Petition for Human Exploration of Mars 340
jonwiley writes "The Mars Society and thinkMARS have teamed up to create a web-based petition for those who support the human exploration of Mars. Their goal is 1,000,000 signatures by November 2000 and they plan to present the petition to Congress, the President, and to other world leaders. "
Just Say No To Commie Bastards (Score:2)
A million signatures, and then they are going to submit it to the government? This sounds like a nice dream, but a very bad to go about it.
If a million people really care about it that much, how about they all kick in a hundred bucks, and do it privately? That'll get ya a hundred million dollars. Not enough money? Ok, kick in five hundred bucks, or even a thousand. That is not a lot of money to spend on something grandiose that you really care about. You spent more than that on your stereo system, and this is space exploration that we're talking about here. Anyone who signs this petition but won't write a kilobuck check is a hypocrite.
But the people that sign this stuff don't really want to pay, do they? They want everyone to pay, whether the other 249 million people in the country sign the petition or not. Whether the other people can afford to pay (or care enough to pay) for it or not. The purpose of this petition is to make it so that everyone involuntarily pays. If this were just a voluntary thing, they wouldn't need a petition; they would just need a fund raiser.
This is immoral. It is theft. I am sick of people trying to get the government to back their own agendas (no matter how good intentioned they are) as if government money (and government power) just grows on trees. If you really care about something, get off your ass and do it yourself. Or educate others so that they see the benefits of space exploration. Make the people want to do it, instead of making government respresentatives want to do it out of fear of not getting re-elected.
Do not sign this petition! This isn't about space exploration; it's about communism.
---
Re:I would support it conditionally (Score:1)
I'd want to see a colony on the Moon before Mars. That way you can use the Moon as a staging point, while still having a colony that can start working toward harvesting the solar power, asteroid mining and other resources.
If you're interested take a look at http://www.asi.org .
Wayne
Re:"Fuck the Doomed" (Score:1)
And another thing... (Score:1)
Re:Pointless (Score:1)
This can be said of any fronteer. But people always go when the opertunity to go. If tommorrow NASA said "OK We need some people to man a Mars colony." Do you think people wouldn't show up? This would actualy make a good Slashdot poll.
I know I'd sign up. At the very least that asshole geologist would sign up. (He'd better be able to play Quake). Sure Internet access would suck, but compared to the fronteers of old we'ed have the best communication by far.
Re:Do we *deserve* to colonise Mars? (Score:1)
Even in the medium term. (Score:1)
Then there are the ineffable issues. Knowledge from observing the Martian dust storms led to our model of nuclear winter and deterred people from starting a nuclear war here. Observations of Jupiter's atmosphere led to better models of our own and superior weather forecasts. Going to a new planet, especially to live there, is bound to yield knowledge that will improve conditions somewhere, or maybe even everywhere. It's very short-sighted to say "I can't see what we might find, let's not go" when the whole point of going is to see what you'll find. And until we find it, we don't know what it's good for.
Gimme a ticket on a Mars Direct.
--
Advertisers: If you attach cookies to your banner ads,
Re:In the long term, yes. (Score:1)
Although this may sound logical it is not. I don't remeber where but it has been proven we can not offset the population growth by moving people to another planet. Just think how much it costs us to move a handful of people into space, unless we have a huge leap in space technology this will never be a solution to the population problem.
As well it is definatly possible to bring population growth to 0 or even make it negative. Basically we need to get the birth rate to about 2.1 children per family or something close to that. It has almost been accomplished in many countries, through education. If we educate people and help the poor which are the people who contribute the most to population growth then we can indeed fix the problem.
Re:That's quite a bit. (Score:1)
But it's small change for the gov't. If enough people actually wanted to and made this an issue, NASA would get the money. The problem is that no one in the USA wants to. Idiots.
Re:Uhm, we're already exploring Mars. (Score:1)
--Fesh
Re:"Fuck the Doomed" (Score:2)
It is not a false dichotomy. Even a smaller population will be using resources, which in turn will result in less resources for further generations. A shrinking population will slow the inevitable, not stop it. Even in the rosiest scenerio all the metals will eventually have been recycled to the point to where there is nothing left (remember, no process is 100% effecient -- the laws of thermodynamics don't permit it). Ditto for numerous other resources we take for granted, such as arable land, for example[1]. The net result: someday we will have consumed all of the non-renewable resources of this world, until there are enough left to support a population of exactly 0.
Now, if you are arguing we should give up our luxurious lifestyle and return to the trees then yes, we could probably live in a fashion sustainable by this world until conditions change such that human life is no longer possible. We did it for 3,000,000 years or so, after all. However, I do think there are valuable aspects to a modern, technological society that are worth keeping, and the only way to do this on any kind of long term basis is to move our exploitation of resources away from the Earth's biosphere, which cannot sustain such abuse much longer.
Technology demands resources, many of which are not renewable, even through recycling. Those which can be recycled are not 100% recoverable. No procedure is 100% effecient (the laws of thermodynamics prevent that), so even in a world of shrinking population and wonderful levels of ecological sensitivity, you will, eventually, wind up with a world capable of supporting 0 people in a technological society, or alternatively some tens of millions as unusually clever animals.
Even if you "terraform" every square meter of the earth's surface and ocean floors, you will only slow, not stop, the erosion of resources over time. In the end, the only alternatives are either a decreasing standard of living, or obtaining new resources elsewhere. Whether the decision is done in time to allow billions to benefit, or done when only millions can, or postponed so long until the choice is no longer possible, won't really change that rather unpleasant fact.
Our goals should include the colonization and exploitation of the other worlds of this solar system, and whatever nearby stars we find ourselves able to reach in the centuries ahead. There is wealth almost beyond counting, in the form of usable energy, minerals, materials, space, and even worlds. We would be fools to turn our back on it.
[1]Unless we use sustainable, non-absolutist agriculture, as proposed by Daniel Quinne and others. This is really a completely different discussion, orthogonal to the arguments pro and con as to the benefits of space exploration and exploitation.
Why Mars exploration is stupid (today, at least) (Score:1)
I guess this is why NASA is scouring prisons and ghettos for astronaut candidates...
The cost of sending humans to another planet is so exorbitantly high (and will be for a long time), that anyone who goes will either be a) incredibly wealthy or b) extremely vital to the success of the extraplanetary "colony". Mars will not be settled by convicts and refugees. It will be settled by affluent scientist-types from rich industrial nations. And if even the most tentative steps in that direction take place in my lifetime, I'll be shocked.
And before you say, "We'll be off-planet *long before* the sun goes nova", remember: people said the same thing about Y2K ("the computers with be updated *long before* the year 2000 is reached").
Uhhh, yeah. Those two events are about exactly the same. The Y2K problem took thirty years to manifest itself, and the sun will go nova in several million years. I don't think it's a real pressing concern. Further, stars don't die instantly. We'll have several hundred years of warning that we're being evicted...
And people who think a space colony will solve Earth's population problems are facing the same problem: expense. Which is cheaper, feeding starving people, or launching them to another (hostile) planet and feeding them there? The Earth's population is growing by 80 million people per year. So to stabilize Earth, we have to send 200,000 people to Mars every single day. Good solution, and certainly more cost-effective than, say, birth control.
I'm not against space travel and colonization. I'm just trying to be realistic, and the truth is there's no real reason to go to Mars right now, and it's not really possible to do it right with current technology.
Have patience, people. Would you rather see mankind settling Mars permanently, or another Apollo-style one-off stunt?
I won't even point out that a petition of this sort is completely useless. A petition only works when it's a direct threat ("These people won't vote for you if you don't change your ways"), not just a list of signatures from a nebulous group of unaligned people.
Whoops. I guess I pointed it out.
Re: start sending supplies now (Score:1)
in a few decades we should have enuff supplies to make quite a nice colony on mars.
Moderation (Score:1)
Re:Waste? (Score:1)
As I've said, we could do this easily, the only reason we don't is that people in the US really don't care anymore.
Mayve if China gets a human into space all the Americans with overinflated egos will want to make sure the US of A stays ahead of the stinking commies in the space race.
Personally, I would kill for the opportunity to go into space. Just imagining being up there is humbling.
Sounds like extortion (Score:1)
So you're going to take money out of my pocket, one way or another, huh? I'm sure you're a talented and bright person, or you wouldn't be working in a technological/scientific field like that. But listen, buddy: society does not owe you a living.
I'm all in favor of you trying to convince people that space exploration is a Good Thing, so that maybe those people will spend their money cluefully. But the welfare ultimatum is a really cheap shot. It makes you look like an extortionist, and it undermines your cause.
---
Too Much Information Requested (Score:1)
Re:I can't remember being this disappointed in /.e (Score:1)
What about the bits that aren't land? Undersea colonies would be just as scientifically rewarding as space colonies and would be easier in some ways.
Re:"Fuck the Doomed" (Score:1)
Yes, exactly! I should have said "... a movie based loosely on a Hunter S Thompson book, starring Bill Murray
Re:Just Say No To Commie Bastards (Score:1)
DB
Re:In the long term, yes. (Score:2)
The time to explore the planets is as soon as we have the ability to do so. That doesn't mean we need to stop trying to improve the situation of our home planet.
In fact, learning about other planets is a good way to find out more about how our own behaves, and how to fix its problems.
Perhaps a dry run might be in order? (Score:1)
This could provide some valuable possibilities: launch the parts into Near-Earth orbit, field-test the methods to be used to deliver the colony components on a place with higher gravity, test the methods for landing the crew and components there, practice colony construction there, and inhabit it for a year or so.
This is a way that is less likely to leave people in the lurch if something fails. Things can go "a little wrong" without losing however many people are involved in the project.
Pointless (Score:1)
Re:A Waste? WHAT? (Score:1)
Re:Are you suggesting I go on welfare? (Score:1)
Don't be so dramatic, if you have a job in the space industry, surely you can get one in the entertainment sector ;-)
-Brian
Mars Direct (Score:3)
Mod him up! (Score:1)
Bingo. Now that would be worthwhile.
---
In the long term, yes. (Score:3)
Humanity has all its eggs in one basket, and that's a guarantee of extinction in the long term.
Going to Mars is one of the very early steps in the process of improving our species' survival chances, and as such is incredibly important.
Right Goal - wrong philosophy (Score:2)
Mars is a planet with an History. And look at it with an History as old as the planet you live. And if anyone takes the care to look carefully then he may note that there are a lot of wrong things with that planet. In any case that planet is a BIG MISTAKE. It is something much like the cross between a mouse and an elephant that was forced to run faster than a leopard and had to face a full crash. That's how I "subjectively" see that thing over there, after many years of observations. A funny analogy but also very tragic and alarming.
Mars presents problems starting from its orbit. It goes over what is called as "proper movements". They don't fit well accepted schemes and predictions. Note that due to this Kepler has managed to find the laws of planetary orbits. Because Mars didn't fit any acceptable scheme.
Martian general geology is also a serious problem. The inners of the planet are assymetric. A pure planetary aberration. Tectonics and magnetism seem to have existed. However what we get of their remains are not answers but more and more questions.
The atmosphere is also a big problem. Yes most people tell you about its thiness and a lot of bla-bla-bla about its past. However 90% forget to tell you that this atmosphere could not exist for too long. It is dynamically unstable. So it is either recent or there is something we are missing.
The channels exist. Look through a telescope and sooner or later you will note them. However these are not Martians or water flows. It is that same crazy atmosphere playing games with the landscape. A strange tidal game of harmonics that shows how highly unstable it is.
Life in Mars? 99% that you will find nothing. Even ashes to ashes. The planet suffered serious hits and got hotter than a steam pan. Just look at Hellas and you may get what I mean.
Water? Probably some. And probably not the one that formed its rivers lakes and seas. By the same reason above.
Aliens? Maybe yes, maybe not. But forget looking at Mars Face as a shrine sending telepatic messages to Earth. That thing is interesting but it is very hard to consider it an alien product. In fact a lot of things shown as alien are far from such. However there are a lot of very interesting places where anyone would start seriously think if "Aliens? Baaa..." would be enough.
Colonization? Don't be crazy. It is probable that humans will find much easier to colonize Io than that piece of overfried pan. Besides that planet has really Bad Luck. More than 80% of crafts had a mission not fulfilled or a strange disappearence into the Black Houl of Mars.
But should humans stay away from Mars? Absolutely not. They should go there and try to find the answers for the questions this planet arise. Talking in "martial" terms they should make expedtions to find its comrade MIA. And give him an honourable burial. It is a moral duty for Earthlings to look at the fate of its brother planet. For the sake of their own future. One day, Earth may suffer similar fate.
This can be only accomplished by going to Mars. Note that sending machines is not an answer. Machines can only give snapshots. And very incomplete ones. Human presence can give a serious weight to the process of search by trial and error. Human decisionmaking will allow a faster development on investigation. Besides humans may receive a unique experience by exploring the harshest friendly planet they know.
This is not without risks. There will be deads. There will be coffins returning home. There will be eyes staring forever over an empty landscape. But without this, there will be humans, that one day will not understand why they deserved a tragic fate sitting in their armchairs, laying in their beds or walking on the street. There will be humans that would never understand, what really could mean a flash of light over the skies. There will be a Mankind that suffered millions of years to see its children dying in the most stupid of deaths.
Re:Warning: privacy implications of petition (Score:1)
Waste? (Score:1)
Now we're building a glorified hotel, up there in orbit. Thats really nice and fine. We can go up there, while the "lesser" humans down here starve and die of disease.
Yes, I have a problem with this. I'm not a ludite by any means. I just wonder why we expand our borders, whilst inside our borders we have all these problems that could be easily solved with a little (big) cash injection.
Not very eloquent today, but I hope you see my point.
Mong.
* Paul Madley
This doesn't mean anything. (Score:2)
The fact millions of people would like to see it happen isn't a surprise. In fact, not getting a million people to sign in just less than a year would be a major surprise. But the petition doesn't mention costs.
The petition would have made some impact if it said "It's ok to raise taxes the next 15 years", "I am willing to flip burgers instead of getting a scolarship", "I deal with traffic for the rest of my life instead highway improvement", "I don't think I will be old - I don't need care then", "I don't mind potholes" or "I won't upgrade my computer for the next 10 years - I invest in the Mars mission".
Even more impressive would be asking for a small contribution. Say, $100 dollars or so. Then, when the petition is presented, one can say "here are a million signatures, and a 100 million dollar cheque. It will barely get you away from Earth, and not bring you to Mars at all, but it's a start.
-- Abigail
Uhm, we're already exploring Mars. (Score:4)
On the other hand, sending people to Mars or the Moon with the intention of leaving them there, now that's interesting.
Re:A Waste? WHAT? (Score:1)
What about the kids suffering and dying at this moment in Africa? Shouldn't we be doing something for them? Why is going to Mars so much more beneficial to "our children" than feeding them?
And if you want to save them, and enable them to "spread their wings", why don't you do something against pollution, so that they can still breathe on this old planet in a hundred years?
I'm not against space exploration, or spending money on it. But your arguments suck (and I've read your follow-up, and they still don't make any sense to me).
Re:Mars, eh (Score:1)
Yes, I know, I'm sure any technology that would be developed for a Mars trip could be developed in time without going to Mars, but it seems that the two things that increase the rate of new technologies are wars and exploration.
And Yes...I think you will have to be part of a club, most likely NASA, ESA and the Japanese. I don't see a robust South Asian or African space program around.
What would writing off Africa's debt do? Allow African nations to acquire more debt?
OOOK! (Score:1)
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
OTOH (Score:2)
Think of the microphone on the current Mars mission. Not much real scientific value, but it is cool and will (hopefully) get some positive publicity.
Mind you, they should probably work one their Mission To Mars Success Ratio before they send humans out there
Dana
That's quite a bit. (Score:1)
But if, for every person in the country, 40 bucks were taken from tax money and allocated to it, we'd have 10 billion right there. And don't tell me taking an average of 40 bucks from an average of, what, $10-15 K in taxes will make a huge dent in the money. Take it from the military budget, we can already kill every person on the planet 10 times over with ammo to spare.
What I'd really like to see is some of these really rich computer entrepreneurs donating some money to this. I know Bill Gates could donate $20 billion and still have a comfortable lifestyle in his $50 million house complex.
The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program.
-Arthur C. Clarke
If each petition signer would contribute (Score:1)
Re:Tread Lightly? Why? (Score:1)
They're a great big resource, waiting to be taken, used, and transformed.
The poor in space (Score:1)
>gram of their own oxygen, fuel, food, and water
>with them to America or Australia
Actually, they did have to bring food, first in the form of consumables, then food that could be planted, grown, and harvested.
Assuming an enforced recycling plan, which includes water and oxygen recycling, along with extracting oxygen and hydrogen from the lunar/Martian soil, I think that the needs for air, oxygen, and food can be reduded.
>I still totally disagree with this idea. What's
>easier, train an Air Force captain to survive on
>Mars, or train a street peddler from Bangladesh?
Of course the captain is easier to train. But, historically, you always send in the military first, *then* send in the poor once the military have secured a base. The poor people then have to build the infrastructure to take a military output and transform it into a commercial/residental area. This is historical precedence, and I don't see any reason why this would change.
>Poor people will never leave Earth - once space
>travel is cheap and easy enough for them to do
>it, our space colonies will already have their
>own poor people to worry about without importing
>more.
Historically, you are wrong. Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, and German peasants settled much of the North American bread basket. They didn't have to afford to go (in most cases, they could not afford to go); the tickets (one-way, of course) were given to them, they were packed on a leaky ship, and tossed out the harbour. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the future, with space. Aside from Star Trek, I have yet to come across any science fiction works where the above isn't assumed and/or implemented. Okay, Joe Haldeman's "Forever War" doesn't, but that book only talks about the military aspect of space exploration.
As for your final point, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Baby steps on stepping stones.
Re:"Fuck the Doomed" (Score:1)
Mars we know we can get water, metals, and even a little atmosphere to suppliment recycled air with big enough condensers. There may even be places on mars capable of growing plants engineered to stand up to the atmospheric conditions outside a habitat.
And from a purely 'gee that's nifty' point of view, if i had a choice between seeing a lunar colony (people living for some period in space.. which we've already done.. alot) or someone actually standing on another planet (which we've never done).. i'd go with the planet.
Dreamweaver
Re:Why Mars exploration is stupid (today, at least (Score:1)
>ghettos for astronaut candidates...
That's how England populated Australia. My point was that, historically, the first wave of settlers to a new land have always been the cast-offs, the criminals, the malcontents; the lower class. Look at the first people to settle the USA; not the highest cut of the European social fabric. The lower class people are the best candidates, because of the will to survive, the familiarity to living in the shadow of death. Of course, space is a little different from being deported to America, and the people will have to be trained, but the concept is still valid.
>Uhhh, yeah. Those two events are about exactly
>the same. The Y2K problem took thirty years to
>manifest itself, and the sun will go nova in
>several million years. I don't think it's a real
>pressing concern. Further, stars don't die
>instantly. We'll have several hundred years of
>warning that we're being evicted...
I agree with you one both points, that the sun won't die for a very long idea, we will have a ton of warning. But would you rather have a ton of research and experience manning inter-plantary/inter-stellar missions, or decide, at the last milllenium, "Shit! The Sun is DYING! QUICK, build that colony ship NOW!"
As well, I read once, that it would take 2 days to fully evacuate New York City in the event of a nuclear attack. And that was assuming fully cooperation (but feel free to dispute this, I can't prove it). Now, how long would it take to fully evacuate our solar system? State any assumptions needed to reach your conclusion (distance to off-system planet, carrying capacity of the ships, speed of the ships, number of ships).
>Have patience, people. Would you rather see
>mankind settling Mars permanently, or another
>Apollo-style one-off stunt?
Again, I agree with you. We need to establish a working (and profitable) lunar base first, then use it as a stepping stone to get to Mars. Then Europa, Titan....
reservations (Score:2)
- It will give the defense forces even more justification for their exhorbitant research budget
- We have fucked up one planet already. I think we should leave the others alone until we've learned how to be better managers of the environment.
Space probes sent to other planets are heated to sterilise them. Try doing that to a human.
Space is not privatized (Score:2)
And once you've got permission, where are you getting the cash? The big aerospace companies are sitting pretty; it isn't often that you find a market where the government will pay you hundreds of millions of dollars to build a vehicle and then throw it away ASAP. And the small aerospace companies are dying through lack of private investment after being told by investors (and rightly) that it doesn't pay to compete with the government.
So now we have NASA paying a billion dollars for Lockheed-Martin to produce an over-weight, over-budget "technology demonstrator" while companies like Rotary Rocket and Kistler are hunting their couches for spare change.
I think Slashdot has already been over the interesting international treaties regarding private ownership of celestial territory..
Last Post! (Score:1)
The only thing that will get us to Mars is a Strong Central Government funding Pure Science. You nerds have no influence or importance in this issue. Go back to your easy and boring programming work and leave the science and discovery to people greater than yourselves.
_.......................__
||.....__...._._||_..||-\\..._...._._||_
||......_\\.(/_'..||....||-//.//.\\.(/_'..||
||__((_||_,_/).||_..||....\\_//.,_/).\\_
HAHA! LAST POST! Anything following is redundant.
Renewable resources (Score:2)
Please; I've seen better discussions of thermodynamics in creationist literature...
That forced inefficiency refers to usable energy (work), not to *mass*. Yes, it costs energy to recycle material.. but 100% of the material is still there, and the Sun is currently hitting us with 100+ million gigawatts of power, and will continue doing so for about 4 billion years.
We don't need to go into space because we're in danger of "running out of resources" on Earth; we may want to go into space because it will allow us to use even more resources, and to use the ones we have more efficiently.
Re:Uhm, we're already exploring Mars. (Score:1)
Re:"Fuck the Doomed" (Score:1)
As for plants, a heated greenhouse using CO2 from the Mars atmosphere can grow normal high yield plants, much more efficient than growing genetically engeineered plants (I doubt it's possible to have something that can survive the kind of temperature on Mars)
I was thinking the benefits of a lunar outpost as a starting point for future space explorations, it would be far more economical than earth based launches. I didn't mean having an actual settlement there, just personnels to run and maintain the facilities.
A big nuclear/solar powered communication station on the back of the moon + relay station on the side facing the earth would help communication with space exploration vessels tremendously.
Basically I think it would be much easier to send people to mars once the infrastruture is in place on the moon.
Pilgrims (Score:1)
If the Pilgrims (and the Puritans of the Mass Bay Colony) had brought all the food they needed, nearly half of the population would not have died the first winter. Something to think about, if the colonization of America is to be compared with that of Mars ;-)
This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.
Re:Have we learned nothing from Apollo? (Score:1)
-
Re:A Waste? WHAT? (Score:1)
Are "these people" part of a different species to you then?
Re:Mars, eh (Score:2)
Re:"Fuck the Doomed" (Score:2)
This is a false dichotomy. Another scenario is we we drop back to a much smaller population that is supported with sustainable energy sources/agriculture/etc. In your eco-sensitive world what resources are we running out of that the pie is getting smaller?
We don't need a manned expedition to Mars to get very cheap energy from the sun. Similarly, if you don't want to curb population growth there is plenty of space on this planet that isn't being used. Why terraform Mars when you can terraform Kansas or Wyoming or, hell, even Western Massachusetts. And that's not even counting oceans. We also don't need a manned expedition to Mars to get mine minerals from the asteroids -- although now that I think about I've never heard a explanation for why we need to mine minerals from asteroids, are we running out of them on Earth? We don't need a manned expedition to build space habitats.
If those things are our real goals then we should make them our real goals. If Mars is just a PR stunt to help us towards our real goals then I can do without the waste of money.
Re:Wrong Goal. (Score:2)
Re:A Waste? WHAT? (Score:3)
World fully explored? (Score:2)
Close enough to true, perhaps, but consider that 2/3 of the planet is ocean and we've really only begun poking around at the surface in the few decades since Cousteau invented the aqualung. Given that no-one has ever seen a live giant squid (a rather large animal), I'd have to assume that there's all sorts of interesting critters down there for us to discover. Hell, they even keep discovering large new mammels on land every decade or so!
Manned space exploration is really a gimick. I'd rather see larger scale and more ambitous robotic exploration of mars.... and if NASA is building decent robotic systems, how about also having a few robotic subs roaming and exploring the oceans!
For me the only real purpose of manned expeditions would be working towards permanently manned habitats leading towards colonies. The best step in this direction would be to first learn how to do it on earth! How about a large scale Biosphere project populated with a dozen or so people... better than MTV's Real World!
Fantastic dreams (Score:2)
Basic ecology says that sooner or later there will be much to many Earth inhabitants; rather sooner, though. And when an ecological niche is filled up, the natural selection strenghtens: for us, that means wars, famine, diseases, basically - call me Kasandra - the end of the european civilization. We could expand our niche if we start it doing early enough... but I'm pessimistic whether this is possible: unless someone will actually make money with sending people to a Mars collony there will never be money for it.
A mission to Mars is nevertheless possible; and I will sign this petition - maybe it works, who knows? I still dream about pigs... ops. humans in space.
Regards,
January
Re:Uhm, we're already exploring Mars. (Score:2)
A Waste? WHAT? (Score:4)
Oh well, I better stop before my rant gets too unreadable. I'll probally get flamed/moderated down for this, but I just had to say what I had to say.
Don't forget velcro and microwaves. (Score:2)
It takes a lot more than bits to do that. (Score:2)
Comments... (Score:2)
However, I can see part of the concerns that others may have. For information purposes, yeah, it's a lot cheaper to send un-manned missions to Mars to collect more data than we currently have.
But, depending on the scope of data to be collected, that may not be as feasable as one thinks at first. For instance - when something goes wrong with a piece of equiptment, like the Mars Rover, when it's dead, it's dead. Humans out there on Mars, on the other hand, can do a lot to fix problems like that. Great technology is no replacement for human inginuity when in the field.
Plus, look at the different options for data collection there. With the Mars Rover, it was a long drawn out process just to select, and drive to a single location. When you got there, well... there really wasn't that much the rover could do about it, except grab some very limited soil samples, and take pretty pictures. Humans, on the other hand, can continue an investigation MUCH farther. For example, if something interesting extended under a rock - no problem. The human picks it up, and examines under it.
There's so much more that a human can do, and given the lag in movement, the bandwidth restrictions, and the problems even a small fault can incur on unmanned missions sometimes, sending humans there could be a great option.
And, lets not forget the matter of human pride. We will have stepped on an alien planet for the first time. It would be great.
Re:reservations (Score:2)
Yeah, we have fucked the Earth up something royal, but that alone shouldn't stop us from trying again to do better. .. We are going to have to deal with Mars sometime, we can't stay here on Earth forever.
I agree, but I don't think the time is right. Go now, we will fuck Mars up royal too. I'm sorry, I do not trust humans at this point in time. We don't have the smarts. Yet.
Who says that this is automatically bad. The Internet, GPS and others are old DoD projects. While I'll admit they often go bad, it is not predestined.
I reject this argument for defense spending. DoD love to point at defense research spinoffs and quote the "trickle-down effect" of research. This is quite insane. Instead of investing billions into military research in the hope that a hundred million worth will trickle down to ordinary consumers, why not invest the billions in non-military research in the first place?
No, this isn't off-topic. Because in the current runaway Capitalist situation any manned Mars expedition would be inextricably linked to defense research.
A big reason... (Score:2)
Think about designing interplanetary communication systems. Think about implementing them.(isn't there already a protocol under review?) Think about AT&T sponsoring it, 'cause they will be on of the few that could afford the R&D outside the gov't. Unless Buzz Aldrin can find a way.
It would make a cool Nokia/PCS/Iridium(sp) commercial to have an astronaut calling for pizza as a joke from orbit, or Mars..
"Microsoft is a proud supporter of the U.S. Mission to Mars(tm)"!!
Why waste the money? (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
A Chomskian Analysis of Martian Exploration (Score:2)
I hope that many Slashdotters, whether they love or hate him, are familiar with Noam Chomsky [zmag.org] but briefly, he's an MIT linguistics prof (who originated the idea of context free grammars!) and a leading anarchistic social dissident whose primary thesis is that America is ran by power elites who subvert democracy through media control.
One of Chomsky's more interesting ideas is that military spending is primarily a way of subzidizing scientific research (a subtle departure from the usual military-industrial-complex-tyranny-theory or the necessary-external-enemies-theory!).
Thinking along these lines suggests Martian exploraiton by the United States, whatever the direct benefits, must be very appealing to the Secret Masters of Government because:
- Intellectuals (both 'left' and 'right') and other potential trouble-makers tends to like the idea
- It gives the rest of the population sometime to be patriotic about, which makes them generally more pliant politically
- It gives us a new way to spend lots of money on scientific research... which is badly needed since the Soviet block imploded.
Now I hardly agree with everything Chomsky says, but I do find this sort of logic pretty compelling... which means that even if Mars-loving geeks like me step aside Martian exploration in my lifetime is pretty inevitable anyways.
Cheers,
~yair
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
Two Sense (Score:5)
-Omar@wheeee!.*crash*.com
Send cheap probes! (Score:3)
If NASA wants to drum up popular support, they should involve high school science classes by running a contest for cheap probes. Offer to launch probes for high schools and colleges. Here are the specifications: NASA will provide standard power and telemetry, and a ride into space.
Your team of high school students or college students or drinking buddies has to build everything else: sensors, computer, programming, and some neat bit of random science.
I would love to build a probe using an old 386, an A/D card, some thermocouples and pressure sensors and lob it into Jupiter. Could you imagine how much fun this would be? Imagine how excited your local high school would get to have their probe picked for launch. Imagine the pissing war between the engineering departments of MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.
And some cool science might just happen along the way.
Re:Waste? (Score:3)
Dang useless weather satellites, who cares how the weather is going to be, hurricanes are much more fun if you no warning about them.
And forget about studying weather on other planets, the only people who would benefit from being able to predict weather months in advance would be farmers, and people that eat.
Military recon satellites, a big effin' waste. I feel much more secure not knowing how much weapons my enemy has, and whether or not they're massing arms at my border. Let's just start a war on a whim, or a guess about an oncoming attack.
I'm sorry, I don't see your point. There have always been poor, starving diseased people. Probably the first group of proto-humans to leave their tribe was told "why do you want to go over the hill, stay here and help us dig roots."
The Mars Society is talking a $20 billion dollar price tag. Assume half the Earth is starving, poor and diseased, and we split that $20 billion among 3 billion people. $7 is going to make their life better?
George
Re:Mars, eh (Score:2)
Why the dinosaurs died out (Score:2)
What many here may not realize is that the mission to the moon is still regarded as one of the most important stories of the twentieth century (3rd, I believe.)
Of course, at that time *there was no robots* who could have pilotted the craft and colected the moon rocks. Back then, the only choice was to spend the huge amount of money to send people in order to do the scientific study. Today, we could accomplish these things as well with cheaper, faster programs like sojourner and the downed climate observer.
But humanity is less completely enthralled by such programs. They don't hold the promise that the manned moon missions did. The thoughts of building houses and colonies on the moon in the lifetime of the astronauts who flew there. We're not pacified by the more scientific but less human mars program currently running.
Therefore, I think we may wish to try it the old way. Send men to mars, get them back. We don't have the technology to do this efficiently yet, but we may have it very soon. What this petition is about is the goal. Not for scientific purposes but for equally valid social and human purposes. I believe it will be an important step to solving one of humanities greatest problems: our eventual extinction we face by keeping ourselves locked into a single planet.
-Ben
Re:Pilgrims (Score:2)
I also question comparing "living off the land" in an ecosystem replete with food and breathable air, on a planet we evolved on, to living in a near-airless icebox that certainly has no life more complex than a microbe. Nonetheless, I think Zubrin makes some very good points, and I'm glad we have him as a cheerleader for Mars colonization.
So you want to go to Mars? (Score:2)
No. This petition is for people who want to spend $30 billion (the lowest estimate I've seen, and who doesn't think this thing would pork barrel like the Shuttle and ISS?) to plant a flag on and take some rock souvenirs from the Martian surface, then stay away from the place for 30+ years because "it's been done, and it's too expensive." We screwed up that way with Apollo, and we don't need to do it again. If all you want is a Mars rock, let's send another RC car and get a Mars rock.
Re:Mars Direct (Score:2)
Re:reservations (Score:2)
However, if Mars is just a lifeless rock, then I think most things we do to it would be an improvement. There's no fragile ecosystem to mess up.
Re:In the long term, yes. (Score:2)
I realise this is very easy for me to say because I'm not one of the people who did starve. But when you think of the money and resources that aer wasted in this world, I can't even imagine that anyone would object to puting some to a good cause. Even if it's not the cause they had in mind. Puting money into a space program doesn't stop you from puting other money into Africa.
Re:Send cheap probes! (Score:2)
A manned mission to Mars, and staying for two years on the planet surface, would cost $50 billion dollars.
While perhaps that is an awfully large sum for the government to pay, Microsoft or any of a dozen other large corporations could foot the bill. Lots of smaller corporations could foot portions of the mission, like developing the technology to process Mars' atmosphere to develop the rocket fuel for a return trip. Split up among a variety of corporations, private enterprises could quite easily come up with the prerequiste money and material outlay for just such a mission.
Boeing, for example, could develop the rockets necessary to get us there, as well as some NIMF rockets to propel us around once we're on the planet. In return, they get the ability to resell that technology *and* an absolutely stellar (no pun intended) endorsement. "Boeing put mankind on Mars. What can it do for you?"
Re:Debt - Off Topic (Score:2)
The way I see it, and I'll get flamed for it. There has been poverty and homelessness and disease since man first walked erect. I'm not homeless or poor (but am diseased - Cancer - Twice) because I make a living for myself. African (and other nations) took it upon themselves to get into debt, so why should anyone write off that debt? No one is willing to write off my debt for me.
I think it is far more important to explore and discover than it solve all the World's ills. Because we will never solve the World's ills, and it is foolish to think we will.
Re:it's all about strength (Score:2)
Unlike what was shown in the Babylon 5 TV series, you'd have to spin down for manuevers. But during the long balistic trajectory part of the mission it should work fine.
Warning: privacy implications of petition (Score:3)
The petition site is not secured by SSL. Hence any personal data you volunteer will be transmitted in the clear to the thinkmars server. Ordinarily this would be a limited risk, but considering the prominence that a slashdot citing must bring, I would guess that thinkmars is by now the target of at least one and probably more than one packet sniffer deployed by some misguided spammer.
Sorry if that sounds alarmist. Just would like to mention that aspect of the petition so that people wishing to sign it can weigh the risk.
-konstant
Re:Uhm, we're already exploring Mars. (Score:3)
Re:Waste? (Score:2)
I would donate $100 (Score:2)
This petition is pointless (Score:2)
One example of a situation where a petition is useful is when the constituants of one particular politician present that politician with a petition dealing with a specific, concrete point that the politician does not already agree with. By this, the constituants can show the politician that his or her views do not agree with what the people in his or her region want to see happen. Politicians want to be re-elected, so a petition may cause them to re-think their stance on a particular point if they can see that many people disagree with it.
In the case of exploration of Mars, a petition isn't going to do anything whatsoever. First, just about everybody already agrees that we should send manned missions to Mars, given infinite resources. The fact that we don't have infinite resources means that we need to find a way to balance many interests simultaneously (e.g., the need to explore Mars, the need to feed the nation, the need to reduce crime, etc.). The percentage of resources spent on each interest is not a clear-cut issue, and regardless of how many geeks get together and sign a petition, as long as some way exists to continue exploring Mars (I'm thinking of unmanned missions that are going on now) politicians are going to call that good enough and focus on other social aspects nearer to home. If you don't believe this, the next time the United States gets involved in some conflict overseas, listen to the number of people who complain, "But we should be focusing on issues HERE AT HOME, not in some foreign country."
As far as the industrial people that the petition is directed towards, they won't care either. The only thing that drives them is whether they can make money at something. If you can show them that they can make money off of an investment in technology needed to send a manned mission to Mars, you'll get industrial involvement. Otherwise, you won't.
The concept of technology brings up a second major reason why this petition is pointless: technology. Yep, many people agree that we should send a manned mission to Mars, but just because they all get together doesn't magically make the technology to do this appear. One might argue that a petition might spark new developments in technology that might make such a feat possible, similar to what happened in the Apollo project. However, the difference between a mission to Mars and Apollo is that in the case of Apollo, going to the moon was envisionable with the current technology plus a marginal amount of improvement. In the case of a manned mission to Mars, there are fundamental technological hurdles that need to be figured out. How do we take care of fuel? How do we pack enough food/water for a manned crew to survive for the lengthy trip? How do we ensure that we can get them back home safely? These are major obstacles -- probably more challenging to us now than the obstacles facing the Apollo project were in the 1960's.
Re:In the long term, yes. (Score:2)
As an American citizen, I have been submitting to the outright theft of large amounts of my money for many years now. Our liberal government and liberal news media justify this theft with arguments strikingly similar to yours. I have yet to see results. I've noticed no change in the number of homeless people in my city, I've heard no news of any horrible diseases being cured recently.
In short, they're wasting my money.
It's time to spend that money on our future. Establishing a persistent presence on Mars seems to me to be Step Number One in that process.
We are living on a planet that cannot permanently sustain the amount of life already on it. And our population is growing. Clearly we need more space.
Not to mention much of the technology that would be devoloped while pursuing such an endevour would in all likelihood be of great assistance in combatting exactly those problems of which you speak.
These are just a few of the reasons I can think of for going to Mars, there are many, many more. I'll omit them for now in the interest of brevity.
Why Mars Exploration is Good (Score:4)
2) Yes, as previoiusly stated, it's a great backup in case of something devastating earth.
3) Moving onto Mars puts us in the state of mind to move farther and farther away from the Earth successful. Care to put a estimate on how long the sun has left? And before you say, "We'll be off-planet *long before* the sun goes nova", remember: people said the same thing about Y2K ("the computers with be updated *long before* the year 2000 is reached").
But I understand the people who ask about today's problems, and why we should fix those problems first. IMO, those opinions are very valid. But, as expensive as establishing off planet bases seems, I think the resources going into the space program are not sufficent enough to fix those problems. IMO, those problems (world hunger, crime, etc) will *allways* be with us. It's a lousy opinion, but a true one.
Look at history. There was poor in Europe before Europeans decided to colonize and control the world, there were poor people in Europe *while* they colonized the world, and there are *still* poor people in Europe now, after they colonized the world. But guess what. Look at all the opportunities the New World (America/Australia) created for Europeans!
Space travel *is* a good thing for the lower classes of people. Again, look at history. Who do you think the people who settled America/Australia were? Upper class snobs? Hell no! You ship the lower class! If they die en route, or while building the infrastructure, you ship more! Space colonization will happen the same way.
Serious Question (Score:2)
Why do they need all of the fields filled in?
Can anyone verify that this is a serious effort on the behalf of some group to get manned exploration of Mars? It asks for a fair bit of information including requiring that we provide the email addresses of others. Similarly, Shouldn't they require some sort of mail based confirmation in order to prevent ballot stuffing at this time? I loathe pyramid scams of even the chain letter sort and want to make sure of this thing before I sign it.
Thanks.
B. Elgin
Re:In the long term, yes. (Score:3)
Starvation is a social problem, not a technological one. Throwing more money at it hasn't helped yet, and it won't help in the future. Growing more food hasn't helped yet, and won't help in the future.
The only way we are going to feed everyone is if we manage to create social structures in which that must happen. We haven't done so yet, and I don't see it happening in the near future.
Instead of paying people not to grow food, we could be allowing them to grow food and spending that money on shipping instead, getting the excess food where it needs to be. Fight that if you want, if you think you can get anything changed.
In the meantime, other people are interested in other things, and I see no reason some of us cannot persue space travel and the colonization of other planets. This doesn't mean that we don't care about starving people (or any other social ill of the week), it just means that we see something we think we can have a positive effect on.
Besides, learning to create a safe, self-sustaining environment may be one of the tools we need to solve the social problems you care so much about.
The social change required to feed everyone all at once is more likely to occur when it becomes suffeciently easy to provide food easily to everyone all at once, and to grow that food locally.
Learning to do that in a hostile world with less sunlight is certain to teach us things we can use here.
Are you suggesting I go on welfare? (Score:4)
At least with my current work, you'll get a better understanding of weather patterns and environmental research to help prevent any harmful effects of global warming that humans might be causing. My work might also help with other detector technologies (from MRI to the CCD in your camcorder). My work will also provide opportunities to research physics that can better improve your life through safety, better medicine, cheaper products, and possibly more environmentaly safe products.
Now, what is better, spending welfare money reading
My personal part might be small, but I find it rewarding.
Maybe your idea of spending money is to go to the movies. Now really, how good of an investment is that in the long term? You paid somebody to occupy your attention for 2.5 hours and wasted countless time discussing it afterwards. I say get rid of some of the entertainment industry before you pick on the space industry.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
I can't remember being this disappointed in /.ers! (Score:2)
What? Is this really Slashdot, or am I suddenly reading _The Whole Earth Review_ or something?
We live on a world that is fully explored - there's not a square meter of land on the surface that hasn't been mapped, prodded, and trodden.
Why go to Mars? Because it's there! Because it's something we can do as a species, not just as petty, small-minded individuals. Something bigger than all of us. Something new, something grand, something great!
Where's your sense of adventure, fer crissakes?
Hell, give me a one-way spaceship, something I can use to make food, water, and air, and enough equipment to get me started processing raw materials (like a solar-powered electric steel furnace) and I'll go. In a second. Even if there's a 75% chance I'd be dead in a month.
You naysayers should be hanging your heads in shame!
Wrong Goal. (Score:2)
Total waste (Score:2)
The technologies we would need to develop to go to Mars, and more importantly to live there, would definitely apply back here on Earth.
Think of the hydroponic gardens, self-contained and genetically engineered to provide for proper nutrition. Encased in a small greenhouse, cheap and adequate for human use in no time at all. There's no where here that something like that would be of use. Not in the remote-most reaches of Cyclone ravaged India. Not in Kosovar refugee camps, nowhere.
The medical technology necessary to diagnose and monitor human health, and to make the necessary adjustments to physiology - when the nearest hospital is millions of miles away... What a waste!
Light, strong and durable building materials, air scrubbers and anti-radiation shielding. Useless.
Heh! It's starting to sound like a Visa ad:
Interplanetary rocket technology: $200billion.
Self-contained geosphere environment: $100billion.
Superconduction: $50billion.
The peace of mind in knowing that when the doomsday rock hits Earth, you have somewhere to go: PRICELESS!
Re:I would donate $100 (Score:2)
I wonder how many pledges they'd get out of it. They wouldn't necessarily have to show the pledge amount for each person, but a grand total would be nice to see.
"Fuck the Doomed" (Score:5)
Seriously, while taking care of the weak, poor, and less fortunate makes us all feel nicely warm and fuzzy, doing so at the expense of your future posterity is not only stupid, it is IMHO criminally negligent of your own children's future.
The resource of Earth are finite and rapidly being depleated. The choices which face us are fairly stark: either accept an ever sinking standard of living, or find more resources elsewhere. I suppose a third option would be to hope for a magic new technological breakthrough a la' Star Trek's replicator, but, just as occasionally someone wins the lottery, death by lightning strike is far more probable. And frankly, there is little else that would suffice: recycling cannot result in 100% recovery, so even in the best, most eco-sensitive world, with a population that stops growing, we will be sharing (or, more likely, killing each other over) an ever shrinking pie.
While space is hardly a panacea for all the world's problems, the space program, including manned space exploration, is a critical first step in building a sustainable infrastructure for exploiting the cheap energy and mineral wealth of the solar system. It is, in its infancy, expensive, dangerous, and requires some level of sacrifice, but it is nevertheless very important that it be done. Space provides opportunity for additional living space, very cheap energy from the sun, and sufficient mineral wealth to sustain economic growth and prosperity for millenia. Not that this alone will automagically solve all our problems, but at least it will help provide us with the means to do so, which staying planet bound to Earth will not.
The effort to reach Mars has allot of value. It will push technologies and demand resources (and infrastructure) that will facilitate commercial and industrial uses of both near-earth and martian space. Possible medium-term benefits include moving much of our industry into space and away from the Earth's biosphere and microwaving very inexpensive energy back to earth. Long term benefits are too numerous to mention, but include the possiblity of seeding a new biosphere on mars and creating a wealth of new living space in space habitats with access to inexpensive energy and minerals.
To squander all of today's limited wealth feeding the world's poor is to condemn everyone in future generations to a much lower (and ever decreasing) standard of living, until one day the exploited Earth is home only to the impoverished, rightfully cursing their shortsited forfathers for condemning them to their fate.
The approach currently being taken is the correct one -- spend some money alleviating some of most acute the problems of the world, while spending some on building an infrastructure that can sustain and assure future generations of opportunity and wealth. While we may argue over how much should be spent on one versus the other, the contention that we should spend all of our wealth on quick and temporary bandages for today's problems while ignoring the investments necessary for a prosperous future defies all reason and common sense.
Do we *deserve* to colonise Mars? (Score:3)
(a) space exploration is pointless, we should spend it on alleviating poverty, or
(b) Of course we should invest in space, its the only way we will have any future.
As someone else put it, back in the earliest days, there were groups of people saying "Why do you want to explore the next valley? Stay here and help us dig roots" and people boldly going where no man had gone before...
I'd argue that there's a third point of view: maybe we should look at the mess we're making here on earth, and keep our hands off Mars. After all, we're demonstrating pretty well that we have no conception of sharing the planet with other species (I mean, what kind of sick planet has hog farm waste threatening North Carolina estuaries? Oil slicks in Alaska? Clear cuts of ancient redwoods for a few quick bucks? Elephants hunted down for overgrown teeth?). And our science is still incapable of deciding whether Mars had or might have life forms of its own some day - when our sun goes red giant, mars will be warm and toasty enough for its own life (maybe for its life forms to re-emerge, even).
So my position would be, leave Mars alone until we show that we can take care of a planet. I realize this echoes the position of the "Reds" in KSR's Red Mars, and that this post sounds like I'm a tree hugging green zealot neo-luddite, but I'm actually an astronomy grad student, and I'm strongly pro-exploration and pro-technology... I just have too little faith in human feet treading lightly.
Plus there's plenty of space to explore here - what happened to those deep-sea habitats? Mine pure metals on the sea floor, live in a closed community with minimal external inputs, you get the idea. Leave Mars to the robots, which won't start grabbing land and arguing independence just yet...
(This comment is probably worth 4 cents. Or maybe nothing. I can't decide)
Re:Waste? (Score:3)
Yes, and then they have children, and you have twice as severe a problem as before, so instead of needing $20 billion, you need $40 billion. These kinds of problems aren't solved with the kinds of short term bandages you suggest. What is needed are more resources, less expensive power, economic growth and yes, economic help for the less fortunate. Both goals must be served: (1) short term comfort and help and (2) long term investment in infrastructure for space exploration and exploitation, to provide us with the resources future generations will need in order to enjoy a standard of living comparable (or even better) than our own. If there isn't enough wealth to do both, then short term comfort needs to take a back seat in favor of long term prosperity. Failure to do this will condemn everyone in future generations to ever increasing levels of poverty, until all of the resources of this one planet have been exhausted and there is literally nothing left.
Think outside the box. (Score:2)
The moon isn't much better. Aside from rock (with some additions due to the solar wind and "gardening" by meteroids over the eons), there doesn't appear to be much there either. There are tantalizing hints of water-ice (nothing confirmed yet) but no nitrogen or carbon. You'd have to import pretty much everything you need for carbon-based life, and that $10,000/lb just to get it to LEO is pretty daunting.
Mars is the nearest place we can go that has all the basics. The atmosphere is chock full of carbon and oxygen (CO2 97%), it has nitrogen (3% in the atmosphere) and we know water (and thus hydrogen) is present; the Vikings sent back pictures of morning frosts on the ground under conditions too warm for dry ice to form, so we know that the relative humidity exceeds 100% at times under natural conditions. All the essential elements of life are there in vast quantities compared to any place other than Earth. This makes Mars the nearest place where people can easily "live off the land", and thus our best bet for a viable colony.
--
Advertisers: If you attach cookies to your banner ads,