The utility here is not really landing on other planets, but instead the order of magnitude decrease in launch costs if they don't have to build a new first stage for every launch.
This could theoretically be achieved by either means. The question was specifically why a vertical landing is favoured over a cushioned inflatable landing.
Musk has stated in the past that they're looking to eventually use this tech to create rockets which can be used on Mars, hence why parachutes and inflatables are out of the question.
I'm wondering if there's been something lost in translation there, though. The word, in Western understanding, means holy war, but a more apt translation is "struggle", in the same connotation that one would struggle with a cigarette addiction or the like. Extremist groups have claimed the word for more violent connotations, but traditionally is more like a burden that one struggles against.
That's why I thought it was astute of Zarif to use the term in a way that would encourage western audiences to re-evaluate the concept outside of the terrorism frame that people try to erect around it. I get the sense that jihad has a great deal in common with Kantian notions of duty.
I just completed a degree in physics from his university, actually. I can think of a few reasons:
1. He wanted to be 100% sure about the data and not rush it, especially if it could be an error with the instruments
2. He has funding for other projects that needed to be worked on in the mean time, and didn't have a lot of time to devote to this work (this can make #1 take longer)
I'm mostly just curious about who would enforce the ban. Is there really any enforcement agency that will police the others, when they all benefit from surveillance? I just don't trust that we could ever really be sure that it's been shut down.
FBI. Not only is it a primary function, but they are always quick to downplay NSA contributions whenever the NSA tries to get credit for helping to stop something.
Mars would almost certainly require a small rocket to get to orbit, but it would be trivially sized compared to what we need on Earth. Even something as small as the Atlas rockets that brought the first Americans to space would probably be overpowered compared to Mars' small gravity well. Throw in atmospheric losses less than a hundredth of that on Earth and suddenly space becomes very accessible.
I don't think it is so much an issue of ability so much as desire. Most of the tech has been dreamed up for decades, but it needs funding and a green light (particularly the nuclear reactor, given that there were protests about even Curiosity's RTG).
Personally, I think there's a huge amount of talent just waiting for the right moment to strike, and then the whole Mars thing is going to burst right open.
I'm going to ignore so many things in this post and just point out that there is not enough material in the asteroid belt to create another planet. All said, the asteroid belt is about 4.5% the mass of the moon, or a quarter of Pluto [0].
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the statistics and distances involved here. Millions of civilizations? Only if you take the most optimistic of all statistical stretches. I personally think that there are at most a dozen civilizations that are within our technological range +- 10,000 years (really generous given the enormity of time) and the speed of light conspires to keep them forever beyond our reach.
