The US ought to establish an independently viable colony on Mars by 2070

Thanks, lannan I. Framework: Utilitarianism A. Mars colonization does not serve as a utilitarian solution to climate change. Essentially, Pro"s plan is to save a lucky few and abandon the overwhelming majority to starve and cook on a dying planet. Isn't that the opposite of a utilitarian approach? 1. Pro never posited a quantity for settlers but let"s say 7,000. Let"s say the US chooses to ignore our manifest unpreparedness and make colonization of 7,000 lucky Martian explorers in 50 years our immediate and wildly optimistic priority. That makes less than one survivor for every million dead humans not to mention the mass extinction of most flora and fauna. 2. Considering the scale of such an expedition- the requisite trillions of dollars, the shifts in production, the inevitable social disruption; we have to ask ourselves whether such effort would not be better devoted to mitigating climate change and preparing for the survival of the largest possible number of Americans. If we try both and fail, we will wonder whether the Martian effort made the margin of survival less achievable- if Mars might have made the difference. B. After all, Pro"s argument only works if we accept that climate change is beyond our capacity to curtail or that an unlivable Earth is inevitable. Scientific consensus is hardly so pessimistic. Aren"t our chances for long term survival as a species best improved by sustaining the ecology of the environment to which we are presently evolutionarily adapted? C. Further, there"s little evidence suggesting that a Martian colony could long sustain itself without re-supply from Earth. Present HI-SEAS simulations are small in scale: 4-6 people resupplied every 2 weeks. They come nowhere near emulating Martian gravity, radiation, dust storms, etc. And they regularly experience failures: the latest HI-SEAS experiment was halted 4 days in to an 8 month test. [1] If we can"t save Earth there"s no evidence that a Martian colony would not fail soon after. D. Nor is Mars necessarily the most utilitarian alternative. The Moon would be cheaper to colonize, allowing for more rapid expansion. We could save more humans by fleeing to the Moon. II. Science Leadership A. We agree that excellence in STEM education is vital to US prosperity. However, that excellence is not necessarily dependent on a Martian project. 1. Alternative projects such as ecological preservation, curing disease, robotics, AI, and sustainable energy are equally inspirational, equally contributive to technological and economic growth and more immediately likely to improve human happiness. 2. Mars suffers a disadvantage to these alternatives in that a failed Martian colony might harm US reputation and by extension, prosperity. B. Since unilateral colonization of Mars is illegal (Round 2- I. A.) the US would be handing China a fairly solid casus belli, increasing the risk of war more immediately than any deterrence by technological achievement. 1. If deterring China is seen a priority, then defense spending is more likely to produce deterrence than a Martian colony in the way defense spending during the Cold War was a more effective deterrent than the Apollo Program, however much interrelated. III. Colonization Possible Now A. Pro"s statement: "Contrary to popular belief, we are able to colonize now. Many people will constantly talk about how it would take forever to get there, but the Space-X Falcone-9 Rocket can get us there in 6 months" time to begin colonization," is wrong on both counts. 1. Most Americans have believed since the Moon landing that the technology exists to establish a colony on Mars. 2. And also the technology does not exist or at least, it does not exist quite yet. Pro cites Falcon Heavy as a Mars ready rocket but even that preliminary is not quite yet true. a) Falcon Heavy conducted its first and only test launch last month, 5 years behind SpaceX"s originally planned launch date. [2] b) Falcon Heavy"s main booster was supposed to land on a remotely piloted platform ship in the ocean. 2 of 3 engines failed to ignite so the booster crashed into the ocean at 300 mph, missing the ship but damaging it with crash shrapnel. [3] c) Falcon Heavy"s test payload was Elon Musk"s midnight cherry Tesla Roadster with a dummy spacesuit in the driver"s seat. SpaceX"s planned trajectory for this payload calculated aphelion to about Mars orbit at 1.5 AU witha near-Earth fly-by anticipated in 2091. [4] However, the test launch actually overshot this target by about 40%. Aphelion will now be around 1.7 AU and won"t approach Earth in our lifetimes. [5] d) Note that a failed controlled descent would mean quick death for any human payload. Mars colonists on a ship that overshot trajectory by .2 AU would know immediately after launch that they were doomed, committed beyond rescue to a slow death narrated by news television and grim press conferences. (1) Astronomers estimate that solar radiation will burn away the tires, paint, plastic, and leather of the Roadster over the next year, leaving only the aluminum frame to serve as a caution to astronauts who would risk exposure without developing and testing maximal protection on the road to Mars. [5] 3. Musk has confirmed that SpaceX will not apply for a human rating certification for the Falcon Heavy- a necessary preliminary for any manned flight. [6] So Falcon rockets are not Mars ready and not planned to ever be. B. A 17 metric ton payload is not a Mars colony ready size- that"s only a little more than the weight of an average communications satellite. [7] For comparison, the International Space Station weighs 419 metric tons and we are going to need to send far more equipment and supplies than the ISS. [8] C: Pro states: "NASA has already developed food that is able to be grown on Mars and the ability to make the Red Planet a hospital able one". 1. No it hasn"t. Preliminary tests indicate Martian soil is mostly rust and alkali salts. [9] 2. There"s nothing organic on Mars from which we might generate fertilizer. Using human waste is a substantial vector for disease. If we take Terran soil and fertilizer to Mars,, we"re going to need a lot. If we go by the old "one acre feeds one person" rule, [9] then each acre in of soil is about 2,024,458 lbs. Let"s say 4 colonists can meet their needs in 5 in of soil, that"s 18,300 metric tons or 1,076 Falcon Heavy payloads. Yes, we anticipate suubstantial innovations in agronomy to solve these challenges but we can't say we have that technology yet. IV. Rare Earth Metals A. There are no rare earth metals on Mars that can"t be mined more efficiently or in greater abundance from the asteroid belt. Pro"s own citation states as much. [10] 1. That 170m ton figure assumes that platinum is as common on Mars as on asteroids - an entirely unsupported speculation. a) We have no geologic samples from Mars- we"ve examined some spectroscopic samples remotely and we have a few probable Martian meteorites. That"s it. Nor has platinum been found in any of these samples. [11] (1) Russia and China have made 3 attempts to gather samples from the Martian moon Phobos. All 3 missions failed before a landing could be attempted. 2. Seizing precious metals out of territories held in common with rival nations is theft, another potential casus belli with China and/or other nations, perhaps allied against US agression. 3. According to Pro's source, more than half of platinum mined goes into catalytic converters, fossil fuel technology we probably won't want or need in 50 years. B. Nothing can be mined on Mars that might presently justify the cost of transport back to earth. [11] I look forward to Pro's counterarguments. Please find citations in comments.