Should we spend the $$$ to go to Mars?

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Mars will never be a Substainable Colony. Even if the planet were Terraformed it lacks the rare minerals that Earth Possesses. If Mars were to have a Colony it would need to be constantly resupplied from Earth.

How can we be 100% sure? Beyond that, how do we know that it doesn't have all kinds of new (to us) minerals that are of use?

I guess we're just gonna have to go take a look.

[Yasa]

I think the atmospheric conditions of Mars would be a bigger challenge to a sustainable colony moreso than supplying it. What with all the storms/corrosive, fine dust. Colonies would have to make use of the caves and mountains.

[Knalus]

We should, at the very least, go back to the moon.

It's ridiculous that we haven't yet.

[DementedReality]

other than satisfying the curious and scientific community, couldnt we better spend $100 billion dollars on improving conditions for those of us on Earth?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

other than satisfying the curious and scientific community, couldnt we better spend $100 billion dollars on improving conditions for those of us on Earth?

The thing with that argument, is that there's always somewhere else you can spend any amount of money. And there's always "conditions to improve", regardless of how bad the conditions are in the first place. Arguments like this - while honest - aren't overly helpful because they tend to stall initiative. If you are going to ask if the money is better spent elsewhere, at the very least I would request that you give an example of where that money should go, and why we can't have things like space travel in addition to that.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

other than satisfying the curious and scientific community, couldnt we better spend $100 billion dollars on improving conditions for those of us on Earth?

I'd rather they take that money from the US National Defense than the Space Program.

2009 USND budget: $651 billion

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...et/defense.pdf

2011 NASA budget: $18.3 billion

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-01/t...ams?_s=PM:TECH

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

About 10 years ago I had a chance to hear Chris Hadfield speak in a small setting (Cdn astronaut).

He said even then technically we were fully equipped to go mars. But the decision would never be easy because a) it will cost $$ AND lives, b) it takes 2-3 years for a return trip.

I think that still holds. No one has the trillions it would cost, no one has the will to watch young men and women explode in the skies, and the patience for years to make it happen.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

other than satisfying the curious and scientific community, couldnt we better spend $100 billion dollars on improving conditions for those of us on Earth?

The direct and indirect benefits of space exploration do improve conditions on Earth.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The thing with that argument, is that there's always somewhere else you can spend any amount of money. And there's always "conditions to improve", regardless of how bad the conditions are in the first place. Arguments like this - while honest - aren't overly helpful because they tend to stall initiative. If you are going to ask if the money is better spent elsewhere, at the very least I would request that you give an example of where that money should go, and why we can't have things like space travel in addition to that.

i would be fine if we never went into space, i think its an expense and luxury we can do without.

Originally Posted by Yasa

I'd rather they take that money from the US National Defense than the Space Program.

2009 USND budget: $651 billion

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...et/defense.pdf

2011 NASA budget: $18.3 billion

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-01/t...ams?_s=PM:TECH

I dont disagree here either.

Hey, I am not bleeding heart liberal just someone who believe is being practical.

My suggestion is to reduce the taxes that are collected in order to fund these programs and to direct more funds to education & wellness programs.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by troutman

The direct and indirect benefits of space exploration do improve conditions on Earth.

i wont dispute that, but at the same ratio per dollar spent compared to more direct intitiatives?

[Yasa]

Yeah...thats what you Communist hippies always say...

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i would be fine if we never went into space, i think its an expense and luxury we can do without.

Sorry but I gotta totally disagree.

The advances and research just from trying are massive. This is a relatively poor website, but it lists some of the things that we've gotten out of the endeavor (pardon the pun.)

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Hell, Hubble itself was totally worth it.

If you're worried about all the cost, we should go raid all the loot in the Vatican - they're hoarding more gold, valuables and money than most countries.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by chemgear

If you're worried about all the cost, we should go raid all the loot in the Vatican - they're hoarding more gold, valuables and money than most countries.

we should, i agree..


im not opposed to the space travel, i just dont see it as a priority.

[photon]

I think we should go, but after we continue to develop our robotic tech. Send robots to build the base and mine the resources, then send people.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Yasa

Any movie that employs a character like Quatto has already taken the "Book of Realism" and drop-kicked it through a plate glass window into a volcano......

i think that book was further drop-kicked a few months ago when picture sof arnie g/f surafced - he would clearly never choose Sharon Stone or Maria Conchito alonso.....

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

About 10 years ago I had a chance to hear Chris Hadfield speak in a small setting (Cdn astronaut).

He said even then technically we were fully equipped to go mars. But the decision would never be easy because a) it will cost $$ AND lives, b) it takes 2-3 years for a return trip.

I think that still holds. No one has the trillions it would cost, no one has the will to watch young men and women explode in the skies, and the patience for years to make it happen.

If I was an astronaut, I couldn't care less how dangerous it would be. It's a chance to go to Mars, and be a part of one of the most courageous achievements in the history of humanity. Rocket man!

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Sorry but I gotta totally disagree.

The advances and research just from trying are massive. This is a relatively poor website, but it lists some of the things that we've gotten out of the endeavor (pardon the pun.)

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Hell, Hubble itself was totally worth it.

If you're worried about all the cost, we should go raid all the loot in the Vatican - they're hoarding more gold, valuables and money than most countries.

Overall I'm in favour of the space program, but I want to play devil's advocate here. To me, the issue is not money. It's that a lot of the most brilliant scientists and engineers in the world are working for NASA, when they could be working on 'real-world' problems. Obviously the problems that they are working on will result in some interesting real-world applications - sometimes that will result in something revolutionary like the whole concept of solar power... other times it will result in the ribbed swimsuit. Interesting, but not really of benefit to society as a whole.

Even with a technology like solar power, NASA is really only interested in the bleeding edge of the technology. Concerns like making solar panels inexpensive and mass-produced are beyond them; yet these are the issues that are keeping solar-power in the category of novelty when it could be a globally transformative technology. So we've got a number of companies working at making this next breakthrough, but so far it's still a long way off. Let's say that we threw the problem back to NASA and tasked them with developing solar panels that reached certain benchmarks in cost and efficiency, and tie additional funding to these developments. Could they come up with a solution faster than the private sector? I suspect they could.

Or let's say that you ran NASA like Google: every NASA engineer is encouraged to spend 20% of their time on projects that interest them, with an emphasis on projects that could result in significant real-world applications. It might slow down the mission to mars, but it could also make NASA far more productive at solving more pressing science and engineering problems.

I'm in favour of keeping NASA, even increasing their budget (if that funding comes at the cost of DoD funding), and encouraging them to pursue manned flights to mars and other ambitious projects. I just wonder if we're getting the maximum benefit from our best and brightest.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Even with a technology like solar power, NASA is really only interested in the bleeding edge of the technology. Concerns like making solar panels inexpensive and mass-produced are beyond them; yet these are the issues that are keeping solar-power in the category of novelty when it could be a globally transformative technology. So we've got a number of companies working at making this next breakthrough, but so far it's still a long way off. Let's say that we threw the problem back to NASA and tasked them with developing solar panels that reached certain benchmarks in cost and efficiency, and tie additional funding to these developments. Could they come up with a solution faster than the private sector? I suspect they could.

When was the last time you researched solar panels? If you are interested, I can send you all kinds of info. $20,000 on a new home to never have a power bill again doesn't sound like a 'novelty' to me.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i wont dispute that, but at the same ratio per dollar spent compared to more direct intitiatives?

NASA spends $$$ to develop technology to power a colony on Mars, a place that has (I assume) little to no fossil fuel reserves that we could harvest easily.

Direct transference to alternative energy source on Earth.

[Matata]

I think creating a sustainable, post-scarcity society is the greatest achievement we could accomplish as a species. Most of of the big issues are related to energy sources and farmland, both of which would be directly related to visiting and colonizing mars. I couldn't call it a good investment of resources, but high level technologies tend to only get explored when you have absurdly lofty goals.

Also, I've heard NASA is currently full of bloated old men who see themselves as having infallible intelligence and don't respond well to critical thought, making them prone to disastrous mistakes, which is hardly encouraging.