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

Exir · 2005-04-30 02:17:28

Before I give my opinions on the reasons to go to mars, I'd first like to talk about the Apollo Program:

When the Apollo Program ended, countless Americans were complaining: What did we get besides a few hundred kilograms of Moonrock? Time proved that they got more. Much more than they had ever imagined. Let me present a few facts...

1. For every dollar that is spent on Apollo, America gets a return of 5$.

2. Personal computers and even the Internet has deep roots in the Apollo program.

3. Microwave ovens!!! The invention of this cool technology has a lot to do with Apollo.

4. Skylab is the aftermass (I'd rather call it an extention) of Apollo, and it taught us a lot about the Sun, humans under micro-gravity, etc.

5. America's fast growth of economy after the Apollo program is a direct result of the Apollo Program itself.

6. For every dollar that is spent on Apollo, America gets a return of 5$. Did I mention that before?

Now, onto the reasons of going to Mars. Critics say that we have enough problems to solve on our Mother Planet, and the money to be spent on a Human Mars Mission is better used for other things. Although they claim that it is more realistic to spend the money on a Mars Mission on other things, I think that it's very near-sighted. The Apollo program is a proof that a Human Mission to Mars will not be a waste of money. Share you thoughts

--Exir

PS. My English is not very good. Sorry for that.

Dook · 2005-04-30 08:46:33

I disagree with you that Americans were complaining after the Apollo program ended. American's didn't end the Apollo program, Nixon did. I have visited many foreign countries and wherever I go I walk with my head high in part because of Apollo but other reasons as well.

I think for the most part you are preaching to the choir. We all want a human mission to mars, just some here want it to go back to the moon before mars and others want a giant emigration of people into space no matter how or where.

The one thing that really bothers me is that no president since Kennedy has had a true vision for space. Skylab was a neat experiment, the shuttle was great for a while, and ISS is giving us some science (I guess?) but we really haven't moved on from Apollo. We have taken steps backwards in my opinion.

MarsDog · 2005-04-30 12:38:27

Robot technology, to prepare the way for safe and comfortable occupation of space, will be here in a few decades. Just in time for Moon and Mars bases.

With rovers manufacturing and then preparing accomodation for humans, space will be easier.

Nuno Cardoso · 2005-05-04 03:35:11

" 2. Personal computers and even the Internet has deep roots in the Apollo program. 3. Microwave ovens!!! The invention of this cool technology has a lot to do with Apollo."

Baloney!!
The spinoffs of Apollo were limited to space technology. I thought everyone knew this by now. I guess NASA´s propaganda is hard to counter.

Nuno Martinho Da Cunha Cardoso
The Author of:" The Diagonal Method: An Alternative Approach To Arithmetics."

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-04 19:04:50

Microwave ovens, teflon, Tang... No one gives a damn.
The real legacy of Apollo is the hundreds of documentaries, books and articles written in tribute, in awe, as we remember that we, as humans working together, could accomplish something so ubelievable.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 21:36:11

Microwave ovens, teflon, Tang... No one gives a damn.
The real legacy of Apollo is the hundreds of documentaries, books and articles written in tribute, in awe, as we remember that we, as humans working together, could accomplish something so ubelievable.

I agree.

Moon: Only if we can mine it and make money. Otherwise, skip it.

Mars: To build a new human civillization.

Commodore · 2005-05-04 21:53:28

Mars: To build a new human civillization.

Of course. Be we'll go broke trying to do that launching from earth.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 22:17:18

Mars: To build a new human civillization.
Of course. Be we'll go broke trying to do that launching from earth.

Moon won't help get to Mars.

Dennis Wingo has convinced me the Moon has reasons all its own, but helping us get to Mars isn't one of them.

Robert M. Blevins · 2005-05-04 22:32:08

I have recently completed a novel about a first mission to Mars. The title is: "The 13th Day Of Christmas."

I disagree with the post that stated nothing relevant came into being from the space program. It wasn't just Apollo. NASA did develop computers smaller than normal for the time, although they only recycled at the rate of once per second.

It is no longer a question of 'if' we are going to Mars. NASA is already making plans to go, as their budget allows.

There are a ton of reasons to go there, but one basic reason is often overlooked: Because there is water on Mars. Recent photos from the Mars Orbiter have shown that water has been upwelling to the surface on Mars, creating small channels, and then evaporating into the atmosphere. We're not talking about a thousand years ago, either. This is happening NOW.

This means water is present on the Red Planet in two places: Underground, and in the ice caps.

Also, Mars is the most likely place to harbor life, besides the Earth.

When the NASA brain boys work on mission plans, they call them 'DRM's'

One of the DRM's calls for an Apollo-type mission to Mars, rather than launching several heavy-lift bodies into orbit first. This means a smaller crew, only one cargo module having to reach Mars before the main spacecraft, and a shorter stay on the surface. (Perhaps 100 days.)

Many at NASA now believe this scenario is the most realistic, and offers the fewest risks.

Commodore · 2005-05-04 22:32:39

Sure it will.

Try to build a colony ship were you have to launch all the HABs from Earth.

Now try with the body of the HABs build out of Lunar iron-nickle, or Titanium, (not to mention radiation shielded by lunar regolith) and now you only have to launch the internal furnishings. You'll cut the number of Earth launches significantly.

Robert M. Blevins · 2005-05-04 22:47:57

Don't fall for all that hoo-rah about going to the moon and setting up there to go to Mars.

Go to the moon, and there's where we'll stay for the next fifty years.

The problem is simple. You want to go to Mars. Transferring all the technology and construction material, dealing with thousands of contractors, etc. Do you think this can be done from the MOON?

Not a chance. It would be a difficult enough proposition from Earth. It is similar to asking NASA to move their operation to Mount Everest and then telling them: Okay, now put together a mission to Mars.

All the technology is already based here. All the equipment is down here, not up there. If we get bogged down on the moon, you can kiss Mars goodbye for at least the next fifty years. Even NASA knows this.

The problems of weight or launch vehicles from Earth pale in comparison to what you would ask. Think of the cost to transport even the smallest bit of material to a base on the moon. Astronomical. You think the costs from Earth would be great? Try moving everything to the Moon and then asking for more money to go to Mars. Romantic idea, often espoused. Won't work.

MarsDog · 2005-05-05 03:46:16

Decision depends on the urgency to set foot on Mars;

(1) Direct to Mars, if soon as possible, for whatever reason.

(2) Expansion of near Earth occupancy, of Moon and
http://www.space.com/news/beyond_iss_020926-1.html] Earth-Moon Lagrange point, L1 -- a literal Gateway to the future of space exploration.

============================================

Seems that the decision has already been made by other nations, near Earth first.
USA will have to at least match Japan, India, China etc. Then, affordable man on Mars will be a result of improved near Earth capabilities.

BWhite · 2005-05-05 08:29:33

Sure it will.
Try to build a colony ship were you have to launch all the HABs from Earth.
Now try with the body of the HABs build out of Lunar iron-nickle, or Titanium, (not to mention radiation shielded by lunar regolith) and now you only have to launch the internal furnishings. You'll cut the number of Earth launches significantly.

This can be done in parallel. Moon-Mars needs to be one word, not two.

RobertDyck · 2005-05-05 09:56:44

" 2. Personal computers and even the Internet has deep roots in the Apollo program. 3. Microwave ovens!!! The invention of this cool technology has a lot to do with Apollo."
Baloney!!
The spinoffs of Apollo were limited to space technology. I thought everyone knew this by now. I guess NASA´s propaganda is hard to counter.

No, you don't realize what happened. According to Intel, they developed the first 4-bit microprocessor (the 4004) to be what they called at that time a Universal Logic Unit, today we call it a Microcontroller. Intel developed it specifically for the Saturn V, to simplify its electronics. They didn't get the contract, but did sell to a Japanese calculator manufacturer. They improved it, reduced the number of support chips and increased it to 8-bit (the 8008). They still didn't get the NASA contract, but did sell to commercial customers. After that Intel gave up on NASA and improved it for the commercial market; that was the 8080 which was the basis of the first Microcomputers, later called Personal Computers.

During the Mercury program, NASA needed a way to monitor the health of astronauts. Doctors used a stethoscope to listen to patients' heart, but you couldn't include a doctor on-board the capsule so they developed an electronic monitoring system; that was the Electro-Cardio Gram, the ECG often mistakenly called the EKG.

NASA needed a light weight durable pressure helmet that wouldn't shatter. They used polycarbonate but needed to ensure it wouldn't scratch, all plastic windows scratch from handling and low Earth orbit has a lot of micrometeoroids. They developed a non-scratch coating for polycarbonate which has been sold to supplier(s) of eye glasses. The scratch resistant coating for polycarbonate eye glasses is the same thing as NASA uses on helmet visors.

Apollo needed a simple way to hold pens and other equipment in place without drifting off in zero gravity. They developed a fabric with a loops that mates to a set of tiny plastic hooks. The hooks are thin so you can bend them open just by pulling on them, but bend back. This is called Velcro.

NASA is responsible for many spin-offs that have no space application today. Many have nothing to do with space. However, don't credit NASA with everything.

The internet was developed by ARPA to provide computer connections between defence research facilities across the United States without a central hub. The concern was to ensure an enemy (at that time the Soviet Union) couldn't knock out the whole network just by bombing one single connection point. The pear-to-pear network would continue working with whatever facilities were left. It was a military invention, not a NASA one.

A radio engineer working on microwave frequency radar systems for military aircraft noticed that strong microwaves tend to heat things. After he finished working on military radar he worked on deliberately using the heating effect of microwaves. The first microwave oven was not nearly as efficient as today's, but it worked. Later the microwave frequency was tuned for maximum absorption by water, present in all food. Would you call microwave ovens a military spin-off, or just a unique invention?

Palomar · 2005-05-05 10:48:15

The real legacy of Apollo is the hundreds of documentaries, books and articles written in tribute, in awe, as we remember that we, as humans working together, could accomplish something so ubelievable.

*I completely agree.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-05 12:58:53

"One of the DRM's calls for an Apollo-type mission to Mars, rather than launching several heavy-lift bodies into orbit first. This means a smaller crew, only one cargo module having to reach Mars before the main spacecraft, and a shorter stay on the surface. (Perhaps 100 days.)"

What? Have you even read the DRM mission plans? The DRM plan has a larger crew than MarsDirect (six seats), it will fly in opposition which will also mean a nice long 500 day stay, and the vehicles are all of reasonable mass instead of trying to cut the toothbrush handles off like MarsDirect. Six HLLV flights will be needed for each expedition initially, but with some modification the system could be made mostly reuseable with only needing two HLLV flights for a crew rotation.

And, this is a smaller, easier, cheaper HLLV then the big and difficult Ares booster.

Dook · 2005-05-05 15:11:05

Try to build a colony ship and launch from earth? Why would we do such a stupid thing? Your lunar base will be so expensive and take so long to build and maintain that we would NEVER go to mars.

Also, even though some of you support the colonization of any damn thing (space, moon, mars, asteroids, mars moons...sheesh!) outside the earth's orbit you are definately the minority.

Here is the main reason why the moon is so not needed. If you have already achieved earth orbit it takes a small amount of fuel to leave it and head off to mars then coast the whole way. So why would we use that fuel to go to the moon, use more fuel to land, then refuel just so we can then escape the moon's gravity?

It's insane, full of risk, and it would take up NASA's entire budget, not just for 50 years but forever since we would have to constantly resupply the moon bases with food and repair parts. If we build a moon base say goodbye to humans on mars in your lifetime.

Commodore · 2005-05-05 15:18:28

Also, even though some of you support the colonization of any damn thing (space, moon, mars, asteroids, mars moons...sheesh!) outside the earth's orbit you are definately the minority.

So, you want to launch the most expensive camping trip in the history of mankind?

Grypd · 2005-05-05 16:08:31

Also, even though some of you support the colonization of any damn thing (space, moon, mars, asteroids, mars moons...sheesh!) outside the earth's orbit you are definately the minority.

Actually we are in the majority.

Add in all the other space advocacy groups and then we are a massive majority.

Still to go to Mars for mankind is a natural progressive idea. We are explorers and we have an insatiable curiosity but we also follow natures rule all creatures and species must expand into any space where they can go. We will have the ability to go to Mars a place that we can make our own. Expansion time again folks.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-05 17:13:43

The colonization of space will rely on the development of mining and industrial sector in space. We first use some resources on earth to expand our foothold into near space ( LEO and Lunar surface) then we expand the human and robotic personnel in this region to create an industrial and mining sectors. Meanwhile, explorer and prospector missions are sent to Mars, Asteroid Belt and beyond.

Once we have established the foothold space industrial and mining sectors on the moon we expand by using these resources to expand towards Mars with large outposts in multiple locations.

Valuation of resources and assets will run into the trillions of dollars but that is a valuation not physical monetary resources. example : 200MT of Nickel asteroid at $1500 per tonne would value the single asteroid at 300 Billion Dollars. With a dozen similar size mining operations could have an asset value of trillions but the cost to mine, process and have a market to sell the resources are required as well. All these are part of a future space economy, not an extension of earth economy but separate an distinct marketplace expanding over many different bodies through our solar system.

clark · 2005-05-05 17:19:47

The heavens dance with shining stars,
yet all I seek is lonely Mars. :laugh:

There are a lot of people who would like to go further than Mars kids. And if you want to go further than *just* the next planet out, it makes sense to go to the Moon, first.

Really, we should all applaude this effort. Why? Because for the simple fact that it takes us further than LEO, and it dosen't take Mars off the table.

All these ideas, the best ones (you choose), are half-crazed plots that rely on one-part ingenuity, and two-parts hope. We are not ready for Mars. We will not be ready for anything until we behave like good boys and girls, learn our lessons, and then strike out.

The major stumbiling block of all your hopes and dreams is directly related to the cost and complexity of launching from Earth. A couple of trips to Mars will never solve that problem.

Routine flights to space will. If we are patient enough to learn how to walk now, when we are ready to run, we will go much further, much faster.

Remember, just enjoy the ride.

Dook · 2005-05-05 17:57:47

Those wanting colonization of space a majority? Hardly, but you probably count the whacko's who go to star trek conventions speaking Vulcan languages and wearing stupid uniforms.

Commodore: You really think the very first landing on mars is going to be of a huge ship with hundreds of people? That would be incredibly stupid, they would all be dead in the first year.

Some day we may colonize something other than the earth but that day is so far in the future (100 years at least) it's not even worth discussing. We can have a human mission to mars in the not too distant future. A science mission, one of discovery, experimentation, sample return, and analysis.

This insane idea to move hundreds to the mars isn't going to happen until we make an initial landing anyway so how can you not be on board with that plan?

BWhite · 2005-05-05 17:58:23

Try to build a colony ship and launch from earth? Why would we do such a stupid thing? Your lunar base will be so expensive and take so long to build and maintain that we would NEVER go to mars.
Also, even though some of you support the colonization of any damn thing (space, moon, mars, asteroids, mars moons...sheesh!) outside the earth's orbit you are definately the minority.
Here is the main reason why the moon is so not needed. If you have already achieved earth orbit it takes a small amount of fuel to leave it and head off to mars then coast the whole way. So why would we use that fuel to go to the moon, use more fuel to land, then refuel just so we can then escape the moon's gravity?
It's insane, full of risk, and it would take up NASA's entire budget, not just for 50 years but forever since we would have to constantly resupply the moon bases with food and repair parts. If we build a moon base say goodbye to humans on mars in your lifetime.

For the record, it takes almost exactly the same amount of rocket fuel to drop 50 kg of rice on the Moon as it does to drop 50 kg of rice on Mars.

If the Moon has platinum, lets go get some.

If not, ignore the Moon and on to Mars.

clark · 2005-05-05 18:43:35

For the record, it takes almost exactly the same amount of rocket fuel to drop 50 kg of rice on the Moon as it does to drop 50 kg of rice on Mars.

Pardon me, I've been imbibing.

Oh such great visionaries that can take dead lifeless red planet and breathe dreams of passion and romance, filling vacumn with desire, setting barren nothingness into living reality, and then fail to see promise in a body that hangs large upon the night!

Calculate all you want. Put your pro's aside your con's. Compare, contrast, add, subtract- multiply and divide, till the ledger results in a conclusion that results in your fancy.

Come on. :laugh:

Deep inside, we all want that hope of a dream that allows us to see Mars for ourself, in some small way. I love that dream. I love the idea of some kid, some adult, filled with this self-destructive hell bent need for red dust and their own two sets of footprints a million miles from home.

But put that aside for just a moment. For a brief second, lets talk rationaly about the irrational. Accept that you will not have your hearts desire (it depends on how you have your coffee, I suppose... :;): ) and think about those who might follow, who might walk in your steps, and want what you so want.

How best to get them that?

Direct to Mars will not give them Mars. It may give us what we want, right now, for a brief moment. We can be that generation, be those people during that time when mankind did something special. Perhaps I look at things a bit further.

Put another way, if the people who saw the majesty of Apollo knew that the event would lead to 30 years of what we have had in space exploration, would they have supported it with the same strength?

I don't want someone at some future date to look back and wish they could witness the first human on Mars because space exploration isn't going anywhere in their day. No, I want them to be able to go themselves- to witness their own Martian landing.

If it takes 50 years, or a hunderd, or 500 hundred, so be it. It dosen't matter how long the trip takes, it matters only that you are taking it.

Dook · 2005-05-05 19:00:12

For the record, it takes almost exactly the same amount of rocket fuel to drop 50 kg of rice on the Moon as it does to drop 50 kg of rice on Mars.

But how much fuel does it take to move the rice from the earth to the moon, then move it from the moon to mars

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-30 02:17:28

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

#2 2005-04-30 08:46:33

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

#3 2005-04-30 12:38:27

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

#4 2005-05-04 03:35:11

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

#5 2005-05-04 19:04:50

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

#6 2005-05-04 21:36:11

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

#7 2005-05-04 21:53:28

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

#8 2005-05-04 22:17:18

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

#9 2005-05-04 22:32:08

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

#10 2005-05-04 22:32:39

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

#11 2005-05-04 22:47:57

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

#12 2005-05-05 03:46:16

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

#13 2005-05-05 08:29:33

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

#14 2005-05-05 09:56:44

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

#15 2005-05-05 10:48:15

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

#16 2005-05-05 12:58:53

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

#17 2005-05-05 15:11:05

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

#18 2005-05-05 15:18:28

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

#19 2005-05-05 16:08:31

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

#20 2005-05-05 17:13:43

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

#21 2005-05-05 17:19:47

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

#22 2005-05-05 17:57:47

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

#23 2005-05-05 17:58:23

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

#24 2005-05-05 18:43:35

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

#25 2005-05-05 19:00:12

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

Board footer