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?
That’s just funding research with extra steps.
Science on the aggregate gives excellent return on investment. Unfortunately politicians want an extravagant excuse for funding it, but it would be much more efficient not to do the gimmicks, just do the science and not allow public sentiment to dictate what’s viable.
Probably, but sometimes having to meet real world challenges leads you down pathways that wouldn’t otherwise have been considered.
Sure. Let those goals be useful and reachable, not some narcissist’s fantasy about colonizing a dead planet.
Musk aside, colonizing Mars is absolutely achievable, and could be very useful. Having one point where humans exist is limiting, and creates a potential for one point of failure. Spreading out gives us many more opportunities for doing interesting things, and it also prevents Earth being wiped out (probably by us, but potentially something else) meaning the end of humanity.
I think you’re letting your hatred of billionaires make you hate everything they’re associated with, which isn’t correct or good. Make an actual argument for it being bad, not just saying billionaires support it.
There are about a hundred things that are more readily achiveable and useful than going to Mars or even the Moon. We have a climate crisis here on Earth, we’re facing severe challenges in agriculture, and almost a billion people live in abject poverty.
On that last point: what do you think unlocks more scientific potential - funneling trillions into research for a colony on the Moon, or making sure hundreds of millions of children get food, water, medicine and an education? My bet is on the latter, by a loooooooong fucking margin. You’ve got your Mozarts and Einsteins wasting away in squalor, and that’s just a bad use of our potential. Morality doesn’t even have to enter the equation.
I’m not hung up on the disgusting billionaires. They’re not the only narcissists around.
Luckily we’re doing billions of other things. We aren’t doing Luna/Mars missions and nothing else.
That’s a false dichotomy. We could very easily as a species support a space colony AND provide for the welfare of everybody if we collectively wanted to. One does not preclude the other, nor make it any more difficult to accomplish.
Start. By. Feeding. Children.
Then you can have as many space colonies as you want.
You seem to think I’m in charge of the world budget or something.
Of course not. But it’s people like you on the aggregate that prop up con men, and it does directly compete with effective measures to fix our own planet.
Fuck Elon. Humanity’s dream of colonising space existed long before he was even conceived.
It’s still a moronic goal to focus on at this point in our evolution. We’re trying to run before knowing how to walk.
Why so? Honestly, there’s nothing about our current tech level that makes it impossible. It’s solely an engineering project and required political will.
I don’t think we need to gatekeep funding research. You shouldn’t have to do it with no goal in mind for it to be good. The fact of the matter is its funding research and making people excited to fund research. That’s a huge win.
I didn’t say we can’t have goals. I just don’t think that going to Mars is a good goal, and I think that the argument that we need a stupid goal to achieve good science is, well, stupid.
Why do you think it’s not a good goal?
Do you think research into the origins of the universe is good (regardless of space technology)? What about the origins of life? what about the origins of Earth, life on Earth, and Humanity?
Do you think it’s good to increase our understanding and capability of supporting life on other planets?
Do you think it’d be a good idea to spread Humanity to multiple places (everyone living in one city or spread out, or everyone on one planet or spread out, are the same circumstances but a different scale)?
Do you think it’s a good idea to increase our capabilities to deal with potential asteroid threats?
If you answered yes to any of these, Mars is a fine goal, or Luna. This isn’t even mentioning stuff like farming technologies without soil that would be needed on Mars/Luna but also very useful on Earth. Also things like electricity generation (solar, wind, nuclear, and others we may not even consider yet) that need to be thought about in different ways that will inevitably lead to advancements.
Constraint is the mother of creativity, or however that saying goes. Creating problems to solve can frequently create solutions that just looking blindly without constraints would never find. Going to another body is a great way to impose these restraints.
The Moon and Mars are not interchangeable. They’re vastly different. The Moon is in Earth’s orbit. That’s why we went to the Moon in 1959 and haven’t even tried to go to Mars in 2026.
All interesting research can be done on Earth, the Moon or space telescopes. Mars is not interesting except for taking samples, and robots can do that.
Mars does not help with developing farming technologies without soil. You’re thinking of low-gravity environments I take it?
You’re describing Mars being a barren wasteland as a good challenge to try to solve. Fuck that. Start by solving the challenges we have on Earth. Show me you can fix a broken arm before insisting that you’re going to do brain surgery. Hence why you should terraform the Sahara before talking about building a civilization on a dusty hellscape that is a six month journey away from everything we need to live.
Obviously Luna and Mars aren’t interchangeable! They’re very different. However, you both agree they’re different, but also think there’s nothing that can’t be done exclusively there? What?
No. I mean growing food without soil. There is no soil on Mars. We either need to make it (which is useful to learn how), or we need to do without, such as with aquaponics and aeroponics. These all would still help life on Earth too (they already do).
Why can’t we do both? I hate the idea we have to only do one thing. That’s not how this works. Developing technology to live on Luna and Mars would help us tackle the issues on Earth. It also doesn’t exclude focusing on Earth. We are currently terraforming the Sahara. Since we are working on that, do you agree we are now fine to work on other things?
You are severely underestimating the effort that it takes to send people to Mars, unless you want them to expire there quickly. So yes, sending people to Mars really does compete with other efforts. Therefore we have to weigh the utility of such an undertaking against its benefits. It is true that sometimes “crazy” projects like this does reveal findings that you weren’t actively looking for. But that is the best argument for this crazy idea - that maybe it will turn up something unexpectedly cool! And I don’t see why we would divert a significant amount of resources to something like that when we have so many other fields that desperately need attention, where we know that we will find good and useful stuff without endangering the lives of people.
You mentioned soil research as one avenue for why going to Mars might help. Why do we need Mars to practice growing food without soil? What is it about Mars that provides a significant advantage for that type of research? None, you say? Then I say, let’s do it on Earth or in orbit.
I am also confused as why you keep referring to Earth’s moon as “Luna”. In my experience that’s mostly practiced when we’re comparing solar systems to each other, and in that context the Earth would be named “Tellus”. Although I think it’s rare to call them anything except “Earth” and “the Moon” in practice, at least it was when I did my physics degree.
I’m done with this conversation, but I’ll address this:
Luna is the name of Earth’s moon. Have you heard of the term lunatic? That term came from people worshiping Earth’s moon, Luna. I don’t know why some people don’t know its name. The Moon is not a name. Moon is a description. Luna is the name.
Earth is named Earth. It’s not “The Planet” which would be the equivalent name as The Moon. Earth is a name. Terra, Tellus, Gaia are all also names for it. Mars is the name of the fourth planet from the sun. The sun is named Sol, which is why solar system means our star system. There are other star systems, but only one solar system. You can’t compare solar systems to each other because there aren’t any other solar systems. There’s only the one.
Maybe a colony on Venus would be an even more exciting challenge than Mars?