Should we invest in Mars Exploration

[nikkkom]

You must have a lot faith in human nature. Who knows what could happen, once they are left, isolated for a few years. There is no way a gunboat could be sent out to make them behave properly. Just look at what's happening on Earth

Checking "what's happening on Earth".

Before 20 century: almost no democracies (among big players, only US, UK and France). War is seen as a legitimate act, "business as usual".

1950: Japan, Western European countries are democratic. War is definitely not considered to be normal. In fact, since ~1945 countries which wage de-facto wars are not declaring them as such, since it's a "bad thing to do".

2000s: All European countries are democratic (addition of approx 200 million people). South Korea too. China, even though is still ruled by commies, nevertheless relaxed it economic policies and switched to capitalist economy, which is a freer system than socialist economy. Use of any kind of WMD is generally seen as atrocity.

To me it looks like it's getting better. Slower than I'd like, but it does.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Checking "what's happening on Earth".

Before 20 century: almost no democracies (among big players, only US, UK and France). War is seen as a legitimate act, "business as usual".

1950: Japan, Western European countries are democratic. War is definitely not considered to be normal. In fact, since ~1945 countries which wage de-facto wars are not declaring them as such, since it's a "bad thing to do".

2000s: All European countries are democratic (addition of approx 200 million people). South Korea too. China, even though is still ruled by commies, nevertheless relaxed it economic policies and switched to capitalist economy, which is a freer system than socialist economy. Use of any kind of WMD is generally seen as atrocity.

To me it looks like it's getting better. Slower than I'd like, but it does.

I would like to be as optimistic as you but I just wonder.
Even a hundred years is a short time to sample such things. The situation in Europe is pretty good now, of course, but when you change things a bit, people still exhibit the same old prejudices and xenophobia. We must wait and see what happens in Europe, a few years post Brexit. It's not crazy to imagine a pre-WW1 situation again, with many small nation states, the result of local nationalisms. Then there's the possibility of radical Islam taking hold, although I think that's unlikely.
How all this could affect Space exploration or colonisation is anyone's guess (returning to the thread title ).

 

[mheslep]

...
Cancer is rising because other causes of death get less frequent and life expectancy goes up. I think this is a positive development...

Exactly. Age standardized cancer rate is way down.
clone.straightstatistics.org/files/cancer%20graph.jpg

 

[sophiecentaur]

Exactly. Age standardized cancer rate is way down.
clone.straightstatistics.org/files/cancer%20graph.jpg

Hmm. Those statistics are not the only thing that counts. The survival rate for cancer is improving but the long term side effects of treatment of many cancers are a significant downside. Mastectomy is actually very life changing as, also can be the effects of prostatectomy, radiotherapy and hormone treatment for prostate cancer. And, of course, the long term effects of the various forms of chemo are hardly enhancing of life quality. Having personally taken a decision about treatment and experienced the consequences, I know all about the balance between life span and life quality.

 

[mheslep]

Hmm. Those statistics are not the only thing that counts. The survival rate for cancer is improving but the long term side effects of treatment of many cancers are a significant downside. Mastectomy is actually very life changing as, also can be the effects of prostatectomy, radiotherapy and hormone treatment for prostate cancer. And, of course, the long term effects of the various forms of chemo are hardly enhancing of life quality. Having personally taken a decision about treatment and experienced the consequences, I know all about the balance between life span and life quality.

There's the consequences of cancer treatment, and then there's dead. Controlling for age, there is no more cancer *incidence* than decades ago.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There's the consequences of cancer treatment, and then there's dead. Controlling for age, there is no more cancer *incidence* than decades ago.

Longevity is not the only measure of medical success or, indeed, quality of life. The state many old people in nursing homes and care homes is nothing for us to be proud of. Yes, a few decades ago, people with the equivalent medical histories would all be dead. but what sort of quality is available during the extra decades. The 'advance' is not as stunning as the bare statistics might suggest - in the same way that a meagre improvement in wealth (if you can call it that) for people at the bottom of the pile is lumped together with the incredible (obscene, even) increases in wealth of those at the top end and a significant increase in mean wealth is reported. Inequity can make life worse when people can see the way the other half lives. Does one have to be a bleeding heart liberal to appreciate that?

 

[mfb]

Can we go back to discussing funding for Mars exploration, please?

 

[mheslep]

Astronaut Scott Kelly commenting on his long ISS stay:

After I got back, I've talked about just being really sore and stiff. My skin had not touched anything in 340 days except just your clothing. Anything it touched, it felt like it was on fire. I actually had some rashes and kind of discoloration anywhere I had contact. And then I kind of had flu-like symptoms for a few days. Had I not been in space for a year and I knew what this was, I would have gone to the emergency room and said, "Hey, I don't know what's wrong with me, but I'm not feeling that great."

http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-kelly-space-travel-effects-human-body-2016-6

Kelly went to say he nonetheless favors a Mars mission.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Can we go back to discussing funding for Mars exploration, please?

The funding of a mission would be at the expense of other spending. Points against funding it are very relevant imo. But probably enough has been said in that direction.

Kelly went to say he nonetheless favors a Mars mission.

People wanted to return to the front in WW1, despite serious injuries. That doesn't justify the whole escapade.

 

[mheslep]

funding of a mission would be at the expense of other spending...

If NASA funded, Mars funding *should* come at the expense of the many other relatively pointless NASA programs such as a Moon base or the ISS. If privately funded, then it can come at the expense of, say, cosmetics.

 

[mheslep]

...People wanted to return to the front in WW1, despite serious injuries. That doesn't justify the whole escapade.

I'm going place Kelly more in the tough minded explorer camp, not the PTSD war vet camp.

 

[sophiecentaur]

If NASA funded, Mars funding *should* come at the expense of the many other relatively pointless NASA programs such as a Moon base or the ISS. If privately funded, then it can come at the expense of, say, cosmetics.

I can't think of a project as big as this that has been privately funded so I have to assume public funding by several nations. Cosmetics spending is not comparable and neither would the other NASA projects.

 

[mfb]

SpaceX plans to invest a few billions on a rocket that can get humans to Mars and back. The first customers would be government agencies, sure - but these customers could buy the mission, at known costs, and with the risk mainly at the side of private companies.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The first customers would be government agencies, sure

and they should be subject to great scrutiny about their priorities - even if the costs are 'known'. My question about priorities and the morals of choices still stands. Other issues, like corrupt governments, do not affect the fact that there are billions of humans whose lives are seriously unsatisfactory and there are things that could be done about that. Those things will involve spending money. Despite the fact that space flight is attractive and 'fun', its value should be put in the context of other issues. Mars could be put on hold until those issues are much more sorted than they are today. Personally, I cannot see why the 'Pro-Colonists' argue otherwise.

 

[RussB]

and they should be subject to great scrutiny about their priorities - even if the costs are 'known'. My question about priorities and the morals of choices still stands. Other issues, like corrupt governments, do not affect the fact that there are billions of humans whose lives are seriously unsatisfactory and there are things that could be done about that. Those things will involve spending money. Despite the fact that space flight is attractive and 'fun', its value should be put in the context of other issues. Mars could be put on hold until those issues are much more sorted than they are today. Personally, I cannot see why the 'Pro-Colonists' argue otherwise.

I think that is a nonstarter of an argument. There will always be problems on Earth. Fixing one problem opens another. I'd assume you might approve of Gates' attempts to eliminate malaria. It sounds nice, but in reality will have very little real effect. With one problem comes another. The vast majority of malaria's victims are in Africa. You 'solve' malaria. The next issue is AIDS. You solve AIDS and then interregional warfare becomes the next issues. Then drugs. Then you make it exactly like the United States somehow - and now you have problems with obesity, heart disease, mental disease, income inequality, rising discontentment over all sorts of social issues, and so on.

You will never reach a point where you can go, "Well - we've fixed the world. Now we can spend our money on fun things."

The next point is that you also never have any idea at all where the big gains will actually come from. Serendipity is often far more powerful than human drive. Chemotherapy has undoubtedly been one of the greatest life extension methods discovered. Where did it come from? It was a curious observation on the effects of mustard gas from World War 1. Many of the most important discoveries and advances in human society came in the pursuit of something altogether different. Relying on serendipity is somewhat paradoxical, but in a project the scale of colonizing another planet, it is inevitable and a very genuine benefit.

And finally, I disagree that it will be a government endeavor. Their may be governmental customers, but I think it's all but certain that we'll see SpaceX pave the way. If they somehow fail then expect to see companies like Blue Origin try to pick up the slack. mfb's comment above about SpaceX 'investing some money in a system for human transport to Mars' was rather an understatement. The entire founding and active purpose of SpaceX is to colonize Mars - the recovery, reuse, reducing the cost of launches, and more is all related to Mars. In particular if SpaceX wanted to maximize their revenue, they would not be racing to send to cost of space flight down - they would be charging what the market can bear. The higher the fundamental cost of something, the greater the acceptable margin of profit. Increased volume may result in increased longterm profit but that is a gamble and in any case the competition will also adapt as well.

Even Musk's other businesses are related to Mars. Advancing solar technology, underground boring, pure electric vehicles, advancing automation (Musk played a substantial role in the founding of OpenAI), and more. It all comes down to Mars. It's rather a bit more than SpaceX investing some money in a new rocket.

A year ago most would have said SpaceX independently sending two adventurers to the moon would be impossible, yet here we are and they look likely to do it long before the vastly overfunded government driven SLS (or Space Shuttle 2.0) program.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There will always be problems on Earth. Fixing one problem opens another.

That sounds like an argument for not trying to fix anything at all. It tends to be used by people who have no serious problems in their own lives and with no way of solving them and are not very aware of the problems of others. The fact is that there are a lot of people with acute problems (by anyone's standards) and there is really no argument that they should be ignored.

Even Musk's other businesses are related to Mars.

Musk is mortal. Even if he leaves behind him a group of people who are fairly dedicated to his evangelistic message, such a business is by no means guaranteed to be anything like as stable and long lived as a 'nation'. Other, competing interests will take over from his original model and the system would not be stable- how could you think otherwise? So we are down to, perhaps 40 or 50 years (max) more of his drive to take the project to a sufficient level that others will take it further - in that direction. One disaster and the whole edifice could come tumbling down and funding would stop. On the other hand, there are nations (North Korea, for instance) that have maintained absolutely crazy regimes for decades and have staggered from problem to problem by being able to control a whole population. Would that be remotely possible with a commercially based organisation?

Also, I ask again, can you think of any project of this scale that has been the result of just private investment? The Ford Motor Company has lasted for around a hundred years but it has been coasting for some while - producing what it has always produced, perhaps more efficiently and with a steady income from its sales. That is not a good parallel, though. I can't think of any other endeavour that's more like the COM and that has been privately driven. You are actually suggesting a complete shift in the structure of international society from Nations to a system based on a Google type model. I guess it's a possibility but I have many doubts about the stability of such a structure. Moreover, Google produces instant results for its adherents / customers. What would the first decades of a Mars Colony have to offer the public of a Musk 'religion', to keep it going?
Something that scares me is that the only really big success in Space was directly related to the Arms Race and we nearly blew ourselves up whilst that was all going on. How long before a Moon base becomes a military goal again?

Where did it come from? It was a curious observation on the effects of mustard gas from World War 1.

That' true. Nearly all medicinal advances have been the result of that sort of thing. Life is a massive experiment and ethics prevent us from subjecting humans to the sort of suffering that unacceptable (and accidental) conditions produce. We use the knowledge gained this way, in lieu of deliberate experimentation.

 

[RussB]

Don't straw man me. I never in any way stated or suggested we ignore viable issues. The whole point of what I am stating is that there are numerous viable avenues of research and development to pursue. Many people have radically different views on their relevance. There is no 'right' answer. The only amicable solution is also likely the most optimal one due to our poor ability at determining outcomes. The solution of course being diversification.

As for historical precedent - we're in a new era where things have already radically shifted. Again, next year a completely private enterprise will be sending two private customers on a voyage around the moon. That's something completely out of sci-fi not long ago. Government's increasing ineptitude paired with shifting economics is rapidly deteriorating their relevance compared to, for instance, 1962. SpaceX's interplanetary transport system - the ship they're designing to transport humans to and from Mars - is estimated to cost nearly $10 billion total in research and development costs. Alot of money. But at the same time that's 3/4th the net worth of Elon Musk or 1/7th the net worth of Jeff Bezos. To put those numbers into context it's also less than we've already spent on the government funded SLS program which is already being eclipsed, in terms of result, by SpaceX's current gen technology. NASA has been a critical ally and has much more value to provide going forward, but their role was never going to be one of leadership again. The decades after 1972 made certain of that.

 

[mfb]

Mars could be put on hold until those issues are much more sorted than they are today.

Put research in metallurgy on hold until we have fixed all problems using our stone tools.

Those issues are today better than they were 2016. And 2016 they were better than 2015, and 2015 they were better than 2014. Do you really expect that we will ever reach a state where everyone agrees that all problems on Earth are solved, and where no one can find any new problem? That will not happen. No matter how good the situation on Earth is, you can always find an issue and say "fix that first before we do new things". I don't think I say that the first time: If we would all follow that approach we would have the best stone tools ever. But we would still use stone tools, and hope to survive the winter because everyone was busy collecting food while no one ever stopped thinking if there is a more effective way to do so.

We do fix things on Earth. No one ignores the problems. It just doesn't make sense to put every single available dollar into short-term improvements in life quality and to throw away the chance (actually: certainty) of long-term improvements.

Also, I ask again, can you think of any project of this scale that has been the result of just private investment?

No one suggests that companies would start a colony on their own. Governments do, and people follow. How much did the governments invest in colonies on Earth vs. private investments?

 

[sophiecentaur]

I never in any way stated or suggested we ignore viable issues.

No?

There will always be problems on Earth. Fixing one problem opens another.

If that doesn't discount inconvenient problems what else does it say?

Put research in metallurgy on hold until we have fixed all problems using our stone tools.

Is that a valid parallel? Is the only way to solve the problems in developing countries by an expensive Space programme?

Those issues are today better than they were 2016. And 2016 they were better than 2015, and 2015 they were better than 2014. Do you really expect that we will ever reach a state where everyone agrees that all problems on Earth are solved, and where no one can find any new problem? That will not happen.

That's as blatant a straw man argument as I ever came across. Take my aims to an extreme and they become impracticable. I was earlier accused of a "straw man " argument in the directly opposite direction. Fact is that I advocate a proportionate response. There are still many (billions) of humans with really unpleasant lives and the has not changed when there are solutions, just requiring the will to achieve them. The expression 'co-lateral damage' was used by the US Military and we are dealing with the same thing here in the context of 'omission' rather than 'commission'. I think the concept of humanity is being missed here.

 

[mfb]

If that doesn't discount inconvenient problems what else does it say?

I don't see how it would discount problems. It is just saying we never reach a state "no problems left" - and we shouldn't wait for something that will not happen..

Is the only way to solve the problems in developing countries by an expensive Space programme?

The best way is to search in every direction, this includes a space program among many other lines of research. It is not the only way, but we will miss something without a space program.

Fact is that I advocate a proportionate response.

"put on hold" is not proportionate. Put on hold implies zero funding - at least that's how I interpret "put on hold".

There are still many (billions) of humans with really unpleasant lives and the has not changed when there are solutions, just requiring the will to achieve them.

It has changed, and it is changing constantly. The number of people living in absolute poverty is going down rapidly.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The number of people living in absolute poverty is going down rapidly.

There are two ways to look at this, of course. This link from the World Bank says that there have been improvements in the numbers in 'absolute poverty' but they make the comment that:
" Despite the progress made in reducing poverty, the number of people living in extreme poverty globally remains unacceptably high."
Is that satisfactory? I rather get the feeling that some contributors think it is.

Put on hold implies zero funding - at least that's how I interpret "put on hold".

In what way would that be particularly disastrous, if there were a choice of putting those funds into world poverty? People are dying every day. Isn't that worth considering? (Oh - just a few less today than yesterday - we're OK then)

 

[mfb]

Is that satisfactory?

That the number goes down?
There is ongoing work to reduce the number even further. At the current rate, absolute poverty will be nearly gone in 15-20 years. What is next? We will redefine absolute poverty to a higher living standard and work on reducing that to nearly zero as well.
A lot of money goes into these programs (much more than into space exploration - see the numbers discussed in the Mars colony thread), and they make rapid progress.

In what way would that be particularly disastrous, if there were a choice of putting those funds into world poverty?

It would improve the living standard of a few people in the next few years, it would reduce the living standard of everyone in the long run (20+ years).

 

[mheslep]

I can't think of a project as big as this that has been privately funded so I have to assume public funding by several nations. Cosmetics spending is not comparable and neither would the other NASA projects.

The Mars Direct cost is ~$30B. Many private projects have larger costs. The Kashagan oil field was $118B. Annual revenue of just the US cosmetics industry is $62B. The problem with private funding is not the size, but in getting any return on the investment.

According to Robert Zubrin, the architect and indefatigable champion of the proposal, “while Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range.”

https://www.wired.com/2012/08/is-a-privately-funded-manned-mission-to-mars-possible/

 

[sophiecentaur]

poverty globally remains unacceptably high."
Is that satisfactory?

That the number goes down?

No. That the number is still high. You are deliberately sidestepping the issue. If something is unacceptable, it is unsatisfactory. You are deliberately ignoring the humanitarian issue in favour of an interesting bit of technology. It's not even as if Mars would be needed as an environment for 'fundamental research'. It's of no use as a test bed for Earth ecology research. The Earth is the place for that. It's more of a 'Go West, young man and we'll justify it later' issue. I thought we had already put to bed the idea that we can draw parallels with past colonisation of Earth.

It would improve the living standard of a few people in the next few years, it would reduce the living standard of everyone in the long run (20+ years).

I am amazed by your logic. You make the assumption that the Mars Project would necessarily yield a profit. That is totally unsubstantiated. It would be a totally open ended exercise which might or might not result in a profit for someone. A single disaster (not at all unlikely) could put the whole thing back by many decades. Also there is no assurance that any profit would end up targeted at poverty. The way to target poverty is to deal with it directly in a practical way and to encourage (enforce) proper behaviour amongst the "kleptocrats' of the world. Not a trivial exercise, of course, but one that, perhaps Donald could instigate. He seems prepared to use radical (of scary) approaches to world events.

The Mars Direct cost is ~$30B. Many private projects have larger costs.

There is a point in Space Exploration, true. But there is no pressing urgency for it. A Mars expedition is a highly speculative idea. Perhaps $30B is 'good value' if it yields results but is there really a hurry for it? Is it better value than unmanned missions? (Apart from the PR)

 

[mfb]

You are deliberately ignoring the humanitarian issue in favour of an interesting bit of technology.

I am not ignoring it, and I don't understand how you could think that.
I am arguing that investments in technology areimproving the long-term humanitarian situation. It is not either-or. We need both.

It's of no use as a test bed for Earth ecology research.

The experts think otherwise.

It's more of a 'Go West, young man and we'll justify it later' issue.

If this justification works every single time, it is quite reliable.

Just two examples from this month:
Water from sunlight and air - using metal-organic frameworks not developed for this purpose
A new water filter - using graphene, not developed for this purpose
You cannot predict developments like this, but they happen all the time. If you reduce funding for science programs, you miss these applications - and you don't even realize that you missed something because you had no idea it was possible. If you ask "what is the immediate benefit for it on Earth" every time, you miss all the things that do lead to benefits on Earth - just not within one year.

You make the assumption that the Mars Project would necessarily yield a profit.

It will necessarily lead to new applications on Earth. As every big science progam in the past did so far. There is no reason to expect this one to be different.

A single disaster (not at all unlikely) could put the whole thing back by many decades.

You still have all the R&D done for it. You cannot fall back below that.

The way to target poverty is to deal with it directly in a practical way and to encourage (enforce) proper behaviour amongst the "kleptocrats' of the world.

See the stone tool analogy.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Just two examples from this month:
Water from sunlight and air - using metal-organic frameworks not developed for this purpose
A new water filter - using graphene, not developed for this purpose

Were these two examples only due to Mars Project funding? Is the graphene work all aimed at Mars? I think not.
The stone tool analogy has nothing to do with politics.

 

[mheslep]

...Perhaps $30B is 'good value' if it yields results but is there really a hurry for it? Is it better value than unmanned missions? (Apart from the PR)

In the totality of planetary exploration, unmanned is a better value imo for *most*, but not *all*, of the missions. At some point there's no substitute for the eyes and feel of the expert on the scene, maybe long term eyes.

Again, a Mars Direct mission could be funded for close to the money NASA spends now on other, relatively unproductive programs. I don't know that MD is viable, but if so the funding is there. NASA is adverse to the one big mission path because of the pain it suffered after Apollo was cancelled. Now, it funds researchers in dozens of different fields that would scream the end of science to their congressman if threatened.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

You use the word "invest." If we are speaking of taxpayer money, we should consider the Return on Investment to the taxpayers from the exploration of Mars.

If very wealthy investors want to voluntarily gamble their money in a private venture, that is another matter. But I'm sure we don't want to funnel tax money extracted from the ordinary taxpayers into the bank accounts of the billionaires.

I suppose I am thinking this way because taxes are due on April 18. That really makes one think about where the money is going, does it not?

 

[sophiecentaur]

A privately invested project tends to be aimed at a short term financial profit. It will use as much readily available tech as possible, to get the result and not have time for interesting side alleys of research. Funding is not available to produce the spin offs that more generously funded government type establishments often yield. So I don't find the spin off argument so convincing. Blue skies thinking tends to come from the ivory tower institutions ( universities etc.) where the man days are not so tightly controlled. Tax payer's money gets "funnelled" into the spin offs more.

 

[sophiecentaur]

"put on hold" is not proportionate. Put on hold implies zero funding - at least that's how I interpret "put on hold".

You talk as if Mars research would be the only source of these spin offs. I am not suggesting we freeze all research - just the (imo) less important stuff, like non fundamental and non-Earth Sciences. It would be a good idea - but totally impractical- to suggest that ways of launching space vehicles (and jet flight, too) without significantly harming the atmosphere, would be worth while researching before we increase that traffic load.

 

[mfb]

Were these two examples only due to Mars Project funding?

No, they were example of government-funded research producing "unexpected" spin-offs later.
We don't have a manned mission to Mars yet, so I cannot show spin-offs produced by that mission for obvious reasons.

I put unexpected in quotation marks because the specific application is unexpected, but the fact that applications are found is not unexpected.

The stone tool analogy has nothing to do with politics.

It is all about politics. Political decisions how to spend money.

You talk as if Mars research would be the only source of these spin offs.

It is the only source for some spin-offs. If you freeze research in many areas, you miss many spin-offs, and you stall development for a long time. Highly variable funding is the worst case - you lose the experts, and once they are gone it is hard to get them back.

It would be a good idea - but totally impractical- to suggest that ways of launching space vehicles (and jet flight, too) without significantly harming the atmosphere, would be worth while researching before we increase that traffic load.

The impact of space launches on the atmosphere is completely negligible.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is the only source for some spin-offs.

Which ones did you have in mind? It's all a bit tenuous, I think; things could spin off but why would they be coming for Mars alone? You can't really suggest that Mars would be a peculiarly fruitful source of these spin offs. The private projects are deliberately limited in scope - just enough to get a result, I think. Also, it's not No. 1 on everyone's list of worthwhile research projects because not everyone finds it so interesting.
We have to admit that space travel is a risky business. I can't see investors being keen to keep investing after the first disaster, despite the glamour of space projects. I can understand that you find it an attractive and exciting business but justifying expensive projects requires more than that and from a lot of people.

 

[mfb]

Which ones did you have in mind?

You keep asking me to predict yet unknown events in the future. I cannot!
I can only show that the past had an extremely persistent pattern of spin-offs from every major project, often in unexpected ways, and usually things we would have missed without research in this particular direction.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You keep asking me to predict yet unknown events in the future. I cannot!

I realize that but you keep justifying the project on the grounds that it will yield useful spin offs. If it does, then it does and that would be great. However, implying that there will be useful spin offs is just a sales pitch and I happen to be a very tightwad investor. My point is that there are far more spin offs from generously (government) funded projects than near the bone commercial ones. It's in no one's interest to keep working an a gizmo, once it (just) does that specific job. Can you be sure that such a project would not be based on as much stuff as possible that's already available. Would it involve the dozens of separately contributing teams that are involved with unmanned missions, which carry dozens of different experiments, many of them highly sophisticated and well thought out? Just keeping one crew member alive involves more expense that a whole space lab full of autonomous experiments.

 

[mfb]

I realize that but you keep justifying the project on the grounds that it will yield useful spin offs.

Every similar project in the past did. There is no reason why this should be the first exception ever.

Yet another example useful for commercial satellites, found just minutes after writing this post. The examples are everywhere.

However, implying that there will be useful spin offs is just a sales pitch and I happen to be a very tightwad investor.

There will also be a giant amount of science done, but if you ask "how many people will that feed", then spin-offs are the only thing you seem to accept as benefit.

My point is that there are far more spin offs from generously (government) funded projects than near the bone commercial ones.

And where is the point? The first manned mission to Mars will likely be a government project.
In the unlikely case of a private company paying for it, there is absolutely no need to "justify" this in humanitarian terms: the company can spend their money on whatever they want. It is their business.

Can you be sure that such a project would not be based on as much stuff as possible that's already available.

We don't have the infrastructure to send humans to Mars. Yes, it would certainly involve billions of dollars in R&D.