who gets Mars?

[matt426malm]

This Mars mission will degrade into political partisansim, just like everything else does. Just because Bush may be using it as an election stunt that doesn't make the idea of a manned mission to Mars wrong.

Hopefully somebody will check out the links in the previous posts

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Mars Odyssey already found high concentrations of water ice (20-50% by mass) in the upper lattitudes, first meter of soil. You have to go deeper for ice the closer to the equator you get, probably 750 feet down at the equator based on studies of craters. It's not going to find water sitting on the surface becasue water can't exist in an atmosphere with that low of a pressure, it boils.

It depends on the temperature whether it boils or not...
At room temperature, it certainly would... but I don't believe it would at Mars temperatures...

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
This Mars mission will degrade into political partisansim, just like everything else does. Just because Bush may be using it as an election stunt that doesn't make the idea of a manned mission to Mars wrong.

Hopefully somebody will check out the links in the previous posts

I checked them, they are very good. I agree with what you said about Bush. It is obviously an election ploy, and it doesn't change my opinion of him. The only thing it does is actually put some wheels (no matter how small they be) in motion for a real, feasible, reasonably cheap mission to Mars. Yes, it will be political at first, but once the "cool" factor sets in, science will take over. Just like with the Moon missions. Initially it was politics, but at the end it was science. The thing with Mars, is that it can't be all political. The two choices for the mission to Mars are to stay on the surface for a few weeks, or a few years (nothing in between because of the launch windows). Most likely, we will opt for the few years idea because it will allow us to explore more, and experiment more.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Mars Odyssey already found high concentrations of water ice (20-50% by mass) in the upper lattitudes, first meter of soil. You have to go deeper for ice the closer to the equator you get, probably 750 feet down at the equator based on studies of craters. It's not going to find water sitting on the surface becasue water can't exist in an atmosphere with that low of a pressure, it boils.

It depends on the temperature whether it boils or not...
At room temperature, it certainly would... but I don't believe it would at Mars temperatures...

Waterphases On Mars it is either ice or vapor; there isn't much vapor but boy there is a TON of ice.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Mars Odyssey already found high concentrations of water ice (20-50% by mass) in the upper lattitudes, first meter of soil. You have to go deeper for ice the closer to the equator you get, probably 750 feet down at the equator based on studies of craters. It's not going to find water sitting on the surface becasue water can't exist in an atmosphere with that low of a pressure, it boils.

It depends on the temperature whether it boils or not...
At room temperature, it certainly would... but I don't believe it would at Mars temperatures...

Waterphases On Mars it is either ice or vapor; there isn't much vapor but boy there is a TON of ice.

Damn you, I was going to actually draw that (yes, I am pathetic when it comes to space and science).

 

[DrPizza]

Also, there's absolutely no need to send humans to Mars... there's no real scientific benefit. We could send a large fleet of robots to mars for the same cost. The only reason we would want to do it is to say "we were first". Even though I support the space program, given the cost of a human mission, I'd say the money could be spent in a lot of better ways...

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: matt426malm
This Mars mission will degrade into political partisansim, just like everything else does. Just because Bush may be using it as an election stunt that doesn't make the idea of a manned mission to Mars wrong.

Hopefully somebody will check out the links in the previous posts

I checked them, they are very good. I agree with what you said about Bush. It is obviously an election ploy, and it doesn't change my opinion of him. The only thing it does is actually put some wheels (no matter how small they be) in motion for a real, feasible, reasonably cheap mission to Mars. Yes, it will be political at first, but once the "cool" factor sets in, science will take over. Just like with the Moon missions. Initially it was politics, but at the end it was science. The thing with Mars, is that it can't be all political. The two choices for the mission to Mars are to stay on the surface for a few weeks, or a few years (nothing in between because of the launch windows). Most likely, we will opt for the few years idea because it will allow us to explore more, and experiment more.

Chance to see if life there is life on other planets. The beginings of colinization of another world.
I tend to get a little over the top with this. Member of MarsSociety (check out marssociety.com), going to 2004 confrence, reading a book on Mars geology right now "A Travler's guide to Mars" which I highly suggest. It talks about every single feature in depth and ther are TONS of great pictures.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Man will not step foot on Mars in the near future. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years, by not now. We can develop the technology but there is no need. Robots can do everything that needs to be done for a far lower cost. We need to take care of the problem we have created here at home before taking our hate into the cosmos.

If we send robots, they'll probably just get depressed and angry at the doors of the ship.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, there's absolutely no need to send humans to Mars... there's no real scientific benefit. We could send a large fleet of robots to mars for the same cost. The only reason we would want to do it is to say "we were first". Even though I support the space program, given the cost of a human mission, I'd say the money could be spent in a lot of better ways...

A mars mission should IMO opinion bring 2 technician/astronauts and 2 scientists and stay for about 500 days. Two scientists, with a large rover would be able to cover a distance of up to hundrreds of miles from the landing. The scientists will never be able to make real time decisions. A geologist on Mars would not just be taking pictures, he would be taking samples from GOOD locations, and be able to make well informed judgements of what to explore next. A rover would take samples from arbitrary locations. A geologist in the field can do so much more than a rover.

Hazards analized and explained

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, there's absolutely no need to send humans to Mars... there's no real scientific benefit. We could send a large fleet of robots to mars for the same cost. The only reason we would want to do it is to say "we were first". Even though I support the space program, given the cost of a human mission, I'd say the money could be spent in a lot of better ways...

A mars mission should IMO opinion bring 2 technician/astronauts and 2 scientists and stay for about 500 days. Two scientists, with a large rover would be able to cover a distance of up to hundrreds of miles from the landing. The scientists will never be able to make real time decisions. A geologist on Mars would not just be taking pictures, he would be taking samples from GOOD locations, and be able to make well informed judgements of what to explore next. A rover would take samples from arbitrary locations. A geologist in the field can do so much more than a rover.

Exactly, I pretty much agree with you. Except that most books I have read said something around a 6-8 person crew. But I do agree about the 500 day mission, and the fact that robots can't make real-time decisions (look at the rover stuck on the platform because of the airbag). If their were a person there, they could figure something out by having a the advantage of being able to think on the spot. While I do believe the rover will get off the platform (one way or another), if a human were there we would be exploring by now.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, there's absolutely no need to send humans to Mars... there's no real scientific benefit. We could send a large fleet of robots to mars for the same cost. The only reason we would want to do it is to say "we were first". Even though I support the space program, given the cost of a human mission, I'd say the money could be spent in a lot of better ways...

A mars mission should IMO opinion bring 2 technician/astronauts and 2 scientists and stay for about 500 days. Two scientists, with a large rover would be able to cover a distance of up to hundrreds of miles from the landing. The scientists will never be able to make real time decisions. A geologist on Mars would not just be taking pictures, he would be taking samples from GOOD locations, and be able to make well informed judgements of what to explore next. A rover would take samples from arbitrary locations. A geologist in the field can do so much more than a rover.

Exactly, I pretty much agree with you. Except that most books I have read said something around a 6-8 person crew. But I do agree about the 500 day mission, and the fact that robots can't make real-time decisions (look at the rover stuck on the platform because of the airbag). If their were a person there, they could figure something out by having a the advantage of being able to think on the spot. While I do believe the rover will get off the platform (one way or another), if a human were there we would be exploring by now.

6-8 could do more but would cost more, I'm trying to present the cheapest solution. What books have you read? For me Case for Mars, Travler's guide to Mars, Entering Space, Mining the Sky. The rover did get off they were just playing it safe.

 

[NewSc2]

I get Mars!

 

[glugglug]

Dennis Hope laid claim to the Moon, Mars, and the other planets in our solar system back in 1980

This claim of ownership was brought up at a UN meeting and noone objected to it. So now you can buy land on the Moon, Mars or Venus from him (hasn't started to sell pieces of other planets yet). Mars can be bought for $19.95 per acre HERE

I bought my piece of the Moon back when it was $15 for 1777.58 acres. (Exactly the size of Manhattan, get it? Same price we paid the Indians...)

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, there's absolutely no need to send humans to Mars... there's no real scientific benefit. We could send a large fleet of robots to mars for the same cost. The only reason we would want to do it is to say "we were first". Even though I support the space program, given the cost of a human mission, I'd say the money could be spent in a lot of better ways...

A mars mission should IMO opinion bring 2 technician/astronauts and 2 scientists and stay for about 500 days. Two scientists, with a large rover would be able to cover a distance of up to hundrreds of miles from the landing. The scientists will never be able to make real time decisions. A geologist on Mars would not just be taking pictures, he would be taking samples from GOOD locations, and be able to make well informed judgements of what to explore next. A rover would take samples from arbitrary locations. A geologist in the field can do so much more than a rover.

Exactly, I pretty much agree with you. Except that most books I have read said something around a 6-8 person crew. But I do agree about the 500 day mission, and the fact that robots can't make real-time decisions (look at the rover stuck on the platform because of the airbag). If their were a person there, they could figure something out by having a the advantage of being able to think on the spot. While I do believe the rover will get off the platform (one way or another), if a human were there we would be exploring by now.

6-8 could do more but would cost more, I'm trying to present the cheapest solution. What books have you read? For me Case for Mars, Travler's guide to Mars, Entering Space, Mining the Sky. The rover did get off they were just playing it safe.

I have also read The Case for Mars, and Mission to Mars - An Astronaut's Vision of Our Future in Space. I read the second one the latest, so maybe that is where I remember the 6-8 person figure.

 

[Freejack2]

I own Mars!
Really I do. This guy sold it to me. He also sold me the moon and the Brooklyn bridge. I even have certificates to prove it.

 

[glugglug]

Lunar Deed

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Man will not step foot on Mars in the near future. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years, by not now. We can develop the technology but there is no need. Robots can do everything that needs to be done for a far lower cost. We need to take care of the problem we have created here at home before taking our hate into the cosmos.

How can you actually believe that? The first country to step foot on Mars will get the pride of being the first country to have a manned inter-planetary mission. Granted, we went to the moon so quickly because of the Cold War, and most likely would have already been to Mars if the Cold War was still here (Granted it would have cost a few hundred billion dollars, I believe around 500 billion), but now it is for scientific reasons. The rocks and soil of Mars contain many elements that are hard to find on Earth, and the mining of these elements and minerals could help us hear on Mars. Then comes the issue of life on Mars. If we find life, either alive or fossilized, it will be a huge breakthrough. It will mean that we are not alone, and will also mean that the probability of life being elsewhere in the Universe will skyrocket.

Evidently you don't understand, LIttle Grasshopper. If we find life on another world then we would have to take either an offensive or defensive posture. We are not a peaceful peole. Any contact we make with "others" will be violent. What makes you believe otherwise?

What makes you believe it would be violent? You think we're gonna find Klingons or the Borg out there?

 

[Siddhartha]

Who would want Mars? How far away is it? What can you use it for? I say let Europe or Japan throw their resources down that black hole and lets watch it on TV.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Who would want Mars? How far away is it? What can you use it for? I say let Europe or Japan throw their resources down that black hole and lets watch it on TV.

Are you serious? It's an insurance policy. What if the Earth gets hit by a large comet or asteroid?

 

[LongCoolMother]

is there any benefit though of exploring mars? maybe some special chemical or something never found? is there an atmosphere of air on mars? or is the atmosphere composed of some strange gases?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
is there any benefit though of exploring mars?

Yes, it can be an outpost for humanity, and eventually a colony incase of a terrible disaster on one planet, we have the other one and humanity will go on.

maybe some special chemical or something never found?

Probably not.

is there an atmosphere of air on mars? or is the atmosphere composed of some strange gases?

Mars has a thin atmosphere mostly composed of Carbon Dioxide. Similar to Earth's before plants came about an started producing oxygen. It is much, much thinner than Earth's though. Something like 5-10 millibars.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Great Mars-Mission site
this combats the idiocy of NASA's 400 billion 90-day plan, and presents some intelligent alternative proposals based on reality.
could be done for 30 billion - 55 billion

Some intelligent, less expensive alternatives like Beagle 2, right?

Let's just hope that the effort doesn't become an international debacle like the space station. Maybe we'll land Americans on Mars about the same time the ISS is usable and useful.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: crumpet19
Canada ?

i heard they have a tank there already.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Compton

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Man will not step foot on Mars in the near future. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years, by not now. We can develop the technology but there is no need. Robots can do everything that needs to be done for a far lower cost. We need to take care of the problem we have created here at home before taking our hate into the cosmos.

How can you actually believe that? The first country to step foot on Mars will get the pride of being the first country to have a manned inter-planetary mission. Granted, we went to the moon so quickly because of the Cold War, and most likely would have already been to Mars if the Cold War was still here (Granted it would have cost a few hundred billion dollars, I believe around 500 billion), but now it is for scientific reasons. The rocks and soil of Mars contain many elements that are hard to find on Earth, and the mining of these elements and minerals could help us hear on Mars. Then comes the issue of life on Mars. If we find life, either alive or fossilized, it will be a huge breakthrough. It will mean that we are not alone, and will also mean that the probability of life being elsewhere in the Universe will skyrocket.

Evidently you don't understand, LIttle Grasshopper. If we find life on another world then we would have to take either an offensive or defensive posture. We are not a peaceful peole. Any contact we make with "others" will be violent. What makes you believe otherwise?

What makes you believe it would be violent? You think we're gonna find Klingons or the Borg out there?

We have already found Klingons and Borg. Look in the mirror.

We will either try to "liberate" them, or find some other reason to attack. We would eventually attempt to kill them, or they us. Perhaps this is a universal trait based on survival. Maybe intelligence and aggression go hand in hand, because we as a species have the most of both here. In that case we are screwed if we DO find others since most likely they will have been travelling longer than us and therefore are more technically advanced.

Oh, I believe he was not referring specifically to Mars. It will be us who brings the first war there.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Who would want Mars? How far away is it? What can you use it for? I say let Europe or Japan throw their resources down that black hole and lets watch it on TV.

Are you serious? It's an insurance policy. What if the Earth gets hit by a large comet or asteroid?

Yes, I am serious. Lets invest our resources in developing a comet defense system instead throwing away on going to Mars.