12 ms·

nowhere to go? really? last time i checked most of the earth's surface was uninhabited. why do people want to go to mars when the land can be had in the mojave

nowhere to go? really? last time i checked most of the earth's surface was uninhabited. why do people want to go to mars when the land can be had in the mojave desert for practically no cost? its just as dry but has an oxygen atmosphere, and there is virtually no demand for the land or forget about the mojave. northern canada has a population per square km that is effectively zero. pretty mars-like, but you can hunt for dinner if you're smart. and once again, the land is basically free. oh i'm not even mentioning a half dozen inhospitable places that no one occupies....why on earth would these people need to go to mars again??

dstorrs 15y ago
A) Because every dollar invested in the US space program since inception has created about $7 of economic benefit to the consumer economy. B) (Related to A but worth mentioning separately:) Because the space program has led to major advances in medicine that have improved length and quality of life on Earth. [1] C) To gain access to essentially limitless energy resources via space-based solar. D) To gain access to material resources (e.g. minerals) that are scare or absent on Earth. [2] E) To create an off-Earth breeding population of humans so that one asteroid / plague / nuclear war / whatever cannot wipe out the entire species. [1] Here's a simple example: When the Hubble telescope was initially launched, it had a small lens defect that blurred the pictures slightly (the pictures were still better than any Earth-based 'scope, though). Image processing software was developed to clean up the pictures until a replacement lens could be deployed. That software then migrated over to MRI machines where it is now used to detect tumors much earlier than used to be possible. [2] These resources are better accessed from the asteroids than Mars, but going to the latter gives you access to the former.
- scg 15y ago
  > A) Because every dollar invested in the US space program since inception has created about $7 of economic benefit to the consumer economy. This is intriguing. Do you have a reference and/or can you provide an explanation for this?
  - ericd 15y ago
    There were myriad new materials and other technologies developed to defeat the challenges of getting into and surviving in space, many of which launched companies and industries. Some commonly cited examples: memory foam (TempurPedic Mattresses), better water filters, freeze-dried food, cordless power tools, various plastics, useful solar cells, carbon fiber epoxy. On top of that, there are all of the benefits of having satellites (telecommunications, GPS, satellite TV, etc).
- wunderfool 15y ago
  you raise a bunch of economic issues, but the poster to which i replied simply stated that there was "no where else to go", which is absurd the rest of your points are dubious. your point B) has been proven false since the launch of the space station...this was one of its apparently initial goals, zero-g bioresearch...except that ended up being replaced with simulating everything in computers with bioinformatics on earth much more easily C) also has no meaning as we could provide 100% of our solar needs by simply covering a part of any of our major deserts with solar thermal. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-requ... D) maybe, but, for a contrived example, if gold is $5000 an ounce, you have to bring it back from mars for less than $5000 an ounce or its a wash E) completely bogus, no humans could survive long term with constant support from earth, this has been beaten to death
lupatus 15y ago
I second wunderfool's comment. Having driven from Richmond, Virginia, to Anchorage, Alaska, a couple of times, I can attest first-hand that most of North America is unoccupied, empty wildlands. And, don't tell me that I was confused by giant farms in Saskatchewan or something like that. I'm not counting them. Most of the land is simply empty and devoid of humans. (This fact got a little worrisome when it was night, I was low on gasoline, it was snowing, and I was still a good distance from the next "town" on the map.)

dstorrs 15y ago

A) Because every dollar invested in the US space program since inception has created about $7 of economic benefit to the consumer economy. B) (Related to A but worth mentioning separately:) Because the space program has led to major advances in medicine that have improved length and quality of life on Earth. [1] C) To gain access to essentially limitless energy resources via space-based solar. D) To gain access to material resources (e.g. minerals) that are scare or absent on Earth. [2] E) To create an off-Earth breeding population of humans so that one asteroid / plague / nuclear war / whatever cannot wipe out the entire species. [1] Here's a simple example: When the Hubble telescope was initially launched, it had a small lens defect that blurred the pictures slightly (the pictures were still better than any Earth-based 'scope, though). Image processing software was developed to clean up the pictures until a replacement lens could be deployed. That software then migrated over to MRI machines where it is now used to detect tumors much earlier than used to be possible. [2] These resources are better accessed from the asteroids than Mars, but going to the latter gives you access to the former.

scg 15y ago
> A) Because every dollar invested in the US space program since inception has created about $7 of economic benefit to the consumer economy. This is intriguing. Do you have a reference and/or can you provide an explanation for this?
- ericd 15y ago
  There were myriad new materials and other technologies developed to defeat the challenges of getting into and surviving in space, many of which launched companies and industries. Some commonly cited examples: memory foam (TempurPedic Mattresses), better water filters, freeze-dried food, cordless power tools, various plastics, useful solar cells, carbon fiber epoxy. On top of that, there are all of the benefits of having satellites (telecommunications, GPS, satellite TV, etc).
wunderfool 15y ago
you raise a bunch of economic issues, but the poster to which i replied simply stated that there was "no where else to go", which is absurd the rest of your points are dubious. your point B) has been proven false since the launch of the space station...this was one of its apparently initial goals, zero-g bioresearch...except that ended up being replaced with simulating everything in computers with bioinformatics on earth much more easily C) also has no meaning as we could provide 100% of our solar needs by simply covering a part of any of our major deserts with solar thermal. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-requ... D) maybe, but, for a contrived example, if gold is $5000 an ounce, you have to bring it back from mars for less than $5000 an ounce or its a wash E) completely bogus, no humans could survive long term with constant support from earth, this has been beaten to death

lupatus 15y ago

I second wunderfool's comment. Having driven from Richmond, Virginia, to Anchorage, Alaska, a couple of times, I can attest first-hand that most of North America is unoccupied, empty wildlands. And, don't tell me that I was confused by giant farms in Saskatchewan or something like that. I'm not counting them. Most of the land is simply empty and devoid of humans. (This fact got a little worrisome when it was night, I was low on gasoline, it was snowing, and I was still a good distance from the next "town" on the map.)