1 Comment
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
J. Andres Hannah-Suarez's avatar

Sadly the arguments against going to Mars have some pretty big flaws, starting with this assertion:

"And once the rockets had retired to their museums, humanity would have nothing to show for its Mars adventure except some rocks and a bunch of unspeakably angry astrobiologists."

Judging from the technological developments that arose from he Apollo missions to the moon, that bald assertion is highly likey to be wrong:

https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/innovation-technology/nasa-moon-landing-items/

https://theconversation.com/four-surprising-technological-innovations-that-came-out-of-the-apollo-moon-landings-119605

https://christopherrcooper.com/apollo-program-cost-return-investment/

Would we have developed these technologies eventuallly? Yeah, probably most, but not necessarly all. And the timing of certain innovations wil inevitably save lives.

For example one of the technologies whose development was radically accelerated by the Apollo program was the CAT scan. Even if it would have inevitably been developed 5-10 years later, that signifies 5-10 years where the techonology would have been unavailable to detect cancer, tumours, and other diseases of the body.

We also have freeze dried foods that again, would have likely eventually been developed, but in the delay interim these foods wouldn't be available for emergency survival kits that have saved countless lives.

Then there is the cost. It is estimated that the first mission to Mars will cost about $500 Billion. But given that this won't be achieved for at least another 27 years, that works out at $18.5 billion dollars in funding per year.

That sounds like a lot of money but it would only represent 3.19% of the U.S. annual budget. The U.S. government literally spends twice of that amount in just servicing the interest on its national debt.

And no, going to Mars would NOT, "... cost taxpayers more than a good-sized war." That's just ignorant. 20 years in Afghanistan cost a total of $2.3 trillion over 20 years, which is 4.6 x more money than the Mars program would cost.

I get it, Maciej Cegłowski REALLY doesn't see value in going to Mars. But his arguments are unfortunately based on false premises.

Expand full comment
ErrorError