I do not think humans are going to send people to Mars for a very long time.

[astro]

In thinking about the thread re who is going to Mars, given that we already know quite a bit about Mars the prospect of sending people there holds little compelling scientific purpose, and would be a hugely expensive, and somewhat pointless engineering exercise.

While I realize all sorts of countries have plans to do this, in real world terms I do not think we are actually going to send people to Mars for very long time.

[Washoe]

Sadly, you’re probably right. I dwell on this all the time. I was seven years old when the first lunar landing occurred, and I’m not going to live long enough to see a manned expedition to Mars. Pisses me off.

[levdrakon]

I wouldn't say we know all that much about Mars. There probably aren't many earth-shattering discoveries to be had though.

A semi-permanent base there would be awesome just to prove it can be done. Not going to happen soon.

[mac_bolan00]

doesn't sound too impossible if one does in a sequence of several missions. it will require a "sling-shot" trajectory from either the earth or the moon going to and one around mars on the way back. also will likely require another winning combination of german ingenuity and american financing.

[cmyk]

I'll be shocked if any manned mission happens in my lifetime (I'm 38).

If it does, I'm sure I'll be pretty old, provided I live that long, but global circumstances would have to change dramatically before anyone sees the effort, risk and expense as worth while.

Perhaps if planned and executed over a number of decades, with several un-manned missions dropping off supplies, raw materials and resources, and pre-fab dwellings to one strategically placed locale. Then by the time we're ready to send humans there, the cost would be offset by the 20-30 year timeline and would also buy us engineering time for building a vessel fit for such a journey, and perhaps by then our current propulsion technologies would improve, thereby making the trip shorter and more reasonable.

Still, it's a much bigger jump than landing on the moon, and that's still a huge challenge, even for today. But damn, I'd love to see the day. I missed the Apollo missions by 4 years, and have always hoped, since childhood, that Mars would be the next step for humanity, and I'd be lucky enough to at least witness that. Damn!

[CalMeacham]

I wouldn't say we know all that much about Mars. There probably aren't many earth-shattering discoveries to be had though.

Certainly there are -- Mars is the only known source of Iludium Q-38 Explosive Modulators.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

OK, but will people send humans to Mars?

Will humans ever send themselves?

If people or humans ever send either one to Mars to live, won't they be Martians at that point?

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Certainly there are -- Mars is the only known source of Iludium Q-38 Explosive Modulators.

There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

The chances of anyone flying to Mars are a million to one.

[Al Bundy]

Yes, probably not in the lifetime of the currently living. However, the expansion of knowledge is at such a level that the long term will see more than you could imagine over generations. I think humans are forced to think in terms of their own lives and become biased into believing they have seen it all.

[septimus]

Are there any estimates of when we could land a man on Mars and bring him back to Earth and how much money it would take, if we started in earnest today? I'd guess that it would be by far the most expensive operation of any sort ever performed. The same funding applied to, e.g., medical or energy technologies would have hugely more impact.

Yet, it is amusing to note that The Greatest Living American™, Mr. George W. Bush, was an advocate of this "idea." While also reducing NASA's funding. Given current trends (Palin, Bachmann, Trump are seriously proposed for President ) America is likely to turn increasingly to crackpot stupid ideas. Historians may not even call GWB the worst President. (Not because any of #1-#42 are worse, but because America hasn't plumbed its own depths yet.)

But as its leadership becomes increasingly irrational, its economic strength will fail and such an undertaking will become increasingly impossible by the U.S.A.

My prediction? Mars in the mid 22nd century, but achieved by China. If the upward trend in human technology continues.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Tapioca Dextrin

The chances of anyone flying to Mars are a million to one.

You can't fly to Mars, believe me, I've tried. Once you flap hard enough to make it out the Earth's atmosphere, your wings melt. I think it has something to do with solar flares.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by septimus

...Yet, it is amusing to note that The Greatest Living American™, Mr. George W. Bush, was an advocate of this "idea." While also reducing NASA's funding. Given current trends (Palin, Bachmann, Trump are seriously proposed for President ) America is likely to turn increasingly to crackpot stupid ideas. Historians may not even call GWB the worst President. (Not because any of #1-#42 are worse, but because America hasn't plumbed its own depths yet.)

*takes another swig of beer*

Donchoo gheddit yet?! Their planns are to relocate aamerica to the red planet so we can finally be free of them damn ghays and socialist commies. No ghays or commies or liberruls allowd! nosirree! *hic* It'll fuggin wurk! aand marsss will be renammed to amarsica, and called the red white aaaand blew plannnet.

*downs the beer and cracks another*

[beowulff]

Originally Posted by Tapioca Dextrin

The chances of anyone flying to Mars are a million to one.

And still, they come.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by septimus

Are there any estimates of when we could land a man on Mars and bring him back to Earth and how much money it would take, if we started in earnest today? I'd guess that it would be by far the most expensive operation of any sort ever performed. The same funding applied to, e.g., medical or energy technologies would have hugely more impact.

There are far, far, faaaaaar larger amounts of money already being spent on e.g. medical and energy technologies.

Anyway, it may be private industry that gets to Mars first. Or, a government/consortium of governments may place the order to private industry. Doesn't do much good to tell private industry it should spend its money on medical and energy technologies if they don't feel like it.

There does seem to be a lot of demonstrable progress being made in private launch technologies, inflatable habitat technologies, etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised if within 10-15 years private entrepreneurs etc. at least demonstrate their ability to send some stuff to Mars, working and intact.

I'm pretty pessimistic about governments and the citizenry in general getting around to sending people to Mars in my lifetime, but I'm of the opinion all bets are off talking about private industry.

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

I'm pretty pessimistic about governments and the citizenry in general getting around to sending people to Mars in my lifetime, but I'm of the opinion all bets are off talking about private industry.

Where's the profit in sending people to Mars?

I don't see a lot of private companies setting up habitats in Antarctica, despite the fact that it's far cheaper to get to than Mars and far more amenable to human life.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

Where's the profit in sending people to Mars?

I don't see a lot of private companies setting up habitats in Antarctica, despite the fact that it's far cheaper to get to than Mars and far more amenable to human life.

Don't ask me. Ask SpaceX, planning to put a man on Mars in 10-20 years.

I have no desire to go to Antarctica. Apparently neither does SpaceX.

Hm.

[TriPolar]

We are no where near ready to send a manned mission to mars. If we did, and it happened to make it there, I doubt anyone will return alive. Considering the general uselessness of such a mission, I doubt it will be attempted.

We could be doing a lot more robotic exploration of Mars than we are now to satisfy curiosity.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Don't ask me. Ask SpaceX, planning to put a man on Mars in 10-20 years.

Not gonna happen.

The degree of difficulty of getting humans to Mars and back alive isn't just double or triple that of getting to the moon and back. It's many times that, due mostly to the fact that Mars is 200 times as far away as the moon, and is that close only at certain times.

And most of the difficulty in getting to either place is in preserving a safe habitat and providing necessary nutrients for these bags of protein and water we call our bodies during these journeys through space. One can send a robot to either place for a tiny fraction of the cost.

That's why nobody will go to Mars during my lifetime (I'll make it to midcentury if I'm lucky), and why nobody's in any hurry to go back to the moon.

[jtgain]

I took a tour of Kennedy Space Center in 2005, shortly after Bush announced his plan for a manned mission to Mars. The tour guide was telling all of the kids that one of THEM could be the first person to set foot on Mars! Around 2025! It's in the works! The guy was so good that I felt like a kid again.

I'm all for limited government, but this is a worthy goal. Why? Because it's there.

[YaraMateo]

Originally Posted by septimus

Are there any estimates of when we could land a man on Mars and bring him back to Earth and how much money it would take, if we started in earnest today? I'd guess that it would be by far the most expensive operation of any sort ever performed. The same funding applied to, e.g., medical or energy technologies would have hugely more impact.

Yet, it is amusing to note that The Greatest Living American™, Mr. George W. Bush, was an advocate of this "idea." While also reducing NASA's funding. Given current trends (Palin, Bachmann, Trump are seriously proposed for President ) America is likely to turn increasingly to crackpot stupid ideas. Historians may not even call GWB the worst President. (Not because any of #1-#42 are worse, but because America hasn't plumbed its own depths yet.)

But as its leadership becomes increasingly irrational, its economic strength will fail and such an undertaking will become increasingly impossible by the U.S.A.

My prediction? Mars in the mid 22nd century, but achieved by China. If the upward trend in human technology continues.

A country that hasn't put anyone on the moon is going to beat everyone at going to Mars...

[septimus]

Originally Posted by YaraMateo

A country that hasn't put anyone on the moon is going to beat everyone at going to Mars...

It took 8 years for U.S. to go to Moon. I made a prediction for 140 years hence.

Keep these oh-so insightful rejoinders coming.

[YaraMateo]

Originally Posted by septimus

It took 8 years for U.S. to go to Moon. I made a prediction for 140 years hence.

Keep these oh-so insightful rejoinders coming.

I don't really think the space race (considering Americans and Russians have already beat them) isn't one China has a winning horse in. Last I heard, they plan to have someone on the moon in 2030.

It's just my opinion. The Chinese are a great people who are very intelligent. I just don't think they will be the first on Mars due to their history of space travel, or lack of it.

[Napier]

It's bad enough that politicians talk about spending money on sending people to Mars - what's worst is when people confuse that with science. I would LOVE to see much more spent on unmanned space missions throughout the solar system and on unmanned space observatories of all kinds.

For my tax dollar, you can't beat giant Newtonians floating around our Lagrange points!

[ralph124c]

With the advanced robotics we have today, a manned trip makes no sense. Sure, it would be nice to have geologists and biologists exploring Mars, but the costs and risks are too high. In order to ensure a safe return trip, we would have to have several backup systems..and that would triple the costs.
Maybe when we develop nuclear rocket engines, it could be feasible-but not now.
Would the Chinese blow $150 billion on this? Doubtful..we in the USA cannot (we are spending our money MUCH more wisely (funding wars in Libya, Afghanistan, etc., that will have a REAL payback!)

[by-tor]

I would much rather they spend the money on space telescopes.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Napier

It's bad enough that politicians talk about spending money on sending people to Mars - what's worst is when people confuse that with science. I would LOVE to see much more spent on unmanned space missions throughout the solar system and on unmanned space observatories of all kinds.

And that brings the discussion to a salient point; the advocates for a manned mission to Mars (or the Moon, or other bodies) are almost exclusively politicians and space enthusiasts, not scientists of technologists interested in near-term space resource exploitation. There may be other reasons for manned exploration besides science and raw material exploitation, but there is not a strong case for profit in either dollars or basic knowledge from human exploration, and the costs of maintaining people in space are close to two orders of magnitude higher than robotic missions, for what at best is a marginal increase in mission capability (and given the limitations of human endurance and function in extraterrestrial environments, probably less). Our yield of scientific knowledge from unmanned exploration is pennies compared to even a trivial manned mission that produces little unique or novel science. A good illustration for this is to perform a literature search on scientific papers involving STS or ISS missions, and the compare it to that from the Voyager program or the Mars Exploration Rovers; the unmanned missions exceed science yield by many orders of magnitude.

That isn't to say that human exploration should not be considered. But with current limitation on propulsion methods, our limited knowledge of hazard and vulnerability for long-term human habitation and transit in interplanetary space, and restrictions in available budget and resources for space exploration overall, it makes far more sense to pursue unmanned exploration and exploitation methods over spending the majority of budget and effort of a mission trying to keep proteinaceous bags of water alive and healthy against the hazards of vacuum and radiation.

Stranger

[levdrakon]

Well, I'm pretty sure astronauts on the moon dug up a lot more dirt and rocks and brought more of it back to Earth than any robotic Mars explorer has Mars dirt, and in a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time. That doesn't include transit time, either.

I really don't think you can compare what a live, educated science-astronaut can do on site to what a robot can do.

The prefect scenario is humans and robots augmenting each other, each doing what they do best. Certainly there will have to be more unmanned missions to Mars before a human one.

At this point I don't think very many people are going to care if we send more rovers to Mars. There doesn't seem to be all that much to learn that way.

Profit or not, there are a lot of people who want to see a man on Mars, and be the first. The company that does it is probably going to recoup the cost of it, in increased business and celebrity.

As for space profits in general, I don't see a large segment of humanity living on Mars. Why? The money is going to be much closer to home, in Earth's orbit & on the Moon. Business already makes billions in orbit, and it really looks like travel to and from orbit is going to get cheaper and more routine.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Well, I'm pretty sure astronauts on the moon dug up a lot more dirt and rocks and brought more of it back to Earth than any robotic Mars explorer has Mars dirt, and in a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of time. That doesn't include transit time, either.

I really don't think you can compare what a live, educated science-astronaut can do on site to what a robot can do.

Sure I can. "Doing exploratory science," isn't about the amount of samples collected or taking videos bouncing around in low gravity; it is about defining the areas of missing or incomplete knowledge and collecting observations and data that allow you to fill in and refine those areas. I've seen the claims about the versatility of a person versus that of a robot; unfortunately these usually compare the abilities of a human in a shirt-sleeve environment, not one encased in a restrictive pressure suit and subject to exhaustion and disorientation in a non-terrestrial field. It is readily demonstrable that a larger volume and more extensive work of scientific discovery has resulted from robotic exploration than manned missions to the Moon and Low Earth Orbit simply by looking at the literature, even if you level the playing field by limiting the evaluation to work done within the orbit of the Moon.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Profit or not, there are a lot of people who want to see a man on Mars, and be the first. The company that does it is probably going to recoup the cost of it, in increased business and celebrity.

Recoup the cost of such an effort how, exactly? Even optimistic estimates of the cost of a manned Mars mission are in the several tens of billions of dollars; Moore than could conceivably be recouped on any entertainment and educational products, or via associated business opportunities.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Business already makes billions in orbit, and it really looks like travel to and from orbit is going to get cheaper and more routine.

Despite the promotional literature and bombastic statements of certain space entrepreneurs, it is unclear that transportation to orbit using chemically-powered rockets is going to become dramatically cheaper than current costs by established and relatively mature systems, and anything but routine in the sense of daily orbital launches or access to space tourism within reach to even the moderately affluent, much less the average person. The "billions [made] in orbit," are almost exclusively telecommunications, not launch services itself, which is at best a marginal business with high fixed costs and exposure to repeated risk of catastrophic failure.

Stranger

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Washoe

Sadly, you’re probably right. I dwell on this all the time. I was seven years old when the first lunar landing occurred, and I’m not going to live long enough to see a manned expedition to Mars. Pisses me off.

You and me both. We should have an operational base on the Moon today.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

You and me both. We should have an operational base on the Moon today.

To do what?

Stranger

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

To do what?

Stranger

To do... y'know? Moon stuff.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Sure I can. "Doing exploratory science," isn't about the amount of samples collected or taking videos bouncing around in low gravity; it is about defining the areas of missing or incomplete knowledge and collecting observations and data that allow you to fill in and refine those areas. I've seen the claims about the versatility of a person versus that of a robot; unfortunately these usually compare the abilities of a human in a shirt-sleeve environment, not one encased in a restrictive pressure suit and subject to exhaustion and disorientation in a non-terrestrial field. It is readily demonstrable that a larger volume and more extensive work of scientific discovery has resulted from robotic exploration than manned missions to the Moon and Low Earth Orbit simply by looking at the literature, even if you level the playing field by limiting the evaluation to work done within the orbit of the Moon.

Well, I was too young to remember the first moon landing, but the astronauts had to do something while they were there. The main point was proving we could get there, and we did. Did a robot land on the moon first? I don't know. I bet most people don't, nor care. What was its name again? Beats me.

I don't know if the first person on Mars is just going to touch down, say "tag," slam a conspiracy-proof flag in the ground and come right back, or if some sort of semi long-term base will be set up. If a manned base is set up then, again, astronauts have to do something while they're there. A base would necessitate that shirt-sleeve environment, right? Even suiting up and driving around in a rover of some kind for a couple hours would cover decades of robot ground so far. I'm pretty sure a live astronaut could refine areas of missing or incomplete knowledge much faster than it's taking robots.

I don't know yet what the point of going to Mars will be. Like I said, there probably isn't anything exciting to learn, and almost certainly nothing profitable to learn. I'm leaning towards a "prove-we-can-do-it" mission and there's no point arguing for a robot to prove humans can get to Mars.

Recoup the cost of such an effort how, exactly? Even optimistic estimates of the cost of a manned Mars mission are in the several tens of billions of dollars; Moore than could conceivably be recouped on any entertainment and educational products, or via associated business opportunities.

Really? I thought companies like SpaceX were already looking at some juicy government contracts, at least. I don't know how big they are in satellite launch, but I thought they were in there, bringing launch costs down. I don't see a market for going to Mars regularly much in the next century (ever?), but the company that proves it can do that sort of thing ought to enjoy a pretty lucrative share of the space market, whatever it turns out to be.

Despite the promotional literature and bombastic statements of certain space entrepreneurs, it is unclear that transportation to orbit using chemically-powered rockets is going to become dramatically cheaper than current costs by established and relatively mature systems, and anything but routine in the sense of daily orbital launches or access to space tourism within reach to even the moderately affluent, much less the average person. The "billions [made] in orbit," are almost exclusively telecommunications, not launch services itself, which is at best a marginal business with high fixed costs and exposure to repeated risk of catastrophic failure.

Stranger

And yet, the business of launching satellites is booming. It's not as if we're headed towards some "peak oil" problem with chemical rockets.

I used to have high hopes for computers and robots, but I guess I'm disappointed. Computers are still dumb-as-rocks. Eventually it's going to be cheaper to send up humans to flip burgers or at least tend the protein vats or something, than robots.

I'm all for sending out lots of robotic cameras to take cool pictures of solar system, and extra-solar system stuff though. It seems our best chance of finding out whatever dark matter and energy are, is right here on earth in big shiny colliders. When it comes to things off-planet, it's more about doing things, than learning things. Isn't humans doing things what it's really all about?

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

When it comes to things off-planet, it's more about doing things, than learning things. Isn't humans doing things what it's really all about?

Up to a point. But it depends on how much it's going to cost.

I'm gonna take a wild-ass guess and say a manned Mars mission can't be done for under a trillion dollars. Is it worth a trillion dollars to put a man on Mars? Not to me, it isn't. If you could do it for $50 billion, first I'd laugh in your face because it can't be done, but if it could, I'd be all for it.

My general take is that it makes sense to do stuff like this when our technology has advanced to the point where it just isn't that big a stretch anymore. Columbus' voyages to America are a perfect example. Maybe by 2050 we will have mastered the technology of space elevators, which would dramatically reduce the cost of getting out of our local gravity well, and thereby reduce the costs of getting to anywhere in space, from low Earth orbit on up. Or maybe we'll achieve a breakthrough in maintaining a closed habitat over a period of years. Or maybe we'll develop propulsion systems that will put the ones we currently have to shame.

But even if we really, really want to see a human being set foot on Mars, it makes sense to wait until Mars is more within our reach than it is now. It's not like Mars won't be there 50 or 100 years down the road.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

I'd personally like to see an unmanned probe pick up a few rocks and come back. Although I suspect that if there were money in the budget for it (and assuming it could overcome the technological hurdles), it would already be on the drawing boards.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Up to a point. But it depends on how much it's going to cost.

I'm gonna take a wild-ass guess and say a manned Mars mission can't be done for under a trillion dollars. Is it worth a trillion dollars to put a man on Mars? Not to me, it isn't. If you could do it for $50 billion, first I'd laugh in your face because it can't be done, but if it could, I'd be all for it.

A man on Mars for a trillion? Nah, I don't think I'd vote for that either, and I don't think we'll see a private company doing that. For a trillion I want an almost self-sufficient base with greenery and babies being born.

My general take is that it makes sense to do stuff like this when our technology has advanced to the point where it just isn't that big a stretch anymore. Columbus' voyages to America are a perfect example. Maybe by 2050 we will have mastered the technology of space elevators, which would dramatically reduce the cost of getting out of our local gravity well, and thereby reduce the costs of getting to anywhere in space, from low Earth orbit on up. Or maybe we'll achieve a breakthrough in maintaining a closed habitat over a period of years. Or maybe we'll develop propulsion systems that will put the ones we currently have to shame.

Going with a transportation analogy, I'd say we wouldn't have airplanes or anything close to resembling modern commercial air travel if we'd waited until things got easy. Dangerous, rickety airplanes had to come first, and I'm sure there were plenty of poo-pooers who'd have bet we'd never, ever see over one billion passengers flying around the world per year. Here we are! Modern aircraft aren't "easy" either. They're ridiculously complicated compared to what we used to get by with, and I'd guess quite a bit more expensive, even in adjusted dollars. The price of a single ticket isn't completely out of this world for many people nowadays.

But even if we really, really want to see a human being set foot on Mars, it makes sense to wait until Mars is more within our reach than it is now. It's not like Mars won't be there 50 or 100 years down the road.

True, it'll be there.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Going with a transportation analogy, I'd say we wouldn't have airplanes or anything close to resembling modern commercial air travel if we'd waited until things got easy.

Can we stick with the level of relative ease implied by my Columbus example? It wasn't 'easy' for him to cross the ocean, but the technology was there such that others could replicate that trip fairly quickly once they saw it was doable.

Dangerous, rickety airplanes had to come first, and I'm sure there were plenty of poo-pooers who'd have bet we'd never, ever see over one billion passengers flying around the world per year. Here we are!

See Columbus. Several different teams were working on heavier-than-air flight at the same time as the Wrights. Samuel Langley's plane's airworthiness has been demonstrated; a few days before the Wright Brothers' initial flight, only some tangle at launch kept it from getting airborne. If the Wrights hadn't flown, someone else would have, quite possibly the very next year. Heavier-than-air flight was 'easier' relative to the level of knowledge and technology of 1903 than Columbus' journey was for 1492.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

See Columbus. Several different teams were working on heavier-than-air flight at the same time as the Wrights. Samuel Langley's plane's airworthiness has been demonstrated; a few days before the Wright Brothers' initial flight, only some tangle at launch kept it from getting airborne. If the Wrights hadn't flown, someone else would have, quite possibly the very next year. Heavier-than-air flight was 'easier' relative to the level of knowledge and technology of 1903 than Columbus' journey was for 1492.

Langley's plane was not capable of flight. The real tangle at launch was the plane falling into the Potomac river after it was catapulted off the deck of a boat. It didn't produce enough lift to stay aloft after the added momentum of the catapult was lost, all while the boat was driven into a headwind as fast as possible. Had it flown, it had no controls, and would have crashed on landing. The Wright Bros. great record is "The world's first power-driven heavier-than-air machine in which man made free, controlled, and sustained flight". Whether or not a brick with an engine on it managed to seperate from the ground at some earlier time is irrelevant.

I mention this because in a sense we are at the brick with a rocket engine on it point of space travel. We have no idea how to land a manned craft that can take off again on the surface of Mars. The ISS is in near earth orbit, is regularly resupplied, and still a potential deathtrap. A multi-year mission Mars is more likely to end in disaster than success right now without an unlikely expenditure of resources, IMHO.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Perhaps most of us who had reached the later stages of childhood on the day of the first moon landing shared a common inspiration from it. Some of us grew up to become engineers and scientists, while others merely eagerly awaited the next National Geographic with a space-centric cover story (raising hand). And now a lot of that hope has been squelched by depressing conditions in the world generally.

But even worse than that is the fact that technologically we seem to have hit a firewall in terms of keeping the astronauts alive and healthy in interplanetary space for as long as it would take to get to Mars. It's a little disconcerting to hear most experts today saying it simply can't be done.

[even sven]

Airplanes had immediate human applications every step of the way. Nobody puzzled over the question "how will this make my life better?"

And this is how it is different than Mars. The hesitation is not so much about if it is possible, but more about the fact that there is no immediate reason to go there.

You know what is even better than babies being born in a martian greenhouse? Babies being born on a green planet that is hospitable and open to them and doesn't really have a ton of drawbacks n

[Musicat]

When we have a viable, working space station just like the one in 2001, then we will be ready for a serious Mars trip.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Langley's plane was not capable of flight.

I could swear I'd read that a replica had been successfully flown. And Wikipedia says a modified version was flown for a few hundred feet a decade later.

Had it flown, it had no controls, and would have crashed on landing.

Tru dat. At any rate, I'm not trying to dispute the Wrights' claim to have been the first to manage heavier-than-air flight, I was just trying to straighten out levdrakon about what I was saying about relative difficulty. If there had been no Wright Brothers, someone would have managed controlled heavier-than-air flight before too long. Hell, just the fact that the technology and knowledge base of the day had advanced to the point where a couple of intelligent mechanics, without so much as a financial backer or company behind them, could manage that feat, demonstrates that the time was very ripe for air travel, in a way that it most certainly isn't for interplanetary travel.

We have no idea how to land a manned craft that can take off again on the surface of Mars.

We landed a manned craft on the moon that lifted off again from the lunar surface. While I realize that Mars gravity is a bit more than double that of the moon, I can't see that that would put this particular aspect of the problem in the "no idea how to do it" category.

The main difficulty, AFAICT, is the simple but intractable matter of the far, far greater distance to Mars than to the moon, and the challenge of creating an environment that will keep our frail bodies alive for the long trip there and back again. If Mars were orbiting the Earth at a distance of a couple million miles, we could do this - and might have, already. But it's not.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

And we can't underestimate the psychological factors too: You'd have a crew of what? 3-6 maybe, that would have to spend a loooooong time realllly close together. Sooner or later, someone's gonna start getting on someone's nerves.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by even sven

You know what is even better than babies being born in a martian greenhouse? Babies being born on a green planet that is hospitable and open to them and doesn't really have a ton of drawbacks n

Would it be possible for you not to attempt to hijack every thread on space exploration and technology with your own completely extraneous hobbyhorse? Thanks.

Stranger

[Swords to Plowshares]

I'd bet money that a man will make it to Mars in the next 25 years and SpaceX will be the ones to do it, with or without the government. They have the ambition and the technology.

You really think Elon Musk is going to sit on his laurels and make silly Earth-orbital satellites and rockets for the next 25 years?

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Swords to Plowshares

I'd bet money that a man will make it to Mars in the next 25 years and SpaceX will be the ones to do it, with or without the government. They have the ambition and the technology.

You really think Elon Musk is going to sit on his laurels and make silly Earth-orbital satellites and rockets for the next 25 years?

You do understand that Elon Musk is a) not any kind of expert about aerospace engineering, space exploration, or extraterrestrial habitation, b) enjoys talking in grandiose and bombastic terms about his essential ignorance of the difference between making websites and space propulsion/habitation technology (see a), and c) has basically pulled his investment out of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation now that it has attracted enough venture capital investment to maintain operations for the next few years?

Ambition is nice, but at the end of the day you have to be able to pay your employees and suppliers, which means that at some point you have to demonstrate a profitable enterprise (or be a recipient of corporate welfare). No rationale has yet been advanced for recouping the cost of a manned mission or outpost on Mars, and the scientific merit for such versus robotic exploration at two or more orders of magnitude less cost does not provide any reasonable basis for such an endeavor.

Right now SpaceX stands to offer competition to existing commercial space launch providers like the United Launch Alliance and Orbital Sciences Corporation, provided they can offer lower launch costs and higher reliability and performance, which has not yet been demonstrated. A logical, fiscally valid next step from developing the ability to send payloads to Low Earth Orbit is not to put people on celestial bodies where they bounce around clumsily in bulky and restrictive pressure suits, requiring costly support and protection, but to start exploring means to extract mineral resources from Near Earth Objects and invest in the space infrastructure to perform refinement and manufacturing operations in orbital space where pollution and energy availability are not restrictive considerations.

Stranger

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Swords to Plowshares

I'd bet money that a man will make it to Mars in the next 25 years and SpaceX will be the ones to do it, with or without the government.

How much money? My chances of being around to collect in 25 years are pretty good.

[even sven]

Think about this.

Let's say the program to get to Mars is a rousing success. We have developed a largely self-sufficient colony of, say, 25,000 people and have started to terraform larger areas. We've succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

What have we achieved? Humans have a place to live? All that energy is being spent on giving humans a place to live? Don't we already have one of those?

Could it possibly be "better" than Earth? Probably not. If you are the sort of person who gets the opportunity to go to Mars, the earth is already treating you pretty well. And there are obvious problems with taking the world's poor and shipping them off to Mars. Being a "pioneer" may be attractive in theory, but how many of you really want to be farmers? That's why people need new lands- so they have access to more farmland. If you are not interested in a homestead in Alaska or Zambia, why do you think you'd be happier with a homestead on Mars?

In any case, humans are great at filling up spaces. Even if we got a perfect planet up and running, in no time at all it would be crowded and full of population pressures, just like Earth. And we'd have gained what, exactly?

And that is in the best case. The most likely situation is that we have an expensive and difficult to maintain base up there for a while until everyone loses interest, like the ISS.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Would it be possible for you not to attempt to hijack every thread on space exploration and technology with your own completely extraneous hobbyhorse?

What? The environment is not my "hobbyhorse" at all- I'm the one who is always railing about malaria eradication. My comment wasn't about that at all, I simply mean that we already have a perfectly good planet that is great at supporting humans, and I'm not sure why we'd want to them go to a planet that sucks at supporting humans.

If I were a child born on a Mars colony, I'd be pissed off. I'm on a barren, hostile rock that will only grudgingly support me with the help of extreme interventions. And yet I know there is a place out there where humans can happily lounge in their shirtsleeves, eating the fruits that fall off the trees and the fish that leap out of the seas. Imagine an entire planet that requires next to no interventions to live in many areas, and minimal ones (an overcoat, a house, a fire in the fireplace) in others. It's a place where humans can roam freely, without fear, and make homes and families that could, theoretically, thrive off of not much more than what they have on their land.

I'd be pissed off to be cut off from 10,000 years of human history, from the San cave paintings to the Cathedral of Notre Dame. More excruciatingly, I'd be pissed off to be cut off from the beauty of human diversity. I wouldn't be able to visit an Indian temple and hear the tinkle of ankle bells and the scent of jasmine. I wouldn't be able to cross the Sahara with Tauregs. I wouldn't get to share a bowl of noodles with newfound friends in Shanghai. In exchange for this, I'd have what? Vast, empty, probably hostile and unlivable spaces?

I'd be with a limited, carefully vetted group, that are there for a specific purpose. I'd only ever have the chance to see a small slice of humanity. I'd only hear a handful of languages- probably not a lot of speakers of Tibetan or Daba or Setswana out there. I'd only read about the fullness of humanity in books.

And if I ever wanted to go back to the world that I was made for, the world that my entire history is on, I'd have to choose a decade of my life to give up. Which decade would you choose? Your 20s? Your 40s?

And this is the best case scenario. It seems worse that pointless, it seems outright cruel.

[Farmer Jane]

Hummph. I'd like to see a man go to Mars. There's something about space travel that makes me feel all patriotic and shit.

I do reject the notion that it's politicians who are excited about Mars. Politicians (and most people) seem to think that NASA gets more funding than it actually does. Obama cut a few programs - and probably cut our abillity to send a man to Mars for a looooooooong time.

hey, I'm happy we have NASA. I'd love to explore space...and I'm sure that there are plenty of would-be astronauts who are willing to risk their lives to go to Mars (or try).

The Mercury 7 didn't know if they'd make it. It was sort of a test run for the moon.