Comment by cosmic_cheese | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cosmic_cheese | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We regularly expend vastly more resources on things that are far more frivolous and questionable than anything related to spaceflight has ever been, but nobody bats an eye about any of that.

As for the problems, we solve them like we always have: one at a time. Additionally, some of these things haven't even yet been studied to the extent necessary to take a crack at solving them. Taking the humans in microgravity problem as an example, we know it's a problem but have done precious little in figuring out things like exactly where the minimum threshold sits for gravity, whether simulated gravity via centrifugal force is adequate, etc.

I do think that SpaceX is jumping the gun a bit. I'd rather take it a touch more slowly and first do things like put a centrifugal space station in orbit to perform studies on. That said, after how crewed spaceflight beyond earth's orbit came to a screeching halt with the end of the Apollo program, it feels like a miracle to be getting anything.

> figuring out things like exactly where the minimum threshold sits for gravity

Now there exists some evidence about that threshold.

Experiments with mice on the ISS have shown that at least for them a third of the terrestrial gravity is necessary for avoiding severe health problems and two thirds of terrestrial gravity is the threshold necessary for avoiding all health problems.

That means that even the gravity at the surface of Mars is likely to be insufficient for avoiding all health problems.

This does not mean that travel through the Solar System or life on Mars or on the Moon are impossible, but it means that for any of these it is necessary to use rotation to provide artificial gravity for the spaces where humans will spend most of the time.

This will increase costs for spaceships or for surface bases, but technically it is a relatively easy problem to solve in comparison with the efficient recycling of all materials.

> We regularly expend vastly more resources on things that are far more frivolous and questionable than anything related to spaceflight has ever been, but nobody bats an eye about any of that.

This statement is too hand-wavy, and I doubt that "nobody" bats an eye. Do you have specific examples?

Also, there's no reason why overspending in some areas should be redirected to the space program rather than to vital, underfunded problems on Earth. Again, it's always a tradeoff.

The classic example is military spending. It's astronomical and in the US, higher than any other type, and much of that is owed to the cronyism in the military-industrial complex, regulatory capture by contractors, and endless chains of subcontractors with each link in the chain pocketing cash. The Pentagon can't even pass an audit.

Many things could be funded if that were cleaned up, and even if none of that cash goes towards space it reduces pressure to further cut existing funding toward it which would still be a massive win.

> The classic example is military spending.

No, because you said, "nobody bats an eye about any of that", which is not even remotely true of military spending.

It's worth noting that the Apollo space program was controversial in its day, simultaneous with prominent civil rights movements, because it was felt that the government was ignoring the economic problems of minorities, for instance, in order to put white guys on the Moon and play golf.

> No, because you said, "nobody bats an eye about any of that", which is not even remotely true of military spending.

I mean, it must not be taken that seriously because little has been done to change it. Instead, just about everything else gets constantly gets chipped away at to significant fanfare.

And yes I'm aware of the controversy that surrounded the Apollo program and to a large degree empathize, but even at that point in time we probably could've found a way to walk and chew bubblegum if we really wanted it.

People have been complaining about military spending for generations. There's a war happening right now that has generated significant controversy.

How much do you think is spent on Golf every year world wide? 100 Billion? 200?

I'm probably as skeptical as most about a Martian colony - to my mind it's 100's of years but will almost certainly happen in that time frame. That said the amount that's being spent on it happening today seems about right.

I would also say that the money being spent now is working at engineering problems. Most (All?) of the vital underfunded problems on Earth that you allude to are political problems. I'm not saying money can't solve them but they are way more complicated.

> How much do you think is spent on Golf every year world wide? 100 Billion? 200?

I don't know. Too much, probably. Certainly there's too much land devoted to golf courses. However, "humans should not spend money on leisure activities" would not be a serious proposal. Should we never enjoy life? I suspect that even people who are hungry and homeless also aspire to enjoy leisure activities in addition to having food and shelter.

If we could go to Mars only by abolishing fun then to hell with Mars.

> I'm probably as skeptical as most about a Martian colony - to my mind it's 100's of years but will almost certainly happen in that time frame.

No, you are definitely not as skeptical as most.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com