4 ms·

Why not do both?

by bane 6y ago

Why not do both?

vkou 6y ago
Because we currently don't do either, and if we're going to pick one mitigating strategy, I'd prefer picking one that actually has a point to it. Money and human effort is fungible, you can spend it on many things. I'd rather it not being spent on pointless pursuits. If someone is going to spend it on pointless pursuits, I suppose they could do that, but they should at least not delude themselves.
- elihu 6y ago
  Deflecting an asteroid with current technology would involve launching a rocket at it and either imparting enough kinetic energy to nudge it into an orbit that doesn't intersect Earth or blowing it up with a nuclear warhead. Either of those would require a large rocket capable of throwing a substantial payload well outside of Earth's orbit. Tracking asteroids can be done with terrestrial radar (that was one of the things Arecibo was used for before it collapsed), or it could be done with space-based radar systems. Radar requires a lot of power, so any space-based radar will need a substantial solar array. Both of these problems are easier when you have a heavy-lift rocket such as Starship or Falcon 9 (regular and heavy versions) available. If we're regularly ferrying stuff back and forth between Earth and Mars, we're going to need a lot of those rockets. Having a space transportation economy would mean rockets are available for other uses, such as the aforementioned asteroid interceptor or space radar delivery platform. These problems are all connected.
  - vkou 6y ago
    The problem is that there is no economic case for ferrying stuff to and from Mars. There is nearly nothing on Mars that anyone on Earth will pay a premium that will pay the costs of colonization off. It's the ultimate exercise of ditch-digging, and ditch-filling, with the justification that doing so accelerates the technological development of ditch-digging instruments. Which is both technically correct, and also completely insane.
    - elihu 6y ago
      I don't think it's obvious at this point whether or not a Martian colony would be profitable. A lot depends on technology and costs. Transportation costs are the biggest hurdle at the moment. Any potential Mars colony is likely to be populated by an early group of scientists and tourists, but there are a lot of other reasons people might want to visit Mars or stay there. Mining of high-value minerals. Filming TV shows and movies. Sports. Claiming the best real estate before someone else does. Establishing a refueling station between Earth and the asteroid belt. Manufacturing heavy space equipment that we don't want to lift out of Earth's gravity well. Some people with mobility issues might rather live in low gravity on Mars than be bound to a wheelchair on Earth. And so on.

Why not do both?

by bane 6y ago

Why not do both?

vkou 6y ago

Because we currently don't do either, and if we're going to pick one mitigating strategy, I'd prefer picking one that actually has a point to it. Money and human effort is fungible, you can spend it on many things. I'd rather it not being spent on pointless pursuits. If someone is going to spend it on pointless pursuits, I suppose they could do that, but they should at least not delude themselves.

elihu 6y ago
Deflecting an asteroid with current technology would involve launching a rocket at it and either imparting enough kinetic energy to nudge it into an orbit that doesn't intersect Earth or blowing it up with a nuclear warhead. Either of those would require a large rocket capable of throwing a substantial payload well outside of Earth's orbit. Tracking asteroids can be done with terrestrial radar (that was one of the things Arecibo was used for before it collapsed), or it could be done with space-based radar systems. Radar requires a lot of power, so any space-based radar will need a substantial solar array. Both of these problems are easier when you have a heavy-lift rocket such as Starship or Falcon 9 (regular and heavy versions) available. If we're regularly ferrying stuff back and forth between Earth and Mars, we're going to need a lot of those rockets. Having a space transportation economy would mean rockets are available for other uses, such as the aforementioned asteroid interceptor or space radar delivery platform. These problems are all connected.
- vkou 6y ago
  The problem is that there is no economic case for ferrying stuff to and from Mars. There is nearly nothing on Mars that anyone on Earth will pay a premium that will pay the costs of colonization off. It's the ultimate exercise of ditch-digging, and ditch-filling, with the justification that doing so accelerates the technological development of ditch-digging instruments. Which is both technically correct, and also completely insane.
  - elihu 6y ago
    I don't think it's obvious at this point whether or not a Martian colony would be profitable. A lot depends on technology and costs. Transportation costs are the biggest hurdle at the moment. Any potential Mars colony is likely to be populated by an early group of scientists and tourists, but there are a lot of other reasons people might want to visit Mars or stay there. Mining of high-value minerals. Filming TV shows and movies. Sports. Claiming the best real estate before someone else does. Establishing a refueling station between Earth and the asteroid belt. Manufacturing heavy space equipment that we don't want to lift out of Earth's gravity well. Some people with mobility issues might rather live in low gravity on Mars than be bound to a wheelchair on Earth. And so on.