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.
Fully automated if you please.
Mars itself is very inhospitable to humans.
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.
People would have bone density problems much sooner in life, as an example.
Maybe we can try and terraform it in the meantime.
There is a decent chance that our present biological basis is not congruent with the future of humanity. Mind-extension into synthetic cognitive structures is not as far fetched as it seems- we already extend our consciousness using machines, albeit with a very poor interface.
It is foreseeable that we will come to understand the nature of sentience - after all, many simpler organisms exhibit sentience- and beyond that it seems to be a scaling problem, which are inherently tractable.
If we can improve the interface between biological computation and synthetic computation, it will likely become possible to extend sentience across that divide, barring some kind of spiritual phenomenon or “magic “.
If we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot too badly, it is foreseeable that we may make very substantial progress in this direction over the next century. Establishing a toehold on mars during that century will be a huge strategic advantage.
The problem with “people these days” is that almost no one thinks a multi decade project is worth doing. If everyone waits for the future to “arrive “, the future you end up with is just driven by quarterlies.
The most important accomplishments will be remembered for centuries. If you aren’t working on one in some capacity, what are you even doing with your life?
But I think you underlined the issue of timelines. Yes we can technically go to Mars in only a few years, but people living there permanently is going to be beyond my lifetime. Unless some people are willing to drastically sacrifice their health.
Current biological humans.
And as you allude to, updated and replacement body plans are easily in the cards on a decades timescale.
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.
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.
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.
Your basic assumptions are wrong and troubled by motivated reasoning. But I'm sure you can already tell where you are wrong so I won't condescend. Certainly you seem to have strong feelings, which is cool and all.
> But the people who are doing the innovation and taking the most risk with their own capital will decide.
> will protest about the trillions of "taxpayer dollars that could be put to a better use"
There aren't any individuals that own the resources to implement space flight and mars colonization you yourself admitted as much with the "trillions of taxpayer dollars" Those last 2 quotes contradicting themselves are literally back to back
> Citizens don't really get a say in how national resources are deployed
Every two years we do in the US.
> Your basic assumptions are wrong and troubled by motivated reasoning. But I'm sure you can already tell where you are wrong so I won't condescend.
You have condescended to me but you haven't explained how I'm wrong and I don't think I am. If so pray tell.
Money as a fundamental unit of value outside of economics leads to nonsensical conclusions like taking a money guy who presently employs a stable of geniuses who themselves sit atop the result of man millennia of labor by singular irreplaceable people and assigning credit to the current idiot who owns the works.
It leads you to imagine that owning a hundred billion is as valuable a contribution as a million teachers or that someone who risks 90% of his fortune by ceding a bigger piece of the economic pie to another billionaire and thereby downsizing to fewer trips to space is somehow risking a billion times more than someone actually risking their life.
It's like listening to a psychologist try to understand the evolution of galaxies via their domain knowledge.
Capitalism is a method to allocate resources within a society it offers no meaningful truths about it. It is on the whole a massive failure only slightly less stupid than prior iterations of central planning.
Back on the topic of mars. It is fundamentally absolutely useless as a second home for man. It is at best a place where a small number of people can do interesting science. There wont be a meaningful number of people there because the entire idea is fundamentally flawed.
Would you like to talk about that or would you like to educate me about capitalism and government?
Friend, you are really so boring and obtuse.
Here's the bottom line so you can write another thousand words coping:
Men are going to Mars. Men who own or run aerospace companies will make it happen. You aren't one of those men. Your protests and pontificating don't matter.
The costs will dwarf any projects humans have pursued so far. I hope the long term costs are in the trillions so that a quadrillion dollars of wealth is created!
To the extent that taxpayer dollar matter, it will be because nations don't want to miss out on the investment, not because they are needed.
Perhaps you haven't made your 1st million yet, so you really don't know how to create wealth or build substantial projects. It doesn't start with taxpayer dollars.
The future will not be boring.
Going to mars on a larger scale is presently nonsense because beyond the science there is no reason to go there. There just isn't anything of exploitable value there.
We can't at this level of technology teraform mars nor live there without massive radiation shielding eg live like rats underground 99% of the time.
Furthermore every aspect of our technological civilization is heavily dependant on a long chain of products with their own deps stretching back in a massive graph.
Any such endeavor would be incredibly costly per person, yield little more than hosting a half dozen people, and require a constant input of goods from home without which everyone does.
This isn't a frontier town because its too expensive and it doesn't have things that can enrich home base for less than cost on acquisition.
It isn't a backup plan if Earth dies because exploding a 1000 nukes would leave the bombed out husk 1000x more livable.
Its not a second earth because we can't teraform it at present level of technology.
It won't create a dragon hoard of wealth because there is no reason to believe it will create any.
Its just a science mission like the ISS. It does actually start with government money because nobody has multiple trillions to spend on something that won't create wealth because why would it.
Please refute something of what I said.
Let's start with how a large scale colony is going to be viable and earn money.
Please consider the cost of constant support, how they will achieve self sufficiency and on what time scale including everything from mining to pharmacutical manufacturing how they will deal with radiation and so forth.
Please cite actual sources. While you shift from trying to look cool to actual debate please leave this shit at the door.
> Perhaps you haven't made your 1st million yet...
I encourage you to implement this mission. No one is stopping you. I hope you succeed.
> Going to mars on a larger scale is presently nonsense
The history of humanity at every scale is men saying "x project is nonsense" while other men do stuff (I recall my grandfather telling me how he was told that building a 5 acre dairy farm in the middle of nowhere, with no roads and no technology was impossible and would bankrupt him. That farm eventually scaled up to a "larger scale" that he was assured was impossible).
You really are terribly boring, or terribly young, or both. Sad.
Here's the thing: you bore me. I feel no inclination to engage with your dull diatribe. I'm the wrong audience for you, and you're a waste of my time, as I am a waste of yours.
So, find someone who cares about or agrees with what you're saying and you'll have a more productive debate, I promise.
> Let's start with how a large scale colony is going to be viable and earn money.
Here's thing. If you answer the questions you raise, you win the prize at the next frontier. That's what innovation is about. You can be given infinite amounts of money anywhere in the world if you present solutions to questions that other men can't figure out. That's the game.
But you don't actually want to answer the questions: "how do we colonize Mars", "how do we build a 1M person base on the moon?" You want to moralize about your low expectations and treat your lack of imagination as a virtue. I categorically refuse to play that game. But good luck.
Its not about how we build a city there its about there being no reason to do so this century. It was fucking trivual to answer that question for Every other frontier and the dairy farm because however remote the farm it had soil and an atmosphere.
You are covering your complete lack of argument with condecention and absolutely nobody is buying it.
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant to those who are more ambitious and curious than you. On top of that, you're taking out of your rear, because you haven't explored Mars or any other planet. You have no clue what is out there.
> You are covering your complete lack of argument with condecention and absolutely nobody is buying it.
You seem thoroughly confused. I'm not selling anything. Free individuals can choose the future they want. Stop being a toddler.
The simple fact is there are many men who want to do something. There is no other justification an individual needs in order to pursue their ambitions. They don't answer to you and never will.
This thread is annoying because you're both right and you're both wrong, about different parts of the argument, and you're too busy shouting at one another to notice and correct one another's actual errors.
For this specific one, I will merely quote the words of a wiser person than I.
"Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy."
If you think it's about money you haven't understood the real issues.
Money is nothing more than a symbol, just like flags, and nations, and gods. Symbols for things that are not actual real things.
Symbols do not matter. Reality always beats symbols. Reality continues after any entities that can create and manipulate symbols cease to exist.
Focus on reality. Try to ignore symbols.
Incidentally, and obviously, I completely agree with you.
And aside: People who think money is an actual limitation often sound to me like people who've never issued shares or been in a conversation with a municipality issuing debt. Money is literally not an impediment and I don't think money is an issue except to the extent that I was dragged into an argument about it.
You'll recall I spoke of "wealth", as completely distinct from "money". Of course you already know the distinction as you've alluded to it in your own post.
I'm interested in all the wealth that will be generated.
Changing the name does not change the point.
I suggest you go read Iain M Banks's Culture novels.
You will have fun, because they are wonderful, but you will also learn what a civilisation that has moved beyond the concept of "money", "wealth", or "payment" would be like.
In brief: better in every imaginable way.
It is not about money.
It will be a stretch to justify a scientific expedition without trying to build a city on mars.
This has already been falsified.
I personally have stood and watched fleets of satellites cross the night sky in naked-eye visible formations that were put there by private industry using reusable launch vehicles.
Your argument was valid in the 20th century but it's not any more. Things change.
You addressed none of the reasons that going beyond a small scientific mission would be nonsense
No I did not.
I think you are getting your threads confused.
After that, it's conceivable that the cost to travel there will eventually fall to a few million or tens of millions of dollars per person. At that point, a handful of rich people could drive enough demand for the development of colonization technology that it becomes self-funding.
For the non-scientist living on mars would be living in a cave worse than that enjoyed by most poor people in absolute boredom 99.5% of the time.
Your martian adventure will cost an appreciable portion of a billion dollars, include a return ticket, and continual support from home. It will be a very high cost ammortized over few units and it will never be self funding.