Most of those people question it regardless so they're not applicable to this.
Will you live to see the First Man on Mars?
- Thread starter Ethros
- Start date
I'm just stating what I've observed as it's presented in the media. Admit it, another high dollar disaster being pounded by the media will have people complaining in droves against perceived dangerous manned missions in the future. I'm all for the space program, but I think the "we just gotta go to Mars" talk doesn't serve a purpose. Now, if Spirit or Opportunity made and absolutely *Earth shattering* discovery, then perhaps an increased effort on a manned mission would make sense for those who question the overall cost.
Why are they going?
No. It won't. People don't give enough of a shit today to care what NASA does one way or another.
And here's with problem with your above situation about Spirit of Opportunity.
They can't. They're not equipped to discover anything Earth (or Mars) shattering. They've got a camera and a spectrometer with a grinder. That's it. Unless something wanders into its view then we won't see it. And by the time we do see it...it'll be gone, because we won't see it for another 15 minutes, and by the time the instructions of "follow that thing" get back to the rover, half an hour has passed.
Also, relying on what something designed for 3 months of roving is disingenuous. The fact they're still doing anything at all is amazing.
Because they're humans and have that whole "explore" thing wired into their DNA.
What do you expect them to find? Martian kangaroos?
The rovers are adequately equipped to discover what we expect to discover on Mars - evidence for water on the surface in the past. The Mars exploration program is all about "following the water".
QFT - 46 here, and if I'm lucky, I'll live to see us return to the moon. Sad thing is: I was 6 when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, and my mom let me stay home from summer school that day to see it live. Hell, although I thought the moonbase in 2001 was too advanced/large for 30 years later as I grew up in the 1970ies; I always thought we'd return to the moon and establish some sort of base there; or work toward landing on Mars by 2000. Now it's 2009; and we barely have a near Earth space station; and the reusable fleet of spacecraft we have is being retired and we're going back to 1960 type disposable rocets and capsules.
At the rate we're gpoing, I doubt you'd see a manned mission to Mars by the time I'd be 100 (and I doubt I'll live that long) in 2063.
Well, not to be too cynical, but humans seem to "explore" mostly for the purposes of conquest or economic gain. Columbus wasn't just curious. Hannibel didn't just enjoy riding elephants. Lewis and Clark weren't just trying to get away from it all.
The moon is been-there-done-that. Public interest in the moon couldn't even last out the Apollo program. Going back to the moon is also going to have to have some economic justification. A payoff. Even the purpose for going in the 1960s was as much political as any "let's see what's out there" wish. It's the United States flag up there, after all. The first trips to the moon had no sustainable reasons to maintain public support. The next trips will need that.
A trip to Mars would also need more than a romantic justification for the expense, time, and mobilization of resources. It's got to be more than a "plant the flag" moment. Economies of scale would say that space exploration may actually suffer by so many resources being poured into a manned flight to Mars versus unmanned exploration of the outer planets, for example.
It'd be KEWL to go to Mars. But at the moment, perhaps it's just not justifiable.
Similar threads
