# What is the obsession going to the moon or mars?

## Recommended Posts

There is not a day that goes by with out the media going on and on about going to the moon or mars!!!

Well it serious not going to solve problems of colonization of the moon or mars. It not going to solve overpopulation problem.

It not some thing the middle class can have enough money on one way ticket to the moon or mars. Even the upper class will not have the money for a one way ticket to the moon or mars. So it not going to solve the overpopulation problem.

What is with the government and private sector pushing this trip to the moon or mars in 10 to 15 years. When there is no spacecraft that cost effective?

Any spacecraft they have and in the research and development is not cost effective for the upper class that alone the middle class!! It cost way to much money going into space.

Why such a push for space colonization?

##### Share on other sites

There is not a day that goes by with out the media going on and on about going to the moon or mars!!!

Well it serious not going to solve problems of colonization of the moon or mars. It not going to solve overpopulation problem.

It not some thing the middle class can have enough money on one way ticket to the moon or mars. Even the upper class will not have the money for a one way ticket to the moon or mars. So it not going to solve the overpopulation problem.

What is with the government and private sector pushing this trip to the moon or mars in 10 to 15 years. When there is no spacecraft that cost effective?

Any spacecraft they have and in the research and development is not cost effective for the upper class that alone the middle class!! It cost way to much money going into space.

Why such a push for space colonization?

We were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue Orb.

And of course Earth does have a "use by date" Not to mention of course applying the same question as to when man first evolved, and why he walked out of Africa, or why he climbed Everest, and why he sailed a largely unknown Ocean to discover the Americas, and why even later sailing south over more unknown Oceans and water ways to discover Australia...

In essence, because its there and discover new knowledge.

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites

Why such a push for space colonization?

Exploration and discovery. The love of learning new things. And just the sheer challenge of doing it.

Edited by Strange

##### Share on other sites

There is not a day that goes by with out the media going on and on about going to the moon or mars!!!

Well it serious not going to solve problems of colonization of the moon or mars. It not going to solve overpopulation problem.

No one is suggesting that going to move to the Moon or Mars has anything at all to do with overpopulation.

##### Share on other sites

No one is suggesting that going to move to the Moon or Mars has anything at all to do with overpopulation.

Stephen Hawking is, actually (as are a few others like Elon Musk, but they're clearly the most notable).

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/stephen-hawking-100-years-on-earth-prediction-starmus-festival

Professor Stephen Hawking says he's not the only one who believes humans have to find a new planet to populate within 100 years

(...)

Professor Hawking said he thinks due to climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, humans will need to find a new planet to populate within a single lifetime

(...)

“I strongly believe we should start seeking alternative planets for possible habitation,” he said. “We are running out of space on earth and we need to break through technological limitations preventing us living elsewhere in the universe.”

“I am not alone in this view and many of my colleagues will make further comments at the Starmus next month.”

Hawking isn't the only one who has advocated for a multi-planet species. SpaceX boss Elon Musk has grand plans to launch space colonies in the next 100-years and Nasa has said its Mars missions could help to put humans permanently on other planets.

##### Share on other sites

I'll believe going to Mars has something to do with overpopulation as soon as we colonise Antarctica, much nicer place than Mars. Going to the Moon or Mars has definite scientific benefits, the cost is trivial compared to maintaining a huge military force. Benefits in advancement in technology cannot be predicted but using the space program so far as a ruler we would be stupid not to explore the solar system. Eventually we will colonise space but I doubt it is be done by colonising planets. Far too many problems, toroidal colonies or Oneil type cylinders are far more likely, easier and make far more sense...

##### Share on other sites

I'll believe going to Mars has something to do with overpopulation as soon as we colonise Antarctica, much nicer place than Mars. Going to the Moon or Mars has definite scientific benefits, the cost is trivial compared to maintaining a huge military force. Benefits in advancement in technology cannot be predicted but using the space program so far as a ruler we would be stupid not to explore the solar system. Eventually we will colonise space but I doubt it is be done by colonising planets. Far too many problems, toroidal colonies or Oneil type cylinders are far more likely, easier and make far more sense...

If the private sector can bring space cost down to million dollars one way ticket to the moon or mars than it will look more realistic for the upper middle class. But it will NOT solve the problem of overpopulation.

Well a $500,0000 ticket to the moon or mars is beyond laughable!!! It would be better to pass laws of one child policy or jail time to lower overpopulation than hope the private sector is going to lower space cost. A city underwater, water city, underground city or dome tower would be more realistic if they running out of land to build or one child policy or jail time to lower overpopulation. Canada and Russia has lot of land but it is too cold. And the Antarctica would be like living in freezer. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites On 7/21/2017 at 11:29 PM, nec209 said: If the private sector can bring space cost down to million dollars one way ticket to the moon or mars than it will look more realistic for the upper middle class. But it will NOT solve the problem of overpopulation. Well a$500,0000 ticket to the moon or mars is beyond laughable!!!

It would be better to pass laws of one child policy or jail time to lower overpopulation than hope the private sector is going to lower space cost.

A city underwater, water city, underground city or dome tower would be more realistic if they running out of land to build or one child policy or jail time to lower overpopulation.

Canada and Russia has lot of land but it is too cold. And the Antarctica would be like living in freezer.

I agree but living on Mars would be like living in a vacuum chamber, with radiation, and a freezer! Space colonies, built in space from materials found in space could be quite large. A torus hundreds of miles across and tens of miles thick would be possible with no magical technology, although controlled fusion would definitely make it far easier.

I often liken it to the iron age or bronze age by naming it the carbon age in terms of what would be used to construct the habitats...

##### Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 11:33 PM, nec209 said:

There is not a day that goes by with out the media going on and on about going to the moon or mars!!!

Well it serious not going to solve problems of colonization of the moon or mars. It not going to solve overpopulation problem.

It not some thing the middle class can have enough money on one way ticket to the moon or mars. Even the upper class will not have the money for a one way ticket to the moon or mars. So it not going to solve the overpopulation problem.

What is with the government and private sector pushing this trip to the moon or mars in 10 to 15 years. When there is no spacecraft that cost effective?

Any spacecraft they have and in the research and development is not cost effective for the upper class that alone the middle class!! It cost way to much money going into space.

Why such a push for space colonization?

I'll take two quotes from you - "space colonization" "cost way to much money". That is the reason why it's a good idea, you answered it yourself. No single country can afford it so instead we all have to work together to share the cost. Here's a list of countries currently involved in the International Space Station

Japan
Russian
United States
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
The Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Expensive and difficult to achieve projects like this and CERN bring countries together. Science brings countries together.

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, at0mic said:

I'll take two quotes from you - "space colonization" "cost way to much money". That is the reason why it's a good idea, you answered it yourself. No single country can afford it so instead we all have to work together to share the cost. Here's a list of countries currently involved in the International Space Station

Japan
Russian
United States
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
The Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Expensive and difficult to achieve projects like this and CERN bring countries together. Science brings countries together.

Bingo!! I have said that many times, that a united International effort will facilitate us finally putting man on Mars and spread the costs. The ISS has shown how that can work.

It would also be nice to see the Chinese involved and sharing their  obvious expertise with that of the rest of the world.

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites

Yes exactly, and North Korea. I would love to see every country work together. There would be an end to war and we would be able to look after our planet a whole lot more. Once we can do that, we can colonize another planet without making the same mistakes.

##### Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Bingo!! I have said that many times, that a united International effort will facilitate us finally putting man on Mars and spread the costs. The ISS has shown how that can work.

It would also be nice to see the Chinese involved and sharing their  obvious expertise with that of the rest of the world.

Space colonies are not expensive in the way that building boats is not expensive. If you had to build a new boat from scratch every time someone wanted one it would be ridiculous. But when you produce thousands of boats you can pass the savings on to everyone.

Establishing infrastructure is the main expense but one you have that infrastructure costs per habitat go down...

Edited by Moontanman

##### Share on other sites

The primitive urge to seek new and better horizons and leave intractable problems behind rather than face them.

The popularity of science fiction that tends to downplay or completely bypass - by some imaginary tech brilliancy - the extraordinary costs and difficulties.

The illusion that it would be a lot like the successful historic colonisations that happened on Earth.

The false expectation that ingenuity can overcome all limitation.

The belief that it will be not just economically viable to do so, but deliver enormous economic benefits.

The belief that space colonies can provide enduring security and defence from existential threats.

The unlikely expectation that humans in space will enjoy greater freedom from regulation or societal constraints.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The primitive urge to seek new and better horizons and leave intractable problems behind rather than face them.

Not all primitive urges are undesirable: Let's all be grateful that humanity as a whole, still sees the need to explore, discover new worlds, and push the limits of boundaries.

We would still be in the dark ages if we didn't.

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The popularity of science fiction that tends to downplay or completely bypass - by some imaginary tech brilliancy - the extraordinary costs and difficulties.

Sci/Fi may down play the costs and difficulties, science does not but considering the trillions of dollars world wide spent on military objectives, the small amount put aside for science and getting us further into space, is a drop in the Ocean.

Yes, we certainly do have our Priorities arse up!

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The illusion that it would be a lot like the successful historic colonisations that happened on Earth.

No illusion at all: Science knows full well the dangers and difficulties involved, as well as the benefits to be obtained.

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The false expectation that ingenuity can overcome all limitation.

Whose ingenuity? and what limitations?

Given the time, man will progress: To the Moon, to Mars, and to the stars.                                   Given the time, man could I believe, achieve anything that is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR...Given the time.

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The belief that it will be not just economically viable to do so, but deliver enormous economic benefits.

Political and economic climates change over time: What is not economically viable today, maybe tomorrow.

Economic benefits, along with technological benefits, international and general good will among other nations, new industries are all bound to benefit from our inevitable progress and yes, habitation in time of the solar system and beyond.

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The belief that space colonies can provide enduring security and defence from existential threats.

The unlikely expectation that humans in space will enjoy greater freedom from regulation or societal constraints.

Quote time:

"No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit".                                                                                     Helen Keller:

"There is no sadder sight than a young pessimist".                                                                  Mark Twain:

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites

double post: sorry

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

The primitive urge to seek new and better horizons and leave intractable problems behind rather than face them.

The popularity of science fiction that tends to downplay or completely bypass - by some imaginary tech brilliancy - the extraordinary costs and difficulties.

The illusion that it would be a lot like the successful historic colonisations that happened on Earth.

The false expectation that ingenuity can overcome all limitation.

The belief that it will be not just economically viable to do so, but deliver enormous economic benefits.

The belief that space colonies can provide enduring security and defence from existential threats.

The unlikely expectation that humans in space will enjoy greater freedom from regulation or societal constraints.

Yes you successfully listed some of the negative aspects of space colonizasion and none of them involve war which is a very good thing.

Space exploration leading to colonizasion is the eventual result of a science driven civilization. Countries across the world working together to cover the huge costs.

The alternative is a religious driven civilization where countries anialate each other.

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, beecee said:

Bingo!! I have said that many times, that a united International effort will facilitate us finally putting man on Mars and spread the costs. The ISS has shown how that can work.

It would also be nice to see the Chinese involved and sharing their  obvious expertise with that of the rest of the world.

So you are saying the International community should spend billions of dollars sending not hundreds and not thousands but millions of people!!! Yes not one million!! But hundreds of millions of people into space? Because it would take hundreds of millions of people going into space to keep earth population from going up. Yes numbers in the  hundreds of millions of people going into space.

The International community is going to subsidize space cost to bring space cost down so the average person can pay for ticket yes a one way ticket to mars or the moon?

What would ticket cost? A million dollar ticket? Oh that go with major subsidize a $500,000 space ticket Or you some how thing there is going to be technology breakthroughs to bring space cost down to say$500,000 space ticket per person to mars or the moon?

##### Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nec209 said:

So you are saying the International community should spend billions of dollars sending not hundreds and not thousands but millions of people!!! Yes not one million!! But hundreds of millions of people into space? Because it would take hundreds of millions of people going into space to keep earth population from going up. Yes numbers in the  hundreds of millions of people going into space.

The International community is going to subsidize space cost to bring space cost down so the average person can pay for ticket yes a one way ticket to mars or the moon?

What would ticket cost? A million dollar ticket? Oh that go with major subsidize a $500,000 space ticket Or you some how thing there is going to be technology breakthroughs to bring space cost down to say$500,000 space ticket per person to mars or the moon?

Wow!!! Your assumptions are nothing short of amazing.

I'm saying again, that space endeavours and explorations will continue in spite of some of the negative pessimistic attitudes of some.....

I'm saying that humanities primitive need to explore and go where no man has gone before, will not be stopped.

I'm saying that those that are crying and wringing their hands over the incredible costs of space travel and exploration, need to consider the trillions of dollars spent world wide on military endeavours.

I'm saying that while that is expensive, that expense can be alleviated to some extent by a International effort.

I'm saying that progress is not going to be stopped.                                                                     I'm saying that political and economic climates will and do change.                                              I'm saying that Given the time, man will progress: To the Moon, to Mars, and to the stars.

Given the time, man could I believe, achieve anything that is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR...Given the time.

I;m not talking of space tourists as such although that probably in time , will take place, just as in time permanent settlements off this planet will take place, despite the bleeding hearts and their fragile opposition to such..

Edited by beecee

##### Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Space colonies are not expensive in the way that building boats is not expensive. If you had to build a new boat from scratch every time someone wanted one it would be ridiculous. But when you produce thousands of boats you can pass the savings on to everyone.

Establishing infrastructure is the main expense but one you have that infrastructure costs per habitat go down...

Not sure what you mean. The holy grail is reusable spacecraft to lower space cost. But unfortunately that not come to be. There where many ideas of reusable spacecraft of the search of holy grail of reusable spacecraft.

1 One idea was spacecraft on a rocket to space and lands like plane

2 two rocket/plane combo. Takes of like a plane and use jet engine to gets very high up than the rocket takes over.

3. three single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware

The rocket engines where not powerful enough and so they said these ideas will not work so back to basics. And NASA and other governments cut the x-programs back to the basics.

They spend billions and billions of dollars looking into spacecraft on a rocket to space, rocket/plane combo and single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) costing billions and billions of dollars!!! All to find out rocket engines where not powerful enough and back to the basics.

##### Share on other sites

I think the first minute of the following youtube movie this will answer that question very well, at least in my opinion:

##### Share on other sites

Population explosion is unlikely to be reduced by sending people to either the Moon or Mars; their environments are not friendly, and Mars is a long way from Earth. As Moontanman said, large rotating habitats in orbit may be a good solution; however, I think we will need a presence on the Moon to mine materials, manufacture habitat modules, and launch them into orbit around the Earth and Moon, because Earth's gravity makes the launch cost higher than the Moon.

Since AI and robots are now useful technologies. I think the Moon can be mined and things made by automatons with few people needed. As habitats are completed, people can be moved from Earth into them. Nonetheless, a launch vehicle such as the proposed SoaceX Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT), which can carry 100-200 people, will be needed to move people from Earth to space habitat.

Since there are already many people willing and able to move to Mars, there is no reason we shouldn't, given an MCT. Once the exodus from Earth begins, I believe people will continue to move into the solar system, orbiting the Sun in the habitable zone and further out, as long as there is sufficient energy. The moons and asteroids can provide material to build many habitats that become a Dyson swarm.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nec209 said:

Not sure what you mean. The holy grail is reusable spacecraft to lower space cost. But unfortunately that not come to be. There where many ideas of reusable spacecraft of the search of holy grail of reusable spacecraft.

1 One idea was spacecraft on a rocket to space and lands like plane

2 two rocket/plane combo. Takes of like a plane and use jet engine to gets very high up than the rocket takes over.

3. three single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware

The rocket engines where not powerful enough and so they said these ideas will not work so back to basics. And NASA and other governments cut the x-programs back to the basics.

They spend billions and billions of dollars looking into spacecraft on a rocket to space, rocket/plane combo and single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) costing billions and billions of dollars!!! All to find out rocket engines where not powerful enough and back to the basics.

My quote was a little unclear, what I should have said and what I meant to convey is that, if you bought a new boat every time you wanted to use one. But my point is that you use the materials in space to make your habitat.

Something as well known as kevlar could be used to make gigantic habitats. Kevlar is a carbon compound, carbon is the third or fourth most common element in the universe and we know how to make it. Of course making it in zero G might be a challenge. Things like Carbon fibers could be used to make habitats on par with an continent in surface area.

A dyson swarm of these objects could be millions of earths in usable surface area. Planets are not really practical, you are highly unlikely to find a planet close enough to earth in habitat to simply move there. Even tiny differences like the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could make a planet uninhabitable even if it over flowed with life.

While controlled fusion would make this easier a dyson swarm is a way to use the entire energy output of the sun.

While the Moon will be no doubt a source of materials, the asteroids and small icy moons will be be needed to make really large habitats. These habitats could be moved relatively easy, if very slowly, and could use materials from the kuiper belt, oort cloud, or even rogue bodies in interstellar space. Given fusion not only would planets not be needed but even stars would be ignored in favor of the debris found around them and in the space between them..

Edited by Moontanman

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

My quote was a little unclear, what I should have said and what I meant to convey is that, if you bought a new boat every time you wanted to use one. But my point is that you use the materials in space to make your habitat.

I think I know where you going with this.

Yes reason air planes are so cheap or boats ( $500 air plane ticket per person and going into space is so expensive (million dollar ticket per person) is reusable craft. It cost billions to make 747!! This is not research, development and testing cost, of say a newer 747!!!! Just making 747!!! Yes 747 is very costly costing billions to make 747! But you don't destroy a 747 after every flight!! A 747 can go on for 20 years or more of services!! And in that time of flying millions of millions of paying customers to make a profit and cover the cost of making 747. Likewise you don't buy new ocean-liner after departing and arriving. This what I was saying by searching for the holy grail of reusable spacecraft. Edited by nec209 #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 7 hours ago, nec209 said: Not sure what you mean. The holy grail is reusable spacecraft to lower space cost. But unfortunately that not come to be. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 9 hours ago, nec209 said: Or you some how thing there is going to be technology breakthroughs to bring space cost down to say$500,000 space ticket per person to mars or the moon?

The cost will drop significantly. Within 500 years, it will be like buying a plane ticket for a trip during the summer holiday. It you think that's a little optimistic, definitely within 1,000 years.