MANNED MISSION TO MARS

So?

I'd much rather see all the money it would take to get a manned mission to Mars earmarked for low-income housing or child nutritional program...or something more useful domestically. What is gained by going to Mars that makes the avg American's life any richer?

It probably will make the 'average householder' a least a bit richer in the long - run. A manned mission to the red planet will accelerate the slowly developing ( at present ) space technology into becoming a 'multy - trillion dollar' industry within 2 decades of a human landing.

What is the purpose of a new born child?

I recognize that analogy can be a poor tool, but NASA created the following technologies that certainly made the average American's life richer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff

1 NASA spin-off technologies

2 Twenty-four products NASA claims as spin-offs

2.1 Health and medicine
2.1.1 Light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
2.1.2 Infrared ear thermometers
2.1.3 Ventricular assist device
2.1.4 Artificial limbs

2.2 Transportation
2.2.1 Aircraft anti-icing systems
2.2.2 Highway safety
2.2.3 Improved radial tires
2.2.4 Chemical detection

2.3 Public safety
2.3.1 Video enhancing and analysis systems
2.3.2 Fire-resistant reinforcement
2.3.3 Firefighting equipment

2.4 Consumer, home, and recreation
2.4.1 Tempur foam
2.4.2 Enriched baby food
2.4.3 Portable cordless vacuums
2.4.4 Freeze drying

2.5 Environmental and agricultural resources
2.5.1 Water purification
2.5.2 Solar energy
2.5.3 Pollution remediation

2.6 Computer technology
2.6.1 Virtual reality research
2.6.2 Structural analysis software
2.6.3 Remotely controlled ovens

2.7 Industrial productivity
2.7.1 Powdered lubricants
2.7.2 Improved mine safety
2.7.3 Food safety

So one could logically expect even greater technological advances directly from programs which goal is to get humans to Mars and returning. And I would rather my tax dollars go towards such programs as opposed to paying multinational agrabusinesses to not plant crops.

Besides;


I believe the future of humanity rests in the stars. I think the faster we learn how to get off the Earth and colonize other places the greater the odds for survival of the species.

We landed on the moon four decades ago. Where is the multi-trillion dollar industry?

Whoa, dude, they sell a hell of a lotta' Tang.

Great! So let's start the process of extraterrestrial inhabitation with the colonisation of the 'red planet'.

This is rather unfair. I'm no cheerleader for a Mars mission, but as for "multi-trillion dollar industry," if you are an engineer, do you use an electronic calculator, or do you use a slide rule? Do you have any relatives with arrythmic tachycardia? Do they have a pacemaker implanted? Do you use non-stick cookware in the kitchen? Do you own and use a cell phone? Obviously, you use a computer, whether or not you have a personal computer in the home.

I don't think you've really thought about the extent to which developments of the first decade of the space program has permeated our lives.

I'm aware of how the spending on technology for the first space program trickled down into numerous industries. If you spend some serious R&D money, you are going to see advancements and that's great. What I find silly is the hyperbole. Multi-trillion dollar space industry? The moon is much more accessible than Mars, has much to offer and we've landed there before, but we haven't been back since 1972. If we go through the extraordinary effort of landing someone on Mars, what's the incentive to do it twice? Mars isn't just a little harder than the moon, it's a couple of orders of magnitude harder. Months of travel each way instead of days, very significant radiation exposure during flight, a deeper gravity well, weather conditions, etc. Solving those problems would undoubtably have numerous spin off technologies, but if there is going to be huge space industry, I doubt it's going to be aimed at Mars when nothing has materialized for moon exploitation over four decades.

What if you took the same amount of R&D money and put it into stem cell research or solar energy development or near space orbital manufacturing or robotic space exploration? Since you don't have to buy interplanetary spaceships, you'd probably get more research for your dollar and similar technology advancements. I'm not saying government shouldn't drive technology research, I just think that manned space travel is a dubious goal, a solution without a problem. We have real, well defined problems we can spend the same money on with real potential to generate new industries and jobs. Mars is heroic but not practical.

Yes, multi-trillion dollar pay-offs for a Mars mission is certainly hyperbole. Orders of magnitude does not really describe it either--many orders of magnitude. The necessity to shield for cosmic radiation alone puts the cost and the degree of difficulty through the roof. On several threads, i have expressed my doubts about a Mars mission. People who fervently believe in space exploration, and who long to see it in their lifetimes have incredibly unrealistic views about this. Frankly, absent a commercial pay-off which would be "realizable" in a short term, i don't see any value to a Mars mission. You're not going to set up a colony there without enormous expense. The gravity of Mars is probably just sufficient to obviate the micro-gravity problems, but without a magnetic field around the planet, shielding from cosmic radiation continues to be a problem even after you get there. I do think there would be pay-offs, but i doubt they'd be that great, and i doubt they'd justify the expense of such a mission.

Well, the US could end the "War on Drugs" and probably save enough money in a decade to fund both Mars and Moon missions. And the inner-city youth and third-world suppliers currently involved in the black market could be paid to learn physics instead. That might have a small socio-economic benefit.

Oh sure . . . propose something sensible . . . sheesh . . .

Sorry, you're right. I don't know what came over me.

The other option is to have scientists proclaim that the soil and radiation on Mars is good for growing giant Poppies and Coca plants. Then the drug cartels will fund the missions for us.

I just saw a dvd Origins by Neil deGrasse Tyson and was surprised by what he noted. Mars interior is not molten so there is no magnetic pole to protect an atmosphere. Mars lost its water probably from the sun storms.

It would be extremely expensive if not impossible to melt Mars' interior to create a magnetic pole. Any way in 2 billion years the Milky Way is going to collide with another galaxy Andromeda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision

http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001710/

http://www.universetoday.com/30538/was-mars-magnetic-field-blasted-away/

Thanks for the info. I guess more robotic flights would be the thing to do right now till a more efficient and faster mode of transportation can be invented.

After watching all the dvds on the Universe by History Channel I guess the Red Planet would also need a moon to stabilize the climate, install a magnetic pole and a couple of hits from asteroids to up the mass of the Red Planet to give it an Earth-like gravity and also guide a comet for the water. Got to make sure the Earth's orbit and that of the Red Planet don't collide at some point after all the planetary moves.

there's no american commitment for a simple reason. we do not belong on mars, there is no food, no water and no air.

no one in their right mind would waste the time sending people to mars. theres nothing there for us!!!!!