Is Colonizing Mars an Imperative? Obama's New Space Strategy Says "Yes"

**Sol Invictus** · 02-04-2010, 09:09 AM

The Daily Galaxy | February 03, 2010

"I don't think the human race will survive the next 1,000 years unless we spread into space."
-Stephen Hawking

The Obama Administration unveiled its new far-sighted budget for NASA, which scraps moon missions but puts the focus on developing new space technologies, exploring the solar system with robots, and pushing humans closer to living offworld. All of which will be funded a budget increase to NASA of $6 billion over five years.

Under the new budget, we'd see a revamped NASA program focused on scientific innovation, rather than recreating old experiments. Specifically, as NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said: We will invent and demonstrate large-scale, new and novel approaches to spaceflight such as in-orbit fuel depots and rendezvous and docking technologies, and closed-loop life support systems so that our future robotic and human exploration missions are both highly capable and more affordable . . . as well as providing $3 billion over five years for robotic exploration precursor missions that will pave the way for later human exploration of the moon, Mars and nearby asteroids.

Read More Here

**Monolith** · 02-04-2010, 09:46 AM

Poor Mars

**Poltergeist** · 02-04-2010, 09:59 AM

I can't believe there are people who actually take this seriously. Colonizing Mars??? LOL

**The Lawspeaker** · 02-04-2010, 10:01 AM

And who is going to pay for that ridiculous folly ?
Yes.. it's the taxpayer.

**Monolith** · 02-04-2010, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Hermeticist

I can't believe there are people who actually take this seriously. Colonizing Mars??? LOL

Yeah, I also think humans have enough problems here on Earth as it is.

**Agrippa** · 02-04-2010, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Asega

And who is going to pay for that ridiculous folly ?
Yes.. it's the taxpayer.

I think you probably got it the wrong way. There is so much money around, made up by the FED and the banks, which needs to be invested. This is just a huge employment-creation measure if it becomes real and actually one of the better ones, because there are worse around.

This money needs to be invested and with so much bubbles around and the interest rates being high, new "emerging markets" on the Mars are just a viable option

The current financial system produces too much money with too little real values in comparison, its totally perverted but they need more investment for the money "to work".

**Liffrea** · 02-04-2010, 01:23 PM

I’ve studied various books on humanity’s future in space, my conclusion is we should endeavour to go off world…..but we probably won’t, at least not interstellar.

Space needs to pay, many make a case for “human curiosity” pushing back the boundaries, the reality is less prosaic, Columbus didn’t sail west just out of curiosity….he expected to become rich. Pragmatism often trumps romanticism, unless colonisation of space will equal return on the investment i.e. resource exploitation, then it simply won’t happen.

The moon, Mars and the asteroid belt do have resources and corporations may invest, if the returns are right and we have the technology, whether those ventures get under way depends on a civilisation being able to survive long enough and sustain a colonisation programme. Human technological progression has been…porous, stagnation of our current advancement is not impossible. As for advanced civilisation, history speaks for itself, stagnation and/or the barbarian hordes see them off in a thousand years or so.

The solar system could be opened up, and it will happen through competition, if it happens.

I’m less than optimistic about interstellar colonisation. FTL is only outer limits theory at best, which means any ventures would be below light speed i.e. once the ships set off they aren’t coming back and we aren’t going to sustain communication…..no government I know is likely to invest in that nor is any corporation either.