Commented this and got flagged:
“We need boots on the ground to back the good science behind these findings.”
Why is wanting to send people to mars to confirm or leverage these findings so offensive?
“We need boots on the ground to back the good science behind these findings.”
Why is wanting to send people to mars to confirm or leverage these findings so offensive?
What also gets to me is that clearly people have done this cost-benefit analysis before - people that know a lot more about the topic than me. It lacks humility to ignore their reasoning (see https://spacenews.com/independent-report-concludes-2033-huma...).
How do we turn this into a meaningful political movement? My strongest pro argument in a political context is resource security and not having to rely on adversarial states. Economically, it means and endless supply of sources we need to build our increasingly complex devices. Also jobs. I see this as an existential benefit for advanced societies. But how do you bring this is front of average joes with the same intensity as current issues.
I feel like space investments are a lot more valuable than most of the stuff politicians care about nowadays, though, so I'd be interested to support a movement like that