Should we invest in Mars Exploration

[nikkkom]

Pretty close to a guarantee that people will die in the attempt. Likely many people in an attempt to colonize.

Otherwise, these people would live forever?
Every single day, in US about 100 people die in car crashes. We should ban cars?

Then let's get back to this in a few billion years.

The Earth will be uninhabitable (surface temps in excess of 100 C) in "only" one billion year, due to rising luminosity of the Sun.

In any case, regardless of how many millions of years "we can afford to wait", I don't see the point in waiting. There are possible scenarios where humans, or even most of life on Earth, can be wiped out without much warning.

 

[nikkkom]

ISS is not a model of how to do things. ISS is a model how to NOT do things. What is worse than a government program? An international government program.

IIRC full cost of bringing one kg of experiments to ISS (in Shuttle days) was estimated to be $400k. Of these, $40k is the cost of the launch (Shuttle is the most costly launch vehicle in history), but it only starts here. The expenses for "paperwork" required by ISS office at NASA dwarfed even that. Soon, ISS office discovered than many educational institutions started turning down their offers to maybe do some experiments on ISS - "thanks, but we are not exactly looking for having mountains of PITA at this moment".

 

[mheslep]

Otherwise, these people would live forever?
Every single day, in US about 100 people die in car crashes. We should ban cars?

Non sequitor. I'm not arguing to ban anything, nor that people should hide in their basements for safety. I do argue that going to Mars offers little to extend the long term survival of humans (as you say, no 'guarantee') relative to measures available on earth, and going there in the next decades will likely kill some people; those lethal risks might be worth the exploration but won't save humanity.

The Earth will be uninhabitable (surface temps in excess of 100 C) in "only" one billion year, due to rising luminosity of the Sun.

The only fact +1by is the increased solar output. In a discussion where environmental conditions that don't support life are a given, and advanced tech is assumed, many sci fi like measures are possible, e.g. space based sun shield, subterranean habitation. Surface temp on the day side of the moon, where colonies have long been proposed, can hit 123C.

In any case, regardless of how many millions of years "we can afford to wait", I don't see the point in waiting.

Fair enough. I see the same facts and assess no urgent need to go, especially with existing propulsion tech.

There are possible scenarios where humans, or even most of life on Earth, can be wiped out without much warning.

Maybe. Among the suite of such scenarios, several probably wipe out small colonies on Mars too, and there are still others where a similar amount of investment on Earth as Insurance against calamity maintains some human existence under conditions at least no more harsh than that of Mars (no breathable atmosphere or liquid water).

 

[Elaine Sokolov]

Ehh... I don't think so. Even if we could find frozen water on Mars or something, It's still way too cold to inhabits humans. And I personally think that that's the reason we explore space/galaxies/planets in the first place. I mean, think about it. We went to the moon a while ago for a few years and then we haven't been back. What's the point of spending millions of dollars if we're going to forget about the trip a year or so later?

 

[sophiecentaur]

There are possible scenarios where humans, or even most of life on Earth, can be wiped out without much warning.

It's strange how people apply different criteria in different circumstances. There are many possible scenarios that you will be wiped out on your way to work tomorrow. Have you made any special plan to eliminate that possibility? Will you drive extra slowly or choose a travel time that's not so busy. It's one thing to talk about vast schemes to preserve homo sapiens but another thing to preserve ones own life a bit longer. Eat properly, exercise , avoid smoking and alcohol.. None of us takes that amount of care. "Well, you've got to die sometime". Likewise for the human race. Why not accept it?

 

[nikkkom]

It's strange how people apply different criteria in different circumstances. There are many possible scenarios that you will be wiped out on your way to work tomorrow.

Irrelevant. I will be dead anyway, sooner or later. We don't survive individually, we survive as a civilization.

 

[jack action]

Irrelevant. I will be dead anyway, sooner or later. We don't survive individually, we survive as a civilization.

Or ... maybe we just survive as a life form and other "civilizations" are on other planets, so it's OK for our "civilization" to die sooner or later?

 

[sophiecentaur]

we survive as a civilization.

That would be a first, then. Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Third Reich . . . It also works that way with bacteria.

 

[nikkkom]

Or ... maybe we just survive as a life form and other "civilizations" are on other planets, so it's OK for our "civilization" to die sooner or later?

It depends on what you mean by "OK".

I define "OK" as surviving. Not surviving (both for lifeforms and for societies) is a failure. I am going to operate in this coordinate system.

Dinosaurs are dead and by the above definition, they failed.

If we look at them not as species surviving standalone, but as branch of life, an attempt by Nature to create a versatile, survivable life form adaptable for various conditions, they failed when "various conditions" become too harsh, but life continued on.

Now is our turn. This time evolution tries a new way to have a versatile, survivable life form adaptable for various conditions: a very *clever* animal.

It's up to us what we do now. I take it some people are okay with failing. I am not.

There is no known laws of physics which stops us from surviving for practically unlimited stretch of time by expanding into space, and all reasons to think that with more advances in technology and medicine, we can change our bodies (and brains?) as needed to live anywhere.

We certainly may fail (success is not guaranteed). However, if we don't even try, we are guaranteed to fail.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There is no known laws of physics which stops us from surviving for practically unlimited stretch of time

Likewise, there is no Law of Physics that says we should expect to be able to survive for an unlimited time. Experience tells us that there are variations in circumstances and if one doesn't get you, the next one may. Frankly, I don't have any problem with facing personal mortality nor the mortality of the human race. That doesn't mean I have no will to survive or that I would just lay back and let it happen (just to forestall any Straw Man response). I think it is amazingly over optimistic to assume that humans will not do themselves harm that will put an end to them. We won't have to wait millions of years for a Bay of Pigs or a North Korea situation that will actually not be recovered from. That's just being realistic.

 

[nikkkom]

Likewise, there is no Law of Physics that says we should expect to be able to survive for an unlimited time. Experience tells us that there are variations in circumstances and if one doesn't get you, the next one may. Frankly, I don't have any problem with facing personal mortality nor the mortality of the human race. That doesn't mean I have no will to survive or that I would just lay back and let it happen (just to forestall any Straw Man response). I think it is amazingly over optimistic to assume that humans will not do themselves harm that will put an end to them.

We get it, you are a pessimist. We all going to die. We should not even try to go to Mars. Or Moon. Let's just live for some time, then die. Please post a few more times, just to make sure we remember your point well.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There goes the straw man again. A pessimist is a realist, seen from the standpoint of an optimist who isn't a realist. You have absolutely no basis for assuming that we will survive for ever. The only thing that historically teaches us is that nothing lasts for ever. If you are a Scientist of any kind, you surely have to consider the evidence before you make a statement.

make sure we remember

How many PF members is the "we" referring to? You seem to have an almost religious fervour about this belief. What's it based on?

 

[nikkkom]

"We" refers to those humans which do think that colonizing Mars is a worthy goal.

There goes the straw man again. A pessimist is a realist, seen from the standpoint of an optimist who isn't a realist. You have absolutely no basis for assuming that we will survive for ever. The only thing that historically teaches us is that nothing lasts for ever.

A finite history which contains an example of something surviving forever is an impossibility. In a finite history, everything is either "already ended" or "so far continues to exist".

 

[sophiecentaur]

"We" refers to those humans which do think that colonizing Mars is a worthy goal.
A finite history which contains an example of something surviving forever is an impossibility. In a finite history, everything is either "already ended" or "so far continues to exist".

The 'worthiness' or otherwise cannot be based on the assumption that it is worth while aiming at prolonging the life of the human race indefinitely. As you say, we have a finite history so we cannot extrapolate to an unlimited extent. The Worth of a project must be based on something tangible. Some limited exploration could be justified after a very extended period of unmanned surveying. There is no mad hurry; the enthusiasts of 2017 may have to go without the buzz of it happening in their lifetimes - or their grandchildren's lifetimes. Technology may deliver a way of getting there much cheaper. We will always be needing to improve and cheapen our near Earth space experience - for good reasons. So Mars could be a spin off of that.
There are valid arguments in favour of going to Mars but immortality is not one of them. There is always the possibility that exploration will turn up something that could yield a profit. I don't know of any fundamental research that could be done better of cheaper on Mars than it could be done on Earth or in Earth orbit. The immortality project is so speculative that I just can't accept it so all that remains is to go there and start looking till something shows up to justify the effort. Then there's the alien life thing. Curiosity has made a start on that and a few more generations of Curiosities could yield something. But again, where's the hurry? Does it have to be in our lifetime that it's found, if that involves too much expense.
The very fact that you are getting so steamed up about my lack of enthusiasm for the project only goes to justify my view that space enthusiasts are in it for the wrong reasons. It's personal and not for benefit of Science or the rest of the world. Not the best basis for spending a lot of money.

 

[Chronos]

I see no logical reason to colonize Mars until we have projects that require human intervention, anything less could and should be left to robots. Think of it as a risk reward exercise. The risk and expense of sending humans to Mars is huge and the rewards are minimal. It makes much more sense to colonize the moon first - if for no other reason than to better understand the challenges posed by a Mars colony.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It makes much more sense to colonize the moon first

That's a reasonable conclusion but people on the parallel thread seem to reckon that living on the Moon might be harder than living on Mars. Of course, getting back would be a lot less trouble when takeoff from the larger body is included.
I agree that human expeditions should wait until it's assessed as being a lot safer than 'just enough' and until it's decided that there really is something there worth looking at 'with human eyes'. That could mean several human generations of robotic exploration but - so what?

 

[nikkkom]

Some limited exploration could be justified after a very extended period of unmanned surveying. There is no mad hurry; the enthusiasts of 2017 may have to go without the buzz of it happening in their lifetimes - or their grandchildren's lifetimes.

We won't have to wait millions of years for a Bay of Pigs or a North Korea situation that will actually not be recovered from.

The above two quotes are yours, and they contradict each other.

Well, they are consistent - if your goal is to actively work against reducing risks to humanity: nuclear war still can happen, theoretically even tomorrow - so let's not go to Mars during at least the next 100 years, in the "hope" that we will nuke ourselves sooner than we go to Mars.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The above two quotes are yours, and they contradict each other. . . . etc

You guys are very fond of your straw men, aren't you? What are you saying I "hoped" for?
The comments are not related at all. I recommend delay rather than a precipitate rush to Mars. ( a hundred years or whatever suits the situation) It will be safer and probably cheaper. My comment about humans causing their own demise refers to the high probability of us lasting less than millions of years before our eventual demise. (We have good evidence of the extinction of many species.) The ratio of times involved is significant and we can at least hope for some breathing time before the balloon goes up.
If mortality of the species is a problem for someone then how do they manage to deal with their own mortality - which is a definite and with a timescale of not many decades? Learning to accept some things is a good way of achieving inner peace. We have to accept that we do our best but that we cannot hope to control everything that life can throw at us. A brush with a deadly disease is a great way to learn to enjoy what one has without the frustration about what one cannot have.
Life's too short . . . . . . .

 

[nikkkom]

I recommend delay rather than a precipitate rush to Mars.

We already had the delay. Last Moon landing was *forty five* years ago - half a century. What SpaceX is doing was technically possible in 1990 - 25 years ago. Our manned space program is in a bad shape already, how much worse do you want it to be?

 

[sophiecentaur]

how much worse do you want it to be?

What does the term "worse" mean? We could do things - just for the sake of it and because we can afford to - would that be 'better' or just foolhardy and poor value?
The reason for the Moon Landings happening when it did was entirely political / military. It gave many of us a rosy glow. Was that good value? Was it a fraction of the value that Hubble gave us or what GPS has done for us?
Why do assume that I should be "wanting" anything to be bad or worse?

 

[russ_watters]

It depends on what you mean by "OK".

I define "OK" as surviving. Not surviving (both for lifeforms and for societies) is a failure. I am going to operate in this coordinate system.

Dinosaurs are dead and by the above definition, they failed.

If we look at them not as species surviving standalone, but as branch of life, an attempt by Nature to create a versatile, survivable life form adaptable for various conditions, they failed when "various conditions" become too harsh, but life continued on.

Now is our turn. This time evolution tries a new way to have a versatile, survivable life form adaptable for various conditions: a very *clever* animal.

It's up to us what we do now. I take it some people are okay with failing. I am not.

Why? Nikkkom, you are essentially taking it as an assumption or article of faith that we should go to extreme lengths to perpetuate the species. But you haven't even clearly articulated why. I agree with sophie that this sounds like a religious argument, and besides being beyond the scope of the forum won't win any points in a battle for votes and funding, which ultimately is what this issue comes down to. In other words; if proponents of a Mars mission want to convince others to support, vote for and fund it, you will have to come up with an explainable reason why.

 

[nikkkom]

Why? Nikkkom, you are essentially taking it as an assumption or article of faith that we should go to extreme lengths to perpetuate the species. But you haven't even clearly articulated why.

Which part of "if you do not survive, you do not survive (aka 'you die out')" needs explaining?
The statement of the form "If A is true, then A is true" is valid in any system of logic.

I agree with sophie that this sounds like a religious argument

It is a logical argument, not a religious one. I am an atheist.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Which part of "if you do not survive, you do not survive (aka 'you die out')" needs explaining?

Does your logic statement take us anywhere?

 

[russ_watters]

The international nature of the ISS means that there is less argument needed to justify open ended costs; it's a symbol of international co operation and would be funded at almost any cost. It's equivalent to an arms race or a cold war because no one can pull out without embarrassment.

You're making good arguments and I'll mostly leave you to them, but I think you need to flip this one over. The cost is well defined and projects do get canceled if they cost too much -- like Space Station Freedom, before it morphed into the ISS, or Reagan's Star Wars. What is questionable isn't the cost, it is the value. "International cooperation" has at best a nebulous value. There are few people in touch with the issue who really believe that the science value is in-line with the cost of the ISS...but apparently we have some in the thread...

 

[russ_watters]

However, there are certainly tasks that can not be partitioned into simpler steps. For the near future at least, and perhaps into the distant future, some of these tasks remain too complex for a many-hands approach, or the domain of human experts.

Again, both together *might* be true (I'd be curious to know the actual tasks), but what is *certainly* true right now is that there are lots and lots of tasks that *must* be done separately and therefore *cannot* be done by humans in our current level of development.

"When a task cannot be partitioned because of sequential constraints, the application of more effort has no effect on the schedule. The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned." Source.

The part you are missing is that right now and for the forseeable future, what we need is dozens of babies and therefore it cannot be accomplished with a single mother.

 

[nikkkom]

What does the term "worse" mean? We could do things - just for the sake of it and because we can afford to - would that be 'better' or just foolhardy and poor value?

Let's look at a concrete example of "worse", and how it becomes "better". As an example, let's pick launch costs. They are affecting costs of comsats, costs of weather prediction, space telescopes and other science, etc.

Long before today, United Launch Alliance was formed as a merger of Boeing and Lockheed's launch businesses, because they were "too expensive" separately. It was the only launch provider for US govt launches, especially military (USAF swore to never have to do anything with Shuttle after NASA utterly failed to deliver on schedule and cost, while nearly destroying domestic expendable launch by starving it from orders).

ULA promised to lower costs.

Whooops, pesky laws of economics. Why, oh why do you say "monopolies never reduce costs"?!

ULA failed to lower costs. They raised them. Everyone in govt acted surprised. :D They even had OIG investigate this "unexpected" development. :D :D :D

The cheapest ULA launch was Atlas V, at $180m a pop. Delta IV Heavy was (actually is) $400m a pop for 20 tons to LEO. (Shuttle is still four times more expensive, so USAF was not too unhappy). ULA was not even bothering to publicly disclose their launch costs. "Whoever wants to know, call us".

This was status quo.

Fast forward 15 years, to 2017. SpaceX lists $65m price for a cargo launch of 20 ton to LEO. ULA is laying off hundreds.
Moreover, ULA "suddenly discovered" that they can offer Atlas V for as low as $109m.
Also, they now have a site (www.rocketbuilder.com) where you, as a potential ULA customer, can model your price depending on weight of the payload and target orbit.

Evidently, "sudden acceleration" applied to one's backside by a competition works wonders.

I can't vouch for others, but to me, this new reality looks way better than status quo. I am only sad that this did not happen in 1990s. It could have.

 

[russ_watters]

Or I just considered a different aspect than you?

And did it badly, mostly via strawman and misdirection. You're not making apples to apples comparisons and then treating the answers as if they are. For example:

The rovers don't collect samples, they make measurements and then discard whatever they studied. In terms of samples that can be studied in more detail on Earth, a rover has 0 unless we make a sample return mission.

Comparing one real mission that doesn't do what you want to another mission that is fictional is just silly, mfb. Can rovers collect and return samples? Answer: yes, they can. Can humans return samples? Answer: yes, they can. So if that's what you want to compare, compare it. Make a hypothetical mission profile where both are doing the same mission and compare them fairly.

The Apollo 17 crew covered 35 km (more than twice the total distance of Curiosity, although humans have to drive back again, so let's say they are about equal) and collected 741 samples in 3 days.

I'm aware. Are you aware that Spirit and Opportunity landed some 5,000 miles apart?

And I don't think you can get all the things you listed for the price of a manned Mars mission (with >1 year on the surface). Wait 10 years, then buy it from SpaceX.

Until it happens, what you see SpaceX doing is essentially just fantasy. Like the fantasy of $1000/lb launch costs that people have been talking about for 40 years. You can't base new missions and policy off of fantasy if you want them to have a chance of succeeding.

 

[russ_watters]

Which part of "if you do not survive, you do not survive (aka 'you die out')" needs explaining?

It was me you were quoting, not sophie.

Anyway, the answer to your question is: all of it. It is basically just a meaningless tautology, not a logical argument. Try this one: Blue is blue, therefore we shouldn't go to Mars. Do I win?

The statement of the form "If A is true, then A is true" is valid in any system of logic.

Sure -- but that doesn't make it meaningful.

It is a logical argument, not a religious one. I am an atheist.

So far, I disagree with both of those, but again, please feel free to try to come up with a logical argument to replace the article of faith you are currently operating on.

[edit]
I'm having a little trouble believing you don't see just how silly the above is, so let me give you an example of an answer to the question I asked:

[sample]
We should go to extreme measures to prevent our species from dying-out because dying-out is "very bad".[/sample]

Now, hopefully you can see that "bad" is a value judgement and that logic doesn't really play a role in the core of such an argument. What I'm seeing is - whether purposely or accidentally - you are trapped by the inherrent irrationality of your belief and trying to find a way to argue it logically. Because that's impossible, you just give non/meaningless answers instead.

 

[nikkkom]

Anyway, the answer to your question is: all of it. It is basically just a meaningless tautology, not a logical argument.

Exactly: it is not a logical conjecture.
If I would be saying "from A follows B", I would need to explain why do I think so. I could be mistaken about it.
However, "from A follows A" is always true. I do not need to prove it.

If we do not survive, we do not survive.

Whoever decided to never leave the planet (as a civilization/society, not as individual), is choosing to not survive (as a civilization/society).

> It is a logical argument, not a religious one. I am an atheist.

So far, I disagree with both of those

Are you disagreeing with "from A follows A" statement or you disagree that I am an atheist? :D

 

[russ_watters]

Exactly: it is not a logical conjecture.
If I would be saying "from A follows B", I would need to explain why do I think so. I could be mistaken about it.
However, "from A follows A" is always true. I do not need to prove it...

Are you disagreeing with "from A follows A" statement or you disagree that I am an atheist? :D

Nikkkom, it is starting to look like you are purposely evading the question and giving purposely vexatious non-answers. You need to improve the quality of your discussion.

One last time: the logical tautology you are repeating does not lead anywhere and therefore does not answer "why?" Please answer it.

Or, another way: I agree that A follows A. Now please connect A to B.

 

[nikkkom]

[edit]
I'm having a little trouble believing you don't see just how silly the above is, so let me give you an example of an answer to the question I asked:

[sample]
We should go to extreme measures to prevent our species from dying-out because dying-out is "very bad".[/sample]

Now, hopefully you can see that "bad" is a value judgement and that logic doesn't really play a role in the core of such an argument.

You are right. I am simply choosing a value judgement where "dying-out is very bad". I think that's how evolution sees it.

If you prefer to see dying-out as "very good", or "irrelevant", or whatever, you can do so, I certainly can't and won't tell you what your value judgements should be.

 

[russ_watters]

You are right. I am simply choosing a value judgement where "dying-out is very bad". I think that's how evolution sees it.

If you prefer to see dying-out as "very good", or "irrelevant", or whatever, you can do so, I certainly can't and won't tell you what your value judgements should be.

Thank you! Was that so hard?

Now: does your value judgement allow for any upper limit on the cost of the pursuit? Is it infinite?

It should not be shocking to you that most individuals have other things they value and as a result must rank and prioritize what they spend their time and money on (I rather suspect you do too...).

I think that's how evolution sees it.

No, evolution does not have consciousness and therefore does not make value judgements. What you describe sounds a bit like Gaia Theory, which is basically a religion of a deity of nature.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If your primary concern is the species not dying out then space colonisation is surely waaaay down the list of initiatives to achieve that goal. The type of event that could wipe out everyone on the planet is exceedingly rare; whether it be a one in hundred million years massive asteroid impact or the eventual dying of the sun. There are far more immediate concerns like ecological degradation, climate change, resource shortages and global tension. Investing in countering those is a bigger priority than spending trillions so that a very small number of people can live off Earth. Not to mention many of the requirements for a self-sufficient space colony are related to real world issues (like ecosystem management) but add the pointless, massive extra expense of having to figure out how to do it off of the planet.

Extremely long term setting up self sufficient colonies off the planet seems like a sensible policy. But it would be a detriment to the idea of "not dying out" in the short term to prioritise space colonisation over so much else.

 

[nikkkom]

If your primary concern is the species not dying out then space colonisation is surely waaaay down the list of initiatives to achieve that goal.

It's not like we "Mars colonizers" demand that every last dollar of every country of the Earth must be spent on Mars program. Don't worry.
I'm all for eliminating other dangers by other means too. Removing nukes from North Korea would be a good step.

The type of event that could wipe out everyone on the planet is exceedingly rare; whether it be a one in hundred million years massive asteroid impact or the eventual dying of the sun.

If you define "exceedingly rare" as "will surely happen", yes. Sun will surely fry this planet.

Year 2000 was exceedingly rare right up until 31 Dec 1999. In fact, thousands of programmers were evidently operating under assumption it won't ever happen. :D

 

[nikkkom]

There are far more immediate concerns like ecological degradation, climate change, resource shortages and global tension.

I live long enough to remember that ecology used to be in *worse* shape than what we have now. For one, forests near my town used to be damaged by acid rains. No more. We are improving the way we coexist with the rest of biosphere.

"Climate change" used to be "global warning" and New York is supposed to be half-flooded by 2015. It was supposed to be awful. Did not happen.

Resource shortages? Which ones?

Global tension? Well, we still have a few psychos with nukes, true, but we no longer have two superpowers locked in a ideological stalemate, hell bent to prove that "my way is better than your way". USSR lost - and did NOT nuke the planet. Whew.

Investing in countering those is a bigger priority than spending trillions so that a very small number of people can live off Earth.

What "trillions"? A sensible Mars manned mission would require ~$100B. We (globally) spend more on booze every year!