Theweirdtophat
Well-Known Member
I would send them before the worst problems in humanity arises, not after.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Liquid water exists on Mars, boosting hopes for life there, NASA says
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
The cost & risks of sending humans there would be prohibitive.
(It's orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon landings.)
Unmanned exploration & remote sensing is far more cost effective.
And these technologies are becoming far more capable every year.
....and baby stealing dingoes!
You keep moving the goalposts from any exploration to manned missions to Mars.
Sending probes with robotics is vastly more efficient than a sending humans. Humans need huge supply infrastructure. It would cost as much as freeing humans from a lot of the plagues that beset us.
I vote for clean water and air and food. Good medical care and education. Before you and your buddies blow a trillion dollars on a Mars mission.
And I think I am in the majority of the human family.
Tom
Theweirdtophat
Well-Known Member
Who would spend a trillion dollars anyway? The US or Europe? Really 1 trillion isn't that much money if every country chipped in, if they are all interested in going to Mars.
I'd be very surprised if a mere trillion dollars could fund a productive manned Mars mission with a high probability of returning them alive.
If it were one way, that could cut the cost in half or more.
I am not disagreeing with you. That is the next logical step. I just believe you are putting the cart before the horse here.
You are presenting a false choice fallacy. You are presenting this as I either support clean water/air OR I support a Mars mission. Why can't I do both?
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
The cost
Donald Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for it. Problem solved!
& risks of sending humans there would be prohibitive.
(It's orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon landings.)
Sure, absolutely the risks are beyond prohibitive, anyone who goes should realize they are going to die. My point is, the same was pretty much true with Columbus and his merry men at the time. The risk, in my opinion, isn't a factor as long as there are willing explorers.
Unmanned exploration & remote sensing is far more cost effective.
And these technologies are becoming far more capable every year.
Sure, but with the eventual goal of what? The eventual goal has to be inhabiting the planet or what's the point?
Donald Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for it. Problem solved!
& risks of sending humans there would be prohibitive.
(It's orders of magnitude more difficult than the moon landings.)
Sure, absolutely the risks are beyond prohibitive, anyone who goes should realize they are going to die. My point is, the same was pretty much true with Columbus and his merry men at the time. The risk, in my opinion, isn't a factor as long as there are willing explorers.
Unmanned exploration & remote sensing is far more cost effective.
And these technologies are becoming far more capable every year.
Sure, but with the eventual goal of what? The eventual goal has to be inhabiting the planet or what's the point?
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
You can, and should.
It's basic Econ. You can't spend the same dollar on beer and also rent.
If we humans could find a way to supply the needs and also the wants, you and I would be good to go. But as long as supplying the basic human needs is too much to accomplish I don't think we are prepared to send humans to Mars.
Sorry to rain on your science fiction fantasy.
Tom
It isn't a fantasy, it is going to happen. This isn't my parade, it is man-kinds parade. You claim you can't do both, but I think you can. And I will continue to do so regardless of what self-righteous users on the internet thinks. Thanks for the input anyway.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
But you could do that with anything. We can choose to:
1) research cancer
2) provide clean water for all humans
Let's not research cancer because we have to solve the water problem first.
If people thought this way nothing would ever get done except tending to our very basic needs. Why waste time creating oprah music or writing novels when we have starvation in the world?
It's a false dichotomy. And people in 1950 said the same thing about a moon landing being "a science fiction fantasy." With the advancement of technology in the last 200 years you can't envision what another 100 years will do to transform technology?
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
That should have been OPERA music not Oprah!
Is it the future of our existence! Look at this as the big picture. How are you not excited by this?
Columbus & crew expected to fail & die?
Well, I'm OK with a manned Mars mission being a one way trip.
But it still doesn't look as productive as spending the same amount on unmanned missions & remote sensing.
The near term goal (say a century) would be knowledge & technological advancement.
The long term goal would likely include expansion to other planets.
But the distant future would make the job relatively easier.
One of the biggest problems is the cost of lifting material into orbit.
There are great possible solutions, but none are near.
I remember the moon landings being celebrated by ordinary folk around the world.
Being rich wouldn't make it any more enjoyable.
(Being rich does have its own rewards though.)
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
It is the super rich geek parade.
Probably so. I get your money angle, I just don't think it's a real obstacle, and for this exact reason. There will always be filthy rich eccentric people who want to spend their money on crazy stuff like trying to put people on Mars, instead of boring yet practical things like solving world hunger. Look at Dubai as an example. You know how many zillions of dollars they spent to build that place up? They could have spent that feeding the hungry, but the world doesn't work that way.
Most people want stuff you can't get on Mars.
Like beer and free internet porn. Maybe you're right, life isn't worth living without those things.
Probably so. I get your money angle, I just don't think it's a real obstacle, and for this exact reason. There will always be filthy rich eccentric people who want to spend their money on crazy stuff like trying to put people on Mars, instead of boring yet practical things like solving world hunger. Look at Dubai as an example. You know how many zillions of dollars they spent to build that place up? They could have spent that feeding the hungry, but the world doesn't work that way.
Most people want stuff you can't get on Mars.
Like beer and free internet porn. Maybe you're right, life isn't worth living without those things.