Humans to Mars a Principle of Space Exploration:

I was talking about robotics spacecraft and robots on other planets doing what humans can do. Perhaps you didn't understand me and now I hope you do. What is it I said that confuses you? Please reread my statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh no, I am not confused, you are. Contradictory posts? You want or don't want settling on Mars.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm all for robots going to Mars and doing the work there that humans could do without all the risks and money it would take to establish a human colony. Why send humans to a planet that can't support them and humans will need billions of dollars in support money to even try to survive there. Humans have no air to breathe,no water to drink, no food to eat, no protection from radioactivity and on and on.

What I would ask is if you want to send humans there knowing all of these risks why do you want them to try and survive there?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because some day they won't need billions of dollars in support money to survive there. They will have food to eat, air to breathe, water to drink and protection from radioactivity.

 

So spend billions to send a few humans to Mars that may or may not survive. Remember governments change so if humans are sent there today in 10 years the spending for them might be cut.

Lets see if we can send a space vehicle there land then take off and come back to Earth. I'd think that would be a better idea.

 

Sure, that's a good first step. But putting people up there to stay for good should be a long term goal.

Which is a good argument for becoming self-sufficient within 10 years.

 

Might I ask why is it you feel we need to put humans on Mars so quickly? Why not wait and see if scientists can make a engine which can go allot faster than now to get there and back much faster in case of problems.

 

Fast or slow, and whatever method, if they are able to get there at this time, all well and good.
There is no legitimate reason why any manned viable Mars attempt should be abandoned.
I firmly believe if not for economics and politics, we could be there now.

I also have great admiration for the individuals and companies that are going to attempt this feat, and particularly for the Astronauts that have volunteered to go.
I think they are biting off more then they can chew, but at the same time, I hope to f%$# I am wrong and that they are able to succeed.

 

So where are those billionaires out there to do that instead of a government? If they thought it would garner more money for them they would have already built the colony according to you. Alas , nothing yet has been done by the private sector.

 

http://www.mars-one.com/

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/author/bte-dan


http://100yss.org/mission/team


http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?page_id=2118


I'm really not sure what you are after, or what you expect, but in the end man will step foot on Mars, and in the course of time, go much further afield.
Difficult? Dangerous? Confronting? Beyond present day technology?
Sure, but we'll still do it.
We have been exploring ever since we climbed down out of the trees, and that aspect of our nature will never stop, whether for sheer adventure, or for the need of survival of the human race...It will be done.
As I said previously, we were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb.

Still not really sure what your gripe against going to Mars as soon as practicable is. :shrug:

 

Because there are so many problems to solve for one thing. There's nothing that can stop a solar flares radiation or cosmic radiation from penetrating anything that is made.

Here's another thing, the earth has many ecological problems that should be dealt with first because if we destroy our environment we destroy ourselves.

Then there's poverty, starvation by millions and diseases just to name a few other things that need doing.

 

Sure, we can develop that. (Although what is keeping us from doing that is primarily political, not technological. We have such engines now.) But we can start now; we don't need to wait for those engines.

Actually simple water will do that. So will dirt.

Here's one:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musk-we-need-million-people-colonize-mars-n215121
Of course it would take more than just his money to make it a reality.

 

There were also problems with Columbus discovering the America's and James Cook discovering New Zealand and Australia.
They also once said the same thing about going to the Moon and the Van-Allen radiation belts.

Sure....and I'm positive it would be more productive all round to somehow solve these problems with reduced militaristic endeavours, and armies, navies and air force spending.
Plus of course space endeavours has contributed much to sciences such as agriculture, meteorolgy etc and subsequently helped to alleviate such problems as hunger etc...Think of the common Satellite.

Sure! Take the money from the reduced militaristic endeavours world wide...should amount to many many millions...even trillions of dollars.
In the meantime, we'll continue outwards and upwards, for adventure and science and because its there.

 

Water and dirt. Just how much is needed, which would be very problematic because of the weight and I'd like you to show how cosmic rays can't penetrate water or dirt.

One and they have not even put a manned spaceship onto the moon.Not even a habitat to see what will work.

 

An American President once was quoted as saying....

A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties.
Harry Truman:

 

Mars has only 38% the gravity of Earth or Venus. It is not known if it could hold on to a nice thick, heavy atmosphere like Earth or Venus. It has no magnetosphere, no protection from solar radiation. Terraforming the planet won't add a magnetosphere.

Astronauts lose 1% of their bone density per month they spend in the microgravity environment. Even with exercise, astronauts experience severe loss of muscle mass & strength. It is not known what will happen to humans in the low gravity environment of Mars.

Estimates for terraformimg Mars run from 500 years to 100,ooo,ooo years. Up to that time, the colony will need constant supplies from Earth.

 

You make some valid and sensible points here; especially when you say that terraforming won't add a magnetosphere, but magnets and magnetic fields can be created, albeit our only experience is on a much smaller scale, but then every thing is on a smaller scale than terraforming an entire planet. Consider also the abundance of iron ore on Mars. So it seems possible to 'build' a magnetosphere there.

I think we need to hope Lockheed-Martin will invent this new fusion engine they promised to have a working model of in ten years. Having that kind of power available would solve a lot of problems. People could even live in a 'centrifugal village' that mimics earth gravity, and they wouldn't need to worry about bone mass loss so much.

I found that 500 years to 100,000,000-year guesstimate sad and yet laughable. What sort of estimate is that!? That's like estimating the number of pennies you might find on the ground during the county fair as between five and on million! Sheesh!

 

Well:
1) We don't need a "nice, heavy, thick" atmosphere - just one that can sustain an ecosystem. The gravity is adequate for that; the big problem is the lack of a magnetic field.

They will lose muscle mass as they adapt to the lower gravity. (Probably also live longer due to the lower stress on their hearts.)

Not once they are self sufficient. You do not need to complete terraforming for that to happen.

 

I'll ask again why is it there's a hurry to get to Mars?

 

I don't see any hurry?
Maybe you're confusing natural space progress, and preparation as being in a hurry.
Me? I highly commend it.