[Eugine]

Years ago, if you asked me "What do I think of space exploration?" I would have answered "It's a waste of money and resources". I always thought these billions of dollars would have been more useful in combating poverty, and focusing on current issues such as education, housing etc. My views have changed dramatically.

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?"

[Laharl]

America spends billions on pointless wars and equally pointless space exploration then complains when it's economy is in a ****ing state.

Seriously going to Mars? what a joke. they've not proved that they've been on the moon....

[Quacnar]

I think there is life outside of earth i just dont think its on Mars. I dont think its worth risking lives, money and resources.

[Moonear]

It's not worth the lives and money, and with the state of debt we're in now, I doubt that we can do it.

[Ironsight]

A mission to Mars ispossible. One episode of the series said it was withing our budget. And I think that we should go to Mars.
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!

[Folcon]

Plus, Mars is rich in iron, hence the red color, which could be mined and used for raw materials for construction of future spacecraft. And since Mars has a lower gravity then Earth, it would be easier to launch ships from Mars then from Earth.

[Laharl]

DarkSword, on Nov 8 2007, 02:12 AM, said:

If people die because of it, I would be sad, but it wouldn't matter much if they were volunteers.

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

[Folcon]

laharl the slayer, on Nov 7 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

so you see the abduction and murder of volunteer workers in war torn countries as "not much of a loss"?

where the **** did that come from?

[Ironsight]

No, what I said was specificly refering to Astronauts(another word I can't spell), who know very well about how so many things can go wrong in a vacuum. I'm not talking about some homeless-helper getting shanked randomly.

[Laharl]

okay lets try that again just for Escout

DarkSword, on Nov 8 2007, 02:12 AM, said:

If people die because of it, I would be sad, but it wouldn't matter much if they were volunteers.

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

[Folcon]

I still don't think its that big of a deal to get to Mars. In the book Red Thunder, I forget off hand who wrote it, a group of kids build a spacecraft that takes them to Mars for just over a million dollers, and the hull was empty train tanker cars welded together. It took them about three months to build it. And I think it can be done. Granted, this book is a sci-fi and they have a nonexistant energy source that can take them to Mars in three days, but beyond that, the rest seems possable. The got most of the stuff from auctions of old sovite equipment and some stuff from other space programs from around the world, and also from thier local electronis store. It's a good book, but a lot of the therories, apart from a driver that takes them to Mars in three days, sounds feasable.

[Platinum Sun]

laharl the slayer, on Nov 8 2007, 12:14 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

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.

[Eugine]

Also, getting to Mars will most likely take an international effort like the ISS. I doubt you'll see NASA or RSA attempting to get to Mars alone. It's pretty much impractical imo.
Hence why I said "we", meaning mankind, not NASA. But what the heck, I forgot the world revolves around the USA...

[Ironsight]

Ow, that hurt.
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.

[Folcon]

.eugine, on Nov 7 2007, 11:47 PM, said:

Also, getting to Mars will most likely take an international effort like the ISS. I doubt you'll see NASA or RSA attempting to get to Mars alone. It's pretty much impractical imo.
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.

[Laharl]

Platinum Sun, on Nov 8 2007, 04:36 AM, said:

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.

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...

[Folcon]

I read a news report that NASA had released a ways back that had a rough timeline about the future of the space program. It went something like;

• finish ISS
  
• design new craft to replace the current space shuttles
  
• retire the shuttle fleet
  
• go back to the moon
  
• go to Mars

[Eugine]

DarkSword, on Nov 8 2007, 12:49 AM, said:

I can imagine NASA going solo. We got to the Moon, didn't we?

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?

[Ironsight]

America would. Our government wastes Tax money on plenty of pointless stuff!

[Folcon]

.eugine, on Nov 7 2007, 11:57 PM, 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?

Thus the reason private companies should be doing it. Hell, Bill Gates could afford to fund a mission to Mars if he so choose.

[Saturos S.]

I thought Bill gates "only" had 51,6 billion dollars.

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.

[Quacnar]

Saturos Striker, on Nov 8 2007, 03:39 AM, said:

I thought Bill gates "only" had 51,6 billion dollars.

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?)

[Toasty]

His net worth is something like 200million or something, I think.

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.

[Kuchiyose]

Yes its nice funding to go to other planets but i think they should consider other solar systems. Look for a sun with longer life expectancy and plan for the future, maybe research in new technology in shuttle crafts and maybe more efficient satellites. Hence i say a solar system with a better life expectancy is because this solar system is half way through it, If it takes us 5 billions years to get to Mars, what a waste that has been, there be no solar system, no sun, no gravity and heat = no life. But i wouldn't like to live on Jupiter, I'd say that was more of a shield and should be left alone. Mars is a good place, since there is water on the planet. Just be thankful, Earth has been the best planet yet (so far that is).

[Moonear]

This doesn't have to do with us actually going to Mars, but scientists are saying that a large ( and I mean large) meteor will hit Mars at the end of January, potentially leaving a half mile long crater. The force of the impact could do something to Mars's (Mars's?) orbit.

[Kuchiyose]

Same power as the Meteor that hit Siberia (15-megaton nuclear bomb) according to yahoo. But they say its 1 in 75 it may hit but they seems convinced it will hit but if the power is same as the one that may hit Mars, it may not be that powerful to knock Mars into a possible new orbit. But hey we'll never know till end of January.

[Drizzy Drake]

I honestly believe that within the next 500 years we won't be living on Earth. Maybe not Mars, but probably not Earth.

[Folcon]

will it matter, we'll be dead by then.

[Drizzy Drake]

Ya but by then there could be some revieving thingy.

[Folcon]

and the'll revive people from 500 years ago? What universe are you dreaming in kid.

[Drizzy Drake]

Yes. Ancesters. Maybe one of us will do something great, like cure cancer but then it beocome a disece(sp?) and wipe out almsot all the world.

[Eugine]

haha
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..

[Drizzy Drake]

This is probably the last "good" generation. The next generation will probably have to live in a REALLY poluted inviroment, assumnig the polar ice caps don't shift and we all don't die.

[Golden Legacy]

My personal view on the subject: I want man to go to Mars. It's not about the scientific possibilities or even the advancement of technology for me, it's just the innate, simple curiosity I think humanity has. I want us to go to Mars just to "prove" to us of the possibilities of human potential and just to answer the simple, curious question: "what if".

[Mathak Kraven]

Just a pointer here:

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.

[Ironsight]

Kuchiyose, on Jan 2 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

Yes its nice funding to go to other planets but i think they should consider other solar systems. Look for a sun with longer life expectancy and plan for the future, maybe research in new technology in shuttle crafts and maybe more efficient satellites. Hence i say a solar system with a better life expectancy is because this solar system is half way through it, If it takes us 5 billions years to get to Mars, what a waste that has been, there be no solar system, no sun, no gravity and heat = no life. But i wouldn't like to live on Jupiter, I'd say that was more of a shield and should be left alone. Mars is a good place, since there is water on the planet. Just be thankful, Earth has been the best planet yet (so far that is).

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.

[Kuchiyose]

Actually there is another planet similar to earth. http://www.cnn.com/2.../26/new.planet/
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).

[Golden Legacy]

I'm curious, how many of you want to go to Mars, and how many of you want to go to Mars and want to try and make it Earth-like/slowly begin to settle there over the centuries?

[Ironsight]

Terraforming?
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.

[Eugine]

I think he meant us humans, literally.

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.

[Mathak Kraven]

Mars most likely has a col rocky core, which is really not that useful.

[Saturos S.]

Mathak Kraven, on Jan 12 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

Mars most likely has a col rocky core, which is really not that useful.

Nah, the core is still fluid. Lighter metals then the Earth's and smaller, but it's still fluid and will be for a long time.

[redchi]

i dont know if i would go

[Saiph Charon]

.eugine, on Nov 8 2007, 02:43 AM, said:

Years ago, if you asked me "What do I think of space exploration?" I would have answered "It's a waste of money and resources". I always thought these billions of dollars would have been more useful in combating poverty, and focusing on current issues such as education, housing etc. My views have changed dramatically.

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:

will it matter, we'll be dead by then.

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:

haha
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:

I think he meant us humans, literally.

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

[Drizzy Drake]

Saiph Charon, on Jan 27 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

PS: why do you think won't Earth be habitable (excluding that humanity destroys itself of course)?
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.

[Eugine]

Waaah? I don't have time to reply to all of your comments Charon, but I will try.

Quote

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.

(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.

Quote

PS: why do you think won't Earth be habitable (excluding that humanity destroys itself of course)?

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

Quote

I don't see any need to send humans to Mars in this.

Really? Why so?

[Saiph Charon]

.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 02:29 AM, said:

Waaah? I don't have time to reply to all of your comments Charon, but I will try.

(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.

=)

[Eugine]

But like I said, I doubt technology would reach its 'cheapest' point. So maybe in the next 100 years, if we didn't get to Mars we would have people like you saying the samething x.x

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:

[Saiph Charon]

.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

But like I said, I doubt technology would reach its 'cheapest' point. So maybe in the next 100 years, if we didn't get to Mars we would have people like you saying the samething x.x

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:

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

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:

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.

Great!

.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

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?

Why just rovers? Build robots specific for such experiments and put them up there.

.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

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.

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:

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 :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 =)

[Eugine]

Quote

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...

But dude, technology is always improving. When do you want us to go? When we can reach there instantly? The generation following us would always have technology, so it's best we go when we can.
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

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!

Stop watching the Matrix.
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

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.

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.

Quote

Why just rovers? Build robots specific for such experiments and put them up there.

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.

Quote

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 =)

It wouldn't be a problem on Mars either, if we didn't have pessimistic people like you living.

Quote

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.

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 =)

[Saiph Charon]

.eugine, on Jan 28 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

But dude, technology is always improving. When do you want us to go? When we can reach there instantly? The generation following us would always have technology, so it's best we go when we can.

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:

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.

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:

Stop watching the Matrix.
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

[Eugine]

What are we debating over again?
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

They want to send people there in 2030 IIRC

Thats alot of time->alot of changes, discoveries....

Exactly.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...ils-emerge.html


Chaos subtract hate.