It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
rickymouse
I am more of a conservative, thinking need and cost effectiveness should be considered strongly.
rickymouse
Then you must know that they are finding new ways to do things in the last year or so. These rare metals will always be needed for some applications but many changes will be coming.
rickymouse
JadeStar
rickymouse I don't think we need to colonize mars or step on the moon again though. the chances of anyone surviving long is slim.
You could not be more wrong.
Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.
rickymouse
JadeStar
rickymouse I don't think we need to colonize mars or step on the moon again though. the chances of anyone surviving long is slim.
You could not be more wrong.
Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.
rickymouse
reply to post by eriktheawful
For a trillion dollars, a thousand times that of the cost of the last mars rover, we could get a colony of twenty people on mars that would require constant shipments of food and supplies there. The yearly maintenance and expansion after that would be about a billion a year.
Now that cost would have to go straight to our national debt.
Be sensible you guys, this is not a cheap endeavor.
crazyewok
JadeStar
Planetary Resources, Inc need to get one of their spectrometers on that mission to look for precious metals
What I would give to invest £1000 on them.
Unfortunately their financial model sucks.
Public takes the risk in kick-starter with no reward and the billion airs use that money to become trillionairs..........edit on 15-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)
rickymouse
JadeStar
rickymouse I don't think we need to colonize mars or step on the moon again though. the chances of anyone surviving long is slim.
You could not be more wrong.
Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.
rickymouse
Junkheap
rickymouse
Give me one really good reason why we NEED to spend so much money to colonize mars or step on the moon again.
Eventually, guaranteed 100% extinction if we take too long.
It is practices like building rockets and other things that we really don't need to have that is causing the risk of extinction
rickymouse
reply to post by eriktheawful
For a trillion dollars, a thousand times that of the cost of the last mars rover, we could get a colony of twenty people on mars that would require constant shipments of food and supplies there. The yearly maintenance and expansion after that would be about a billion a year.
Now that cost would have to go straight to our national debt.
Be sensible you guys, this is not a cheap endeavor.
SimonPeter
reply to post by crazyewok
You must be a NASA worker . The Radiation problem is real but any trip would be a one way trip if you could make it alive .With out our Magneto Sphere to protect you CME ejections would impact your voyage . There is no way you could have enough oxygen and food to live long enough to get resupplied or get back or ship materials back . We still have not explored all of earth above sea level and especially below .
A real Zombie Attack ( science fiction ) would be more likely that going to Mars and live .
Dynamitrios
reply to post by lostbook
why not cooperation instead of competition?
Where does this need come from to be better than other people that inhabit the same earth? it s highly dangerous to everybody and nothing more than bullying out of sociopathy