Is it worth it for people to go to Mars or to any other planet

>>1598732
no

>>1598732
>more space
>another world not susceptible to the damage we have done to earth
>implying colonizing mars won't lead to the colonization of other planets

>is it worth it for any peoples to go to the new world or the americas?

Human beings are inquisitive by nature, the only thing which truly sates it is exploration.

>>1598732
Not until it's teraformed

economically, fuck no. There are zero resources on any solar system body that we can feasibly obtain. But in terms of human preservation we might have to set up some small self-sustainable colonies in the next few centuries to ensure we don't get wiped out as a species by some virus or whatever

File: Kampf_der_untergehenden_Götter_by_F._W._Heine.jpg (411KB, 974x570px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 974x570px

>>1598739
is all value of labour, enslavement?

>>1598746
I... I'm not sure what you're asking

>>1598732
Not attempting to leave earth is species suicide

File: 1471330237790.png (69KB, 297x308px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 297x308px

>>1598755
not if you suicide the species

>>1598751
>The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity.
>MASTERPIECE
>A
>S
>T
>E
>R
>P
>I
>E
>C
>E

define worth

>>1598739
>economically, fuck no
Sounds like what Romans claimed about Germany, now look at them

Also we only have very small idea of what minerals might be hiding under surface

>>1598780
Germany still doesn't have great natural resources and certainly didn't have anything the Romans wanted (easily accessible metals/stone, salt, spices, ivory, etc).

>>1598762
>>1598780
the point is that it costs a gajillion dollars to launch even a small mission to a Solar System body, it offsets any value you get in resources, including gold/diamonds/whatever

>>1598732
What the fuck else are we gonna do OP? Keep jerking off here and just create increasingly more dopamine-inducing entertainment that makes us into complacent pleasure zombies?

Fuck that.

>>1598780
>Sounds like what Romans claimed about Germany
they were right. The only reason to go into Gaul and Germany was to eliminate the tribes there because they were an existential threat to Rome. That and to increase Caesar's e-peen to immense status

>>1598796
I am saying natural resources aren't that much necessary. You see them as a colony, as something from which you should have immediate profit. Ensettlement of Mars would be an investment in the future, it would cast shitton of money for start, but in time, when it would become self-sustainable, we would get all of it back.

>>1598816
if the numbers added up, Elon Musk would be on Mars right now. It simply isn't a feasible investment at this point. People don't make money by dumping a gigantic pile of it on some rock and then hoping it pays off, you need tangible future profit

I mentioned resources because that's the obvious drive for space exploration, as it was for Earth exploration. Assuming no ongoing planet-wide catastrophe to kick us the ass

>>1598796
>the point is that it costs a gajillion dollars to launch even a small mission to a Solar System body, it offsets any value you get in resources, including gold/diamonds/whatever

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. As progression occurs, which is inevitable to long as you are learning effectively costs will go down as better and better techniques to achieve goals appear. What are we going to do when we have exhausted all our earth resources and are still on this planet with literally no way to get off it? Ride it into the sun?

FUck outta here. We are the greatest plague the universe is yet to know.

>>1598833
>costs will go down
of course, they're still way too big now though
>What are we going to do when we have exhausted all our earth resources
then it will become feasible to go into space

>>1598780
they had timber for a thousand years, position, and genetics, and mines, metalurgy, access to the eastern

>>1598736
>>1598739
>>1598796
>>1598826
These

>>1598840
>of course, they're still way too big now though
A hur durrrr and how do you drive down the costs? You use the methods available at the time and improve on them. Holy shit.

>then it will become feasible to go into space
Do you have any reading comprehension? Once you have exhausted all your earthly materials it's literally impossible to get off of earth, that was the scenario I posed you, which you dodged.

>>1598851
>You use the methods available at the time and improve on them.
we're doing that right now. Still haven't improved them enough.

>Once you have exhausted all your earthly materials
what useful materials do you expect to find on the Moon or Mars? Oil? Coal? Timber? I have bad news. If we run out of those we can't go out and get them

>>1598732
No

Basic economics really. Any investment into colonizing and/or terraforming Mars will need to be a very, very long term investment. Nobody (including Musk, NASA, the UN, etc.) will invest in something that won’t pay a return for at least a couple of generations.

So forget about it until we have the technology to get to Mars within a week’s travel and for less than $ 1,000 per kilogram or so.

What we can do, and actually are doing, is the scientific exploration of Mars and the solar system. Mostly via probes and robots. This is proving so successful; and is becoming ever more successful at such a rate, that it is actually decreasing the viability of manned space exploration.

>>1598864
>we're doing that right now. Still haven't improved them enough.
Literally what? Kek. I am done.

>what useful materials do you expect to find on the Moon or Mars? Oil? Coal? Timber? I have bad news. If we run out of those we can't go out and get them

Holy shit, you are actually retarded. Go look up a list of invention by NASA, which are off-shoots or variations of the things they used on their space ships, cordless technology is one.

We simply cannot know what exploring space will bring us in terms of technology, that's literally impossible. If you think it's about resources and not the pure aspect of exploring the final frontier, something man has dreamed of doing, since forever. You may be an idiot. Resources are literally a bonus.

>We want to go to space
>too expensive
kek.

>>1598869
"exploring the final frontier" costs money which we don't have and requires technology we still don't have access to

what do you actually want? Humanity to end war and hunger and focus on spending trillions on space ships to Jupiter hoping on the 0.0000001% chance there is something to find there or that just by building them we'll accidentally stumble on FTL/replicator technology?

>>1598869
>reality
>your view on reality
you know what to do

>>1598737
>>1598738
We cannot colonize mars.

Regardless of what we develop or do to/on the planet one constant cannot be changed: Mars has 1/3 Earth's gravity.

It can't be permanently settled. Settlers on the planet would suffer a host of chronic maladies and their children would likely be evacuated.


Giant honking space stations a la Gundam could happen though....although everything would always be uphill so that would suck.

>>1598738
But we can already do that, just toss some nukes at it

>>1598953
What on earth do you think that would achieve, apart from slightly more radiation

File: 1439156350191.jpg (35KB, 295x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 295x300px

>>1598866

This is why capitalism is a shit-tier socio-economic system.

It stifles creativity, exploration and scientific advancement in favour of profit.

>inb4 "capitalism is the natural state of economic systems"

It's about as natural as a prosthetic leg.

>>1598923
Also Side 3 would declare independence and drop a colony on earth.

That'd be some shit.

>>1598961
Melt its polar ice caps which would kick in the terraformation of mars

>>1598963
>capitalism is the natural state of economic systems
Normally when people say this they mean markets and private property rather than actual Capitalism

>>1598869

Not the guy you're arguing with, but try and cut out being such a cunt with all this shit-flinging.

>Go look up a list of invention by NASA

Basically every single benefit derived from space travel hasn't actually come from space, though. It's come from the process of getting into space exclusively using resources we had on earth.

The logistics involved in actually extracting resources from another solar body are retardedly huge. It's easy to say "yeah don't worry science will solve that" but you can say that about fucking anything. You can just say "we'll just Science our way to a post scarcity society here on earth and never need space" but in either case it's a worthless statement if you can't substantiate it with a cost-effective method, which we presently lack.

>f you think it's about resources and not the pure aspect of exploring the final frontier

Exploration - at least its funding - has always been motivated by a desire for gain. For every guy who just wanted to go and explore you had the guy who paid for it, and it's incredibly rare anybody does that with zero expectation of a return on their investment.

You're acting way too fucking smug for the lack of actual facts you're able to bring to the table, everything you say hinges on the idea "science will sort it out for us." or "we should do it just because man! SPACE!" Try being less of a shithead.

>>1598732
No.

Much more economical to just fix shit on Earth.

But we don't know how to do that, so we dream about Mars. Which will never solve our problems - we'd just take them there with us.

File: 1410060927828.jpg (71KB, 412x412px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 412x412px

>>1598972

I guess we just need to do that and then wait a few million years and we'll be golden.

>>1598972
Terraforming mars wouldn't make it habitable because it's gravity would still be a third of earths

>>1598987
What did you expect terraforming to be like?

Name another method that doesnt involve space magic

>>1598996
Humans would eventually evolve to live with that gravity

>muh economics
Nobody said he meant worth in the literal sense

Of course it isn't economical to send people to Mars thats not the fucking point. Its as much to say that we did something that our ancestors could only have dreamt of. The man who first sets foot on Mars will have his name enshrined in the annals of history.

>>1598963
>This is why capitalism is a shit-tier socio-economic system.

First, this tells me you have a very limited understanding of economics. Probably none at all beyond reading a review on Piketty

Second, ANY system of economics basically faces the same central problem: How to allocate limited resources. Going to Mars is absurdly expensive, no matter how you organize your economy.

>>1599012
You're joking, right?

need to advance some other technology first

What's with the obsession with Mars? Is it a leftover meme from when people actually believed there were people on Mars?
Mars is pretty much useless. Useless for space travel hub, too much gravity and atmosphere, and useless for living on, too low gravity and no protection from the Sun.
For a space travel hub, the Moon would be much better. It's much closer, and has lower gravity.
For human colonies, Venus is far more human friendliy. It's closer to Earth, has a protecting atmosphere, high enough gravity for humans to live on, hot enough to grow plants. Why can't we focus on Venus instead? If we tried everyone here could probably live long enough to see it happen. But no, everyone focuses on useless and overly difficult Mars instead.

>>1598982
You are literally retarded if you think humans are not going to be exploring space even without the added bonus of resources.

Do you think when man dreamed about the stars they thought about all dat gold up dur?

You're a fucking idiot.

>>1599453
You're right, the Hippy Dippy Alliance of altruistic Fortune 500 billionaires are known to be romantic dreamers and they'll pay for it. Or maybe some lonesome stranger on a space dinghy will go exploring, for old time's sake

>>1599441
isn't venus a fucking toxic hellhole

>>1598732
What the fuck does this have to do with history?

>>1599817
it's future history

>>1599817
It's a philosophical question about the worth of exploration when it doesn't bring any real material gain. Or something. Humanities.

>>1599811
It's not like it's any easier to breathe Martian air. You still need protection. The idea of a Venusian colony is to have balloons floating in the atmosphere. Regular Earth air would float on a level just below where you'd have comfortable living temperatures, so you could pretty much live inside the lifting balloons with only some really minor separate lifters on the side to get it up to the perfect temperature for living. I bet it'd be easy to send stuff down to the surface from there, just use a parachute and then to get up again just fill a balloon with compressed air, no rocket fuel needed

>>1599817
this board is humanities too dingus

>>1598732
the end goal of sending mankind to mars may not be all that gamechanging until it's absolutely necessary for us to leave Earth, but what is developed in the process of a trip to Mars may be very helpful in advancing technology.

if the original space race is responsible for commonplace technologies today like Microwaves, advances in food preservatives, wireless communication, and advances in jet propulsion, who knows what awaits to be developed in another concentrated effort towards technological development in the name of going to Mars.

>>1598923
Well but honestly, if we're already handwaving the lack of magnetic field, the temperature, the atmosphere, etc. why can't we handwave the gravity? Is artificial gravity that much more implausible that all other elements of terraforming?

>>1599959
nuke the polar caps, transfer nitrogen from jupiter with spaceships, release extra oxygen into the atmosphere with genetically constructed superalgae, raise the temperature with greenhouse and all the processes previously enumerated, spin up the inner core with powerful magnetic field projectors for a more powerful magnetic field (obviously pump in more metals into the core through supertunnels while you're at it) and create portable micro black holes for localised gravity regulation and you set to go.

File: Flight%20to%20Mars%20_1951[1].jpg (1MB, 2825x2272px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2825x2272px

>>1598732
The great fuck up of golden age Sci fi was encapsulated in Arthur C. Clark's vision for a GPS satellite: it turned out to be a great prediction, but he imagined it as a huge space-born city because he thought it would need a full time crew to replace the vacuum tubes.

What he didn't take into consideration is that a few cubic centimeters of silicon is a hell of a lot more cost-effective than a living crew compartment and avoids a lot of thorny ethical issues like the cost of a return ticket and the long term effects of zero g and solar radiation on the human body.

Robert Heinlein assumed that ships with a long voyage would need a repair crew, but it's much easier to just radio your vessel a software update than it is trying to send people along with it.

Anywhere that you can send a person, you can send a robot made to perform whatever task you need from it. On Mars, for example, we sent basically a full science lab on wheels with a robot arm. Meanwhile the human crew remains on Earth and gets to live normal lives. If we start branching out into things like asteroid mining, it will almost certainly be done the same way: using tele-robotics.

Literally the only reason to send people to Mars is to have a photo op. Humans will never need to live on Mars for the same reason why they don't need to live in the Gobi desert or Antarctica, which are dramatically more hospitable places to live.

If we want to improve humanity's long term chances for survival we'd get much better results taking care of the planet which we are uniquely suited to living on. Lebensraum is not our most pressing issue, it's the fact that we're letting a small fraction of people royally fuck up the ecosystem sustaining us. Sure there's the possibility of an asteroid smacking the Earth and wiping out all life, but we'd do much better investing our energy in redirecting the asteroid than we would trying to flee the Earth (and save a heck of a lot more lives in the process).

>>1600107
Best post on /his/ I've ever read.

>*unironically and sincerely applauding*

>>1600053
>create portable micro black holes for localised gravity regulation
yeah... gravity doesn't work like that. black holes don't have more gravitational effect, only as much as the amount of mass they contain. you replace the sun with a black hole and our orbit stays the same. the mini black holes that are made in particle colliders have almost no mass at all

>>1601404
I know it's fun to parrot what you've read but it doesn't apply in this case.

Black holes are literally the densest "gravity filed generators" in existence, so if you had a meaningful ability to create and regulate their mass, you'd be able to create a 1G environment.

Of course, the optimal way would be putting that black hole in the center of Mars, but with creative arangements in orbit and below ground, you could make distinct localised gravity environments.

>>1601477
gravity field* of course...

>>1601373
thank you very much

>>1600107
That latency though.

You're going to run into ping spikes that are literally impossible to avoid under the current laws of physics.

>>1598732
Is it worth it for anything we will get from Mars? Probably not, no.

Is it worth it for the technological progress we will gain from the attempt? Yes.

>>1598851

What you're claiming is literally as stupid as "hurrr why didn't the Sumerians established a transoceanic commercial route to Australia using junks to mine uranium deep in the aussie desert and ship it back on those junks to Sumer???" "I mean, like, why not dude?"

>>1601621
But it's still not entirely clear if humans can survive for extended periods of time in zero g without the protection of Earth's magnetic field. Hell, the Apollo astronauts were barely gone for more than a few days and look what it did to them
http://www.space.com/33571-apollo-astronauts-heart-risk-deep-space-travel.html
Even just going into Earth orbit astronauts need to exercise constantly or their bodies atrophy to shit. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when discussing the host of technical challenges facing a long-term/permanent human presence in space.

Of course there might be solutions but how well do those solutions scale cost-wise to the solutions for the problems caused by latency, like smarter and more independent robots?

>>1598732
Yes, for the scientific advancement that we will have to go through to get there. Also it could be a step towards asteroid mining.

>>1599811
You can float balloons in the atmosphere actually. It's so dense and mostly co2 so regular air floats in it at an area between 0-100C. Still not great but could be useful for studying gas giants.

>>1601709
I was figuring that more complex algorithms and autonomous AI would be the solution.

That and a centrifuge to combat zero g syndrome.

>>1598866
Economic profit is not the only reason to go explore other planets. If it's funded by the government they can do it for the sake of science.

>>1598875
>costs money which we don't have
Do you live in Africa? We have plenty of money in America.
>requires technology we still don't have access to

Holy shit, that's why we keep work on it. Do you expect the technology to pop out of thin air if we don't work on it?

File: Curiosity_Self-Portrait_at_'Big_Sky'_Drilling_Site.jpg (237KB, 800x1103px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 800x1103px

>>1601755
>But if we're just going for science
But why send a fragile, squishy person when you could one of these bad boys who doesn't even care if we just leave him there after the mission's over?

>>1598963
>You know the government can just fund space exploration within a capitalist system? That's a far simpler solution.

File: 1469890294918.png (533KB, 459x612px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 459x612px

>>1599743

>>1599743
>>1598963
>autists still acting as if mixed economies don't exist

>>1598923
To be honest, the low gravity is actually one of the easier hurdles to overcome. Daily centrifuge 'workouts' and 'heavier' (more massive) clothing (such as garments with weights sown into them , for example) can be enough to counteract the worst effects of muscular and osteo dystrophy as well as other illnesses caused by the lower gravity.

The lack of a magnetic field or atmoshpere are to much more challenging obstacles engineering wise.

>>1601815
A few inches of steel, a foot of dirt, or about three feet of water, is sufficient to counteract the radiation caused by the lack of magnetic field on Mars.

Yes, any atmosphere you create will eventually leak off, but it'll take hundreds of millions of years, and even under current technology, you could easily produce it faster than you'd lose it.

But while adults can live in 1/3rd gravity indefinitely, with a minimum of extra effort, prenatal development and child rearing would be a problem.

It seems mice can gestate fine, even in zero G, and can get over the various problems that result in a short time when introduce to normal gravity - but humans are a lot heavier, so I suspect there'd be more problems. However, some of those problems you could write off, provided you're willing to live with the fact that the child born on Mars would never be able to visit his folks on Earth (at least not with great amounts of aid).

It may actually be advantageous, though, as there's some evidence to suggest that, often, calories not used in muscle mass during development get eaten up by the brain. (So you may wind up with weak, glass-boned, super nerds.)

But if you don't wanna breed mutants, the low gravity of Mars also makes shuttling to and from a space station, spinning with artificial gravity, easier. So you could have maternity wards and child rearing centers in orbit.

>>1598975
They're still wrong, though they're only wrong by 95,000 years instead of 100,000.

File: goofy_ass_table_with_handful_of_exampels.gif (233KB, 1521x2024px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1521x2024px

>>1600107
>If we want to improve humanity's long term chances for survival we'd get much better results taking care of the planet which we are uniquely suited to living on. [...] Sure there's the possibility of an asteroid smacking the Earth and wiping out all life, but we'd do much better investing our energy in redirecting the asteroid than we would trying to flee the Earth (and save a heck of a lot more lives in the process).
You're neglecting the fact that asteroids are but one of thousands of potential global extinction event phenomenon that could render this biosphere untenable for human life, both cosmological and terrestrial, and a good many of those, you never get to see coming. Seems we discover two or three more every decade, and every now and again, INVENT a new one. (Even with simple asteroids, you can't see the darker carbon ones coming. We had near misses by two different fatal asteroids in the 90's, and didn't see either until after they passed.)

Really, given everything we know that can go wrong, the closest we have to scientific evidence of divine providence, is the fact that there's only been five major global extinction events, and not five thousand. I wouldn't want to count on the universe, and the Earth itself, to continue to being so merciful, nor against our own propensity for genocide, be it accidental or deliberate.

More importantly, you're neglecting the fact that it's not as if we have to choose between the short term efforts of ensuring shit doesn't go to hell her insomuch as we can, and the long term effort of setting up backup plans outside this fragile biosphere. There's more than enough people around to work on both.

>>1598737
>>another world not susceptible to the damage we have done to earth
There's no way we could fuck up the Earth to be worse than a place with literally no air.

>>1603708
>Earth to be worse than a place with literally no air.

What you said is literally pointless as we can already live in areas without oxygen, thanks technology.

Once you get a way to manufacture things in space, it will become really feasible to expand. The cost of making that happen is pretty high right now though.

Set up raw materials processing stations, and the mined asteroids will have a place to go. Once you have processed materials you can start building things. Then the cycle will just sustain itself.

>>1600107
>fairly small asteroid by intra-solar standards hits Earth
>gg civilization

>>1603648
Most of that list is retarded. The nearest Quasar is like, 10 billion light years away. And we've already cataloged nearly all of the asteroids large enough to cause a Chixulub style disaster, the ones that are a danger are the city-killer sized ones. Any planet you live on is going to have this risk.

And alien invasion is just stupid. Space is too vast, and there are much more readily available resources in much shallower gravity wells for space colonialism to ever be feasible.

>Only been five major global extinction events
six actually: you seem to have forgotten the one we're currently going through

>More importantly, you're neglecting the fact that it's not as if we have to choose between the short term efforts of ensuring shit doesn't go to hell her insomuch as we can, and the long term effort of setting up backup plans outside this fragile biosphere. There's more than enough people around to work on both.

And you're neglecting cost-benefit analysis. We have scarce resources and extremely pressing problems that need to be addressed immediately. Sending even just a flyby robot to another star would be an investment on the order of tens of trillions of dollars in today's currency, meaning that sending people to another planet to live on it is probably not something that's going to happen in the next 500 years. In the meantime, there's important work to be done in things like fresh water conservation and sustainable energy, if we want our society to be around in 500 years.

>>1598780
>Portuguese get to Brazil
>Lol there are no resources here, lets make a pretty letter about trees and ignore this gold-less land
>Turns out it's full of everything
Imprssive

>>1598732

I like to daydream about deploying a massive soleta to block the sun on Venus, cooling down the atmos and gradually introducing oceans by obtaining ice from the Oort cloud, and somehow speeding up its rotation so that 1 Venusian day = 1 Terran day, even though I know that if ever this process becomes feasible, the same technology can probably take us to much more hospitable planets outside the solar system.

>>1598732
>Is it worth it for people to go to Mars or to any other planet in our solar system?

1. be the first
2. come back alive
3. profit!

>>1598796
>Germany still doesn't have great natural resources and certainly didn't have anything the Romans wanted (easily accessible metals/stone, salt, spices, ivory, etc).

Ivory and spices you will only find in southern regions. But valuable metals, stones and salt had was and is there. Also easily accessible. Germany is still number 4 in worldwide salt production. Right behind much larger China, US and India . All unknown to the ancient Romans.

>>1605453
>Most of that list is retarded.
No argument there, quickest list I could google up.

>The nearest Quasar is like, 10 billion light years away
The nearest active one is 1.7 billion light years away, which is almost too close (that's how nasty these fuckers are). There's a smaller, dead one, about 0.73 billion light years away, but it's double conundrum as to why it burned out, and to why it didn't fry us ages ago. It may yet flare up again, and scientists still don't know why it hasn't.

But there's always the risk of one being *born* in the center of the galaxy. They put out several times the total energy of the galaxy, and the end result would be to flood the whole galaxy with so much heat and radiation that life would be unsustainable pretty much everywhere. It'd take about ~100,000 years for that energy to propagate, but as radiation travels at about the same speed as light, you wouldn't see it coming.

Granted, at that point, being on Mars doesn't help. Any underground colonies on Mars would have more time to dig deeper than the surface dwellers on Earth, but that'd be about it.

>And we've already cataloged nearly all of the asteroids large enough to cause a Chixulub style disaster
No, we estimate we've cataloged less than 3% of them. Gravity scattering indicates there are several asteroids larger that Ceres in the asteroid belt, but they are too dark to see, and too distant to obscure enough stars to have yet been detected. There's also, near as we can tell, a planet with the size of Neptune just outside Pluto's orbit, and we can't find that either, we just know the orbits of the kuiper objects indicate there must be such a beast. Really, the odds of finding anything that isn't highly reflective (either largely iron or covered with ice), are slim to none, even when they are inside our own solar system. The best we can do is infer their existence by the way things orbit about.

And again, we missed not one, but two, killer asteroids in the 90's.

File: realistic_criteria.png (17KB, 259x372px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 259x372px

>>1605453
>And you're neglecting cost-benefit analysis. We have scarce resources and extremely pressing problems that need to be addressed immediately. Sending even just a flyby robot to another star would be an investment on the order of tens of trillions of dollars in today's currency, meaning that sending people to another planet to live on it is probably not something that's going to happen in the next 500 years. In the meantime, there's important work to be done in things like fresh water conservation and sustainable energy, if we want our society to be around in 500 years.
There's already proposals to just do that for under the 500 million mark... But once you have solar system colonization in progress, you also have a lot more capacity to collect resources. As it is, NASA eats less than 1% of the Federal budget, while social service programs eat better than 50% of what's left over after the DoD gets their cut (which is more than half of the total). Most of the resource shortages we do have are artificial, politically and economically motivated, and really, we're as close to resource independant as we've ever been. There's certainly no shortage of labor, and that, and the idea box, is all you really need. Well, that, and the one thing we're really short of - motivation and long term vision.

Maybe we'll get lucky, and some asteroid we miss will kindly wipe out a major city or two and wake us up, before any of the thousands of things that would just wipe us out completely comes along, or we simply do it to ourselves.

>>1598866
If the first thing on our minds is profit when it comes to space exploration at this point, our chances of real progress in it are well and truly fucked.

>>1598923
I have a feeling you are making some strong assumptions.
If we could then yeah it would be worth it pretty far of obviously

It prob be more worth it to just make free floating settlements in space like the ring in interstellar

>>1598732
Yes, of course!

Do you think people said 600 years ago "Is it worth for people to go to *North America*?"

Exploring is in human nature and in the best interest of the preservation of the human species

A Martian history thread?
no.

>>1609003
There was live an available and easily accessible resources in Earth travel
space travel is literally throwing money away

File: 田井中律1436.png (194KB, 397x496px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 397x496px

The lack of venus being mentioned in this thread is depressing. People are very uneducated. At least read some fucking wikipedia articles or something before talking about this subject.

>>1609064
Over sea voyages took lots of money as well, why do you think Columbus spent 8 years trying to get someone to fund his voyage?

If humans developed technologies towards an end goal (i.e interplanetary space travel) it will become cheaper in time. It will be a multiple generation project, but in the end looking back, the humans 100 years from now will not think of it as us "throwing money away".

>>1609084
Venus would be the idea planet to colonize (about the same size as earth), but how the devil are you going to terraform that monster?

>>1609115
you don't

two words:
>floating
>cities

I think we should first settle Moon.
>closer to Earth, means cheaper transportation
>good place to create space transport hub due to low gravity, also can mine asteroids from there
>Helium-3

>>1609208
What about the disastrous long term effects of low gravity on human bodies?

>>1598732
Yes.

>>1598923
t. your ass

File: red-mars-183x300.jpg (23KB, 183x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 183x300px

Read pic related.

>>1609084
>brings up Venus
>claims EVERYONE ELSE is uneducated
Cooling planets is much MUCH harder than warming them. So stop being a condescending asshole.

>>1608398
>Quasars, Solar flairs, asteroids, human fuck ups
These are going to be problems no matter what planet you live on so by putting people there you're not actually improving humanity's chances for survival, you're just hedging your bets

But imagine if we took all the time, money, and resources that we spent on a Martian colony and spent it on a massive underground bunker, hardened, self-sustaining, and capable of maintaining a genetically viable population indefinitely. That would improve humanity's chances a lot more than a Martian colony and would save a lot more lives and leave them in a much better position to pick up the pieces after a disaster.

File: mandala-1309911_960_720.png (901KB, 715x720px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 715x720px

>>1598732
Why can't humans realise that curiosity is not something to foster? We can't keep marching on further "into the unknown" perpetually.
There is no such thing as "advancement" if it only boils down to curiosity and comfort. These discoveries have not changed anything for us.

When will our race mature and finally understand that the only thing we need to work toward is within ourselves?

>>1609064
Travelling to Americas was dangerous, unprofitable, and generally entailed a severe drop in living conditions.

>>1608421
This is my problem with the "Let's colonize other planets!" crowd: they act like social programs are a nuisance and we should be leaving those darn poors broke and desperate because SCIENCE!

Worshipping SCIENCE! and dumping money into bloated government bureaucracies did nothing to improve Soviet science. The societies that consistently produce the most and highest quality research are societies that take care of its citizens, that provides them with education, healthcare, civil liberties, and economic opportunity, fostering a large middle class which maximizes a society's potential tax revenues, allowing them to reinvest back into education to provide the next generation of scientists and engineers and infrastructure to produce the next generation of robots, satellites, and propulsion systems which will expedite our conquest of the solar system.

But none of that is going to matter in a few decades when climate change spirals out of control and people start migrating by the 100s of millions. I mean how comforting would it be to die in a mass extinction knowing that there were distant survivors somewhere who sucked up all the funds that could have been used to prevent the mass extinction in the first place?

File: 11_2_7s.jpg (243KB, 851x461px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 851x461px

>>1598732
It is useless because a human life is limited.
People can be born again after they die, which is the best way that people can have new bodies like new clothes if they keep their morality and social justice after abandonment of all the beliefs, religion, and ideologies except for liberalism based on equality.

The planets Jupiter, Moon, Mars, and Earth are the center point of the whole universe.

After the end of the civilization on the earth, people with their physical bodies cannot live in the Earth any more because the atmosphere is going to be changed from electrons to positrons.

There are more information about how to get new physical bodies after human death on the website http://brahmanedu.org/english/.

>>1609349
>These are going to be problems no matter what planet you live on so by putting people there you're not actually improving humanity's chances for survival, you're just hedging your bets
Hedging its bets makes humanity safer.

>That would improve humanity's chances a lot more than a Martian colony.
Except for the fact that humans are caustic when the SHTF. A scared hungry human would burn a full grain silo just to get a single meal. Also humans have a long history of destroying shit for no reason. See ISIS.

Finally, we can do both.

>>1609350
>hey, let's sit on our asses and do nothing, accomplish nothing, learn nothing, and in no way protect our long term survivability
Thanks but no thanks.

>>1609350

>hey man, let's just be complacent navel gazers, yeah?

Farm animal.

>>1609363
>pls follow my cult
no

The idea of an afterlife is the most destructive meme in history.

>>1609361
>they act like social programs are a nuisance and we should be leaving those darn poors broke and desperate because SCIENCE!
That's not true at all.

>>1609366
There is no objective accomplishment anyway. None of this affects individual contentment.

>>1609464
>objective
Doesn't matter.

> None of this affects individual contentment.
It can and regardless, that isn't the only goal.

>>1598736
Lets say we ask you this question again just after the earth has been hit by a 5 billion ton iron asteroid...

>>1609361
That wouldn't be an extinction now, would it?

The technologies developed with the intention of sending people to Mars are worth more than actually sending people to Mars.

>>1609703
I would say if it results in a permanent and self sustaining colony it would be worth it

File: Mars_23_aug_2003_hubble.jpg (125KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1600x1600px

>People can't live on Mars

Jesus christ you can tell this isn't the Science board.

Mars is perfectly habitable for human beings. Most of the 'issues' surrounding our ability to live on Mars can be easily dealt with by basic Scientific method.

>Oxygen
It is very very easy to provide people with bags of Oxygen to take to Mars with them. Even very simple brown paper bags will do, they just have to be placed into cryogenic stasis during the trip to prevent them bursting and then shared among the population. When people are sleeping outside they can just tape the bag over their mouth and nose

>Gravity
This isn't actually a huge issue. Having less gravity will actually make Mars better than Earth. In fact for the economy of Mars it will be fantastic, because it will give them a thriving tourism industry. Imagine Mars being able to advertise itself as a holiday destination where you are considerably less heavy? The beaches of Mars would be packed every summer.

>Dust
The dust is an overrated concern for colonisation of Mars. Dust is only a problem if it settles. So as long as people keep moving the dust on Mars cannot create any concerns. This would lead to people exercising more and being more healthy so Mars would have low obesity rates, causing lower healthcare costs overall and more money to be spent on developing the planet.

>Distance between worlds
Earth and Mars being far from each other is not a huge concern. It would simply mean Mars investing its money into a postal service not unlike that on earth except more advanced. All countries have postal service and Mars would be no different.

/his/ needs a fucking Science lesson.

>>1609364
>Hedging its bets makes humanity safer.
it does but it's the equivalent investment strategy of "sticking all your cash in a big mayonnaise jar and burying it in the back yard", where you could have at least invested that money in a T-bill or savings account and collected interest.

>Except for the fact that humans are caustic when the SHTF. A scared hungry human would burn a full grain silo just to get a single meal. Also humans have a long history of destroying shit for no reason. See ISIS.
And that problem would be even more pronounced in a cramped Martian colony where every day is a tedious grind just to survive.

>Finally, we can do both.
Of course we can. I'm not advocating shutting down NASA. It's just a question of priorities. Until we know more about the long term effects of space travel on people, we're better off being conservative about when and where we put them in harm's way.

>>1609671
>That wouldn't be an extinction now, would it?
It would be for life on the original planet, and is that really what we want our destiny to be? To be like a swarm of locusts going from planet to planet consuming all the resources and expanding just fast enough to stay one step ahead of the rolling multi-planetary extinction event that is a human presence which hasn't learned proper ecological stewardship?

>>1609372
>That's not true at all.
It's implied when they say things like "Look at how much of our budget we spend on the poors and look how little we spend on SCIENCE!", suggesting that we should strip down our social safety need so that government bureaucrats can have a cushier paycheck. The Soviet Union tried that strategy, and as it turns out, just saying that you're pro-science and kicking lots of money around doesn't actually make it so.

>>1603648
>artificial evolution, gray goo, and the singularity
>not even very unlikely to occur within our lifetime

>>1609839
>/his/ needs a fucking Science lesson.
And sci fi writers have no sense of scale or economy. They think a "can" implies a "should" without stopping to consider factors which lie outside their field of interest

>>1603648
>all the robotics are zero likelihood

Someone's still buttmad that 21st century drone warfare happened exactly like the nerds all said

>>1609152
call me when we're able to do that here

>>1609258
ask those that live in that space station

>>1605453
>Sending even just a flyby robot to another star would be an investment on the order of tens of trillions of dollars in today's currency,

The only thing we are actually losing is cost of materials, which really isn't even close to "tens of trillions of dollars", since all other expenses goes back into planet earth's economy.
If you don't count 'lost' working hours too, but there's a bunch of educated guys jerking off on an Islandic toenail board right now instead of contributing to society so idk.

File: 11_1.jpg (244KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1000x563px

>>1609370

Haven't you ever experienced deja vu?

Haven't you ever dreamt at night?

Haven't you experienced something you knew even though you haven't read or learnt it?

How can you feel something sad, joyful, horrible, etc. in your body if there is no base of the feelings in you?

I have just asked the above questions because I was so surprised at your answer.

History recordings have been already destructed by the powers to their own tastes through the history. So now even you don't believe the idea of an afterlife.

Thank you for your response!

>>1611709
>Haven't you ever experienced deja vu?
When I was a teenager I often experienced deja vu, mostly about food. And it wasn't this weaksauce New Age bullshit where you "feel a connection" to a place where you've never been before or every bitch who is afraid of fire claims to have been Joan of Arc in a past life (her soul sure got passed around, or more like copy-pasted)
I actually remembered seeing myself eating a meal or a snack from my own point of view in splendid detail, from the surroundings, furniture and cutlery down to the fibers in the meat or the cracks in the biscuit, and I distinctly remembered dreaming about the scene.

Of course it was just my brain shitting itself from hormone overload because psychic powers don't exist, you delusional manchild.

File: i5-11[1].jpg (69KB, 355x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 355x400px

Only for mining and science.

Terraforming takes too long and too much energy.

It is just simpler to put people into O'neil cylinders stationed at Lagrange points.

Same applies for traveling to another star system. Unless we known there is an already habitable planet there waiting for us.

File: 21_1.jpg (502KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1200x675px

>>1611828
One day, I dropped in London and I thought I had ever been there because the scenes were not unfamiliar to me. It was my first visit in my present life. How familiar to the downtown in London I felt !

I have several experiences in my work place, etc. I questioned for myself but I had no idea.

Sometimes, people wanted to get some advice from me. Even I was surprised at my answer because I hadn't ever experienced their situations. How could I give the answers that they were satisfied with?

I wondered....

In my job, I had to understand a human being much more than others. But I didn't understand a human being because the science couldn't give answers although I learnt it in my university. I tried to get answers from professors, but they didn't answer even in my research. They seemed to wait for my answer in my research.

I didn't want to work wrongly without understanding a human being perfectly because I wanted to be proud of my work, but it wasn't possible. I knew I had to continue to hide my ignorance to others like the leading leaders in my part.

I saw even scientists afraid of something and rely on religion. One of dentists put his money to the church even though he didn't believe Christianity.

I had once taught students and had given them a homework about comparison between a cell and a human body. At that time, the students told me they felt something big when they did their homework.

I don't think science is not superior to a human being. I would like to say science is much less logical and scientific than Maitreya Buddha's teaching is.

I leave one thing for you. To eat anything in your dream is not good for you. It can cause you to have a disease in your body. Can you control your dream?

There is a way to prevent you from eating in your dream.
The answer is included in the web page http://brahmanedu.org/english/books/heart/books_heart_vods26.html.


Thank you for your opinion!

>>1598739
>to ensure we don't get wiped out as a species by some virus or whatever
>tfw humanity isn't safe until we've colonized another planet or even galaxy because of gamma ray bursts

File: 1458595145094.png (293KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 633x758px

>>1598866
>>1598963
>the UN, the Illurmenati or some other powerful body will never stage an elaborate ruse where the scenario is an alien threat which threatens the existence of humanity which will cause the entire planet to unite to fight a common enemy. All this is done for the sole purpose of advancing human technology, space exploration etc
>once we've colonized mars, invented fusion reactors and shit, the ruse is revealed and we all go back to our normal lives but everything has been advanced and aligned to fighting this threat that the standard model of capitalism doesn't make any sense any more, so we implement some utopian version of communism and all is well

>>1598732
Yes. We have to escape these niggers somehow.

Is it possible that an explosion in advancement in AI technology could lead to very cheap robot-manned mars trips where the robots could do all the terraforming for us so we could just go there later on? Meanwhile the robots are doing all sorts of other tasks on earth that is saving it, making Mars more of a pet project for advancing the frontier?

>>1612341
I wish I knew where to give donations to for Project Blue Beam.

>>1598737
>>is it worth it for any peoples to go to the new world or the americas?
Why do people keep drawing this comparison? It doesn't make sense.

>>1598982
Aren't most of the innovations attributed to the space race really more a result of ICBM programs and whatnot?

File: images.jpg (6KB, 206x245px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 206x245px

>>1612341
>all government funding is redirected to the project and I don't get my student grants anymore

I hate this idea

>>1598796
A Mars mission can be done at 55 Billion easy. That's chump change in the budget.

It'd get cheaper after every trip since once you establish a landing spot you can manufacture fuel on the planet. You don't need to bring much compared to other missions.

Even forgetting Mars, there are insane amounts of minerals in various bodies. There's a reason for the huge space race in the private sector right now. Whoever wins it will have infinite money.

>>1598864
The surface of the moon has a shitload of H3.

>>1599811
It rains diamonds. Its fucked up

>>1612713
55 billion to get there, and how much in provision trips and maintenance? Plus how do you expect to manufacture fuel there?

>>1599811
Landis has proposed aerostat habitats followed by floating cities, based on the concept that breathable air (21:79 oxygen/nitrogen mixture) is a lifting gas in the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere, with over 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth.[6] In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres (31 mi) above Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C (273 to 323 K; 32 to 122 °F) range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.[7]

>>1612729
De Beers confirmed for conspiring against space programs.

>>1605453
>Sending even just a flyby robot to another star would be an investment on the order of tens of trillions of dollars in today's currency
But Hawking, that Russian oligarch and Zuckenberg have a plan to do it, way cheaper.

>>1612488
>project blue beam
oh wow this sounds eerily similar to what I wrote, I should get more into this tinfoil shit

>>1613123
I'm not arguing against the robotic exploration of the cosmos. In fact that's my point: space is for the robots and there's not a whole lot of reason to send people, and once robots start becoming more intelligent and autonomous, there will be even less reason to send people.

a colony ship is an entirely different beast, and wouldn't it be much cheaper to just send an artificial fertility lab and grow the humans once you get to the planet?

>>1612304
>It is just simpler to put people into O'neil cylinders stationed at Lagrange points.
But why? What economic purpose would these serve that couldn't be served more cheaply with robots? And if we have the technology to make these verdant paradises, why couldn't we use that technology here on Earth to make it a more verdant paradise that's a hell of a lot easier to get too?

File: weeeeeeeeee.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>1613939
The idea is, when some catastrophe, either local or cosmological, comes along to wipe out your species or planet (and keep in mind, it is a matter of "when", not "if"), you don't want all your eggs in one basket.

...which makes orbital habitats insufficient for the task (not totally useless, but there's still lots of eventualities those wouldn't defend against - including some of the more likely ones, such as solar flares). Burrowing underground on Earth protects you from some eventualities - but obviously, folks have no motivation to do so, until it's too late. Unlike colonizing another world, where burrowing maybe a necessity, just by the nature of the environment. (Plus there's always those eventualities that burrowing doesn't protect against.)

The sooner you start on that, and the more resources and effort you put into that, the more likely it'll be ready by the time the inevitable happens. Even if we put everything we had into it now, there's no guarantee we'd have a viable backup plan ready by the time any number of the somethings that can go horribly wrong at home do so.

>>1610028
> To be like a swarm of locusts going from planet to planet consuming all the resources and expanding just fast enough to stay one step ahead of the rolling multi-planetary extinction event that is a human presence which hasn't learned proper ecological stewardship?
Locusts are only bad because they destroy the habitats and food supplies of other living creatures. We'd be the exact opposite of locusts, spreading life everywhere we went, and ensuring the survival of the collective story of life on Earth by spreading it among the stars. (At least until we came across a planet that already had life, but by then it maybe we'd have so many planets colonized that we'd be willing to make it a preserve.)

It also beats just waiting for our inevitable demise here.

>>1598826
but wasn't Elon Musk going to put up people on mars by 2020?

>>1599441
The only other options are Europa or Titan. Venus is and always will be a uninhabitable toxic shithole

>>1609350
It must be hard being that brainless

>>1616552
t militant colonisation behind disinformation

>>1612375
I enjoy this Idea

>>1598732
nope, why would it be?

>>1616552
Just about any rock is viable for colonization, the only difference is the degree of effort and time involved. With Venus, you can either set up in the atmosphere and power the sky cities there from, our cause a chemical reaction to strip most of it and wait. Venus is one of the few rocks good gravity, but that hampers nearly as much as it helps.

Europa is covered in unstable ice sitting atop a freezing ocean, and Titan is covered in methane, so they'd be among the more difficult targets, but at least good fuel sources are on hand, I suppose. Nearly all these rocks have plenty of ice or H3 or something similarly exploitable though.

File: Cactus.jpg (223KB, 476x890px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 476x890px

Hear me out on this one I know it may sound crazy but plz just hear me out

>a big problem with going places it that it takes time
>humans from birth don't live very long in the grand scale of things
>humanity will some day need another planet to move to
>All places we could go are very far away
>it would be hard to send humans to those places cuz humans tend to expire after a few years and need to eat, drink, and shit.
>why not make it so that humans don't need all that stuf and don't die as soon
>take humans consciousness and put them into computers/androids
>new android humans can cary on humanity by going where no man could go before

>profit???

Who knows, maybe one day humanity can live on other planets, although likely not in my lifetime.

>>1616724
t deathbed

We either colonize space or go extinct on this planet, those are the options.

I'd rather our species grow outward, and advance in spectacular ways we can't currently imagine, than sit here and stagnate on a tiny fleck of iron and silicon until we all get wiped out by some cause or another.

>>1616690
It's kind of a race between which we'll reach first - biological immortality, or brain simulators of reasonable size, but at least with the former you get to go yourself, rather than send a copy of yourself. (There's also always the suspended animation option.)

Then again, if you get the AI first, it may not give you a choice in the matter.

Granted, we've only known about the speed of light for a handful of centuries, and known it as equal to effective limit of information propagation for less, already have some theories on how to work around it, and still think ~75% of the universe is made up of something we've never been able to detect with properties unlike anything we've ever observed. Science is in it's infancy and all.

Still, for the inner planets and Jupiter at least, travel times are within reason, if a bit daunting. If worst comes to worst, self sustaining generational colony ships are also an option.

>>1616724
Probably not within our children's children's lifetimes, but it's one of those efforts that takes generations, and needs to start sooner than later, to ensure man will still continue to have future generations. Sadly, that seems to be the sort of thing we're caring about less and less with each generation, rather than more. The last time we were making that sort of multi-generational effort on a regular basis, was back when we were building cathedrals. (Though I suppose we're still technically working on Gaudi's Barcelona.)

>>1616754
no more like we dont go extinct and stay here or go extinct and colonise

File: 71735eead52b863891fd4ed77482ec28.jpg (122KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 736x552px

>>1616763
>Gaudi's Barcelona
It's amazing to think that everyone that started this thing is now dead, as are most of their children, and further, the majority of the people who have worked on it and invested millions into it, did so knowing they'd never live to see it completed.

And, back in the day, these were cropping up all over the Europe, many under the same circumstances, all while requiring a lot more labor, in a civilization with far less resources to spare.

...So there's still hope for mankind.

File: jesus-ufo.jpg (13KB, 400x294px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x294px

>>1616789
All while eating tons of money and resources and providing no tangible benefit - and further, never intending to ever do so, even upon completion. (Aside from, well, tons of employment during the creation process.)

Back in the day, you could at least curry favor with the Church by investing in such things, but that just isn't the selling point it used to be.

It's sad that it's hard to make that same sell with the end benefit being the future survival of mankind, and access to near limitless precious resources along the way.

...We really need to "find" a Dead-Sea Scroll where Jesus says he's waiting for us all on Orion and only the generation that makes it there will be "truly saved" or some shit.