I say forget the moon and go straight to Mars.

[FemurBone]

Spider said:
FemurBone , I applaud your enthusiasm; however you are not taking into consideration all the scientific and technical hurdles a mission like this will take. Here is a link to an official NASA site that discusses a manned mission to Mars.

I've read the material, and its stuff that I've heard before. I've taken all that into consideration.

My idea is of course consistant with the short stay mission. My idea is to use a staging technique that allows the space craft to get smaller and smaller as the mission progresses thus reducing the amount of fuel needed.

 

[Brent]

A short stay mission doesn't make sense though, to spend all that money and resources for a short stay isn't worth it, and quite a waste of money and risk of human life. There are no political reasons to make a 'flag planting mission' at this time like there were back in the 60's for the Moon. The only way that will happen is if some other country challenges us and tries to get to Mars first.

Robots can bring back rock materials much easier, and cheaper, and without risking humans for those short missions. The only reason we'd go in person is for a long duration or to start the construction on a colony.

It has always been my opinion that before we step foot on Mars we should build a research space station in orbit around Mars and let that be a docking port for ships between the ISS and Mars. From there they can send down manned landing capsules built specifically for landing on the Marian surface. Call it the ISS2 if you will.

 

[Spider]

Brent said:
A short stay mission doesn't make sense though, to spend all that money and resources for a short stay isn't worth it, and quite a waste of money and risk of human life.

That is exactly how I feel. And besides which, we have yet to determine if there is life on Mars. And if there is, is such life hostile to our Earth environment? We can’t just go mucking about the solar system bringing shit back without some sort of biological safeguards. For Gods sake, didn’t the Spanish bringing their shit to the Americas wiping out whole civilizations teach us anything? There could very well be life on Mars that is hostile to our ecosphere. We can’t discount this, because the risk is the end of life on Earth.

And if I sound like a fool, ask the frigging Maya and Aztecs what they think of us back when European diseases almost wiped them out.

 

[Brent]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a manned mission to Mars, but just going to plant a flag doesn't make any sense when robots can do everything we need right now including sample returns with less cost and less risk.

The only real reason for man to go is to setup a colony for an extended stay to do research on the surface.

 

[TerriO]

Thank you all for dragging this back from the brink. I appreciate that you all can still keep things civil. :thumbsup:

 

[FemurBone]

Brent said:
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a manned mission to Mars, but just going to plant a flag doesn't make any sense when robots can do everything we need right now including sample returns with less cost and less risk.

The only real reason for man to go is to setup a colony for an extended stay to do research on the surface.

You aren't thinking in terms of money and fuel.

Building a colony on Mars isn't affordable right now. Hell it probably won't be affordable for another hundred years. I don't think we will see a moon colony in our lifetime.

But what we can do is send people to Mars and to the Moon on short trips. Which makes more sense considering all the griping over "cosmic rays". And I would like to see a manned trip to Mars within my lifetime.

When people want to visit the Titanic, or study deep sea life, they board a ship, travel to the site, climb into a submersible and go down for a few hours and then come back up. You don't see people talking about building a habitat on the ocean floor so researchers can study the Titanic full time. It's not nessessary.

and what research are you talking about? Explain to me the day in the life of a researcher on Mars. How long do you need to stay on Mars to study rocks and sand?

 

[Brent]

Please tell me what man can accomplish on Mars in a "short trip" ?

 

[FemurBone]

^The astronauts can bring back rocks and soil samples to be studied by researchers on Earth.

 

[scotthm]

FemurBone said:
But what we can do is send people to Mars and to the Moon on short trips. Which makes more sense considering all the griping over "cosmic rays".

You still haven't explained to us (that I recall) what a manned mission will accomplish that a robotic mission can't, other than give us the ability to proclaim that "we've sent men to Mars." You want to sent people to Mars to create excitement about space exploration. Imagine the damper it'll put on things if the first few attempts end in dead crews because we were in too much of a rush.

and what research are you talking about? Explain to me the day in the life of a researcher on Mars. How long do you need to stay on Mars to study rocks and sand?

I don't know. Some people have spent decades studying rocks on Earth. Wouldn't understanding Martian geology take more than just a few days?

---------------

 

[Brent]

FemurBone said:
^The astronauts can bring back rocks and soil samples to be studied by researchers on Earth.

Robots can do that cheaper and without risking human life.

 

[FemurBone]

^I doesn't matter if robots can do it cheaper. I still want to see a human being land on the surface of Mars.

 

[Noname Given]

FemurBone said:
^I doesn't matter if robots can do it cheaper. I still want to see a human being land on the surface of Mars.

Go watch Red Planet (The original or the re-make).

 

[Brent]

FemurBone said:
^I doesn't matter if robots can do it cheaper. I still want to see a human being land on the surface of Mars.

Well I think we all want to see it, that isn't in question.

Believe me, I want to see a Mars manned mission in my lifetime, I wasn't here for the moon landing, no words can describe what it will be like to witness man's first step on another PLANET.

I just don't see it happening in the next 30 years at the least, unless we make some huge technological breakthrough. Right now robots are sufficient enough to study Mars, and there is a plan to have a sample return mission in the future. With robots being cheaper and less risky, that will be the way it swings for a while.

As for the original topic, setting up a moon base will lay the groundwork for the technology, procedures and experience needed to travel to and set foot on Mars.

 

[watermelony2k]

scotthm said:

FemurBone said:
But what we can do is send people to Mars and to the Moon on short trips. Which makes more sense considering all the griping over "cosmic rays".

You still haven't explained to us (that I recall) what a manned mission will accomplish that a robotic mission can't, other than give us the ability to proclaim that "we've sent men to Mars." You want to sent people to Mars to create excitement about space exploration. Imagine the damper it'll put on things if the first few attempts end in dead crews because we were in too much of a rush.

and what research are you talking about? Explain to me the day in the life of a researcher on Mars. How long do you need to stay on Mars to study rocks and sand?

I don't know. Some people have spent decades studying rocks on Earth. Wouldn't understanding Martian geology take more than just a few days?

---------------

Decades? The field of geology has been going on for at least centuries.

 

[scotthm]

watermelony2k said:

scotthm said:
Some people have spent decades studying rocks on Earth. Wouldn't understanding Martian geology take more than just a few days?

Decades? The field of geology has been going on for at least centuries.

True, but I don't think any geologists have.

---------------

 

[Dusty Ayres]

FemurBone said:

scotthm said:

FemurBone said:
If your looking for a financial reason to send astronauts to Mars you aren't going to find one. You send astronauts to Mars because Mars is there. That's all the reason you need.

Not if you want to confiscate my money to fund the mission.

---------------

I would much prefer my tax dollars go towards a manned Mars mission than the war in Iraq.

Ditto!

 

[Neopeius]

watermelony2k said:

If I had to choose between the development of a permanent manned-moonbase and a quick and dirty mission to mars, I would choose the moonbase.

Too bad you　are not going to get either. Not with the NASA of today.

 

[Trubinator]

I believe that Bush has called for a simultaneous launch of two crafts for lunar and mars landings. Supposedly the ship design they want to use has several different configurations that can be used for different missions. It's the perfect opportunity to try a two for one grab.