Anyone want to work for NASA?

[UngainlyTitan]

There just isn't any reason to go. Despite sci-fi dreams, terraforming is essentially impossible (or, at least, if you can terraform Mars, you can terraform Earth to fix whatever issues we have caused). yes, it would be a good idea to be a multi planet species, but if a colony is not sustainable (and Mars could never be) then if Earth life gets wiped out, so does Mars'.

I am gonna to quibble here. One does not have to have the ability to terraform Mars to place a sustainable colony on Mars. It is just that a sustainable colony on Mars is so similar to a sustainable colony in space that I really do not see why we would put it on Mars initially as distinct to somewhere more accessible.
To be honest we have in my opinion the ability to fix the issues we are causing here on Earth but not the collective political will to actually do it.

 

[dragoner]

I talked to the guys at Purdue who would likely be involved, and they casually estimated (pub talk over a pint) that a mission is easily 20 years and 350 billion to build a vehicle, likely it would triple to a trillion. This is just to put a landing there, and bring them back home. An an actual settlement? Wow, could not even guess, definitely the most expensive thing people have ever done.

 

[Umbran]

it is a terrible idea now, we don't know enough about long duration space missions and it is a questionable idea given the capabilities of robotic exploration. On the other hand I would not say that it would never be a good idea.

Space is terrible. Everything you do for the first time in space is a terrible idea. It cannot become a good idea until you try the terrible ideas a few times first.

There just isn't any reason to go.

Folks forget that, for the most part, science (and the technological advancement that follows it) isn't driven by knowing the valuable bits ahead of time, and seeking that specific value. Space exploration is in the "pure research" branch of discovery, not the "targeted profit" branch.

The space program pays for itself by way of setting some pretty audacious goals, learning a ton and creating new technologies to meet those goals, and then spinning that knowledge and technology off into completely unrelated activities planetside.

So, we don't have to have a clear reason to go - the fact that nobody has gone, and that it will take a ton of new stuff to get there, will create the benefit. And, whatever we get from the actual trip is icing on the cake.

And that's aside from the dreams this stuff inspires, which will create the next generation of nerds - and those folks are more valuable than anything else.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am gonna to quibble here. One does not have to have the ability to terraform Mars to place a sustainable colony on Mars. It is just that a sustainable colony on Mars is so similar to a sustainable colony in space that I really do not see why we would put it on Mars initially as distinct to somewhere more accessible.
To be honest we have in my opinion the ability to fix the issues we are causing here on Earth but not the collective political will to actually do it.

The only reason that a tiny part of me is in favour of the mission is the vain hope that the information returned (likely a colossal failure) will go a long way toward changing the collective political will here on earth.

Or to put it more bluntly: Maybe if everyone dies, people on earth will notice that maybe we should put our house in order before venturing out. Stupid way to learn it, IMO, but maybe necessary?

 

[Reynard]

Space is terrible. Everything you do for the first time in space is a terrible idea. It cannot become a good idea until you try the terrible ideas a few times first.



Folks forget that, for the most part, science (and the technological advancement that follows it) isn't driven by knowing the valuable bits ahead of time, and seeking that specific value. Space exploration is in the "pure research" branch of discovery, not the "targeted profit" branch.

The space program pays for itself by way of setting some pretty audacious goals, learning a ton and creating new technologies to meet those goals, and then spinning that knowledge and technology off into completely unrelated activities planetside.

So, we don't have to have a clear reason to go - the fact that nobody has gone, and that it will take a ton of new stuff to get there, will create the benefit. And, whatever we get from the actual trip is icing on the cake.

And that's aside from the dreams this stuff inspires, which will create the next generation of nerds - and those folks are more valuable than anything else.

To be clear, I am not saying "don't go to Mars." I am only saying "don't try and live there." I am all for exploration and a human centered space program. Knowedge is valuable for its own sake and wonder is a gift from the universe to us. But at whatever point humanity had the technology power to remake Mars into a habitable place, either through terraforming or through massive infrastructure, we would not need to.

 

[Umbran]

It is just that a sustainable colony on Mars is so similar to a sustainable colony in space that I really do not see why we would put it on Mars initially as distinct to somewhere more accessible.

If you put a colony in space:
1) Microgravity is a b*tch on the human body for long-term habitation. And "long term" is in terms of months, not years.
2) Every atom of resources needed must be lifted to a station.

If you put a colony on the ground:
1) You get some gravity, which is good for human health
2) Water and base mineral materials may be available if you put it in the right place.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Space is terrible. Everything you do for the first time in space is a terrible idea. It cannot become a good idea until you try the terrible ideas a few times first.

True but is there any really good reason to go to Mars to learn about long endurance missions when you could do the same ting in the Earth - Moon locality with less risk and possibly less cost.

Folks forget that, for the most part, science (and the technological advancement that follows it) isn't driven by knowing the valuable bits ahead of time, and seeking that specific value. Space exploration is in the "pure research" branch of discovery, not the "targeted profit" branch.

The space program pays for itself by way of setting some pretty audacious goals, learning a ton and creating new technologies to meet those goals, and then spinning that knowledge and technology off into completely unrelated activities planetside.

So, we don't have to have a clear reason to go - the fact that nobody has gone, and that it will take a ton of new stuff to get there, will create the benefit. And, whatever we get from the actual trip is icing on the cake.

And that's aside from the dreams this stuff inspires, which will create the next generation of nerds - and those folks are more valuable than anything else.

Again, nothing here seems to me to be more compelling to doing similar things in local space.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If you put a colony in space:
1) Microgravity is a b*tch on the human body for long-term habitation.
2) Every atom of resources needed must be lifted to a station.

I would think that moon is a better location to learn how to do this stuff and the asteroids may be better source of raw materials for a space station than going to Mars.
Research into spinning space stations to mimic gravity would be useful and again can be done nearer to earth where you can rescue the crew if things go wrong. Again the use of the moon or the asteroids as s source of materials should be considered.
I do not believe that any long term large scale effort in space is really viable if every atom has to be lifted from the surface of earth.

If you put a colony on the ground:
1) You get some gravity, which is good for human health
2) Water and base mineral materials may be available if you put it in the right place.

Why Mars and not the moon, at least initially?

 

[Reynard]

Why Mars and not the moon, at least initially?

Mars has some stuff the moon does not. The native gravity is much higher, for one, and it has an atmosphere (if a thin one) that itself can be mined. As a terrestrial world with a former wet, warm period, it is also a much better place to learn about life in the broader solar system.

 

[Umbran]

True but is there any really good reason to go to Mars to learn about long endurance missions when you could do the same ting in the Earth - Moon locality with less risk and possibly less cost.

Yes. The political will to fund such development requires there be a sexy goal. "First people on Mars" is really, really sexy.

Again, nothing here seems to me to be more compelling to doing similar things in local space.

While we cannot say with any certainty what we might learn in either environment, it is clear that there are more potential opportunities for learning on the surface of Mars than there are in local space - what with local space being basically empty while on Mars there is an entire planet.