> The point I made is you can never know the benefits.

Yes we can know the benefits, and for the exact example you mentioned, we did. It was pretty clear to every major seafaring nation, that securing as big a piece as possible of that new continent, would be very beneficial in terms of resources, generated taxes, and geopolitical power.

And we also know that there are no benefits for a Mars colony. It would be a giant resource sink, and, based on what we know now, probably never able to sustain itself without constant help from earth, making it useless as a "backup plan" in case of some global catastrophe on Earth. If Earth dies, martian colony dies with it.

> do you really believe we can detect and deflect a planet killer?

I know we successfully tested a method that could, with further refinement and development, have a fighting chance at deflecting one.

> So you don't want humanity to waste resources on space.

Waste? No.

Use for useful projects regarding space exploration and defending Earth against catastrophes? Gladly.

> And we also know that there are no benefits for a Mars colony

You seem to assume that, I disagree, to quote you: "would be very beneficial in terms of resources, generated taxes, and geopolitical power."

> It would be a giant resource sink

So were english colonies in america at first.

> probably never able to sustain itself without constant help from earth

Again, your assumption, what if you're wrong?, check out 'The Expanse' for what I think we might achieve long term.

> I know we successfully tested a method that could, with further refinement and development, have a fighting chance at deflecting one.

So your answer is no, we cannot right now or near future. You also didn't answer if we can even reliably detect such a threat...

> Use for useful projects regarding space exploration and defending Earth against catastrophes? Gladly.

Sure, let's spend resources on that too. Doesn't seem like we are though, perhaps we might need some inspiration in order to get it?, something like some mars colonies might do?

> I disagree

Your disagreement won't change the fact that there are no resources on Mars that we cannot already collect here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, and without constant risk of someone dying to explosive decompression.

> check out 'The Expanse'

I watched "Monsters Inc." at least a dozen times. I am still no closer to turning laughter into unlimited clean energy.

> So your answer is no

Nope. My answer is it works in theory and the principle has been successfully tested experimentally. That's alot more than can be said for the establishment of a Mars colony.

> You also didn't answer if we can even reliably detect such a threat...

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch

> something like some mars colonies might do?

Please, do explain how that interplay would work.

> the fact that there are no resources on Mars that we cannot already collect here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, and without constant risk of someone dying to explosive decompression.

How come you're so confident about this?

> I watched "Monsters Inc." at least a dozen times.

Ah, it's a 'win an internet argument' comment rather then have a discussion and think a bit.

The Expanse shows a possible future where the moon/mars and beyond were colonized, the implications and progress made and its problems, the comment was made to answer your question - what good can we get from it, which you confidently say there's none.

The previous Asimov book is a what if we never reached for the stars, something that seems like what you are advocating.

Both meant to perhaps share other ideas if you were so inclined to entertain.

> Nope. My answer is it works in theory and the principle has been successfully tested experimentally.

Ah, so still no, we cannot defend ourselves, rephrasing won't change the core idea you're expressing here.

> https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch

That still needs proper funding to achieve good coverage, we still detect asteroids way too late.

> Please, do explain how that interplay would work.

Check out Apollo program for past example.

> How come you're so confident about this?

Because Mars was created from the exact same stellar matter accretion as our own planet, and nothing we ever learned in 63 years of mission-capable Mars-Research gave even the slightest hint at any kind of Unobtainium there?

But hey, you know whos really good at figuring out if I'm wrong about that? Robotic probes on Mars. So let's send more of those that can do more science, instead of sending would-be colonists who can do very little science, because they would be very busy with trying-not-to-die-horribly.

> rather then have a discussion and think a bit.

A discussion about what exactly, the point of using SciFi series as arguments?

> Ah, so still no

I am not going to repeat myself.

> That still needs proper funding to achieve good coverage, we still detect asteroids way too late.

I agree. So how about we pump money into that instead?

> Check out Apollo program and what that did for the world.

Please answer my question. I asked specifically how, likely failing, attempts at building a Mars Colony could further asteroid defense research. Because the only impact I can see is a negative one: We waste billions on Mars, failing attempts with human casualties generate more bad press, public opinion shifts, politicians demand stricter budgets, the fallout drags down other space research in its wake.

But since you mentioned Apollo, here is what it did for the world: It gave 2 superpowers the chance to do their "who-got-the-largest-rocket" contest without blowing up humanity in the process. There is a reason why no human foot has touched the moon since the 70s.