6 ms·

> The amount of capital required (both human and material) is too large to achieve colonizing Mars, even in a small capacity. Sending people to Mars would cost

> The amount of capital required (both human and material) is too large to achieve colonizing Mars, even in a small capacity. Sending people to Mars would cost a few times as much as the construction (inflation adjusted) of the US interstate highway system. [1] There is a reason physicists, economists, and engineers, but usually not Linux container experts, are consulted when evaluating megaproject proposals. > Let's spend those countless billions on improving conditions here. How do you propose we allocate those billions? Who do you delegate to allocate those billions? Is the marginal benefit of that reallocation greater than the marginal cost of killing off all interplanetary colonization efforts? [1] https://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-for-only-1-5-trillion/ https://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-for-only-1-5-trillion/

linuxftw 8y ago
> How do you propose we allocate those billions? I propose we don't collect the billions in the first place. > Sending people to Mars would cost a few times as much as the construction (inflation adjusted) of the US interstate highway system. [1] Sending a few people and even establishing some kind of 'base' is not the same as colonizing. That's just the cost of getting 9 crews there and back. If the article is implying Apollo-sized crews, that's not very many people. Heavy machinery, concrete, steel/aluminum, fuel, everything needed to create structures. The costs will be innumerable, and for what benefit? So potentially a select few people get to fly to Mars and live there?