SpaceX is quietly planning Mars-landing missions...It's about time.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
I think I get the drift.

Ultimately, a single world-wide space agency would be the best solution. Sort of non-profit in the sense of, not single individuals earn cash. The profit would be technological, not monetary. Governmented in a way that is hard to corrupt via "brotherhoods" and rope-friends.

That would remove unnecessary redundancies in several fields.

It´s about time we use our technology. If you had asked me some years ago about a worldwide government, I´d decline. But if we would be able to preserve the single cultures (not forcing but enableing) I´d welcome it. We have the technology for good translators so we could preserve the language side of the cultures, too.

Then we need to use technology to provide

1) clean water
2) free seeds
3) affordable energy

Those three things would be doable right now, if we would stop killing ourselfs over pitty stuff. Military would be reduced to planetary protection, all the hidden technologies and resources could be used for good.

But no...

Until that day and with the current situation(bloated governmental institutions/space agencies), in my opinion, private industry ist the best we can do.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yes, I think your scenario is the ''nuts and bolts'' of a Mars endeavor. This has been the mix of efforts from the early 60s when Kennedy gave the go ahead for the push into space. The US out spent and out paced the USSR and made it to the moon first and we all cheered USA USA USA. Many of us also cheered Mankind mankind mankind.

And the taxes continued to flow into the project, that is until some people began to say wait a minute. We tax payers are paying all this money to do what, send a couple of guys now and then to the moon? Once the mystique of ''man to the moon'' began to wear off it began to seem a money pit because unlike the European push into the ''new world'' there were no resources there for all of us. And the moon missions came to a halt and the sky filled with commerce satellites and military ''high ground'' weaponry.

The motive for going into space was military , economic and spiritual, the spiritual being the notion that man had a place in space and we would go on and on from earth to moon to Mars and beyonnnnnnd. That our tech would keep developing and one day our species would scatter to the stars and fulfill our destiny.

But what motives are there to go to Mars. There is no military need to go to Mars, none. As a ''high ground'' it is way to far away. Even the moon is to far away to serve in this capacity. It' s just not a practical motive.

And economic incentives. What small economic incentive might any of us have in the expenditure of taxes and private monies on a concerted Mars effort. I can see none, at least not in any reasonable future other than some sci-fi wet dream.
Even the notion of going to the Moon for all the precious metals and elements seems a large stretch to me.

So that leaves us with the spiritual, the emotional thrust that ''we are going to Mars, and beyonnnnnnnd''.
This dream has been used before. It allowed for the push into NEO. And while that dream has allowed for the realization of the other two motives for doing that, military and economic, what could possibly be the other goals that are moved towards by this new ''Onto Mars'' dream. I can find none. That is other than a prolonging of the illusion that even though things are turning to # here, there is still the hope of escaping our troubles here by moving on. And that is the bull# motive for this whole push as I see it.

About time. Screw the naysayers. All exploration missions throughout history have been fraught with Death, misery and failure. Yet we kept at it.

People are going to die, there will be spectacular failure, but in the end there will be massive steps forward for us.

People throughout history have told the explorers they were going to fail and die. You can't listen to naysayer or "realists" you just have to go for it.

a reply to: verschickter

Yes, ultimately a world wide concerted and mutual enterprise. The advantages that this scope of endeavor could produce would be a boon to all I think. However the stumbling blocks are huge. The whole notion of giving up ''national sovereignty'' or the hegemony of western control stands firmly in the path of moving in that direction leaving us with the only other alternative we have as you point out, private industry. And that, for reasons I have put forward previously in this thread is why I do not think that even that is a practical consideration.

A hope in that direction could be an international agency as you suggest, that could coordinate private industries developments in this direction. It would also be necessary, from my perspective, to assist in the ''funding'' of these enterprises as the profits needed to sustain those private industries would need to be supported as the amounts of money needed could be prohibative without the immediate returns on investments would be greatly delayed.

In my head, the coupling of these thoughts with what I see as the direction of national isolationism that is being given a push at the present time does not bode well for any international efforts in this regards.

And all the ''coulds'' that you list are definately ''coulds'' and should be ''shoulds', but they arn't. The reasons you state seem valid to me, but I still have reservations as to a ''real motive'' of this burgeoning concept of ''let private industry do it''

a reply to: TerryMcGuire


Yes. Private companies are not the type to broach a new endeavor or undergo such exploration because profits are not readily (if ever) received.

That's where governments have historically stepped in. Government money has been used (and should continue to be used) to fund the initial research that results in breakthrough technologies (think the National Science Foundation or Department of Energy research in the U.S., or even DARPA), and governments have in the past been the ones doing and/or funding initial explorations of the unexplored (think Queen Isabella of Spain funding Christopher Columbus).

It's only after that do private companies take over and run with those technologies or feel comfortable that they could make a profit on those previously unexplored lands.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
I think I get the drift.

Ultimately, a single world-wide space agency would be the best solution. Sort of non-profit in the sense of, not single individuals earn cash. The profit would be technological, not monetary. Governmented in a way that is hard to corrupt via "brotherhoods" and rope-friends.

That would remove unnecessary redundancies in several fields.

It´s about time we use our technology. If you had asked me some years ago about a worldwide government, I´d decline. But if we would be able to preserve the single cultures (not forcing but enableing) I´d welcome it. We have the technology for good translators so we could preserve the language side of the cultures, too.

Then we need to use technology to provide

1) clean water
2) free seeds
3) affordable energy

Those three things would be doable right now, if we would stop killing ourselfs over pitty stuff. Military would be reduced to planetary protection, all the hidden technologies and resources could be used for good.

But no...

Until that day and with the current situation(bloated governmental institutions/space agencies), in my opinion, private industry ist the best we can do.

Sadly, you might be right.

There's no need to send humans to Mars. We won't learn any more about it by putting boots on the ground.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
I think I get the drift.

Ultimately, a single world-wide space agency would be the best solution. Sort of non-profit in the sense of, not single individuals earn cash. The profit would be technological, not monetary. Governmented in a way that is hard to corrupt via "brotherhoods" and rope-friends.

Before you get too excited about it, think about it. We have the ability to end hunger and homelessness in our own coutry (USA in my case) by simply having everyone who cares donate a relatively small amount of money. The catch? It's entirely voluntary and it hasn't happened yet.

If you conducted a poll and asked everyone if they care about issues such as poverty, at least half of them would say yes. If you asked those people to donate 100 dollars each to help end poverty, they wouldn't do it. What is 100 dollars times 50 million? That's about the number of people who vote Democrat.

Not trying to turn this political. I'm just showing you what you're up against if you try to do anything on donations.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
There's no need to send humans to Mars. We won't learn any more about it by putting boots on the ground.

But it would be inspiring and would get far more people interested in space and science. Sending a remote controlled toy to Mars is really cool and all but it's impact on the human psyche is rather minor.

a reply to: lostbook

Yes that's my understanding and they had lots of volunteers. Wonder how many pulled out after watching The Martian.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
There's no need to send humans to Mars. We won't learn any more about it by putting boots on the ground.

It's not just about learning information. The need to explore and expand our human presence is deeply ingrained in us.


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: BrianFlanders
Why donate?

In theory, the government money is yours. It´s your income tax plus all the other taxes. Government should get back to the roots and manage logistics again.

That´s far away from "social justice" or communism. As a citizen of a country, the land and fruits belong evenly to the citizens of a country and if you take it further, the earth.

Tax is often used for stupid things, there is so much potential without one person donating.

Have you forgot what government is supposed to do?



Edit: I´m not against donating, I do that too. I just read that "if only everyone capable would donate"... it´s unnecessary if money would not be wasted on the rate it currently is.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: lostbook

he better do something to begin trying to save his reputation..

LOL this is awesome. Elon and Trump are both a lil trigger happy with Twitter, aren't they?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
But it would be inspiring and would get far more people interested in space and science. Sending a remote controlled toy to Mars is really cool and all but it's impact on the human psyche is rather minor.

I agree that manned space travel to anywhere other than low Earth orbit is an egotistical publicity stunt.

originally posted by: wildespace
It's not just about learning information. The need to explore and expand our human presence is deeply ingrained in us.

It's really not. We seek out new territories to look for resources and / or get rich. But none of that is likely to happen with space, because it's just too damn big and besides, any resources found there will likely stay there and never make it back to Earth.