2 ms·

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 suc

• 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.