E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
An artist's conception dating back to the 1990s shows a space vehicle powered by an electric propulsion drive approaching Mars. Electric propulsion is still the preferred technology for getting to the Red Planet.
Now that the International Space Station is complete, NASA is touting it as a test bed for future voyages to Mars. But when will those voyages start? Would you believe Oct. 9, 2033?
That's one of the best dates available for launching a Mars mission, according to Ben Donahue, space exploration engineer at Boeing Advanced Systems. At this week's International Space Station and Mars Conference, presented in Washington by Explore Mars, Donahue explained that the alignments of Earth and Mars make 2033 an "easy year" for interplanetary navigation. And after all, President Barack Obama did call for a mission to the environs of the Red Planet by the mid-2030s.
But in reality, the prospects for a Mars mission depend less on the celestial almanac and more on national priorities. If getting humans to Mars somehow became a national imperative, as getting humans to the moon did a half-century ago, the job could be done "before the end of the decade," said Larry Williams, vice president of strategic relations for SpaceX.
SpaceX is one of the fastest-rising stars in the aerospace industry, but even Williams acknowledges that any effort to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit would probably have to be government-led, not industry-led.
Williams compared beyond-orbit exploration to the creation of ARPANET, the federal government's forerunner to the Internet. "I would say there's probably a good return on investment" for government-led projects, in the form of economic competitiveness and prestige, he said. He wouldn't go so far as to predict that spaceflight would be the next big thing, "but I can't think of anything that's going to be more of that 'next thing,'" he said.
What's to be gained? The space race of the 1960s led to a revolution in satellite technology, opening the way to benefits ranging from global telecom and data networks to GPS navigation. The Internet's rise in the 1990s transformed the world economy again. Travel beyond Earth orbit may well lead the way to new resources, markets and frontiers in the 2020s and 2030s. And some folks, such as SpaceX founder Elon Musk, believe it's imperative for us Earthlings to spread out through the solar system in order to guard against a planet-killing catastrophe like the one that killed off the dinosaurs.
But the "why" question is a huge tale unto itself. For now, let's concentrate on the "how." Here's how the experts at the ISS-Mars Conference sized up the road between the space station and the Red Planet:
Simulating scenarios: Six volunteers are more than halfway through their simulation of a 500-day mission to Mars and back, conducted inside an isolation chamber at a Russian institute. NASA is considering a different kind of simulation next year, which would involve transmitting voice communications to and from the station with a 10-minute delay. Several experts at the conference, including Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin, suggested that a prototype Mars transit module should be attached to the station for a series of on-orbit simulations leading up to a full-length mock Mars trip. One of the potential prototypes is an inflatable module built by Bigelow Aerospace.
However things work out, NASA and the space station's other international partners should have a lot more time to draw up their tests. The current plan is to extend operations on the space station to at least 2020, and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the partners are already talking about a further extension to 2028.
Testing technologies: One of the big problems for interplanetary travelers is the heightened exposure to space radiation. To address that issue, NASA is looking at active-shielding systems that could set up a protective magnetic field around a spacecraft. Another strategy calls for packing the food, water and supplies stored up for the astronauts (as well as the waste material they produce) in such a way as to shield them during the trip to Mars.
Other potential technologies include measures to counter the health effects of spending long periods in zero-G, as well as next-generation propulsion systems. The International Space Station could serve as a test bed for all these technologies. NASA already has agreed to test an experimental VASIMR plasma engine at the space station. The consensus at the conference was that solar electric or nuclear electric propulsion systems were the way to get to Mars, perhaps boosted initially by chemical rockets.
Doing dry runs: The current vision for space exploration doesn't call for going straight from the space station to Mars. Rather, NASA plans to take a series of incremental steps along the "flexible path" through deep space. Obama has called for a trip to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025, for example. That would serve as a "dry run" for deep-space transportation systems, said Bret Drake, exploration architect at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
Even though the White House nixed the Constellation Project's back-to-the-moon goal, a limited number of lunar trips could serve as dry runs for surface operations on Mars. A trip to Mars orbit and back, without touching down on the Red Planet, would represent another step along the way. The early missions may actually send astronauts to a deep crater on one of the Red Planet's moons, Phobos, from which they can manage a remote-controlled army of robots on the Martian surface itself.
Relying on robots: If and when humans go to Mars, robots will have already blazed the trail. One such robot, the Curiosity rover, is being prepared for launch this November. NASA and its international partners are deep into negotiations over a series of robotic missions leading up to the transport of fresh soil and rock samples from Mars to Earth for study.
Eventually, robotic production facilities will be sent to Mars to manufacture the fuel and oxygen that will be required for the astronauts who follow. When the complete scenario for a human mission is worked out, Donahue says robots should be sent out first to conduct a full dress rehearsal.
The long road vs. the short road: How long would a human mission last? It depends. One type of trip, known as an "opposition-class" mission, would get the astronauts to Mars in 217 days, give them a 30-day stay, and bring them back in 403 days. In contrast to that 650-day trip, the "conjunction-class" mission would last 916 days: 210 days to get there, 496 days at Mars, and 210 days on the return trip.
The 210-day transit time is "nearly identical" to the length of a typical tour of duty on the International Space Station, said former astronaut John Grunsfeld, who is now deputy director of the Space Telescope Science Institute. So taking a trip to Mars, or coming back, may not be all that much different from what space station astronauts are experiencing now. The big difference is that when their stint in space is done, returnees from the space station get to rest or recuperate. That won't be the case when astronauts finish a 210-day trip to Mars.
NASA
This graphic compares the trajectories for an opposition-class mission to Mars (left) with a conjunction-class mission (right). Both missions are launched in 2037, but the shorter mission returns to Earth in 2039 while the longer mission doesn't end until 2040.
"I think it's still an open question in terms of what it will take ... when crews do land on Mars so they can get to work," Grunsfeld said.
That's not the only open question. I've intentionally glossed over the biggest one: Is this trip really necessary? In the past, we've talked about the prospects of finding evidence of past or present Martian life, or creating a second home for Earth's species ... but I'd love to hear what you think. Tell me why we should go to Mars, or why not, in your comments below.
More about NASA's future course:
- Scientific shortfalls limit NASA's spaceflight ambitions
- Gallery: Seven out-of-this-world destinations
- Which way for NASA? A step-by-step path
- NASA lines up jobs for Robonaut
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
There is no compelling reason to send humans to Mars. All of the interesting science can be accomplished by robonauts. A human Mars mission would be a horrific waste of resources. NASA should focus on science not Buck Rogers stunts.
Sorry, I think we should go to Mars.
I'm blinded by science.
Thomas - Live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWitntwPjM4
In fifty years we have not been able to get back to the moon!! What makes all you drop out scientist think we can really get to Mars?? Evolution has taken Millions of years and now you think we can have a breakthrough in science that will allow us to depart this planet and go to mars?? COO COO, COO COO!! Defund that Money Pit and put the money to a better use. Like Border Security!! Illegal Immagration!! U.S. Economy!! Social Security!!
First of all, turn off the bold font and put it to better use, like on comment that don't insult everyone else who has posted a comment to this article. Secondly, we have the ability to go back to the Moon. To think otherwise shows a lack of understanding of our capabilities. We went to the Moon several times, 12 men walked on the surface of the Moon. Why on Earth would you think that we have lost the ability to do so again? We don't need a breakthrough in science to allow us to travel to Mars. The technology to do it is there.
You call it a money pit so you clearly do not understand the financial impact that NASA has on the American economy. NASA makes us money. Pure and simple. So, go ahead and bark about border security, the economy, and social security. The real place to put the blame for those problems is NOT NASA. So, don't defund NASA, become a politician and put forward a real piece of legislation that will increase border security, put an end to illegal immigration, help put America on a path to a sustainable economy, or help with quagmire of social security. The amount of money that pays for our space program wouldn't make a dent in any of those problems. I'm sure you could build a pretty neat fence for 20 billion dollars a year, but the Mexican druglords are spending much MUCH more than that to figure out ways over, under, around, and through your fence.
Let's go to Mars.
What Mob said.
Hey "fuming Louis" I got a hot flash for ya.
The knee jerk "save my tax money" view of human crewed space exploration is penny wise and pound foolish! NASA is a small, small piece of the Federal pie and leverages many benefits to attack problems other than just space exploration. Some have estimated this feedback on investment as perhaps 15 or 20 to 1, integrated over time. The essential observation, that seems to always escape those who do not actually do science and engineering, is that the synergy of attacking grand challenges exponentiates the rewards of the activity well beyond the narrowly defined problems of the moment.
What we want is clear sequence of targets, a mix of public and private funding, along with prizes for viable exploration technology, perhaps even a new "research and development bond" kinda like a savings bond.
If we keep NASA strong, space exploration will help solve problems on Earth, and we must keep humans along because our robots are just too damn stupid to do the job alone.
Why care about humans going to Mars, Phobos, NEOs?
1. A fair bit of the technology needed to get a human outpost on Mars is very similar to that needed to mitigate global warming and break our dependence on fossil fuel. Similar considerations do not apply to the Moon, but it can be good test venue.
2. Our scientific and technically based economy is in a steady decline because we wallow in short sighted thinking and do not value science correctly. Nothing speaks to an 8th grader as a stronger motive for science education and career plans than the astronaut program.
3. The synergy of space exploration and green technology will serve to create many new jobs and even new industries so as to pay back many times over the taxpayer seed money that starts the programs.
4. The present level of spending on NASA is a mere 0.5 a penny on the (tax) dollar. Virtually no other program set gets as much PR bang for the buck.
5. Access to the asteroid belt spells safety margin when one of them wanders into a collision course with Earth.
How practical is a human Mars mission to create a science outpost?
1. The round trip to Mars with a 550 day SURFACE stay is about three years, but it only takes 6 months (or less with a peppy rocket) to make the jump. Here a fresh look at nuclear thermal rockets can get the cost down to $100/lb into LEO.
2. While you are on the Martian surface you are way safer from radiation than you would be on the Lunar surface. While you are in transit to Mars, active magnetic and other shielding can protect you from major solar flares; spinning your craft can protect you against bone loss.
3. Once you are on Mars' surface, clever prepositioned technology can make it the second safest place for humans in all the solar system!
4. With a well tuned mix of humans and robots, even the MER investigator concedes the exploration will be way more effective than with robots alone.
I think Louise may be on to something. Before we go to Mars we need to check out the immigration laws. We don't want to go there illegally.
We may also want to check out what type of passports and visas we may need before we go. I know it would be better to just pick up and go, but we don't want to break any Martian laws.
If we're not careful, they my think we're going there to steal their jobs.
If we're going to Mars we have to go there with the intention of paving the way for future manned landings. If we're going to Mars just to study rocks and gather soil samples we should just use unmanned robotic missions.
If we're to pave the way for repeated future manned missions with clear goals of industrial-resource development and a growing population of Mars colonies then we really need to sit down and do some serious planning for a future on Mars.
We should include in those plans multiple transport vehicles which not only transport supplies and other bare neccessities, but also the things that would make a first landing the prelude to additional landings. And those things are a glider or refuelable aircraft for exploratory purposes. The capability to produce fuels on Mars, as well as a runway upon which to land and takeoff from the martian surface. With the information we currently have on martian soil chemistry we must learn how the soil composition can be utilized in construction of roads, runways, or other landing pads and facilities and habitable building materials. Martian cement. Do we have any idea of how we could produce simple cement from the martian soil for construction purposes? We have to build some basic foundations somehow.
"glider or reuelable aircraft"??? "runway upon which to land"???
What kind of cheese have you been eating?
There is not enough atmosphere on Mars to float a balsa wood airplane using the thrust of a 747 from a featherlight engine.
A HELIUM balloon could not be made small enough, big enough, light enough, full enough, or empty enough to get off the ground on Mars (or whatever else one calls the surface of the place) with any technology we know of. (I could be technically wrong on that, but it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference to the argument.)
Obviously this site is populated by Darth Skywalker / Luke Vader comic-book reading teens who dream as big as the clouds without ever yet having had to pay for their own shoes.
John - so how do you explain the use of parachutes to slow the entry of the probes Opportunity and Spirit? It is because of Mars' atmosphere, it is just a different mix and lower pressures. If you hit it wrong, you will bounce off or burn up. It just doen't happen as quickly as with Earth. Besides, if there is enough atmosphere to stir up the huge dust storms, then there is enough atmosphere for winged aircraft. A little knowledge about aeronautics could have helped you understand that. For a comparison, the mean atmospheric pressure on Mars is 0.1675 psi, on Earth at the altitude that commercial aircraft flies, the pressure is 0.0147 psi, which clearly shows that baloons and aircraft can fly in a Martian atmosphere.
Not to mention the lower gravity.
How big, how heavy the vehicle need not matter IF the vehicle is assembled in space. A consortium of tech nations has over several years assembled the ISS from manageable components built on Earth and then sent into near space rendezvous. Only a few astronaut "construction techs" were needed to complete the hook-ups. The same technique can be applied to assembling a Lunar base, or a Mars expedition. Send the components into near space, assemble the vehicles(s) and then launch to the objective. The Moon is ever so close, an active exploration colony could be sent in components to be assembled or connected on the Lunar surface by a corps of construction techs (incidentally I spent a few decades in construction, so i am coming from a 'we build it' pov) Same w Mars. Send the habitats, a plutoniuum reactor energy source, the supply freighters, the machinery, robots, vehicles, send them all first. Then send in the humans. And don't expect them to be home in time for Christmas dinner! If 'we' intend to send willing human explorers into the Hi-frontier, out to other moons and planets, 'we' must prepare 'them' to stay there, maybe for the duration of their lives. Remember, Cortez burned his ships so that his 400 or so men would have no choice but to go forward into a strange, hostile and, for them, completely unexplored realm. To inhabit The Moon or Mars will take generations and there will be no shortage of adventurers ready willing and able to take up the challenge!
No sane person will ever try to go to Mars.
No person sane or otherwise will ever go there and return.
1. The human species will not exist in 2033.
2. Aside from that, no one would ever trust a machine to keep them alive all to the way to Mars and back for as long as there are spare tires on cars.
Columbus had air, drinking water, and food everywhere he went. The complete failure of his propulsion system would not have been a threat to life, since the ocean currents would have eventually brought him and his crew somewhere.
There's no air on Mars, less in space.
There's no water on Mars, less in space. (Even if we have found traces of the CHEMICAL H2O)
There's no food on Mars, less in space.
"At the time of the end there shall be earthquakes in diverse places . . ." "men fainting in fear of what is coming over the world. . ." We are approaching the Last Day, ladies and gentlemen. The signs are pressing in on us from all sides. Anyone who can't see them has his/her/its androgynous head shoved in a drainpipe. You go to hell if you don't believe it. That's not a pejorative. Just a fact.
"What manner of people ought you to be . . . seeing that the World and all its works shall be burned up . . .the elements being dissolved with fervent heat . . . ?" . . . perhaps when they finally get that last bug worked out of the Large Hadron Collider . . . ?
Mock on, atheists.
You'll never live long enough to see a trip to Mars.
Populate the distant planets? You people are the blindest. There is zero chance of man going out into space to stay alive as a species. Speed of light limitations. These facts are plain and obvious to any thinking person. Columbus had a financial reason to go, a spiritual mandate (go ye forth and teach all nations), a habitable path, and the likelihood of success within a matter of months. The doped-out space freaks who refuse to see the absolute nature of the limitation imposed by the speed of light on fanciful science fiction notions about deep space travel and the inhospitable limitations imposed by every body in near space are not too strangely the same doubters that refuse to see the true path that goes forward from the Earth -- beyond death and the resurrection of the body. And it isn't some fictional future generation that faces the death dilemma, it's every living human being right now. Quit pretending that's something to be solved SOMEDAY for some generation facing extinction SOMEDAY. Death is so very TODAY, a reality O ye simple ones.
There is only one way out of this world. Like the man said in the song, I'll never get out of this world alive. The path away from this planet entails the death of an earthling any way you look at it.
An honorable death, however, offers the promise of eternal life. The Gospel has been with us for 2000 years, the doctrine of eternal life twice that. It still has the ring of truth to intelligent moral people. (Again, mock on, you smarter than everyone else--but not any wiser than dung--atheists.)
Oh, that's right, the point everyone keeps pretending to overlook. Truth, the moral entity.
Only one answer to the question "Which way?" is True. Only that answer is also MORAL.
So, what's your point? Ya think Jesus doesn't want us to go to Mars or elsewhere in space?
Virtually all the facts you allege as obvious in this rant are completely false.
Oh what fools these mortals be!
So. I normally wouldn't comment on trash responses like the one above, but I will anyway.
1. The human species won't exist in 2033.....why?
2. Humans won't trust machines with their lives.....except submarine crew...and aircraft crew..and every hospital patient...and every motorist...and the entire human race since nuclear weapons are controlled by (and technically are themselves) machines.
3. Food and water take up space, and on evevn a large boat Columbus only had enough supplies to make it so far. He was depending on landing somewhere. Many people have been stranded at sea and starved to death.
4. There is air on Mars. It is just different.
5. There is no water on Mars. Still under debate and the focus of SEVERAL robotic missions by SEVERAL countries (but I'm sure they don't know what they're doing...) Also...that "chemical H20"...its called water. It's in your drinking cup. Get aquainted.
6. No food on Mars. Well not yet. We haven't set up farms yet.
7. Earthquakes...fire and brimstone..etc. Yep. Those happen. All the time. They suck.
8. "You're going to hell" is a perjorative statement...even if you don't beleive it is. And 'fact' mean empirically verifiable, which the modern christian faith is NOT. That's why it's called FAITH.
9. I'll never live long enough to see a mission to mars. Well they got to the moon in under a decade! And what type of computer were YOU using in the seventies. Yeah, I didn't think so.
10. Speed of light limitations. Yes. That is unfortunate. Fortunately, however, there are stars close enough to reach in about 100-300 years. It isn't that long when you think about it. Also, only a speed of light limitation if you have mass. We're bound to figure out gravity someday.
11. Only one way out of this world? Many men have braved the less desirable and obvious path for a chance at the alternative. And I think they would disagree that it isn't worthwile.
12. An honorable death? Like doing what? Maybe braving the last bastion of adventure that humanity has left and bravely risking comfort and life to put life in a new place and what it can do?
So, as reterry pointed out, everything you allege as fact in this post are misinformed at best and wildly imaginitive at worst. Take heart though, we will leave you here when we go and you can die on earth in anyway that you see fit. I would only ask the same courtesy from you, and let us brave souls that would venture out from our home die in a way that WE see fit.
Also, not everyone interested in science or space is an atheist. There are those that look at the marvelous creation of existence and instead of box it up and contain it in 66 books, we choose to investigate, explore, and try to make sense of this thing. It is certain that mo matter how advanced of a species we become, we will NEVER unlock the power of true creation.
Say we do go to Mars, set up a colony, and get established there - what happens next? Most likly the same that led to the Revolutationary War. The colony will get the idea that they do not need earth to govern them, In time they will want to be a free and independent government. Then comes the hostility toward earth and the fight to become independent. With the massive investment that earth would have in the colony we would never want to give up control, too much money to be lost. Now we have an interplanetary war on our hands. Heck we can't get along with each other on earth, how we going to manage it on a planetary scale?
Yes it is all scifi! Right now. But so was a space station and so were Moon landings, jet planes and nuclear power circa 1935. You have to start with I-magination. If 'it' can't be imagined in the mind it cannot be constructed in reality. Can't fly on Mars? Consider the U-2. It flies where there is practically no air. And the gravity differential between Earth and Mars? Look it up! Far easier to overcome gravs on Mars than here on Earth. Thin air flight dynamics are very well understood. Can't live in a confined artificial habitat? Certainly such a life would be different, but not at all impossible nor even unpleasant. Living beings, that includes the plants and animals 'we' will eventually take out there with us, can be protected from leathal radiations, can create a comfortable, liveable environment, with breathable air, potable water, heat, light, hvac and sewerage. In fact everything necessary to sustain a civilization can be created if there is the will to do so! Inhabiting The Moon and Mars present fabulous challenges, extraordinary adventures and a vast trove of useful mineral treasures to be discovered.
But.. Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
Yeah, the neighborhoods are terrible. Gang violence everywhere.
And there's no one there to raise them....
There is one major purpose for going to mars that I think will remain beyond
robotic capability for some time to come.
Exploration of mars and setting up a research outpost for the primary purpose
of determining if life exists there...or ever existed there. I suspect it will
be very simplistic to suppose that finding life on mars will be so easy that
we will do so after just one or more robotic missions landing in a few
areas on mars. Even a human mission may not find life by landing at
just one site.
Even if a robotic probe finds life, or the results that indicate possible
living organisms. How many earth based scientists will confirm it? How many
scientists would honestly lay their reputations and indeed, the reputation
of science itself on the results reported by a few robots?
Look what happened with Viking and the ALH001 discoveries. Viking initially
reported results that appeared to be produced by organic activity within its
three life searching experiments. Before long, the scientific community
became divided ad eventually, a verdict of no life was favored. The
results could be explained by martian chemical interactions
within the Viking experiments.
And thats as it should be in properly done science.
Robotic craft can be sent out to do initial investigations and if they
report back that some kind of evidence for living organisms are present,
human missions should follow to confirm undeniably that life is or was
present on mars.
These days, people...even pro space exploration types...wonder about the
necessity of Human Space Flight (HSF). If ever there was a need for HSF, I
think making the greatest discovery in several hundred years would qualify
to justify future HSF.
Going to mars to establish a place for humans should we screw up earth does
not sound very logical. Especially in the near term. People talk of terraforming
mars as though its as easy as building a highway. We are actively terraforming
earth right now without knowing to what extent, or what the end result will
be. And we think we can terraform Mars?
Thats technology that may become available millinia from now.
Same with going there to avoid an asteroid impact. It would be much simpler
to build a defense system here on earth to protect from asteroid impact. Not
to mention going to mars to avoid asteroid impact would be rather fruitless
if we get there and mars is whacked with a large asteroid.
Going beyond the solar system probably will occur one day but that day is
probably at least half a millinia away. To suggest we will never do it is
to suggest we have reached our limit as humans. One day probably before
this century ends...we are likely to have a very earthlike destination
to go to for whatever reason we chose to go.
If that destination is found...it is likely to provide the impetus for
us reaching it long before half a millinia is up.
I agree that we will someday go to Mars and beyond. The question is whether that time is now. On that point I disagree. There is currently no compelling reason to expend the enormous resources needed for HSF to Mars. Your main point in the affirmative, that robonauts can't determine the question of whether life exists or once existed on Mars, is in error. We learned from the Viking mission and will send ever more capable landers to Mars that will answer that question in the affirmative, if it is true. Of course, it would take many, many decades of negative data to reach the opposite conclusion, if evidence of life is not found. Let's expend our resources wisely on science rather than patriotic, Buck Rogers stunts.
In error?
Robotic craft cannot determine when something can be definitively considered organic or chemical reactions.
Humans have shown that right here on earth, they cannot agree on what consitutes life short of squirmers.
I do not foresee any near term technological advancements that would allow
robots to do the job alone. Especially when they start to get budgets large enough for space
exploration critics to notice.
As for "Whether the time is now", well, the time will
never come as long as we expect to solve earthly problems
and then move on. The search for extraterrestrial life is
the best compelling reason I can see to go to mars.
And I mention earthly problems because "The time is
now" thinking is almost always related to getting our
financial house in order which if the past three decades
of deficits and debt is any indication...is never going
to happen.
Yes, human mars missions will be expensive, but I'm
not calling for them in my lifetime (55 now). Federal
government auditors just reported wasted $125 B in 2010
alone on improper spending in the programs so many folks
think we should halt NASA activity for. Six times NASAs
current budget wasted! And this goes on every year.
We did had surplusses in the second half of the 1990s, the first surplusses since 1969. At the time, we
were trying to replace the shuttle. And I do not recall anyone saying we should work on NASA now that we have some surplus money. A surplus that for one of the four years was three
times NASAs budget at that time.
And I would not advocate going to mars anyway until we
got economical access to low orbit which had the potential
for reducing the expense of a human mars mission. These
days, I don't bother advocating it beyond what I say
in these forums because far as I'm concerned...its
over for NASA human spaceflight, so humans to
mars is out of the question.
So when will there be a compelling reason to go?
You have more faith in robotic exploration than I do.
And don't get me wrong...I think the robotic probes are
fantastic. Pathfinder, Opportunity, Spirit and Phoenix
to mention the most notable probes. But when it comes
to answering the question about life, the big
enchilada for science and the public. I think
were expecting a bit too much from robotic
craft.
I suspect it will be decades before answering the question in any meaningful way if we rely on just robots. And then you can count on a substantial portion of the scientific world disputing the results because the results came from robots alone. Not to mention critics who
complain on a few billions spent when non space related improper spending climbs and the
national debt reaches $20 trillion and counting.
I should point out that I favor sending robotic craft, perhaps sample return craft prior to humans. Sample return could answer the question definitively provided the samples do not become chemically altered by death or other processes that could contribute to hampering the definitive conclusion of whether the returned sample constitues living organisms.
And I would say that there is one exception to human missions that could work in your favor.
If we see them squirm under robotic eyes...then I think life on mars would be a pretty safe confirmation and humans would not have to go. Some may still dispute that finding but the general
consensus would be favorable.
But having that almost fairy tale outcome, is highly unlikely.
Mike-South Carolina
Almost forgot...I don't consider the question of the ages to
be a patriotic stunt. If that is what you think the search for
extraterrestrial life is...then just what would you be for in
HSF? And you say humans will get to mars sometime. When would
that be if the time is not good at some near point in the
future. Just when will it be good?
In fact, it's cold as hell
Unfortunately, at the end of the Apollo missions, the budget was cut for NASA. America and the world lost interest in space. Space should be a top priority. Colonizing Mars and other worlds. Right now, as a species, we have all our "eggs in one basket." This is not smart, we are vulnerable in so many ways.
The argument for feeding our species is not a good one. We have always had homeless people and underfed people, as the population grows this will continue. Some people choose to be homeless, while unfortunately others end up that way because of circumstances.
Hopefully, these private companies will be able to do what government agencies have not, and get some eggs out of the basket,.
I love the way that people who put down the technology or the use of technology to advance our species as in :
"Oh Yeeaaa! Lets spend millions of dollars (or billions) and go to a planet that is uninhabital for us humans. WoW! We are so smart."
Are the first to start bitching when their iPod stops working or the electricity goes off. He obviously has no clue as to the potential benefits these missions could provide. Gee...maybe there might be some minerals there that are getting scarce on Earth or may not even exist on Earth any one of which potentially could provide some further breakthrough in technology that we haven't yet foreseen.
Yeah let's just hide our heads in the sand and waste billions, as someone earlier said so succinctly. so fat chicks can sit at home and pop out kids....
It's really very simple. The technological and science advances that will be gained from the start of the project to many years afterwards says YES. The advancement of the Human species to other worlds and development of those worlds says YES.
The Human spirit to gain an understanding of the unknown, to always look to the stars and say "Is there more" and the drive to explore that unknown says YES.
This should be a global effort in all aspects and not that of just the USA. It’s the Global community that needs to reap the benefits and rewards of such a program….
YES...we must go...
Kick the tires and light the fires Amen!!!