4 ms·

More likely to lead to increased competition between nations/corporations (see the dash for colonization in 19c, leading up to WW1).

retube 16y ago
Possibly. My reasoning is that, unlike colonization, these projects are so big as to be impossible by one nation. They can only be attempted through co-operation by many.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  A manned trip to Mars is estimated at ~$50 billion. Assume that NASA goes twice over budget and it costs $100 billion. That's cheap! Any modern developed country could send a crew to Mars in 10 years. However, nobody has done it because nobody has devoted the resources to that cause. The bank bailouts were around $700 billion, for comparison. Space travel is cheap compared to the rest of what we do.
  - retube 16y ago
    I think that's a low-ball cost. I've seen some estimates at $1 tr. But still yes, the US (and the US alone) could conceivably afford that (compare to cost of Iraq for example), so I take your point. However, even so, i don't think even the US would (or should) attempt this alone. (It's not just cash, but expertise too). Re the bailout figure: this is slightly misleading. This isn't money that's just been "spent". It's been invested - in purchasing assets and equity from the bailed out institutions. These institutions are largely expected to buy back these investments at a later date netting the US govt a profit (some already have). Additionally of course, the cost of NOT bailing out the banks may have been much, much more. So I don't think it's a comparable number.
    - cryptoz 16y ago
      Your $1 trillion figure to Mars is absurd. The Mars Direct plan is about $55 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct Could you cite where you heard $1 trillion? Nobody in the last 50 years has suggested it would cost anywhere near that much. Sure, the bank bailouts were a bad example. But you gave an even better one! The Iraq War cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.
philwelch 16y ago
Competition is just parallelization.

retube 16y ago

Possibly. My reasoning is that, unlike colonization, these projects are so big as to be impossible by one nation. They can only be attempted through co-operation by many.

cryptoz 16y ago
A manned trip to Mars is estimated at ~$50 billion. Assume that NASA goes twice over budget and it costs $100 billion. That's cheap! Any modern developed country could send a crew to Mars in 10 years. However, nobody has done it because nobody has devoted the resources to that cause. The bank bailouts were around $700 billion, for comparison. Space travel is cheap compared to the rest of what we do.
- retube 16y ago
  I think that's a low-ball cost. I've seen some estimates at $1 tr. But still yes, the US (and the US alone) could conceivably afford that (compare to cost of Iraq for example), so I take your point. However, even so, i don't think even the US would (or should) attempt this alone. (It's not just cash, but expertise too). Re the bailout figure: this is slightly misleading. This isn't money that's just been "spent". It's been invested - in purchasing assets and equity from the bailed out institutions. These institutions are largely expected to buy back these investments at a later date netting the US govt a profit (some already have). Additionally of course, the cost of NOT bailing out the banks may have been much, much more. So I don't think it's a comparable number.
  - cryptoz 16y ago
    Your $1 trillion figure to Mars is absurd. The Mars Direct plan is about $55 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct Could you cite where you heard $1 trillion? Nobody in the last 50 years has suggested it would cost anywhere near that much. Sure, the bank bailouts were a bad example. But you gave an even better one! The Iraq War cost hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.

philwelch 16y ago

Competition is just parallelization.