Mars Voyage too Soon?

[bokonon]

I do like that we are shifting to unmanned weapon and survellance systems. And guess where alot of that research came from?

Uhhh, developing robots and remote sensing equipment for unmanned space flights?

 

[R.Mackey]

Hypothetical Mars mission, and lessons from the Moon

For those of you actually interested, a useful presentation (17-page PDF) of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group dated two months ago showed up on NASAWatch today. You will note on Page 4 the "key challenges," with astronaut health at the top, followed by the difficulty of such large launches, long-term system reliability, and operability of the system. A worthwhile read. It also shows just how long we've been thinking about this... and how far we have to go.

For those who are insistent on rehashing idiotic Moon Hoax topics, your posts are off-topic, you are in the wrong sub-forum, and your posts will be reported. No further warnings. This thread is about future Mars explorations, not paranoia.

 

[Corsair 115]

Absolutely, if you're an unmanned probe on the way to Mars.

Well, my brain is, from time to time, unmanned. Does that count?

For the record, I would support the effort for a manned mission to Mars. We've got to get off this big ol' rock of ours someday. But I don't think a manned mission to Mars is likely for another couple of decades.

 

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by patnray
I am not a proponent of manned space exploration because it produces very little scientific return for each dollar spent (99% of the mission cost is to keep the people alive...)

Far too much of our space budget is being consumed by pointless manned missions such as the ISS and returning to the moon).

The rush to get to the moon at present isn't based on the same exploration reason that getting to Mars is. The Helium 3 present on in lunar soil could alleviate the emerging energy crisis. In fact, one shuttle load of it coulld fill the USA energy needs for a year! In view of this, it is no wonder that national governments and private enterpriie have taken a keen interest.

Race for the Moon for Nuclear Fuel
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK...ww.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

http://www.space.com/php/popup/promo/community/noad_community.php

BTW
Here is a website which insinuates that someone or something has already mined Mars!

Mining on Mars
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ...7/**http://www.keithlaney.net/MiningMars.html


Mars Moon Mineral Resource Comparison
http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html

 

[R.Mackey]

The rush to get to the moon at present isn't based on the same exploration reason that getting to Mars is. The Helium 3 present on in lunar soil could alleviate the emerging energy crisis. In fact, one shuttle load of it coulld fill the USA energy needs for a year! In view of this, it is no wonder that national governments and private enterpriie have taken a keen interest.

Unfortunately, I have to comment that the He-3 "benefit" is wildly overstated. The isotope is basically embedded solar wind in the lunar regolith, and as such is extraordinarly thin on the ground. We also have no known way to produce useful energy from He-3, other than weapons, given that there remains no viable fusion reactor in existence after many decades of research.

Here is an example of a counterpoint to the ISRU arguments being made in various places, highlighting the difficulties of extracting any useful minerals. It's just not that easy.

Let me be clear, I think returning to the Moon and pushing on to Mars is a worthy goal for us as a species, and can potentially return handsomely in terms of new technology as well as other benefits. But I think it's important not to oversell or underbid the project. Falsely representing the difficulty or the true cost of these endeavours will surely kill them.

As always, my opinions alone, I do not speak for NASA, etc.

 

[bokonon]

For the record, I would support the effort for a manned mission to Mars. We've got to get off this big ol' rock of ours someday. But I don't think a manned mission to Mars is likely for another couple of decades.

I'm still not hearing any reason why anybody has to get off this rock, or, why getting our rocks off means we should go to Mars.

 

[chillzero]

Moon hoax discussion split to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3190558

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[uruk]

The early explorers were exploring areas where people could potentially live, with resources which could be economically exploited.

None of that is true for Mars. We have a good idea of what is there, and it's nothing that we'll have any use for in the foreseeable future. Which is lucky, because there wouldn't be any way to get it economically if there was.

The challenges are certainly more severe. But then when have we been a species that has shirked down a challenge. Isn't that what improves our lives?

What about the benefits we gain from the endevour? It certainly paid off for the early explorers. And you can't predict what will be learned or discovered or gain in the future.

I would hate to think that we would limit ourselves because of shortsightedness.

Mars does have usable resources if you where to look and how to get it. Oxygen and water can be manufactured from soil itself. There are scientists and engineers working on the techniques right now. And don't you think that something like that can be usefull here on Earth?

As the infrastructure gets developed and put in place things like economies of scale will drive the expense down. Private companies are starting to get involved in space transportation and exploitation.

 

[uruk]

Okay, start the ground work.

Step 1: State a compelling reason why any nation should be attempting to send a manned mission to Mars.

Spinoff technologies, discoveries and development in biology and psycology, human waste recycling, remote medical care techniques, new propulsion systems, new technologies, extending man's capability to live away from Earth.

You could argue that these things could be devloped on here on Earth, but where would the impetus have come from if there wasn't a desire to go to Mars? Necessity is the mother of invention.

And there is somehting about not having all your eggs in one basket.

 

[uruk]

Uhhh, developing robots and remote sensing equipment for unmanned space flights?

Which would have been there if it wasn't for the space program. The space program was initiated with the goal of establishing a human presence in space. That was it's primary goal. The robotics were developed to support that goal.
Robotic exploration came to the forefront because it was cheaper and the American public lost interest in the manned space flight.

 

[bokonon]

The challenges are certainly more severe. But then when have we been a species that has shirked down a challenge. Isn't that what improves our lives?

You know what challenge would significantly improve our lives? Energy independence from the Middle East. If such independence could be achieved by methods that were less polluting than pumping, transporting, refining, and burning petroleum, it would be a 2-for-1 benefit.

Research into medicines and techniques which could selectively kill harmful viruses and antibiotic-resistant bacteria should also be high on the list.

Transportation systems which don't turn a 20-minute drive into an hour-long commute during rush hour.

Methods for reliably bringing rain to drought-stricken areas. Methods for preventing floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes.

Techniques for economically removing pollution from the atmosphere on a large scale, including long-term storage of greenhouse gases.

A way to reduce waste, improve recycling, get all the plastic and other trash out of the oceans.

There is no shortage of challenges which will have a DIRECT effect on quality of life for billions of people. Why settle for vague, uncertain "spin-off" benefits from a task which has no intrinsic value beyond bragging rights?

What about the benefits we gain from the endevour? It certainly paid off for the early explorers. And you can't predict what will be learned or discovered or gain in the future.

The early explorers had clear and worthwhile goals. Initially, it was to find a more economical route to the Indies, a place they already knew they had compelling reasons to visit, and were in fact already visiting regularly by less-economic means.

The big payoff came because the lands that were discovered by accident were capable of providing resources (metals, land for colonization, crops, etc.) which more than offset the cost of travel.

We are not likely to discover new lands by accident on our way to Mars, and Mars can't offer us any prospect of exploitable resources. We'll be mining asteroids before we're mining Mars, if ever. We'll be colonizing the moon before we colonize Mars, if ever. Any crop we could grow there could be grown more economically on earth.

Other than increasing our scientific knowledge of Mars itself, there's just no reason to go there, and it is more economical to increase our knowledge by using unmanned probes than by mounting a huge effort to send people there.

I would hate to think that we would limit ourselves because of shortsightedness.

Me too. I think it's short-sighted to send people to Mars to fulfill some childhood "Star Trek" fantasy of being space explorers. We need to have enough long-range vision to know that Mars will still be there 200 or 2000 years from now, when new technologies might make it economical to go there in person.

Mars does have usable resources if you where to look and how to get it. Oxygen and water can be manufactured from soil itself. There are scientists and engineers working on the techniques right now. And don't you think that something like that can be usefull here on Earth?

Because there's a shortage of water and oxygen on earth, and we can get it from Mars cheaper than we can get it here?

As the infrastructure gets developed and put in place things like economies of scale will drive the expense down. Private companies are starting to get involved in space transportation and exploitation.

I have no objection whatsoever to private companies who want to "invest" time, people, and money to research the possibility of sending people to Mars. I vehemently object to public funding of such pipe dreams at this time.

 

[uruk]

Finally, a voice of reason.

I vote for scientific research over romantic adventures too. To hell with the swashbuckling wannabe spacemen who take all that "Space...the final frontier" stuff a little too seriously.

So tell me what do we gain from robotic space exploration? New pictures of nebulae, an awesome picture Saturn with the sun behind it, yet another chemical composition of a rock on Mars? All wonderfull things I'll agree. Science for science sake is great.

But is it any more or less important than manned space exploration? Safer, certainly. Cheaper, that too. But more important that manned space exploration? No.

I'll even go further to say that we have gain much more practical benefits from manned space exploration that robotic exploration.

Should we give up on manned space exploration because it more expensive or more damgerous? To hell with that. There are alot more endevours here on Earth more dangerous and expensive and yet nobody questions them. What is so different about space? The challenges are greater, but we gain much from the effort.

To deny its importance simply because it reminds you of some cheesey sci-fi show? Please. What short sightedness.

But hey, I have no pie in the sky expectations when it comes to the manned Mars mission. We are not going to go there anytime soon. It will probably be about three to five decades before we are ready to go there.
And think of what we will learn and the technologies we will have by the endevour to get there.

 

[bokonon]

Spinoff technologies, discoveries and development in biology and psycology, human waste recycling, remote medical care techniques, new propulsion systems, new technologies, extending man's capability to live away from Earth.

None of which is a direct benefit of "people going to Mars," or requires "people going to Mars" for its realization. Research into human waste recycling can be done directly, and there is no incentive which a Mars mission would provide that a long-term presence on the ISS hasn't already furnished. Name one benefit of "sending people to Mars" that isn't just as likely without it?

You could argue that these things could be devloped on here on Earth, but where would the impetus have come from if there wasn't a desire to go to Mars? Necessity is the mother of invention.

And there is no "necessity" to send people to Mars. Sorry, there just isn't.

And there is somehting about not having all your eggs in one basket.

How many baskets is "sending people to Mars"? Research into recycling and medicine is two baskets already.

 

[3point14]

I'm still not hearing any reason why anybody has to get off this rock, or, why getting our rocks off means we should go to Mars.

Well, other than the fact that, eventually, this rock won't be here (after being first frozen, then fried, if I've got that right).

I feel that the timescale I'm concerned with is a tad longer than the one you're talking about though.

 

[uruk]

I'm still not hearing any reason why anybody has to get off this rock, or, why getting our rocks off means we should go to Mars.

Hey, if you have no objections to sending robots there then why should you have objections with sending people there? We learn more by sending people there from a human and physiological stand point. Plus we gain the individual experiances of the people who go there into our history.

If you are for science for science sake then you should be advocating maximum knowledge and experiance. We miss alot just by sending only robots.
Because in actuallity there is no practical reason for us to even send robots there in the first place other than for pure knowledge.

 

[bokonon]

So tell me what do we gain from robotic space exploration? New pictures of nebulae, an awesome picture Saturn with the sun behind it, yet another chemical composition of a rock on Mars? All wonderfull things I'll agree. Science for science sake is great.

We've gained new information about the structure of the universe, and our place in it. We've learned that no other planet in our solar system is capable of supporting human life, and that the prospect of finding any extraterrestrial life at all in our solar system is extremely remote.

We've developed remote imaging technology which can help us predict weather, find resources, and monitor long-term trends here on earth.

We've developed computer and communication technology which have direct applications in dozens of areas right here on earth.

Materials science has directly benefited from research into unmanned space exploration too.

But is it any more or less important than manned space exploration? Safer, certainly. Cheaper, that too. But more important that manned space exploration? No.

Yes, more important, because unmanned space exploration is bringing us knowledge that manned space exploration wouldn't have been able to deliver for decades, if not centuries.

Someone else has already made the observation that the human body a century from now will probably be more or less the same as it is now, while "robot explorers" can reasonably be expected to be several orders of magnitude more advanced than they are today. For the foreseeable future, it only makes sense, from an economic, safety, and capability standpoint, to let our machines do the exploring.

I'll even go further to say that we have gain much more practical benefits from manned space exploration that robotic exploration.

Name three.

Should we give up on manned space exploration because it more expensive or more damgerous? To hell with that. There are alot more endevours here on Earth more dangerous and expensive and yet nobody questions them. What is so different about space? The challenges are greater, but we gain much from the effort.

No. A manned presence in space, sure. Keep people in orbit, maybe even establish some sort of base (not a colony, merely a presence) on the moon. But exploration? Machines can do it better, safer, and more economically, and those facts aren't likely to change any time soon.

 

[uruk]

None of which is a direct benefit of "people going to Mars," or requires "people going to Mars" for its realization. Research into human waste recycling can be done directly, and there is no incentive which a Mars mission would provide that a long-term presence on the ISS hasn't already furnished. Name one benefit of "sending people to Mars" that isn't just as likely without it?

Have you been looking into what needs to be developed and understood about going to Mars? The studies into psychology, sociology, physiology. The new propulsion systems that needs to be developed. Radiation and meteroid protection technology and techniques. The computer control systems, etc.

The ISS is close to Earth it is protected by the Earths magnetic field. If there are any problems physiological, psychological or other wise you can have the person home in a matter of hours. Same thing with arctic outposts.
On a trip to Mars that is not possible. It will need to be delt some how with in transit.

There is no need to develope the recycling system when Earth is a short hop away.
And you don't need a new propulsion system when good old hydrogen/oxygen is all you need to get into low Earth orbit.

And there is no "necessity" to send people to Mars. Sorry, there just isn't.

Well there is no "necessity" to sending robots to Mars either.

How many baskets is "sending people to Mars"? Research into recycling and medicine is two baskets already.

What if something catastophic happens on Earth? And don't say it will never happen. It's happen twice in the past. And if you follow the global warming thing then things aren't going to get much better in the futur either.

learning how to survive and live on a planet like Mars helps to lay the foundation for a permanent human presence elswhere in our solar system.
This is very long term goal to be sure. But don't you believe in investing in the futur?

 

[bokonon]

Well, other than the fact that, eventually, this rock won't be here (after being first frozen, then fried, if I've got that right).

I feel that the timescale I'm concerned with is a tad longer than the one you're talking about though.

Sure, billions of years, when the sun takes its last breath and blows itself out, it would be useful to be able to find another sun with a compatible planet. We couldn't conceivably do it with rocket power, and since we have billions of years to develop the necessary technology (assuming we can keep ourselves alive as a species that long, which seems doubtful), there's no need to rocket ourselves to the next planet out any time in the next 10,000 years or so.

There are other threats, of course, supervolcanoes and asteroids being the most likely non-human-initiated extinction events, and nuclear winter being another. One might be able to make a case for some kind of "Silent Running" space spore, a "Nasa's Ark" from which we could re-seed life if that ever became necessary. There's no reason that I can see to place such a thing anywhere but in earth orbit; certainly, putting it on Mars would be counter-productive.

 

[bokonon]

And there is no "necessity" to send people to Mars. Sorry, there just isn't.

Well there is no "necessity" to sending robots to Mars either.

Anything you can do, they can do better.

 

[uruk]

We've gained new information about the structure of the universe, and our place in it. We've learned that no other planet in our solar system is capable of supporting human life, and that the prospect of finding any extraterrestrial life at all in our solar system is extremely remote.

All great and good. Science for science sake is a wonderful thing. But none of it is any more important than learning how to survive and live in space and on other planets in our solar system.
Learning how to make an inhospitable place like the Moon or Mars livable will have practical benefits on Earth also.

We've developed remote imaging technology which can help us predict weather, find resources, and monitor long-term trends here on earth.

We've developed computer and communication technology which have direct applications in dozens of areas right here on earth.

Materials science has directly benefited from research into unmanned space exploration too.

I am not denying the benefits of robotic exploration. I am not against robotic exploration. The robotic missions got a start because of the manned space program.

Yes, more important, because unmanned space exploration is bringing us knowledge that manned space exploration wouldn't have been able to deliver for decades, if not centuries.

None of which would have gotten started without the manned space program. Robotic mission cannot give us physiological or psycological knowledge nor direct human experiance. Or are you denying the importance of human experiance as well?

Someone else has already made the observation that the human body a century from now will probably be more or less the same as it is now, while "robot explorers" can reasonably be expected to be several orders of magnitude more advanced than they are today. For the foreseeable future, it only makes sense, from an economic, safety, and capability standpoint, to let our machines do the exploring.

Yes the robots will continue to evolve and improve. all that is great. No one is saying that we should stop robotic missions. Robotic exploration will never stop.
But what about human exploration? Are you saying that we should never expand or have a human presence in our solar system. Stay in the cave as it were? It's too dangerous or expensive? When has that ever stopped us from doing all the dangerous expensive things?
Why is space any different?

Wait till tomorrow? When will be a good time? When the technology becomes available? How will the technology become available if it is not being developed right now?

Name three.

The freeze drying food process. Cooling systems for those who suffer from a condition where they can't regulate thier body temperature such as quadroplegics, the microcomputer, miniturized electronics, and these were just some of the few that were developed for the Apollo program.
You can read more from NASA Spinoff and NASA tech review magazines.

No. A manned presence in space, sure. Keep people in orbit, maybe even establish some sort of base (not a colony, merely a presence) on the moon. But exploration? Machines can do it better, safer, and more economically, and those facts aren't likely to change any time soon.

So the other planets and moons are off limits because it more dangerous and expesive? Please. Where would we be if everybody thought like that through out history.
I think the explorers should be the ones who decide what risks they should take or not.

Robotic missions are not going to go away anytime soon. So why worry about the manned space exploration?

You want to stay on Earth. Fine with me. But I do not want to deprive mankind the knowledge and experiance of manned space exploration.