Hacker News Reader

Comment by jules | Hacker News Reader

Going to Mars is currently not a good use of resources. It's like spending billions to travel to the middle of the Sahara. Sure, there will be technologies invented as a side effect, but that will also be the case if we spend those resources on something that's also directly useful (like solving the energy problem, quantum computing, self sufficient robots, AI, etc.). Arguably, going to the moon wasn't a good use of resources either.

View on HN

Removing the greatest current single point of failure for human existence isn't a good use of resources?

The problem is, even during a super cataclysmic cosmic event, the conditions on Earth are much easier to live in than on Mars.

For example we have a significant gas pressure and radiation protection.

Sure it is, but going to Mars at this point in time is not the best option. How are we going to have a self sufficient colony on Mars without having a viable energy source, for example? We aren't realistically going to set up a Mars colony without first sending lots of robots to prepare for our weak bodies. Bringing each one from Earth is not feasibly either, so you'd want to have a self sufficient (and replicating) robot colony on Mars first. Once we have these and more issues sorted out, it will be worth investing significantly in actually getting the stuff to Mars, but doing it at this point we'd be investing a of of effort in getting there without actually being able to accomplish something once we're there.

The same applies to the moon: what have we done on the moon? Not much. What have we gained out of the moon missions? Plenty of stuff like better rocket engines, heat shields, etc. Was it the technology project that would have gotten us the best return on investment? I don't think so. Was it better than spending the money on e.g fighter planes? Yes (the cost of the JSF project is $1.1 trillion [1], the cost of the Apollo program is about $0.13 trillion in today's dollars [2] [3]).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_Program

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost

[3] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+%2425.4+%281973+US+dol...

> going to Mars at this point in time is not the best option

Can you propose a better option?

I did, see two levels up. Note that if your sole goal is to remove Earth as the single point of failure for humans, Mars is probably a good choice. All I'm saying is that at this point doing a mission similar to Apollo, namely flying humans to Mars and back, is not a smart investment (even if your sole goal is to establish a Mars colony, but certainly if you also like to improve conditions on Earth).

It's not a single point. We could alternatively synthesize humans or modify humans to survive apocalyptic conditions. Or build sustainable low orbit colonies. Or transfer our knowledge to artificial intelligent agents. Or simply fix the planet so it doesn't become a point of failure.

There's plenty of fallback places under the sea, deep underground, at the poles of the Earth. Or on the Moon, even. We've been there before.

All of the above except the last one are much harder to do than kickstarting a Mars colony.

The last one is downright impossible.

We already have a colony in low earth orbit. Also, by colonizing mars we will only have 2 points of failure.

> We already have a colony in low earth orbit.

It's a little flying shack, not a "colony". Anyway, it's not self-sustainable, which is the main issue.

> Also, by colonizing mars we will only have 2 points of failure.

It appears that you've never done backups.

NASA spends a little bit on the pie in the sky propulsion that would be necessary for a real colonization effort.

What more should they do? Keep on practicing with booster rockets?

Many of us care more about the people currently alive than worrying that one day there won't be any more humans.

I don't understand this comment, but I would like to. Could you elaborate, please?

He is referring to the inevitable extinction event that will cause humans to be wiped out. The history of the planet suggests that it periodically wipes the slate nearly clean. And while there are human reasons we might get wiped out (war, warming, techno catastrophe) even being ideal stewards will eventually result in the loss of the human race. The only survival option is to not be on planet when the 'bad thing' (what ever it happens to be) happens.

If the extinction event is caused by asteroids, that's not the only option. That doesn't mean that the alternatives wouldn't need spacial technology anyway.

If it's as big as Chicxulub, or bigger, getting the hell out of here is the best option.

Ah, got it. Thanks, that was a really clear explanation.

I suspect it's the Intergalactic Highway idea: the Earth is a single point of failure for the entire species.

a.k.a. the Deathstar Dilemma

I tend to agree -- there's no compelling need to get to Mars. But there are many large problems that would be worth working on. Food supplies and distribution, renewable energy, poverty, basic education, civic engagement, etcetera. Self-sufficient robots might be nice-to-have too, but I'm less convinced about the social utility. That just sounds to me like either teleconferencing robots[1] or UAVs for war.

The concern is that we've given up on trying to mobilize during peacetime. That collective amnesia has lulled us to complacency based on large, flat-screen TVs and high-speed internet, forgetting that fiber networks and LCD technology took decades of concerted effort, institutional-scale labs, and principled scientific methods.

[1]: http://www.doublerobotics.com/

Food supplies and distribution, renewable energy

Those sound like deep political nightmares. I can see why they would want to steer clear.

Just the other day I heard someone complaining about the use of mined fertilizers in agriculture. Farmers used to have a renewable resource for fertilizer in grasses, but the market for cattle fell out because raising them was unsatisfactory to the population, so there is relatively little need to grow those grasses anymore.

Renewable energy is an even bigger minefield right now. Neighbours who were once great friends are now mortal enemies just because one party decided to erect a wind turbine. The rallies against them are growing stronger by the day, and wouldn't be surprised to hear about violence as a result of them soon.

I'm not suggesting the above are the right solutions, just examples of resistance at every turn in our attempts to find the right solution. The perfect solution doesn't arrive overnight, and even if it were to, I'm not certain half the population would even accept it. Even it would come with some drawback that someone doesn't like, making it seem like the of the world if you try to implement it.

Until The Next Big Rock hits the Pacific, and then it will suddenly seem like an amazing use of resources.

Remind me again, what percent of military spending would that be?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com