4 ms·

> I bet some people said the same about america in 1400s. Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: "Man, it sure would be nice if there was a

> I bet some people said the same about america in 1400s. Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: "Man, it sure would be nice if there was air, arable soil, and building materials in america." > If we can we should. Humans can do lots of things that they absolutely shouldn't. > Large asteroid impact Ah, so we moved on from policy decisions. Good. Okay, let's talk asteroids. a) I would be alot more worried about asteroids if I were on Mars. Mars is closer to the asteroid belt after all, and it's thin atmosphere is a lot less of a hurdle to evil space rocks than Earths. b) Humanity has already proven, that it has the technical capability to alter an asteroids course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... So far, humanity has NOT proven that it can build a self-sustaining colony on mars. As a matter of fact, we have not even done so in the Antarctic Dry Valleys, and they would at least have air there. So purely from the perspective of resource-allocation, it seems there are better ways to protect humanity from asteroid impacts, than trying to build a mars-colony.

adriancr 3y ago
> Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: The point I made is you can never know the benefits. Asimov, end of eternity is a pretty nice book to see how your point of view might be flawed. > Humanity has already proven, that it has the technical capability to alter an asteroids course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... Sure... we can barely detect asteroids and you're saying we can deflect them, is the argument in good faith?, do you really believe we can detect and deflect a planet killer? > So purely from the perspective of resource-allocation, it seems there are better ways to protect humanity from asteroid impacts, than trying to build a mars-colony. So you don't want humanity to waste resources on space. That is your point of view which I hope is a minority at large. I disagree, but I doubt I can convince you otherwisr.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > The point I made is you can never know the benefits. Yes we can know the benefits, and for the exact example you mentioned, we did. It was pretty clear to every major seafaring nation, that securing as big a piece as possible of that new continent, would be very beneficial in terms of resources, generated taxes, and geopolitical power. And we also know that there are no benefits for a Mars colony. It would be a giant resource sink, and, based on what we know now, probably never able to sustain itself without constant help from earth, making it useless as a "backup plan" in case of some global catastrophe on Earth. If Earth dies, martian colony dies with it. > do you really believe we can detect and deflect a planet killer? I know we successfully tested a method that could, with further refinement and development, have a fighting chance at deflecting one. > So you don't want humanity to waste resources on space. Waste? No. Use for useful projects regarding space exploration and defending Earth against catastrophes? Gladly.
  - adriancr 3y ago
    > And we also know that there are no benefits for a Mars colony You seem to assume that, I disagree, to quote you: "would be very beneficial in terms of resources, generated taxes, and geopolitical power." > It would be a giant resource sink So were english colonies in america at first. > probably never able to sustain itself without constant help from earth Again, your assumption, what if you're wrong?, check out 'The Expanse' for what I think we might achieve long term. > I know we successfully tested a method that could, with further refinement and development, have a fighting chance at deflecting one. So your answer is no, we cannot right now or near future. You also didn't answer if we can even reliably detect such a threat... > Use for useful projects regarding space exploration and defending Earth against catastrophes? Gladly. Sure, let's spend resources on that too. Doesn't seem like we are though, perhaps we might need some inspiration in order to get it?, something like some mars colonies might do?
    - usrbinbash 3y ago
      > I disagree Your disagreement won't change the fact that there are no resources on Mars that we cannot already collect here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, and without constant risk of someone dying to explosive decompression. > check out 'The Expanse' I watched "Monsters Inc." at least a dozen times. I am still no closer to turning laughter into unlimited clean energy. > So your answer is no Nope. My answer is it works in theory and the principle has been successfully tested experimentally. That's alot more than can be said for the establishment of a Mars colony. > You also didn't answer if we can even reliably detect such a threat... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch > something like some mars colonies might do? Please, do explain how that interplay would work.
      - adriancr 3y ago
        > the fact that there are no resources on Mars that we cannot already collect here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, and without constant risk of someone dying to explosive decompression. How come you're so confident about this? > I watched "Monsters Inc." at least a dozen times. Ah, it's a 'win an internet argument' comment rather then have a discussion and think a bit. The Expanse shows a possible future where the moon/mars and beyond were colonized, the implications and progress made and its problems, the comment was made to answer your question - what good can we get from it, which you confidently say there's none. The previous Asimov book is a what if we never reached for the stars, something that seems like what you are advocating. Both meant to perhaps share other ideas if you were so inclined to entertain. > Nope. My answer is it works in theory and the principle has been successfully tested experimentally. Ah, so still no, we cannot defend ourselves, rephrasing won't change the core idea you're expressing here. > https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch That still needs proper funding to achieve good coverage, we still detect asteroids way too late. > Please, do explain how that interplay would work. Check out Apollo program for past example.

adriancr 3y ago

> Here is what I bet noone said about america in the 1400s: The point I made is you can never know the benefits. Asimov, end of eternity is a pretty nice book to see how your point of view might be flawed. > Humanity has already proven, that it has the technical capability to alter an asteroids course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... Sure... we can barely detect asteroids and you're saying we can deflect them, is the argument in good faith?, do you really believe we can detect and deflect a planet killer? > So purely from the perspective of resource-allocation, it seems there are better ways to protect humanity from asteroid impacts, than trying to build a mars-colony. So you don't want humanity to waste resources on space. That is your point of view which I hope is a minority at large. I disagree, but I doubt I can convince you otherwisr.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> The point I made is you can never know the benefits. Yes we can know the benefits, and for the exact example you mentioned, we did. It was pretty clear to every major seafaring nation, that securing as big a piece as possible of that new continent, would be very beneficial in terms of resources, generated taxes, and geopolitical power. And we also know that there are no benefits for a Mars colony. It would be a giant resource sink, and, based on what we know now, probably never able to sustain itself without constant help from earth, making it useless as a "backup plan" in case of some global catastrophe on Earth. If Earth dies, martian colony dies with it. > do you really believe we can detect and deflect a planet killer? I know we successfully tested a method that could, with further refinement and development, have a fighting chance at deflecting one. > So you don't want humanity to waste resources on space. Waste? No. Use for useful projects regarding space exploration and defending Earth against catastrophes? Gladly.
- adriancr 3y ago
  > And we also know that there are no benefits for a Mars colony You seem to assume that, I disagree, to quote you: "would be very beneficial in terms of resources, generated taxes, and geopolitical power." > It would be a giant resource sink So were english colonies in america at first. > probably never able to sustain itself without constant help from earth Again, your assumption, what if you're wrong?, check out 'The Expanse' for what I think we might achieve long term. > I know we successfully tested a method that could, with further refinement and development, have a fighting chance at deflecting one. So your answer is no, we cannot right now or near future. You also didn't answer if we can even reliably detect such a threat... > Use for useful projects regarding space exploration and defending Earth against catastrophes? Gladly. Sure, let's spend resources on that too. Doesn't seem like we are though, perhaps we might need some inspiration in order to get it?, something like some mars colonies might do?
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > I disagree Your disagreement won't change the fact that there are no resources on Mars that we cannot already collect here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, and without constant risk of someone dying to explosive decompression. > check out 'The Expanse' I watched "Monsters Inc." at least a dozen times. I am still no closer to turning laughter into unlimited clean energy. > So your answer is no Nope. My answer is it works in theory and the principle has been successfully tested experimentally. That's alot more than can be said for the establishment of a Mars colony. > You also didn't answer if we can even reliably detect such a threat... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch > something like some mars colonies might do? Please, do explain how that interplay would work.
    - adriancr 3y ago
      > the fact that there are no resources on Mars that we cannot already collect here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, and without constant risk of someone dying to explosive decompression. How come you're so confident about this? > I watched "Monsters Inc." at least a dozen times. Ah, it's a 'win an internet argument' comment rather then have a discussion and think a bit. The Expanse shows a possible future where the moon/mars and beyond were colonized, the implications and progress made and its problems, the comment was made to answer your question - what good can we get from it, which you confidently say there's none. The previous Asimov book is a what if we never reached for the stars, something that seems like what you are advocating. Both meant to perhaps share other ideas if you were so inclined to entertain. > Nope. My answer is it works in theory and the principle has been successfully tested experimentally. Ah, so still no, we cannot defend ourselves, rephrasing won't change the core idea you're expressing here. > https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch That still needs proper funding to achieve good coverage, we still detect asteroids way too late. > Please, do explain how that interplay would work. Check out Apollo program for past example.