BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 06:05

Username Protected wrote:

It will take a different way of looking at how humans succeed. The humans that end up on Mars most likely will not return. Instead, they will be tasked with creating a new civilization on Mars. As time goes on, humans will be born on Mars that will have no memory of Earth. Will it be better? Was it better for those that took a one way trip in 1500 to go to North American from Europe?

You didn't need to wear a space suit to breath in the New World. Food was abundant. I think you're making an apples and oranges comparison.

How much of the Nevada and Utah Desert has been "colonized"? I fly over it all the time. Theres nothing there.

I think if they gonna take the time to load up a space ship and go live on another planet you might as well go to one that's like earth.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 12:09

How much of the Nevada and Utah Desert has been "colonized"? I fly over it all the time. Theres nothing there.

People live in Alaska on the North Slope in the winter when it is 60 below and in Nevada when it is over 100 in the summer. Basically, people live indoors in both cases. As "indoors" becomes larger and more hospitable, people will acclimate to being indoors most of the time on planets like Mars. Sure, living on another planet that is earthlike is optimal but that may take awhile, Mars will not. Besides, anyone over 35 is not in the Mars moving sweetspot.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 13:04

Username Protected wrote:

Culumbus didn't personally get squat from putting the americas on the map. But centuries later school kids still learn his name.

Columbus went in search of gold, fame and fortune. We all know this.

We all also know there is no gold on Mars.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 13:36

Username Protected wrote:

Culumbus didn't personally get squat from putting the americas on the map. But centuries later school kids still learn his name.

Columbus went in search of gold, fame and fortune. We all know this.

We all also know there is no gold on Mars.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 14:34

Username Protected wrote:

People live in Alaska on the North Slope in the winter when it is 60 below and in Nevada when it is over 100 in the summer. Basically, people live indoors in both cases. As "indoors" becomes larger and more hospitable, people will acclimate to being indoors most of the time on planets like Mars. Sure, living on another planet that is earthlike is optimal but that may take awhile, Mars will not. Besides, anyone over 35 is not in the Mars moving sweetspot.

I've spent a lot of time in Alaska. It's argued that Alaska was the source of some of the first art ever created by humans..... Why? because there was so much food everywhere the people had time to focus on other things besides hunting.

Alaska is a bad analogy. Stick with the Nevada desert because that's what Mars is only worse.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 14:35

Username Protected wrote:

I'll take your word for it. I've never been there so i can't say if there is anything of value there or not.

We put robots on Mars. They sent back data on what is there. It's not a total "unknown". You don't personally need to go there to read the information. Use the internet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 15:10

Username Protected wrote:

I'll take your word for it. I've never been there so i can't say if there is anything of value there or not.

We put robots on Mars. They sent back data on what is there. It's not a total "unknown". You don't personally need to go there to read the information. Use the internet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 16:16

Username Protected wrote:

Knowledge is the only thing with intrinsic and lasting value, and there is surely a lot to be learned from exploring other worlds.

We explored Mars. You act like nobody knows what's there.

What value do you see besides "well, it'll be valuable"? If the "value" is "Musk gets to claim the first ever to walk on Mars" then that is valuable for him.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 16:38

right. we haven't even explored all of this world we live on yet, but with a couple of radio controlled cars we've learned all there is to know about another planet

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 17:46

I think our country needs more people that want to do things - and be the first to do them - because no one else has (yet).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 18:42

Username Protected wrote:

right. we haven't even explored all of this world we live on yet, but with a couple of radio controlled cars we've learned all there is to know about another planet

I never said "we know everything there is to know". I'm saying we know enough to know if there would be an ROI.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 18:54

The motivation for going to Mars has nothing to do with bringing wealth from Mars back to Earth. It isn't a direct ROI play. Jason is right that, in that sense, the comparison to European explorers like Columbus is apples to oranges. (The comparison holds a lot of merit when you look at it from different angles, however.)

That doesn't mean that there is no motivation to go to Mars. There are lots of reasons to go, but the primary one is simply to make us a multi-planetary species.

If you assume that humans, like all living things, prioritize their own survival and the survival and advancement of their species above almost all else, then it makes sense to strive for redundancy when it comes to the planet(s) we occupy.

There are almost certainly more hospitable planets elsewhere in the universe, and there are almost certainly planets that would provide a ROI in the sense that we could harvest wealth and/or knowledge directly. There's also the possibility of discovering, learning from, and partnering with alien races (and hopefully not being annihilated by them!) However, you need to walk before you can run. Mars is attainable, and it's a good first step.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 19:01

Username Protected wrote:

If you assume that humans, like all living things, prioritize their own survival and the survival and advancement of their species above almost all else, then it makes sense to strive for redundancy when it comes to the planet(s) we occupy.

I get that but I do NOT think Mars offers "redundancy". It's outrageously inhospitable.

Of course I'd love to see someone land on Mars. It'd be great. But just like The Moon.... I think we'd just quit going as opposed to "colonizing".

As for encountering Alien Races. Any alien we would come across would have such incredible abilities to travel through space and time that I'm not sure they would even acknowledge us as "intelligent life".

Our best best best form of propulsion we've ever produced would propel us to the next closest star in 60,000 years.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2017, 19:21

Username Protected wrote:

People live in Alaska on the North Slope in the winter when it is 60 below and in Nevada when it is over 100 in the summer. Basically, people live indoors in both cases. As "indoors" becomes larger and more hospitable, people will acclimate to being indoors most of the time on planets like Mars. Sure, living on another planet that is earthlike is optimal but that may take awhile, Mars will not. Besides, anyone over 35 is not in the Mars moving sweetspot.

I've spent a lot of time in Alaska. It's argued that Alaska was the source of some of the first art ever created by humans..... Why? because there was so much food everywhere the people had time to focus on other things besides hunting.

Alaska is a bad analogy. Stick with the Nevada desert because that's what Mars is only worse.