O
orzek
Guest
<font color="yellow">The biggest and most prevalent would be preservation of mankind in case of a global catastrophe on Earth. That could be a KT type asteroid or comet impact, or global nuclear war. It could also be what Stephen Hawking predicts, an unstoppable, global plague. If any of these events (and possibly others) occur, there will be no time to begin to establish a viable population off-Earth. Mankind will simply vanish from the Universe forever. Now, there are many people who really don’t care whether or not mankind as a species survives. Personally, I would be willing to invest a lot more in the assurance of the survival of mankind, than I would in most of the other proposed projects. </font><br /><br />I think that is probably the most stupidest idea I have ever heard. Mars will not be a good place to preserve mankind until a lot of investment in man and hardware is put on mars. Mars is too harsh of a planet to use as a second planet in the short term. It will take many decades and missions before mars will be self-sufficient.<br />That investment is not attractive to most people you using that line will most probably delay any mars mission. <br /><br />It is also very unlikely that we will be hit by a KT type asteroid or a comet in the near future. You should stop watching too many Scifi movies. The most likely threat will be from a meteorite that could destroy a city or a large area. Global nuclear war if it happens will happen within this century and happen most likely before any mars mission. Global plague is also unlikely to kill us all off, maybe a lot of people but not everyone. Nature does not work in absolute terms like that!<br /><br />If you want to waste time and make a mars mission unattractive to the vast majority of people then keep talking about global catastrophe and then we will NEVER go to mars!!!