NationStates Jolt Archive

We have the technology. We have the money. We have willing people.

Do we have the will?

Is it time to send a manned expedition to Mars? Is it time to have a human being set foot, for the first time, on another planet? Is the Moon the best we can do, or have we merely become complacent?

The new Lunar Module under development is to be designed to land not only on the surface of the Moon, but also on Mars.

Would we? Could we? Should we?

I say yes. I believe human kind has a thirst for exploration and discovery tat must be satisfied. Yes, we have many problems here on Earth that need attention, but we're humans. We're imperfect. If we wait until all problems are solved then we NEVER will leave home. I believe that, in my lifetime, I will witness the first manned mission to Mars and I hope, the first ship to carry human beings leave the Solar System, perhaps to Alpha Centauri.

Thoughts? (Poll incoming)

I say "Maybe later, but not now"


Because I don't think it's justifiable to spend millions on the space program, that, while interesting, is by no means essential, when we have millions of actual human beings dying of starvation and unclean water supplies.

I'll go to Mars.
I'd willingly go to Mars, and see Earth from space. ooohhhhh.
Then throw a pie at it.
Then rebel and claim Mars for myself, and take control of the spaceship.
Then profit.

Yes, we have many problems here on Earth that need attention, but we're humans. We're imperfect. If we wait until all problems are solved then we NEVER will leave home.

While the space program is a fantastic advancement of science, that just seems like an argument to wriggle out of having to help people that desperately need help, to conveniently ignore the poor.

We have the technology. We have the money. We have willing people.

Do we have the will?

Is it time to send a manned expedition to Mars? Is it time to have a human being set foot, for the first time, on another planet? Is the Moon the best we can do, or have we merely become complacent?

The new Lunar Module under development is to be designed to land not only on the surface of the Moon, but also on Mars.

Would we? Could we? Should we?

I say yes. I believe human kind has a thirst for exploration and discovery tat must be satisfied. Yes, we have many problems here on Earth that need attention, but we're humans. We're imperfect. If we wait until all problems are solved then we NEVER will leave home. I believe that, in my lifetime, I will witness the first manned mission to Mars and I hope, the first ship to carry human beings leave the Solar System, perhaps to Alpha Centauri.

Thoughts? (Poll incoming)

If Christianity hadn't cost humanity 1000 years of technical and cultural evolution, we would already have colonies on Mars. It is high time that we make the long overdue step out into space.

I think we have much more important stuff to think of first, such as starvation and global warming. For the arguments of solving all problems before going, I'd say let's solve all problems that cause people to die when they could be saved, shall we?

Somebody should look at those giant crevices mars has. There might be water and life down there.

I think we have much more important stuff to think of first, such as starvation and global warming. For the arguments of solving all problems before going, I'd say let's solve all problems that cause people to die when they could be saved, shall we?

Well said, G.

While the space program is a fantastic advancement of science, that just seems like an argument to wriggle out of having to help people that desperately need help, to conveniently ignore the poor.

Are you arguing that we should only spend money on things that prevent people from dying needlessly ?

If so.. are you doing that ?

Are you arguing that we should only spend money on things that prevent people from dying needlessly ?

If so.. are you doing that ?

I think what he's saying is that spending money on a Mars mission right now is like buying your son an R/C car while your daughter is dying of malnutrition.

I think what he's saying is that spending money on a Mars mission right now is like buying your son an R/C car while your daughter is dying of malnutrition.

Oh, I know. My point however is that us humans already waste lots of money on things that do not help other humans survive - with most of those things adding less to humanity than the scientific side advancements provided by the space program.
Saying "we should not spend money on the space program because people are dying" while at the same wasting money on vastly less useful things seems a bit odd to me.

I feel that we should spread humanity as far as possible, so that 1 single disaster can not wipe us all out. Going to Mars is only the second step of a much bigger journy.

Essentially you want us to take on the survival tactic utilized by cockroaches. Fantastic.

I feel that we should spread humanity as far as possible, so that 1 single disaster can not wipe us all out. Going to Mars is only the second step of a much bigger journy.

Oh, I know. My point however is that us humans already waste lots of money on things that do not help other humans survive - with most of those things adding less to humanity than the scientific side advancements provided by the space program.
Saying "we should not spend money on the space program because people are dying" while at the same wasting money on vastly less useful things seems a bit odd to me.

We should also not spend money on those things that do not help other humans survive then. Also, what we do as a government is much more important than what we do as an individual (because it affects a whole lot more people).

Wasn't there a study a bit ago that showed how the US space program actually paid for itself, allbeit indirectly, due to the advancements from the required research? Anyway, to think that landing on Mars wouldn't bring in other advancements that could be applicable here (specifically farming methods to help all those starving people I'm sure you dedicate your daily life to helping) is a bit...foolish.

Also, how is spreading the species a cockroach survival method? Cockroaches are just ass impossible to kill, that has nothing to do with spread. On the other hand, humans are one of the most mobile species on the planet, constantly shuffling around and eventually blanketing the whole thing. Branching to another planet seems a distinctly human survival tactic, so, yes, it is fantastic.

Definitely. Work should begin now.

Also, how is spreading the species a cockroach survival method? Cockroaches are just ass impossible to kill, that has nothing to do with spread. On the other hand, humans are one of the most mobile species on the planet, constantly shuffling around and eventually blanketing the whole thing. Branching to another planet seems a distinctly human survival tactic, so, yes, it is fantastic.

Migration is hardly human. But reproducing in mass numbers and spreading ourselves to the far-flung reaches of the universe seems very insect like. That aside, it's taken us so long just to stand on the moon for a few hours I doubt we'll be able to populate the universe before the next mass extinction event.

We should also not spend money on those things that do not help other humans survive then. Also, what we do as a government is much more important than what we do as an individual (because it affects a whole lot more people).

You seriously think the government is not wasting money ?
Let us start by taking a look at the current US presidential campaign... how many starving kids could have been fed with the funds poured into that ?

The space program at least gives us advancements in knowledge of artificial biospheres, engineering, velcro, chemistry and so on.

Migration is hardly human.

The last, I don't know, at least twenty thousand years if not more, are just a really weird fluke, I take it? This seems so at odds with what we know of humanity's spread around the world I feel like there must be some kind of miscommunication here, though I can't really see how.

It would be easier, in my opinion, to put a space station in Mars orbit, then it would be to set up a colony.

Migration is hardly human.

Fail

You seriously think the government is not wasting money ?
Let us start by taking a look at the current US presidential campaign... how many starving kids could have been fed with the funds poured into that ?

The space program at least gives us advancements in knowledge of artificial biospheres, engineering, velcro, chemistry and so on.


You're comparing a choice between a political leader (which may or may not save lives) and founding life-saving organisms (which will probably but may not save lives) , with a choice between founding life-saving organisms (which will probably but may not save lives) and SENDING A ROCKET in space (which will most likely not save any lives). Why not spend on the research but save the millions of dollars involved in actually sending the rocket in, say...social services or food?

Fail
Oh well done, you've won the argument with one meaningless word.

If you're not going to explain what you mean then just do us all a favour and go jump into a volcano.

Don't just shoot down people's points when you can't even be bothered or don't have sufficient cranial capacity to elaborate your own.

Oh well done, you've won the argument with one meaningless word.

If you're not going to explain what you mean then just do us all a favour and go jump into a volcano.

Don't just shoot down people's points when you can't even be bothered or don't have sufficient cranial capacity to elaborate your own.

I mean that migration is human.

You seriously think the government is not wasting money ?
Let us start by taking a look at the current US presidential campaign... how many starving kids could have been fed with the funds poured into that ?

The space program at least gives us advancements in knowledge of artificial biospheres, engineering, velcro, chemistry and so on.Those starving kids will be replaced with other starving kids in places that allow it to happen. The only lasting change is political, and as you know when Americans try to change the political atmosphere in foreign countries it makes everyone mad. It doesn't always work either.

Feeding the starving and social programs are fine, and if t he world just got its act together we could easily accomplish BOTH goals. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. So the question is: What DO we do?

I love Babylon 5, and if you watched the first season you remember a character by the name of Jeff Sinclair. He was the commander of the station. At the end of one episode, he was asked by a reporter from Earth if it was really worth it, dumping billions of dollars into a space station out there when there were so many problems and needs back home. His reply sent a chill down my spine. I'll quote it as best I can remember how he said it, and when I get home maybe I'll put in the DVD and get the exact quote for you.

(To understand why I think it applies, change the reference from the sun running out of fuel to an event like a comet hitting the Earth)

Reporter: "After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?"
Sinclair: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

:shiver: I love J. Michael Straczynski's writing.

I say "Maybe later, but not now"


Because I don't think it's justifiable to spend millions on the space program, that, while interesting, is by no means essential, when we have millions of actual human beings dying of starvation and unclean water supplies.

Just like we did when we first stepped into space with sputnik. Just like we did when john glen orbited the earth. Just like we did when man first stepped on the moon?

Thing is, the Space Program has it's own budget (which is damn tiny) which it is allowed to allot how it wishes. If they wish to spend their money on a manned mission and not some other projects, that is their choice. It's a waste to go to mars, yet you have no problem with the space program funding all kinds of other missions and projects with the same amount of funding.

Honestly, if you are that concerned, then stop spouting the same garbage that has been spoon fed to you and learn that even stopping the space program completely will not solve human suffering on earth. Nothing is changing but your awareness of the situation.

BTW, please stop repeating the talking points of the mid 1970's. It was exasperating when I heard it then and it's exasperating to hear it now.

I say 'no' to Mars...for now.

Let's look at sending some rovers to the Jupiter moons Europa and Ganymede. Life may have existed on mars, but those moons are the most likely spot in our solar system that has life now.

Rovers are cheaper and easier to use than a manned mission is, plus they can do extended trips that manned missions can not. The only point a manned mission has is a rallying point for a country. 'look at what we accomplished' kind of thing. Just like the moon. We went a few times but after the first couple missions on the moon, most people tuned out. With today's social climate, I don't see a Mars mission having that 'wow' factor that the Moon mission did. People stopped what they were doing to watch man first step on the moon in the 1960's but today? I don't know if it would gain more than one day on the front page of a news paper before being replaced with the next celebrity or political scandal.

I don't even believe that most people would care or give it more than the passing, "cool". Times were different when they stepped off the rung of the ladder onto the moon. The nation and the world watched and celebrated together. Today? I think the fanfare would be very tiny if there at all.

Now discovering life outside of earth would be *the* find. To be able to prove life can exist off of earth (which no sensible person can truly deny) would be a very exciting event. A bit more than the mars mission would be I would think.


BTW, I am a MAJOR space-geek. My dream job would be working for NASA, and I follow all of their progress very closely so when I say that I don't see a Manned Mission to Mars worth the money, I do so with full knowledge of what I am talking about. (For 1 manned trip, you could have almost a hundred unmanned rover missions)

Good points... But I disagree. Here's why.

I say 'no' to Mars...for now.

Let's look at sending some rovers to the Jupiter moons Europa and Ganymede. Life may have existed on mars, but those moons are the most likely spot in our solar system that has life now.


Exploring other worlds isn't just about finding life. That's a part of it from a scientific standpoint, yes... But there's value in exploring for its own sake. it doesn't metter whether there's life on Mars, or if there ever was. We still need to go, for the same reason people climb mountains. "Because it's there." And while that may seem frivolous, it is one of our defining characteristics as a people.


Rovers are cheaper and easier to use than a manned mission is, plus they can do extended trips that manned missions can not. The only point a manned mission has is a rallying point for a country. 'look at what we accomplished' kind of thing. Just like the moon. We went a few times but after the first couple missions on the moon, most people tuned out. With today's social climate, I don't see a Mars mission having that 'wow' factor that the Moon mission did. People stopped what they were doing to watch man first step on the moon in the 1960's but today? I don't know if it would gain more than one day on the front page of a news paper before being replaced with the next celebrity or political scandal.

I don't even believe that most people would care or give it more than the passing, "cool". Times were different when they stepped off the rung of the ladder onto the moon. The nation and the world watched and celebrated together. Today? I think the fanfare would be very tiny if there at all.


I am more optimistic. I think it would be the story of the century and might even restore some of our innocence as a people and help us getover the infantile crap that floods our headlines these days. While it's true the Apollo series was largely political, there is value in going back to the Moon and even now we're preparing to do just that, and so are the Chinese. I find that exciting as hell.


Now discovering life outside of earth would be *the* find. To be able to prove life can exist off of earth (which no sensible person can truly deny) would be a very exciting event. A bit more than the mars mission would be I would think.

A mission to Mars may well be a step along the path to doing just that. We sure won't find it sitting on our hands.



BTW, I am a MAJOR space-geek. My dream job would be working for NASA, and I follow all of their progress very closely so when I say that I don't see a Manned Mission to Mars worth the money, I do so with full knowledge of what I am talking about. (For 1 manned trip, you could have almost a hundred unmanned rover missions)

And less than 1 Iraq war.

Honestly, if you are that concerned, then stop spouting the same garbage that has been spoon fed to you and learn that even stopping the space program completely will not solve human suffering on earth.

BTW, please stop repeating the talking points of the mid 1970's. It was exasperating when I heard it then and it's exasperating to hear it now.

And how would you know why I think what I think? You'll want to be careful with some of the claims you make.

So, what you're saying is that if we just classify the arguments that oppose our own opinions as garbage and point out that these arguments were around before, then we can conveniently and with a clear conscience ignore all the poor, starving and dying populations of the world. Makes sense...wait...what?

I just found the quote from B5 and edited my earlier post to include it (#25). For your convenience, here it is again.

Reporter: "After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?"

Sinclair: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

No, because it would be an inefficient way to explore Mars. We can learn much more about Mars by spending the amount a manned mission would cost on unmanned missions instead. It takes a lot of expensive equipment to keep humans alive on a long trip through zero gravity, radiation from solar flares and isolation, equipment that could instead have been more research instruments.

I believe the stabalization of Earth's current problems, like climate change and nuclear weapons stockpiles, should be tackled in earnest before we should think about devoting massive resources to expanded space programs.

A piecemeal approach, attempting all of the above at once, would ultimately be less than spectacular. If we're going to do this, let's do it right.

I think we should start building eventually habitable colonies on the Moon, on Mars, on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn; wherever it's feasible. But at the moment, I don't think we should consider that our top priority. We have plenty of problems to fix on Earth; creating colonies elsewhere should be secondary, but not neglected. That way when a natural disaster, or a nuclear war, or some such catastrophe threatens to wipe us out, we'll have someplace to go.

That, and it would pave the way for interstellar travel, and interstellar travel would be awesome.

I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to spread our DNA around. :p

Oh, I know. My point however is that us humans already waste lots of money on things that do not help other humans survive - with most of those things adding less to humanity than the scientific side advancements provided by the space program.
Saying "we should not spend money on the space program because people are dying" while at the same wasting money on vastly less useful things seems a bit odd to me.

exactly what i think, alma mater
NASA's budget is around a mere 3.6% of that of the Department of Defense... that is war costs the US about 28 times what its spending in space exploration

besides, on a selfish sidenote, i wanna be alive when humankind lands on mars, if we plan on tackling ALL the problems in the world before that... well i'm not really sure i'll be around in 3152 AD

And how would you know why I think what I think? You'll want to be careful with some of the claims you make.

So, what you're saying is that if we just classify the arguments that oppose our own opinions as garbage and point out that these arguments were around before, then we can conveniently and with a clear conscience ignore all the poor, starving and dying populations of the world. Makes sense...wait...what?

What is this? If we disagree with you, we want poor people to starve to death? That's nonsense! We have more than enough resources to help the poor, starving people and go to Mars; it isn't an either/or proposition.

This "no space exploration until we solve our problems here" stuff is absolute garbage.

We have the money.

Are you kidding? We're trillions of dollars in debt.

I just found the quote from B5 and edited my earlier post to include it (#25). For your convenience, here it is again.

Reporter: "After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?"

Sinclair: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

I like this post. :)

Are you kidding? We're trillions of dollars in debt.

I meant we in an International sense. Even so, if we can finance this war...

Are you kidding? We're trillions of dollars in debt.

Even better - noone will notice it if one adds a few billion.

Thoughts? (Poll incoming)

My thoughts? Hell yes! Huge investments in the space program, immediately. I can't think of any government program I'd rather pay taxes to. It is the future, after all.

Reasons to go to Mars fall into three catagories: Social, Economic, and Survival. The first catagory includes the risk of cultural stagnation if we remain on one world with no fronteirs left to explore. There is also scientific curiosity, and the use of space as an alternative to millitary spending (a big chunck of the US economy is invested in war, to the point where they have to build weapons to keep large parts of there economy afloat. One alternative use of those investments and technologies is space exporation).
Economicaly, there would be a huge boost to the aerospace industry, and an upsurge in technological development, as happened after Apolo. In terms of survival, as long as we are one species on one plannet, we are in an evolutionarily vulnerable possision. Mars is a whole new world, and if it contains life, we could also gain vast insight into the nature of life itself, as we would have a base for comparison. These are only some of the resons to go to Mars. It can be done now, for less than one percent of the anual US govt. budget, spread out over a decade or more. There is no excuse for not having done this sooner. Gutting Apolo, the planned Mars program, and the Nuclear electric propulsion program is probably, in hindsight, Nixon's greatest crime.:mad:

PS: I know I'm parroting Mars Society talking points. But they happen to be acurate talking points.;)

I just don't think it is worth the money.

Here's another reason: Planetary overpopulation. I think we've already waited too long. Even if we established a colony on Mars (or anywhere else, for that matter) we simply can't move enoug people off planet fast enough to prevent the inevitable critical point at which there are too many people for the Earth to be able to sustain all of them.

So creating colonies elsewhere won't save Earth, but hopefully, it will save the human species.

But we need to start NOW. We need to have colonies on other worlds that can sustain a high enough population that should something happen to the people on Earth, those people living on other worlds would have sufficient genetic diversity to continue as a viable population wherever they are. It will probably be centuries before Mars could be made to sustain enough humans for that, whether it be through terraforming or massive biodomes. Even so, that's still only ONE other world. We mustn't stop there.

Alpha Centauri, here we come!

If Christianity hadn't cost humanity 1000 years of technical and cultural evolution, we would already have colonies on Mars. It is high time that we make the long overdue step out into space.

Or the burning of books and burying of scholars, done by the Qin.

The burning of the Great Library at Alexandria by the Romans.

The sacking of Rome by the barbarians.

The Viking raiding in Western Europe.

The World Wars, the Holocaust and the Soviet and Maoist Massacres probably removed an awful lot of talent from the Gene pool as well.

But, never mind that in your phenomenally narrow interpretation of history, the Judeo-Christian traditions are the root of all evil, and never mind that it was likely socio-political factors outside of the direct control of the church that drove these matters. Things like the fragmentation of Western Europe, due to the fall of the Western Roman Empire at the hands of pagan barbarians, never mind that the classical works were kept intact by the Catholic church, and that much of the classical learning and writings were stored in monasteries... :rolleyes:

And how would you know why I think what I think? You'll want to be careful with some of the claims you make.

So, what you're saying is that if we just classify the arguments that oppose our own opinions as garbage and point out that these arguments were around before, then we can conveniently and with a clear conscience ignore all the poor, starving and dying populations of the world. Makes sense...wait...what?

Ok, let me state it this way: No one takes you seriously. Stating we should solve hunger (with a budget that wouldn't put a dent in the hunger problem in the US alone) by taking away from the Space Program is laughable. The money is already allotted to NASA to spend as they wish so it boils down to either you are for completely gutting the Space Program and still having a hunger issue (if you want to gut something, then look at defense spending), or your just want to appear cool by saying something that you heard someone else say.

Listen, if you want to actually be taken seriously about your concern for the hungry, then sell all your fluff items (CD, computer, stereo, Game stations etc) and give the money to charity. Work all your free, spare time hours at a soup kitchen, and donate all your free money to the cause. Otherwise, it's all hot air.

By the way, if you voted "Absolutely not. Man was meant to stay right here," I'd be interested in knowing why you chose that option.

so what is being suggested is sending a crew to Mars...where they will die most likely before they arrive....to walk around in some sort of penis waving fetish

hows about we send some probes up if its justified and in the meantime work on protecting the only clean water supplies we know (and lord knows we have been looking) before it gets the point where I can't afford to bathe

I think what he's saying is that spending money on a Mars mission right now is like buying your son an R/C car while your daughter is dying of malnutrition.


It's more like buying your son a hydroponics garden.

Because the technology generated by the solviong of problems we need to solve to get safely to Mars will also be of tremendous benefit to the Earthbound human.

We already use technology developed to feed astronauts to reduce spoilage of fresh fruits and vegetables on the way to supermarkets, reducing spoilage and helping to keep prices down.

So space exploration DOES feed the hungry.

so what is being suggested is sending a crew to Mars...where they will die most likely before they arrive....to walk around in some sort of penis waving fetish

hows about we send some probes up if its justified and in the meantime work on protecting the only clean water supplies we know (and lord knows we have been looking) before it gets the point where I can't afford to bathe

Astronauts need to drink clean water... and the technology to allow them to do so by recycling water and using every drop efficiently will help you, too.

We call that the the look-beyond-your-nose perspective.

I say "Maybe later, but not now".


Because I don't think we should spend millions on the space program, that, while interesting, is by no means needed, when we have millions of actual human beings dying of starvation, unclean water supplies, and zombie invasions.

Although I will say that before a mission to Mars, we should spend billions on orbital solar power platforms to replace fossil fuel electricity-generating plants.

We could end global warming forever, provide cheap energy to the poor, cut pollution and environmental destruction from other forms of power generation, and tell the oil-bearing nations what to go do with themselves.

Even the hippies should be able to get on board for that one.

Or the burning of books and burying of scholars, done by the Qin.

The burning of the Great Library at Alexandria by the Romans.

The sacking of Rome by the barbarians.

The Viking raiding in Western Europe.

The World Wars, the Holocaust and the Soviet and Maoist Massacres probably removed an awful lot of talent from the Gene pool as well.

But, never mind that in your phenomenally narrow interpretation of history, the Judeo-Christian traditions are the root of all evil, and never mind that it was likely socio-political factors outside of the direct control of the church that drove these matters. Things like the fragmentation of Western Europe, due to the fall of the Western Roman Empire at the hands of pagan barbarians, never mind that the classical works were kept intact by the Catholic church, and that much of the classical learning and writings were stored in monasteries... :rolleyes:

We have a winner.

are we again in a space race?

Is that a requirement?

Although I will say that before a mission to Mars, we should spend billions on orbital solar power platforms to replace fossil fuel electricity-generating plants.

We could end global warming forever, provide cheap energy to the poor, cut pollution and environmental destruction from other forms of power generation, and tell the oil-bearing nations what to go do with themselves.

Even the hippies should be able to get on board for that one.

Or we could learn how to use hydrogen power, a virtually limitless, completely clean power supply. Which is found in practically infinite supply in the atmosphere of Jupiter.

We have enough troubles on our own planet. I know these people aren't focused on that .. but as far as funds going towards it .. I don't think it's a good idea as of now. Could we possibly have the best chance to do this at this time than the future? I'm not a psychic. Also .. are we again in a space race? See I don't know much of anything dealing with this .. if we are not on some major breakthrough .. then imo it's a waste. But that won't stop it. Hell private sectors are blown out of the water.. I had the link in my sig a good while.. Forgot? Andrew Beal. He was willing to fund his own research .. but the gov clamped him down. I just don't know.

http://www.bealaerospace.com/

Because the technology generated by the solviong of problems we need to solve to get safely to Mars will also be of tremendous benefit to the Earthbound human.

or we could actually work on helping the Earthbound human by directly solving humanities woes which is typically the most efficient way of getting things done

though the concept that I could do the dishes by going to the pub is interesting

We already use technology developed to feed astronauts to reduce spoilage of fresh fruits and vegetables on the way to supermarkets, reducing spoilage and helping to keep prices down.

military spending also does this as does *gasp* development aid

Astronauts need to drink clean water... and the technology to allow them to do so by recycling water and using every drop efficiently will help you, too.

too bad its water pollution that is a looming problem, I wonder if Malaria is in space because then we could have NASA work on that!

We call that the the look-beyond-your-nose perspective.

and we call yours procrastinating

Or we could learn how to use hydrogen power, a virtually limitless, completely clean power supply. Which is found in practically infinite supply in the atmosphere of Jupiter.

or we could just use proven technology that is delivered to Earth instead of attempting to extract a resource like never before millions of miles away from anything

a resource that is also as of yet rather unproven as far as powering the planet go

We have enough troubles on our own planet. I know these people aren't focused on that .. but as far as funds going towards it .. I don't think it's a good idea as of now. Could we possibly have the best chance to do this at this time than the future? I'm not a psychic. Also .. are we again in a space race? See I don't know much of anything dealing with this .. if we are not on some major breakthrough .. then imo it's a waste. But that won't stop it. Hell private sectors are blown out of the water.. I had the link in my sig a good while.. Forgot? Andrew Beal. He was willing to fund his own research .. but the gov clamped him down. I just don't know.

The poor will always be there and will come right back the moment you pull funds from them. I can understand diverting funds from the rich to help the poor, but not from the space program. Investing in space will yield huge results in all areas of life for us here on earth, technologically and economically. For example, the need for food on space will produce huge quantities of genetic research which will be able to be put to use for here in feeding the poor. You do more to help everyone on earth by investing in space, then attempting to "solve" the problems of the poor--which are pretty unsolvable at our current technological and economic level.

I have no interest in space.

Earth is just fine for me. Its home, and I don't want to leave.

The poor will always be there and will come right back the moment you pull funds from them. I can understand diverting funds from the rich to help the poor, but not from the space program. Investing in space will yield huge results in all areas of life for us here on earth, technologically and economically. For example, the need for food on space will produce huge quantities of genetic research which will be able to be put to use for here in feeding the poor. You do more to help everyone on earth by investing in space, then attempting to "solve" the problems of the poor--which are pretty unsolvable at our current technological and economic level.

I bet someone opposed to this and knowledgable of funds could come right back and state their reason as to why you are wrong. Why should research on agriculture or whatever trump whats done here on earth? This is where we live. If they can do it there.. they can do it here. I understand space exploration is awesome .. well actually I don't understand just how awesome it is.. maybe if I knew about it and was involved in ti I'd think differently .. but I'm not.

I just have a feeling we can solve whats going on here with resources here. We just aren't.. and maybe will never. :(

Also .. we don't even know our own oceans! That's like a space unto itself. That also confuses me .. why we want to galavant out into space having yet learned our own water body. Is it easier in space? Is it connected to espionage, war or power or something? *dons conspiracy theorist hat*

I have no interest in space.

Earth is just fine for me. Its home, and I don't want to leave.

That's a shame ;):p

On the one hand: yes, how exciting! Think of all we'll learn. On the other hand: how stupid we are, will we just make Mars our toxic waste dump or some other travesty?

I understand the point made by people who say we should spend the money on eradicating poverty and other social ills here on Earth (are we on Earth?), but I have to say that the piddly amount we spend on social welfare programs in the U.S. is a homoeopathic dose as compared with the 50 proof money we dump into useless, meaningless wars to oppress others and force them to accept "freedom" (i.e., free market captialism).

So once we stop making war and start using diplomacy, we'll have plenty of money to solve Earths's problems, ensure that everyone has enough--AND explore Mars and beyond. Science rocks!

I bet someone opposed to this and knowledgable of funds could come right back and state their reason as to why you are wrong. Why should research on agriculture or whatever trump whats done here on earth? This is where we live. If they can do it there.. they can do it here. I understand space exploration is awesome .. well actually I don't understand just how awesome it is.. maybe if I knew about it and was involved in ti I'd think differently .. but I'm not.

I just have a feeling we can solve whats going on here with resources here. We just aren't.. and maybe will never. :(

Humanity's problems can't be solved here on earth. We lack the mineral resources, the technology, and the space to solve them. When you open up space, you open up an infinite resevoir of minerals, space, and technology. We can't remain on this rock forever, especially considering that it's precariously perched on the edge of destruction.

Simply put, it's better to invest in space, which is a permeanant benefit, then to invest in the poor, which will only give temporary respite. The poor will come back the minute you stop investing in them.

The poor will always be there and will come right back the moment you pull funds from them. I can understand diverting funds from the rich to help the poor, but not from the space program. Investing in space will yield huge results in all areas of life for us here on earth, technologically and economically. For example, the need for food on space will produce huge quantities of genetic research which will be able to be put to use for here in feeding the poor. You do more to help everyone on earth by investing in space, then attempting to "solve" the problems of the poor--which are pretty unsolvable at our current technological and economic level.
As someone pointed out here before the big database loss, we produce enough food to actually feed everyone (or close to it). We just let it rot in landfills instead of actually feeding people with it.

The problem is something we literally have to throw money at. We just need someone to foot the bill to distribute it. However, no part of me actually thinks anybody will actually do that. As it stands, I favor the space mission. The technological advances will help solve numerous problems locally and abroad. Who knows, maybe one of them will be a key breakthrough that would get this problem solved (ie someone genetically turns a high yeild crop into a weed).

or we could just use proven technology that is delivered to Earth instead of attempting to extract a resource like never before millions of miles away from anything

a resource that is also as of yet rather unproven as far as powering the planet go

If Call to power had been a fish in the Devonian Period...

"I see no reason to develop these ungainly "legs" and move onto this unproven "land" you speak of, when there's still so much of the ocean and undersea we haven't used, and little fish are still being eaten by sea anemones."

Yes we should go... I have been waiting all my life to get off this rock. If the space program hadn't been squashed we would have had a base on the moon, been on mars, and probably trying to figure out how to get to alpha centauri by now.

Ahead warp speed... :D

As someone pointed out here before the big database loss, we produce enough food to actually feed everyone (or close to it). We just let it rot in landfills instead of actually feeding people with it.

The problem is something we literally have to throw money at. We just need someone to foot the bill to distribute it. However, no part of me actually thinks anybody will actually do that. As it stands, I favor the space mission. The technological advances will help solve numerous problems locally and abroad. Who knows, maybe one of them will be a key breakthrough that would get this problem solved (ie someone genetically turns a high yeild crop into a weed).

We do have enough food to feed everyone, albeit not comfortably. Part of the reason the West is so wealthy is that there are five people for every one Westerner in the third world whose starving. To equally distribute the wealth to everyone would mean that everyone would be economically secure-- but in various stages of discomfort. Space would provide the resources we need to finally solve the problem of poverty.

To answer another question, yes, there IS a "Space Race" now, but it's no longer with the USSR, it's with China and India and Japan and Iran and anybody else capable or soon to be capable of launching into space.

The most valuable territory is always the "high ground." Space is the highest ground there is. From orbit, you can do anything, deny anyone anything. You can pinpoint bomb your enemy with orbital weapons. A very small asteroid can carry all the power of a nuke with none of the radioactive side effects. And in less than half the time, as there's no launch or boost or cruise phase required. Just orbit-to-surface, leaving your target NO reaction time.

I'm not saying we SHOULD use space this way. I'm saying that if it's occurred to me, it's occurred to others in those countries, and it's in our interest to be established there first, so that no one who might use it against us can achieve "space superiority."

Because once someone unpleasant achieves that, it's all she wrote for everybody else. They can blast anyone they want, anytime they want, with a lot less chance of retaliation than if they launched a nuke. And no one on the ground will be able to blast them, especially if they're smart enough to target their enemys' launch facilities first.

If Call to power had been a fish in the Devonian Period...

"I see no reason to develop these ungainly "legs" and move onto this unproven "land" you speak of, when there's still so much of the ocean and undersea we haven't used, and little fish are still being eaten by sea anemones."

seems procrastinating on thinking up arguments doesn't work either...

We do have enough food to feed everyone, albeit not comfortably.

what an odd claim to make, would you like to back it up?

how much does all this aid cost hmmm (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/what.cfm)

seems procrastinating on thinking up arguments doesn't work either...
[/URL]

I don't spend all my life here, you know. I'm in the middle of 15 different things right now. Fortunately, only one of them is annoying.

Now back in the water with the rest of the fishies.

To answer another question, yes, there IS a "Space Race" now, but it's no longer with the USSR, it's with China and India and Japan and Iran and anybody else capable or soon to be capable of launching into space.

ah so everything is out to get you it seems

I don't spend all my life here, you know. I'm in the middle of 15 different things right now. Fortunately, only one of them is annoying.

sucks don't it

Now back in the water with the rest of the fishies.

so that's more or less your whole argument lost then

Is that a requirement?


Well for the governments that control it .. I'd say it has been and can be a motivating factor. lol

Humanity's problems can't be solved here on earth. We lack the mineral resources, the technology, and the space to solve them. When you open up space, you open up an infinite resevoir of minerals, space, and technology. We can't remain on this rock forever, especially considering that it's precariously perched on the edge of destruction.

Simply put, it's better to invest in space, which is a permeanant benefit, then to invest in the poor, which will only give temporary respite. The poor will come back the minute you stop investing in them.

I understand what you are saying.. but it's minute .. really. We have everything here.. now.. Only thing keeping us from doing so is lack of organization .. greed and beuracracy or whatever. If you are saying that we can go in to space .. find way to improve humanity in the ways needed.. like feeding everyone .. then all of a sudden find a sufficient way of doing so while not allowing greed to take control ...then great! But I think .. if something was to be discovered possible .. somehow it would be out of the hands of the main folk who need it one way or the other.

What I'm saying is .. we can't search out there for answers to a problem that didn't start there. Meaning if our problem was say not being organized.. no matter what you find there .. minerals or what have you .. bring it here and then what? If our core way of doing things is already screwed it's bound to still be screwed. It won't fix our problem.

I read a lot of threads but i never post, but this thread has caught my eye, yalls comments are proving how stagnant our race has become.

All I have to say is that there has always been problems with our world and there will always be problems with our world no matter how hard we try to solve them all. All of yall saying that we need to solve all of our problems here before we send a manned mission to Mars (which isn't even close to colonizing another planet like most of yall are implying) then you're basically saying we need to stop all research that wont save starving people in Africa. If you're so worried about them then send you're money or join the peace corp or something.

I read a lot of threads but i never post, but this thread has caught my eye, yalls comments are proving how stagnant our race has become.

All I have to say is that there has always been problems with our world and there will always be problems with our world no matter how hard we try to solve them all. All of yall saying that we need to solve all of our problems here before we send a manned mission to Mars (which isn't even close to colonizing another planet like most of yall are implying) then you're basically saying we need to stop all research that wont save starving people in Africa. If you're so worried about them then send you're money or join the peace corp or something.

Maybe you are right.

I've always believed there would be war .. of some sort .. maybe small tribal wars .. but I've never thought there will always be starvation. War is going to happen. People get near each other, for long enough and shits gonna fly ..sooner or later. But not starvation .. unless someone is purposely starving someone else. And as it is now .. it's not like that for the most part .. people are just freakin starving! Greed.. it indirect I guess. meh. =(

seems procrastinating on thinking up arguments doesn't work either...



what an odd claim to make, would you like to back it up?

how much does all this aid cost hmmm (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/what.cfm)

Let's analyze this, shall we? Your website states that $35 dollars can provide two high energy meals a day to 200 children. Which means that $35 dollars can provide 400 meals a day, or that you can provide a single meal for 8 cents (American). Now, the McDonalds burger, 99 cents, is generally regarded as the cheapest of the cheap. What the website suggests is that you can feed a child with a meal that possesses more energy than a burger for 10 times less. Sound like bullshit? You betcha. Now, I went hiking for a long time and I've used cheap energy meals before. They generally cost about $5 or so, at least, per meal. The website's claims are utterly wrong, unless they've discovered an ultra top secret magical energy producing meal. More likely, their bloating their statistics to encourage you to provide more money. After all, if you knew the truth that your $35 could barely provide for 10 kids, you wouldn't feel that you're making a dent in the problem, and would feel less inclined to give.

We can provide enough food for everyone, but, as I said, it would be very uncomfortable. Considering overpopulation, desertification, and global warming, our capacity to feed all of humanity goes down with the years.

Let's analyze this, shall we? Your website states that $35 dollars can provide two high energy meals a day to 200 children. Which means that $35 dollars can provide 400 meals a day, or that you can provide a single meal for 8 cents (American). Now, the McDonalds burger, 99 cents, is generally regarded as the cheapest of the cheap. What the website suggests is that you can feed a child with a meal that possesses more energy than a burger for 10 times less. Sound like bullshit? You betcha. Now, I went hiking for a long time and I've used cheap energy meals before. They generally cost about $5 or so, at least, per meal. The website's claims are utterly wrong, unless they've discovered a magical energy producing meal I've never heard of. More likely, their bloating their statistics to encourage you to provide more money. After all, if you knew the truth that your $35 could barely provide for 10 kids, you wouldn't feel that you're making a dent in the problem, and would feel less inclined to give.

er...you have never been overseas have you?

er...you have never been overseas have you?

Your quote means nothing unless you elaborate.

Your quote means nothing unless you elaborate.

great time for a link to that time article (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1626519,00.html)

I just found the quote from B5 and edited my earlier post to include it (#25). For your convenience, here it is again.

Reporter: "After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?"

Sinclair: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."


I have to agree with this quote. With exception about the Sun. It is far more likely Earth will get hit by an asteroid or suffer an enviromental disasster before we lose the Sun. If you think about it about more Space exploration and colonization will help Earth. To quote simply "The Earth is too much with us." The human population is out of control, and has put a great strain on our world. The more we spread out the more resources we regain. Much suffering is on the way as global warming continues; the oceans will rise and coastal populations be lost. Livable land will become scarce, people will cluster increasing the spread of disease, and rainforests will be lost. If you want an overly simplified example think of Europe before, during, and after colonization. Europe, before was over populated and as a result the "commoners" suffered a great deal of starvation and disease. I will suppose that you can surmise the rest. I will also ask you this:

Which is more cruel; to starve without hope for a better future, or to starve with the promise of a better future?

While the space program is a fantastic advancement of science, that just seems like an argument to wriggle out of having to help people that desperately need help, to conveniently ignore the poor.

Maybe, maybe not. With the existing systems, short of an infinite resource generator, we will always have the poor.

But one thing for certain though, is that if we stick here on Earth in the long run, we won't be around anymore. Either a big rock or ice cube will come smack us one from space, or the Yellowstone supervolcano will go kaboom or some other extinction level event will occur and that's it for humanity if we stick here.

If humanity is a bunch of eggs, Earth is our basket. And in case you hadn't noticed, we've only got one.

I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to spread our DNA around. :p

Says the clown with not one, but THREE, count them, THREE, mini-LGs.

" But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. "

We're done for by that time.. if not.... we will be when that happens. I actually don't expect us to be flourishing 150 years from now, by our own demise.. or another disaster.

great time for a link to that time article (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1626519,00.html)

So the only people who were eating anywhere near the levels your first link suggested where those rather starving looking fellows in the refugee camps. Now, Egypt is considered a poor country. The family of 11 was eating per week $68.53. They consume 231 meals per week, or roughly half of the amount advertised in your first source at almost double the price. The world can, as I said earlier, certainly be fed, just not comfortably, as your sources indicate. Instead of spending all our very finite resources in a problem that's been around forever and won't go away unless we divert all our funds to nothing but, why not invest in something that will permanently benefit all of humanity?

With hope.. hope is always good. Your life means more with hope, you are more likely to think of new things, answers or whatever. Lack of hope = death. IMO

I guess I'm thinking of positive thinking. If you think of failure that's all you will find. I'm not meaning .. well this might fail. I'm meaning this will never work.. no need to try.

Which is more cruel; to starve without hope for a better future, or to starve with the promise of a better future?

Wow. I've been searching for the right words to adequately sum up my position, and you've found them. Brilliant.

great time for a link to that time article (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1626519,00.html)

Notice that the people for whom it costs little money to eat live in farming / shepherding cultures. That's why they spend so little to eat, because they can reinvest and grow their own crops from last season's seeds and animal births.

I know how that works, I lived on a farm for 25 years. But I don't want to BE a farmer. So someone else has to grow, harvest, transport, and store the food, and that costs more. Lots more.

Besides, you send food to those people, their dictators will just take it and redistribute it to their militaries. That's why the famine in Ethopia got so bad, their leaders (Socialists, by the way) were taking the food shipments for their army.

You want to make a real dent against world hunger? get off your duff and start toppling some dictatorships.

Why? We still have loads of shit to explore and problems to fix here. Why should we waste a trillion dollars on something that can't possibly net much. We can wait for a faster, cheaper technology...meanwhile exploring and saving our own planet. Like 99.9% of the ocean has yet to be explored.

Why? We still have loads of shit to explore and problems to fix here. Why should we waste a trillion dollars on something that can't possibly net much. We can wait for a faster, cheaper technology...meanwhile exploring and saving our own planet. Like 99.9% of the ocean has yet to be explored.


Can't net much? The average near-earth asteroid (the small ones within easy reach) contains a trillion dollars worth of metals.

Plus, oceans are heavy. It's easier to keep space out than water. You only have to build to withstand 1 atmosphere of pressure, rather than hundreds. "Crush depth."

I didn't read this thread, but why the fuck are we going to Mars, a really cold place with little atmosphere that requires heavy-duty terraforming and has only a 3rd of Earth G (who knows what long-term effect that would have on human biology) when we could put permanent aerostat habitats in the atmosphere of Venus where gravity is close to Earth-normal air is a lifting gas at an elevation where the temps would be normal, and the atmosphere provides some protection from the sun and an easy source of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Or we could focus on the mining the asteroid belt and creating a serious industrial infrastructure in space without all the wasted energy moving massive amounts of materials out of planetary gravity wells.

That thought has some merit. I'm more arguing with the folks who seem to think any human presence in space at all is a waste, because they're flat-out wrong.

I don't care where we go, ultimately, only that we go.

I didn't read this thread, but why the fuck are we going to Mars, a really cold place with little atmosphere that requires heavy-duty terraforming and has only a 3rd of Earth G (who knows what long-term effect that would have on human biology) when we could put permanent aerostat habitats in the atmosphere of Venus where gravity is close to Earth-normal air is a lifting gas at an elevation where the temps would be normal, and the atmosphere provides some protection from the sun and an easy source of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Or we could focus on the mining the asteroid belt and creating a serious industrial infrastructure in space without all the wasted energy moving massive amounts of materials out of planetary gravity wells.

Let's analyze this, shall we? Your website states that $35 dollars can provide two high energy meals a day to 200 children. Which means that $35 dollars can provide 400 meals a day, or that you can provide a single meal for 8 cents (American). Now, the McDonalds burger, 99 cents, is generally regarded as the cheapest of the cheap. What the website suggests is that you can feed a child with a meal that possesses more energy than a burger for 10 times less. Sound like bullshit? You betcha. Now, I went hiking for a long time and I've used cheap energy meals before. They generally cost about $5 or so, at least, per meal. The website's claims are utterly wrong, unless they've discovered an ultra top secret magical energy producing meal. More likely, their bloating their statistics to encourage you to provide more money. After all, if you knew the truth that your $35 could barely provide for 10 kids, you wouldn't feel that you're making a dent in the problem, and would feel less inclined to give.

We can provide enough food for everyone, but, as I said, it would be very uncomfortable. Considering overpopulation, desertification, and global warming, our capacity to feed all of humanity goes down with the years.First, there are price breaks when you buy in bulk. Further breaks if you get it direct from the farmer. Think, the grocery store you shop at does not pay what you pay them for your food. However, the cost of shipping is such that it only becomes profitable to sidestep them when you buy enough to feed a town (ie you have to pay for the truck to ship it, regardless of whether you fill it or not).

Second, food isn't the same price everywhere. There is actually an index based off the cost of a Big Mac in each country (USD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_mac_index. The cost actually ranges by a factor of five. The same is true for all other food items (and non food items for that matter). We (the West) get charged more for stuff, because we can pay more. Further, food is something that has a strong preference to local sources. We can pay more, so we get charged more. Further, food tends to stay rather local. Otherwise it goes bad. The people growing food out in Africa or Southeast Asia, get payed much, much less than a farmer would here, so the profit margin on the food is actually hire (meaning they can sell it for a lower price).

Food does not cost as much in Africa as it does in America/Britain/Canada/Wherever the hell you are from.

As of now, it would cost quite a lot to go to mars. We don't even have the necessary space suits to do so, as our current design would be foiled by the dust storms. the storms themselves would pose quite a threat to a base on the planet's surface, anyway. The journy there would also be a feat. you would have to carry enough fuel for a 12 month journey total, and the liftoff from mars. you would also need a large amount of oxygen, unless you could convert the mainly CO2 atmosphere. As mars has no magnetic field, you would also be exposed to large amounts of radiation there and back, not to mention on the planet's surface. this is not factoring in the probable solar flare from the sun or a gamma ray burst.

We will have to wait.

I didn't read this thread, but why the fuck are we going to Mars, a really cold place with little atmosphere that requires heavy-duty terraforming and has only a 3rd of Earth G (who knows what long-term effect that would have on human biology) when we could put permanent aerostat habitats in the atmosphere of Venus where gravity is close to Earth-normal air is a lifting gas at an elevation where the temps would be normal, and the atmosphere provides some protection from the sun and an easy source of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Or we could focus on the mining the asteroid belt and creating a serious industrial infrastructure in space without all the wasted energy moving massive amounts of materials out of planetary gravity wells.

Um, Venus has an average temperature of ~450 degrees Celsius, and its clouds are comprised mostly of sulfuric acid. We actually do not know what the Venusian surface is like because we can't even get unmanned probes there. Hell, the wind at the surface is consistently strong enough to knock a person of its feet.

How the hell do we land a man on that? I mean, give time we could do it (genetically engineer some organism that consumes carbon en mass). But even that would leave the fact that air pressure at the surface is 92atm. Venus is not a nice place. Mars is actually much more habitable by us than Venus.

We have the technology. We have the money. We have willing people.

Do we have the will?

Is it time to send a manned expedition to Mars? Is it time to have a human being set foot, for the first time, on another planet? Is the Moon the best we can do, or have we merely become complacent?

The new Lunar Module under development is to be designed to land not only on the surface of the Moon, but also on Mars.

Would we? Could we? Should we?

I say yes. I believe human kind has a thirst for exploration and discovery tat must be satisfied. Yes, we have many problems here on Earth that need attention, but we're humans. We're imperfect. If we wait until all problems are solved then we NEVER will leave home. I believe that, in my lifetime, I will witness the first manned mission to Mars and I hope, the first ship to carry human beings leave the Solar System, perhaps to Alpha Centauri.

Thoughts? (Poll incoming)

Well, the problem with the thread that I've seen so far lies right in the first post: that there's a dichotomy between starry-eyed dreamers who nevertheless have the will to go to Mars, and cold hard realists who don't. The problem is that this is a false dichotomy, and one of the initial premises presented is actually wrong: we don't have the technology to go to Mars in any significant capacity.

Not to knock the Apollo program, as it still stands as one of the greatest achievements humanity ever accomplished, but the cold hard fact of the matter is that we decided to go for very specific reasons (national pride, to beat the Russians) and do it in a short timeframe. So, in order to do that, we did what we could do in a very short time: built a very large rocket, slapped a passenger to the nose, shot it as far as we could, and put enough materials in the nose to help him get back. We didn't use any materials or technology that was much different from what at least one nation on Earth was using in 1945. The same is true today: most of our current technologies are great if you want to calculate how to get to Mars, but there's been no real improvement in the technology required to actually get us to Mars over what we had in the early 60's, which in themselves were minor refinements over what the Germans were using in 1944. In order to make the trip, we'd need a ship with either artificial gravity or rotating sections to make the 9-month trip, we'd need a low-earth orbital construction yard to build the ship, we'd need another shipyard in orbit over Mars, and we'd need to be able to land with either sufficient materials to either blast off of Mars or materials to gather what we needed from Martian soil and atmosphere. These are individually ridiculously tall orders; collectively they are effectively impossible at present.

There is a further difficulty, and that is one of economics. If you read the opening parts of the Wealth of Nations, you'll note that Adam Smith takes pains to note the relation between increased trade and increased shipping traffic. Why? Because Adam Smith notes that in order for trade to increase, it has to be easy to move large quantities of goods cheaply, and advances in shipbuilding technology allowed maritime shipping to do that cheaply, efficiently, and with a minimum of loss only recently for him. A similar problem plagues us here: it costs an incredible amount to move a kilogram of anything from earth to orbit. So long as we need kilotons and possibly megatons moved into space to actually jump from planet to planet, and the costs associated with them are so prohibitively high, we are never going to see real planetary exploration. So while I appreciate and fully agree with Jeffrey Sinclair's assessment of why we should go to the stars, the cold hard truth right now is that going to the stars, or even going to another planet, is ridiculously difficult at the moment, so difficult as to be impossible.

Says the clown with not one, but THREE, count them, THREE, mini-LGs.

Do you know how many people tried to stop me from spreading my DNA around? A lot. Were they right to try? Time will tell. ;)

Um, Venus has an average temperature of ~450 degrees Celsius, and its clouds are comprised mostly of sulfuric acid. We actually do not know what the Venusian surface is like because we can't even get unmanned probes there. Hell, the wind at the surface is consistently strong enough to knock a person of its feet.

How the hell do we land a man on that? I mean, give time we could do it (genetically engineer some organism that consumes carbon en mass). But even that would leave the fact that air pressure at the surface is 92atm. Venus is not a nice place. Mars is actually much more habitable by us than Venus.I'm not talking about going to the surface; aerostat, ~50 km up

Do you know how many people tried to stop me from spreading my DNA around? A lot. Were they right to try? Time will tell. ;)

It's already told, in a screaming, mouth foaming, gibbering sort of way.

The onlyu way to realistically get to Mars or to explore this system of planets with manned craft at our present level of technilogical development is with nuclear rockets, specifically Nuclear Pulse Rockets or NPRs for large ships that would ferry crew, supplies, and smaller NERVA ships to other planets. Project Orion must be renewed with a larger budget so that a working prototype powered by actual fission charges rather than conventional chemical explosives can be constructed and tested. Chemical rockets will not be able to take a crew to Mars or any other planet in a reasonable amount of time, only riding on the shockwaves of hundreds of nukes or something even faster can do that and since we don't have anything faster Orion will have to do.

The onlyu way to realistically get to Mars or to explore this system of planets with manned craft at our present level of technilogical development is with nuclear rockets, specifically Nuclear Pulse Rockets or NPRs for large ships that would ferry crew, supplies, and smaller NERVA ships to other planets. Project Orion must be renewed with a larger budget so that a working prototype powered by actual fission charges rather than conventional chemical explosives can be constructed and tested. Chemical rockets will not be able to take a crew to Mars or any other planet in a reasonable amount of time, only riding on the shockwaves of hundreds of nukes or something even faster can do that and since we don't have anything faster Orion will have to do.

I, personally, would love to see this. Unfortunately, a lot of people go nuts when the word "nuclear" gets tossed around, which is just depressing.

Lets put it this way...Out of a $2.4 trillion budget, less than 0.8% is spent on the entire space program. Definitely, all this money should be going elsewhere, because what good has the space program brought to this world?

GPS - Like your GPS unit in your car or boat? Thank NASA and the DoD for that little toy so you are never lost..but what is the fun in that?

Satellite Radio - Damn satellites and declassified military technology. You liked your local-only selection of FM/AM right?

DirecTV- Yeah, those pesky satellites again. The cost to make the DTV network is clocked at about the same as building, firing, and supporting a Mars probe. Ok..back to ground-based air-only TV for you. 3-5 channels is more than enough right?

VISAR - Software created by NASA was the basis of this technology that allows cops to "wash" the video until it's nearly free of static, blurring from camera movement, and the jagged edges of distant objects. No use in law enforcement or digital video editing for this.

DeBakey Blood Pump - Yep. This little device was derived from a piece of the US Space Shuttle's engines. It was NASA's research into turbopump designs and regulating super-cold rocket fuel through the engines that created a software for analyzing fluid dynamics. This was used by a medical team to design the said pump. But this is just all garbage so chuck it...

Temper Foam - Every hear of the Temperpedic bed? Yeah, thought you may have seen those commercials too. Temper foam was designed by NASA as a cushioning material in the shuttle's seats. Think of this...The impact of an adult falling from a height of ten feet will be fully absorbed by a layer of Temper Foam only three inches thick. But if it was NASA designed, it can't have any practical use, especially since the money could be put to better use elsewhere, right?

Cordless Power Tools - Blame it on the Apollo space program that put a man on the moon for this worthless garbage. What was NASA thinking when they designed power tools that had their own internal, self-contained power supplies that were small, light-weight, and rechargeable? Damn Black and Decker for ever designing this crap in the first place. You never use cordless tools anyway, right?

Smoke Detectors Oh who needs these things? Why would anyone want to be woken up in the middle of the night because of some small thing like a fire? Who knows what NASA was thinking when they designed the first one of these gizmos for Skylab, the first space station. If it wasn't for that pesky law in the US and UK requiring all homes to be equipped with them. What the hell do firemen know anyway, right?

Home Insulation Again that damnable Apollo mission created another worthless technology (based off of the heat shield) that is designed to reflect back 95% of all radiant energy. Like anyone really needs that kind of efficiency.

LEDs First designed for plant experiments on the space shuttle, these little worthless techno-thingies are just that. Who needs them when we have incandescent bulbs....or candles!

Sunglasses NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory researched material that filters out harmful light for the astronauts' visors, that is also scratch resistant and light. Polarized lenses? You would never own a pair of these.

Windshear Prediction NASA really goofed when they created a system that now can allow aircraft computers to predict when the winds suddenly shift in a storm. Really now, there are only +30 aircraft accidents and hundreds of deaths related to this. What's that in the grand scheme of things? Oh, you weren't thinking of flying anytime soon, right?

TCAS Traffic Collision Avoidance System...again some useless NASA/FAA spending on a technology designed to reduce the danger of mid-air collisions. Heck, what's the fun in that?

Sports Padding All that heavy football, soccer, baseball and hockey protective gear that the wimps wear now-days? Yeah NASA designs, taken from the Space program to protect astronauts, is now used to protect these prima-donas. Why not just go back to leather skull helmets and minimal protection...who needs this kind of protection?

Lasers If it wasn't for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory working on using lasers to communicate between Earth and spacecraft millions of miles away, we would be rid of these stupid CD/DVDs players. Vinyl records work just fine, as do 8-Tracks and Cassette Tapes!

Hydroponics What was Disney thinking when they built EPCOT Center? Like any good has come from NASA and Disney World working together on this. Who the heck would need hydroponics? We have soil...so that should be good enough to feed the world...right?

Quartz Watch How many children starved because NASA had to waste money on designing a very accurate timing tools for that colossal failure, the Apollo missions? I mean, who actually uses quartz timing crystals in their watch?

Barcodes Typical NASA, they couldn't keep track of all their inventory when building the shuttle so they invented the Bar Code. There is no use outside of the space program for this technology.

RFID Radio Frequency Identification. A new way for NASA to keep track of their parts, though I can't see any benefit in this technology.

Solar Energy NASA with it's head in the clouds went out and flushed money down the drain designing a photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications. I mean we have oil, coal and nuclear power...what good is solar?

Computer Technology Yeah, those geeks at NASA had to go out and throw money away on such things as Wireless Keyboards, Database Management Software, Microcomputers, Customer Service Software, high-speed internet. Fiber-optics. Cellphones. PDAs. IPOD/IPHONE. You are using dial-up access right?

Computer and Console gaming systems If it wasn't for NASA tossing money around, we wouldn't have this time-wasting crap. I mean, who needs 3D-rendering software or hardware, or Virtual Reality? NASA thought it would be good for training their staff but beyond that...total waste of money.

TANG No words needed here.


Yeah, I can see how the space program has no benefits at all and the money really should be given to social programs....never mind that it wouldn't put a dent in the total amount of money needed to truly make a difference.

Sarcasm off: If you truly believe the space program is a waste, then get rid of the technologies above. Sell your computer and playstation/xbox/wii and give the money to 'the poor'. How about working at a soup kitchen in your free time. All your free money not spent on bills better be given to a charity too. Lead by example otherwise you are full of hot air, denouncing the same technology and products you are using to post. If you were actually serious, you wouldn't be posting on the internet.

Just remember that next time you start up your game station, that $300-$500 could have feed hundreds of starving children in the world. There you are, warm and happy with a full stomach sitting down in a comfortable chair or couch ready to be entertained. Yet you post comments denouncing the space program for wasting money. Humm.. I wonder what is more of a waste. Your style of living and entertainment (while others would only dream of the scraps off your table to be happy), or NASA thinking up new hydroponic methods for growing crops?

I, personally, would love to see this. Unfortunately, a lot of people go nuts when the word "nuclear" gets tossed around, which is just depressing.

Well - the ship crashing at takeoff would be... unpleasant. So the dislike is somewhat understandable.

really long post

This is pretty much the best post in the thread.

I didn't read this thread, but why the fuck are we going to Mars, a really cold place with little atmosphere that requires heavy-duty terraforming and has only a 3rd of Earth G (who knows what long-term effect that would have on human biology) when we could put permanent aerostat habitats in the atmosphere of Venus where gravity is close to Earth-normal air is a lifting gas at an elevation where the temps would be normal, and the atmosphere provides some protection from the sun and an easy source of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid. Or we could focus on the mining the asteroid belt and creating a serious industrial infrastructure in space without all the wasted energy moving massive amounts of materials out of planetary gravity wells.


Several years ago, maybe 7 or 6, while Global Warming was just speculative. The Pres. Bush team came up with a plan to move the Earth further away from the Sun using an asteroid in effort to cool it. So my thoughts are why we can't/ don't use the same plan to move Venus away and wait a few thousand or million years. Then colonize the hell out of that chunk of rock.

Come on, who's with me?

you know, if it wasn't for the stimulus the moon program gave to tecnological development, we probably wouldn't have these personal computers and this internet now.

it would be good to have something high and positive to aim for instead of all this monkeyshines of messing with every part of the only world we've got and coercing every part of it into the least sustainable ways of life by doing so.

i'd like to see the mars effort be truly omnilateral though, rather then just the u.s. or u.s., europe and russia. of course u.s., europe, russia, and p.r.c. china are the only places that currently have indipendent space capability, but the best launch sites are equatorial, where nearly all nations are somewhat economically disadvantaged.

i don't see a space program as conflicting with surface based social and infrastructure needs, when there's so much military fat that couldbe, shoulbe, transfered to it.

plus again the positive, nonmilitary, tecnological spinoff bennifits are as potentially, well in the same sort of porportions of those of getting to the moon and so on were.

=^^=
.../\...

U We actually do not know what the Venusian surface is like because we can't even get unmanned probes there.
H.

The Soviets.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/venus/venera9-10.jpg

We have the technology. We have the money. We have willing people.


Still we don't have a direct perspective of generating enough income. The technology needed for a manned mission to Mars isn't very different from the lunar technology, so the technology transfer will be quite limited.

I think that placing a permanently manned base on the Moon is better.

On the other hand, humans are one of the most mobile species on the planet, constantly shuffling around and eventually blanketing the whole thing. Branching to another planet seems a distinctly human survival tactic, so, yes, it is fantastic.

Yes!

I side how this question has been answered before (regarding presence in space in general):

"Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea and take care of our own problems at home?"
"No. We have to stay here and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu and Einstein and Morobuto and Buddy Holly and Aristophenes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Cerean;13443685']The Soviets.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/venus/venera9-10.jpg

How long did the probe survive again ;) ?

How long did the probe survive again ;) ?

Varied between 15 minutes and half an hour, iirc. The surface of Venus is intensely hostile (and there were multiple probes).

The Venera Series gave us a very good idea what Venus' surface is like. We've also mapped the surface from orbiters using powerful radar systems. We may not know as much about Venus as we do about Mars, but it's solidly in third place as regards extra-earth bodies.

<snip> we don't have the technology to go to Mars in any significant capacity.


I disagree:


Not to knock the Apollo program, as it still stands as one of the greatest achievements humanity ever accomplished, but ...We didn't use any materials or technology that was much different from what at least one nation on Earth was using in 1945.


Not so. Apollo 11 had a number of technological advancements that, in some cases, were developed specifically for that program. For example, portable computers.

In 1945 there was Colossus, an aptly named piece of technology used by the British Intelligence to crack Nazi codes. The computer on board Apollo 11 was tiny by comparison and vastly more powerful. orders of magnitude more powerful.


The same is true today: most of our current technologies are great if you want to calculate how to get to Mars, but there's been no real improvement in the technology required to actually get us to Mars over what we had in the early 60's, which in themselves were minor refinements over what the Germans were using in 1944.


Not so. We have materials and technology unknown in 1969, and unimaginable in 1944. The computer that controls the emissions in your car is orders of magnitude more powerful than the one controlling the Command Module of Apollo 11 and is a tiny fraction of the size. We have much more advanced materials, like plastics and polymers that were crude at best in the 60s. We can generate more power in a smaller space and do it m ore reliably. Even the Space Shuttle is built using technology unknown during the Apollo program and that's a design that's 30 years old now.


In order to make the trip, we'd need a ship with either artificial gravity or rotating sections to make the 9-month trip,


Doable, but not absolutely essential. The Russians have shown us how long humans can live in space in a zero-g environment and while gravity is desireable, especially for astronauts who will be expected to walk, it's not a show-stopper. Mars has 1/4 the mass of Earth. A certain amount of muscle atrophe is acceptable.


we'd need a low-earth orbital construction yard to build the ship,


One of the projected possible functions of the ISS is to assist in the orbital construction of a ship capable of interplanetary travel.


we'd need another shipyard in orbit over Mars,


Why? (Not that sending an automated facility to Mars ahead of time is impossible.)


and we'd need to be able to land with either sufficient materials to either blast off of Mars or materials to gather what we needed from Martian soil and atmosphere.

This is among the easier problems to solve. Lockheed Martin is currently in the design phase of a vehicle that can do exactly this.


These are individually ridiculously tall orders; collectively they are effectively impossible at present.


People were saying similar things in the 60s regarding a Lunar mission. :)


There is a further difficulty, and that is one of economics. If you read the opening parts of the Wealth of Nations, you'll note that Adam Smith takes pains to note the relation between increased trade and increased shipping traffic. Why? Because Adam Smith notes that in order for trade to increase, it has to be easy to move large quantities of goods cheaply, and advances in shipbuilding technology allowed maritime shipping to do that cheaply, efficiently, and with a minimum of loss only recently for him. A similar problem plagues us here: it costs an incredible amount to move a kilogram of anything from earth to orbit. So long as we need kilotons and possibly megatons moved into space to actually jump from planet to planet, and the costs associated with them are so prohibitively high, we are never going to see real planetary exploration. So while I appreciate and fully agree with Jeffrey Sinclair's assessment of why we should go to the stars, the cold hard truth right now is that going to the stars, or even going to another planet, is ridiculously difficult at the moment, so difficult as to be impossible.

Economy is a challenge, no doubt... But a single manned mission to Mars can be accomplished for less than the cost of the Iraq war to date. It's not beyond our reach.

All we need is to collectively decide, as a people, that we want space exploration more than war. We just need the will. As Tom Hanks (as Jim Lovell) said in the movie Apollo 13: "It wasn't a miracle. We just decided to go."

here here. Agreed with that sentiment to the letter.

I disagree:

Not so. Apollo 11 had a number of technological advancements that, in some cases, were developed specifically for that program. For example, portable computers.

In 1945 there was Colossus, an aptly named piece of technology used by the British Intelligence to crack Nazi codes. The computer on board Apollo 11 was tiny by comparison and vastly more powerful. orders of magnitude more powerful.

Not so. We have materials and technology unknown in 1969, and unimaginable in 1944. The computer that controls the emissions in your car is orders of magnitude more powerful than the one controlling the Command Module of Apollo 11 and is a tiny fraction of the size. We have much more advanced materials, like plastics and polymers that were crude at best in the 60s. We can generate more power in a smaller space and do it m ore reliably. Even the Space Shuttle is built using technology unknown during the Apollo program and that's a design that's 30 years old now.

The part that you snipped is oddly enough the reason why you're missing the forest for the trees, and not even getting the trees I was identifying right. Here again is the part you missed:


. . .but the cold hard fact of the matter is that we decided to go for very specific reasons (national pride, to beat the Russians) and do it in a short timeframe. So, in order to do that, we did what we could do in a very short time: built a very large rocket, slapped a passenger to the nose, shot it as far as we could, and put enough materials in the nose to help him get back.


The point I was obliquely bringing up was that we engaged in the Apollo mission for very specific reasons that had nothing to do with the moon having something worth the price of going there to get it. We deemed that beating the Soviets to the moon was worth a significant expenditure of money, and we spent it. We lack a Soviet Union to compete with us now. As I (at least thought I'd) demonstrated with my examples and language, we lack the technology to actually do something useful on Mars, such as resource extraction. So what other reason would we go? Because it's there? Depending on the there in question, Cleveland is also "there", but I don't on a whim decide to fly to Cleveland even though I've never been to Cleveland. I do so in large part because I'm not an idiot; I don't waste resources on something that yields me no benefit and has no purpose other than "I've never been there/ done that".

More specifically, what I was mentioning with that whole "we can calculate how to get to Mars" bit is that yes, computing and processing ability has jumped leaps and bounds above what we had even five years ago, much less forty. But as David Robinson once proved in an IBM commercial, a more powerful computer can't play basketball. A more powerful computer can't fix a car. A more powerful computer definately cannot reduce the substantial price required to get a human to Mars, because the main factor in that is finding some new technology that allows us to sling a kilogram of mass into orbit at a reduced price in fuel, resources, time, and money than what it takes now, and what we use right now is a booster rocket that isn't markedly changed in kind from the V-2 rockets of Germany. They differ in how far they go, what fuels they use, and how big they are, but by and large we're still strapping ourselves to big tanks of fuel and igniting them, and that will never get into orbit what we need to get into orbit in order to build a real reason for going to Mars: resource harvesting.

That is my problem, and that is also what I am substantially more pessimistic than you on, to judge by:


One of the projected possible functions of the ISS is to assist in the orbital construction of a ship capable of interplanetary travel.

Why? (Not that sending an automated facility to Mars ahead of time is impossible.)

This is among the easier problems to solve. Lockheed Martin is currently in the design phase of a vehicle that can do exactly this.

IIRC, Lockheed was talking about building parts of that design at the INEEL. . .9 or so years ago. The ISS has also had their functions stipped to the bone because of cost overruns. And given that we haven't even gotten a design off the ground for what an interplanetary ship would look like (seriously, NASA has talked with J. Michael Strascynski about using Star Furies for a blueprint of cargo tugs), the idea that we know how to build an automated facility that can extract biofuel from Martian soil is rather difficult to believe. Oxygen extraction from the atmosphere is easier if still very difficult and requiring huge amounts of energy to manage.

Now, this isn't to say that Mars doesn't have a sense of romance, and I for one would love to see us go back to the Moon or on to Mars or the asteroid belt or Io. But in the end, let's not kid ourselves about the fact that going strictly to satisfy our romance would be a colossal waste of money, and if Iraq has proven anything its that even the United States cannot afford colossal wastes of money strictly to satisfy our need for romantic satisfaction. Our interests have to be considered, and right now there is nothing that we can reasonably get from Mars that we can't get from Earth for a hundredth the price. This isn't like Columbus going over the sea and no one going after him; it's like the Pharoahs trying to do the same thing in their little wicker Nile boats simply because wouldn't it be cool if they pulled it off. The answer is yes, but is this a sane speculation?

Cleveland is also "there", but I don't on a whim decide to fly to Cleveland even though I've never been to Cleveland. I do so in large part because I'm not an idiot; I don't waste resources on something that yields me no benefit and has no purpose other than "I've never been there/ done that".

You must not believe in vacations the...like a trip to the Bahamas, Caribbean or Hawaii. (just a personal observation..not linking vacations to a thing like a moon shot)



and what we use right now is a booster rocket that isn't markedly changed in kind from the V-2 rockets of Germany. They differ in how far they go, what fuels they use, and how big they are, but by and large we're still strapping ourselves to big tanks of fuel and igniting them

What do you want? Explain exactly what other method of travel is able to reach escape velocity of the earth's gravity. What we use right now for automobiles isn't markedly changed in kind from the Model A or Model T cars of old. They differ in how far they go, what fuels they use, and how big they are, but by and large we're still strapping ourselves to big tanks of fuel and igniting them (in an internal combustion engine).


that will never get into orbit what we need to get into orbit in order to build a real reason for going to Mars: resource harvesting.

Well what do you propose? Obviously you have a better method for moving materials into outer space than a rocket or shuttle. Rockets are obviously good enough to put tens of thousands of satellites into orbit, lift materials to build Salyut, Skylab, Mir, and the International Space Station. What can you suggest to replace rockets? Also, if those projects worked, why is it that we 'never' would be able to get into orbit what we need?


IIRC, Lockheed was talking about building parts of that design at the INEEL. . .9 or so years ago. The ISS has also had their functions stipped to the bone because of cost overruns.[quote]

*laughing* really now. You are obviously in or beyond your late teens so you should know that government programs never run under budget and/or on time. That's no argument. ISS was stripped down because politics played a part in who got funding for what...nothing more. (BTW, Lockheed has been pushing for a moon or mars shot for years. They want in on another long-term government contract like that.)

[quote] And given that we haven't even gotten a design off the ground for what an interplanetary ship would look like (seriously, NASA has talked with J. Michael Strascynski about using Star Furies for a blueprint of cargo tugs),

*sigh* because even if the diagram was never intended to work (mystery miracle technology not withstanding), the ideas provided from the fertile minds of this show could give insight into something NASA had not thought of. Ask Lucas...they did the same for Star Wars..and Roddenberry for Star Trek. Remember anti-matter engines and phasers? They are an experimental reality right now...today (not on a mass scale but they have been built and tested on very small scales)...those ideas came from SciFi. NASA looks at these things for ideas....not to base their entire designs around. (remember NASA reviewed the original Star Trek series for ideas on building the space shuttle)

the idea that we know how to build an automated facility that can extract biofuel from Martian soil is rather difficult to believe.

I agree on that...the asteroid belt in the solar system would be more profitable (easier to extract ores as you do not have a large or even existent exit velocity from asteroids...unlike the moon or Mars)

Now, this isn't to say that Mars doesn't have a sense of romance, and I for one would love to see us go back to the Moon or on to Mars or the asteroid belt or Io. But in the end, let's not kid ourselves about the fact that going strictly to satisfy our romance would be a colossal waste of money

Agreed but to be honest, that's just a perk. Profit, advancements to science, advancements to technology and the first moves to get humanity off of just this one planet (hey, if the dinos were killed off, what is to say it couldn't happen again and we would survive...hell we are still sitting on enough nukes to still kill every man, woman and child five times over).

and if Iraq has proven anything its that even the United States cannot afford colossal wastes of money strictly to satisfy our need for romantic satisfaction.

Korea, and Vietnam proved that long before the Gulf. We just don't remember the past failures so we are repeating them (Gulf war 2.0).

Our interests have to be considered, and right now there is nothing that we can reasonably get from Mars that we can't get from Earth for a hundredth the price. This isn't like Columbus going over the sea and no one going after him; it's like the Pharoahs trying to do the same thing in their little wicker Nile boats simply because wouldn't it be cool if they pulled it off.

You'd be surprised at the strength of the ancient Egyptian navy...and how far they were able to go. BTW, we can do it with current technologies. It's a matter of budget. (apollo worked in the 1960's and 1970's. An expanded version of and upgraded moon lander/command module would work just fine. Something designed to last months on end would work...the Mir proved humans can survive in such environments..it is feasible to do. Is it worth it? Not a Mars shot...not yet. A moon shot and establishing a moon base? Hell yes.

We need to begin scouting off-world for future settlement at some point, so might as well get as much done as we can now. It's not like money's an issue, and the first country to get there will have first claim over its resources (which, in terms of metals and other inorganic minerals should be fairly significant all things equal) as well as an excellent stepping stone to reaping the riches of the asteroid belt.

I mean that migration is human.

What I should have clarified is that I meant migration is hardly unique to humans.

We have the technology. We have the money. We have willing people.

Do we have the will?
You don't have the rockets to launch the parts of the Mars ferry to be assembled in Earth orbit into space.

You definitely don't have the money when I look at the recent government budget.

And last but not least, you neither have a Mars lander.

How in the world does that spell "ready"?!?

Are you going to use chemical or nuclear propulsion? Do you favor the short or the long Mars mission? Who besides the NASA, RFSA and ESA should be part of the mission? What exactly would we like to accomplish on Mars except putting a flag in the ground stating that "we were there"?

As much as I'd like to see mankind make it to Mars in my lifetime - I sincerely doubt that this is going to happen anytime soon!

we need: a manned mission to mars and then two college students who build a wormhole generator and take the piss out of the astronauts on the planet surface.

Imo manned missions are a waste of time until we can build wormhole gateways. We also need to build bigger spaceships with artificial gravity.

We have the technology. Yes we do.

We have the money. No, I don't think we have the billions that will be required.

We have willing people.

Yes we do.

Just take money from army and military projects and I seriously doubt that we would lack money needed.

No, I don't think we have the billions that will be required.Oh yes, we do.
E.g. take away just a little bit of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States), and the Europeans' and Asians' money, and there will be no doubt about funding.

You don't have the rockets to launch the parts of the Mars ferry to be assembled in Earth orbit into space.

Our current rockets and space shuttles are obviously good enough to put tens of thousands of satellites into orbit, lift materials to build Salyut, Skylab, Mir, and the International Space Stations. What can you suggest to replace rockets? Also, if those projects worked, why is it that we 'never' would be able to get into orbit what we need? To keep your foot out of your mouth next time, actually do research on a subject before posting.

And last but not least, you neither have a Mars lander.

Besides the horrid sentence structure, let's think about this for a moment. The Lunar Lander was designed in secret and not publicly released information before the launch. After the first launch, then the information flowed freely. But regardless of that, they DO have a mars lander. They are looking at an enlarged version of the original Lunar Lander (updated of course). Again, a little research will keep your mouth free from your feet.

Are you going to use chemical or nuclear propulsion? Do you favor the short or the long Mars mission? Who besides the NASA, RFSA and ESA should be part of the mission? What exactly would we like to accomplish on Mars except putting a flag in the ground stating that "we were there"?

I have no idea...I leave that up to the literal Rocket Scientists. You know, the guys that are more intelligent and informed than you or I. Their IQ's far outstrip your own, so my thought would be...they would know what would be the best mission package, propulsion systems, and which agencies they will work with. Don't like it? Tough.

Thing is I remember the same damn arguments made against:

Pioneer 10 and 11
Both Voyagers
The Cassini probe
Both Mars Exploration Rovers
and the Apollo missions (Though I was only old enough to remember the final few missions, I did however remember the restated arguments against the idea)

Since the 'arguments' you have are just repeated from your father or father's father thoughts, and the results from ignoring past naysayers has proven fruitful, I believe that ignoring these unfounded and misguided arguments are also justified. You don't 'know' what is being planned, what has is being tested or designed, nor what plans are hidden from the public.

Let the guys with the higher IQs do their jobs and stop playing 'monday morning, armchair quarterback'.

Crucial areas where lots more research is needed for really "going to space" as a civilization:

1) Ways to launch large amounts of materials and people from Earth and other gravity wells into space.
-a- rockets (not enough fuel/pollutes, unsustainable for large amounts)
-b- space elevator (lengthy materials of sufficient tensile strength do not yet exist)
-c- mass driver technology of some sort (not fully developed conceptually {space fountain-supported railgun megastructure up side of mountain and then some?})

2) industrial supply chain and construction processes that work in space and use materials that can be mined from asteroids.

3) Permanent, powered, spinning space structures that provide for adequate radiation shielding and can radiate enough heat into space to keep a colony from overheating.

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Ecological_Life_Support_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_ecological_system

5) developing sociology as an actual science