huthuthike

To your first point, I think success at doing something that no human has done before is going to be more memorable to the masses than failure to do something that many people have done before. Hence we remember the first people to land on the moon but we don't remember the 200th astronaut that didn't make it into space cause they died. Regardless, referring back to my original point, it's not the fame of a specific individual that should be the goal in a human mission to Mars. Instead it's a combination of the scientific yields as well as the increased public enthusiasm for science that could make a human mission more valuable than robotic ones. It's very hard to measure the latter but it should not be discounted when considering the value of a human mission.

Regarding your second point, you were the one that said we should spend the same resources of a manned mission on robotic missions. So if it is going to cost $2 trillion dollars for a manned mission we should spend $2 trillion instead on robotic missions. Now it seems you are arguing that we should spend the money elsewhere. If that's your point it is a different discussion.

You are right about that. My post was answering a poster about "how would Columbus feel that we went to the moon but not to Mars?" The 27 year timeframe is an analogy comparing the distance to the moon vs the distance to Mars, and relating it back to the timeframe it took Columbus to do his famous voyage.

Doing something we've never done before is a lot more exciting to people than repeating our previous success.

Think about it this way: who were the astronauts on the first lunar landing mission? Who were the astronauts on the last? Why do you think that we remember the first ones to do it better?

Well it took Columbus 2 months and 9 days to get across the Atlantic. He never made it to India, which was his original goal. The first expedition from Europe to India via the ocean was by Vasco da Gama and it took him around 10 months.

Earth to the moon is 240,000 miles. Earth to Mars at it's closest approach is 34 million miles. So this would be like telling Columbus to sail not for 2 months and 9 days, but for 27 years to get to India. He wasn't even willing to sail for 10 months to do it! (Also bear in mind that's the one-way timeframe; the return from Mars would be about twice as long in this scenario.)

And not only that but also let Columbus know there won't be any gold, spices, or slaves at the end of the trip. See how willing he is to dedicate the next 81 years of his life to it.

Hopefully this puts the interplanetary distance in perspective.

I agree with you that for the cost we can do more with robotics, and it's safer.

However, we also need to factor in human psychology. It would inspire billions of people worldwide to see a person on Mars. This is not something that can be replicated by sending robotic missions. It's possible that this could increase public support for funding space exploration, and drive more people to go into careers in science.

It's hard to predict the benefits of human exploration of space because we don't know how the world will react. But it's a lot more significant than just measuring the scientific output of the mission.

Ok, so basically anything that has any forces on it will end up with oscillations. On Earth it tends to not matter, because those oscillations travel from the object down into the ground, which is really good at damping them because the ground is, uh, pretty big. Even for things not attached to the ground, the atmosphere inherently damps oscillations, because as objects move back and forth in a fluid, a low pressure zone is created behind the object, which pulls it away from the direction it is moving. Also, rigid objects do much better with oscillations, because the entire structure has to move (more mass moving means less movement when the same amount of force is exerted on it). Floppy objects do worse, because one section can start oscillating on its own without transferring that motion to the entire body.

In space, there is nothing to damp the oscillations. They will just continue without active features of the craft to damp them. If they continue unabated a section may reach a resonant frequency, which can quickly cause failure. Even if it doesn't, those vibrations can cause cyclic loading failures, or just affect the stationkeeping of the craft or it's usefulness in gathering scientific data.

To make a spacecraft resistant to oscillations requires devices like gyroscopes or friction dampers, or long weighted booms which decrease the magnitude of oscillations. Making the craft rigid helps, but the larger it is, the less rigid it will be. And to make it more rigid, or to include more anti-oscillation devices, means more weight. That's an important limiting factor when you need to get the object up into orbit.

One misunderstanding some people have is to think that there are no external forces on free-floating structures. This is untrue. Most importantly, they are all affected by the solar wind, which is a generally constant pressure pushing the object away from the sun. Of course they will also be affected by gravity, and if close enough to the earth they will interact with the atmosphere. (There's not really a clean cutoff to where our atmosphere ends and space begins.) As a result, spacecraft have to perform some amount of stationkeeping maneuvers, which involves applying a force on one section of the craft. That itself will cause further oscillations, because the force can never be transferred perfectly to the entire body. (Imagine pushing a piece of paper in the air with a single finger. Yes, you can get the paper to move in a direction, but you cannot get all segments of the paper to move in exactly the same manner when exerting force at only one point.)

So forces on spacecraft are inherently unavoidable, and oscillations happen any time a force is applied. Oscillations are challenging to control in a free-floating vacuum environment, and become more problematic the larger a craft is. This results in fundamental issues with operating very large spacecraft. That's not to say it is impossible. But in space it's not a simple solution to say "just build it bigger."

You can't just make something free floating bigger and bigger without introducing new issues. In particular, as objects get larger in zero gravity, it becomes harder to dampen oscillations. The lighter the object is the more problematic these oscillations become. You also run into issues with thermal expansion.

That's kind of a high fantasy trope. "Blood and ashes!" from Wheel of Time comes to mind. It's like how they like to use different measures of time and distance. "It took him a fortnight to travel all those leagues." Helps take you out of the real world.

Well we know that homo species have been using stone for millions of years because stone doesn't degrade easily. It's not that wild of a jump in logic to think they've been using wood for just as long.

All things being equal, companies want to sell as little as possible for as much as possible. We all want to make the most amount of money with the least amount of work.

You also need to factor in the time it takes to build a home. If I can build 100 homes a year I'd rather take $3m profit each year than build the cheaper homes for $2m profit. Sure, if I can scale up infinitely, then I'll go ahead and build infinite homes for infinite profit. But in the real world there is significant risk in scaling up. If I build too many homes and the prices go down, then I'm now hurting my own profits. It can be better for me to do the lower effort thing and build less for a higher profit margin.

Regarding fruit, I believe that article is saying fruit can be eaten regularly with every meal. You can eat it during the meal or afterward as a "dessert." Foods with added sugars should not be eaten daily but can be enjoyed a couple times a week or less.

I fully agree with you but governments aren't exactly the ally on this one. Local and state governments in particular are losing out on tax revenue due to WFH. Lower attendance in offices (often in city centers) means less spending in those areas, so lower sales tax revenue. (I think New York City is projecting around $4500 less spending per worker annually.) Depreciating corporate property values means lower property tax revenue.

On the plus side we have the greatest effect on politics at the local level, if we get involved.

Personally I'd remove it from the National Flood Insurance Program. If the buyer can get a private company to insure it then the sale can go through. If the buyer cannot get a private company to insure it then the sale can only go through if they are not using a mortgage (mortgaged properties legally have to carry flood insurance). Couple this with plenty of disclosures so the buyer is aware they are taking on significant risk.

A lot of these people are stuck in the situation. While they can get flood insurance to rebuild the property, they can't afford to abandon the property, and they can't find anyone to sell it to. So they are in a cycle of rebuilding the property, waiting for a flood, then rebuilding it again.

There is a pretty obvious solution in my mind: The federal government offers homeowners a buyout for them to move out of that property. If they choose not to take the buyout, they are removed from the flood insurance program.

This would save the government a lot of money over time, even if they made the buyout significantly higher than the property value.