11 ms·

If there was a new continent somehow popped up we wouldn't be fine just sending some drones there or taking pictures of it with satellites. We have had the cap

by maxlin 3y ago

If there was a new continent somehow popped up we wouldn't be fine just sending some drones there or taking pictures of it with satellites. We have had the capability to develop ourselves to send a colony to mars in 10 years if we really wanted to, for 50 years, so yes we're late. But I for one am very happy we've got some real vision and development towards it now.

paxys 3y ago
> We have had the capability to develop ourselves to send a colony to mars in 10 years if we really wanted to, for 50 years Like I said, pure delusion. We can still barely manage to launch rockets into space, and it still costs thousands of dollars per kg of cargo just to get to LEO. No human has lived in space for an extended period of time at a range beyond the ISS (400 km, while Mars is 400 million km).
- maxlin 3y ago
  You're nothing but the harbringer of your own doom with that kind of uninformed loser talk. You know how unrealistic and pointless it sounds like, especially said on HN? Back when Kennedy first harnessed the whole US towards something truly greater, the odds seemed infinitely worse. But they got it done. Including minituarizing a room-sized computer to fit in a box just to serve as cruise control for Apollo.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  On Mars you can build shelter with dirt or in caves. You would be better protected than in LEO. The Moon is very inhospitable, but it's close enough we could have just shuttled an endless stream of ready-to-live habitat modules there, one after another. The tech was there. The will was not. I'm not saying it would have been rational to do it in the 1970s, but we could have! On the other hand, what we actually did do (to the Earth) wasn't exactly rational, either.
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > On Mars you can build shelter with dirt or in caves. Really? What machines would be used to build these shelters? How do they get to Mars? How would they be powered? What auxilliary materials will they require and how do those get to Mars?
    - notfish 3y ago
      Pretty sure we could design and launch a digging robot in 10 years, I dont really buy that as the bottleneck to mars exploration
      - axus 3y ago
        I'm pretty sure that we could not, I guess our opinions cancel each other out.
        feoren 3y ago
        Humans have 10 successful missions landing robots on Mars, starting in 1975. Robots have been operating on Mars continuously for almost 20 years. Opportunity was active for 15 years. The helicopter Ingenuity has flown 63 separate times and counting. The Perseverance rover is about the size of a hatchback car and carries seven advanced scientific instruments. Ten years of strong-willed national effort was enough to get us humans landing on the moon. From where we are now, you honestly don't think ten years of strong-willed national (or even international) effort could get us a robot capable of digging holes?
        usrbinbash 3y ago
        > you honestly don't think ten years of strong-willed national (or even international) effort could get us a robot capable of digging holes? Yes, I do think that. Because there is a big difference between an exploratory vehicle that carries a number of scientific instruments and can be powered by a few solar panels or a small nuclear battery... ...and these beautys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine Just for comparisons sake: Perseverances MMRTG provides 110 watts of power. A single metric horsepower is 735.5 watts. I leave looking up the power requirements of even a small machine that would be capable of digging habitats into the martian bedrock, as an exercise to the reader.
usrbinbash 3y ago
> If there was a new continent somehow popped up we wouldn't be fine just sending some drones there or taking pictures of it with satellites. True. You know what else is true? We could breathe on that new continent, there would be enough nitrogen compounds to grow food, anyone who wanted to go back home could eventually do so, our colonists bodies would not deteriorate due to the low gravity, and if our colonists there got into trouble, we could send help before they all died horribly.
- maxlin 3y ago
  It doesn't rain in the cave. Even when the rain is over, is the rain comes back you won't be covered. Better never leave the cave.
- notfish 3y ago
  There are nitrates on mars, nobody is seriously proposing unconditional one way trips, mars has enough gravity to prevent bone loss. But yes, it does mean bringing your own air and being self sufficient, but we do both of those things on the ISS already
  - ccooffee 3y ago
    There are definitely people advocating one-way trips to Mars. Buzz Aldrin wrote "Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration" (2013) pushing the idea of one-way trips and colonization by 2040. There are quite a few projects that have invested time and money into the idea. MarsOne (2012-2019) is possibly the most serious of the attempts, but they weren't exactly close to sending a mission.
  - Wytwwww 3y ago
    I guess there are zero practical reasons to go to Mars that would justify the massive cost required to do so. The only thing that comes close on Earth (from the practicality perspective) is the exploration of Antarctica and the Artic and that was done on a shoe-string budget.
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > There are nitrates on mars The martian atmosphere is 2.8% N2. For comparison, Earths atmoshpere is 78.08% N2, while also being more than 100x as dense. And Earth already has soil, and a developed nitrogen cycle, while Mars doesn't. So there is nowhere near enough Nitrogen in-situ on Mars to support any form of agriculture. It has to be brought from Earth. > mars has enough gravity to prevent bone loss https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/07/407806/traveling-mars-will-wreak-havoc-our-bodies-can-we-prevent-it https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/07/407806/traveling-mars-will... So yes, lowered gravity has negative impacts on our bones and physiology in general. The gravity on Mars is 1/3 that of Earth. And that's after spending several months in-transit at microgravity. > But yes, it does mean bringing your own air and being self sufficient, but we do both of those things on the ISS already The ISS is not self sufficient, and relies on continuos supply runs from earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_I...

by maxlin 3y ago

paxys 3y ago

> We have had the capability to develop ourselves to send a colony to mars in 10 years if we really wanted to, for 50 years Like I said, pure delusion. We can still barely manage to launch rockets into space, and it still costs thousands of dollars per kg of cargo just to get to LEO. No human has lived in space for an extended period of time at a range beyond the ISS (400 km, while Mars is 400 million km).

maxlin 3y ago
You're nothing but the harbringer of your own doom with that kind of uninformed loser talk. You know how unrealistic and pointless it sounds like, especially said on HN? Back when Kennedy first harnessed the whole US towards something truly greater, the odds seemed infinitely worse. But they got it done. Including minituarizing a room-sized computer to fit in a box just to serve as cruise control for Apollo.
actionfromafar 3y ago
On Mars you can build shelter with dirt or in caves. You would be better protected than in LEO. The Moon is very inhospitable, but it's close enough we could have just shuttled an endless stream of ready-to-live habitat modules there, one after another. The tech was there. The will was not. I'm not saying it would have been rational to do it in the 1970s, but we could have! On the other hand, what we actually did do (to the Earth) wasn't exactly rational, either.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > On Mars you can build shelter with dirt or in caves. Really? What machines would be used to build these shelters? How do they get to Mars? How would they be powered? What auxilliary materials will they require and how do those get to Mars?
  - notfish 3y ago
    Pretty sure we could design and launch a digging robot in 10 years, I dont really buy that as the bottleneck to mars exploration
    - axus 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure that we could not, I guess our opinions cancel each other out.
      - feoren 3y ago
        Humans have 10 successful missions landing robots on Mars, starting in 1975. Robots have been operating on Mars continuously for almost 20 years. Opportunity was active for 15 years. The helicopter Ingenuity has flown 63 separate times and counting. The Perseverance rover is about the size of a hatchback car and carries seven advanced scientific instruments. Ten years of strong-willed national effort was enough to get us humans landing on the moon. From where we are now, you honestly don't think ten years of strong-willed national (or even international) effort could get us a robot capable of digging holes?
        usrbinbash 3y ago
        > you honestly don't think ten years of strong-willed national (or even international) effort could get us a robot capable of digging holes? Yes, I do think that. Because there is a big difference between an exploratory vehicle that carries a number of scientific instruments and can be powered by a few solar panels or a small nuclear battery... ...and these beautys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine Just for comparisons sake: Perseverances MMRTG provides 110 watts of power. A single metric horsepower is 735.5 watts. I leave looking up the power requirements of even a small machine that would be capable of digging habitats into the martian bedrock, as an exercise to the reader.

usrbinbash 3y ago

> If there was a new continent somehow popped up we wouldn't be fine just sending some drones there or taking pictures of it with satellites. True. You know what else is true? We could breathe on that new continent, there would be enough nitrogen compounds to grow food, anyone who wanted to go back home could eventually do so, our colonists bodies would not deteriorate due to the low gravity, and if our colonists there got into trouble, we could send help before they all died horribly.

maxlin 3y ago
It doesn't rain in the cave. Even when the rain is over, is the rain comes back you won't be covered. Better never leave the cave.
notfish 3y ago
There are nitrates on mars, nobody is seriously proposing unconditional one way trips, mars has enough gravity to prevent bone loss. But yes, it does mean bringing your own air and being self sufficient, but we do both of those things on the ISS already
- ccooffee 3y ago
  There are definitely people advocating one-way trips to Mars. Buzz Aldrin wrote "Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration" (2013) pushing the idea of one-way trips and colonization by 2040. There are quite a few projects that have invested time and money into the idea. MarsOne (2012-2019) is possibly the most serious of the attempts, but they weren't exactly close to sending a mission.
- Wytwwww 3y ago
  I guess there are zero practical reasons to go to Mars that would justify the massive cost required to do so. The only thing that comes close on Earth (from the practicality perspective) is the exploration of Antarctica and the Artic and that was done on a shoe-string budget.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > There are nitrates on mars The martian atmosphere is 2.8% N2. For comparison, Earths atmoshpere is 78.08% N2, while also being more than 100x as dense. And Earth already has soil, and a developed nitrogen cycle, while Mars doesn't. So there is nowhere near enough Nitrogen in-situ on Mars to support any form of agriculture. It has to be brought from Earth. > mars has enough gravity to prevent bone loss https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/07/407806/traveling-mars-will-wreak-havoc-our-bodies-can-we-prevent-it https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/07/407806/traveling-mars-will... So yes, lowered gravity has negative impacts on our bones and physiology in general. The gravity on Mars is 1/3 that of Earth. And that's after spending several months in-transit at microgravity. > But yes, it does mean bringing your own air and being self sufficient, but we do both of those things on the ISS already The ISS is not self sufficient, and relies on continuos supply runs from earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_I...