[HN Gopher] Mars Now ___________________________________________________________________ Mars Now Author : 1970-01-01 Score : 140 points Date : 2022-12-13 17:35 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (mars.nasa.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (mars.nasa.gov) | kuprel wrote: | Wonder if the stars are accurate. The Sun is missing | moffkalast wrote: | That's not the only thing that's missing. Where's the Mars | Reconnaissance Orbiter? | ledauphin wrote: | This is neat but the mouse controls are maybe 5x too twitchy on | my fairly standard Mac in Chrome. Google Earth's tuning is very | usable in a way that this is not. | reset2023 wrote: | Can't get the fascination with this desert? It's like post | apocalyptic Earth. | z3phyr wrote: | Short answer: It is in space and relatively easier to get to | than other planets in the system. It is a gateway to becoming | space-faring civilization. | idlewords wrote: | The second part of this answer is a non-sequitur. Why Mars in | particular? The technology needed to get there doesn't carry | over to any other destinations except the Moon and Venus, and | it's much easier to build next-generation rockets on Earth. | Why not just skip Mars and go straight to step 2? | mlindner wrote: | You need resources to build with. Venus isn't an option | because you can't get resources from it. (If there's two | things you need, it's energy, and physical materials.) The | Moon is certainly an option, but while Mars is a desert, | the moon is volcanic rock and never had active geology that | concentrates metals. Additionally while Mars has an | atmosphere of sorts, the Moon has none which means anything | mounted on the surface of the moon is in an equivalent | environment to being in deep space. This means there's zero | protection (besides the planetary body itself) from | radiation and micrometeorites (and bigger meteorites). They | rain down constantly on the moon slowly carving divots into | whatever you build things out of or punching holes in them. | | Also I disagree that the technology to get to Mars or the | Moon is inapplicable to elsewhere in the solar system. And | most of the other options are generally worse than Mars for | one reason or another. I'd like to hear what you think | "Step 2" actually is. | idlewords wrote: | We have resources at home! | mlindner wrote: | We do! And for a long while most of the resources will | come from Earth. However you can't keep doing that | forever as the costs will grow to an unsustainable level. | | If you could magic up a civilization on Mars today, it'd | exponentially cheaper to launch materials from Mars to | elsewhere in the solar system than to launch those same | materials from Earth. Similarly it'd be cheaper to dig | those materials out of the ground for use on Mars than it | would be for them to be used directly on Mars. | | Counterintuitively, it's cheaper to launch materials from | Mars to Earth's Moon than it is to launch them from | Earth's surface to the Moon. | mlindner wrote: | One note on the "exponentiality" in the other comment. | Getting from Earth's surface to the moon (without | staging) requires a rocket that is approximately 99% fuel | by mass (calculated using rocket equation and engine | performance of a high quality engine). That leaves you | with very little margin for building a rocket's structure | which means it needs to be built extremely carefully with | little room for error. Also in order to get reasonable | payloads, you need to make rockets of tremendous sizes in | order to get reasonably sized payloads to locations. | | On the other hand a rocket that flies from Mars surface | too Earth's moon only needs to be 90% fuel which is a lot | easier to do with modern materials. This also means that | you can carry significantly more payload as your total | mass. | | With some napkin math, this allows you to launch, with | the same rocket, from the surface of Mars to Earth's moon | a payload 10 times bigger than if you launched it from | Earth. The penalty you pay getting stuff out of Earth's | gravity well is just simply huge. | xboxnolifes wrote: | It's not just the technology to get there we need. We need | the technology to _live_ there. | idlewords wrote: | Absolutely true, but my point is that there's no | destination beyond Mars reachable with the spaceships we | build to get there. So I don't get how it's some sort of | gateway rather than a detour / dead end. | lmm wrote: | > The technology needed to get there doesn't carry over to | any other destinations except the Moon and Venus. | | The technology for living there, and some of the technology | for going places, does. Would you really want to try to go | to Epsilon Eridani without going to Mars first? | | > it's much easier to build next-generation rockets on | Earth | | Ultimately probably not; Earth's gravity well is too deep. | Mars is, AFAIK, the only place we could conceivably build a | space elevator with current materials technology, so if we | assume interstellar rockets will need to be built with | materials from both asteroids and planets then Mars orbit | is likely the best place for that. | algo_trader wrote: | I logged in to un-down-vote you. | | Going to Mars is a legitimate goal. | | But i would also like to see a make-the-Sahara-green-(ish) | program. | | Why not a Neom-but-in-a-viable-way program. | | ALso, an even bigger debate is Appolo-mission-to-Mars vs | 10-other-unmanned-programs-for-the-Solar system. | kitsunesoba wrote: | Intentionally radically altering the climate of large areas | like the Sahara seems very dangerous in a way that nothing | that could be done on other celestial bodies could ever be. | Not that it shouldn't be considered, but I think it calls for | a far greater degree of caution than e.g. experiments to | bring life to small domed areas of the surface of Mars. | idlewords wrote: | If you have the technology to make small domed oases, make | them in the Sahara (or Antarctic, or wherever). No need to | change the climate, and you save the cost of a Mars trip. | airstrike wrote: | I upvoted you because it's a fair question, but I would argue | it is easier to criticize than to offer solutions. | | What other solar system destination would you propose instead? | It's not like we have a lot of convenient alternatives to | choose from. | | I'd rather visit Mars than Venus, that's for sure. | idlewords wrote: | We can visit everything for much less than the price of Mars | if we drop the requirement to send people. There's cool stuff | in the solar system and the future where you can flip between | live feeds from every moon is much more fun than watching | space dads sit in a radiation shelter on Mars for 17 months. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Venus is great! Come visit! Stay at the beautiful Hyatt | Floating Resort! It's got everything you want - Earth | temperature and pressure, _lots_ of solar energy to power | your every whim, beautiful sunrises and sunsets. | | Just don't visit the _surface_. It 's really, really nasty | down there. | verdenti wrote: | kossTKR wrote: | After researching this a bit it's mostly a money and reputation | laundering scheme for the elite classes that millions of upper | middle class westerners buy into to smokescreen what's wasted | on war and geopolitical efforts to protect various western | family dynasties hold on power. | | Even though it's a future that is grotesquely unfeasible and | unwanted for anyone besides the richest 100 people on earth as | as ultra decadent projects while 95% of the population on earth | lives in societies on their way to collapse from resource | depletion and rising inequality. | ultramegachurch wrote: | This is a shockingly cynical and reductive take on Mars | exploration. The enthusiasm for human exploration of the | solar system is earnest and valid, and I assure you, not a | cog in an international conspiracy. One doesn't have to | choose between space exploration and addressing resource | depletion/inequality. You can care about both. | kossTKR wrote: | I was a huge sci fi and science nerd 10 years ago and still | am, and honestly i would love to go back and care less | about how the world works, but to me the very real | fascination with "actual scientists" and "actual science" | has been overshadowed by the siphoning, the false promises | and the cooking of statistics that happens while everyones | tax dollars get channeled into a fog somewhere between | "external enemies" and technooptimist drivel. | | The fact is that we could use our money on something real, | something tangible like saving earth instead of war | machines and false promises while the gini coeffecient goes | crazy and public education fails. | | And i mean this is not just a perspective i've got from | researching economics, but from having lots of family in | academic science - i've seen how much is about grant money, | towing the line and about furthering some state or | corporate cause sadly. | idlehand wrote: | The US military budget is ~3.5% of GDP. It makes up about | 10% of all government spending. 90% of your tax money | does not go to war machines. | melling wrote: | Yes, we could explore the solar system much more quickly | and much more cheaply, if we simply leave out the humans. | | This has been explained repeatedly for decades. | | There will be more humans on Mars in 100 years, if we skip | sending the humans now and develop the technology to | automate process first. | | maybe someone can find Weinberg's detailed explanation for | others to read. | | https://www.space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa- | manned... | burkaman wrote: | If you discovered a post apocalyptic Earth somewhere in the | solar system, you wouldn't have any interest in checking it | out? It's ok to say no to this, but just be aware that most | people consider "because it's there" to be a legitimate and | relatable answer to your question. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _most people consider "because it's there" to be a | legitimate and relatable answer to your question_ | | I don't think hackers, explorers and founders have ever been | most people. | burkaman wrote: | No, but most people think hacking, exploring, and founding | stuff is cool even if they don't do it themselves. | bavila wrote: | What data do you have that demonstrates what "most" | people think is "cool" in this respect? | sophacles wrote: | You are correct: historically hackers, explorers and | founders are significantly more likely to respect "because | I can" as a reason for doing something than the average | person. | burkaman wrote: | I think "because it's there" is the more respectable | subset of "because I can", covering stuff like climbing | Mount Everest and venturing to the South Pole. "because I | can" for me often implies something like asserting power | over other people or just generally being an asshole. | idlewords wrote: | Venus is the post-apocalyptic Earth you're looking for. | justinpombrio wrote: | Just want to clarify, in case someone reads this and thinks | "like in the movies, where after the apocalypse it's barren | and radioactive and very hot or cold and you can't survive | outside unless you're wearing a suit". That's _not_ what it | 's like on Venus. | | The atmosphere is made mostly of CO2. At the surface, it | has a pressure of 93 times that of Earth, and temperature | of 464 degC / 867 degF. This is sufficiently hot and | pressurized that the atmosphere is neither a gas nor a | liquid, it's a supercritical fluid. Wikipedia says that we | use supercritical CO2 industrially because of how good it | is at dissolving things. | | The record survival time for a _stationary probe_ on the | surface of Venus is 127 minutes. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Physical_characteristic | s | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_fluid | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_and_explorations | _... | idlewords wrote: | Venus is also pretty cozy if you're willing to bring a | blimp. At 52 kilometers, the temperature is 27 C and | pressure is about half of Earth sea level. If it weren't | for the sulfuric acid clouds, you could sit on a platform | outside in just your shorts and an oxygen mask. Not many | other places in the solar system can offer that! | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | Venus became that way because of its' oceans and no | counterbalancing moon. | ipnon wrote: | To be fair plenty of Earthlings say the same about their own | planet. I for one am glad enough people do not share your | opinion, which is completely valid, so that we can do the | adventurous and exciting things that make life wonderful. | matheusmoreira wrote: | It's an entire planet. Full of resources, land, opportunity for | the entire human race if we could only get there and tame it. | Surely everone can agree that it's a noble goal. | [deleted] | molsongolden wrote: | > _Earthers get to walk outside into the light, breathe pure | air, look up at a blue sky, and see something that gives them | hope. And what do they do? They look past that light, past that | blue sky. They see the stars, and they think, 'Mine.'_ | | (from The Expanse) | CamperBob2 wrote: | So? That's what got us out of the caves in the first place. | | The first words spoken on Mars should be, "Cool. Now, how far | is Jupiter from here?" | [deleted] | idlewords wrote: | We've known since Pioneer 11 that Jupiter is a no-go for | the type of spaceships that can get to Mars. Too much | radiation on the way, and too much around Jupiter. Mars is | the end of the line until we can build spacecraft in the | 10,000 ton range. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Why? (Not saying you're wrong, just... | explain/substantiate your claim.) | idlewords wrote: | The general problem is cumulative exposure to cosmic rays | on long-duration flights. It's not clear if even a Mars | mission has acceptable risk, and flights past Mars mean | everyone gets a very high risk of cancer and radiation- | induced cardiovascular disease. | | To shield against the high energy component of cosmic | rays, you need to wrap the crew compartment in something | like a few meters of polyethylene or water. This is far | heavier than anything we could launch today, but would | work on something like a nuclear pulse rocket (that has a | minimum weight requirement!) | | There's an additional problem around Jupiter, which is | what Pioneer 11 discovered. The strong magnetic field | causes lethal radiation levels at the inner moons. Again | you can solve this by wrapping yourself in crazy amounts | of water or plastic, but it's far beyond our capability | now. | 082349872349872 wrote: | Oye sesata unte beratna; kewe tolowda? | kitsunesoba wrote: | This is a great quote from a series I love, but I think it's | important to consider other angles. | | Earth, metaphorically speaking, is humanity's "cave". A very | nice and comfortable cave of course, the possibility space | for the development of our species is bounded by it. It's in | our best interest to develop the ability to venture beyond | the cave for increasingly longer periods and eventually | become able to live outside of it indefinitely. | | With this in mind, the moon is too close and convenient for | long term self sufficiency to develop. Mars on the other hand | is only reasonably accessible once every couple of years or | so, which forces the issue of self-sufficiency right out of | the gate. The first few decades of human presence there will | be focused almost exclusively on self-sufficiency. This is | important, because that means it has a far better chance of | continuing to exist if/when political will for it wanes. | | The upper layers of the Venetian atmosphere may seem | attractive at first glance but it has several | impracticalities, namely having to stay permanently aloft and | total inaccessibility of the resources on and below Venus' | surface. | | Will some take part in efforts to move beyond Earth's surface | with greed as a driving factor? Undoubtedly, but I don't | think it's a valid reason to not do it. | yrgulation wrote: | Without the desire to explore and expand there would be no | America. If the Spanish and Portuguese would have waited to | solve all of humanity's problems first and then set out to | explore new worlds the world would be a different place today. | Same with space exploration. It is in our dna as the most | advanced life forms to go out there. It is also a duty to all | life on this earth to expand beyond. Finding even a hint of | former life on mars means life is a rule not an exception in | the universe. Being able to colonise it means we can outsource | all our destructive resource gathering to mars. Or even better | we can live on it. Doing so would mean trade with earth and as | a result development on a scale never seen before. | UI_at_80x24 wrote: | >Without the desire to explore and expand there would be no | America. | | Please don't act like Europeans getting lost trying to find a | shortcut to India was a good thing. | bavila wrote: | I'd prefer our most brilliant technologists tap into the | desire to explore and expand the domain of robotics. Once I | own a robot that can reliably clean every surface of my | bathroom without my intervention, maybe then Mars might sound | a bit more interesting. | | But, hey, that's just me. | HillRat wrote: | The Americas and Africa would probably like to have a word | about the legacy of Spain and Portugal's decision to "explore | new worlds"... | klyrs wrote: | The analogy is apt. Look at how Musk treat his employees. | What's he going to do on a planet with no labor laws, where | it costs millions of dollars per head to bring them back to | earth? | mlindner wrote: | The ride home is free because the vehicles need to come | back anyway to carry more people. | | And not within our lifetimes will we be in a situation | where people stop being the citizens of the country on | Earth they are from. | ben_w wrote: | The vehicles have to come back, but the people have to | eat and breathe on the way. And right now, I'm more than | a little worried he's heading the same way as the French | royal family, even if "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" | predates Marie Antoinette. | klyrs wrote: | > And not within our lifetimes will we be in a situation | where people stop being the citizens of the country on | Earth they are from. | | Sounds like you aren't familiar with maritime law. | Slavery is still a common practice on _this_ planet, due | to a lack of jurisdiction. | | https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/news/eradication-modern- | sla... | yrgulation wrote: | Unfortunately the only thing to motivate most people is | greed. I am aware of the legacy, but the way to sell this | is by highlighting the profit that can come out of it. And | fortunately there is nothing to kill on mars in the | process. It's a win win. | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | While I in no way disagree, I would like to note that some | of the bad activities attributed to foreigners in Africa, | have been practiced for millennia by the locals, and the | World over. | jcranmer wrote: | > Without the desire to explore and expand there would be no | America. If the Spanish and Portuguese would have waited to | solve all of humanity's problems first and then set out to | explore new worlds the world would be a different place | today. | | Of all the examples you could have picked, you picked the one | that was most explicitly not about desire for exploration. | Europeans were not exploring the world for exploration's | sake; they were stridently motivated by the promise of loot. | The Spanish in particular explored the New World primarily to | find new cities of gold to plunder, destroy, and loot, as was | done to the Aztecs and Incas, with these entradas funded by | people hoping for a share of the loot (unfortunately for | them, there was nothing else on the scale of the Aztec or | Inca Empires). Later, other countries sought less to actively | loot the place but instead monopolize control over raw | resources (beaver pelts being key in North America). | | Better examples would have been, say, the Polynesian | migrations that settled isolated islands in the Pacific | Ocean, which the navigators would have had no reason to | believe even existed. | idlewords wrote: | This logic applies just as much to the Moon, but no one seems | to be lining up to board lunar colony ships. | lmm wrote: | Mars is easier to send material to; gravity and rotation | are also better there. | googlryas wrote: | There are no lunar colony ships. | idlewords wrote: | There are just as many lunar colony ships as Mars colony | ships. | googlryas wrote: | Which tons of people signed up for a yearlong simulation | of run by NASA. Granted, I bet a lot would drop out if | presented with the actual prospect of spending a year in | a bubble with 5 others. | ben_w wrote: | FWIW, I think we should aim for the moon before mars. | Things _will_ go wrong, the moon is close enough to mount a | rescue if that problem is "the food is all gone", whereas | Mars... the gap between launch windows is long enough for | things to go from "fine" to "everyone's starved to death, | including the ones who turned to cannibalism to survive". | | Then there's the practicalities: while the moon has long | days and nights, there's no global dust storms, and we can | send power from the light side to the dark side with a | simple wire (the lunar regolith and the vacuum are both | insulators, there's nothing alive or tectonic to mess with | one just draped on the surface, only impacts). The Martian | atmosphere is so thin it's only useful for aerobraking and | drones, not breathing, and the lack of atmosphere on the | moon means non-rocket-based launchers are much easier, | which in turn makes the long-term economics easier (though | still terrible with current tech). | civopsec wrote: | > Without the desire to explore and expand there would be no | America. | | ... | | Is that good or bad? | [deleted] | Zigurd wrote: | Humans living for more than months at a time in space or on | another planet is a fantasy. The attempts will kill the | participants. | | That is for machines or post-human life, designed for the | purpose, to do, if it is even possible. The answer to "Where is | everybody?" is likely to be "They're home" having learned that | trying to leave is deadly. | coolspot wrote: | Umm... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jeff-williams-racks-up-new- | time... | nvahalik wrote: | Those days are spread out over the course of over a few trips | over nearly a decade. | | Nowhere near to the amount of time you'd log on a trip to | Mars and back. | idlewords wrote: | The radiation flux in low earth orbit is also much milder, | about 1/4 what you would be exposed to en route to Mars. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | You don't think you could get to Mars and back in 520 days? | Why not? | tpmx wrote: | At least kind of related: | | I'm worried that NASA will mess up their livestream of the | Artemis 3 mission to the moon, just like they did with the | Artemis 1. Compared to what we've been getting used to with | SpaceX, it just wasn't that great. | edgyquant wrote: | Did SpaceX livestream the entire trip around the moon in real | time? | tpmx wrote: | (Well, NASA didn't do that. Most of the time it was an | animation. When they did have a camera feed the production | quality was very uneven.) | | Have SpaceX livestreams set high expectations? | | Look, I want NASA to look good, but I'm worried that they are | treating the streaming as an afterthought. | tppiotrowski wrote: | Way back in 2006, as a CS major with networking emphasis, I did a | summer internship at NASA APL (Applied Physics Laboratory) My | task was to modify Linux networking stack to simulate deep space | communication packet loss and throttling. Then to implement | something called Bundle protocol over UDP and run a lot of | throughput simulations. | | The idea was to maximize data throughput between Mars and Earth | by routing data packets from the rovers to the orbiters because | the orbiters circled every 90 minutes and the rovers had to wait | hours for Mars to rotate to get line of sight with Earth. Also, | some orbiters can send at higher throughput than others. | | It was a fun project but way over my head at the time. I do | remember walking into mission control a few times and ESPN was | playing on the big screen. World cup was going on that summer. | Tepix wrote: | I hope we get that greenhouse on Mars sooner rather than later. | Seems more important than Twitter. | tagami wrote: | Off-world crop production can benefit life here on the | Homeworld. We are working on that with our ExoLab missions. Our | 10th mission is currently on the ISS looking at legumes for | protein and vitamins like thiamine. | https://magnitude.io/exolab-10 | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | Freeze peach always seems unimportant until you lose it. | | Good thing that goes hand in hand with economic improvement, | based on historical evidence, and make greenhouses on Mars more | likely. | AlexandrB wrote: | If our free speech rights depend on the whims of billionaire | media owners we don't have those rights in any meaningful | sense. I don't think that Twitter changing hands moved the | needle one way or the other. | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | Twitter is just one, now fully exposed, symptom of a larger | problem, which will be easier to deal with now that more | people are watching. | ericbarrett wrote: | Gonna have to figure out how to deal with relativistic iron | nuclei: | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11540033/ | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _relativistic iron nuclei_ | | The Martian atmosphere is 1/166th the density of Earth's [1]. | At the ISS's altitude, it's something like a trillionth. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars | idlewords wrote: | The Martian atmosphere does not provide meaningful | shielding against heavy ion radiation unless you're way | down in the Hellas basin (where no one particularly wants | to land). You reduce the flux by half compared to deep | space just by having a big rock blocking half of the sky, | but you'll still get all the cancer sooner than later. | mlindner wrote: | The Martian atmosphere may not but the surface of the | planet does, cutting half the yearly dose versus being in | deep space. And I'm not sure I buy the argument that the | atmosphere provides little protection. There's a lot of | atmosphere there still, enough you can push down on it | and rise into the sky if you have some carbon fiber | blades moving at very high speeds. I'd think a iron | nuclei would hit a lot of atoms on the way down. | | > you'll still get all the cancer sooner than later. | | Cancer risk from radiation is probabilistic. If you spend | all day outdoors then you increase your lifetime risk of | cancer by a significant degree, but it's not like you're | definitely going to get cancer. Additionally, most | habitation modules, at least early on, are planned to be | buried in martian regolith. | | Also the moon is worse than Mars in all respects with | regard to this so you're effectively arguing that humans | should never leave the orbit of Earth. I'm not a fan of | that future. | | (BTW, we deal with much higher radiation levels in hot | cells in reactors here on Earth, and those even have | windows into them. I'm sure we can work out something.) | idlewords wrote: | You don't have to buy the argument; you can look up the | scientific papers. Heavy ion radiation is hard to shield | against and creates high energy secondary radiation when | it hits air, metal, or rock. Moreover, there is strong | evidence cancer risk from heavy ions is considerably | greater than predicted by the absorbed dose model we use | for other kinds of ionizing radiation. Search on "non | targeted effects heavy ions" to read up on this; it's a | fascinating topic. The upper error bar right now for a | 1000 day Mars mission is upwards of 20% risk of | radiation-induced death; most of this is from the heavy | ion component of cosmic rays. | mlindner wrote: | Rather than speculation it'd be useful if there was more | hard science on the subject, you know by actually doing | long term experiments on life in space being exposed to | these heavy ions. | | You can find scientific papers on a lot of subjects where | it's hard to get at objective fact arguing one way or | another and it's hard to tell how factual they really | are. | | Also why would you quote the "upper error bar"? I'd like | to know the size of that error bar and what the median | is. | | > The upper error bar right now for a 1000 day Mars | mission is upwards of 20% risk of radiation-induced | death; most of this is from the heavy ion component of | cosmic rays. | | This is just an argument that you need to bury things in | regolith, at least early on, until we get better | shielding designed for heavy ions. | idlewords wrote: | Here's the specific citation: | | Assuming 940 day mission, percent risk of radiation- | induced death for a 40 year old woman is: | | * mean: 8.8; 95% confidence [2.78, 21.0] | | For a 40 year old man: | | * mean: 6.49; 95% confidence [2.58, 13.6] | | Source is "Cancer and circulatory disease risks for a | human mission to Mars: Private mission considerations", | Acta Astronautica, 2018. | | Narrowing this uncertainty range requires long-duration | human or animal experiments outside the magnetosphere. | ericbarrett wrote: | A little napkin math says the columnar mass of the | Martian atmosphere is 18 g/cm^2, versus 10g / cm^2 of | aluminum shielding discussed in the paper. So being on | the Martian surface would probably give you something | like 1/10 (atmosphere + planetary mass + environment | suit) the heavy ion radiation exposure of _deep space_. | You 'd need to be pretty deep underground most of the | time (no windows, at least) to be safe for the duration | of a reasonable visit. I'll pass! | idlewords wrote: | The napkin math falls short a bit because the heavy ions | that absorb in the atmosphere will create a shower of | secondary radiation that reaches the surface. Similarly, | heavy ions that hit the surface will create secondary | radiation from rock. This factor is why partial shielding | in a spacecraft can give the crew a bigger absorbed dose | than having no shielding at all. | ericbarrett wrote: | You're right, actually, that means even more exposure | than I calculated since even the relativistic ions that | are absorbed will still have potential biological effects | via the secondary particles. Do you know how to calculate | the flux from those? | idlewords wrote: | This paper looks like a good starting point: https://www. | sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22145... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | Nobody is arguing radiation isn't a problem on Mars. Just | that heavy-ion bombardment _per se_ isn't something to be | concerned with. | idlewords wrote: | That is not true; the heavy ion component of galactic | cosmic radiation in particular is the single biggest risk | factor in going to Mars (other than the spacecraft | breaking). | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _galactic cosmic radiation in particular is the single | biggest risk factor in going to Mars_ | | Sorry, I was unclear. It's absolutely an issue going to | Mars. It isn't front and centre on Mars. | idlewords wrote: | It is, though. It's about half as bad on Mars (since the | planet physically blocks half the sky) but it remains a | showstopper. And trying to shield against it runs you | into the problem of getting heavy construction equipment | to Mars, plus you run afoul of rules against | contamination that we're bound by international treaty to | follow, including a ban on digging. | throwawaytemp29 wrote: | Lol - let's have a Mars colony without digging. | stronglikedan wrote: | The Twitter takeover solved a real, current problem. Those are | always more important than future problems. | tasty_freeze wrote: | > a real, current problem. Those are always more important | than future problems. | | You mean like addressing climate change, vs spending | trillions trying to terraform a planet to make it barely | habitable. | rglover wrote: | Maintaining free speech will allow people to discuss and | shed light on actual--not heavily manufactured--issues like | the climate change movement being used as a distraction | while banks and corporations implement natural asset | corporations. [1] | | [1] https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative- | reports/u... | kmonsen wrote: | There is no evidence there is more free speech on Twitter | after the Elon takeover. It's just different people being | banned and for more arbitrary reasons. | JoshCole wrote: | I could understand saying something like the totality of | the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that there is | more free speech after Elon's takeover. So that is | probably what you mean. What you actually said though is | factually inaccurate. | | There is evidence both for and against more free speech | on Twitter. If someone can't admit that, chances are they | are plagued with cognitive dissonance and highly partisan | in their reasoning. For example, there is evidence that | Twitter has granted amnesty to accounts that were | previously censored and according to stated motivations | this was done for the sake of freedom of speech. | | I happen to suspect that you are right and that currently | some rulings are made with input outside the policy team | and that this is currently happening more frequently than | it used to. One thing that convinces me of this is that I | frequently see people reaching out to Elon Musk directly | and reporting that they have been censored in some way or | the other. Then these cases seem to be resolved, with the | other person praising him for ending the censoring of | their political thoughts, which implies that he | intervened in a policy decision. | | However, I'm not sure I could call this proof that | banning decisions are made more arbitrarily than before | since these are blacklist removing interventions rather | than bans. | | So basically, when you claim that is now more arbitrary | than it was before, that comes across to me more as your | own speculation than anything definitive. We don't have | proof of that. In sharp contrast, anyone who claims that | the previous ownership did make arbitrary decisions does | have proof. It is now a matter of public record that in | some high profile cases (I happen to agree with some of | them, but that is beside the point) Twitter did make | arbitrary decisions rather than policy rooted decisions. | In fact they did this often enough in decisions that | weren't as high profile that there was a category label | in the moderation reason, being called a one off. | | It seems the current Twitter wants to be much more | transparent than the former. So it might be that at some | point in the future we will be able to see the moderation | metrics: if we could, then we could answer your | implication with with actual data. Filter by moderation | justification field and get a count both positive and | negative and we would have a much better sense of whether | decisions were being made arbitrarily. | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | At least he managed to get red of CP. | whythre wrote: | I think it is way too early to make that call. | kmonsen wrote: | Fair point, but as of now I think it's a valid statement. | hkpack wrote: | At this point I think we just need to accept, that every | issue of every severity is widely used by parties, who | know how to benefit from it. It doesn't actually prove or | disprove the issue (and its severity itself). | | For example: climate change is heavily used by people who | know how to gain power by fighting it. It doesn't | disprove the issue itself. | | All effective strategies includes natural forces, because | it is very difficult to fight against them. So no wonder | why climate change (as being a massive natural force) is | used by people in power for their benefit. | rglover wrote: | > It doesn't actually prove or disprove the issue (and | its severity itself). | | It does when you consider that the very people who are | promoting that severity are doing what I linked above | behind the scenes and their own behavior hasn't changed | at all (e.g., all of them flying private jets to Egypt | for COP, having multiple pieces of real estate, etc). | | The harsh truth is that the very people who are | responsible for telling people to panic are, in fact, not | panicked at all and are using fear as a smokescreen to | take absolute control over the entire world (zero | hyperbole in that statement). It's classic sleight of | hand, just on a global scale. | | Because many people in the West lack any spiritual | grounding, they've latched on to climate change (think | about the term alone; of course the climate changes--it | always has) as a pseudo-religion and defend it to | absolutely irrational ends. This is why anyone who even | remotely questons it gets labeled as a heretic ("climate | change denier"). You may as well be saying "you're | denying my god" which explains the often-hysterical | backlash you get. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | > The harsh truth is that the very people who are | responsible for telling people to panic are, in fact, not | panicked at all... | | True. Or, at a minimum, they aren't doing anything | concrete that you would expect if they actually believed | what they're saying. | | > ... and are using fear as a smokescreen to take | absolute control over the entire world (zero hyperbole in | that statement). | | Zero? Really? I'm calling baloney on your claim here. | rglover wrote: | > Zero? Really? I'm calling baloney on your claim here. | | Yes. They're surprisingly overt about their end goals. I | think the gullibility of "the masses" even surprises | them. They want to flip the world economic system to be | "stakeholder" based, meaning, they own everything | (literally, down to the land itself) and you own nothing. | It's neo-feudalism. | | The whole climate change brew-ha-ha is simple | psychological manipulation, i.e., "we'll tell you the sky | is falling with _our_ models, reinforce it via the media | co 's _we_ control, and repeat it until you accept it as | truth. " People who are terrified will listen to anyone | who appears to have an answer or is operating from a | position of authority (the last 2-3 years being a beta | test that was successful). It's just the Milgram | Experiment/Agentic State thing on a massive scale. | | These people believe they're the rightful rulers of this | world and all other people are, for all intents and | purposes: assets on Earth's balance sheet. | ben_w wrote: | I know it's not my money so I don't get a say[0], but I | kind wish Musk had spent that $44 billion making a factory | that makes shipping-crate sized Sabatier-process units to | turn CO2 into methane. | | Needed for Mars, useful for Earth. | | [0] and, indeed, have used that argument against his | critics when Musk was just a plucky upstart spending mere | hundreds of millions on making the prototype that led to | the Falcon | malfist wrote: | > solved a real, current problem | | Can you tell me what that problem was? | whateveracct wrote: | Couldn't dog whistle loud enough on Twitter | TheHypnotist wrote: | Too many people making fun of Elon, apparently. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-13 23:00 UTC)