OmicronCeti

8 ms·

31.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
The person you're replying to stated elsewhere that they don't believe in the conservation of energy, so (ironically) save yourself the energy of arguing with them.
32.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
What are you talking about? People have lived in Tibet for 20,000+ years?
33.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
You mean add graffiti to my beloved red rocks? Blasphemy.
34.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
None besides Earth.
35.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
We use the rare Martian mineral handwavium
36.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
Navigation is irrelevant to the space flight argument though, we know how to navigate between planets and stars (in theory). Speed is the limiting factor.
37.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
> I don't think we would collapse all plant life. I mean it's not really about what you think . See the top two links here about the devastating effects of small-scale conflicts - https://doi.org/10.1038&#x2F
38.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
From the paper in the article: >"MAVEN has observed the Martian upper atmosphere for a full Martian year, and has determined the rate of loss of gas to space and the driving processes; 1–2 kg/s of gas are being lost." htt
39.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
From the paper in the article: >"MAVEN has observed the Martian upper atmosphere for a full Martian year, and has determined the rate of loss of gas to space and the driving processes; 1–2 kg/s of gas are being lost." htt
40.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
From the paper in the article: >"MAVEN has observed the Martian upper atmosphere for a full Martian year, and has determined the rate of loss of gas to space and the driving processes; 1–2 kg/s of gas are being lost." htt
41.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
Perhaps that's the end-game for lord Musk's Boring Company
42.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
I can't believe I'm entertaining a reply, but how would a human-invented lifeform sent to the stars carry on human society if it is a) not human, and b) light years spatially distance and thousands of years temporally distant? Thi
43.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
I said this elsewhere in this thread, but I study surface processes on Mars, so to me the planet is still alive and active. Things change, mysteries unfold, new environmental conditions come and go. I'm sure you wouldn't object to
44.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
What were the order of magnitude speed developments in seafaring before 1800? I'm not familiar with the topic.
45.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
The collapse of all plant life would mean the death of humans. Nuclear winter is a well-studied and modeled phenomenon.
46.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
I totally accept extinction. It's natural. Homo sapiens will burn bright and briefly, and the planets will continue to spin. I would argue that it would be much more worthwhile to spend money improving Earth for humans while we can, th
47.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
'we' did not go to Mars, 'we' did not go to pluto. We sent cameras with walky-talkies. That is so vastly different than sending people to the moon, that it's not really something we can disagree on in good faith. If
48.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
I see it as littering, we'll all be dead in 100 years so what does it matter if I toss my trash into the bushes?
49.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
Seems a little grandiose considering its just a comment on HN.
50.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
I think the disconnect here is between potential and probable. Humanity likely has the potential for interstellar travel, but our nature will prevent it in my opinion. Homo sapiens have twice come to the edge of nuclear oblivion already (be
51.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
The distance to the moon and Mars is absolutely trivial compared to even the closest star: to Mars is 0.0007% of the way to Alpha Centauri. >We got to the moon, Mars, and several other solar system bodies You're conflating humans an
52.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
We simply exploited fossil fuels. You are extremely optimistic about having several hundred million years left on Earth, when the longest living hominid existed for only ~2 million years. I firmly believe that homo sapiens will self-destruc
53.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
There is model for flight on Earth: birds. Humans achieved a similar feat through mimicry and the use of fossil fuels. There is no model for instellar transit. I am not optimistic that we can develop a technology that can speed transport be
54.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
As the commentor below stated, I do not believe humans will colonize anything but our own solar system. Things are simply too far away, even assuming there is some breakthrough that speeds up travel by two or three orders of magnitude.
55.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
I see no point to it. As another commentor mentioned below, humanity is unlikely to travel to another star system. To me, terraforming Mars is like going camping in your backyard. It's different, it's harder, fun, but ultimately h
56.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
Are you referring to the sun going supernova? I'm not familiar with the luminosity increase.
57.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
Guess pristine is subjective. I study surface processes on Mars so to me the planet is still alive and active. Things change, mysteries unfold, new environmental conditions come and go.
58.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
This piece from the NYT suggests that Siberia may be the new frontier: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russ...
59.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
Are you arguing that the surface area is too small or too inhospitable? What does the development of those areas have to do with Mars?
60.
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
I would conclude the opposite. If in fact Earth requires terraforming, that would be the strongest possible argument against any human influence on other planets. Our current irresponsibility should be proof in and of itself that we should

More ›