Should NASA Go to Mars? (1 Viewer)

[TheDeparted]

Mars needs woman.

Yes; I hear it hasn't been dusted in millennia

 

[redlandssaintsson]

It's the way science is done. We're explorers by nature. We're supposed to go check it out. There hasn't yet been a good reason brought up why we SHOULDN'T go. Because it's hard is only a reason to go.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[ROBOT DEATH SQUAD]

I would much prefer building a colony on the moon, it would reap much more benefits.

 

[SaintsBrazil]

Mars... what about the moon. I'm 33 years old and we've never been to the moon in my lifetime.

 

[Rickboy]

I absolutely want us to go to Mars. However I have no support in doing it with NASA in the way that NASA currently does things. If NASA changes the way it does business (and it very well might do that) then I'm all for it.

So why should we go to Mars? Thats an easy one. SURVIVAL. In the long term, the Human Race has to leave Earth (and eventually the Solar System) to survive. Otherwise human kind will eventually be as extinct as the dinosaurs. Sure we have other problems like war, hunger, poverty, etc, etc. Guess what, those problems are NEVER going away. Even if we poor billions into world hunger, sign peace treaties, just be nice to each other, we will still have those issues. However looking at human survival in the VERY long term dictates that we must eventually venture off this wonderful blue marble.

The Moon missions were a fantastic accomplishment but they were also an illustration of just what's wrong with NASA and our Government in general. The moon missions were planned and executed in a method that was never meant to be sustainable. Absolutely none of the components used were meant for reuse. There was no realistic plan to build a base or use the moons resources.

If we go back to the Moon or venture forward to Mars, it has to be based on a plan that puts us there permanently. I would propose the following.

1 - let private business handle access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). SpaceX may be the first company to do this with Dragon if NASA will let them. It is looking like Dragon will fly sooner than NASAs own Orion/Ares. NASA should focus on exploration and scientific research. They should use private industry to get them from point a to point b. That will build a sustainable infrastructure that will bring down the costs of getting off Earth. SpaceX has already demonstrated that they can build a rocket for a fraction of the cost NASA does. Falcon 1 now has two successful flights and Falcon 9 is practically man rated out of the box for less than $1billion. Ares I alone has already cost several billion.

2 - Only return to the moon if we are going to use its resources. If we can manufacture fuel for a trip to Mars and beyond, then the moon base becomes critical. It takes EXPONENTIALLY less fuel and hardware to get people and equipment down to and off of the surface of the moon than it does to get them off the Earth.

3 - Any moon trip should have a reusable infrastructure. We should build reusable landers and park them in lunar orbit, perhaps docked to a small space station. Then we can just send fuel from the lunar surface so they can be used. Doing that means we spend a lot less money sending landers and fuel from Earth. We should also have a Crew Transfer Vehicle that just carries people from Earth orbit to the Moon. That reduces the need for a heavy craft with the required shielding to get to the moon. There are a multitude of other things that can be done to shore up our permanent base on the lunar surface while making it affordable. Also, we should mine the heck out of the moon for He^3 if we can put it to use as fuel for fusion reactors.

4 - Go to Mars and DON'T COME BACK. Don't send astronauts to Mars. Send SETTLERS. We should go with the intent of living on Mars on a permanent basis.

5 - Mars should also be used for another fuel depot to get us further into the solar system. From a scientific standpoint, I think the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are a lot more interesting. There is a much higher chance we will find life on those moons than on Mars. We should also look at making a fuel depot on Ceres since it is mostly composed of water ice.

There are a lot more points I could make but I'm probably putting you to sleep now.

 

[Rickysmyhero]

The question is undoubtedly yes. I think it is by far the most important thing we need to do. The new technology we develop to get there will likely set the stage or be a part of another technological revolution here on earth.

Furthermore, with the way we have devoured the resources on the this planet the last 100 years, we need to begin to develop ways to use the VAST natural resources in our solar system. The wealth and knowledged accumulated due to the extraction of these resources will be key in our ability to extend further and further away. For example, there is an asteroid in the Kuiper belt that has more gold and platinum in it than has every been extracted from earth through the entirety of human history. Resources like these would allow us to pursue potential energy sources, such as anti-matter.

Finally and as stated by who I believe to be the most brilliant person on this planet, Stephen Hawking, humanity is doomed if we do not find a way to get off this rock. Even though planet and our sun are currently capable of supporting life for the next 1/2 billion years or so, Mr. Hawking, as I do, believe that either a natural occurrence, ie meteor, or a man-made occurence, ie nuclear accident, virus, may render our planet uninhabitable for some time. Mr. Hawking has set the odds at approximately 1 of these type accidents within the next 1k to 10k years.

 

[redlandssaintsson]

I would much prefer building a colony on the moon, it would reap much more benefits.

Mars... what about the moon. I'm 33 years old and we've never been to the moon in my lifetime.

The moon!? That's like saying we don't need the super bowl, lets just have the playoffs. Or more accurately, lets just take a taxi to South Jersey. Mars is where we need to be. We've been to the moon. <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[joshlaw1976]

we could send our garbage there.

 

[Rickboy]

The moon!? That's like saying we don't need the super bowl, lets just have the playoffs. Or more accurately, lets just take a taxi to South Jersey. Mars is where we need to be. We've been to the moon. <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

It depends on whether or not the Moon can be useful in Martian exploration/colonization. If it can be established as a fuel depot, then we should absolutely go back. IMO we shouldn't go to the Moon or Mars unless we're planning on staying. If we are not planning on staying, then we should just send unmanned probes.

 

[redlandssaintsson]

It depends on whether or not the Moon can be useful in Martian exploration/colonization. If it can be established as a fuel depot, then we should absolutely go back. IMO we shouldn't go to the Moon or Mars unless we're planning on staying. If we are not planning on staying, then we should just send unmanned probes.

There's a lot of things that can't be known by sending unmanned probes. But I agree with you're point I suppose. The 50 billion, ten year deal NASA proposed was to build a base on the moon AND Mars for research.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[RobG]

The question is undoubtedly yes. I think it is by far the most important thing we need to do. The new technology we develop to get there will likely set the stage or be a part of another technological revolution here on earth.

I agree - most of the technology that drove our economy in the 80s and 90s came out of the Apollo program.

/ A number of the early contracts in semiconductors were driven by the space program, and that helped push computer technology forward. You can argue whether that would have happened with or without the space program, but there's no doubt that much of the crucial early funding for computers came from military programs.

And clearly the space program brought us a lot of things you can't argue with: satellite communications, GPS devices, most of the mapping programs, and all sorts of advanced materials.