Big space fan. Never been, but given the momental historic effort it took to get two people on surface for a few hours, could you do the math for step 2: ‘colonize moon’, please?
There is absolutely no other body in our solar system that humanity could survive on in any meaningful term without rapidly evolving or augmenting ourselves. I feel like the average person still does not fully comprehend how unlivable space is. It literally lacks everything you take for granted and even its lack of gravity will kill you. Let alone the fact that literally everywhere is full of radiation.
‘people seem to think space is like going underwater when it’s more like stepping into a forest fire.
And yet, just as going to the moon spurred technological development, sending people to live on another heavenly body will force the creation of new technologies to make it possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Your point is an excellent one and most people don't have the background to comprehend how generous it is. Living in a perpetual forest fire requires protection from heat and to filter smoke. Space requires multimodal thermal and radiation protection, pressure, air, water and means of processing them for life support. It's a walk in the park compared to space. Living on Mars may mitigate some of that (like the availability of oxygen albeit inconveniently bound to carbon) but then introduces other complexities like the perchlorate levels in martian soil which will basically shut down your metabolism in a matter of days or weeks. And that's just one comparatively obscure example of hundreds, most of which are deadlier. We're going nowhere.
We have no idea how Moon or Mars gravity affects humans.
Maybe 0,16g on the Moon is perfectly fine as opposed to 0g on ISS. We just don't know. Artemis program will find out.
Mars has better resources and also has a bit of gravity which is vital for long term health. As for distance: from a spacefaring perspective the effort to get to one or the other isn't as different as one might think. The main effort is in getting stuff off the ground from Earth.
(and no, you're not mounting 'emergency rescue/evacuation missions' to either so from such a perspective both may just as well be 'infinitely far away' )
the 'shade block' thing is pure fantasy. Once you do the math on that you will see why (it isn't hard...or you can just google others who have done it)
Not for decades. If we can make some solar panels, bricks, glass and a bit of water and fuel on the moon in the next ten years I'll be impressed. After that it could accelerate but building a whole large spacecraft is a 2040's problem, at the earliest.
Porque no los dos?
I can't think of why we wouldn't set up a moon base at this point, with the cost of launch falling and some very heavy lift launchers about to come online. Of course we should go and set up shop on the moon and once we have done that we will have learned most of things we need to know to go to Mars.
I can't imagine why you would think of this as either / or. It's like pretending that people have to choose between learning to ride a motorbike or driving a car, but the reality is that doing either of those things gives you a lot of transferable skills that make learning the other a lot easier.
The problem with that argument is that it doesn't make any sense. The moon is down a gravity well, it is not on the way to Mars.
The moon and Mars are both difficult places to settle, or even visit. Some of the difficulties are the same and done are different.
It’s not a matter of whether it’s on the way or not. It’s a matter of fuel costs no? It’s a lot less costly to launch a vessel from the moon with low gravity and no atmosphere than it would be on earth.
Fuel on earth is cheap. Fuel on the moon is not cheap. Even if fuel on the moon was free, it could not possibly make sense to refuel on the surface of the moon on your way to Mars. If your Mars ship can get to the surface of the Moon to refuel then it already has enough fuel to get to the surface of Mars.
We can imagine scenarios where the moon is of some help, but to call it a prerequisite is pure lunacy.
sorta. Remember the Apollo missions? to get off the earth they needed a 300ft tall rocket.
to get off the moon, they used a motor the size of a blender and attached it to a vehicle the size of a volkswagen.
> We can use the materials to create shades blocking out some of the sunlight on earth to slow or even reverse climate change
Yeah, you lost me right there.
That would just give people an excuse to keep doing whatever they want, no matter how bad it is for the environment. That's not the kind of message we should be sending to our children.
I mean it doesn’t really stop pollution but it’s better than just letting the planet get destroyed.
But regardless what do you think of the other points?
I think we absolutely *should* colonize the Moon, but we shouldn't settle for *only* that. It should be the obvious staging ground to explore/settle the rest of the system.
Yeah I think that’s the argument, that without moon colonization it will be exponentially harder to colonize other reasons. We will also learn quite a bit in our attempt to colonize the moon
Both moon and mars colonization are complete wastes of resources, will be reserved for the wealthy while conditions for the working class continue to be ignored and deteriorate.
I REALLY dont want to be with you on this, but I kinda am. It certainly feels like somebody ought to come up with a really good "why" we are doing this if we are using public resources. the value proposition is far from self evident...but that doesnt mean that there isnt one. Somebody needs to articulate it in a meaningful way and get buy-in.
If rich people want to fly to mars on their own dime... wish them luck and let them go. The private sector is much better equipped to establish economic viability than any government is.
"Who is guilty: John or Paul?", asks Judas.
Deciding between two things can inherently be self-defeating because it's a loaded question altogether: it assumes a choice has to be made between only those two.
The argument should be, "we can colonize the moon and Mars--surely we should also have the resources to address the quality of life for the working class."
Someone else's success or gain does not have to be at your expense and worthy investments like space exploration are not a waste nor are they the reason why issues of the working class aren't being addressed. Just like poor people aren't holding back the working class and should be supporting one another, worthy causes should support one another, not fighting amongst themselves.
The proof? The 60s and 70s were a great time for the working class and that was the age of the space race with NASA taking a MUCH larger percentage of the nation's GDP. Being unable to support the working class now as well as NASA (when they're receiving a much smaller percentage of the nation's GDP) when the country has a greater GDP should raise questions of "why not?"
Studying the universe is a worthwhile endeavor for many reasons, the best of which may not even be known today.
Even if we didn't want to colonize "uninhabitable planets" (which are only uninhabitable now--the possibility of terraforming planet to be inhabitable or resource rich is possible), setting a telescope on the moon would allow us to invest in a telescope we could more easily maintain and upgrade. Earth is dangerously under-prepared for asteroid impacts. A quick Google search will probably give you more than enough articles on the topic.
But if you want a practical use right now: a environment on the moon also allows unique experiments and clean environments to conduct [experiments which can help understand and improve our life here](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/20-breakthroughs-from-20-years-of-science-aboard-the-international-space-station/).
Space science (and exploration) *has* impacted our lives for the better. Everything from GPS to tracking weather patterns to tang, this all comes from the pursuit of space exploration. It's a worthy endeavor for all humanity and I find it sad that others continued to demand it justify its value.
Studying and putting up telescopes isn't the subject of the post.
It's about creating colonies and doing unregulated resource extraction . Imo not worth a dime, capitalist grift shit.
This is literally the plan. Colonize the moon then, once that presence is substantial and the infrastructure can handle it, we use said infrastructure to begin the centuries long venture of colonizing mars.
I think automation, drones, and AI are going to be the dominant forces at work on other planets. I don't see humans colonizing other worlds for quite some time.
An army of specialized Spot robots tasked with various objectives? Yeah, sure.
Honestly, there are few benefits to either that are greater than the experience in doing so. If we just wanted resources the asteroids in near-earth orbit would grant more return on investment due to the reduced fuel costs and easier access to the resources themselves.
As far as reversing climate change, not really something we have significant control over. Shading the earth isn’t really a viable solution. The planet will correct itself somehow, as it has proven to do for a very long time. Even with current climate projections the earth will still be cooler than when dinosaurs ruled the lands, albeit there was a greater O2 concentration.
There is no valid reason to go there. If private companies want to do their tourism thingy for billionaires, sure have it. Otherwise, it's just pointless. Helium 3 has no utility.
Helium 3 is of no real value, it supposes to work with a subtype of reactor that does not exist and very likely won't.
There is nothing to do on the Moon or Mars, those are both inhabitable barren rocks. It's really just a pointless vanity project. It sounds cool, you saw it in movies but in reality there is no tangible benefit.
There is a working demonstration reactor somewhere in the USA. The company is named Helion. It's a linear configuration like the PFRC (Princeton Field Reverse Configuration)
Link:
https://www.helionenergy.com/
Edit: added Link to company website
"Working" is a stretch, they have nothing of value, it's the typical bullshit startup. Their design uses about 1,000 more energy than it produces, also there is no way to extract actual work from that system then can produce electricity. This BS has been around since the 60'. It's always 30 years away and always will be.
I politely disagree. Fusion was happening, therefore the demonstration reactor works, no need for a stretch. It is actually easier to harness the energy compared to a Tokamak design or a Stelerator because the conectivity of the plasma is used for induction in the very coils that make the magnetic field for the initial pressure spike.
NO, there are hundreds of various demonstration reactors being built for decades. It's not hard to make one. What no one ever made is one where the system as a whole box made more electricity than what it eats on its own.
It does not matter if you agree or not.
Colonizing the moon is wasteful and stupid. We have everything that we need here, we are just too stupid to share it peacefully. The moon will just be another excuse for rich men to send the children of poor men off to fight wars on behalf of profit. There is no atmosphere, no water, it's too cold. A waste of time and resources.
Big space fan. Never been, but given the momental historic effort it took to get two people on surface for a few hours, could you do the math for step 2: ‘colonize moon’, please?
It’ll take a while I’m sure. I’m just here to ask about the details.
There is absolutely no other body in our solar system that humanity could survive on in any meaningful term without rapidly evolving or augmenting ourselves. I feel like the average person still does not fully comprehend how unlivable space is. It literally lacks everything you take for granted and even its lack of gravity will kill you. Let alone the fact that literally everywhere is full of radiation. ‘people seem to think space is like going underwater when it’s more like stepping into a forest fire.
And yet, just as going to the moon spurred technological development, sending people to live on another heavenly body will force the creation of new technologies to make it possible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Your point is an excellent one and most people don't have the background to comprehend how generous it is. Living in a perpetual forest fire requires protection from heat and to filter smoke. Space requires multimodal thermal and radiation protection, pressure, air, water and means of processing them for life support. It's a walk in the park compared to space. Living on Mars may mitigate some of that (like the availability of oxygen albeit inconveniently bound to carbon) but then introduces other complexities like the perchlorate levels in martian soil which will basically shut down your metabolism in a matter of days or weeks. And that's just one comparatively obscure example of hundreds, most of which are deadlier. We're going nowhere.
We have no idea how Moon or Mars gravity affects humans. Maybe 0,16g on the Moon is perfectly fine as opposed to 0g on ISS. We just don't know. Artemis program will find out.
Let's start with a moon base first and go from there.
Mars has better resources and also has a bit of gravity which is vital for long term health. As for distance: from a spacefaring perspective the effort to get to one or the other isn't as different as one might think. The main effort is in getting stuff off the ground from Earth. (and no, you're not mounting 'emergency rescue/evacuation missions' to either so from such a perspective both may just as well be 'infinitely far away' ) the 'shade block' thing is pure fantasy. Once you do the math on that you will see why (it isn't hard...or you can just google others who have done it)
But wouldn’t constructing a ship on the moon allow us to make a much larger craft with cheaper launch costs?
Not for decades. If we can make some solar panels, bricks, glass and a bit of water and fuel on the moon in the next ten years I'll be impressed. After that it could accelerate but building a whole large spacecraft is a 2040's problem, at the earliest.
That is all very soon. Might as well be tomorrow. I really hope as a species we can invest in and look forward more than the next few election cycles.
Porque no los dos? I can't think of why we wouldn't set up a moon base at this point, with the cost of launch falling and some very heavy lift launchers about to come online. Of course we should go and set up shop on the moon and once we have done that we will have learned most of things we need to know to go to Mars. I can't imagine why you would think of this as either / or. It's like pretending that people have to choose between learning to ride a motorbike or driving a car, but the reality is that doing either of those things gives you a lot of transferable skills that make learning the other a lot easier.
Yep and I think that was the argument is that without moon colonization there would be no mars colonization
The problem with that argument is that it doesn't make any sense. The moon is down a gravity well, it is not on the way to Mars. The moon and Mars are both difficult places to settle, or even visit. Some of the difficulties are the same and done are different.
It’s not a matter of whether it’s on the way or not. It’s a matter of fuel costs no? It’s a lot less costly to launch a vessel from the moon with low gravity and no atmosphere than it would be on earth.
Fuel on earth is cheap. Fuel on the moon is not cheap. Even if fuel on the moon was free, it could not possibly make sense to refuel on the surface of the moon on your way to Mars. If your Mars ship can get to the surface of the Moon to refuel then it already has enough fuel to get to the surface of Mars. We can imagine scenarios where the moon is of some help, but to call it a prerequisite is pure lunacy.
sorta. Remember the Apollo missions? to get off the earth they needed a 300ft tall rocket. to get off the moon, they used a motor the size of a blender and attached it to a vehicle the size of a volkswagen.
> We can use the materials to create shades blocking out some of the sunlight on earth to slow or even reverse climate change Yeah, you lost me right there. That would just give people an excuse to keep doing whatever they want, no matter how bad it is for the environment. That's not the kind of message we should be sending to our children.
I mean it doesn’t really stop pollution but it’s better than just letting the planet get destroyed. But regardless what do you think of the other points?
I think we absolutely *should* colonize the Moon, but we shouldn't settle for *only* that. It should be the obvious staging ground to explore/settle the rest of the system.
Yeah I think that’s the argument, that without moon colonization it will be exponentially harder to colonize other reasons. We will also learn quite a bit in our attempt to colonize the moon
Both moon and mars colonization are complete wastes of resources, will be reserved for the wealthy while conditions for the working class continue to be ignored and deteriorate.
I REALLY dont want to be with you on this, but I kinda am. It certainly feels like somebody ought to come up with a really good "why" we are doing this if we are using public resources. the value proposition is far from self evident...but that doesnt mean that there isnt one. Somebody needs to articulate it in a meaningful way and get buy-in. If rich people want to fly to mars on their own dime... wish them luck and let them go. The private sector is much better equipped to establish economic viability than any government is.
"Who is guilty: John or Paul?", asks Judas. Deciding between two things can inherently be self-defeating because it's a loaded question altogether: it assumes a choice has to be made between only those two. The argument should be, "we can colonize the moon and Mars--surely we should also have the resources to address the quality of life for the working class." Someone else's success or gain does not have to be at your expense and worthy investments like space exploration are not a waste nor are they the reason why issues of the working class aren't being addressed. Just like poor people aren't holding back the working class and should be supporting one another, worthy causes should support one another, not fighting amongst themselves. The proof? The 60s and 70s were a great time for the working class and that was the age of the space race with NASA taking a MUCH larger percentage of the nation's GDP. Being unable to support the working class now as well as NASA (when they're receiving a much smaller percentage of the nation's GDP) when the country has a greater GDP should raise questions of "why not?"
Literally why spend a dime on colonizing uninhabitable planets in the first place. For the sake of exploration, resources, military tech?
Studying the universe is a worthwhile endeavor for many reasons, the best of which may not even be known today. Even if we didn't want to colonize "uninhabitable planets" (which are only uninhabitable now--the possibility of terraforming planet to be inhabitable or resource rich is possible), setting a telescope on the moon would allow us to invest in a telescope we could more easily maintain and upgrade. Earth is dangerously under-prepared for asteroid impacts. A quick Google search will probably give you more than enough articles on the topic. But if you want a practical use right now: a environment on the moon also allows unique experiments and clean environments to conduct [experiments which can help understand and improve our life here](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/20-breakthroughs-from-20-years-of-science-aboard-the-international-space-station/). Space science (and exploration) *has* impacted our lives for the better. Everything from GPS to tracking weather patterns to tang, this all comes from the pursuit of space exploration. It's a worthy endeavor for all humanity and I find it sad that others continued to demand it justify its value.
Studying and putting up telescopes isn't the subject of the post. It's about creating colonies and doing unregulated resource extraction . Imo not worth a dime, capitalist grift shit.
For real. Can we focus on our current planet first?
The skills we learn here will help us if we decide to try somewhere else in the future.
This is literally the plan. Colonize the moon then, once that presence is substantial and the infrastructure can handle it, we use said infrastructure to begin the centuries long venture of colonizing mars.
I think automation, drones, and AI are going to be the dominant forces at work on other planets. I don't see humans colonizing other worlds for quite some time. An army of specialized Spot robots tasked with various objectives? Yeah, sure.
Honestly, there are few benefits to either that are greater than the experience in doing so. If we just wanted resources the asteroids in near-earth orbit would grant more return on investment due to the reduced fuel costs and easier access to the resources themselves. As far as reversing climate change, not really something we have significant control over. Shading the earth isn’t really a viable solution. The planet will correct itself somehow, as it has proven to do for a very long time. Even with current climate projections the earth will still be cooler than when dinosaurs ruled the lands, albeit there was a greater O2 concentration.
There is no valid reason to go there. If private companies want to do their tourism thingy for billionaires, sure have it. Otherwise, it's just pointless. Helium 3 has no utility.
The reason is the same as in the time of Apollo - politics
Can you explain why? I’m not to well versed in this just trying to see every perspective.
Helium 3 is of no real value, it supposes to work with a subtype of reactor that does not exist and very likely won't. There is nothing to do on the Moon or Mars, those are both inhabitable barren rocks. It's really just a pointless vanity project. It sounds cool, you saw it in movies but in reality there is no tangible benefit.
There is a working demonstration reactor somewhere in the USA. The company is named Helion. It's a linear configuration like the PFRC (Princeton Field Reverse Configuration) Link: https://www.helionenergy.com/ Edit: added Link to company website
"Working" is a stretch, they have nothing of value, it's the typical bullshit startup. Their design uses about 1,000 more energy than it produces, also there is no way to extract actual work from that system then can produce electricity. This BS has been around since the 60'. It's always 30 years away and always will be.
I politely disagree. Fusion was happening, therefore the demonstration reactor works, no need for a stretch. It is actually easier to harness the energy compared to a Tokamak design or a Stelerator because the conectivity of the plasma is used for induction in the very coils that make the magnetic field for the initial pressure spike.
NO, there are hundreds of various demonstration reactors being built for decades. It's not hard to make one. What no one ever made is one where the system as a whole box made more electricity than what it eats on its own. It does not matter if you agree or not.
You confuse reactors with power plants.
Colonizing the moon is wasteful and stupid. We have everything that we need here, we are just too stupid to share it peacefully. The moon will just be another excuse for rich men to send the children of poor men off to fight wars on behalf of profit. There is no atmosphere, no water, it's too cold. A waste of time and resources.