Yeah, a fairly low estimate of a journey to Mars is in the trillions, which is a substantial portion of the entire GDP of the USA. And the USA has a much larger population than Spain did. If the USA had a World War II-esque dedication to a journey to Mars, which would only realistically last a few years before our economy was severaly affected, we may – may – be able to launch literally one or two colony ships. And they might not make it or thrive.
I should think that a NASA manned Mars effort would almost certainly not be focused on colonization but on a go-and-come-back expedition. I mean, imagine how Tellurian scientists salivate at the thought of holding samples from Mars in their hands (so to speak, surely they would be kept in isolation). Mars One seeks to bypass the enormous expense of the return trip, but as far as I can see, the prospect of never coming back to Earth would have an unimaginable effect on the Mars One astronauts. The television value of astronauts who went there and came back seems much more palatable than the opportunity to watch insanity slowly take its toll on the Martians.
Moreover, the references to Columbus are a bit off-target: his voyage to the Americas had nothing to do with colonization and everything to do with trying to find an alternative route to the (East) Indies, which were already well known as a very lucrative source of commodities.
Then other early voyages to the Americas brought back reports of amazingly abundant natural resources, from the gold of South America to the pelts, fish and “train oil” of the Northeast. The economic calculus for colonizing the Americas was vastly different from that for trying to settle humans on Mars.
“Wanting to have a colony on Mars”, in the sense of daydreaming about how cool it would be if that were a feasible project, is different from thinking it makes sense actually to try to start a Martian colony in the current state of technology.
[QUOTE=Dewey Finn]
For one, we need, long-term, to establish humanity off-Earth, so that the species survives a global disaster.
[/QUOTE]
Since any extraterrestrial human colony on any non-Earth object presently known to us is many orders of magnitude more likely to be wiped out than the terrestrial human species is, and will remain so for more or less the foreseeable future, that sounds pretty dubious as a backup plan.
If colonization were cheap and easily replicable in different locations, that would be a different story. Seeding a few humans all over the solar system on the off-chance that something might take out Earth before the extraterrestrial colonies succumb to catastrophic failure, and the even-more-off chance that one or more of those colonies might actually achieve long-term survival and thus save the human species from extinction? Sure, why not, as long as it doesn’t cost much.
But starting an off-world colonization project when colonization requires substantial amounts of the resources available to terrestrial humans, whose long-term chances of survival as a species are still vastly greater than those of any human colonies off-world? Dumb.
I read the title as “The Princess of Mars,” and the first words that came into my head were Dejah Thoris.
That is all.
For 33 years.
This. And I KEEP reading it as “The Princess of Mars”, even though I now know better.
Isn’t this the project that they want to fund by turning the process, travel and living there into one big Big Brother TV show?
Yes, and the winner will be the Princess of Mars!
This. Is it a sequel to “The Prince of Tides,” or some old Zsa Zsa Gabor flick.
what’s next in this series??
The CEOs of Mars
The Landlord of Mars
Depends on whether the author is more influenced by Burroughs or Norman…
The Kinky Bondage Lords of Mars
The Almost-Naked Submissive Women of Mars
The Incredibly Strange Martians Who Stopped Loving And Became Crazy Mixed-Up Masochists
Olympus Monshop
But the fiscal benefits of scientific research often come decades after the investment, and the returns are generally to parties other than those who originally funded the research. A prime example of this is computer technology; the original investment in modern computing, memory, and networking technology was done largely for military purposes, and the applications, such as the SAGE air defense system, were often premature and impracticable. But the core technology allowed others to make billions of dollars once the various components and infrastructure matured sufficiently.
As for making space ventures profitable, this depends on the same kind of technological maturity, although the necessary technology and infrastructure to extract resources, refine them, and return them to Earth are several orders of magnitude more difficult than developing modern digital computing and the Internet. This would require significant advances in surface-to-orbit technology; interplanetary propulsion; autonomous assembly, mining, and manufacturing; radiation protection and hardening; and space habitation. It seems unlikely that it will ever be cost effective to lift materials out of one gravity well, even one as close as the Moon much less as difficult to reach (as much in terms of energy as linear distance) as Mars, but there are certainly mineral resources that are relatively near and easy to reach which potentially could be profitable and/or move pollution-generating processing (such as that for rare earth materials) off the surface of the Earth.
But the real reason to develop such a space-based infrastructure isn’t profit back on Earth (which is questionable in the best of rational projections) but to support an off-planet population. To that end, constructing many large habitats which replicate terrestrial conditions and optimize habitable surface to the extent feasible is preferable to the at best marginally habitable conditions on the surface of any natural planet or satellite.
As for colonizing the surface of the Moon, while that may seem like a suitable testbed for future exploration, the fact is that the Moon is particularly unsuitable for habitation. The problems with the ionized dust of lunar regolith, which sticks to every surface and creates a cement in mechanical joints, may be technically insolvable.
Stranger
Colonize Mars? Sure! Let’s see the pros and cons:
- 180 million miles away (con)
-deadly radiation at surface (con)
-no oxygen in atmosphere (con)
-soil unsuitable for crops (con)
-almost as warm as Antarctica (on a summer day) (pro)
-easy to travel (planet almost flat) (pro)
-no shortage of nutcakes willing to make a one-way trip (pro)
-possible remains of ancient Barsoom to be discovered (pro)
Let’s go!
When I was in high school, I read some of the books by Gerald K. O’Neill, a Princeton professor who had elaborate plans for large orbiting colonies built from materials mined on the moon. I was really enthusiastic about the idea and really wanted to live on one (and actually still do).
Hmm, not sure I would call that a con, people suck
You forgot the sandstorms. Double-con
Fair bit of CO[sub]2[/sub], that could be converted to oxygen (or pumped into the beer)
As far as we know
I think I read that it can reach 35C, that is a bit warmer than Antarctica
Holy crap, have you ever looked at the topography of Mars? It has the highest mountain in the solar system, it is a long long way from being anything like “almost flat”
Because, well, people here suck
You first, OK?
:dubious: Well, if you don’t count Olympus, the highest freaking mountain on any planet in the solar system…
Still, I know what you mean, Mars also has a lot of flattish plains.
Heck, Olympus Mons itself is a pretty good approximation of a flattish plane. Sure, it’s tall, but it’s also spread out over such a huge area that the slope is almost nonexistent. A much better objection would be the Spaghetti-Sauce Trench.
As true as that is, it is surrounded by Olympus Rupes, a scarp of epic proportions, forming a cliff on the eastern face that rises as much as 15000’. Earth does have some topography that is comparable, but most of it is under many gallons of salty water.