View Single Post
Old 12-21-2017, 01:43 AM   #37639
Spuds
The Dictater
 
Spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Drives: '13 Red Scion FRS
Location: MD, USA
Posts: 9,688
Thanks: 26,754
Thanked 12,740 Times in 6,314 Posts
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarlacc View Post
Pressurized plastic domes with people living there and growing food with their own natural fertilizers are within the range of possibility, I think.
Just have to throw enough money at it.
The question is "why?"
Seems utterly pointless to me.

If that kind of funds are there, I'd much rather they send rovers to Titan and Europa. Much more interesting with their liquid hydrocarbon lakes and water ice and shit.
The point is as a technical stepping stone. Same basic reason as going to the moon. Though the lunar missions were to develop rockets with massive payloads and guidance systems to deliver nuclear weapons. Colonizing Mars is about pushing energy and resource efficiency. If we can figure out how to sustain a settlement on a body where support is at least a year or 2 out, the same concepts should apply to increased efficiency on Earth. It's much easier to sell "let's do this really cool thing and then use technology form space" than "lets make some sensible things that costs a crap ton of money, may make your life harder, but will keep us from being desperate in 50 or so years".
Spuds is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Spuds For This Useful Post:
Sarlacc (12-21-2017)