Submitted by Ok_Copy5217 t3_z1b9d9 in space
simcoder t1_ixactd6 wrote
Reply to comment by 4thDevilsAdvocate in From Apollo to Artemis: 50 years on, is it time to go back to the moon? | Space by Ok_Copy5217
He's definitely made a mess of the space colonies being critical for humanity angle.
4thDevilsAdvocate t1_ixad099 wrote
If people are against space colonies because Elon Musk is for space colonies, that's on them, not on Musk.
[deleted] t1_ixadlyb wrote
[removed]
NutriaBoet t1_ixcbcim wrote
Is he wrong?
The logic behind making humans an interplanetary species is to preserve our existence.
Surely that is something you support? Considering you are concerned with the risk of extinction that climate change presents? That is not the only threat mankind faces. Asteroids and nuclear war are just two more extinction possibilities.
simcoder t1_ixcci4n wrote
The jury is still out on whether or not you can build a human supporting biosphere somewhere else.
Regardless of that, for the foreseeable future, any space colony is going to be entirely dependent on the Earth. And one of the biggest dangers they will face is that the supply ships stop coming. That's one of the benefits of the moon...you at least have an out if that happens. Mars, not so much, if you get unlucky on transfer windows and so forth.
Existentially speaking, you're just taking the same problems you have here and transplanting them somewhere else. It's kind of silly to expect different results in a much more resource restricted environment without really changing your behaviors.
And given the oncoming polarization of the world, unilaterally staking claim to an off world colony could be a destabilizing factor that exacerbates one of those extinction possibilities. So, to that extent, you're just making the problem that you're trying to solve that much more likely.
That's a similar issue to what Space Force is inadvertently doing right now. In an effort to try to make us safer, they are making the world less stable.
NutriaBoet t1_ixccz0x wrote
>The jury is still out on whether or not you can build a human supporting biosphere somewhere else.
We've done that. The ISS, not much different doing it on the moon. Mars of course is another story considering it is quite a bit further but that does not mean it cannot be done.
>Regardless of that, for the foreseeable future, any space colony is going to be entirely dependent on the Earth. And one of the biggest dangers they will face is that the supply ships stop coming. That's one of the benefits of the moon...you at least have an out if that happens. Mars, not so much, if you get unlucky on transfer windows and so forth.
They could and probably would become self sufficient.
>Existentially speaking, you're just taking the same problems you have here and transplanting them somewhere else. It's kind of silly to expect different results in a much more resource restricted environment without really changing your behaviors.
Still doesn't stop us from dying out to an asteroid.
Your negativity towards human progress is sad.
simcoder t1_ixcdtsm wrote
Check out the Biosphere stories. That's what you need to be self sufficient. And again the jury is still out on whether that's even possible over the long term. You might need a Biosphere X about the size of the Moon to provide enough stability over the long term.
And just saying that they could become economically self sufficient is one thing. But you've got to somehow get over the bootstrap problem. Which we really haven't found a solution to yet.
And to your last point, it's actually more likely that we die to our own negligence or our petty squabbles or our refusal to acknowledge the situation we are in and do anything about it than dying to the asteroid thing.
And every year that situation gets a little worse. Where the asteroid risk stays mostly constant and incredibly low.
NutriaBoet t1_ixd3f8t wrote
Either way, whatever we say on here doesn't matter.
If NASA doesn't build a lunar base you can bet your arse the Chinese will. They don't give a rats arse about climate enough to prevent their space ambitions.
simcoder t1_ixdtm89 wrote
I really don't see that happening but, if it did, it might actually settle tensions to some extent for the US to allow another nation to do something like that and not go to war to stop them.
It'd be a sign of good faith lol.
NutriaBoet t1_ixdudgn wrote
Considering the US has quite a lot of pride in itself it wouldn't allow it to go unanswered. Doesn't mean you would have war on your hands but the US would definitely try to one up and that would probably be a base on Mars.
Anyway you seem less opposed to China creating a lunar base which is curious. Why is that? Why more opposed to the US creating a lunar base? When they are the ones most capable of doing so.
simcoder t1_ixduu7o wrote
I'm just not afraid of China. And as I mentioned, I really don't see China expending the resources to do a moon base. They've got more than they can handle already on their plate to deal with over next couple decades.
The space station is probably their high water mark.
NutriaBoet t1_ixdyfpz wrote
That's where you're underestimating China. They are the biggest threat to US hegemony here and beyond.
And they have the luxury of not really having to give a damn about climate change activists that are anti-space exploration. Because as soon as an activist protests a Chinese mission to build a moon base they'll be locked up before they can utter their first chant.
The US on the other hand doesn't have that luxury and has to navigate the increasing pressure of environmentalists which believe they are doing the right thing like yourself but fail to realise that good intentions do not always equal good outcomes.
Say the US were to bow to your demands and cease space exploration/habitation for the sake of climate change next thing you know an asteroid or nuclear war wipes us all out. Bye bye Earth and all that you hold precious on it that you sought to protect, all for naught because the US didn't get mankind to become an interplanetary species to ensure its continued existence thanks to the "save the planet fight climate change" types.
I sincerely feel those that are anti-space exploration and colonisation under the justification of climate change are misguided and you fall in that bracket.
And on top of all this is a lot of irony. Space exploration and advancement will preserve our planet and all species on it by allowing us to move polluting and environment damaging work off planet. Such as mining, mining asteroids (which have more minerals in them than the Earth does) we will no longer need to mine the earth when we can get most of our minerals from asteroids.
That is just one example of many where space exploration and advancement benefits our planet and the preservation of all species on the planet indirectly and sometimes directly.
simcoder t1_ixegtzu wrote
US hegemony is the biggest threat to US hegemony. lol
And there's really no need to be scared of the Chinese. Just look at the demographic problems they are going to be facing over the next few decades.
But I guess that would require a little effort on your part and as such too much to ask.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments