3lambda

That's a valid response, and I think it gets at the core of why we do planetary science. There are no military or economic applications of knowing what Martian soil is made out of, or why it lost its atmosphere, or whether life evolved there too. So why do both the US and China fund these missions at all? And does it matter if China returns samples first? First, I would say that in the process of answering these questions, we develop technologies that often have military or economic benefits (technology transfer). There's something about trying to solve problems humanity has not faced before that causes this. We talk a lot about solution spaces, but problem spaces are maybe more important! Second, there are intangible benefits to answering these questions, which accrue to those who answer them, but also to all of humanity. Prestige, soft power, research expertise, for the one who answers them. And for all of humanity, we gain perspective, awe, wonder, togetherness, curiosity, joy, a whole suite of feelings. If China discovers life on Mars first, which is absolutely a possibility, would we even bother with being second? I think it's too optimistic to assume it's inevitable that we will do a Mars sample return mission. And if we don't, we'd miss out on all the technology transfer benefits. Being in a race is very motivating.

Definitely haven't made a complete argument here, but those are my thoughts. I know there are more concrete, pressing issues out there. But we don't all have to save the world. We just have to do our part and be decent human beings.

I didn't hear about HWO being cancelled... is that just due to the president budget request? Strongly agree with the first line!

I think the key problem with Martian meteorites on Earth is that it's much more difficult to make a positive biosignature detection.

Cool idea! However I think the Mars to Phobos sample move would be nearly as difficult as MSR. The hard parts of MSR were landing, sample collection, ascent from Mars and rendezvous with the return orbiter. The only thing this would change would be the last part, which would still be a rendezvous, just not necessarily a synchronous rendezvous. It could be useful for solving some transfer window timing problems though. And it would be awesome.

> It’s directionally better to wait for manned missions to Mars so we can bring back tons of rocks or even do the research on Mars itself.

I'm worried it's arguments like this that doomed MSR [0]. Why spend 11 billion to get a couple rocks back in 2040 when Starship will be sending astronauts in 2030? But now it seems the near term goals of the Starship program are changing. At this point, who knows when we'll send people to Mars?

> buying rocks from a contractor with quoted price and lead time

I don't know about you but I'm not hearing anyone say they've reserved Starship mass-to-Mars-and-back. You're right that we should rely on private industry more. The CLPS program is the most comparable example (although time will tell whether it's a good one). But for a mission with the risk tolerance of MSR, the CLPS model doesn't work, IMO.

And meanwhile the Chinese are planning on launching their sample return in 2028. They're gonna beat us by a decade.

[0] My thoughts here are partially from this great blog post: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/who-is-the-villain-in-mars...

Funny seeing you here--I'm in 590 with Max and Eric. I saw Agda and guessed it was someone from the group :)

Given its strength in mathematics, it seems likely that AI should be of great help with discovering new physics. We just need to teach it to ask interesting questions.

Finally, someone who's read Void Star! I think it's an unusually prescient book, even for science fiction. I think about it a lot.

I thought it only takes a few days for solar wind to travel from the sun to the Earth? Can you clarify?

Love this guy!!

Would this language be useful for implementing compilers and formally proving things about them?