this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2026
319 points (97.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49935 readers
1411 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn't we do those things directly, without going there?

It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.

I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that's why we poors support it, but that doesn't "pay the bills." What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 hours ago

Resources that are minimally available on Earth.

Example: The moon has Helium-3 and is close (in comparison to other celestial bodies).

Is it economically viable? Is it ethical? Ehhhhhhhh. I would say no, but Elon “Head Up His Own Ass” Musk would disagree.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 4 hours ago

Realistically, the Moon would likely carry a mix of science, mining, and power installations.

Science - You can set up a large telescope on the far side of the Moon which won't have an atmosphere to compete with. There are some concepts which would use existing craters to keep the cost low.

Mining - It is possible for there to be rare earth minerals on the Moon. There is also Helium-3 in the regolith. A country may choose to have a colony on the Moon address terrestrial shortages.

Power - The Moon makes an excellent site to collect solar power. That power could possibly be beamed/reflected to Earth, used to refine high electrical demand materials, or be a site for compute.

As this gets built out, the Moon will likely become a manufacturing hub, especially for missions beyond the Earth-Moon gravity well due to lower launch costs.

[–] heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago

I'd love to hear about radio telescopes on the far side to research the Universe, but I'm not writing the checks. Or am I -- since US govt. taxpayer funds are getting spent in Melon's yard.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 4 hours ago

Mars really just ends up being a science prestige project for the country or company funding its missions. I suspect most country based missions would follow the Antarctica model where dual use capabilities are built out "for science" and space infrastructure gets built including an Aldrin Cycle ships.

I suspect someone like Musk or a reasonably powerful organization is going to do back of the napkin math and figures out terra forming goes from sci-fi fantasy to feasible. This will likely come around as asteroid miners can get to the Oort Cloud and get access to large amounts of frozen water, methane, and carbon dioxide. As Mars is terra formed, the planet gains value and interest from countries and organizations to create their own colony on the planet.

[–] myyass@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Find the Ghosts Of Mars.

[–] BlueberryWalnut@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago
[–] book@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 hours ago

I guess we could grow a bunch of wheat inside of it, then send it back to earth. If we're not treated well we could swap wheat for rocks. At least, that what Heinlein suggested.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Science doesn't really happen if we continually ask "Why do this?" Science happens when we ask "Why not do this?"

If we want to be a galactic civilization, we must first learn to live on worlds otherwise uninhabitable. The engineering challenges we must overcome to make that happen will give us the knowledge and experience we need to make it possible to expand past our solar system. This is a very long term advancent, and what we do today is what our offspring will do with ease.

Other than political roadblocks, the final roadblock to galactic expansion is FTL travel. We have theories on how to make it possible, but we are limited to the engineering and knowledge of our time now. Far future generations will be the ones to discover if and how to make it possible, but they need the foundational knowledge and experience of how to live in space.

[–] radiofreebc@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Don't worry. We're making Earth pretty uninhabitable these days. We'll get there without ever leaving the planet.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately also true, and more likely than the Star Trek optimism answer.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

The Bell Riots?

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 4 points 9 hours ago

It'd be cool as fuck.

[–] trebor_project@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 hours ago

In reality there isn't any real reason to have a permanent base on either.... especially Mars.

[–] crypt0cler1c@infosec.pub 5 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

Rocket fuel. The moon is like the local gas station you stop at to top off the tank and get snacks before you hit the open road.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 2pNza@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

children, you have to be pernamently there to raise them

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

On the moon, I am guessing some sort of railgun facility. Designate a specific spot on Earth, and you can launch mineral packets to crash there for terrestrial harvesting. Mind, I can see horrific consequences if something goes wrong.

In an old game called Stars!, I used to prepare worlds via mineral deposits to serve as industrial centers. The process also conveniently cleared out the previous inhabitants.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

Any time anyone ever mentions extra-terrestrial rail guns, I immediately think of this NPC exchange in ME2:

https://youtu.be/4tIk-vUtLBs

[–] Arigion@feddit.org 10 points 12 hours ago

Google: Tescreal, Freedom Citys, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos etc. Basically there are several projects where they try to do unregulated research. Main idea seems to be to "survive" the end of our civilisation by living in Space or in the deep sea, enhance themselves (eg neuralink) , create General Artificial intelligence etc. Thiels Palantir is thought as defense mechanism by surveilling everyone. It all sounds like a big conspiracy theory, unfortunately it is not. Musk being responsible for Dodge, deregulating the US Governement was exactly one of these things. It was never about saving money. This is all a big rabit hole and you will get in a very bad mood readinfg about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TESCREAL

[–] ShotDonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

The rest of creation: we have a perfect blue marble to live on in a void of deadly nothing. Humams: challenge accepted!

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

It takes a few eggs out of our current basket and puts it into other nearby baskets, so as to avoid complete species failure if our original basket falls or gets dropped.

Not the most ideal solution, as we should really step out of our stellar neighbourhood to achieve lasting civilizational redundancy, but it’s far better than not taking any eggs out of the current basket at all.

Plus, incremental efforts in achieving civilizational redundancy always have better results than great leaps, both in terms of consistency as well as resiliency. Figuring things out a bit at a time is nearly always more effective than trying to solve everything all at once.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago

Exploration and discovery for humanitarian goals, different abundance of resources and lack of other resources usually gives opportunities for mining, production/refining/fabrication, and trade. And further, more metal resource rich regions like the asteroid belt will require developing the same tech needed to establish outposts, bases, and fueling stations far from earth.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

Neither place is close enough or has enough resources for more than a research base, and remotely operating robots on Mars would be a lot easier and safer.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago

the colonies have a right to exist without OZ interference.

1000004649

UESA has no governance over the colonies and must respect their sovereign will for independence.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Long term, the reason to expand into space is to expand into space. The point of going to Mars is not to make money. The point is to find a way for people to live there.

Let go of your sci fi visions of the future. Space colonization does not look like humans getting on a rocket ship on Earth's surface, blasting off between stars, and landing on a second Eden around another star, a world where you can take your helmet off, breathe the local air, eat the food, and drink the water. What we've learned from our exoplanet studies is that the cosmos has exercised infinite creativity in generating new Hells, worlds uninhabitable and lethal to us in ways we never even dreamed of.

Real space colonization is going to take a whole lot of engineering and building. Mars is actually quite habitable compared to the vast majority of worlds in the universe. If you have some basic self-replicating machines, making Mars habitable is quite doable. Cover as much of the surface as you want in vast greenhouses. Live under domes potentially spanning the entire world. Long term, Mars has great potential for human settlement.

As for why? Well I would say it's a moral responsibility. We know if we stay on just one planet, just one star, then it's only a matter of time before some natural or artificial disaster wipes us out, and possibly the rest of life along with it. Earth has the type of biosphere you probably have to scour multiples galaxies to find one of comparable complexity. That's a jewel worth protecting.

We tend to be too hard on ourselves as as species, viewing ourselves as some sort of cancer on the world. At the same time, we are the only hope for life on this planet to survive past a certain point. We are the children of Gaia. It's our duty and moral obligation to spread life as far and wide as possible. Life itself has intrinsic value. And it's our job to spread it.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Some exobiologists have also suggested that even if we settle habitable worlds with active biospheres, there is so much research needed to ensure biocompatibility that anyone settling there would be quarantined for the first century or two in order to suss out any long-term pathogen or other nasty. And that if one is found, those settlers would be SOL without an effective cure.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Truthfully I don't think we should even consider settling any body with a complex biosphere. We're going to have to search for a very long time before we find a biosphere anywhere near as complex as Earth's. You probably have to scour entire galaxies before you find another world with covered in a biosphere as rich as Earth's. These worlds will be so rare and so far away, that by the time we can reach them, if ever, we'll have already become experts at living in space. Hell, by the time we even attempt interstellar colonization, the vast majority of the human population likely won't even live on a planetary surface. By the time we reach a true Earth twin, humanity will have become experts at transforming the deadest of dead rocks into living worlds. (Or just forego the idea entirely and use planets only as sources of raw materials for space-based habitats.)

I see no reason to ever colonize and exploit those rare Edens. Explore? Sure. Comb the organisms there for useful genetics and compounds? No problem. But actually settling en masse? Just leave them alone. We can afford to leave .00001% of planet's untouched.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 11 points 17 hours ago (6 children)

Right now we're all kinda eggs in one basket. Earth is one good cataclysm from wiping out humanity.

But we're not just going to sort out spreading to other planets without baby steps.

The ISS was the first step. We need a large enough permanent base to see whether agriculture and 100% recycling can work. They still need supplies from earth for now, but long term, can we make it work? how big does a settlement need to be?

cheaper access to space:

The moon is an interesting prospect. It's significantly further up the gravity well. We might be able to launch small probes via a rail gun, then use ion engines. No atmosphere to fight.

Radio Astronomy:

Anything not aimed at earth could be super sensitive.

Fuel:

we might be able to farm oxygen and hydrogen from water/minerals. and make a depo.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 9 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Mars talk is a red herring to attract bright young employees. Once they're hired, they work on drenching the sky with low orbit Earth satellites. That's what Starship is really for. The same with kids wanting to be peaceful astronauts ending up as fighter pilots killing people for oil.

load more comments
view more: next ›