Sure, a machine is great for doing a specific task, but if the point is to colonize a place with living creatures, you need living creatures to do that.

^ That.

There is no doubt that at the cost of a single human mission you could finance a few dozens of robotic missions that would cover a much wider area. The goal of sending people to mars would be having people on mars.

If we wanted to create a colony of robots for robots, there are much better targets for that then Mars. There are some limited gains for them if they want to go back to space - mining water for propellant and the possibility of aerobreaking and saving up on fuel - but even for that purpose they'd probably still be better off without having to fight against a planets gravity in the first place.

On an only slightly related note, if you meant we're better off going humanity+ and making ourselves into machines... My previous title - lord of the Hermocentric orbit - came from a private joke out of a conversation I had with someone on where is the best place in the solar system to install a server farm.

For every extra kilogram carried on a space flight, 530 kg of excess fuel are needed at lift-off. Need a better way.

You are still thinking in the mindset where only man can do things. Machines now do things better. And are just starting to get good.

We are only recently learning the world is not flat. Why are you still thinking in terms of 'we must colonize'? That is like saying the bayonet charge is the only effective battle strategy. Colonization was once necessary to support the best tools we had. Those tools (a colony of humans) has been superceed by something technically superior (and also costs less) - machines.

The argument is that we must colonize it. The argument is based in obsolete biases - an emotion. Logic says colonization has been made obsolete by what is far more important - technological advancement.

BTW, the cost of a human mission could easily finance about 100 robotic missions. But that is not the point. Each robotic mission accomplishes as much or more than a humanized mission.

I keep waiting for an official notice I can link to so I can brag here, but my brother just won a contest held by NASA to come up with an inventive way to build a Mars habitat that is super light to launch. His solution to your fuel problem to to just bring mylar forms in the shape of an igloo, and land on a part of Mars that has some water under the dirt. Melt the water, make mud with the martian soil, and pour it into the mylar form where it can freeze into an igloo shape. I read his paper and it sounds more technical and impressive than what I just wrote, but that's about it. Frozen mud igloos on Mars. Insulated, pressurized, and furnished on the inside of course. The main hurdle is energy once you get there. And as solar cells improve, that would have to be the answer.

That's cool! Yes energy would be a biggie on the gotta have list. Powering the pressurization and air locks, is critical. Without heat nobody would want to get naked, so wouldn't make babies fast enough to feed the colonists.

Try reading that again.

Forget it glatt, what your wrote doesn't fit his agenda. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the input Skynet.

Please regard this as an attempt at humor.
sincerely,
John Conner

Point was not to colonized a place with living creatures. The point was always an advancement of mankind. That was obvious.

You conclusion was not explicit. Therefore a reply with an explicit response to one possible interpretation was posted. Clearly stating whether the objective is to colonize with humans or with machines. Humans colonization on Mars is only desired when one ignores the objective - the advancement of mankind.

BTW, build that igloo deploying 3D printers. On earth, 3D printers are even building bridges. Construction that means other machines can do best science - without humans. Deploying humans to build that igloo is unproductive.

No problem with water. For humans to arrive healthy means that spacecraft may need be surrounded with six feet of water - to protect astronauts from radiation. Plenty of water. But then shortages (for man or machine) is in energy (not water).

YOUR objective - the advancement of mankind.
And your dedication to that objective has caused you to miss the entire point of the discussion, as usual.

I suggest you edumacate yourself here, and here, and here.

Personally I think the whole thing is stupid, but they can attempt to do anything they want... on their nickel.

I saw the point of the discussion. The underlying reasons for the discussion are flawed and therefore bogus.

Why do you think it is stupid? If you cannot say why, then that opinion has no credibility and no relevance.

...I gather you two have a history together? :p:

If the point was to expand our industrial capacity, resources or even knowledge, then mars would make for a pretty horrible target compared to almost any other place in our solar system. Asteroids & comets, rocky planets & moons, those would be the places you'd have a lot less in the way.

The point of our endeavors on earth-like planets would be the same as any other living organism's - to create copies of itself - just on a much larger scale. That point can be greatly aided by machines, but it can't be fulfilled by machines.

You don't know the story about the tar baby, do you?

I am pretty sure I've had my chance to perform all the roles in that play - the rabbit, the baby, the place the rabbit was running too and the prankster who placed the tar baby in the first place.

This feels like it should be an avenue Q song..

Everybody is somebody's troll
You believe in what you say
But to them you seem so repetitively doll
When echo chambers are stretching Poe's law effect
Your sane is someones crazy shit from a bat

I... completely forgot the music I was imagining with this a second ago. Freaking actual work interfering while I am on the job.