How is that negative? The hydrogen still had to be extracted from purified water, the rocket still had to be designed, forged, moved, cooled, etc.

Also wouldn't the carbon dioxide burned outside of the atmosphere eventually comes back down? The nozzle is usually pointed towards the Earth, so unless the exhaust is on an escape trajectory it wouldn't be lost.

I think you’re confusing a NASA base with inhabitation. Inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment.

What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?

Are you saying that farmland production is unnecessary (at least at its current rate) but spce colonies aren't? If your concern is that humans need the latter to live, shouldn't the former be justified too? Is the Earth too doomed for the former to work? I don't follow.

I invoked MLK Jr. in pointing to problems on Earth, including pollution, as an example of how we are not serving "humanity" in MLK Jr.'s spirit. I think your technology advancement argument is far-fetched, even though I acknowledge the historical basis. In part due to reasoning in another comment of mine:

> I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.

> I don't even see how they're related

You can't see how terraforming Mars and solving Earth's climate crisis could be related? And you want us to consider your opinions at all?

Granted, I overstated the escaping pollution part. It seems like people are not alarmed enough about climate change and pollution to believe extinction[0] will happen anytime soon. That would mainly be the motivation for rich people, and not just pollution but many other issues they are not interested in solving.

Frankly, the least selfish reason to go to Mars is to avoid extinction. Barring that, is it such a great thing for "humanity" to explore Mars for curiosity, commercial ventures, and leisure? Apparently many of the commenters here seem to extol things that can be great for "humanity" while lashing out at mentions of real issues not getting enough attention right now. I'll restate what I said: is it so important that we with privilege continue to have greater privilege? Or if you believe we can just fix these issues and get our space exploration too: do you really think that will happen with reasonable likelihood? The feel-good narrative of having our cake and eating it too is just too delectable.

And to those of you saying I would shut down everything for one cause, you're blatantly wrong. I'm saying we should focus on this cause and look to the remainder for things like space exploration. What we have in reality is focusing on things like space exploration and hoping. We are misallocating resources. Yes, perhaps we will get magical technology from the money currently going into it, or from space exploration. I ask you if you think the likelihood is reasonable. If you're here to talk about mere possibilities, don't complain when others bring up feasibility.

[0] Or just a lot of people dying, doesn't have to be nearly everyone.

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.

I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.

I did not suggest otherwise.

> Air pollution accounted for 8.1 million deaths globally in 2021 [0]

> In 2019, air pollution caused about 6.7 million deaths. Of these, almost 85% are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including ischemic heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes. This makes air pollution the second leading cause of NCDs globally after tobacco. [1]

[0] https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/air-pollution-accounte... [1] https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-what-are-health-con...

An unborn hypothetical baby is not a human death.

> The pristine Mars defenders are considered radicals who lose out

The pristine Mars everywhere forever advocates are considered radicals and lose out. If I remember correctly, Mars is terraformed in a way that leaves parts of it as unchanged as possible, e.g. the extra-atmospheric peaks of Olympus Mons.

Would you consider NYC as a candidate for a new national park?

> National parks are designated for their natural beauty, unique geological features, diverse ecosystems, and recreational opportunities, typically "because of some outstanding scenic feature or natural phenomena."

Fits the bill, don't it?

> maybe we can stop believing the ancient superstitions that consider us not to be part of nature

What part of any argument in this thread requires this?

Also, being part of something doesn't mean you can't also be distinct from it, for the most part.

I'm opposed to airplanes flying in the airspace of a country whose people have outlawed them for whatever reason.

Do you propose any one group can have the right to put whatever they want into the sky of every human on Earth?

> does not impinge in any way life on earth

A good portion of the life on Earth looks up at the Moon, often with magnification. Treating it like a nature preserve would be a gift to all posterity and they would praise us for it. Treating it like another resource to harveest will ultimately mean covering it in colonies and forever changing the face of an astral body that has remained virtually untouched for all of our species' history. Presuming to utilize it for industry or colonization is so short sighted a view I can't believe anyone harbors the thought.

The problem with manifest destiny was that based on the perceived exceptional character or origin of a specific group, their expansion was considered both just and inevitable.

Reread Mr Bright's post I'm responding to and hopefully it's clear why I find it alarming. Do you think he'd want to stop if we discover life out there? What mechanism would there even be to stop once there's an economic incentive not to?

There are some abominations in our history and it's our responsibility to sincerely repent and learn to avoid repeating them. So far we're simply saying it's different this time.

Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest and "might makes right". Sounds to me like we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?

You can take care of the monster under my child's bed while you're at it.

Humanity as the great filter. A dark version of The Culture. Solid sci-fi premise!

> We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable definition of those terms.

I don't think we all agree here. The author seems to think that lights would be inappropriate, and Native American tribes have claimed that burials and even human waste desecrates the moon. I'm of a somewhat different mind, I think seeing lights would be neat, but I can't justify blasting the eye off the man-in-the-moon to make it easier to roll the lunar megatrucks in easier.

> What threshold of sureness would you propose for what amount of activity?

Great question. I see this as an argument for cautious incremental progress rather than immediate resource extraction. I'd actually agree that a small human settlement focused on samples and surveys is a logical next step here. We're just so much more efficient than single-purpose robots. I would just urge caution.

This is inaccurate because if you take the high end of the Falcon 9 per-launch emissions estimates discussed in this thread (about 28k metric tons equivalent of CO2) and divide by the payload size (about 17 metric tons) then each gram of matter lifted into space would be taking about 1.5 kilograms of CO2-equivalent emissions, which is a small amount instead of an enormous amount.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41519623

Well I thought I was somewhat, but that didn't ring a bell. I take my well-ackshually comment back :)