Curiosity on Mars, secret announcement due?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Yes I bothered.
Our species is best protected by colonizing off-planet.
You don't know about eggs and baskets?
What false pretenses?
A killer asteroid could wipe us out on earth. So your assertion about 'unnecessary expenditure' doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You do realize money spent on space isn't like just taking a billion in cash and loading onto a rocket bound to crash on Luna, right?

Yes, I understand economics. You apparently don't.
People paid to do useless work are wasting their skills which could be better used elsewhere. We use money to evaluate that work.

Besides, I don't just want some kind of Mars base with 20 people shivering in the cold, I want a thriving civilization capable of living independently of Earth.
That doesn't change the fact that an earth base would be far far cheaper.

Originally posted by apathist
Yes I bothered.
Our species is best protected by colonizing off-planet.

Not when it comes to asteroids.

You don't know about eggs and baskets?
Of course I do. Do you?

What false pretenses?
Sonhouse wants us to go to Mars and wants to use the threat of killer asteroids as an excuse even though it doesn't make sense. When pushed he practically admits he doesn't actually care about killer asteroids and that's just an excuse. I call that 'false pretences'. What do you call it?

A killer asteroid could wipe us out on earth.
Highly unlikely, and even less likely if we prepared for it. Preparing for it would be easier than going to Mars.

So your assertion about 'unnecessary expenditure' doesn't make sense.
If you had followed the thread, you would see that it does make sense. I suggest reading back a bit so I don't have to repeat it all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I understand economics. You apparently don't.
People paid to do useless work are wasting their skills which could be better used elsewhere. We use money to evaluate that work.

[b]Besides, I don't just want some kind of Mars base with 20 people shivering in the cold, I want a thriving civilization capable of living independently of Earth.
That doesn't change the fact that an earth base would be far far cheaper.[/b]

Where is the political will for such a refuge? Nobody would believe Earth to be in emminent danger. But the love of exploration is a powerful motivator, no matter the cost. Look at what happened as the result of those three little ships in 1492, bad and good both came from it but the money spent didn't have to be spent on exploration, they could have built a hospital or shool but they didn't, they went with exploration. Regardless of the fact you don't like the USA, it is a thriving civilization made possible by exploration.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where is the political will for such a refuge?

Does it matter? I don't see much political will for establishing a self sustaining colony on Mars either.

What you are seeking to do is create political will to do so, through false pretences. All I am saying is that if we go to Mars, lets be honest about it.

Look at what happened as the result of those three little ships in 1492, bad and good both came from it but the money spent didn't have to be spent on exploration, they could have built a hospital or shool but they didn't, they went with exploration.
You are obviously somewhat ignorant of history. Those three little ships were sent to find a trade route to India, not to explore and settle new lands. It was entirely an economic expedition. The subsequent settling of the US was also largely economic.
Very few explorers were motivated purely by exploration. Some had religious motivation and most had political or economic motivation and sponsors.

Regardless of the fact you don't like the USA, it is a thriving civilization made possible by exploration.
I don't dislike the USA - what gave you that idea? I do think the way it was colonised was wrong - as should you - and that is not justified by the outcome.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Does it matter? I don't see much political will for establishing a self sustaining colony on Mars either.

What you are seeking to do is create political will to do so, through false pretences. All I am saying is that if we go to Mars, lets be honest about it.

[b]Look at what happened as the result of those three little ships in 1492, bad and good bo ...[text shortened]... k the way it was colonised was wrong - as should you - and that is not justified by the outcome.

I don't think we should celebrate Columbus day.
Even though they thought they were going to India, it still started a revolution in exploration.

Anyway, a mars colony is going to happen, and a side result would be an insurance policy on the death of Earth, if Earth was rendered uninhabitable for whatever reason and I am sure you could come up with a few ways for that to happen.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Even though they thought they were going to India, it still started a revolution in exploration.

No, it didn't.
The Portuguese had already got as far as the cape in an effort to get to India around Africa. The revolution in exploration was already underway.
And the subsequent voyages were driven by economic reasons and competition between European powers.

Anyway, a mars colony is going to happen, and a side result would be an insurance policy on the death of Earth, if Earth was rendered uninhabitable for whatever reason and I am sure you could come up with a few ways for that to happen.
No actually, I cannot come up with any reasonable ways though which the earth could be rendered uninhabitable. Can you? The asteroid story didn't cut it however many times you wrote things in ALL CAPS and made up things about how big it was and falsely claimed that nobody but you could possibly understand just how big it was.

I actually think it unlikely that we will have a fully self sustaining colony on Mars for a very very long time if ever. There simply isn't a particularly good reason to. In the past, people used to dream of cities under the sea, or floating cities on the oceans. It hasn't happened - because it didn't make economic sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you had followed the thread, you would see that it does make sense. I suggest reading back a bit so I don't have to repeat it all.

If an asteroid destroys the earth, our only hope is if we already had colonies off of this planet. This is not deniable.

Of course, we should pursue both paths. Build colonies, and also protect the earth.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
No actually, I cannot come up with any reasonable ways though which the earth could be rendered uninhabitable. Can you? ...

All day long. Your lack of imagination is not contagious and does not render the possibilities to be unreasonable. You are being absurd, tw.

Originally posted by apathist
If an asteroid destroys the earth, our only hope is if we already had colonies off of this planet. This is not deniable.

Of course, we should pursue both paths. Build colonies, and also protect the earth.

Could an asteroid 'destroy the earth'? Maybe you mean planetesimal?

Which is easier:
1. Build a self sustaining colony on Mars.
2. Build an asteroid detection system.

Originally posted by apathist
All day long. Your lack of imagination is not contagious and does not render the possibilities to be unreasonable. You are being absurd, tw.

Your lack of actual suggestions suggests your 'all day long' is a bit of an overstatement.
Lets hear one of your ideas and see whether it is reasonable or not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Could an asteroid 'destroy the earth'? Maybe you mean planetesimal?

Which is easier:
1. Build a self sustaining colony on Mars.
2. Build an asteroid detection system.

I mean chunks from space killing our earth.

I don't know the answer to your second question, But I'm sure it's more complicated than you imply. And merely detecting asteroids (what size? how far away?) is not sufficient, obviously.

I notice you wont tell us how we survive if we don't build colonies but the earth gets destroyed (because you can't) but also you don't comment on the wisdom of acting on both of your points.

Look, just go find another thread where you can pop in, tell someone they are wrong, and then attack their attempts to explain themselves, without ever actually putting your honest views up for counter-attack. You are good at that. Then hyper-focus in this direction or that while evading uncomfortable rebuttals until people realize how smart you are and finally you can get some sleep.

Originally posted by apathist
I mean chunks from space killing our earth.

The collision that created the moon could reasonably be said to have destroyed the earth. In the billions of years since then, it hasn't happened.

I don't know the answer to your second question, But I'm sure it's more complicated than you imply. And merely detecting asteroids (what size? how far away?) is not sufficient, obviously.
I believe it would be sufficient for any reasonable asteroid threat. It is highly unlikely a moon sized object will hit the earth.

I notice you wont tell us how we survive if we don't build colonies but the earth gets destroyed (because you can't) but also you don't comment on the wisdom of acting on both of your points.
You are yet to give a reasonable scenario in which 'the earth gets destroyed'.

Look, just go find another thread where you can pop in, tell someone they are wrong, and then attack their attempts to explain themselves, without ever actually putting your honest views up for counter-attack.
Huh? In what way have I not put up my honest views? Now you are just being deliberately dishonest to try and get out of answering my questions. In this thread I have been very specific about what my views on the topic are.

You are good at that. Then hyper-focus in this direction or that while evading uncomfortable rebuttals until people realize how smart you are and finally you can get some sleep.
You are flat out lying. I do not do that at all and I challenge you to try and support that ridiculous claim with some actual evidence. You jumped into this thread, without even reading it, then claim I have not been airing my views? All to get out of giving one single example of an earth destroying scenario after claiming you could come up with them 'all day long' and that I am merely lacking imagination?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your lack of actual suggestions suggests your 'all day long' is a bit of an overstatement.
Lets hear one of your ideas and see whether it is reasonable or not.

I've offered plenty, but you unreasonably merely dismiss them. Let's stick with the one you've been busy unreasonably dismissing: asteroids that will crack our planet before we can stop them.

Having tw find them unreasonable will not save us.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
You are flat out lying....

You become a joke, buddy, once again. You don't warp names though, so you have some class at least.