Is it worth sending humans to Mars?

[Matt Foley]

This wasteful Trekkie joy ride is more like the Vikings' wild adventure. They didn't have the technology to take advantage of the New World, so Europe had to wait 500 years until that was developed first.

Columbus was on a trade mission. Mars, or even the Moon, could be made of solid gold and it would cost too much to mine it and bring it back. Hollywood science fiction is twisting our sense of priorities.

I actually like science fiction, but I'm able to put it down after I'm done, and then rejoin reality.

 

[Guy Incognito]

not that I agree with the argument, but having viable populations of humans on more than one planet would greatly increase our chances of survival as a species. the odds of a freak event wiping out both populations are infinitely smaller than such an event hitting a single planet.

But an event that destroyed our sun would destroy Mars and the rest of the solar system to. To be truly safe we need to spread to other solar systems. But what if the Milky Way collided with another galaxy? It could happen! We'd have to have colonies in multiple galaxies to be truly safe!

 

[Matt Foley]

But an event that destroyed our sun would destroy Mars and the rest of the solar system to. To be truly safe we need to spread to other solar systems. But what if the Milky Way collided with another galaxy? It could happen! We'd have to have colonies in multiple galaxies to be truly safe!

lol.........

 

[zgoldsmith23]

But an event that destroyed our sun would destroy Mars and the rest of the solar system to. To be truly safe we need to spread to other solar systems. But what if the Milky Way collided with another galaxy? It could happen! We'd have to have colonies in multiple galaxies to be truly safe!

The simple fact that you don't know that we will one day collide with Andromeda, scares me...

 

[Kandahar]

I can refute every single argument for why we supposedly need to send people to Mars.

We need to take the first step toward colonizing other planets, so that our fate isn't tied to earth. - This is a problem for our remote descendants to worry about. The fact is that the money could be better spent to prevent needless deaths that are occurring on earth right now.

There will always be a better time to go. - Maybe so, but now is a particularly bad time because the cost of the trip would be so expensive and we have so many other problems to worry about. At least if we wait a bit, the costs will come down dramatically and perhaps the cost/benefit analysis will eventually change.

We should do it for the scientific benefits of exploring Mars. - This can be done far more efficiently with robots.

We should do it for the technological benefits that such a mission would indirectly produce. - This can be done far more efficiently by directly funding the technologies we want to bring about.

It will inspire a new generation to become scientists. - We have thousands of failing schools where people can't even get a decent education. Fixing that problem will produce more scientists too, so let's spend the money on that instead.


...
Look, it's not that I'm against NASA. NASA does some great research, and Curiosity is a great achievement. Most of NASA's best research has come from robots, not humans. Furthermore, I'm not even against sending people to Mars...but it doesn't need to happen right now. There are just too many other problems on earth which desperately need more money. It's unjust to allow those problems to continue out of a selfish desire to be alive to see a Mars landing. Mars isn't going anywhere; it will still be there in a few decades.

 

[teamosil]

We need to take the first step toward colonizing other planets, so that our fate isn't tied to earth. - This is a problem for our remote descendants to worry about. The fact is that the money could be better spent to prevent needless deaths that are occurring on earth right now.

The problem is, it is a multi generational problem. It will take 20 or 30 generations sinking substantial effort into it to get a colony on another planet. Our remote descendants' fate is in our hands.

There will always be a better time to go. - Maybe so, but now is a particularly bad time because the cost of the trip would be so expensive and we have so many other problems to worry about. At least if we wait a bit, the costs will come down dramatically and perhaps the cost/benefit analysis will eventually change.

They're not talking about going until somewhere after 2030. That's quite a ways out already.

We should do it for the technological benefits that such a mission would indirectly produce. - This can be done far more efficiently by directly funding the technologies we want to bring about.

That isn't necessarily true. Spinoff technology has a different role that directly developed technology. When we struggle to accomplish something new, we learn all kinds of things we didn't really know were out there to learn. Lots of science we can approach by just saying "what is it we want to do" and then funding that thing, but other ideas only emerge as spinoffs from trying to tackle the most difficult problems. For example, we discovered microwave technology because we were trying to perfect a really powerful radio telescope and we kept getting interference. That interference turned out to be background microwave radiation. Nobody prior to that would have thought "hey, lets research microwave ovens" because nobody knew such a thing as microwaves existed.

The biggest source of technological advances per year is undeniably WW2. It is insane how many massive and crucial technical leaps were made in just those few years because we were challenged to the max. But second is the space program. The list of breakthroughs and inventions that have come out of the space program is insane. Things like kidney dialysis machines, CAT scanners, cordless power tools, cell phones, even modern computers, all owe their existence in significant part to the space program. And we don't want to rely on being in world wars that threaten our very existence to spur that kind of technological progress.

NASA Spinoff Homepage

 

[teamosil]

Or, put more eloquently than I am capable of:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

-JFK

 

[LizardofOz]

A lot of technologies have come from NASA and other space programs that benefitted man as a whole. The inspiration it gives us as humans is the most important. It inspired many to invent. It inspired many to form computer companies in their garage directly or indirectly. Perhaps because of the research used to go to mars we come up with fuel or solar solution that is incredibly effective and solves several of our problems. It would be a boon to all man kind. When has exploration not been a net gain for us?

 

[Kandahar]

The problem is, it is a multi generational problem. It will take 20 or 30 generations sinking substantial effort into it to get a colony on another planet. Our remote descendants' fate is in our hands.

If it's going to take 20-30 generations, then frankly it's never going to happen unless there are some substantial intermediate benefits. Our politicians can't even think beyond the next election cycle; there is no way that the US or any other country (most of which haven't even existed for that long) could keep its eye on the ball for 20-30 generations. Furthermore, it's not even clear that it would be a relevant or practical goal for that long. Try to picture 13th century Europeans collaborating on a project that would benefit their 21st century descendants, based on their vision of what they thought their descendants would need. I have no idea what they'd come up with, but it almost certainly wouldn't be something very helpful.

In any case, I'm not particularly concerned about our remote descendants. There are people who need help right now.

They're not talking about going until somewhere after 2030. That's quite a ways out already.

This is true. And my assessment might change by 2030, because by then we'll have better technology that will make it cheaper to go, and we'll have made a lot of progress on solving many of the earth's problems.

That isn't necessarily true. Spinoff technology has a different role that directly developed technology. When we struggle to accomplish something new, we learn all kinds of things we didn't really know were out there to learn. Lots of science we can approach by just saying "what is it we want to do" and then funding that thing, but other ideas only emerge as spinoffs from trying to tackle the most difficult problems. For example, we discovered microwave technology because we were trying to perfect a really powerful radio telescope and we kept getting interference. That interference turned out to be background microwave radiation. Nobody prior to that would have thought "hey, lets research microwave ovens" because nobody knew such a thing as microwaves existed.

Even if we researched, planned, and developed the entire project (including all the auxillary technological benefits) and did everything except actually launching the spaceship to Mars, we'd save a substantial amount of money.

 

[teamosil]

If it's going to take 20-30 generations, then frankly it's never going to happen unless there are some substantial intermediate benefits. Our politicians can't even think beyond the next election cycle; there is no way that the US or any other country (most of which haven't even existed for that long) could keep its eye on the ball for 20-30 generations. Furthermore, it's not even clear that it would be a relevant or practical goal for that long. Try to picture 13th century Europeans collaborating on a project that would benefit their 21st century descendants, based on their vision of what they thought their descendants would need. I have no idea what they'd come up with, but it almost certainly wouldn't be something very helpful.

I disagree. It is what we do. We climbed out of the Nile valley (or whatever valley it actually was) and expanded on to the plains. Then to the Middle East, then to Europe and Asia, then to the Americas. We aren't stopping. It isn't in our nature to stop and rest on our laurels.

In any case, I'm not particularly concerned about our remote descendants. There are people who need help right now.

The survival of the species is, and must be, the highest imperative. As far as we know, we may be the only intelligent life in 100 billion galaxies each of which has around 100 billion stars. If that is so, we must take no risks that that light might be snuffed out. If it is not so, then the greatest possible benefit we could see as a species would be to make contact with one of those other intelligent species. Either way, we need to get moving.

Even if we researched, planned, and developed the entire project (including all the auxillary technological benefits) and did everything except actually launching the spaceship to Mars, we'd save a substantial amount of money.

That just isn't how it works. NASA has thousands of the smartest people on the planet. The way you get the most out of people that smart is that you give them a challenge that is suited to their abilities. You find the hardest thing you can think of to accomplish. The most inspiring, awesome, feat of genius, and you lay the challenge before them, and you will always be astounded by what they manage. You just say "hey, lets do this R&D to get some spinoffs" and they all wander off to design toaster ovens for 10 times the money.

But, the R&D is actually the lion's share of the budget anyways. And, theory is nice and all, but you need to actually test it in practice to really learn what needs to be learned.

 

[Matt Foley]

I disagree. It is what we do. We climbed out of the Nile valley (or whatever valley it actually was) and expanded on to the plains. Then to the Middle East, then to Europe and Asia, then to the Americas.

Thankfully the middle east, europe, asia had water to drink just lying on the ground, food to eat just lying on the ground, air to breath, and gravity to keep one from floating off into space.

NASA has thousands of the smartest people on the planet.

Not anymore. NASA today is nothing but an affirmative action program for minorities, women, homosexuals, and non-Christians.

 

[Matt Foley]

A lot of technologies have come from NASA and other space programs that benefitted man as a whole.

A trillion dollars down the drain for memory foam, wow what great use of money

The inspiration it gives us as humans is the most important.

Watching money be wasted like that is inspiring. About as inspiring as watching an arsonist do what arsonists do best.

 

[Matt Foley]

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people.

see, the left isn't shy about admitting NASA is nothing but a social experiment.

 

[Dittohead not!]

What we really need is the equivalent of the old Soviet Union in order to have competition to spur us to develop space travel.

Maybe China will eventually fill that role.

 

[OscarB63]

every dollar not wasted on the space program is another dollar we can waste on welfare

 

[teamosil]

Thankfully the middle east, europe, asia had water to drink just lying on the ground, food to eat just lying on the ground, air to breath, and gravity to keep one from floating off into space.

Not anymore. NASA today is nothing but an affirmative action program for minorities, women, homosexuals, and non-Christians.

My god man. This is just pathetic. You thought Mars didn't have gravity? You thought it was ok to just blurt out stream of consciousness bigotry for no reason at all like that? You're a shambles of a person. You need to get your act together.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I just had a chance to watch this and I would like to point out how ridiculous it is to suggest that our government be told how to spend taxpayer money buy a guy who doesn't even know what TARP is. He might be a great astro-physicist, but deGrasse Tyson is not the guy you go to to make decisions about taxpayer money. He is clearly interested in space to the exclusion of everything else.

Well we just can't afford to think like that. One thing he clearly doesn't get is that TARP is a loan. TARP cost a hell of a lot more than the NASA budget, but at least we got that money back (not that I'm saying I would have supported TARP). When we spend money on NASA, that money is gone.

And yes, when you compare NASA to other things our government spends on like bank bailouts and unnecessary wars, of course NASA looks good by comparison. But the political will to change just isn't there for the bailouts and the wars. We shouldn't be wasting money on any of that crap. But too wrongs don't make a right. You can't just say, "Hey, you're wasting money, might as well waste more money on NASA."

 

[Wake]

So why go to a less hospitable planet where this alarmist toy, the meteor, would cause even worse devastation to the colonists? Your faulty logic is: natural and man-made disasters only happen where people live now, so let's put some people somewhere else, blowing the money we could be spending on disaster prevention and damage control.

The logic is sound. Logic dictates that if you have humans living on two planets, and one planet is destroyed the human race still survives.

 

[OscarB63]

my main problem with cutting funding for NASA is that the money will not be "saved" or our taxes will not go down, they will simply waste it on some other useless handout program or much needed research into why cow farts increase global warming

 

[Wake]

I think one problem with the tenets of conservatism is that that ideology does not want the human race to scientifically progress. Stem cell research, for example, would allow us to reap numerous advantages against illnesses. Another example is space exploration. We need to spread and leave this one rock. Let's invest even more into futuristic technology. I am almost certain Earth is not the only sustainable rock in these galaxies. Conservatism ought to progress on scientific issues like space.

 

[OscarB63]

I think one problem with the tenets of conservatism is that that ideology does not want the human race to scientifically progress. Stem cell research, for example, would allow us to reap numerous advantages against illnesses. Another example is space exploration. We need to spread and leave this one rock. Let's invest even more into futuristic technology. I am almost certain Earth is not the only sustainable rock in these galaxies. Conservatism ought to progress on scientific issues like space.

your point might be valid if there were not just as many liberals, if not more, who are against funding space exploration as there are conservatives.

take a trip to your nearest NASA facility, bet your ass that the majority of the guys working there are conservatives

 

[Wake]

your point might be valid if there were not just as many liberals, if not more, who are against funding space exploration as there are conservatives.

take a trip to your nearest NASA facility, bet your ass that the majority of the guys working there are conservatives

Hn. If only scientific progression for the betterment and survival of the human race wasn't a political issue. Both sides should care more about science and survival.

 

[Kandahar]

I disagree. It is what we do. We climbed out of the Nile valley (or whatever valley it actually was) and expanded on to the plains. Then to the Middle East, then to Europe and Asia, then to the Americas. We aren't stopping. It isn't in our nature to stop and rest on our laurels.

But people migrated from those regions not because they wanted to benefit their descendants 30 generations later. They migrated from those regions because they believed it was in their OWN interests to do so. If a planetary colony would take 20-30 generations to set up, with few intermediate benefits, then it simply will not happen.

The survival of the species is, and must be, the highest imperative. As far as we know, we may be the only intelligent life in 100 billion galaxies each of which has around 100 billion stars. If that is so, we must take no risks that that light might be snuffed out. If it is not so, then the greatest possible benefit we could see as a species would be to make contact with one of those other intelligent species. Either way, we need to get moving.

Why should survival of the species be the highest imperative? What's so special about the human species that it's more important than the suffering of individual people right now? And what makes you think that we have the knowledge, technology, and foresight to plan for the ultimate fate of our species, as opposed to future generations which will have better technology and more information about the greatest threats they face and the best way to address them?

500 years ago, if people were planning for the ultimate fate of our species, they'd probably be thinking of the rapture. 50 years ago it would be nuclear war. Today it might be abrupt climate change or natural disaster. 50 years from now it might be artificial intelligence or gray goo. The solutions would be different for each of those; our desire to colonize other planets is largely a product of our culture in the last 50 years. Who knows if our remote descendants will even share that goal, let alone think it's an effective way to solve their problems?

That just isn't how it works. NASA has thousands of the smartest people on the planet. The way you get the most out of people that smart is that you give them a challenge that is suited to their abilities. You find the hardest thing you can think of to accomplish. The most inspiring, awesome, feat of genius, and you lay the challenge before them, and you will always be astounded by what they manage. You just say "hey, lets do this R&D to get some spinoffs" and they all wander off to design toaster ovens for 10 times the money.

But, the R&D is actually the lion's share of the budget anyways. And, theory is nice and all, but you need to actually test it in practice to really learn what needs to be learned.

Although it's true that there are occasionally technological benefits that would not otherwise have been thought of, direct government funding of technology can produce more than "toaster ovens for 10 times the money." In recent years, government funding has dramatically improved many emerging technologies, including self-driving cars, personal genomics, alternative energy, ultra-light nanomaterials, and vaccinations for many diseases. Is it possible that we would miss out on some important new technology if we don't actually send people to Mars? I suppose so. But it's also quite likely that we miss out on important new technologies if we spend that money on Mars instead of directly funding new technologies here on earth.

 

[LizardofOz]

A trillion dollars down the drain for memory foam, wow what great use of money



Watching money be wasted like that is inspiring. About as inspiring as watching an arsonist do what arsonists do best.

What do you watch your shows on? How do you think you get info so fast from across the world? Do you think technology boomed in the 60s on up to today because of magic? How about GPS or Google? Most importantly.....tang.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I just had a chance to watch this and I would like to point out how ridiculous it is to suggest that our government be told how to spend taxpayer money buy a guy who doesn't even know what TARP is. He might be a great astro-physicist, but deGrasse Tyson is not the guy you go to to make decisions about taxpayer money. He is clearly interested in space to the exclusion of everything else.

Well we just can't afford to think like that. One thing he clearly doesn't get is that TARP is a loan. TARP cost a hell of a lot more than the NASA budget, but at least we got that money back (not that I'm saying I would have supported TARP). When we spend money on NASA, that money is gone.

And yes, when you compare NASA to other things our government spends on like bank bailouts and unnecessary wars, of course NASA looks good by comparison. But the political will to change just isn't there for the bailouts and the wars. We shouldn't be wasting money on any of that crap. But too wrongs don't make a right. You can't just say, "Hey, you're wasting money, might as well waste more money on NASA."

all of which pre supposes that the money spent by NASA is wasted. I'm not so sure that is really the case.