4 ms·

Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? > with concern that the window we have now may not be ar

Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? > with concern that the window we have now may not be around forever Right, but there is the opposite concern as well. By trying to do this too soon we underfund arms control or climate change response at the margin and we suffer extinction or societal decline. For me it's about resources. It's true technology takes actual effort, but it generally speaking takes less effort over time due to exponential tech. If the folks involved in the manhattan project had just ONE modern computer it probably would have halved the timeline / resources required. My argument is that if the goal is species survival there is much, much, much lower hanging fruit to go after.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
> Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? Mars, or any location well beyond easy reach of the Earth-Moon system for that matter, act as forcing factors for the development of truly independent self-sustainability, and thus also all of the various technologies required to do such a thing. Even on the moon, the presence of a eject lever (ability to return to Earth relatively quickly and easily) and fast and “easy” resupplies greatly reduce the impetus to become self-sufficient. Mars would also serve as a great stepping stone to vastly larger and more ambitious spacecraft. Its reduced gravity and aerodynamically insignificant atmosphere along with the raw materials available on Mars along with a relatively temperate climate and Earthlike day-night cycle make it a good candidate for use as a shipyard for building and launching extremely large interplanetary freighters and the first permanently spaceborne non-orbital crewed crafts — something that’s not feasible in Earth’s orbit due to the need to tow all the raw materials in, and less suitable for the Moon due to its greater extremes and deficiencies in readily available resources. So in short, Mars is really more of a starting point in humanity’s permanent inhabitance and traversal of space with potential for huge gains in science and technology applicable to problems on Earth than it is a goal in and of itself. > Right, but there is the opposite concern as well. By trying to do this too soon we underfund arms control or climate change response at the margin and we suffer extinction or societal decline. > For me it's about resources. It's true technology takes actual effort, but it generally speaking takes less effort over time due to exponential tech. If the folks involved in the manhattan project had just ONE modern computer it probably would have halved the timeline / resources required. My argument is that if the goal is species survival there is much, much, much lower hanging fruit to go after. The resources being sunk into space right now are couch change relative to practically everything else, and a company like SpaceX pursuing long-term settlement of Mars would only increase that to pocket change (at least in terms of usage of taxpayer funds). Vastly larger sums are spent on the military and even wasted on utterly broken government contracting and procurement, like the $20,000 routers that were purchased for hundreds of tiny libraries in WV[0] where $60 consumer grade routers would have sufficed. There is no lack of resources, only rampant mismanagement, waste on titanic scales, and lack of will. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-w...

kitsunesoba 5y ago

> Other than research, what is going to be possible on Mars that isn't possible underground for cheaper? Mars, or any location well beyond easy reach of the Earth-Moon system for that matter, act as forcing factors for the development of truly independent self-sustainability, and thus also all of the various technologies required to do such a thing. Even on the moon, the presence of a eject lever (ability to return to Earth relatively quickly and easily) and fast and “easy” resupplies greatly reduce the impetus to become self-sufficient. Mars would also serve as a great stepping stone to vastly larger and more ambitious spacecraft. Its reduced gravity and aerodynamically insignificant atmosphere along with the raw materials available on Mars along with a relatively temperate climate and Earthlike day-night cycle make it a good candidate for use as a shipyard for building and launching extremely large interplanetary freighters and the first permanently spaceborne non-orbital crewed crafts — something that’s not feasible in Earth’s orbit due to the need to tow all the raw materials in, and less suitable for the Moon due to its greater extremes and deficiencies in readily available resources. So in short, Mars is really more of a starting point in humanity’s permanent inhabitance and traversal of space with potential for huge gains in science and technology applicable to problems on Earth than it is a goal in and of itself. > Right, but there is the opposite concern as well. By trying to do this too soon we underfund arms control or climate change response at the margin and we suffer extinction or societal decline. > For me it's about resources. It's true technology takes actual effort, but it generally speaking takes less effort over time due to exponential tech. If the folks involved in the manhattan project had just ONE modern computer it probably would have halved the timeline / resources required. My argument is that if the goal is species survival there is much, much, much lower hanging fruit to go after. The resources being sunk into space right now are couch change relative to practically everything else, and a company like SpaceX pursuing long-term settlement of Mars would only increase that to pocket change (at least in terms of usage of taxpayer funds). Vastly larger sums are spent on the military and even wasted on utterly broken government contracting and procurement, like the $20,000 routers that were purchased for hundreds of tiny libraries in WV[0] where $60 consumer grade routers would have sufficed. There is no lack of resources, only rampant mismanagement, waste on titanic scales, and lack of will. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-w...