M. A. R. S. Mars, bitches! Orion's first flight a success.

iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
But when it comes to exploration and exploitation of resource, "just because" is actually good enough for me.

If we can create a sustained presence on Mars within a generation or two (and it will probably be our grandchildren, lets be real) then you would hope that within 2-3 generations after that initial effort the presence could move from sustained to self-sustaining. And that process, for all philosophical and moral arguments otherwise (some of which I share) can, really, only be viewed as an existential good. That life should propagate itself. We don't need to reinvent organic mandates, and I don't think we could anyway, we just need to invent a better way to fulfill them.

Very good questions to ask. But again, just for me personally, "just because" is a fair answer.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Cad_sl said:
This would be the primary crew habitat module, but thats not to say there wouldn't be other parts of the eventual ship that flies to mars. The crew portion of the shuttle wasn't any bigger than this, though. The vast majority of the shuttle volume was the cargo bay.
Click to expand...
Yeah but isn't Mars a 9 month trip? I guess the space can't be too big, but you don't want them going all Lord of the Flies up there either.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Szlia_sl said:
What is the objective and why is it an objective? 'Manned mission to Mars' and 'just because' ?
Click to expand...
The objective is sustainment of the human race. I realize these are valid questions but for some reason I feel like I just can't even relate to people who ask "But why space?"
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,571
1,328
I understand the value such a project can have as a sort of recruiting tool for science, but I can't help but wonder if it's not possible to find a project that fulfills that objective AND has scientific merit.

I also understand the value of not putting all your eggs in the same basket, but for Humanity to have additional baskets at its disposal, a number of milestones have yet to be reached and sending actual people to Mars is not among the next few in line.

So if Neil de Grass Tyson said: "The objective is to have a self sustained human presence on Mars by 2100 and, to reach this goal, the next step is sending a manned mission to Mars in 2020" I would be fine with it all, but that is not what is being said and, correct me if I am wrong, if the goal is self sustained presence, there is much work and experimentation that can be done in many very inhospitable corners of the earth. One might even find efficient ways to fight desertification in the process or something.




Maybe I am a Debbie Downer of Space Exploration but:
- We have currently access to a very limited number of planets/satellites, none of which can sustain human life as is.
- Terra-forming is not a realistic option (for timescale and energy reasons for starters).
- Reaching exo-planets requires major breakthrough in physics or might simply be impossible.
- There is almost nothing that can happen on Earth that could make it less hospitable than outer-space and other planets/satellites within reach, so learning how to sustain life on Earth is both easier and more important than learning how to sustain life on, say, Mars.
- Fundamental knowledge about the formation of the Solar System, the Milky Way and the Universe is good to have (it never hurts to learn new things), but is also of very limited practical use since all of it concerns things that are on a wholly different scale than the one of the human experience.
 
Kirun

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
<Gold Donor>
18,728
34,917
Szlia_sl said:
What is the objective and why is it an objective? 'Manned mission to Mars' and 'just because' ?
Click to expand...
The moon landing was a "just because" and look at all the technology that exists today because of that program.
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,571
1,328
This is a point that is often made and while valid, I am not too comfortable with it, because you can argue that any large scale ambitious project will result in discoveries, in new know-how and/or in new technologies that might have a broader field of application. So why chose 'Manned mission to Mars' instead of something equally ambitious but that has practical and/or scientific purpose in itself?
 
Intrinsic

Intrinsic

Person of Whiteness
<Gold Donor>
14,329
11,860
Yeah just look at Seaquest DSV for an example of all the fun we can have just right here! And we could still find aliens in the process.
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,465
22,299
Large scale hydroponic farming on an ocean colony would be a good endeavor too here on earth, but in addition to space exploration.

These programs are all so cheap compared to the trillions we waste on things that are net negative, like wars.
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,465
22,299
Starting to developing the technology to realistically spread off of earth NOW is extremely important. (Climate change + rising population + dwindling resources) / 1*Earth is a math problem with no other solution. If we wait until the coming crisis is readily apparent it will be far too late.
 
Kirun

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
<Gold Donor>
18,728
34,917
Szlia_sl said:
This is a point that is often made and while valid, I am not too comfortable with it, because you can argue that any large scale ambitious project will result in discoveries, in new know-how and/or in new technologies that might have a broader field of application. So why chose 'Manned mission to Mars' instead of something equally ambitious but that has practical and/or scientific purpose in itself?
Click to expand...
Because the Earth won't last forever?
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Szlia_sl said:
I understand the value such a project can have as a sort of recruiting tool for science, but I can't help but wonder if it's not possible to find a project that fulfills that objective AND has scientific merit.

I also understand the value of not putting all your eggs in the same basket, but for Humanity to have additional baskets at its disposal, a number of milestones have yet to be reached and sending actual people to Mars is not among the next few in line.

So if Neil de Grass Tyson said: "The objective is to have a self sustained human presence on Mars by 2100 and, to reach this goal, the next step is sending a manned mission to Mars in 2020" I would be fine with it all, but that is not what is being said and, correct me if I am wrong, if the goal is self sustained presence, there is much work and experimentation that can be done in many very inhospitable corners of the earth. One might even find efficient ways to fight desertification in the process or something.




Maybe I am a Debbie Downer of Space Exploration but:
- We have currently access to a very limited number of planets/satellites, none of which can sustain human life as is.
- Terra-forming is not a realistic option (for timescale and energy reasons for starters).
- Reaching exo-planets requires major breakthrough in physics or might simply be impossible.
- There is almost nothing that can happen on Earth that could make it less hospitable than outer-space and other planets/satellites within reach, so learning how to sustain life on Earth is both easier and more important than learning how to sustain life on, say, Mars.
- Fundamental knowledge about the formation of the Solar System, the Milky Way and the Universe is good to have (it never hurts to learn new things), but is also of very limited practical use since all of it concerns things that are on a wholly different scale than the one of the human experience.
Click to expand...
Oh, terraforming is Kim Stanley science fiction. But digging bunkers like mole people is probably not. With enough electricity you can make air and water out of rocks. At least one Japanese lab has been doing that for at least 15 years in preparation for a moonbase. With some godless rRNA research, you can probably make food.

Shelter, Air, Water, Food. We're climbing up marlow's ass, here!

As for the why not do it on Earth. Yeah, well, I'm not gonna say you're wrong cause you're not. But if it's easier to motivate people to do it OOOOON MAAAAARS then even if it's not the most efficient path to progress, and even if it's a bit of a pipe dream... at least it's generally in the right direction. There is a very large political component to it. It probably would be better to set up 1,000 camps in Antarctica and solve the exact same problems that colonists are likely to face on Mars. But it's also very likely that you set up those camps, make some progress on those questions, and then no "colonists" ever get sent. Cause you'll really never know until you go. So it's got to be both at the same time.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Szlia_sl said:
Debbie Downer
Click to expand...
SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!

Seriously. Space.

It may be simplistic, but that is why i am on board. It isn't a binary thing, cancel NASA tomorrow and that funding isn't going to be immediately routed to amazing science projects here on Earth. It would be pissed away. Or more likely spent on the military. At least this way, we get space. SPACE!
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Kirk for sure. His sloppy seconds are of a much higher class than Rikers.

And I'm pretty sure Jean-Luc was gay, so eww.
 
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
16,930
46,215
Picard for 2 reasons:

1) Kirk was a neanderthal in comparison.

2) There is no such thing as the Kirk Maneuver.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,454
73,543
Glad to see another long term space objective take form, hopefully NASA can drum up enough national interest in it to make it politically inadvisable to cut funding to it.

Part of me agrees with Szlia though, I wish NASA was able to come up with an objective that is inherently useful. Maybe that's impossible with the technology we have and the side-benefits of the Apollo project are far and wide, but it'd be a lot easier to get on board with a 3 decade mission if I thought it brought us much closer to dominating the final frontier.

And in my ignorance I wonder if asteroid mining was a more tangible end-goal. I don't know where the tech needs to be, but if we could just spot a platinum loaded asteroid floating within reach I think going for it would be exactly the right job for a govt research project. Govt research is all about stretching the boundaries' of mankind's knowledge and turning that effort into commercialized systems. You bring one quadrillion dollar asteroid into near earth orbit and you've just changed the entire dynamic of space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.