4 ms·

Depends what you view as humanity's goals - learning more about the universe is a big one for a lot of people. In the very long term, having a good grasp on spa

• palata 2y ago
  > Depends what you view as humanity's goals Well what I quoted specifically mentions cost and ecological impact. > learning more about the universe is a big one for a lot of people Sending people to Mars doesn't seem to be the most efficient way we know to learn more about the universe (by a very, very long margin). > hard to maximize pleasure if civilization is razed by a meteor we didn't have the infrastructure to deflect At this point it seems more likely that civilization collapses because civilization cannot live sustainably on Earth. An asteroid is surely a risk to consider, but going to Mars has absolutely nothing to do with defending Earth from asteroids.
  • Ukv 2y ago
    > > Depends what you view as humanity's goals > Well what I quoted specifically mentions cost and ecological impact. I think those need some affirmative goal to attenuate - e.g: optimizing cost of expanding humanity's capabilities. Alone, minimizing cost could be achieved by essentially halting all economic activity. > Sending people to Mars doesn't seem to be the most efficient way we know to learn more about the universe (by a very, very long margin). Could say it wouldn't be the most cost-effective method currently (and accordingly we're not sending humans to Mars currently), but I'd claim the cost of pushing existing boundaries gradually increases (Future Circular Collider is estimated to cost ~$20B) such that eventually space exploration will be among the more efficient means available for non-negligibly expanding our understanding. It's not that putting someone on Mars is the be-all and end-all, after which we scoop up some martian soil then forget everything we learned to get there, any more than putting a dog in space was the goal of Sputnik 2. > An asteroid is surely a risk to consider, but going to Mars has absolutely nothing to do with defending Earth from asteroids. Surveying NEO's (as this method involves) and building capacity to reliably launch rockets definitely seem fairly directly useful for this to me. At the moment all known life is still a thin film clinging onto a rock spiralling around a ball of fire. Self-sustaining bases on other moons/planets seems like a reasonable insurance in our long-long term.
    • palata 2y ago
      > such that eventually space exploration will be among the most efficient means available. I don't think I understand this paragraph. My point is that in terms of learning about the universe, doing it by sending humans in space seems like the least efficient approach. Compare sending a human to a comet an back with the Rosetta mission, for instance. > building capacity to reliably launch rockets definitely seem fairly directly useful for this to me. We have been able to reliably launch rockets for half a century. What modern companies like SpaceX are doing is commoditizing space. We don't need to be able to launch 1000 Starships/year to protect the Earth from asteroids. And we definitely don't need to reuse them, it's not like we have to handle an asteroid threat every day. > Self-sustaining bases on other moons/planets seems like a reasonable insurance in our long-long term. A couple things here: * We most definitely won't send all known life (or even a substantial fraction of it) to space. That's just impossible. I guess what you mean is humans and the few animal/plant species they believe are enough for their convenience. * At the moment humans are destroying themselves in the short term. Thinking about long-long term on the moon/mars seems like putting your best effort into fixing your fridge while the rest of the house is on fire and saying "how will we do without a fridge?". * People like to talk about "sending the human species to space" and then give the moon and mars as examples. Those are really not nice places to live. If the goal is to survive in a box, you don't have to put it on mars: you could build bunkers for a few people around the world. It would probably be easier to survive an asteroid in bunkers on Earth than surviving on mars, so we may as well do that. * I keep repeating that because it seems unclear: there are no reachable planets outside our solar system. The next star is already so far that we just can't reach it, period. Those who talk about long-long term for the human species should realize that we are on the verge of making our civilization collapse in the short term, here on Earth. Working on sending humans in space is an interesting engineering exercise, but let's stop pretending it has anything to do with helping our species (or any other, really).
      • Ukv 2y ago
        > We don't need to be able to launch 1000 Starships/year to protect the Earth from asteroids. And we definitely don't need to reuse them, it's not like we have to handle an asteroid threat every day. NASA's asteroid redirection test[0] was launched from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. Largely I think it's important to build up and maintain skills/knowledge/capabilities. Specific mission outcomes (dog in space, man on moon, car in orbit) are markers of our increasing progress, not the sole capability we gained. > I guess what you mean is humans and the few animal/plant species they believe are enough for their convenience. Initially, for the scenario where Earth is wiped out by an asteroid/etc., it'd be nice to have a last hope to maintain life - given it's potentially the only life in the whole of existence. Intelligent life if possible, but some hardy microbes if not. > At the moment humans are destroying themselves in the short term. Thinking about long-long term on the moon/mars seems like putting your best effort into fixing your fridge while the rest of the house is on fire and saying "how will we do without a fridge?" I'd claim if we paused all exploratory science (due to lack of immediately obvious applications) until all danger was gone, we'd still be in mud huts. It can be hard to prioritize long-term issues, but I think it needs doing to avoid one short-term problem being endlessly replaced by another. > It would probably be easier to survive an asteroid in bunkers on Earth than surviving on mars, so we may as well do that. We do have bunkers, and I'd agree we should have more. Surviving on Earth would almost always be first choice (ideally by deflecting the meteor). > I keep repeating that because it seems unclear: there are no reachable planets outside our solar system. The next star is already so far that we just can't reach it, period. I'm not betting on us hopping over a solar system to escape any current short-term problem, but I do hope we're still around in millions/billion of years - at which point travelling 4 lightyears to Alpha Centauri does not seem an impossibility. [0]: https://science.nasa.gov/planetary-defense-dart/ https://science.nasa.gov/planetary-defense-dart/