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

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?

Human colonisation of Mars will never happen and even if it did who's to say Mars will be around for longer than Earth .

As referenced earlier.

[img] [/img]

Human colonisation of Mars will never happen and even if it did who's to say Mars will be around for longer than Earth .

Never? Men will never fly. Men will never get into space. Men will never land on the moon.
And then what happened?
And when the sun goes nova, Mars will still last longer than Earth. For a matter of seconds, but it will last longer.
Care to speculate on what could cause Mars to be destroyed before Earth? After all, it's virtually sterile, has zero volcanic and seismic activity, so name something that would destroy it; apart from external causes like asteroid or comet strike, which is a good reason for spreading the human race into another planet.

Well there's also plenty of things that man has never done and never will do , I think that colonising other planets is one of them , you may have a different opinion but until it happens it's just science fiction . Thank you for answering your own question about what could destroy Mars before Earth .

I think we should do it, for no better reason than to remind us that we can do extraordinary things as a species. And I think the more we're reminded of this, the more we might want to do other extraordinary things: cure cancer, feed the world, develop clean, cheap power. Which all require global, connected effort.

We're always being told about the uplifting effects of global events, such as the Olympics- I think things like spaceflight can have the same consciousness-raising outcome.

Mind you, I'm not saying we should go to Mars first, but it should be on some list of things that humans should aspire to.

Does the reverse apply if we try and fail ?

You only fail when you stop trying, Neil.

Never? Men will never fly. Men will never get into space. Men will never land on the moon.
And then what happened?

You're just cherry picking there. Plenty of things men will really never ever do and no amount of technology will change that.

Anyway I think we will go to Mars, but I don't think we should try too hard just yet. More pressing problems, as I said.