Recent Mars and upcoming Moon Projects

[Ice]

Hi

I think it's really cool that you can see all these mars pictures now and that they are going to have a look for water etc there and I have just read that Bush probably wants to establish a permanent moon base which I think would be great if it can be accomplished. All these projects are very interesting imo and it's good that NASA are not keeping all information for themselves.

What's your opinion on this subject?

 

[Martz]

Hi

I think it's really cool that you can see all these mars pictures now and that they are going to have a look for water etc there and I have just read that Bush probably wants to establish a permanent moon base which I think would be great if it can be accomplished. All these projects are very interesting imo and it's good that NASA are not keeping all information for themselves.

What's your opinion on this subject?

a waste of money in my opinion. Will the cost:benefit ratio really be worth the $billions spent on getting some photos of a planet? If they find water, they will speculate about what life was on the planet or may still exist.

My #1 problem with most US expenditure/Bush is that their priorities are all wrong. There are desolate places on earth with life and people suffering which would benefit mankind greater with fresh water, rather than trying to find water on a planet a million miles away with nobody on it.

Don't get me wrong, it is interesting stuff and our Solar System does interest me. I just don't think we deserve another planet to fuckup after what we've done, and continue to do to it in Modern Times. Can we fix this one first please?

 

[Spirit]

I do agree with your pov martz, it's awful to see so much money being spend on what appears to be unimportant things when there is so much need on our own planet, but what about the long term future? Earth is rapidly becoming overcrowded and our society is such that polution and global warming etc are really too far gone to be sorted out - we depend far too much on natural resources and our society produces far too much polution to change in a way that would benefit the planet to any great extent. It is really inevitable in a few hundred years that we will need a second planet to accomodate the human race, be it from overcrowding or becausewe have trashed this one. If we don't make a start on finding suitable places now then you may find it's too late, so basically what you are saying is that you'd rather see the human race die out in what will probably be horrendous conditions rather than spead out over another planet?

 

[Hector]

Martz is spot on. The Yanks pulling out of the Kyoto protocol (and thereby indirectly influencing the Russians to do the same) while being the biggest producer of greenhouse gases on the planet (20% emissions for 4% of the world population) is just sick. Reports of thousands of species being wiped out in the next 50 years have been produced and Blair's chief scientist slagging Bush directly for not doing anything about it.
But hey! Let's all get into space again and forget about that! Let's ignore the damage to the planet and concentrate on a tiny percentage of people killed by terrorists! Keep the fear alive, keep control, don't mend anything that doesn't have a high enough profile to keep getting us elected and don't uspet the fossil fuel companies.

 

[Hector]

If we don't make a start on finding suitable places now then you may find it's too late, so basically what you are saying is that you'd rather see the human race die out in what will probably be horrendous conditions rather than spead out over another planet?

Or we could encourage people to exercise some responsibility in reproducing. There's not reason why it's morally wrong to attempt to stop us propogating ourselves out of existence. If people don't understand or care, then make them.

 

[Spirit]

Or we could encourage people to exercise some responsibility in reproducing. There's not reason why it's morally wrong to attempt to stop us propogating ourselves out of existence. If people don't understand or care, then make them.

Yes, absolutely we should do everything we can to prevent overcrowding and everything we can to stop polution, however call me cynical but I can't see that in a few hundred years time everything will be rosey and the world will be living in harmony. All it could take would be one nuclear war and pretty much the whole earth could be uninhabitable, never mind the long term problems such as polution and overcrowding.

To have another planet with humans living on it could be the difference between the extinction of the human race or not, and I think it should be an option that is investigated alongside doing everything we can to resolve current problems (but I do agree it's a shame most people aren't doing everything they can to resolve the problems).

 

[Hector]

To have another planet with humans living on it could be the difference between the extinction of the human race or not, and I think it should be an option that is investigated

For me the problem lies in the 'option' being investigated costing billions of monies that could be better used sorting out our current problems, thus negating the need for another planet in the first place. If we DID manage to get to another planet it would simply be the same thing all over again. I don't see how we can run away from our problems.

Plus, we have a problem being heard down here anyway, And, as everyone knows, in space no one can hear you scream.

 

[Spirit]

For me the problem lies in the 'option' being investigated costing billions of monies that could be better used sorting out our current problems, thus negating the need for another planet in the first place. If we DID manage to get to another planet it would simply be the same thing all over again. I don't see how we can run away from our problems..

But if you ignore the option now you may suddenly find you need it urgently and its too late... I think it would be naive to just bury ours heads in the sand and hope that we manage to get things sorted out ok. As I said, I find it very very hard to picture a world living in harmony in a few hundred years time.

I don't think we really have any choice, it's unfortunate that it costs so damn much, but we need to have that option open to us...

Plus, we have a problem being heard down here anyway, And, as everyone knows, in space no one can hear you scream

Well yes, but that's a whole other can of worms

 

[Hector]

I don't think we really have any choice, it's unfortunate that it costs so damn much, but we need to have that option open to us...

I think you just wnt to run around with a phaser and shoot aliens lol.

If we can make a planet like Mars habitable then we can certainly fix this one. And if we haven't learned to look after it in the time it would take to find a new planet to live on then we should give up now and let the nukes fly.

 

[Martz]

Indeed, in the long term we do need to find another planet to either provide us with a new home, or fuel and resources for the next few hundred years. We should be checking out alternatives and options, even if it does cost $billions. But the current problems on Earth do need addressing, yesterday (actually about 15 years ago). But I don't think thats the purpose of this thread. Ultimately what can we learn from the research?

Well from reading /. this morning on the Mars situation, some interesting thoughts from people posting there:

• Positives
  • The potential for unprecedented scientific discovery which may uncover something completely unique and usefull to mindkind and earth - which could be priceless.
  • Access to the asteroids which are stuffed with ore and fussion fuel, iron oxides etc (how we bring them back to Earth in 1 piece I don't know)
  • Information gathered from projects like these will encourage people to get interested in Physics and Science
• Negatives
  • Over 50% of the Earth is covered in water yet we are unable to provide clean water for the worlds population to drink.
  • Earth produces more food than we can all eat, yet we are still failing to distrubute it evenly around the world.
  • Space travel with chemical propulsion ius as good as it's going to get, in the past 30 years essentially no progress ahs been made.
• Neutral facts
  • NASA's budget is ~$15 billion per year, and Bush has requested a $500 million increase for 2004.
  • 2 billion individuals survive on this planet on less than $2 each per day - $15bn / 2 billion = $7.5 each per person, per day. Thats the current salary of 2 billion people in this world having it's daily income trippled and lifted slightly above the poverty line.

If we "contribute what we can to society and only take what we need" then Earth would be a damn fine place.

 

[Hector]

I'd like to disassociate myself from my earlier remark about Marz being spot on, he's clearly gone all Spocky

 

[Ice]

i actually didn't consider the costs at all, because:

1. there would be enough other financial ways to provide everybody with food and clean water, they are aswell not being used (weapons for example. if the US paid 1/3 of what they pay for weapons a year to poor people, they all could survive. and i would think that weapons are a better thing to give up than NASA projects)
2. honestly, if everybody had enough money, food and clean water, the world would not be what it is today. it only became like this, because rich people abuse the poor people as cheap factories.

i just think the mars projects themselves are amazing and i am curious about the things they will find (if they find any) and how it could change life in the near/distant future.

 

[jwer_NL]

a waste of money in my opinion. Will the cost:benefit ratio really be worth the $billions spent on getting some photos of a planet? If they find water, they will speculate about what life was on the planet or may still exist.

My #1 problem with most US expenditure/Bush is that their priorities are all wrong. There are desolate places on earth with life and people suffering which would benefit mankind greater with fresh water, rather than trying to find water on a planet a million miles away with nobody on it.

Don't get me wrong, it is interesting stuff and our Solar System does interest me. I just don't think we deserve another planet to fuckup after what we've done, and continue to do to it in Modern Times. Can we fix this one first please?

hmm, the second world war caused a big leap in technology, but the spacerace after caused almost as much a technology surge.... don't forget that MANY of todays gadgets (computers, microwaves etc...) where invented then

Many of those technologies save lifes today and upgraded the overall level of life in many countries... it could well be that the technology benefits from these researches provide a more permanent solution to people's problems nowadays...

it might seem not the best spending now, but the long term consequences could be more far stretching then everyone here thinks...

and what are we talking about here? 500 million? that's halve a billion extra? as far as i know the war in Iraq costed 300 billion EXTRA over the standard 200 billion the army usually has...

500 million is laughable and with that amount it really looks nothing more then a way to try and gain votes... and it'll never get em to mars, or to a permanent base on the moon...

 

[Andy]

Re:

We should do it just becuase it is there to be done. We need to strive to challenge ourselves. There is no room left on this planet I think Mars will be colonised eventually, maybe not in my life time but eventually it will. I see no reason at all why we shouldnt do it, all Martz points are valid, but why can we not do that as well? There is more than enough money, the reasons behind those facts are political not monetary.

 

[Martz]

hmm, the second world war caused a big leap in technology, but the spacerace after caused almost as much a technology surge.... don't forget that MANY of todays gadgets (computers, microwaves etc...) where invented then

Many of those technologies save lifes today and upgraded the overall level of life in many countries... it could well be that the technology benefits from these researches provide a more permanent solution to people's problems nowadays...

it might seem not the best spending now, but the long term consequences could be more far stretching then everyone here thinks...

I agree that in the 60's when we managed to launch ourselves into space, technology got a damn site better because it had too. Innovation is a good thing however in todays Modern World innovation does not affect the world, it just bumps up the shares of a company who has patented the technoligy. Innovation is suffering every day because of patents and corporate oppression. Information and knowledge is an incredibly expensive resource, the investment by the US Goverment into NASA will probably see the results given to a private company, patented, and then sold on.

How about investing more more more, in technology which directly saves lives, not technology which will simply make rich people richer. Like AIDS/HIV/TB? Are we going to find a cure for this on Mars?

and what are we talking about here? 500 million? that's halve a billion extra? as far as i know the war in Iraq costed 300 billion EXTRA over the standard 200 billion the army usually has...

500 million is laughable and with that amount it really looks nothing more then a way to try and gain votes... and it'll never get em to mars, or to a permanent base on the moon...

Exactly my point: $500 million is nothing in the scope of the US goverment, yet they only donated $100,000 to help the 20,000+ people killed and (40,000+ homeless) people in Iran, following what is one of the worst natural disasters in recent times. $500 million could stop human suffering for many 1000's of people around the world. Theres also around ~20 million US citizens, living in the glorious US of A, who are below the poverty line, some out of work, some on the streets, some in part time work and trying to pay the bills because they receive such crappy wages. They are earning LESS today, than they did in 1970, in real dollars. If this is how they treat their own people, you really think they give a damn about Iraqis? Where the world will live in 500 years time and if there is another planet to put them on?

The simple fact is that the US goverment is not interested in policies which affect mankind and the rest of the world, they are interested in making investors richer, and protected their own personal interests.

But this isn't the thread at hand, i've turned it into another anti-US goverment thread. So if we're interested in debating the morals of the US lets start another thread on it.

 

[Martz]

We should do it just becuase it is there to be done. We need to strive to challenge ourselves.

Sort out the world is the biggest challenge going, and will take decades to rectify if we started today.

There is no room left on this planet I think Mars will be colonised eventually, maybe not in my life time but eventually it will. I see no reason at all why we shouldnt do it, all Martz points are valid, but why can we not do that as well? There is more than enough money, the reasons behind those facts are political not monetary.

But we'll just do the same to Mars, and eventually have to move on to Mercury with us all wearing heat suits. If you were given a ball to play with, and you broke it on purpose, should you get another one? And aren't you likely to break it again?

Leave Mars alone. It looks nice up there.

 

[Ajax]

erm the way we fucked up earth is exactly what would be needed on mars the greenhouse efect would help towards a liveable atmospere on mars as it would heat up the planet and provide the cabon dioxide needed for plant life. Mars is probaly the best bet the moon may be closer but mars has prospects. One thing though even if mars was made liveable it wouldnt help the overpopulation on earth one little bit, well not unless you can invent something that transports huge amounts of ppl in one go as the birth rate will always be higher than rockets can transport away.

At the moment all earths eggs are in one basket and a very unstable one it is atm, makes sense to go looking for a new stable one but it also makes sense to fix the old basket also.

i hearing about money and costs too much in this topic so heres a thought for you deep thinkers what if money was scrapped tomorrow ?

 

[Hector]

i hearing about money and costs too much in this topic so heres a thought for you deep thinkers what if money was scrapped tomorrow ?

Well presumably that would mean the end to starvation and equal opportunity for everyone on the planet, no matter where they- and I choose my words carefully here- had the misfortune to be born.

Andy, there are still plenty of challenges left on this planet. Maybe they don't all have the allure of space travel but they still exist as presently unreachable goals.

And before anyone laughs off the effects of global warming, while it's destroying millions of species there are a few specis that would thrive that I can think of. None are those which are considered 'cuddly' and lovable.

 

[Mughi]

Well, I think a moon base and eventually a Mars base is a great idea, yes, it will cost money, a lot of money, but we need to start somewhere.... Yes, the current planet has a ridiculous amount of problems - hunger being just one of them, reducing the spread of AIDS would help a great deal if we could stop the Catholic Church spouting bullshit about condomns not helping reduce chances of getting infected and you'll go to hell if you use them. Wouldnt cost that much to stop them. Corrupt governments arresting aide sent to help the starving would go a good way to preventing world hunger. But, for political reasons, those in power cant or wont do anything about these things. Throwing more money wont always help. So .... lets go to the moon, and mars and start again

Resourses is the main thing I can think of for going, not land. We are mighty close to wearing this world out before we figured out that burning oil isnt really gonna work forever, now we depend on it, but it wont be here forever. We need to find more, but we also need to figure out more efficient ways to produce fuel so we wont do just the same all over again.

All very pie in the sky, and Sci-Fi, but hey, its what I grew up reading

 

[Wintermute]

Can't we ever have a discussion about space technology without the age old "it's not worth the money" line?
;(

simple fact of the matter is that the expenditure on space research is a miniscule drop in the ocean compared to expenditure on arms and weaponry, and *that* is your main problem. Space research is neither here nor there: the problems of earth are not cause by NASA, they are caused by religion, by social injustice, by religion, by politics, by religion, by racism and fear, by religion... (you get the idea?)

eliminate the space program tomorrow, and give *every penny* to.. well, to what? medicine for the third world? the money would be stolen, and used to buy guns.. for birth control, and health programs? not with "jesus" bush in power you don't..

Personally, I think that mars and going back to the moon will open up another technology race, and benefit all of mankind... whilst the troublesome parts of mankind continue trying to klill each other, or persuade us to folow their imaginary friend.

It's the assumption that you *cannot* solve the problems of the world until the human population matures a great deal, and there's no point sitting on our hands waiting for it to happen, or worse, pouring money and resources into a neverending chasm whilst we wait!