[Closed] Is there any point sending Man to Mars?

Also was there anything Man did on the moon that a machine couldn't do?

inspire?

Because it's there?

Why do mountaineers climb mountains?

Also I feel that Brian Cox's position of coolest man in science was well and truly ripped up by the guy who designed the mars lander.

He was a cross between Brian Cox & Michael Madsen. Definitely cool.

Why do mountaineers climb mountains?

It doesn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars to climb a mountain.

thats where were from?

Honestly I have a list of people I'd like to volunteer to the list. I see it as a worthwhile project.

It doesn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars to climb a mountain.

Your point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outward_Urge

It'd be lovely to go to Mars, but that's only one tiny corner of science. There are plenty more that might benefit from hundreds of billions. Cancer or malaria research, perhaps? Climate change mitigation? Fusion power?

Can we send JCL and leave him there? Maybe he could be sponsored to go?

As a living organism, it's in our nature to spread out, Be it the ground in the forest, the Grasslands, Mountains or Space,
Why?

The ability to adapt allowing our survival.

Wasn't there a 7:1 $ return from the space program in the 60s/70s?

You'd need some very handy technology for a permanent presence on mars. We should get on with it.

Its possible man to mars will be sooner than later.

It's the first step in overcoming problems involved in longer space flight. I think it's very important.

It'd be lovely to go to Mars, but that's only one tiny corner of science. There are plenty more that might benefit from hundreds of billions. Cancer or malaria research, perhaps? Climate change mitigation? Fusion power?

Its a fair point, but if we are going to survive as a species we need to figure out how to colonise other worlds and spread beyond the confines of Earth.

Whether we deserve to survive as a species is of course another topic entirely

Life needs a plan B. Sometime, eventually, a big enough asteroid is going to come along and wipe out all life on the planet, and since this planet has the only life we know of in the universe, that would be a pity.

So far, the only species able to produce a plan B for life is humanity - we're the only species with the capability to spread life to other planets, to create a toe-hold elsewhere just in case.

That's my reason.

molgrips - Member

It'd be lovely to go to Mars, but that's only one tiny corner of science. There are plenty more that might benefit from hundreds of billions. Cancer or malaria research, perhaps? Climate change mitigation? Fusion power?

The number of technologies medical and otherwise which have come directly and indirectly from space programmes is astounding. Improvements to or invention of cochlear implants, space blankets, insulin pump, to name but three.

I think it in mankind's nature to explore. Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot has a great passage about it:

We were wanderers from the beginning. We knew every stand of tree for a hundred miles. When the fruits or nuts were ripe, we were there. We followed the herds in their annual migrations. We rejoiced in fresh meat. through stealth, feint, ambush, and main-force assault, a few of us cooperating accomplished what many of us, each hunting alone, could not. We depended on one another. Making it on our own was as ludicrous to imagine as was settling down.
Working together, we protected our children from the lions and the hyenas. We taught them the skills they would need. And the tools. Then, as now, technology was the key to our survival.
When the drought was prolonged, or when an unsettling chill lingered in the summer air, our group moved on—sometimes to unknown lands. We sought a better place. And when we couldn't get on with the others in our little nomadic band, we left to find a more friendly bunch somewhere else. We could always begin again.
For 99.9 percent of the time since our species came to be, we were hunters and foragers, wanderers on the savannahs and the steppes. There were no border guards then, no customs officials. The frontier was everywhere. We were bounded only by the Earth and the ocean and the sky—plus occasional grumpy neighbors.
When the climate was congenial, though, when the food was plentiful, we were willing to stay put. Unadventurous. Overweight. Careless. In the last ten thousand years—an instant in our long history—we've abandoned the nomadic life. We've domesticated the plants and animals. Why chase the food when you can make it come to you?
For all its material advantages, the sedentary life has left us edgy, unfulfilled. Even after 400 generations in villages and cities, we haven't forgotten. The open road still softly calls, like a nearly forgotten song of childhood. We invest far-off places with a certain romance. This appeal, I suspect, has been meticulously crafted by natural selection as an essential element in our survival. Long summers, mild winters, rich harvests, plentiful game—none of them lasts forever. It is beyond our powers to predict the future. Catastrophic events have a way of sneaking up on us, of catching us unaware. Your own life, or your band's, or even your species' might be owed to a restless few—drawn, by a craving they can hardly articulate or understand, to undiscovered lands and new worlds.
Herman Melville, in Moby Dick, spoke for wanderers in all epochs and meridians: "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..."

Tl;dr - it's in our nature!

Also in monetary terms the US spends more in a year on 'defense' than it has on 50 years of NASA.

Also was there anything Man did on the moon that a machine couldn't do?

A person is way better than any robot for "doing stuff".

e.g. In 1990 I remember being told that within 10 years there would be no more diving in the North Sea, they would all be replaced by ROV's, both cheaper and safer. Well 20+ years later and dive vessels are as busy as they have ever been.

Doesn't solve the radiation problem mind!

It doesn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars to climb a mountain.

Because as with most govenrment projects it doesn't 'cost' anywhere near the headline figure, they'll do some sums and conclude it will make the country a net proffit. In the imediate term they'll recoup large chunks of it in taxes, the money has to be spent on something. In the medium term employees also pay taxs, and spend that money elsewhere leading to a multiplier effect. In the medium to long term it provides an anchor preventing a brain drain out of the country, want to avoid your best scientists leaving to go work in China, give them something interesting to do. And in the long term as someone touched on up there, it inspires the next generation of scientists and engineers. I grew up watching the Mars Rover's on TV, I now design bits of oil refineries.

I'd go to Mars if only to get away from the fricken rain

Its all space race willy waving, a bit like sending man to the moon. Bragging rights for life!
Would i like to see man go to Mars?

Hell yes! It would be the ultimate adventure to date 😉

Its absolutely essential. We have to get off this rock some time as it will only be around for a handful of millions of years before a big asteroid hits us or the Sun starts to run out of steam. All this technology has to be invented and some of it will take hundreds if not thousands of years to develop and it wont happen automatically, things like getting to Mars are just stepping stones ont bigger things. When the intention to land someone on the moon was announced they didn't have the technology and alot of it had to be invented, and lets not foget the spin off applicaitons of the technology that benefits mankind...like velcro and teflon. Can you imagine life without it?

Without this and similar things they you have to ask the question, what's the point of continuing the Human Race at all. Its certainly not for bankers to continue feathering their nests and big corporations to maintain double digit earnings growth at the expense of workers like us. We're in it to create a world for our offspring so they might thrive and continue on after us. If there is no future then what's the point?

Of course the counter argument to "why should we" will always be "why shouldn't we" It's moot, we're not paying for it the USA are and I say let them get on with it. If they are happy to spend $Billions on this project whilst a vast proportion of thier citizens live in poverty or without healthcare then hey, it's thier $'s.

I agree with the "why should we" argument though. I feel money better spent on changing THIS planet and OUR human attitudes towards it is by far and away the most important topic to spend $'s on rather than a fanciful, speculative, and ultimately pointless project of this scale.

As for the "coolest" scientist, nope that bloke looked just like any number of 1000's of Guys here in that lonjon, nothing special, great job though playing around with models and mechano all day.

Life needs a plan B. Sometime, eventually, a big enough asteroid is going to come along and wipe out all life on the planet,

Either that or the Yellowstone caldera will blow, with much the same result.

But let's worry about global warming, shall we? 😀

Tippie's already been

forget Mars, we cant get living on Earth right....

concentrate all funds on sustainable energy like fusion, then everything
else will follow when we have virtually "free" energy.

Yes we should go to mars and everywhere we can get to, some of the same arguments existed before we went to the moon.

Wobbliscott, not really sure you understand the issues. You're talking about interplanetary travel, looking for a possible new home. Going to the moon was absolutely nothing compared to that challenge. It's not even a step in the same direction. Going to the moon was just a fancy game of pool, with 300 year old science. Travelling far enough to find another habitable planet in a sensible time frame is likely to be impossible. Not just impossible with current or imagined technology, but actually impossible.

Going to Mars will just duplicate the moon landings, but take longer. To be honest, having unlimited clean power on earth would be a better start towards interplanetary travel. And it would certainly help us live on earth much better.

[img] [/img]

To date, in it's entire history, NASA has yet to spend a single dollar in space!

ie yes it's expensive, but that money is not 'wasted' it is returned to the economy, right here on earth, keeping thousands of people in jobs and leading to hundreds of technological advances that aid the human race as a whole.

Unfortunately, the issue with space travel is the first ~100Km, not the next 100 million km! Until we can somehow efficiently and safety harness the enormous energies required to escape our planets gravity then mans long term future in space is necessarily limited by economics....

ie yes it's expensive, but that money is not 'wasted' it is returned to the economy, right here on earth, keeping thousands of people in jobs and leading to hundreds of technological advances that aid the human race as a whole.

That's true, and a point I've made often, but it would still be the case if the money was spent on fusion power or cancer research etc.

Or rocket powered roller skates and hover-boards. Where's my hover-board eh? WHERE?!!!

lets not foget the spin off applicaitons of the technology that benefits mankind...like velcro

[i]That's true, and a point I've made often, but it would still be the case if the money was spent on fusion power or cancer research etc.

[/i]

Things is, if the money wasn't spent on space exploration, it probbaly wouldn't be spent on fusion power, cancer research, ending third world hunger or generally improving the planet. It would probably just result in slightly lower taxes.

But how would we potentially cope without the phrase 'it's not rocket science, is it?'

We'd all be making constant brain surgery references, which would end up being really tedious

Things is, if the money wasn't spent on space exploration, it probbaly wouldn't be spent on fusion power, cancer research, ending third world hunger or generally improving the planet. It would probably just result in slightly lower taxes.

Or spank the lot on coke and hookers?

thisisnotaspoon - Member

lets not foget the spin off applicaitons of the technology that benefits mankind...like velcro

Urban Myth. Velcro was invented by a Swiss engineer in the 1940's.

I mean, how awesome is this, and that's just a shit spaceship going up to do fk all. Imagine if it was sending someone to Mars:

molgrips - Member

Climate change mitigation? Fusion power?

Both techs that would be driven by a mars colonisation effort. Climate change- ecosystem understanding for life support, and in the longer run terraforming... fusion power for... powering. And there are spin-outs too, frexample orbital solar generation is slowly becoming more realistic. (there are more far-fetched spin-outs from that, like sticking a solar parasol in-orbit from earth to catch the sun- reducing the amount of heat added to an overheated system.

Other thing about space research is that it triggers unexpected developments- so you're not just talking about progress towards goals we already have, we're talking about finding new targets.

I think ethically, we shouldn't be *ing with another planet til we figure out how to not * up this one. But manned space travel is inspiration, aspirational, and not actually all [i]that [/i]expensive when you consider how much money we piss away on less useful things like ballistic nuclear submarines and the like. As a national willy-waving contest it's an improvement on that and hopefully a displacement from that- rather than taking budget from other research it takes budget from the "national pride" projects.

Both techs that would be driven by a mars colonisation effort.

Tenuous. Not as much benefit as if they were the primary focus. It's a bit silly to say 'If we spend a shitload of money on A then B might benefit'. Why not just spend all the money on B?

Is B the coke and hooker option Molly? Do we get a vote? Space or hookers and nosebag?

Is there any point sending Man to Mars?

Is there any point in doing anything other than sending man to Mars?

Well, helping others is a good start.

Imagine if you got to Mars and there were some other friendly intergalactic travellers there from a super advanced race, and you got chatting.

"So hang on, let me get this straight. You've got wars and famine on your planet, people in poverty, you've no idea how to live sustainably and people are dying in droves from common diseases. Why the **** are you pissing about out here?!"

If only someone could come up with a plan, a timeframe and budget for ending war, banishing disease and learning to live sustainably.

If only.

Are you a project manager or something? If it can't be planned and budgeted then it's not happening? 😉

molgrips - Member

Tenuous. Not as much benefit as if they were the primary focus. It's a bit silly to say 'If we spend a shitload of money on A then B might benefit'. Why not just spend all the money on B?

Does anyone believe that's how it works? There's not a bucket of money marked "science" that you throw at a problem, there's national budgets pulled in a million different directions, and everything needs to justify itself in various ways against that. You can attract money for a big glamour project- "send a man to mars"- in a way you can't for a more diffuse one like "develop fusion power". So it's not a case of "Here is X money, spend it on a thing you like". It is "Do that thing we like, here is X money. Oh you're not doing that thing we like? have 0 money"

The other reason it works, is that it forces progress in certain very specific and very honest directions. Take climate change- there's a hundred competing approaches to addressing that, be it fusion or wind or sequestration or lifestyle change or sticking plasters. And huge momentum and vested interests keep pushing us towards things that are supposed to let us carry on as we were, rather than making dramatic changes- which counts against fusion. The solutions we put effort into aren't necessarily the best, they're the most expedient. Instead of working on fossil fuel replacements we work on extracting marginal fossil fuels! And we love panaceas- doesn't matter if I consume too much, I recycle!

But you can't set up a sustained mars program with tar sands or recycling cardboard boxes or prius batteries. You need self-contained clean power. Lots of thoughts about low-consumption and low-waste, ecosystem management, resource management etc.

Well, helping others is a good start.

Fannying around on this doomed rock is pointless.

When and how doesn't matter.

I disagree.

Is there any point sending Man to Mars?

Depends who it is;

Mick Hucknall
Michael Gove
Justin Bieber
Simon Cowell
James Corden
Piers Morgan
John McCririck

I can think of good reasons

You can attract money for a big glamour project- "send a man to mars"- in a way you can't for a more diffuse one like "develop fusion power"

Well developing fusion power is pretty glamorous really. But that aside, you've just described problems of management rather than science. Again, if we can't even figure out how to do what we need then going to Mars is just a multi trillion dollar game. Get our shit together first, then start the fun stuff.

In much the same way as my kids have to eat their meat and vegetables before they get ice cream.

I disagree.

If we met intergalatic travellers from an advanced race I'm pretty sure they would have encountered the ruins of other civilisations that had destroyed themselves before getting to the point they could leave their planet and expand.

The most dangerous time for a civilisation is moving between a type 0 (where we are now) to a type 1 (interplanetary) because the technology for mass destruction exists but there is no-where to go if it is used.

I think they'd understand this and would help us out. If we didn't get to Mars, we'd never know. (In your scenario)

A bit of perspective though, as I said above the amount spent on space research is a rounding error when compared to military spending.

molgrips - Member

But that aside, you've just described problems of management rather than science.

Well, yes, that's my entire point. But "problems of management" are still a problem for science. Perhaps the biggest. You can't just ignore them, if you want to get anything done.

If it helps, think of banner-headline programs as a different front for science. Some projects are funded on merit, some on desirability, or expedience, sometimes they fight for the same budgets but often one has access to funds the other doesn't.

Of course - but they need to be changed, if glamour and commercial opportunities are the driving forces.

If we didn't get to Mars, we'd never know. (In your scenario)

It's not a scenario, it's a rhetorical device.

Your genes don't.

I am more than just a gene replicatior. We all are.

binners - Member
Or rocket powered roller skates and hover-boards. Where's my hover-board eh? WHERE?!!!

Patience, only a year to go, IIRC.

I am more than just a gene replicatior. We all are.

You're kidding yourself. That is your only function.

Says who?

Says who?

Blimey , thought I'd just stumbled on to a Star Trek forum by accident . Human colonisation of Mars will never happen and even if it did who's to say Mars will be around for longer than Earth . The likely scenario is that at some point man will make Earth uninhabitable , die out , life will start again from the most primative organisms and the planet will have squillions of years to repair itself again before a creature comes along with the power to seriously damage the planet and make itself extinct again .

Sending a manned mission to Mars doesn't mean that colonisation of Mars is the goal.

Darwin

I think you'll have to find a credible source for that particular quote. Anyway - your kids are grown up so you're clearly surplus to requirements. When are you destroying yourself? And can I have your camera?

The likely scenario is that at some point man will make Earth uninhabitable

So we should obviously go to Mars then because of it's beautiful benign fertile climate.. oh.. wait..

[img] [/img]

I think you'll have to find a credible source for that particular quote. Anyway - your kids are grown up so you're clearly surplus to requirements. When are you destroying yourself?

And can I have your camera?

Ramsey Neil - Member

even if it did who's to say Mars will be around for longer than Earth

Further out in the heliosphere, so yes, almost certainly will be around for longer than Earth.

But that misses the point- Mars isn't necessarily more likely to last longer than earth, but 2 planets are obviously likely to last longer than 1.

The BBC interviewed the head of the Indian Space agency when they launched their Mars mission last year.

India would appear to be a real case for the "shouldn't you be solving your problems at home first" argument.

I found his reply quite interesting:

[i]We spend in India about a billion dollars for the space programme. If we look at the central government expenditure, we spend 0.34% of its budget for the space programme. This goes primarily for building satellites in communications and remote sensing and navigation for space applications. Nearly 35% of it goes on launch vehicle development and about 7-8% goes on the science and exploration programme. So the Mars mission we're talking about today is part of that 8% of the 0.34% of Indian central government expenditure. And if you look at the benefit that the country has accrued over the years, it has surpassed the money that has been spent in terms of tangible and intangible benefits.

[This can be expressed in terms of] the advantage that the people have got, the fishermen have got, the farmers have got, the government bodies have got for informed decision-making, the support the country has got for disaster management and by providing a communication infrastructure for this country using the INSAT satellites. [/i]

OK, he's the head of the space agency so of course he would be pro-exploration. But most of their tiny budget is spent on Molgrips' "making the world" a better place stuff. He goes on say that the difficult mission to Mars stuff actually makes the "beneficial" stuff easier and cheaper to do.

Wasted opportunity. We know what's there. Recent probe data suggests that the nearest ET life could be on Europa , a moon of Jupiter. It has all the elements to support carbon life forms underneath a think ice sheet, water, minerals etc.

What we need is a probe to land on Europa, burn its way through the ice and then catch an alien Shark, and send it back via a pod!!!

Cheaper than a manned mission to Mars

Recent probe data suggests that the nearest ET life could be on Europa

Enceladus is the current most likely prospect but I take your point.

Mars is the least hostile planet for humans (still pretty far from a day at the beach) and the closest so it makes sense to start there.

But there is no reason why probes to Saturn' moons can't be part of space exploration as well.

I think we need to do more of it in general, not just concentrate on a single mission. It should be a virtuous circle. The more we do in space the more we learn and the easier subsequent missions become so we can do more.

Propulsion is the main hurdle at the moment. Solving this problem, for space, could lead to interesting tech on Earth

Fantombiker - Member

What we need is a probe to land on Europa, burn its way through the ice and then catch an alien Shark, and send it back via a pod!!!

Then feed it to the lions.

I like Encilladas, cheesy.

There's nothing on Mars anyway. How would people survive?

There's nothing on Mars anyway. How would people survive?

I don't know but somehow they manage in Preston

molgrips - Member
There's nothing on Mars anyway. How would people survive?

Exactly.

And they have to wait a year before the planets line up to come back.

Did anyone mention this yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars

Solves the radiation problem, IIRC.

molgrips - Member

There's nothing on Mars anyway. How would people survive?

Again that's kind of the point- research into ecosystems, low-resource existence, alternative materials... All things that have a lot of inertia on earth, why research a new material or method when you've got one that works which has a trillion dollar industry supporting it. Why conserve resources when you won't run out for a hundred years? So break that cycle and see where you go. Can't pollute the air and water if every breath you take and every sip had to be harvested from ice and if you waste it you just die.

Though, to be fair we could do much of this in antartica or a better biosphere project. But never with the necessity of success, and neccesity's a superb driver of development. On earth we won't fix most of our problems til the 11th hour if at all, on mars you arrive in the 12th hour.

It's tricky. Yes it's good but maybe not now. Robots are getting good at doing remote science to the point where humans don't have much advantage. And the science is the key reason to go.

I have no problem in principle with the exploratory aims of Mars One, but there are practical and ethical issues: it's very easy to contaminate the place which makes exobiology very difficult to prove. And the idea of a one way trip I find unacceptable. The only accepted Mars one candidate i have met was definitely a sandwich short of a picnic.

He told me robots would built the settlement before they settled there. So I asked: If robots are that smart, why do we need to send you? I was bit rude to him really 😳

The bars are good though, aren't they?