Men on Mars? Let’s go for it! (vanity)

[Cuban_Liberal]

There once was a time, back in the early ‘60s, when there was a feeling of optimism and hope for the future. This was before the assassinations and riots and unending warfare and a host of other worries and tribulations distracted the country. But for a brief, shining time, it seemed as if all things were possible.

We were even going to land men on the moon in a decade and despite it all, American ingenuity and enterprise made that stupendous feat possible.

During the intervening decades, much of the luster and romance faded. After a lunar mission or two, the space program degenerated into routine space shuttle missions, marred by two spectacular accidents and a lack of, well, direction. NASA still put astronauts into space -- and into a space station -- but they weren’t going anywhere.

Suddenly, with the landing of a NASA Rover on Mars, thanks to the clever engineering of the Jet Propulsion Lab, many people are once again thinking that perhaps this sort of spectacular space exploration is just the ticket. The Rover, of course, is simply a robot on wheels. But it is already sending back spectacular color pictures of Mars along with doing geological tests to determine whether there might have been a time when water flowed on the Martian surface.

All very interesting, but no more so than the design of the Rover (its twin is set to land on Jan. 24, by the way) which allowed it to land unscathed in an environment that is extremely harsh by earth standards. The mere landing of these spacecraft is something of a triumph, as Mars has swallowed up the majority of craft sent into its bleak precincts.

Now Shrubbie wants NASA to begin an aggressive program that could put a manned space mission on Mars in about 10 years. The plan would place a space station on the moon, from which the Mars mission would depart.

Still, going to the moon is child’s play compared to Mars. The moon is only 3-4 days away, while a jaunt to Mars, even when the red planet is relatively close to earth’s orbit, will still require six months. Astronauts traveling to Mars could plan on spending a very long time in space . . . years, in fact.

Of course, the hard questions will be asked. What benefit, if any, will there be to returning to the moon or, for that matter, journeying out to Mars? The rugged Martian landscape might appeal to some, but its very harshness may preclude any sort of colonization or exploitation of its resources. It could just be a journey taken for the journey’s sake, or to prove that humankind can slip its earthly bonds and begin to explore the solar system.

Still, I believe that the feat of examining Mars -- whether by manned or unmanned mission -- casts our country in a far more favorable light than many of our other abuses of money, power and technology.

All a new phase of space exploration requires is money, and lots of it. The JPL managed to put a Rover on Mars for less than $1 billion. That’s heartening, I guess, because the government seems normally incapable of doing much of anything for less than $1 billion. Still, a manned flight to Mars will mean a long and deep commitment of public funds. Whether the U.S. can afford such a thing while confronting the costs of a never-ending "war on terror" and paying the ever-increasing costs of Medicare and Social Security is an open question.

If we can afford such a journey, is it worth the effort and expense? I think so. The prospect of a journey to Mars fires the imagination. Throughout history, humankind has wondered about the mysterious red planet, namesake of the god of war. The question of whether we should set foot out there reminds me of the doomed English mountaineer George Mallory who, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt. Everest, simply replied: "Because it’s there."

This is one fairly rare instance in which I agree with Shrubbie. I hope we go for it and that our efforts are met with success.

Thanks for listening. :)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Oh my!

INCOMING! :P

[CityZen-X]

3. The Great Quest...

that I am looking for is, any men on Barbara Bu$h*t!

[randr]

4. When will we ever wake up and discover

we are all passengers on the best equipped space station ever imaginable.
B*'s proposals are a smoke screen to place people on the moon in order to facilitate their Star Wars program. We are already seeing the elimination of scientific programs to meet this end.
While the excitement surrounding the early space programs was palatable, the advances to knowledge by the Hubble simply dwarf what we learned by going to the moon. In fact, the most important discovery of the lunar excursion was that the cost of sending human cargo was far to high. More than half the cost for a manned launch is life support.
I have heard discussions of the benefit of a lunar base for further exploration. I have one question. In order to launch from the moon don't you first have had to send it up from here?
I think the announcement was timed to displace the Apollo Program Kickoff and the arrival on Mars of what may be our most successful scientific mission to date.
There is a pattern of disdain for any factual knowledge that oozes from this administration. Their creationist illusions are driving them to annihilate practical science at every opportunity.
There is absolutely not one thing this crowd has enacted or proposed that does not have an ulterior motive connected to the monetary enrichment of a very few fat white men.
My Oh My granny, what big plans you have!

[Ediacara]

7. I'm sorry but that's just not true re: Hubble

When we went to the Moon, we learnt that the rocks were basaltic in the Mare. Although that may not sound important or exciting, it really is. It helps build the picture of the evolution of our solar system that taking pictures simply can't do.

The entire history of our planet and every planet in our solar system is wrapped up in the rocks on the Moon, Mars, Venus, and Mercury. Going to the Moon and Mars is the ultimate in scientific learning, and I hope it happens well within my lifetime.

Not to mention any fossils or biologically produced sedimentary structures like stromatolites that may be on Mars :-)

[randr]

12. I stand corrected

but still maintane we would have gained this knowledge without humans on board for a lot less investment.

[Ediacara]

13. I wasn't necisarily trying to correct you :-)

Sorry :-) I just get very excited about actually GOING to Mars, because people can do what robots cannot concerning field geology.

I am also not trying to diminish the importance of Hubble, as it's VERY important.

I just wanted to point out that going to the Moon did more than prove it was expensive to go there.

[randr]

19. You are right on the mark with the excitement

that was generated by Kennedy's challenge to us all. The fact that we pulled it off was a major morale booster during a time of major social upheaval. The lunar program was very significant for the unity it brought to all of us.

[pmbryant]

15. It *is* true re Hubble

... the advances to knowledge by the Hubble simply dwarf what we learned by going to the moon.

This statement is absolutely correct.

The Hubble Space Telescope has been a giant contribution to the knowledge of our place in the Universe and the history of the Universe over the last decade plus.

(The Hubble does far more than take pictures, by the way. Though of course, it is its pretty pictures that get all the publicity.)

Sending humans to the Moon has contributed relatively little to our overall body of scientific knowledge. The Moon, frankly, is not a very interesting place by itself. And even if it were, we can learn just as much, far more cheaply, by sending robots to do the work for us.

Learning how the Solar System formed is a very interesting scientific question, but if that is your main concern, you should prefer to fund telescopes and unmanned scientific probes rather than a ridiculously expensive manned mission.

--Peter

[Ediacara]

16. how do you know the Moon is boring?

It's light gray and dark gray.

What does that mean?

Well one could hypothesise that, since primitive magmas on earth are peridotite (ultra-mafic), that the Moon also must have been ultra-mafic or mafic in composition.

You could make the assumption that anorthite (Calcium plagioclase feldspar) crystalized within the global magma chamber and floated to the top of it since its density is lower than that of the bulk magma, and that other heavier minerals settled out and sank. Anorthite is white, and so are the light highland areas. One could also assume that the Mare were flood basalts that erupted after the surface was entirely anorthosite. Basalt is dark gray/black, so it makse sense.

How do you know though without direct sampling? Even now, it's difficult.

Plus, what about metamorphism?

And when did this all happen?

Three billion years ago? One hundred million years ago? These are big questions, and pretty important actually in knowing about the biological history of Earth, as well as the geological evolution and history of the Solar System as a whole.

And Mars?

Mars is about 100x more interesting and 100x more enegmatic than the Moon. There are BIG questions about the geology (ie, why did plate tectonics aparently never start there even though the core and mantle were very hot for some time; what's with all the iron; why no aparent granitic rocks etc), and of course, BIG BIG BIG questions concerning the possibility of past life.

Remote control robots are not a replacement for field geology, and I stand by my contention that they won't be for another 100 years. I think it's worth the investment, and the rewards in terms of knowlege will be tremendous.

EDIT: to add that I agree with you concerning Bush's funding proposals, it's a joke and an election year ploy, and I can only hope that Dean or Clark or whomever will take this seriously enough to fund it properly in 2005 :-)

[pmbryant]

17. The Moon, space science, Hubble, and unmanned probes

Well, I disagree that knowledge of the Moon's history will have any impact on knowledge of the biological history of Earth or the evolution of the Solar System as a whole. For one, it's not the Earth, and for two, it is a minor, atypical, part of the Solar System.

I agree that it poses some moderately interesting questions on its own, though. I just don't think they have much impact on these other, more compelling, scientific questions, and that's why I said that it's not that interesting a place (compared to just about everything else in the Solar System).

I wonder why someone as clearly interested in science as yourself is apparently willing to see the entire space science program gutted? Do you appreciate what will be lost? The Hubble telescope has been a huge boon to science, and could have continued to be for many more years, yet, based on an earlier post, you don't seem to appreciate its contribution. :shrug:

And why are you so dismissive of the capabilities of unmanned probes? I think their worth has been proven time and time again (e.g., see Mariner, Voyager, Viking, etc). Fund these properly (still much, much more cheap than manned flights), and they can do a tremendous amount more.

Please don't be blinded by your desire to go to Mars yourself. I have that desire as well, and have had it since I was a little kid.

--Peter

[Ediacara]

21. "...willing to see the entire space science program gutted?"

Did I ever say that?

Peter, I agree that Bush's proposal is ludacris. It's not even worth considering. What I'm trying to say however, is that what Bush says he wants to do (go to the Moon and Mars) is worth doing, and should be done.

Do I want it done at the expense of everything else that's going on at NASA? Of course not. I never said that, and I never would say that.

Additionally, I am not trying to say that unmanned probes are not useful, but that to do the science that needs to be done on Mars (and actually every single other rocky body in the solar system), you either need actual human beings, or robots so increadibly advanced that it may be cheaper to actually send actual human beings rather than to develop the robots.

Voyager was the best way to see Jupiter, Hubble is the best way to see distant galaxies, but Apollo was the best way to conduct field geology on the Moon. Different solutions to different types of problems.

The Moon and Mars, geologically speaking, are very important first steps in developing a view of the evolution of the whole solar system. I'd like to have manned missions to Titan, Eurpoa, and Io eventually, but for now, the Moon and Mars are closer and easier, so we should go there first. Data from every rocky body is important, but so far we have nearly complete data from just one, very limited data from another, and esentially guesswork for the other 100+ rocky bodies in the solar system.

[pmbryant]

23. Need to speak up immediately to save space science

Unfortunately, when you voice support for "Bush's initiative", you are voicing support for what Bush is doing. And gutting space science appears to be the first and most obvious result of his policy. This is going to be immediate, apparently. To save space science requires speaking up about this right now.

I apologize for reading too much into your posts. And I am glad you actually find that program worthwhile. :D

I do encourage you to re-evaluate the relative scientific usefulness of manned space missions to the planets, though. Especially if you are interested in the evolution of the whole Solar System. The vast majority of the Solar System's matter is not contained in the rocky bodies that interest you, but in the Sun and, to a much lesser extent, the gas giant planets. And, of solid objects, comets are the most likely to be revealing about the origin of the Solar System, not the Moon or Mars or Titan, etc.

--Peter

[Ediacara]

24. The question I want answered on rocky planets is this:

Are ultramafic magmas the universal starting point for rocky planets, at least in this solar system? If so, what allows a planet to develop more silicic magmas like those on Earth, and what allows a planet to create a tectonic system like that on Earth. Those questions are pretty neat geologically speaking, and they do ultimately help us understand why life evolved on Earth.

Knowing the geology of Mars helps us on that path. In other words, is the basaltic nature of the Moon just a fluke? Is the Moon basaltic because it was developed from the collision of a big rocky body into the Earth, and as a result is made of the same stuff as the Earth? Or is it basaltic because that's how planets in this solar system are made?

[BeFree]

18. Wow!! Magma on the Moon! Wow!

Ya see, there's the difference. You are all hyped up and ready to go to mars for all the right reasons, yet, * couldn't care less about what Mars has to say about history.

This world is infinitely finite. Threre are few answers known here, and yet we urge to go somewhere else to find what we are made of.

The real reason * is shooting for Mars, is so that America will get over on the rest of the world. Now if * said something like: "All nations should join together to go further into space" then we'd know his reasons were meant for the betterment of ALL mankind.

If you wish to help and support an ill-resoned action, fine. Just don't expect others to pay for it.

[Padraig18]

5. Good post!

I'm in complete agreement with you on this! :)

[Ediacara]

6. I agree 100%

Though expect a lot of naysayers thinking that going to Mars will further inflate deficits (it's really a drop in the bucket of our national budget...).

One thing though, Bush's proposed funding is laughable.

I wrote a thread concerning Mars a few days ago, and I am with you, I want to go. I actually would personally like to go :-)

[patdem]

8. Everything is a 'drop in the bucket'..have you seen a bucket

fill up with drops...I have my ceiling leaked and that bucked filled up with 'drops'. Health care is a 'drop' in the bucket, only problem is one more drop and it will overflow..which drop should we choose? HUM? :freak:

[Ediacara]

9. Well we can start with making the bucket bigger

ie, reversing the idiotic tax cuts. Then reduce the waterfall from things like the $1.5B marriage protection plan, and the $87B Iraqi postal code production plan etc.....

[Padraig18]

11. I believe that represents a false choice.

It's not an 'either/or' situation. It is possible to do both, if one 'grows the economy', a la Clinton, and exercises fiscal discipline of the sort we saw from '93-'00.

[pmbryant]

10. It saddens me to see so many well-intentioned people fall for this

I really don't know what else I can say that I haven't said over the last few days. But here goes:

Bush is using this as a smokescreen to:

(1) decimate the space science budget. Already we see the Hubble Space Telescope is being sent to the scrap heap several years prematurely as a result of this. What other bad news lies in store as budgets get shifted away from science, and towards the aerospace contractors?

(2) politically blind the space enthusiasts. Sadly, this appears to be effective. Even DUers are falling into the trap, as unlikely as that would have seemed to me once upon a time. :-(

(3) distract the press and the broader public from all the other machinations of the Bush regime.

There is no seriousness-of-intent behind this proposal. Bush doesn't give a shit about this! The lack of any realistic amount of funding he proposes for it over the next 5 years is a blatant sign.

In the end, what will we space enthusiasts be left with? A decimated space science program, and some extremely meager effort towards planning a Mars mission in the far, far distant future.

Please, please, please don't fall for this.

--Peter

[Silverhair]

14. No, let's don't. Wait a few decades and send an AI robot. n/t

[MacCovern]

20. December 1972, the end of the age

I was but a wee little lad living in Melbourne, Florida in 1972 and
I remember seeing the takeoff of the final Apollo moon mission. It was December 7, 1972 to be exact. Since I was just 8 years old at the time I didn't really appreciate what was going on, and little did I know it was the last moon flight.

Basically, the world has gone to hell in a handbag since then. In just a couple more months Watergate would become a gigantic news story, and civilization has been on the decline ever since.

Since the announcement of the Nasa moon/Mars space program I have seen optimisim from the reporters on TV talking about it, to people at work, as well as friends and relatives. It's a human need to explore unknown worlds and it's something that gives us great hope for the future.

[Cleita]

22. As much as I wish I lived in a world that had all our social problems

solved so we could dream of exploring space, there are some realities that have to be aired first. In another thread, which no one read, I posted that 18,000 Americans died last year, who wouldn't have if they had access to health care. Another DU pointed out that that was a silent 9-11 times six. So before we go to Mars I really think we need to get universal health care to everyone first as well as a few other problems solved in the world as well.

[flaminbats]

25. How about a manned dive into the sun?

Think about the possibilities! Rediscovering nuclear fusion, more energy than we could possibly dream of, and it would be a one-way trip...no need to pay for the trip back...

a new phase of space exploration requires is money, and lots of it. The JPL managed to put a Rover on Mars for less than $1 billion. That’s heartening, I guess, because the government seems normally incapable of doing much of anything for less than $1 billion. Still, a manned flight to Mars will mean a long and deep commitment of public funds. Whether the U.S. can afford such a thing while confronting the costs of a never-ending "war on terror" and paying the ever-increasing costs of Medicare and Social Security is an open question.

Or...we could spend billions on probes to Mars, rather than less than a billion a year. We would be able to collect valuable date at a reasonable price. And it wouldn't become another come and go event, remember..in for a penny, in for a pound. Much more reasonable than wasting trillions on some freak show.