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.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

The idea is production using moon based materials and taking advantage of it's lesser gravity, to reduce fuel requirements. You use a huge amount of fuel just escaping Earth and that's fuel that you don't have for the trip. Even if you just load fuel that was produced on Earth on the vessel, on the moon, you still have the advantage of not having burned that just to start the trip. There are no gas stations in interplanetary space. Yet.

 

[Clint_L]

Well, we're drifting off topic, but I think the idea of permanent settlements on Mars and the Moon is absurd. I totally love crewed spaceflight as a way of getting people excited about science (so basically as PR), but as a practical matter, it makes no sense.

A base on the Moon, let alone Mars, would be so wildly expensive and impractical that it makes no sense. An undersea habitat on Earth would be far, far more practical, and it's not like we're rushing to build those. Or in Antarctica. Hell, my own country, Canada, has millions of square kilometres of basically unihabited land that already has atmosphere, soil, and water; it's just cold...though a lot warmer than Mars.

Spending the kind of money it would take not just to build but to support colonies on other planets or satellites is ludicrously outlandish given that we can't even find it in ourselves to spend a fraction of that money maintaining the one we already have.

I could see something like the temporary bases depicted in Weir's The Martian, but those will basically be for bragging rights and hype. I could also see something like a mining colony on an asteroid where the minerals were valuable enough to justify the incredible expense...but again, I doubt that much practical space work will be done by humans when robots can do it much more safely and efficiently.

 

[Morrus]

Folks, this is a really interesting topic that I’d be really into but let’s spin it off into its own thread, eh? So people can talk about the movie. Totally valid topic for whoever wants to start the thread.