Astronomy Mission to Mars

Will we see a manned Mars mission within 10 years

  • Total voters
    61

Remove this Banner Ad

And I'm saying its a waste of effort in itself. But probably great for his PR.

And if electric cars are so great, how come they aren't a cheap as regular ones? That would help mankind not be sold to rich kids to make them feel good about themselves

But that's just me. Some people see Zuckerberg pledging his fortune to cure all diseases. I see him getting int pharmaceuticals at. Reduced tax rate

How long before the Mars program wants public resources not sure it can do it as a private affair
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #52
Pessimistic said:
And I'm saying its a waste of effort in itself. But probably great for his PR.

And if electric cars are so great, how come they aren't a cheap as regular ones? That would help mankind not be sold to rich kids to make them feel good about themselves

But that's just me. Some people see Zuckerberg pledging his fortune to cure all diseases. I see him getting int pharmaceuticals at. Reduced tax rate
Click to expand...
Ok, you're just rambling now.

SpaceX supply rockets to NASA and are constantly testing technologies regarding space flight, so to imply it's just PR is rubbish.
 
Abasi said:
Mars doesn't need desirability from "most people", the owner of SpaceX wants to send people there a terraform.

Whether you think it would be cheaper to fix earth is not the point, Musk wants to be the person to put people on Mars.
Click to expand...

Lab rats. Oh look, they died

Still they died to help save mankind

Well actually they didnt
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Abasi said:
Ok, you're just rambling now.

SpaceX supply rockets to NASA and are constantly testing technologies regarding space flight, so to imply it's just PR is rubbish.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the high ideal of eventually saving mankind is snake oil

Exploration is another thing. I support that. But robot or remote control proxies are intimately better

You may accuse me of rambling, but Ever y current space exploration further than earth orbit says I'm 100% right
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #55
Pessimistic said:
Lab rats. Oh look, they died

Still they died to help save mankind

Well actually they didnt
Click to expand...
Please, stop.

Of course there is inherent risk with a mission to Mars, you seem to just be arguing for the sake of it though.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #57
Pessimistic said:
You get my point. Don't deny it

I have a stance. And somehow it's stupider than suggesting mankind can be saved by migrating to mars?
Click to expand...
You're the only one making this an argument about saving mankind, and/or fixing earth.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #60
Pessimistic said:
Maybe I misunderstood this
Click to expand...
You sure did.

You asked what the possible reason was, and I stated that we are destroying this planet at an alarming rate.

No mention of a Mission to Mars to save mankind. You extrapolated that out from an off the cuff response to your "what possible reason" comment.
 
You must admit when you see the PR. Potentially saving mankind features prominently. It'd have to. Sending people there otherwise makes no sense

Humans were superceded as exploration proxies long ago. Theres no aspect where they are better than remote control automation. And advances will only extend the gap
 
IMO it is not in our collective human nature to sit back passively and watch a robot do what we can do ie. go to mars or just generally explore, to go where no one has gone before. there will and has been no shortage of volunteers for the mission to mars.

it wouldn't have been quite the same if a robot did what Neil Armstrong did in 1969. "one small step for R2D2 one giant leap for robotkind" meh.
 
Actually. Looking at it another way. Our biology is tuned to this planet.

To preserve something of what we are in case of calamity on earth. A third way would be to alter our state but preserve whatever we see is worth preserving.

We wouldn't preserve everything. But what we did would have a better chance of survival in the much longer term
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jason pm said:
IMO it is not in our collective human nature to sit back passively and watch a robot do what we can do ie. go to mars or just generally explore, to go where no one has gone before. there will and has been no shortage of volunteers for the mission to mars.

it wouldn't have been quite the same if a robot did what Neil Armstrong did in 1969. "one small step for R2D2 one giant leap for robotkind" meh.
Click to expand...

Robots are so much better. It's very vain to want to be the human explorer. Anyway mission control would continue to run the show
Your status would be As a lab rat to put it bluntly
 
Pessimistic said:
Robots are so much better. It's very vain to want to be the human explorer. Anyway mission control would continue to run the show
Your status would be As a lab rat to put it bluntly
Click to expand...
I don't understand this mentality. If you understand the history of exploration you will see many reasons for exploration. George Mallory may have said it best when he said '' Because its there'' . Exploration has covered everything from climbing the next hill to see what is beyond to a desperate search for resources.

The bravery of people to get into a ship and set out for what is beyond the horizon is unimagineable. Many many sailors and captains died on ocean voyages looking for land. Never stopped the next boat from setting out.

Read the JFK speech about going to the moon but here is the important bit

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.

William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. 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.

I concede there is some naivety in this speech but the important pieces are still valid today. To paraphrase JFK. Man is going to Mars. It is up to you whether you join in or not.

For me Mars is a staging post. It is the Canary Islands of the Atlantic. But when we are both dust Humanity will be living on planets yet to be conceived.
 
People sitting in mission control running missions such as Mars are going to be pissed off having to use fragile unpredictable limited humans instead of remote control automation.

Which won't happen anyway. If humans are sent they will be experimentally cargo

Lab rats

Exploration will go on. So will speech making and poetry

Logic will run the programs not romanticism

A ship in full sail has huge romanticism which was a huge contrast to the miserable conditions of th sailors

Then came steam to which there was huge resistance and sailors became mechanics

Soon they will become robots. And there will be objections I aesthetic grounds
 
Last edited:
Pessimistic said:
Actually. Looking at it another way. Our biology is tuned to this planet.

To preserve something of what we are in case of calamity on earth. A third way would be to alter our state but preserve whatever we see is worth preserving.

We wouldn't preserve everything. But what we did would have a better chance of survival in the much longer term
Click to expand...
Yeah i watched a doco on something similar to this. Saying if we send people to colonize Mars they will evolve differently to the humans on Earth. Because of the atmosphere, difference in gravity, closeness to the sun exc. That in 1,000 years we would have two different species of humans

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk
 
Accepted knowledge is that our current species has common ancestors from east africa. the theory is (for example) successive generations strayed just a little but further eventually reaching Australia, and the period taken for this generational migration was about 2000 years, roughly about 100 generations. all using primitive technology.

so the generational migration principle has been used before
 
Maybe a base on another planet run by Ai. Creating other space ventures to leapfrog to more distant planets?

Still need to solve the inefficient way to depart a planets gravity
 
Hawking keeps saying we need to be able to leave earth within one hundred hears

But is it actually feasible within one indeed years

We have just located a Goldilocks zone but its fourty light years away. And what we are seeing is already fourty years ago.

The hundred years prediction suddenly looks very short
 
100 years is not long enough i'm afraid. Mars has no atmosphere and we are not skilled enough to farm in Mars even under controlled conditions. If we set up a colony in Mars that will likely take decades to build and we dont know how sustainable will that be. Still Mars is our best shot for the time being
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top