Mars Rising Should we go to Mars?
#1
Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:43 PM
As my love for Earth science, Planetary science on a whole increased my views on agencies such as NASA, ESA and RKA changed with time. I could write up paragraphs on the reasons why I passionately love them now, but this topic is about Mars.
Should we go to Mars? A 6 part series currently showing on The Science Channel has opened my eyes even more that possibly another space race has begun. By 2030, the agencies I listed above hope to launch a manned mission to Mars which surely will be the most daring, and difficult task mankind has attempted.
But should we take the risk? Currently, the failure rate is at 1/10 to 1/5 for a manned mission to Mars. There are tremendously difficult problems Earth's smartest are unable to solve, and we know there wouldn't be any rescue mission for the human cargo.
Do you believe it is worth the resources and money to visit Mars, to answer the question "Is there life outside Earth?"
#2
Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:50 PM
Seriously going to Mars? what a joke. they've not proved that they've been on the moon....
#3
Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:50 PM
#4
Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:03 PM
#5
Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:12 PM
If people die because of it, I would be sad, but it wouldn't matter much if they were volunteers. Every Astronaught knows there is a significant risk in going to space.
I definatly think Humanity should head for Mars. Think about it. An entire new world for us to explore!
#6
Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:47 PM
#7
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:14 PM
DarkSword, on Nov 8 2007, 02:12 AM, said:
so you see the abduction and murder of volunteer workers in war torn countries as "not much of a loss"?
anyway topic, the cost of the space exploration project is enough to make everyone on Earth millionaires
#9
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:19 PM
#10
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:23 PM
DarkSword, on Nov 8 2007, 02:12 AM, said:
Darksword seems to have a carefree view on the lives of volunteers so i thought i'd quiz him on something a little closer to home
#11
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:35 PM
#12
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:36 PM
laharl the slayer, on Nov 8 2007, 12:14 AM, said:
anyway topic, the cost of the space exploration project is enough to make everyone on Earth millionaires
He's saying that they volunteered for a program that they knew carried a significant risk of death. I don't think that makes it any less of a loss, but I know where he's coming from. And second, don't exaggerate. Enough money to make everyone on Earth Millionares would be Six quadrillion Dollars. ($6,000,000,000,000,000.00) That kind of money doesn't even exsist. The space program uses less than one percent of the federal budget. Stop belly-aching about it. Go to some other topic and belly-ache about the 30-40% we spend of defense.
#13
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:47 PM
Hence why I said "we", meaning mankind, not NASA. But what the heck, I forgot the world revolves around the USA...
#14
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:49 PM
I can imagine NASA going solo. We got to the Moon, didn't we?
EDIT: Of course, I don't like the idea of a Mars settlement being a simple terrestrial extention of the USA. I prefer to imagine a Martian country being an indipendant government. However, I doubt we'll see that happening soon.
#15
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:51 PM
.eugine, on Nov 7 2007, 11:47 PM, said:
Hence why I said "we", meaning mankind, not NASA. But what the heck, I forgot the world revolves around the USA...
Personaly, I think it will be private industries that take us to Mars. NASA is getting dated and bogged down by burecratic BS, making it quite a waste of money. If private companies take over the space industry, then maybe we can acctualy get to Mars instead of just talking about it.
#16
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:52 PM
Platinum Sun, on Nov 8 2007, 04:36 AM, said:
Pendaticism FTW
Thirty billion dollars is hardly light spending....
They have never been back to the moon (provided they went in the first place) so why take on an even less likely project?
the chances are any early colonisation attempts would most likely result in failure and death. It's not exactly close either...
#17
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:56 PM
- finish ISS
- design new craft to replace the current space shuttles
- retire the shuttle fleet
- go back to the moon
- go to Mars
#18
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:57 PM
DarkSword, on Nov 8 2007, 12:49 AM, said:
Well, I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but like I said I think it's very impractical.
A bit of research points to 1 trillion for a manned mission to Mars. That's a huge cost... Would any government be willing to give 1 trillion dollars of tax payers money for a mission that has a failure rate I mentioned?
#19
Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:59 PM
#20
Posted 07 November 2007 - 11:00 PM
.eugine, on Nov 7 2007, 11:57 PM, said:
A bit of research points to 1 trillion for a manned mission to Mars. That's a huge cost... Would any government be willing to give 1 trillion dollars of tax payers money for a mission that has a failure rate I mentioned?
Thus the reason private companies should be doing it. Hell, Bill Gates could afford to fund a mission to Mars if he so choose.
#21
Posted 08 November 2007 - 12:39 AM
A trillion dollars is an insane lot of money. Though I think Mars would be a great step for mankind, I'm liking the Lunar base idea more.
#22
Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:25 PM
Saturos Striker, on Nov 8 2007, 03:39 AM, said:
A trillion dollars is an insane lot of money. Though I think Mars would be a great step for mankind, I'm liking the Lunar base idea more.
I think he has a lot more. His house and its contents are worth about 50 billion(or was that million?)
#23
Posted 09 November 2007 - 12:44 AM
Anyway, I'm for a mission to mars. I"m not quite sure what we'll get out of it, besides more advanced space traveling technology (which could possibly make our space shuttles safer and more reliable), and I'd actually much rather see another trip to the moon to mine for Helium 3 which would make a GREAT energy source, and could decrease energy costs, but a mars mission would be interesting. It'd also put to rest some questions I suppose.
#24
Posted 02 January 2008 - 04:20 PM
#25
Posted 02 January 2008 - 05:04 PM
#26
Posted 02 January 2008 - 07:07 PM
#27
Posted 02 January 2008 - 07:10 PM
#30
Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:00 PM
#31
Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:06 PM
#32
Posted 03 January 2008 - 07:28 PM
Assuming mankind doesn't extinct our specie, I hope in the next 500 years we are a interplanetary specie. I think it's very selfish to not prepare for the upcoming, distant generations, and we know in the distant future also, Earth will not be habitable.
I always say to myself, I was born in the wrong generation..
#33
Posted 03 January 2008 - 08:35 PM
#34
Posted 07 January 2008 - 11:59 PM
#35
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:57 AM
Mars is about half the size of earth, it's not that big, seriously.
Mars is no longer vulcanicly active making it a total wasteland, So it would cost us alot of time and money to build large enviroments that will be viable for us.
#36
Posted 11 January 2008 - 04:30 PM
Kuchiyose, on Jan 2 2008, 02:20 PM, said:
Wtf? A ride to Mars only takes something like a couple of months. It'd take us 5 billion years to get to another solar system anyways. And besides, you don't really understand how old our solar system is, do you? Halfway though it may be, we still got 5 billion years left or so. And by then, well either have killed each other off, or we'll be long gone.
Mars is the next logical step. Proceedures for colonising a new planet would be improved. New techologies for alien environments would be created. It would be plain stupid to just go out to the first solar system we find and attempt to land on it. Hell, we haven't even found any other habitable ones yet!
And i'd love to here about our plans for colonising Jupter. What with it's incredible gravity and lack of a surface, i'm sure it would be easy.
#37
Posted 11 January 2008 - 04:42 PM
Just going to take 5 million light years to get there.
And I didn't mean get rid of the idea of going to mars, just i thought they should research other planets in other solar systems. ?
I vote we nuke our selfs some how. Actually no I don't really know how old this solar system, except the Sun is what holds all life together (well for us that is).
#38
Posted 11 January 2008 - 07:27 PM
#39
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:30 PM
We've already been to Mars. I see little usefulness in walking around on a planet we visited with robots. No, Terraforming has a future IMO.
#40
Posted 11 January 2008 - 08:53 PM
Anyway, I want us to go to Mars because (shorterm only):
- Can help answer the question - "Is there life outside Earth?"
- The technology used to get to Mars will eventually be useful on Earth.
- Research impossible on Earth, can possibly happen on Mars. People underestimate how space science has helped Biology and medicine
- Mars would possibly be the Geologist holy grail. Understanding Mars will give Geologists many answers about Earth. We'll probably finally be able to understand what 'killed' Mars, and try to prevent Earth from suffering the same fate.
- Who knows, Mars possibly has elements that will be more useful than all the elements on Earth.
There are many more I'm sure.
#41
Posted 12 January 2008 - 05:09 AM
#44
Posted 27 January 2008 - 01:49 PM
.eugine, on Nov 8 2007, 02:43 AM, said:
As my love for Earth science, Planetary science on a whole increased my views on agencies such as NASA, ESA and RKA changed with time. I could write up paragraphs on the reasons why I passionately love them now, but this topic is about Mars.
Should we go to Mars? A 6 part series currently showing on The Science Channel has opened my eyes even more that possibly another space race has begun. By 2030, the agencies I listed above hope to launch a manned mission to Mars which surely will be the most daring, and difficult task mankind has attempted.
But should we take the risk? Currently, the failure rate is at 1/10 to 1/5 for a manned mission to Mars. There are tremendously difficult problems Earth's smartest are unable to solve, and we know there wouldn't be any rescue mission for the human cargo.
Do you believe it is worth the resources and money to visit Mars, to answer the question "Is there life outside Earth?"
Right now it's not worth the money IMO. I mean, there would be an expensive Mars mission, which would then fail, and 5 years after that (with science progressing faster and faster like it does) such a mission would cost like less then a quarter of the other one, while being safer etc.
escout, on Jan 3 2008, 02:47 AM, said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...ars-772418.html
=P
I believe everyone on these forums will be still alive after 500 years. Just look at all the new discoveries and the progress in genetics, medicine, robotics....
Aging is a disase, and I think we will be able to stop it in some decades =)
The human lifespan was increasing with science progressing through history, why would this stop now?
Another interesting link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22651648/
.eugine, on Jan 4 2008, 02:28 AM, said:
Assuming mankind doesn't extinct our specie, I hope in the next 500 years we are a interplanetary specie. I think it's very selfish to not prepare for the upcoming, distant generations, and we know in the distant future also, Earth will not be habitable.
I always say to myself, I was born in the wrong generation..
I'm so happy that i was born in this generation =D
PS: why do you think won't Earth be habitable (excluding that humanity destroys itself of course)?
.eugine, on Jan 12 2008, 03:53 AM, said:
Anyway, I want us to go to Mars because (shorterm only):
- Can help answer the question - "Is there life outside Earth?"
- The technology used to get to Mars will eventually be useful on Earth.
- Research impossible on Earth, can possibly happen on Mars. People underestimate how space science has helped Biology and medicine
- Mars would possibly be the Geologist holy grail. Understanding Mars will give Geologists many answers about Earth. We'll probably finally be able to understand what 'killed' Mars, and try to prevent Earth from suffering the same fate.
- Who knows, Mars possibly has elements that will be more useful than all the elements on Earth.
There are many more I'm sure.
I don't see any need to send humans to Mars in this.
Love & peace to everyone
SC
#45
Posted 27 January 2008 - 02:07 PM
Saiph Charon, on Jan 27 2008, 02:49 PM, said:
I don't see any need to send humans to Mars in this.
Love & peace to everyone
SC
Earth is slowly decaying, and we will die out, long before the Earth dies, so gonig to Mars may save people. Not saying it will happen anytiem soon, but it will happen.
#46
Posted 27 January 2008 - 07:29 PM
Quote
NASA isn't going to Mars tomorrow fyi. Also technology is always improving, so using your analogy we would never get to Mars since it is inevitable for current technology to become outdated.
Quote
Quote
#47
Posted 27 January 2008 - 11:24 PM
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 02:29 AM, said:
(however shallow my knowledge may be, I'll try to respond ^^).
NASA isn't going to Mars tomorrow fyi. Also technology is always improving, so using your analogy we would never get to Mars since it is inevitable for current technology to become outdated.
I was talking about in the very distant future when scientists predict the sun will consume the Earth at the end of its lifetime. That's in about 5 billion years x3
Really? Why so?
I know it won't happen tommorow or so LOL. But i just tried to explain that we should wait till science reaches a point where a mars mission wouldn't be something so expensive.
Oh, I didn't see you used the word distant there.
All the things people listed here, that would help if we went to Mars, can be done by just sending more robots there. I don't see a need, so someone should give reasons why, not me why not.
=)
#48
Posted 27 January 2008 - 11:56 PM
Can help answer the question - "Is there life outside Earth?"
Current generation robots aren't sophisticated enough to pick up evidence of life. Yeah, they may be able to take pictures of the surface and set it back to Earth for analysis, but we need humans to search caves, dig through to Martian surface, and also bring back fossils (if they have) for detailed analysis on Earth. I doubt robots can do everything
The technology used to get to Mars will eventually be useful on Earth.
There are numerous advancements in technology solely because of the Mars mission. Eg, the "Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket" as Sheba informed me, is finally being recognised and perfected because of the Mars mission.
Research impossible on Earth, can possibly happen on Mars. People underestimate how space science has helped Biology and medicine
How exactly would rovers carry out the experiments for humans?
Mars would possibly be the Geologist holy grail. Understanding Mars will give Geologists many answers about Earth. We'll probably finally be able to understand what 'killed' Mars, and try to prevent Earth from suffering the same fate.
Well, why don't we just send some robots to the Grand Canyon, or the desert, and let them do the research for us? We need Geologists there to classify the rock strata, and there is no way in hell I'm letting robots do my job x3.
Who knows, Mars possibly has elements that will be more useful than all the elements on Earth.
Well, if the robots were sophisticated enough to find places with potentially important elements, get to the lucrative soil, drill the surface, test the soil for the elements they need, collect them, and fly back to Earth without any local assistance, then we really do not need humans :wacko:
#49
Posted 28 January 2008 - 02:30 PM
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:
Maybe I didn't explain it clear enough.
What I am trying to say is that, at the moment (not today, i mean more like this decade) the stage of space travel technology is just to low to get serious about. travelling time to Mars is in months for now. If we let science progress some years, it will probably discover something that would make it right into hours. After that noone will say, let's wait till it gets to minutes... maybe someone will, but it wouldn't make a big difference or a lot of sense, at when we are talking about just to prove we're able to send people to mars.
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:
Current generation robots aren't sophisticated enough to pick up evidence of life. Yeah, they may be able to take pictures of the surface and set it back to Earth for analysis, but we need humans to search caves, dig through to Martian surface, and also bring back fossils (if they have) for detailed analysis on Earth. I doubt robots can do everything
Everything a human being is capable of, a robot/computer can be programmed for. And it's not just that, robots/computers can do everything alot better!
Example:
A human send there to search for life, would touch some rocks and say, they're hard =P
A robot send there for that, would analyse the molecular structure of the same rock and prove it's not even near the complexity of life.
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:
There are numerous advancements in technology solely because of the Mars mission. Eg, the "Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket" as Sheba informed me, is finally being recognised and perfected because of the Mars mission.
Great!
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:
How exactly would rovers carry out the experiments for humans?
Why just rovers? Build robots specific for such experiments and put them up there.
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:
Well, why don't we just send some robots to the Grand Canyon, or the desert, and let them do the research for us? We need Geologists there to classify the rock strata, and there is no way in hell I'm letting robots do my job x3.
We don't build robots which would be able to clasify the rock strata at the grand canyon, because it's not a problem to send humans there =)
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:
Well, if the robots were sophisticated enough to find places with potentially important elements, get to the lucrative soil, drill the surface, test the soil for the elements they need, collect them, and fly back to Earth without any local assistance, then we really do not need humans :P
Are you saying such robots are impossible to create? Humans would obviously still be needed for this, but they don't need to be on Mars to be able to control and look after the robot.
Wishing love to everyone =)
#50
Posted 28 January 2008 - 03:02 PM
Quote
1) Governments change, budgets change. Who knows, maybe the next US government decreases the budget for NASA, so it's best NASA trys when they have the opportunity to. A missed opportunity is a bad one.
2) That's like saying - Don't buy a new PC, car, or a new television, or a new gaming system, or don't do any scientific research cuz the technology would be outdated eventually. Why don't you just sell your computer until you are like 99 year old? Cuz obviously the one in the future would be more advanced. You use what you have to make the technology of 2moro better.
3) How exactly do you want technology to develop without using current ones? Trying to get to Mars would allow engineers to understand space flights and propulsion better cuz people learn best through experience.
Quote
Actually, no, you are right. Robots of today can obviously drive me to school, construct buildings, fix roads, and the countless amount of tasks without human communication! Even if it was possible, commands take about 30mins to reach robots on Mars, so it would be very inefficient.
Quote
A human send there to search for life, would touch some rocks and say, they're hard =P
A robot send there for that, would analyse the molecular structure of the same rock and prove it's not even near the complexity of life.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Anyway, I'm not defending my points again. NASA knows better than both of us, and they think it's best for humans to to go to Mars.
If you think you know better than NASA, go be the admin there.
Wishing love to everyone =)
#51
Posted 28 January 2008 - 04:27 PM
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 10:02 PM, said:
Yes it is always improving.
Like I said, I want us to go after at least one great space-travel-improving discovery. With the one available to us now it's just really too risky! A lot of cash, risk some peoples life, it's just not worth with that =(
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 10:02 PM, said:
2) That's like saying - Don't buy a new PC, car, or a new television, or a new gaming system, or don't do any scientific research cuz the technology would be outdated eventually. Why don't you just sell your computer until you are like 99 year old? Cuz obviously the one in the future would be more advanced. You use what you have to make the technology of 2moro better.
3) How exactly do you want technology to develop without using current ones? Trying to get to Mars would allow engineers to understand space flights and propulsion better cuz people learn best through experience.
1) Right.
2) I think it's more like saying: hey the 1st car was created, should i buy this one for a lot of cash, or wait some time till they get mass produced and officialy sold to public?
3) With using current ones is a great way =), but not by using them right off to the most possible extreme levels... lets go building a laboratory on the moon first or something =/
.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 10:02 PM, said:
Actually, no, you are right. Robots of today can obviously drive me to school, construct buildings, fix roads, and the countless amount of tasks without human communication! Even if it was possible, commands take about 30mins to reach robots on Mars, so it would be very inefficient.
Humans wouldn't go to Mars alone obviously. They would be robots assisting us in mostly every task we do. It would be more practical for us to communicate with the robots in real time, rather than the 30 minutes delay.
You need to stop watch Star Wars and Matrix. Experiments don't work so in real life. There is a need for human input in experiments, and technology.
Maybe there are better solutions to that
It wouldn't be a problem on Mars either, if we didn't have pessimistic people like you living.
It's not impossible. Current technology just isn't sophisticated for these type of work, and also, let us not forget communication delays.
Anyway, I'm not defending my points again. NASA knows better than both of us, and they think it's best for humans to to go to Mars.
If you think you know better than NASA, go be the admin there.
Wishing love to everyone =)
Yep.
No I don't think i'm smarter than NASA lol.
They want to send people there in 2030 IIRC
Thats alot of time->alot of changes, discoveries....
I think people will walk on Mars even before that =D
PS: I never watched matrix actually =(
Peace & Love
#52
Posted 28 January 2008 - 04:39 PM
NASA (dunno about the ESA and RSA honestly) plans to return to the moon before heading to Mars fyi. It's obviously the next logicial step.
Quote
Thats alot of time->alot of changes, discoveries....
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...ils-emerge.html
Chaos subtract hate.