Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Do you dispute that those technologies exist

You're talking about rocket technology. I already said, "If the goal was simply to visit Mars, that might be viable." The question is a permanent, self-sustaining Mars colony, where the biggest problem is not "Methane engines" but rather breathing oxygen, drinking water, eating food, not getting irradiated, not getting poisoned, not having circulatory problems, reproducing, and surviving in general.

> people dreaming of colonising Mars

Interesting that you use the word "dreaming".



I've been dreaming about getting dirty with young Cleopatra. Expect a working time machine any day now. All I'm currently missing are a flux capacitor and working out some details.


>I've been dreaming about getting dirty with young Cleopatra.

Get in line, plus the benefit of time machines is that you don't need to wait for them to be developed.


> Interesting that you use the word "dreaming"

Intentionally. Hackers dream. I have a background in aerospace engineering. That doesn’t mean I know how to solve the problems of permanent habitation. But it gives me a sense of where the edges are, and while some problems are super difficult (toxicity) others are wildly exaggerated (radiation) and none are blocking. Moreover, many of the processes we’ll need to develop have obvious counterparts on Earth, most interestingly, energy and fuel generation.

The author of the article wants an annual JWST or Cassini. I’d love that. But we aren’t getting it. De-funding Mars means going back to a post-Apollo NASA budget.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: