People on Mars Possible in 20 to 30 Years

imran10 · Sep 16, 2004

People on Mars Possible in 20 to 30 Years "People could land on Mars in the next 20 to 30 years provided scientists can find water on the red planet, the head of NASA (news - web sites)'s surface exploration mission said on Wednesday."

mattblack · Sep 16, 2004

Forgive my sweeping cynicism, but it could actually happen in 12-14 years, but mankind has decided that spending hundreds of billions killing each other is more important. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

mooware · Sep 16, 2004

" wouldn't say "mankind" had decided this, just short-sighted politicians." Seems we are always cursed with short-sighted politicians.

radarredux · Sep 16, 2004

> Seems we are always cursed with short-sighted politicians./i> Of course, it is "we" who chose the politicians. As the saying goes: we get the government that we deserve.

mooware · Sep 16, 2004

"Of course, it is "we" who chose the politicians" Ah true, but the choices we have are narrow. We have to choose between super rich guys who can't really relate to the common person.

radarredux · Sep 16, 2004

> It is thanks to war that we the technologies that allow us to explore space./i> Many technologies may have (probably would have) developed on their own, but certainly war accelerated or at least motivated much of the work. For example, rockets were developed for many years without being driven by war, but WWII certainly took it to a new level. Look at the difference between planes at the beginning of hostilities in 1939 and 1945. Radar. Electronic computers were originally driven by war, and the original packet switched network was a sponsored by the DOD to survive nuclear war. GPS. Plastic surgery was accelerated by attempts to reconstruct war wounds. And so much more. Sadly, so much of what we associate with CIVILization owes a lot to conflict.

astrophoto · Sep 16, 2004

Without the Electoral College, a candidate could win the election by only garning the support of 11 of the 50 States and ignoring all others. That's why it exists.

john_316 · Sep 17, 2004

You will eventually reach Mars some day but as for me well the sad truth is this... We don't have enough Scotch their and that really bothers me... But anyways We Martians have one thing in common with you Earthlings. We all are Human and we also shop at Wal-Mart...

yurkin · Sep 17, 2004

but the point is that Bush did not win by a majority vote, which means he had no mandate The point is that mandate is not determined by the majority vote. It is determined by the Electoral College. yet he behaves is if he does If you feel that the presidency is illegitimate since the method that elected him is such then there’s no point in voting. Even if the candidate receives more the majority of the popular vote the method that elected him would still be illegitimate in your opinion. You might as well head to the streets with your Molotov cocktail and M16. And if Gore was to have won the election yet receive less then the majority vote would your claims of his illegitimacy even exist? Or would you claim that his detractors were merely being sore losers. Who tried to steal the election by changing the rules after they played and lost.

mattblack · Sep 17, 2004

GEEZ!! I didn't mean to start a political discussion. Sorry. Though I guess it serves me right, phrasing it the way I did. I was trying to make a broad statement about mankind in general and I pretty much stand by what I said. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

radarredux · Sep 17, 2004

> America certainly deserves better than the government of George W. Bush/i> This is an opinion and not a statement of fact. Many people will disagree with this opinion. This is the messy reality of pluralistic organizations. You can be part of the "we" even though you may strongly disagree with the choices, directions, actions, etc. of the collective "we". Another aspect is that an individual member (i.e., "you") may be held accountable to the group's ("we") decisions by outsiders ("they") even if "you" disagree with the collective decision by the "we". As an example, when travelling outside the U.S. "you" (the individual) might find "they" (citizens of country you are visiting) angry at "you" for the actions of the U.S. government which is acting on behalf of and deriving its power from the "we", of which "you" are technically part. There are at least two solutions to this problem: (1) jettison democracy so that individuals (the "you"s) can legitimately claim having no responsibility, or (2) change your position so that it conforms to the aggregate decision made by the "we".

paleo · Sep 17, 2004

"I am reminded of the movie Armageddon when the President announces..." You are kidding, right? It was a movie. What if the writer had wrote more realistically with: An intelligence that can travel between the stars has the technology to snuff out mankind in a snap of the fingers. Your: "Same thing with Independence Day. Would not have been able to defeat the baddies without the weapons of war. " Do you use Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner to prove other points?

alokmohan · Sep 18, 2004

Going mars is very real.Zubrin is very confident and he has explained elaborately.

crowing · Sep 18, 2004

Space does suffer under politics though,space is all in terms of decades or longer but politicians of all persuasions are usually in for a very short period! Sorry crazy but as far as space goes then bush wins hands down,so from my biased point of view I hope he wins! You don't have to worry about me though as I'm not american so I certainly don't count! Go Bush,go bush,go bush,go bush,go bush,go bush!!!!!

mcbethcg · Sep 18, 2004

Going to mars would be a massive waste of resources but acomplish nothing that could not be done with probes at a zillionth the cost.

crowing · Sep 18, 2004

Robots will still be there with us on mars,but of course we have to get humans out there as well! Humans can also do far more things than any robots can do buy themselves,and we need to learn the skills and technology to not only survive but eventually florish out there! The defence budget would pay for four mars human return trips,but it's to the moon,mars and beyond I say!!

radarredux · Sep 18, 2004

> Going to mars would be a massive waste of resources but acomplish nothing that could not be done with probes at a zillionth the cost./i> I usually promote the return on investment (ROI) of unmanned missions over manned missions, but for this posting I am going to switch sides. Fast Turn Around TimesOne of the problems with unmanned missions is that they usually do not have a lot of flexibility. They do a small number of things very well, but they are in a sense "pre-programmed" before being launched. If the unmanned mission discovers something interesting that leads to a new line of questions, that unmanned mission probably cannot answer these new questions. Instead, a new mission needs to be planned and launched, so the turn around time will probably be a minimum of four years. On the other hand, assuming your manned mission includes scientists with their tools (microscopes, chemistry sets, lathes), when they learn something new that leads to a new line of questions, they can start developing and executing new experiments or searches to the new line of questions right away. Given that research and exploration typically involves constant cycles of new questions, new experiments, and new answers that lead to new questions, having scientists on-site with their tools will greatly accelerate the discovery process.

radarredux · Sep 18, 2004

> Going to mars would be a massive waste of resources but acomplish nothing that could not be done with probes at a zillionth the cost./i> This is a second post in which, for this dicussion, I will switch sides and support manned missions to Mars. Being There Is Different/b> While unmanned missions are generally cheaper, and their capabilities are getting exponentially better over time (e.g., look at the number of bytes of data transmitted by each subsequent set of missions), there is a fundamental, but hard to define, difference between seeing pictures of a place and being there in person. An analogy is a tourist vacation. I have read much, seen plenty of pictures, and have watched many documentaries on Egypt; however, when I was physically there this past year it was a fundamentally different experience. I was inspired to look at the same views differently. I asked different questions. All of my senses and thought processes were alive in a way that no picture or words could have done. And I am not alone in this position. Reading words, and viewing pictures and video of places is almost always cheaper than going there in person. But every year millions of people spend billions of dollars to go in person to see the Pyramids, Athens, the Grand Canyon, and any number of other places. It is hard to quantify why being there in person is better than reading about it or viewing a picture, but millions of people validate this position every year by going to experience something in person.

lunatic133 · Sep 18, 2004

When Spirit and Opportunity landed on Mars I cheered like everyone else. But the reason I was fascinated so much was because I saw it as a step towards the future -- these robots were landing on mars and taking pictures of the New Frontier, the next place for human colonization, and that was the part that was exciting to me. But if you then turned around and told me that it was all we'd ever see, that we'd ONLY be sending more robotic missions, that there was no adventure of the new frontier left, then I ask what is the point? Pictures of orange rocks, orange rocks no one will ever be able to see for themselves? Not only is that horribly boring, it's also rather depressing.

radarredux · Sep 18, 2004

> I hope [Bush] wins! ... I'm not american so I certainly don't count!/i> It is indeed rare to hear a non-American supporting President Bush. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

lunatic133 · Sep 18, 2004

wvbraun supports president Bush. It's sad, many of the strongest Bush supporters I know are either foreigners or too young to vote. Though I'm sure that many are happy about that!

rocketwatcher2001 · Sep 18, 2004

I realize that, of course, but the point is that Bush did not win by a majority vote, which means he had no mandate....yet he behaves is if he does. Holy Cow! That is the dumbest thing I've read in a long while! Are you that ignorant of the government or are you lying? The mandate comes from the popular vote? No. I noticed James Carville tried to pull that crap, too. President Bush is the President of the United States in *EVERY* way, shape, and form. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · Sep 18, 2004

> President Bush is the President of the United States in *EVERY* way, shape, and form./i> Avoiding the issues of popular vote vs. electoral college vote, winner take all strategies of states, errors in vote counting, etc. I think the previous persons emphasis was on the word "mandate". Typically the word "mandate" is used within an election context to indicate that a person won by a wide margin thus giving him/her the right to make sweeping changes almost unilateraly or to essentially ignore other parts of the government. For example, in the 1984 election President Reagan won 49 of the 50 states giving President Reagan substantial claim that he and his positions were largely endorsed by a large percentage of the people of the United States, so Congress (controlled by the Democrats) should listen to him when it comes to making substantial changes to policies. Whereas in 2000 Bush can [legimately, IMHO] claim that he won the election, he could not claim that overwhelming victory (and thus the large public support) that Reagan did in the 1980 or 1984 elections. I think what bothers many people about Bush is that they perceive that he is acting as if he did win an overwhelming Reagan-class victory in 2000.

rocketwatcher2001 · Sep 18, 2004

The President has a Mandate to do his job if he wins the election. Period. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Sep 18, 2004

What is this now POLITICAL thread still doing in Missions and Launches?(Gotta shout to get the Mods' attention).

People on Mars Possible in 20 to 30 Years

imran10

Guest

mattblack

Guest

mooware

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mooware

Guest

radarredux

Guest

astrophoto

Guest

john_316

Guest

yurkin

Guest

mattblack

Guest

radarredux

Guest

paleo

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

crowing

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

crowing

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

radarredux

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

radarredux

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

najab

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page