Space...the final frontier?

[jewscout]

Mars seems like the next logical step in space travel...what do ya'll think?
and why haven't we been doing more since the Apollo missions as far as exploring beyond our own orbit?

 

[Draka]

Have you ever seen the movie Mission to Mars? That is so awesome! Wouldn't it really screw with our whole way of thinking if that was true? I think it's possible.

 

[michel]

Mars seems like the next logical step in space travel...what do ya'll think?
and why haven't we been doing more since the Apollo missions as far as exploring beyond our own orbit?

D'you know, Jewscout, I must be a real misery. When talk comes up about space exploration, and the costs involved, I think of the still unchartered territories on our own Earth; I think of the sick, the poor and the hungry.......but then, I have always believed that charity begins at home.

 

[Doc]

Mars is definately the next step, but only the beginning of our travels into space. Since we have discovered and found everything there is to find on Earth, space travel is definately the final frontier.

Landing on the moon was a big step for us. But I mean, the moon is just a bunch of rocks and there is only so much you can do there. I would say within the next half century, we will see mankind on mars. But we must reduce the amount of time it takes to get there first and be able to have enough supplies. It will be quite an awesome thing to see though!

 

[Engyo]

Jewscout -

I have a friend who works for NASA; he was at one time assigned to Mars mission planning. I haven't spoken to him recently; I guess I should check up on him.......

Michel -

My view is that this planet is essentially a closed system. The human race has two choices; change much of what it means to BE essentially human, so that we can comfortably exist within that closed system (ZPG, total sustainability, etc.) or expand beyond the confines of Earth. Which one do you think is more likely? The choice I see being played out most is expansion by far. Whether this is a good choice or not, is something each of us must decide for ourselves.

 

[Jaymes]

We've still got the vast majority of the ocean to explore! I don't think we're quite ready for manned space exploration yet.

 

[jimbob]

you all are wrong, Alaska is the final frontier. It say so right on their state motto!!

 

[Caprice]

While I agree Mars is one of the next logical steps, it isn't the next step. I think we need to have a manned moon installation first. It should be easier to then use the moon as a testbed for technologies we'll need to do the same on mars, and it would be easier to get people home in an emergency (less than a week travel compared to almost a year).

Just my two cents.

I also agree that we have a lot of ocean to explore... but the funny thing is it seems like it is cheaper to go to space than it is to get to the bottom of our own oceans... :banghead3

 

[painted wolf]

maybe we should get Lunar travel down before we jump all the way to Mars?:bonk:

wa:do

 

[Druidus]

Guys, hate to break it to you, but Mars is a long ways off. First of all, Mars is a lot more massive than the moon. This means that it will be harder to lift off, which means extra fuel would be required, making it even harder to take off on Earth. A small lander couldn't be used either, because no matter how much fuel you have, it doesn't have the power. You'd need to land a space shuttle. But there are no runways.

There's only one solution to the problem, I think. Terraforming. Bring massive CO2 emitters to Mars, in order to release large amounts of CO2, causing a warming (it's a tad colder than most would prefer). From this, drop biome generators, which release plants (based on latitude information (find where they live on Earth, then release them around that area on Mars). Sooner or later, plants will catch, causing oxygen levels to increase. The next step is to release non-humans there, to balance the plants (this is the hardest step). The problem is balancing the food chain, without destroying it.

Finally, when you've got all this (maybe 50-60 years of work, probably more), a human team can be sent down, with the purpose of building a runway to land shuttles (and build a base as well).

One interesting thing to note is that Mars is approximately 2/3 as massive as Earth. This means that the force of gravity is only 66% that of Earth. Whether this would cause bone defects or such from humans and animals born there is unknown, but it would certainly make full grown "Martians" unable to "return" to Earth normally. Perhaps you'd get an entire new species of human, due to the very different physical needs.

 

[Caprice]

Guys, hate to break it to you, but Mars is a long ways off. First of all, Mars is a lot more massive than the moon. This means that it will be harder to lift off, which means extra fuel would be required, making it even harder to take off on Earth. A small lander couldn't be used either, because no matter how much fuel you have, it doesn't have the power. You'd need to land a space shuttle. But there are no runways.

Runways aren't the biggest problem. You mention landing a space shuttle... not quite correct. The space shuttle's wingspan is only 26 meters, but due to the low density of the mars atmosphere, you would need a craft with a 153 meter wingspan (almost as wide as the Saturn V rocket is tall). I'd like to see someone launch something that big from earth LOL.

The moon will be a necesary point in space to launch us to other places... of this I'm nearly certain.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/k/v/kvc106/Space Shuttle.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vongboat.htm
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Saturn_rocket.html

 

[Druidus]

I assumed that to take the trip to Mars, you would need something large enough to carry shuttles with it, something too large to be built on Earth. Something built in space, on construction stations.

I don't think the moon is the way to go. There are no viable resources there, and little point in terraforming (which is likely impossible on such a place). It would always be a bleak moonscape (though beautiful in the right mindset, I'd hate it after a time).

 

[Caprice]

I assumed that to take the trip to Mars, you would need something large enough to carry shuttles with it, something too large to be built on Earth. Something built in space, on construction stations.

I don't think the moon is the way to go. There are no viable resources there, and little point in terraforming (which is likely impossible on such a place). It would always be a bleak moonscape (though beautiful in the right mindset, I'd hate it after a time).

I have a feeling we'll find the moon more useful if we just go and build a perminent presence there. There is no doubt in my mind that lunar rock could be refined into something useable for spaceship hulls, and if nothing else it would provide a low gravity location to build and launch larger ships.

I have also read that Helium 3 should be on the moon in sufficient amounts to provide fuel for fusion reactors once the technology is availible.

I agree entirely tho that there is no point in terraforming, but I also don't think there is any point in terraforming on mars either. I'm convinced that terraforming efforts would take thousands of years, not just 50 or 60 like I think was mentioned in a previous post. We can't even cause that much change on our own planent over 50 or 60 years (and I'd say we've tried pretty hard to the way we are polluting).

:jiggy:

 

[Scuba Pete]

I agree with Michel...

We have SOOOOO much to learn right here at home.

Go diving, and see how the other 2/3s of the world lives!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since we have discovered and found everything there is to find on Earth, space travel is definately the final frontier.

There is much more to be discovered on earth, including the oceans depths, many species of insects and animals, there are a few empty spots on the Element Chart (I forget proper name) incase some more elements are found, or created. Quarks of an atom are a relative new discovery, and it is very possible to find something even smaller. Cures for many diseases and disorders are out thier, waiting to be discovered.

Another problem with landing on mars is the strong winds. You wouldn't just need something large to land and take off, you would need something large, and able to be very stable in strong winds. The distance is another problem. I dont know if it is true or not, but I heard it would take about 9 months to get to mars. Thats a year and a half round trip. You would need a spacecraft that is able to carry enough supplies for this lenghty trip. You would also need a large team of maintenence people, because things will need repaired during that time. So if it does take 9 months to get thier, I don't see man going there any time soon.

 

[Druidus]

I have a feeling we'll find the moon more useful if we just go and build a perminent presence there. There is no doubt in my mind that lunar rock could be refined into something useable for spaceship hulls, and if nothing else it would provide a low gravity location to build and launch larger ships.

Well, rock is metal, so maybe. But I doubt it.

have also read that Helium 3 should be on the moon in sufficient amounts to provide fuel for fusion reactors once the technology is availible.

Hmm... I've never heard that before. Thank you.

I agree entirely tho that there is no point in terraforming, but I also don't think there is any point in terraforming on mars either. I'm convinced that terraforming efforts would take thousands of years, not just 50 or 60 like I think was mentioned in a previous post. We can't even cause that much change on our own planent over 50 or 60 years (and I'd say we've tried pretty hard to the way we are polluting).

We aren't trying to do it here. We're trying to stop it (most of us). The fact is that if Mars warms up, it becomes habitable (water is released). It warms up from CO2 being released on it (collected on Earth or produced in space). If plants live there, oxygen is created. If animals live there, CO2 is produced. It's a cycle, and once it's there, I think it will survive. Unlike the moon, Mars does actually have water on it in some places, which makes it terraformable. 50-60 years is optimistic though. 80-120 years is a better guess. Let's just say I won't be around for it (in my current body).

 

[Caprice]

We aren't trying to do it here. We're trying to stop it (most of us).

I disagree with this assessment. Based on the way people consume resources and pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (from powerplants, cars, etc.) I'd say we're trying pretty hard to teraform our planet via climate change, the same method I think you're proposing for mars.

Unlike the moon, Mars does actually have water on it in some places,

There is evidence to suggest that the moon has ice on it in certain places, just like mars, I'd guess in lower quantities but enough to make a base there less of a problem.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

I dont know if it is true or not, but I heard it would take about 9 months to get to mars. Thats a year and a half round trip.

I always had the impression it was more like 2 and a half years round trip because they'd have to wait for the planets to align again to a close(er) proximity before they could make the trip back home -- probably to reduce their fuel needs.

Can't seem to find any reference material on the subject at the moment, but I have a rather grumpy baby wanting my attention. LOL

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

D'you know, Jewscout, I must be a real misery. When talk comes up about space exploration, and the costs involved, I think of the still unchartered territories on our own Earth; I think of the sick, the poor and the hungry.......but then, I have always believed that charity begins at home.

This was what I was going to say. There is vast oceans that remain unexplored, and I think it would be easier to build under the sea, than in space. Unless of course they know something we don't, like maybe the earth is not going to be a choice in the future. Maybe they just plan on using it up then throwing it away.

 

[Druidus]

I disagree with this assessment. Based on the way people consume resources and pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (from powerplants, cars, etc.) I'd say we're trying pretty hard to teraform our planet via climate change, the same method I think you're proposing for mars.

We are not actively attempting to terraform our world. It is merely a side effect of the fuel sources we use. The release on Mars would be equal to more than a hundred times what is released in one year on Earth. Enough to heat it up rapidly.

I always had the impression it was more like 2 and a half years round trip because they'd have to wait for the planets to align again to a close(er) proximity before they could make the trip back home -- probably to reduce their fuel needs.

Fuel is only needed when you are taking off and landing. In space, you don't need fuel, because nothing is causing you to stop.

 

[Engyo]

This was what I was going to say. There is vast oceans that remain unexplored, and I think it would be easier to build under the sea, than in space.

Both present vast engineering challenges. The challenges are in some ways the same and in others very different. We aren't currently evolved for comfortable existence in either of those environments without extensive technological intervention. When (not if) that intervention fails, people WILL die, in either environment. That is part of the cost of moving to occupy environments we are not evolved for. If we are not willing to pay the cost, then we need to eliminate the human drive to expand, to grow, to continually bring more children and more people into existence; so as to be able to live in a sustainable balance with the planet's resources. I don't currently see any viable method for doing this; does anyone else?

Unless of course they know something we don't, like maybe the earth is not going to be a choice in the future. Maybe they just plan on using it up then throwing it away.

The problem with the statement above is that there is no THEY; there is only WE. If WE (the entire human race) cannot control our growth rates and our appetites (for resources and physical space), then WE must have some way out of the essentially closed system that this planet is, whether that be into the oceans (which are still a closed system) and/or off the planet and into first the solar system and later the universe. If anyone can see a third choice, I'd be really interested in understanding it.