3 ms·

There's a whole book positing that a permanent settlement on Mars is unlikely to work, and I have not seen their arguments debunked. https://en.wikipedia.org/w

There's a whole book positing that a permanent settlement on Mars is unlikely to work, and I have not seen their arguments debunked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars

philipallstar 5mo ago
Is it possible that their arguments haven't been noticed to be debunked? These are apparently the authors: > The book was written by married couple Kelly Weinersmith, an adjunct professor at Rice University in the BioSciences Department, and Zach Weinersmith, a cartoonist known for the webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
- slumberlust 5mo ago
  Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree. Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth first. But the Trekkies have a tough time with that answer because its a bit of a let down.
  - philipallstar 5mo ago
    > Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree. I'm not saying I'm dismissing the arguments for that reason, at all, to be clear! Thanks for the recommendation. > Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth first. But the Trekkies have a tough time with that answer because its a bit of a let down. Well - it's a tricky one because that is susceptible to slippery slopes. If we hadn't gone to space at all and focused on Earth first we wouldn't have GPS, for example. We can always spend more on Earth to achieve a temporary boon for the current population. We could have not spent money on developing Golang and used the salary to dig wells in Africa, for example. Spending a tiny amount on space for the chance of a permanent upgrade for the species does sound like quite a good idea, and I'm personally glad the American taxpayer is doing it.
    - randallsquared 5mo ago
      > glad the American taxpayer is doing it. For Starship development specifically, the American taxpayer is mostly not doing it; Starlink customers worldwide are contributing most, if I understand correctly.
      - philipallstar 5mo ago
        Maybe you're right. I assumed that SpaceX's revenue is mostly from US government launches, but I don't know if that's true.
    - vel0city 5mo ago
      > If we hadn't gone to space at all and focused on Earth first we wouldn't have GPS I'm not sure if you're actually suggesting it or not with this statement, but we didn't need manned space flight to have GPS. We started launching satellite-based navigation systems a little bit before Yuri went to space, though the system wasn't in fully operational service until after a few human spaceflights.
      - philipallstar 5mo ago
        I'm saying if we'd decided that Earth-bound spending was more important and we should dig (and then maintain) wells in Africa instead of ever going to space, we wouldn't have useful things like GPS.
        vel0city 5mo ago
        Let me start off by mentioning I'm generally for spending on space science programs and think the US should generally be doing more of it not less. But I'd once again push back against the idea that GPS wasn't "Earth-bound spending". Its entirely an Earth-bound thing. GPS is useless on the moon, its useless on Mars. It doesn't help space probes go to other plants. It doesn't help our space telescopes. We didn't really learn new things about going to space by building our GNSS (although IIRC we did confirm some concepts related to time dilation). We didn't build new rocket designs to put them in orbit. They weren't the first things we put in space (although they were some of the earliest things). They were not space science systems. GNSS are inherently Earth-focused spending (global being a key word there). We didn't build Transit or GPS or GLONASS or Galileo to explore space, we did it to measure things on the Earth. GNSS are very much Earth-bound spending, and would have happened regardless of us putting a man on the moon or sending probes to Mars or beyond. We didn't even originally build the rockets launching a lot of this for science reasons or for looking towards exploring space, we originally built them to blow up people far away from us. The Atlas LV-3B for Mercury was a modified ICBM. The Gemini Launch Vehicle was essentially a modified Titan II, a nuke-capable ICBM. These rockets were being built and launching payloads regardless of if we put people on them and did science with them. IMO its a good thing we also did science with them, but its not like they were originally built for public science like NASA programs.
adastra22 5mo ago
As someone from within the space industry, their arguments are beyond bad. Indeed they miss the point entirely. If you don’t see much people talking about it, it’s because most people in the industry don’t want to stoop to that level. But there are a few who have bothered. Here is one of the better ones: https://planetocracy.org/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-i https://planetocracy.org/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-i
- general1465 5mo ago
  Whole article is trying to solve problems of human society through space exploration and colonization. Like trying to mask one's mental illness by not talking about it.
- EnergyAmy 5mo ago
  If that's one of the better criticisms of the book, that's a pretty good recommendation for the book. The article author clearly just doesn't like their dream being shattered.
  - adastra22 5mo ago
    As I said, "doesn't get it." Neither the Weinersmiths nor you seem to understand the motivations of people that actually want to settle Mars. EDIT: It was just pointed out to me that the meat of Peter's review (parts 2 & 3) are paywalled. What I linked to was more like a summary for a review. Sorry. Space fan: We're going to make a city on Mars! Weinersmith: It's going to be hard. There is no air, the ground is toxic, an insane amount of constant work will be required just to stay alive. Fan: Don't threaten me with a good time.
    - dotancohen 5mo ago
      > It's going to be hard. There is no air, the ground is toxic, an insane amount of constant work will be required just to stay alive. I'll go! I'll happily go to die a painful, slow, torturous death on the way to Mars, so that humanity learns what to do differently for the next crew. I'm so enthusiastic about the prospect that even my kids know, given the opportunity, I would kiss them all one final goodbye and happily launch towards the red wandering bright dot in the night sky. I'm a successful developer, not suicidal, generally happy person. And I've dreamed of such a mission for decades. There may not be many people like me willing to make such a sacrifice, but it only takes a handful of us to help propel our species further.

philipallstar 5mo ago

Is it possible that their arguments haven't been noticed to be debunked? These are apparently the authors: > The book was written by married couple Kelly Weinersmith, an adjunct professor at Rice University in the BioSciences Department, and Zach Weinersmith, a cartoonist known for the webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

slumberlust 5mo ago
Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree. Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth first. But the Trekkies have a tough time with that answer because its a bit of a let down.
- philipallstar 5mo ago
  > Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree. I'm not saying I'm dismissing the arguments for that reason, at all, to be clear! Thanks for the recommendation. > Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth first. But the Trekkies have a tough time with that answer because its a bit of a let down. Well - it's a tricky one because that is susceptible to slippery slopes. If we hadn't gone to space at all and focused on Earth first we wouldn't have GPS, for example. We can always spend more on Earth to achieve a temporary boon for the current population. We could have not spent money on developing Golang and used the salary to dig wells in Africa, for example. Spending a tiny amount on space for the chance of a permanent upgrade for the species does sound like quite a good idea, and I'm personally glad the American taxpayer is doing it.
  - randallsquared 5mo ago
    > glad the American taxpayer is doing it. For Starship development specifically, the American taxpayer is mostly not doing it; Starlink customers worldwide are contributing most, if I understand correctly.
    - philipallstar 5mo ago
      Maybe you're right. I assumed that SpaceX's revenue is mostly from US government launches, but I don't know if that's true.
  - vel0city 5mo ago
    > If we hadn't gone to space at all and focused on Earth first we wouldn't have GPS I'm not sure if you're actually suggesting it or not with this statement, but we didn't need manned space flight to have GPS. We started launching satellite-based navigation systems a little bit before Yuri went to space, though the system wasn't in fully operational service until after a few human spaceflights.
    - philipallstar 5mo ago
      I'm saying if we'd decided that Earth-bound spending was more important and we should dig (and then maintain) wells in Africa instead of ever going to space, we wouldn't have useful things like GPS.
      - vel0city 5mo ago
        Let me start off by mentioning I'm generally for spending on space science programs and think the US should generally be doing more of it not less. But I'd once again push back against the idea that GPS wasn't "Earth-bound spending". Its entirely an Earth-bound thing. GPS is useless on the moon, its useless on Mars. It doesn't help space probes go to other plants. It doesn't help our space telescopes. We didn't really learn new things about going to space by building our GNSS (although IIRC we did confirm some concepts related to time dilation). We didn't build new rocket designs to put them in orbit. They weren't the first things we put in space (although they were some of the earliest things). They were not space science systems. GNSS are inherently Earth-focused spending (global being a key word there). We didn't build Transit or GPS or GLONASS or Galileo to explore space, we did it to measure things on the Earth. GNSS are very much Earth-bound spending, and would have happened regardless of us putting a man on the moon or sending probes to Mars or beyond. We didn't even originally build the rockets launching a lot of this for science reasons or for looking towards exploring space, we originally built them to blow up people far away from us. The Atlas LV-3B for Mercury was a modified ICBM. The Gemini Launch Vehicle was essentially a modified Titan II, a nuke-capable ICBM. These rockets were being built and launching payloads regardless of if we put people on them and did science with them. IMO its a good thing we also did science with them, but its not like they were originally built for public science like NASA programs.

adastra22 5mo ago

As someone from within the space industry, their arguments are beyond bad. Indeed they miss the point entirely. If you don’t see much people talking about it, it’s because most people in the industry don’t want to stoop to that level. But there are a few who have bothered. Here is one of the better ones: https://planetocracy.org/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-i https://planetocracy.org/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-i

general1465 5mo ago
Whole article is trying to solve problems of human society through space exploration and colonization. Like trying to mask one's mental illness by not talking about it.
EnergyAmy 5mo ago
If that's one of the better criticisms of the book, that's a pretty good recommendation for the book. The article author clearly just doesn't like their dream being shattered.
- adastra22 5mo ago
  As I said, "doesn't get it." Neither the Weinersmiths nor you seem to understand the motivations of people that actually want to settle Mars. EDIT: It was just pointed out to me that the meat of Peter's review (parts 2 & 3) are paywalled. What I linked to was more like a summary for a review. Sorry. Space fan: We're going to make a city on Mars! Weinersmith: It's going to be hard. There is no air, the ground is toxic, an insane amount of constant work will be required just to stay alive. Fan: Don't threaten me with a good time.
  - dotancohen 5mo ago
    > It's going to be hard. There is no air, the ground is toxic, an insane amount of constant work will be required just to stay alive. I'll go! I'll happily go to die a painful, slow, torturous death on the way to Mars, so that humanity learns what to do differently for the next crew. I'm so enthusiastic about the prospect that even my kids know, given the opportunity, I would kiss them all one final goodbye and happily launch towards the red wandering bright dot in the night sky. I'm a successful developer, not suicidal, generally happy person. And I've dreamed of such a mission for decades. There may not be many people like me willing to make such a sacrifice, but it only takes a handful of us to help propel our species further.