4 ms·

There’s something very alien about dying on an inhospitable, dead, cold world millions of miles away from all that humanity has ever known. I find it hard to b

There’s something very alien about dying on an inhospitable, dead, cold world millions of miles away from all that humanity has ever known. I find it hard to believe that we’d be able to find a sizable group of people who wanted this to be their fate and who were actually otherwise qualified for the mission. Imagine the nightmare scenario of someone changing their mind partway through the mission. Talk about a disaster (PR and otherwise) that could be significant enough to chill the entire push for manned missions beyond the moon.

dylan604 3y ago
> I find it hard to believe that we’d be able to find a sizable group of people who wanted this How do you think the Americas were settled by Europeans? These people decided that whatever their fate, it would be worth making the attempt. That's just the most recent, but history is clearly full of a group of people deciding that the horizon demanded to be investigated. Otherwise, we'd all just be massed together in what ever the current belief on where humans started is at the moment. The call of the wild, the sense of adventure, exploration, or whatever you want to call it is part of human nature. > Imagine the nightmare scenario of someone changing their mind partway through the mission Yeah? And? So? You think people moving from Europe to the colonies didn't get cold feet? Hell, as times get hard, it's only natural to wonder WTF you made this decision. Those people will probably be culled from the herd so to speak. It's only a PR disaster because people like you sound like without the sense of adventure and too meek to do anything other than leave their house for work. Just because someone else is much more bold than you does not mean that you should prevent them from doing it because you might feel uncomfortable upon hearing about something.
- nemomarx 3y ago
  in those cases, people expected to live there, settle and have children, etc Which seems very unrealistic for the first stage trip to Mars? you'd need several waves to even have enough material there to be livable for more than a year. No one moves to the south pole without a plan to go back, for instance.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    > in those cases, people expected to live there, settle and have children, etc exactly. These people are choosing to go to Mars without expecting to come back. If they die of old age or catastrophic failure doesn't matter. They willingly had no intent of coming back. So the cheeky comments about only send "old" to Mars is not totally out of line. Just remove the age constraint, and make it people willing to take a one way trip. There are people right now willing to do it. It totally changes the agenda. If we can just plan on making long term remote isolated bases, then we just focus on that. But it takes the same amount of effort to survive on the surface for short stays that then require the extra effort of returning. So I'm saying we're wasting effort on the first stages including the return. Let the people willing to relocate do it, establish a foot hold so that the "weekenders" can come visit if that's something that is still felt as a need.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      > Let the people willing to relocate do it Well, sure. As long as they don't cause serious environmental and safety problems while they do it. But that's obviously a personal choice; it's absurd to expect the public finances to support the project. If they want to make money out of weekender tourists, then presumably they are making some kid of business plan; I'm fine with them losing all their money.
- chrisfosterelli 3y ago
  I feel like your analogy conflates early explorers (who definitely intended to go home unless something went wrong) with early settlers (who did not). I feel like Mars is very much in the "explorer" phase more than the "early settlers" phase.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  You’re missing that those people didn’t know what would happen and they had the hope of a better life at the end. Returning was always an option. It doesn’t need to be rational. Humans are emotional beings and greatly affected about what they believe to be true. Stranded on another planet is a guaranteed death sentence and people know that. They have no hope of survival to cling to. You really can’t equate the two. A better example would be a platoon of soldiers staying behind to delay the enemy so everyone else escape. They have deliberately made the decision to die for a cause.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    I'm not missing the point at all. I think we're just willing talking past each other??? We've been sending robot explorers for decades. If we're sending humans, we should no longer be considering them explorers. They're settlers. Framing it any differently is just a serious limitation of what we're trying to do. Send up the equipment they need in advance. If the colonies fail (with all that entails), study it to see why and prep for the next attempt. It eliminates all of this hand wringing, and simplifies things to the point of becoming achievable
- virgildotcodes 3y ago
  > How do you think the Americas were settled by Europeans? These were families, who were setting out for the promise of a better life, to a world where they were promised fertile land and... a breathable atmosphere. Do you understand how that might be completely incomparable to traveling to a dead world, where life will invariably be much worse, and there is no chance to bring your family or build a future with them? There is no mystery, there is no unknown, there is no promise of riches or a better life, which is what explorers of the eras you're referring to were seeking. > Yeah? And? So? You think people moving from Europe to the colonies didn't get cold feet? Hell, as times get hard, it's only natural to wonder WTF you made this decision. Those people will probably be culled from the herd so to speak. You're being so glib, think a little longer. Did those colonists have twitter? Could a disaster be instantaneously broadcast around the world and cause a simultaneous shift in global perception and government policy? Think about the Challenger disaster leading to the end of the shuttle program. Could you conceive how a major disaster on such a ludicrously expensive undertaking as a Mars mission might result in cuts to the program and potentially all future plans for manned space travel beyond the moon? >like you sound like without the sense of adventure and too meek to do anything other than leave their house for work. Just because someone else is much more bold than you does not mean that you should prevent them from doing it because you might feel uncomfortable upon hearing about something. This is funny. Do you know the life I've lived? Are you confident that it's in alignment with your assumptions?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    > Do you know the life I've lived? What gives you the idea that I do? Of course I don't know you, or you'd know that I did. I phrased it in a way that indicates I don't know anything about you or how you think, but based on your writing it sounds like something else. That's all I said. I didn't say you were someone scared of adventure, but it reads like someone that is. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Sometimes it's a swan though, so it's not a hard rule.

dylan604 3y ago

> I find it hard to believe that we’d be able to find a sizable group of people who wanted this How do you think the Americas were settled by Europeans? These people decided that whatever their fate, it would be worth making the attempt. That's just the most recent, but history is clearly full of a group of people deciding that the horizon demanded to be investigated. Otherwise, we'd all just be massed together in what ever the current belief on where humans started is at the moment. The call of the wild, the sense of adventure, exploration, or whatever you want to call it is part of human nature. > Imagine the nightmare scenario of someone changing their mind partway through the mission Yeah? And? So? You think people moving from Europe to the colonies didn't get cold feet? Hell, as times get hard, it's only natural to wonder WTF you made this decision. Those people will probably be culled from the herd so to speak. It's only a PR disaster because people like you sound like without the sense of adventure and too meek to do anything other than leave their house for work. Just because someone else is much more bold than you does not mean that you should prevent them from doing it because you might feel uncomfortable upon hearing about something.

nemomarx 3y ago
in those cases, people expected to live there, settle and have children, etc Which seems very unrealistic for the first stage trip to Mars? you'd need several waves to even have enough material there to be livable for more than a year. No one moves to the south pole without a plan to go back, for instance.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > in those cases, people expected to live there, settle and have children, etc exactly. These people are choosing to go to Mars without expecting to come back. If they die of old age or catastrophic failure doesn't matter. They willingly had no intent of coming back. So the cheeky comments about only send "old" to Mars is not totally out of line. Just remove the age constraint, and make it people willing to take a one way trip. There are people right now willing to do it. It totally changes the agenda. If we can just plan on making long term remote isolated bases, then we just focus on that. But it takes the same amount of effort to survive on the surface for short stays that then require the extra effort of returning. So I'm saying we're wasting effort on the first stages including the return. Let the people willing to relocate do it, establish a foot hold so that the "weekenders" can come visit if that's something that is still felt as a need.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > Let the people willing to relocate do it Well, sure. As long as they don't cause serious environmental and safety problems while they do it. But that's obviously a personal choice; it's absurd to expect the public finances to support the project. If they want to make money out of weekender tourists, then presumably they are making some kid of business plan; I'm fine with them losing all their money.
chrisfosterelli 3y ago
I feel like your analogy conflates early explorers (who definitely intended to go home unless something went wrong) with early settlers (who did not). I feel like Mars is very much in the "explorer" phase more than the "early settlers" phase.
kayodelycaon 3y ago
You’re missing that those people didn’t know what would happen and they had the hope of a better life at the end. Returning was always an option. It doesn’t need to be rational. Humans are emotional beings and greatly affected about what they believe to be true. Stranded on another planet is a guaranteed death sentence and people know that. They have no hope of survival to cling to. You really can’t equate the two. A better example would be a platoon of soldiers staying behind to delay the enemy so everyone else escape. They have deliberately made the decision to die for a cause.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I'm not missing the point at all. I think we're just willing talking past each other??? We've been sending robot explorers for decades. If we're sending humans, we should no longer be considering them explorers. They're settlers. Framing it any differently is just a serious limitation of what we're trying to do. Send up the equipment they need in advance. If the colonies fail (with all that entails), study it to see why and prep for the next attempt. It eliminates all of this hand wringing, and simplifies things to the point of becoming achievable
virgildotcodes 3y ago
> How do you think the Americas were settled by Europeans? These were families, who were setting out for the promise of a better life, to a world where they were promised fertile land and... a breathable atmosphere. Do you understand how that might be completely incomparable to traveling to a dead world, where life will invariably be much worse, and there is no chance to bring your family or build a future with them? There is no mystery, there is no unknown, there is no promise of riches or a better life, which is what explorers of the eras you're referring to were seeking. > Yeah? And? So? You think people moving from Europe to the colonies didn't get cold feet? Hell, as times get hard, it's only natural to wonder WTF you made this decision. Those people will probably be culled from the herd so to speak. You're being so glib, think a little longer. Did those colonists have twitter? Could a disaster be instantaneously broadcast around the world and cause a simultaneous shift in global perception and government policy? Think about the Challenger disaster leading to the end of the shuttle program. Could you conceive how a major disaster on such a ludicrously expensive undertaking as a Mars mission might result in cuts to the program and potentially all future plans for manned space travel beyond the moon? >like you sound like without the sense of adventure and too meek to do anything other than leave their house for work. Just because someone else is much more bold than you does not mean that you should prevent them from doing it because you might feel uncomfortable upon hearing about something. This is funny. Do you know the life I've lived? Are you confident that it's in alignment with your assumptions?
- dylan604 3y ago
  > Do you know the life I've lived? What gives you the idea that I do? Of course I don't know you, or you'd know that I did. I phrased it in a way that indicates I don't know anything about you or how you think, but based on your writing it sounds like something else. That's all I said. I didn't say you were someone scared of adventure, but it reads like someone that is. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Sometimes it's a swan though, so it's not a hard rule.