7 ms·

Buzz Aldrin calls for humans to colonise Mars

96 points by MikeCapone 13y ago

dreen 13y ago
The colonisation of Mercury makes more sense, as discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mercury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mercury
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelpinto 13y ago
  It would be very hard to terraform Mercury which makes it a bad candidate for the long run. It would be very hard, but Mars would be the best planet to terraform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    I don't think terraforming is necessarily the best way to prioritize initial colonization. Access to food, energy, and other resources are what should be initially prioritized. This still means that Mars is an excellent candidate for colonization, because of proximity to the asteroids.
- geogra4 13y ago
  Or Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
- api 13y ago
  I don't think so. Technically the plan outlined there is feasible, but the problem is getting there. Flying that close to the sun would multiply the radiation problem considerably. Then you'd have to land and drill underground and build enough to get a foothold before you died. Finally, there's the fact that you'd have to live underground. You could never really live on the surface. For Venus, yes, you could float around in the atmosphere, but where would you get raw materials? The surface is too hostile to mine.
stephengillie 13y ago
Mr Aldrin is selling a book, so of course he has to say something ostentatious to draw attention to it.
- lloeki 13y ago
  If it was about anyone else on any other subject I'd agree. Yet the select few that were lucky enough to get up there — and not even as far as Aldrin — really have ulterior motives[0] quite different than selling a few printed pages. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
  - csixty4 13y ago
    Also, he's been pushing for Mars for a while now, even saying a trip back to the Moon would be like reliving our glory days rather than doing real exploration.
  - itsybitsycoder 13y ago
    Is it really fair to call those motives ulterior? Pro-colonization people seem to be very up-front about the importance of having a "backup planet" (to ensure the human race continues if something were to happen to our own "fragile ball of life").
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      According to google, "ulterior" basically just means "hidden"[0], so I think we can just say "ulterior motives, but in a good way". [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ulterior https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ulterior
genwin 13y ago
When we can pay for it in rainy day cash and aren't borrowing $20 a day for every taxpayer like we are now, dooming the kids, then I'll gladly support it.
- eksith 13y ago
  This kind of extremely narrow minded thinking was already addressed by Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2006 : http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html A notable quote : "We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time, and the money involved, in further airship experiments. Life is short, and he is capable of services to humanity incomparably greater than can be expected to result from trying to fly..." from Dec. 10, 1903
  - genwin 13y ago
    Professor Langley didn't borrow $trillions and expect future generations to pay it back with interest.
    - eksith 13y ago
      You don't pick and choose what breakthroughs in technology, science and medicine will result from the Space Program (as has already been demonstrated). Simply developing one solution leads to a plethora of others that will go on to benefit society in numerous unforeseen ways. NASA puts out a wonderful publication of the branches and side products, services and technologies that has come about as a result of the space program thus far (this is since the moon landing). Hint: It's more than just "Velcro". Space programs of Mars exploration caliber stimulates all, read that word again please, all branches of sciences. All branches of engineering. All branches of mathematics. All branches of biology and medicine. The benefit to society is nearly incalculable, but if you must put a dollar amount, it's well above a paltry $trillion (the actual cost will be in the billions, far less than the monthly consumption of the pointless war in Iraq). The tragedy that plagues all of our generations, it seems, is that great feats that suddenly leaps in progress in all areas of our lives have to fight through an insurmountable myopia. Similar to what happened soon after landing on the moon. Part of me hopes China colonizes Mars first. America is long overdue for a lesson in hubris. Maybe they'll appreciate the new breakthroughs in the above mentioned fields more than the American populace can.
tsotha 13y ago
He's been calling for Mars colonization for, what, 40 years?
sown 13y ago
You know what's terrifying to me about colonization? The chance of failure. It just seems...more probable. In the Americas there were numerous failed colonies. The Virginia company's Jamestown had half the colonist die in the first year, and 400 replacements came but by 1610 there were only 65 or so left alive. On Mars, there isn't a blade of grass, a gasp of air, and perhaps not many drinks of water waiting for us. It'd be agonizing to read or watch daily reports (if we're allowed to see them) about colonists dying of starvation, thirst or asphyxiation (or something else!), one by one until the transmissions simply stopped. I know these are the risks but that doesn't lessen the dread when it happens. One thing that reminds me is The Lady Be Good, a WW2 plane crashed in the Libyan desert. A few of the crew members wandered off. The co-pilot's last diary entry is kind of chilling (http://ladybegood.net/diaries/index.htm http://ladybegood.net/diaries/index.htm): " No help yet, very (unreadable) cold nite."
- eksith 13y ago
  Those are the risks. It would be naïve of us to completely disregard them no matter how exciting the news of colonization would be. The moon landing, for example, almost didn't happen at the last minute due to some unforeseen (yet masterfully handled) issues during the landing itself. I don't think (hopefully avoided) disasters will keep future colonists from following in the footsteps of their predecessors. After all, look how many people perished reaching the poles or climbing Everest. They do it because want to, not necessarily because they can or because it's safe.
  - sown 13y ago
    > They do it because want to, not necessarily because they can or because it's safe. I think they'd do it for the money some how. In the Americas, that was mostly the motivation for the Virginia Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company were commercial ventures. People went to Jamestown hoping to find gold. Eventually word got out that the survival rate was in the very low double-digit percentage and they had to start offering people large tracts of land. Eventually the colonies started to export tobacco back to Europe and the tax revenues generated was always welcome. If those colonists go, it'll because they're dying to get rich.
6ren 13y ago
Buzz testified against Elon Musk and SpaceX. I don't think he can have it both ways. For something this challenging, it has to be your primary goal. You can't be picky about secondary issues.
- schiffern 13y ago
  You're thinking Neil Armstrong. Buzz is pro-private spaceflight. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126775979 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1267759... https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/14816351159848960 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/14816351159848960
  - infectoid 13y ago
    And I believe Musk was truly saddened by Armstrongs attitude. ... "I was very sad to see that," Musk tells "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley. "Those guys are heroes of mine, so it's really tough … I wish they would come and visit … see the hard work that we're doing here and I think that it would change their mind." http://www.space.com/14936-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-60-minutes-interview.html http://www.space.com/14936-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-60-minutes-i...
dmoney 13y ago
The cycler station is an interesting idea. Seems to me you'd still have to accelerate the crew and supplies to an Earth-Mars orbit every time, but the habitat would only have to be accelerated to that orbit once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler
RexRollman 13y ago
I disagree. I can't think of a single place that was ever improved due to the presence of humans.
- api 13y ago
  Improved relative to what, and according to whom?
  - RexRollman 13y ago
    Human are destructive and lay waste to every area they inhabit; like a blight on a tree.
austinz 13y ago
You know what I wouldn't mind seeing first? An unmanned base on the moon to work through the kinks of in-situ fabrication and resource extraction in an extraterrestrial environment. It wouldn't have to be too big and it could even be semi-tele-operated (given a lag time of seconds, rather than minutes or hours) by researchers and technicians on Earth. If we're talking about sending people to Mars to live for long periods of time, and worrying about whether in doing so we're consigning them to miserable deaths, it seems like spending the money to work out the bugs in a non life-and-death situation might be a prudent idea. We've sent people to orbit the moon, we've landed people on the moon and robots on Mars, but we've never had people spending time on another world without relying entirely upon supplies they brought with them.

96 points by MikeCapone 13y ago

dreen 13y ago

The colonisation of Mercury makes more sense, as discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mercury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mercury

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
michaelpinto 13y ago
It would be very hard to terraform Mercury which makes it a bad candidate for the long run. It would be very hard, but Mars would be the best planet to terraform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
- stcredzero 13y ago
  I don't think terraforming is necessarily the best way to prioritize initial colonization. Access to food, energy, and other resources are what should be initially prioritized. This still means that Mars is an excellent candidate for colonization, because of proximity to the asteroids.
geogra4 13y ago
Or Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
api 13y ago
I don't think so. Technically the plan outlined there is feasible, but the problem is getting there. Flying that close to the sun would multiply the radiation problem considerably. Then you'd have to land and drill underground and build enough to get a foothold before you died. Finally, there's the fact that you'd have to live underground. You could never really live on the surface. For Venus, yes, you could float around in the atmosphere, but where would you get raw materials? The surface is too hostile to mine.

stephengillie 13y ago

Mr Aldrin is selling a book, so of course he has to say something ostentatious to draw attention to it.

lloeki 13y ago
If it was about anyone else on any other subject I'd agree. Yet the select few that were lucky enough to get up there — and not even as far as Aldrin — really have ulterior motives[0] quite different than selling a few printed pages. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
- csixty4 13y ago
  Also, he's been pushing for Mars for a while now, even saying a trip back to the Moon would be like reliving our glory days rather than doing real exploration.
- itsybitsycoder 13y ago
  Is it really fair to call those motives ulterior? Pro-colonization people seem to be very up-front about the importance of having a "backup planet" (to ensure the human race continues if something were to happen to our own "fragile ball of life").
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    According to google, "ulterior" basically just means "hidden"[0], so I think we can just say "ulterior motives, but in a good way". [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ulterior https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ulterior

genwin 13y ago

When we can pay for it in rainy day cash and aren't borrowing $20 a day for every taxpayer like we are now, dooming the kids, then I'll gladly support it.

eksith 13y ago
This kind of extremely narrow minded thinking was already addressed by Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2006 : http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html A notable quote : "We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time, and the money involved, in further airship experiments. Life is short, and he is capable of services to humanity incomparably greater than can be expected to result from trying to fly..." from Dec. 10, 1903
- genwin 13y ago
  Professor Langley didn't borrow $trillions and expect future generations to pay it back with interest.
  - eksith 13y ago
    You don't pick and choose what breakthroughs in technology, science and medicine will result from the Space Program (as has already been demonstrated). Simply developing one solution leads to a plethora of others that will go on to benefit society in numerous unforeseen ways. NASA puts out a wonderful publication of the branches and side products, services and technologies that has come about as a result of the space program thus far (this is since the moon landing). Hint: It's more than just "Velcro". Space programs of Mars exploration caliber stimulates all, read that word again please, all branches of sciences. All branches of engineering. All branches of mathematics. All branches of biology and medicine. The benefit to society is nearly incalculable, but if you must put a dollar amount, it's well above a paltry $trillion (the actual cost will be in the billions, far less than the monthly consumption of the pointless war in Iraq). The tragedy that plagues all of our generations, it seems, is that great feats that suddenly leaps in progress in all areas of our lives have to fight through an insurmountable myopia. Similar to what happened soon after landing on the moon. Part of me hopes China colonizes Mars first. America is long overdue for a lesson in hubris. Maybe they'll appreciate the new breakthroughs in the above mentioned fields more than the American populace can.

tsotha 13y ago

He's been calling for Mars colonization for, what, 40 years?

sown 13y ago

You know what's terrifying to me about colonization? The chance of failure. It just seems...more probable. In the Americas there were numerous failed colonies. The Virginia company's Jamestown had half the colonist die in the first year, and 400 replacements came but by 1610 there were only 65 or so left alive. On Mars, there isn't a blade of grass, a gasp of air, and perhaps not many drinks of water waiting for us. It'd be agonizing to read or watch daily reports (if we're allowed to see them) about colonists dying of starvation, thirst or asphyxiation (or something else!), one by one until the transmissions simply stopped. I know these are the risks but that doesn't lessen the dread when it happens. One thing that reminds me is The Lady Be Good, a WW2 plane crashed in the Libyan desert. A few of the crew members wandered off. The co-pilot's last diary entry is kind of chilling (http://ladybegood.net/diaries/index.htm http://ladybegood.net/diaries/index.htm): " No help yet, very (unreadable) cold nite."

eksith 13y ago
Those are the risks. It would be naïve of us to completely disregard them no matter how exciting the news of colonization would be. The moon landing, for example, almost didn't happen at the last minute due to some unforeseen (yet masterfully handled) issues during the landing itself. I don't think (hopefully avoided) disasters will keep future colonists from following in the footsteps of their predecessors. After all, look how many people perished reaching the poles or climbing Everest. They do it because want to, not necessarily because they can or because it's safe.
- sown 13y ago
  > They do it because want to, not necessarily because they can or because it's safe. I think they'd do it for the money some how. In the Americas, that was mostly the motivation for the Virginia Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company were commercial ventures. People went to Jamestown hoping to find gold. Eventually word got out that the survival rate was in the very low double-digit percentage and they had to start offering people large tracts of land. Eventually the colonies started to export tobacco back to Europe and the tax revenues generated was always welcome. If those colonists go, it'll because they're dying to get rich.

6ren 13y ago

Buzz testified against Elon Musk and SpaceX. I don't think he can have it both ways. For something this challenging, it has to be your primary goal. You can't be picky about secondary issues.

schiffern 13y ago
You're thinking Neil Armstrong. Buzz is pro-private spaceflight. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126775979 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1267759... https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/14816351159848960 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/14816351159848960
- infectoid 13y ago
  And I believe Musk was truly saddened by Armstrongs attitude. ... "I was very sad to see that," Musk tells "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley. "Those guys are heroes of mine, so it's really tough … I wish they would come and visit … see the hard work that we're doing here and I think that it would change their mind." http://www.space.com/14936-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-60-minutes-interview.html http://www.space.com/14936-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-60-minutes-i...

dmoney 13y ago

The cycler station is an interesting idea. Seems to me you'd still have to accelerate the crew and supplies to an Earth-Mars orbit every time, but the habitat would only have to be accelerated to that orbit once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler

RexRollman 13y ago

I disagree. I can't think of a single place that was ever improved due to the presence of humans.

api 13y ago
Improved relative to what, and according to whom?
- RexRollman 13y ago
  Human are destructive and lay waste to every area they inhabit; like a blight on a tree.

austinz 13y ago

You know what I wouldn't mind seeing first? An unmanned base on the moon to work through the kinks of in-situ fabrication and resource extraction in an extraterrestrial environment. It wouldn't have to be too big and it could even be semi-tele-operated (given a lag time of seconds, rather than minutes or hours) by researchers and technicians on Earth. If we're talking about sending people to Mars to live for long periods of time, and worrying about whether in doing so we're consigning them to miserable deaths, it seems like spending the money to work out the bugs in a non life-and-death situation might be a prudent idea. We've sent people to orbit the moon, we've landed people on the moon and robots on Mars, but we've never had people spending time on another world without relying entirely upon supplies they brought with them.