Seeing that programme last night and all the technical challenges they face it stuck me that its really not worth the effort.
They seemed happy enough sorting out the ” little” problems but then the kick in the nuts is that really bad radiation, which they’ve got no answer for . Surely they should solve the big question first.
Good programme though but I wouldn’t be up for the trip. I’ve had 3 days in bed with man flu and bored out of my brains. Those poor sods doing 70 days have got a lot more will power than me.
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.
So my argument is that you could send a huge amount if unmanned probes to mars for the same cost as a manned one.
Also was there anything Man did on the moon that a machine couldn’t do?

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.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4tgkyUBkbY[/video]

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.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM[/video]

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.

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

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

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.

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. Also teflon had nothing to do with the space program. The look-what-NASA-has-invented is a terrible and undermining argument in general, as obv the best way to discover new science and technology is to fund new science and technology research directly. Carl Sagan himself acknowledged this.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t send someone to Mars, I think we absolutely should. It would be inspirational and represent space ‘travel’ for real.

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:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc[/video]