaying the Space Race. There was immense fear of the Soviet space domination, it was seen as an existential threat. If there could be only one goal driving us to those furthest horizons, it'd have to be conflict. From the same speech as your quote: "For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding: JFK to Congress "If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. . . . Now it is time to take longer strides—time for a great new American enterprise—time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth"

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

I can get behind that, but really we ought to colonize Antarctica first (as in, with a self-sustaining colony). It's a much easier target and still presents significant challenges.

nolok 7y ago
Sadly what I know of humanity tells me that we won't do that without ruining it to drill for resources like oil, so I say let's leave at least one place untouched back here on earth until we have a backup plan somewhere.
- Balgair 7y ago
  Who knows! Antartica used to be super moist and wet, so the oil resources may be there. I mean, if you can find a way to get under the mile of ice, there is likely to be a lot of resources just sitting there for the taking. It is an entire virgin contient afterall.
colordrops 7y ago
There isn't the forcing function of being really hard to get there, so it doesn't interest people to build self contained habitations on earth. It was tried a few times without much success, for example with the Biosphere project.
- Balgair 7y ago
  To be fair, Biosphere was a bit of a planning disaster. It was not meant to be a trial run for a self-sustaining greenhouse per se. It was more of a 'save the earth in a nano-way' project. They had a rainforest section, a desert section, etc. They did learn a LOT about plant biology, weather interactions, and microbiota, though mostly via failure, which was still SUPER useful. However, just building something like Biosphere was incredibly difficult and laor intensive. Trying to do that constuction on Mars would be a LOT more difficult still. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

Balero 7y ago

Manufacturing in micro-gravity could also provide some interesting benefits.

7952 7y ago

Being able to sustain human life with minimal inputs is a ridiculously useful trick if we can pull it off. It could be an answer to environmental threats. learning how to survive on Mars could teach us how to live on earth.

Balgair 7y ago

To get a self-sustaining Mars base working and to be able to leave the base and go back to Earth would require some real nifty engineering and automation. Stuff that would transfrom the Earth before lift-off. Think about it. To get off of Mars, you have two options really. Land the take-off rocket with the fuel in it or land it dry and then fuel it up. Landing a take-off rocket wet is super hard, especially on what amounts to virgin regolith. Fueling up the rocket means you make the fuel on the surface and transport it to the rocket. Also, super hard. Supposing that you did manage to find a good pocket of the raw materials that you need for the fuel, you still have to have astronauts do that mining, or you need to invent reliable robots to do that for you. Such robots would completely transform the mining and resource extraction economy of the Earth. Then you need to get that fuel to the rocket somehow. Again, either you use astronauts or you invent a hell of a self-driving tanker, which, again, transforms the lives of all humans on Earth. There is the other issues of building the landing pad, the job site for mining extraction, the issues when the fuel spill everywhere with Earth 8 lightminutes away, the scientific issues of just mining willy-nilly into the regolith, the static electricity issues of super dry and thin air, yadda yadda yadda. Even with astronauts on Mars directing all the chaos, it's a nightmare of logistics and black-swan events to refuel a rocket. Like, comparing the Apollo missions to the eventual Ares missions is foolhardy. The tech we got out of going to the moon is going to seem like brightly colored wood blocks compared to the F-35 that is the tech the Mars missions require.

Armisael16 7y ago
...or you don’t dig your fuel out of the ground but rather extract it from the atmosphere. Methalox rockets use CH4 + 2O2 -> 2H2O + CO2 The carbon and oxygen needed can be extracted from the atmosphere; the rocket only needs to bring the hydrogen - just 1/12th of required fuel mass.
- Balgair 7y ago
  I mean still, you gotta have robots handling fuel on an alien world and you still gotta land the rocket on something other than some random patch of dirt. Yeah, you can engineer things this way and that, make the rocket land on just about anything solid, reduce the fuel you land, make robots that are more reliable or expendable. Anyway you look at it the engineering challenges are massive. No matter what you're going to try, it affects Earth much more than than the way Tang and freeze-dried ice-cream did.