Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

[Derren]

If the cold war space race hadn't happened we'd be on Mars now (using atomic powered ion drive ships), with space stations and probaly a Moon base as well.

Imo it wold be the opposite. Without the cold war space technology would be decades behind. After all it started out as a proxy conflict for prestige. When that incentive isn't there, why bother?
But I agree with your conclusion that the technological development would be different. Yet the general situation of having the same level of (space) technology as now could still happen. Just not 2013 but maybe 1987.

 

[Morrus]

We can. We just don't do it because there is no use in sending thousand probes at once to mars.

You can keep repeating it, but we still can't. Not even in the most fanciful of bountiest futures can we send thousands of probes to Mars. No matter how many times you say - we can't do that.

Like I said, we struggle to send one.

 

[Morrus]

Imo it wold be the opposite. Without the cold war space technology would be decades behind. After all it started out as a proxy conflict for prestige. When that incentive isn't there, why bother?
But I agree with your conclusion that the technological development would be different. Yet the general situation of having the same level of (space) technology as now could still happen. Just not 2013 but maybe 1987.

The Apollo tech was basic German WWII tech. It was their V2 program, from defecting scientists after the war.

 

[Derren]

You can keep repeating it, but we still can't. Not even in the most fanciful of bountiest futures can we send thousands of probes to Mars. No matter how many times you say - we can't do that.

Like I said, we struggle to send one.

You have not offered any reasoning for that.
We do not struggle to launch one, we have done so a lot of times already, be it a touchdown, orbital satellite or flyby. Since the 70s the only problems the USA had was making a soft landing with the probe, which is hardly a concern for a weapon. All of those missions reached mars. We would have absolutely no problem of taking one of those designs which work and copy it a few thousand times. In the real world we would need to expand our industrial capability to do that, but thats because there is no need to send that many probes to mars all at the same time, so no energy is wasted on that.
In the OPs universe where we know there is life on mars which can potentially wipe us out we sure as hell would create this industrial capability.
As comparison, how quickly did the US and UDSSR go from "struggling to build 1 atomic bomb" to having an arsenal of thousands of bombs and ICBMs?

The Apollo tech was basic German WWII tech. It was their V2 program, from defecting scientists after the war.

Yes, but this technology didn't really got used with that much zeal until the goal was beating the other superpower. Do you really thing the USA would have gone from satellite to moon landing faster than 12 years if there wasn't a race to beat the Russians?

 

[Morrus]

You have not offered any reasoning for that.
We do not struggle to launch one, we have done so a lot of times already, be it a touchdown, orbital satellite or flyby. Since the 70s the only problems the USA had was making a soft landing with the probe, which is hardly a concern for a weapon. All of those missions reached mars. We would have absolutely no problem of taking one of those designs which work and copy it a few thousand times. In the real world we would need to expand our industrial capability to do that, but thats because there is no need to send that many probes to mars all at the same time, so no energy is wasted on that.
In the OPs universe where we know there is life on mars which can potentially wipe us out we sure as hell would create this industrial capability.
As comparison, how quickly did the US and UDSSR go from "struggling to build 1 atomic bomb" to having an arsenal of thousands of bombs and ICBMs?

Derren, you are massively underestimating the challenge here. An atomic bomb is not remotely comparable in terms of resources.

Look, you can keep repeating your claim over and over, and you've even progressed to repeating it and demanding that I prove it wrong, but that's not going to make it true. YOu're imagning capability and resources which this planet does not have. The idea that we could launch thousands of vehicles to Mars is preposterous. The idea that I have to prove that it's preposterous is even more preposterous. Your claim; prove it's not. Show us how we can launch thousands of vehicles to Mars.

Yes, but this technology didn't really got used with that much zeal until the goal was beating the other superpower. Do you really thing the USA would have gone from satellite to moon landing faster than 12 years if there wasn't a race to beat the Russians?

It's not comparable. I know you want it to be, but it's not. Just as am amusing aside, check this out:

http://distancetomars.com/

The fact that the US managed to spend a decade developing the ability to send a man to the moon a few times (impressive, yes, but an order of magnitude incomparable) doesn't mean that we can send thousands of probes to Mars. Do you know how much Curiosity cost? £2.5 billion. To send one. So to send thousands? That's thousands of billions. That sort of money doesn't exist. The cost of Iraq in the last ten years is under $100bn and it's bankrupted the world. Where's the money for a hundred times that going to come from?

 

[Derren]

Derren, you are massively underestimating the challenge here. An atomic bomb is not remotely comparable in terms of resources.

Look, you can keep repeating your claim over and over, and you've even progressed to repeating it and demanding that I prove it wrong, but that's not going to make it true. YOu're imagning capability and resources which this planet does not have. The idea that we could launch thousands of vehicles to Mars is preposterous. The idea that I have to prove that it's preosterous is even more preposterous. Your claim; prove it's not.

Don't forget that you are also repeating your "we can't" mantra over and over again without explanation.
Since the 70s all US mars missions have reached the planet. And all other interplanetary probes have a very good record, too. No launch failures at all. We can build reliable rockets to reach mars. For a war with mars we just need to build more of what we already know how to build and have more launch facilities. We have the expertise to do that and the resources for it. In reality what is lacking is the need to do that. If there was a potential enemy on mars it would be there, too.

You also make a giant mistake. Curiosity costs so much because of the rover which is not necessary in a war. The launch price of a Atlas V rocket is 100 - 200 million dollars. And we have already proven that we can build a lot of nuclear bombs. With 70 million for a Peacekeeper ICBM, the cost for a inter planetary nuclear missile is not prohibitive, especially in a do or die scenario and the earth uniting against the alien threat.

 

[Morrus]

Don't forget that you are also repeating your "we can't" mantra over and over again without explanation.

OK, let's back up here.

The person making the assertion needs to provide the proof of it. Demanding that those who disagree prove him wrong is not how basic Debate 101 works. If you're just going to make assertions and treat them as proven unless I prove them wrong, then this debate is over; I cannot, and never will - as you know - be able to prove a negative.

Let's stick to understood rules of debate, eh? Your assertion, your burden of proof.

and the resources for it.

Just a repetition, man. Show me this. I don't believe you; sorry! Show me that we have the resources to do such a thing, as you keep claiming.

 

[jonesy]

Since the 70s all US mars missions have reached the planet. And all other interplanetary probes have a very good record, too. No launch failures at all.

None of those are true. Launch failure rate to Mars is 50%. Arrival success rate on the successful launches is 30%:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/failure-to-reach-mars/

 

[Derren]

OK, let's back up here.

The person making the assertion needs to provide the proof of it. Demanding that those who disagree prove him wrong is not how basic Debate 101 works. If you're just going to make assertions and treat them as proven unless I prove them wrong, then this debate is over; I cannot, and never will - as you know - be able to prove a negative.

Let's stick to understood rules of debate, eh? Your assertion, your burden of proof.

And how should I prove that we can build things? Multiple times when necessary?

Just a repetition, man. Show me this. I don't believe you; sorry! Show me that we have the resources to do such a thing, as you keep claiming.

Nuclear weapons are already made by the thousands, so check.
The minerals to make rockets are also there in abundance as we have a lot of rockets, just smaller ones than the Atlas V but they are made out of the same material. So, check.
Rocket fuel for the Atlas V is made out of liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen and kerosene. Nothing which is considered rare.
Thats it. Now one only needs to build enough Atlas V and launch facilities (concrete, steel, computers, everything which is readily available).

None of those are true. Launch failure rate to Mars is 50%. Arrival success rate on the successful launches is 30%.

Source?
I use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_exploration#Timeline where you can see that since the 70s the track record is very good, especially when you do not count the upstarts and stick to the US which by now knows what it is doing.
And don't forget that weapons are not required to land softly or transmit data. So what would be a failure to land or partial success for a probe would be a full success for a weapon unless the weapon itself fails. Do we now have to discuss that we can build nukes that work?

Here a list of Atlas launches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches

Way more than 50%

 

[Morrus]

And how should I prove that we can build things? Multiple times when necessary?

Ah, I see where the problem lies; you're misremembering your own claim. Sure, we can build things mutiple times. 10, 20 or 30, perhaps. What we can't do is build them thousands of times.

Nobody's saying we can't get to Mars. You're just making volume claims that can't be supported.

Nuclear weapons are already made by the thousands, so check.[/uote]

Nuclear weapons don't cost $2.5bn each.

Derren, do you understand we're discussing a scale here? Being able to do something a few times doesn't mean you can do it thousands of times. Or being able to do something a thousand times doesn't mean you can do it a thousand times at a thousand-time order of magnitude.

Now one only needs to build enough Atlas V and launch facilities (concrete, steel, computers, everything which is readily available)

The way you casually use the word "only" and "enough" is comical. You're inventing resources that don't exist. There's no "only" about it.