Tango01 | 28 Jan 2017 4:10 p.m. PST |
"As President Donald Trump takes office, that's one of the many questions facing him and leaders in Congress about the future of our human spaceflight program and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). We believe the answer is—and must be—a resounding yes. Human space flight is difficult, and space flight to Mars and back would be even more so. But successfully sending an American to Mars must be the centerpiece of NASA's human spaceflight program. With great pride and confidence, our new President and Congress should commit together to NASA sending Americans to Mars by 2033—a realistic goal consistent with the demands of both rocket science and political science. This date is also consistent with celestial mechanics, physics, engineering challenges that can be met, the support of key stakeholders in the public and private sectors, and a reasonable expectation of the investments Congress can provide. When we Americans sent our countrymen to the Moon more than 50 years ago, leaders at NASA wanted the next destination in our solar system to be Mars. A human mission to Mars was proposed by NASA as the logical follow on to Apollo, but cost considerations and the fractious politics of the Vietnam Era put an end to that dream, temporarily…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
ScottWashburn | 29 Jan 2017 7:15 a.m. PST |
Well, I can't possibly agree more. Although our efforts should not be exclusively toward the Mars mission. Establishing a permanent moon base should also be there as well as continuing unmanned probes to the outer planets. |
Tango01 | 29 Jan 2017 3:20 p.m. PST |
|
Private Matter | 30 Jan 2017 9:26 a.m. PST |
Can I recommend who we send first? |
Andrew Walters | 30 Jan 2017 9:35 a.m. PST |
Wasn't it forty eight years ago we landed on the moon, not "more than fifty"? And I disagree. Exploring the solar system with robots is far, far cheaper. For the price of a manned program to Mars you could send a thousand rovers and proves over Mars, Ceres, Titan, Mercury, *Venus*, a couple of Kuiper Belt Objects, the next interesting comet, and whatever asteroids the scientists would shed some light on the origins of the solar system or whatever else we want to know. Rovers and probes can now operate any sampler or experiment humans can, and they can return samples as well. I don't think humans can do anything robots can't do, except walk around and be cool. But this isn't about poetry, it's about science. Let's get one thousand times as much science and have the humans stay home, out of the radiation, the perchlorate, and the deathly cold of space. I know everyone wants to see a manned Mars mission, but I would simply rather have one thousand times as much information about the solar system. Instead of waiting sixteen years for one packet of information we could get sooner with robots, let's spend the same money on a constant stream of information from every corner of our neighborhood. |
Bowman | 30 Jan 2017 10:05 a.m. PST |
Wasn't it forty eight years ago we landed on the moon, not "more than fifty"? It's WIRED, and close enough for web journalism. And I disagree. And I agree with you. Building a full time base on the Moon? For the $$ spent on simply maintaining those structures, what could be done exploring instead? Just the danger and the waste of energy landing and taking off from the Moon's surface should direct us to manned orbital stations as an alternative, would it not? While Moon Bases and Musk's fantasies about subterranean Martian cities sound awesome and appealing to those of us who grew up reading Sci-Fi, is this the best way to allocate ever shrinking Science dollars? |
ScottWashburn | 30 Jan 2017 10:41 a.m. PST |
I've always believed that unless manned missions follow the robots, there is ultimately no point to the exploration at all. So a manned mission to Mars is important. And the moon base is to let us find out exactly what's needed to survive on another planet for extended periods, but it's close enough that the crew could be evacuated back to Earth in the event of a disaster. Going to Mars (or anywhere) without that experience would be very risky. |
alien BLOODY HELL surfer | 30 Jan 2017 11:24 a.m. PST |
It's also prestige – if China or Russia do it first….. look how Russia getting the first man into space sped things up! |
Tango01 | 30 Jan 2017 11:46 a.m. PST |
Can we found new minerals there?… Amicalement Armand
|
Who asked this joker | 30 Jan 2017 2:08 p.m. PST |
A full time base on the moon is a great first step for a mission to Mars. We can learn a lot through experience. How to make a base nearly self sustaining should be priority one. Having a relatively close body (the moon) to Earth is ideal for gaining such knowledge. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 30 Jan 2017 3:48 p.m. PST |
It's true that robotics give far more bang for the buck,but it's the manned missions that capture the public interest. And support. Unfortunately. |
Bowman | 31 Jan 2017 4:37 a.m. PST |
I've always believed that unless manned missions follow the robots, there is ultimately no point to the exploration at all. The point is gathering information about our solar system, our galaxy and everything beyond. Learning about space doesn't necessarily depend on personal experience. We can't go everywhere. And including humans puts incredible time, money and logistic pressures on any mission. |
Bunkermeister | 31 Jan 2017 4:14 p.m. PST |
Permanent manned Moon colony and a manned exploration mission to Mars, ASAP. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
Mithmee | 31 Jan 2017 6:54 p.m. PST |
Plus before China does it. Need to send individuals back to the moon as well. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 01 Feb 2017 4:10 a.m. PST |
Long term, colonisation. Short term, exploration and testing systems. So could send up 'unmanned' stations and bases before people. That way, when the people go up there is a safe and tested environment for them with a lot of redundancy. Won't happen that way of course. Cost and time will get in the way – slow, steady, safe always loses out to headlines. |
Gunfreak | 01 Feb 2017 6:10 a.m. PST |
Any base on the moon or tripp Mars should be international. With all the "enemies" United. It should be "UN" Missions of peace and cooperation. Not a antagonistic race. |
piper909 | 01 Feb 2017 9:03 p.m. PST |
Make-work program for NASA, job security for academics and rocket engineers, and huge money drain for very little chance of any real gain, in my book. Send people to Mars? We haven't even gone back to the moon yet. The negative effects of sustained space flight or extraterestrial living on the human body have not yet been overcome. We couldn't even sustain the Biosphere in Arizona -- what are the chances for success 40 million miles away? This is a colossal shell game of three-card monte. Find the missing money! Whoops, it's not there! It's also a needless distraction from pressing problems closer to home. Ahem, schools, roads, infrastructure, healthcare, pensions, social welfare? A mission to Mars is a suicide run. |
Bowman | 02 Feb 2017 6:03 a.m. PST |
Here is a nice article on an upcoming report on the feasibility of mining the Moon's mineral and water resources. link Make-work program for NASA, job security for academics and rocket engineers, and huge money drain for very little chance of any real gain, in my book. I don't have a definitive answer (like some here) but I wonder the same thing. By ruling out direct human involvement we can have more exploration for less money. That's the gain for me. Sure, having Moon bases teaches us how to maintain Moon bases, but all that presupposes that Moon bases are the logical way to go. The arguments here haven't been that convincing so far. |
Bowman | 02 Feb 2017 6:05 a.m. PST |
A mission to Mars is a suicide run. A bit of hyperbole there, but NASA is well aware of the increase in morbidity and mortality rates for those that will eventually go to Mars. |
Bowman | 02 Feb 2017 8:27 a.m. PST |
Bill Nye is "open minded but skeptical" about Martian colonization. link |
piper909 | 02 Feb 2017 5:40 p.m. PST |
Gregg Easterbrook at the Brookings Institute has also written critically of this notion, altho' I don't have any online examples at hand. He and I are both space exploration boosters, really (despite my heated post above), it's only that we don't think the current plans are plausible or feasible at this time, nor should be a national priority given other needs. A premature or ill-considered rush toward Mars may only lead to a disaster that would set the entire program back. (I'm also a little peeved at a prevalent attitude that seems to say, "We're giving up on the Earth, but we'll get it right on Mars!" Despite all indications to the contrary.) |
mandt2 | 05 Feb 2017 9:23 p.m. PST |
I honestly don't see us going to Mars until we go back to the Moon again. Attempting a mission to Mars without testing the systems and methods on a more accessible location is madness and a formula for disaster. If that first mission to Mars fails, and the crew is killed, that will be that. |
Ghecko | 05 Feb 2017 11:39 p.m. PST |
|
Bowman | 06 Feb 2017 10:21 a.m. PST |
Easterbrook hasn't been with the Brookings Institute for a few years now. He was critical of a Moon base in 2006: link Same with a Mars Mission in 1986: link And the lack of giving NASA a cost effective and purposeful mission, more recently in 2012: link To be fair, some of his most quoted articles are quite old now. But I do like his, " No price too high to accomplish nothing", from the first link. |