Project Hail Mary Discussion

[Ryujin]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I like that old-fashioned “we can fix it and go to the stars if we all just work together and advance science and expertise” vibe so essential to science fiction before 2000 or so, but it is old-fashioned. I now find it hard to believe that global cooperation and big government science projects will put people on Mars (or even the Moon again) in my lifetime (say the next 30-40 years).

Artemis II is going to launch to orbit the moon, tomorrow night, so they've already started on the path for a moon landing. After that hopefully a permanent base on the moon as a stepping stone to Mars.

EDIT - It's a manned mission with 4 astronauts. Not an unmanned test launch.

 

[jian]

Artemis II is going to launch to orbit the moon, tomorrow night, so they've already started on the path for a moon landing. After that hopefully a permanent base on the moon as a stepping stone to Mars.

EDIT - It's a manned mission with 4 astronauts. Not an unmanned test launch.

Great, let’s hope they find that a moon landing is practical. Though I guess we shouldn’t do it if there’s no obvious point in doing so, but at least we know we can.

 

[The Firebird]

Artemis II is going to launch to orbit the moon, tomorrow night, so they've already started on the path for a moon landing. After that hopefully a permanent base on the moon as a stepping stone to Mars.

EDIT - It's a manned mission with 4 astronauts. Not an unmanned test launch.

There's some romance to the idea, but one reason I feel Weir's work is a bit dated is the focus on human spaceflight. The advances in robotics make it less and less important to send humans along for the ride. Compare Viking and Perseverance, for example. Likewise, the idea that population pressure on earth would force people to look elsewhere doesn't seem to hold in advanced economies.

The folks I know at NASA (who mostly work on samples from robotics missions, if it matters) aren't of the opinion that Artemis is a good use of resources from a science perspective. It's more of a prestige thing. (Not to say there aren't valuable goals, like figuring out the truth about the Late Heavy Bombardment).

 

[Ryujin]

There's some romance to the idea, but one reason I feel Weir's work is a bit dated is the focus on human spaceflight. The advances in robotics make it less and less important to send humans along for the ride. Compare Viking and Perseverance, for example. Likewise, the idea that population pressure on earth would force people to look elsewhere doesn't seem to hold in advanced economies.

The folks I know at NASA (who mostly work on samples from robotics missions, if it matters) aren't of the opinion that Artemis is a good use of resources from a science perspective. It's more of a prestige thing. (Not to say there aren't valuable goals, like figuring out the truth about the Late Heavy Bombardment).

And while the science is a laudable goal in and of itself, it needs something to drive people's imagination just to get funded. Manned missions and the thought of moving out to the inner planets, then on to the stars, is such a driving force when the science just makes the average person's eyes glaze over.

You can look at pictures of Montana all you like, but there's value in going there, as well.

 

[nyvinter]

I do agree about it fanning the flames of imagination and inspiration. But as a stepping stone to Mars it's a little like jumping jumping from Norway to New York by using UK for extra boost. So vast distances that it's not really helpful.