Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheep in the big city · 12-22-2002, 10:48 AM

I watched something on colonizing Mars on the Science channel yesterday.
They said the cost for a mission would be <40billion.
Comparing that with a war in Iraq -100 to 1800- billion, maybe it would not be such a bad idea.
Maybe it would help if the whole planet together would strive for one big goal like colonizing Mars and produce more unity and less hatred between nations.
On the other hand in countries where most of the population is starving that might be greeted with less enthusiasm. But still it's better than using the money to perfect methods of killing people -at least in my opinion. I'm not saying that it would be immediate help against terrorism but at least it would not actually boost it like attacking Iraq will.
Just interested in your thoughts on this.

Krieger · 12-22-2002, 11:09 AM

Well, we waste 300-500 billion on the military every year, but we only spend 15 billion on NASA (some of which still goes to military related projects! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ).

xstvn · 12-22-2002, 11:19 AM

The amount of money the US spends on the military is staggering.

U.S. Military Spending vs. the World: $ in Billions

NOTE:
"Allies" refers to the NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea.
"Rogues" refers to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

And that's not including a war with Iraq

I agree, what this country (and the world) could accomplish if this money was spent elsewhere, is amazing to imagine.

Zar · 12-22-2002, 12:04 PM

"Mission to Mars instead of Mission to Iraq!"

Excellent slogan. That deserves to be on many a protest banner.

12-22-2002, 12:09 PM

I wholeheartedly agree that missions to Mars (as well as to Io, Europa etc.) would be a much better way to spend all that money.

But for these dreams to become a reality we must first elect good men and women to public office. We will NEVER go to Mars as long as right-wing maniacs like Bush and Cheney are in charge.

Sheep in the big city · 12-22-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole:
 We will NEVER go to Mars as long as right-wing maniacs like Bush and Cheney are in charge.

I don't know. It might actually be a quite appealing idea to that pseudopatriotic idiot to be known to posterity as the one who started the colonization of Mars. And evidently right now Bush gets away with all kinds of insane policies and money-burning activities so it might actually not be such a bad time to get a Mars project started, because the biggest problem in normal times is probably the cost vs gain discussion which seems to be out of fashion right now.

Loren Pechtel · 12-22-2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Sheep in the big city:
I don't know. It might actually be a quite appealing idea to that pseudopatriotic idiot to be known to posterity as the one who started the colonization of Mars. And evidently right now Bush gets away with all kinds of insane policies and money-burning activities so it might actually not be such a bad time to get a Mars project started, because the biggest problem in normal times is probably the cost vs gain discussion which seems to be out of fashion right now.

Won't happen. The problem is that it takes too long. By the time we have anything resembling a viable colony to be patriotic about the guy who started it will long since be out of office.

Anyway, if we are going to colonize something, why not start with the moon? Mars is a lot farther away and has just enough atmosphere to be a nusiance without being of much benefit.

Sheep in the big city · 12-22-2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel:


Won't happen. The problem is that it takes too long. By the time we have anything resembling a viable colony to be patriotic about the guy who started it will long since be out of office.


True, but he will know (or at least suppose) that in 50000years when Mars has a breathable athmosphere he will be remembered as the guy who started it all - like Kennedy is still mentioned in connection with the moon landing even though he was dead already at the time. Maybe that will also give him some reason to do his part to make sure there are still humans around in a few thousand years.


Anyway, if we are going to colonize something, why not start with the moon? Mars is a lot farther away and has just enough atmosphere to be a nusiance without being of much benefit.

Sure the moon would be nice too. I was just talking about Mars because that at least gets within one order of magnitude (costwise) that the war with Iraq has. A mission to the moon probably costs sth like half a billion. Also the nice thing about Mars is that it could ultimately be completely habitable - I guess the moon is too small to hold enough athmosphere and doesn't have water either.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]

Syphor · 12-22-2002, 05:10 PM

Quote:

I guess the moon is too small to hold enough athmosphere and doesn't have water either.

The moon is believed to have some water ice buried under the surface at the poles. Hopefully this can be confirmed because that would be the moon a viable option for colonisation within the next 30 years.

Koiyotnik · 12-22-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheep in the big city:
 I guess the moon is too small to hold enough athmosphere and doesn't have water either.

I did a quick Google search and came up with these sites regarding moon colonization, moon water sources, and other related information:

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/moon0305.html" target="_blank">NASA Finds Water on Moon - ABC News March 2002</a>

<a href="http://www.asi.org/index2.html" target="_blank">The Artemis Project</a>

<a href="http://www.giorgioproductions.com/space/links.html" target="_blank">Space Colonization Links</a> --Covers the oon, Mars, Terraforming, and Space Settlement.

<a href="http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html" target="_blank">Space Settlement</a> --Pertaining to space settlement as opposed to planetary settlement, but interesting to read nonetheless.

-Koiy

12-22-2002, 10:48 AM	#1
Sheep in the big city Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: CA Posts: 217	mission to mars instead of mission to Iraq I watched something on colonizing Mars on the Science channel yesterday. They said the cost for a mission would be <40billion. Comparing that with a war in Iraq -100 to 1800- billion, maybe it would not be such a bad idea. Maybe it would help if the whole planet together would strive for one big goal like colonizing Mars and produce more unity and less hatred between nations. On the other hand in countries where most of the population is starving that might be greeted with less enthusiasm. But still it's better than using the money to perfect methods of killing people -at least in my opinion. I'm not saying that it would be immediate help against terrorism but at least it would not actually boost it like attacking Iraq will. Just interested in your thoughts on this.

12-22-2002, 04:14 PM	#8
Sheep in the big city Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: CA Posts: 217	Originally posted by Loren Pechtel: <strong> Won't happen. The problem is that it takes too long. By the time we have anything resembling a viable colony to be patriotic about the guy who started it will long since be out of office. </strong> True, but he will know (or at least suppose) that in 50000years when Mars has a breathable athmosphere he will be remembered as the guy who started it all - like Kennedy is still mentioned in connection with the moon landing even though he was dead already at the time. Maybe that will also give him some reason to do his part to make sure there are still humans around in a few thousand years. <strong> Anyway, if we are going to colonize something, why not start with the moon? Mars is a lot farther away and has just enough atmosphere to be a nusiance without being of much benefit.</strong> Sure the moon would be nice too. I was just talking about Mars because that at least gets within one order of magnitude (costwise) that the war with Iraq has. A mission to the moon probably costs sth like half a billion. Also the nice thing about Mars is that it could ultimately be completely habitable - I guess the moon is too small to hold enough athmosphere and doesn't have water either. [ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-22-2002, 11:09 AM	#2
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	Well, we waste 300-500 billion on the military every year, but we only spend 15 billion on NASA (some of which still goes to military related projects! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ).

12-22-2002, 11:19 AM	#3
xstvn Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: WA state Posts: 261	The amount of money the US spends on the military is staggering. U.S. Military Spending vs. the World: $ in Billions NOTE: "Allies" refers to the NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea. "Rogues" refers to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. And that's not including a war with Iraq I agree, what this country (and the world) could accomplish if this money was spent elsewhere, is amazing to imagine.

12-22-2002, 12:04 PM	#4
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	"Mission to Mars instead of Mission to Iraq!" Excellent slogan. That deserves to be on many a protest banner.

12-22-2002, 12:09 PM	#5
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	I wholeheartedly agree that missions to Mars (as well as to Io, Europa etc.) would be a much better way to spend all that money. But for these dreams to become a reality we must first elect good men and women to public office. We will NEVER go to Mars as long as right-wing maniacs like Bush and Cheney are in charge.

12-22-2002, 03:30 PM	#7
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Sheep in the big city: I don't know. It might actually be a quite appealing idea to that pseudopatriotic idiot to be known to posterity as the one who started the colonization of Mars. And evidently right now Bush gets away with all kinds of insane policies and money-burning activities so it might actually not be such a bad time to get a Mars project started, because the biggest problem in normal times is probably the cost vs gain discussion which seems to be out of fashion right now. Won't happen. The problem is that it takes too long. By the time we have anything resembling a viable colony to be patriotic about the guy who started it will long since be out of office. Anyway, if we are going to colonize something, why not start with the moon? Mars is a lot farther away and has just enough atmosphere to be a nusiance without being of much benefit.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.