Yeah, alot of good those will do if we are extinct.
We should go to Mars... but now, or later?
- Thread starter Gary7
- Start date
Let's put this another way.
Short of Earth experiencing some kind of cataclysm that makes it impossible for life as we know it to survive here whatsoever, Mars doesn't even begin to look like some kind of backup plan. You would need thousands of humans living on Mars--unsupported by Earth--to seriously call it a preservation of the human species.
While I certainly have no objections to exploring Mars and attempting to establish a presence there, to turn that into any kind of contingency plan for the survival of the human race is going to take centuries. So it helps to have some perspective on that.
Plus, you know, if whatever makes Earth unlivable also strikes Mars... so much for the human race.
This is a silly argument. You could just as easily say "whatever makes Earth unlivable also strikes the rest of the universe". Keeping your eggs in one basket is never safer than spreading them over as far a range as you can manage. And just because it will take centuries to make Mars a viable backup doesn't really mean it's a good reason to not start now. I would contend just the opposite. We should get busy.
Last I checked, two planets (and an a solar system, for that matter) don't constitute "the rest of the universe."
You'll note I never said, not once, that there was a "good reason to not start now." In fact, I said the opposite.
Humanity is not even close to having an out for an extinction level event. We have no processes, or plans, that are in any way doable technically or fiscally for humans to survive and sustain the species off Earth. And even if we did, it would be a very small, probably non-representative sample of humanity. To survive off planet you need the same things you have on Earth, a manufacturing base for parts replacement, mining, sustainable food production, and that's just the start of a very long list. We don't have any of that, nor are we even close.
Which is not to say we shouldn't be looking into it and spending the money on the research. There is nothing wrong with planning and researching what it takes to get us to Mars and back safely. Actually committing to a timeline is what I have a problem with. I just don't feel the rush to land someone on Mars, which will be incredibly expensive and take away from other, just as important (if not more important), projects.
Personally, now, at our present level of technology, I feel the dollars are better spent on finding life away from Earth. But that's just me.
Which is not to say we shouldn't be looking into it and spending the money on the research. There is nothing wrong with planning and researching what it takes to get us to Mars and back safely. Actually committing to a timeline is what I have a problem with. I just don't feel the rush to land someone on Mars, which will be incredibly expensive and take away from other, just as important (if not more important), projects.
Personally, now, at our present level of technology, I feel the dollars are better spent on finding life away from Earth. But that's just me.
The point is that the chances of an extinction event also taking out Mars are smaller. You do what you can to mitigate losing everything. I'm sure that once we do get a viable Mars colony going someone will start thinking about going to the next level to insure our survival. Mars is just one step. Eventually, if we are successful, Interstellar colonization will surpass it.
What exactly do you think can happen on Earth that makes Earth an even shittier place than Mars?
Even an asteroid hitting might not make Earth worse than Mars. I think this is all besides the point anyway. Extinction level events happen so rarely. Even if we delay a Mars Colony for a few decades it's unlikely to make a difference in that regard. I still think this is more about what makes sense from a scientific point of view. And I do believe that exploring Enceladus, Europa and Titan with automated probes nets greater results than putting a woman on Mars.
Even an asteroid hitting might not make Earth worse than Mars. I think this is all besides the point anyway. Extinction level events happen so rarely. Even if we delay a Mars Colony for a few decades it's unlikely to make a difference in that regard. I still think this is more about what makes sense from a scientific point of view. And I do believe that exploring Enceladus, Europa and Titan with automated probes nets greater results than putting a woman on Mars.
Yeah, there's good reasons to do stuff in space and to develop technologies for humans to survive in space. But the ``emergency backup Earth'' plan just does not make sense. It's nowhere near technologically viable, it's nowhere near economically viable, it's nowhere near ecologically viable. Pretending otherwise just makes the case for doing stuff in space look silly.
That's Maher's take. Thing is--we don't know if Earth doesn't have one last gasp of flood basalt left in it. That's reason enough to go. Easier to stop an asteroid than live on Mars--but it is easier to do that than stop a supervolcano.
This iwhy I like the idea of space based solar power. You are making something that is dual use. It is a de facto solar electric craft with xenon--and it can give power to earth. Ground based efforts don't give you this two-fer.
This iwhy I like the idea of space based solar power. You are making something that is dual use. It is a de facto solar electric craft with xenon--and it can give power to earth. Ground based efforts don't give you this two-fer.
Include near complete lack of interest by the general public.
I am by no means against sending humans to mars, but there are other options that few people are taking about. Of course establishing a moon base would be much easier due to proximity, and would act as a stepping stone for further space exploration including mars. In my opinion establishing a moonbase is the first step for further space exploration. It would give us a template for a mars base and act as a gateway to the rest of the solar system and is vital to trouble shooting problems before we send people to mars.
However before we send people to mars we should consider sending people Venus. While it would be currently impossible to establish a base in the surface of the planet it is possible to create an inflatable base that would float in the atmosphere, an earth like atmosphere would be able to float high in the atmosphere away from many dangers. The orbits of earth and Venus line up better so shorter, safer missions would be possible. And Venus is closer to the earth making the technological challenge of getting there more attainable.
So I am for a manned mission to mars In The future I think a moonbase and Venus base should precede a mars base
A floating Venus colony will never be self supporting so that might not be the best idea, also Venus is not much smaller than Earth so it will have a similar gravity well which means big complicated and LARGE spacecraft to get out of orbit again and last but not least, if something goes wrong that floating base will be crushed like a soda can underneath a hydraulic press..
While I could see a research facility being established in Venus' atmosphere (floating/grounded), I just can't see a "colony," tens of thousands of people relocating there to live their lives.
Maybe that's a difference in the way I use the word colony.
Last edited:
Shouldn't we put a colony on the Moon or in a permanent space habitat near Earth before we jump into Mars?
Well--folks have wanted to omit the orbiter and convert shuttle components into a Saturn class HLLV for years.
Instead of being happy--folks have tried to kill the idea--a tornado struck the facility--and some fool dropped a tank.
Not sure what your post has to do with what you quoted from Santaman!?!?
Until we can crack the problem of artificial gravity, for the physical and mental well-being of our astronauts (not to mention moving-around-the-spaceship/space station convenience), we're literally just spinning our wheels.
1. A centrifuge is not a wheel, so, no, we're not literally doing that.
2. Your metaphor is muddled here. I can't really get a read on what your point is. Centrifuges/rotating spacecraft are a practical means of generating artificial gravity; in fact they are the preeminent such means of doing so. They're what we'll use for artificial gravity on interplanetary spaceflights. In other words, there's no need to wait for any other means of generating artificial gravity.
Similar threads
