Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mars has no breathable atmosphere, it would require terraforming before true colonisation could take place. In the meantime we should be looking at setting up on the moon and 80,000 people will made a substantial organic contribution to any off-world garden.

I don't see the USA leading the way though, they currently have no spacecraft and the skill base required to operate a mission like that will be declining as a result.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
There was simply no reason for the government to fund research, hence why they did not until the need arose.

You're missing the point. If your goal is to develop new technology then fund development of new technology directly. NASA didn't decide to go to the moon so they could advance computer technology, they decided to go to the moon so they could go to the moon. If the US had wanted to advance computer technology as quickly and efficiently as possible they would have done so directly, not as a hoped-for side effect of some other project.

You're essentially making the argument that we shouldn't do or work on anything, because it will all happen eventually.

No, I'm making the argument that if you want to do X you do X. You don't do Y and hope that as a side effect you get X.

Robotics are wonderful, true, but no machine we have created (nor will likely create) can compare to a human.

You're right. Humans are squishy, use up lots of expensive food/water/etc (and yes, in space those are extremely expensive), and add tons of mass compared to a robot. There's a very good reason NASA is happily sending robotic probes all over the solar system while nobody is seriously considering sending people to those same places.

Gravity is less of a concern than you think, at least not on earth.

Congratulations, you just failed Rocket Engineering 101. Gravity is the single dominant concern here, if your desired minerals are at the bottom of a planetary gravity well you have to spend obscene amounts of fuel to get them out of that gravity well. Strip mining Mars instead of the asteroids is just so unbelievably stupid that nobody with any understanding of the problem thinks it's a viable idea.

(A space elevator changes things, but right now a space elevator is purely wishful thinking.)

Compared to an asteroid, Mars is a massive target and is perfect practice for making deep-space landings.

Congratulations, you just failed Rocket Engineering 102. Getting to a specific point in space is easy, and Mars is not a huge target unless you consider "watching your spacecraft burn up in reentry because you didn't hit your small approach/reentry window" to be a successful mission.

And in reality, getting to an asteroid is much easier than getting to the surface of Mars. With the asteroid you can come in nice and slow by matching orbits and arrive at the asteroid with near-zero relative velocity. With Mars you have to deal with the massive problem of reentry through atmosphere, which imposes severe design constraints on your spacecraft. Oh yeah, and severe mass constraints. Heat shielding isn't light, and you're going to burn a lot of fuel carrying it to Mars.

Perfecting human spaceflight to neighboring planets is an important step to working out manned landings on something as small and remote as asteroids.

No, perfecting human spaceflight to the moon is an important step. Starting with Mars is just as difficult as getting to the asteroids.

Not to mention, the main asteroid belt is past the orbit of Mars, which makes going there even better.

Congratulations, you just failed Rocket Engineering 103. Distance in space is meaningless (other than longer travel times, but a prerequisite for either is the ability to make long trips with a manned spacecraft), what matters is delta-V (and stop posting if you don't know what that is). And the simple fact is that Mars is at the bottom of a planetary gravity well a long way from Earth, which makes it a poor choice for a "base" to go to the asteroids. Launching a mission to the asteroids from Mars would be almost as difficult as doing it from Earth.

Also, you failed Astronomy 101 because there are asteroids that are closer and easier to get to than Mars.

cadbren wrote:
Mars has no breathable atmosphere, it would require terraforming before true colonisation could take place.

Terraforming Mars is a bigger pipe dream than the whole colony thing. You'd need a LOT of snow from the outer Solar System to make the atmosphere as well as an abundance of Nitrogen for plants. Where you gonna get enough to make a liveable atmosphere? How you gonna get it to Mars? How you going to get it all down onto Mars without making massive impact craters? How are you going to get the soil to provide enough nutrients for crops to grow? Even if 3/4 of Mars' surface becomes covered with water, that's still a lot of chemicals you need to find and import. And none of it can be taken from Earth because we're still using the stuff we have here.

cadbren wrote:
Mars has no breathable atmosphere, it would require terraforming before true colonisation could take place. In the meantime we should be looking at setting up on the moon and 80,000 people will made a substantial organic contribution to any off-world garden.

I don't see the USA leading the way though, they currently have no spacecraft and the skill base required to operate a mission like that will be declining as a result.

Why would you want to set up on the moon? Why not spend that same effort working out how to build an arcology here on Earth?

Set up on the moon simply to have an off world base that could one day be used for going out further.

I agree in the meantime we'd be better off investing in exploring the sea floor including the trenches and developing urban centres underground to save our planet's surface for crops, wildlife etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mars though is a silly waste of time.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Why would you want to set up on the moon? Why not spend that same effort working out how to build an arcology here on Earth?

Two reasons:

1) The moon has raw materials and a much smaller gravity well than Earth, which makes it a great starting point for missions elsewhere in the solar system.

2) Building on Earth is different from building in space. Yes, you can learn a lot by building self-contained living spaces on Earth, but the real test is doing it in space. The moon is a much closer equivalent to Mars or an asteroid, while being close enough to Earth that there's actually a reason to do it instead of going straight to the final goal.

As an amateur astronomer, I'm well aware of the fact that there are plenty of asteroids near earth, I make it a point to look for them whenever conditions allow. Near-Earth asteroids are of course prime targets for early asteroid mining, because of their low delta-v, from earth. Trojan asteroids are prime examples too, even though Earth has only one known. Key word in all of this is, early. There is no reason not to start that these two project could start congruently, one can supply (mining) materials to the other (Mars exploration), and I've never said that we shouldn't. I'm all in for robotic missions to NEOs, they are an important vanguard for human exploration. Plus, there is what, less than 10000 measuring over a meter with less than a 1000 over a kilometer and only handful out of those worth considering? While there is at least 100000 in the main belt? How many asteroids have a comparably low delta-v from Mars? I honestly don't know, perhaps you can enlighten me. But I can tell you, establishing Mars as a permanent mining colony for mining the main belt is one of the focal points for colonization and a topic of serious consideration.

Yes, getting to an asteroid is "easy," but coming back from one isn't always so easy. Not to mention mining one without human presence and minutes-long delays in communications presents it's own complications.

If you read what I wrote, I never said anything about "strip mining Mars" (though mining Mars is feasible) nor did I say we shouldn't go to the moon first; I don't think we should have ever stopped. I'm in favor of Moon-asteroid/Mars-beyond progression or space exploration. The main argument is that it is worth it in the long run with no reason to not start on it now.

I'm also totally cool with setting up the moon as a way-station, though from why I understand from cartoons, Deceptions will try to overtake it. It might be best to try and work on Dinobots first.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm also totally cool with setting up the moon as a way-station, though from why I understand from cartoons, Deceptions will try to overtake it. It might be best to try and work on Dinobots first.

GRIMLOC WANT CUP TO TELL STORY!


And my goodness, the amount of e-peen going on in this thread is staggering

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

But seriously it's starting to get overpopulated here and we have the resources to funnel into this and colonize other planets in about a century.
Guys seriously out of 330 known exoplanets 30 are instantly habitable by humans if they wound up on the planet nude. 10% of planets are instantly habitable by humans. Yeah amazes me too.

Who cares? It benefits no one but the space industrial complex. We still have the military industrial, and criminal justice industrial complexes to protect. Those complexes aren't going to protect themselves!


Nuts who cares. In ten years AI will combine with google and the NSA and Skynet will be born.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That couldn't be further from the truth.

Only if you read the words 'materially different in our day to day lives' and think of emergency thermal blankets. I don't.

And don't think I'm knocking NASA - what they've done is incredible, and your attempt to justify what they've accomplished by talking about spin-off tech undersells their achievements.

But the real point is to compare and contrast what happened when Columbus reached the New World, and why the same thing didn't happen when we landed on the moon. Given that, thinking a trip to Mars would be anything like Columbus' trip would be, simply, total madness.

The likely follow up to a successful trip to Mars would likely be nothing. Been there, done that, left a flag. The only way you'd see more and more trips and an expasion will be when someone figures out a self-sustaining economic reason for it. And at this point in time there isn't one.

I don't need to justify their their achievements, those speak for themselves. We did what no other country has been able to do. You may belittle emergency thermal blankets, but the people who used one to stay alive after a devastating natural disaster might think differently. If you read the first example I gave, which was the miniaturization of electronics, instead of cherry-picking a less "useful" invention, you would know understand the point. No one in the 1960s thought that R&D from the Apollo program would usher in the era of laptop computers and cell phones, but it did. You cannot claim that finding a way to put a man on Mars and return him safely will offer no benefit to humanity other than "we put a flag there."

Thermal balankets and TANG don't add up to the billions and billions spent on the program. Lets get real here. The only reason we went to the moon was the Cold War.

The title entertains me with regards to imagining people setting off for Mars only to land on an undiscovered planet without realising it

 KingCracker wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm also totally cool with setting up the moon as a way-station, though from why I understand from cartoons, Deceptions will try to overtake it. It might be best to try and work on Dinobots first.

GRIMLOC WANT CUP TO TELL STORY!


And my goodness, the amount of e-peen going on in this thread is staggering

GRIMLOC SMASH GRAVITY WELL IN FACE!

It would be interesting to tell the many many many people in the world without running water, you'd rather spend trillions sending a VW bus to Mars then help them have running water and indoor plumbing.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Yes, getting to an asteroid is "easy," but coming back from one isn't always so easy.

Yes, returning from an asteroid is always so easy, because an asteroid has a much smaller gravity well than Mars. Using Mars means immediately throwing away a quarter to half of any gains from developing an extraterrestrial supply point.

Not to mention mining one without human presence and minutes-long delays in communications presents it's own complications.

It presents less complications than trying to keep a group of humans physically and emotionally healthy for months in almost complete isolation. Especially when the most efficient flight paths are not the fastest.

If we don't go to Mars, we'll never get our Titan Legions! Get us closer, we need to hit that planet with our sword!

I respect the above post. To war!!!

 Frazzled wrote:
I respect the above post. To war!!!

Or rather, to the god of war

Well, we never really were able to exploit the Moon economically because of the Cold War. Trying to build anything up their by anyone would have been dangerously provocative. I think there was even a Treaty mitigating the Super Powers use of the Moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Granted, the treaty does not necessarily mean that you can't use it for business/tourist purposes but I'm sure it put a wet blanket on such plans.

There is a lot we can benefit from pushing tech to new levels of invention so we can get to Mars.

I am in the "just as long as someone does" camp. I also agree that we need to consider not only getting people there but maintaining them while they are there. Mars is not very hospital and has an orbit that causes it to be yanked around a lot and this means drastic weather patterns. I think we would be better served by taking a step and setting up a small base on the moon, then a permanent structure on the moon, and then we consider what we can do to get to Mars and setting up something there.

I don't see the point in going. The only thing we get out of it is proof that we can with current technology.

Asteroid mining would be a more useful goal. And would give an economic incentive to develop space technologies.

I would much rather see asteroid mining be developed. Colonies, drones, whatever it takes to open up those wonderful minerals to our exploitation. It will also herald in the first age of commercial space exploration. Private doesn't have enough funds. Governments don't have enough focus. But corporations are ruthless and have deep enough pockets to advance space travel- even over heaps of dead 'monkeys'.

cadbren wrote:
Mars has no breathable atmosphere, it would require terraforming before true colonisation could take place. In the meantime we should be looking at setting up on the moon and 80,000 people will made a substantial organic contribution to any off-world garden.

I don't see the USA leading the way though, they currently have no spacecraft and the skill base required to operate a mission like that will be declining as a result.

How do you expect to terraform a planet without a rotating iron core.

 Grundz wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Mars has no breathable atmosphere, it would require terraforming before true colonisation could take place. In the meantime we should be looking at setting up on the moon and 80,000 people will made a substantial organic contribution to any off-world garden.

I don't see the USA leading the way though, they currently have no spacecraft and the skill base required to operate a mission like that will be declining as a result.

How do you expect to terraform a planet without a rotating iron core.

Obviously we're going to use magic.

 sebster wrote:


Compare that with Armstrong landing on the moon, which ushered in an age of some other people taking government paid flights to the moon that petered out over time, ultimately leaving us with a remarkable human achievement, but nothing materially different in our day to day lives.

The consumer tech spawned from the Space Race greatly affect our day to day lives... Satellites, the microprocessor, the various materials used in the creation of the craft itself.

Yes, many technological devices used today would have happened anyway, but the Armstrong trip/NASAs breakthroughs in technology greatly increased the speed with which we have them.

I should say that I think improving the situation for us here on earth (now) should be a priority - understanding of climate science, of predicting trends and sustainability of farming are vital if we are to ensure that the billions of us here continue to get fed and, to go to one extreme, if we are to prevent our civilization ultimately from nose-diving.

That being said I see no reason why we should not continue to look outwards. The journey to another world I think kindles something in the human spirit - without sounding like a soppy idiot (possibly too late there!) a landing on Mars would be a great focal point to help pull humanity together*


*at least temporarily, before we go back to fighting with our neighbours (both those in the next house and those in the next country).

 Grey Templar wrote:
Asteroid mining would be a more useful goal. And would give an economic incentive to develop space technologies.

Although other space-based technologies and reach would almost certainly increase as a consequence of any attempted trip to Mars.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The consumer tech spawned from the Space Race greatly affect our day to day lives... Satellites, the microprocessor, the various materials used in the creation of the craft itself.

The space race was spawned by the invention of communications satellites, not the other way around. Their development was justified by their own merits, without any need to resort to chest beating nonsense or appeals to undefined spin-off technologies.

 Grundz wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Mars has no breathable atmosphere, it would require terraforming before true colonisation could take place. In the meantime we should be looking at setting up on the moon and 80,000 people will made a substantial organic contribution to any off-world garden.

I don't see the USA leading the way though, they currently have no spacecraft and the skill base required to operate a mission like that will be declining as a result.

How do you expect to terraform a planet without a rotating iron core.

I wouldn't even know where to buy a rotating iron core let alone how to use one.

It seems that the only thing that would come from a Mars mission is providing organic mass to start a vege garden there and 80,000 bodies would make for a large plot.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Compare that with Armstrong landing on the moon, which ushered in an age of some other people taking government paid flights to the moon that petered out over time, ultimately leaving us with a remarkable human achievement, but nothing materially different in our day to day lives.

The consumer tech spawned from the Space Race greatly affect our day to day lives... Satellites, the microprocessor, the various materials used in the creation of the craft itself.

Yes, many technological devices used today would have happened anyway, but the Armstrong trip/NASAs breakthroughs in technology greatly increased the speed with which we have them.

Don't bother, he doesn't think any of those things count. Apparently the United States putting a man on the moon was just a remarkable human achievement that achieved nothing.

The space race was spawned by the invention of communications satellites, not the other way around. Their development was justified by their own merits, without any need to resort to chest beating nonsense or appeals to undefined spin-off technologies.

Their development was purely a by-product of the Cold War Space Race. There was on-going research before the Space Race (no one is debating that) began in earnest, but because there was suddenly a need for innovation (even it was just a game of international one-upsmanship) it ended by accelerating innovation in a way that was unparallelled at any other point in human history.

That is the argument that is being made here, people. Competition can and will spur innovation; we have proof of it. NASA spent $25 billion between 1958 and 1969 and had returned $71 billion by 1971 and by the late 80's ended up returning over $180 billion, a return rate of 33%. A Space Race 2.0 (albeit, without the threat of nuclear annihilation) could be a boon not to just the United States, but any other country that wants to invest it achieving such a remarkable goal.

I know, I know, god forbid we are altruistic in thinking. I find it odd that a website filled with, what I would guess as, self-described nerds, is so vehemently opposed to what would be the most nerdgasm-inducing thing ever: going to F'ing Mars!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
There is no reason not to start that these two project could start congruently, one can supply (mining) materials to the other (Mars exploration), and I've never said that we shouldn't.

There's a huge reason not to start the projects at the same time: you want to learn from your mistakes. You build a moon base because it's an easier first step that can teach you a lot about how to get to Mars successfully. If you go for both simultaneously you just end up throwing away a lot of money on a Mars project that you're going to scrap when you realize it would be cheaper to start over from the beginning than to try to modify your existing work to include all the things you learned the hard way with the moon mission.

Plus, there is what, less than 10000 measuring over a meter with less than a 1000 over a kilometer and only handful out of those worth considering? While there is at least 100000 in the main belt?

Think for a second about the numbers you just quoted. That's more than enough to cover all exploration for the foreseeable future. By the time you get done with that who knows how technology will have advanced and what new developments you might want to incorporate into your mission to the main belt.

How many asteroids have a comparably low delta-v from Mars?

None, because "comparably low delta-v" and "planetary gravity well" are mutually contradictory concepts. The absolute most you'd want to do for that purpose would be a base on one of the moons of Mars, not Mars itself.

Yes, getting to an asteroid is "easy," but coming back from one isn't always so easy.

Of course it is. If you can get there you can come back, especially since an asteroid mission doesn't require getting out of a planetary gravity well before you can start the trip home. Getting home from an asteroid is much, much easier than getting home from Mars.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Don't bother, he doesn't think any of those things count. Apparently the United States putting a man on the moon was just a remarkable human achievement that achieved nothing.

Why do you keep posting this straw man? Do you really have trouble reading the part where he has explained that's not what he's saying, or are you just being dishonest?

I find it odd that a website filled with, what I would guess as, self-described nerds, is so vehemently opposed to what would be the most nerdgasm-inducing thing ever: going to F'ing Mars!

We're opposed to it because there is no viable plan for going to Mars as anything other than a flag-planting mission, and even that is pretty questionable. Space exploration needs sustainable, realistic goals, not a repeat of Apollo where we plant the flag and cancel the whole thing to save money.

 Commander Cain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Waste of money on a galactic scale.

Hey we have got to start somewhere! It's not like we can go straight to mining asteroids on the other side of the Solar System. Baby steps.....

Can you imagine mining one of the pure diamond/gold asteroids floating around! One trip there and back and you will mine more gold than the combined total of all human history!

The possibilities that open up when the costs for materials decrease and the desire for gold as a source of currency lessens....