Should we invest in Mars Exploration

[FritoTaco]

I want to ask for your thoughts about Mars exploration in the current time we live in. Why do you personally think we should or should not strive to put money, time, and effort to send an astronaut to mars?

My thoughts about this topic are how we should put forth our current developments and push to go to mars.That might mean an addition to taxes, which those people who aren't in favor of it, will spend more money towards funding space organizations like Mars One, SpaceX, and NASA (if you're living in U.S. territory). The fact of the matter is, some people don't believe in "climate change" and whether you're one of them or not, there's been ideas about how Mars can help us predict what can happen to Earth in the long distance future. If you look at mars, there are polar ice caps on the north and south region, with many scientists predicting the extinction of the ocean on mars. So to reiterate my question, do you think Mars is a good idea in our day in age? Or are there enough problems here on earth?

 

[phinds]

I want to ask for your thoughts about Mars exploration in the current time we live in. Why do you personally think we should or should not strive to put money, time, and effort to send an astronaut to mars?

My thoughts about this topic are how we should put forth our current developments and push to go to mars.That might mean an addition to taxes, which those people who aren't in favor of it, will spend more money towards funding space organizations like Mars One, SpaceX, and NASA (if you're living in U.S. territory). The fact of the matter is, some people don't believe in "climate change" and whether you're one of them or not, there's been ideas about how Mars can help us predict what can happen to Earth in the long distance future. If you look at mars, there are polar ice caps on the north and south region, with many scientists predicting the extinction of the ocean on mars. So to reiterate my question, do you think Mars is a good idea in our day in age? Or are there enough problems here on earth?

There have been several long threads on this here on PF. I suggest you do a forum search and join one of those instead of starting yet another one.

 

[mfb]

some people don't believe in "climate change"

Those people demonstrated already that they don't care about scientific results, I don't see how more scientific results would change that. But let's keep that out the thread.

Spending money on space exploration helps solving problems on Earth. NASA has an ROI of about 10 - for every dollar you put in, you get 10 dollars out. In addition, we also learn more about the universe. I'm totally for increasing research budgets, that includes human spaceflight.

We had a long thread about manned Mars flights a while ago.

 

[FritoTaco]

There have been several long threads on this here on PF. I suggest you do a forum search and join one of those instead of starting yet another one.

I've looked at those threads. None of them share my current questions/thoughts, unless you can show me a thread, it's probably too old to be accounted for by now.

 

[rootone]

Exploration, yes, and I'm sure a multi-national plan would be most effective,
(though there does already exist some amount of co-operation between the various space agencies.)
Fantastical notions of establishing a permanent human presence there and engineering the planet to be more Earth-like, .No.

 

[russ_watters]

I want to ask for your thoughts about Mars exploration in the current time we live in. Why do you personally think we should or should not strive to put money, time, and effort to send an astronaut to mars?

...Or are there enough problems here on earth?

IMO our money would be better spent elsewhere.

 

[russ_watters]

Spending money on space exploration helps solving problems on Earth. NASA has an ROI of about 10 - for every dollar you put in, you get 10 dollars out. In addition, we also learn more about the universe. I'm totally for increasing research budgets, that includes human spaceflight.

Assuming for the sake of argument that I buy the claim at all (I think Apple and Xerox might object to being left out of the conversation about where the computer mouse came from), saying that NASA over its history has had an ROI of 10 doesn't imply a particular ROI for any particular program.

Maybe more to the point, some of the most important things we spend our money on don't have or don't need to have a financial payback. And yes, that even includes other avenues of scientific research spending.

 

[PeroK]

Spending money on space exploration helps solving problems on Earth. NASA has an ROI of about 10 - for every dollar you put in, you get 10 dollars out. In addition, we also learn more about the universe. I'm totally for increasing research budgets, that includes human spaceflight.

Logically, however, that relationship cannot go on indefinitely. There must be a point beyond which the ROI would fall away. Otherwise, we could put all our money into space research and sit back!

Also, I just don't believe those figures. I spent a lot of my working life on government IT projects and the figures often looked like that: massive, improbable ROI. It's only when you get out into the real commerical world with real profit and loss that you can talk about ROI.

In fact, unless NASA is selling products and generating a nett revenue for the US Government, it is dangerous to assume there is a nett ROI. Effectively, you are taking credit for someone else's profits - which is not valid accounting.

 

[mfb]

saying that NASA over its history has had an ROI of 10 doesn't imply a particular ROI for any particular program.

Of course not. It can be lower or higher. I don't see a reason to expect a lower than average ROI for a manned Mars mission, and we have a safety factor of 10.

Logically, however, that relationship cannot go on indefinitely. There must be a point beyond which the ROI would fall away.

Sure. But we are far away from that point.

Effectively, you are taking credit for someone else's profits - which is not valid accounting.

If you can show that this profit wouldn't exist without you? If NASA would be a company, they would get money for it. They are not, luckily, making research results public shouldn't be seen as negative feature.

Research is what changes our world. And no matter which metric you are looking at - it changes it to a world where life quality is improving rapidly, nearly everywhere nearly all the time in nearly all aspects. Fundamental research is a critical part of the overall research effort. Even if we don't see an application today, it might revolutionize the future, and we have to explore it to see what will get interesting. History is full of examples of "useless" research that is now a billion to trillion dollar industry.
If we would only improve existing technologies a bit, without investing in research beyond the existing technology, we would have the best stone tools ever today.

 

[PeroK]

Of course not. It can be lower or higher. I don't see a reason to expect a lower than average ROI for a manned Mars mission, and we have a safety factor of 10.Sure. But we are far away from that point.If you can show that this profit wouldn't exist without you? If NASA would be a company, they would get money for it. They are not, luckily, making research results public shouldn't be seen as negative feature.

Research is what changes our world. And no matter which metric you are looking at - it changes it to a world where life quality is improving rapidly, nearly everywhere nearly all the time in nearly all aspects. Fundamental research is a critical part of the overall research effort. Even if we don't see an application today, it might revolutionize the future, and we have to explore it to see what will get interesting. History is full of examples of "useless" research that is now a billion to trillion dollar industry.
If we would only improve existing technologies a bit, without investing in research beyond the existing technology, we would have the best stone tools ever today.

Why isn't NASA self funding? They license these products. They must get some revenue from them.

Your looking at an equation that is roughly ROI = revenue - R&D. The reality is ROI = revenue - R&D - implementation costs - running costs - things that make a loss.

This last point is where governments usually fall down when they dip their toes in the commercial sector. They think they are profitable if the successful projects are profitable. But, you are only profitable once you include all the failures.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't invest, but expecting to get a 10:1 ROI from every $1 you spend (without having to analyse what you're investing in) is not valid.

The argument that NASA would be the most profitable company in the world if only the US government would let it make money is not valid in my opinion.

 

[mfb]

Why isn't NASA self funding? They license these products. They must get some revenue from them.

Who gets money for developing quantum mechanics? Who gets money for developing transistors, and so on? Who is paying NASA or the Soviet Union for figuring out how to get to space in general, and for all the experienced engineers emerging from their space programs leading to ROI elsewhere? You cannot and should not try to license everything. That would let NASA focus on short-term projects, and stall development in the long run.

The argument that NASA would be the most profitable company in the world if only the US government would let it make money is not valid in my opinion.

I don't say that. The ROI NASA is leading to is something a company could only collect in small parts. It is too distributed.

 

[PeroK]

Who gets money for developing quantum mechanics? Who gets money for developing transistors, and so on? Who is paying NASA or the Soviet Union for figuring out how to get to space in general, and for all the experienced engineers emerging from their space programs leading to ROI elsewhere? You cannot and should not try to license everything. That would let NASA focus on short-term projects, and stall development in the long run.I don't say that. The ROI NASA is leading to is something a company could only collect in small parts. It is too distributed.

On the original point. If, say, the German government (or the EU) went full-steam ahead on a project to send a manned mission to Mars, then it could prove to be a real benefit to the EU in terms of spin-off technologies; or, it could prove to be financially ruinous. No one knows for sure.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course not. It can be lower or higher. I don't see a reason to expect a lower than average ROI for a manned Mars mission...

I do; technical innovation does not scale linearly with project size or even require project completion. Once you've designed a cargo transport, you don't get any more technical innovation by launching four than by launching one. Heck, you don't even really need to launch any!

 

[gleem]

The Congress has passed and the President has signed the - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/442> This law directs NASA to deliver a plan to put a human mission in an orbit around or on the surface of Mars by the 2030's. See Subtitle C, Both Elon Musk of Space X and Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin have more ambitious plans to get to Mars. I think this answers the OP question.

Let the game begin.

 

[Wastrophysicist]

Is that a tricky question? Of course we need to invest in Mars exploration. Not for the benefit of the Earth, but for the benefit of Humanity.
The fact that Earth has lots of problems just supports my position: we have to make something in order to leave that inevitable dependence to the Earth.

 

[mfb]

On the original point. If, say, the German government (or the EU) went full-steam ahead on a project to send a manned mission to Mars, then it could prove to be a real benefit to the EU in terms of spin-off technologies; or, it could prove to be financially ruinous. No one knows for sure.

The project is too big for Germany alone, and probably too big for the EU as well. The EU doesn't even have a manned spaceflight program at the moment.
For an international collaboration: I'm quite sure it would be worth it in the long run.

I do; technical innovation does not scale linearly with project size or even require project completion. Once you've designed a cargo transport, you don't get any more technical innovation by launching four than by launching one. Heck, you don't even really need to launch any!

You still learn something about the spacecraft from sending it to Mars. And you learn a lot about Mars.

 

[AgentCachat]

Going to Mars is not about ROI Its about the nature of humans to explore beyond the next hill, mountain, ocean, continent. We are not made to sit around and contemplate the whichness of what.

 

[jack action]

Personally, I'm all for the exploration of Mars - or space in general for that matter - but I think manned missions are a waste of money.

 

[RussB]

I never understood exactly how this was a question. Who doesn't have the desire to discover and seek out things that are unknown? Exploration in the physical world is the direct analog of education in the academic world. While some may learn only as a means to an end, I think for many the learning itself is the reason to engage in it. So too with exploration. I think we can argue for numerous benefits of space exploration, but ultimately the endeavor itself is in my opinion worthy in and of itself. If we frame the question as a mutual exclusion against some other topic then there might be some debate to be had. But should we, in a vacuum, invest in Mars exploration? I really don't see how this is a question.

Fortunately it's looking that private enterprise is taking the lead in space meaning government ineptitude, politicking, and extreme risk aversion will no longer stand in the way of progress.

 

[mheslep]

This law directs NASA to deliver a plan to put a human mission in an orbit around or on the surface of Mars by the 2030's

Im not sure how that helps without further direction. NASA came up with a Mars mission plan a couple decades ago, IIRC, $300B (probably $500B today's dollars), and twenty or thirty years to execute. Congress said no thanks.

 

[rootone]

I'm not sure that Mars as a tourism funded prospect looks like much of a good plan either though.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Going to Mars is not about ROI Its about the nature of humans to explore beyond the next hill, mountain, ocean, continent. We are not made to sit around and contemplate the whichness of what.

That's a very romantic argument. People who sit around and contemplate the w of w are the ones who provide the intellectual ammunition for the technologists who provide the systems for the action men to play on. It's all funded by people who reckon they will make a profit out of a venture - one way or another. The investors never need to cross any mountains.

 

[stefan r]

...If you can show that this profit wouldn't exist without you? ...

I doubt that is really what you are looking at. Suppose I have a garden and sell vegetables. Revenue $1000, profit $100. NASA will claim their genetically engineered veges returned $100. If they spent around $10 dollars to develop them they will claim ROI of 1000%. What if I could have used the same space to grow heirloom vegetables and sold them for $1500 with $200 profit. Net results are $100 dollars loss because I did not stick with my grandfathers garden. Without research my $100 dollars profit on GE veges would not exist but my $200 dollars profit on veges would.

Of course there is probably a positive return on investment. I am not convinced we are measuring it accurately.

... no matter which metric you are looking at... life quality is improving rapidly, nearly everywhere nearly all the time in nearly all aspects. ...

Extinction rate/biodiversity, cancer rate, divorce rate, suicide rate, wealth inequality, wilderness acreage, depression. Lots of metrics to choose from. Which metrics are "improving rapidly all the time".
It is often hard to prove that research and development are causing a trend. A graph of the suicide rate in USA for the last 10 years looks ominous. If you look at 50 years then we are still at normal levels. I believe it unlikely that technology research funding has had any effect on suicide that we can measure.

Here is a nice chart:
http://epicurious.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451cb0369e201a73dc2bba3970d-popup

 

[nikkkom]

some people don't believe in "climate change"

The interesting twist here is that initially it was "global warming". Not "climate change".

There is a big difference between these two positions
(a) "Global warming is far less significant than claimed. It has drawbacks as well as benefits. It is not a threat to the civilization"
(b) "Climate change does not happen"

The second is clearly false. The first might be true.

The relabeling was done by alarmists, because they felt they are losing the original debate after 40 years of scaremongering predictions not coming true.
Now they need to pretend that their opponents are actually saying (b), not (a).

 

[sophiecentaur]

The interesting twist here is that initially it was "global warming". Not "climate change".

There is a big difference between these two positions
(a) "Global warming is far less significant than claimed. It has drawbacks as well as benefits. It is not a threat to the civilization"
(b) "Climate change does not happen"

The second is clearly false. The first might be true.

The relabeling was done by alarmists, because they felt they are losing the original debate after 40 years of scaremongering predictions not coming true.
Now they need to pretend that their opponents are actually saying (b), not (a).

Those are fair points. However, you have to bear in mind that the main reason for 'denying' change or warming is that people fear that the countermeasures will cost them. I have to ask which camp would be safer to trust with my future; halo wearing do-gooders or money grabbing capitalists. A difficult one.

 

[mfb]

I doubt that is really what you are looking at. Suppose I have a garden and sell vegetables. Revenue $1000, profit $100. NASA will claim their genetically engineered veges returned $100. If they spent around $10 dollars to develop them they will claim ROI of 1000%. What if I could have used the same space to grow heirloom vegetables and sold them for $1500 with $200 profit. Net results are $100 dollars loss because I did not stick with my grandfathers garden. Without research my $100 dollars profit on GE veges would not exist but my $200 dollars profit on veges would.

I think we can assume companies try to maximize their profit. That might not apply to private gardens, but your garden is not where NASA looks for their ROI.

Extinction rate/biodiversity, cancer rate, divorce rate, suicide rate, wealth inequality, wilderness acreage, depression. Lots of metrics to choose from.

I meant human life quality. We didn't go extinct yet.
Cancer is rising because other causes of death get less frequent and life expectancy goes up. I think this is a positive development.
An increasing divorce rate is not necessarily an indication of decreasing life quality. Getting divorced is more socially acceptable today than it was in the past, resulting in more divorces. You would have to show that the happiness in marriages goes down.
Wealth inequality is rising - but at rising wealth for nearly everyone.
Depression: Maybe it just gets diagnosed more today?

Now they need to pretend that their opponents are actually saying (b), not (a).

A significant fraction does say (b).

 

[sophiecentaur]

We didn't go extinct yet.

Haha. So that's good enough? My driving's obviously improving because I haven't actually steered into a Motorway bridge. The fact that a number of metrics are positive doesn't detract from the fact that a number of metrics are definitely negative. If out lives are improving then there are still many lives that are not. Even in cosy GB, the next generation of 'comfortable middle aged middle class' is unlikely to have as high a standard of accommodation as the next generation. Average age of first time home buyers is more than ten years older than when I bought my first home. As always, the people who set the rules are the ones who are doing OK and only a minority of the rule setters ever change the rules at their own expense.
There are many people whose lives have been improving but is that all that counts? Why is the buzz that people get from space projects, so much greater than the buzz they could be getting from schemes for clean water and proper drainage for every person on the planet? There's a parallel thread about this same issue that has more than 700 posts on it. I can't remember a thread about Third World engineering that lasted anything like as long.

 

[mfb]

What do you expect in a physics forum? Spaceflight was always closely linked to physics. Distribution of water cleaning equipment, food, vaccinations? Not so much. They are discussed in other places.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Spaceflight was always closely linked to physics.

That is true. But the content of many (most?) of the contributions here and on the other thread is not about the physics. It's about aspects of the life and the possible environment. People can picture themselves gazing out of the spacecraft or standing on Mars, looking at the scenery. It's so much more of an ego trip than visualising a system for low cost electricity sources (a dozen or so posts on a thread) or how to produce a solar oven. Both of those are 'closely linked to Physics' too.
Space is so much boys toys and very little social and environmental responsibility. Space is a topic (along with dinosaurs) that's always a sure fire success with school kids.

 

[mfb]

Space is a topic (along with dinosaurs) that's always a sure fire success with school kids.

School kids that can get interested in science. What exactly they will do later is still open - some will work for spaceflight, some will invent better vaccinations or new methods to purify water. We need school kids interested in science.

People can picture themselves gazing out of the spacecraft or standing on Mars, looking at the scenery.

If it gets affordable, I'll happily pay for a trip to low Earth orbit. So what?

 

[sophiecentaur]

If it gets affordable, I'll happily pay for a trip to low Earth orbit. So what?

You have obviously got more sense than to think a short joy ride would be anything like a full trip to Mars, any more than a trip round the harbour is like a journey that takes you round the Horn. I, too would fancy a ride to see Earth from above (reservations about safety and environmental impact, of course). But that is such a small part of what's involved in colonisation and that's my point. It's stuff like that that is what people think about and not the actual nuts and bolts of actually being there, the cost and the serious purpose involved.

 

[nikkkom]

schemes for clean water and proper drainage for every person on the planet? There's a parallel thread about this same issue that has more than 700 posts on it. I can't remember a thread about Third World engineering that lasted anything like as long.

Lack of clean water and proper drainage for many people on Earth is not the problem which needs solving. It's one of many consequences of the root problem - many (most?) countries on this planet still have governments which range from "inept and corrupt" to downright horrific.

Entire world used to be like this, since it's difficult to construct a society where people in power can't easily use this power to further *their* interests, rather than work in the *everyone's* interest.

Thankfully, after thousands of years of slow evolution of societies from slavery to absolute monarchies to democracies with separation of powers, term limits, freedom of press and other mechanisms, a system was invented where even stupid or evil "top manager", or a group of them, is limited in what damage he can do. That's what usually meant by the term "Western country".

To stop people from e.g. starving in Africa we should focus on improving their governments. This means, among other things, not letting Third World kleptocrats to move their stolen billions from their countries to e.g. London and be "respectable businessmen and investors". Sue them for corruption and other crimes and lock them up. "Global Magntsky Act" initiative goes in this direction.

Focusing on sending the never-ending stream of food to starving Africans not only does not solve the problem. It creates bureaucratic organizations whose raison d'etre is "to feed poor starving Africans". Which means these organizations might be not too happy to see starvation problem solved...

 

[sophiecentaur]

Lack of clean water and proper drainage for many people on Earth is not the problem which needs solving.

Nonetheless, there are many interesting and brain taxing Physics problems involved but they just aren't as sexy as terraforming an alien planet. I, of course agree with your more political comments and that's the direction where most attention should be directed (in an appropriate forum, of course). But very similar factors would also apply in the funding and formation of colonies. Corruption, exploitation and general beastliness won't go away. Such things don't tend to get much of an airing where the more exciting technology of Space Exploration is mentioned.

 

[nikkkom]

I don't expect Mars colony to politically devolve into a monarchy...

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don't expect Mars colony to politically devolve into a monarchy...

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, at the moment and that's with all the checks and balances that exist in 'The Old World".
I'd head for the hills if it weren't that I need my prescriptions renewed every eight weeks!

 

[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.