>BOSS, SHOULD WE COLONIZE THAT GIANT, RADIOACTIVE, COLD, DUSTY, WHITE BALL THAT ORBITS REALLY CLOSE TO OUR PLANET AND HAS BARELY ANY WATER AND OXYGEN?
>No purpose on it. that worthless flying trash doesnt have anything of value. also in this age we cant fak-... i mean technology got lost years ago.
.
.
.
>BOSS, SHOULD WE COLONIZE THAT EXTRA GIANT, RADIOACTIVE, COLD, DUSTY, RED BALL THAT IS FAR AWAY AND HAS BARELY ANY WATER AND OXYGEN?
>Now thats a challenging and interesting goal. That flying meatball has a river of unusable water, yeah. Also, imagine sending a perfectly healthy human to die in total agony all alone without any way to return? That would be a gigantic step for science, just like when we stepped on the moon to collect dust and rocks. Hmmmm... mining that flying red dot and exporting the minerals to earth would be huge even though it would cost billions more than the minerals themselves, but it doesn't matter, the experts will raise the taxes and make the wagies pay for it.
>Oh I almost forgot about colonizing, ok listen. First we have to televise to the citizens how billions of their taxes explode and burn in "tests", later we send some animals and wh*tes to die there, then we'll send some robots that can't even walk properly to build something questionable, and then we'll finally go. I estimate we will have the proper technology to colonize mars in about 100 years, but we must rush the colonization process; by the decade of 2030, we'll send the first wh*te to die. Do NOT forget that this blue bubble someday will become a worthless flying shit with oxygen, water, and soil, because of that mars with its precious rocks, dust, and rocks will be the backup plan for the survival of the species.

>>16731161 (OP)
The difference is the distance from (You), that's what makes it all worth it.

I just want to live like in Cowboy Bebop.

>>16731490
Only in the context of expeditions, not colonization. Space colonization is a hilarious topic because even Antarctica is too harsh for us

>>16731161 (OP)
>>16731631

>>16731647
Go ahead, "white man", colonize Antarctica. It's waiting.

>>16731655
you promise you won't follow? I will shot you on sight if you do. Deal?

>>16731657
Last time white folks tried to start their own new country from scratch, it lasted a couple of days before it was invaded by Tonga. Whites didn't resist. Doubt you'll resist either.

>>16731161 (OP)
You are aware that the tax money spent on colonizing Mars does not literally explode on failure or end up on Mars, right? I mean, if Starship is give or take 200 tons, then it means the taxpayer will permanently lose whatever it cost to buy the raw materials (raw materials only, not the refined product). That's the only thing we shoot into space.

Hollowed out moons make great platforms for generational ships. Put an ecosystem there and accelerate that to 1% of the speed of light.
Milky way colonized within 10 to 15 million years

>>16732986
>then it means the taxpayer will permanently lose whatever it cost to buy the raw materials (raw materials only, not the refined product)
We lose all the money that it took to build it. For those who think money is fake: We lose the minerals, the labor required to build, the depreciation, wear and tear and the opportunity cost of the industrial plant required to build the spaceships, all the material consumption of the tens of thousands of people involved directly or indirectly in the construction who consoome but dedicate their lives to produce something of no use (unlike a common factory worker, who consoomes but also gives back products)

>>16731657
>you promise you won't follow?
Why dont you just conquer the earth instead?