"NASA is on a journey to Mars, with a goal of sending humans to the Red Planet in the 2030s" [LINK] The idea of a manned mission to Mars is nothing new, but has had more attention as of late. Scientists, statesmen, and space enthusiasts have been discussing it with renewed vigor. Billionaires with space faring ambitions are pushing for it too... and helping to make it a reality. But... is it too soon? Or should we make it a top priority? My opinion: I do not think we should launch a manned mission to Mars for at least another 20 years, or more. I love space exploration, and I really do want us to voyage to Mars. When the time is right. As I see it, we've got too many problems on Earth that need solving first. Earth first, then Mars. Here are my reasons not to actively pursue a manned mission to Mars right now: It's far too early to consider that depth of exploration. Unfortunately some deep pocketed starry eyed billionaires want to see this happen in their lifetime, so they're pushing hard for it to happen. Even Trump thinks we should go. And of course NASA would be happy about it, as it's another sustaining avenue of government funding. I believe the risks are too great for insufficient pay-off at this time. I have no doubt that we could send a manned mission to Mars, if properly funded. The trouble is, the proposed timeline is very aggressive. What if something goes wrong? We have NO support system defined out there. Going to the moon was a different story. Much closer. If something went wrong, you could send another ship within a fairly short period of time. We need to have advance preparations made with unmanned missions sent to Mars years ahead of anything manned. I would rather that we focus on returning to the moon, to assess the possibility of mining applications (and testing). Perhaps massive solar arrays to absorb energy striking the moon on the daily basis. We should definitely return there as a "staging area" for a Mars trip. And if there are minerals to be mined, develop automated technology to exploit it. This technology could be used in the future for Mars missions. NASA has it planned for us to go to the moon as a preliminary test for the manned mission to Mars, but only for achieving orbit. They have no plans to land there. Manned Mars preliminary objectives Water will be a key necessity on Mars. You really can't take enough with you to last for a reasonable time frame. So, send robot vehicles to Mars with the express purpose of gathering water from the poles, and bringing it to candidate landing site (s). That way astronauts will have a much lower burden of bringing water (which is heavy) to Mars. Send unmanned probes to Mars with autonomous mining objectives. To dig into the Martian crust for ores that could be processed, to use as raw materials for the construction of habitats. Devise a series of supply payloads to be launched ahead of time, to reach Mars first. I thought at first it might be a good idea to have some "way point" payloads to be picked up along the way, but that won't work due to having to brake the manned space vehicle to a stop, dock, and then fire up thrusters again. Way too taxing on fuel requirements. But even sending supplies ahead of time is not enough. We should have resources collected and processed, waiting for humans to arrive way ahead of manned missions. All of this will take many decades to achieve, but these technology needs will help fuel innovations that create jobs and raise GDP. Eventually, once we have done enough here on Earth, we can then make the leap forward to Mars. NASA is planning for us to send a crew to Mars in the early 2030's (about 15 years from now), with the first mission to reach Mars and orbit, then return -- that is probably most sensible... as we did with our Moon manned missions. But to go all that way and not land... seems more sensible to me that if we go, we land. And take more time in preparation for that manned mission. Do you agree? Or do you think that aiming to orbit Mars in the early 2030's is worth the risk, if people are willing to take it? And if it did fail, would it create a setback that would be greater than if we took our time for the first try?
Other than possibly finding life, or fossils, which robots can do much more cheaply and safely, what's the point of sending people there? It's not like we can live on Mars any more comfortably than the moon, and it's WAY more dangerous and expensive. If we're to spend big money on putting people into space, we should spend the money on building space habitats and learning how to live in space, not on other planets.
A good reason is to have an independent human colony, in case the Earth becomes university inhabitable. Science is a good enough reason, as robots are not smart enough now.
Mars would be much more expensive to develop and maintain a realistic human environment than a space habitat. It's also to far for rescue missions. But everyone wants Mars, whether it makes any sense or not, so I image we'll try and colonize Mars before building truly livable and self maintaining space habitats. Either way, you have to create a human environment in hostile conditions. And we are a LONG ways away from truly self maintaining space or planetary habitats. You don't necessarily need smart robots, you just need better mobile labs on wheels ran by people on earth.
There will always be problems on Earth that can take precedence over space exploration. If we ever want to go to Mars, then putting it off for a couple decades just means it won't happen. There's a lot of work to be done in the meantime--schedule it, budget it, work on it. Identify and solve what I am sure are the numerous problems and obstacles we will encounter along the way. The US space program currently isn't geared toward anything like this, so their priorities would need to be shifted and funded accordingly. Note, I'm not talking about dropping trillions of dollars or something over the next decade. Determine a reasonable amount to spend year after year to work the problem over 10-20 years.
The leading space agencies - Russia and USA - are experiencing severe money crunch issues. In the US space program, of the 18 space suits, there are 11 which can be used. It is believed that these suits will not last to 2024, the planned retirement of the ISS. Replacements are years away. Despite spending nearly $200 million on NASA’s next-generation spacesuit technologies, the Agency remains years away from having a flight-ready spacesuit capable of replacing the EMU or suitable for use on future exploration missions. As different missions require different designs, the lack of a formal plan and specific destinations for future missions has complicated spacesuit development. Moreover, the Agency has reduced the funding dedicated to spacesuit development in favor of other priorities such as an in-space habitat. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=50071 This is one of the many issues plaguing NASA. One figure for the cost of sending humans to the moon would be about $230 billion, with about $100 billion of this amount going to the transportation costs alone. We barely got Apollo done, with both political and popular support being weak. One of the concerns after the Apollo 1 fire was that the public would turn against the program because of the loss of life. I find it hard to believe that there will be much stronger support for a Mars mission, especially if things continue trending as they are now, we will be experiencing money sucking issues back here on terra firma. http://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-for-only-1-5-trillion/
There are obviously no guarantees, but my bet is that the space agencies won't take us to Mars, but some private entrepreneurs might. Or at the very least some of the financing will come from entrepreneurs. My guess is that a mission to Mars could result in innovations that might be useful right here on Earth. Just think of Velcro, Teflon and memory foam, all the result of innovations made in the US space program. That said, I think that going to Mars needs baby steps and that building a self-sustaining habitat in space is the first step.
It's difficult to construct a circumstance in which humans could be sustained on Mars yet not on Earth.
Odd Teflon was discovered in 1938 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene Velcro the 1940's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_and_loop_fastener At best might have used it a new way, but velcro is a fastner so not really much new with that.
Thanks for the heads-up. I was apparently just repeating an urban legend. Goes to show, you should always check the facts, even apparently trivial ones...
Mars is ours for the taking. The governments and SpaceX provide the tech and redshirts, the mega-corps provide the money. There'll always be problems on Earth. Colonising Australia didn't wait until Europe was sorted either. The nations that cooperate in space and control its resources may get in a stronger position to dictate terms to other countries on the planet. Power from above, or gated access to 'spatial Valhalla'. Also, the not so unimportant chance to spread life across the solar system.
I'm a little torn here. From a purely emotional point of view I would absolutely love a Mars Colony. It'd be so fascinating to watch and follow. A few weeks ago I watched the broadcast of the 1969 moon landing and even that was still thrilling. That sense of what humanity has achieved. From a more rational point of view, a Mars Colony would take up all our space exploration resources for decades. And I'm not convinced this is really the best use of those resources. I would like to learn more about Jupiter's and Saturn's moons for example. We know there is water there, probably held in liquid state by the friction heat from tidal forces of those big planets. We have even witnessed cryo-vulcanos there. Sending automated probes to the ice fountains of Enceladus, exploring the underground oceans of Europa or the methane lakes of Titan sounds more interesting to me than putting a woman on Mars. This also has to do with the fact that Mars colonization involves some enormous technological challenges that dwarf the challenges we'd encounter in missions to those moons. I'm not saying challenges should discourage us, but I think we should learn a little more about our solar system first before focusing all our resources on just one target. Having said that... I'd obviously still love it. On a more amusing sidenote: One positive effect of Mars colonization would be that I wouldn't miss anybody who has told me they'd be up for a one-way mission to Mars. For some reasons it's the socially awkward people who think it'd be great to travel to Mars and leave this society behind. Which is really hilarious because... do they really think social skills won't be important in a Mars colony? I'd say they're even more important in such an environment.
That fact that currently, Mars is not a quick trip from Earth helps in cases of major extinction ptoblems on Earth. Just because it is time consuming to create a self sufficient colony does not mean you do not try. Also does not discount the efforts for a lunar colony.
If there's liquid water and atmospheric oxygen left over Earth is still way more hospitable than Mars.
Realistically speaking most politicians are live in the moment types of politicians who would definitely accept a national headline of a Mars landing. But after the intense drama how would the politicians react to attention be taken away from them and focused on the Mars colony instead? I think a Lunar Colony should be established first so that equipment and landing procedures and other colonization issues can be hammered out successfully instead of having "MARS LANDING MISSION FAILS! CREW IS KILLED!"