Manned Mars Mission Some Way Off 386
10,9,8,7... Count Down Aborted writes "The BBC brings some perspective to the manned mission to Mars debate recently reinvigorated by the discovery of vast H2O ice reserves on Mars. Basically, they list many of the reasons (e.g. psychological, political, monetary, and technological) why we must proceed very carefully and slowly despite the significance of such a mission if it were successful. They also raised the interesting question, "Who should be the members of such a crew if it were to be launched?"" Update: 05/28 14:28 GMT by H : Another good link is on USA Today.
Well.... (Score:2, Funny)
Well, what about me, a large stack of books and my laptop?
I don't think I would hesitate when asked!
Re:Well.... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh and if you haven't y'all should read Red Mars [amazon.com] (and the other two books of the series). They're extremely interesting, an awesome mix of Sci-Fi and politics that is not too unreal too ever happen.
Re:Well: A Serious Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the following: If you were on the first trip to Mars, barring some radical breakthrough in propulsion technology that violates Newtonian physics (the only way we'll see decent high speeds on such long trips), you would spend:
-18 months going out in a tin can the size of a two bedroom apartment with four or five other people in microgravity
-after you lose some bone and muscle mass, several months on a planet which you can only experience in a fully-encloesd suit
-another 18 months to three years coming home in the same tin can with the same people
...and that's assuming things go smoothly! What happens if someone has appendicitis or develops some other codition? Operating in zero-g is at the least damned hard, and at most impossible!
The people also have to be of a certain sort. Unlike the original moonshot pilots, who were psychologically stable hotshot pilots with an excess of personality, the Mars crew would have to be able to tolerate each other for up to FIVE YEARS. And these five would be the only real human contact that they'd have.. considering that, at furthest, there's something like a twenty to thirty light-minute gap between Earth and Mars. You could play chess, do the occasional interview, but you couldn't surf the Web (real well).
So, the people involved on the craft have to be extremely intelligent, genial, and self-deprecating. Not too likely to find a couple of hackers that have those characteristics. (Of course, they'd not discuss it too much if they did. Part and parcel, you know.)
Mars mission some ways off... (Score:3, Funny)
Film at 11.
Re:Mars mission some ways off... (Score:2)
Both of whome bring you gifts, often of such mangifiscence that, once you've recovered from the initial surprise and delight, you find yourself wondering how you ever did without.
Send the Survivors teams (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Send the Survivors teams (Score:2)
Yes, that's right, the winners will receive space suits with breathing aparatus.
Survivors ready? Go!!!
Should it be all women? (Score:5, Funny)
From the article: "The crew will have to be specially selected to be able to cope. Should it be a mixed crew or all men, or all women? "
For some reason I think that it shouldn't be all women... Maybe one geek guy and the rest of the crew women?
Women and Bone Loss (Score:2, Interesting)
It just isn't science fiction or political correctness that should be the judge in picking a crew...but in success of mission...and who would reasonably be expected to complete the mission.
Re:Women and Bone Loss (Score:2)
Regardless of who is going, they are likely to suffer some damage unless some mechanism or mechanisms are in place to help them maintain their physical fittness. Don't dismiss women until you have a good reason to. In the meantime, NASA has done quite a bit of research [spacedaily.com] into the matter of gender differentiated responses to long duration space travel, and they haven't found anything remotely conclusive.
Re:Women and Bone Loss (Score:2)
In the meantime, NASA has done quite a bit of research [spacedaily.com] into the matter of gender differentiated responses to long duration space travel, and they haven't found anything remotely conclusive.
I'm just saying it's too quick to decide to rule out sending women, since there's not enough data to warrant it.
Reason for doing it (Score:2)
Re:Reason for doing it (Score:5, Funny)
One thing the BBC article failed to mention... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One thing the BBC article failed to mention... (Score:2)
Re:One thing the BBC article failed to mention... (Score:2)
Myself... I still ask WHY we aren't building the double spinning rings from 2001..
i guess that the human race is still incapable of building anything really useful in space..
Re:One thing the BBC article failed to mention... (Score:2, Interesting)
I assume you mean the centrifuge module, which was actually going to be the last module to be installed, not the next, and may not be launched at all thanks to the cutbacks. It was also not intended for human use: they'd find it a bit crowded. It's meant for samples that can be spun up to varying partial g-forces for experimental purposes. While it's neat, it ain't exactly the orbital Hilton.
Oh, please. We can barely muster the political will to build the orbiting sixpack that we have now.
Re:One thing the BBC article failed to mention... (Score:2)
The starship will need a spinning ring for the human habitable sections, using centrifugal force for gravity simulation. Only go to zero gee for take off and landing (or maneuvering, if necessary)
Watch 2001.
Now that I think of it, the ISS should have something like this -- for extended astronaut missions and research on how to do it right.
Re:One thing the BBC article failed to mention... (Score:2)
Anyone with mod points, please mod up krswan's post.
The BBC article has completely out-of-date information corrected by Zubrin.
(1) Travel time is 180 days, *not* 300.
(2) The BBC article says: "Our current recycling technology
is good -- but not good enough." Wrong. The technology
is well-proven... a century old in some cases.
The BBC article also has mythology as information, like the idea that if it did take 300 days that this is a great psychological hardship and we'll need to have a "specially selected" crew.
Finally, there is some sort of politics going on, with the discussion of which nationality should get to place the first footprint on Mars. Quick answer: none of them. A human will be the first to set foot on Mars. (I wish there were Earth citizenships, for civilized people.)
I second krswan's pointer to the Mars Direct site, and add a plug for Zubrin's book, _The Case For Mars_. Zubrin's book is a detailed outline of Mars Direct and will give precision to what is only summarized above.
Ellen
Crew (Score:2, Funny)
"Who should be the members of such a crew if it were to be launched?"
Well, we all know who will get all the votes!...
CowboyNeal!
Oh please (Score:5, Interesting)
I particularly like this one:
Yeah, it's a shame we have no ice here on Earth with which to test this system. Anyway, the rocket booster that lifted Armstrong and Aldrin off the moon had to "work the first time", and they still signed up.History is full of shortsighted people telling us what scientists can't possibly do, sometimes only months before they do it.
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
Maybe these guys should checkout the Mars Society [marssociety.org]. Forgot what sort of return fuel they were planning on, but it was not obtained by cracking H20, it was something completely different.
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
They wanted to craft CH4(Methane) and O2 from C02 (from the atmosphere) by taking H2 from earth with them in case no water/ice was found on mars.
Of course they would now use ice on mars to split up, but very likely they would create CH4 anyway as it is easyer to store and handle.
The main idea is to send the return vehicle and/or the fuel factories BEFORE the crew is send. So you know in advance if it makes sence to send the crew as you only would do that if the fuel factories have filled the tanks of the return vehicle.
Well, the return vehicle may be only used for lift of and carrying enough fuel into orbit to reuse the orbiting transfer vehicle by refilling it.
angel'o'sphere
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
1. No stars in the pictures. If the landings had been faked, they would have painted stars on the backdrop to make the moon hoax idiots [8m.com] happy. Everybody knows that when you take pictures in the daytime you don't see stars, even with no atmosphere, because of the shutter settings required to avoid overexposure.
2. The mirror left on the moon by the astronauts, which has been reflecting lasers from earth ever since.
3. The requirement of an elaborate conspiracy that all moon hoax theories require. Almost any theory can be made logically consistent if you can explain away all contrary evidence with an elaborate conspiracy.
4. To hold their theories together, the moon hoax people usually insist that all space travel is impossible, the Van Allen radiation belts will kill you, the shuttle orbits are faked as well, and that Christa McAuliffe was murdered [okneoac.com] because she found out the truth and wouldn't keep it a secret, etc.
5. The only major network to take the moon hoax idea seriously has been FOX, which aired a one-hour special on it hosted by Mitch Pileggi from the X-Files (!). Fair and balanced as usual, FOX presented a show that was dominated by moon hoax nutcases like Kaysing and that concluded that yes, the moon landings were faked.
To see a refutation of all the moon hoax conspiracy arguments see Bad Astronomy [badastronomy.com].
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
Number 4 - The last serious attempt on this one, I heard from a friend of mine, who is a muslim in the UK (who sadly, buys into the moon-landing-hoax-hoax). Apparently, this is a very popular theory among muslims (according to him). They feel that the US Moon Landing was a hoax so that the US could "prove" to the world that Americans were better than the rest, and the Science is the one true way and the "backwards religious people" can't do "great" things.
Along with a lot of this rhetoric is some very anti-white racist thinking - the World Trade Center versus the Petronas Towers was also involved (this was pre-Sept 11.) as an example that Muslims (and people of color) can do things just as great as the whites/infidels. This reason has been cited as why the World Trade Center has been a prime target of muslim terrorists for over 10 years.
(the Sears tower is taller, dammit!)
This is why I'll be laughing my ass off when the Chinese build a moon base.
It IS true that had their been a solar flare while the astronauts were outside the van allen belts, they would have received a strong dose of radiation - but most likely not lethal. In fact, they were exposed to some fairly high radiation, but certainly not enough to affect their health. There are plans in the Mars missions for how astronauts can be warned and sheilded from radiation during the trip.
Another part of the conspiracy is how no earth-based telescope is powerful enough to actually SEE the leftover moon landers, etc. But Hubble supposedly is - but JPL refuses to point Hubble at the moon because (conspiracy) that would expose the hoax (truth) the instruments are too sensitive to be exposed to light that bright.
All seriously funny stuff. Except for the knocking down of the WTC. That wasn't very funny.
Mars is quite a haul (Score:3, Insightful)
Potential Mars Astronauts (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, too easy! The MPAA and the RIAA, of course!
Once again "The Simpsons" shows us the way (Score:3, Funny)
A mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician.
Slashtard Bingo x2! (Score:2)
Re:Potential Mars Astronauts (Score:2)
Now now. The question was who would be CREW, not who would be fuel. Try again.
Re:Potential Mars Astronauts (Score:2)
Keanu Reeves (Score:4, Funny)
Definately Keanu Reeves wearing some cool sunglasses. Definately not Tom Hanks crying and being sentimental like a big girl.
Re:Keanu Reeves (Score:2)
Re:Keanu Reeves (Score:2)
Re:Keanu Reeves (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, and none of that "One small step for man..." rubbish when they land. I want Samuel L. Jackson jumping out of the spacecraft and saying something with the word "motherfucker" in it.
Re:Keanu Reeves (Score:2)
Re:Keanu Reeves (Score:2)
During my trip to Mars, I also will volunteer to have an encounter with Sil (Natasha Henstridge) from Species [imdb.com], but only if I make it home to be with my wife (Charlize Theron), as indicated by The Astronaut's Wife [imdb.com]
Keanu will be allowed to join the mission, but will end up being sucked into space trying to shout "noooooo" as the pressureless environment causes him to explode.
Politically Correct Ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
gak. sounds like a college professor.
but in any case, such considerations sound like something from the politically correct crowd, and tend to overlook the qualifications that such a person would have to have. It looks like to actually do something like this, you would have to preselect someone from the poorest nation on earth now, and groom them for the job 20 years from now. not very likely, considering how many administrations we'll have between now and then. Not very likely at all.
Re:Politically Correct Ideas (Score:2, Funny)
Got some spare change?
Discussted (Score:2)
And, how would the people in the 2nd poorest nation feel? They could have had one of their people on Mars... if only the had been just a little poorer. You know what that says to me? "We reward failures."
If you wanted to use a slot on the Mars mission to help motivate the 3rd world, then we should invent some kind of "most improved" award where we would give a crew slot to the nation that can increase it's per capita GDP the most between now and then. Of course, that would lead to fraudulent GDP figures from everybody. I wouldn't even trust the U.N. to produce honest figures to base the choice on. Then again, perhaps if the politically unconnected citizens could keep some of the wealth they earn instead of it going to buy el Presidente and his thugs a new private jet they would be even more motivated to produce real wealth. Nah, that's crazy; a useless gesture from the gov't that makes spoiled rich 1st worlders feel good about themselves without them having to really get off their @$$es and help solve the problem is much more sensible.
Re:Discussted (Score:2)
Announce this "lottery" years in advance. Use CIA figures for GDP. Have Delta Force or some SAS guys do the "snatch job" if possible, to minimize the collatoral damage of a full scale invasion. I think people would be amazed at how quickly the situation in the poorest nations improves when the leaders fear they may pay with their lives if they are not able to lift their society from the grips of poverty.
Why come back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the volunteers remaining families would receive money (a pittance compared to the savings). There might be enough demand to go, you could run a lottery, with the winners going and the money raised for paying part of the trip.
Re:Why come back? (Score:2)
And I agree, send people there who aren't exepecting to return. I'd volunteer in an instant and I know thousands of others who would too.
Re:Why come back? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, I would too, except... imagine the ping response time? 365,000ms on a good day (season) and 2,700,000ms on a bad day (season).
Definitely won't be telnetting into my Linux shell. :)
Re:Why come back? (Score:2)
Balanced people are a *liability* (Score:3, Funny)
Admittedly you don't want psychotic people, and a military-type discipline would probably be essential to maintain supplies, but at the same time a bunch of conservative, highly rational people aren't going to experiement and try edgy things that might be really successful.
Look at the profile of successful people in business, sports, etc -- how many of them are sane, stable, follow-the-rules kinds of people? They're mostly not unstable, but they're also the kinds of people willing to take huge risks for huge rewards. Guys like you and I take tiny risks for tiny rewards, which is why we couldn't do the one-way to mars.
Re:Why come back? (Score:3, Informative)
Interview with Wernher von Braun, missile development specialist, after Sputnik II was launched into space by the Russian government in 1957.
Sources: 1 [life.com] 2 [mohonasen.org]
Re:Why come back? (Score:2)
Look at it this way. They had a months-long ocean voyage ahead of them. A very dangrous, months-long voyage on a tiny ship on the wide ocean (an environment in which they most certainly could not live) with a destination that's very hard to find successfully because such navigation had only been done successfully a few times in the past. (Sound familiar yet?)
When they got there, they had to contend with hostile conditions (ok, so they had air, but they also had people familiar with the territory who wanted nothing more than to kill them.) And possibly nothing to eat, or new diseases... or not seeing a person besides those with which they're travelling, for months or years at a time, if you're talking about pioneers moving west or the first settlers on the coasts.
No matter how you cut it, in the 1500s people were travelling into the unknown, with dangers as real as those that would face people on a mars-shot. They may have been different dangers, but there they were. Ok, so we wouldn't be able to get there, build our little log cabin, and start farming. But most of us today don't build log cabins and farm, anyhow. What we do is work with new materials and the latest science, and that's what we'd have to do on Mars to find ways to live. Would it be dangerous? Sure. Would that stop people? Not a chance in hell. It never has. People will always want something new and different, and potentially better and grander. People would die. Possibly lots of them. But people would keep going, given a chance.
Why water is important (Score:2)
Isn't the importance of water it's use in fuel - you only need solar power to build up a supply of hydrogen and oxygen to power you rockets and give inertia on the journey back. The real advantage is that you don't have to bring along fuel for the way back (and extra fuel to propel that mass) and this could be an advantage even for non-human expeditions if you want to bring something back.
Does it really need to be manned? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, the robots can't do everything themselves, but humans on earth can reasonably control them (it would take anywhere from 3 to 22 minutes for a one-way communication from Earth to Mars, depending on their respective orbits around the sun).
Unless we're ready to start terraforming, I don't think it's cost-effective to send humans.
Er... (Score:2)
Er... trained astronauts, perhaps?
RMN
~~~
Not quite. (Score:2)
Anyway, if my vote counts, I say we send Steve Ballmer. His armpits alone can cover the planet in an ocean several developers deep.
RMN
~~~
Radiation Determines the Crew (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Radiation Determines the Crew (Score:2)
Re:Radiation Determines the Crew (Score:2, Interesting)
In any case there's no doubt you would receive a large dose on a trip to Mars. It probably wouldn't kill you immediately but it would most likely sterilise a male. You would want to stock your sperm beforehand on Earth and have a cure for cancer handy at the time as well.
Re:Radiation Determines the Crew (Score:3, Interesting)
Radiation is really a bugbear though. Martian atmosphere provides some protection, and its assumed that if you were establishing a premanent base, you would cover your habitat in enough dirt so that radiation would be at earthlike levels or better. Then just dont go out on EVA during solar flares and youll be ok. Martian atmosphere is enough to protect against cosmic rays and normal levels of solar proton flux, which is the biggest problem for free space radiation. Just build shelters and youll be fine.
Of Course! (Score:2, Funny)
As evryone knows, Mars needs women, not men... geez, when will the male centric NASA get it right!?
Launch Window (Score:2)
Re:Launch Window (Score:2)
The answer is obvious. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, the answer to who we send is obvious -- We should send an ethnically-diverse "Power Rangers" like team to Mars, because that way, we can sell action figures and color-changing cups at Burger King. We should send an African bush man that speaks in grunts and clicks, along with an Eskimo, an Aboriginie, and perhaps a midg^H^H^H^Hsmall person, because sending qualified engineers and scientists from the actual country footing the bill for all of this crap would be RACIST. So what if most of the engineers and scientists happen to be white. So's 80% of the country. How did they get to be such a big majority? Simple.. They're RACIST!!
For the humor impaired: The parent article dicusses the question of "who we should send".... In other words, "lets discriminate", which is a subtle form of racism in and of itself. It infers that the people who are going to be picked will NOT be picked for their qualifications, but rather, picked for their ethnicity or skin color, which is friggin retarded. I say, send the best people for the job. If they happen to be blacks, cool. If they happen to be hispanic, cool. If they happen to be white, cool. If they happen to be friggin purple, cool. The whole issue of picking an "ethnically diverse" crew is a crock of shit, because "ethnically diverse" may not mean the same thing as "best people for the mission". Neil Armstrong wasn't chosen to be the first guy to walk on the moon because he was white. He was chosen because he busted his ass in training for several years, training that anyone could have undergone, and many did.
Call it like you see it.
Cheers,
R. H. Lawrence Jr. R.I.P. (Score:2)
There was a black astronaut in the 1960's. His name was Robert H. Lawrence, Jr. He deselected himself from the program before he could make his space flight, however. He did this by digging a multimillion dollar hole in the ground with an airplane during training. This was a common way for test pilots and astronauts of all races to end their career back then, so gravity was not being racist at the time.
Mars vs. Luna (Score:2)
Both have very similar challenges involved; one just happens to be 300 days closer. Doesn't it make sense to start closest to us and work our way outward? Development on the Moon could give us crucial insights into how we should develop Mars, and besides: The Moon is really the only likely space tourism destination in our lifetimes.
The Sea of Tranquility, The Bay of Rainbows, The Ocean of Storms, the Lake of Dreams... if nothing else, the Moon is the most beautifully named [usgs.gov] object in our solar system. So can anyone give me a reason why we should colonize Mars before we colonize the Moon?
Re:Mars vs. Luna (Score:2)
Besides, we can always ship water to the Moon if they need it. We can't ship similar unexpected necessities to Mars colonists.
Re:Mars vs. Luna (Score:2)
Obtainable: "...the latest results show the water may be more concentrated in localized areas (roughly 1850 square km, or 650 square miles, at each pole)."
But let's ignore the fact that you didn't read the link. Because I don't think your argument holds, um, water.
The question is whether or not it's more practical to build our first colonies on the Moon or on Mars. I think the simplest argument here relies on capitalism.
The Moon already has a built-in industry that it can use to generate dollars to pay for importing water: Tourism. The Moon is a 3 day trip away. We also know there's a significant group of millionaires who would be early adopters, and they alone could subsidize the cost of bringing water to the Moon. (This is assuming, of course, that it would be cheaper to import water than it would be to mine and refine it. If mining and refining native ice was cheaper, the millionaire trips could subsidize other materials.)
As lunar tourism becomes accessible, more and more people will go. (Wouldn't you go to Disneyland Luna?) These people will bring the Earth resources needed to expand colonization and create an economy.
In contrast, Mars doesn't have anywhere near the practical capitalist possibilites as a tourist destination that the Moon does. To go to Mars you essentially have to abandon your entire life for several years. Not even most millionaires can afford to do that. Add to the that the increased risks of cell damage and the fact that there's no help should you encounter any unforeseen circumstances, and you'll see why I think it's inarguable that building on the Moon is the most practical way to begin.
I'd still like to see us make it to Mars eventually... but it's a bad choice as a first step.
They should bring the message meant for the moon (Score:4, Funny)
---
About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City. There the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the lunar surface. Among all the trucks and large vehicles were two large figures that were dressed in full lunar spacesuits.
Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by other NASA personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked him who the strange creatures were. The NASA people told them that they were just men that were getting ready to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts.
The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they asked his son to translate. His son would not.
Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. Finally, with cash in hand someone translated the message,
"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."
The poor on Mars (Score:2)
Pfffffftttt - Yeah, that'll happen....
Re:The poor on Mars (Score:2)
God DAMN it (Score:5, Insightful)
Does nobody else remember how ludicruous a moonshot was in 1962? We didn't know how to do it, we didn't know if we could figure out how to do it, and JFK might as well have signed the death warrants of the Apollo 11 crew.
And yet we did it, and got them there and back safely. We did it because one man said we would do it, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.
Every time I read this pussyfooting around a manned Mars mission, it turns my stomach. We are now so petty and adverse to risk that I cannot see that we will ever launch a Mars mission. There are too many negatives and not enough positives. There's too much that we don't know, and that we think - assert vehemently even - that we can't learn or fix. It's too hard, we complain, it's too dangerous, we might fail. We can't afford the risk, we have to wait until we can make it safe. We have to wait, and wait and wait.
What we need is for one man - hell, even Dubya - to stand up say "This country commits itself to putting a man on Mars and bringing him back safely by the end of this decade. Make it happen."
Then we can turn some of our horrifying arms budget to something a little less self destructive, we can find volunteers, brave men and women who understand the risks and choose to go anyway, and we can stop nay-saying and do our damndest to get them there and back safely.
And we might fail. That's not an option, but it is a possibility. But to not try for fear of failure means we're already defeated, and we should weep not for a lost crew of astronauts but for the loss of all astronauts. Buzz Aldrin - a man who has walked on the surface of another planet - laments that he never thought space exploration would mean shuttling cargo around in low Earth orbit. Perhaps we'd just become so used to watching stage managed, post-produced heroes on film and TV that we'd forgotten that the real thing still exists, until September 11th reminded us. We wept for the emergency services men and women who died, but nobody - nobody - cheapened their memory by suggesting that it would have been more prudent, more sensible, for them not to have put themselves in harm's way.
If our reach no longer exceeds our grasp then we might as well gear up to manufacture parts for the Chinese Mars mission, because if we don't go, then they will. Because they seem to understand (as we've forgotten) that constantly striving to achieve more than we believed ourselves capable of is the defining trait of being human.
I've heard talk that we'll rebuild the twin towers, just to show that our spirit isn't broken. Great, but why stop there? Why not keep going up, and up? Why not stop saying "We'll go when it's achievable" and say "We are going. Achieve it."?
Let's got to Mars, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Re:God DAMN it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
Maybe you should avail yourself of some transcripts of the type of language floating around in the White House at the time. JFK basically asked if we had any reasonable chance of beating the Russians to the moon, and if yes, to proceed. Given the alternative, of course the answer was affirmative, even though the track record up to that point hadn't been encouraging. Keep in mind that just a few years earlier the US was caught with their PR pants down when the USSR launched Sputnik. Winning the moon race was by far mostly about regaining respect for democracy--after all, the West itself painted the world as a struggle between Good (West) and Evil (USSR). How could they let Evil triumph? This had nothing to do with developing semiconductors or Teflon in order to develop superior military technology. It was a war of rhetoric. In hindsight it also led to bankrupting the USSR in the long term, but this is just something we can pat ourselves on the shoulder about today. Back then nobody sat down to strategize how to bankrupt the Soviets. At the time it still appeared to be a viable social and political system.
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
A lot of people are intolerant of opposing viewpoints, especially those who see those who differ from them as "opponents." Intolerance is not strictly assigned to liberals, nor only to conservatives. Rather, it is usually the extremist who is intolerant of a different opinion, though an extremist's opinion is also more likely to irk the majority of people than someone who is mildly to the left or the right. If you have had trouble with being modded down for your views, perhaps you are an extremist. You should work on that, it may be dangerous in the long run.
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
Correction, Americans, not humans. I'm mainly using sarcasm to defuse his nationalistic (under)tone. But in this post-9/11 world (to use a Katzism), that's a lost cause anyway.
AMEN!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, the technology is mostly in place to attempt the so-called Mars Direct mission that has been espoused for a number of years.
We really need to bring back the spirit that brought Apollo to the Moon; imagine the possibility with the right funding that we could have a manned mission to Mars and it will be done in time to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence (2016).
Besides the obvious boon of what we'll learn once we get manned missions there, what science we learn developing the spacecraft and landing systems for the Mars Direct mission could have huge benefits here on Earth; after all, the technology developed for the Apollo program is a major reason why I can type this message on Slashdot.org. ^_^
Re:Math majors discovered on Slashdot! (Score:2)
Re:God DAMN it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too hard, we complain, it's too dangerous, we might fail. We can't afford the risk, we have to wait until we can make it safe. We have to wait, and wait and wait.
That's NOT why we're not going. We're not going because going there is TOTALLY WORTHLESS.
People really need to clue in to why people made voyages in the past. They didn't make the voyage for the hell of it, or just to see if they could, they did it for selfish reasons: 1) Find Gold, 2) Escape oppression, 3) Escape crowding and find virgin land, 4) Gold.
There currently is just economic reason to go to Mars. If you want to men in space and you want men in space to stay, then stop whining about how the government should dump money when there is almost no return on the investment except "Gee! Wow! We made it! Whoop-de-doo!"
If we are ever to stay in space, space has to pay for itself through industrialization.
The reason we don't go to Mars is exactly the opposite reason you cite: We don't go because we already know we can do it with enough money. With the moon mission, that really was new.
Worthless moon (Score:2)
Re:God DAMN it (Score:3, Insightful)
Or something like that. Sure, economics drove the exploration of the New World. But the sheer thrill of exploration is also a factor. We didn't climb Mount Everest after running a detailed cost/benefit analysis.
I agree that a certain amount of exploration is done for the sake of research and learning. I think that's why we went to the moon in the first place. The USSR certainly gave us some motivation, but more than that, we wanted to do something that hadn't been done before.
Of course, in the long run, any colony would have to be able to sustain itself. But what would it hurt if we splurged just this once?
But see, that's the problem: space has been done before. There was a lot more mystery surrounding the moon shot. The was truly something that had never been done before. But going to Mars is just more of the same. There's no doubt in anyone's mind that we can do it; it's just a question of spending the money. In other words, we've already done the splurging -- on the moon. If we're going to spend money like that, we can do 100 unmanned probes for the cost of 1 manned probe.
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
Lewis and Clark weren't sent across the continental United States for Gold or any other reason. They were sent to pave the way for others. To see what was there and find what might be of value, scientifically, economically or otherwise.
Dude, you're contradicting yourself in the same sentence. They didn't send them out just for the hell of it, they sent them out to see what might be (as you say) "of value". The US government was extremely interested in expanding the size of US territory. Of course, they were also interested in finding new trading routes to East Europe.
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
but quite frankly I would be much happier as a pioneer on the surface of Mars than I am right now, headed toward an exciting career in the soul-sucking field of white-collar paper-pushing.
That's great, and someday we WILL colonize other places for just that reason. But there is a BIG difference between old-world exploration and space exploration. The big thing is that an old-world colony could be self-sufficient once you got the colonists to the new land. With enough hard work and natural resources, you could build your colony from the land.
But a Mars landing is different. To make a self sufficient colony is insanely difficult and expensive, and quite frankly might be beyond our technology right now. That means you have to have supplies continually coming from Earth. Big $$$$$.
Isn't a shot at answering the eternal question "are we alone?" reason enough to go to Mars?
If that's what you want, then you should definitely NOT be in favor of manned trips. Like I said in another post, we can send 100 unmanned probes for the cost of a single manned probe.
Trust me, I want to go into space. Badly. But I realize that the only way it's going to happen is for space to pay for itself by establishing an industrial infrastructure first in orbit, then in the asteroid belts, then possibly on the moon (although there might not be much there worth having), and then -- someday -- Mars might be cheap enough when our technology reaches the right level.
It sucks, but I think that's the reality of how it has to happen.
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
No, it also needs the support of the Congress to fund it, and therefore the support of the people in the country to spend the billions or trillions of dollars it'll take to make it happen. And that doesn't seem like it's going to happen any time soon. There's just not the sense that it's worthwhile, like we thought going to the moon was because of the Russians. With Mars, sure, we could probably do it if we wanted, but in general we don't really want to that badly.
Re:God DAMN it (Score:2)
Um. Not an American but still pretty much agree with you. Too much wimpy snivelling over this I think.
As for a reason to go to Mars ? Well for me its just a matter of the attitude a civilisation or nation adopts. If the West (or civilisation in general) adopts the attitude that its best not to try anything ambitious then we'll never have the fscking motivation to tackle the more urgent issues. Sure there are lots of things we could spend the money on, but who on Earth is so naive as to believe that the money would actually be spent on those things. How many trillions will be spent on armaments in the next 20 years compared to the piddly amount for the Mars mission. Fact is the 100 billion US dollar cost of this isn't that big considering the time-span and that there could be some international co-operation etc on it, I'm sure lots of nations would like a chance to be associated with it.
Anyway just my 2 cents.
Re:Let's put things in perspective. (Score:2)
Unlike during the cold war, where the threat of nuclear missiles landing on LA, NYC, Washington, London, Paris, and wiping out not 3,000 but 300,000,000 was very real.
Tortuga speed warp (Score:2)
It is interesting to note that since the end of the 60's there have been lots of news that could bring some positive moves on sending a manned craft there. However the large part of these stories don't get even the last page of the web. The rest gets some atention when it is NASA or its affiliates who found something (maybe to appease the taxpayers). But even these discoveries get into oblivion after a few massmedia dumb articles.
Specially interesting to note that after such or similar discoveries, for a week or two we keep hearing that "Mars case moves on", "New findings give a boost to manned mission". After that we catch a lot of critics who repeat all the same song that the findings add nothing either because they are flaw, useless or the discoverer drinks too much. Later we get Hoagland & Co. talking on how this is connected with the hyperphysical squareness of the Egyptian Pyramids and how Tuthankamon still rules the world from his sarcophage by sending telephatic waves to the Face of Mars and back...
And we wait for the next discovery... If it is about having some living dark dirt on the surface don't worry. We already know that Tuthankamon has his hand on it, that the government is after it and we just wait for the next discovery...
On what concerns Man on Mars... Well maybe one day, far, far away...
The Crew (Score:2)
The nerdy scientist who doesn't want to go but can't not go.
The ex husband of the pilot chick who has some kind of vague 'command' role.
The secret robot.
The known robot who is amusing.
The weird vaguely ex drunk science chick who is not as hot as the other chick.
The corporate guy who knows the real deal about a secret alien weapon.
The black guy who dies.
The young buck army recon type who wants to populate Mars with either chick's offspring.
A humanly smart mammalian animal of some kind.
The other scientist who's kept his terminal illness hidden up to now.
Water Ice, Water Water, Water Vapour? (Score:2)
Isn't ice just ice, except when it's dry ice or ice cream? Or do you get some other kind of ice too? The solid form of water is ice. Who's going to think they discovered something else when they report "Ice discovered on Mars"? Let's check the dictionary:-
Water frozen solid.
- Easy enough, that's what they found
A surface, layer, or mass of frozen water.
- Yep, same again
Something resembling frozen water: ammonia ice.
- Note the qualifier AMMONIA in there
A frozen dessert consisting of water, sugar, and a liquid flavoring, often fruit juice.
Cake frosting; icing.
- Maybe they found that on Mars? And the freakin' big bakery / freezer to go with it
Slang. Diamonds.
- Ya never know, maybe Ali G thought that
Sports. The playing field in ice hockey; the rink.
- Canadians maybe thought they found a hockey field buried deep under Mars, and are already planning the 2004 tour to Mars?
Slang. A payment over the listed price of a ticket for a public event.
- Hehe, like, you'll be paying in ice to get to Mars?
Slang. Methamphetamine.
- Maybe that's what they found too!
My 2 Haitian Gourdes worth.
We'll go to Mars for Money (Score:2)
Eventually, though, some group of very rich people or companies are going to realize that Mars has the land area of Earth, and most likely has similar mineral content. There is no one there to contest the land, and for a few tens of billions of dollars, a 1500% or better return could be anticipated, if the investors are willing to look at it over a 20 year or longer term. And, hey, we happen to already know how to make a colony work there, to some degree - at least, well enough to determine and quantify the risk factors. And there are plenty of qualified people who'd go for room and board.
Once that calculation is made by the right people (those with the money), the colonization of Mars is inevitable.
Lets send up Omar, Al Qeda & Osama Bin Laden.. (Score:2)
We didn't go to the moon "For All Mankind"... (Score:2)
...we went to beat the Russians.
That's the simple, God's honest truth about it. There's been alot of talk here comparing going to Mars to the Moon landings in the 60's / 70's, talk about how we did it "not because it was easy, but because it was hard", etc. Make no mistake that any objective reading of history will show that the race to the Moon was a high-tech form of cultural feather-ruffling between superpowers. Two nations, in the absence of direct armed conflict, were contending with each other on the fields of engineering and science rather than weaponry.
We fed ourselves alot of hype about doing things for all mankind, to boldy go where no man has gone before, etc, but the truth, the real truth, is that Sputnik scared the shit out of us. Snug in our belief that the USA was the best at everything and that the Rooskies would soon see the errors of their ways, we were taken aback when they acheived such a feat before we'd even really pushed for it. And everyone could hear it, that beeping above our very own skies proudly declaring the technological prowess of the Russian state.
In response, we jumped on science and technology spending & education with a ferocity rarely ever seen on a national scale. The Moon-shots were our attempt to catch up & surpass the USSR, nothing more & nothing less. Once we'd beaten them to the goal, the Moon program died of ennui.
What gets lost in our debates on things like going to Mars is that there's a time and place for everything. Without the partitioning of Europe and the ensuing Cold War, we likely would have never landed on the Moon. Why not? Because there would have been no reason to. We need a reason to go to Mars, a good reason. And a reason is only as good as the number & quality of the people who believe in it. Perhaps to bring the world together in a uniting effort is a good reason, I don't know. But I do know that the missing reason for doing it, for trying to overcome the monstrous scientific challenges to such an endeavour, is what's preventing it from happening.
Such lofty science & engineering goals as the Moon landings or the Panama Canal all derive from a need to solve real problems -- to show we're superior to the Russians technologically (and thus militarily), or to drastically lower the costs of trade & improve the ability to defend ourselves on the high seas. It's insipid to do anything "not because it is easy, but because it is hard". Under that rationale you can justify anything.
Who to go? (Score:2)
Jodie Foster, Tom Skerrit (and maybe Matthew McConaughey, for moral support).
Pick me! (Score:2)
Now where to find smart people with few social attachments...
Re:preparedness (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Who Should Go? (Score:2)
Band member: we're number one in Bulgaria!
Translator: We're crap.
Band member: we're number one in Czechoslovakia!
Translator: We're totally crap
Band member: We're number one in America!
Translator: We're crap... but rich...
Re:"H2O ice reserves" ? (Score:2)
Surely it's better to extract raw materials from an uninhabited ball of rock than from our own planet. I think the Chinese have the right idea. Start mining the moon, and maybe we won't screw up the Earth so much.
Re:Death Row Inmates (Score:2, Funny)
Re:China? (Score:2)
Re:Which flag? (Score:2)
1. United States
2. European Union
3. Russian Republic
4. Canada
5. Japan
6. United Nations
The first five flags are listed because the countries listed plus the countries of the European Union will provide the technical expertise needed to build the spaceship and the lander systems. The UN flag will be included because this mission will truly be going for all mankind.
Re:Douglas Adams had a good idea... (Score:2)
>
>The trick would be getting them all into one ship without them killing each other.
I'm not sure I follow you.
You're talking about getting all the telemarketers, door-to-door salesdrones, boy bands, RIAA and MPAA execs, Sally, George, and what-not on the B Ark.
But there's a "trick", namely how to load 'em onto the ship without them killing each other.
"Trick?" Either way, I fail to see this as a problem. ;-)
Re:Propellantless Mass Space Propulsion Engine (Score:2)
My bullshit detector just went off.