A sound goal. Of course, the cost of building that self-sustaining Mars colony would probably be at least 100 times the cost of a there-and-back trip, which itself is thought to be at (or beyond) what’s currently bearable.
Bad enough for sure - though not near as bad as Mars.
If we’re seriously concerned about massive attacks on the biosphere and feel that prevention isn’t feasible, a sensible plan would be to create a highly isolated colony somewhere on Earth (say, buried in a mountain, or under the Antarctic ice). This would be expensive, but absurdly cheap compared to doing the same thing on Mars.
The problem is that we already considered a lunar exploration program and abandoned the idea. In the early 1970s follow-on programs to Apollo were proposed that would use the hardware already designed and in production to conduct a fairly modest program of lunar exploration. Land a habitat module on the moon for astronauts to stay in and maybe a fully pressurized cabin lunar rover to stay on the moon and explore for a month at a time. Congress took one look at the proposed budget (essentially, maintaining Apollo’s funding indefinitely) and said forget it. They also axed the idea of building a permanent space station- it would have no purpose as a stand-alone project, and would cost too much to send up rotations of replacement crews.
So NASA said “um… er- well, if we build a reusuable Space Shuttle the cost of sending stuff up will go way way down! Then once space flight is cheaper, than we can discuss building a space station and going back to the moon and Mars.” So we dropped everything until we had that cheap access to low Earth orbit. Which never happened because the Shuttle made it easier to launch and recover manned crews, but not any cheaper.
So now we’re going to abandon the Shuttle and the International Space Station (which isn’t usable as a refueling or rendevous point for lunar missions anyway) and going back to expendable launchers and manned recovery capsules. Like the ones we insisted were too expensive. Which we’re now thinking again are too expensive. Meanwhile a few upcoming nations like China and India are considering sending men to the moon as technological prestige projects, to prove they have the capacity to do it. Which was our motive for going to the moon back in the 1960s. Until we did it, proved we could, and then decided it wasn’t worth it.
It’s said news that NASA will not be going to Mars anytime soon. I really believe that in order for our species to survive long term we need to colonise other planets.
That said, things may not be as bad as they seem, the Chinese, Japanese and Indian governments all seem to be willing to spend money on space travel, not so sure about ESA these days.
Eventually ego will win out and someone in the US administration will decide that they don’t want someone else to beat them to it and we will have another space race (for better reasons maybe this time).
Even if governments don’t do it, I’m sure someone like Richard Branson will eventually have a go. He’s already started space tourism, it may be slower than we would like, but I think we will get there eventually. Unless we die out first, which is a danger.
When will our pulse quicken at the idea of eliminating hunger in the world- or even our own country? How can humanity look to the stars as their greatest achievement, when we haven’t even achieved a decent life for most of us here on Earth?
Really, I don’t understand the point at all. We might as well burn the money- at least someone we could use the heat to keep warm or something. There is nothing that would be achieved by putting a human on Mars. A robot can do everything we can do there, and probably do it better. All we’d get out of it would be bragging rights. And frankly I don’t think there are any bragging rights worth more than a few hundred bucks or so. Certainly not billions.
Sure, maybe there is some time thousands of years from now when we’ll need to go to Mars. You know what? It’s not going to happen for a long time, when we will hopefully have technology we couldn’t even dream of today. Anything we do today is not even a drop in the bucket.
Let China and India have it. The real measure of the might of a nation is not if they can launch people into space, but if they can- you know- run a country. Since when was China, and their crazed search for validation, something we’ve felt the need to emulate? I mean, do we feel like we need to host a bigger, badder, more expensive Olympics because China got some bragging rights from theirs? Our priority should be our people, not our egos.
Little girls dream of being princesses and little girls dream of being space pioneers. We don’t spend billions trying to create some new form of all-princess monarchy. We shouldn’t spend billions so that some comic book dreamers can play-act their childhood dreams. Dreams are good and all, but we’re grown up now and have realities to deal with.
As others have said, a manned trip isn’t worth the expense, right now. We can get far more, for far less, with robotic probes. Later, when we develop viable nuclear-pulse jet rockets, going to mars will be possible and worthwhile.
But I’ve reconciled to not seeing this in my lfetime.
I used to think so. But judging by Congress’s perpetual (i.e., immediately upon Armstrong et al’s splashdown) disinterest in the cost, I’m not so sure that we do deserve it. We seem to be a sad and pathetic species.
Not really; Mars is just dead, not actively hostile.
That wouldn’t be very useful; an orbital or Moon setup would be better. The point is to put a self sustaining colony somewhere off Earth. If the surface, for example, ends up eaten by replicating machines then being in a mountain or Antarctica will only delay the inevitable.
False dilemma; not spending money on space exploration doesn’t mean it’ll be spent on helping the poor. And if you are waiting until paradise is achieved to start exploring space you might as well admit that you just oppose doing so at all.
While I’d love to go to Mars, I’m glad they are going to cut the program before the cost overruns begin, or before they start making compromises to save money, like they did on the Shuttle.
Going to Mars now is like if someone had tried to cross the Atlantic in an outrigger canoe. It can be done, but doesn’t it make sense to wait until you have some decent ships?
In the SF and space books of the '50s they usually began with a good sized space station, and build the Mars craft there. Do that and it can be much bigger since it doesn’t have to get out of our gravity well. More people and more supplies can go, they can stay longer, and maybe they could build some infrastructure. But mostly we have to figure out how to make a manned presence in space pay for anything beyond space tourism.
I’d start working on the space elevator first. It might be more expensive, and take longer, but cheap access to orbit is sure to spark all sorts of industries. Once we have an infrastructure in orbit, a Mars ship, and a Moon colony, would be a piece of cake.
Right - there are some (really, really unlikely) doomsday scenarios that make every place on Earth less habitable than Mars. So a truly isolated colony on earth offers something less than perfect protection.
As against that we have to look at the chance that something serious might go wrong with the colony on Mars. I’d guess that the chance of this is a lot higher than for the Earth colony (given the inherently hostile environment, lack of natural resources and other considerations).
As mentioned up thread a false dilemma, plus sending food/aid to the starving people of the world does not seem to help them stop starving, so I say build spaceships!
But the “Earth colony” is pointless. The point is to build a self sustaining outpost of civilization beyond Earth. Preferably many such outposts.
And the Earth Colony would actually have FEWER natural resources than a Mars ( or Moon or… ) colony since it would have to be completely sealed from the external world. Otherwise it would be even more pointless than it is and you might as well just build a suburb somewhere.
Now, that’s not entirely fair…I mean, look at how well it worked out for Ming China. Or Spain, when they refused to get onboard that crackpot go-to-Asia-by-sailing-west scheme, and spent all their mad money on Leper ointment instead.
