"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.
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.
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.
Reminds me of the Heinlein book, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."
But there was a recent story on here that a single reasonably sized asteroid would net about $1 Trillion worth of materials. It seems like a very profitable exercise.
The trillion dollar pricetag might be accurate but it won't happen while it's still cheaper to mine those same minerals here on earth. I mean even if you get the asteroid you still have to mine it and refine it, you can't just ship it to earth and sell the raw chunks.
It may be obvious to you, but not to me so why not? If you can find a way to get it to land on earth without burning too much in the atmosphere, isn't that better than mining it in space?
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 )