Bigram03 t1_j42ozmu wrote
Reply to comment by El_Bistro in At NASA, Dr. Z Was OK With Some Missions Failing by Maxcactus
We have difficulty living in Antarctica. Living in space is many orders of magnitude more complex.
We are not close. Even remotely so.
Why risk lives unnecessarily?
kobullso t1_j42vzfe wrote
We don't have "difficulty" living in Antarctica... we have been doing it for years. We have also had people on the ISS for a large chunk of the last decade. What do you mean "not even close"?
Edit. In fact there are a lot of small towns in rural areas with lower populations than the antarctic research stations.
Bigram03 t1_j42zw4z wrote
No base in Antarctica is self sustaining, and the cost to keep the people on the ISS alive is in the 100s of millions a month and requires the full time work of thousands of people to support.
We can and should visit the places. But living anywhere but earth is fanciful at best for even the most optimistic view of the technology's on the horizon.
kobullso t1_j430g5j wrote
The antarctic isn't more self sustaining because no one has ever been motivated enough to make it that way. Just because it hasn't been does mean the technology doesn't exist to do it.
RollinThundaga t1_j43yazj wrote
It's functionally unplantable and literally goes dark for months of the year. The outposts are run off of diesel generators. Unless you either set up a nuclear plant or an entire oil/gas refining industry there (which will wreak havok on what fragile ecosystems there actually are) then there's not many avenues to do so with current technology.
It's not that we're 'not motivated' as much as 'motivated not to'.
kobullso t1_j43ypff wrote
But you could. The technology exists to put solar panels and modular reactor. The technology exists the make buildings with grow lights. The argument isn't that it is worth it. It certainly isn't. The argument was that the technology exists to do it if we had any good reason to.
Mr_SkeletaI t1_j44xpi9 wrote
It isn’t self sustaining because there is literally zero reason to do so. No one even bothers. Cheaper to ship stuff to it
TK-741 t1_j42yqxh wrote
Curious — how many people live in the Antarctic research stations and how many are there?
kobullso t1_j42zekp wrote
A quick Google says a little over 3000 people for the US. Most of which aren't scientists. Looks like there about 70 permanent stations operated by 29 different countries. So without spending too much time digging there is probably between a couple thousand to over ten thousand people living on the continent at any point in time.
IdiAmeme t1_j44vts1 wrote
They volunteer, that’s why. Safetyism is fucking annoying.
Bigram03 t1_j4r1w1t wrote
Just because someone is a volunteer does not give anyone the right to be cavalier with someone's life.
Also, space flight is not only expensive, but also the training is argious.
You can't just take random people off the street, blast them into space with a slap on the back and a good luck. It would be certain death.
So until humans understand and are able to overcome all of the hurdles preventing us from living in space permanently, any attempt to do so is pointless.
PlexippusMagnet t1_j45lp81 wrote
That’s a question for people who willingly choose to risk their lives going to space. You wouldn’t do it, I probably wouldn’t, but who are we to say what others can and cannot do with their lives?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments