3 ms·
You can't honestly believe that we've made all of the advances in space flight that we can. This is certainly not a pan-melting exercise. Building self-sustain
by ericd 13y ago
You can't honestly believe that we've made all of the advances in space flight that we can. This is certainly not a pan-melting exercise.
Building self-sustaining habitats in a zero-g, irradiated environment where resupply is extremely infrequent is very different from building Apollo or the Space Shuttle. You could argue that the ISS is a stab at this, but it's not self-sustaining at all. Maybe someday, but we haven't done it.
The construction of a colony on Mars wouldn't be a PR or purely scientific exercise, either. If it's enabled by having jumpoff points near the Earth and Mars, there will be enormous advances in robotics, because the potential payoff will be huge. The first company to successfully mine asteroids will reap a huge windfall in platinum and other metals that are rare on Earth. These metals becoming cheaper and more abundant will have large effects on the terrestrial economy because suddenly, whole new classes of devices become cost-effective (fuel cells, for example).
There will be other advances in science from this, beyond the pedestrian "make existing tech faster" stuff, and it's not make-work. What you're saying now is exactly the myopia he's referring to, and the costs involved are not even on the scale of a pointless war.
- genwin 13y agoYou make good points. Like I said, I support a Mars colony under the right conditions. I say it's myopia to ignore a much better investment. All the benefits you name pale in comparison to the benefits (or loss savings) of paying down the debt. If we proceeded on a Mars colony now, the US would likely slip into a Greater Depression before we could reap a benefit large enough to prevent that. Due in part to those wars we're too close to the abyss. The best choice is to get away from the abyss before focusing attention elsewhere.