The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

SpaceNut · 2005-05-12 20:10:31

I think we have forgotten how we transformed from being explorer to one of settler. Through explorer we went from adventure, to trying to live off the land and so much more but at some point when he kept returning to further explore. The explorer changed to one of settler by choice for he had satisfied his need to explore. He enjoyed where his feet had traveled enough to stay thou it was rough and tough to do so.

Commodore · 2005-05-12 20:19:34

A big part of the appeal is simply taming an untamed land.

There isn't a whole lot of that left on earth.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-12 20:23:05

Dook,

When you add Scientists ( in all fields ), Medical Physicians, Engineers, Agriculturists, Miners, Material Refiners, Construction Workers, Administration Staff, Space Crews, all their families and more. Would add up to more than 50,000 over three planetary bodies and asteroids.

I am saying that the bulk of personnel will be in earth orbit, on Moon and Mars. I am not saying that its going to be easy to build but it will progress over time from 2045 - 2105.

We are not using the 50,000 as test subjects these people will be living productive lives outside the earth (terra) and helping to innovate and expand the frontiers of knowledge for humanity as well.

Our solar system is a "local street" and our local stars are our neigbourhood and we haven't go to deep space yet. I think you have an issue about using other technology ( Non-NASA ) that could be used to improve the prospects for settlement.

You have a low opinion of our scientists, they would jump for joy when a major strategy for advancement of humans into space and that continued funding along those lines. The scientists that wouldn't like this strategy would be the ones that don't have research that could be used for those purposes. That should be funded through the National Science Foundation and not NASA because the job for NASA is to get humans into space and all research satellites, probes, and landers should be focused for that goal in mind.

Gennaro · 2005-05-12 20:45:34

Deleted a post. Guess I was carried away by my old rethorics while adding little of substance.

Grypd · 2005-05-13 03:28:44

Wrong place to post but for Dook here it is

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … l]National Geographic Article

This species of Man called Homo Floresiensis lived in a specialised enviroment and hunted pygmy elephants while avoiding being eaten by dragons(Komodo). They where called Hobbits by the researchers who have been finding there remains as the race would have stood about the height of a 3-4 year old child about 3 feet high fully grown. About 12000 years ago a volcanic eruption destroyed there world and the species died out.

Grypd · 2005-05-13 04:38:45

My belief is that we should go into space with the determination to actually stay and to prosper. Science is essential but it is not the holy grail that should make us go forward, it is just the tool that will allow us to actually accomplish our goals.

Still we do throw around the number 50,000 people but that requires a new change in the launch technology we have on Earth and a willingness to change it. 100% reusable space planes either TSTO or OSTO are needed but we have to first prove that the investment that will be needed in creating them is worth it.

And 50'000 people going to space is not actually that high a number look at Heathrow or one of the other big airports and you will see that number is a quiet day for them. And one day soon we will have this for launches to LEO and beyond. Hopefully

SpaceNut · 2005-05-13 05:50:23

50,000 is not all that large, convert the shuttle into a space airliner to carry 100 to orbit per trip, use a reusuable orbit to orbit vehicle to the destination of choice and 500 trip later you have achieved the goal.

Our pioneers of old achieved by ther own investment for the journey into the unknown of the uncharted territory to which they eventually settled. Space is not all that different for the ones that are leading the charge to suborbit, with a little luck will but have only a few to achieve orbit but of those they will have invested and learned how to do what has already been done only differently.

Dook · 2005-05-13 17:25:51

Sounds easy when you put it into those childish terms. Except like a child you leave out all the details, the ones that are going to kill these people as fast as you ship them off world.

Details like: where are they going to get their food from? Take a peak at how much food 50,000 people eat a day.
Where are they going to get their oxygen? Energy?
Where is the rocket fuel going to come from for the orbit vehicle?
Where are they going to get repair parts from?
Where is the money going to come from for all of this?
How is NASA going to do this on $16 billion a year when it is stuck funding the CEV, research, and ISS until 2030?

Also give me some dates of when you expect to have this space station, moon base, mars base, and then asteroid base. Include population estimates as you go.

dicktice · 2005-05-13 18:54:58

Ahem: "Simplistic" yes, "childish" no. You denegrate your list of questions by preceding them with an insulting put-down like that. Why not make this a brainstorm session, bounded by the involvement of present technology, current workforce and international financial support? Give the guy a chance, and the rest of us who are interested in the near future, to answer your perfectly legitimate questions--except the culminating one that begins: "How is NASA going to ..." as too restrictive. For instance, MarsNut might give us a timeframe and a destination, to start with. Stick the the Hows, and leave the Whys for another session. You might be surprised how "childish" your reply comes across to the rest of us, who have been bashing away at these questions over the years. Think of it as an opportunity to get yourself out of a rut represented by NASA's self-imposed quandry. Think internationally, for the sake of the brainstorm session. Are you/we up to it?

Dook · 2005-05-13 19:44:45

You've got to be kidding. 50,000 people in space in less than one hundred years? That's pure science fiction. We will be lucky to have a small crew on mars by 2030.

And it's been a brainstorming session. Here's what the kids have come up with so far, "Pioneers will do it! 350 androids! Recycle orbital space junk! Offworld mining," even though it doesn't bring in as much as it would spend on itself.

And we are on page 13, he's had plenty of time to detail just HOW he is going to put 50,000 people (someone thought that wasn't enough and wants ten million!) into space and all I ever here is "Dook you have issues, blah, blah. No faith in scientists, blah, blah..." Get real.

Fine. It doesn't have to be NASA. Go ahead and use ESA. Japan, China, whatever. Use your Global Business Entity, even though it doesn't really exist. You can fabricate a fictional business who's sole purpose will be to deplete all of it's resources just to put people in space for no return on it's investment whatsoever but you can't fabricate the technology to do it in 100 years.

Oh, and no, I'm not going to help you. It's not up to me to figure out how you are going to accomplish this. I don't think it's possible nor is it even a good thing to do or attempt.

Good luck. The clock is ticking...

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-13 22:41:57

Dook

You want some details ok:

We start with the infrastructure Issues - 2008-2025

1. Structure of an organization for the creation of space as a permanent place for humanity and not just on earth. Including Space Education and Technical Education Institute for the development of space settlement. Providing a large institute devoted in space research for private sector advancements in space.

2. Education, Training of personnel for tele-robotic systems for work from earth and within offworld sites ( both space station and planetary bases.

3. Pilot developments of Moon Bases and Space Station environments and train personnel to function in a command structure.

3. Pilot Developments of Large scale robotic construction and assembly systems for space and open hanger facilities in space and on the moon.

4. Research into new generation HTOL spacecraft developments that can be recycled in space and other human centric space vessels that are reuseable.

5. Establishment of an automated factory manufacturing of base components for space requires including solar panels, electronic circurity and more.

6. Command Infrastructure for a space port HTOL launches including the assembly facilities for HTOL Vehicles both manned and unmanned.

7. Income Stream establishement and generating the US$100+ Billions per year.

8. A series of launches will supply the necessary components in orbit to create a large scale spinning space station for residential use for permanent crews in orbit.

9. Increase the Tele-robotic teams in orbit and establish construction zones for rapid development of cargo transports for the lunar surface. Including construction of a large mobile solar array that can generate 10 Megawatts for lunar surface development. Continue development of more vessels for other activities listed below.

10. Launch a group of space crafts designed for landing on the moon and carry the necessary supplies to commence development of a large scale moon base for human.

11. Launch a group of cargo vessels designed for mining operations fo the lunar surface

12. Launch a large unmanned satellite / probe / science platform vessel to place navigation+communication and recon probes for the inner and outer planets and provide continuous science information and on-board experiments.

Current space population would approximately be 200-500

Next Level to Mars 2025-2040

13. We expand the infrastructure in orbit and continue to expand facilities on the moon including vehicle assembly bay for large vessels, increasing moon bases including a multiple radio telescope array on the far side of the moon. establishment of permanent transport routes and increase human traffic to the lunar surface expanding the mineral processing, food processing and training facilities.

14. Launch two missions to Mars in groups of four vessels ( 1 mars rated power array, 2 cargo and one human ) to setup two different sites one primary for the establishment of a future settlement and the other for food processing and exploration.

15. While the two explorer missions are underway on Mars the construction of a large scale human-centric vessel capable of moving 30-75 personnel + crew to mars and back, would be under construction on the Moon and a fleet of cargo vessels would be in orbit and on the moon.

Space Population by 2030 be 1000-2000 the framework on the interplanetary economy takes shape.

16. Another specialized vessels would be under development - Mining and processing vessel for asteroid mining ventures. and in earth orbit the creation of a mobile space station and repair bay for movement to Mars.

17. Launch a large convoy from earth and moon to Mars carrying some 60 personnel, permanent structures for base construction, construction droids, and supplies required. By this time the Agriculture Explorer Mission has complete the development of a large cultivated automated farm development.

18. Launch of the Mining and processing vessel for service into the asteroid belt. and start development of second cargo transport fleet of vessels on the launar surface.

Space Population by 2038 approximately 3000-5000 and the first major L Point Station for 10,000 people are under development.

Next Level 2040-2055

19. The Launch of the Mobile space station to Mars and Repair Bay and the second cargo fleet to Mars with more supplies and equipment for rapid development of the Martian Surface resources and the second human-centric vessel carrying another 60 personnel for expanding the settlement, manufacturing and exploration.

20. By this time the resources provided for the Martian surface will support 250 personnel and the two human-centric vessels are send back to earth to collect another 120 personnel. ( emergency provisions are in place to evacute the planet if necessary)

21. Completion of L Point Biosphere Station and commence movement of personnel into space to live aboard the biosphere and work either on the sphere, earth orbit or on the moon. The space population will creep past 10,000 by 2045-2048.

22. More Human-centric vessels are under construction by this time these will be upgrade versions of the future ships and would have faster drives and provide more space for more human passengers and same crew space - increasing the passenger numbers to 100-175 per vessel.

23. With the establishment of the required infrastructure and the added resources coming back to the interplanetary economy from the asteroid belt the expansion will continue.

Over the next 50 year the human race continue the growth of 1000 personnel per year in all activities in earth orbit , L points, Moon, Mars and the new missions to the outer planets and there moons to increase our understanding, and resources. We will have alot of next generation space laboratories in earth orbit, on the moon, in orbit of Mars and standalone in our star system.

Dook, I have given you a little more detailed outline of the process from 2008-2105 and the population grow for that time period. We have the technology to achieve that, but we lack the will to make hard decisions to implement that growth in space. Of course we have people also like Dook that doesn't see that this is possible to construct and its a logical plan and can be effective to deliver the human race to the next level of human evolution and revolution.

Before you try and shot holes in the outlined plan the budget is 2015 - 2055 = 40 years at US$100 Billion = 4 Trillion Dollars + Lunar mineral resources, food resources , Martian mineral resources, food resources and the asteroid belt mineral resources without talking about the value of the resources for 2055 -2105. I think we have the resources. !!!!!!!!!!

dicktice · 2005-05-14 12:13:47

It's 1900, and you belong to the Aeronauts Society. What will be possible technologically 100 years from now? Regulaly scheduled dirigibles, airships that can be guided about the skies just as an ocean liner is steered about the seas! Steam-powered cars in place of horse carriages, with enclosed cockpits, roll-down windows, self charging batteries for electric blankets and lights for travelling at night, fueling stations along macadam-layered two-lane hiways. Railway steam trains with every convenience of home, travelling at 100 miles per hour and more nonstop between cities. Worldwide wireless Morse-code communication using the Marconi technique. Physical science has come up with answers to every imaginable challange Your mind boggles!
Now it's 1910, and the same question comes up. Airships circumnavating the Earth pole-to-pole, with all the conveniences of home. Electrically-powered cars in place of steamers, with lightweight efficient batteries for all the comforts of home, with replacement battery stations along four-lane concrete paved turnpikes. Electric railway trains like rolling hotels, for intercontenental travel, worldwide, with trans-ocean airship connections, as well as aeroplane taxi services to midcontenent city centres. Picture telephone service between buildings within cities. Worldwide radio-telephony communication using vacuum tube amplification technique. Physical science has been turned on its head.Your mind continues to boggle on.
Now it's today, with your predictations for the coming 100 years,made every 10 years,compounding in error until almost nothing technological today is acrding to your attempts at prdictions.
Okay, in 100 years, we're gonna have ...

Palomar · 2005-05-14 12:29:18

*But dicktice, in the early 20th century people still had a lot of the "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality. They were hard workers; go-getters; were generally more disciplined; accepted and were mindful of responsibility; etc.

Nowadays most folks prefer watching Stupid Celebrity or Wannabe Celebrity Tricks on TV.

Frankly, we're in a serious slump.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-05-14 12:37:24

You know what, there's just no point in arguing with all of that. A child could see it.

Sarcasm.

dicktice · 2005-05-14 12:46:04

Cindy: There's a great big world out there where what you refer to is going on, even as we dither.
Dook: My point, exactly.

Gennaro · 2005-05-14 16:31:36

It's 1900, and you belong to the Aeronauts Society. What will be possible technologically 100 years from now? Regulaly scheduled dirigibles, airships that can be guided about the skies just as an ocean liner is steered about the seas! Steam-powered cars in place of horse carriages, with enclosed cockpits, roll-down windows, self charging batteries for electric blankets and lights for travelling at night, fueling stations along macadam-layered two-lane hiways. Railway steam trains with every convenience of home, travelling at 100 miles per hour and more nonstop between cities. Worldwide wireless Morse-code communication using the Marconi technique. Physical science has come up with answers to every imaginable challange Your mind boggles!
Now it's 1910, and the same question comes up. Airships circumnavating the Earth pole-to-pole, with all the conveniences of home. Electrically-powered cars in place of steamers, with lightweight efficient batteries for all the comforts of home, with replacement battery stations along four-lane concrete paved turnpikes. Electric railway trains like rolling hotels, for intercontenental travel, worldwide, with trans-ocean airship connections, as well as aeroplane taxi services to midcontenent city centres. Picture telephone service between buildings within cities. Worldwide radio-telephony communication using vacuum tube amplification technique. Physical science has been turned on its head.Your mind continues to boggle on.
Now it's today, with your predictations for the coming 100 years,made every 10 years,compounding in error until almost nothing technological today is acrding to your attempts at prdictions.
Okay, in 100 years, we're gonna have ...

*Laughs*.
Great fun post there, dicktice. Can't resist some nitpicking though. By 1900 gas driven automobiles had taken over from steamcars. They were a fairly common sight in Berlin and Paris at the time, although it admittedly took longer for the US to catch up. In the United States most early cars were in fact electrical and only used locally in urban settings (due to the undeveloped road network).
Also, by 1900 telegraph wire was old hat, the telephone already having reached a decent spread, so people at that time probably wouldn't have expected "worldwide wireless Morse-code communication using the Marconi technique" as the next big thing.

By the way, I agree with Cindy. Technological advances don't seem to change the world at nearly the same pace as they once did.

Fledi · 2005-05-14 17:25:52

Technological advances coming at a slower pace?
Just think about the internet, genetic engineering, automated factories, computer designed machines or nanotechnology.
I agree, the space program in particular didn't advance at all, but these inventions could very well be the prerequisites it lacked so far. Some time ago I heard the electric light bulb had already been invented in mid 19th century, they just lacked the means to mass-produce it cheaply. Then Edison came and invented the dynamo and a more efficient vacuum pump, followed by Tesla's alternating current. At the same time big advances have been made with electric engines.
It was the combination of all these technologies which resulted in the real boom of electricity at the beginning of the 20th century.
I agree that the western world is loosing it's premier place in driving things forward, because we have become lazy from all the luxury in recent time. But there are other regions like China and India where the opposite is happening and if we can't keep it up they will take over the lead.
But everyone of us can contribute to keep up the pace, if just by promoting a better future and also looking at the positive side of technological advances, not just at all worst case scenarios.

Rxke · 2005-05-14 22:34:05

By the way, I agree with Cindy. Technological advances don't seem to change the world at nearly the same pace as they once did.

you've got to be kidding, no?
Tech advancements are going faster and faster, large scale implementations of said advancements likewise, because the market is actively looking for the next 'killer-app,' just follow the tech news. despite the typical comment a la: where's my flying car they promised us 30 years ago, a lot of stuff that IS more practical than flying cars gets into our hands every day.
I sometimes argue with people it takes about three years from the 'we found something amazingly new cool tech,' announcement in the press to actual wide-scale commercialisation-usage. Of course 99% of the cool-new tech never reaches the market, but mostentimes there's a good reason for that.
there are several flying cars, already being built, but no-one in his right mind wants to see 16 years old landing on your roof at 2 AM
My uncle, working at the engineering dept. of an uni, recently told me about the gadget-craze Japanese delegation with their translator PDA's, they said something in japanese, and out came the translation in beautiful sounding English, another one had a cell-phone with GPS built in, it struck him what an amazing computing-power we were starting to wear, right in our pockets...

Blahblahblah...

Childish, idiot, stupid... Words that are becoming increasingly popular in the forums... And they do not add to any discussion, IMO.
We do not need another space.com messageboard, where everyone is just yelling at eachother, just because opinions differ.
Can't we just respectfully disagree, or is that too childish?

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-15 00:37:22

Rxke,

Ýou are right, You are also right about the pocket PCs and Phones at the end of the year we will have a Pocket PC with built-in HD 3-6GBs, dual core systems, flash drives at 2GB, Blueray DVD-R/RW Backup Storage up to 50GBs and more. But that won't help the missions outside the atomsphere. We need a whole new methodology for micro-circuitry platforms for space based on the repairability in space. ( Not throw away )

We also need information stoarge upwards of 1TB onboard spacecrafts for long duration missions and scientific work. All this technology is required for building a human presence in space for the future evolution of humanity.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-15 08:11:31

By the way, I agree with Cindy. Technological advances don't seem to change the world at nearly the same pace as they once did.

What? Whats this? Excuse me? Rxke is right more then he knows... technology is rapidly accelerating, faster then it has in our history, it just doesn't seem like it to the "average joe" because these improvements are becomming more and more subtle and difficult for the average person to comprihend.

Here's a sign that science is progressing very fast that you can fathom...: that science fiction authors rarely dare to tread into the "near future" subgenre.

RobertDyck · 2005-05-17 19:08:54

At the Mars Society Canada Annual General Meeting there was a presentation by Pascal Lee on reasons to go. He said most humans are not explorers. He claimed most humans stay at home where it's safe, a population has a very small proportion of explorers to benefit the community as a whole but most individuals are not. So he claimed this is not a reason to go to Mars. He pointed out that JFK only chose the Moon as a destination because the Russians were first at everything else (first animal in space, first man in space, first woman in space, first space walk, etc.) so America needed a goal that Russia couldn't achieve while America was working on it. He had a whole list of reasons not to go. He claimed the only reason to go was National Security. To prevent China or India from establishing a base on a lunar pole.

Now seriously, is the only thing the American can do is spoil someone else's program? I would like to believe America can actually be constructive. A spoiler is someone who must be stopped for the greater good of everyone. Please tell me America is capable of actually achieving something, not just abandoning all progress as soon as the competition's program is spoiled.

RobertDyck · 2005-05-17 21:32:12

I tried to think "why" myself. What I came up with as a reason to go to space, Mars is just the best place to build homes.

The U.S. has a terrible dependence on foreign oil. There are painfully few hydroelectric power plants. Coal releases more radioactive waste into the environment than a nuclear power plant, and that doesn't include acid rain caused by sulphur emissions, global warming from carbon dioxide, or old fashioned pollution from unburned coal dust. There are many alternatives including tidal harness (put a dam across an ocean bay forcing tidal water through turbines), wind mills, solar thermal (mirrors focussing on a tower), geothermal, and others. You can make long distance power transmission a lot more efficient with carbon nanofibre power lines which are 30 times as conductive as copper, but the best fibres so far are only a few millimetres long. You can't make a power cable from strands of only a few millimetres.

The best solutions include building new houses with a solar panel roof and geothermal heat pump; a horizontal ground loop is ~3 feet deep but requires a large yard, a vertical ground loop is ~50 feet deep and works in the smallest yard. Convert lighting to compact fluorescent and use energy efficient appliances: microwave oven, fridge, washer, dryer, freezer. That can eliminate utility bills and actually sell power to the grid in summer for northern states or winter for southern states. This would eliminate domestic power consumption and heating oil/gas.

Farm equipment like tractors, combines, grain/produce trucks, as well as 18-wheel highway trucks (semi) can be fuelled by bio-diesel. That's made from dirty cooking oil. Ensure all fast food restaurants sell their used cooking oil to a processing plant to make bio-diesel rather than throwing it out. Farmers could grow oil seed like canola, sunflower or corn specifically to fuel their farm vehicles. An untapped business opportunity is to manufacture small scale oil extraction equipment that can convert raw grain from a combine into bio-diesel. But even with all the fat fried food America eats, there's a limited supply of used cooking oil. Bio-diesel has to be reserved for highway trucks.

Cars require hydrogen fuel cells. That can be made on-site at gas stations from water and electricity. All the various alternate electricity production systems can complete, based on cost. Hydrogen fuel cell cars exhaust pure water, eliminating smog, and efficient electric motors are silent. Good electric motors can operate in reverse, working as regenerative breaks. That converts car motion into electricity that can be stored in the battery, to be used when the car accelerates. Storing some of the energy at a red light so it can be re-used at the green light makes such cars much more efficient for city driving. Fuel tanks can be fibreglass lined with plastic film, and carbon nanofibre fill binds hydrogen so the tank holds 3 times as much hydrogen for a given pressure. Size and weight of the tank is based on pressure, so this makes a practical tank. The new method of growing carbon nanofibres in water produces a few millimetre length, much better than the fraction of a millimetre produced before. That isn't long enough for power cables, but is perfect for fuel tank fill. The carbon nonofibres also release hydrogen relatively slowly; faster than a car can use but slow enough that it can't explode. Such a tank can be made now and makes hydrogen cars safe and practical.

Fuel cells use proton transport membranes, which are plastic film coated in layer of platinum. It isn't much platinum, but worldwide production of new cars is so great that if all new cars used fuel cells they would overwhelm worldwide platinum production. There are a few large untapped platinum mines, like the major deposit under the nickel/platinum mines in Sudbury Canada. A representative of the Falconbridge Mine told me we were standing on the world's largest deposit but it's over 800 metres down! Which is easier? Mining half a mile down or mining an M-type near Earth asteroid for platinum?

In addition to platinum for fuel cells, M-type asteroids have all the precious metals.

C-type near Earth asteroids have water ice. A drill into the asteroid with a heater on the bottom can sublimate ice, which will re-freeze around the drill pipe sealing the hole. Once sealed it can build enough pressure to support liquid water. That pressure will push dirty water up the pipe; it'll literally be a gusher. That water can be filtered, purified with reverse osmosis filters, and electrolysis can split it into hydrogen & oxygen for rocket fuel. All the heat would come from mirrors and power from photovoltaic panels. There's continuous sunlight 24/7 in space. Military spy satellites need fuel, commercial satellites such as digital satellite TV, weather satellites, and old fashioned telephone satellites need fuel to stay in position. Space stations and space hotels in LEO need lots of fuel. Space mining for rocket fuel will be big business.

These mining operations will need equipment. It's very expensive to send everything from Earth. The Moon has aluminum, titanium, and oxygen, but doesn't have carbon, nitrogen, or hydrogen. That makes the Moon dependant on imports for rocket fuel and smelting supplies, and it will never be able to make plastics. Iron will always be much cheaper from an M-type near Earth asteroid than from the Moon. Mars has everything it needs for an industrial economy, as well as atmosphere to protect colonists from radiation and micrometeoroids, and most importantly gravity. It would cost less to send food and rocket fuel from the surface of Mars to the surface of the Moon than from Earth. The obvious location to provide equipment and supplies for near Earth asteroid mining is Mars.

Space tourism has already started. A couple tourists have already visited ISS. Scaled Composites has a contract to sell suborbital vehicles to Virgin Atlantic. Burt Rutan said he expects suborbital tourism within 5 years. Bigelow wants to build orbital hotels and offered a prize for an orbital space taxi. Where will tourists depart from? The departure terminal will be big business. Which country wants to get rich?

A Mars colony is a part of all that, to keep maintenance cost down. This is the real reason to go to Mars: profit.

SpaceNut · 2017-01-08 21:30:00

Sorry bump fixing topic shifting and artifacts from prior versions used for the forum...
Stopped at post #88

GW Johnson · 2017-01-09 15:37:21

You go to Mars for the same reasons that you climb a mountain or dive to the bottom of the sea: (1) because it's there and you aren't, and (2) because you can. That second item determines when you go. Simple as that. All the other arguments are BS.

We have gone "because it was there" and as soon as "we actually can go", since the migrations out of Africa the best part of a million years ago, before we even were the species we are today. There's long history of that. Denying it is insane.

For humans to reach Mars and return alive became barely possible late in the 20th century. It was then, and still is today, just about as difficult and risky for us to do that, as it was for our ancestors to cross the Atlantic and explore the Americas from Europe, in the 15th century.

The same was true for going to the moon in the late 1950's early 1960's.

It's past time to make the attempt.

GW

louis · 2017-01-09 17:05:59

It's been more a failure of will than anything else. Musk has refreshed the whole scene by reintroducing the vital will to achieve.

Clearly Musk's great motivation is to create a new home on Mars for humanity and thus save humanity from an extinction event on Earth.

That's a pretty good motivation.

I think there are many good reasons to go to Mars.

One good reason is that it's much easier to live well there than, say, on the top of Mount Everest.

Another is that whoever does it could make a large profit from doing it.

Personally, I think it will just be a very exciting, enlightening, ennobling and unifying project for humanity.

GW Johnson wrote:

You go to Mars for the same reasons that you climb a mountain or dive to the bottom of the sea: (1) because it's there and you aren't, and (2) because you can. That second item determines when you go. Simple as that. All the other arguments are BS.
We have gone "because it was there" and as soon as "we actually can go", since the migrations out of Africa the best part of a million years ago, before we even were the species we are today. There's long history of that. Denying it is insane.
For humans to reach Mars and return alive became barely possible late in the 20th century. It was then, and still is today, just about as difficult and risky for us to do that, as it was for our ancestors to cross the Atlantic and explore the Americas from Europe, in the 15th century.
The same was true for going to the moon in the late 1950's early 1960's.
It's past time to make the attempt.
GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-05-12 20:10:31

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#177 2005-05-12 20:19:34

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#178 2005-05-12 20:23:05

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#179 2005-05-12 20:45:34

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#180 2005-05-13 03:28:44

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#181 2005-05-13 04:38:45

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#182 2005-05-13 05:50:23

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#183 2005-05-13 17:25:51

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#184 2005-05-13 18:54:58

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#185 2005-05-13 19:44:45

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#186 2005-05-13 22:41:57

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#187 2005-05-14 12:13:47

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#188 2005-05-14 12:29:18

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#189 2005-05-14 12:37:24

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#190 2005-05-14 12:46:04

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#191 2005-05-14 16:31:36

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#192 2005-05-14 17:25:52

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#193 2005-05-14 22:34:05

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#194 2005-05-15 00:37:22

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#195 2005-05-15 08:11:31

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#196 2005-05-17 19:08:54

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#197 2005-05-17 21:32:12

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#198 2017-01-08 21:30:00

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#199 2017-01-09 15:37:21

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#200 2017-01-09 17:05:59

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

Board footer