I just watched a discussion on C-Span about Mars

[tavernier]

and the real possibilities of exploring it with humans at some point in the future.

I'm a nurse of probably average IQ, but I didn't have a problem understanding the language or the proposed methods of exploration that the "science guys" were presenting to their audience. Buzz Aldrin was one member of the audience, so I don't think the content was dumbed down.

Here's the thing...

What is it that makes some of us want to lift our eyes to a future, full of hope and promise and new horizons, while others choose to wallow in the mud of an "eye for an eye" past.

Don't we all basically want mankind to survive?

Just tossing it out there.

[msongs]

1. you want "mankind to survive" that means fixing earth not wasting money going to mars nt

[longship]

8. And if the science to get us to Mars helps solve the Earth problems?

Science is multifactorial, not some monolithic thingie. Doing things has benefits across multiple disciplines.

So going to Mars will never, ever be a waste of money any more than Apollo was. (Hint: it wasn't.), anymore than sending the Cassini probe to Saturn or Curiosity to Mars (Hint: they weren't either.), or the EU spending billions on the LHC at CERN. (Nope, not a waste there either.)

Money on good science is never a waste.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. It isn't clear to me at all that sending humans to mars is "good science".

Instead it would appear to be romantic bullshit.

[longship]

14. Well, we wouldn't be riding wild horses to get there.

There's a lot of planetary science in getting humans to Mars safely and bringing them safely back. That's the same science that we'll need to do things back here on earth.

You are posting on line with a computer technology that was developed at the time of the Apollo program and was undoubtedly at least partially funded by it.

The money spent isn't always fungible -- sometimes it is -- but new ideas in science are pretty much always fungible.

So Apollo had that going for it in spades, as would a Mars mission.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. yes sure there could be incidental benefits. As there are right now with nasa's unmanned exploration

programs. Spending a shit ton of money on the off chance something unintended will fall out of it seems like a really shitty way to innovate, but heck its just tax dollars or government bonds. Robotic and other unmanned exploration programs are doing the job just fine. Microprocessors were not a nasa spinoff, leds were. I did actually work for 10 years on fault tolerant systems that were a spin off from the apollo control system, but really proposing unintended consequences as a good reason for doing something is a weak argument.

[longship]

42. Hard to tell where we'd be without Sputnik.

The whole acceleration of science and tech in the fifties and early sixties was a reaction to Sputnik. Without Sputnik, we might never have had an Apollo program. But the connections are tenuous.

But I guess one can argue the other way. Bob Park certainly does. I like him a lot, but disagree with his opposition to humans in space. He makes similar arguments to yours.

So, who knows. It'll get sorted out.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. I'm all for exploring our solar system. Why send humans?

A claim was made that it would be good science. Seems to me it is not that at all. You can defend romantic bullshit, I might even agree with you, but not on the grounds of it being good science when it isn't.

[calimary]

35. Seems to me that may be the only way to ensure the survival of humans.

It may become necessary to leave the planet, particularly if it becomes too poisoned to sustain life reasonably. I think as a species it's something we kinda need to do. We have this explorers' bone or gene or some such imbedded spark that makes us curious about the environment around us - how we fit into it and tame it and manage it (or mismanage it as the case may be).

It's not just romanticism. At present, this is all we've got. This Planet Earth. And I'm not convinced we're doing what's best for its longterm survival. We may need to establish colonies on other worlds. The moon? Mars? One of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons? Some extraordinarily large asteroid? Some space station orbiting - wherever, Earth, Mars, something, just letting my mind wander here. I think it's something we are going to have to do some day.

[Jamastiene]

40. It makes me kind of wonder about a science fiction alternative history.

Mercury and Venus are burning cauldrons of intense heat now. Did we do that then move to Earth and forget the technology we used to get here? It would make for a good sci fi movie. It's not true of course, but to the outside observer (there MUST be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe), it might appear that way once they see the shape we will be leaving Earth in.

[calimary]

49. I'm one of those who believes that - in ALL the universe, so big, so vast, so greatly UN-explored

as of yet - I keep coming back to: "do you mean to tell me that there's NO life ANYWHERE out there? With ALL THAT out there? ALL those stars, ALL those planets, how many zeroes are we talking about, after the arbitrary number one, in describing distance, numbers of galaxies, etc. All that infinity-level stuff. You mean to tell me there's NOTHING ELSE out there - amidst ALL OF THAT? NONE? NO possibility of extraterrestrial life ANYWHERE?"

I think just the plain ol' law of averages dictates that there, indeed, IS. I find it really hard to believe or accept that in ALL OF THAT out there, including everything we don't know and haven't seen and haven't discovered and haven't tried to analyze yet - that there couldn't be SOMETHING ELSE out there that qualifies as life, and yes, INTELLIGENT life. I just can't believe there isn't. Even if we ourselves and everything on this planet are mere happenstance, a mere lucky roll of the dice, a mere fluke, one of those "happy accidents" in which the molecules just suddenly combined in a whole new and life-sparking way, I find it hard to believe that in the vastness of the universe there could NOT be something similar that happened elsewhere. How could it be that, in all the galaxies (with all those stars that are or could theoretically be similar to our sun, with planets orbiting around them or "solar systems" of their own, some inevitably occurring in that "Goldilocks zone" where the temperature is not too hot and not too cold but just right) there could not be at least one or two or a handful of others that could potentially support life as we know it. The probability is just too suggestive, seems to me. And I'm no scientist either, but I got good grades in science class and loved the whole subject to pieces! Married a guy who studies that very same stuff - rather religiously - to this very day and is an amateur scientist himself, and knows a great deal about astronomy, climatology, physics, mathematics, and probability.

Seems to me there just has to be. It doesn't make much sense that there wouldn't be.

[WinkyDink]

44. You think regular Joes would be allowed to leave here? Bwahaha! Yeah, spaceships like subway trains.

[arcane1]

52. Think of how tragic it would be to foul our nest and then go foul the nests of others

If you lived on another planet, and knew human history, would you want us colonizing your planet after rendering our own uninhabitable?

In 5 billion years, yes, we will need another planet (though it's just delaying the inevitable), but if we destroy our own biosphere then we are obviously a failed, dead-end life form, and have no business plundering other planets. If we can't even respect our fellow human beings, and the life forms we are related to, we'll definitely have zero respect for any life we encounter out there.

We haven't come even close to earning the right to live on other worlds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. How do you think an airless, waterless place without soil, getting far less solar radiation

would be a better place to live than an Earth, however poisoned it is? Even if you had to wander Earth in spacesuits to hide from some rogue virus, it would still have the right gravity for us, the right light for our plants, and more water than anywhere else.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. the fall back is "well sure its a waste of money but 'freeze dried food'". nt.

[calimary]

61. Now THAT is a very compelling point, Warren!

MAN-Oh-MAN!

"... if life has an imperative, it's to spread. One can put all sorts of moral spins on that- calling it "infection" and the like, and they wouldn't be wrong- but the fact remains, that's what life does."

[workinclasszero]

65. Agree

Its because.....Star Trek

If its so desirable to go to Mars and somehow colonize it, why aren't the people that advocate that moving out to Death Valley to live?

Lots of barren deserts all over the world but curiously no one wants to live in those places.

And those places are mild compared to the surface of Mars, I have no doubt!

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Death Valley is a lush garden compared to mars.

We aren't going to "terraform" mars and we can't live on it as it is, other than temporarily at huge expense. I want to explore our solar system, and the way to do that is with robotic explorers that can give us a remote presence. I want to explore the nearest stars with exoplanets that could be habitable, and again the way to do that is with robots.

The rest is as you say "star trek".

[Warren Stupidity]

85. Well wake me up 900 years from now and let me know.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. I have a problem with "we should spend a shit ton of money 'cause in a thousand years..."

as a serious argument. Like I said, if and when we can actually terraform a planet, great. Until then send the fucking robots. Actually, the robots will figure this out and send themselves if it really is important, and if they figure it is a better bang for the buck to set disposable wet-ware, well then they'll send us.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. estimates are between 6 and 500 billion dollars per trip.

the last rover was around 2.5B. The 6B figure is stupidly low, unless that is a one way kamikaze mission, and the 500B is probably stupidly high, so how about 250B? That is 100 robots. That would be N (=10 or so) generations of robots and new robotic technology not built in order to send one can of human spam to mars and back, for which we will learn, apparently, something that geologists can only learn by looking through a space suit visor instead of high def cameras, and or sifting martian sand through their thickly gloved hands instead of using an array of robotic test equipment.

[Shankapotomus]

11. Not if Earth is hit by

a large impact asteroid. Keeping all our eggs in one basket is not a sensible survival policy going into the future.

That said, I would much rather see us working on earth orbiting and, eventually, sun orbiting biosphere generational ships close by that can serve as emergency lifeboats and, ultimately, carriers to the nearest stars. We can control how close biosphere ships orbit the sun and thus maintain a steady source of usable solar power. Of course, we'd have to become efficient at producing artificial gravity and protecting ourselves from radiation. The two big drawbacks of planets is that they are far and we can't adjust their orbits. Mars also doesn't offer much protection from radiation either.

[longship]

17. "The reason non-avian dinosaurs are extinct is because they didn't have a space program."

(A modification of a Larry Niven quote.)

[exboyfil]

93. Throw in ability to redirect said impactors

and I am on board with your proposal. As far as I am concerned that should be job one of our space program. We have had a recent relatively close fly by that we did not have a clue about until was almost crossing our orbit.

Right now a mission to Mars is like the 1960s-1970s Lunar space program - a bridge too far. There is a good reason why we have not been back to the Moon - overall it was not very good science. It was a Cold War success story. I love science fiction, and I love to see a manned mission to Mars, but to what purpose.

[Shankapotomus]

94. I would want to see biosphere ships

before bothering to go to Mars. I don't see the point either. The rovers are doing well. We shouldn't waste the money on Mars sending people there. We basically know nothing earth-shattering is there. Biosphere ships could have an actual application down the line. We should put our resources into figuring out how to build mini orbiting "earths" in space. It also seems more exciting to me.

Another thing I'd like to see is the deployment of some kind of high powered laser/radio signal device in space. A beacon that's constantly sending out radio and light signals in all directions to just add an extra chance of being detected.

Of course, I'd like to see more high powered telescopes in space too. Scientists have talked about creating a telescope array that could possibly make out large scale development by intelligent life forms on some of these distant planets they are detecting. If this proves possible we could be watching silent movies millions of years old from across the Universe of neighboring advanced civilizations as they develop their planet and even move out into space long before we've established direct contact.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

38. Wrong

There is no chance for our survival as a species if we all remain on earth.

[arcane1]

51. This +a googol

[workinclasszero]

64. Thank you I totall agree /nt

[randome]

2. I think most do care about the future even when we're not in it.

But I think the meanness of Conservatives (and their mindless religiosity) comes from not being able to face their own deaths.

They have the same facts as all of us. But they can't process them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[reddread]

3. nothing average about your post OR being a nurse!

But the way I see it, major behavioral traits and the sorts of decisions they tend towards can be a real 50/50 deal.
Maybe the species wishes to retain certain options so much that these genetic factors stay fairly even.
Its a mystery to me how some things break so closely, and how intelligent people of altruistic natures can be up against
so many mean spirited unreasonable sorts. I think its more than simple education can counteract, but I hope someday we recognize these things and take them into account in a fair and productive manner to improve our representative democracy.

[IcyPeas]

4. makes me think of this quote by Robert Browning....

“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?”
― Robert Browning,

(I'm not a religious person and don't believe in heaven, but I still like the sentiment of this quote)

[hatrack]

5. If the survival of mankind is the goal, Mars isnt the best place to attempt that goal.

Earth is.

[tavernier]

6. Well put, but that's not my point.

Mars, the depths of the ocean, the food sources for the planet, the energy that we can all live on for future generations, etc. etc.

At some point we need to stop bickering and have these conversations in order to survive.

When will our planet reach the "OH SHIT!" point and work together?

The day will come when all the countries realize that we will have to...

[Jamastiene]

41. At first, only the rich will be allowed to migrate to Mars.

In the case of Earth being destroyed like it is right now, when things get bad enough that all the countries realize something needs to be done for survival, the rich will get the first seats on a spaceship to Mars. The rest of us who survive the horrific conditions on Earth will make their stuff.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. The only thing that would make Mars preferable to Earth for the rich would be a revolution

If you can defend it, it's a hell of a lot easier to make yourself a liveable space on Earth than on Mars. There's air and water that just need cleaning, rather than extracting from rocks, and the gravity is right for healthy human living. But if they can't defend a living space, they won't be able to defend a rocket pad either.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

39. NO NO NO

We must move to the other planets and moons.

[wandy]

7. Why waist money going to mars. Why waist it going to the moon. When you think about it........

There is no piece of technology you can reach out an touch that was not influenced by our junket to the moon.
Much of todays life saving equipment came about because of advances made simply because we had to get there before the Russians.
RF interference from cell phones alone would have made them imposable had we not figured out how to shield circuitry through the Van Allen belt.
The device you use to read this post would have covered a basketball court and generated enough thermal waist to heat an apartment building and required more than enough electricity to power it.

Going to mars in and of it's self will not save the planet.
The things we learn trying to get to that useless rock just might.

[tavernier]

12. Thanks! Didn't think of that.

And of course, the explorers who were told that the earth is flat and there was no reason to try to cross an ocean that would only make them fall off the edge of the world.

I'm not so much advocating a manned Mars expedition... I was just wondering why our gene pools split us into two groups: those who want to progress and survive, and those who prefer to continue to war with each other and die.

[wandy]

23. Why some strive for progress and the preservation of human kind while others.......

content themselves with tribal warfare may have a simple answer. An answer that those wishing to take us back to answers involving a club are loathe to accept.
Evolution.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. We can send 50 really smart well equipped robots to mars for the price of one human.

It is incredibly cost ineffective to use humans for this sort of stuff. And pointless. Plus it won't do diddly squat for our future. We can't live there.

[tavernier]

16. Forgive the stupid wording.

I wasn't so much impressed with a vision of a manned Mars walk, but rather that there are people on this planet who are discussing the exploration of different worlds versus the annihilation of neighboring countries. Whether we should or shouldn't go to Mars is a much more intelligent and worthy conversation for me than should we or should we not bomb another region,

[wandy]

21. Anything we do will have to start with a few really smart robots........

We have managed hit the target a few times without busting the arrow up too badly. Still nothing refined enough to entrust humans to.
Robots have no need of going to the grocery store. Ha, or producing solid waist as a result.
Even at that you only need be concerned with getting the robots there, no worries about getting them back.

Getting humans there, now you have to solve some problems. The hardware is going to have to be considerably more robust to deal with it's rather frail cargo. How do you deal with a food supply? Recycling? How do you do effective recycling. Our physical being is not well suited to long periods of weightlessness. We would have to learn more about the human body.
Hard to imagine the thousands of problems we would have to solve.

Then theres the slight matter of getting them back. Would we need to develop a quicker drive? Would that drive have to be more efficient than anything we can even think about now? If it could accelerate that quickly what do we need to develop to keep from crushing the fragile payload?

Or, we could just leave them there. Now that's a real beauty of a problem involving nothing less than the creation, care and feeding of what amounts to a small planet.

Ya, we should just sit down here and listen to Teapublicans deny global warming. Solving all those problems just might make reversing global warming seam like a snap.

Heck, getting the enegery efficiency required for the drive alone might just do the trick.

[arcane1]

54. No kidding, I'm still waiting for all the promises the ISS was supposed to bring us. n/t

[Maedhros]

56. I have degrees in Geology.

One human geologist on Mars would be far more valuable than 50 robots. There is no substitute for human curiosity and reasoning.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. And what is it exactly that you could not

do remotely using a well equipped robot?

[Maedhros]

71. I gather you have never mapped formations in the field.

It would be nigh impossible to do via remote. Range of vision, the feel for the terrain, ability to freely examine hand specimens - all these things are important and are severely curtailed by using a robot.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. and you think that it is impossible for robotics to provide equal or superior range of vision

or tactile feedback, two of your clearly identified problems? I'm fairly certain that any inadequacy there now could be readily addressed at a fraction of the cost of deploying a human geologist. On the other hand one way human expeditions aren't massively more expensive, but who is going to volunteer for that?

[Maedhros]

73. Well, I have engaged in field mapping, you have not.

You may be fairly certain robots could do the job, but then you lack any expertise upon which to base your assertion.

As for cost, of course you are correct: sending a human would be massively more expensive. Robots have proved a useful compromise between cost and effectiveness because of this.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. So surgeons are performing remote presence surgery, but geology is "just too complicated".

OK.

[Maedhros]

75. I would not presume to make declarative statements about the practice of surgery,

since I have no knowledge or expertise in the field.

You should do likewise with respect to field geology.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. right, cause this is a serious academic forum rather than an anonymous internets bullshit session.

Your appeal to unverifiable authority is noted.

[Maedhros]

91. I just don't understand why you feel so compelled to disregard my expertise on this matter.

Why would I lie?

[Uncle Joe]

13. There needs to be a balance of working to save our only home in the Universe and

mastering space travel, to double insure the survival of our species.

Thanks for the thread, tavernier.

[tavernier]

18. Carl said it better than I ever could.

Thanks for that!

[Uncle Joe]

19. I believe Carl said it better than most of us could.

Peace to you, tavernier.

[Anansi1171]

36. THIS!!!!!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^ ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Either or thinking is so 18th century.

Great book by Sagan and based on natural law: make sure your nest is clean and well secured, but dont leave all eggs in just one basket.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Robotic explorers are far more cost effective

since you don't need to feed them or supply oxygen or even shelter them from radiation (within reason).

You also don't need to return them to Earth.


I am all for exploring Mars. I just don't see any reason to send humans until the technology improves greatly. Sending humans would just be a photo op.

[longship]

20. There are quite a few scientists who disagree with that.

For one thing, what a rover does in weeks could be done by a human geologist on site in about a half hour.

Bob Park is a noted NASA scientist who opposes (most) manned flights in space. But even he does not claim that such a thing would be a mere photo op. I like Dr. Park a lot, but I disagree with him that robot missions are all we need.

Plus, I think that it's humanity's destiny to go out there. I think we ought to plan to get 'er done.

[tavernier]

24. Part of the discussion centered on your point:

It appears that the cosmic dust that has accumulated for thousands of years (apparently Mars was quite the "in place" at one time, but for some reason went through a negative period that couldn't be reversed - sound familiar?) cannot be properly researched and analyzed by a robot.

[longship]

29. Well, it could, but it would take many robotic missions.

Each one more sophisticated than the previous. Whereas one human mission could get lots of things done at once.

The people who say it would be just a photo op just do not understand how big a mission getting to Mars really is. A round trip might be three years. Or more.

Photo op? Bah! One doesn't have to take those claims seriously.

[edhopper]

22. It's not like we would waste money

on an illegitimate war or anything.

[WinkyDink]

45. You mean the 99% left behind?

[WinkyDink]

76. Look, PAL, this ain't about religion, and I never implied such. Tell me: Who do you

suppose will be able to escape the befouled planet Earth? You? Your offspring? You think travel to Mars will be like a commuter train?

[Oakenshield]

31. While it could prove to be an interesting exercise...

While it could prove to be an interesting exercise to send people to Mars, I'd rather have NASA focus on making that big leap in science that will make travel outside our solar system feasible for human beings.

[tavernier]

33. Thank you all for the input!

It appears that a handful of you are going into space with me; a handful are staying here; and the majority will gladly attach a tank of rocket fuel to my backside and send me on my merry way!



Thanks for the replies and
Happy Independence Day!!

[longship]

58. A really great thread and a tremendous, self-effacing post.

You're very cool, tavernier.

I raise a glass to you, and to your very interesting thread.

[tavernier]

60. Aw shucks

*kicks ground with toe*



Thanks.

[WinkyDink]

43. That IS what the 1% are frantically accumulating wealth for: to escape.

[WinkyDink]

78. I can non-sequitur with the worst of'em. Same as Saddam's having WMD's, right?

[longship]

59. Really? Was John Glenn part of the 1%?

Nope. He lived off military pay like all the early astronauts.

Was Sally Ride a 1%-er? Nope, she was an academic, a physicist (who grovel for research pennies so they can keep their job).

How about Christa McAuliffe, who was a public school teacher, and who cared enough about it to give her life for it? She knew very well the risks and she gladly cast them aside as unimportant. She knew what having those footprints on the moon truly meant.

No 1%-ers went there, either.

NASA does not send 1%-ers. They send qualified people. People like you and me. People who care about the world, and human's place in the universe. If you have expertise, and the will, you may get to go. And it has nothing to do with your bankroll.

When I was little, few people vacationed by air. It was mostly the business people and the wealthy. After jets came into general service (especially the Boeing 707) fares plummeted and people could begin to afford to travel by air. Now, Route 66 is gone because air travel is cheap enough that just about anybody can afford it.

So the 1%er argument just does not fly here (so to speak).

[WinkyDink]

77. TRY not to condescend to someone who actually would wave to Echo I;

who can still name the Original 7; and so on. But thanks for the info about airplanes; I was completely unaware that I, a public-school teacher, could afford them on my dozen flights to Europe.

[RebelOne]

50. I have always dreamed of humans exploring Mars.

Also when I was a teenager, I dreamed of humans reaching the moon. At least I saw that dream come true. My mother used to say that I was reading too much science fiction when I told her that we will some day fly to the moon. When we finally did, I had the satisfaction of calling her on that night of the moon landing and saying, "I told you it would happen."

Unfortunately, I am now 75 years old and I doubt that I will see a manned landing on Mars, but I know it will happen.

[Warpy]

53. Some people only want the "right part" of humanity to survive

and the "right part" usually bears an uncanny resemblance to themselves.

The problem with sectarianism and tribalism in a lot of the world is that it has worked very well for a very long time, at least for males. I'm hoping that once the borders are withdrawn and people experience stability without a dictator and his secret police, all the violent bullshit will start to decrease.

We nurses are used to having to check our prejudices, politics, and religion at the door. Civilians have rarely experienced that to the same level we have, and that makes a difference.

I would hope that human exploration and terraforming Mars would be delayed for a very long time due to insurmountable obstacles, like designing a ship that could repel micrometeorites traveling in at Mach 20 and more. Maybe we'll grow up as a species by the time that happens. We'll have to grow up a lot farther than we have just to tackle such problems.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Suppose, ludicrous as it is, "Mars" is our survival strategy.

The cost of lifting humans and their shit to mars is ridiculous. Consequently effectively 0% of us will go there, rounded of to some arbitrary fraction of 1%, as in 0.00001%. These are lottery winner numbers. None of us are going. You aren't going, I'm not going, Elon Musk isn't going. Our genes aren't going. I'd rather invest in something useful that might keep us alive here and allow us to explore the universe, at least that way my ancestors have a better shot.

[Warpy]

70. All species have a limited period of existence

and this is what the "we gotta get to Mars" people are hoping to avoid.

However, they might produce some interesting and useful science in the meantime.

I prefer staying home and getting the questions answered, myself. Nowhere in the universe would we find a planet as well suited to us as this one. It's high time we take care of our home.

[Orsino]

62. Much cheaper to live in spacesuits and sealed, pressurized domes right here on Earth.

Hope and promise are wonderful, I'm sure, as are the theories about terraforming other planets. Multiple baskets for our eggs is a good idea, I suppose, if we're talking about viability for breeding.

Hope and promise can also be distractions from the much less glamorous work of repairing a damaged Earth.

[Marrah_G]

69. My best friend has one semester left for nursing

I've been helping her study and let me tell you there is nothing average about anyone's intelligence who becomes an RN. It's unbelievable the amount of information she has to retain.

[BlindTiresias]

80. I would prefer to live in space

If I was offered the ability to live in an orbital colony, or better yet, live in a flotilla of ships harvesting resources in the main belt I'd take it.

[retread]

92. We could always render this planet much less inhabitable and save the trip. Oh wait! Never mind!!