Specialist said:
Why would we want a human to walk on mars at this point? There's nothing they could really do there that a lander or rover couldnt.
Should water exist on Mars, in the quantity that many believe... I think it clearly obvious that would mean we could possibly live on the red planet.
Before any of you strike me down for suggesting such a radical idea, think of where our world will be in the next 50 years? Now imagine the next 100-200 years... If we the human race are to survive and prosper as a species we
MUST become a space faring one.
The surface of Mars is currently uninhabitable. It's current temperature does not rise above 0 degrees Celsius. This can change rapidly by producing enough greenhouse gas (we all know how well humans do that). The greenhouse gas would be trapped in the Martian atmosphere keeping the heat from the sun inside the atmosphere therefor warming the planet. It is estimated that within 50 years the temperature on Mars would compare with Earth to the extent that space suits would not be required.
What about air you ask? Well thats the real trick aint it? Currently the Martian atmosphere is composed of 95% Carbon Dioxide... Plants love that stuff and due to the fact that the Martian day is almost
exactly that of an Earth day, plants from our planet would flourish provided the proper nutrients.
Specialist said:
Just wait until they send the mars laboratory up there, then you'll have your damn rover.
I'd prefer humans, I'd prefer a colony.
Wooz said:
Maph said:
Roffle.
Cosmic rays, ionizing radiation. You've read about these, no?
I've done quite a bit of research actually. Take a peak at the links I have provided below. The amount of radiation an astronaut would be exposed to will increase their risk of contracting a fatal cancer at some point in their life... by 1%. Some say as much as 19%. Keep in mind this is on top of the average American chance to contract cancer, currently in the 20% range
rapidly approaching an alarmingly higher rate.
Unfortunately, there have been quite a few misunderstandings from the media about radiation findings regarding space travel over the years. With news headlines like, "Cosmic rays may prevent long-haul space travel" citing scientific findings that don't quite fit the bill, its understandable that many would read "space travel = Star Trek".
Sure, there are dangers, but we can aquatically shield ourselves from the known majority of those dangers both in transit and on the red planet itself. We
can not assume that we don't know enough about the universe to explore it. We have to act today, our population is all ready unsustainable and I believe we are not past saving.
Only last year did scientists get the first solid measurements of radiation at Mars. Zeitlin is the principal investigator for MARIE, a radiation detection instrument aboard NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter.
Zeitlin's team combined Odyssey data with Earth-orbiting satellite measurements of cosmic rays to project the radiation risk to an astronaut in free space and on the surface of Mars. The combined solar and cosmic ray particle exposure is measured in sieverts.
An astronaut in a six-month journey to Mars -- the time required with conventional propulsion -- would be exposed to about 0.3 sieverts, or 0.6 on a round-trip. Eighteen months on the surface (if it takes so long to get there, you might as well stay awhile!) would bring another 0.4 sieverts, for a total exposure of 1 sievert.
Limits set by NASA vary with age and gender but range from 1 to 3 sieverts.
When the Odyssey result was announced, several news reports misrepresented the risk, stating that it might prevent human missions to Mars. Zeitlin allows that it is close to the limits, but he says now, as he did then, that it is a "manageable dose." Further, the limits tend to drop as more is learned about the effects on humans. And, of course, the dose could be lowered with creative shielding technology.
(Interestingly, the best way to protect spacefarers aboard a Mars transport ship might be to surround them with the water they'd need for their journey. The hydrogen in water, scientists have learned, is one of the best absorbers of particle radiation.)
NASA weighs radiation danger in units of cancer risk. A healthy 40-year-old non-smoking American male stands a (whopping) 20% chance of eventually dying from cancer. That's if he stays on Earth. If he travels to Mars, the risk goes up.
The question is, how much?
"We're not sure," says Cucinotta. According to a 2001 study of people exposed to large doses of radiation--e.g., Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors and, ironically, cancer patients who have undergone radiation therapy--the added risk of a 1000-day Mars mission lies somewhere between 1% and 19%. "The most likely answer is 3.4%," says Cucinotta, "but the error bars are wide."
Yet many in NASA and other organizations insist radiation is the doom sayer of all missions. That we need the USS Enterprise the Galaxy class starship to traverse the IMMENSE distance between Earth orbit and Mars. Or better yet from the Moon colony to Mars.
Figures in the neighborhood of 400 billion USD are thrown around (The 90-Day Report - 1989) involving huge space craft assembly stations, moon bases and an insane amount of projects that could not possibly be considered mission critical were all included in NASA's figure to go to Mars with virtually no tangible benefits.
Do we know all there is to know about radiation? Well to say so, that would be pretty naive even if we were a civilization approaching the scale of a type 2 or even 3. I don't see us ever closing the book on something. We are to curious of a race to say, "Meh, I'm fairly sure astro-physics is the T.O.E. so I won't question it further."
Thrawn said:
I believe this is the third landing of this type, called a soft landing. The very first probes on Mars, the Vikings, used this form of landing in the 1970s I think. A second lander tried in the 90s and crashed. Obviously Pheonix survived.
One of the reasons it is non-moblie is because it will definitly die in 90 days. It is in the Artic and will definitly freeze when Martian winter comes around. Also the ovens it uses to check for organic matter in the soil are one use only.
Thank you! I had not found anything stating those obvious reasons for why we could not invest more into this probe. Those are all very logical and would make Mr. Spock proud.
Thrawn said:
At this point there is really no reason to have humans go. What would they do there? Also, how would we get them back? Imagine lauching a Space shuttle with enough fuel to land and lauch again. A space shuttle with 6 rockets on it. Not only that but it'd have to have what ever materials we want to build a base with.
This is where you and I reach that fork in the road. To date the most cost effective and simplistic plan to go to mars is called "Mars Direct". It was dreamed up many years ago and despite its very practical plan, inexpensive price tag, political/media backing and its very own book has not materialized. Most likely because many think the author behind the book is a latte sipping, tree hugging, wants to ride the Rainbow Warrior II liberal. Well, at least thats the impression I get.
I think Robert Zubrin addressing congress regarding space flight and funding for NASA in October of 2003 said it best. When Senator McCain asked why Mr. Zubrin was upset about NASA's situation and how it is "stuck in low earth orbit" he used a very ingenious analogy (as he often does).
Forgive me as there does not seem to be an exact transcription of this statement so I am going off rough memory, "What has happened to NASA over the past 20 years is sort of like Louis and Clark reporting back to their superiors after exploring the new world and hearing, "forget it, burn everything we don't want to invest in that."
Thrawn said:
Remember that Mars has much more gravity than the moon, so going orbital from mars would take a lot more fuel.
What if you created the fuel on Mars using its available resources via a proven automated process before anyone left for the red planet? What if you sent multiple space craft including return vessels and redundancies that would have the necessary resources to return to earth?
The above easily eliminate the problem of how to get all the resources needed in order for a round trip to Mars. No need for huge space ships, no need for new technologies like warp drive. We could have done this yesterday, but there is no time like the present.
Thrawn said:
Eventually it will happen. Probably we will send a base ship with no ability to relaunch and then a second ship will come back to pick up the people. Who knows? I think it is exciting!
No, it wont... research "The 90 Day Report". If anything it will be the endeavors of independent companies or people, the equivalent of a modern Howard Hughes or... Google? (because you can't count them out eh?).
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." -JFK
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
http://www.geocities.com/marsterraforming/mannedmissions.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007rs/90-day-report/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10817
