3 ms·

Because you can't adapt to a planet-killing asteroid. That's what the backup is for. Yes, you should focus on a primary, but that's no excuse to not have a bac

Because you can't adapt to a planet-killing asteroid. That's what the backup is for. Yes, you should focus on a primary, but that's no excuse to not have a backup.

palata 4y ago
A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid. I can live with the odds. To those who can't, may I ask a question? When you walk in the street to go to work, do you wear bullet-proof gear in case someone shoots you? I mean it may happen, just like the asteroid. It just feels weird to not accept some risk. Let's face it: space exploration is cool, that's all. No need to find excuses :)
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  > A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. > I can live with the odds. You may be able to, but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. You may also live with the odds of no backup to a database, but others here will attest to the importance... > Let's face it: space exploration is cool, that's all. No need to find excuses :) Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason. But yes, I agree, space exploration is cool all on it's own, so I don't see what the complaint is.
  - palata 4y ago
    > There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. There's evidence that many more humans have died from pollution. Then we could question whether the solution to the asteroid threat is to try to send a few humans on Mars or to prepare autonomous missions that would reach the asteroid and prevent it from reaching the Earth (e.g. by changing its course). > but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. Sure. If the asteroid was one of the higher risks on the list, it would make sense. But right now the biggest risk to humans, by a very wide margin, is human activity. > Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason. It was not me asking, but I think this is a bad reason. It is probably much easier to prevent the hypothetical asteroid from colliding with Earth than to go live in space.
  - poulpy123 4y ago
    > There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. And there is also evidence that life was able to survive despite it while not even able to start on mars

Because you can't adapt to a planet-killing asteroid. That's what the backup is for. Yes, you should focus on a primary, but that's no excuse to not have a backup.

palata 4y ago

A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid. I can live with the odds. To those who can't, may I ask a question? When you walk in the street to go to work, do you wear bullet-proof gear in case someone shoots you? I mean it may happen, just like the asteroid. It just feels weird to not accept some risk. Let's face it: space exploration is cool, that's all. No need to find excuses :)

MrOwnPut 4y ago
> A very unlikely planet-killing asteroid There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. > I can live with the odds. You may be able to, but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. You may also live with the odds of no backup to a database, but others here will attest to the importance... > Let's face it: space exploration is cool, that's all. No need to find excuses :) Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason. But yes, I agree, space exploration is cool all on it's own, so I don't see what the complaint is.
- palata 4y ago
  > There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. There's evidence that many more humans have died from pollution. Then we could question whether the solution to the asteroid threat is to try to send a few humans on Mars or to prepare autonomous missions that would reach the asteroid and prevent it from reaching the Earth (e.g. by changing its course). > but a lot of people don't want to gamble the existence of the human race if there's a chance we don't have to. Sure. If the asteroid was one of the higher risks on the list, it would make sense. But right now the biggest risk to humans, by a very wide margin, is human activity. > Well, you asked "why do this and not focus on Earth", so I gave you one reason. It was not me asking, but I think this is a bad reason. It is probably much easier to prevent the hypothetical asteroid from colliding with Earth than to go live in space.
- poulpy123 4y ago
  > There's heavy evidence there's already been a mass extinction once from an asteroid. And there is also evidence that life was able to survive despite it while not even able to start on mars