5 ms·

I totally accept extinction. It's natural. Homo sapiens will burn bright and briefly, and the planets will continue to spin. I would argue that it would be much

I totally accept extinction. It's natural. Homo sapiens will burn bright and briefly, and the planets will continue to spin. I would argue that it would be much more worthwhile to spend money improving Earth for humans while we can, than dumping trillions of dollars into spaceflight (which I say unironically as someone who is currently paid by NASA). >Space development shows how to thrive WITHOUT fossil fuels. Not sure how that's the case given the staggering emissions of Falcon 9 for example.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Every satellite in orbit that lasts more than a week or two uses solar or nuclear energy. Starlink is solar powered and uses electric rockets to reach final orbit and maintain position. Hydrogen is one of the most common rocket fuels, and Starship will need to used synthesized methane (which we actually make on board ISS using direct cabin air carbon capture and the Sabatier process using hydrogen made from water split with solar electricity) on Mars to return to be reused, and Musk said SpaceX would eventually use synthesized methane for Earth-side refueling of Starship as well.
jrochkind1 5y ago
From your comments I feel like you gotta be familiar with Kim Stanley Robinson's novel SF _Red Mars_ (if not you'd like it), but here's how he tries to make you feel better about your NASA budgetted job, while agreeing with your basic analysis on things like terraforming and many other things you've said (the plot of his earlier novel notwithstanding, he's partially doing penance for it). > However, even if slower, terraforming Mars remains a great long-term goal; but long-term meaning like ten thousand years. Which means we have to get our relationship to our own planet in order for anything interesting to happen on Mars… > The main project for civilization now is creating a sustainable way of life here on Earth. That’s the necessary first step; anything beyond would rely on that succeeding, so exploring space is less important now. That said, space science is an earth science. What we learn around the solar system can often illuminate the project we have here of keeping this planet’s biosphere healthy. So I like the space program, and feel it is not funded out of proportion to its importance. Robotic missions are already doing a lot of what we need done, but humans are better at many things than robots, and it’s more exciting to see humans on the other planets than it is to see robots. So, on balance, I’d like to see more investment in space science and less in areas like weaponry. Our taxpayer bailout of the banker gamblers who lost their bets in 2008 cost us about ten thousand times the entirety of what we’ve spent on NASA. https://www.publicbooks.org/earth-first-then-mars-an-interview-with-kim-stanley-robinson-reprint/ https://www.publicbooks.org/earth-first-then-mars-an-intervi... This interview in particular is worth reading for this whole topic being discussed here.
- OmicronCeti 5y ago
  I commented elsewhere about how much I like the series.
valuearb 5y ago
Human extinction is likely linked to extinction of all higher order life forms on earth.
- OmicronCeti 5y ago
  The 6th extinction is well underway IMO

Robotbeat 5y ago

Every satellite in orbit that lasts more than a week or two uses solar or nuclear energy. Starlink is solar powered and uses electric rockets to reach final orbit and maintain position. Hydrogen is one of the most common rocket fuels, and Starship will need to used synthesized methane (which we actually make on board ISS using direct cabin air carbon capture and the Sabatier process using hydrogen made from water split with solar electricity) on Mars to return to be reused, and Musk said SpaceX would eventually use synthesized methane for Earth-side refueling of Starship as well.

jrochkind1 5y ago

From your comments I feel like you gotta be familiar with Kim Stanley Robinson's novel SF _Red Mars_ (if not you'd like it), but here's how he tries to make you feel better about your NASA budgetted job, while agreeing with your basic analysis on things like terraforming and many other things you've said (the plot of his earlier novel notwithstanding, he's partially doing penance for it). > However, even if slower, terraforming Mars remains a great long-term goal; but long-term meaning like ten thousand years. Which means we have to get our relationship to our own planet in order for anything interesting to happen on Mars… > The main project for civilization now is creating a sustainable way of life here on Earth. That’s the necessary first step; anything beyond would rely on that succeeding, so exploring space is less important now. That said, space science is an earth science. What we learn around the solar system can often illuminate the project we have here of keeping this planet’s biosphere healthy. So I like the space program, and feel it is not funded out of proportion to its importance. Robotic missions are already doing a lot of what we need done, but humans are better at many things than robots, and it’s more exciting to see humans on the other planets than it is to see robots. So, on balance, I’d like to see more investment in space science and less in areas like weaponry. Our taxpayer bailout of the banker gamblers who lost their bets in 2008 cost us about ten thousand times the entirety of what we’ve spent on NASA. https://www.publicbooks.org/earth-first-then-mars-an-interview-with-kim-stanley-robinson-reprint/ https://www.publicbooks.org/earth-first-then-mars-an-intervi... This interview in particular is worth reading for this whole topic being discussed here.

OmicronCeti 5y ago
I commented elsewhere about how much I like the series.

valuearb 5y ago

Human extinction is likely linked to extinction of all higher order life forms on earth.

OmicronCeti 5y ago
The 6th extinction is well underway IMO