this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
1153 points (99.7% liked)
Comic Strips
12985 readers
1582 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why it's a silly idea to try to send people to Mars. At least colonize the moon first.
we're 2/3 of the way to the expanse, just need belters!
We already have the fascism too
Already or still ;)
It's fascism all the way down
We should do both! A human being can do more science in a handful of days than all of our robots we've ever sent to Mars have done in the years they have been there.
Yeah, but the distance to the moon is a lot shorter, better to practice colonization in an easier to get to location... Somewhere we can learn from our mistakes, rather than jump over that opportunity to a place it takes six months to get to... Where there can be no emergency parts shipped up when something starts breaking down.
Nah, much better to learn the most common problems near by, then take that knowledge and extra durability with us to mars.
Also that way we can develop generations of habitats, figure out the best requirements, and know what we'll need, and develop light weight robust versions of things.
Trying to "Occupy Mars" without having a single building on the moon? That's just some conman billionaires gimmick.
It's not just about distance. It's also about the ability to sustain. The Moon might end up being like Antarctica -- with resources always flown in. So the Moon might always be a bunch of research stations supported by the Earth.
Mars is too far to pull this trick off, and telerobotics is much harder there due to the latency. So Mars makes more sense to work on establishing self-sufficiency than the Moon does. It also, conveniently, has a better set of resources to support the same.
But I do agree that we ought to use the Moon to test some things first :)
We shouldnhave sent like 20 scientists in a mad rush to science as hard as they can then send the robot to collect and transmit all the results from wherever they end up
I thought the moon wasn't an option because of a bunch of reasons?
Like no resources, no gravity, no atmosphere, can't grow/harvest anyting, and the ground isn't good to build on or something. It would be too dependent on resources coming from Earth. Not that Mars is that great, but apparently it has a lot more options.
Get some drones to drill out a crators near the pole (where there's some amount of ice), then dig a tube/trench from the crator to that ice, get one drone up there with an SMR (small nuclear reactor) to go sit in the ice as a heating element (melting the ice so some amount of water comes down the tube/trench and into the crator.... Put a small dome in that crator, a light weight protective layer (because of all the Luna dust), monitor it for gases (from the water supply trickling in)... You got yourself a dome home.
It's just a different set of problems than mars.
Truth is we're on the only easy mode planet (and actively ruining it) - all the ones within our reach are going to be harder to survive on. I just think if a shlub like me can come up with a plan to survive on the moon, NASA should be able to.
1960s space suits and the lander seemed to hold up to it. Hell, they even had a dune buggy.
I'm sure the researchers at NASA, ESA and other space agencies have done extensive work to look at the viability of all that.
I'm thinking if it ever was a viable option they would've long done it by now. Same reason why there've been no people on the moon for such a long time, there's practically no reason to go there. Even back when they first did, it was because of the space race and the achievement of it.
I mean, there's currently a space race to colonise the moon. Musk wants it to be a refueling station for Mars trips, China has a three phase plan (and it's done one phase, scouting) to colonise it (the ILRS).
...so nah, I don't think NASA has even really been considering it.
You don't think that a space agency specifically focusing on space flight, travel and expansion hasn't been extensively researched all of the options? I'm almost certain in the case of NASA it's more a financial issue and less of not wanting to do it, and that the financial cost is not worth what they expect to get out it anyway.
As for the others, it remains to be seen what Musk will do. He's got a lot of money to realise what he's done so far, but I'm not sure if off-world facilities are within his budget (right now).
Not sure what China's goal is though, they say it's aimed at scientific research, but I'm not sure what they're expecting to get out of it that hasn't been done already. They could do similar research on a much cheaper and easier to maintain space station.
If they've decided there's no research to do up there, and it'd be too expensive.... Then why would they be looking at every option for how it could be done?
If they decided there's not reseach value - they WOULDN'T bother looking at options for living on the moon... Because they don't see value in doing so.
So your argument conflicts with its self.
One can always research multiple options extensively, looking at different kinds of possible research on the moon and what they'd get out of it and whether or not it's worth the effort, and then conclude that it would be too expensive. Research itself costs time and money too, and NASA has been tight on the money for a while I believe.
While SpaceX and China can practically burn money just for the sake of it.
When do you think they did all that research? Like, are we talking the 1960s? 1990s? 2000s.
...and when do they go "yep! That's all the options!
Or do you think this research is just an ongoing and constant cost? Is so they've hardly "decided" there's no research to do up there - and it's too expensive... Like if they're constantly looking into it, that's hardly making a decision.
So yeah, I think I'm seeing gaps in what you're saying. They don't have some machine that simulates and calculates all possible methods of survival on the moon and costs them using mldern parts every year.
NASA is quite the bureaucracy, and has even gone through spates of firings and under fundings over the year - so I just think you're venerating an ideal of them being absolutebin their rigor that just not there.
Maybe they've looked at some options, not others, but I don't think they've researched and costd or been creative with it in a long long time.
Also what I've said would be relatively cheap compared to what China and Musk have looked into and decided is viable so to say such a small plan is impossible, that they've done the research on such options, and it mustn't work, or be worth while... Well, I think you must just want to criticize and venerate NASA' genius. Where as I suspect for lots of people - probably since the mid 80s - it's just been a job. Work.
Work directes by each administration, mostly towards investing in observation and research of space phenomena and data. Longer term projects, and ongoing maintenance. Their drones haven't been that great although they have landed plenty - I think they've ALL been for research, and never any aimed at construction or lasting survival.
Anyways your views have limits your imagination is against some ideas, it's presumptuous. I get it. That's fine. I just think most of what would could be trying doesn't get looked at because it's not within the scope of NASAs current aims and goals.
...which are mostly now outsourced to corporate America. It's not some house of innovation, it's not the same thing ot was in the 1960s. I think they've now given multiple billions to Musk and Bezos through SpaceX and Amazon Blue, and that speaks to NASAs current viewpoint on in-house experimentation and creativity.
Government institutions are always a product of their age, and in this era, NASA is controlled by the demands of Capital, not hope for humanity or what's possible - innovation and research into capabilities has been increasingly delegated, outsourced as too expensive, and that's sad.
Scientists and researchers in the modern economy can no longer stay places that give them the freedom to look into options, and must also go where the money is - which is also sad.
As economic wealth gaps in society increase, and industry grows wealthy, making the eich get richer, human capital, hope, creativity, gets crushed. The needs of Capital and the capabilities and freedoms of the richest over the poorest increase exponentially.
So we have people luke Musk and Bezos flexing in competition, business people and the wealthy, rather than actual scientists and researchers - and it's a problem of this era of wealth inequality, and will likely continue to be.