The extremely stupid idea of sending humans to Mars

[jay gw]

There are news reports that NASA is considering sending humans to Mars, maybe within 50 years.

This is an extremely stupid thing to do, and here's a better alternative (you may have heard this one)

Instead of focusing on sending humans to "colonize" other planets, why not focus on building the best facsimile humans, ie artifical intelligence, and adapting them to the environments on other planets?

The rover, yes, is pretty amazing. But face it, it looks like my vacuum cleaner and is just too primitive to gather much data.

Once a model is perfected, it can go to Mercury, Venus, Jupiter - anywhere.

Machines do not care about heat or cold, if adapted to resist. They do not need water or food. They don't care if the journey takes 2 years, or 10. The IBM computer can beat any human alive at chess, and it's still an infant. The proper artificial life form would be far more valuable than human beings ever could at space research.

Humans want humans to go into space, basically, because it's sexy and cool. There's no task the right machine, which does not yet exist but will, isn't superior at.

It's just stupid to think that people could last in space for that long, without a single thing going wrong. Because a single mistake in space, millions of miles away, would be the end of them and the end of any program for many years.

If NASA or any other organization tries to "race to Mars" which it looks exactly like they're trying to do, don't say anyone in the public didn't speak out against it!!

[El Greco]

Originally posted by jay gw
Machines do not care about heat or cold, if adapted to resist. They do not need water or food. They don't care if the journey takes 2 years, or 10.

What, are you a racist or something ? Haven't you watched Artificial Intelligence (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/) ? Gosh!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by jay gw

There are news reports that NASA is considering sending humans to Mars, maybe within 50 years.
Can you help us out with a link to your source? Visiting is one thing, colonization is another. Anyone suggesting that NASA has actual plans to do that may be getting a little ahead of themselves.
Instead of focusing on sending humans to "colonize" other planets, why not focus on building the best facsimile humans, ie artifical intelligence, and adapting them to the environments on other planets?
Where research is the goal, unmanned missions are the favored approach already (the expense of keeping humans alive in space is extremely prohibitive, and the added value is mostly PR).

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by jay gw

Humans want humans to go into space, basically, because it's sexy and cool. There's no task the right machine, which does not yet exist but will, isn't superior at.


I agree with your position on manned interplanetary flight.
I agree that machines can perform the vast majority of scientific/technological tasks better than humans.
I, however, disagree that machines can (or will) perform all tasks better than humans. Is that what you were saying?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Ladewig:"I agree that machines can perform the vast majority of scientific/technological tasks better than humans."

Thats slightly misleading and factually untrue in this context.
Machines can perform SPECIFIC tasks better then a human. Such as number crunching and gas chromatography but not even the smartest one with the latest AI technology can figure out whether it should back up, climb the rock, go around, crap or go blind.

Trying to craft a robust enough AI model that would be effectively put a human "brain" in a specialized set of instruments and machinery is, at this time, way beyond Us. We do not know how WE work , how can we make an effective mimic that would be able to make"conscious " or pro-active decisions when even the language that describes our behavior is sparse and un-realized?

The prognostications that this one day will happen may be true , but by that time we might also develop drive technologies and habitat scenarios ala hibernation etc. to enable us to travel farther without as much risk as we have now. We may even nudge Einstein a bit. That's every bit as SF as an AI android doing our explorations for us.

The central theme for me tho has not been mentioned, that is that the reason we do this is to rise from cradle Earth and spread to the stars and mature as a species. Unless You believe that the next step in evolution is to replace Homo-Sapiens with Homo-Siliconus.

[jay gw]

Trying to craft a robust enough AI model that would be effectively put a human "brain" in a specialized set of instruments and machinery is, at this time, way beyond Us.

No, it's not. If resources were devoted to it and efforts concentrated, breakthroughs may make it possible in 10 years.

It's irrelevant, because it will always be safer and extremely more productive to investigate artificial intelligence and robotics than to design a tin can to carry humans to other planets. I couldn't conceive why anyone would choose the latter to the former.

For the bulk of humanity, research on AI and machine technology would always reap far greater rewards, and ---as a consequence, make space exploration easier.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by jay gw
..........It's just stupid to think that people could last in space for that long, without a single thing going wrong. Because a single mistake in space, millions of miles away, would be the end of them and the end of any program for many years. .........

This quote is a prime example of the attitude that has prevented us from colonizing the Moon or Mars so far. Man has the technology to servive in space long enough to reach Mars and live there. It is a matter of the will and the money to do it.

Although I think it is a very interesting idea to establish a moon base or Mars colony, it is not such a great idea right now with all of the other problem we have here. I just hate to see people say it can't be done.

Ranb

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jay gw
No, it's not. If resources were devoted to it and efforts concentrated, breakthroughs may make it possible in 10 years.AI researchers have been saying that for 40 years... it's a bit of a toughie.

[jay gw]

AI researchers have been saying that for 40 years... it's a bit of a toughie.

So you're telling me that my commodore computer who's big program was playing "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to the one I have now is.... what, exactly?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jay gw
So you're telling me that my commodore computer who's big program was playing "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to the one I have now is.... what, exactly?
Not artificial intelligence.

[jay gw]

Not artificial intelligence.

Computers are unrelated to artificial intelligence.

Err, ok.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by jay gw
There are news reports that NASA is considering sending humans to Mars, maybe within 50 years.

This is an extremely stupid thing to do, and here's a better alternative (you may have heard this one)

Instead of focusing on sending humans to "colonize" other planets, why not focus on building the best facsimile humans, ie artifical intelligence, and adapting them to the environments on other planets?
I'm afraid that's a very stupid alternative. You see, if the goal is to colonize other planets with humans, then you sort of need humans to actually sort of be on those other planets.

See the problem with your alternative?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jay gw
Computers are unrelated to artificial intelligence.

Err, ok.
Err, ok, yourself.

Do you understand the problem that needs to be solved? You want to put a computer in a craft that can respond adaptively to unexpected situations. That's pretty much the definition of artificial intelligence, and yes, it is implemented on computers.

[jay gw]

That's pretty much the definition of artificial intelligence, and yes, it is implemented on computers.

So your first post you said artificial intelligence is not related to computers, then you say it is.

I don't believe Nasa wanted a colony - the plan is just a visit, exploration/scout trip type of thing. A colony is too ridiculous, even for them. Machines are much better suited for scout trips/basic environmental research than humans are.

If and when the goal becomes, "Can humans live on Mars/wherever?" Yes, you're going to need people. But what I"ve been trying to say is that the goal of human colonies should come AFTER artificial life forms have done their work. Not before. And there should be an extremely persuasive reason to send people that far away. Not just, "wouldn't it be nice to know?" Not good enough.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by jay gw
There are news reports that NASA is considering sending humans to Mars, maybe within 50 years.

This is an extremely stupid thing to do, and here's a better alternative (you may have heard this one)

Instead of focusing on sending humans to "colonize" other planets, why not focus on building the best facsimile humans, ie artifical intelligence, and adapting them to the environments on other planets?

Rather depends on what you think the point of the space program is.

If all you want to do is learn about the planets, then it might well be true that sending robots out there is the best way to go.

Personally, I see the ultimate aim of the space program as the colonisation of the planets. I want to see permanent Human communities on Mars, Venus, the Moon, Titan, etc. And it's kinda hard to do that with robots.

[gnome]

I believe manned spaceflight is possibly the single most important venture humanity is currently engaged in.

We currently have weapons capable of destroying the entire biosphere and rendering ourselves exinct. We also have geological cycles which tend towards mass extinctions. If we can learn to travel in space, even for short distances, and colonize planets and moons within our own solar system, we can practically guarantee that our species will survive in some form indefinitely.

Edited to add: I'm not one to dismiss as pointless, missions that are for PR value... the survival of NASA relies on public interest.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Unless You believe that the next step in evolution is to replace Homo-Sapiens with Homo-Siliconus.

Replace is such a strong word. Augmenting I like. We've done that for tens of thousands of years; bone clubs, rock knives, fire, clothes, spears, bows and slings, horses, reading glasses, peg legs, eating bowls, cars etc. How would making our bodies mostly machine be any different? Heck, we are biochemical machines.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We're talking about human exploration here. Practicality has nothing to do with it.

~~ Paul

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jay gw
So your first post you said artificial intelligence is not related to computers, then you say it is.
Eh? My first post said that sufficient advances in AI software have not been forthcoming, and the second explained that increases in raw computing power did not imply development of artificial intelligence sufficient to create an autonomous probe.
And there should be an extremely persuasive reason to send people that far away. Not just, "wouldn't it be nice to know?" Not good enough. If you were offered the chance to go, would you?

I would. Risk notwithstanding. I mean, Mars, dude. This is, of course, entirely beside the point either you or anyone else is making.

[sorgoth]

Humans want humans to go into space, basically, because it's sexy and cool.

Yes. When we look back on big achievements of the 20th century, landing on the moon is a biggie. Landing on Mars is the same kind of thing.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus

I want to see permanent Human communities on Mars, Venus, the Moon, Titan, etc. Communities? On Venus? Surviving on Venus would mean staying locked up so tight in a can 24/7 that it wouldn't matter all that much where it was.

I could see prison colonies, maybe.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Chuck you Farley! I am going to Mars ASAP!

So there! :p :D

[Fade]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Communities? On Venus? Surviving on Venus would mean staying locked up so tight in a can 24/7 that it wouldn't matter all that much where it was.

I could see prison colonies, maybe.

Sure, now.

Perhaps sometime we'll invent a technology capable of completely altering Venus' atmosphere. Perhaps it won't be breathable, but maybe we could survive outside with just a respirator.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Replace is such a strong word. Augmenting I like. We've done that for tens of thousands of years; bone clubs, rock knives, fire, clothes, spears, bows and slings, horses, reading glasses, peg legs, eating bowls, cars etc. How would making our bodies mostly machine be any different? Heck, we are biochemical machines.

Heck If I could have an instrumentality that could preserve my brain..Myself for a long time I would volunteer!
Unfortunately that 's not the issue that was raised. A space suit is an "augmentation, a AI realized Android is not.
The issue was to use machines in place of humans.

Jay gw You estimation of AI as it stands at this time is incorrect, I have done AI on a professional basis ( neural nets ) and out of curiosity, on a commodore 64 translating a program from Dr. Joseph Carr in an "Automata" setting ( ?83?).

The experts in psychology, neural science , behavioral science, even programming from Gould to Kurzweil will tell you at this time AI on any real level is as much a reality as supersonic jet flight was in 1900 or worse. That doesn't mean it will not happen , just that as the oracle said "Know thyself" . Until the time we can discover the man behind our curtain we cannot construct an analog. It doesn't matter how much money You throw at the problem. There are thousands of the brightest minds working on the problem...problem is that their inter-disciplinary because we don't yet understand the nature of problem.

[jay gw]

Until the time we can discover the man behind our curtain we cannot construct an analog.

Ridiculous. If people are seriously sitting around thinking about a metaphysical "man behind the curtain", then they'll be sitting there until time runs out. The brain is a machine. It is not a man behind the curtain. The structure of it has to be investigated. The interactions have to be explored.

I thought to myself, "I wonder if the AI people are dumb enough to spend time thinking about answering, what is my purpose in life." Oh boy. Unbelievable.

The purpose in life of a machine is what you give it. If you're trying to create a human being, then get off the computer and, well, you know.

The experts in psychology, neural science , behavioral science, even programming from Gould to Kurzweil will tell you at this time AI on any real level is as much a reality as supersonic jet flight was in 1900 or worse.

And until it is, humans on Mars are just a dream. Or a nightmare, if they're stupid enough to try it.

What everybody really ought to be studying, is why the progress of scientific research is so slow.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jay gw
And until it is, humans on Mars are just a dream. Or a nightmare, if they're stupid enough to try it.

What everybody really ought to be studying, is why the progress of scientific research is so slow.
And jay reached this conclusion by virtue of his profound expertise, obviously. :rolleyes:

[jay gw]

And jay reached this conclusion by virtue of his profound expertise, obviously.

So, obviously, this is area off limits to study.

:rolleyes:

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jay gw
So, obviously, this is area off limits to study.
Just because you declared it so isn't stopping anybody.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Rather depends on what you think the point of the space program is.

If all you want to do is learn about the planets, then it might well be true that sending robots out there is the best way to go.

Personally, I see the ultimate aim of the space program as the colonisation of the planets. I want to see permanent Human communities on Mars, Venus, the Moon, Titan, etc. And it's kinda hard to do that with robots.

I can't agree more. Earth will not be around forever. If we are to get anywhere then we need to start going there. We need to learn how to colonize other planets, learn how to get there and flourish once there.

The Jehovas believe god will hand us another earth on a silver platter. I figure that we must rely on ourselves. If you want to use a god argument, then god gave us the brains, and it's now up to us to learn how to use them to save our own butts.

[AWPrime]

I really don't believe anymore in the ISS or manned missions to mars. They don't give enough in retuns.


However I would support research into jumpcores as long as they work out the theories before constructing anything.

[richardm]

Originally posted by jay gw
What everybody really ought to be studying, is why the progress of scientific research is so slow.

In terms of AI, research is so slow because it turns out to be a very difficult problem to solve. There is a lot of research going on, as Till says. But unfortunately just throwing processor power at this problem isn't enough - there needs to be a better understanding of what it is we're trying to solve. On a top-level it's easy to say "We're trying to make a computer act like a human", or whatever, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty it all ends up a lot more difficult. People have made good progress on bits of the problem, though (see the work on neural nets - that's interesting stuff, and promising, but we need lots more computer oomph before they get really big and more promising, IIRC).

I think we'll get there, but it's a long way ahead, and I don't see why we shouldn't do other things - like fly to Mars - while we're waiting.

[richardm]

Originally posted by jay gw
The rover, yes, is pretty amazing. But face it, it looks like my vacuum cleaner and is just too primitive to gather much data.


The other thing is that this is a pretty anthropocentric way of looking at things. It may look like a vacuum cleaner, but perhaps that's the best-adapted shape for doing research on other planets. A machine doesn't have to look or act like a human to be able to gather valuable data, and in fact it's easy to imagine scenarios where it would be better if it didn't look or act human... Nothing worse than a lonely or neurotic robot :D

[jay gw]

A machine doesn't have to look or act like a human to be able to gather valuable data, and in fact it's easy to imagine scenarios where it would be better if it didn't look or act human... Nothing worse than a lonely or neurotic robot

Is the rover the BEST design, or the one they could build with the resources?

[patnray]

The AI debate is a red herring. Robotic explorers do not have to have anything approaching human intelligence. WQhen exploring robotically one can afford to be patient. Every problem encountered does not have to be solved instantly. There is usually plenty of time to analyse and plan solutions. However, robot explorers must be powerful and adaptable. They must have multiple interface and command methods and must be reprogrammable.

The Martian rovers and the Cassini craft are constantly being reprogrammed and tweaked to adapt to circumstances or to improve performance. The rovers have worked far beyond the original mission plan precisely because the controllers have found solutions to problems or unexpected conditions.

IMO, human passengers would add enormous complexity and costs to an exploration mission. So much so that 99.999% of the mission would be devoted to keeping them safe and returnung them. It would detract from the science.

Colonization, of course, would require humans. But colonization will not be feasible without sufficient resources at the target planet to make the colony self sufficient. And proving such resources will require extensive use of robotic explorers. Furthermore, he most plausible scenarios for human exploration of Mars also requires extensive use of reliable robotic modules and fuel factories in advance of the arrival of humans.

So it makes sense that right now most of our development effort should be in the robotics because it will be essential to any role for humans. And because it has so many down to earth applications as well.

[Fordama]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Yes. When we look back on big achievements of the 20th century, landing on the moon is a biggie. Landing on Mars is the same kind of thing. Yep--there's something to say about the collective adventure of it!

Fordama

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by jay gw
I don't believe Nasa wanted a colony - the plan is just a visit, exploration/scout trip type of thing. A colony is too ridiculous, even for them. Machines are much better suited for scout trips/basic environmental research than humans are.
I admit I don't know the long range goals of NASA, but there is little doubt that the semi-long range goal of space exploration is colonisation. Just ask the Russians or the Chinese.

If and when the goal becomes, "Can humans live on Mars/wherever?" Yes, you're going to need people. But what I"ve been trying to say is that the goal of human colonies should come AFTER artificial life forms have done their work. Not before. And there should be an extremely persuasive reason to send people that far away. Not just, "wouldn't it be nice to know?" Not good enough.
Why should we wait for the so-called artificial lifeforms to someday perhaps arrive at the scene? You are putting the cart before the horse.

We need to spread humanity and not keep all our eggs in one basket. I've already mentioned reasons why this is neccessary. We now are very close to having the technology to actually do so. Why in the world should we put things on hold just in case some better pre-colonization probes could possibly be made cheaper sometime in the future?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
A space suit is an "augmentation, a AI realized Android is not.

Actually an AI android or another robot form would still be an augmentation. We would be using them as tools to explore instead of risking ourselves.

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Why should we wait for the so-called artificial lifeforms to someday perhaps arrive at the scene? You are putting the cart before the horse.
Not at all. Any kind of human presence on Mars will require robotic exploration first to locate the most promising locations. It will require precise navigation using beacons alrady on the surface and/or in orbit. It will require robotic fuel and oxygen factories, nuclear reactors, and habitats sent in advance. It will require sophisticated and reliable robotic equipment to prepare for the arrival of humans and assist them once they arrive.

It is sending people first that would be putting the cart before the horse.

[richardm]

Originally posted by jay gw
Is the rover the BEST design, or the one they could build with the resources?

I suspect it's probably close to optimal. It has a number of wheels, for good traction, stability and redundancy. It has a large box-shape, which is the most sensible shape for storing equipment and placing solar panels. Hard to imagine how you could improve much on that for a rover.

A humanoid shape probably wouldn't be as good - the main problem being that it could fall over and damage itself, for a start. Humans have an advantage that if they fall over they can often repair themselves, given time. That's probably not an option for Mars robots in the forseeable future - and given that you can avoid many of the problems by going for a more sensible design, why would you go to the trouble?

Edited to add: Other than the fact that it would look cool :D

[jay gw]

A humanoid shape probably wouldn't be as good - the main problem being that it could fall over and damage itself, for a start. Humans have an advantage that if they fall over they can often repair themselves, given time. That's probably not an option for Mars robots in the forseeable future - and given that you can avoid many of the problems by going for a more sensible design, why would you go to the trouble?

So the rover can build a shelter? Place generators? Travel 100 miles? Fly?

[AWPrime]

Well maybe if you give it an arm.;)

[Johnny Pneumatic]

What he should have said is the MERs are about the best explorers we can make now. Maybe in 15 or twenty we'll have legged bots there. No, not humaniod bots. Why would you want humaniod bots? Take the best features that you learned from studying life and build robots using those base principles. Give it six, or more legs, eyes on flexible stalks, feet with metal claws, gecko foot adhesive and maybe it even has several flying scouts it can send out.--> http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/RCM/RCM/Entomopter/EntomopterProject.html
http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/RCM/RCM/Entomopter/Bristol_MAV_Paper.pdf

[patnray]

Originally posted by jay gw
So the rover can build a shelter? Place generators? Travel 100 miles? Fly?
The rovers were built for specific and limited tasks. Given our current technology (crash landing in a big air bag) they have done remarkably well.

You don't seriously think humans would land on Mars and proceed to 'build a shelter", do you?

This is not the same as settlers setting off for the New World, where they could arrive after a few weeks and be sure of finding food and air and water and fuel and easily worked materials for shelter.

Any lasting presence on Mars will require a local source for oxygen and water at a minimum. It will require advanced exploration by robots, automated modules for extracting the resources that are located, prefabricated habitat modules, power sources (probably nuclear), and numerous other support features. The infrastructure would be sent in advance of any humans to support their arrival. For example, a fuel factory, consisting of a tank of liquid hydrogen, a power source, and chemical reactors, could arrive 6 months to a year before the people to produce methane, oxygen, and water for their use from the CO2 in the Martian atmosphere.

Any realistic plan for human presence on Mars must acknowledge the need for sophisticated and reliable robotic equipment exploring and laying the foundation well in advance of the arrival of people. Not humanlike androids of high intelligence, athletic agility, and unlimited adaptability. But sophisticated machines built for limited purposes and far more capable than humans at those tasks...

[Eos of the Eons]

So, is the consensus that it ISN'T stupid to send humans to mars? I feel it would provide invaluable knowledge about colonizing other planets. But yes, we have sent robots in order to better prepare ourselves for the challenge.

[jay gw]

Any realistic plan for human presence on Mars must acknowledge the need for sophisticated and reliable robotic equipment exploring and laying the foundation well in advance of the arrival of people.

That's what most of the posters have decided is the best course of action.

(I'm talking like a project manager now)

[patnray]

Actually, I am not in favor of manned exploration of the planets. I believe we can learn far more for far less $ with robot probes. And, of course, it is much safer.

Nor do I believe that colonization is realistic. I don't percieve there being sufficient resources on any planet to make for a self sufficient colony. But I could be wrong, would love to be proved wrong, even.

Humans in space is a romantic idea, but it is not scientific. Not that I wouldn't love to take a vacation trip to Mars. But I suspect that will always be just a fantasy.

My posts have simply pointed out that even if humanity decides to undertake such an adventure, it will require robotic technology and exploration, so we should proceed with developing that ability. It is sufficient for exploration and is the first step toward any other goals.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Communities? On Venus? Surviving on Venus would mean staying locked up so tight in a can 24/7 that it wouldn't matter all that much where it was. [size=1]


I've read that Venus has large deposts of gold and other minerals. Perhaps a mining operation could be established?

What about Jupiter? Could a gas mining operation like the Vespin Gas Mine on Star Wars be built? What kind(s) of gas make-up Jupiter?

[uruk]

If this was posted over three hundred years ago the subject might have been "the extremely stupid idea of sending humans to the new world"








Sorry if someone already brought this up.

[jay gw]

If this was posted over three hundred years ago the subject might have been "the extremely stupid idea of sending humans to the new world"

And everyone in the New World would have said, "It sure is".

[uruk]

And everyone in the New World would have said, "It sure is".
I'm sure the martians will will agree

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by patnray
Actually, I am not in favor of manned exploration of the planets. I believe we can learn far more for far less $ with robot probes. And, of course, it is much safer.



Earth won't be around forever. We have to find a way off this rock.

[patnray]

Originally posted by uruk
If this was posted over three hundred years ago the subject might have been "the extremely stupid idea of sending humans to the new world"

As I already said: "This is not the same as settlers setting off for the New World, where they could arrive after a few weeks and be sure of finding food and air and water and fuel and easily worked materials for shelter."

Colonizing Venus or Mars does nothing to "get us off this rock" if the colonies are dependant on supporting materials from Earth (meaning they cannot become self sufficient over time). Nor will it save us from the ultimate death of the sun. Given our current technology, these are nothing more than romantic daydreams.

Not that I oppose continuing advances in technology. But sending people to the planets does not advance the technology, or our knowledge, as much as sending robots. Like the ISS, a Mars colony would have very little scientific justification. At least for now and the foreseeable future (my crystal ball isn't very good, so I mean only 20 - 30 years).

[patnray]

I will make one concession to a possible human presence in space. I believe an observatory on the far side of the moon would have scientific justification. It would be shielded from radio, light, and infrared noise of the earth. Fantastic instruments could be build in the low gravity and airless environment.

It would be a research station, not a colony. Still, supporting it would provide a practical reason for developing the technology all your romantic dreams require.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Communities? On Venus? Surviving on Venus would mean staying locked up so tight in a can 24/7 that it wouldn't matter all that much where it was.

I could see prison colonies, maybe.

Staying locked up in a can 24/7 is no problem, so long as that can is large enough.

[jay gw]

There must be some minerals in each planet that are not found on earth, and could potentially be very useful. I'm just saying that, though. No telling.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Tony
What about Jupiter? Could a gas mining operation like the Vespin Gas Mine on Star Wars be built? What kind(s) of gas make-up Jupiter?

Mostly hydrogen with trace amounts of Tibana gas.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Communities? On Venus? Surviving on Venus would mean staying locked up so tight in a can 24/7 that it wouldn't matter all that much where it was.
People who do this sort of thing for a living ( astronauts ), seem to have no problem being locked up in a can 24/7.. A lot of applicants are turned away who would love to have the chance...

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
[B]Not at all. Any kind of human presence on Mars will require robotic exploration first to locate the most promising locations.
I agree. But this has nothing to do with artificial lifeforms.
It will require precise navigation using beacons alrady on the surface and/or in orbit.
I suppose that would be nice to have but I don't see it as "need to have". In any case, what does this have to do with artificial lifeforms?
It will require robotic fuel and oxygen factories, nuclear reactors, and habitats sent in advance.
I don't know what you mean by "robotic" factories and I see no reason for there to be nuclear reactors available. There are many ways to produce power. And there is no a priori reason that these things couldn't be brought to Mars by manned-missions, prior to the arrival of colonists.
It will require sophisticated and reliable robotic equipment to prepare for the arrival of humans and assist them once they arrive.
Again, I don't see why. Certainly, the better you can automate these prerequisites, the better. BUt there is no reason to assume that the development of artificial lifeforms is in any way a prerequisite.
It is sending people first that would be putting the cart before the horse.
No, it is the ridiculous idea that the development of articial lifeforms has the slightest import to a colonization process which is putting the cart before the horse.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
You don't seriously think humans would land on Mars and proceed to 'build a shelter", do you?
I don't see why not.
Any lasting presence on Mars will require a local source for oxygen and water at a minimum. It will require advanced exploration by robots, automated modules for extracting the resources that are located, prefabricated habitat modules, power sources (probably nuclear), and numerous other support features. The infrastructure would be sent in advance of any humans to support their arrival. For example, a fuel factory, consisting of a tank of liquid hydrogen, a power source, and chemical reactors, could arrive 6 months to a year before the people to produce methane, oxygen, and water for their use from the CO2 in the Martian atmosphere.
Of course a sustained presence (i.e. a colonization) would require a substantial infrastructure. However, there is no reason why the development of artificial lifeforms is a prerequisite for this endevour. No reason at all.

Furthermore, the level of infrastructure at the beginning need not be very substantial if a steady supply from Earth (or elsewhere) could be assured. It all depends on how you design and envision the effort.
Any realistic plan for human presence on Mars must acknowledge the need for sophisticated and reliable robotic equipment exploring and laying the foundation well in advance of the arrival of people. Not humanlike androids of high intelligence, athletic agility, and unlimited adaptability. But sophisticated machines built for limited purposes and far more capable than humans at those tasks...
Have you some reason to think that the necessary technology isn't already available?

For fun, let's assume a fanciful scenario: A Moon sized planetoid is detected coming in from outer space and it will in 20 years hit the Earth. Are you saying that unless fundamental advances are made in AI, humans have no chance of creating a viable colony on Mars in that time period?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
Actually, I am not in favor of manned exploration of the planets. I believe we can learn far more for far less $ with robot probes. And, of course, it is much safer.
I agree.
Nor do I believe that colonization is realistic. I don't percieve there being sufficient resources on any planet to make for a self sufficient colony. But I could be wrong, would love to be proved wrong, even.
This is where we differ greatly. Given the existence of vast amounts of subsurface water on Mars, I'd like to see your arguments for colonization not being realistic.
Humans in space is a romantic idea, but it is not scientific. Not that I wouldn't love to take a vacation trip to Mars. But I suspect that will always be just a fantasy.
Of course it is "scientific". Humans are already in space.
My posts have simply pointed out that even if humanity decides to undertake such an adventure, it will require robotic technology and exploration, so we should proceed with developing that ability. It is sufficient for exploration and is the first step toward any other goals.
Certainly we should continue to develop automated technology. For exploration and for information gathering, unmanned vehicles are the way to go. However, one should not lose sight of the goal (or at least my goal :))

[AWPrime]

A part of realistic is economic. And it is not economical yet to colonize other planets.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by AWPrime
A part of realistic is economic. And it is not economical yet to colonize other planets.
I would think that all depends on priorities.

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
This is where we differ greatly. Given the existence of vast amounts of subsurface water on Mars, I'd like to see your arguments for colonization not being realistic.

Of course it is "scientific". Humans are already in space.

The existence of any amount of subsurface water on Mars in not a given (yet).

Humans may be in space, but they are doing very little science there...

As for your question about an impending asteroid collision, sadly, no, I doubt we could establish any self sustaining extraterrestial outpost in 20 years.

Now consider this. If you were going to send a manned mission on a round trip to Mars, which makes more sense:

1) Build a huge, huge, huge ship and carry everything you need to get there and return, including fuel and oxidiser for the return journey (1960's thinking), or

2) Build a smaller ship but send ahead robotic equipment to manufacture fuel and oxygen for your return trip, and oxygen and water for your survival?

Making soft landings safely sufficiently close to the advance equipment will require navigation beacons

Any plan that depends on a steady stream of basic life supplies from earth is not going to be viable for long. Also, any minerals mined on other planets would be enormously expensive on Earth so would have to have some extraordinary utility to be worthwhile (and not able to be made on Earth or in nearby space...)

Nuclear power is the only option I see for generating the substantial power required for sustaining a human presence on a cold outpost. Solar power may be sufficient for rovers that measure progress in meters per day, but for humans it would take an enormous array and require constant maintenance (dusting, solar tracking, etc) to capture a much weaker solar flux. Fossil fuels won't do with no oxygen to burn. And the planet does not appear to have any remaining internal heat for any kind of geothermal generators.

Interestingly, oxygen for life support and vehicles would not be much of a problem on Mars. Despite the thin, mostly CO2 atmosphere, it can be chemically generated from the CO2, if you have sufficient power to run pumps and reactors.

I hope that by now you are beginning to appreciate the huge power demand a human population would create. It is not that these are insurmountable problems, but they are significant. There's no need to rush.

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Have you some reason to think that the necessary technology isn't already available?

Barely controlled, cross your fingers, crash landings in giant airbags, for one. Great for light weight rovers, not so good for heavy equipment that people will be depending on for survival...

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
The existence of any amount of subsurface water on Mars in not a given (yet).
Perhaps not, but there is every reason to think so. (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20020528a.html)
Humans may be in space, but they are doing very little science there...
Indeed, humans in space have done little above what probes could often have done. Save, of course, the return of Moon materials.
As for your question about an impending asteroid collision, sadly, no, I doubt we could establish any self sustaining extraterrestial outpost in 20 years.
Sadly, you are not only against human colonization of other planets, but a pessimist as well.
Now consider this. If you were going to send a manned mission on a round trip to Mars, which makes more sense:

1) Build a huge, huge, huge ship and carry everything you need to get there and return, including fuel and oxidiser for the return journey (1960's thinking), or

2) Build a smaller ship but send ahead robotic equipment to manufacture fuel and oxygen for your return trip, and oxygen and water for your survival?
I'm afraid this setup is a case of the excluded middle. It is quite possible to send a manned mission to Mars without the ability to return to Earth, and yet return them to Earth via a ship sent months later.
Making soft landings safely sufficiently close to the advance equipment will require navigation beacons
Depends what type of equipment you have on board.
Any plan that depends on a steady stream of basic life supplies from earth is not going to be viable for long.
Evidence please.
Also, any minerals mined on other planets would be enormously expensive on Earth so would have to have some extraordinary utility to be worthwhile (and not able to be made on Earth or in nearby space...)
Who's talking about minning minerals on other planets?
Nuclear power is the only option I see for generating the substantial power required for sustaining a human presence on a cold outpost. Solar power may be sufficient for rovers that measure progress in meters per day, but for humans it would take an enormous array and require constant maintenance (dusting, solar tracking, etc) to capture a much weaker solar flux. Fossil fuels won't do with no oxygen to burn. And the planet does not appear to have any remaining internal heat for any kind of geothermal generators.
Your limited vision is not my fault. You failed to mention nuclear decay as a source of energy. This is the main source of power for many probes. You also failed to take into account the number of previous missions (arriving at least at 6 month intervals) which could bring solar panels.
Interestingly, oxygen for life support and vehicles would not be much of a problem on Mars. Despite the thin, mostly CO2 atmosphere, it can be chemically generated from the CO2, if you have sufficient power to run pumps and reactors.
There you go!
I hope that by now you are beginning to appreciate the huge power demand a human population would create. It is not that these are insurmountable problems, but they are significant. There's no need to rush.
Of course they are not even close to unsurmountable. And yes, I see no reason not to "rush", at least in comparison to your lethargic timetable.

[patnray]

Of course, if you want to go for wild ass speculation, how about mining the gas giants for ammonia and/or hydrogen. Containers of it could be sent on low cost, long time frame, falling trajectories to Mars where it could be used as raw material for fuel. The long transit time would not be a problem as long as there was a continuous supply chain...

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
Barely controlled, cross your fingers, crash landings in giant airbags, for one. Great for light weight rovers, not so good for heavy equipment that people will be depending on for survival...
Apples and oranges. When humans are involved, the necessary technology, testing, and safety requirements make the difference.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
Of course, if you want to go for wild ass speculation, how about mining the gas giants for ammonia and/or hydrogen. Containers of it could be sent on low cost, long time frame, falling trajectories to Mars where it could be used as raw material for fuel. The long transit time would not be a problem as long as there was a continuous supply chain...
No wild ass speculation needed. If you feel differently, please show how such wild ass speculation is necessary.

And what's with this crap about minning gas giants?

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Your limited vision is not my fault. You failed to mention nuclear decay as a source of energy. This is the main source of power for many probes. You also failed to take into account the number of previous missions (arriving at least at 6 month intervals) which could bring solar panels.


I am well aware of the use of thermocouples and heat from nuclear decay. It is one form of nuclear power (extremely inefficient but very handy in probes that require reliable power for many years). I purposely did not specify any particular form.

While huge solar arrays are possible, I believe a nuclear reactor would provide much more power at a far lower cost, for materials, transport, and maintenance.

It would be irresponsible to send people on a mission where they depend on the successful arrival later of their means to return. Ethical plans send material in advance, and along with the explorers, and later as well (if all goes well the additional supplies are used by the next round of explorers...)

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Apples and oranges. When humans are involved, the necessary technology, testing, and safety requirements make the difference.

Which we do not have yet. That was you question, remember...

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
I am well aware of the use of thermocouples and heat from nuclear decay. It is one form of nuclear power (extremely inefficient but very handy in probes that require reliable power for many years). I purposely did not specify any particular form.

While huge solar arrays are possible, I believe a nuclear reactor would provide much more power at a far lower cost, for materials, transport, and maintenance.
OK.
It would be irresponsible to send people on a mission where they depend on the successful arrival later of their means to return.
Why?
Ethical plans send material in advance, and along with the explorers, and later as well (if all goes well the additional supplies are used by the next round of explorers...)
Ethical plans can take a running jump. What ethical plans were in place when Gagarin made his flight? Would it have mattered if there were?

What, generaly, is this idea of ethical plans about?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
Which we do not have yet. That was you question, remember...
What don't we have yet?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

---------AWPrime--------
A part of realistic is economic. And it is not economical yet to colonize other planets.
------------------------

--------DD--------------
I would think that all depends on priorities.
And on the objectives.
When humans are involved, the necessary technology, testing, and safety requirements make the difference.When humans are involved, the primary mission objective is keeping the humans alive.
They couldn't possibly make up the difference in expense that involves. Not even close.

[Tony]

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Mostly hydrogen with trace amounts of Tibana gas.


The hydrogen could be used for fuel cells. What can Tibana gas be used for?

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
What don't we have yet?
The ability to lift large crafts to Mars. The ability to safely conduct soft landings at precise locations. To name just two.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Dymanic
When humans are involved, the primary mission objective is keeping the humans alive.
They couldn't possibly make up the difference in expense that involves. Not even close.
I couldn't agree with you more.

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
What, generaly, is this idea of ethical plans about?
It is about reducing risks as much as possible and not relying on plans where a single failure could have catastrophic results. People's lives are at risk. I'm not saying risks must be reduced to zero, but they must be reduced as much as posible.

That's why the Shuttle is currently grounded. The remaining Shuttles could be flown. They probably won't crash on the next flight. But we know something is wrong and we will fix the problem before flying them again.

If you send advance supplies, such as your return fuel or a fuel manufacturing module, you can monitor the successful arrival and operation of the equipment before the people are enroute. If it doesn't arrive safely you have plenty of time to analyze the failure and try again. If you send the return fuel to arrive after the people do, then what happens if it does not arrive safely? At the least you will have to assure they have sufficient supplies until a second fuel supply can arrive. And how do you know it will arrive safely?

Ethics are about planning a mission without leaving the smallest detail to chance. Ethics is one difference between the real world and a romantic fantasy. Ethics is one reason manned space flight is vastly more expensive than unmanned flight.

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sadly, you are not only against human colonization of other planets, but a pessimist as well.

IMO I am a realist. I understand the enormous effort and technological breakthroughs that would be needed to create a SELF SUSTAINING extraterrestial outpost within 20 years of today. Under your scenario there would be no supplies from mother earth after 20 years. The best we could do right now is send lots of supplies for a small number of people, but once those supplies ran out they would be doomed. Where would they get the materials to repair their machinery or replace worn out space suits? Where would they get nucclear fuel to run their reactors? Or silicon to create new solar arrays (and the complex machinery to create the solar cells)? You are dreaming if you think we could create the infrastructure for all this, and much more, on an alien planet with a hostile environment in 20 years.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by patnray
The ability to lift large crafts to Mars. The ability to safely conduct soft landings at precise locations. To name just two.

While I agree that robotic exploration is more economical, useful, and feasible now, I think you're wrong here. The reason that we use the airbag landings now is precisely because we can. We don't have to install a more complicated landing system. The cost isn't justified for inexpensive (relatively speaking) probes.

However, many desings for soft landing systems have been developed, and could be implemented. They require extreme costs, yes, and probably wouldn't be economically feasible right now. But the technology is there. In addition, a manned expedition does have one thing that the probes don't: A person onsite to make decisions without a long delay time waiting for radio signals to transmit and return. The options for a dynamic system to assist the landing simplifies matters to a degree...the entire process doesn't have to be completely automated.

Check here at NASA Ames (http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/CMEX/data/FrontPg/Missions/human_missions/links/Human_Mars_Mission3.html#3.3.6) for their concept for a Mars landing...the slated date on this is 2009. The landers use basic LOX rockets and parachutes, technolgoy that, I'd say, we already have.

Again, I agree that we stand to gain more from robotic missions than manned at this point, but that is a far different claim than that we don't have the technology to send people. We do.

[patnray]

I don't dispute that the elements of the technology exist, but there is currently no proven safe and reliable integrated system for soft landings.

Another issue is boost or lift capacity. The airbag cushion landing systems are much lighter than landing rockets would be. We do not currently have the booster capacity to lift a lander large enough for humans to Mars within an acceptable time. Manned missions can't spend years getting gravity assists from Venus and Earth...

That, of course, is another reason for using many smaller craft, and advance staging missions, rather than one large "mother" ship. One could, for example, pick up the fuel for landing from an fuel module orbiting Mars...

[uruk]

Colonizing Venus or Mars does nothing to "get us off this rock" if the colonies are dependant on supporting materials from Earth (meaning they cannot become self sufficient over time). Nor will it save us from the ultimate death of the sun. Given our current technology, these are nothing more than romantic daydreams.
I was going to respond with a whole bit about robotic precursors to establish fuels and mine building materials, and temporary habitats with hydroponics and so forth in advance of human presence. but I read the rest of the posts and found that you also know about this stuff.

Colonization of our solar system will not be anywhere as easy as the european colonization of the new world but it will just as inevitable. Our planet ain't gettin' any bigger, and our population aint' gettin' any smaller. Coupled with our inate drive for exploration, it will be an inevitablity.
The present decicion to place a human on mars in one decade will nothinng more than a publicity stunt. and expensive, dangerous publicity stunt with very little scientific value. Much like the Apollo program. It was just a political stunt. But just when real science was being performed by Apollo, the gov. pulled the plug. Apollo 17 (the last mission) was the only mission which had an actual geologist.
If we go to mars this way, it will no doubt end the same way Apollo ended. We haven't been back to the moon in almost 40 years. We need to do it step by step, but we need to start now.

Robots are good for limited exploration. But eventually humans are going to have to start living off planet. Our ecosystem can handle only so much. The sooner we start learning how to live on other plantes the better off our species will be. Waiting to learn these things when it becomes necessary may be too late.

Plus, it would be cool to have a summer villa on the moon!

[uruk]

The ability to lift large crafts to Mars. The ability to safely conduct soft landings at precise locations. To name just two.
I'm sorry but we have had the ability and technology to safely and precisely land vehicles on other plantes since the 60's. Remember Apollo?

We have the technology to lift large paylodes into space. the problem is fuel. It would be impractical to put into orbit in one launch a vehicle with all the fuel and supplies for a mission to mars. Present fuel cost would be prohibited. It would have to be launch in segments and the fuel for a return trip would have to be produced on mars. there are already experiments being done to make this possible (I'll see if I can find a link). I don't dispute that the elements of the technology exist, but there is currently no proven safe and reliable integrated system for soft landings. See Apollo lunar lander.You are dreaming if you think we could create the infrastructure for all this, and much more, on an alien planet with a hostile environment in 20 years. I have to agree with you here 20 years is too short a time with todays attiutudes and budgets. But the manhattan project and Apollo has shown us that these things can be done in a short time period given the necessary attention, materials, and money.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be irresponsible to send people on a mission where they depend on the successful arrival later of their means to return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why?
In case of an emergencies, medical problems, Common sense. Also, what would happen if the arriving fuel shippment gets hit by a meteor or an error causes it to crash? At today's technology it can take anywhere form 3 months to a couple of years to get a resupply ship there.Indeed, humans in space have done little above what probes could often have done. Save, of course, the return of Moon materials. The russians return a lunar soil sample to earth via a unmanned probe back in the late 50's --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by patnray
The existence of any amount of subsurface water on Mars in not a given (yet).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- all you need is some hydrogen (either brought with you or extracted from the soil), some O2 (extracted from the CO2 in the atmosphere) and some electricity (from nukes or solar) and presto....water.

I'm afraid this setup is a case of the excluded middle. It is quite possible to send a manned mission to Mars without the ability to return to Earth, and yet return them to Earth via a ship sent months later. Common sense would tell you that you would send the return vehicle first, make sure everything is hoky dorey, then send the humans.Ethical plans can take a running jump. What ethical plans were in place when Gagarin made his flight? Would it have mattered if there were? Yea, and take note of how many cosmonauts died before and after Yuri Gegarin. In the old Soviet union, human life was not as precious as it was for the western nations. If you don't care about killing your astronauts then send 'em now well figure a way to get them back, all irradiated, asfixtatied and freeze dried.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, any minerals mined on other planets would be enormously expensive on Earth so would have to have some extraordinary utility to be worthwhile (and not able to be made on Earth or in nearby space...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Mining for materials would at first be for building structures on the other planets. once the demand for utilizing less earth resource increases (remember the eco-nuts) and extraterestial mining becomes more prevolent and easier, cost will even out.

[patnray]

Why do people believe that humans can solve the enormous challenges needed to colonize an inhospitable planet millions of miles away but will not be able to solve the problems of living sustainably right here on Earth?

[uruk]

Why do people believe that humans can solve the enormous challenges needed to colonize an inhospitable planet millions of miles away but will not be able to solve the problems of living sustainably right here on Earth?
That's because the problems here on earth are mainly socio-politcal problems rather than technological or even economic problems. How can you farm or live comfortably if some country or religious/politcal figure is bombing your village or house? How can you afford a comfortable level of living if your country is constantly locked in a civil war? Or be employed if your company has been blown up or down sized or deemed illegal. Or your the member of the wrong religion or political party or race and is locked up in prison camp or exiled and homeless?
And yes when we do eventualy colonize other planets those very same problem will follow us out there also.

[patnray]

Originally posted by uruk
I'm sorry but we have had the ability and technology to safely and precisely land vehicles on other plantes since the 60's. Remember Apollo?
Well, yes and no. It could land, but it could not land within 10 feet of a prespecified target (or a hundred yards, for that matter). It had to work after a few days in space, not six months to a year (or longer). And it is very much outdated technology by now. I stand by my statement that there is no proven technology that could safely land on Mars with sufficient accuracy to be useful and not dangerous to people already on the surface.

all you need is some hydrogen (either brought with you or extracted from the soil), some O2 (extracted from the CO2 in the atmosphere) and some electricity (from nukes or solar) and presto....water.
Yes, but bringing your own hydrogen is not self sustaining. Perhaps it exists in as hydrides or otherwise locked into minerals in an extractable form, but we don't know that. We know the O2 is there. If there were a source of hydrogen a major hurdle to self sufficiency would be crossed. One of many...

[uruk]

Well, yes and no. It could land, but it could not land within 10 feet of a prespecified target (or a hundred yards, for that matter). It had to work after a few days in space, not six months to a year (or longer). And it is very much outdated technology by now. I stand by my statement that there is no proven technology that could safely land on Mars with sufficient accuracy to be useful and not dangerous to people already on the surface.
Certainly the Apollo technology is 40 years outdated but the principles are the same. And now with much more powerful computers and more efficient rocket engines I'm sure the accuracy as well as the reliability will be much improved. Besides you wouldn't want to land 10 feet next to something because the debrie blasted out by the exhaust plume would damage anything that close to the landing site. Hell, you don't even land an helicopter 10 feet next to anything either.

The Apollo astronauts were relatively successful at landing well within their target areas (with the exception of Apollo 11). Apollo 12 landed in the Ocean of storms within walking distance of surveyor 3, which was it's target area.

The official report says:
"The two space craft were undocked at 108 hours, and decent orbit insertion was performed at approximately 109-1/2 hours. One hour later, a precision landing was accomplished using automatic guidance, with small manual corrections applied in the final phase of decent. The spacecraft touched down at 110:32:36 in the Ocean of Storms, with landing coordinates of 3.2 degrees south lattitude and 23.4 degrees west longitude refrenced to Surveyor 3 Site map, first edition, dated January 1968. One of the objectives of the Apollo 12 mission was to achieve a precision landing near the Surveyor 3 spacecraft, which had landed on April 20, 1967, The apollo 12 landing point was 535 feet from the Surveyor 3."
You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/A12_MissionReport.pdf

Also, there are reaction control systems on plantary probes that have been traveling in space for several years now that are still functioning, accurate and reliable.

Inconclusion I would have to dissagree with you. The principles are proven, the technology is proven and the accuracy is very high. The problem would be to update the engineering and the prove the integration. Any new vehicle would have be tested and put through it's paces.

[AWPrime]

Who would pay for it?

[patnray]

I concede the point, at least as far as reliable motors. Guidance is now remarkably accurate as well, and beacons prepositioned on the surface would make it even easier. So it is certainly a straight forward engineering task to build a reliable system for manned vehicles.

And I don't argue that the problem of a powerful enough lift system could also be solved.

But we do not have either right now, and I'd still opt for development of beter robotic probes as our highest priority in the near future.

[uruk]

But we do not have either right now, and I'd still opt for development of beter robotic probes as our highest priority in the near future.
I agree. The robotic probes will allow us to look for resources, map and find safe landing and living places and eventualy mine materials, prepare fuels and build habitats in advance of human presence.
As I said before we need to go in steps. We already have a first, although clunky, step with the space station. We need to improve it and solve the problems of long term duration in space travel Then we need to establish a presence back on the moon. We practice building habitats and long duration habitation on a foriegn planet close to home. We test the robots that will go and prepare the materials and resources that we will need for mars.
Who would pay for it?
Also a very good question. But money really isn't the issue. Socio-Political issues are.

The longer we wait, the worst it will be for us in the long run.

[Hellbound]

http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/CMEX/data/FrontPg/Missions/human_missions/links/Human_Mars_Mission4.html

Here they specifically cover the assumptions made in a plan to put humans on Mars by 2009.


I posted the link for a reason; it represents the studies done by NASA scientists covering this entire argument already. We have the technology, the ability, and the resources to send a manned mission to Mars in the next 5 years. The main page for the reference mission is here. (http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/CMEX/data/FrontPg/Missions/human_missions/Human_Mission_Table.html)

Again, I agree that this is not an economical choice, and that more good could be gained for less money with robotic missions. But your insistence that we don't have the technology is just not supported by the facts in evidence or studies done to date. Do you have any documentation, research, or studies to support your conclusions?

[AWPrime]

So what you are saying is that we would have to solve the problems at home first, while preparing for colonization?


Not very realistic.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by patnray
Why do people believe that humans can solve the enormous challenges needed to colonize an inhospitable planet millions of miles away but will not be able to solve the problems of living sustainably right here on Earth?

Personally I don't believe that.

I don't see colonising the planets as a way to relieve Earth's population problems. First off, I don't think Earth has an especially bad population problem. IIRC, Earth's population is going to stabilise at around 12 billion in 30 years or so, then begin to decline.

Second off, even granting that population was a problem, it's highly unlikely that we are going to be able to solve it with colonisation. moving even one billion people would mean launching over a hundred thousand people per hour, for a whole year. We'd need extremely radical advances in spacecraft technology to be able to come within orders of magnitude of this figure.

Nor do I think that we are likely to be able to find any raw materials on other planets that we particularly lack here on Earth.

Nope, my reasons for wanting space colonies are wholly non-practical. I want to see us growing as a race, expanding into space. We're natural explorers - monkey curiosity and all that. We've explored and colonised the Earth, it's time to go explore and colonise elsewhere.

[patnray]

Originally posted by uruk
We already have a first, although clunky, step with the space station.
I would argue that the ISS is a detour, not a first step....

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Tony
The hydrogen could be used for fuel cells. What can Tibana gas be used for?

Tibanna gas, once spin stabilized, can be used as a power source for blasters, of both the hand and turbo variety. it's a star wars reference, since someone mentioned the gas mine of Cloud City from The Empire Strikes back.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Huntsman
[BI posted the link for a reason; it represents the studies done by NASA scientists covering this entire argument already. We have the technology, the ability, and the resources to send a manned mission to Mars in the next 5 years. [/B]

As I read these links it seems they are saying not that we have the required technology, but that it is feasible. At most, some of it has been tested on some scale. I doubt it could all be proven by 2009, and the transit times are shorter for the 2018 window anyway...

I was already aware of the general approach they advocate. And I agree that it does not require radically new technology. But you are far too optimistic in thinking the total program could be put together by 2009, even if we had the means and the will to pay for an all out effort. IMO 2018 is a barely doable. And such a crash program would divert money from other worthy space projects with far more scientific value...

[AWPrime]

Extra:

Colonisation of the mars, does sound stupid to me. You can hardly preform a permanent terraforming on it, because the mass is too small. So if anything bad happens, all the people there will die.

Humanity will only be able to start mass scale colonization if have to technology to make large Jump/hyperspace-ships. So that we could travel to planets that require little terraforming.

Or you could bombard mars untill it has the needed mass.

[DanishDynamite]

Despite all the nay-sayers, the perpetual pessimists and the ones without an ounce of vision for the future, it is clear that the technology to make a self-sustaining colony on Mars is available.

Huntsman, thanks for your exellent links.

I have to admit that I find it very difficult to understand the mind of the gain-sayers.

In my view they would be the same sort of people who would advocate against the tribe crossing from Siberia to Alaska, or advocate against the tribe sailing from Indonesian islands to Australia, or advocate against the vouyage of Columbus.

They are the ones who would (in a quote from Franklin, I think) "give up a little freedom for safety, and thus deserve neither freedom nor safety'.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Despite all the nay-sayers, the perpetual pessimists and the ones without an ounce of vision for the future, it is clear that the technology to make a self-sustaining colony on Mars is available.
As to the charge of pessimism, I for one plead not guilty. Why was it that you wanted to colonize Mars again? Wasn't it something to do with exhausting Earth's resources? I think that position wins the pessimist prize.

Or was it the sense of adventure? Adventure is great. You want to climb Everest or whatever, go have fun. But if you expect many tens of thousands of people to dedicate their time and energy to outfitting the expedition, and millions to dedicate monetary resources to it (even though virtually none of them will actually be going along on the trip) then you need to sell it first. Maybe you'd like to try the profit potential angle.

The suggestion that the technology is ready to go as far as a self-sustaining colony on Mars I regard as too naive to be worth arguing further.

[uruk]

would argue that the ISS is a detour, not a first step....
Quite possible. It is a piece of junk with no specific purpose. just an orbiting test facility.
But likes I sez, you gotta start somewhere, sometime.

don't see colonising the planets as a way to relieve Earth's population problems. First off, I don't think Earth has an especially bad population problem. IIRC, Earth's population is going to stabilise at around 12 billion in 30 years or so, then begin to decline. It's not just population. Zoology shows population growth patterns vs. ecosystems for the general flora and fauna. But humans ain't your average critter. we don't necessarily behave in the same fashion as other animals. Our noodle make us more adaptable and less affected by environmental pressures that other animals. Those numbers are a projection based on the direction of present factors and conditions. When some one brings up projected statistics I remind them of the wonderful job our meterologist do in weather prediction. It is difficult predict an essentialy chaotic system.
One of things colonization will solve is our growing intrusion and alteration of natural habitats. also our growing reliance on earth bourn resources.
Granted these are long term problems but the sooner we start the better off we'll be.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by uruk
One of things colonization will solve is our growing intrusion and alteration of natural habitats. also our growing reliance on earth bourn resources.
Not likely.

The only thing that it could do is to ensure the survival of the human race if earth is destroyed.

Even if we get access to more resources, humanity will just up the consumption rate.

[Correa Neto]

Just a few toughts->

(1) Human colonization in space may not necessarily require a planet. Huge artificial habitats could be built in space using metals mined from asteroids. Perhaps this will be cost-effective to the point of competing with colonies in Mars or Moon. I have the impression that setting a colony in Venus would present much more technological challenges than building a large space station.

(2) To mine asteroids or any other planet, in principle, all that has to be sent from Earth is the initial mining equipment and ore processing plant, plus, of course, some sort of habitat and food producing units for the colonists. It is conceivable that with such a basic setup, the colonists will be able to obtain more raw materials and build new the infrastructure needed. It is also conceivable that future automatization technology will make the initial set up less dependent on humans. A small number of pioneers could handle a lot of things with the proper technology.

(3) I´m afraid that certain raw materials will have to be sent from Earth for a long time. Its unique tectonic regime allowed the formation of mineable concentrations of a number of elements. I may be wrong, but AFAIK, the tectonic regimes and environments that allowed the formation of, for example, niobium and light rare earth elements (LREE) have not yet been detected in other planets. Iron, nickel, chrome, carbon, and several other elements and compounds have been found in asteroids. The current geological knoweledge of Mars indicates that some igneous deposits related to igneous mafic or ultramafic rocks can potentially be there, for example. In both cases, in concentrations that should make relatively easy to mine. Some others elements, however, are present in very small ammounts. The technology to concentrate them can be designed, for sure. But I really wonder if it can be done with enough efficiency.

(4) Earth will be rendered quite hostile to life not in 4.5 Gy, but in some 400 or perhaps 250 ma, due to the Sun´s heating. That´s still a lot of time, but the sooner we start to walk outside of the craddle, the better.

(5) Lets not forget the genetic engineering can also create humans adapted to harsher conditions, substantially reducing the specifications of artificial habitat´s environmental parameters. Maybe its not ethical for (some of) us now. However, our cultural and ethical parameters may change in the future, as it has happened quite often before.

[AWPrime]

1. That would be very dangerous. Radiation, impacts and a lack of full gravity makes space stations more of a short term solution.

2. That would be one of the conditions to make it possible.

3. Yes that is bad news.

4. Lets take it slow then, no need to rush. We have already started.

5. I hope so, but I expect that it will have limits.

[Correa Neto]

I´m really not sure regarding artificial habitats in space being much more hazardous than living in the Moon, for example.

Radiation is an issue, surely, and you can build artificial caves in the Moon to avoid exposure. However, inventive designs can perhaps minimize the danger. I remember reading about a design where a ship´s habitable area was shielded by water.

As for gravity, as long the habitable part of the colony spins at the propper rate, its not a big engineering issue, when compared with all the other challenges.

Impacts, well, this might be a problem. Basically it would be a play with the odds.

Also, lets not forget that some colonies could have their own propulsion means, being huge spaceships as a matter of fact. City ships, space arks, etc.

[TillEulenspiegel]

The most practical scheme is that we use the moon as a staging base for launches and supplies . the composition of the moon is very similar to the earth. The theory is that the Moon was ejecta from the Earth from an asteroid. The Clementine probe shows evidence of water on the moon .
Then if the Mars trip is feasible the Moon shortstop is the requisite proving ground. Closer and more known resources.

[Correa Neto]

The composition may be close. However, the pattern of concentration of elements at the Moon´s crust is quite different, since it lacks subduction-style tectonics that recycles the crust and concentrates a plethora of elements at ore deposits.

I have the impression that mining asteroids and building equipment in space potentially can be more effective, specially for long-term projects. Perhaps (better write probably) bases on the Moon and asteroid mining will both be needed.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Correa Neto

Earth will be rendered quite hostile to life not in 4.5 Gy, but in some 400 or perhaps 250 ma, due to the Sun´s heating. That´s still a lot of time, but the sooner we start to walk outside of the craddle, the better.Maybe we should concentrate on mastering the basics of personal hygiene first.

[uruk]

Even if we get access to more resources, humanity will just up the consumption rate.
It's going to increase wether we stay or go. the idea is to lessen the pressure on earth.

[AWPrime]

That can only be done by significantly reducing the human population on earth.

[uruk]

That can only be done by significantly reducing the human population on earth.
Good luck with that. People aren't going to take lightly to regulations concerning "gettin' it on". The chinese have a population control program in place and it is not doing all that well. They still have over a third of the world's population. And India's idea of population control is to kill their unwanted daughters. (not officially sanctioned by government, but it is done by the lower class none-the-less)

There are two ways of curtailing populations. have more wars or let nature take it's course and let famine, desease and overcrowding cull the heard.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Dymanic
[B]As to the charge of pessimism, I for one plead not guilty. Why was it that you wanted to colonize Mars again? Wasn't it something to do with exhausting Earth's resources? I think that position wins the pessimist prize.
It had very little to do with exhausting Earth's resources. But I find your reply interesting. In what sense would a reply based on the finite size of the Earth be a pessimist view?
Or was it the sense of adventure? Adventure is great. You want to climb Everest or whatever, go have fun. But if you expect many tens of thousands of people to dedicate their time and energy to outfitting the expedition, and millions to dedicate monetary resources to it (even though virtually none of them will actually be going along on the trip) then you need to sell it first. Maybe you'd like to try the profit potential angle.
Well, yes I do think there is a sense of adventure about an endevour to colonize Mars. Apparently you don't, which is fine. The suggestion that the technology is ready to go as far as a self-sustaining colony on Mars I regard as too naive to be worth arguing further.
In which case you failed to read Huntsman's links.

[Hellbound]

DD:

To be honest, my links do not promote a self-sustaining colony. They do promote a manned mission, but it would require resupply from Earth. The idea is long-term missions, each team spending up to 6 months on the surface to maximize benefits, and the next team arriving with additional supplies to replace the ones leaving.

At least, nothing I saw in those links suggests self-sustainability. Durability and reuse, yes. I have not, however, read the entire document (I focused on relevant portions about the technology to send men to Mars, not self-sustinance), so if I've missed something please point me to it :)

[DanishDynamite]

And what is up with this idea that we should just stay on Earth, pull the blanket over our head and spend our time solving all social problems while we hope for the best?

Good grief, grow a little spine!

We are on a dot on a dot within the Universe. We have ample evidence that cataclysmic events occur on this dot which wipe out 50 - 90% of the animal species. We know some of the possible reasons for these cataclysmic events. We also have the technology to spread our eggs to other baskets than this regularly trounced rock on which we are currently stuck.

I have no understanding or sympathy of those who would hold us back this endevour. I must admit I'm glad that private enterprise has finally made space travel beyond the power of political pessimists to veto.

[patnray]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Despite all the nay-sayers, the perpetual pessimists and the ones without an ounce of vision for the future, it is clear that the technology to make a self-sustaining colony on Mars is available.
I must have missed the "is available" part. Speculation about Mars missions seem to show that the misssions could be designed using technology that we know is feasible. It is one thing to know the chemistry for a fuel processing plant. How long before we actually have one that works reliably and the ability to land it in a precise location on Mars? "Is feasible" is not the same as "is available" (developed, tested, optimized, proven, and ready to go...)

And in no way have we proven that the needed raw materials for self-sufficiency are avaiable on Mars in an exploitable form. There is no proof that water or hydrogen are available at all, let alone in an extractable form.

I think your science fantasies have clouded your judgement about the current state of technology and the true difficulty of such an adventure.

As for "nay sayers" and lack of "vision for the future": in this very thread are nay sayers who deny that man could ever create an "intelligent" robot explorer and nay sayers who deny that man can solve the problems he faces here on earth. And there are those who have a grand vision for man's future even if it does not include your own fantasies about human destiny.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Huntsman
DD:

To be honest, my links do not promote a self-sustaining colony. They do promote a manned mission, but it would require resupply from Earth. The idea is long-term missions, each team spending up to 6 months on the surface to maximize benefits, and the next team arriving with additional supplies to replace the ones leaving.

At least, nothing I saw in those links suggests self-sustainability. Durability and reuse, yes. I have not, however, read the entire document (I focused on relevant portions about the technology to send men to Mars, not self-sustinance), so if I've missed something please point me to it :)

Well, Huntsman, its been a while since I read them, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (:)) and accept that your assesment is on the mark.

This fact however, is that the link you provided a means of landing people on Mars within a few years, and provided scenarios for living areas, power, oxygen, food, etc such that the "colonists" could survive for the months required. I don't see it as all that much of a stretch to think these months could be turned into decades or more if the incentive was there.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And what is up with this idea that we should just stay on Earth, pull the blanket over our head and spend our time solving all social problems while we hope for the best?

Good grief, grow a little spine!

We are on a dot on a dot within the Universe. We have ample evidence that cataclysmic events occur on this dot which wipe out 50 - 90% of the animal species. We know some of the possible reasons for these cataclysmic events. We also have the technology to spread our eggs to other baskets than this regularly trounced rock on which we are currently stuck.

I have no understanding or sympathy of those who would hold us back this endevour. I must admit I'm glad that private enterprise has finally made space travel beyond the power of political pessimists to veto.

What he said.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by patnray
[B]I must have missed the "is available" part. Speculation about Mars missions seem to show that the misssions could be designed using technology that we know is feasible. It is one thing to know the chemistry for a fuel processing plant. How long before we actually have one that works reliably and the ability to land it in a precise location on Mars? "Is feasible" is not the same as "is available" (developed, tested, optimized, proven, and ready to go...)
You're killing me. I've never thought or said that we could colonize Mars or any other planet tomorrow. I've just said that the ability to do it is here. Now. The low-cost scenario shown by Huntsman's scenario already shows that we have the ability to send humans to Mars who could survive there for months. I know of no major reason that these months could not be extended to indefinitely within a few decades.
And in no way have we proven that the needed raw materials for self-sufficiency are avaiable on Mars in an exploitable form. There is no proof that water or hydrogen are available at all, let alone in an extractable form.
As you very well know and as I have provided links for earlier, there is every reason to suspect this is the case.
I think your science fantasies have clouded your judgement about the current state of technology and the true difficulty of such an adventure.
And I think your negativity and focus on current R&D budgets have made you unneccessarily pessimistic.
As for "nay sayers" and lack of "vision for the future": in this very thread are nay sayers who deny that man could ever create an "intelligent" robot explorer and nay sayers who deny that man can solve the problems he faces here on earth. And there are those who have a grand vision for man's future even if it does not include your own fantasies about human destiny.
Indeed, there are "safety-first" and "don't rock the boat" people all over this thread. Luckily, there are a few entrepenoural spirits as well.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Tony
What he said.
Who would have thought that Tony and I might agree on something?:)

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Who would have thought that Tony and I might agree on something?:)

IIRC we've agreed on a lot. The thread about wind power comes to mind.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Tony
IIRC we've agreed on a lot. The thread about wind power comes to mind.

Just to preserve the delicate balance of reality, I'll disagree with Tony on general principles :D

There, DD, now everything is in order.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Tony
IIRC we've agreed on a lot. The thread about wind power comes to mind.
Really?

Scary.;)

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Just to preserve the delicate balance of reality, I'll disagree with Tony on general principles :D

There, DD, now everything is in order.
I could have made the same post!

I think Tony's agreement is just a covert attempt at discrediting me!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

It had very little to do with exhausting Earth's resources. But I find your reply interesting. In what sense would a reply based on the finite size of the Earth be a pessimist view?
Perhaps I have misrepresented your position. The usual argument runs along lines of us needing to develop off-planet since (due to aspects of our nature over which we have no control) we are rapidly and irreversibly making Earth a hostile environment for human life.
Well, yes I do think there is a sense of adventure about an endevour to colonize Mars. Apparently you don't, which is fine.We may just have different ideas about what constitutes adventure. If robots to Mars equals no adventure, whereas humans to Mars equals adventure, then most of us are going to die adventureless (i.e., you still need to explain how that is adventure for those of us who remain behind -- and you need to do that, since we'll be the ones paying for it). For me, the purpose of adventure goes beyond the recreational value; the golly-geeness of actually being there. It has something to do with learning. I regard Stephen Hawking as an adventurer, for example, even though you aren't likely to hear him shouting "WOOHOO" from the top of a mountain anytime soon. What I question is whether going for the pure adventure offers the best return on investment when the same (massive) resources might have produced increases in scientific understanding of arguably wider reaching and longer lasting value. By insisting on sending real live humans, it is you who would hold back that endeavor.

-------me---------------
The suggestion that the technology is ready to go as far as a self-sustaining colony on Mars I regard as too naive to be worth arguing further.
-------DD---------------
In which case you failed to read Huntsman's links.
-----------------------------

Those links are concerned with landing humans on Mars. You are talking about a self-sustaining colony on Mars. We mostly seem to disagree about the size of the technological gap between those two propositions.
We also have the technology to spread our eggs to other baskets than this regularly trounced rock on which we are currently stuckHave we yet bothered to examine why it is that we regard this as of such supreme importance?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I could have made the same post!

I think Tony's agreement is just a covert attempt at discrediting me!

Yep, discrediting DD is just step one of my evil plan for world domination.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Perhaps I have misrepresented your position. The usual argument runs along lines of us needing to develop off-planet since (due to aspects of our nature over which we have no control) we are rapidly and irreversibly making Earth a hostile environment for human life.
Perhaps you have. There is little doubt that the mass of humanity is currently affecting the Earth to a degree that it has an influence on our wellbeing, but that is not my argument.
We may just have different ideas about what constitutes adventure. If robots to Mars equals no adventure, whereas humans to Mars equals adventure, then most of us are going to die adventureless (i.e., you still need to explain how that is adventure for those of us who remain behind -- and you need to do that, since we'll be the ones paying for it). For me, the purpose of adventure goes beyond the recreational value; the golly-geeness of actually being there. It has something to do with learning. I regard Stephen Hawking as an adventurer, for example, even though you aren't likely to hear him shouting "WOOHOO" from the top of a mountain anytime soon. What I question is whether going for the pure adventure offers the best return on investment when the same (massive) resources might have produced increases in scientific understanding of arguably wider reaching and longer lasting value. By insisting on sending real live humans, it is you who would hold back that endeavor.
We seem to be to some extent speaking across purposes. I think automated probes are the best way to explore the Universe. I think that the main goal of humanity within the foreseeable futúre is to safegard the existence of our species by colonizing other bodies in the solar system.
-------me---------------
The suggestion that the technology is ready to go as far as a self-sustaining colony on Mars I regard as too naive to be worth arguing further.
-------DD---------------
In which case you failed to read Huntsman's links.
-----------------------------

Those links are concerned with landing humans on Mars. You are talking about a self-sustaining colony on Mars. We mostly seem to disagree about the size of the technological gap between those two propositions.
If that is our only difference then I salute you!
Have we yet bothered to examine why it is that we regard this as of such supreme importance?
I've posted a few examples.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Tony
Yep, discrediting DD is just step one of my evil plan for world domination.
I thought it might be. :)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I think that the main goal of humanity within the foreseeable futúre is to safegard the existence of our species by colonizing other bodies in the solar system.


Sadly there are many lifekillers that could effect the entire solar system.:eek:

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Sadly there are many lifekillers that could effect the entire solar system.:eek:

Yeah, but fewer than the ones that would take out a planet. That's like saying seatbelts are worthless because there are many accidents that can kill you anyway...some protection is better than none.

IN any case, I think that planetary colonization is the first step towards interstellar colonization. If we can create a self-sufficient artificial environment, then we're more than halfway to creating ships that can travel between stars.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Sadly there are many lifekillers that could effect the entire solar system.:eek:
Luckily, having our eggs dispersed, the chance of two lifekillers occuring on two worlds within a similar timeframe is extremely unlikely.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Yeah, but fewer than the ones that would take out a planet. That's like saying seatbelts are worthless because there are many accidents that can kill you anyway...some protection is better than none.

IN any case, I think that planetary colonization is the first step towards interstellar colonization. If we can create a self-sufficient artificial environment, then we're more than halfway to creating ships that can travel between stars.

I'm raising a glass of Carlsberg Elephant Beer in your honor at this very moment. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I thought it might be. :)

And rest assured, the plan is evil, very evil. ;) :D

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Tony
And rest assured, the plan is evil, very evil. ;) :D

Oh my god!

You're Barney, aren't you!!!!!!!


AUGH!!!

Huntsman runs off screaming

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Yeah, but fewer than the ones that would take out a planet. That's like saying seatbelts are worthless because there are many accidents that can kill you anyway...some protection is better than none.


Not necessarily. It gets into a cost/benefit tradeoff; if "some protection" is more costly than the expected loss due to the accidents, then "some protection" can be considerably worse than none.

The big problem with manned exploration of Mars is the cost. I have little doubt that given an unlimited budget and time frame, the world (or any major nation-state) could put a self-sustaining colony on Mars; for that matter, given an unlimited budget and time frame, I suspect that one could be placed within the solar corona.

But what else are you willing to give up for that Martian colony? For example, one of the early posters was waxing eloquent about the breakthroughs that could be expected with another ten years of research in artificial intelligence. But if you're spending the money on a Mars probe, that money isn't available for AI research. With an unlimited budget and time, we could probably eliminate most of the currently untreatable diseases, tap the Earth's magnetic field for unlimited energy, establish a system of weather control to eliminate natural disasters, establish a system of food distribution to eliminate famine world-wide. and rehydrate the Sahara. We could develop techniques for in utero genetic surgery, map the human brain to the point where a college-degree-in-a-pill is practical, and still possibly have enough to send a robotic explorer to Mars and see if there's anything there we missed.

We could even develop a space-based defense grid to move dinosaur-killer asteroids out of the way.

In particular, I think the "survival of our species" argument is silly. If a dinosaur-killer asteroid appeared on the radar horizon, due to impact in 2104, we're all dead. We'd actually be much better off trying to build a defense grid than to try to establish a Martian colony, since we wouldn't be able to build a self-sustaining colony with a large enough capacity for a viable gene pool. If you're really worried about species survival, then spending time and resources going to Mars is one of the worst things you can do.

[Hellbound]

drkitten:

IN case you missed my earlier posts, I am against a manned MArs mission at this time. I don't believe it would be economical, and I believe we'd be better off with robotic discovery.

My only point of contention was the statement that we don't have the technology to do a manned mars mission. We do have the technology (if not the specific applications).

As to the colony idea, it won't be feasible for a time, I agree with you on that. I am not, nor have I in this thread, argued that a colony or a manned mission should be done immediately or soon. We could do a mars mission soon, but the costs are higher than the benifits. It will be a while before a colony or any sort is feasible and economical.

In short, you're strawmanning me :) Even worse, I agree with you for our present situation. In the future, though, I expect colonization to be not only a technical and economical possiblity, but an inevitability as well.

[AWPrime]

As well people will have to consider that the gravity field of mars is too small for humans to live in for a long time.