So, why aren't we on Mars yet?

[Pasi Nurminen]

Guys, I'm not talking about colonization. That won't happen for centuries, if it ever happens at all. I'm talking about simply placing a human being on Mars, so that we can say we have officially gone to other worlds.

Even if it's just a one way mission. If I were told that I wouldn't be able to get back and would die out there, I'd still jump at the chance to be the first human to set foot on another planet.

 

[Eli]

Guys, I'm not talking about colonization. That won't happen for centuries, if it ever happens at all. I'm talking about simply placing a human being on Mars, so that we can say we have officially gone to other worlds.

Even if it's just a one way mission. If I were told that I wouldn't be able to get back and would die out there, I'd still jump at the chance to be the first human to set foot on another planet.

This is just dumb. Cool as hell, but dumb. I wouldn't want my tax money to be spent on this. We should have a master plan that would culminate with a self-sufficient Martian population of 5000 humans by 2050. That's something that will actually pay off.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

So we should not strive to greater heights because to do so is not profitable? Well, if everyone throughout history had such views, we would still be searching for the wheel.

 

[Eli]

So we should not strive to greater heights because to do so is not profitable? Well, if everyone throughout history had such views, we would still be searching for the wheel.

That unprofitable wheel...

Isn't a second world for humanity a much greater height than a stunt mission?

 

[MobBoss]

Guys, I'm not talking about colonization. That won't happen for centuries, if it ever happens at all. I'm talking about simply placing a human being on Mars, so that we can say we have officially gone to other worlds.

Even if it's just a one way mission. If I were told that I wouldn't be able to get back and would die out there, I'd still jump at the chance to be the first human to set foot on another planet.

We have already essentially done this with the mars lander.

 

[azzaman333]

That unprofitable wheel...

Isn't a second world for humanity a much greater height than a stunt mission?

Yes, it is.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

We need to start working on technologies that will allow Mars to be a decently hospitable planet before Earth gets that bad. Which is why we need to send people there in the next 40 years IMO.

You still haven't answered my question. What could we possibly do to the Earth that would make it more inhospitable to life than Mars? And even if this impossibility came to pass, why would Mars be better than the other possible locations that I have mentioned?

 

[azzaman333]

You still haven't answered my question. What could we possibly do to the Earth that would make it more inhospitable to life than Mars?

Global Warming.

And even if this impossibility came to pass, why would Mars be better than the other possible locations that I have mentioned?

When we have crapped up Earth, I doubt the oceans will be of much use to anything. The moon is way too small. Living in space would be harder to get the technology than living on Mars.

 

[crabapple]

we should put some CO2 producers on Mars and in that way get a positive global warming! thereby making it habitable

EDIT: baha crosspost

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Global Warming.

Even if global warming melted the entire arctic and antarctic, Earth would still be paradise compared to Mars. In fact, there have been periods of Earth's history like this and life went on.

When we have crapped up Earth, I doubt the oceans will be of much use to anything. The moon is way too small. Living in space would be harder to get the technology than living on Mars.

The moon is too small? The moon is huge! Mars is a small planet has only 3-4 times the surface area of the moon. There is also a few big advantages over living in space. If you colonize space you can be near earth, you can use centripetal force to mimic gravity, and you can efficiently use solar power.

 

[azzaman333]

Even if global warming melted the entire arctic and antarctic, Earth would still be paradise compared to Mars. In fact, there have been periods of Earth's history like this and life went on.

So what's the big deal about global warming then?

The moon is too small? The moon is huge! Mars is a small planet has only 3-4 times the surface area of the moon. There is also a few big advantages over living in space. If you colonize space you can be near earth, you can use centripetal force to mimic gravity, and you can efficiently use solar power.

The moon is still tiny compared to Mars. Also, Mars already has gravity, and I'm pretty sure the sun shines on Mars as well.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

So what's the big deal about global warming then?

Not that the Earth will be uninhabitable, that's for sure.

The moon is still tiny compared to Mars. Also, Mars already has gravity, and I'm pretty sure the sun shines on Mars as well.

Mars does have gravity but only 1/3 that of Earth. The sun does shine on Mars but it only gets of fraction that Earth does. And that doesn't even take into account the dust.

 

[El_Machinae]

The asteroid belt could house 7500 trillion humans: there's certainly room out there.

Pasi: you should be able to get a human to Mars (one-way) for about a billion dollars. Start a Web 2.0 company, get a billion dollars, and do it

 

[mdwh]

You do realize that the only way to survive as a species is to colonize another planet. (ask the dinosaurs about that).

Yes - but colonizing another planet isn't going to happen by spending large sums of money on getting a handful of humans there in a one-off non-repeatable trip.

How long since we went to the Moon?

I don't think people here are necessarily against space exploration, or even manned space exploration. But I think it needs to be done with long term planning, creating technology that can be used repeatedly, rather than spending a load of money solely to get a few men there. The former will one day get us to colonization, the latter won't.

 

[MobBoss]

The asteroid belt could house 7500 trillion humans: there's certainly room out there.

How would you feed them all?

 

[zjl56]

I think too many people have been looking at this the wrong way, and progress has been impeded. Instead of spending billions on manned space flight, we would be better off spending the money into robotics. If you look at the recent achievements of NASA, most have been from unmanned operations, yet so much of the money is being poured into manned spaceflight.
It takes something to the amount of 2 billion dollars for one space shuttle launch, and yet the Mars Rovers have only amounted to half of that. I know research is going into the Jet Propulsion laboratory, but it should rank 1st on the agenda.
If we are ever serious about living on another planet like Mars or even Venus(which would take a colossal effort to terraform), we have to develop better unmanned craft, strong energy systems(whether it be nuclear or solar, and self replicating robots. A unmanned robot should be able to find sufficient resources to replicate itself on any given planet, or the asteroids. To prepare for the future I believe we should put a stop on hopeless human missions, and the worthless ISS.

 

[mdwh]

It's reasonable to question whether space travel is worth it, but I don't understand why people always bring up poverty. Western nations spend billions on all sorts of things that are not necessities, and no one complains we should be spending that on poverty instead. (Indeed, any suggestion that it should would probably get shot down on these forums like "OMG socialism sucks"...) If someone wants their taxes spent on space travel rather than feeding the 3rd world, then rightly or wrongly, that's up to them - just like it is with every other non-poverty-solving thing their taxes are spent on.

 

[mdwh]

It takes something to the amount of 2 billion dollars for one space shuttle launch, and yet the Mars Rovers have only amounted to half of that. I know research is going into the Jet Propulsion laboratory, but it should rank 1st on the agenda.

But isn't that a special case of the Shuttle specifically being stupidly expensive? How much does a Soyuz launch cost?

 

[mdwh]

Psst. The "dark side" of the moon is only shielded from the sun half the time. Just like the other side. It's called "dark" because it always faces away from earth, so we don't get to see it. Yeah, it would offer some incredibly crisp and clear images of space, but mostly because it wouldn't be peering through an atmosphere.

Also, I believe it may an advantage that each "day" is 14 Earth days, giving a much longer continual exposure time.

 

[El_Machinae]

How would you feed them all?

Yep, I was unclear. I meant "house and support". Feeding could be done by farms in the asteroid belt, using carbonaceous asteroid material to grow crops.

The requirements for self-sustainability was factored in when the number "7500 trillion" was calculated.