7 ms·

I really don't get the rush to try to travel to/colonize Mars. Mars is a really awful place for humans to live or visit, and it would be incredibly expensive to

I really don't get the rush to try to travel to/colonize Mars. Mars is a really awful place for humans to live or visit, and it would be incredibly expensive to try. Why not wait 50-100 years when we have safe, compact fusion reactors, have fast enough engines to reach Mars in under a month, and have an economic imperative to harvest the asteroid belt? We gain nothing meaningful now--we're just fulfilling the fantasy of some middle aged men.

jamestimmins 6y ago
How do you think these technologies get developed? Going to Mars is the impetus for developing this tech.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  The most sensible way to develop these technologies is to colonize the Moon first. It is obviously much nearer, travel is much simpler and cheaper, and communication is near instant (1s delay vs. ~30 minutes).
  - fastball 6y ago
    I get better at sports when I play people better than me, not when I go for the easiest opponent.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      That does not contradict my previous comment. Colonizing the Moon is a big step up. One progresses better when they have a step by step plan. In my view, targeting Mars and ignoring the Moon is not a rational approach, it's an emotional and PR-driven driven approach. It's a less effective use of resources but grabs more headlines. There is also obviously the race aspect and the drive to be the first to reach a place. But in the long term I suspect that reality will catch up with the hype and that actual colonization of Mars will be preceded by a step on the Moon.
      - fastball 6y ago
        We've already been to the moon though. We have not even set foot on Mars. My point is to do both. Do things we've never done on the moon (colony/industry) while at the same time doing the things we've never done on Mars (set foot).
      - valuearb 6y ago
        You don’t understand the very rational reasons Mars is so much more attractive and easier to colonize than the moon. • Mars requires less fuel to reach and land on, and you can land far larger cargo and crew on Mars. • Its far easier to make fuel for return trips on Mars. This is an enormous force multiplier, enabling landing even larger cargo and crews. • The moon is a barren desert with far less scientific value and far fewer usable resources. • the moon is far more hostile to human life. It’s temperature extremes are about four times as great, and last two weeks vs a single day. Mars is awash in water at every location, the moon is virtually devoid of water. Having an atmosphere,,even a thin one makes Mars much more habitable.
        jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
        It takes considerably more delta v to get to mars than the moon: https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFOO99qHFh9o9_SkLLk.png?auto=webp&s=d145ac9ae496abe35fae86fc11a584d62fe42592 https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFO...
        valuearb 6y ago
        Nope, because your chart doesn’t include the fact we will aerobrake on a Mars, requiring only a few hundred meters/sec for final landing burn, instead of the 2,500 meters/sec Luna requires. Also you can easily make return fuel on Mars, which massively changes your payload to fuel ratio for the trip there.
    - dividedbyzero 6y ago
      I wouldn't really call settling the moon an easy opponent by any meaningful measure.
    - diamondlovesyou 6y ago
      Yes, but in sports you don't die if you fail.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Depends on the sport. Regardless, I don't think risk of death should dissuade humanity from doing things as long as the people at risk are aware of it.
      - mensetmanusman 6y ago
        In the leading extreme sports (squirrel suits) you do die if you fail. Lots of people have. I don’t understand the attraction, but there are tens of thousands of people who want to risk their lives to live on Mars, it’s part of the human exploration gene.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Because the moon is a barren desert with much less scientific value and far fewer resources then Mars, that’s far more hostile to human life than Mars, and requires more fuel to travel to and return from.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      There are a lot of resources on the Moon, including resources with great economic value. There are also many scientific benefits in having a permanent outpost there. It is not really an issue whether the Moon is relatively more hostile. It is a minuscule complication, if one at all, compared to the issues with going to Mars, of which fuel is also a small issue that we know how to overcome. As mentioned this is not a technical/scientific issue. It is simply that Mars is more 'exiting' and creates more buzz because it is the 'next frontier' while humans have already been to the Moon.
      - valuearb 6y ago
        Name one economically valuable resource on the moon that isn’t far cheaper on Earth and far more accessible on Mars. I’m including H3 which is a valueless myth. Then name any scientific value of manned moon missions and compare them to the fact Mars may have or had life. Then compare 1/6th gee in a vacuum alternatively frozen and roasted over two week periods, to 1/3 gee in an actual atmosphere with moderate climate and abundant water.
      - jamestimmins 6y ago
        The book The Case For Mars does a good job arguing against the value of the moon and for the value of Mars. Mars has substantially more valuable resources, and more crucially, has many resources needed to sustain a colony. The moon is quite barren and would require enormous costs with little upside.
seer 6y ago
While that’s certainly true for the most of us there’s also a risk-reward calculation involved. Imagine if you went there like 20 years before that, and developed the tech and know-how how to survive and operate. You could charge a premium for that. There’s always those that think “I could be there sooner and dictate the market”. Mars is a big place and would certainly develop its economy in the long run. Being first is a risky but often lucrative thing. And finally there are people who want to go there “just because” that can also push progress, the wonderfully weird pioneers that pave the path forwards. Otherwise we’ll always end up with something like the cryogenics xkcd - https://xkcd.com/989/ https://xkcd.com/989/
catmanjan 6y ago
Replace mars with America, and fusion reactors with frigates and you'll realise how silly this sounds
- nullifidian 6y ago
  They already had carracks (ocean-going ships) when they embarked on this voyage. So what you are really saying is that we should wait for fusion reactors.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    We will have SpaceX Starship within two years, and it’s capable of making the Mars trip in 3 months, while landing 100 tons of crew, equipment and supplies.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  That comes out as ... "America is a really awful place for humans to live or visit, and it would be incredibly expensive to try". I put it to you that in 2020, this is a factually correct statement.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    It’s not factually correct because it’s too general. There are subdomains of America where that is true albeit.
- asah 6y ago
  America was/is extremely fertile, requires nothing special to settle and is only six weeks away. There's breathable air, fresh water, trees, arable land, etc. Mars is far more distant and hostile.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    The point is Mars is far more attractive than the moon on that same scale. A self sustaining settlement on Mars is possible, it never will be on the Moon.
sfRattan 6y ago
There were people who said the same thing about going to the Moon. Ultimately, solving the myriad problems implied by the goal of, "get some men to the moon and then get them back again (alive)," resulted in myriad new technologies and breakthroughs to solve those problems, which were not (and could not have been) foreseen. I suspect that getting to Mars and back (alive) will require solving just as many unanticipated problems and result in just as many new technologies and breakthroughs the ultimate benefits of which to mankind we cannot predict. I could be wrong, of course. It could all be the fantasy of some middle age men.
aeternum 6y ago
Technology progression is not a given. Look at how stagnant space technology has been for the last 50 years. Living on a single planet is extremely risky. We should minimize the time we spend as a single planet species. The earth is about 70% through it's lifetime, it won't last forever.
BobbyBat 6y ago
We don't need to colonise Mars first. Luna can act as a perfectly good spring board to test and develop the tools and infrastructure needed to colonise the Red planet. It has a lower gravity well then Earth, meaning that there is a potential to develop new materials and drugs on the surface or in zero g that could benefit Earth.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Luna is a terrible platform. It still has a large gravity well that requires massive amounts of fuel to land on, and return from. And the moon is a desert devoid of useful resources. Building in low earth orbit will always be far cheaper.
  - evgen 6y ago
    It has a gravity well, but it is not accurate to call it 'large.' LEO is deeper into a gravity well than the surface of the Moon; it takes less delta-v to get just about anywhere (including Geosync orbit) from the surface of the moon than from an LEO on an inclination given by a launch from Kennedy Space Center.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Nope, it takes far more delta-v to get from Luna to anywhere because everything launched from Luna first has to be landed on Luna. Without aerobraking that takes a large amount of delta-v.
jasonkester 6y ago
Indeed. Just wait until we're good at colonizing Mars. Then colonize Mars. I tried this strategy once. In college, I picked up a cool looking electric guitar from a pawn shop and tried to learn to play it. It turns out, though, that I wasn't immediately good at it. Worse, it looked like it was going to take a ton of effort before I was playing crazy Eddie Van Halen solos and stuff. So I decided to put the guitar in storage and wait until I was good at playing guitar before picking it back up again. Oddly, 20 years later when I dug it out, I still wasn't any good at playing the guitar. I'm sure it's different with space travel though.
valuearb 6y ago
I don’t understand the rush to colonize the new works, when sailed ships take so long and are so dangerous, and our only energy sources are horses and fire wood. Better to wait hundreds of years until we have jet transportation and oil based power and heating.

jamestimmins 6y ago

How do you think these technologies get developed? Going to Mars is the impetus for developing this tech.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
The most sensible way to develop these technologies is to colonize the Moon first. It is obviously much nearer, travel is much simpler and cheaper, and communication is near instant (1s delay vs. ~30 minutes).
- fastball 6y ago
  I get better at sports when I play people better than me, not when I go for the easiest opponent.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    That does not contradict my previous comment. Colonizing the Moon is a big step up. One progresses better when they have a step by step plan. In my view, targeting Mars and ignoring the Moon is not a rational approach, it's an emotional and PR-driven driven approach. It's a less effective use of resources but grabs more headlines. There is also obviously the race aspect and the drive to be the first to reach a place. But in the long term I suspect that reality will catch up with the hype and that actual colonization of Mars will be preceded by a step on the Moon.
    - fastball 6y ago
      We've already been to the moon though. We have not even set foot on Mars. My point is to do both. Do things we've never done on the moon (colony/industry) while at the same time doing the things we've never done on Mars (set foot).
    - valuearb 6y ago
      You don’t understand the very rational reasons Mars is so much more attractive and easier to colonize than the moon. • Mars requires less fuel to reach and land on, and you can land far larger cargo and crew on Mars. • Its far easier to make fuel for return trips on Mars. This is an enormous force multiplier, enabling landing even larger cargo and crews. • The moon is a barren desert with far less scientific value and far fewer usable resources. • the moon is far more hostile to human life. It’s temperature extremes are about four times as great, and last two weeks vs a single day. Mars is awash in water at every location, the moon is virtually devoid of water. Having an atmosphere,,even a thin one makes Mars much more habitable.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
        It takes considerably more delta v to get to mars than the moon: https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFOO99qHFh9o9_SkLLk.png?auto=webp&s=d145ac9ae496abe35fae86fc11a584d62fe42592 https://external-preview.redd.it/U5iH7huE5qKth7ZFvipXt8vzaFO...
        valuearb 6y ago
        Nope, because your chart doesn’t include the fact we will aerobrake on a Mars, requiring only a few hundred meters/sec for final landing burn, instead of the 2,500 meters/sec Luna requires. Also you can easily make return fuel on Mars, which massively changes your payload to fuel ratio for the trip there.
  - dividedbyzero 6y ago
    I wouldn't really call settling the moon an easy opponent by any meaningful measure.
  - diamondlovesyou 6y ago
    Yes, but in sports you don't die if you fail.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Depends on the sport. Regardless, I don't think risk of death should dissuade humanity from doing things as long as the people at risk are aware of it.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      In the leading extreme sports (squirrel suits) you do die if you fail. Lots of people have. I don’t understand the attraction, but there are tens of thousands of people who want to risk their lives to live on Mars, it’s part of the human exploration gene.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Because the moon is a barren desert with much less scientific value and far fewer resources then Mars, that’s far more hostile to human life than Mars, and requires more fuel to travel to and return from.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    There are a lot of resources on the Moon, including resources with great economic value. There are also many scientific benefits in having a permanent outpost there. It is not really an issue whether the Moon is relatively more hostile. It is a minuscule complication, if one at all, compared to the issues with going to Mars, of which fuel is also a small issue that we know how to overcome. As mentioned this is not a technical/scientific issue. It is simply that Mars is more 'exiting' and creates more buzz because it is the 'next frontier' while humans have already been to the Moon.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Name one economically valuable resource on the moon that isn’t far cheaper on Earth and far more accessible on Mars. I’m including H3 which is a valueless myth. Then name any scientific value of manned moon missions and compare them to the fact Mars may have or had life. Then compare 1/6th gee in a vacuum alternatively frozen and roasted over two week periods, to 1/3 gee in an actual atmosphere with moderate climate and abundant water.
    - jamestimmins 6y ago
      The book The Case For Mars does a good job arguing against the value of the moon and for the value of Mars. Mars has substantially more valuable resources, and more crucially, has many resources needed to sustain a colony. The moon is quite barren and would require enormous costs with little upside.

seer 6y ago

While that’s certainly true for the most of us there’s also a risk-reward calculation involved. Imagine if you went there like 20 years before that, and developed the tech and know-how how to survive and operate. You could charge a premium for that. There’s always those that think “I could be there sooner and dictate the market”. Mars is a big place and would certainly develop its economy in the long run. Being first is a risky but often lucrative thing. And finally there are people who want to go there “just because” that can also push progress, the wonderfully weird pioneers that pave the path forwards. Otherwise we’ll always end up with something like the cryogenics xkcd - https://xkcd.com/989/ https://xkcd.com/989/

catmanjan 6y ago

Replace mars with America, and fusion reactors with frigates and you'll realise how silly this sounds

nullifidian 6y ago
They already had carracks (ocean-going ships) when they embarked on this voyage. So what you are really saying is that we should wait for fusion reactors.
- valuearb 6y ago
  We will have SpaceX Starship within two years, and it’s capable of making the Mars trip in 3 months, while landing 100 tons of crew, equipment and supplies.
inopinatus 6y ago
That comes out as ... "America is a really awful place for humans to live or visit, and it would be incredibly expensive to try". I put it to you that in 2020, this is a factually correct statement.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  It’s not factually correct because it’s too general. There are subdomains of America where that is true albeit.
asah 6y ago
America was/is extremely fertile, requires nothing special to settle and is only six weeks away. There's breathable air, fresh water, trees, arable land, etc. Mars is far more distant and hostile.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The point is Mars is far more attractive than the moon on that same scale. A self sustaining settlement on Mars is possible, it never will be on the Moon.

sfRattan 6y ago

There were people who said the same thing about going to the Moon. Ultimately, solving the myriad problems implied by the goal of, "get some men to the moon and then get them back again (alive)," resulted in myriad new technologies and breakthroughs to solve those problems, which were not (and could not have been) foreseen. I suspect that getting to Mars and back (alive) will require solving just as many unanticipated problems and result in just as many new technologies and breakthroughs the ultimate benefits of which to mankind we cannot predict. I could be wrong, of course. It could all be the fantasy of some middle age men.

aeternum 6y ago

Technology progression is not a given. Look at how stagnant space technology has been for the last 50 years. Living on a single planet is extremely risky. We should minimize the time we spend as a single planet species. The earth is about 70% through it's lifetime, it won't last forever.

BobbyBat 6y ago

We don't need to colonise Mars first. Luna can act as a perfectly good spring board to test and develop the tools and infrastructure needed to colonise the Red planet. It has a lower gravity well then Earth, meaning that there is a potential to develop new materials and drugs on the surface or in zero g that could benefit Earth.

valuearb 6y ago
Luna is a terrible platform. It still has a large gravity well that requires massive amounts of fuel to land on, and return from. And the moon is a desert devoid of useful resources. Building in low earth orbit will always be far cheaper.
- evgen 6y ago
  It has a gravity well, but it is not accurate to call it 'large.' LEO is deeper into a gravity well than the surface of the Moon; it takes less delta-v to get just about anywhere (including Geosync orbit) from the surface of the moon than from an LEO on an inclination given by a launch from Kennedy Space Center.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Nope, it takes far more delta-v to get from Luna to anywhere because everything launched from Luna first has to be landed on Luna. Without aerobraking that takes a large amount of delta-v.

jasonkester 6y ago

Indeed. Just wait until we're good at colonizing Mars. Then colonize Mars. I tried this strategy once. In college, I picked up a cool looking electric guitar from a pawn shop and tried to learn to play it. It turns out, though, that I wasn't immediately good at it. Worse, it looked like it was going to take a ton of effort before I was playing crazy Eddie Van Halen solos and stuff. So I decided to put the guitar in storage and wait until I was good at playing guitar before picking it back up again. Oddly, 20 years later when I dug it out, I still wasn't any good at playing the guitar. I'm sure it's different with space travel though.

valuearb 6y ago

I don’t understand the rush to colonize the new works, when sailed ships take so long and are so dangerous, and our only energy sources are horses and fire wood. Better to wait hundreds of years until we have jet transportation and oil based power and heating.