Light & Laser Blog

Would we actually gain more benefit, beyond just being able to say we've done it?

Yes.

Yes if you can find useful metals there.

Ever read NASA TECH BRIEFS? There is tremendous amount of advanced technical information available that can be or is currently is use on this our planet. Some of the most ingenious people on the earth work for NASA and their knowledge is available to us. Unfortunately because of shortsighted corporation purchased (thanks supreme court) legislators, funding is being pulled.

As humans, the stars have called to us for 1000s of years. We will need to leave sooner or later, let's start now. There is a wealth of new knowledge waiting for us.

YES

First of all such adventures provide inspiration to an entire planet.

Then there is the employment aspect, providing jobs for thousands of our best and the brightest and again inspiring others to become the best or the brightest. Employment for tens of thousands of support staff for those PhDs.

Then there is the knowledge. We will discover answers to questions we haven't even asked yet because we won't discover the question until me make the attempt.

Finally there is the survival aspect. We have been siting ducks here far too long with all our eggs in one basket. We need to begin diversifying and spreading out. So that one errant asteroid can't take us all out in one shot.

No!!! We can learn everything we need to know about mars, with robots. Waste of time and money.

We can't get along here. Why would anyone think that would change on an inhospitable planet where breathable air, water, and food are in even shorter supply?

It wouldn't work like it does in the movies.

Have fun!

http://www.universetoday.com/14702/what-is-mars-made-of/

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

We know a lot more about Mars than you think, and one thing is for sure......................it is uninhabitable for humans.

If you get a remote view of the inside of a freezer or an oven, combined with accurate readings of what it's like in there, do you feel compelled to go live in there to find out for yourself that it sucks?

What if the freezer or oven was about 35 million miles away?

For anyone that thinks we're going to hop and skip our way across the universe and get reestablished, here's the closet planet that might be able to sustain human life.....................................20.5 light years away.

Lets see..................at 186,000 miles per second, assuming we will be able to travel at the speed of light........................

Interesting stuff, but pure fantasy at this point fellas. Maybe we should focus on earth a little more.

In any endeavor, the lowest hanging fruit is always picked first.

We have visited the moon; that was the easy one. The next lowest piece to be picked is Mars.

Now the question: "Would Human Flight to Mars Bring Tangible Value?" Dunno. Nobody knows. Might be a total waste of resources, adding absolutely nothing new to our knowledge of how our solar system was formed or how it works. This in itself is a valuable thing to know, proving our methods of investigation and interpretation of data are accurate.

Now another question: "Would Human Flight to Mars Be Worth The Expense, For An Unknown Tangible Value?" Different question. I still dunno.

I'm guessing that there was tangible value in sending men to the moon, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

With the advances in robotic technology, I can't help but wonder if the human aspect of it was nill...............................I mean besides being able to say that we did it. Which is cool, but not of any intrinsic value.

Think how different the world would be if the old sea explorers felt that way.

Is it worth the risk or the cost in both resources and life, I don't know but if we just sit on our asses and worry we will defenatly not get anywhere and a society that stagnates dies, change is life.

I agree with your assessment................................we should continue unlocking the secrets of, and working on the problems of life on earth, before heading off to a dead, uninhabitable planet, 35 million miles away.

a society that stagnates dies

So you envision a society on Mars?

There are lots of things we know about Mars, which are provided in the links I posted earlier. I didn't notice anything that suggests that it would support a human society.

In fact, based on what we already know, I'd like to hear some speculation on what, of tangible value, we would hope to get from a manned mission.

For one it would probably make a good base for any mining operations in the asteroid belt.

As I stated in a previous post the Terra-forming the plant is also an option though a long term one. So the sooner we start the better.

I saw a program the a few years ago that suggested that it would take about 25 years to Terra-form Mars to a state that could support life.

Mining operations in the asteroid belt? For what? Iron?

Here's a tangible question..............................Whose going to pay for this?

25 years of terra-forming is going to do what? Create a breathable atmosphere?

Where's the water going to come from to support terra-forming, much less sustain humans? Tankers from earth?

What energy source? Solar? We can't make that feasible here. Why would it work better on Mars?

I'm not sold.

Mining raw materials. Earths resources are not going to last forever.

As for water. Dropping space ice (from comets, asteroids or even mine it for moons from the outer planets) into Marses gravity well.

But thats my point, we wont know till we try.

And as we grow, there will be less and less land, less and less resources.

So why wait till it become critical before looking off planet for solutions

You funny.

First of all, humans are being replaced by robots on earth, across the board. It makes sense, and it saves money. Why do we need the human component on Mars?

Secondly, why would you think that after we use up and burn off all of our resources on earth, that somehow salvation could be found on barren rocks out in space?

Keep trying.......................I'm still not sold.

And just what do these robots that are replacing us do? Do they by chance adapt and innovate as they are exposed to new data? No, for true exploration you need a human component.

All right, of course you can argue that remote access can fulfill some of these functions, sent back the data and get it analysed on Earth. Then send the commands to your (limmited) robotic system on Mars. Wait. Oh, then realise you do not have the equipment you need to observe, analyse and interpret the data.

Come on people - this is not rocket science (pun intended).

If you do not have an on site presence - you do not have the flexability to adapt to changing situations.

Not to address the cost aspect of the argument. This is harder to do since it is inevitably bound up in the personal agendas of the debaters.

We can argue that the worth outweights the cost, we could argue thatthe money could be better spent on Earth. All of these arguments are valid enough despite being diametrically opposite. Personally I formly believe that the potential benefits, both tangible and intangible of a manned, permanent presence on Mars outweights the costs. That is not to say that any single government should attempt this on their own. I'd forsee an effort more akin to the ISS in reaching Mars and establishing a colony. Yes, colony.

I'd suggest that the difficulties (massive though they are) are solvable using current technology. This had been suggested (although not perhaps proven) by a yriad of experiments ranging from various Artic and Antanrtic stations, the various "sealed" biospheres around the world, the recent "Mars Mission" and of course the ISS itself.

Again, in my most humble opinion I feel that the argument against a manned mission and eventual colony on Mars is the same argument against any kind of research. Is stem cell treatment similarly a waste since we have never needed it before? Waht about energy research? Fusion, fuel cells, battery technology? Are all these "bad?"

We need to stop messing about and get a move on. Mars is reachable with 1970's technology (dammit an enhanced Apollo could have gone there) let alone what we could come up with now.

Perhaps (at the risk of going off topic) the best thing that could have happened was the retreat from space by NASA. They seem to have mismanaged the manned space program for decades until finally we reach the current situation.

I'd suggest reading "Encounter With Tiber" in which Buzz Aldrin at one point describes a realistic method of reaching first orbit then the planets. Then move on to the "Mars" trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson and think about what is suggested. Like most good SF they have a firm grounding in fact and between them may just convince you of the benefits.

I'll tell you what.................................lets make a deal.

Create a self sustaining human colony in the middle of the Sahara Desert, and I'll approve your manned Mars mission.

I'll even give you a head start. A breathable atmosphere, and possibly the largest aquifer of fresh water on earth, right below your feet.

I look forward to your report.

Major Tom, over and out.

Nevermind. I just looked up tangible.

We could touch it.................................neat.

Well put, and reasonable.

The problem is decisions are made by politicians not by scientists or economists. Remember J.F.Kennedy said in 1960s "we will put a man in the moon before the end of this decade". George Bush(father and son)attacking Iraq.

I am trying not to draw this discussion into the political arena. Decisions are made by politicians in democracies but with input from all sectors including the scientific and economic sectors. In some jurisdictions decisions are made by theologians, oligarchies, or sometimes by sole dictators or a military junta. In these types of governments, decisions are made without any consultation or regard to its people and with no checks or balances called accountability. History has been and will be brutal to those who don't follow good government and allow their country's well being to deteriorate. In a democracy we can always kick out people we think are not following the will of the people and make poor decisions.

All I am saying is woe to the country that wants to ignore education in science and engineering. I am also advocating that this site (CR4) be a strong voice to promote science and engineering and use it as a guide to move forward. This advocacy of science and engineering is based on historical fact but does not mean we should ignore the reality of the day. Sometimes we can afford to proceed very quickly with some types of exploration but other times we must heed the economics and proceed slowly but always proceed. With regard to Martian exploration, I suggest you read the Armstrong Commission report for better information.

In all democracies decisions are not made by politicians.In some Islamic,Christian,Hindu and Muslim priests known as clergy. If leaders worship they won't care any body on this earth USA has told that "we don't understand why the buddhist monks are against giving rights to racial/religious minority Tamils". Do they not understand or do no want to accept facts?.why?.

Given that any nation has a fixed 'income', AND that it cost us about a trillion to go to the moon AND if we (the United States at least) were spending trillions to go to Mars THEN we wouldn't have had the money to go into Iraq.

Presuming roughly the same expense of about a trillion a year, one choice produces technological advances and admiration from the international community; the other feeds our defense industry and garners condemnation from the world community.

Lets go to Mars.

If you want to attack Iran you may find another "contract killer" like Tony Blair.

Since when has not having the money stopped us from doing anything?

The military machine is the technical development department of the Mars mission.

The trillions spent on the military's security adventures is part of the total project cost.

NO.
MAN -- going to MARS, would be an extremely high, unwarrantable risk; very few rewards, far beyond what well planned remote (robotic) explorers would provide. The enormous extra risk, not to mention the (many times!!) additional cost, can not -- by any rational and completed set of logical reasoning, be justified.
Get a grip, people... humanity needs to realize -- to recognize -- that we have practical, reasonable limits to what is "worth the candle"; we need to address "fixing" the problems on our own planet, before we begin to think of 'taking on' the rest of the -- (solar system; -- nearest star system(s); -- galaxy; -- universe; -- etc., etc., on and on and on, 'ad infinitum' (latin)...).
Humans are finite, very temporal beings. No amount of wishing, daydreaming, hoping, praying, or even the best 'thinking' we can muster up, will ever be able to change that...
(We'll never give up, of course, but continue trying, anyway...)
Eventually, we already know, Entropy will be the undeclared winner.

We can do more than one thing at a time....

"save" our planet and boldly go.....