4 ms·

> Landing on Mars with existing technology would be a destructive, wasteful stunt whose only legacy would be to ruin the greatest natural history experiment in

by piyh 4y ago

> Landing on Mars with existing technology would be a destructive, wasteful stunt whose only legacy would be to ruin the greatest natural history experiment in the Solar System. It would no more open a new era of spaceflight than a Phoenician sailor crossing the Atlantic in 500 B.C. would have opened up the New World. And it wouldn’t even be that much fun. Without going full "We choose to go to the Moon", I disagree with these points. It would be fun. It would open a new era of spaceflight. It is no more destructive or wasteful than most anything else humanity decides to put resources into. Mars is a whetstone against which humanity sharpens itself against.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kevinmchugh 4y ago
Humanity has not demonstrated the ability to effectively sanitize spacecraft. The risk of intentionally bringing life to Mars is that we tromp all over evidence of extraterrestrial love. The absolute most valuable science to be done on Mars is to determine how unique Earth is.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  It would be a bummer if the sterilization techniques used on the unmanned landers hadn't worked, but if they didn't, then life is already multi-planetary.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    No way in hell was everything we dropped on Mars 100% sterilized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_... Also I really don't get this fixation to "not contaminating Mars" - like, why ? Its one of the few usable planets in the Solar System! Of course we will contaminate it all over with life, possibly turn it terrestrial one way or another. Anyone advocating against using one of the most important next stepping stones for Humanity must really live in a weird bubble. Sure, pick some Kuiper belt object or some extrasolar planet and declare it a reserve and we will make sure we won't touch it when we get there. But doing the same with Mars is insane and almost seems like some weird irrational religion.
    - kevinmchugh 4y ago
      https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/we-may-never-find-life-marsand-could-be-good-thing-180977236/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/we-may-nev... I just want an autopsy before before we cremate the body.
brightball 4y ago
Something I’ve wondered…why not colonize the moon first? Why straight to Mars? Seems like a moon base would make some sense, right?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- stevenwoo 4y ago
  This essay argues that a moon base is required to study the long term effects of low gravity and greater radiation exposure or test such systems to ameliorate those problems in situ before designing the systems for deploying on Mars, the space station is not enough for this and close to the end of life.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    Well, there are quite a few commercial space stations currently in the pipeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stati... Not to mention the Chinese one already in orbit.
- mortehu 4y ago
  The Artemis program, which launched its first test flight recently, indeed intends to start with a moon base. https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4 https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4
  - Melting_Harps 4y ago
    > The Artemis program, which launched its first test flight recently, indeed intends to start with a moon base. In November SLS finally launched [0], despite an incredibly over schedule, extremely over budget for it's first Artimus-1 launch; ULA has taken far too many resources to be proud of this, but it has launched successfully. Startship has been set to have a orbital test flight for the last couple of months, one wonders how much the delay is attributed to the FAA being upset with Elon's absurd antics as of late, and will have way more thrust power than SLS [1]. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWR5tFgJKIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWR5tFgJKIQ 1: https://www.inverse.com/innovation/sls-vs-starship https://www.inverse.com/innovation/sls-vs-starship

by piyh 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kevinmchugh 4y ago

Humanity has not demonstrated the ability to effectively sanitize spacecraft. The risk of intentionally bringing life to Mars is that we tromp all over evidence of extraterrestrial love. The absolute most valuable science to be done on Mars is to determine how unique Earth is.

whatshisface 4y ago
It would be a bummer if the sterilization techniques used on the unmanned landers hadn't worked, but if they didn't, then life is already multi-planetary.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  No way in hell was everything we dropped on Mars 100% sterilized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_... Also I really don't get this fixation to "not contaminating Mars" - like, why ? Its one of the few usable planets in the Solar System! Of course we will contaminate it all over with life, possibly turn it terrestrial one way or another. Anyone advocating against using one of the most important next stepping stones for Humanity must really live in a weird bubble. Sure, pick some Kuiper belt object or some extrasolar planet and declare it a reserve and we will make sure we won't touch it when we get there. But doing the same with Mars is insane and almost seems like some weird irrational religion.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/we-may-never-find-life-marsand-could-be-good-thing-180977236/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/we-may-nev... I just want an autopsy before before we cremate the body.

brightball 4y ago

Something I’ve wondered…why not colonize the moon first? Why straight to Mars? Seems like a moon base would make some sense, right?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
stevenwoo 4y ago
This essay argues that a moon base is required to study the long term effects of low gravity and greater radiation exposure or test such systems to ameliorate those problems in situ before designing the systems for deploying on Mars, the space station is not enough for this and close to the end of life.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  Well, there are quite a few commercial space stations currently in the pipeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_stati... Not to mention the Chinese one already in orbit.
mortehu 4y ago
The Artemis program, which launched its first test flight recently, indeed intends to start with a moon base. https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4 https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4
- Melting_Harps 4y ago
  > The Artemis program, which launched its first test flight recently, indeed intends to start with a moon base. In November SLS finally launched [0], despite an incredibly over schedule, extremely over budget for it's first Artimus-1 launch; ULA has taken far too many resources to be proud of this, but it has launched successfully. Startship has been set to have a orbital test flight for the last couple of months, one wonders how much the delay is attributed to the FAA being upset with Elon's absurd antics as of late, and will have way more thrust power than SLS [1]. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWR5tFgJKIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWR5tFgJKIQ 1: https://www.inverse.com/innovation/sls-vs-starship https://www.inverse.com/innovation/sls-vs-starship