Is a Manned Mission to Mars Beneficial for Scientific Advancement?

[wolram]

Is a manned mission to Mars good for the greater scientific community ?

 

[wolram]

OOps i seemed to have messed up the header can you fix it ST ?

It should read, greater understanding of our universe.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[EL]

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.

Completely agree with Chronos. It's only a political game with a not defensible "science over costs"-ratio.

 

[SpaceTiger]

It should read, greater understanding of our universe.

I changed the wording to make it fit. As for the question, I have mixed feelings. I don't like how it has taken science funds, but in principle, I have no problem with a manned mission to mars. I suspect, however, that the private sector will do a better job of it in the long run.

 

[CosmologyHobbyist]

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! :)

 

[scott1]

Who knows what were going to find out there? For all we know we could find the cure to cancer there? Maybe there might some secientfic experment we can on the people on Mars when we go there that would useful for health.

BTW I think half of the people that voted for not much or not at all just voted because bush wanted NASA to go there.(Trust me NASA/space exporation is potical)

 

[berkeman]

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! :)

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.

 

[scott1]

By looking at the poll so far I see two things form the 4 options:
half of the people polled think sending a man to Mars would be useful
half of the people polled think sending a man to Mars is complete waste of time.

 

[EL]

I think the answers highly depends on how the question was interpreted.
Would there come some good science out of it?: Sure.
Is it worth the price?: No, the money could be spent better.