4 ms·

How do you think these technologies get developed? Going to Mars is the impetus for developing this tech.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
The most sensible way to develop these technologies is to colonize the Moon first. It is obviously much nearer, travel is much simpler and cheaper, and communication is near instant (1s delay vs. ~30 minutes).
- fastball 6y ago
  I get better at sports when I play people better than me, not when I go for the easiest opponent.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    That does not contradict my previous comment. Colonizing the Moon is a big step up. One progresses better when they have a step by step plan. In my view, targeting Mars and ignoring the Moon is not a rational approach, it's an emotional and PR-driven driven approach. It's a less effective use of resources but grabs more headlines. There is also obviously the race aspect and the drive to be the first to reach a place. But in the long term I suspect that reality will catch up with the hype and that actual colonization of Mars will be preceded by a step on the Moon.
    - fastball 6y ago
      We've already been to the moon though. We have not even set foot on Mars. My point is to do both. Do things we've never done on the moon (colony/industry) while at the same time doing the things we've never done on Mars (set foot).
    - valuearb 6y ago
      You don’t understand the very rational reasons Mars is so much more attractive and easier to colonize than the moon. • Mars requires less fuel to reach and land on, and you can land far larger cargo and crew on Mars. • Its far easier to make fuel for return trips on Mars. This is an enormous force multiplier, enabling landing even larger cargo and crews. • The moon is a barren desert with far less scientific value and far fewer usable resources. • the moon is far more hostile to human life. It’s temperature extremes are about four times as great, and last two weeks vs a single day. Mars is awash in water at every location, the moon is virtually devoid of water. Having an atmosphere,,even a thin one makes Mars much more habitable.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
        It takes considerably more delta v to get to mars than the moon: https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFOO99qHFh9o9_SkLLk.png?auto=webp&s=d145ac9ae496abe35fae86fc11a584d62fe42592 https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFO...
        valuearb 6y ago
        Nope, because your chart doesn’t include the fact we will aerobrake on a Mars, requiring only a few hundred meters/sec for final landing burn, instead of the 2,500 meters/sec Luna requires. Also you can easily make return fuel on Mars, which massively changes your payload to fuel ratio for the trip there.
  - dividedbyzero 6y ago
    I wouldn't really call settling the moon an easy opponent by any meaningful measure.
  - diamondlovesyou 6y ago
    Yes, but in sports you don't die if you fail.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Depends on the sport. Regardless, I don't think risk of death should dissuade humanity from doing things as long as the people at risk are aware of it.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      In the leading extreme sports (squirrel suits) you do die if you fail. Lots of people have. I don’t understand the attraction, but there are tens of thousands of people who want to risk their lives to live on Mars, it’s part of the human exploration gene.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Because the moon is a barren desert with much less scientific value and far fewer resources then Mars, that’s far more hostile to human life than Mars, and requires more fuel to travel to and return from.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    There are a lot of resources on the Moon, including resources with great economic value. There are also many scientific benefits in having a permanent outpost there. It is not really an issue whether the Moon is relatively more hostile. It is a minuscule complication, if one at all, compared to the issues with going to Mars, of which fuel is also a small issue that we know how to overcome. As mentioned this is not a technical/scientific issue. It is simply that Mars is more 'exiting' and creates more buzz because it is the 'next frontier' while humans have already been to the Moon.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Name one economically valuable resource on the moon that isn’t far cheaper on Earth and far more accessible on Mars. I’m including H3 which is a valueless myth. Then name any scientific value of manned moon missions and compare them to the fact Mars may have or had life. Then compare 1/6th gee in a vacuum alternatively frozen and roasted over two week periods, to 1/3 gee in an actual atmosphere with moderate climate and abundant water.
    - jamestimmins 6y ago
      The book The Case For Mars does a good job arguing against the value of the moon and for the value of Mars. Mars has substantially more valuable resources, and more crucially, has many resources needed to sustain a colony. The moon is quite barren and would require enormous costs with little upside.

The most sensible way to develop these technologies is to colonize the Moon first. It is obviously much nearer, travel is much simpler and cheaper, and communication is near instant (1s delay vs. ~30 minutes).

fastball 6y ago
I get better at sports when I play people better than me, not when I go for the easiest opponent.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  That does not contradict my previous comment. Colonizing the Moon is a big step up. One progresses better when they have a step by step plan. In my view, targeting Mars and ignoring the Moon is not a rational approach, it's an emotional and PR-driven driven approach. It's a less effective use of resources but grabs more headlines. There is also obviously the race aspect and the drive to be the first to reach a place. But in the long term I suspect that reality will catch up with the hype and that actual colonization of Mars will be preceded by a step on the Moon.
  - fastball 6y ago
    We've already been to the moon though. We have not even set foot on Mars. My point is to do both. Do things we've never done on the moon (colony/industry) while at the same time doing the things we've never done on Mars (set foot).
  - valuearb 6y ago
    You don’t understand the very rational reasons Mars is so much more attractive and easier to colonize than the moon. • Mars requires less fuel to reach and land on, and you can land far larger cargo and crew on Mars. • Its far easier to make fuel for return trips on Mars. This is an enormous force multiplier, enabling landing even larger cargo and crews. • The moon is a barren desert with far less scientific value and far fewer usable resources. • the moon is far more hostile to human life. It’s temperature extremes are about four times as great, and last two weeks vs a single day. Mars is awash in water at every location, the moon is virtually devoid of water. Having an atmosphere,,even a thin one makes Mars much more habitable.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      It takes considerably more delta v to get to mars than the moon: https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFOO99qHFh9o9_SkLLk.png?auto=webp&s=d145ac9ae496abe35fae86fc11a584d62fe42592 https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFO...
      - valuearb 6y ago
        Nope, because your chart doesn’t include the fact we will aerobrake on a Mars, requiring only a few hundred meters/sec for final landing burn, instead of the 2,500 meters/sec Luna requires. Also you can easily make return fuel on Mars, which massively changes your payload to fuel ratio for the trip there.
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  I wouldn't really call settling the moon an easy opponent by any meaningful measure.
- diamondlovesyou 6y ago
  Yes, but in sports you don't die if you fail.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Depends on the sport. Regardless, I don't think risk of death should dissuade humanity from doing things as long as the people at risk are aware of it.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    In the leading extreme sports (squirrel suits) you do die if you fail. Lots of people have. I don’t understand the attraction, but there are tens of thousands of people who want to risk their lives to live on Mars, it’s part of the human exploration gene.
valuearb 6y ago
Because the moon is a barren desert with much less scientific value and far fewer resources then Mars, that’s far more hostile to human life than Mars, and requires more fuel to travel to and return from.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  There are a lot of resources on the Moon, including resources with great economic value. There are also many scientific benefits in having a permanent outpost there. It is not really an issue whether the Moon is relatively more hostile. It is a minuscule complication, if one at all, compared to the issues with going to Mars, of which fuel is also a small issue that we know how to overcome. As mentioned this is not a technical/scientific issue. It is simply that Mars is more 'exiting' and creates more buzz because it is the 'next frontier' while humans have already been to the Moon.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Name one economically valuable resource on the moon that isn’t far cheaper on Earth and far more accessible on Mars. I’m including H3 which is a valueless myth. Then name any scientific value of manned moon missions and compare them to the fact Mars may have or had life. Then compare 1/6th gee in a vacuum alternatively frozen and roasted over two week periods, to 1/3 gee in an actual atmosphere with moderate climate and abundant water.
  - jamestimmins 6y ago
    The book The Case For Mars does a good job arguing against the value of the moon and for the value of Mars. Mars has substantially more valuable resources, and more crucially, has many resources needed to sustain a colony. The moon is quite barren and would require enormous costs with little upside.