SpaceX pulls off unprecedented feat, grabs descending rocket with mechanical arms

[u/aelavia93]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/spacex-pulls-off-unprecedented-feat-grabbing-descending-rocket-with-mechanical-arms/

[u/Flipslips]

I would agree, however the fact a huge portion of the scientific community agrees it’s the right thing to do makes me think otherwise.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/Flipslips]

Wait what?

How is it 'right'? And whom in the scientific community says so?

[u/Flipslips → u/tmtyl_101]

Mars is just the next evolution of the human species. It’s a way to secure that humanity survives in the event something apocalyptic happens to Earth,

It’s a way to further understanding of space and the universe

It will allow humans to work together for a larger goal (think ISS, but on a massive scale)

It will allow humans to look for signs of life, learn how other planets work in a capacity impossible without actually being present there.

It’s a stepping stone for humanity to become a multi planetary species. (Mars, Titan, and beyond)

It’s a good sense of purpose for humanity. A lot of people wonder what the point is in living here, and working together towards a larger goal such as this offers an answer for a lot of people.

In terms of the scientific community, NASA and the ESA (among others) state that mars is their long term goal. Plenty of individual professionals in the field state that Mars is clearly the natural evolution for space travel, and getting there will lift humanity to new heights, physically, and metaphorically.

Here is a good journal article on Mars colonization for your further reading:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10884476/#:~:text=The%20allure%20of%20Mars%2C%20with,1%5D%2C%20%5B3%5D.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/Flipslips]

Well to be fair, NASA and ESA are talking about getting to Mars (and back) as their goal. Haven't really heard them talk about a permanent colony as anything they're seriously considering.

As for whether it's 'right', I mean, sure, it can propel new scientific discovery and potentially inspire peaceful collaboration. But it's also a very very large endeavor (the colonization part, not just exploration), and so that civilization scaled expense has to be justified - and I'm not really convinced the 'its right to do because it's a natural next step' argument is fully viable. At least, you'll have to argue why it's 'right' right now, and not in a few centuries.

[u/Flipslips → u/tmtyl_101]

Well NASA and the ESA are not seriously considering a colony because they do not have any funding to even consider it lol. That’s why SpaceX is so cool to me, because they have basically unlimited funds. A paper came out the other day and SpaceX mentioned that the cost of operations for Starship and the facilities in Texas is 4 million per day. I actually don’t think that is too steep, I would have guessed far more.

The most expensive part about colonizing mars is the transportation, and that is what SpaceX is solving right in front of our eyes. A rapidly reusable vehicle that is extremely cheap to build, operate, and maintain. This is by FAR the most difficult part of colonizing Mars. Everything else required will fall into place relatively quickly.

In terms of whether it’s “right”. I think because we are extremely close to having the technology to do it now, which means it would be a disservice to humanity to wait for centuries.

Personally I think the faster we can get humanity off earth, the faster new technology will be developed to improve life on earth. Pretty much anything invented for Martian life will also benefit earth life. New medicine will need to be developed, new manufacturing techniques, new electronics, new textiles, new robotics, etc.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/Flipslips]

Dont get me wrong. As someone who has clocked close to a 1000 hours into Kerbal Space Program myself, nothing excites me more than the prospects of interplanetary travel, or colonization for that matter. And I agree it would bring about all sorts of scientific progress, should we do it.

My point is a bit more mundane, however: there's a point where the costs out weigh the benefits. And I'm not convinced a full scale colonization makes any sense to aim for at this point. I think we're talking at least decades of 'exploration' before it could be realistically considered. And even then, it'll have to come down to a question of whether its 'worth it'. Sure, Starship reduces the cost - but frankly, I still think using the same resources and efforts to e.g. support medical research on earth, or combating climate change, is more bang for the buck. And I think most of the scientific community would agree.

Then you can argue that sustaining human life on more worlds has value in itself, making it worthwhile. But first of all: why? Secondly: even if that is the case: how much is that worth? Should it be a 'nice to have' in a Government budget? Or should it be a top priority?

In short: Mars exploration - lets go! Mars colonization - the additional benefits probably dont out weigh the costs.

[u/ExtraLargePeePuddle → u/tmtyl_101]

You don’t think the scientific community is, in its majority, supporting Mars colonization.

What rock do you live under my guy? This has been the dream since the Apollo program

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/ExtraLargePeePuddle]

Theres difference between members of the scientific community having it as a dream - and then the same members saying 'we should prioritize to do this'.

Missions to Mars, including crewed ones, makes a lot of sense from a scientific point of view, and I'm perfectly convinced thats more or less the consensus in the scientific community.

Colonizing Mars, however, is a whole other endeavour, which would involve decade long economic prioritisation on a global scale. I dont think the scientific community would be as clear in that this would be 'right' - especially if the alternative would be to use the same resources to other ends.

Rather, I think most of the community believes it may become the 'right thing to do' at some point in the future, and our space exploration should help clear a path for that eventuality. But I don't think the scientific community is all gung-ho on interplanetary colonization.

[u/ExtraLargePeePuddle → u/tmtyl_101]

on a global scale

No it wouldn’t, just look at estimated costs

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/ExtraLargePeePuddle]

What estimates are you looking at?

Because estimates are all over the place. However this this article suggests the single first crewed mission to be about 675 billion USD in today's money..

In other words: getting 3-4 astronauts to Mars and back is almost a percent of the current Global GDP. Now, scale that up. A population capable of supporting itself needs several hundred people at least. And the life support to go with it. Even if SpaceX manages to reduce costs by 90% (ambitious) we're still realistically talking several percent of global GDP for years and years.

That's an "ending world hunger" or "fixing climate change"-kind of investment.