So, why aren't we on Mars yet?

[EdwardTking]

Going to Mars has a resource input. Helping resolve global warming
or poverty has resource inputs. The unspoken but implicit underlying
argument put forward is that these projects compete for resource inputs.


Well if we use that imaginary tool for resource allocation commonly known as 'money';
then people can argue it is a question of whether the elected houses spend $50 billion:

(i) going to Mars OR
(ii) resolving aids in Africa.

And therefore deciding to go to Mars reduces resources for other projects.



However if you look at the nature of going to Mars versus resolving AIDS
in Africa; it becomes obvious that the resource inputs are quite different.

Resolving aids requires:

(a) biological research scientists
(b) field doctors and nurses
(c) large quantities of medical supplies
(d) low tech transportation
(e) low cost off mains electric power to keep samples/vaccines fresh
(f) managing the disabler/enabler impact of IPR.

Going to Mars requires:

(a) physical science scientists
(b) aeronautical engineers
(c) program, project, quality and risk management
(d) brave astronauts
(e) high output per weight fuel and power systems

Now these are fundamentally quite different and mutually exclusive resource
sets; so going to Mars would really have no impact on resolving Aids in Africa.

Of course there is competition in resources between developing next generation stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, missile shields, anti-satellite weapons AND going to Mars.
I think this thread might be more about that.

Likewise there may be competition in resources between campaigns against
Aids, Tse Fly, Malaria and Malnutition. But that is a separate topic.

But the claim that Going to Mars should not be contemplated
because of AIDS or third world poverty is quite spurious.

 

[Eli]

Well... I don't want to argue for the side I don't believe in, but both the potential doctors who might fight AIDS and the potential engineers who might build a new launch vehicle for a Mars mission, will be paid from the same source - the taxes paid by the American people. So they most definitely compete for resources.

 

[EdwardTking]

Well... I don't want to argue for the side I don't believe in, but both the potential doctors who might fight AIDS and the potential engineers who might build a new launch vehicle for a Mars mission, will be paid from the same source - the taxes paid by the American people. So they most definitely compete for resources.

This is entirely a consequence of the current tendency to base
decision making upon that ultimately imaginary concept "money".

In any more objective appreciation of resource allocation,
if the elected houses voted for going to Mars, this would
not result in third world doctors re-training to become
aerospace engineers; or alternatively if the houses voted for
eliminating AIDS it would not result in aerospace engineers
retraining as doctors for the third world.

 

[Eli]

This is entirely a consequence of the current tendency to base
decision making upon that ultimately imaginary concept "money".

In any more objective appreciation of resource allocation,
if the elected houses voted for going to Mars, this would
not result in third world doctors re-training to become
aerospace engineers; or alternatively if the houses voted for
eliminating AIDS it would not result in aerospace engineers
retraining as doctors for the third world.

This is getting ridiculous.

The concept "money" is about as imaginary as the concept "3". There is a well defined, concrete reality behind them and if you ignore it, everything collapses.

 

[EdwardTking]

This is getting ridiculous.

The concept "money" is about as imaginary as the concept "3". There is a well defined, concrete reality behind them and if you ignore it, everything collapses.

FYI The majority of human history predated money.

Money used to be as well defined as "3" in terms of actual
bronze, silver or gold coins; now with future options and
CDO it is very strange rather like the square root of minus 1.

Anyway I am not proposing to ignore money, but using it
as the only criteria for making decisions is foolish.

 

[Eli]

FYI The majority of human history predated money.

Actually human history is about 4,000 years old, while money is about 2,500 years old, but that's not what you meant.

Let's just say that money is somewhere on the top of the list of inventions that made life pleasant, comfortable and long.

Anyway I am not proposing to ignore money, but using it
as the only criteria for making decisions is foolish.

Money = a simple yet precise way of looking at resources. Both healing AIDS and going to Mars requires resources. In both proposals the source of these resources is the same, the US Government (and indirectly, US taxpayers). If Congress decides to fund a Mars mission tomorrow, it will most certainly affect it's ability to fund a solution to AIDS project.

 

[EdwardTking]

Actually human history is about 4,000 years old, while money is about 2,500 years old, but that's not what you meant.

I do not limit human history to alphabetically recorded human history.

Let's just say that money is somewhere on the top of the list of inventions that made life pleasant, comfortable and long.

OK

Money = a simple yet precise way of looking at resources. Both healing AIDS and going to Mars requires resources. In both proposals the source of these resources is the same, the US Government (and indirectly, US taxpayers).

Money (abstract) is not a genuine source of (objective) resources.

If Congress decides to fund a Mars mission tomorrow, it will most certainly affect it's ability to fund a solution to AIDS project.

Not necessarily. For instance simple logic would suggest that funding tax cuts is incompatable with increased military spending yet that is what the current USA administration has done.

The problem with competing projects is when they both want to use the same resources. I.e. both construction sites require the same super size crane at the same time. Or the hospital wants the best surgeon to undertake a heart bypass on one person and a heart transplant on another person at the same time.

For this comparison, I rather think that if there is competition for resources at congress, it is in terms of learning, discussion, devating and negotiating times by congressmen; rather than about competition for money.

And this is why I think that the true rival to Going to Mars is Missile Defence.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Or you could directly invest in space-based operations that in the long term will allow a much more comprehensive space policy.

Well, either way, the extra cost of going to Mars would be marginal considering all the other crap humanity spends resources on... and there is a chance for great benefits.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

They should spend all that money in immortality research!

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

They should spend all that money in immortality research!

Think of the overpopulation ... then we really WOULD have to colonise space .

 

[Winner]

This reminds me of the debate about time travel...

You gotta be kidding!!

Because it would have to use a different amount of force. It would need to pump more in the lower part of the body and less in the upper part of the body (where your brain happens to be )! While on zero gravity, it would simply need to pump less strong, which it can easily do, a partial gravity is a totally different story. It would need to pump different in different parts of the body! The headaches reported by people who lived in zero gravity are nothing compared to what would happen in 1/3 of the gravity, 1/3 of the gravity is actually a lot more hostile to your body than 0 gravity...

Strange that the people who've been on the Moon (1/6 gravity) didn't report any such problems after they had returned to Earth.

In case you don't know, it's all about blood pressure. Heart doesn't differentiate between the body parts Your point is completely wrong.

 

[Winner]

I see. So, what you're saying is that because it was a public operation that discovered America and landed on the moon, a private operation cannot possibly land on the Moon, or Mars. That is some very interesting logic. I shall have to ponder this more.

I don't say it can not, I say it is very unlikely that a private sector would undertake such an operation.

You've just made my case. The private sector is FAR more efficient than the government.

Did I question that? No, of course it is usually a lot more efficient, the problem is that its nature prevents it from doing anything which offers no clear profit in a short or medium term.

Sometimes, you need to risk something and private sector isn't really good at that. It likes to play it safe.

 

[Winner]

Guys, I'm not talking about colonization. That won't happen for centuries, if it ever happens at all. I'm talking about simply placing a human being on Mars, so that we can say we have officially gone to other worlds.

Even if it's just a one way mission. If I were told that I wouldn't be able to get back and would die out there, I'd still jump at the chance to be the first human to set foot on another planet.

Colonization is the reason why we went to space in the first place.

Sure, it won't happen in our lifetime, I'd be glad if I see a single lunar base before I die, but it will happen. There is no point in going to Mars without a prospect of return.

 

[El_Machinae]

Technically we are. At least some of my taxes go towards funding for the CSA.

Sure, and I proactively attempt to pay more taxes too (in an oblique way, by increasing my income). But there should be attempts to do other things to speed our quest into space. Political activism, increasing general educational/wealth levels, supporting (as a consumer) the secondary industry around space development, finding economical uses for spin-offs from Space Development, etc.

Heck, from the look of the thread, getting rid of global poverty will bring people on board.

 

[Slaughter]

I think we need to do some things before going to Mars:

1- Perfect Nuclear Fusion
2- Create moonbases, if possible, self-sustenable

 

[wicshade]

colonization of space, or even mars for that matter is not going to happen in the next 300 years. It would take a thosand years to teraform mars, that is after you have developed an atmosphere and provied an adequte supply of liquid water. It's funny mars needs more green house gases to be habitable while on earth the excess of greenhouse gases is straining the ecosytems.

 

[s.c.dude]

colonization of space, or even mars for that matter is not going to happen in the next 300 years. It would take a thosand years to teraform mars, that is after you have developed an atmosphere and provied an adequte supply of liquid water. It's funny mars needs more green house gases to be habitable while on earth the excess of greenhouse gases is straining the ecosytems.

compress co2 in giant balloons blast it near mars simple no?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

compress co2 in giant balloons blast it near mars simple no?

It's mass is too small. Whatever atmosphere you could add would just be blown off by solar wind.

 

[nc-1701]

Well, for everyone who says we have better things yto spend the money... I say
"Like what? Iraq?" I think it was estimated Mars would take 30 billion for a full mission... We could build a friggin bs for the amount we've blown on Iraq, and we'd have some awfully cool stuff to show for it too. Instead of body piles.

 

[El Koeno]

This is entirely a consequence of the current tendency to base
decision making upon that ultimately imaginary concept "money".

In any more objective appreciation of resource allocation,
if the elected houses voted for going to Mars, this would
not result in third world doctors re-training to become
aerospace engineers; or alternatively if the houses voted for
eliminating AIDS it would not result in aerospace engineers
retraining as doctors for the third world.

You could look at it differently: Going to mars would require a great amount of public investment. That means that taxes go up (as the OP pointed out). These taxes would now not be spent by private firms and inviduals, making the economy worse off (if going to mars was going to make us better off, I think we wouldn't need public investment). Since all economies are greatly interconnected, this means that poor economies are worse off. This means that our ability to fight poverty is greatly reduced. Development does not only come from aid, so even if a mission to Mars does not compete with giving Aid (as you assume) it could very well compete with the goal of poverty reduction in Africa.

Of course taxes don't need to go up, if we'd decide to spend less on useless things we now spend tax money on, but still that money would be better spent in lowering taxes than taking an interplanetary road trip IMO.