3 ms·

Starship is a technology that will enable the colonization of Mars, but also many other things such as large-near earth O'Neill Cylinders, manned exploration of

Starship is a technology that will enable the colonization of Mars, but also many other things such as large-near earth O'Neill Cylinders, manned exploration of the entire inner solar system, far more massive space telescopes at a fraction of today’s cost, high bandwidth low latency satellite communications all over the world.

buran77 6y ago
But this isn't about the development of Starship. Colonizing Mars entails far more than that. I simply believe that developing some tech that can successfully and efficiently "colonize" and explore other planets for us would have a far bigger impact at home. This doesn't imply in any way that Starship development should or would not continue anyway. It is not predicated on colonizing Mars but simply "going to space".
- valuearb 6y ago
  You go to Mars for science, to maybe find the first extraterrestrial life, or proof of its former existence. You go to Mars to discover it’s unknown history. You go to Mars to find out how to keep humans alive on others planets. All those things will naturally produce byproducts that will be useful on Earth. Starship will ensure it’s cheap to do them.
  - buran77 6y ago
    I think you may have missinterpreted my comments. "Developing technology that can take the risk of exploring Mars for us" and "developing some tech that can successfully and efficiently colonize and explore other planets for us" meant using machines instead of humans to do it. Your arguments don't actually contradict this.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      It would be incredibly expensive to do anything ambitious with machines. Right now we have a multi billion dollar rover attempting to dig a tiny hole on Mars, and it’s been failing for two years. By comparison sending hundreds of tons of supplies and dozens of astronauts using three Starships will likely cost less than that single rover did.
      - buran77 6y ago
        Perhaps but you don't judge space travel by the half a trillion dollars it cost us to put boots on the Moon. It gets cheaper as we do it and this was my whole point. In the long run we will probably have to develop such tech anyway if we want to go anywhere beyond Mars so it would be a worthwhile investment. It would pay off by letting us explore every place that humans can't feasibly reach but hold a lot of promise for exploration. Like Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, maybe even Venus. It would probably also pay off here at home, there are plenty of applications for such tech (hopefully to improve life rather than as a military tool). Anyway either option has no real impact on the development of rocketry tech. Whatever we choose it still has to get there somehow.

buran77 6y ago

But this isn't about the development of Starship. Colonizing Mars entails far more than that. I simply believe that developing some tech that can successfully and efficiently "colonize" and explore other planets for us would have a far bigger impact at home. This doesn't imply in any way that Starship development should or would not continue anyway. It is not predicated on colonizing Mars but simply "going to space".

valuearb 6y ago
You go to Mars for science, to maybe find the first extraterrestrial life, or proof of its former existence. You go to Mars to discover it’s unknown history. You go to Mars to find out how to keep humans alive on others planets. All those things will naturally produce byproducts that will be useful on Earth. Starship will ensure it’s cheap to do them.
- buran77 6y ago
  I think you may have missinterpreted my comments. "Developing technology that can take the risk of exploring Mars for us" and "developing some tech that can successfully and efficiently colonize and explore other planets for us" meant using machines instead of humans to do it. Your arguments don't actually contradict this.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    It would be incredibly expensive to do anything ambitious with machines. Right now we have a multi billion dollar rover attempting to dig a tiny hole on Mars, and it’s been failing for two years. By comparison sending hundreds of tons of supplies and dozens of astronauts using three Starships will likely cost less than that single rover did.
    - buran77 6y ago
      Perhaps but you don't judge space travel by the half a trillion dollars it cost us to put boots on the Moon. It gets cheaper as we do it and this was my whole point. In the long run we will probably have to develop such tech anyway if we want to go anywhere beyond Mars so it would be a worthwhile investment. It would pay off by letting us explore every place that humans can't feasibly reach but hold a lot of promise for exploration. Like Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, maybe even Venus. It would probably also pay off here at home, there are plenty of applications for such tech (hopefully to improve life rather than as a military tool). Anyway either option has no real impact on the development of rocketry tech. Whatever we choose it still has to get there somehow.