Jonathan wrote:


I've been looking at some the incredibly expensive
steps which are planned for a Mars colony.

From the massive rockets, massive transports
and things like droves of robots that will
dig out an underground habitat and so on
and so on and so on...

Sounds like Trillions of dollars will be
needed over several decades.


Jonathan, this is a 'sci' hierarch newsgroup. That means handwavium
and distortions don't work here. Are you now going to go into another
snit and stalk out of the newsgroup again in high dudgeon?


Of course we all know that as time goes on
and cost estimates steadily rise, the
goals will shrink and shrink, until
in the end we land a couple of astronauts
for a couple of weeks.


We all don't know any such thing. Idiocy like the preceding is why we
don't let you make decisions.


But even if a self sustaining colony of
say a 100 people is established, what
will the human race get in return for
all this money and effort?


Way too few people for a self-sustaining colony.


Finding life on Mars?


NASA has made it clear that's not a primary
concern. The current MSL couldn't identify
life is it was sitting in a field of moss.

And the next rover won't be able to either, instead
looking for signs of...ancient life, and identify
samples for some....future sample return mission
and to support some...future human habitation.

THE MSL 202O CAN DO EVERYTHING.....EXCEPT
DIRECTLY SEARCH FOR LIFE.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/news/w...ws&NewsID=1678


It's yet another rover that's meant to get
a...sample return mission and colony instead
of directly searching for life.


If people aren't going, why do we care? What do we get if we do (or
don't) find life on Mars?


That's just another self-serving deception
on the part of NASA, at the expense of
science and what the public wants.

For the incredible cost of a manned
landing, we could send a hundred much
more ambitious rovers far faster and
cover far more ground than a manned
landing.


Well, no, you couldn't.


Allow the human race to survive an impact?

It's far cheaper and easier to spot, divert
or destroy an asteroid than this colony.


Oh? How's that.


Inspiration?

For what? Colonies around Jupiter?
Again, for the same end, just more
inspiration?


For people to actually get excited about STEM subjects so that they
learn to actually think. Of course, you don't want this because it
would reduce your 'audience'.


For resources?

What doesn't the Earth have that
the moon or asteroids have?


A silly reason to go unless you're going to use those resources in
space.


For national pride?

Spending that money directly improving America
would do far more in that respect.


Nope, it wouldn't.


If an agency is going to spend Trillions of
precious research money on a single project
it needs to be thoroughly justified so as
to be easily convincing.

So far I only see 'planting the flag' as
the only widespread appeal, and that's
not enough.


Your intellectual myopia is your problem, not ours. You seem to have
made an argument against sending toasters to space, too, even though
that's what you seem to favor.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn