Moral & Technological Problems with Mars Colonization

[DerekL1963]

On 2/10/2017 at 2:58 PM, Nathair said:

What is also important is that the money "thrown away" on colonization isn't "thrown away" at all. I don't just mean that in the sense that we have always, always received excellent returns on our investments in space.

In the financial sense, not really.  Investments in space back in the 60's paid of hugely in the form of vastly improved IC's, the satellite industry, etc... etc...  Subsequent investments in the main haven't paid off significantly at all.

[Nathair]

24 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

 Subsequent investments in the main haven't paid off significantly at all.

No, I wouldn't agree with that.

[kerbiloid]

52 minutes ago, Nathair said:

All it really requires is something alive like bacteria, people, fruit flies, yeast, whatever...

And with some real luck zoologists would get something new and exciting to play with on Mars.

Though as "zoo" I meant all listed except people, and fungi (yeast) are not zoo at all, I must edit my phrase.

> But I mean that you don't need to send every living species to every known planet when you already have tested Chlamydomonas on the Moon.

56 minutes ago, Nathair said:

a permanent base

What for?
To study the same geological formation for decades, leaving others alone?
Biology is not in order here, because it's already studied at the future Moon base inside, and it's nothing to study outside.

59 minutes ago, Nathair said:

Hauling tons of cement to Mars would be a ridiculous undertaking

We can try to farm cotton in Antarctics, this would be not less ridiculous.

1 hour ago, Nathair said:

Earth-side applications are obvious, right?

Right. Their improper usage - not.

1 hour ago, Nathair said:

How about for extremely efficient, high density food production in a hostile environment or new energy storage solutions or radiation shielding or...

You can try this in Africa right now.

[DerekL1963]

59 minutes ago, Nathair said:

No, I wouldn't agree with that.

No, you wouldn't, the NASA PAO (Propaganda Affairs Office) spends a great deal to ensure you wouldn't.   But they never actually tell you how much NASA spent, or how much economic activity was generated - only gollygeegoshwow!  Lookit what NASA has done!.

So when you have an actual link showing the existence of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of industries that exist because of NASA money spent since 1980 - get back to me.  Because that's the level of return required just to break even...  to attain 'excellent' returns, we're talking a trillion dollars or more.

[Nathair]

 

5 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

gollygeegoshwow!  Lookit what NASA has done!.

Did you? Look, I mean? I ask because I don't hear you refuting any of the truly remarkable advancements listed, just waving your hands around suggesting that because NASA itself keeps track of this stuff it is somehow dishonest or... something.

 

5 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

So when you have an actual link showing the existence of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of industries that exist because of NASA money spent since 1980 - get back to me. 

OK.

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, Nathair said:

Did you? Look, I mean? I ask because I don't hear you refuting any of the truly remarkable advancements listed, just waving your hands around suggesting that because NASA itself keeps track of this stuff it is somehow dishonest or... something.

Nice change from apples to oranges - from discussing the finances to handwaving about the 'truly remarkable achievements'.  Then you link to articles that don't actually support your claim of economic benefits, they discuss "studies" (all of the ones I've seen have emanated from NASA) and give people's opinions (that are echoes of those sponsored 'studies').  And your link  includes such laughable 'gains' as "NASA generated x billion dollars worth of activity in Florida" - I.E. they paid government employees and contractors in Florida.

And yes, NASA is dishonest.  Why wouldn't they be?   It's in their best interest to keep people convinced that what they're doing is absolutely wunnerful - because that keeps the bucks flowing.  Witness NASA's ongoing praise of the SLS (Senate Launch System) - which only has a mission (other than test flights) because Congress specified that it be used for Europa by fiat.  (In the same way they specified the design of the SLS by fiat - keeping the money flowing to key Congressional districts and campaign contributors.)

[Nathair]

5 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Nice change from apples to oranges - from discussing the finances to handwaving about the 'truly remarkable achievements'.

I think you'll find I have, all along, been discussing both the financial returns and the technological returns. That has not changed. Indeed, why would we decide to ignore significant technological or quality of life accomplishments and only pay attention to dollars? Personally, I would be perfectly happy to do the opposite. I have no qualms  about spending dollars to gain knowledge, advance technology and improve our general quality of life. Fortunately, when it comes to this kind of research there is no need to.

 

9 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Then you link to articles that don't actually support your claim of economic benefits, they discuss "studies" (all of the ones I've seen have emanated from NASA) and give people's opinions (that are echoes of those sponsored 'studies').

You asked for a link, you got a link. If you can refute the studies, examples or opinions presented therein, go right ahead. If you just want to wave them away like they didn't happen you can still go right ahead but don't expect me to address such a response.

 

10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

And yes, NASA is dishonest.  Why wouldn't they be? 

That's a convincing argument? Of course they lie, we know this because why wouldn't they? It's certainly convenient, now any evidence or opinion presented can be waved away on the evidence of liar-liar-pants-on-fire.

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, Nathair said:

I think you'll find I have, all along, been discussing both the financial returns and the technological returns. That has not changed. Indeed, why would we decide to ignore significant technological or quality of life accomplishments and only pay attention to dollars?

You'll find, if you scroll back up, I posed the question in the form it's usually posed in - dollars.  I specifically did so in order to prevent the mode switching dodge that allows people to talk in dollars when it's convenient and swap to handwaving about intangible benefits when dollars aren't convenient.
 

1 hour ago, Nathair said:

That's a convincing argument? Of course they lie, we know this because why wouldn't they?

You admit they lie, yet you also want us to take their statements as unalloyed truth and thus as proof of your claims.  You can't have it both ways.

[Nathair]

10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

You'll find, if you scroll back up, I posed the question in the form it's usually posed in - dollars.  I specifically did so in order to prevent the mode switching dodge that allows people to talk in dollars when it's convenient and swap to handwaving about intangible benefits when dollars aren't convenient.

 

It is not "a dodge". I have been discussing all of the benefits all along. And for the record, I don't consider, say, the invention of the CMOS sensor or nanofiber water filtration or long-life radial tires to be "intangible". But if all you want to look at is dollars, then go right ahead. Estimates of $7-$14 dollars returned per dollar invested seem a pretty decent dollars-only ROI to me.

10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

You admit they lie, yet you also want us to take their statements as unalloyed truth and thus as proof of your claims.  You can't have it both ways.

You misunderstand. I was repeating you, not agreeing with you. If I thought NASA was lying about its discoveries and their applications we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Nathair

[kerbiloid]

13 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

And yes, NASA is dishonest.  Why wouldn't they be?

How could NASA be dishonest, when they even couldn't stop TV translation from Mars with Mark Watney?

Quote

Teddy turned to face him. “We’re a public domain organization. There’s no such thing as secret or secure information here.”

“So?”

“Any imagery we take goes directly to the public.”

 

[stratochief66]

I'm not sure who the quote is from, but "Every dollar spent in space is spent on Earth"