5 ms·
> But a colony on Mars would need to be a nearly perfectly self-contained, resource neutral system that harvests energy from the sun and is rarely or never re-s
by transfire 11y ago
> But a colony on Mars would need to be a nearly perfectly self-contained, resource neutral system that harvests energy from the sun and is rarely or never re-supplied. That is currently beyond the reach of science and human ingenuity.
It is no where near the limits of our reach. We already have people living in space year round without any local resources. What we do seem to lack however is any faith in ourselves.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago> We already have people living in space year round without any local resources. You're joking, right? The ISS gets everything from Earth, even its water, and they're so bad at self-sustainability that they are not able to wash their own dirty clothes (I shit you not). Oh, and they throw away their feces and only recently were able to grow some lettuce on board. That's the state of the art right now.
- michaelmrose 11y agoYou realize that although LEO is cheaper to resupply it is actually more inhospitable right? There is by definition no resources available save sunlight.
- mannykannot 11y ago> You realize that although [the thing that makes all the difference]...
- mannykannot 11y agoCompared to what is available on Mars, Earth counts as a local resource for living in LEO.
- carapat_virulat 11y agoI am not sure what you trying to pointing out. Current people in space are being re-supplied from Earth all the time, and they aren't completely our of our gravity well, so the energy required to get stuff there is lower and still very expensive. If you want to re-supply people on Mars you would have to escape Earth's gravity well completely, which is crazy expensive.
- FreelanceX 11y agoIt may not be beyond our reach, but it is beyond my tolerance as to what I am willing to support as a taxpayer.
- Amorymeltzer 11y agoWhy? NASA has paid HUGE dividends. >Estimates of the return on investment in the spaaace program range from $7 for every $1 spent on the Apollo Program to $40 for every $1 spent on spaaace development today. [1] That money is generally spent in the US, on good, high-paying jobs.[2] The products NASA has created are EVERYWHERE[3] — The general rule of thumb is if it's wireless, fireproof, or small, it's using technology based off NASA work. 1: http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.ht... 2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-lyons/misconceptions-nasa_b_3561205.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-lyons/misconceptions-na... 3: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/the-roi-of-space-exploration.aspx http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/the-roi-of-s...
- yongjik 11y agogp is not complaining about current state of NASA, but about a hypothetical adventure with high chance of failure that would burn enough money to send a dozen robotic probes to every planet in the solar system.
- TrevorJ 11y agoThe space station is definitely not anywhere close to being self-sustainable nor does it pretend to be.