Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Everybody has its own view on what a good quest is, the space quest can be seen as a way to save humanity, which might on the long term ?

I kindly disagree. Nobody wants to live forever on Mars (if you do, you may as well go live in a bunker and never go out, no need to go there). Nobody wants to live forever in a spaceship (for the same reason).

What does that mean? The goal, what people actually want with the "space quest", is to find another planet. Check how far the closest star is (that's more than 4 light years away): we cannot even theoretically go there in any kind of meaningful way, even in the long term.

If your quest is to become a multi-planetary species, you should do theoretical physics on Earth and try to find a way to go that far. No need to solve the engineering problems first, let alone in a resource-intensive and counter-productive way (w.r.t. our survival on Earth).

I find it amazing that engineers don't find it insane to do all the engineering work for something that is, currently, theoretically impossible. It's like building public transportation all over the world based on the idea that we will discover telekinesis ("it doesn't work right now, but as soon as you have telekinesis, it will be great"). Yes it would be cool, but the only sane way to look at it today is that telekinesis is not a thing.

> Nobody wants to live forever on Mars (if you do, you may as well go live in a bunker and never go out, no need to go there). Nobody wants to live forever in a spaceship (for the same reason).

> What does that mean? The goal, what people actually want with the "space quest", is to find another planet.

I highly disagree. After fighting our way out of one gravity well, we shouldn't be quick to jump straight down another (although Mars is certainly easier to get off than Earth).

I don't understand your point. So you want to live your whole life in a spaceship? Is there a reason that would be better than living in a bunker and never going out?

Sure, the whole point is that it's easier to go out!

The spaceship we're currently on makes very inefficient use of material: its shape gives the least surface/livable area; and its density is the highest in the solar system. The resulting gravitational pull makes it very hard to leave: chemical rockets will just about work, but need multiple stages.

In contrast, a more efficient design, like a spin-gravity cylinder inside a hollowed-out asteroid, is much easier to leave (in fact, we'd be flung away, if the floor weren't accelerating us inwards; say, by stepping over a trapdoor!). Whilst such a ship would certainly be more maneuverable than the Earth, it would probably be easier to leave in a convenient orbit (e.g. as a cycler), and use smaller, leaner ships for bespoke travel around the solar system (no point wasting fuel to keep accelerating/decelerating all the gardens, farms, factories, schools, etc. if they're not needed en-route!)

If you can't realize that we won't make it to that kind of science-fiction idea before we manage to survive on Earth (if ever), then I don't know what to say :-).

I assume you mean "survive sustainably on Earth"? That's certainly our most important issue; we'll all be long dead before any off-world settlement could be self-sustaining, either planetary or space-based.

Those things aren't mutually-exclusive though.

> Those things aren't mutually-exclusive though.

Well space research is not a problem, as long as it is research. My problem is that it is becoming a business ("we want to launch a lot of rockets and make money out of it") behind the excuse of "saving the human species and making colonies on Mars".

The space business is a problem for our objective of "surviving sustainably on Earth" (which at this point is synonymous with "surviving on Earth".

This guy Dyson spheres

We need to first figure out aging, to be able to become a space faring civilization. Aging is the hardest quest and I don't think it would be possible because it might be a fundamental thing within the system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com