Should the US prioritize settling Mars?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
62
(120
/
-58)
> Should the US prioritize settling Mars?
No. Can we prioritize fixing our current planet before going and botching up another one?
Upvote
275
(412
/
-137)
Upvote
161
(174
/
-13)
I don't at all profess to know enough about the technical challenges of settling other bodies in the solar system and whether that's even truly feasible at this point, but philosophically? Hard no. I have a real problem with moving to a new house just because you're uninterested in stopping your current one from burning down.
Don't get me wrong I've been dreaming about this stuff since I was a kid first reading sci-fi novels, but we have bigger issues right now.
Don't get me wrong I've been dreaming about this stuff since I was a kid first reading sci-fi novels, but we have bigger issues right now.
Upvote
134
(208
/
-74)
And genocide anything already there and in the way, of course. Anyway, I’m just some dumb checker who thinks we should probably stop raping our home world to death before running to the stars and repeating the process.
Upvote
97
(163
/
-66)
With co-President Musk putting hundreds of thousands of Americans on the unemployment line to cut costs, exactly what is the play in making this a priority over all those being impacted by the stupidity on display in Washington on a minute-by-minute basis?
Upvote
131
(176
/
-45)
Isn't a manned Mars mission about $1T? How much for a settlement?
We can probably replace 1TW of Coal plants with Nat gas plants and halve CO2 emissions for that 1TW of power for the same cost. We can probably be even more bold and replace it with wind and batteries for the same cost.
I wouldn't go too crazy, I would argue that while there are coal electricity plants in the US, expending money on a manned Mars mission doesn't makes much sense.
Upvote
104
(151
/
-47)
Because Musk is a deranged nepo-baby playing with expensive toys, not a serious person. That's all Mars is to him.
Upvote
101
(152
/
-51)
It is a catastrophically bad idea. You can confirm that by looking at those who are pitching it the hardest. Besides, Humanity doesn't deserve a 2nd planet.
Upvote
66
(136
/
-70)
FoolishOwl
Ars Scholae Palatinae
The idea of colonizing other planets has always been premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of how ecosystems work and how integrated humans are into our ecosystems.
Upvote
218
(259
/
-41)
The money that would be spent on an ego-driven trip to Mars would go far to fixing things on THIS planet.
Upvote
43
(89
/
-46)
The thing we need to make clear is that settling Mars will not be easier than fixing environmental damage to earth. We need to stop talking about Mars as a backup Earth (maybe it's only Elon that does this). It is an interesting project but not an alternative.
Upvote
219
(235
/
-16)
No
Yes
I dunno, read what you want. And who even “we”? And there isn’t anything to call off, when are you folks going to realize there’s no plan to go to mars, it’s all a way of manipulating nerds to get them on the side of the fascists?
Upvote
46
(152
/
-106)
Question is should we prioritize it though, which implies an accelerated time frame.
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
almostinsane
Ars Praetorian
I read 'A City on Mars' last year and it made me realize colonizing Mars is just a dumb idea and a gigantic waste of money. Unless it's Elmo's $ funding it all.
Upvote
128
(162
/
-34)
About 4-6 Trillion to completely move the US to renewables. As soon as that's done, absolutely, go for it, knock yourselves out.
Upvote
68
(94
/
-26)
It's an incredibly dumb idea at this juncture.
And some people should definitely continue to pursue it for themselves, personally.
And some people should definitely continue to pursue it for themselves, personally.
Upvote
66
(82
/
-16)
At the moment our wisdom resources are severely constrained. Or at least hiding out until MAGA madness goes away
Upvote
35
(50
/
-15)
Sure we should. But until we figure out how to make a human being viable outside of Earth's atmosphere, Earth's Van Allen Belts, Earth's gravity, we are limited to much more smaller accomplishments in space.
I think a better investment right now is getting humans for extended periods on the Moon. Then we need to work out how to mine asteroids. It seems that all of the elements we need to advance human civilization is in abundance outside of our atmosphere and importantly, mining the solar system does not destroy the Earth's biosphere which is fragile.
I see lots of good reasons to conquer the solar system but I do not see any need to go to Mars for more than simple exploration and discovery. I liked a lot of Eric's ideas and agreed with his segment of the argument.
I think a better investment right now is getting humans for extended periods on the Moon. Then we need to work out how to mine asteroids. It seems that all of the elements we need to advance human civilization is in abundance outside of our atmosphere and importantly, mining the solar system does not destroy the Earth's biosphere which is fragile.
I see lots of good reasons to conquer the solar system but I do not see any need to go to Mars for more than simple exploration and discovery. I liked a lot of Eric's ideas and agreed with his segment of the argument.
Upvote
127
(136
/
-9)
As a species, it makes some sense to settle off planet on some basis. (IE you can come up with various arguments and concepts of utility for it that are not absurd.)
But I don't think there's any particular reason to make Mars the specific target for it.
But I don't think there's any particular reason to make Mars the specific target for it.
Upvote
5
(19
/
-14)
A trillion just for a manned mission? Even with SLS that seems hard to believe. Maybe you are thinking a trillion to get an actual colony started, rather than a boots on the ground science mission?
Upvote
10
(38
/
-28)
Isn't foisting that question reflective of the problem? Why not the moon, or Titan?
Putting aside the dubious prospect that SpaceX is ever going or ever even intended to put a "self sustaining city on Mars" (and let's leave out all the self serving apocalyptic "civilization" garbage a certain man brings out whenever he wants to be given money or a pass on misconduct while doing his level best to bring about said doom) instead of using it as a propaganda tool and means of co-opting state funds for itself... Mars doesn't necessarily make the most sense even just in terms of ease or cost, let alone actual sense.
Even just looking at doing something like this, there is no bonafide seriousness in those in positions of power now. Otherwise they wouldn't be decimating NASA's science projects, some of which would be necessary for eventually even thinking about success. Frankly, that decimation is further illustration of just how utterly farcical these people are. They don't care about science, NASA, budgets, space, "civilization" or the future and the certainly don't care about being responsible.
Putting aside the dubious prospect that SpaceX is ever going or ever even intended to put a "self sustaining city on Mars" (and let's leave out all the self serving apocalyptic "civilization" garbage a certain man brings out whenever he wants to be given money or a pass on misconduct while doing his level best to bring about said doom) instead of using it as a propaganda tool and means of co-opting state funds for itself... Mars doesn't necessarily make the most sense even just in terms of ease or cost, let alone actual sense.
Even just looking at doing something like this, there is no bonafide seriousness in those in positions of power now. Otherwise they wouldn't be decimating NASA's science projects, some of which would be necessary for eventually even thinking about success. Frankly, that decimation is further illustration of just how utterly farcical these people are. They don't care about science, NASA, budgets, space, "civilization" or the future and the certainly don't care about being responsible.
Upvote
67
(86
/
-19)
This. Moon first; it's a much closer, more easily attainable goal. We need easier; this way we can work on 'both' issues (exploring new frontiers, and solving the problems at home).
Upvote
16
(33
/
-17)
I feel like the ISS proves that humans can live pretty long in a tin can, no doubt they can do so on the Moon too. The difference is that Mars is interesting, every probe and rover we send there brings back meaningful new knowledge. Do I think a colony on Mars makes sense? No, but I'd love to see a research outpost. And if Musk would pour his billions into getting that going rather than the rest of his shitshow well... it's not the worst thing that could happen. I'll just take the glass half full, if IFT-9 blows up it's karma and if it doesn't it's science. Either way there's a silver lining.
Upvote
34
(50
/
-16)
I like to think that out of all the planets, dwarf planets and moons in our solar system, the one that has the least amount of radiation exposure, water and decent gravity, would be Mars.
Upvote
13
(23
/
-10)
So reading the comments, generally the ‘no’s are because we need to fix climate change on Earth before we have the moral right to go to a new world.
And the ‘yes’s because it would be cool and problems on earth are not a reason not to attempt an amazing feat of human endeavour which may be within reach.
I have to say that taking risks and endeavour for its own sake is likely a large part of how we have (recently) won at natural selection.
Progressing comes in unexpected ways (if you want a dramatic example, read why the chainsaw was invented. It was nothing to do with chopping trees).
Hasn’t history shown that technological races in one sphere disproportionately affect entirely separate spheres. The technological race to solve climate change on terra would be sped up, not impeded, by development of technologies for living on Mars as would other fields, tangent, parallel or unrelated.
Let’s get back to optimism, belief in what we’re collectively working toward and seeing where it takes us.
A hard yes from me.
And the ‘yes’s because it would be cool and problems on earth are not a reason not to attempt an amazing feat of human endeavour which may be within reach.
I have to say that taking risks and endeavour for its own sake is likely a large part of how we have (recently) won at natural selection.
Progressing comes in unexpected ways (if you want a dramatic example, read why the chainsaw was invented. It was nothing to do with chopping trees).
Hasn’t history shown that technological races in one sphere disproportionately affect entirely separate spheres. The technological race to solve climate change on terra would be sped up, not impeded, by development of technologies for living on Mars as would other fields, tangent, parallel or unrelated.
Let’s get back to optimism, belief in what we’re collectively working toward and seeing where it takes us.
A hard yes from me.
Upvote
-9
(95
/
-104)
Only after we terraform it, so maybe in a thousand years?
Fix the atmosphere to retain water, dump a few trillions of gallons of water from the other system onto it, add some plant life adapted to need less sunlight, etc.
Or send Douglas Quaid to start up the alien oxy device, either one is good.
Fix the atmosphere to retain water, dump a few trillions of gallons of water from the other system onto it, add some plant life adapted to need less sunlight, etc.
Or send Douglas Quaid to start up the alien oxy device, either one is good.
Upvote
6
(24
/
-18)
That's not really how natural selection works, and especially over the time frames that 'risk-taking' would imply.
Upvote
79
(92
/
-13)
Ars really said 'here's our author making an argument for manifest destiny in 2025', huh
Upvote
51
(84
/
-33)