A manned mission to Mars is viewed by many as a costly and unnecessary endeavor, with proponents arguing that robotic missions and space telescopes provide more valuable scientific insights. Participants in the discussion express concerns over the allocation of scientific funding, suggesting that private sector initiatives may yield better results. The consensus leans towards prioritizing robotic exploration and establishing a lunar base for future missions, rather than risking human lives and resources on manned missions to Mars.
PREREQUISITESSpace enthusiasts, policymakers, scientists, and anyone interested in the future of space exploration and the debate surrounding manned missions to Mars.
Chronos said:I am totally opposed to a manned mission to Mars. Do the words 'hugely expensive, wasteful and unnecessary' come to mind? . . . what other superlatives have I overlooked that better describe such an ill-conceived effort . . . Arrogance? Don't get me wrong . . . I would volunteer for this mission in a heartbeat . . . but we can do so much more with space telescopes, probes, etc., that it is just not worth it.
wolram said:It should read, greater understanding of our universe.
I agree. We need to get good at robotic seed missions to places like the moon and Mars way before we start sending a lot of people. It will take a couple decades at least of robotic seed missions before we know enough and are prepared enough to start risking people's lives and spending so much more money.CosmologyHobbyist said:I think a better plan is skip the manned missions. Send more and more robots to do low-cost research. It would be great to send some mining robots that could build other robots on site. Eventually, a robot manufacturing base would negate any need to send more probes. If such a base were built on the moon, all planetary missions could proceed from the moon, much cheaper than from earth. (I like these opinion polls, they really let you blather on! :)