Imagine a Drexler-style nanofab that can build anything atom by atom, given the right atoms.
Imagine what you want, it does not exist yet and would take years to build anything of descent size. You would also need the tools to make the nanofab.
The enormity of the advances in technology that would be required to colonise space would inevitably transform life on Earth.
That is your assumption that I do not agree with. Do you have anything to back that up?
We have plenty of spare capacity, 25% unemployment in some countries.
We also have high deficits and high national debt in many countries.
The aim would be to bootstrap an autonomous colony building machine that lived off the land, not keep flinging megatons of stuff off the planet.
That aim is not obtainable.
The main reason to choose Mars is PR.
Here I agree and I think that PR is not a valid reason to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for little gain. You would also need all the equipment to make the pure materials used by the nanofab. You are looking at single components. The whole system needed to support those components is huge.
Mars is a clear step forward that people might get to see in their lifetime.
I disagree completely. Mars is the Moon again but a it further away.
Any large public project needs to have public support.
If people have to chose between fixing their roads or putting a person on Mars most people will fix roads.
How many people would tune in to watch the birth of the first Martian?
Which might fund 0.0001% of the cost of the missions.
Self-sufficiency is something we'll have to learn how to do.
It is not about learning. It is about resources an infrastructure. Other than rock and maybe some water, there is nothing naturally produced on Mars. Think of any complex object and then think of it's components. Then think of the machines to make the components. Then think of the machines needed to make the materials. You will quickly find that it take a huge amount of equipment to make complex things. I'll start you off with an electric motor. It requires copper, steel/aluminum, magnets, plastic, lubricant, insulation, etc. Remember that many items need to be made to very high standards because if they fail people may die and the colony may fail. If the CO2 scrubber fails everyone dies. (How do you manufacture the chemicals needed for the scrubber?)
Provided things are arranged to give value for money on Earth there is no end to money.
That is a big "what if". Give me a few examples of giving value for money on Earth. I can not think of any concrete examples that would offset the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for a Mars colony.
We need waypoints.
All we need for a waypoint is to get out of Earth's gravity well. Beyond that we need to leave the solar system. A base on Mars is no help.
people can see it in the sky and get excited about it.
People can see the Moon much better.
But if we have the resources there is no need to be constrained by money, we can do a bit of everything.
Resources are not infinite. There is only so much resources coming out of the ground and only so many people. Doing a bit of everything just means that nothing gets done well. Do you really want a Mars colony on a shoestring budget?
In fact a space colonisation program could yield technological benefits for Earth in all the areas you mention.
It is more likely that a colonization program will not yield any significant advancements that can be used on Earth. I would much rather direct the money toward the problems than hope that an offshoot from a much less important program materialized.
But if by trying we learnt how to travel more quickly through space,
We can do this be sending robots.
how to survive the radiation how to maintain a habitat with nothing but sunlight and regolith,
That can be done on the moon for a much lower cost. It might also be economical to return to Earth the things we find on the Moon.
everything required to colonise the Solar System
Not quite as it would only be relevant to Mars and a few moons.
long term survival of the species.
Sorry but unless we can create a completely self sufficient colony any outpost will be reliant on re-supply from Earth. Creating a completely self-sufficient colony on Mars would bankrupt any countries that tried it. There will always be some critical material or item that is available only on Earth.
We have to get out there eventually whether the immediate goal is Mars or not.
Mars is not a lifeboat. Until we can get to another star system where we can live on an Earth-like planet long term survival of humans is not ensured.
Wealth, I would suggest, is anything you feel better off having than not having
Sending people to Mars will use resources (money, people and materials) that could be better used dealing with issues we have here on earth. Here are some things I would invest more money into far before I would invest in a Mars outpost: 1. electricity storage which could solve the global climate change problem. 2. transport infrastructure. 3. public housing. 4. better agriculture methods 5. desalination/water conservation measures.
I don't have a strong view on the whether a Mars mission will be worth it or not.
If it might not be worth it then why do it? Just because one can do something does not men one should.
It depends on how much we learn and how much reusable infrastructure is built in the process.
Most of the cost will be for rockets and items sent to Mars. There will be little left over when the mission is done. Oh wait, it will never be done as wee will have to continually resupply a Mars outpost.
Basic science overall has had a massive effect on our ability to create wealth.
We already have the basic science of how to live on Mars so there will be no gains in that area.
In fact the knowledge it brings is itself a form of wealth.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge does not create wealth. Only when you practically apply knowledge does it create wealth. For example, how does knowing there is water on Mars create wealth?
United States defeated Great Britain in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
If attacking and then signing a treaty to withdraw to original borders is winning a war then I guess the US won the War of 1812. Most countries would call that a loss.
So the question boils down to "will a man on mars program be worth what it costs?".
The answer to that is no. There is no way a Mars mission will create a trillion dollars worth of wealth on Earth. Science for the sake of science does not create wealth. If you disagree then state how a Mars mission will create wealth on Earth.
Some people just don't see the reasons behind regulation of the taxi industry and the costs associated with that regulation. Regulation was created due to bad actors when there were no regulations. No large city would ever want to go back to an unregulated taxi industry.
If the US government "creates" several hundred billion dollars, possibly trillions, to send someone to Mars the US government would loose credibility. That would cause the exchange rate with other currencies would immediately drop and the value of all US currency would decline. That is called dilution.
Most Uber drivers work part time for extra money. They generally have another job that pays the bills. It is very difficult to make a living wage driving full time for Uber.
When licensed cabs go out of business due to the lower cost of operating unlicensed internet based cabs you will be forced to use unlicensed internet based cabs. So much for freedom.
Could it be that high fat/sugar diets cause decline in cognitive function and gut bacteria by two separate and unrelated mechanisms? It is possible that gut bacteria decline and decline in cognitive function are not related at all. It is similar to drinking too much coffee. The coffee causes the alertness and irritability not the coffee causing the alertness and the alertness causing the irritability. Sometimes the results are not a chain.
Was that designed before the discover of the issue with radiation?The structure is only 636 kg. There can not be much shielding. I would not want to be in it for days on Mars.
A person on Mars would explore a few days travel from their bunker. That is not much exploration. We can send robots to do much better exploration and not waste billions of dollars killing people. Just because one can do something does not mean one should. If you want to waste your money on a Mars mission go ahead. Just don't expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for an expensive lark.
Apollo 17 astronauts covered nearly the same distance (22 miles) in less than 22 hours.
You might want to check your figures. That was done in three traversals where the rover returned to the LEM after each traversal.
On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km.
The LRV never got further than 7.6km from the LEM. There is the same issue with Mars. One has a limited range from base camp and Mars is much larger than the Moon.
Maybe we should be sending better rovers to Mars.
One major difference is also that the Apollo astronauts came back to Earth. Mars astronauts probably won't.
So it is a step forward but forward to where? So to you optics are more important than facts? I bet any program to actually send people to Mars on the tax payer's dime would generate just as much negative press along the lines of government wasting yet more money while people on Earth starve.
Your comparison is way off. Sending people to Mars will have little or no effect on the lives of people on Earth. Researching alternate fuels would have an impact. The two are nowhere similar.
The government is not a business and should create money for the General Welfare (as the private sector creates money on the order of tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars a year, for personal profit).
The private sector does not create money. It converts resources, be that natural resources or people resources, into money. Other that devaluing all money by printing it governments do not create money. I see no "General Welfare" in wasting billion on sending people to die in a hole on another planet when there are cheaper and better alternatives.
Scarcity thinking applied to money throttles progress.
Scarcity of money is a fact of life. If it wasn't we would all me living in mansions and never working. We need to spend our limited money where it will do the most good. Tell me how sending people to Mars will help progress on Earth better than sending robots to Mars. "Because it is cool" is not a valid reason to send people to Mars.
My estimate is that this will happen in 2050. NASA is saying more like 2035, but I don’t have faith in Congress to fund them.
I, in fact, hope that NASA does not fund a manned mission to Mars. Spending billions of dollars to send people to Mars so they can hide in a hole in the ground praying that the next re-supply mission will get through is a complete waste. Anything useful a human can do on Mars can be done by a robot for much less money and loss of life.
Slashdot Mirror
It will fade when the ink wears off. Then you will see the colour of the structural fiber.
It might be even worse than a dye as it might wear off very fast since it is only on the surface. It is closer to a paint than a dye.
Imagine a Drexler-style nanofab that can build anything atom by atom, given the right atoms.
Imagine what you want, it does not exist yet and would take years to build anything of descent size. You would also need the tools to make the nanofab.
The enormity of the advances in technology that would be required to colonise space would inevitably transform life on Earth.
That is your assumption that I do not agree with. Do you have anything to back that up?
We have plenty of spare capacity, 25% unemployment in some countries.
We also have high deficits and high national debt in many countries.
The aim would be to bootstrap an autonomous colony building machine that lived off the land, not keep flinging megatons of stuff off the planet.
That aim is not obtainable.
The main reason to choose Mars is PR.
Here I agree and I think that PR is not a valid reason to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for little gain. You would also need all the equipment to make the pure materials used by the nanofab. You are looking at single components. The whole system needed to support those components is huge.
Mars is a clear step forward that people might get to see in their lifetime.
I disagree completely. Mars is the Moon again but a it further away.
Any large public project needs to have public support.
If people have to chose between fixing their roads or putting a person on Mars most people will fix roads.
How many people would tune in to watch the birth of the first Martian?
Which might fund 0.0001% of the cost of the missions.
British press gangs and other routine harassment and skirmishes
Most of which ended when the war with France ended. Then there is the burning of the White House.
Self-sufficiency is something we'll have to learn how to do.
It is not about learning. It is about resources an infrastructure. Other than rock and maybe some water, there is nothing naturally produced on Mars. Think of any complex object and then think of it's components. Then think of the machines to make the components. Then think of the machines needed to make the materials. You will quickly find that it take a huge amount of equipment to make complex things. I'll start you off with an electric motor. It requires copper, steel/aluminum, magnets, plastic, lubricant, insulation, etc. Remember that many items need to be made to very high standards because if they fail people may die and the colony may fail. If the CO2 scrubber fails everyone dies. (How do you manufacture the chemicals needed for the scrubber?)
Provided things are arranged to give value for money on Earth there is no end to money.
That is a big "what if". Give me a few examples of giving value for money on Earth. I can not think of any concrete examples that would offset the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for a Mars colony.
We need waypoints.
All we need for a waypoint is to get out of Earth's gravity well. Beyond that we need to leave the solar system. A base on Mars is no help.
people can see it in the sky and get excited about it.
People can see the Moon much better.
But if we have the resources there is no need to be constrained by money, we can do a bit of everything.
Resources are not infinite. There is only so much resources coming out of the ground and only so many people. Doing a bit of everything just means that nothing gets done well. Do you really want a Mars colony on a shoestring budget?
In fact a space colonisation program could yield technological benefits for Earth in all the areas you mention.
It is more likely that a colonization program will not yield any significant advancements that can be used on Earth. I would much rather direct the money toward the problems than hope that an offshoot from a much less important program materialized.
But if by trying we learnt how to travel more quickly through space,
We can do this be sending robots.
how to survive the radiation how to maintain a habitat with nothing but sunlight and regolith,
That can be done on the moon for a much lower cost. It might also be economical to return to Earth the things we find on the Moon.
everything required to colonise the Solar System
Not quite as it would only be relevant to Mars and a few moons.
long term survival of the species.
Sorry but unless we can create a completely self sufficient colony any outpost will be reliant on re-supply from Earth. Creating a completely self-sufficient colony on Mars would bankrupt any countries that tried it. There will always be some critical material or item that is available only on Earth.
We have to get out there eventually whether the immediate goal is Mars or not.
Mars is not a lifeboat. Until we can get to another star system where we can live on an Earth-like planet long term survival of humans is not ensured.
Wealth, I would suggest, is anything you feel better off having than not having
Sending people to Mars will use resources (money, people and materials) that could be better used dealing with issues we have here on earth. Here are some things I would invest more money into far before I would invest in a Mars outpost:
1. electricity storage which could solve the global climate change problem.
2. transport infrastructure.
3. public housing.
4. better agriculture methods
5. desalination/water conservation measures.
I don't have a strong view on the whether a Mars mission will be worth it or not.
If it might not be worth it then why do it? Just because one can do something does not men one should.
It depends on how much we learn and how much reusable infrastructure is built in the process.
Most of the cost will be for rockets and items sent to Mars. There will be little left over when the mission is done. Oh wait, it will never be done as wee will have to continually resupply a Mars outpost.
Basic science overall has had a massive effect on our ability to create wealth.
We already have the basic science of how to live on Mars so there will be no gains in that area.
In fact the knowledge it brings is itself a form of wealth.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge does not create wealth. Only when you practically apply knowledge does it create wealth. For example, how does knowing there is water on Mars create wealth?
United States defeated Great Britain in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
If attacking and then signing a treaty to withdraw to original borders is winning a war then I guess the US won the War of 1812. Most countries would call that a loss.
So the question boils down to "will a man on mars program be worth what it costs?".
The answer to that is no. There is no way a Mars mission will create a trillion dollars worth of wealth on Earth. Science for the sake of science does not create wealth. If you disagree then state how a Mars mission will create wealth on Earth.
Some people just don't see the reasons behind regulation of the taxi industry and the costs associated with that regulation. Regulation was created due to bad actors when there were no regulations. No large city would ever want to go back to an unregulated taxi industry.
If the US government "creates" several hundred billion dollars, possibly trillions, to send someone to Mars the US government would loose credibility. That would cause the exchange rate with other currencies would immediately drop and the value of all US currency would decline. That is called dilution.
Most Uber drivers work part time for extra money. They generally have another job that pays the bills. It is very difficult to make a living wage driving full time for Uber.
When licensed cabs go out of business due to the lower cost of operating unlicensed internet based cabs you will be forced to use unlicensed internet based cabs. So much for freedom.
Driving a cab is not a recognized civil right. The two situations are nowhere near similar.
Anyone can also look at a promise and call bullshit. Promises have to be accepted before they have meaning.
Could it be that high fat/sugar diets cause decline in cognitive function and gut bacteria by two separate and unrelated mechanisms? It is possible that gut bacteria decline and decline in cognitive function are not related at all. It is similar to drinking too much coffee. The coffee causes the alertness and irritability not the coffee causing the alertness and the alertness causing the irritability. Sometimes the results are not a chain.
Money is the representation of wealth.
Where does money come from then--God?
You didn't read what wrote.
. It converts resources, be that natural resources or people resources, into money.
Ever heard of farming, mining, logging, service industries, inventions, etc? That is how money is created.
Money is artificial and requires virtually no resources to create. It's scarcity is also, therefore, artificial.
You know absolutely nothing about monetary systems.
Was that designed before the discover of the issue with radiation?The structure is only 636 kg. There can not be much shielding. I would not want to be in it for days on Mars.
A person on Mars would explore a few days travel from their bunker. That is not much exploration. We can send robots to do much better exploration and not waste billions of dollars killing people. Just because one can do something does not mean one should. If you want to waste your money on a Mars mission go ahead. Just don't expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for an expensive lark.
Apollo 17 astronauts covered nearly the same distance (22 miles) in less than 22 hours.
You might want to check your figures.
That was done in three traversals where the rover returned to the LEM after each traversal.
On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km.
The LRV never got further than 7.6km from the LEM. There is the same issue with Mars. One has a limited range from base camp and Mars is much larger than the Moon.
Maybe we should be sending better rovers to Mars.
One major difference is also that the Apollo astronauts came back to Earth. Mars astronauts probably won't.
So it is a step forward but forward to where? So to you optics are more important than facts? I bet any program to actually send people to Mars on the tax payer's dime would generate just as much negative press along the lines of government wasting yet more money while people on Earth starve.
Your comparison is way off. Sending people to Mars will have little or no effect on the lives of people on Earth. Researching alternate fuels would have an impact. The two are nowhere similar.
The government is not a business and should create money for the General Welfare (as the private sector creates money on the order of tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars a year, for personal profit).
The private sector does not create money. It converts resources, be that natural resources or people resources, into money. Other that devaluing all money by printing it governments do not create money. I see no "General Welfare" in wasting billion on sending people to die in a hole on another planet when there are cheaper and better alternatives.
Scarcity thinking applied to money throttles progress.
Scarcity of money is a fact of life. If it wasn't we would all me living in mansions and never working. We need to spend our limited money where it will do the most good. Tell me how sending people to Mars will help progress on Earth better than sending robots to Mars. "Because it is cool" is not a valid reason to send people to Mars.
My estimate is that this will happen in 2050. NASA is saying more like 2035, but I don’t have faith in Congress to fund them.
I, in fact, hope that NASA does not fund a manned mission to Mars. Spending billions of dollars to send people to Mars so they can hide in a hole in the ground praying that the next re-supply mission will get through is a complete waste. Anything useful a human can do on Mars can be done by a robot for much less money and loss of life.
Too much of anything is unhealthy