Going to Mars is dumb - 60+ billion dollars for what?

[Space_Dandy]

When we go to Mars and explore it more thoroughly, I'll be like most people and fascinated to see what we find. I'm a big space nerd. But I can't help but admit that outside of satisfying my curiosity, this is completely a waste of time and money.

The main justification for going to Mars is to work towards eventually colonizing it, which might be a failsafe incase something happens to Earth then the human race might survive on Mars.

Here's the thing, Mars is a like 99% iron oxide, its a big toxic ball of rust. There's almost nothing you can use from the environment. All realistic plans I've heard for colonization have involved creating domes that are supposed to be self-sustaining greenhouses basically. So you're going camping on Mars basically.

If you're going camping off world, why not do the Moon? The Moon is so much closer to Earth and is actually much safer.

I haven't heard any serious discussion about terraforming Mars, but some people seem to think that's actually realistic enough to be worth discussing. What a lot of people don't know about Mars is that it does not have a magnetosphere. Because of that, there's no protection from the Sun's radiation. This causes the atmosphere to leech out into space during solar flares, which is the reason Mars has like 1% the density of Earth's atmosphere. It doesn't matter how many plants you import, or how much of the martian ice you evaporate, it'll never result in a stable atmosphere until you create a magnetosphere. And good luck with that, its basically impossible. The moon is irradiated too, but it enjoys more protection from the sun than Mars does because it is partially enveloped in the tail edge of Earth's magentosphere.

Mars One was a funny joke by one delusional European douche, but it revealed a lot of these issues with colonizing Mars that a lot of enthusiasts had not considered.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Gotta launder dat human trafficking money somehow, breh.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

It's a waste of money and resources. The people who were sent there would absolutely die pretty quickly, even with precautions. Something would come up and it's a 9 month journey just to send supplies. There's no resources there that they could use to self-sustain, so again, everything needs to be sent to sustain them.

Mars is a hostile ball of rust with nothing on it that could lead the people there to live on their own. They'd need to be indoors the whole time, or in suits. And them growing their own food indoors would not be an easy task, seeing as you'd have to have light and such to get the plants to grow, which requires energy.

I'd much rather see those resources work on a fusion plant or a plan for exploring beyond our solar system.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

If you're going camping off world, why not do the Moon? The Moon is so much closer to Earth and is actually much safer.

I'd much rather see those resources work on a fusion plant or a plan for exploring beyond our solar system.

The moon would be easy to colonize and that's precisely why it'd be a waste of time. Before we explore beyond the solar system we have to prove we're even capable of long term space flight.

Mars is just the closest planet that's potentially habitable, it's a proof of concept/experiment to see how successful we'd be at long term space colonization missions. Got to walk before you can run.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

The moon would be easy

That's right.
Let's cut the shit and spend a decillion dollars to focus solely on colonizing the Andromeda galaxy.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Colonizing space is possibly the greatest investment opportunity in human history but we will need to sink trillions into it before our children's children will ever see a dime of return on investment. However, investing in this is absolutely necessary because we only have about another billion years before our sun burns away our atmosphere.

This is why I'm for Mars, Lunar, and even Venus colonies (there's a habitable zone at an altitude of around one earth atmosphere where we the temperature is mild, and we can float dirigible installations). Even though these colonies are "dumb camping trips" on paper, we need to do dumb things to develop our technology and exoplanet exploration capabilities. Plus 60 billion dollars is nothing. Our government wipes its ass with 60 billion dollars.

 

[OnlinePresents]

When the population of 10,000 arrive on Mars. How long would it take before things devolve. Who is going to enforce the non existent laws on Mars? Even if everything went according to plan. After the first 30 minutes of jumping higher than normal it would suck. At least 1 colonist is bound to go insane and start killing the small population of martians. Tribes will be formed. Perhaps someone will crown themselves king of Mars and hoard all the resources. The women would definitely be hostages after the first month. The entire population on Mars might conspire to keep Earth out of the loop out of fear of the consequences; in case Earth were to stop sending resources if they ever found out what's going on. PS: Reacting with "dumb" you agree that it's dumb to go to Mars.

 

[Beak Thing]

I never understood why Venus wouldn't be chosen instead of Mars specifically for colonization (vs. establishing bases to support further exploration).

Venus has Earth-like gravity and a dense atmosphere that could be used for terraforming. It's also massive enough that it won't lose its atmosphere to space (although it needs water) and I think even without a magnetosphere it would still be protected through the induced one in its upper atmosphere. You could give it an artificial one, though, similar to the concept proposed for Mars. High in its atmosphere it's already habitable in terms of temperature and pressure.

Mars is just too small in every way to be a viable planet. It could be extremely useful for supporting further missions but not for human colonies. EDIT: Also, Venus is still volcanically active while Mars is for all intents and purposes dead.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Mars is just the closest planet that's potentially habitable, it's a proof of concept/experiment to see how successful we'd be at long term space colonization missions. Got to walk before you can run.

I agree it's a proof of concept idea, but it's also a waste of time. Mars is not habitable, nor would it ever be without drastic changes. It's got no atmosphere, no resources that could be used to sustain life, etc... We'd have to keep sending supplies, a 9 month trip, or the astronauts will die.

If we are going to do proof of concept stuff, let's work on redirecting comets into Venus, to get it some water, then terraform that mofo. That would test comet/asteroid deflection and would set us up to colonize Venus way down the line.

Or send a probe to Europa to explore the oceans for life. Engineering the drill through 11 miles of ice (or whatever it is) would be a pretty neat challenge to overcome

 

[Kermit Jizz]

I never understood why Venus wouldn't be chosen instead of Mars specifically for colonization (vs. establishing bases to support further exploration).

Venus has Earth-like gravity and a dense atmosphere that could be used for terraforming. It's also massive enough that it won't lose its atmosphere to space (although it needs water) and I think even without a magnetosphere it would still be protected through the induced one in its upper atmosphere. You could give it an artificial one, though, similar to the concept proposed for Mars. High in its atmosphere it's already habitable in terms of temperature and pressure.

Mars is just too small in every way to be a viable planet. It could be extremely useful for supporting further missions but not for human colonies. EDIT: Also, Venus is still volcanically active while Mars is for all intents and purposes dead.

 

[Space_Dandy]

That's right.
Let's cut the shit and spend a decillion dollars to focus solely on colonizing the Andromeda galaxy.

Yeah..

I don't think people realize just how expensive high tech really is. There's a reason the defense budget is so big. It always takes so long. Not to mention we are running low on resources to develop electronics, leading to supply chain shortages.

I don't want to powerlevel myself but I do work for a company that develops certain hardware that is of this nature, but still of far lower performance requirements compared to space exploration of this nature. It takes years to engineer the designs of this technology, contract with the suppliers, assemble the parts.. test them.. perform revisions.. then manufacture. This process for known stuff that you wouldn't think is that big of a deal can take years because each of these steps has so many time consuming checks and verifications needed.

To go to Mars (or beyond for that matter like you're talking) is different from anything we've done. The ISS is still within the Earth's magnetosphere. The Lunar missions were on the tail edge of it, but only for a short time. We've never been completely outside of our magnetosphere, and never for 9+ months. This is all new technology that's going to be difficult to develop and test. Don't expect any progress to be fast, or even constantly moving forward.

Colonizing space is possibly the greatest investment opportunity in human history but we will need to sink trillions into it before our children's children will ever see a dime of return on investment. However, investing in this is absolutely necessary because we only have about another billion years before our sun burns away our atmosphere.

This is why I'm for Mars, Lunar, and even Venus colonies (there's a habitable zone at an altitude of around one earth atmosphere where we the temperature is mild, and we can float dirigible installations). Even though these colonies are "dumb camping trips" on paper, we need to do dumb things to develop our technology and exoplanet exploration capabilities. Plus 60 billion dollars is nothing. Our government wipes its ass with 60 billion dollars.

Trillions of dollars is right, and who is going to fund that? Every nation has citizens in need of aid. Are you going to look at people dying in your own back yard and tell them their lives are forfieit to fund this research? Good luck getting a league of nations to split the bill on this too, that never works out as history as shown us, everyone is out for their own interests, usually short-term interests. Especially for America where a President has four years to show results, and sinking a chunk of the GDP into something of no return like this is a good way to lose re-election.

The larger problem though is the diminishing resources needed for computer chips and other electronics components. Thanks to our consumerist wasteful culture of replacing our Iphones every year or two with the latest version, we're burning through our supply of rare earth minerals (like cobalt). Even if we develop the technology, we'll not have the means to manufacture deep space tech like you're describing in a few centuries, let alone billions of years. Not saying this problem is insurmountable (mining asteroids might help) but its a huge one that I don't think we'll overcome any time soon.

 

[Beak Thing]

View attachment 3722258

High up in the atmosphere it's around 80F and has an Earth-like pressure so it could be colonized without as much difficulty as you'd think...the atmosphere of the colony would also keep it afloat. You'd have a lot of work to do before you could get down to the surface though...

Mars on the other hand is completely deadly to human life at every altitude. Maybe if you dug a deep enough hole you could get an area with enough air pressure.

Trillions of dollars is right, and who is going to fund that? Every nation has citizens in need of aid. Are you going to look at people dying in your own back yard and tell them their lives are forfieit to fund this research? Good luck getting a league of nations to split the bill on this too, that never works out as history as shown us, everyone is out for their own interests, usually short-term interests. Especially for America where a President has four years to show results, and sinking a chunk of the GDP into something of no return like this is a good way to lose re-election.

Shoot, look at what happened to Scotland when they tried to fund that colony in Panama. Right now, there isn't an economic incentive for it like there was back in those days. There's a lot of valuable stuff but the relative payoff is a lot lower than investing in Virginia or Jamaica.

 

[Space_Dandy]

I never understood why Venus wouldn't be chosen instead of Mars specifically for colonization (vs. establishing bases to support further exploration).

Venus has Earth-like gravity and a dense atmosphere that could be used for terraforming. It's also massive enough that it won't lose its atmosphere to space (although it needs water) and I think even without a magnetosphere it would still be protected through the induced one in its upper atmosphere. You could give it an artificial one, though, similar to the concept proposed for Mars. High in its atmosphere it's already habitable in terms of temperature and pressure.

Mars is just too small in every way to be a viable planet. It could be extremely useful for supporting further missions but not for human colonies. EDIT: Also, Venus is still volcanically active while Mars is for all intents and purposes dead.

Terraforming a planet is a daunting task and in my estimation, not realistic. But if we were taking a shot at it, Venus is far more likely than Mars to succeed. The fact that it has a magnetosphere and capability to maintain a stable atmosphere alone is a huge plus. Also the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be put to use.

 

[L50LasPak]

Venus is easier to terraform than Mars. Sure, its molten hot in the summertime and it rains sulfuric acid regularly.

Go big or go home.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Trillions of dollars is right, and who is going to fund that? Every nation has citizens in need of aid. Are you going to look at people dying in your own back yard and tell them their lives are forfieit to fund this research? Good luck getting a league of nations to split the bill on this too, that never works out as history as shown us, everyone is out for their own interests, usually short-term interests. Especially for America where a President has four years to show results, and sinking a chunk of the GDP into something of no return like this is a good way to lose re-election.

We're either going to need to sacrifice some lives now to ensure the preservation of humanity later or give the poor gibs now at the expense of guaranteed extinction later. The Antichrist is certainly a big enough and evil enough of an institution to make such a decision. Unfortunately, the oligarchs that run the Antichrist are retarded and gay in addition to being evil. Ugh. Why can't our dystopia at least be a cool dystopia?

The larger problem though is the diminishing resources needed for computer chips and other electronics components. Thanks to our consumerist wasteful culture of replacing our Iphones every year or two with the latest version, we're burning through our supply of rare earth minerals (like cobalt). Even if we develop the technology, we'll not have the means to manufacture deep space tech like you're describing in a few centuries, let alone billions of years. Not saying this problem is insurmountable (mining asteroids might help) but its a huge one that I don't think we'll overcome any time soon.

All the more reason to get started now. We currently only have one planet's worth of resources the work with. The sooner we remedy this issue the better.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

I never understood why Venus wouldn't be chosen instead of Mars specifically for colonization (vs. establishing bases to support further exploration).

Venus has Earth-like gravity and a dense atmosphere that could be used for terraforming. It's also massive enough that it won't lose its atmosphere to space (although it needs water) and I think even without a magnetosphere it would still be protected through the induced one in its upper atmosphere. You could give it an artificial one, though, similar to the concept proposed for Mars. High in its atmosphere it's already habitable in terms of temperature and pressure.

Mars is just too small in every way to be a viable planet. It could be extremely useful for supporting further missions but not for human colonies. EDIT: Also, Venus is still volcanically active while Mars is for all intents and purposes dead.

Venus is even more hostile thanks to the atmosphere.

 

[Catler]

The whole idea is stupid scifi wank material. Humans will never teraform a planet, we will never colonize another body, and we will never leave our solar system.

The challenges are too great, the cost is too high, and much of what we’d need to do may not even be possible. We think too highly of ourselves when it comes to this kind of thing.

Even if the very worst climate change models came true and earth became a hell scape it would still be far more habitable than anywhere else.

We're either going to need to sacrifice some lives now to ensure the preservation of humanity later or give the poor gibs now at the expense of guaranteed extinction later.

Extinction is the fate of humanity no matter what we do, it is completely unavoidable. The question isn’t if, it’s when.

 

[Miller]

What about Uranus?

Here's the thing, Mars is a like 99% iron oxide, its a big toxic ball of rust. There's almost nothing you can use from the environment. All realistic plans I've heard for colonization have involved creating domes that are supposed to be self-sustaining greenhouses basically. So you're going camping on Mars basically.

Why not build under the surface?

 

[Beak Thing]

Venus is even more hostile thanks to the atmosphere.

You'd have to begin the terraforming process first...plus you'd have to find a supply of water. The lack of water is the biggest problem, Mars got lucky in a sense by freezing before it lost most of it.

Guess we could always try Enceladus.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Extinction is the fate of humanity no matter what we do, it is completely unavoidable. The question isn’t if, it’s when.

You're probably right. Even if we or whatever progeny replaces us (my money is on self-replicating machines) leave the solar system, they'll have to deal with star extinction and the heat death of the universe. It's still better to try. We don't know for sure that the barriers are insurmountable because we haven't even tried.

The only alternative is to give up, which guarantees failure. It's also a bitch-tier decision IMO.