I consider myself a somewhat amateur astronomer and as such I do follow space news and missions rather closely. Today the British (using a Russian rocket and launch pad, how times have changed!) will be sending a rover to Mars in the search of water and life. In the next year NASA will be launching two more probes, and Japan will even be sending one!
The costs of these projects are relatively low in comparison to say…the War in Iraq, but still, is even spending $400 mil to send one tiny ship to a planet in just the hopes of finding evidence of water or life really worth the money? We are so far from sending people to Mars that even if we found anything, what good would it do us?
There are so many other worthwhile scientific projects out there that could benefit from the time, money, and expertise it takes to send on ship to Mars! ESA and NASA employ some of the smartest people on the planet, I wonder what they could accomplish if the directed their talents inward instead of out?
There are several good things that can come out of sending a probe to Mars.
Firstly, it is a step in the right direction to sending a manned probe there. You could have made the same argument against some of our first unmanned moon probes (“we’re nowhere near sending a person to the moon…”).
Secondly, if we can increase our understanding about Mars, it might help us to better understand Earth. After all, suppose there is underground water on Mars. That then opens up whole new areas of questioning, including what happened to the above surface water? Did an asteroid collision destroy it? And if so, could it happen to us?
Thirdly, many of the technology advances that we enjoy today came directly from the space programs of previous years. While that may not have been the direct goal of sending people to the moon, nonetheless, some of the technologies developed for that mission found their way into the mass market. I would be surprised if the same doesn’t happen here.
I myself being an amateur space nerd am biased but. . .
I believe further space exploration (Mars) is important, just as it was important for Columbus/the Vikings/Africans? to find out what was on the other side of that big pond.
We need to get off of this rock before some idiot blows us all up. We should be spending trillions to make that happen and spread humanity throughout the galaxy. Think of it as Mandifest Destiny 2: Electric Boogaloo.
yes and no. we need to spread, and fast. too many idiots are getting the chance to kill us all, but if we spread to other worlds it is less likely a few idiots can take out the whole human race.
“spending $400 mil to send one tiny ship to a planet in just the hopes of finding evidence of water or life really worth the money?”
Seeing the face expression of creationist if life is found on Mars would make it worth it…
Now, seriously; from a scientific point of view it would be a MAJOR discovery; and MAJOR scientific discoveries tend to make our life if not better, at least a lot more interesting, IMO.
I think looking for life on Mars is a waste. I have serious doubts there is any. The chances of life existing on one planet is low enough, but two planets in one star system? Thats nuts.
Personally, I think we should save up for ten years and then build that nuclear powered manned ship and blast it over to Mars. Maybe have other countries send a few probes over just to collect some excess data before we blast our way over.
On the same vein, why send humans at all?
What fantastic discovery will they make that the robots can’t?
Are you willing to throw away billions in tax money just to see a bumbling astronaut play golf on Mars?
Hmmm,…maybe yes.
A slight nitpick. The British are sending a rather modest lander rather than a rover. Although it does have an arm and a “mole” that will give it some reach. Overall, the project is a European effort.
NASA are sending two proper rovers much bigger than the ‘toy’ rover they sent last time.
I dont think anyone is gonna find anything of note beyond meteoroligcal and soil data. of that you might be able to extrapolate your weather conditions and water possibilities in the soil.
Anyone in the future that wants to fund a manned mars mission , either private , semi-private , or government launched , is going to want to see hard data , included in the business plan, the small probes probably have this for a secondary mission.
I have heard this before ,but what projects are you refering too?
Do they require ecological impact surveys to be conducted , do they require massive amounts of liability insurance , do they impact on government borders , do they require multi-government agendas and agreements.
Chances are that mars may be more expensive in the short run , but massively more profitable in the long run.
Doing probes now , will keep expertise from emigrating to some other project that may not be more worthwhile in terms of humanity.
The NASA propaganda that every mission is about looking for life on Mars is about 46% horse hooey. That’s just how the pitch it to the taxpayers.
Every mission to Mars returns an enormous wealth of data on the geology and climate of the planet.
It’s pretty hard to get the public interested in aeolian erosion or the depth of the different layers of ice in the polar caps or the evolution of a global sandstorm. But talk about life on Mars, and whooooeeee! Everybody gets excited.
Recent discoveries indicate that there may be liquid water near the surface. That’s very important in terms of human exploration of the Solar System, and it’s also very significant in understanding the geology and climatic history of Mars. It also happens to be quite relevant to the question of whether there’s life on Mars. The chances of life being there are slim, but finding it would be one of the most significant scientific discoveries of all time. Luckily, the scientific return from Mars missions is tremendous, even without the discovery of life.
Let’s say we find something on Mars that we can describe as being alive by the criteria currently in place, a decent list of which was put together by the creators of a biology exhibit here is LA:
All living things:
Take in energy
Take in and manage useful supplies and get rid of waste
React to their environment
Defend themselves
Reproduce themselves
Suppose we find such an entity on Mars.
Then suppose one of the following:
a) in terms of structure and physiology, it looks nothing like life on Earth
b) in terms of structure and physiology, it looks a lot like life on Earth
Either result has the potential to tell us a great deal about the situation here on our own planet.
In adiition, from an engineering standpoint, water currently on Mars (which they are now all but certain of) can be turned into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for further planetary exploration. We could create, within the next half-century, an autonomous robot colony (assuming more boring heads prevail, and we never send humans) that would greatly ease our remote explorations of the outer solar system.
Or perhaps send the water back here to alleviate shortages. Whatever.
But, given the fact that everywhere we find water on earth, we find life, shouldn’t we, as responsible people, make sure Martian water is not inhabited before we do either?
>we need to spread, and fast. too many idiots are getting the
>chance to kill us all, but if we spread to other worlds it is less
>likely a few idiots can take out the whole human race.
The Golden Path…the path I could not take. It’s up to you now.
If there were standing bodies of water , such as oceans or lakes , like Titan is assumed to have ,then a biological survey may be useful , but I for one am not going to lose sleep if water gets contaminated with earth fungi.
If there is some sort of proto life existing in what ever puddle exist on mars ,then its just as easy to gene type it ,and move on. The real estate on mars is more valuable than adding one more organism to our catelogue of life.
If we are shipping it back, then by all means ,sterilise it , but other wise the only thing I would hold off on , is if artifacts from a previous sentient martian society appeared.
How about alternate sources of energy?
Or control of pollution, fight diseases, alleviate poverty and famine.
While we are looking at the stars, the world is rapidly going to hell.
Untill terraforming becomes a real possibility (and that is certainly far away), I don’t think there’s a point in wasting enormous brain-power and resources in space exploration.
I must add:
I do agree with the level of exploration provided by probes and “rovers”. I don’t agree with the “microgravity” experiments that NASA uses as an excuse for billion dollar projects.
