I know there are a lot of space exploration threads, but on a cursory look I did not see one just about Mars.
I believe that space exploration is as worthwhile and valuable as any other scientific endeavor. I also believe that Mars is the most interesting potential place to explore (that we can realistically reach), and that human exploration is far more valuable than robotic exploration.
So how would we get there? If the political will existed, then how much would it cost? How long would it take? I’ve read a few of the independent proposals (like Mars Direct), but which one of them is best?
And once we get there, how (with regards to engineering/economics) do we stay there? Could we make a self-sustaining (with regards to food/water/air) colony on Mars? How long would that take? Would it be worth it?
I’m not personally sold on the wisdom of manned space ventures. Adding people adds greatly to the cost, size, and difficulty - you gotta give them living space, feed them, protect them from radiation, all sorts of stuff. Robots, on the other hand, need none of that, and can accomplish tasks much more cheaply.
I do agree that it would have a positive morale-boosting effect, though. Humans on Mars is undeniably cool. I’m just not sure I see the value in it when you consider the straordinary expenditure needed to do that to no real material gain, when there are so many things on Earth that need that money.
What do you envisage we accomplish there? Or would you say that the morale/cool factor is enough of a payoff in itself?
We pave the way for the future colonization of the solar system (and eventually, elsewhere) by humans. In the (very) long term, humans won’t last indefinitely on Earth. A meteor/comet impact will kill us all, or the sun’s expansion will burn us to cinders. The best way to minimize the risk of extinction from these causes is to establish other outposts of humanity- preferably many self-sufficient outposts.
Sure, I can see that. But that is very long term, while many people will die of starvation right here at home in the very short term.
I can see arguments either way. I guess it’s hard to tell a starving person “we’re spending your lunch money so that our 300-year future descendants can live on Mars”. And that’s not to mention the thousands of other problems - perhaps cancer research would be a better expenditure, or social security, or renewable fuels, and so on.
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t do it. I’m just not sold on it fully; at least for right now.
Those are understandable. But I think those arguments could essentially always be made- there will always be problems on Earth.
But I think going to the Moon was a positive- for national prestige, for pure science, and for inspiration of young people. And we didn’t really do it for any of those reasons.
I don’t think anyone looks back and says “we should have spent the Apollo money on cancer”.
If we made it to Mars and back, would anyone say “we should have spent the money on issue x”?
I’m not sure a Mars mission would really pave the way for future colonization either. The reason people don’t live on the Moon or Mars isn’t because they’re hard to get to, but because there isn’t really any reason for anyone to live there. If someone found something productive to do there, I imagine actually getting there would be solved pretty quickly.
After all, Antartica is much more hospitable then the Moon and much much easier to get to, but even that hasn’t been colonized beyond a few scientific outposts. People won’t live on the Mars or the Moon in any sort of sustainable way even if we send a dozen more manned missions there.
Mars is in the top handful of places, that’s for sure. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn rank pretty highly, too.
You lost me here. Human exploration is marginally more valuable than robotic, but it’s thousands or tens of thousands of times more expensive. Would you rather send several Mars rovers now, at a price we can afford, while at the same time send robotic explorers of the asteroids, Jupiter, Jupiter’s moons, Saturn, etc., or wait for a few decades while we fund a single manned mission to Mars? That’s the real choice we have.
I’m with CurtC on this. 15 years ago you’d have found ample agreement on this point, but events since then have called this seriously into question. Current trends suggest that the price/performance gap between unmanned and manned exploration, already large, is increasing rapidly with no near-term limit in sight.
This is probably at (or perhaps somewhat beyond) the extreme outer limit of what’s currently possible. The cost would be vastly greater than simply going there and returning, itself staggeringly more expensive than robotic exploration.
A much more feasible scheme would be to continue robotic missions with a view toward eventually sending robots that can start to create the infrastructure human visitors/residents would need.
Maintaining a human colony on Mars would be horrendously expensive.
It is theorized that we could roof over a small crater (or canyon), pressurize the space, and grow crops-but life there would be less bearable than living on Antarctica-plus a lot more dangerous.
We are stuck here until we develop nuclear pulse rockets-chemical rockets are too slow, too expensive, and too unreliable to think of planting a colony on Mars.
Mars is just there, and it is a planet. I think the moon has much better chances for actual colonization, though probably not in the historical sense of a permanent group of living humans. There are endless problems with space travel but lugging stuff out of a planet’s gravity is a huge one. If we wanted a base for such operations, we’d not choose a planet I don’t think, without really awesome reasons that so far Mars doesn’t seem to offer.
Lawrence Krauss, and probably others, have proposed the idea that while a manned trip to Mars would be way more expensive than a whole army of robots, that if we did want to send humans to Mars, a one-way trip would be much much much less expensive than a round trip.
Would you go? I wouldn’t yet, but in a few years I may be at a point where I’d be willing.
Better question: how much do you trust people willing to volunteer for a one-way trip to certain (eventual) death? Willing to take the gamble they’ll fulfill mission objectives? Maybe the shot at being in the history books will be enough to keep them motivated and engaged.
No. We are not ready. The first person to land on Mars will probably die on impact or before. If they live, they’ll spend the rest of their life there. We don’t have a great track record for robots landing on Mars so far, and they are much smaller, and need way less food, water, and oxygen than humans do.
In the case of Antarctica, there is stuff to do, but the nations of Earth have all pretty much agreed to leave it alone. Fragile ecosystem, blah, blah, blah.
There are no fragile ecosystems to worry about in space.
Do you really think, for a moment, that a “fragile ecosystem” would keep us from doing anything? We eat “fragile ecosystems” with our morning commute. The nations of the earth have nearly destroyed the seas, are happily fracking the earth, and generally not worrying all that much about the trade offs.
If there were any economic benefit, we’d do it. If it was too messy for us to do, we’d pay China to do it and let them live with the environmental consequences. The only reason nothing is happening down there is that there is nothing really to do.
There have been tons of threads on this if you do a search. Nothing recent that I recall, but I haven’t been around much lately so maybe.
Yeah, I agree, but you aren’t going to get a lot of traction here for this viewpoint. Oddly, the 'dope is by and large against stuff like this (or maybe it’s not all that odd), and manned space exploration seems to really run against the grain. I think robotic missions are very important, but I also believe that manned missions to places like Mars are equally important. IMHO (and it’s an opinion not shared widely around here) we could accomplish more in a single manned mission to Mars, exploration wise, as all of the robotic missions to date combined. Mostly this is because if you actually go to Mars you are going to have to be there either 3 months or well over a year (and the safest way, interestingly, is the over a year trip), which is going to give you boat loads of time to really explore. I think one mission would settle once and for all whether there was or even is life on Mars…a question I think is one of the biggest ones out there right now.
Sadly, I doubt such a mission is in the cards in my lifetime, and a big part of that is attitudes such as prevail on this board. It’s too expensive. It’s too dangerous. There is no value in going (ironic on a scientifically oriented board, but there you go)…etc etc. Politically it’s just not in the cards for the US to do this anytime soon, and I have serious doubts anyone else can or will give it a real shot.
The best way I’ve seen is a variation on Mars Direct. Costs would be anywhere between $20 billion and $100 billion…take your pick. I’ve seen both numbers tossed about (Zubrin claims the lower number, but I think realistically it would be more like the higher one…possibly MUCH higher, all things considered). But a multi-stage mission would be best, again IMHO (and I’m no rocket scientist…I have a degree in Aero-Space engineering, but it’s just an interesting piece of paper since I have never used the degree or worked a single job using that degree). Basically you send everything you need for your stay and return trip ahead of time, verify it’s all there, then do your manned mission with full backup. Assuming everything goes as planned and there are no big problems you have all the stuff you need for the next mission in place and waiting. If there IS a problem you have backup.
The problem isn’t doing it. We could, though there would be real risks involved. The problem is there isn’t political will to do it, nor to spend that kind of money (though, to me and given our budget it doesn’t really seem all that much, considering the potential gains).
I doubt a colony or self-sustaining mission would be what we’d do initially. What we’d be doing is basic exploration. Is it worth it? Don’t know…is any pure scientific pursuit of knowledge ‘worth it’? What do we get out of large particle collides and space telescopes? What do we get out of mine shafts to detect particles that might or might not exist?
IMHO, we get lots out of that. The expansion of basic human knowledge is worth the costs and risks. Answering the question ‘did life exist/does life exist on Mars?’ is worth quite a lot. Whether you find life or not it answers a ton of questions and leads to a ton of new questions (such as the follow up, assuming we find life, ‘Is the life there related to that on the Earth, or is it completely different?’)
I think the idea of sending people to Mars just to die there is horrible. Unless you mean to also send what they need to live out there lives there and die of old age. That I would be Ok with. But sending them there with a month supply and then having them die would be one of the worst things to do.