Even if that's the case, I still don't think it does anything to validate taking the defeatist route and not even trying.
We have limited resources, and every investment is a tradeoff. We can play with rockets, but how does SpaceX solve the problem of humans living with much less gravity than Earth, for example? It seems to me that this is a vastly greater problem than traveling to another celestial body.
Has anyone ever conceived a child off the Earth, much less given birth or raised one? Don’t talk to me about space colonies until we’ve done that.
As for the problems, we solve them like we always have: one at a time. Additionally, some of these things haven't even yet been studied to the extent necessary to take a crack at solving them. Taking the humans in microgravity problem as an example, we know it's a problem but have done precious little in figuring out things like exactly where the minimum threshold sits for gravity, whether simulated gravity via centrifugal force is adequate, etc.
I do think that SpaceX is jumping the gun a bit. I'd rather take it a touch more slowly and first do things like put a centrifugal space station in orbit to perform studies on. That said, after how crewed spaceflight beyond earth's orbit came to a screeching halt with the end of the Apollo program, it feels like a miracle to be getting anything.
This statement is too hand-wavy, and I doubt that "nobody" bats an eye. Do you have specific examples?
Also, there's no reason why overspending in some areas should be redirected to the space program rather than to vital, underfunded problems on Earth. Again, it's always a tradeoff.
Many things could be funded if that were cleaned up, and even if none of that cash goes towards space it reduces pressure to further cut existing funding toward it which would still be a massive win.
No, because you said, "nobody bats an eye about any of that", which is not even remotely true of military spending.
It's worth noting that the Apollo space program was controversial in its day, simultaneous with prominent civil rights movements, because it was felt that the government was ignoring the economic problems of minorities, for instance, in order to put white guys on the Moon and play golf.
I mean, it must not be taken that seriously because little has been done to change it. Instead, just about everything else gets constantly gets chipped away at to significant fanfare.
And yes I'm aware of the controversy that surrounded the Apollo program and to a large degree empathize, but even at that point in time we probably could've found a way to walk and chew bubblegum if we really wanted it.
I'm probably as skeptical as most about a Martian colony - to my mind it's 100's of years but will almost certainly happen in that time frame. That said the amount that's being spent on it happening today seems about right.
I would also say that the money being spent now is working at engineering problems. Most (All?) of the vital underfunded problems on Earth that you allude to are political problems. I'm not saying money can't solve them but they are way more complicated.
I don't know. Too much, probably. Certainly there's too much land devoted to golf courses. However, "humans should not spend money on leisure activities" would not be a serious proposal. Should we never enjoy life? I suspect that even people who are hungry and homeless also aspire to enjoy leisure activities in addition to having food and shelter.
If we could go to Mars only by abolishing fun then to hell with Mars.
> I'm probably as skeptical as most about a Martian colony - to my mind it's 100's of years but will almost certainly happen in that time frame.
No, you are definitely not as skeptical as most.
Now there exists some evidence about that threshold.
Experiments with mice on the ISS have shown that at least for them a third of the terrestrial gravity is necessary for avoiding severe health problems and two thirds of terrestrial gravity is the threshold necessary for avoiding all health problems.
That means that even the gravity at the surface of Mars is likely to be insufficient for avoiding all health problems.
This does not mean that travel through the Solar System or life on Mars or on the Moon are impossible, but it means that for any of these it is necessary to use rotation to provide artificial gravity for the spaces where humans will spend most of the time.
This will increase costs for spaceships or for surface bases, but technically it is a relatively easy problem to solve in comparison with the efficient recycling of all materials.
Sometimes it make lot of sense not to even try. I mean technically we could save a few lives in northern countries during winter by heating all roads in such a way that there is no ice or snow... Doable maybe... But not worth trying...
By the same token "we don't want to be defeated" isn't a good reason to create a planetary exploration timeline driven by false urgency. Mars isn't going anywhere.
And yes, Mars is not going anywhere, but the same cannot so confidently be said about our ability to get there. Our species has been capable of spaceflight for a tiny fraction of our existence and there is plenty of precedent for catastrophic loss of knowledge and capability.
tl;dr There is no reality in which it's easier or more reliable to "back up the species elsewhere" than it is to act in our interests here. That doesn't imply shutting ourselves off from space, but it means treating it more like the deep ocean where rovers and drones are simply a better fit for such hostile environments. I'm hopeful that will change someday, but anyone who's thinking in terms of decades doesn't understand the scope and depth of the problem.
My recommendation is to read some of the books and articles suggested in this thread before imposing your wishes on reality.
> I'm hopeful that will change someday
And part of my point is that these things don't just magically change on their own, but because a lot of smart people are actively working on changing them. Absent those efforts, the status quo remains.
In the case that we don't lose our ability to get into space, cool, development in that field gets a bit of an earlier start. If we knock ourselves back into the Stone Age, well, at least we can say we tried our best in that small window of time. The worst outcome is losing the ability without having even tried.