8 ms·

It is one thing to be against a Mars settlement and another to be against space exploration. E.g. it would serve the latter better if we would explore Venus, E

It is one thing to be against a Mars settlement and another to be against space exploration. E.g. it would serve the latter better if we would explore Venus, Europa, Titan, etc. than trying to live underground on a dead poisonous planet.

bdamm 5y ago
Trying to live underground on a dead planet might just prove that we need Earth. Lots of people say space tourism is silly and then go gas up their car while complaining that Teslas are how the coastal elites will take their retirement.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  To add on, I think there’s a lot of value to be had in the various science that can only be done with boots on the ground on Mars. The rovers have been great don’t get me wrong, but a team of scientists with a Starship full of equipment can do volumes more research in a couple of weeks than a rover can during its entire mission, including things that weren’t originally planned. What we learn there can be helpful for understanding the history of the solar system as well as planetary dynamics (remember that in terms of well-studied planets, we’re currently at sample size = 1).
  - runarberg 5y ago
    How fast do we actually need to learn about Mars? How far are we willing to go, how much are we willing to spend just to speed things up there? We don’t live in the 1950s or the 1890s any more. We are not willing to sacrifice the lives of our explorers like we did when we went to the moon or Antarctica in the 1960s and 1900s respectively. We are not engaging in juvenile races to “get there first” which is both expensive and dangerous. The space exploration of today is more collaborative and careful then the explorations of the past. So we don’t risk the lives of our explorers nor the unnecessary expenses of getting things done 20 years when we can do it in 50 for far less money and with infinity more safety.
    - soperj 5y ago
      The 2 Rovers from the last 2000s cost about a billion dollars. If we can get someone to moon for $2.9 billion (contract that spacex just won), I think that's worth it.
    - kitsunesoba 5y ago
      It’s difficult to answer that question with any level of certainty. That said, there’s a line of thinking that we should do these things while we still can, because there’s no guarantee that we’ll continue to be able to do them. I tend to agree with that. So it’s not about trying to race and and get there first, but rather making sure that the opportunity doesn’t pass us by. As far as cost goes… these sorts of missions are expensive relative to the amounts of money most of us work with in a regular basis, but compared to the vast sums that get put toward far more questionable and frivolous uses it’s a drop in the bucket. If saving money or rerouting funds to more deserving causes is a goal, there’s several tens of bushels of lower hanging fruit elsewhere that should be looked at first — anything with scientific purpose should be trimmed last.
    - greedo 5y ago
      This completely ignores the political aspects. Once China makes significant progress towards landing on the Moon, the US will definitely ramp up as fast as possible. Nationalism is a virus that's undefeated...
- runarberg 5y ago
  Just to put it out there: An individual car owner is insignificant when talking about climate change. This is regardless of how the car is powered. A Tesla owner that owns stock in Shell and votes conservative is much more problematic then a non-voting F-150 owner that works paycheck to paycheck. However both of them are insignificant next to the Shell board of directors or the US government who bear the real responsibility here in prolonging climate inaction. This is all just to say. A non-voting F-150 owner who talks shit about rich people going to space is actually not doing any damage while filling up his truck, next to that rich conservative voter that emits more greenhouse gas than the F-150 ever can ever hope in a singe space visit for his own amusement.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    >Tesla owner that owns stock in Shell and votes conservative is much more problematic then a non-voting F-150 owner that works paycheck to paycheck. >rich conservative voter that emits more greenhouse gas than the F-150 ever can ever hope Wow
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    >”…that rich conservative voter that emits more greenhouse gas than the F-150 ever can ever hope in a singe space visit for his own amusement.” None of the space tourists so far have been particularly known for their conservative politics. Nor do I find space tourism to be some lauded thing in conservative circles.
  - smaddox 5y ago
    There are a few more F-150 drivers than there are Shell board members or rich conservative space tourists.
    - runarberg 5y ago
      Then blame the Ford executives which keep manufacturing and marketing these cars, not the drivers.
      - 5y ago

bdamm 5y ago

Trying to live underground on a dead planet might just prove that we need Earth. Lots of people say space tourism is silly and then go gas up their car while complaining that Teslas are how the coastal elites will take their retirement.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
To add on, I think there’s a lot of value to be had in the various science that can only be done with boots on the ground on Mars. The rovers have been great don’t get me wrong, but a team of scientists with a Starship full of equipment can do volumes more research in a couple of weeks than a rover can during its entire mission, including things that weren’t originally planned. What we learn there can be helpful for understanding the history of the solar system as well as planetary dynamics (remember that in terms of well-studied planets, we’re currently at sample size = 1).
- runarberg 5y ago
  How fast do we actually need to learn about Mars? How far are we willing to go, how much are we willing to spend just to speed things up there? We don’t live in the 1950s or the 1890s any more. We are not willing to sacrifice the lives of our explorers like we did when we went to the moon or Antarctica in the 1960s and 1900s respectively. We are not engaging in juvenile races to “get there first” which is both expensive and dangerous. The space exploration of today is more collaborative and careful then the explorations of the past. So we don’t risk the lives of our explorers nor the unnecessary expenses of getting things done 20 years when we can do it in 50 for far less money and with infinity more safety.
  - soperj 5y ago
    The 2 Rovers from the last 2000s cost about a billion dollars. If we can get someone to moon for $2.9 billion (contract that spacex just won), I think that's worth it.
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
    It’s difficult to answer that question with any level of certainty. That said, there’s a line of thinking that we should do these things while we still can, because there’s no guarantee that we’ll continue to be able to do them. I tend to agree with that. So it’s not about trying to race and and get there first, but rather making sure that the opportunity doesn’t pass us by. As far as cost goes… these sorts of missions are expensive relative to the amounts of money most of us work with in a regular basis, but compared to the vast sums that get put toward far more questionable and frivolous uses it’s a drop in the bucket. If saving money or rerouting funds to more deserving causes is a goal, there’s several tens of bushels of lower hanging fruit elsewhere that should be looked at first — anything with scientific purpose should be trimmed last.
  - greedo 5y ago
    This completely ignores the political aspects. Once China makes significant progress towards landing on the Moon, the US will definitely ramp up as fast as possible. Nationalism is a virus that's undefeated...
runarberg 5y ago
Just to put it out there: An individual car owner is insignificant when talking about climate change. This is regardless of how the car is powered. A Tesla owner that owns stock in Shell and votes conservative is much more problematic then a non-voting F-150 owner that works paycheck to paycheck. However both of them are insignificant next to the Shell board of directors or the US government who bear the real responsibility here in prolonging climate inaction. This is all just to say. A non-voting F-150 owner who talks shit about rich people going to space is actually not doing any damage while filling up his truck, next to that rich conservative voter that emits more greenhouse gas than the F-150 ever can ever hope in a singe space visit for his own amusement.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  >Tesla owner that owns stock in Shell and votes conservative is much more problematic then a non-voting F-150 owner that works paycheck to paycheck. >rich conservative voter that emits more greenhouse gas than the F-150 ever can ever hope Wow
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  >”…that rich conservative voter that emits more greenhouse gas than the F-150 ever can ever hope in a singe space visit for his own amusement.” None of the space tourists so far have been particularly known for their conservative politics. Nor do I find space tourism to be some lauded thing in conservative circles.
- smaddox 5y ago
  There are a few more F-150 drivers than there are Shell board members or rich conservative space tourists.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    Then blame the Ford executives which keep manufacturing and marketing these cars, not the drivers.
    - 5y ago