Comments on: Just Say No to Manned Missions to Mars

By: Armond

Armond — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:22:24 +0000

One of the biggest threats to human existence could be said to be our own admittedly somewhat warlike nature. A manned mission to Mars is not just important for research value, yes, we could accomplish a lot of the same tasks with robots, but the value of a shared hope, a dream for our future as a species. It would focus global thought on something more than the petty political squabbling and fighting between the nations that we see today. This infighting on our home world is not going to get any better without a big change in our thinking. In fact, it can only get worse. I believe it was Einstein who defined ‘stupidity’ as performing the same action over and over again and expecting a different result. In effect, that is what we humans have been doing for a long time. Let us change something, lets give ourselves a different collective paradigm, to propel ourselves into a new future. The possiblities for our neighbouring planet are immense, and even if it is for no other reason than to act as a incentive to change the way we view our future as a genetic family, then a manned mission to Mars is our duty to all the generations to come after us.

By: Sebastian S.

Sebastian S. — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:06:30 +0000

I strongly agree with the article, and would go further to say that going on the moon again, or colonising the moon or other planets, in any forseeable future, is a total waste of resources. Consider:
- The computers on Apollo 11 in 1969 had the combined processing power of your cellphone. Manned operation was quite necessary, both for landing, and picking up samples, etc. With modern computers and robotics, human presence is no longer necessary.
- Only about 1% of Earth is currently inhabitted, and could easily support many billions more people. We should colonise: the arctic poles, the great deserts, and especially the ocean floors first – much easier environments than space, with great mining potential too.
- As for having humans in space for scientific work, we can pretty much do what we need from low earth orbit (e.g., Mir).
- Of course any great endeavour produces technological advancements as side effects. So does war. But we might as well do hard things that are actually useful, like making more of our planet inhabitable.

By: Roy

Roy — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:26:34 +0000

The anti military sentiments Tregonsee mentions are really there, a huge number of “space scientists” have a truly visceral hatred of the astronaut program that is mostly dislike of “the military,” which comes from the fact that almost all the senior scientist currently are from the 60s and 70s generation and have the typical politics of that group.

Very early on in my carrer I was at a talk by Harrison Schmitt, the only scientist to ever walk on the moon, and the contempt and hatred around him from colleagues who had never met him, based on his conservative (ie. anti communist) politics was genuinely shocking. This spills over far more than many non planetary scientists realize.

I myself heard plenty of that sort of sentiment in my edication as a geologist, but I also think it is somewhat motivated by envy, since most scientists would never qualify for the astronaut program because of the physical and psychological requirements. I include myself in that part, but I would rather somebody went than no one, because I hope to someday make planetary travel less rigorous. Also having trained geoligists on the ground on a place like Mars would be extremely valuable since even with all the robotic equipment we have it is not always apparent what we should be looking for. More eyes means better science.

By: vonMises

vonMises — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:47:45 +0000

Ask those engineers what they dreamed about as a kid and why they went into space research and they will say something about the Moon. “If we can go to the Moon we can surely do this.” is a powerful truism that becomes greater still if we can say, “If we can live on Mars surly we can do this.”

The Brains went to the Moon! That is why unmanned missions are so good now. We are still benefitting from the Moon years attraction of smart people. That is starting to ebb. The only way to truly ignite the Brains of the next hundred years is to have a 3lbs of meat on Mars experiencing it for itself.

Man is not mind or body but mindbody. Who happens to have a great simulator but, does best when he experiences things first hand.

Imagine the unmanned missions that will not be inspired if we don’t go to Mars? That is the real question. Unmanned missions live on the fumes of manned.

If Space people want the best and brightest they have to realize they are in competition with all the Sciences and Intellects. In this context space lovers should unite to get a man to Mars because of the huge amounts of money and resources, uncountable really, that will flow towards all kinds of space boats.

Like children some scientists see only the money that is here now. It will be divided and they would lose some of the pie to manned. Money is not a zero sum game when new ways of creating or doing things are found. All boats, science and space science specifically, can rise over time if Man is found standing on Mars.

btw It is the only Manly thing to do.

By: Nickp

Nickp — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:20:41 +0000

Tregonsee,

Agreed, except that “science NASA” is the one that does almost all of the exploration, and “exploration NASA” is probably better termed “publicity stunt NASA.”

By: Stephen M. Barr

Stephen M. Barr — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:35:00 +0000

To Rich,

Probably. But if the money isn’t spent there, it might be spent on other scientific and engineering projects and create other jobs.

To Tregonsee,

If there is a national security reason for it, I’d be in favor of it. On the other hand, it seems that some of our cutting edge military technology involves unmanned vehicles — e.g. predator drones.

By: Tregonsee

Tregonsee — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:52:24 +0000

There have always been two NASAs. One is the science NASA, the other the exploration NASA. For decades, the science NASA has disliked and distrusted the exploration NASA. With some exceptions, money spent on manned exploration is viewed as being wasted since it could be spent on something of value. I.E. the scientist’s own pet projects. Another factor is the visceral hatred of many for the military, who have always been part of the astronaut program. On the other side, Chris Kraft, one of the giants of the early days of manned spaceflight, said: “Nothing succeeds in this world like a few scientists crying wolf and flying the flag of fear to Congress and the press.”

By: Roy

Roy — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:35:52 +0000

One of the things about a manned mission to Mars is that it would require a tremendous infrastructure that would remain to some extent afterwards. None of the Mars plans includes going there directly, they all involve a permanent access to higher orbits, and that would be worth a lot.

Also going to Mars is something that mankind should do, it is not just about knowing what is out there, but having a human presence

By: Rich Horton

Rich Horton — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:31:57 +0000

“Most astrophysicists I have talked to think that a manned mission to Mars is a horribly inefficient use of research dollars.”

IOW: “Please spend the research money on what we astrophysicists want. The thought of shoring up our research grants for the next four decades makes us salivate.”

I wonder if those whose careers are based upon engineering systems for human flight might feel differently.