Technology is inversely proportional to resources. If we can't get to Mars yet, that just means our technology isn't there. We need to work on that.
Just like working a few days at a job can afford may people a magical global communications device. That's technology so advanced it requires little resources to obtain. Mars can be the same, our tech just isn't there yet.
The article spends quite a bit of space discussing why building the tech we do need to get to mars is a waste of time and resources.
Summed up by this line quite nicely:
“ Humanity does not need a billion dollar shit dehydrator that can work for three years in zero gravity, but a Mars mission can’t leave Earth without it”
> Humanity does not need a billion dollar shit dehydrator
and yet, humanity also does not "need" laser stablized, automatic orbital docking (, except it was built just for the ISS so that docking modules can be done).
However, the fact that you can now have safe, cheap and effective laser eye surgery is a result of such technology being explored for one purpose, repurposed for new applications.
We did not need to spend the research dollars to figure out safety grooving to prevent hydroplaning, except that it was needed for the space shuttle landing (it went too fast otherwise). Now this research is applied to a lot of roads, as well as airports, and prevents skidding that would've otherwise happened: https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/40-years-of-nasa-spinoff/sa...
So the idea that "humans does not need blah" is not correct, because you don't know what humans need.
> So the idea that "humans does not need blah" is not correct, because you don't know what humans need.
Thing is, we do know what humans need. We need better battery technology, improved drugs and mental health, better power generation (such as nuclear fusion), and much more. Why spend so much time developing technology that may be useful but probably not, instead of developing something that is desperately needed right now?
> We need better battery technology, improved drugs and mental health, better power generation (such as nuclear fusion), and much more
how do you know that work on going to mars doesn't improve any of those?
And from another perspective, people like researching exciting things, and would prefer it over an unexciting field. Could you imagine someone being told to work on anti-hydroplaning for the onramp of a highway? Imagine talking about it to family/friends at a party.
But space exploration is fancy - people would want to listen to it, and you gain appreciation from them. But the outcome of the research is _still_ applicable to other fields.
So funding space exploration gets people excited, which would allow them to put more effort and soul into said research. You can't imagine how boring it is doing fundamental research otherwise.
It's not a zero sum game. Working on space tech does not preclude working on earth tech. I mean how many smart engineers in tech right now are working on improving advertising? And you're upset about a relative handful of engineers working on space tech?
If that funding were used on other technology, the people otherwise completely occupied with space tech would be working on... other technology. We don't have infinite resources, time, money, or brains.
> Thing is, we do know what humans need. We need better battery technology, improved drugs
You just demonstrated that you don't know - we dont need batteries spesifically, we need zero carbon power for vehicles, which can be done by fuel cells or plutonium or maybe something we haven't considered.
Same way before you would have asked for a faster oven, because you didn't even know a microwave is a possible concept
Research is not a restraurant menu, you dont get to choose what you will discover and how much it will cost
This argument comes up in these discussions quite frequently.
Yes, some of the research done for purpose A ends up being able to be re-used for purpose B.
It is not a compelling argument because:
1. We have no way of predicting how much or what technologies will be the useful ones or what they will be useful for
2. Any other scientific or engineering endeavor we do instead of sending humans into space, including a massive increase in building/sending robots into space, will have the same potential side effects
Just like working a few days at a job can afford may people a magical global communications device. That's technology so advanced it requires little resources to obtain. Mars can be the same, our tech just isn't there yet.