No Mars thread? What do you guys think about Elon Musk sending humans to Mars 20-40 years from now?

>I'm just asking, why fucking bother if it doesn't benefit us.

see the point: "your clear lack of knowledge on the reasons for manned space missions"

>You still haven't answered my question

and I'm not, because stupid questions asked in a clearly pissant manner don't deserve smart answers

...

>At least the moon has materials that aren't abundant on earth.
How does this work out if the moon formed from debris from a massive collision with Earth.

They're both playing the same game. SpaceX knows they aren't going to be doing manned missions outside of LEO until NASA does. They'll follow in their footsteps, gradually assuming larger responsibilities as NASA goes to the Moon and then Mars. This will be useful as it'll give companies that want to invest in space/other planets more options to do so.

This isn't as far fetched as it might seem: once the ISS is deorbited countries (England, Japan, Israel) will be looking to build their own space stations. Likewise, advancements in microwave power transmission might make orbital solar arrays profitable for european power companies. NASA will want something too.

if you're going to post /pol/ memes why not post your question there as originally suggested?

Not another elon musk thread

iflscience.com/space/why-we-should-mine-moon/

We probably have the technology to land humans on Mars, and to tend humans on flybyes and bring them back, but not the technology to land humans on Mars and bring them back

>20-40 years from now
The slow troll penetrates the shield.

>A manned moon program starting in 2026
A manned moon orbit program isn't a manned moon program.

>then a Mars shot around 2036-46.
Anything this far into the future is nonsense. When you hear senior officials say, "Maybe in 20 or 30 years." they mean, "Not during my career (but I totally deserve credit if someone does it after I retire)."

It's complete bullshit. Had this exact same plan been proposed by a space agency, that is, actually capable people with actual budgets, no-one would have given a shit. But if it's the spayycex, a company which has been losing money since day 1 and can barely reach earth orbit without blowing up more often than not, internet has a collective ejaculation.

>can barely reach orbit without blowing up more often than not
>i don't know what i'm talking about but i've got a strong opinion about it

>What do you guys think about Elon Musk sending humans to Mars 20-40 years from now?
It's not going to happen. It's just pure hype for investors. Nominally SpaceX is in a shitty condition, so they need to push the Sci-Fi bullshit.

>Maybe in a couple of centuries from now, many people will be sent of to Mars, and make Mars a pretty habitable place. It could possibly serve as a solution to overpopulation on Earth.
No, probably not. At least not too soon. It will maybe be possible to have a permanent colony one day, but it will cost a lot of money to keep alive. Mars in inhabitable and every idea in the direction of terraforming is simply ridiculous.

>They're both playing the same game. SpaceX knows they aren't going to be doing manned missions outside of LEO until NASA does.
Hah! This is crap.

NASA's playing the same old team sport of bullshitting to receive taxpayer funds as salaries and profits. That's what it has been about from the beginning, when they inherited a well-planned-out, well-led, well-organized manned space program with complete teams from the Air Force, when it had done all the preliminary work and analysis, and was about to start launching men into space.

Control was transferred from the military hierarchy to the civilian bureaucracy, which is why the plans for a moon base turned out to be excruciatingly costly flags and footprints, and they still tried to play it off as brilliant management. By the end of that, the careerist bureaucrats had displaced the leaders and broken up the teams that made it work at all.

What was their next trick? The space shuttle: a way to economize orbital launch that obviously had no potential to economize orbital launch (the drop tank cost more than a complete expendable vehicle for the same payload), which was demonstrated to not economize orbital launch, but continued to be used anyway for decades, with a lot of propaganda at what a proud achievement this was.

If you don't understand that NASA is a bullshit organization after the shuttle, I don't know what to say to you.

SpaceX is owned and run by someone who genuinely wants to go to Mars.

why not Venus instead of Mars tho?

>By the end of that, the careerist bureaucrats had displaced the leaders and broken up the teams that made it work at all.

Total bullshit, both listed groups are exactly the same. For example, the same people who worked on Thor worked on the Saturn V and then the Shuttle. Boeing, after buying MD, also made Ares 1 and is making SLS. You're rewriting history to fit some sort of libertarian narrative.

Additionally, the Space Shuttle was a proud achievement as it was a platform to do experiments in, then it assembled the ISS which has been a huge success. Only issue is that NASA's goal was to shoot for Low Earth Orbit, and not the moon. This changed though after Ares 1 was dumped in 2010.

>If you don't understand that NASA is a bullshit organization after the shuttle

STS ended in 2011, and NASA has not had a single manned mission since as they are busy building SLS and Orion. So the claim here isn't based on anything.

>SpaceX is owned and run by someone who genuinely wants to go to Mars.

SpaceX is a business. No more, no less.

>20-40 years from now
As of now he plans to send people to Mars in 2024.

>Backing up humanity in case of an extinction event

That's literally it. There absolutely no economic benefit to all of this, not even in a hundred years. Goodsflow between planets will be to slow and expensive, even if we switched to cheaper (but slower) ion propulsion for cargo flights.

But please consider
>Because it's human spirit to explore and expand
>Humans are more versatile than robots, a decade of human colonies on Mars will give us more science than a 100 years of sending rovers.

>Why not have moon colonies
>We'd be better off exploring our oceans
Why not fucking both?
People ARE exploring our oceans, it just doesn't get that much mainstream coverage.
And once we have the infrastructure and knowhow of building a Mars colony, building Moon colonies will easy as shit. The ITS has a 550 Ton LEO payload, it will be a lot cheaper.
And that's just the beginning. there is a reason why it's called the "Interplanetary Transport System" and not the "Mars Colonial Transporter".

I also forgot that it's easier to make rocket fuel on Mars than it is on the Moon.

Another point is that because of the cost of bringing stuff along with you to Mars the best way to go about things will be to manufacture things on spot.

Mars will revolutionize the manufacturing process. Stuff like 3D printers are gay and clunky right now but they'll be a necessary technology.
We need to find a way to go from raw material to finished product with minimal resources, energy and time.

That technology can then be utilized here on Earth as well.

Same for farming technology, how to maximize nutrition with minimal resources in a harsh environment. These technologies can be used to feed an ever growing population or be used in places were there are millions people starving already.

>the same people who worked on Thor worked on the Saturn V and then the Shuttle.
No doubt some of the same people did, but Thor was not a von-Braun-led project (he was doing Jupiter at the time), and neither was the shuttle (he got pushed away from the grown-up table at NASA and left to help with OTRAG).

The start of work on Thor to the first flight of the shuttle is a span of three decades. Did you suppose that Thor was all done by fresh-out-of-school kids who retired shortly after getting the shuttle in the air?

>the Space Shuttle was a proud achievement as it was a platform to do experiments in,
That wasn't what the shuttle was for. That was what Skylab was for. Skylab went unused, and then its orbit decayed and it burned up, because NASA insisted that it should service it with the space shuttle, and didn't finish the shuttle on time to do so.

The (ostensible) purpose of the space shuttle was to dramatically improve access to space with a high launch rate and low marginal cost.

>then it assembled the ISS which has been a huge success.
A huge success at what? Spending money? Like the shuttle, in terms of actual function, it does a moderate amount of nothing-new at terrible expense.

Airtight cans are not new or difficult. Solar panels aren't new or difficult. Submarine life support isn't new or difficult. People had already spent years in space.

It's unnecessarily big and expensive just to continue research on the effects of prolonged weightlessness on human health, and we already knew the key fact: it's bad for you, and to be avoided if possible.

>Mars thread
>No one talking about Schiaparelli landing on Mars in 2 weeks

Which one of you did this?

Why not focus on making those technologies right now here on Earth rather than them being a possible byproduct?

>I want logical reasons

Here you go, m8

It's said that capitalism is good for innovation. Which is mostly true, but not always.
It's happens that a certain point is reached when it's much cheaper and safer for all parties to maintain the status quo.
Investing and trying out new technologies is costly and risky. Just how many companies are lagging behind on the digital age, all this stuff could've happened years ago.

Then there also the human aspect. Just how many people are against GMOs. Most of these people are just fearful of these new technologies. Look up Golden Rice if you want a good example.
GMOs would be welcomed on Mars.

Most of these technologies probably already exist.
We basically need something to kick-start this.
One way would be to have another Elon Musk or Steve Jobs (yeah I know, but the Iphone 1 WAS revolutionary), someone with money who is willing to take risks and is very good at marketing and publicity.
Or another is to have it as a byproduct. A fully working model of these technologies on Mars which Earth companies could just copy at minimal risk.