Trying to go to Mars will be the STUPIDEST thing America can do

[timejim]

"Trying" to go to Mars will be the STUPIDEST thing America can do!

Folks, we just cannot afford, at this time in our History, to try to go to Mars. First, the Astronauts would not survive. How on Earth could they carry enough food, water, CO2 filters, a waste disposal system for what, maybe 2 years worth? And the costs involved. Doesn't anyonbe see that we are practically bankrupt? And really. Why go? There isn't anything there and if there was what are we going to do? Load it up and bring it back? We cannot even live in Peace here on Earth. Of course, as far as environments go, we probably couldn't mess up Mars because it doesn't have one. No rainforests to destroy, no rivers to pollute. Good gosh. Has mankind lost its mind? Please, let's put our resources to use here on our home planet, Earth.

 

[member 5645]

When will the time to go be?

 

[meteor]

Maybe they can construct in Mars a Sabatier reactor, that converts carbon dioxide and hydrogen to water and methane. You can read about the Sabatier reactor here:

http://www.captain.at/capages/index.php?p=sabatier
Well, all the babies have to leave some day the cradle, don't you think? (In this case the cradle is our planet earth)

 

[timejim]

Originally posted by phatmonky
When will the time to go be?

Whenever I develop my Time Machine, until then, unless we can develop a 5 million MPH craft, probably never by Humans.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by timejim
Whenever I develop my Time Machine, until then, unless we can develop a 5 million MPH craft, probably never by Humans.

Well if you think we'll probably never leave, then your argument about costs and what is pretty moot, isn't it?

 

[The_Professional]

Hey I know this kid from Mars I mentioned in a previous thread!

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Well if you think we'll probably never leave, then your argument about costs and what is pretty moot, isn't it?

The government could still blow a lot of money trying to go.

A lot of money could be spent, and then 15 years down the road the project could be cancelled.

 

[jimmy p]

Mars aint too far away, its going to Pluto which will be the problem. Personally i don't see why we would want to move. Or what the point would be of sending astronauts there. It would be lonely, boring and extremely dangerous. The only reason we would move is cos we would have turned Earth into a dumping ground. Nah, i agree with jim, there is NO point in wasting money on missions like this.

 

[Integral]

I agree that sending a human, with our current state of technology, is a waste. We would be much better off developing remote control, robotics, and AI to do the initial exploring and perhaps even mining. When you consider the mass of the payload, a human with support and safety systems would take the lions share of what we could send. Why not just eliminate the excess fat (ie a human body!) and send more science capabilities. Remote sensing and control is the only way to do the initial explorations, maybe after a human generation of remote devices we could find a good reason to send men. Currently it is a waste of payload. The only reason to go is just so you can say you were there.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by jimmy p
. Nah, i agree with jim, there is NO point in wasting money on missions like this.

Are we THAT sure of our science from this point in space, that we KNOW enough about Mars to determine if there is anything of value to us there?

 

[member 5645]

Was the moon mission a waste too?

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Are we THAT sure of our science from this point in space, that we KNOW enough about Mars to determine if there is anything of value to us there?

Well, we don't know that we won't find something extremely useful and valuble there. But it's highly unlikely.

Besides, a manned mission to Mars wouldn't have much resources devoted to exploration and study. Most of the resources would be spent getting the people there and back, and keeping them alive. The mission would just be a macho flag-planting exercise.

 

[member 5645]

Not to get off subject, but Bush's plan also mentions a human presence on the moon...
Here's a great theoretical postive from that goal

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10926

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Was the moon mission a waste too?

It's important to remember that our capabilities to carry out unmanned exploration are much better now then they were back in the 60s and 70s, while our manned space exploration capabilities are about the same. So there was more of an advantage to sending manned spacecraft back then.

A lot of what we used to need manned spacecraft for we can now do without people. And for a lot less money. Of course, it would take a lot of different missions to do the same exploration we could do with people. But overall it's still the cheaper and safer route to go.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Not to get off subject, but bushes plan also mentions a human presence on the moon...
Here's a great theoretical postive from that goal

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10926

This is a good idea, although it's optimistic to the extreme. But this is very different than the mission to Mars, in that it actually has purpose.

It also recognizes the fact that space exploration works much better when it's economically viable. I would be much more supportive to manned Mars missions if they were to be more self sustaining. Very supportive, in fact.

 

[Evo]

Actually, the proposed Mars mission is just a fly by, no plan to land a man on Mars. See the article in the other thread "New US Plans for Space Exploration"

 

[Andy]

Nah, i agree with jim, there is NO point in wasting money on missions like this.

Wheres your sense of adventure?

 

[Kalimaa23]

Again, I will try and argue that money spent on space exploration is in no way money wasted. Back in the 50's and 60's, the space race did a lot for the US, in terms of investments in industry and research. Would you rather see the money spent on more novel ways in which you can bomb other nations (which is, by the way, the other way in which the US government subsidizes industry) ?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Firstly, your understanding of government spending SUCKS, BIG TIME, as most of you seem to have no clue that governments can only waste money when they send it out to other countries, (and even then it is NOT a complete waste, NOT even close)...go learn some economics please before you mention anything about it being a waste of money!
(P.S. The moneies are spent with American contractors, right? spent in the US, boosting the US economy right? how is that wasteful?? even if a probe crashes the monies have already been spent within the US economy, boosting it!)

The original lunar missions were, to some degree, a 'race' 'tween old foes, the USSR and the US, but that is history now.

Going to Mars is explorative, all exploration cost money, and returns are not all gauranteed, but it is gauranteed that there will be returns, we just aren't certain yet what they amount to be...simple as that! (unless you are better at prediction then anyone else, if so, track record proof please...)

These are plans for the futur... things ARE going to change, and maybe the opinions of some of the posters herein will change by then too...

 

[timejim]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Well if you think we'll probably never leave, then your argument about costs and what is pretty moot, isn't it?

Not really, because I am afraid our government is going to spend the trillion dollars just to try to plant a "flag". Remember, if our Governments had any common sense then there wouldn't be any sense in being commoners.

 

[master_coda]

Just for the record, I am not opposed to a manned mission to Mars. But "lets just go there and I'm sure benefits will magically materialize" isn't good enough. There needs to be a real plan, with real expected benefits, not some political showpiece.

Mr. Robin Parsons mentions something like "it is never wasteful for the government to spend money inside the country". That would be true if such a project was only going to consume money and not other resources. Resources such as energy, which are not infinite.

Besides, my original point remains...almost everything that a manned mission would accomplish can be done with unmanned probes.

 

[meteor]

Anyway, we have to do manned exploration some day, because the sun is not going to live forever. And, before sending humans to another star, better going practicing with some nearer objective (e.g. Mars)
Is very possible that in a manned voyage to Mars can appear situations not expected, and this situations can serve like experience to further trips

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by meteor
Anyway, we have to do manned exploration some day, because the sun is not going to live forever. And, before sending humans to another star, better going practicing with some nearer objective (e.g. Mars)
Is very possible that in a manned voyage to Mars can appear situations not expected, and this situations can serve like experience to further trips

"The sun is going to burn out" isn't a very pressing reason.

 

[timejim]

Originally posted by Dimitri Terryn
Again, I will try and argue that money spent on space exploration is in no way money wasted. Back in the 50's and 60's, the space race did a lot for the US, in terms of investments in industry and research. Would you rather see the money spent on more novel ways in which you can bomb other nations (which is, by the way, the other way in which the US government subsidizes industry) ?

I would rather see money spent on Medical research, cures, our Health care systems, developing NEW forms of energy and propulsion.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by timejim
I would rather see money spent on Medical research, cures, our Health care systems, developing NEW forms of energy and propulsion.

I would say that a trip to Mars will require the research of new forms of energy and propoulsion.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by master_coda
(SNIP) Mr. Robin Parsons mentions something like "it is never wasteful for the government to spend money inside the country". That would be true if such a project was only going to consume money and not other resources. Resources such as energy, which are not infinite. (SNoP)

Humm so apparently you think employing people, in the Sciences, is not somehow helpful to the economy of your country, the research that entails/encompasses Human research too, your government purchasing product from within your country and sharing with other countries, this is "economics 101" cause the people you employ PAY TAXES, they spend their money, and the stores that they spend it in ALSO pay TAX, as do the employees that work in those stores, who pay taxes out of their incomes, and then spend that in other stores, this is called economic cycles...the Product is KNOWLEDGE, this creates 'other' products, and peopel with better understanding of nature and life and the environment, etc. etc. and on, and on...Growth other then population pressed growth

Get the point?