We Never Know
No Slack
Nothing from Musk has gone to mars.
-
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!
Trump Plans Mars Colony With Musk
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Not surprising.
...and I vow to sleep with Leonardo Di Caprio before 2025.
Colonizing Mars would seem premature at this point.
Right now, it seems the government is focused on more Earthbound concerns, such as expanding the Space Force to counter other countries moving in the same direction.
Returning to the moon after 52 years it would be a great start.
I remember watching "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a kid, and at that time, building a base on the Moon seemed like it was something that would someday happen. After the first Moon landings, people had a lot of high hopes and expectations that we would be sending ships even further, but that never really happened. Apparently, it was too expensive.
A good friend of mine told me that he believed there must have been some other reason as to why they stopped going to the Moon. His view was highly speculative and bordered on conspiracy theory, but his view was that they must have found something that scared them off making any more trips to the Moon.
It is scary.
- People died in the attempts.
- The cost is scary high.
Many seem to presume that going to the Moon
is necessary, & must be continued. Why?
Alternative methods of exploring the universe
have been far cheaper, safer, & more productive,
eg, Hubble, Chandra.
Yes. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, although there's something to be said for exploring for the sake of exploration. "To boldly go where no one has gone before."
Maybe space telescopes and unmanned probes could be reasonably effective.
In any case, it looks like we may be headed for another space race, as we Earthlings can't seem to get along very well. Our species is not yet mature enough to be considered for membership in the Federation.
Exploration is fine.
But it should be done with specific goals, & a reasonable plan.
Resources aren't unlimited.
Every project pursued means some other project is displaced.
Would you argue that continuing the Moon missions is more
important than un-manned exploration by probes & telescopes?
That putting boots on Mars is more important than exploring
the very edge of the known universe, going back to its beginning?
Only "could be"?
Far far more has become known about our universe from
un-manned & Earth-bound telescopes vs manned missions.
Discoveries about dark matter, dark energy, black holes,
galaxy formation, etc have eclipsed the gains from men
standing on the Moon....which was a useful (but risky) mission,
given the technology at the time. People are fragile, & their
care is very expensive in both cost & mission compromises.
But now due to AI & sensor technology advancements, we're
we increasingly capable to explore without sending people
in harm's way.
The militarization of space is really a separate issue
from colonizing other planets / moons.
Last edited:
No, I wouldn't argue they are more important. They would be noteworthy achievements and historical milestones, but whether or not they have any real "importance" is more in the eye of the beholder. Some might argue that space is not important at all, and that we should concentrate all our attentions on matters here on Earth. I can see that side, too, although I still think we should keep some eyes out in space as well.
Yes, although the general public was captivated by the whole idea of sending people into space and even up to the Moon. Maybe it has more of a symbolic effect.
It led to a common phrase we often hear, "We can send a man to the Moon, but we can't fix (insert petty annoyance here)." Sending a man to the Moon is like the pinnacle of human achievement and the furthest away humans have ever gone. It leads to the belief that anything can be possible.
Yes, although as you pointed out, in order to finance one, they have to take away from the other. Exploration may take a back seat to the development of space-based weapons - perhaps even armed spaceships.
In 1969, "we" beat them pesky commie Russkies to the Moon in the Space Race...Mission accomplished, and political support for further aggressive manned space missions evaporated.
NASA was taking lots of money from other, more preferred operations...such as the Vietnam War, which at the time was still wildly popular with Congress...
NASA was taking lots of money from other, more preferred operations...such as the Vietnam War, which at the time was still wildly popular with Congress...
Heyo
Veteran Member
There are reasonable ideas to move a few people (and a lot of robots) to Luna and set up a mining and smelter operation. With the metal, we could build reasonably big stations (Stanford Torus or O'Neil Cylinder). That would at least make space an option. And when (if) we get fusion working, interstellar travel becomes reasonable.
I'm not saying it won't be more practical
in 100 or 200 years. But even the Moon,
which is far more supportable than Mars,
would be a tough place to inhabit.
This shouldn't be attempted based upon
the presumption that future technologies
will arrive in time to make it work.
Heyo
Veteran Member
We have all the necessary technology to set up a small base on Luna. The initial cost is high, but once it's working, it becomes much cheaper to build additional spacecraft, telescopes, stations, robots, etc. It's an economy of scale.
But is it more worth doing than alternative
exploration missions? But I agree that the
Moon is a much better candidate for human
occupation than Mars.
- Closer.
- Less burdensome gravity well.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That depends on how many alternative exploration missions you have. At some point, it becomes more viable to launch at least the hull from the moon.
I've no doubt that many missions await approval,
eg, interplanetary probes, orbiting telescopes,
ground based remote sensing.
Do you envision any advantages of having humans
on the Moon, eg, a Moon based economy that
benefits a country on Earth, military, research?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
As a manufacturing and forward base to get out of earth's gravity it makes some sense, as a colony, Antarctica probably makes more sense.
Getting out of Earth's gravity is very expensive & risky.
Getting into & out of Mars's gravity is even more so.
There are better places for manufacturing than Antarctica,
eg, New Jersey, which has better roads & restaurants.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yes, but New Jersey is still in Earth's gravity well. Luna has less mass and no atmosphere. Products made on the moon can be sent into orbit with a mass driver, making it much cheaper and much more secure than anything started from Earth.
As @Pogo said, Luna may be not be the best option for a colony, but it is an option for a production hub (if the future need for metal hulls justifies the initial costs).