this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1338 points (98.4% liked)

People Twitter

4964 readers
1226 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1338
Elon (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (32 children)

Do people really think we'll colonize mars soon?

Colonizing the bottom of the ocean would be orders of magnitude cheaper, and more practical. Same with Antarctica. And there's a reason we don't do that.

I hate to sound anal, but I don't think the public appreciates how monumentally difficult space travel is, and how it gets exponentially worse with every ounce you have to carry. Even with theoretical, morally questionable tech like fission fragment drives or whatever.

[–] Balex@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (8 children)

I'm not aware of any reason on why we'd want to colonize the bottom of the ocean, but there's many reasons to want to become a multi-planetary species. Space exploration has also lead to many technologies being used in everyday life today.

What's morally questionable about fission fragment drives?

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oh and on FF drives, fhey're kind of messy and risk pollution if they fail near earth (though not nearly as much as other nuclear designs). It's fine for scientific missions, but becomes much more eyebrow raising en masse for a Mars colonization type effort.

IIRC the fissile material needs to be relatively high grade.

[–] Balex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know if I quite agree with that being a morale issue. But that same logic nuclear reactors are immoral because if they blow up they can cause a lot of harm.

I do agree that it is a little sketchy for human flight, but they wouldn't use it if there was a significant chance of it harming the people on board.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

, but they wouldn’t use it if there was a significant chance of it harming the people on board.

This is spaceflight. There is always a tremendous chance of harm to people on board, even with speculative nuclear technology to get the spacecraft a little less like thin paper bags.

I would highly recommend reading up on Project Rho, on somewhat feasable near term technologies if we can just figure out the engineering: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

They're awesome, and I hope they get funded. But it will also dispell any illusuion you have of spaceflight being remotely practical on a large scale.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)