
Q&A: Buzz Aldrin - Chirag
http://www.technologyreview.in/computing/25572/
======
ldite
"Mars is clearly the best permanent-­residence location other than Earth, and
we can go there in case somebody or something blows up Earth. We will have a
place that ensures the survival of the human race."

This always struck me as a dicey argument. Almost any catastrophe that befell
the earth, short of a comet liquefying the entire crust, would still not leave
it much less habitable than Mars.

If the entire ecosystem died out tomorrow and the atmosphere vanished into
space, then Earth would still be more hospitable than Mars.

I think investing a few billion in spotting earth-vaporising comets would be a
better investment from that point of view.

(for the difficulty of blowing up the earth, see yesterday's post;
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1446612> )

------
JacobAldridge
Single page -
[http://www.technologyreview.in/printer_friendly_article.aspx...](http://www.technologyreview.in/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=25572&channel=computing&section=)

I think the primary missing piece is the national drive to get to Mars. The
moon-landing worked so well (and used an enormous portion of GDP, even as the
US ramped up action in Vietnam) because the country was unquestionably
committed to landing on the moon. Part of that, of course, was JFK's charisma
in selling it, and his legacy post-Dallas. I don't get that there's the same
commitment to Mars.

Now, if it were a global commitment (likely NATO, maybe some Chinese
involvement, but we'd call it global) then it could work. But that's a
discussion for a President and international community in good times - when
Greece is going bankrupt and 10% of the US is unemployed, few at home, in
Europe or internationally are going to jump behind a Mars vision.

~~~
mbenjaminsmith
I don't think the answer is to make a Mars mission more political, but to put
it more in the hands of entrepreneurs like Elon Musk.

If you make it largely a private exercise, you could have more countries
involved while avoiding some or most of the political overhead (eg Chinese
engineers as opposed to the Chinese national space program).

Also, if the cost (and the perceived cost) could be lowered, I don't think
there would be much popular resistance.

I agree with Buzz that we should germinate Mars as a genetic failsafe. I'm
sure there are many possible planet-killing events whose effects would pass in
time (giant asteroid for one) allowing the Earth to be repopulated.

~~~
mkramlich
I'd love it if the first man on Mars was accomplished by a private venture.
Either commercial or contest-driven.

