3 ms·

It's typical fear mongering "this isn't possible because of reasons X, Y, Z". We haven't even tried it yet, or much space travel at all. It's way to soon to jum

by sgt 8mo ago

It's typical fear mongering "this isn't possible because of reasons X, Y, Z". We haven't even tried it yet, or much space travel at all. It's way to soon to jump to conclusions.

pinnochio 8mo ago
It's not fear mongering when they lay out a good argument, which is not what you're doing. It's fascinating that you and nick49488171 both characterize this article in ways that no reasonable person would ("pearl clutching", "fear mongering") and have nothing substantive to say about the points made at all.
- nick49488171 8mo ago
  I was not arguing about the hazards of space travel. Of course it is hazardous. I dislike the article because his conclusion is more dangerous to society than any hazardous activity: "something is dangerous therefore nobody should do it." And he makes no arguments to support this conclusion.
  - mikestew 8mo ago
    TFA concluded no such thing from my reading: “As far as human space travel goes, it’s probably best that it stays in the realm of science fiction, at least for the foreseeable future.” And no arguments for that conclusion? C’mon: radiation, the effects of microgravity on human bodies, none of which we have good solutions for…yet. The author argues that we don’t have good solutions, and probably won’t within their lifetime. If you’ve got counter-arguments, let’s hear them, but calling the TFA’s sound arguments “pearl clutching” isn’t productive.
    - nick49488171 8mo ago
      The counter argument is this: if the chance of dying is 2% to make a historic mission, then people should be able to make that choice. What's your counterargument to this statement? As for your hazards Microgravity can be counteracted with a centrifugal living environment. Radiation can not be mitigated effectively yet other than throwing mass at the problem. But if someone wants to launch enough mass that's on them.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - mikestew 8mo ago
        What's your counterargument to this statement? Don’t need one, it’s an opinion piece, with plenty of facts to back it up. You’ve proposed solutions that don’t yet exist. When those solutions are viable, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. But at the moment it would appear that such a journey has low odds of ending well. If Musk wants to burn cash, and has willing participants, go for it. But with my tax dollars? Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than a lick, prayer, and a hearty “good luck!”
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
        sgt 8mo ago
        You could literally have made exactly the same argument about the moon landing in 1969! And people actually did, some were truly against it. Way too expensive, near impossible, lethal, pointless, all the arguments were used.
        bdangubic 8mo ago
        all true, too expensive and near impossible and pointless and…
        nick49488171 8mo ago
        I would make the same argument about bicycles then. What is the point of spending taxpayer money providing services for such a dangerous activity?
- sgt 8mo ago
  I get that he's making points, but it's not clear at all that it's not worth trying. His argument is basically that we don't try.
jatari 8mo ago
I think the bigger issue is I doubt any company is going to blow a trillion dollars to send a person to Mars.
- assaddayinh 8mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
mikestew 8mo ago
TFA made some good arguments to support their case, including observations from the space travel we have “tried”. I’m interested to hear your counter-arguments that are more detailed than “nuh, uh!”
7e 8mo ago
I’m willing to bet gestating an embryo on Mars will f*k that kid up in a myriad ways. It would be child abuse.
- Zigurd 8mo ago
  It amuses me that Elon enthusiasts are 99.9% people behaving like teen boys who've never had a conversation with a woman. If women were more widely represented among investors and company leaders, I doubt we would be hearing about baloney like colonizing a planet covered in poisonous dust with no exploitable resources. That kind of thinking doesn't even have a basis in understanding the colonization of our own planet.

by sgt 8mo ago

It's typical fear mongering "this isn't possible because of reasons X, Y, Z". We haven't even tried it yet, or much space travel at all. It's way to soon to jump to conclusions.

pinnochio 8mo ago

It's not fear mongering when they lay out a good argument, which is not what you're doing. It's fascinating that you and nick49488171 both characterize this article in ways that no reasonable person would ("pearl clutching", "fear mongering") and have nothing substantive to say about the points made at all.

nick49488171 8mo ago
I was not arguing about the hazards of space travel. Of course it is hazardous. I dislike the article because his conclusion is more dangerous to society than any hazardous activity: "something is dangerous therefore nobody should do it." And he makes no arguments to support this conclusion.
- mikestew 8mo ago
  TFA concluded no such thing from my reading: “As far as human space travel goes, it’s probably best that it stays in the realm of science fiction, at least for the foreseeable future.” And no arguments for that conclusion? C’mon: radiation, the effects of microgravity on human bodies, none of which we have good solutions for…yet. The author argues that we don’t have good solutions, and probably won’t within their lifetime. If you’ve got counter-arguments, let’s hear them, but calling the TFA’s sound arguments “pearl clutching” isn’t productive.
  - nick49488171 8mo ago
    The counter argument is this: if the chance of dying is 2% to make a historic mission, then people should be able to make that choice. What's your counterargument to this statement? As for your hazards Microgravity can be counteracted with a centrifugal living environment. Radiation can not be mitigated effectively yet other than throwing mass at the problem. But if someone wants to launch enough mass that's on them.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - mikestew 8mo ago
      What's your counterargument to this statement? Don’t need one, it’s an opinion piece, with plenty of facts to back it up. You’ve proposed solutions that don’t yet exist. When those solutions are viable, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. But at the moment it would appear that such a journey has low odds of ending well. If Musk wants to burn cash, and has willing participants, go for it. But with my tax dollars? Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than a lick, prayer, and a hearty “good luck!”
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - sgt 8mo ago
        You could literally have made exactly the same argument about the moon landing in 1969! And people actually did, some were truly against it. Way too expensive, near impossible, lethal, pointless, all the arguments were used.
        bdangubic 8mo ago
        all true, too expensive and near impossible and pointless and…
      - nick49488171 8mo ago
        I would make the same argument about bicycles then. What is the point of spending taxpayer money providing services for such a dangerous activity?
sgt 8mo ago
I get that he's making points, but it's not clear at all that it's not worth trying. His argument is basically that we don't try.

jatari 8mo ago

I think the bigger issue is I doubt any company is going to blow a trillion dollars to send a person to Mars.

assaddayinh 8mo ago
[dead]
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

mikestew 8mo ago

TFA made some good arguments to support their case, including observations from the space travel we have “tried”. I’m interested to hear your counter-arguments that are more detailed than “nuh, uh!”

7e 8mo ago

I’m willing to bet gestating an embryo on Mars will f*k that kid up in a myriad ways. It would be child abuse.

Zigurd 8mo ago
It amuses me that Elon enthusiasts are 99.9% people behaving like teen boys who've never had a conversation with a woman. If women were more widely represented among investors and company leaders, I doubt we would be hearing about baloney like colonizing a planet covered in poisonous dust with no exploitable resources. That kind of thinking doesn't even have a basis in understanding the colonization of our own planet.