# We are not going to Mars **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438 "2009-09-09T16:54:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/81 "2009-09-11T14:46:14Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The stimulus package would have paid NASA’s entire budget for a century. Well, the stimulus package did include an extra billion dollars for NASA, which is not an insignificant percentage of a total budget of $18B or so. I don’t think it would be very realistic for NASA to expect budget support comparable to the amount of the **whole** stimulus package. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > This isn’t about money. Considering the kinds of money Obama is throwing around to every pet liberal project under the sun, the money to go to Mars could have been found under the seat cushions. This is simply about support for space. This administration has other priorities, and doesn’t give a damn. As [this February 2009 article](http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/02/nasa-to-get-187-billion-in-obama-budget-.html) on the NASA budget notes, > [@](#): > > President Barack Obama would give NASA nearly $19 billion in a 2010 budget plan unrolled this morning – a small increase over the $18 billion that the Bush administration had planned for the space agency next year, according to budget documents. > > The boost adds to the $1 billion that NASA already has received under Obama’s stimulus plan. Combined, these two increases represent slightly better days for NASA officials and space enthusiasts, who have complained for years that NASA doesn’t receive the funding it needs. I can see why NASA fans are disappointed that the current budget won’t provide the resources to support the hoped-for exploration program; in particular, I think their “Flexible Path” proposal sounds pretty cool and I’d like to see some of it implemented. However, I think you’re letting your disappointment run away with you a bit when you claim that the administration “doesn’t give a damn” for NASA’s space aims at all. They haven’t done as much as we might wish, but they’ve shown some support, and they seem to represent a slight improvement over their predecessors. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/82 "2009-09-11T15:38:53Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Grumman, where are you getting your numbers from? I keep hearing numbers for this project that are WAY bigger than what they really are. From the [post I quoted](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11542166#post11542166) and [the post quoted in _that_ post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11542142#post11542142). I haven’t looked at the sources people are using, so I don’t know how accurate they are. I was just pointing out that **Chimera** had forgetten that the figure given for the Iraq war was spread out over 6 years while the cost of an outpost was an annual figure. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/83 "2009-09-11T15:53:14Z")
See post #3 for actual numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Kiber](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kiber/32/317_2.png) [@Kiber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiber)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/84 "2009-09-11T16:09:42Z")
Why go to mars? Well - I think it’s already been answered, far better than I could (albeit for a slightly different destination). > [@JFK](#): > > There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? > > We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/85 "2009-09-11T16:50:57Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, the stimulus package did include an extra billion dollars for NASA, which is not an insignificant percentage of a total budget of $18B or so. I don’t think it would be very realistic for NASA to expect budget support comparable to the amount of the **whole** stimulus package. > As [this February 2009 article](http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/02/nasa-to-get-187-billion-in-obama-budget-.html) on the NASA budget notes, > > I can see why NASA fans are disappointed that the current budget won’t provide the resources to support the hoped-for exploration program; in particular, I think their “Flexible Path” proposal sounds pretty cool and I’d like to see some of it implemented. > > However, I think you’re letting your disappointment run away with you a bit when you claim that the administration “doesn’t give a damn” for NASA’s space aims at all. They haven’t done as much as we might wish, but they’ve shown some support, and they seem to represent a slight improvement over their predecessors. That money was given to NASA for earth sciences. The Administration is directing NASA to spend more money on earth sciences, and is actually cutting the planetary science budget by 26 million next year. Under the administration’s plan, by 2013 Earth sciences will make up a bigger part of NASA’s budget than will planetary science. This is pretty much exactly what I expected from the Obama administration. They’re of the ‘fix our problems at home before we start looking outward’ philosophy. And there will always be problems to fix at home. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/86 "2009-09-11T17:15:57Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > These things work in bursts. > > The technology just isn’t there yet - we reached the moon despite the technology we had at the time, not because of it. 1, 5, 20 years from now someone will make a seemingly minor scientific breakthrough; 1, 5, 20 years after that, somebody will extrapolate this discovery into a method of bringing payload to orbit at 5% of current costs. We’ll reach Mars a few years later. > > At least, I hope. Or not. Some things are impossible, you know, and decades of lavishly funded R&D will never make them possible. E.g., we have no good reason to hope the lightspeed barrier will ever be broken, or antigravity invented, or an over-unity energy source discovered. However, it might well be possible to put things in orbit at greatly reduced cost through a [space elevator.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) That’s allowed under currently understood physics, if only we can invent materials of sufficient tensile strength proportional to weight. ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/87 "2009-09-11T17:22:11Z")
I think outer space travel and colonies are a peculiar insanity of the baby-boomer generation. It is similar to Ancient Egyptians beliefs that Pharoahs take a place in the heavens as a star when they die, in that they are both ill-informed fantasies. I guess growing up as we got into orbit for the first time unleashed lots of people’s imaginations, but to continue to dwell on it anymore is antisocial and foolish. Comparing it to Columbus daring to cross the Atlantic is inaccurate. Space and other planets are pure death to us, unlike the inhabited, fertile lands he intended to find. Livability is on a sliding scale, starting with Earth being perfectly habitable and getting deadlier the further you get away from it. Why go, then? Overpopulation? Have you ever been in a plane, or even watched the National Geographic channel? There are huge, unimaginable stretches of land to colonize if you want. Siberia, the Sahara, Antarctica, and even the bottom of the ocean are millions of times easier and cheaper to build a self-sustaining colony on than another planet. I know colonizing the ocean floor isn’t quite as exciting as Star Wars, but as I said, I think we’re just dealing with fantasies here. What about defending against against an asteroid attack? Not putting all of our eggs in one basket if you will. I don’t think this argument is valid either. First, if this were the real reason, it would be more reasonable to defend against or prevent an asteroid hit than to blindly accept one and put our faith in our space colony. Second, if we couldn’t prevent one, it would be easier to survive an asteroid strike with underground or underwater bunkers. Third, an earth that was recently struck by an asteroid would still be more hospitable to life than another planet. After these, I think all that’s left is, “we deserve the stars dammit!” I’m afraid I’ll never understand this mentality. You may hate this speck of dust, but there’s only more specks of dust out there. I hope future generations aren’t defined by such a pointless fantasy like space travel. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/88 "2009-09-11T17:26:11Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > That money was given to NASA for earth sciences. The Administration is directing NASA to spend more money on earth sciences, and is actually cutting the planetary science budget by 26 million next year. Wait, you’re claiming that the whole of the additional $2B in the NASA budget under the Obama administration is for earth sciences? I didn’t see indications of that in their 2010 budget announcement [here](http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html): > [@](#): > > NASA announced Thursday [May 7] an $18.69 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 to advance Earth science, complete the International Space Station, explore the solar system and conduct aeronautics research. The budget request represents an increase of $903.6 million, or 5 percent, above funding provided in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. All totaled, an additional $2 billion has been added to NASA’s 2009 and 2010 budgets under the Obama administration. > > NASA’s fiscal year 2010 request funds a robust program to continue the agency’s missions of exploration and research. It supports the administration’s commitment to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system. It funds a strong program of space exploration involving humans and robots with the goal of returning Americans to the moon and exploring other destinations. And it supports the safe flight of the space shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space Station by the shuttle’s planned retirement. Increasing spending on earth science (i.e., climate change research) and cutting spending in the specific category of planetary science doesn’t necessarily imply cutting spending on space science as a whole. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > This is pretty much exactly what I expected from the Obama administration. They’re of the ‘fix our problems at home before we start looking outward’ philosophy. But we **are** looking outward, with continuing NASA missions on space operations, space science, the ISS, unmanned exploration, and a host of other categories. Naturally, lots of people wish NASA would be given the resources to do more with human exploration, but I don’t think it’s fair to imply that the Obama administration is demonstrating **no** interest or support for space science. Moreover, are you arguing that NASA **shouldn’t** be increasing its activities in earth science? I mean, if the scientific consensus is that global climate change is a major issue, and that we need space-based climate monitoring to improve research on it, seems to me that that’s a pretty important mission for NASA. Sure, more manned exploration would be very exciting, but the fact is that outside of the SDMB and Star Trek conventions and other bastions of geekdom, there just isn’t a lot of popular pressure in favor of it. In a time of severe economic crunch, it’s simply not going to be a top priority on almost any politician’s agenda—at least, not here in the US. Maybe you guys in Canada could designate some funds for the Canadian Space Agency to use on cooperative human exploration missions with NASA? As you note, $3B a year isn’t really all that much, and you could probably scrape it together if you wanted to. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/89 "2009-09-11T17:32:11Z")
Given the long expsoure to solar radiation (about 36 months for a round trip); how likely are human fatalities on a Mars mission? Also, suppose the return trip doesn’t come off-how would the public handle their astronauts slowly dying on Mars? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/90 "2009-09-11T17:46:50Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Also, suppose the return trip doesn’t come off-how would the public handle their astronauts slowly dying on Mars? Oh, it gives me the willies all right, but after all, we’ve sent a lot of Americans out on dangerous missions where they end up slowly dying. If they want to go and they know the risks… As for whether widespread public horror at such an outcome would kill the project, I dunno. The Apollo mission fatalities didn’t stop us from going to the moon, nor did the Challenger disaster shut down the space shuttle program. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/91 "2009-09-11T18:23:05Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Wait, you’re claiming that the whole of the additional $2B in the NASA budget under the Obama administration is for earth sciences? I didn’t see indications of that in their 2010 budget announcement [here](http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html): > > Increasing spending on earth science (i.e., climate change research) and cutting spending in the specific category of planetary science doesn’t necessarily imply cutting spending on space science as a whole. That is true. Planetary science doesn’t even include the manned space programs. Planetary science is basically programs to explore other planets using telescopes and probes. > [@](#): > > But we **are** looking outward, with continuing NASA missions on space operations, space science, the ISS, unmanned exploration, and a host of other categories. Naturally, lots of people wish NASA would be given the resources to do more with human exploration, but I don’t think it’s fair to imply that the Obama administration is demonstrating **no** interest or support for space science. Well, that’s fair. However, your ‘2 billion’ number includes increases for 2009 AND 2010. It probably also includes the 400 million NASA got in the stimulus package. > [@](#): > > Moreover, are you arguing that NASA **shouldn’t** be increasing its activities in earth science? I mean, if the scientific consensus is that global climate change is a major issue, and that we need space-based climate monitoring to improve research on it, seems to me that that’s a pretty important mission for NASA. I’ve got no problem increasing spending on Earth sciences, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of other ongoing programs. NASA is facing a really big problem right now: The Shuttle is supposed to retire at the end of 2010. It needs to be replaced with something. In addition, the 3.5 billion dollars a year that the shuttle currently consumes will be freed up in 2010. But if there isn’t another major launch program in development by then, all those shuttle employees and facilities will have to be shut down. That will gut NASA’s manned space capability, perhaps irrevocably. The ARES program is supposed to replace Shuttle, but if that doesn’t get properly funded, then NASA is in big trouble. > [@](#): > > Sure, more manned exploration would be very exciting, but the fact is that outside of the SDMB and Star Trek conventions and other bastions of geekdom, there just isn’t a lot of popular pressure in favor of it. In a time of severe economic crunch, it’s simply not going to be a top priority on almost any politician’s agenda—at least, not here in the US. I would be fine with this if the same kind of economic crunch thinking was being applied elsewhere. But can you see a contradiction in the logic of the stimulus and the treatment of NASA? Obama plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on various projects of unknown importance, and he could only scare up half a billion of that for NASA? He claims to want to create high-speed rail, new ‘green economy’ jobs, and part of the justification for this is to support high technology, engineering, etc. In the meantime, he’s threatening to let an existing high-technology program languish. He’s spending hundreds of billions to create ‘good jobs’, but in the meantime NASA may be forced to lay lay off thousands of high-tech workers because of cancellation of the moon-mars program for want of $3 billion per year. He wants to promote science in schools and motivate kids to become scientists and engineers, and has promised tens of billions of dollars to that effort. But do you know what motivates kids to become scientists and engineers? It sure as hell isn’t to help ‘green’ the economy. Exploring Mars might do it, though. I happen to think the Apollo program did more to motivate kids to study science and engineering than the Department of Education ever did. > [@](#): > > Maybe you guys in Canada could designate some funds for the Canadian Space Agency to use on cooperative human exploration missions with NASA? As you note, $3B a year isn’t really all that much, and you could probably scrape it together if you wanted to. Oh, that’s just a cheap shot. Our economy is a tiny fraction of yours. The role of NASA is also much different than that of Canada’s space agency. We did provide the manipulator arm for the shuttle and the ISS, mind you. But most of NASA’s budget is consumed by the Shuttle and the ISS, and the Shuttle’s mission is partly military, and the ISS grew out of a post-cold-war program to keep ex-Soviet engineers employed so they wouldn’t run off and help other countries build missiles. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/92 "2009-09-11T19:48:13Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > But can you see a contradiction in the logic of the stimulus and the treatment of NASA? Not really. The stimulus package provided NASA with additional funds to the tune of about 5.5% of its existing budget. I agree it would have been nice if it were more, and personally I would vote for more NASA funding, but I don’t really see a “contradiction” in its current funding levels. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > He wants to promote science in schools and motivate kids to become scientists and engineers, and has promised tens of billions of dollars to that effort. But do you know what motivates kids to become scientists and engineers? It sure as hell isn’t to help ‘green’ the economy. Sorry, but that’s bullshit. At my college, I see **dozens** of engineering and science students every year who are fascinated by sustainable technology and climate research, many of whom were initially inspired by environmental science projects that they encountered in school. Environmental science and other “green” areas of research are **huge** with the kids nowadays, and a wicked cool NASA satellite climate monitoring program will increase that excitement. Sure, space programs are also exciting and inspiring, but don’t let your hard-on for Mars colonization blind you to the motivational and inspirational power of terrestrial scientific challenges too. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > > [@Kimstu](#): > > > > Maybe you guys in Canada could designate some funds for the Canadian Space Agency to use on cooperative human exploration missions with NASA? As you note, $3B a year isn’t really all that much, and you could probably scrape it together if you wanted to. > > Oh, that’s just a cheap shot. Well, kinda, :p, but I actually don’t think it’s **totally** unreasonable: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Our economy is a tiny fraction of yours. If one-eleventh or one-twelfth is a tiny fraction, then okay; you still have the tenth largest economy in the world, though. In all seriousness, if $3B is supposed to be regarded as trivial sofa-cushion change by the US, then I don’t quite see why it should be considered impossibly unaffordable for Canada. You spend [over a third of a billion annually](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Space_Agency) on the Canadian Space Agency already: a tenfold increase, although admittedly quite a pricey investment for your GDP, doesn’t seem absolutely beyond your means if this is really a mission that’s very important to you. India’s GDP is about the same as yours, but they spend [one billion dollars annually](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research_Organisation) on their space research organization, and Og knows **they** have plenty of other places to put their money. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The role of NASA is also much different than that of Canada’s space agency. Well, presumably that could change if you really wanted it to; you guys have a democracy up there, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/93 "2009-09-11T20:02:37Z")
I’m as big a fan of manned space exploration and colonization as the next science fiction nut, but the whole “Moon and Mars” initiative was a poison pill for NASA from the start. Basically, it amounted to prohibiting NASA from doing anything other than the Moon and Mars, and then not giving them enough budget to do that, either. If we’re not going to be funding Moon and Mars missions, I’m happy with us actually acknowledging that fact, and at least getting other things accomplished meanwhile. Eventually, we’ll have cheap access to space (possibly a space elevator, possibly something else), and I’m willing to table the question of men on Mars until then. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/94 "2009-09-11T20:30:32Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Ask for volunteers. 1/5 chance of fatal cancer in exchange for being the first person to stand on Mars. Hmmm … > > I’m sure it would be tough to find anyone who’d want to do that…it’d be like trying to find people who enjoy risking their lives climbing on rocks or jumping out of airplanes. Hahaha! Good luck! > 😛 Indeed. Humans are are plentiful and cheap. Even if you’d offer a 50% chance of making it and ask them to pay their own food and boarding during training I’m sure you’d have more than enough fit volunteers. Exploration on the edge will cost lives and there’s only so much you can do to minimize the risks before the whole project becomes unfeasible. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/95 "2009-09-11T20:39:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m as big a fan of manned space exploration and colonization as the next science fiction nut, but the whole “Moon and Mars” initiative was a poison pill for NASA from the start. Basically, it amounted to prohibiting NASA from doing anything other than the Moon and Mars, and then not giving them enough budget to do that, either. That’s not really true. The Constellation program was (is) a complete space transportation architecture. Part of it would allow resupply missions to the ISS and astronaut transfer. Part of it was a system for extending reach beyond LEO. “Moon and Mars” was just a way to focus development efforts. The system was really designed for any non-LEO operations. For example, it could take humans out to the Lagrange points to service the James Webb telescope. There were also proposals to use the same system to send a mission to the asteroids. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/96 "2009-09-11T20:39:32Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > In the New York Times last week, someone mentioned how simple getting to Mars is if you simply do not bring the astronauts back. There is something to the idea. [see the last section of this presentation](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html) for a strong argument in favor. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/97 "2009-09-11T22:59:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Or not. Some things are impossible, you know, and decades of lavishly funded R&D will never make them possible. E.g., we have no good reason to hope the lightspeed barrier will ever be broken, or antigravity invented, or an over-unity energy source discovered. > > However, it might well be possible to put things in orbit at greatly reduced cost through a [space elevator.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) That’s allowed under currently understood physics, if only we can invent materials of sufficient tensile strength proportional to weight. There’s really no reason to break the speed of light. If you just get something moving about 80% of the speed of light then meaningful interstellar travel by humans is probably not that big of a stretch. I say this because physics may have a certain “speed limit” but I think it more than likely in 1-3,000 years time human beings will be able to create human beings with lifespans that are essentially unending (I don’t think a person will actually live forever, but they’ll live for a long time, at least 1,000 years.) If your lifespan was a thousand years the ~5.5 year trip to Alpha Centauri moving at 80% of c isn’t that long. The 44 years it takes moving at 10% of c is also within the realm of reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/98 "2009-09-12T19:15:14Z")
> [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > But what about O’Neill cylinders at LaGrange points between Earth and Moon orbits? Full strength, free solar power; the ability to produce space-only technologies like steelfoam and true sphere ball bearings, no problem with the garbage disposal (point at the sun and push.) plus the huge advantage that when all the industry is in space, we can get back to just plain agriculture down here. It’ll take us centuries to clean up the mess we’ve already made, but at least we won’t be generating more. Or am I the only one left whose pulse quickens on reading “High Frontier”? Apparently. There was some excitement in the '70s and '80s about the potential for space-based industry. By now, however, it appears there is nothing that can be done there that can’t be done **much** cheaper on Earth. I ran a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=386638) on this question in 2006; nobody posted any really persuasive contrary arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/99 "2009-09-12T20:20:32Z")
O’Neill colonies were the product of a time when we had gone from biplanes to Apollo in the space of 40 years. Everyone assumed that in the next 40 years wonderful things would happen, that mankind would spread out through the solar system, there would be large moonbases, etc. No one would have guessed that in the next 40 years after Apollo we’d be back on Earth, without having returned to the moon at all. Instead of having hypersonic transport planes, we retired our only supersonic passenger jet and now fly subsonic. Our fastest fighter jet was made in the 1950’s, as was the SR-71, our fastest aircraft. The fact is, from the perspective of 2009, something like an O’Neill colony is at least a hundred years away, and probably much more than that. To give you an idea of how hard it will be to do, one of the prerequisites for building it is that we build a miles-long mass driver on the moon. Given that we’ve decided we can’t even get an exploratory mission back to the moon within 15 years, it seems highly unlikely that such a thing will be built in our lifetimes. Let’s face it, folks. Given the priorities the people seem to have now, space travel is going back to being a dream. None of us will go into space, we’ll never see humans walking on other planets. The best we can hope for is that we’lll still maintain the will to build some large space observatories and discover new things that way. But the dream of mankind moving out into space in any large-scale way is dead for us. I find that incredibly sad. There is one hope left: Private industry. Perhaps the vision and skills of people like Burt Rutan will lead us out when our political leaders have failed us. One thing the Obama administration could do now is to embrace private industry and help set up conditions that will allow a private space architecture to grow and thrive. Given their political leanings, I doubt it. But one can hope. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438/100 "2009-09-13T00:37:34Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > One thing the Obama administration could do now is to embrace private industry and help set up conditions that will allow a private space architecture to grow and thrive. “Embrace private industry”? “Help set up conditions”? Why my goodness, **Sam** , you’re not advocating a—(gasp!)—_ **industrial policy** _ in favor of a space-exploration industry, are you?? :eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-not-going-to-mars/509438.md?page=6)