The Case for Mars

[renormalised]

I won't ramble on too much here, as I otherwise could. It's a huge subject to try and cover and this forum isn't really the place to be writing large tomes extolling the virtues of (or otherwise not) going there. However, I feel that with the recent discoveries of water ice just near the surface, found by Phoenix, the hydrated minerals, carbonates and other deposits that need water to form, along with all the questions that need to be asked and studied about these minerals, their geological setting and such, that it's about time we not just start to think about going to Mars at some point in the future. But that we start making solid plans, now, to go there within the next 10-20 years. It's all well and good to be thinking about going back to the Moon, and so we should. But the Moon is going to be nothing more than a way station for some foreseeable time, whereas Mars will most likely be our main port of call. Mars has far more opportunities going for it than the Moon, although the Moon will be important. There is just so much to be found and studied at Mars that the only real way you're going to get anything like decent coverage of the Martian geology, and a truly insightful appraisal of what has happened there is to send people there. You can only do so much with a robotic survey and it's rapidly approaching the time when a much more concise and in depth study is going to be needed in order to answer the questions we have. These rocks needed to be eyeballed, sampled, thin sectioned and radio-isotope dated. The geology has to be core sampled, drilled to depth and those cores studied by more discriminating eyes than just a robots. The robot explorers that we have sent up there have done a marvelous job and they will continue to do so. Even after people do finally get there. But they can only do so much. They can compliment a human being physically there, but it will be quite some time yet before technology reaches the stage where we can be entirely replaced.

Not only that, but as they say you climb a mountain just because it's there...so we need to goto Mars. We need that pioneering spirit and sense of adventure fired up again. We've become too staid, inertialess and prone to excessive navel gazing. We need to drag ourselves out of the lethargy of our present situation. What better way of creating the circumstances for co-operation amongst the various nations here than to permanently move our presence out into space. If not for exploration purposes only than for our own ultimate survival.

[GrampianStars]

MARS = 10-20 years :eyepop:
it will take that long to develop a strategy for a LUNAR base station :thumbsup:
so all the technologies can be tested and verified before a Mars mission.

[renormalised]

Why not....all it takes is a little bit of political will. They've had 40 years worth of technical development since Apollo. How long spent studying the effects of long term spaceflight...nearly as long. They have the necessary technologies, what they don't have is the money or the political will...maybe even the public interest to go there.

At their present rate of stuffing around, it'll be another 50 years before they even think of going there, and given their propensity for faulty engineering, they'll have bigger and better things which won't work properly. What the hell, they're even considering putting back a decade or so, of going back to the Moon!!!. It's only right that they plan carefully and such, but there is a case of doing too much planning. Being overly pedantic and into too much detail. That's when big mistakes are made, and you lose lives. People start to second guess themselves and that's where the errors creep in.

Plan carefully once, do the job right in the first place and then do it. You can't plan for every little contingency or possibility, and that's what they're trying to do. That's where they'll stuff up, majorly.

The main reason why Apollo was canned for the last 3 flights wasn't that they didn't want to risk astronaut's lives on further missions. It was the fact that people got bored with it, and the pollies didn't want to spend the money (they had a war on, you know...greasing the palms of big business and breaking into rival's offices). Nixon lost the plot and lobby groups within NASA wanted to move onto building the Shuttle. They lost all the momentum they had built up over the years, and also lost a great opportunity. They'd have been on the Moon permanently by now, and would've had better technology for it. Now, they can't even get manufacturing their rockets right!!!. Look at all the trouble they're having with the Ares. I certainly wouldn't want to go up in one and at present that's precisely what would happen (you'd "go up"). They're trying to do too much with not enough money or resources and trying to get away with "under-engineering" things but having them adequate enough to do the job. It's not working and it never has worked in the past. Won't work in the future, either.

The way things are, most of us here won't see a manned Mars mission. Not the way things are being done at present, and for the likely foreseeable future. If we do, most of us will be pretty old by then.

[TrevorW]

It's all C.R.A.P... it only took the US 8 years after JFK made his speech to put a man on the moon and technology has progressed significantly since the 60's.

Why are they taking so long to go back, somethings not right IMO, surely they would have a rocket capable of doing the trip and back again. why not the shuttle with extra fuel tanks and the cargo bay holding a Lunar lander.
?????????

[bojan]

Because "economic rationalism" is fashionable today.
They can not make any money selling Mars dust.. or can they?

[renormalised]

The moment they detect the right spectral signatures, those defining possible ore deposits, they'll be up there like a shot!!!!.

For anyone that likes opals....there's plenty of opaline silica on Mars. It's there in spadefuls...especially around the old hydrothermal vents.

[sjastro]

I imagine the economic exploitation of Mars would require territorial claims being made which is strictly forbidden by the Outer Space treaty of 1967.

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

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

The moment they figure out the treaty is in the way of their business, "they" will pronounce it invalid. Or "they" will will find the ways how to circumvent it ("scientific mining"? why not?)

[renormalised]

Precisely....the fact that they signed the 1967 Treaty on Outer Space will be neither here nor there. They'll ignore it just like they ignore most of the others when it suits them. In any case, they'll just say that it's the big multinational companies that are exploiting Mars resources, not national entities. I can see the likes of the US, China and maybe Russia doing precisely that. Using the multinationals as a front to foster territorial ambitions, but only in a proxy sort of sense. "Clayton's" territorial claims.

What makes things worse is that most of the nations will just get left behind because it'll only be those nations tied into the various space programs which will benefit. The others will just have to wait for the trickle down effect to occur...if it ever does.

[TrevorW]

When resources become scarce on Earth trust me space will become a commercial reality

[Shano592]

Well, didn't the ESA just have a bunch of astronauts locked away, to simulate a flight to Mars?

It has to be on their minds to be doing something like that. Whether NASA joins the party or not is another thing. I can easily see at least 3 different bases on the moon, all flying their own flags ...

Can economic rationalisation really come into play here? If these space-faring superpowers really wanted to be serious about this, they would be in feet first, creating some serious jobs in the process. After all, they would be gearing up to conquer another planet! Surely that would stimulate their local/national economies.

They would first need to pillage more resources from this one, in order to make infrastructure that they can take with them. I doubt there is too much on the moon, and I couldn't see them lifting a haulpak and some excavators (and a processing plant for that matter) up there in a hurry.

Personally, I would love to see humanity on Mars in my lifetime. Heck, I would even put my hand up, if offered the chance.

[sjastro]

One can argue the Antarctic treaty which has been around since 1960 has been successful in preventing this very thing from happening.

The Outer Space treaty like the Antarctic treaty operates on the same principles.

Steven

[renormalised]

That was more a matter of the technology of the time not being able to handle the conditions and stresses present down there. I'm afraid those days are now over. There's been talk by both the US and China of exploiting some of the mineral resources down in Antarctica...and a few other countries have been thinking the same. The US does pretty much what it likes down there, anyway, regardless of the Treaty. The Kiwis have told them to clean up McMurdo on several occasions and they've just ignored them. It's just as bad at the Sth Pole Station. I don't think China would give a rat's about the environment down there if they thought they could gain something out of exploiting any of Antarctica's resources. Neither would the US, or many other countries.

[Trido]

Sounds like a new age of Imperialism. I admit to not liking the fact that we will 'rape' Mars in the same fashion as we did to our own planet, but, there has to be SOMETHING to get people wanting to go. And by people, I mean politicians and the private business who can afford to fund it.

If it was upto scientists and idealist types (I think that would be 95%+ of members here!) then we would never go. Money does make the world go around and I think most politicians would view science as a waste of time. Not all science of course. But Astronomy isn't something that will cure cancer or feed millions. While the technology created as a result of Apollo would have made a big difference to peoples everyday lives, no one would see that except the educated few. The masses would see the lives lost, the scandals, the massive amount of money spent and for what? Human exploration and some rocks. To me, that is worth it and we should continue to push ourselves, but for a politician who is more concerned about wars, domestic issues and re-election, scientific endeavours would seem trivial. They would do some sort of nice speech every now and then. Give NASA/ESA a token amount of funds to make it appear that they are interested and then get back to the real work.

Apollo was partially so successful because the US was trying to beat the Russians. What happened after the victory in beating Russia and then Apollo 13? People quickly got bored and those final 3 missions were cancelled. Sure, the Japanese and Chinese are getting into the game big time, and it might be that once the Chinese have someone on the Moon, US citizens will begin demanding that they not fall behind in a domain that they would consider theirs. Once that occurs, perhaps the US will kick into a higher gear and A) get back to the Moon and then B) begin having a permanent presence there.

</rant> lol

[sjastro]

As you state it is only speculation. The fact is territorial claims that could ultimately lead to full scale mining is banned by the treaty.

Compare this to the geopolitical nonsense that is going on at the opposite end of the planet.
There are enormous oil and gas reserves in the North polar regions which with the assistance of global warming may become accessible in the future to mining.

Russia has made the rather spurious claim that a ridge extending to the North Pole is an extension of the continental shelf off Siberia thereby making the region and most of the gas and oil fields part of Russian territory.

The Russians have "legitimized" their claims to future mining of the region by laying claim to the North Pole.

Needless to say Russia's claims have been rejected by the World at large.

If Russia fails, I think the Antarctic will be safe.

Steven

[renormalised]

Yes, however like I mentioned before, having a Treaty never really stopped anyone, when it suited them. Most don't take any notice of them.

Yeah...it's a bit of a joke, the Russian claim. But they can try...the US would do the same if they were in a position to do so. But then again, you have the Alaskan fiasco and GB wanting to drill for oil in the wilderness reserve, when he was in power. Given half a chance they probably still will.

If they ever find ores of any sort on Mars, they won't have to worry about trying to terraform the planet...being literally a cold dry desert they won't give a damn about polluting it. The atmosphere will end up thick with CO2 (a lot more than what's there already) and who knows what else. They'll have their terraformed planet in no time at all.

[TrevorW]

Also don't forget this he who controls the moon will control the Earth

If the good old USA doesn't wake up soon China will

[Morepower]

We most certainly need to be looking toward getting Humans situated elsewhere. All our eggs are in one basket ATM. If a big rock where to get knocked out of it's orbit today, putting it on a collision course with Earth in say 30yrs time, would we be in a position to save ourselves ? Maybe, but maybe not. We know for a fact our time on this Planet (and in this Solar System for that matter) is limited by the lifespan of our own Sun. So eventually we need to be able to go to other Stars, etc, if we wish to continue. I believe the experience gained from going to live on the Moon and Mars is pretty much the only thing that is going to allow us to come up with the necessary technologies to eventually venture out of our Solar System. So I say bring on the Moon and Mars. Besides I for one can't wait to find out if there is/was life in our Solar System and beyond. I'm firmly betting there is.

[Blue Skies]

Anyone read Universe Today (http://www.universetoday.com/)? Take a look at the weekly Carnival of Space? The Carnival is a weekly blog posting, hosted by a different space-related site each week, that gathers a list of links to other articles on space blogs. Its a good way to find other blogs, if you're into that kind of thing. (...and you're thinking 'What's this got to do with going to Mars?' I'm getting there, be patient...)

I don't look a the Carnival every week but a few weeks ago I did, as I was looking for some distraction on the day, and it was hosted that week by a blog called 21st Century Waves (http://21stcenturywaves.com/blog/2009/07/22/the-right-stuff-celebrities-and-sarkars-social-cycles/). It's not the most well laid blog, I must say, but it very interesting reading, and it may have the answer as to why we haven't gone back to the moon or made it to Mars - yet! I've linked to a recent post that explains what Maslow Windows are and I recommend starting on the Daily Wavelets page to get you going, but there is heaps to explore there. ;) They're pretty confident we will get to Mars, its just the timing hasn't been right, and wont be right for a few more years yet. The 2020 target set for the moon return is smack in the middle of the upcoming Maslow Window, and I noticed all three of the Apollo 11 astronauts have been saying things along the lines of "don't bother with the moon, we've been there done that, head to Mars!", particularly Buzz Aldrin, he's been very vocal about it lately. The next Maslow Window is only 6 years away, now that's not so far away, is it?

[renormalised]

True, but if they're right in their predictions, we won't be going to Mars until the next window arrives (around 2071). Like I said earlier in this thread, most of us here probably won't be around to see it happen. If it happens that late into the century. If it happens between 2010-15 and 2050, then quite a few of us should still be around. I hope to be:)

[renormalised]

If we don't go to Mars soon, this is what's going to happen...

Mars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=yjiGH9QNiU0)

:P:D:P:D

[Blue Skies]

Well, that's the pessimistic view but is an if - if we miss the opportunity in the upcoming window then we'll have to wait until 2071 for the next chance, but it could be done this time round, by 2025. But what if everyone gets an onslaught of 'ebullience' and an attempt in the next window is successful? To my eye it seems that we haven't wasted the last 40 years by not returning to the moon. There has been a lot work gone into dealing with the problems of living in space and without this foundation the longer hop to Mars would be that much harder and more dangerous. I'm taking the optimsitic view in this case. I wont be surprised if we do make it Mars this time round. And if it turns out the next big thing is not Mars, its still going to be a fascinating time to be living in! I'm looking forward to the ride, no matter what the project is, Moon or Mars.