Should we invest in Mars Exploration

[sophiecentaur]

There will always be problems on Earth. Fixing one problem opens another.

That sounds like an argument for not trying to fix anything at all. It tends to be used by people who have no serious problems in their own lives and with no way of solving them and are not very aware of the problems of others. The fact is that there are a lot of people with acute problems (by anyone's standards) and there is really no argument that they should be ignored.

Even Musk's other businesses are related to Mars.

Musk is mortal. Even if he leaves behind him a group of people who are fairly dedicated to his evangelistic message, such a business is by no means guaranteed to be anything like as stable and long lived as a 'nation'. Other, competing interests will take over from his original model and the system would not be stable- how could you think otherwise? So we are down to, perhaps 40 or 50 years (max) more of his drive to take the project to a sufficient level that others will take it further - in that direction. One disaster and the whole edifice could come tumbling down and funding would stop. On the other hand, there are nations (North Korea, for instance) that have maintained absolutely crazy regimes for decades and have staggered from problem to problem by being able to control a whole population. Would that be remotely possible with a commercially based organisation?

Also, I ask again, can you think of any project of this scale that has been the result of just private investment? The Ford Motor Company has lasted for around a hundred years but it has been coasting for some while - producing what it has always produced, perhaps more efficiently and with a steady income from its sales. That is not a good parallel, though. I can't think of any other endeavour that's more like the COM and that has been privately driven. You are actually suggesting a complete shift in the structure of international society from Nations to a system based on a Google type model. I guess it's a possibility but I have many doubts about the stability of such a structure. Moreover, Google produces instant results for its adherents / customers. What would the first decades of a Mars Colony have to offer the public of a Musk 'religion', to keep it going?
Something that scares me is that the only really big success in Space was directly related to the Arms Race and we nearly blew ourselves up whilst that was all going on. How long before a Moon base becomes a military goal again?

Where did it come from? It was a curious observation on the effects of mustard gas from World War 1.

That' true. Nearly all medicinal advances have been the result of that sort of thing. Life is a massive experiment and ethics prevent us from subjecting humans to the sort of suffering that unacceptable (and accidental) conditions produce. We use the knowledge gained this way, in lieu of deliberate experimentation.

 

[RussB]

Don't straw man me. I never in any way stated or suggested we ignore viable issues. The whole point of what I am stating is that there are numerous viable avenues of research and development to pursue. Many people have radically different views on their relevance. There is no 'right' answer. The only amicable solution is also likely the most optimal one due to our poor ability at determining outcomes. The solution of course being diversification.

As for historical precedent - we're in a new era where things have already radically shifted. Again, next year a completely private enterprise will be sending two private customers on a voyage around the moon. That's something completely out of sci-fi not long ago. Government's increasing ineptitude paired with shifting economics is rapidly deteriorating their relevance compared to, for instance, 1962. SpaceX's interplanetary transport system - the ship they're designing to transport humans to and from Mars - is estimated to cost nearly $10 billion total in research and development costs. Alot of money. But at the same time that's 3/4th the net worth of Elon Musk or 1/7th the net worth of Jeff Bezos. To put those numbers into context it's also less than we've already spent on the government funded SLS program which is already being eclipsed, in terms of result, by SpaceX's current gen technology. NASA has been a critical ally and has much more value to provide going forward, but their role was never going to be one of leadership again. The decades after 1972 made certain of that.

 

[mfb]

Mars could be put on hold until those issues are much more sorted than they are today.

Put research in metallurgy on hold until we have fixed all problems using our stone tools.

Those issues are today better than they were 2016. And 2016 they were better than 2015, and 2015 they were better than 2014. Do you really expect that we will ever reach a state where everyone agrees that all problems on Earth are solved, and where no one can find any new problem? That will not happen. No matter how good the situation on Earth is, you can always find an issue and say "fix that first before we do new things". I don't think I say that the first time: If we would all follow that approach we would have the best stone tools ever. But we would still use stone tools, and hope to survive the winter because everyone was busy collecting food while no one ever stopped thinking if there is a more effective way to do so.

We do fix things on Earth. No one ignores the problems. It just doesn't make sense to put every single available dollar into short-term improvements in life quality and to throw away the chance (actually: certainty) of long-term improvements.

Also, I ask again, can you think of any project of this scale that has been the result of just private investment?

No one suggests that companies would start a colony on their own. Governments do, and people follow. How much did the governments invest in colonies on Earth vs. private investments?

 

[sophiecentaur]

I never in any way stated or suggested we ignore viable issues.

No?

There will always be problems on Earth. Fixing one problem opens another.

If that doesn't discount inconvenient problems what else does it say?

Put research in metallurgy on hold until we have fixed all problems using our stone tools.

Is that a valid parallel? Is the only way to solve the problems in developing countries by an expensive Space programme?

Those issues are today better than they were 2016. And 2016 they were better than 2015, and 2015 they were better than 2014. Do you really expect that we will ever reach a state where everyone agrees that all problems on Earth are solved, and where no one can find any new problem? That will not happen.

That's as blatant a straw man argument as I ever came across. Take my aims to an extreme and they become impracticable. I was earlier accused of a "straw man " argument in the directly opposite direction. Fact is that I advocate a proportionate response. There are still many (billions) of humans with really unpleasant lives and the has not changed when there are solutions, just requiring the will to achieve them. The expression 'co-lateral damage' was used by the US Military and we are dealing with the same thing here in the context of 'omission' rather than 'commission'. I think the concept of humanity is being missed here.

 

[mfb]

If that doesn't discount inconvenient problems what else does it say?

I don't see how it would discount problems. It is just saying we never reach a state "no problems left" - and we shouldn't wait for something that will not happen..

Is the only way to solve the problems in developing countries by an expensive Space programme?

The best way is to search in every direction, this includes a space program among many other lines of research. It is not the only way, but we will miss something without a space program.

Fact is that I advocate a proportionate response.

"put on hold" is not proportionate. Put on hold implies zero funding - at least that's how I interpret "put on hold".

There are still many (billions) of humans with really unpleasant lives and the has not changed when there are solutions, just requiring the will to achieve them.

It has changed, and it is changing constantly. The number of people living in absolute poverty is going down rapidly.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The number of people living in absolute poverty is going down rapidly.

There are two ways to look at this, of course. This link from the World Bank says that there have been improvements in the numbers in 'absolute poverty' but they make the comment that:
" Despite the progress made in reducing poverty, the number of people living in extreme poverty globally remains unacceptably high."
Is that satisfactory? I rather get the feeling that some contributors think it is.

Put on hold implies zero funding - at least that's how I interpret "put on hold".

In what way would that be particularly disastrous, if there were a choice of putting those funds into world poverty? People are dying every day. Isn't that worth considering? (Oh - just a few less today than yesterday - we're OK then)

 

[mfb]

Is that satisfactory?

That the number goes down?
There is ongoing work to reduce the number even further. At the current rate, absolute poverty will be nearly gone in 15-20 years. What is next? We will redefine absolute poverty to a higher living standard and work on reducing that to nearly zero as well.
A lot of money goes into these programs (much more than into space exploration - see the numbers discussed in the Mars colony thread), and they make rapid progress.

In what way would that be particularly disastrous, if there were a choice of putting those funds into world poverty?

It would improve the living standard of a few people in the next few years, it would reduce the living standard of everyone in the long run (20+ years).

 

[mheslep]

I can't think of a project as big as this that has been privately funded so I have to assume public funding by several nations. Cosmetics spending is not comparable and neither would the other NASA projects.

The Mars Direct cost is ~$30B. Many private projects have larger costs. The Kashagan oil field was $118B. Annual revenue of just the US cosmetics industry is $62B. The problem with private funding is not the size, but in getting any return on the investment.

According to Robert Zubrin, the architect and indefatigable champion of the proposal, “while Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range.”

https://www.wired.com/2012/08/is-a-privately-funded-manned-mission-to-mars-possible/

 

[sophiecentaur]

poverty globally remains unacceptably high."
Is that satisfactory?

That the number goes down?

No. That the number is still high. You are deliberately sidestepping the issue. If something is unacceptable, it is unsatisfactory. You are deliberately ignoring the humanitarian issue in favour of an interesting bit of technology. It's not even as if Mars would be needed as an environment for 'fundamental research'. It's of no use as a test bed for Earth ecology research. The Earth is the place for that. It's more of a 'Go West, young man and we'll justify it later' issue. I thought we had already put to bed the idea that we can draw parallels with past colonisation of Earth.

It would improve the living standard of a few people in the next few years, it would reduce the living standard of everyone in the long run (20+ years).

I am amazed by your logic. You make the assumption that the Mars Project would necessarily yield a profit. That is totally unsubstantiated. It would be a totally open ended exercise which might or might not result in a profit for someone. A single disaster (not at all unlikely) could put the whole thing back by many decades. Also there is no assurance that any profit would end up targeted at poverty. The way to target poverty is to deal with it directly in a practical way and to encourage (enforce) proper behaviour amongst the "kleptocrats' of the world. Not a trivial exercise, of course, but one that, perhaps Donald could instigate. He seems prepared to use radical (of scary) approaches to world events.

The Mars Direct cost is ~$30B. Many private projects have larger costs.

There is a point in Space Exploration, true. But there is no pressing urgency for it. A Mars expedition is a highly speculative idea. Perhaps $30B is 'good value' if it yields results but is there really a hurry for it? Is it better value than unmanned missions? (Apart from the PR)

 

[mfb]

You are deliberately ignoring the humanitarian issue in favour of an interesting bit of technology.

I am not ignoring it, and I don't understand how you could think that.
I am arguing that investments in technology areimproving the long-term humanitarian situation. It is not either-or. We need both.

It's of no use as a test bed for Earth ecology research.

The experts think otherwise.

It's more of a 'Go West, young man and we'll justify it later' issue.

If this justification works every single time, it is quite reliable.

Just two examples from this month:
Water from sunlight and air - using metal-organic frameworks not developed for this purpose
A new water filter - using graphene, not developed for this purpose
You cannot predict developments like this, but they happen all the time. If you reduce funding for science programs, you miss these applications - and you don't even realize that you missed something because you had no idea it was possible. If you ask "what is the immediate benefit for it on Earth" every time, you miss all the things that do lead to benefits on Earth - just not within one year.

You make the assumption that the Mars Project would necessarily yield a profit.

It will necessarily lead to new applications on Earth. As every big science progam in the past did so far. There is no reason to expect this one to be different.

A single disaster (not at all unlikely) could put the whole thing back by many decades.

You still have all the R&D done for it. You cannot fall back below that.

The way to target poverty is to deal with it directly in a practical way and to encourage (enforce) proper behaviour amongst the "kleptocrats' of the world.

See the stone tool analogy.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Just two examples from this month:
Water from sunlight and air - using metal-organic frameworks not developed for this purpose
A new water filter - using graphene, not developed for this purpose

Were these two examples only due to Mars Project funding? Is the graphene work all aimed at Mars? I think not.
The stone tool analogy has nothing to do with politics.

 

[mheslep]

...Perhaps $30B is 'good value' if it yields results but is there really a hurry for it? Is it better value than unmanned missions? (Apart from the PR)

In the totality of planetary exploration, unmanned is a better value imo for *most*, but not *all*, of the missions. At some point there's no substitute for the eyes and feel of the expert on the scene, maybe long term eyes.

Again, a Mars Direct mission could be funded for close to the money NASA spends now on other, relatively unproductive programs. I don't know that MD is viable, but if so the funding is there. NASA is adverse to the one big mission path because of the pain it suffered after Apollo was cancelled. Now, it funds researchers in dozens of different fields that would scream the end of science to their congressman if threatened.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

You use the word "invest." If we are speaking of taxpayer money, we should consider the Return on Investment to the taxpayers from the exploration of Mars.

If very wealthy investors want to voluntarily gamble their money in a private venture, that is another matter. But I'm sure we don't want to funnel tax money extracted from the ordinary taxpayers into the bank accounts of the billionaires.

I suppose I am thinking this way because taxes are due on April 18. That really makes one think about where the money is going, does it not?

 

[sophiecentaur]

A privately invested project tends to be aimed at a short term financial profit. It will use as much readily available tech as possible, to get the result and not have time for interesting side alleys of research. Funding is not available to produce the spin offs that more generously funded government type establishments often yield. So I don't find the spin off argument so convincing. Blue skies thinking tends to come from the ivory tower institutions ( universities etc.) where the man days are not so tightly controlled. Tax payer's money gets "funnelled" into the spin offs more.

 

[sophiecentaur]

"put on hold" is not proportionate. Put on hold implies zero funding - at least that's how I interpret "put on hold".

You talk as if Mars research would be the only source of these spin offs. I am not suggesting we freeze all research - just the (imo) less important stuff, like non fundamental and non-Earth Sciences. It would be a good idea - but totally impractical- to suggest that ways of launching space vehicles (and jet flight, too) without significantly harming the atmosphere, would be worth while researching before we increase that traffic load.

 

[mfb]

Were these two examples only due to Mars Project funding?

No, they were example of government-funded research producing "unexpected" spin-offs later.
We don't have a manned mission to Mars yet, so I cannot show spin-offs produced by that mission for obvious reasons.

I put unexpected in quotation marks because the specific application is unexpected, but the fact that applications are found is not unexpected.

The stone tool analogy has nothing to do with politics.

It is all about politics. Political decisions how to spend money.

You talk as if Mars research would be the only source of these spin offs.

It is the only source for some spin-offs. If you freeze research in many areas, you miss many spin-offs, and you stall development for a long time. Highly variable funding is the worst case - you lose the experts, and once they are gone it is hard to get them back.

It would be a good idea - but totally impractical- to suggest that ways of launching space vehicles (and jet flight, too) without significantly harming the atmosphere, would be worth while researching before we increase that traffic load.

The impact of space launches on the atmosphere is completely negligible.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is the only source for some spin-offs.

Which ones did you have in mind? It's all a bit tenuous, I think; things could spin off but why would they be coming for Mars alone? You can't really suggest that Mars would be a peculiarly fruitful source of these spin offs. The private projects are deliberately limited in scope - just enough to get a result, I think. Also, it's not No. 1 on everyone's list of worthwhile research projects because not everyone finds it so interesting.
We have to admit that space travel is a risky business. I can't see investors being keen to keep investing after the first disaster, despite the glamour of space projects. I can understand that you find it an attractive and exciting business but justifying expensive projects requires more than that and from a lot of people.

 

[mfb]

Which ones did you have in mind?

You keep asking me to predict yet unknown events in the future. I cannot!
I can only show that the past had an extremely persistent pattern of spin-offs from every major project, often in unexpected ways, and usually things we would have missed without research in this particular direction.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You keep asking me to predict yet unknown events in the future. I cannot!

I realize that but you keep justifying the project on the grounds that it will yield useful spin offs. If it does, then it does and that would be great. However, implying that there will be useful spin offs is just a sales pitch and I happen to be a very tightwad investor. My point is that there are far more spin offs from generously (government) funded projects than near the bone commercial ones. It's in no one's interest to keep working an a gizmo, once it (just) does that specific job. Can you be sure that such a project would not be based on as much stuff as possible that's already available. Would it involve the dozens of separately contributing teams that are involved with unmanned missions, which carry dozens of different experiments, many of them highly sophisticated and well thought out? Just keeping one crew member alive involves more expense that a whole space lab full of autonomous experiments.

 

[mfb]

I realize that but you keep justifying the project on the grounds that it will yield useful spin offs.

Every similar project in the past did. There is no reason why this should be the first exception ever.

Yet another example useful for commercial satellites, found just minutes after writing this post. The examples are everywhere.

However, implying that there will be useful spin offs is just a sales pitch and I happen to be a very tightwad investor.

There will also be a giant amount of science done, but if you ask "how many people will that feed", then spin-offs are the only thing you seem to accept as benefit.

My point is that there are far more spin offs from generously (government) funded projects than near the bone commercial ones.

And where is the point? The first manned mission to Mars will likely be a government project.
In the unlikely case of a private company paying for it, there is absolutely no need to "justify" this in humanitarian terms: the company can spend their money on whatever they want. It is their business.

Can you be sure that such a project would not be based on as much stuff as possible that's already available.

We don't have the infrastructure to send humans to Mars. Yes, it would certainly involve billions of dollars in R&D.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I hate to bring this up but the USA is massively in debt.

I don't know how much funding is being asked for by various space enterprises, but it will take about 60 million dollars just to replace the 59 Tomahawk missiles fired against the Syrian airbase.

Several cliches come to mind. These include "money does not grow on trees."

 

[sophiecentaur]

The first manned mission to Mars will likely be a government project.

I am totally confused now. Musk has been mentioned, SpaceX and $30B - all to support the fact that it won't cost 'us' much. Now you tell me it will have to be government funded. The ground is shifting too much for us to get a sensible conclusion to this one. Which are we arguing about and which are the 'pro' comments aimed at?

but it will take about 60 million dollars just to replace the 59 Tomahawk missiles fired against the Syrian airbase.

Governments only need to print a bit more money or take out more loans from China, to deal with a simple problem like that. This is a world of smoke and mirrors, remember.

 

[mfb]

I am totally confused now. Musk has been mentioned, SpaceX and $30B - all to support the fact that it won't cost 'us' much. Now you tell me it will have to be government funded. The ground is shifting too much for us to get a sensible conclusion to this one. Which are we arguing about and which are the 'pro' comments aimed at?

I cannot see into the future, but I think we have five somewhat realistic scenarios leading to initial Mars missions:

• SpaceX's ITS (or a similar system later) works and will not cost significantly more than planned. SpaceX pays most of the development.
  NASA, with ESA and maybe JAXA contribution, buys a few flights to Mars and back - enough to have something like 2-3 crews of 10 astronauts on the surface for 2 years each. NASA cost: Maybe 2-4 billions for the flights, a few billions for developing and building the station on Mars (Mars Direct estimated 3 billions for ground infrastructure of a first flight in 2002, half a billion for subsequent missions).
  China might buy a few flights as well, although I'm not sure how that would work in terms of ITAR requirements.
  -> We get extremely cheap and large-scale access to space, SpaceX takes over the launch market and makes billions with its developments, we get many new things developed for the Mars station, and we learn a lot about Mars.
• SpaceX's ITS (or a similar system later) works and will not cost significantly more than planned, but they don't find a government interested in Mars missions. SpaceX might do a Mars mission on their own to demonstrate the feasibility - similar to Red Dragon.
  -> We get extremely cheap and large-scale access to space, many of the things developed for ITS and the Mars station are now sold by SpaceX, and we learn a lot about Mars.
• SpaceX's ITS does not work or costs too much to be interesting, and nothing else like it gets developed. Falcon 9, New Glenn or other reusable rockets work and reduce launch costs. NASA (probably with ESA+JAXA, maybe even with Russia) develops modules that can fly to Mars, land there, launch from there again, fly back, and all the other stuff, and launches them with the reusable rockets. ~20 billions in 2002 dollars if we go by the Mars Direct estimates, 4-5 for a subsequent mission
  -> We get cheaper but still expensive rockets, tons of spin-offs from all the infrastructure development, and we learn a lot about Mars.
• NASA goes to Mars with SLS. That will cost a lot, mainly due to the ridiculous price of SLS/Orion. Apart from that, it is similar to the previous scenario. We still get the cheaper rockets, even though the Mars mission doesn't use it.
• NASA doesn't go to Mars, but China does. China now leads worldwide research in various fields.

 

[AgentCachat]

That's a very romantic argument. People who sit around and contemplate the w of w are the ones who provide the intellectual ammunition for the technologists who provide the systems for the action men to play on. It's all funded by people who reckon they will make a profit out of a venture - one way or another. The investors never need to cross any mountains.

It may be romantic, but then many people are like that. You can also be a romantic technologist.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It may be romantic, but then many people are like that. You can also be a romantic technologist.

I guess I was over-categorising but there are very few people who are brilliant at theory and also gifted at applied technology. And even fewer who are those two and also successful investors.

 

[AgentCachat]

I guess I was over-categorising but there are very few people who are brilliant at theory and also gifted at applied technology. And even fewer who are those two and also successful investors.

That is correct, very few. They are responsible for so much.

 

[David Pass]

I want to ask for your thoughts about Mars exploration in the current time we live in. Why do you personally think we should or should not strive to put money, time, and effort to send an astronaut to mars?

My thoughts about this topic are how we should put forth our current developments and push to go to mars.That might mean an addition to taxes, which those people who aren't in favor of it, will spend more money towards funding space organizations like Mars One, SpaceX, and NASA (if you're living in U.S. territory). The fact of the matter is, some people don't believe in "climate change" and whether you're one of them or not, there's been ideas about how Mars can help us predict what can happen to Earth in the long distance future. If you look at mars, there are polar ice caps on the north and south region, with many scientists predicting the extinction of the ocean on mars. So to reiterate my question, do you think Mars is a good idea in our day in age? Or are there enough problems here on earth?

There are two fundamental notions to be pursued here: first, we will look at the problem from a political standpoint, and second, from the epistemological standpoint. Since you have brought the US to the forefront of human space exploration, I shall focus on it. The US is not a true democracy, as were the city-states of ancient Greece. It is a republic which exhibits some of the characteristics of a democracy. NASA is a government agency, not run by the US population, but ultimately by the CEO of the US, who needs to be educated and persuaded to direct his or her agencies in one way or the other.
The second notion has to do with the nature of knowledge. Human beings are innately curious, and with evolutions in technology, the arm of humanity becomes more dexterous and increases in length. An infant lays in his or her crib and reaches for the mobile, but is unable to touch it until the child is able to stand. In the same way, the need-to-know is self-justified. As the story of Babel teaches, people have learned a collective arm is in all ways more effectual than a singular one; therefore, we -- not only as Americans, but as a world community, use NASA as a prosthesis to reach farther and learn more tomorrow than we could yesterday. Financial concern, practical as it may be, becomes inconsequential from the explorer's standpoint. The possibility of falling is overshadowed by the desire to touch the mobile.

 

[jack action]

As the story of Babel teaches, people have learned a collective arm is in all ways more effectual than a singular one; therefore, we -- not only as Americans, but as a world community, use NASA as a prosthesis to reach farther and learn more tomorrow than we could yesterday.

And we, as Canadians, understand more than anyone else the need for an arm to reach farther!

 

[Dr_Zinj]

There are two fundamental notions to be pursued here: first, we will look at the problem from a political standpoint, and second, from the epistemological standpoint. Since you have brought the US to the forefront of human space exploration, I shall focus on it. The US is not a true democracy, as were the city-states of ancient Greece. It is a republic which exhibits some of the characteristics of a democracy. NASA is a government agency, not run by the US population, but ultimately by the CEO of the US, who needs to be educated and persuaded to direct his or her agencies in one way or the other.
The second notion has to do with the nature of knowledge. Human beings are innately curious, and with evolutions in technology, the arm of humanity becomes more dexterous and increases in length. An infant lays in his or her crib and reaches for the mobile, but is unable to touch it until the child is able to stand. In the same way, the need-to-know is self-justified. As the story of Babel teaches, people have learned a collective arm is in all ways more effectual than a singular one; therefore, we -- not only as Americans, but as a world community, use NASA as a prosthesis to reach farther and learn more tomorrow than we could yesterday. Financial concern, practical as it may be, becomes inconsequential from the explorer's standpoint. The possibility of falling is overshadowed by the desire to touch the mobile.

"people have learned a collective arm is in all ways more effectual than a singular one"

Untrue, as any plumber, automotive mechanic, or HVAC technician could tell you.

 

[Sue Rich]

I don't see a real purpose. Mars is pretty much a dead planet. True, there may be water beneath the surface, but nothing grows. I think most of us believe that Mars may have thrive at one time. millions or even billions of years ago, but it's pretty useless now. I don't see a real reason to explore an expedentially dead planet.

 

[Skeptic Tom]

If we slack off with investing in space we will be overtaken by countries such as China

 

[velocity_boy]

Yep...your final question in your post voiced my thoughts exactly: we have enough problems here on Earth to take care of. Problems that require money. Tax payer funding. So let's do that first.

I used to be a huge proponent of space exploration. Well, I still am up to a point. Of course we had to go to the moon to fulfill JFK's promise and to beat the Russians while were in a the midst of a Space Race and the Cold War. And you know that the public's interest in NASA and the Space Program really took a dive after we attained the Moon.

Mars? Meh. Sure, there is almost certainly microbial life out there, in the ice or maybe in liquid water beneath those ice caps. But so what? What is it really going to teach us? We know that microbes can flourish in adverse adverse, even anaerobic conditions. We know--well, anybody with extensive knowledge of the Universe--that the chances are very great that we here on Earth are not alone. There is certainly no intelligent life on Mars. Basically the only thing we get from going there--other than a multi-billion dollar pricetag, is the bragging rights to say we did it.

Too, we can find out all we need to know from robotics. As that particular technology has come a very long way. I challenge somebody to tell me what a human can do on Mars insofar as obtaining useful information for us that a robot cannot. And, please, can we end this absurd talk about ever terra-forming Mars? Why would we? We have plenty of room here on Earth. Room has never been the issue. The time and cost of terra-forming are mind-boggling. Guess what? Mars doesn't want us! LOL. It is as inhospitable of an environment as you can find. There. is. no. air. to breathe. Watch the movie "The Martian" for a glimpse of how terrible it is there. And then try to imagine not just one highly-skilled professional astronaut surviving, but masses of regular laymen people. It' never going to happen. So let us spend the money on fixing the problems that those Mars advocates think are going to force us to one day have to live there! LOL

Hope this helps. Thanks.

 

[sophiecentaur]

If we slack off with investing in space we will be overtaken by countries such as China

It depends on who "we" are. We are all humans and this is a Physics discussion. Some of 'us' on PF could be Chinese.

 

[mfb]

Yep...your final question in your post voiced my thoughts exactly: we have enough problems here on Earth to take care of. Problems that require money. Tax payer funding. So let's do that first.

When do you expect this to be done? When will we reach a point where no one can see any problem left or find new problems?

Of course we had to go to the moon to fulfill JFK's promise and to beat the Russians while were in a the midst of a Space Race and the Cold War.

Why? And why is this "of course"? If "the US president said so" and "someone else tries to be first" are sufficient as reason, then the US should go there because both Obama and Trump wanted/want it and the Chinese might be first otherwise.

Sure, there is almost certainly microbial life out there

Most experts disagree.

What is it really going to teach us?

How life develops or if it can spread between planets, how the history of Mars looked like, a lot about Mars today, and a huge jump in knowledge about how common and how flexible life is in general.

I challenge somebody to tell me what a human can do on Mars insofar as obtaining useful information for us that a robot cannot.

A human can do in a day what our current rovers do in months. Light-speed delay makes every action painfully slow and sometimes hands are just the best tools we have. In addition, we can do much more with the better equipment we could deliver with a manned mission. Samples brought back to Earth can be studied in even more detail here.

The time and cost of terra-forming are mind-boggling.

Humans spent a significant fraction of the GDP (or equivalent before GDP was a thing) over hundreds of years to "terraform" parts of Earth to make more farmland.

It is as inhospitable of an environment as you can find.

Not as inhospitable as Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune, our Moon, or any other object in the solar system apart from Earth. Not as inhospitable as space, where the ISS has been manned continuously since 2000.

It' never going to happen.

Humans will never cross an ocean. Or invent machines more powerful than themselves. Humans will never fly. Or go to space.
For some reason, I don't trust "humans will never do X" predictions.

 

[velocity_boy]

You're wrong about human being thirty times more productive than robotics.

And you're wrong that most experts don't think we will find microbes on Mars.

Terraforming Earth was a necessity. Doing the same to Mars is not. It's also vastly more difficult and expensive. To even compare the two is absurd.

Finding microbes on Mars won't show us how transpermia works.

And I expect...hope?...to attend to problems here right now. And in the future. Actually we've been doing this and many folks don't realize that the world is a far better and more peaceful place now than ever. That's right, more peaceful. As in less war. Look it up. Thus, there is nothing we cannot fix here, or improve. Why?

Gee, dunno. Maybe because it's our home? LOL

Mars is a distant wasteland, and offers very little in compared with the costs of going there.

While crossing the oceans and this other things offered much. Plus, again...sigh...they were right here.

You know...Home.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Humans spent a significant fraction of the GDP (or equivalent before GDP was a thing) over hundreds of years to "terraform" parts of Earth to make more farmland.

That is a total misuse of the term "terraform" - even with the added punctuation. There has been fringe farming, established on some very inhospitable parts of the world but that is in no way comparable with starting with what Mars has to offer. OK, you are very keen on the idea but there are other priorities.
Your argument that there will always something else that's (wrongly considered to be) more worth while is dead right (except that "wrong" is just a personal view). That could well be the case and you would just have to come to terms with it - same way as the millions of 'poor' have to come to terms with (other people's) priorities that are applied to their fortunes.

the Chinese might be first otherwise.

Would that be the end of the world? Think of the money that could save.

A human can do in a day what our current rovers do in months.

Possibly true (but with a smaller ratio involved and the cost ratio is way off in the other direction) and the fact is that many environmental studies take months / years, in any case; that's ideally suited to robotic experimentation. The delay in a control loop becomes less and less significant when robots can be increasingly autonomous. Having a human walk on the surface of Mars, just so they can plant a flag is not worth the risk of anyone's life. (A 'modest proposal': perhaps we could send volunteer residents of death row?)

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don't trust "humans will never do X" predictions.

Neither do I. But whether they should do it now or generations later is another matter.

 

[JLowe]

Yep...your final question in your post voiced my thoughts exactly: we have enough problems here on Earth to take care of. Problems that require money. Tax payer funding. So let's do that first.

I used to be a huge proponent of space exploration. Well, I still am up to a point. Of course we had to go to the moon to fulfill JFK's promise and to beat the Russians while were in a the midst of a Space Race and the Cold War. And you know that the public's interest in NASA and the Space Program really took a dive after we attained the Moon.

Mars? Meh. Sure, there is almost certainly microbial life out there, in the ice or maybe in liquid water beneath those ice caps. But so what? What is it really going to teach us? We know that microbes can flourish in adverse adverse, even anaerobic conditions. We know--well, anybody with extensive knowledge of the Universe--that the chances are very great that we here on Earth are not alone. There is certainly no intelligent life on Mars. Basically the only thing we get from going there--other than a multi-billion dollar pricetag, is the bragging rights to say we did it.

Too, we can find out all we need to know from robotics. As that particular technology has come a very long way. I challenge somebody to tell me what a human can do on Mars insofar as obtaining useful information for us that a robot cannot. And, please, can we end this absurd talk about ever terra-forming Mars? Why would we? We have plenty of room here on Earth. Room has never been the issue. The time and cost of terra-forming are mind-boggling. Guess what? Mars doesn't want us! LOL. It is as inhospitable of an environment as you can find. There. is. no. air. to breathe. Watch the movie "The Martian" for a glimpse of how terrible it is there. And then try to imagine not just one highly-skilled professional astronaut surviving, but masses of regular laymen people. It' never going to happen. So let us spend the money on fixing the problems that those Mars advocates think are going to force us to one day have to live there! LOL

Hope this helps. Thanks.

Throwing more money at problems doesn't necessarily make them any better. If we spent every dime we had on cancer research, there's still very little to no chance we'd find a cure. Now I don't think sending humans to Mars is necessary, there is very little we could do that our robots can't, but someday, the Earth will be uninhabitable. Assuming its possible to traverse space on long voyages, its a necessity we figure out how or we will become extinct for certain. There is also something to be said for overcoming a challenge for its sake alone, its in our nature to do things previously thought impossible for no other reason than to do them.

 

[sophiecentaur]

but someday, the Earth will be uninhabitable.

To include this in your argument needs a bit more precision. The Sun will become a red giant and swallow us up but that is of no concern to humankind in any way whatsoever. What sort of event or 'developing situation' are you suggesting we could deal with by leaving the Earth? How many of us would get to leave? What would be done about the remainers? The suggested event always seems to be a rogue asteroid. That could be dealt with by using enough resources but the project receives much less fandom than a sexy trip to Mars. I wonder why, bearing in mind that every Earthling could benefit from such an insurance project.

If we spent every dime we had on cancer research, there's still very little to no chance we'd find a cure.

That's a pretty nonsense statement, actually. The long term treatment of many (most) cancers is getting more and more successful and the prognosis is improving all the time. There is a visible gain from every million quid that's spent in that direction. Again, this is nothing like as sexy as a Mars shot.

There is also something to be said for overcoming a challenge for its sake alone,

There is a pecking order of challenges. You are assuming your favourite should be everyone's favourite. 'Thrilling' doesn't equate to 'most worthwhile'.

its in our nature to do things

...to do lots of things that we would not want to encourage. Again, this is not an argument - except to present to some tight fisted funding body. In that case, it could just tip the balance.

 

[mfb]

You're wrong about human being thirty times more productive than robotics.

Curiosity covered 15 km in nearly 4.5 years. The experiments take a couple of measurements per day (e. g. "a dozen per day" for ChemCam, one of the more flexible instruments, or one measurement per day for APXS). Humans could easily drive that distance in a single EVA, and they would be able to collect thousands of samples in a week, to be analyzed in the station and/or on Earth. Apollo 17 collected 741 samples in 3 days, with a crew of just 2 astronauts. You are right, they are not 30 times more productive. They are even more than that.

And you're wrong that most experts don't think we will find microbes on Mars.

The rovers don't even have "search for present life" as science objective. Opportunity and Curiosity as example. If the experts would think present life was likely, they would search for it.
All the publications (these three are just examples) focus on life in the past, and mention life today only remotely as obscure option that cannot be fully ruled out today.

Terraforming Earth was a necessity.

It was not, humans could have used the existing farmland. Or not starting farming at all.
It is more difficult, but we can use technology of the 21st and 22nd century for it.

Finding microbes on Mars won't show us how transpermia works.

If they have their origin on Earth, we could figure out when the evolution separated. Even better if multiple microbes point to multiple transfer events.

And I expect...hope?...to attend to problems here right now. And in the future. Actually we've been doing this and many folks don't realize that the world is a far better and more peaceful place now than ever. That's right, more peaceful. As in less war. Look it up. Thus, there is nothing we cannot fix here, or improve. Why?

That is my point. The world is getting more peaceful, people get less hungry, longer-living, richer and so on all the time. Yet people point to increasingly small problems or find new problems. No matter how much life on Earth improves, you can always say "we have to improve it more before we do new things". New things that ultimately improve the life on Earth as well.

the Chinese might be first otherwise.

Would that be the end of the world? Think of the money that could save.

It is not my argument, please do not quote it out of context:

Why? And why is this "of course"? If "the US president said so" and "someone else tries to be first" are sufficient as reason, then the US should go there because both Obama and Trump wanted/want it and the Chinese might be first otherwise.

It will save the US some money in the short run, but over time it will cost money as the Chinese will be even faster surpassing the US in technological advancements.

Having a human walk on the surface of Mars, just so they can plant a flag is not worth the risk of anyone's life.

I agree. And that is not the goal of any of the proposed missions to Mars.

That's a pretty nonsense statement, actually. The long term treatment of many (most) cancers is getting more and more successful and the prognosis is improving all the time. There is a visible gain from every million quid that's spent in that direction. Again, this is nothing like as sexy as a Mars shot.

Cancer research gets more money. Which is good. It is not either-or. It is both. The overall costs per person are tiny.

 

[nikkkom]

It will save the US some money in the short run, but over time it will cost money as the Chinese will be even faster surpassing the US in technological advancements.

You just struck gold. As I see it, a major reason for going to Mars is R&D of space tech, to learn how to do all this stuff. Whoever masters it first gets a huge advantage over those who did not.

We don't need a complete closed loop life support on Earth - and therefore we don't have this technology.
We don't need to grow a complete complement of food in an enclosed artificial base - and therefore we don't have this technology.
We don't have compact fission reactors.
We don't do enough research on microgravity effects on humans and on mitigating its effects. Hell, we don't even know whether living permanently in 0.3g is dangerous to humans.
Our spacesuits at best had 2-3 iterations of R&D on them. They are equivalent of cars from 1930.
We don't have universal space tugs.
ISRU tech for asteroid/Moon/Mars materials does not exist either.

 

[nikkkom]

I don't see a real purpose. Mars is pretty much a dead planet.

Correct.
As soon as you find a better planet in the Solar System, please let us know.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Curiosity covered 15 km in nearly 4.5 years.

How many years ago was the Curiosity design started? Was the idea of driverless cars even public knowledge, that long ago. If you are as optimistic as you clearly are about technology that suits your cause then you have to assume the same for things that don't support it. Robots may not be as smart as 'qualified' humans but they are improving. They are more rugged and they are expendable. Are those not massive advantages?

It is not my argument, please do not quote it out of context:

Sorry. I was confused by your wording. I missed the irony(?).

It is not either-or. It is both.

You are assuming that Mars has to come into the equation at all. If you're insisting on the spin off benefits then there are loads more possible technical challenges than trips to Mars. Mars isn't at the top of everyone's list - even if you feel it should be.

 

[mfb]

The idea of self-driving cars is decades old. In 1987 a European project got more than a billion (in today's dollars) as funding. At that point not even Spirit and Opportunity existed.

You are assuming that Mars has to come into the equation at all.

I don't say it has to, I say it is good if it does.

If you're insisting on the spin off benefits then there are loads more possible technical challenges than trips to Mars.

Do you have anything in particular in mind?

I highlight the spin-offs as I don't get the impression that you would welcome spending money for the main science mission.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Do you have anything in particular in mind?

Most of my priorities would not incvolve manned activities.: More deep space observation at all frequencies. More planetary probes. Defence against rogue asteroids (detection and dealing with). More gravity wave work. Plus all the non-space stuff associated with ecology, health and feeding people. (Re-terraforming Earth, even). The asteroid one would potentially do more for 'all of us' than the Mars project.

I don't get the impression that you would welcome spending money for the main science mission.

A manned "Science Mission" would, in my opinion, not be good value because I can't see a lot of point in taking it further into the colonisation stage. It would be no more of a priority project than other missions. I really don't see the 'because we can' has ever been a good reason for such an activity. Let's face it, the immense length of time since the last Moon landing has not exactly got in the way of Scientific progress and the Moon was only targeted for military reasons.
I do have a problem with the fact that the enthusiasts seem to pepper their otherwise reasonable comments with starry eyed adventure arguments. I know that the ISS crews all rave about being up there but that feel good thing is pretty bad value and has a very few beneficiaries.

 

[nikkkom]

Most of my priorities would not incvolve manned activities.: More deep space observation at all frequencies. More planetary probes. Defence against rogue asteroids (detection and dealing with). More gravity wave work. Plus all the non-space stuff associated with ecology, health and feeding people.

Why bother, since you intend humanity to die off like dinosaurs? If anything, let's just invest money in making lots of nukes and kill everybody. Same result as dying out, just faster.

 

[jack action]

I really don't understand where this idea that we have some sort of responsibility to maintain the human race alive and well at any cost comes from.

So the human race will be extincted some day. So what?

Even assuming we have this "god-given mission" to perpetuate life, wouldn't be easier to just send bacterias or other simple life forms within small spaceships throughout space, aiming for different planets and hope that one will survive and evolve to a future, well-adapted, human race? Wouldn't this be sufficient enough to maintain life in the universe? That is a low cost experiment that I could live with.

 

[russ_watters]

Curiosity covered 15 km in nearly 4.5 years. The experiments take a couple of measurements per day (e. g. "a dozen per day" for ChemCam, one of the more flexible instruments, or one measurement per day for APXS). Humans could easily drive that distance in a single EVA, and they would be able to collect thousands of samples in a week, to be analyzed in the station and/or on Earth. Apollo 17 collected 741 samples in 3 days, with a crew of just 2 astronauts. You are right, they are not 30 times more productive. They are even more than that..

You've badly missed the point of the productivity analysis. Productivity of an overall mission is not dependent on a one-for-one comparison of a person to a robot because they are not assumed or needed to be one-to-one replacements. What matters most is productivity as leveled by cost. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers cost $820 million for a 90 sol mission (I assume in roughly ~2000 dollars). Why send up two? Why the heck not - it only cost $820 million! With modest economies of scale, we could send hundreds of rovers for the cost of a single manned mission.

If there is a specific task that a robot can't do that a human can, that is one thing, but it just isn't true that humans can be more productive overall than a similar commitment of robots.

 

[russ_watters]

You just struck gold. As I see it, a major reason for going to Mars is R&D of space tech, to learn how to do all this stuff. Whoever masters it first gets a huge advantage over those who did not.

If the choice is to spend money on, say, lowering the poverty rate vs space exploration, you are right that we gain technologically from space exploration. But it most certainly does NOT follow that money spent on space exploration will provide a technological advantage over money spent on, say, cancer research. It is tough to gauge the efficiency of research, but space exploration is by nature a very inefficient way to promote technological innovation be cause it relies on by-chance spinoffs instead of direct development.

This was recently discussed...

 

[sophiecentaur]

Why bother, since you intend humanity to die off like dinosaurs? If anything, let's just invest money in making lots of nukes and kill everybody. Same result as dying out, just faster.

That's a nonsense reply. (Another straw man.)If you really believe that the human race is immortal then you have not studied history or palientology.