Forum menu
Not the bar, the planet.
Why the interest in going such a long way, rather than at least start with setting some sort of living modules on the Moon.
I would think anyone going to Mars wouldn't be coming back.
So why the rush or need to go there.
Because we can('t, yet.)
Why the interest in going such a long way, rather than at least start with setting some sort of living modules on the Moon.
I thought the idea was get to the Moon again, as it maybe possible to get to Mars from there, rather than Earth?
Or have I just been reading crappy SciFi?
Why the interest in going such a long way, rather than at least start with setting some sort of living modules on the Moon.
Because despite his valiant attempts to fix it, Elon Musk still has much more money than sense.
Because Mars is the planet most like Earth. And the only one there’s even a small chance of establishing a base on. The Moon is a staging post to get there.
The pyramid mines.
Because despite his valiant attempts to fix it, Elon Musk still has much more money than sense.
And he's a massive egotist who just wants the bragging rights of being first to Mars.
We're going back to the moon, so it's not an "either" situation.
Why Mars? It's (relatively) close.
Peanut allergy?
Sorry 😉
Why not concentrate on fixing up earth. That’s my main issue with it. If these super rich fools insist on rockets then they can clean up all the shit floating around just outside of our atmosphere.
@funkmasterp totally agree, they seem to forget that they are already on the best place for human life and need us to consume crap to enable them to live out their childish fantasies.
Space travel is fascinating, but at what cost?
I love the stories around the space race in the 50s and 60s, but Gil Scott Heron nailed it with Whitey On The Moon, and unfortunately it still holds today.
We’re going back to the moon, so it’s not an “either” situation.
But Artemis 2 isn’t going for another 18 months, and even then that’s orbiting the moon rather than landing. Furthest Canadian from earth though.
As an aside we’re at the National Space Centre in Leicester today - it’s really good.
Why not concentrate on fixing up earth.
This is a constant argument against funding long-term science research. I don't know if a Mars mission is the best use of money, but spending money on understanding other planets will have benefits to how we understand the world we live in.
There are also spin-off technological benefits. This is a mountain bike forum. The technologies used to produce mountain bikes are mostly derived from aerospace research done in the Cold War. Research on aluminium alloys, welding, heat treating, carbon fibre, etc. Same with laptop computers, tablets, smartphones, etc. Pushing the boundaries of technology with aerospace projects has spin offs for consumer technology too.
The most important thing is that it's not really a choice between doing one or the other. It's possible to do both. We can work on sustainable environmental technology on Earth and also work on space research at the same time.
Edit: And I don't interpret Whitey on the Moon as an anti-space program poem. To me the point is that a country that can afford a space program can also afford to fund social programmes. They aren't exclusive.
This is a mountain bike forum.
Is it? 😮
Is it?
It's a forum for people who own mountain bikes, I guess.
Okay, one last try.
Its a forum pretending to be, at least in some small part, for people with an occasional passing interest in some form of cycling.
Why not concentrate on fixing up earth.
We "should" already be doing that. I dont see Space Exploration really making much of a difference tbh, not compared to all the other shit we should be doing at both governmental and individual levels.
Just out of idle curiosity, some lazily Googled figures suggest the Artemis Lunar programme is forecast to cost less than HS2.
If these super rich fools insist on rockets then they can clean up all the shit floating around just outside of our atmosphere.
It's far harder to fix Earth's problems than send a few people to Mars.
This is a constant argument against funding long-term science research.
It's a constant argument against everything and it's bogus. It's what speeding drivers say to the police, "why aren't you out catching real criminals?" See also, racists and foreign aid. Should I stop raising money for a local charity because cancer still exists?
Sometimes the small stuff is more worthwhile. As hols says, the space race massively drove forward innovation. Space exploration still does. Framing going to the Moon / Mars in isolation as "well, we went there, so what?" is tremendously myopic.
Just out of idle curiosity, some lazily Googled figures suggest the Artemis Lunar programme is forecast to cost less than HS2.
It's also more likely to be completed. 😁
If you want to do research, send more unmanned probes.
Sending humans is a vanity project.
Sending humans to start a "colony" is total bullshit that only someone like Musk would think was a good use of resources.
It’s a constant argument against everything and it’s bogus.
it isn’t what I’m arguing at all. These people have enough money and resources to genuinely make a huge difference to the planet. Instead they’re doing the opposite. The Carbon and Carbon equivalents associated with their space based endeavours are massive. Doing nothing would be less harmful than what Musk and his ilk are doing.
We had the spectacle of Musk putting on his solemn face a while back and opining about the future of mankind in the event of some civilization-ending event, and how only his incredible genius and vision could save humanity from this disaster by setting up a colony on Mars.
I would like to know exactly how many people who are not billionaire chums of Musk or their trophy wives (because they are all male and white of course) would be on that space ship in the event of an incoming comet.
I am confident I would not get a place.
So for the vast majority of mankind, you can look forward to a fiery death.
Thanks, but no thanks. Let's just increase taxes for people with too much money by far.
It is a bit of "because it's there" really. There is not practical purpose for sending people to Mars with current technology. It would be a one way trip and would be a shit life and death for the people who went.
Much better to send unmanned probes as things stand.
The technology that would make it feasible:
(1) Space elevators - to transport materials to space to allow a big enough space station to assemble, fuel and act as launch for mars craft
(2) New form of propulsion that isn't burning huge amounts of chemicals
Pretty pointless without those in place.
I guess you can build a big enough rocket to get people there and land a lander - but it would require huge amounts of fuel for anything on human scale and to get that off the surface of the earth is unlikely to be viable in one go. So ferry the fuel and Mars craft into orbit in lots of bits - assemble in space - massively challenging. Travel to Mars - leave a huge orbiter and land a lander with capability of sustaining human life. Then is it even vaguely plausible that the Mars lander could have enough fuel to land enough and take off again - and the orbiter would need huge amounts of fuel for the return journey. Can't see it with current technology
If you did expend the money and build the craft capable of this - to what end? There is no commercial value. Nobody would really want to live on Mars it would be grim - hunkered down in some tiny biosphere.
I really wish space travel was possible - if paddling in the pool of our nearest solar system neighbours can be called space travel - but there are really some big basic steps that need to be put in place before even that is feasible on any sort of scale
Just out of idle curiosity, some lazily Googled figures suggest the Artemis Lunar programme is forecast to cost less than HS2.
NASA v Tories?
Sending humans to start a “colony” is total bullshit that only someone like Musk would think was a good use of resources.
I think it's a great use of resources if one of the colonists is Musk himself.
it isn’t what I’m arguing at all. These people have enough money and resources to genuinely make a huge difference to the planet. Instead they’re doing the opposite.
Sure. But (again, as hols said) they could do both, one does not preclude the other.
We need to increase our presence on other planets in the solar system to ensure humanity’s survival. Having all your eggs in one basket is a bad survival strategy. Plus all the other benefits mentioned above.
It would be a one way trip and would be a shit life and death for the people who went.
Are you in possession of evidence that the agencies involved are knowingly planning to send Astronauts on a suicide mission to Mars?
Are you in possession of evidence that the agencies involved are knowingly planning to send Astronauts on a suicide mission to Mars
Isn't that the premise of the original post
(2) New form of propulsion that isn’t burning huge amounts of chemicals
To me, this is the biggest thing that's got to be overcome. It takes about 9 months to get to Mars and when you think Voyager 2 was launched in 1977 and only entered into interstellar space in 2018 traveling at around 35,000mph we ain't going very far soon.
We need to increase our presence on other planets in the solar system to ensure humanity’s survival. Having all your eggs in one basket is a bad survival strategy. Plus all the other benefits mentioned above.
But there are not the basic conditions for living on other planets. I don't really understand this argument. If we can develop the technology to actually create a tolerable life on other planets (or moons) then anything we are likely to do to earth will be still make earth the much more attractive option.
I just don't get it - the idea of any vaguely viable and self sustaining colony outside earth ,- let alone one you would want to live on is just not really feasible at the moment.
funkmasterp
Full MemberWhy not concentrate on fixing up earth.
They're 100% compatible. The only reason we're not fixing up earth is choice, space travel makes absolutely no difference to it whatsoever. It's the same as "why don't we help our own homeless veterans before we help refugees", te answer is "because we don't want to". The amount of resources used for space travel don't even register.
But there's some really strong synergies to be had. Basically, humans tend to do our best work in an absolute crisis, and our worst when the crisis is still 5 minutes away. And the thing about Mars and the Moon and space in general is, it's kinda always a crisis. So the things we learn about living in and changing unsuitable environments there, will sometimes be really useful when we have to live in unsuitable environments here.
And the other thing is, it's one of the best places for emerging/disruptive technologies, just because so much on earth is really mature and well developed and kind of tapped out. Whereas the arguments for space travel have gone from "uh, really cool pens? Because it's there?" to "I have GPS in my pocket all the time" and just absolutely tons of material science improvements, and loads of unpredictable things. Like, the eye-tracking tech developed for weightlessness research underpins the laser surgery kit they used when my eye popped, it likely wouldn't have been developed for that reason but it made it possible. See also biosignature sensors and artificial pancreases, better solar, cat scans and mris... Nothing absolutely had to have been developed for space use, it could all theoretically have been developed here, but space gave it a reason to be developed
The reason for Mars is that it has water, a bit of atmosphere, suitable gravity, and lots of the various elements and materials we'd want to work with, in fairly accessible forms. (we can't breathe the atmosphere, but we can use it- not being in vacuum makes everything easier)
The reason for te Moon is that it's close and easy, has rubbish gravity but enough to stop you just falling off, and while it's not great for resources, they're out of the gravity well. So moon-based propellant doesn't have to be hauled up in a massive rocket using 100 kg of mass to deliver 1kg of mass to moon injection, it can probably be fired into a useful orbit with a gun.
The reason for orbit is that it's waaaay easier to get to, and close enough to touch. But it's ridiculously unsafe so it's only really useful as a means to an end.
And the reason for earth is that we're already there and it has all we need to live. But they all have strengths and weaknesses and ultimately we're going to want to be in all 4 and more.
They’re completely compatible.
no they aren’t. CO2 is a huge issue and pissing about with space rockets causes a lot of it. It’s adding to an already existing issue. That’s all it is doing. Pissing money and resource up against the proverbial wall whilst causing further harm. That’s not compatible with reducing harm at all.
That’s all it is doing.
No, it's not.
Care to extrapolate Cougar? What tangible benefits are we seeing that outweigh the environmental damage caused here and now? None that I can see.
I just don’t get it – the idea of any vaguely viable and self sustaining colony outside earth ,- let alone one you would want to live on is just not really feasible at the moment.
Yep, all we're doing is wasting our current resources, i cannot see a viable reason to be sending anything other than exploratory satellites to Mars or the Moon, we cannot colonise them, forget the gravity issue, or getting the resources to them, Mars has a gravity that's about a third of that of Earth, anything you send there requires a lot of thrusters, parachute, etc to even hope of landing safely, especially large heavy loads, once you're there, well the lack of an ozone layer means your not going to be doing much cultivating, or world building either with natural resources.
Personally, i just see it as a waste of resource, go and investigate our oceans, lands and depths, we're just not technically advanced enough to do much outside of our planet, i doubt we ever will be.
Care to extrapolate Cougar? What tangible benefits are we seeing that outweigh the environmental damage caused here and now? None that I can see.
On this specific venture, I don't know. But the scientific advances born from Mercury / Gemini / Apollo are very well documented.
It’s human nature to explore. It’s why we spread across the globe.
While I don’t like the ego-boosting projects of stupid little trips to sub-orbit by billionaires; I also don’t think you can tax the desire to explore out of everyone.
It’s exciting and childish and against lots of logical reasons but it’s going to happen because it’s the next place to go.
And I can’t wait to see it happen, if it does in my lifetime, because it’ll be amazing. And that doesn’t mean I don’t despair and care and want stuff done about the environment, or poor people, or endangered species or shit in our rivers.