7 ms·

What do we have to gain by going to mars?

mathgeek 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars was (is?) one of the more in depth works making such an argument
myfurends 2y ago
[dead]
traverseda 2y ago
New wotlds seem to have a way of getting humanity out of a local maxima. Personally I'm hoping for luxury space communism.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  This is one of my reasons. I also believe that compared to the Moon, Mars is more likely to both give crewed spaceflight and human habitation of other bodies the big boost it needs and make it more of a permanent fixture — the Moon’s relative convenience is a problem in that it makes it just as easy to mothball as it is to get to. Lingering too long on the Moon as the focal point brings substantial risk of backsliding into Shuttle-era stagnation.
  - dudinax 2y ago
    Can you explain your thinking? Why would Mars be harder to mothball?
    - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
      It’s a result of the much higher level of commitment required to undertake crewed Mars missions. You can’t lean on Earth being nearby and contingencies have to include e.g. uncrewed resupply missions failing… it’s the sort of thing you have to go all-in on, after which pulling out is costly and looks stupid. By contrast, backing out of the moon is comparatively trivial. At worst it’d take a couple weeks and the expenses quickly lost in the noise. With Mars, there’s also the possibility of a “Wild West” element once things are established enough where groups of people simply refuse to return and cutting off support from them would have really bad optics.
- lproven 2y ago
  > Personally I'm hoping for luxury space communism. Fully automated if you please.
jasfi 2y ago
The objective would likely drive lots of improvements to science and engineering. Mars itself is very inhospitable to humans.
- nine_k 2y ago
  Mars is extremely hospitable to humans, compared to almost every other planet except Earth. Mercury: tidal lock to Sun, heavy solar radiation and solar flares up close, complicated orbital movement, low gravity, basically no atmosphere. May be habitable underground in particular belts with reasonable temperatures. Venus: a runaway greenhouse effect, metal-melting temperatures and colossal pressure on the surface, colossal never-clearing clouds, very strong winds, sulfur and chlorine abound in the atmosphere. Could be habitable using artificial islands floating in the upper atmosphere where the temperature and pressure are comfortable. At least the gravity is close to that on Earth. Jupiter is not habitable by itself, just due to the very strong gravity. Various moons of Jupiter are all pretty cold (though some have liquid water under the surface), and at his distance from Sun, the amount of sunlight reaching them is rather small, even when reflected by the giant disc of Jupiter in the sky. It's cold, solar power in impractical, uranium and thorium are not apparently abundant. Saturn: see Jupiter, only even farther and colder. Neptune: see Jupiter, but even without serious moons. Pluto / Charon binary: not even a planet. At this distance, Sun is but another star in the sky. Compared to these, Mars, with its conditions that resemble Earths's polar regions over large swaths of the surface, acceptable distance from Sun, serious amounts of water (as ice), acceptable gravity, acceptable amounts of sunlight, and relative closeness to Earth looks not that bad at all, and basically the only practical candidate for an autonomous, self-sufficient world.
  - jasfi 2y ago
    Just because Mars is better than the others doesn't mean its good enough as a long term habitat. People would have bone density problems much sooner in life, as an example.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      There is a price you have to pay to make a whole new planet your own. The choice of accessible celestial bodies is scarce, to say the least. A long-term colony, and by this a mean centuries and many locally born generations, will certainly uncover a large bunch of problems, and develop a number of adaptations, possibly including eventual genetic changes.
noch 2y ago
> What do we have to gain by going to mars? There's an assumption in the question that we are going to Mars. We aren't. It's the individuals who own the resources and money to implement space flight and Mars colonisation that are going to Mars. We don't get a say and our opinion doesn't really matter, unless we also happen to own aerospace companies. As such what we might have to gain depends on what the men in the arena choose to share or sell from the results of their efforts.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Its basically impossible to finance a meaningful try at colonizing mars without national resources
  - noch 2y ago
    > Its basically impossible to finance a meaningful try at colonizing mars without national resources That's a separate point: Citizens don't really get a say in how national resources are deployed, though the theatre of elections certainly makes them think they do (Recall that dude at Davos who said, "There are 150 people who run the world, all of them are men, and none of them are politicians"?). The point is: you and I, unless we own private aerospace companies, don't get a say and don't matter in the question of "why Mars". We'll certainly be allowed and encouraged to "make your voices heard" and many, including politicians and "representatives", will protest about the trillions of "taxpayer dollars that could be put to a better use". But the people who are doing the innovation and taking the most risk with their own capital will decide.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      We already admitted we were talking about trillions eg almost entirely our capital by any definition. The people doing the most innovation will be the scientists who be compensated a tiny fraction of the money earned by the capital. The people taking the most risk will be the people going. Again the capitalists will be contributing little and risking almost nothing mostly their position on a scoreboard. The person driving the school bus risks more and contributes more than the parasites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars was (is?) one of the more in depth works making such an argument

myfurends 2y ago

[dead]

traverseda 2y ago

New wotlds seem to have a way of getting humanity out of a local maxima. Personally I'm hoping for luxury space communism.

cosmic_cheese 2y ago
This is one of my reasons. I also believe that compared to the Moon, Mars is more likely to both give crewed spaceflight and human habitation of other bodies the big boost it needs and make it more of a permanent fixture — the Moon’s relative convenience is a problem in that it makes it just as easy to mothball as it is to get to. Lingering too long on the Moon as the focal point brings substantial risk of backsliding into Shuttle-era stagnation.
- dudinax 2y ago
  Can you explain your thinking? Why would Mars be harder to mothball?
  - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
    It’s a result of the much higher level of commitment required to undertake crewed Mars missions. You can’t lean on Earth being nearby and contingencies have to include e.g. uncrewed resupply missions failing… it’s the sort of thing you have to go all-in on, after which pulling out is costly and looks stupid. By contrast, backing out of the moon is comparatively trivial. At worst it’d take a couple weeks and the expenses quickly lost in the noise. With Mars, there’s also the possibility of a “Wild West” element once things are established enough where groups of people simply refuse to return and cutting off support from them would have really bad optics.
lproven 2y ago
> Personally I'm hoping for luxury space communism. Fully automated if you please.

jasfi 2y ago

The objective would likely drive lots of improvements to science and engineering. Mars itself is very inhospitable to humans.

nine_k 2y ago
Mars is extremely hospitable to humans, compared to almost every other planet except Earth. Mercury: tidal lock to Sun, heavy solar radiation and solar flares up close, complicated orbital movement, low gravity, basically no atmosphere. May be habitable underground in particular belts with reasonable temperatures. Venus: a runaway greenhouse effect, metal-melting temperatures and colossal pressure on the surface, colossal never-clearing clouds, very strong winds, sulfur and chlorine abound in the atmosphere. Could be habitable using artificial islands floating in the upper atmosphere where the temperature and pressure are comfortable. At least the gravity is close to that on Earth. Jupiter is not habitable by itself, just due to the very strong gravity. Various moons of Jupiter are all pretty cold (though some have liquid water under the surface), and at his distance from Sun, the amount of sunlight reaching them is rather small, even when reflected by the giant disc of Jupiter in the sky. It's cold, solar power in impractical, uranium and thorium are not apparently abundant. Saturn: see Jupiter, only even farther and colder. Neptune: see Jupiter, but even without serious moons. Pluto / Charon binary: not even a planet. At this distance, Sun is but another star in the sky. Compared to these, Mars, with its conditions that resemble Earths's polar regions over large swaths of the surface, acceptable distance from Sun, serious amounts of water (as ice), acceptable gravity, acceptable amounts of sunlight, and relative closeness to Earth looks not that bad at all, and basically the only practical candidate for an autonomous, self-sufficient world.
- jasfi 2y ago
  Just because Mars is better than the others doesn't mean its good enough as a long term habitat. People would have bone density problems much sooner in life, as an example.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    There is a price you have to pay to make a whole new planet your own. The choice of accessible celestial bodies is scarce, to say the least. A long-term colony, and by this a mean centuries and many locally born generations, will certainly uncover a large bunch of problems, and develop a number of adaptations, possibly including eventual genetic changes.

noch 2y ago

> What do we have to gain by going to mars? There's an assumption in the question that we are going to Mars. We aren't. It's the individuals who own the resources and money to implement space flight and Mars colonisation that are going to Mars. We don't get a say and our opinion doesn't really matter, unless we also happen to own aerospace companies. As such what we might have to gain depends on what the men in the arena choose to share or sell from the results of their efforts.

michaelmrose 2y ago
Its basically impossible to finance a meaningful try at colonizing mars without national resources
- noch 2y ago
  > Its basically impossible to finance a meaningful try at colonizing mars without national resources That's a separate point: Citizens don't really get a say in how national resources are deployed, though the theatre of elections certainly makes them think they do (Recall that dude at Davos who said, "There are 150 people who run the world, all of them are men, and none of them are politicians"?). The point is: you and I, unless we own private aerospace companies, don't get a say and don't matter in the question of "why Mars". We'll certainly be allowed and encouraged to "make your voices heard" and many, including politicians and "representatives", will protest about the trillions of "taxpayer dollars that could be put to a better use". But the people who are doing the innovation and taking the most risk with their own capital will decide.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    We already admitted we were talking about trillions eg almost entirely our capital by any definition. The people doing the most innovation will be the scientists who be compensated a tiny fraction of the money earned by the capital. The people taking the most risk will be the people going. Again the capitalists will be contributing little and risking almost nothing mostly their position on a scoreboard. The person driving the school bus risks more and contributes more than the parasites.