Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Jan 10, 2004 #1
    "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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 10, 2004 #2
    When will the time to go be?
  4. Jan 10, 2004 #3
    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:

    Well, all the babies have to leave some day the cradle, don't you think? (In this case the cradle is our planet earth)
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2004
  5. Jan 10, 2004 #4
    Whenever I develop my Time Machine, until then, unless we can develop a 5 million MPH craft, probably never by Humans.
  6. Jan 10, 2004 #5
    Well if you think we'll probably never leave, then your argument about costs and what is pretty moot, isn't it?
  7. Jan 10, 2004 #6
    Hey I know this kid from Mars I mentioned in a previous thread!
  8. Jan 10, 2004 #7
    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.
  9. Jan 10, 2004 #8

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Mars aint too far away, its going to Pluto which will be the problem. Personally i dont 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.
  10. Jan 10, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  11. Jan 10, 2004 #10
    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?
  12. Jan 10, 2004 #11
    Was the moon mission a waste too?
  13. Jan 10, 2004 #12
    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.
  14. Jan 10, 2004 #13
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2004
  15. Jan 10, 2004 #14
    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.
  16. Jan 10, 2004 #15
    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.
  17. Jan 10, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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"
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2004
  18. Jan 11, 2004 #17
    Wheres your sense of adventure?
  19. Jan 11, 2004 #18
    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 alot 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) ?
  20. Jan 11, 2004 #19
    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....
  21. Jan 11, 2004 #20
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook