So, why aren't we on Mars yet?

[azzaman333]

Or we know what's worth our trouble and what isn't, we're selfless enough not screw up more than one planet, and quite smart.

Are you talking about the same human race I am?

 

[JohnRM]

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.

Do you honestly believe that humans could ever survive on Mars without the kind of vast eco-system that we have here on Earth? Any such attempt is doomed to failure. We should focus on saving Earth and stabilizing our population, or reducing it.

 

[El_Machinae]

The next planetary body that we colonize should have exceptional water resources available to us. Beyond that, any other factor is of little importance in comparison. Europa may be a good candidate.

I think the Moon is the best early candidate, then.

I keep watching to see if the Near Earth Asteroids are likely to contain useful resources. It would be nice to snag one of those when they go on by.

 

[JohnRM]

The private sector cannot do it. It isn't a matter of being efficent, its a matter of space exploration being a MASSIVE undertaking, sort of like a national highway system, but bigger. There is no incentive for a company to do it, because it would cost enormous amounts of money, and the economic payback, in the short to medium term, would be pretty small.

The private sector has done what, launched one or two rockets? The public sector did that nearly 50 years ago.

So, rather, it is not impossible, it is just not profitable and therefor the private sector may choose not to pursue it. Regardless, our government should be spending on other more important things.

 

[warpus]

We have the technology, we have the money. We have men, we have rockets. Why have we not yet sent a manned mission to Mars? Why are we still dicking around sending out probes to study comets? If it comes to raising taxes in every country that has a space agency, go ahead and do it, just get a man to Mars. It's absolutely inconceivable that we haven't at least laid concrete plans to put men on Mars ASAP.

What do you think?

It would be far easier to put a man (or even a woman) on mars today than it was to put a man on the moon in 1969. Cheaper, too.

The problem is that we have no incentive to do so - in 1969 it was a matter of prestige.

Maybe once the Chinese and/or Russians build a moonbase, the West will start taking space exploration seriously again.

 

[JohnRM]

Screw Mars and the Moon. We should build our own moon.

 

[warpus]

Screw Mars and the Moon. We should build our own moon.

That's no moon

 

[Mirc]

However, if we haven't landed humans on Mars by 2050 humanity is some combination extremely lazy, extremely selfish and extremely stupid.

Or there's no humanity left by then.

Spoiler :

 

[azzaman333]

Or there's no humanity left by then.

Spoiler :

If there is no humanity left, we probably did something extremely stupid to get ourselves killed in the first place.

 

[MobBoss]

We have the technology, we have the money. We have men, we have rockets. Why have we not yet sent a manned mission to Mars? Why are we still dicking around sending out probes to study comets? If it comes to raising taxes in every country that has a space agency, go ahead and do it, just get a man to Mars. It's absolutely inconceivable that we haven't at least laid concrete plans to put men on Mars ASAP.

What do you think?

Pffft. We have been there...but we cant colonize it because of the decepticons.

 

[Irish Caesar]

We have the technology, we have the money. We have men, we have rockets. Why have we not yet sent a manned mission to Mars?

Radiation shielding is a pretty big factor.

There's a lot of nasty junk flying around out there with ridiculously high energies. If people are going to be in some transportation vehicle for a long period of time, it would be nearly impossible to shield against that stuff and have a ship light enough to get off the ground with twenty rockets strapped to it.

Okay, this is a bit of an exaggeration, sure, but with unmanned missions, there's a lot less weight on the spacecraft to begin with, since it doesn't have to have a couple of years worth of life support systems, and machines don't get cancer when exposed to large quantities of radiation like people do.

 

[EdwardTking]

We have the technology, we have the money. We have men, we have rockets. Why have we not yet sent a manned mission to Mars? Why are we still dicking around sending out probes to study comets? If it comes to raising taxes in every country that has a space agency, go ahead and do it, just get a man to Mars. It's absolutely inconceivable that we haven't at least laid concrete plans to put men on Mars ASAP.

What do you think?

I find the lack of progress over 30 years both depressing and suspicious.
Makes me wonder if there is some truth in the paranoid conspiracy theories.

e.g. The Appollo astronauts encountered aliens (or a pop up box) that explained that further manned exploration was forbidden (or when God created the world he had set the Alpha Centauri and most like the UN acclamation victory conditions off and the USA had to go for a conquest victory).

 

[LucyDuke]

Also, a telescope on the dark side of the moon would offer some incredibly crisp and clear images of space because it's shielded from the sun

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.

 

[MadScotsMan]

It takes around 8 months, its not like we are going to the planet of the apes.

I thought it took two years....but I don't read up on space travel so meh

 

[carmen510]

We should first take care of Global Warming.

Then, we should take care of any major funding-draining projects/wars and finish them. (Which would be global warming and the Iraq War)

Then, we need to get a unified EU/China/Japan/US coalition of space exploration for collaboration of technologies.

Then, we should go to the Moon.

Problem:

Mars is actually easier to colonize than the Moon. Moon has regolith, a dust, but it can turn into a solid and clog up any of our advanced equipment, not to mention you can't penetrate deeper than 6 inches of regolith...

Still, we should try to come up with ways to colonize the Moon, we all know aliens or an evil dictator will eventually bring about the destruction of Earth.

 

[Mirc]

Mars is actually easier to colonize than the Moon. Moon has regolith, a dust, but it can turn into a solid and clog up any of our advanced equipment, not to mention you can't penetrate deeper than 6 inches of regolith...

I'm not so sure about this. Right now, both are clearly impossible to colonize. Right? (or do you believe they are colonizable and the government keeps everything hidden? ) So I'd say they are right now perfectly equally hard to colonize. Since the colonization of either would require a major breakthrough (or more than one!), I think it's safe to say we simply don't know which one is harder to colonize.

 

[Eli]

I agree that manned missions right now aren't the best choice. But what annoys me is that we don't even think in terms of permanent colonization. Artificial habitat technology, health is less than 1g conditions research, miniature fail-safe nuclear reactors, etc. That's what we should be focusing on.

 

[bhsup]

Humanity's future is in the heavens. I am absolutely with Pasi on this.
Oh, btw, funding spent on space exploration has a positive effect on the economy. The returns are far greater than the initial expediture to do the actual missions.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There are many trillions of things more important than going to Mars.

The energy crisis & climate change being the top two.

And exactly HOW much money is going into that? Assuming we can stop the latter, which I don't think we can.

Tell us why we need to get to Mars so badly first.

This is also a good question. I agree, Pasi, that colonizing the stars are of great importance, but what is it that specifically makes Martian inhabitation so imperative?

It takes around 8 months, its not like we are going to the planet of the apes.

You're right, we're leaving the Planet of the Apes!

If there is no humanity left, we probably did something extremely stupid to get ourselves killed in the first place.

Either that, or someone gets Diplomatic Victory.

 

[El Koeno]

Humanity's future is in the heavens. I am absolutely with Pasi on this.
Oh, btw, funding spent on space exploration has a positive effect on the economy. The returns are far greater than the initial expediture to do the actual missions.

I don't know...

You'd be using a lot of brain power, raw materials, high tech manufacturing capacity etc. to blast a few people off into space. How's that going to make us happier than if we would have just used all those resources to make TVs? Or medical equipment? Or improved crop varieties? I'd say any of those things would be better for our well being (and thus for the economy) than a manned mission to Mars.