5 ms·

But why? Such a waste of money, it’s too far away, and there’s nothing there. It’s like the ultimate snake oil investment. The ROI must be awful. Just think ab

But why? Such a waste of money, it’s too far away, and there’s nothing there. It’s like the ultimate snake oil investment. The ROI must be awful. Just think about the cost to get there and the chance of anything of value coming back... a big time net loss no doubt. I wish I could buy the hype but I’m just not seeing it.

BellBivDeVoe 7y ago
Why sail across the ocean? The new world is just wilderness and indigenous people. Why move west, across the Mississippi? It's just open prarie and Indians. Why go camping? It's just dirt and bugs and carcinogens from cooking fires. Why climb mountains? People get killed all the time in horrible accidents.
thelittleone 7y ago
I can't speak for the science value but these missions do inspire people. I often sit with my two sons and watch launches and missions, or set an alarm to see the ISS fly over. They're fascinated that we're able to send machines to Mars and that people are inside that tiny space station flying overheard.
lnsru 7y ago
Space race is going further: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race It’s a wonderful way to demonstrate power without starting a war.
taneq 7y ago
The ROI for the first few successful missions will, long term, be a significant portion of an entire planet. That's a pretty decent ROI.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  There is apparently an economic theory behind this argument. But I doubt it's been published. Who do the inheritors of Mars sell it to? And what do they swap for it?
- imtringued 7y ago
  Humans have a limited time span. Therefore they care more about year over year numbers than total ROI over a span of tens of thousands of years.
nercht12 7y ago
Actually, I can think of some things: 1. Manufacturing heavy equipment will be much cheaper due to low gravity and prevalence of iron. Plus shipping it to Earth will still be relatively affordable because you're only escaping Mar's gravity. 2. It'd be a great testing/research site for wild science experiments like artificial creatures and stuff that would go very badly if not contained on Earth.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Any arguments based on lower cost of anything collapse instantly. Mars has demonstrated high amusement value. That has sustained all the missions thus far. It's all we have any prospect for in decades to come. God knows we'll need a lot as our ecosystem folds up around us.
  - nercht12 7y ago
    > Any arguments based on lower cost of anything collapse instantly. That's too broad an assumption. In truth, it'll depend on WHAT you are trying to manufacture and if you can keep it on Mars and send its product/output back to Earth. I'm not going to try to predict what stuff we'll want in the future because I don't know. But it's too early to dismiss the possibility of "real utility".
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      Any claim of utility has a very, very high bar to get over. Mars-high. Asteroid mining, maybe not so much, depending on how much it can be automated. The problem there quickly becomes how not to saturate demand and drive down prices to the point that the material's not worth transporting. Probably the only solution, ultimately, is to create enough demand in situ to absorb excess capacity.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Anything shipped from mars to earth will be 500 days out of date by the time it arrives.
zamalek 7y ago
In space there is just a vacuum, why would we ever go there? Let's see. The Microwave oven. GPS. Cancer treatments. It's impossible to tell what Mars could offer in full, but we do know one of them upfront: surviving a meteor, Yellowstone, a pandemic, or any one of many ways that the entire species could be wiped out.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Microwave ovens work on the ground, and were invented on the ground. GPS satellites operate under remote control. What about cancer treatments? Weightlessness, vacuum, and high ambient radiation don't cure cancer, singly or in combination. We could survive a Yellowstone eruption much, much, much more easily in Antarctica than on Mars. Mars is interesting, but not as a place to live.
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    >Microwave ovens work on the ground, and were invented on the ground Microwave ovens do have nothing to do with space I'll give you that, however the microwave oven was effectively invented by Percy Spencer and Raytheon, while working for Raytheon, working on defense related contracts for radar in 1945 and space exploration from its infancy has been hand in hand with defense/military research. >GPS satellites operate under remote control GPS is a direct result of space exploration. Without space exploration, there would be no GPS. Without GPS we'd be producing considerably less food (farming relies heavily on GPS now), there would be far less international shipping (international shipping as it is now, does not work without GPS), without GPS Uber and Lyft would not exist, without GPS the global economy would be drastically different. All because we spent money on space exploration. >don't cure cancer, There has been gobs and gobs of cancer research conducted on ISS. Here's some https://www.issnationallab.org/blog/cancer-research-on-the-space-station/ https://www.issnationallab.org/blog/cancer-research-on-the-s... We have no idea of what we might discover on Mars. Imagine if we find living extremophiles, their genes could be worth a million times their weight in gold (if they are even DNA based) and the discovery alone would be worth every cent we've ever spent on space exploration as a species.
de_watcher 7y ago
The whole purpose of life is to fill space. Through the genetic algorithm it searches the forms that do it. The algorithm has developed the current forms that can actually plan ahead and try to push through the gaps of 'nothingness' to keep filling the space.

BellBivDeVoe 7y ago

Why sail across the ocean? The new world is just wilderness and indigenous people. Why move west, across the Mississippi? It's just open prarie and Indians. Why go camping? It's just dirt and bugs and carcinogens from cooking fires. Why climb mountains? People get killed all the time in horrible accidents.

thelittleone 7y ago

I can't speak for the science value but these missions do inspire people. I often sit with my two sons and watch launches and missions, or set an alarm to see the ISS fly over. They're fascinated that we're able to send machines to Mars and that people are inside that tiny space station flying overheard.

lnsru 7y ago

Space race is going further: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race It’s a wonderful way to demonstrate power without starting a war.

taneq 7y ago

The ROI for the first few successful missions will, long term, be a significant portion of an entire planet. That's a pretty decent ROI.

ncmncm 7y ago
There is apparently an economic theory behind this argument. But I doubt it's been published. Who do the inheritors of Mars sell it to? And what do they swap for it?
imtringued 7y ago
Humans have a limited time span. Therefore they care more about year over year numbers than total ROI over a span of tens of thousands of years.

nercht12 7y ago

Actually, I can think of some things: 1. Manufacturing heavy equipment will be much cheaper due to low gravity and prevalence of iron. Plus shipping it to Earth will still be relatively affordable because you're only escaping Mar's gravity. 2. It'd be a great testing/research site for wild science experiments like artificial creatures and stuff that would go very badly if not contained on Earth.

ncmncm 7y ago
Any arguments based on lower cost of anything collapse instantly. Mars has demonstrated high amusement value. That has sustained all the missions thus far. It's all we have any prospect for in decades to come. God knows we'll need a lot as our ecosystem folds up around us.
- nercht12 7y ago
  > Any arguments based on lower cost of anything collapse instantly. That's too broad an assumption. In truth, it'll depend on WHAT you are trying to manufacture and if you can keep it on Mars and send its product/output back to Earth. I'm not going to try to predict what stuff we'll want in the future because I don't know. But it's too early to dismiss the possibility of "real utility".
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Any claim of utility has a very, very high bar to get over. Mars-high. Asteroid mining, maybe not so much, depending on how much it can be automated. The problem there quickly becomes how not to saturate demand and drive down prices to the point that the material's not worth transporting. Probably the only solution, ultimately, is to create enough demand in situ to absorb excess capacity.
imtringued 7y ago
Anything shipped from mars to earth will be 500 days out of date by the time it arrives.

zamalek 7y ago

In space there is just a vacuum, why would we ever go there? Let's see. The Microwave oven. GPS. Cancer treatments. It's impossible to tell what Mars could offer in full, but we do know one of them upfront: surviving a meteor, Yellowstone, a pandemic, or any one of many ways that the entire species could be wiped out.

ncmncm 7y ago
Microwave ovens work on the ground, and were invented on the ground. GPS satellites operate under remote control. What about cancer treatments? Weightlessness, vacuum, and high ambient radiation don't cure cancer, singly or in combination. We could survive a Yellowstone eruption much, much, much more easily in Antarctica than on Mars. Mars is interesting, but not as a place to live.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >Microwave ovens work on the ground, and were invented on the ground Microwave ovens do have nothing to do with space I'll give you that, however the microwave oven was effectively invented by Percy Spencer and Raytheon, while working for Raytheon, working on defense related contracts for radar in 1945 and space exploration from its infancy has been hand in hand with defense/military research. >GPS satellites operate under remote control GPS is a direct result of space exploration. Without space exploration, there would be no GPS. Without GPS we'd be producing considerably less food (farming relies heavily on GPS now), there would be far less international shipping (international shipping as it is now, does not work without GPS), without GPS Uber and Lyft would not exist, without GPS the global economy would be drastically different. All because we spent money on space exploration. >don't cure cancer, There has been gobs and gobs of cancer research conducted on ISS. Here's some https://www.issnationallab.org/blog/cancer-research-on-the-space-station/ https://www.issnationallab.org/blog/cancer-research-on-the-s... We have no idea of what we might discover on Mars. Imagine if we find living extremophiles, their genes could be worth a million times their weight in gold (if they are even DNA based) and the discovery alone would be worth every cent we've ever spent on space exploration as a species.

de_watcher 7y ago

The whole purpose of life is to fill space. Through the genetic algorithm it searches the forms that do it. The algorithm has developed the current forms that can actually plan ahead and try to push through the gaps of 'nothingness' to keep filling the space.