"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."<p>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.<p>If the entire ecosystem died out tomorrow and the atmosphere vanished into space, then Earth would still be more hospitable than Mars.<p>I think investing a few billion in spotting earth-vaporising comets would be a better investment from that point of view.<p>(for the difficulty of blowing up the earth, see yesterday's post; <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1446612" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1446612</a> )
Single page - <a href="http://www.technologyreview.in/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=25572&channel=computing&section=" rel="nofollow">http://www.technologyreview.in/printer_friendly_article.aspx...</a><p>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.<p>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.