Mars Or Bust: Putting Humans On The Red Planet - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.npr.org/2014/01/19/264030413/mars-or-bust-putting-humans-on-the-red-planet"]NPR Link[/URL] [quote=NPR][B]Mission To Mars[/B] A few years ago, President Obama set a more conventional goal for the mid-2030s. "I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth, and a landing on Mars will follow," Obama said. "And I expect to be around to see it." Earthlings have actually been visiting Mars since the 1960s, at least our machines have. First there were fly-by missions and then orbiters. Primitive landing vehicles in the 1970s sent back the first pictures. But the real triumphs began with the robotic rovers that started exploring the surface of Mars in the '90s. Ten years ago, NASA took a big leap forward when it landed the rovers Spirit and Opportunity on opposite sides of the planet. Even John Grant, a planetary geologist at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum and part of NASA's rover mission team, thinks a manned mission is necessary. Grant tells NPR's Arun Rath that even with the amount of information scientists have learned about Mars in recent years, there is still a lot of it left unexplored. He says what we've seen so far would be comparable to visiting a few national parks on Earth. "Think if you had all of the continents on Earth to explore and you've only been to a handful of places," he says. "Would you say you really understand Earth?" Grant says though the robots and rovers are critical to setting the stage for understanding Mars, it is a very slow process. In its 10 years on the planet, the Opportunity rover has traveled about 23 miles. He says humans would be more efficient. "With the rovers, it's much more of a dragged-out process, simply because they can't do and think like we do," he says. "And because we have to tell them what to do, it just takes longer."[/quote] I implore you guys to read the [B]whole[/B] article in the link. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5sWfhkpE0[/media]

That's actually rather frightening to think about- leaving Earth forever. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] I couldn't do it.

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;43599198]That's actually rather frightening to think about- leaving Earth forever. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] I couldn't do it.[/QUOTE]Somebody's gotta do it. Ain't gonna be me, but if, over the course of my life, I've somehow helped somebody do that, I'll be happy.

Why dont we try the moon first?

[QUOTE=beanhead;43599221]Why dont we try the moon first?[/QUOTE]but we already went t o the moon

[QUOTE=Killer900;43599229]but we already went t o the moon[/QUOTE] I'm talk about a permanent shelter sort of thing.

[QUOTE=Killer900;43599229]but we already went t o the moon[/QUOTE] Putting a permanent colony on the moon is a lot easier, and would allow for a base of operations for other colonization attempts.

[QUOTE=beanhead;43599240]I'm talk about a permanent shelter sort of thing.[/QUOTE] It might be a good idea, but there's a lot more to learn about Mars and, from what I understand, a far greater chance to make it habitable for us.

[QUOTE=beanhead;43599240]I'm talk about a permanent shelter sort of thing.[/QUOTE] I'd think it's not really suitable. It's closer but that's all it has going for it.

[QUOTE=FullStreak12;43599265]I'd think it's not really suitable. It's closer but that's all it has going for it.[/QUOTE]well it would also be easier to launch rockets from it due to the fact that it has no atmosphere to go through so the escape velocity for it would be much lower than on Earth, so a space center/launchpad on the moon would make it easier to launch rockets and shit from there. but then again you still need to transport all the materials and whatnot for the launchpad and the rockets and shit from Earth to the Moon. unless you were to manufacture the rockets and everything else on the Moon itself the cost for all this would probably be enormous. and even then if we even wanted to colonize Mars it would make sense to have a launching center on the Moon or at least in orbit around the Earth, because again the cost to transport all the materials and goods to Mars from Earth is astronomical (no pun intended) if you were to do it from current space-centers. A LOT of things need to be considered before a Mars colony can happen.

[QUOTE=FullStreak12;43599265]I'd think it's not really suitable. It's closer but that's all it has going for it.[/QUOTE] We have no fucking idea how to colonize, might as well try it out with the closest thing to a planet that's right next to us. Manage to make a sustainable colony there, then we can try Mars. This whole thing is fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=Killer900;43599311]well it would also be easier to launch rockets from it due to the fact that it has no atmosphere to go through so the escape velocity for it would be much lower than on Earth, so a space center/launchpad on the moon would make it easier to launch rockets and shit from there. but then again you still need to transport all the materials and whatnot for the launchpad and the rockets and shit from Earth to the Moon. unless you were to manufacture the rockets and everything else on the Moon itself the cost for all this would probably be enormous. and even then if we even wanted to colonize Mars it would make sense to have a launching center on the Moon or at least in orbit around the Earth, because again the cost to transport all the materials and goods to Mars from Earth is astronomical (no pun intended) if you were to do it from current space-centers. A LOT of things need to be considered before a Mars colony can happen.[/QUOTE] What can you do on the moon that you can't do in Earths orbit?

Ironically Venus is actually one of the better colony candidates, probably trumping mars and the moon. It's high upper atmosphere is comprised of breathable air, it has a similar temperature, has 24/7 sunlight, and because of the extremely dense lower atmosphere it's possible to have air or helium Aerostat structures remain floating in the upper atmosphere indefinitely (presuming you have a durable balloon)... though water would be an issue.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]Ironically Venus is actually one of the better colony candidates, probably trumping mars and the moon.[/quote] Ehh, not so sure about this. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]It's high upper atmosphere is comprised of breathable air,[/QUOTE] No it isn't. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]it has a similar temperature,[/QUOTE] This is true. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]has 24/7 sunlight,[/QUOTE] This isn't. A venusian day is around 116.75 Earth days, which means 116.75 days in sun then 116.75 days in shade. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]and because of the extremely dense lower atmosphere it's possible to have air or helium Aerostat structures remain floating in the upper atmosphere indefinitely (presuming you have a durable balloon)... [/QUOTE] Yeah uh first we kinda need to fix the whole acidic air problem. (Also we'd need a way to keep it afloat for a VERY long time.) [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]though water would be an issue.[/QUOTE] Yes it would. Venus is certainly an option, but don't make it seem easier than it is.

[QUOTE=beanhead;43599240]I'm talk about a permanent shelter sort of thing.[/QUOTE] When you put planets like Mars, Moon and Earth side to side in comparison, what makes you want to live on any other planet except Earth?

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]Ironically Venus is actually one of the better colony candidates, probably trumping mars and the moon. It's high upper atmosphere is comprised of breathable air, it has a similar temperature, has 24/7 sunlight, and because of the extremely dense lower atmosphere it's possible to have air or helium Aerostat structures remain floating in the upper atmosphere indefinitely (presuming you have a durable balloon)... though water would be an issue.[/QUOTE] considering it currently rains battery acid and melts lead with its immense greenhouse effect and pressure that could force a 300 pound man into a small plastic cup, i'd be surprised if the planet didn't just form nuclear silos and bombard any ships that came near it from how much it seems to despise all life [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] Lunar colonies would be very good experience for when we head out to Jupiter. the moon Callisto is NASA's priority for colonization there due to its low radiation and geological stability, and it's a lot like our moon but uglier in every way.

Oh sorry yeah, no air, but air is a rising gas and the palatable temperature and sunlight quantity would be useful Mars just seems like a doomed and dead planet, it wasn't big enough to go anywhere and it's desolate for a reason. Whereas Venus seems more like Earths crack addicted fuckup cousin that took a wrong turn in life and could be fixed or altered if the time and effort was put into it :v: Venus may be a hellhole, but it's similar to earth in makeup and can hold onto water an atmosphere for a long time, assuming the pre-existing atmosphere could be altered.

What would the point be in sending people to Mars without a plan to get back? What can humans do that we can't just send machines to do in their place?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;43600124]What would the point be in sending people to Mars without a plan to get back? What can humans do that we can't just send machines to do in their place?[/QUOTE] Cover more ground. That's basically it. [editline]e[/editline] we just need to build one on the moon dammit [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Lunar_base_concept_drawing_s78_23252.jpg[/t]

If sci-fi and video games have taught me one thing. Governments/ agency's always do stuff like this because they are evil and trying to see if they can use it as an excuse to make money, and get rid of annoying foolish people... In Reality however; If and when they actually stop waving around the "WERE GOING TO MARS!" and actually finish the R&D, infrastructure,ships, and the habitation for the colonist, so they can feed and not die. Then we would be sufficiently advanced to have a working and better space platform that doesn't cost trillions of $. Because you are not sending a decent amount of colonist to mars with the current method of getting to space. The cost would be absurdly high with no pay off. Therefor it safe to say that the 12 month trip would not be a one way trip as we would have the tech and means to set up a supply line for mars resources. Because lets be honest, the only reason anyone who funds these things care about mars is because there is a possibility of money to be made. So while they like to spout off its a one way trip. It would remain a one way trip for exactly the amount of time it would take the colony to say "Hey! there are things here that are valuable and that earth can use." Otherwise earth would abandon its Mars base pack up the folk who want a ride home, and chalk it up to a very expensive step for mankind. OR they just leave them to fend for themselves entirely if they are cheap.

I'm just waiting for the miner uprising to take place.

[QUOTE=jaredop;43599509]What can you do on the moon that you can't do in Earths orbit?[/QUOTE] Land.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]Ironically Venus is actually one of the better colony candidates, probably trumping mars and the moon. It's high upper atmosphere is comprised of breathable air, it has a similar temperature, has 24/7 sunlight, and because of the extremely dense lower atmosphere it's possible to have air or helium Aerostat structures remain floating in the upper atmosphere indefinitely (presuming you have a durable balloon)... though water would be an issue.[/QUOTE] what? isn't venus the hottest planet in the solar system?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43600409]what? isn't venus the hottest planet in the solar system?[/QUOTE]Yes. Although colonization on Venus has been done in many science-fiction novels/films and it's been proposed in the past, there's a lot of difficulties and issues you'd have to deal with which makes it an unattractive option given current technology. Terraforming Venus has also been discussed, but again with current technology it's very unlikely something like that will happen in our lifetime. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/TerraformedVenus.jpg/1024px-TerraformedVenus.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=ionuttzu;43599430]We have no fucking idea how to colonize, might as well try it out with the closest thing to a planet that's right next to us. Manage to make a sustainable colony there, then we can try Mars. This whole thing is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] It also helps that the moon is about, what, 1/1000 the distance of Earth to Mars? It's common fucking sense that one should probably use 1/1000 less fuel to colonize a location. The fact that people are reaching for the stars is beyond me. [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43599513]Shit about one of the hottest planets in the solar system being similar in temperature to Earth[/QUOTE] If by 700 degrees hotter than the hottest place on Earth, then yeah, you're onto something. Let's all go to Venus!

[QUOTE=Pelf;43600173]Cover more ground. That's basically it. [/QUOTE] So why not build faster rovers with more experimentation capability and better AI for driving itself? We're able to make cars that drive themselves successfully through a city, surely we can make a vehicle AI that can avoid big rocks.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;43600471]So why not build faster rovers with more experimentation capability and better AI for driving itself? We're able to make cars that drive themselves successfully through a city, surely we can make a vehicle AI that can avoid big rocks.[/QUOTE]Even then there's still a lot of places and things that humans can go/do where robots simply cannot. Unless we were to have robots rivaling those seen in iRobot, which won't be happening for a [I]long[/I] time, if ever.

We need to beta test space colonies on the moon before we design mars bases

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43599258]Putting a permanent colony on the moon is a lot easier, and would allow for a base of operations for other colonization attempts.[/QUOTE] The goal is to create a permanent colony on a Planet, and creating one on the moon would be a monumental waste of time.

[QUOTE=Zoran;43600434]It also helps that the moon is about, what, 1/1000 the distance of Earth to Mars? It's common fucking sense that one should probably use 1/1000 less fuel to colonize a location. The fact that people are reaching for the stars is beyond me. [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] If by 700 degrees hotter than the hottest place on Earth, then yeah, you're onto something. Let's all go to Venus![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=meppers;43600659]We need to beta test space colonies on the moon before we design mars bases[/QUOTE] The Moon is substantially closer to Earth than Mars is, [I]that does not mean it takes substantially more fuel to get to Mars than to the moon.[/I] It takes more, mind you, but the difference is far less than you are assuming. Also, the moon is quite a bad colonization location in the first place, it has very little of the things a civilization would need to survive on its own (things that Mars has plenty of), and is incredibly dry. It also doesn't make sense to go there to get ready for Mars, because there are places on Earth much more similar to Mars that you could train on for much less money.