Yes. I’m 20, and I feel fairly confident that we’ll find some use for having people in Mars in the next sixty-some years.
No. Because I don’t think the U.S. is capable of taking on a large project that spans multiple presidential administrations and congresses. Too many political changes, too many changes in priorities and willingness to commit resources.
If you look at other large, multi-administration projects, you’ll see what I mean - the space station has been a boondoggle. The Superconducting Supercollider was canceled after billions were spent. Even the fledgling start to a new space architecture at NASA is under risk from being radically altered by the new administration. So… no.
no.
And not for the reasons listed so far in this thread (expense, danger, etc). The real reason is that nobody will want to send a manned mission–it will seem too old-fashioned and primitive. Like the 15 century explorers using sail power–it was good for its time, but no longer relevant
and while we’re discussing manned spacecraft,----
I think we will see the end of manned airplanes within my lifetime. Computers are getting better; the recent war in Israel/gaza used a lot of unmanned bombers. Military planes will be the first to go all-robotic, and then civilian planes will follow.
Once people get used to the idea of robotic aircraft, they won’t even want to go back to the old days of manned expeditions.
Yes. Nothing is more important to the survival of the human species, and as we mature as a world culture in the next 30 - 50 years, enough people will realize that to make it happen. I cannot even venture a guess at what people might be referring to when they call such a mission a “waste”. What would be being wasted?
I’m 27.
No
I cannot agree: I really don’t think we’re going to see an AI capable of reacting to the loss of two engines from bird strikes at low altitude and landing an Airbus in the river any time soon. Automation is all well and good for routine stuff, but when events take an unexpected turn you need a person.
Precisely. As were the moon landings. Scientific endeavour and the spirit of exploration are never enough to drive these things. It’s only nations seeking bragging rights over other nations. The moon landings were approved to ease a collective American anxiety about the Russian Commies being more advanced because of Sputnik. And the Russians secretly scrapped their program when the Americans got there first: so much for scientific exploration.
Glasnost / Perestroika / the fall of the wall was the worst thing to happen to manned space exploration.
Now the Chinese are desperate to be taken seriously as a grown up nation, and prestige / face weighs hugely in their culture. They will pay for a lunar landing before they pay for old-age pensions, health care, or welfare. For Mars, we will see.
Me, I’m betting no. Because the Chinese don’t have the tech, and the Americans won’t have the money, and the Europeans won’t be able to agree on anything.
-trupa, 41
You think our species’ survival requires a trip to Mars?? How did we make it this far?
Reading your post, it crossed my mind that you could have automated planes, with a limited number of pilots installed in, say, control towers who would take over at distance only in case of difficulties. Just a random idea.
In the long run, and when, not if, a big and unavoidable disaster occurs (like a huge asteroid coming right at us), the only way the human race would survive is to not have all its eggs in one basket. Not that we’re even remotely ready for space colonization.
I think the wise thing to do in the long run WRT to space is to increasingly open it up to private industry like we’re seeing with stuff like the ANSARI X-Prize. While there will always be room for NASA on the military side of things, space isn’t going to be really developed until there’s money in having it developed (and asteroid mining, tourism, and the like seem like they could eventually be money-makers).
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
That was my initial thought, but the response time is too limited for that. By the time he determined that a duck had flown into the engine, it would be too late to make the Hudson river.
You think it doesn’t? Explain.
There’s a name for this fallacy, though it escapes me at the moment.
No, not without a whole bunch of breakthroughs and/or new information that would make Mars a useful place to be.
I think we’re more likely to be mining asteroids and putting dirty industries in space or on the moon. And if there is a breakthrough in propulsion, and availability of lots of resources already outside of our gravity well, then maybe Mars will have a tourist industry.
But I’m already 50, so… probably not.
Couldn’t do that over solar system distances. Too much time lag between transmission and receipt of signals.
I can see an argument that establishing an extra-terrestrial colony could save the species in the case of a large comet impact. The obvious place for this would be the Moon - hideously expensive to be sure, but many orders of magnitude more practical than Mars. So a visit there, though certainly interesting, would be essentially a noble stunt, with little relevance to the survival of any species.
I rate this trip unlikely within the next 75 years. From where will arise the political will to spend anything like the money required? I can see some possible motivation from an emerging economic power like China, but again they can get respectable bang for far fewer bucks out of the Moon.
What would the colonists eat and breath should the Earth be taken out by a comet?
Self contained biodome.
It’s not like Mars is exactly a bustling center for life. And terraforming would be no simple task.
Personally, I’m for a (self sufficient) moon base, and a (self sufficient) martian base. And a (self sufficient) Europan base, and just about everywhere else.
But I think first thing we need to do is establish a launch point on the moon. Lower gravity, we could mine the materials from the moon, launch them into Earth Orbit (or directly to mars) from there, it would be much less fuel intensive.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Luna have tons of raw materials? Yes, it would be quite tricky mining them… but if we’re going to build self-sufficient colonies, we need to figure out how to do it sooner or later.
You’re thinking really short term. What is humankind going to do in 1,000 years? 10,000? 100,000? We can’t exploit the Earth forever and expect it to keep sustaining us. I’m not talking about an escape plan in case of some global catastrophe; I’m talking long-term, planned survival of the species. Besides, if we waited until we knew a large impact was imminent it’d be way too late.
Isn’t the moon’s gravity to weak for human’s to set up and long term colony - keeping in mind that they’d want to visit Earth?
Not just survival - triumph! I want to see the entire galaxy seeded with human life. It’ll take tens of thousands of years, at least, but we have to start developing the technology now.
That’s why I don’t get all this talk about exploring Mars with robots. Who the hell cares about Mars? The purpose of sending a manned mission to the red planet is not to explore it, it’s to build a spacecraft capable of making the trip. It’s an *engineering *challenge, and the trip itself is merely a test flight.
In fact, I don’t think agencies like NASA should be involved in any science other than rocket science. Let the amateurs do their astronomy; NASA should be in the business of designing better spaceships.