• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

We'll never go to Mars

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
It's a technology problem. Technology problems can be solved.
It is more like nature problem, Mars does not have the magnetic shield like earth does. So either we will be shipping there lead, or it is not happening. And even then it seems like miserable living.

It's just a scifi more or less from one of the most prolific con man.
 

Trogdor1123

Gold Member
You bet we will go. And we will stay.

The instant the find a reason for a “gold” rush there we will go by the thousands.

Once we get and underground foothold there, which won’t be easy, but it’s far from impossible, we will be there for good.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Don't think you've though this through, OP.

Look at human history. We have consistently pushed the boundaries of our exploration and knowledge throughout it. Hundreds of years ago, the idea of crossing the pacific was as fanciful as reaching Mars is now. We did it. A few decades ago, reaching the moon was as fanciful as Mars is now. We did it.

Don't let any current cultural malaise or ongoing political stupidity colour your judgement. One of humanity's cornerstones has always been the desire to explore. Nothing is going to change that, even if current political and social forces delay it from happening for a while. Going to Mars is inevitable, as soon as we create the technology to make it possible. Further, I have every confidence humanity will explore our entire solar system eventually.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Concept of your OP is bad in the first place, as well as the scientists you are referring to.

There is no overpopulation, just cramming of people into specific areas for easier control and handling of the populace over time. There is plenty of space in most countries to move populations or spread them out. The high congestion in mega cities and large metropolitans (many of which were never intended to hold half as many people) is by design, and it's flawed and causes many problems, but it makes things easier for governments.

There's no reason why there's what, 25 million in the greater new york city metro area and 9 million in NYC alone. Absolutely none, and you can apply that to many other cities in the US and several other countries. We've seen intentional disregard for other areas over the decades to shift everyone into a few locations like sardines.

Easy to say over population when you fly planes to visit other metro bubbles with the same problem (or trains, or drive on the highway without stopping anywhere else outside a few shopping centers off the beltway). Then on top of all this the same groups pulling this off are the same ones causing problems in the environment, and also creating problems within these spaces that could be avoided.

There's no need to colonize any planets.
No doubt.

Google map NYC and then zoom out. You got enough room to fit 5 NYC between it and Syracuse.

For anyone here you can do a test. Google map the city you live. If you live in a metro area it looks fucking jammed. Then start zooming out click by click. At some point you'll reach a view where you'll likely see tons of green space that has nothing in but rural roads and farm country for 100s of kms. Then you'll think to yourself, if we got so much space why the hell is the local government zoning it so its all sardined condos?

Toronto GTA is the same thing. The city had this protected green belt thing they classified where building stuff is a pain in the ass. Well, maybe if the gov didn't have such restrictions for decades, people might spread out a bit. Not everyone wants to live in a metro area. But the province loves allowing condos and hardly anything else.
 
Last edited:

mclaren777

Member
I very much hope we won't.

Planetary exploration (should we choose to do it at all) should always be done by satellites, rovers, and other mechanical devices.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
Don't think you've though this through, OP.

Look at human history. We have consistently pushed the boundaries of our exploration and knowledge throughout it. Hundreds of years ago, the idea of crossing the pacific was as fanciful as reaching Mars is now. We did it. A few decades ago, reaching the moon was as fanciful as Mars is now. We did it.
You gotta remember the moon landings were an expense on the level of the Palace of Versailles or the Pyramids. MASSIVE chunk of GDP went into that accomplishment.

So is a Mars landing feasible? Probably. Is a Mars colony practical without a GLOBAL effort? Unlikely.
 

phaedrus

Member
nGqbJOj.jpg
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
You gotta remember the moon landings were an expense on the level of the Palace of Versailles or the Pyramids. MASSIVE chunk of GDP went into that accomplishment.

So is a Mars landing feasible? Probably. Is a Mars colony practical without a GLOBAL effort? Unlikely.

Some of the biggest costs involved in space travel is getting off the Earth - which is stupendously difficult to do. Hence why NASA and private companies are researching things like the space elevator, a base on the moon, etc. Solve that issue, and a visit to Mars becomes much more feasible, and practical.

It will always be incredibly expensive, but compared to the amount of money spent on defence every year, it'll be a drop in the bucket. And technological advancement always makes things cheaper. Hence the rush to perfect materials like graphene.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
You gotta remember the moon landings were an expense on the level of the Palace of Versailles or the Pyramids. MASSIVE chunk of GDP went into that accomplishment.

So is a Mars landing feasible? Probably. Is a Mars colony practical without a GLOBAL effort? Unlikely.
We reached the moon and did nothing with it since the 60s. It was a land, dick around on it, and return home mission. Colonizing Mars is on another scale 1000x harder.

People actually think giant spaceships with people will constantly do one way missions to Mars, get off and put up buildings like it's Total Recall? lol

Total waste of money which can be used on Earth for whatever good cause the billions of cash can do.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
We reached the moon and did nothing with it since the 60s. It was a land, dick around on it, and return home mission. Colonizing Mars is on another scale 1000x harder.

People actually think giant spaceships with people will constantly do one way missions to Mars, get off and put up buildings like it's Total Recall? lol

Total waste of money which can be used on Earth for whatever good cause the billions of cash can do.

NASA annual cost: $23 billion.

US D.O.D budget: $1.73 trillion.

Plenty of money for space exploration. Just requires the political will.
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Gold Member
NASA annual cost: $23 billion.

US D.O.D budget: $1.73 trillion.

Plenty of money for space exploration. Just requires the political will.
I don't think you guys realize the stuff that falls under the DoD budget versus NASA. The planet would fundamentally change if the US diverted all the DOD money to space colonization.

In fact, I bet if the US did throw in 100% to space colonization and mothballed the carrier fleets and pulled in every foreign base the resulting global war would put WW2 to shame.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
I don't think you guys realize the stuff that falls under the DoD budget versus NASA. The planet would fundamentally change if the US diverted all the DOD money to space colonization.

In fact, I bet if the US did throw in 100% to space colonization and mothballed the carrier fleets and pulled in every foreign base the resulting global war would put WW2 to shame.

They wouldn't need to mothball anything, or divert all its funds to space exploration. It could be a relatively small increase to NASA's budget. Costs of an entire manned mission to Mars come in at around a trillion for the entire venture, which would be a multi year project - about a decade. That's 100 billion a year. That's just under 6% of the D.O.D's entire annual budget of 1.73 trillion, every year for ten years.

6%.
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Gold Member
They wouldn't need to mothball anything, or divert all its funds to space exploration. It could be a relatively small increase to NASA's budget. Costs of an entire manned mission to Mars come in at around a trillion for the entire venture, which would be a multi year project - about a decade. That's 100 billion a year. That's just under 6% of the D.O.D's entire annual budget of 1.73 trillion, every year for ten years.

6%.
Just remember the OG cost of the James Webb telescope was 500 million.

End cost......TEN BILLION.

Same thing with that trillion dollar Mars mission, no doubt.
 

Trunx81

Gold Member
First we’ll colonize the moon for its sweet sweet Helium-3. Fusion reactor will go brumm!

Read “Limit” from Frank Schätzing.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Just remember the OG cost of the James Webb telescope was 500 million.

End cost......TEN BILLION.

Same thing with that trillion dollar Mars mission, no doubt.

Not the fairest of comparisons. Northrup Grumman were notoriously poor at managing the JWT project. Equivalent projects like Hubble / Chandra / Perseverance all come in under 3 billion. JWT came in way more than it should have, when equating to other NASA projects of similar scope and size. It should have been about 2 billion. Four times more expensive.

So, manned Mars mission estimated cost of a trillion with a four fold increase would be 4 trillion. A huge amount of that expense would be from time delays, so let's say 20 years, instead of ten. That's still only 12% of the D.O.D's annual budget per year.

The point being, yes space exploration is expensive, but its easily affordable for a nation like the USA. And it's a good use of the money. A far better use than the billions pissed away every year lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers.

NASA is currently 0.48% of the American budget. Even doubling its budget doesn't bring it to 1%. Times it by four, and it gets you into the territory of a manned Mars mission - less than 2% of the total US budget per annum. Hell, double it again and give them 4% of it. Just 4% of the total money the US spends every year, and we can push the exploration of space hard. You really saying that 4% isn't worth it for that?
 
Last edited:
IMO Mars is worthless beyond it's mineral resources. Slap an orbital ring around it to cheaply lift refined material out of the atmosphere, and use it to construct rotating O'Neill cylinders. The mining wouldn't need much manpower on the planet itself with automation and tele-presence from people living on the ring.

Actually living on the rock is the worst way to use it.
 
Last edited:

bitbydeath

Gold Member
I fully expect people to go there, be told a hundred times or more that it’s a one way trip, and realise they made a huge mistake.
 

Dr. Claus

Vincit qui se vincit
We'll never go live on Mars. Not ever. Proponents and promoters speak of the need to colonize planets in order to reduce congestion here on earth.
They tell us we could live underground, or in specially built facilities. They say children will be born on Mars.
It's nonsense.
We will never live on a planet where venturing outside would mean certain death. Mars is a place where our bodies would rapidly deteriorate first from the lower gravity and second from the constant bombardment of deadly rays generated by the sun. Scientists know this. But they want "research money" so they promote this fantasy. You want to live in someplace harsh because earth is too crowded?..... Consider the far north.
There is room on every continent that reaches into the arctic. Just pick a spot and colonize - Iceland; Greenland; Canada. Or go south to the Antarctic. Or go underwater if you want a real challenge. Each of those are infinitely cheaper than going to mars. You could go outside and survive and babies could be born. And if you get tired of it you can go home.

Mars?..... Nah. Never. But I'd be interested in your take.

Mars_1.png




We have people who live miles underground in mines. We have people who already resie *idn space*. We also have people who live in California ffs. We can live on Mars.
 

Dr. Claus

Vincit qui se vincit
Not the fairest of comparisons. Northrup Grumman were notoriously poor at managing the JWT project. Equivalent projects like Hubble / Chandra / Perseverance all come in under 3 billion. JWT came in way more than it should have, when equating to other NASA projects of similar scope and size. It should have been about 2 billion. Four times more expensive.

So, manned Mars mission estimated cost of a trillion with a four fold increase would be 4 trillion. A huge amount of that expense would be from time delays, so let's say 20 years, instead of ten. That's still only 12% of the D.O.D's annual budget per year.

The point being, yes space exploration is expensive, but its easily affordable for a nation like the USA. And it's a good use of the money. A far better use than the billions pissed away every year lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers.

NASA is currently 0.48% of the American budget. Even doubling its budget doesn't bring it to 1%. Times it by four, and it gets you into the territory of a manned Mars mission - less than 2% of the total US budget per annum. Hell, double it again and give them 4% of it. Just 4% of the total money the US spends every year, and we can push the exploration of space hard. You really saying that 4% isn't worth it for that?

Not to mention the resources. If we can travel to and explore the cosmos, how many resources could we obtain? Hardcore mining on Mars where you don't need to worry about pollutants (as any pollutants would help increase the chances of developing ozone on the planet), Liquid Methane on Titan, etc. We would *make* money back on anything we spend if we can get a foothold in those regions - all the while lessening the impact we have on our own planet.
 

k_trout

Member
Concept of your OP is bad in the first place, as well as the scientists you are referring to.

There is no overpopulation, just cramming of people into specific areas for easier control and handling of the populace over time. There is plenty of space in most countries to move populations or spread them out. The high congestion in mega cities and large metropolitans (many of which were never intended to hold half as many people) is by design, and it's flawed and causes many problems, but it makes things easier for governments.

There's no reason why there's what, 25 million in the greater new york city metro area and 9 million in NYC alone. Absolutely none, and you can apply that to many other cities in the US and several other countries. We've seen intentional disregard for other areas over the decades to shift everyone into a few locations like sardines.

Easy to say over population when you fly planes to visit other metro bubbles with the same problem (or trains, or drive on the highway without stopping anywhere else outside a few shopping centers off the beltway). Then on top of all this the same groups pulling this off are the same ones causing problems in the environment, and also creating problems within these spaces that could be avoided.

There's no need to colonize any planets.
for real, overpopulation is a scary bedtime story they tell people who live in cities and population growth rate peaked decades ago
CgQqMUX.png
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Not to mention the resources. If we can travel to and explore the cosmos, how many resources could we obtain? Hardcore mining on Mars where you don't need to worry about pollutants (as any pollutants would help increase the chances of developing ozone on the planet), Liquid Methane on Titan, etc. We would *make* money back on anything we spend if we can get a foothold in those regions - all the while lessening the impact we have on our own planet.

Oh, the potential profits from off world mining are absolutely insane. The same thing that drove people up in to 'them thar hills' will drive them into the solar system eventually.
 

tommolb

Member
We will. The Expanse painted quite a realistic future in terms of how we'd settle on Mars and beyond.

There's two questions. First, timescale. I can't see it happening in the next 50-100yrs as we're heading for (racing towards) major societal collapse caused by a combination of war, climate change and disease. 200-300 years is probably a more realistic timeframe for permeant colonies on Mars.

The second question will be what will drive us to get there? Either curiosity, greed (resources) or wide spread destruction on Earth.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
I don't have the skill, experience, or knowledge to build a helicopter. It's daunting and I have no desire to do it, so I never will. This is where our paths diverge, OP, because I would never say to someone who really wanted to build a helicopter that it wasn't possible.
 

tamam

Banned
I don’t think we even went to the moon. The van Allen belt is a real issue to get around without being fried.

And no I am not a flat earther but I don’t believe NASA BS they had equipment in dark ages but they don’t have it anymore in 2023 to go back lol, 1960s feel so backwards in tech and they did it then? Yeah right
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
Well, we've probably already been containing nuclear waste for decades. If and when it becomes an option to safely dispose of such waste on Mars or elsewhere, three years won't seem like much wait at all.
Why would we send the waste to Mars and not just…Space?
 

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
I don’t think we even went to the moon. The van Allen belt is a real issue to get around without being fried.

And no I am not a flat earther but I don’t believe NASA BS they had equipment in dark ages but they don’t have it anymore in 2023 to go back lol, 1960s feel so backwards in tech and they did it then? Yeah right
 

tamam

Banned

NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection.

LOL, so we can run through miles of fire too if we run fast enough?



It’s hilarious how bad the acting is in those moon landing footages but it was the 60s and it was believable for people back then.

We can’t go back because there’s no Cold War anymore 😀😉
 

Maiden Voyage

Gold™ Member
NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection.

LOL, so we can run through miles of fire too if we run fast enough?



It’s hilarious how bad the acting is in those moon landing footages but it was the 60s and it was believable for people back then.

We can’t go back because there’s no Cold War anymore 😀😉

You can't run fast enough to escape earth's gravity.
 

RJMacready73

Simps for Amouranth
Colonising mars is proper sci-fi stuff but humans make the best shit when they dream big and when you have a moron like Musk with unlimited pockets and a desire to get to mars the technology developed off the back of that desire to do the impossible benefits us all eventually.

I'd like to see a fully functioning Moonbase up and running for years before we attempt Mars and why the fuck are we even going to Mars!? It's beyond the distance of shits gone pear shaped let's send a rescue party and flying stuff to and from will be incredibly expensive and massively time consuming plus there's piss all on the planet worth a shit.

No we need to set up a base/outpost on Europa, call it er.. 31 and check for actual Alien life not long extinct microbial fossils
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection.

LOL, so we can run through miles of fire too if we run fast enough?



It’s hilarious how bad the acting is in those moon landing footages but it was the 60s and it was believable for people back then.

We can’t go back because there’s no Cold War anymore 😀😉

Ah ye olde “I watched a YouTube video and that is my rebuttal” days.
 

RJMacready73

Simps for Amouranth
NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection.

LOL, so we can run through miles of fire too if we run fast enough?



It’s hilarious how bad the acting is in those moon landing footages but it was the 60s and it was believable for people back then.

We can’t go back because there’s no Cold War anymore 😀😉

Wait I'm not quite following, do you think we didn't land on the moon and it was all faked?
 
Top Bottom