Discussion
Going to Mars Would Be Very Bad for Your Health
moribvndvs: > Elon Musk has recently stated that SpaceX will, at least right now, no longer be focusing on traveling to MarsWait you mean Elon has been full of shit all this time???
sgt: It's typical fear mongering "this isn't possible because of reasons X, Y, Z". We haven't even tried it yet, or much space travel at all. It's way to soon to jump to conclusions.
mikestew: TFA made some good arguments to support their case, including observations from the space travel we have “tried”. I’m interested to hear your counter-arguments that are more detailed than “nuh, uh!”
jmyeet: Colonizing Mars never made any sense. Mars has the worst of both worlds when it comes to atmosphere: too little to ever be useful, but enough to be really super annoying (eg by covering your equipment with razor-sharp dust because obviously there's been no water recently to erode those sharp edges). Gravity is still pretty low. There's no radiation protection. So yeah, you were going to be living underground. But you can do that on the Moon without all the atmosphere annoyances and the Moon alreaedy has documented lava tubes so you don't need to excavate.Remember when Elon said the Moon was a "distraction" and they were going "straight to Mars" [1]? That was only a year ago. At the time my guess was that a) Starship is just badly designed for being a lunar landing vehicle and b) the project is way behind anyway so this was just a way of kicking the can down the street. So what changed?It's NASA's overhaul of the Artemis and SLS programs (IMHO) [2]. NASA wants to improve these programs by launching them more often and that, in Elon's mind, turns them into more of a competitor and takes money away from SpaceX. It's as simple as that.I stand by my criticism of Starship: I think history will show it to be the Cybertruck of SpaceX. It's a poorly designed platform and it's beiggest problem is going to be that it has to compete with Falcon 9. It's going to be fantastically expensive to develop. It's still many years away from its promise (eg in-orbit refuelling) and there simply isn't the demand to get payloads that large into LEO or geostationary orbit.[1]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1875023335891026324?lang=en[2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-artemis-moon-program-overh...
hackeraccount: Never is a long time.
7e: I’m willing to bet gestating an embryo on Mars will f*k that kid up in a myriad ways. It would be child abuse.
ticulatedspline: Perhaps a tad overly-curmudgeonly but still a good argument against Mars is "A City on Mars"[1] by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith (the SMBC[2] guy)[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars[2]: https://www.smbc-comics.com/
pinnochio: It's not fear mongering when they lay out a good argument, which is not what you're doing.It's fascinating that you and nick49488171 both characterize this article in ways that no reasonable person would ("pearl clutching", "fear mongering") and have nothing substantive to say about the points made at all.
sgt: I get that he's making points, but it's not clear at all that it's not worth trying. His argument is basically that we don't try.
nick49488171: I was not arguing about the hazards of space travel. Of course it is hazardous. I dislike the article because his conclusion is more dangerous to society than any hazardous activity: "something is dangerous therefore nobody should do it." And he makes no arguments to support this conclusion.
mikestew: TFA concluded no such thing from my reading:“As far as human space travel goes, it’s probably best that it stays in the realm of science fiction, at least for the foreseeable future.”And no arguments for that conclusion? C’mon: radiation, the effects of microgravity on human bodies, none of which we have good solutions for…yet. The author argues that we don’t have good solutions, and probably won’t within their lifetime. If you’ve got counter-arguments, let’s hear them, but calling the TFA’s sound arguments “pearl clutching” isn’t productive.
nick49488171: The counter argument is this: if the chance of dying is 2% to make a historic mission, then people should be able to make that choice. What's your counterargument to this statement?As for your hazards Microgravity can be counteracted with a centrifugal living environment.Radiation can not be mitigated effectively yet other than throwing mass at the problem. But if someone wants to launch enough mass that's on them.
mikestew: What's your counterargument to this statement?Don’t need one, it’s an opinion piece, with plenty of facts to back it up. You’ve proposed solutions that don’t yet exist. When those solutions are viable, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. But at the moment it would appear that such a journey has low odds of ending well. If Musk wants to burn cash, and has willing participants, go for it. But with my tax dollars? Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than a lick, prayer, and a hearty “good luck!”
