Mars Missions - Why does everyone love Mars?

[paulolearysp]

I'm amazed by the number of satelites that we have circling Mars, on their way, or planned. Why do the space agencies love Mars so much? <br /><br />Is it only because it's relatively cheap to get there? Or is it because it has little atmosphere so it's easy to take photos? Or is it because we more or less know how to get there, and going to the other planets are too hot for us to handle? How about a trip to land on Saturn, Jupiter or Venus? I understand there's a lot of uncertainty whether there is even land to land on at Jupiter and Saturn. Is the technology just not there yet?<br /><br />For the rest of the solar system, the other planets are lucky to get one new visitor a decade.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Even though Venus is like Earth's twin planet, in terms of size and mass at least, Mars is a lot more Earth-like, and hence is the most interesting planet. It's also one that's relatively easy to get to (in terms of interplanetary travel)! Landing men on Venus would be cool, if they wouldn't be crushed or melt in mere seconds! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

For many of the reasons expressed above I guess. Me, I've never been especially fascinated by it over and above any of the other planets. That would probably change if I felt we had a <i><b>realistic</b></i> capability to set up a continuous human presence on the planet. <br /><br />Flags and footprints just don't inspire me, even if it was 6-12 months of flags and footprints. The money involved in mounting that kind of mission would be better spent undertaking a bigger mission to the Moon. I'd much prefer to see us get the hang of a continuous human presence there first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I believe it's largely the search for life that has a spotlight on Mars. It seems almost like they refrain from sending a highly-capable life detecting testbed to the planet because if it is found to be lifeless (more likely) then much of the motivation for mars missions will go away. <br /><br />Mars also happens to be the only planet that we could land on with relative ease. Mercury is too hot, venus is too hot and too big - and you have to go to pluto to find the next nearest planet that isn't gaseous. <br /><br />ESA doesn't have a manned program, so they aren't spending resources doing precurser missions to manned expeditions.

 

[spayss]

Outside of the Moon (why return?), Mars is the only realistic planet or other moon humans have a chance of stepping on before the end of the 21st century. It's the only 'North Pole' or 'South pole' or 'source of the Nile' or 'Mt Everest' within the outer limits of potential technology in the next hundred years. Mars provides the energy and enthusiasm to continue manned exploration. I'm one of those that think probes will find out all the big unknowns about Mars in the next 50 years and, when we have the technology to send a human, people will shrug and ask 'why'?.

 

[scottb50]

when we have the technology to send a human, people will shrug and ask 'why'?.....<br /><br />We have the technology right now. Why, because its the unknown. did louis and Clark start out expecting to accompish all they did? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

ALL THESE PROBES ARE UNNECESSARY WASTAGE OF MONEY.nOW WE SHOULD LAND IN MARSDIREST.Robert zubrin has been talking about it since long.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

It's the three Cs - cost, convenience & colonisation.<br /><br />Cost and convenience are interlinked. The two principle costs are that of the spacecraft and that of the launcher. Spacecraft that go outside Mars' orbit have to be nuclear-powered (solar intensity is too low); they have to be more reliable - as it takes years simply to get there. They have to deal with intense radiation environments. They need bigger antennaes etc. They're bigger and are going further so need a bigger, more expensive launcher. And they take years to get there, and need an operations team all that time. Things get worse when you consider the cost per scientific return <i>per annum</i>.<br /><br />Launch windows are more infrequent for the outer planets than for Mars, where there's one every couple of years. Related to this is the risk. It's one thing to lose a $150 million craft at Mars that took months to get there and there's another window within two years. It's another to lost a $ billion craft that took six or seven years to get there, and you'd have to wait nearly as long for the next window.<br /><br />Venus is probably the same cost as Mars for an orbiter. A lander is another matter, as you have to cope with 1g, and severe atmospheric pressure and temperatures. Landers on Venus last <i>hours</i>, whereas the Vikings and the Rovers have been going years.<br /><br />Mars has a nice transparent atmosphere, so you can take lots of eye-of-the-taxpayer-catching pictures.<br /><br />Mercury is actually quite difficult to get to, and doesn't seem to be as scientifically interesting.<br /><br />As for colonisation - the Moon and Mars are our best bets. (Yes, this is a long way off - but it drives the dreams.) The Moon has the advantage of nearness, but Mars has practically every other.

 

[barrykirk]

We love Mars because we don't have the technology for manned intersteller travel.... Yet....

 

[holmec]

We love Mars because its there. That is its relatively close to us and quite different from our planet. So we want to get to the next rock. That's why you climb mountains. That's why you go to planets. <br /><br />The reason for not Venus is that one lander landed on venus and the pressures were so great that it didn't last long. So its harder to stay on Venus than Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I actually love Venus more than Mars, probably because it is so bloody hostile. Runaway greenhouse effect, high pressures, acid, and the fact that day is in fact longer than the year. The challenge of doing some terraforming there would be immense, but aspects of it might be helpful here.<br /><br />Hmmm, there's a science fiction idea for you. Imagine that the greenhouse effect we are seeing were not in fact man-made, but is part of an alien "terraforming" program. Maybe the Venusians are trying to better understant their world through turning our world into one more like theirs. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Mars is Earth like more than any other known body in the solar system. I would like to see agressive missions to Europa and Titan soon as well.

 

[jatslo]

Oh, I would like to see a telescope sent past pluto as well. Tell NASA to get off their slacker butts and get to work.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why do the space agencies love Mars so much?</font>/i><br /><br />My take...<br /><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">It is the most likely place to find extraterrestrial life.</font> Other places (e.g., Europa) may have life, but exploring Mars is generally much easier. If we find life arose independently in two locations in the same solar system, it will be a paradigm shifting event in how we view the galaxy. It will also mean lots of new money for NASA.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Mars is relatively quick to explore.</font> Look how long it takes to send a probe to Mercury, Jupter, or Saturn. With a 6-9 month trip, Mars is pratically next door. As a researcher, this gives us faster turn cycles where subsequent missions take advantage of knowledge learned in the previous mission - and all within the careers of individual scientists.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Mars is robot friendly.</font> The surface can be viewed through several means from orbit. Its atmosphere provides a means of slowing rockets down for orbit or landing. It doesn't have extreme radiation like Jupiter. It is close enough to use solar panels to explore much of the surface.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Mars if both familiar and alien.</font> Mars' day is almost the same length as Earth's and is actually closer to our natural circadian clock (hmm...?). Gullies, polar ice caps, sand dunes, dust devils, whispy clouds, and so many other features are similar to Earth's, yet there is still something so mysterious (what happened to all that water?).<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li><font color="yellow">Mars is colony friendly.</font> Mars has the chemisty to support colonies, including support for extracting water and making rocket fuel in situ. There is probably no other place in our solar system that lends itself to "liv</li></ul></i>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>mars possesses all of the natural resources necessary to support a human colony. it has tolerable temperatures, and unlike the moon, an atmosphere to shield from most radiation.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />On the contrary: <br />- The temperature on Mars is far from tolerable. <br />- The atmospheric pressure is only 1% of that on Earth. <br />- The radiation is 2.5x that experienced in LEO.<br /><br />A very, very, very unpleasant environment.

 

[spacefire]

and yet, the most suitable place for permanent human habitation we know of, save for Earth itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[n_kitson]

If you enjoy living underground. In which case, you may as well dig underground shelters on the moon.<br /><br />Frankly, I'd rather see a mission to Phobos or Demios. These are most likely captured asteroids. It could be pretty valuable to us to know more about asteroid composition. Yes, we have Hyabusa. But isn't it a lot simpler to send a series of probes to a Martian moon?

 

[spayss]

When it comes down to it; Mars is all there is. Sure it would be nice to send a human there before the end of the 21st century but it might also be a bit of a downer. Sort of like Scott making it to the S. Pole after Amundsen. No more poles to reach. The Moon and Mars are the biggies. After that, too hostile (Venus), far and dangerous (outer planets' moons), or not captivating enough except for keeners (landing on an asteroid).<br /><br /> The thrill is as much in the journey as the prize at the end. If your city's sports team was ever a loser for a long time and then wins the big one, it's a thrill at the moment but it also puts a bit of a damper on expectations after that. Red Sox fans will never get as much thrill as they did after last year's World Series. Do you think the Brazilians would be as thrilled winning the next World Cup as the British or Dutch? Maybe it's as much of an adenalin rush to have Mars out there as a target than to look back at a Mars expedition after the fact.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">A very, very, very unpleasant environment.</font>/i><br /><br />Everything is relative. Compared to just about anywhere else in the Solar System beyond Earth, Mars is probably the most accommodating.</i>