You may be able to move to Mars

[Jdvn1]

I would have guessed you could do relatively cheap tests (very relatively) of this sort of life at the bottom of the Pacific. You wouldn't have the same viewership, though.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

I would have guessed you could do relatively cheap tests (very relatively) of this sort of life at the bottom of the Pacific. You wouldn't have the same viewership, though.

It would be tough to top this show.

 

[Orius]

What would people do on Mars? I just can't imagine wanting to live there.

I get that there would be a lot of work building and maintaining basic life supporting stuff. But other than that, you're stuck - forever - in a tiny environment with not much to do. You can't go outside, or you'll die. I suppose you can plod about on lifeless landscape in a heavy spacesuit, but that's gonna get old real fast. You can play boardgames, I suppose, and download stuff on a delay from Earth. It sounds like a terrible dreary life.

I suppose it would appeal to the sort of people who would find the harsh living conditions and environment thrilling, and who wouldn't be the type who are easily bored. Certainly the sort of person who isn't me.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

But living a desperate life, dying poor, alone on a planet of billions, forgotten? That, sir, is scary stuff!

I know there is way more in this thread to talk about but this struck me.

As someone born into that situation with little hope of moving beyond it,


wow.

 

[Umbran]

I would have guessed you could do relatively cheap tests (very relatively) of this sort of life at the bottom of the Pacific.

Oh, testing the kind of life can be done on the surface of Earth. It fact, it *has* been done on the surface of Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Analogue_Research_Station_Programme

To be honest, the surface of Mars has more in common with the land surface of earth than it does the floor of Earth's oceans. Maintaining a water habitat generally requires more difficult engineering than maintaining a habitat in thin atmosphere. And, if you do it on the surface, you have the added benefit that a mistake doesn't kill anyone...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...or at least, it probably won't kill EVERYONE...

 

[Mallus]

To be honest, the surface of Mars has more in common with the land surface of earth than it does the floor of Earth's oceans.

Sure. But the problem isn't that the Martian surface is so inhospitable to human life. It's that it's really, really far away. And the cost of moving materials to Mars is enormous. And we don't have a whole lot of vehicles with which to do that (or, at this point, any). And cost of creating said vehicles is enormous. And we have no practical experience trying to maintain any sort of human habitation beyond Earth orbit (and even the ones we have are in no sense permanent).

None of those obstacles are insurmountable. But they're not the kind of thing you can fund by selling broadcast rights, tee-shirts, and coffee mugs.

Without the direct backing of powerful nation-states, flush with resources, and capable of massive borrowing/fiating currency into existence, a project of this scale is impossible. Frankly, even dealing on the nation-state level, in terms of mustering the public support for such a big project, we'd need another a Cold War, to, umm, redirect national priorities on the required scale.

Which isn't to say the Mars Project doesn't have it's uses. Considered as a piece of advocacy of human spaceflight, it's kinda cool. And considered as a piece of marketing for SpaceX's much more modest business of low-Earth orbit cargo hauling, it's kinda brilliant.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

Colonizing the moon would make more sense as a first step, though it would be less sexy so to speak.

 

[Morrus]

Without the direct backing of powerful nation-states, flush with resources, and capable of massive borrowing/fiating currency into existence, a project of this scale is impossible.

Nonsense - there are individuals who can afford the 6bn the project is estimated to cost, let alone corporations. This absolutely does not require a nation.

And the broadcast of the biggest show on earth is not "coffee mugs". It's incredibly large amounts of money.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nonsense - there are individuals who can afford the 6bn the project is estimated to cost, let alone corporations. This absolutely does not require a nation.

And the broadcast of the biggest show on earth is not "coffee mugs". It's incredibly large amounts of money.

True, but the $6b figure assumes that the backers have a certain amount of access to technologies and liquidity. The *ahem* average billionaire might not have that kind of access without incurring massive startup costs. And willingness to spend that money is also a concern.* Partnerships alleviate but do not eliminate these issues.

The same goes for corporations. Sure, IBM or Apple or any number of companies could foot the bill here, but in doing so, they may well have to compromise their corporate secrecy to do so. And that doesn't even address the issue of exposing the company to shareholder lawsuits for investing large portions of the company's money in such a risky venture.

Nations, OTOH, have all kinds of advantages in such a project- economies of scale, taxation to raise revenue, sovereign immunity and powers like eminent domain or even nationalization (in the extreme).







* where I live, Jerry Jones convinced the city of Arlington to foot a good portion of the bill for the new stadium for his Dallas Cowboys with public money. I know for a fact that the new stadium could have been paid for by Jones out of the revenue stream from the luxury suites at Texas Stadium within 5 years. But why should he pay for something himself when he could get others to do so for him?