Europe Joins Race To Send Humans To Mars 582
hereisnowhy writes "CBC reports that the ESA hopes to send humans to Mars within three decades. They first hope to return a Martian soil sample by 2014. They stress the importance of determining whether Mars ever supported life before humans touch down on the surface, because "You can sterilize a robot. But you cannot do the same to an astronaut. Inevitably a human will introduce microbes to the planet ... and contaminate it."" Kame-sennin links to a Reuters article on the plans.
They should send RMS (Score:4, Funny)
Cheers.
Re:They should send RMS (Score:5, Funny)
Too long. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too long. (Score:2, Funny)
Depends on who they are going to send.
I vote for a crew consisting of Michael Jackson, Ossama Bin Laden and Katherine Harris.
Re:Too long. (Score:2)
May want to find him first.
Re:Too long. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too long. (Score:3, Funny)
You have it all wrong - Barney
Re:Too long. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Too long. (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear that something that the world could rail against, such as a super-SARS, a 'killer' asteroid, or sudden climate change would destroy the human race before we could become organized, especially when information is withheld from citizens, other countries, and competing corporate scientists.
Mars could be a couple of years away or less, if everyone worked together. Mind you, I in no way think that this will happen. Sadly, I find the vison of earth as a self-created wasteland far more accurate.
Careful what you wish for... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, with everything else neglected, life there was hell in more ways than I care to enumerate. I have to prefer the society where everyone does what they feel is important to get done, and only unite behind goals for their own purposes.
Re:Careful what you wish for... (Score:4, Insightful)
To quote the parent poster, "I reel at the idea of what we could accomplish if everyone was united to one idea."
How do those two ideas disagree? Obviously not everyone in the Soviet Union was united in those ideas, even if most of the resources were forcibly allocated to them by those in power.
You are right, it's unlikely that _everyone_ in the world would unite behind _one_ idea. However as things currently stand almost _no one_ (statistically speaking) is doing what they'd really want to do, given the education and freedom to do it. Most people are too constrained by the systems under which they live (political, societal, economical, enviromental, etc)
"Imagine if everyone on earth was able to combine their resources and technology with no political, religious, or cultural boundries."
I think those are big problems, but equally important are money and energy. Money because so many people and groups are obsessed with getting it and because almost everyone needs it to survive. Energy because if everyone was able to do whatever they wanted we'd quickly run out of power to support everything.
If everyone on the planet was educated and lived under a government that allowed them to freedom to do what they want, were free of the constrictions of money, and had access to an effectively limitless source of power, things would be very different. Either we'd see a huge surge in the development of science and technology and the arts, or everyone would sit at home watching tv all the time and all progress would cease. I'm not sure way it would go, but it would certainly be interesting finding out.
Re:Careful what you wish for... (Score:4, Insightful)
like eating at McDonalds, wearing nike and getting some bling-bling?
Just because your particular public-mythos includes the concept of free-will dont belive that your *own* public discourse isnt totally dominated and directed.
Imagine for a moment the effects on Joe Public by Marketing. Now tell me Joe makes his own decisions... In fact, Joe's decisions are limited to the ideas he is exposed to (marketing frames public discourse); in fact, I'd say the USA has less freedom in the public sphere than many other places.
Remember, to dissent means your with the terrorists. This meme may seem timely, but consider how powerful its use was. The US public reacts very predictably.
"Naturally the common people don't want war..... but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, wether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a paliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works in every country." -- citiation left off to avoid invoking goodwin's law.
Now, imagine the word "war" is variable, how many ways does this idea apply?
Anyone against GM food wants to starve people. Anyone against cars wants you to live in a cave. Anyone against lawn-mowers wants you to live in a cave. Anyone against mcdonalds wants you to loose your job. Anyone against starbucks wants america's economy to fail.
The truth is public opinion *is* formed at the top -- the real danger is when you cannot trust / loose control of who is at the top that the trouble begins.
The USA lost control of its destiny to Plutocrats at least 75-100 years ago.
Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine there's no heaven, etc. No doubt you are right that a united humanity could achieve some impressive feats, be it for good or ill. One question, though: if there are to be no political, religious, or cultural boundaries, then whose political, religious, or cultural agenda is being followed?
Count me out (Score:4, Insightful)
You didn't mean it this way, I know, but that kind of uniformity is just what our good friend Osama bin Laden is aiming for: Once God (his), one Nation (his), one Vision (his). No thanks, even if it is "mine" instead of "his". Maybe 150+ countries are a bit much, but a world government concentrates power in a way that makes me nervous -- ask your average German or Brit what they think of the European Union, and you'll see what I mean.
You go first. (Score:3)
The parent post with the "imagine" idea, though flawed, has a point. United the human race can do amazing things. "Things" being plural. I can't wrap my head around what humanity could do if it decided to work together on stuff. It could certainly tackle space travel, and I am sure it would have plenty of energy left over to solve other large and complex problems.
Re:Too long. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the problem is that something as bold as a human Mars mission does take decades to prepare for.
That wouldn't be such a big deal if we had started seriously working toward that goal while the Apollo missions were still going on, but now we are 30 some odd years late at getting started.
Instead, we invested nearly everything into the Shuttle, which IMO has been a major diversion, as well as a money pit. The Shuttle is an amazing machine, but it still boils down to basically being a high-tech glider which can withstand re-entry (sometimes!). I'm not totally convinced that the Shuttle technology has been a total waste, but I know that the money could have been better spent trying to develop simpler, effective systems to get us out of LEO, rather than keep us in it. The Apollo missions should have been the first steps to a Mars mission, but we withdrew and went down the Shuttle path, and all we have to show for it after 30 years is a partially built ISS and a couple of major disasters.
We can do better than that. But we are basically back to 1972 again, and it's going to take a while for a Mars mission to materialize. America has a problem with long term investments. People don't see immediate payoffs, so they withdraw the funding.
I just want to see humans reach another planet in my lifetime.
End of the Shuttle -- Not so simple. History... (Score:5, Insightful)
The shuttle has definitely cost a lot of money (and lives), and perhaps has lived longer than it should have, but it was an important step in our ascension to space. It is not entirely clear that any other path would have been faster or even possible, given the issue of funding, and the positive feedback loop resulting in getting the USAF and government behind the program.
The shuttle was a marvel for its time, and now somewhat antiquated in a large part due to the onward march of technology. This will be the history of every major human technological achievement for the forseeable future. It is easy to look back and see all the flaws. But it is not so easy to stop a multi-billion dollar project and start from scratch when you barely have the funds to continue operating on the current path.
--
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
(AXCH) 2004 Mars Exploration Rovers - News, Status, Technical Info, History [axonchisel.net].
Re:Too long. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hubble has redefined our understanding of the universe in so many ways it's not funny. Go read Alpha and Omega for a descent run down of the leaps we have gained from that single piece of equipment.
Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:3, Informative)
Things like E. Coli, L. Acidophilous, L. Casei are part of a normal functioning digestive tract for EVERYONE. They compete with pathogens for "real estate" to prevent growth of the baddies in addition to releasing trace amounts of useful chemicals. (though they're mostly wasted since they're in
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that is not for certain. Keep in mind that our biological science in many ways are in the dark ages. Just 8 years ago, we accepted that most (if not all) ulcers were caused by excess acid production. Now, we know that for the most part, it was a simple bacteria (I forget which one; 20 years out of Genetic engineering tends to make me not pay attention). The real problem was that we were not looking for it because we were so sure that we had the answer.
Likewise, we look mostly for virus only in pathlogical problems. We rarely go looking for viruses that are friendly. In fact, I am pretty certain that we have only started to ID and classify virus to the same extent that bacteria were 50 years after the development of the light microscope (which was not really that much).
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, once you're into the suit, you can head out into space/whereever. Of course, the exterior of that suit is probably lousy with contaminants, so that's not such a good idea if you're looking for bacteria or whatnot on the planet.
You could probably use some sort of cleaning solution, but given the ridges and folds, not to mention the binding and connection points on the suit, you'd probably miss some spots or even worse, get liquid that could (perhaps) freeze in a joint or seam. Something like that happening near the helmet or glove attachment point could be very bad news.
Finally, lets not forget that taking enough of those chemicals to sterilize the suit everytime you go out could get both very heavy AND very expensive.
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
But before they went out, this might not be so easy. Remember, astronauts are used to working in SPACE. SPACESUITS are massive, bulky, radiation shielded, air conditioned and heated, and many, many, many other things. On Mars, with the presence of gravity, this bulky, massive suit would just be plain useless. Instead, a more sleek body suit might be prefered. Something like a scuba suit here on earth, ribbed with heating and cooling and bio-sensors, and instead of zipping or snapping or locking, make it skintight and put on simply by crawling in. Put on a sterile helmet and air supply. Go through into the outer airlock and go under a quick, high pressure wash, then a longer hair dryer like phase. Step out on the planet relatively germ free. Wanna make even more sure? Use Anti-bacterial substances on area's that wont get washed well such as helmet fasteners, and coupling points. This module could be sent seperately and wouldn't be as uneconomical as you make it sound.
As for the temperatures on Mars, they would have to be well monitored.. during the day it can get really hot, and nights are really cold due to the lack of a dense atmosphere, but if you chose the right time, with a temperature around 100 degrees to 40 degrees, you wouldn't have to worry about freezing, and the heating and cooling in the suit should take care of any astronaut discomfort. Ripping a suit on mars should also see less of a consern as there is an atmophere, and the worse that would happen is a really bad sun burn. What about sand storms? Martian Sandstorms are really high speeds, but where the atmosphere is not dense, they don't have very much force. The worse damage would be the covering of solar cells or helmets or other equipment. The sandstorms shouldnt bother the marinaut; feeling more like freezing rain or at worse, small hail.
It's all about how the suit is designed, but as for cost, you can keep it all low simply by shipping first, arriving and unpacking later. You wouldnt need to resupply if you used an autoglave to do sterilization of instruments, and if you recycled your water supplies right. Antibacterial solution is very potent, so a pill bottle distribution of the equipment, mixed with water, should be able to last a very long time.
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sterilizing something that big is really hard, even on earth. Making something as big as the habitation module impermeable and sterile is even harder.
Once people land on Mars, it will definitely be contaminated, and in a big way.
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
100 to 40 degrees... Are those numbers C or F? I think they're inaccurate either way, the Martian temperature peaks at
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you sure that the suits wouldn't still have to be pressurized? Although Mars has an atmosphere, of sorts, I read somewhere that it's *incredibly* thin compared to Earth's... sonething like 0.01% of the density. Not being a physiscist, I don't know, but wouldn't that cause problems?
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
You would think we would be worried about some unique extremophile [wikipedia.org] bacterium on mars infecting us. My guess is that Mars is a one way trip ... otherwise Earth might be introduced to the Mars Plague by any returning space men.
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't they be in suits anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
A Nasa scientist once sneezed on a mirror on some LEO bound device. When it came back the same bacteria was found on the mirror. I'm hoping someone here can verify that. Bacteria is pretty adaptable.
You're thinking of Surveyor 3 launched in April 1967. The probe was not fully sterilised since it was known that the Moon was biologically dead.
Surveyor 3 performed perfectly on the Moon, working for about a month, taking thou
Re:I'm confused here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Admittaly, the conditions are harsh, but bacteria and other animals grow here under harsher conditions. At the mars equator, there is warmth. There is a small atmosphere that will support micro aerophilic bacteria if there is water. We have bacterial life here that grows literally at the south pole. It is not as barren as many would claim.Likewise, we have lots of nematodes, alge, and bacteria that grows in the total absence of sunlight (feeding on valcano's sulfer). We have lived here for quite some time on this planet and we still have new life that shows up in strange locations. It is very possible for life as we know it to be on Mars (assuming that there is water), or for a different type of life
As to a change of agenda, I seriously doubt it. The Europeans have been explorers for quite some time. They are keenly aware of the reasons for expanding explorations. Besides, it would be useful just to get mankind of this rock to help ensure the survivability of us
Cheap OT joke... (Score:4, Funny)
With a chopping block and a knife....
Sterile astronauts (Score:5, Funny)
Sure you can, just take the shielding out of his microwave oven.
Re:Sterile astronauts (Score:3, Funny)
Don't bother. Just leave off the shielding on the ship.
I'm surprised... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm surprised... (Score:3, Informative)
I would like to see this (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to see us collaberate with the Europeans.
Not only for good relations, but because it is such an expensive venture
for us to go it on our own.
Re:I would like to see this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would like to see this (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, it's good to have the Soyuz available whenever we have to ground the shuttle. The Mir was cool when we didn't have any kind of space station.
We also get a boost from some healthy competition. Would we have made it to the moon if not for the desire to beat the Russians there?
If we really do want to get to Mars, I'll bet we get there faster with multiple programs.
TW
So does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Russia Joined the race long, long ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're saying is only partially true. Let's first take a look at Russia: Yes, they've fallen on very hard times. What's their annual budget for spaceflight? $100M? It's something ridiculously low. But they're the country that keeps the ISS supplied. They have reliable, cheap rockets that get the job done. The US has no rocket that offers the same value as Sojuz does, nor does anyone else. So, some respect is due. Though it's plain to see that these times the Russians simply don't have the money to continue their pretty impressive work of past decades.
Europe: For one, Europe never put much effort into manned spaceflight. In the 60s, there was no European space program worth mentioning, and later on, there was no will to spend much money at it. Apart from some failures of early Ariane 5 models, Europe has shown that they can build powerful rockets. Their first Mars mission is mostly successful, and for an orbiter, Mars express can compete with anything anyone else has sent up there. The SMART-1 lunar probe is tiny and not exactly a racehorse, but its techonology is nothing to just diss either.
So, in short, nobody questions that the US is ahead. But don't discount the potential of other countries. In terms of technology, I doubt that either Europe or Russia are more than maybe a few years behind the curve...
Re:Russia Joined the race long, long ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps your impression is just related to the fact that the US media like to portray joint missions domestically as pure NASA successes, a phenomenon not entirely absent from other kinds of international ventures the US participated in. One of the examples that annoys many people to no end is the US seemingly taking sole credit for winning WWII.
In any case, Europe has mostly focused on commercial and astronomical use of space: unspectacular, but either financially or scientifically profitable. "First to..." kinds of missions don't seem to have been of so much interest.
Of course... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait. That stuff was done by the US. Has the EU ever even fired a nuclear engine? Nevermind.
*sigh*
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course... (Score:4, Funny)
Or it could create a mutated super-bug, take over the spacecraft and send it into a crash course with the new WTC towers..
I admit this is a somewhat worst-case scenario..
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush has put $483 million into it for 2005 (Score:3, Informative)
Contamination (Score:5, Interesting)
But then again, the need to return and examine samples prior to human invasion is necessary.
Of course this made me wonder A) can't they still speed up the entire process, even taking into account this need and B) what's the chance that anything we've sent so far has been less than 100% sterile.
Besides, even if we sent a person up and contaminated the place... how long would it take for that to confuse the matter of whether or not Mars previously had life? Can microbes really spread over an entire planet that quickly?
Re:Contamination (Score:2)
Re:Contamination (Score:2, Interesting)
A billion years of contamination (Score:4, Informative)
So we're already contaminating Mars. There's nothing we can do about it.
Mars more likely infected earth (Score:3, Informative)
(1) Mars has 1/3rd the gravity and requires 1/9th the impact force;
(2) Mars has 1% the atmosphere (though could have had much more in the distant past);
(3) Mars is much closer to a source of meteors in the asteroid belt.
Also, Mars may have stablised geologically a couple hundred million years before the larger Earth did. It appears that life can arise in less than this time. Mars also died geologically much earl
Re:A billion years of contamination (Score:3, Interesting)
Cooperation (Score:2, Insightful)
Sterilization... (Score:5, Funny)
The landing crew will find an old shelter ... (Score:2)
I'd also be war
Whitey on the moon (Score:2, Insightful)
The other day I was listening to some public radio when I heard this song being played called "Whitey on the moon" I think it was written during the 60s, who knows though. The lyrics went something like this.
Here I am standing in a welfare line
and whitey's on the moon
My kids are starving, that's why they're crying
Cause whitey's on the moon
The gove
Re:Whitey on the moon: Found it!! (Score:3, Informative)
Whitey on the Moon
By GIL-SCOTT HERON
A rat done bit my sister Nell with Whitey on the moon.
Her face and arms began to swell and Whitey's on the moon.
I can't pay no doctor bills but Whitey's on the moon.
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still while Whitey's on the moon.
The man just upped my rent last night cuz Whitey's on the moon.
No hot water, no toilets, no lights but Whitey's on the moon.
I wonder why he's uppin me. Cuz Whitey's on the moon?
I was
Re:Whitey on the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the USA and Russia's weapons of mass destruction, right? The ones that were made possible by the technological advancements of their respective space programs?
The only focusing the USA government wants these days is for people to not focus on their own past and present actions and capabilities (like those WMD).
USA right now is still suffering from a financial downfall. The last thing we should be thinking about doing is sending our money up in a rocket.
Of course, send it to the Middle East instead, in the form of lots of smaller rockets and such. Who cares about the long term viability of the species, or exploration of our universe? Pshaw!
Whoa wait, I missed this in history class. (Score:3, Insightful)
We (the US) had a space program in the early 40's? Wow, cool.
Re:Whoa wait, I missed this in history class. (Score:3, Insightful)
You (the US) had intercontinental ballistic missiles before the space program? Wow, cool.
Re:Whitey on the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Normally I'm the type of guy who's all in favor of government spending on technology and science since that creates potential jobs for me or those who compete with me for a job.
While the quote you present does have a valid point, here are two flaws I have with it.
First, it is a racially polarizing quote. Now, I know, the original speaker was black. That's all well and good, but the universality of such a quote is cut off at the knees. I mean Christ o
Life on Mars (Score:2)
Although the conditions possibly could have been right for life to develop on Mars at some point in it's history, that is no rea
One way trip (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One way trip (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One way trip (Score:5, Funny)
A while ago, I heard some Aussie comment that he was glad that Australia got all the criminals and America got all the religious people.
Re:One way trip (previous discussion) (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm all for it, and there are many smart, sane, competent people who would make a good first team and die with dignity and honor. How sad it is that in modern western society we've elevated the individual human life to such an extent that we cannot see this...
--
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
(AXCH) 2004 Mars Exploration Rovers - News, Status, Technical Info, History [axonchisel.net].
Who cares? (Score:2)
So if Mars supported microbes a million years ago, humans can never go there? Fuck that.
A bit optimistic... (Score:2, Interesting)
i don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
should there actually be life there, it would obviously be of the microbial sort
should this microbe actually exist, it's genetics would be utterly fascinating: is there shared code between earth and mars? or did life evolve on mars by itself? so is the comet-as-interplanetary gene carrier hypothesis viable? could there therefore be life on jupiter's/ saturn's moons, on venus, or even on some extra-solar system planet? is there some sort of inter-solar system comet gene carrier system at work in our galaxy/ universe even?
these are all fascinating questions, but i posit this: the value of all that information is outweighed by the need to start terraforming mars now: put on mars, on purpose, microbes that are known to be able to survive there, such as microbes that live in antarctic/ arctic deserts
liekwise, seed venus with microbes from hot springs/ deep sea vents
why?
we need these microbes to start making venus/ mars habitable by earth life, human life, asap, and while the crytozoological/ exobiological questions are fascinating, the terraforming needs of getting these microbes on these planets asap, so they can start putting oxygen/ water there, is far more important than any interesting things we can learn from exotic, non earth microbes
seriously
i propose we send out mars and venus microbe fertilizing robotic probes now... spirit and opportunity with an on-purpose microbe payload
i'm not joking, i'm making a judgment, a choice, and i know some may disagree with me, but i am serious: the exotic information we might lose by destroying mars-native microbes is less important than the needs of human interplantary coloinzation efforts to terraform mars' atmosphere
Do you have to get them back? (Score:2, Interesting)
Strikes me as this may be unnessecary. Surely there would be a large number of people out there who would gladly accept a one-way ticket to Mars?
Am I right?
Any takers?
The new space race (Score:4, Interesting)
We're seeing the new space race, and it's going to be something. Competition for the "high ground" between Europe, China, and the US is really getting started. If the US continues to become more insular, this will just be one more way that Americans feel the need to prove superiority. But it's also a way for Europe to assert its own primacy, and China's motive to be seen as the next superpower is clear, as well.
Whether any of it happens is almost immaterial: the perception will drive the funding, and scientists on all sides will take the money and attention happily. Let's hope that the end result really is "for all mankind".
Who cares if we contaminate the place? (Score:2)
I don't see us changing our S.O.P. so why try? Just get there, start working on setting up some sweatshops (build cheap domes too, lets get us some Total Recall three breasted hookers while we're at it) and get to work planning on polluting the hell out of the next place.
THIS planet is your only home (Score:5, Insightful)
Serriously, Earth is the only suitable planet where we can freely exist in the natural environment, and there is nothing even close anywhere near by. Humans will not be leaving Earth in our current form. If the cosmic rays don't get you, the loss of bone mass will...or maybe the insanity imposed by the ten thousand years you would be travelling to get anywhere...if you could live that long.
Re:THIS planet is your only home (Score:5, Funny)
Re:THIS planet is your only home (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, our ancestors who left the plains of East Africa tens of thousands of years ago could well have made the same argument.
"Want to go to Europe? Be my guest. While you are spending 99% of your life wearing clothes that cover 90% of your body to keep out the cold, I'll be warm and comfortable here wearing not much at all."
Of course, they could have been right. For most people, life wasn't noticeably better in Europe than it was for their distant relatives in Africa. Nasty, brutish and short in both areas.
Those that headed east to Bora Bora did have it better than either, at least until those Europeans arrived.
And, of course, the Neandert[h]als might have some comments to add to the discussion, if they were still alive.
Re:NOT Insightful, take an astronomy course (Score:5, Insightful)
It is well within our capabilities to colonize much of the solar system. Whether we'll ever reach another star is indeed a serious question, or rather a topic mostly for science-fiction writers. Unless we discover some Star Trek physics, we may never make it.
And in comparison with the Cro Magnon "invasion" of Europe 50,000 years ago, what little evidence we have of that implies that it took generations. The conquest actually took around 10,000 years. Scandinavia was only settled by modern humans about 5,000 years ago. The Solar System looks fairly easy in comparison.
We do have much better technology now. But we'll have to learn to do farming on asteroids and such to make a go of it.
And if there are living bacteria on Mars, it would be a real shame to contaminate them before we have a chance to study them thoroughly. They're probably not on the surface, of course; too much UV there. But it'll be interesting to see what's a few meters down.
Re:NOT Insightful, take an astronomy course (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you cannot compare cosmic distances to travelling across the oceans. Sorry, in the real universe scale matters.
Approximate travel time to Mars: 1 year. Approximate travel time to row across the Pacific ocean: 6 months - 1 year. These are comparable figures, therefore your bald assertion above would appear to be incorrect.
The ocean analogy has been brought up before and it continues to demosntrate how ignorant most people are of basic science.
The ignorance being demonstrated here is your own. We are talking about going to Mars, not to another star system.
Actually, there are theoretical limits. (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I generally agree with the spirit of your message, this specific statement is not accurate:
First, there's a biophysical upper bound on acceleration: the body cannot concievably withstand much more than several g's for long. This limits your Lorentz factor.
Second, once v/c ~
Zubrin on contamination... (Score:5, Interesting)
His response was twofold - secondarily dismissing the possibly of a "superbug" from Mars (apparently he gets a lot more paranoid people than myself asking a similar question). On the question of us contaminating evidence of life there, he said that while we would probably spread some microbes and the like around that if we did find anything it should be easy to trace the origin back to Earth instead of Mars, so that is would pose no serious problem for scientific research. Also of course he brought up that Mars had very likely had some meteorites cast off from earth "contaminating" Mars already, so to worry about bringing new things there was foolish.
Besides, it seems like if you were really worried about contamination you would seek a few million samples, not taking two or three and then starting the landrush!
Astronaut Nolan Was Here (Score:5, Funny)
...and back here at Mission Control, Bob, they're all speechless. Noone seems to even want to try to explain why Astronaut Nolan decided to write his name on the Maritian surface with his own urine. Back to you Bob ...
My thoughts... (Score:4, Insightful)
My second thought is that its nice to see a government policy toward space which isn't pure politi-bullshit. Its cool that the ESA came out and said they want to make sure to get the soil samples before they send people. Their statements sounds like commitment, while Bush's space plan sounds like election year politics.
Re:My thoughts... (Score:3, Insightful)
In response to the moon base controversy, what's the point? Building a moonbase is going to require more government money spent on the program. That involves more jobs, a longer window for the program, more research, and perhaps a moon base has some innate benefits that are entirely separate from getting to Mars. It's probably easier to launch an immediate response rescue mission from the moon than from Earth to any Earth orbit. It might take 3 days to get to Earth orbit from the m
A tremendous contradiction obstructs this goal (Score:3, Insightful)
Garmong is right - man's accomplishments in space will be best reached when such endeavors are released from the government tether.
Somewhere on Mars ... (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody (not NASA, not ESA, not the Chinese) is seriously considering a one-way manned mission. Glorified soil sampling is all they are considering.
Going back to your New World analogy, you forgot that before America was colonised by Europeans that it was explored by them beforehand. Exploration is always the logical first step, whether we're talking about undiscovered continents (Americas, Australasia), extremes (South Pole), or heavenly bodies (the Moon, Mars).
Re:Uh, wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
A few months ago, I read an interesting comment on these explorations by some historian (whose name I've forgotten). His study of the records of the early expeditions to New England showed that the first around 1500 reported a coast lined with villages every few miles. The second, around 1520, described a coast nearly devoid of people, with uninhabited ruins every few miles.
What had happened during those 20 years? Measles and smallpox, mostly.
There's a reason some people are worried about carrying contagion to Mars.
Re:HUMANS TO MARS NOW (Score:2, Funny)
Re:HUMANS TO MARS NOW (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do we need humans on Mars?
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint. What do humans bring to the table? Propaganda value, and local decision-making ability. That is all. They need to be pampered and babied with one atmosphere of room temperature oxygen for the entire trip. And worst of all, they must be guaranteed passage back to Earth. So they have to take a huge rocket for a return trip with them when they go up- which is grossly impractical. It was bad enough when we had to do it from the moon. Mars is a much deeper gravity well to rocket out of. For some reason we are unwilling to accept the notion that we might send someone to another planet like Mars and leave them there or expect them to efficiently commit suicide. But that's because we're hypocrites. With failure rates as high as they are, committing suicide is practically what you're doing when you get on a NASA shuttle or rocket. So why don't we just admit this is a one-way trip and at least junk the requirement for a return trip? Or this is not going to happen.
"But we're running out of space for all these people on Earth!" I hear you say. May I point out that sending a man to Mars will deplete far more of the Earth's resources than merely allowing him to quietly live here in a crappy apartment. This probably implies that sending people into space will not be a practical method of relieving Earthbound congestion.
Re:HUMANS TO MARS NOW (Score:3, Interesting)
I used ot have simliar thoughts, but I am not so sure of that. Right now, we have lost all of our lift capacity. Worse, ppl do not see the reasons to go as much. If we go to back to the moon, or better yet, on to mars, we will probably have to use a lot of robots for building a base. In fact, we would probably wish to test several large rockets by sending robots to luna and building small underground ba
Re:HUMANS TO MARS NOW (Score:4, Insightful)
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint.
As evidence, I point to the 2 rovers currently on Mars. As recently as last week, we didn't even know if they'd be able to move and collect data, all due to a programming glitch (and yes, I realize I'm simplifying greatly). Now that they're working perfectly again, we have the opportunity to explore perhaps a few dozen/hundred metres in any given direction.
Humans are self-programmable, and can potentially fix their own antennas when they go out of alignment. We have amazingly dextrous manipulators and locomotion systems that are simply beyond our current technology to reproduce artificially. A rover can get stuck on a rock, the human steps over it.
And a human can cover several KILOMETRES of ground to do experiements, with little added expense.
From a practical standpoint, there is a hell of a lot that robotic missions can't do.
Re:Contaminate (Score:2, Insightful)
Not A "WASTE OF TIME" (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, babies needed to learn how to crawl before learning how to run a 6-minute mile.
How about we take some baby steps first? Or....Lets wait the thousands of years it would take to get a probe to even the closest star, let alone "the deepest reaches of space". That would be a REAL waste of time.
Re:Does anybody else sort of wonder. . . (Score:3, Funny)
If you don't survive the culling, it's a safe bet the rest of us didn't either.
Re:Why do we need people? (Score:5, Insightful)
The philosophic answer would probably be that it's in our nature to wander off and explore, just like Columbus.
The political answer is that "no one ever threw a ticker tape parade for a robot."
Re:It's scary.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The possibility that live from elsewhere could do this are really nil. In fact there's two scenarios here:-
a. By far the most likely is that alien life uses a biochemisty different from our own. There's all sorts of potential reasons why you'd expect this - even if alien life is based on dna/protein the triplet coding could differ, the amino acid set could differ etc etc. Chances of an exact match are very, very low indeed and with it the chances of the alien pathogen being able to attack our biochemistry are extremely low to non-existant.
b. Biochemisty is the same as ours. This is unlikely but if it is true would be very, very interesting indeed as it would be virtually certain we had a common ancestor - which in turn would indicate (galactic) panspermia as championed by wickramasinghe and hoyle. In that cas the species barrier thing still makes infection unlikely, but a minor risk compared to the implications of the find!