I say forget the moon and go straight to Mars.
- Thread starter FemurBone
- Start date
There are plenty of good reasons to explore the solar system. Both with robots and with actual people. But going just to plant a flag and get some rocks isn't a good reason.
The way I envision a mission to Mars is at least 10 people who would stay on the surface for months. I'm sure there are all kinds of scientific goals they could accomplish that people more versed in the subject then I can think of. I'm not looking for a direct financial reason, but I am looking for more of a justification then planting a flag.
I'd also go on to say that a ship with only 3 people on it, together by themselves for over a year, is not a good idea. The more people you send, the better off they'll be from a social and mental health perspective I'd imagine.
and the more food, water and oxygen they will consume. Sending 10 people will drive the cost sky high. It's a nice fantasy, but it just isn't reality right now. There are only 3 permanent astronauts on the ISS.
The first manned mission to Mars doesn't have to be anything more than a first step. Land a astronaut or 2 on Mars and bring them back. Once that is done, NASA or whoever else can make plans for the next step.
And that doesn't make any sense when we've already got a first step just a few days away. Longer and more involved missions to the moon will give us very valuable insight as to how people can live and function in space and away from Earth. It is much better to learn that sort of thing before going to Mars, which has little benefit over the moon other then planting a flag.
We've already taken that first step. And we already know how people can live and function in space. There have been people continuously living in space for at least 15 years. I think that brief period between Mir and the ISS may be the exception, but other than that there has been someone in space since at least the late 80s.
Why does this remind me so much of Apollo 11-17? Go there. Work a bit. Come back. Such a dead end.
The way a Mars mission works is if we set up a base and stay a while. Explore the planet. Come home. Maybe even send more people there before that happens.
And trying this all out on the Moon first makes the most sense.
If the Polywell fusion system is verified in the next few years, then the whole equation may change, since that opens up the possibilty for a first-generation impulse engine for spacecraft. As covered in another thread in this forum, funding for that was just announced a few days ago.
You send the un-manned habitat BEFORE you send people (using and you remote test it to make certain it's intact/habitable once it arrives too). You learn to build a proper habitat by testing technologies on the moon; where current tech allows crews to get back alive easily should something go wrong and they have to abandon it. Two to three days is a lot more manageable.
The original moon landings were mothing more than Cold-War publicity stunts so that we (the U.S.) could make a claim of 'technical superiority over teh U.S.S.R. IF we sent a crew on a six month trip just so they coul have 4 days on Mars, would just (yet again) be another such publicity stunt. If we're going to send a crew to Mars, we should do so TO conduct science and research, thus we should go when we're ready and we can also assure them of a decent chance of survival and return.
^Earth is the only planetary body in the solar system capable of supporting human civilization. Sending people into space is a publicity stunt. It will always be a publicity stunt. That is the point. The adventure. The fun.
Not to mention the fact that it introduces alot of new technology to the world.
Scientific research is what probes are for.
If NASA attempts to build a moon base and then attempts to send massive amounts of equipment to Mars ahead of time in preparation for a crew, then the first manned Mars mission will not happen in our life time.
If we can send 3 people to Mars for a few days within the next 10 or 15 years, then I would rather do that.
Not to mention the fact that it introduces alot of new technology to the world.
Scientific research is what probes are for.
If NASA attempts to build a moon base and then attempts to send massive amounts of equipment to Mars ahead of time in preparation for a crew, then the first manned Mars mission will not happen in our life time.
If we can send 3 people to Mars for a few days within the next 10 or 15 years, then I would rather do that.
Eh, forget Mars. Let's go straight for Alpha Centauri!
Why learn to walk when you intend to run?
Why learn to walk when you intend to run?
The article linked below describes the serious medical risks that astronauts would face during a manned voyage to Mars.
It might be better if Earthmen wait another hundred years before trying to go to Mars. Maybe by then technology will have solved the most serious problems presented by such a mission.
Medicine on Mars
It might be better if Earthmen wait another hundred years before trying to go to Mars. Maybe by then technology will have solved the most serious problems presented by such a mission.
Medicine on Mars
There was a time when people thought traveling over 30 miles an hour would be bad for your health. There was a time when people thought sailing into the Atlantic would result in being eaten by a sea monster. There was a time when people thought tomatoes were poisonous.
People are always going to invent excuses not to venture off into the unknown. At the end of the day that's all they are. Excuses. Is space travel dangerous? Absolutely. The astronauts who sign up know that. They are aware of the risk and they accept the risk.
The troops who are sent to Iraq are at risk. Th astronauts who were sent to the moon were at risk. People who drive under the influence of alcohol are at risk. People who over eat are at risk. People who play football are at risk. People who do gymnastics are at risk. With all the reckless things people do or are expected to do in everday life, why suddenly become pansies when it comes to space travel?
No risk, no reward.
^^^
It's quite a bit different. In all the intances you mention, people thought this because no had actually done these things. As the article shows, the risks and problems mentioned are ALL things (with the exception of actual emergency surgery) that HAVE HAPPENED to Astronauts that have flown on exteneded stay missions in theMIR and ISS.
BIG difference there. Personally, I don't see the benefit of sending a man to Mars and having him come back (if he makes it back) crippled, mentally injured (via cosmic ray exposure); and then die in 10 or so years post mission of some nasty form of cancer.
And there was a time when people thought we'd be on Mars by 1970.
Today we've moved beyond that 50's sci-fi fantasy. It was fun while it lasted, and I like Forbidden Planet as much as the next guy, but there are huge obstacles to overcome that we didn't sufficiently appreciate in those days.
---------------
Similar threads
