Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Also Please Try And Answer The Title Question

re: Also Please Try And Answer The Title Question
Sandys — (archived)

Mark,

Gee not being for a second home for humanity is like not being for motherhood and apple pie.

The question is why is Mars the best choice versus the Moon, NEOs or those large space colonies proposed by Gerald O'Neill?

You talk about the need for a ROI on lunar energy yet don't seem to show any ROI for Mars. Why? And why would the Moon have to recover 100% of what is invested in its colonization anyway?

I often ride the Metro into work in Washington and I would be surprise if the fares paid by its riders cover more then 60% of its budget. Yet its gets subsized for the public service it provides. Same is true of Amtrak, commercial airports, etc. Wouldn't reducing America's dependence on Mid-East oil be worth a similar subsidy by the government?

BTW I am not a Moon Firster or Neo Firster, if anything I am an Earth Firster (no not the radical eco-freaks...) and I would like to know why a trillion dollar subsidy to develop Mars would be a better benefit to the Earth then if the money was spent elsewhere, like for the Moon, maybe SSPS or even developing alternative energy sources. That is what I liked about Tom Matula's arguments, how they focus on the benefits to the nation of a return to the Moon.

Again its seems that most of what is written by those who support Mars is about benefits to the Mars colonists and only some vague spin-offs and inspiration for Earth, kinda of like the arguments for how the 25 billion spent on Apollo benefited America. Do we really need to spend a trillion on Mars to get a new version of Velcro and Tang?

Do you have more substance to offer in your arguments so I have a reason to support Mars?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (56 posts)