Who Cares if Astronauts die/are doomed in a Mars Mission?

[Floridian]

I don't understand the media and apparently America's obsession with the health of Astronauts. Seriously? Humanity cannot sacrifice 1-10 people to advance us leaps and bounds? You can't put a number on it, but imagine if after the failed first few colonies in America everyone just gave up?

Whats most hilarious/sick about this is on a routine basis we accept the death/sacrifice of our soldiers to improve America's perception to the rest of the world. We are willing to disallow our soldiers in Afghanistan from returning fire to such an extreme that they are greatly endangered.

I would say that millions of people would be saved medically in the next 150 years (at least) if we sent a manned mission to Mars now and everyone died. I'd go further and say the the lives of mankind in general would be advanced and better off.

What about the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his 6 comrades? Is this a waste? We send our soldiers into battle knowing that many of them will die.

On top of all those things, I can guarantee you that there are probably millions of people who would be willing to volunteer for a one-way mission to Mars. Sure, atheists might not volunteer but there would be many a religious person who would.

We don't even know if they would die but I say who cares.

Carrying the bastion of science and mankind is sometimes worth sacrifices, and especially when it is voluntary, I do not understand. When I heard about the Columbia accident (media called it the columbia disaster) as I would call it, I didn't really feel any strong emotions. Astronauts know what they are getting into when they strap themself to a giant rocket, it is a priveledge to have their jobs.


I'm honestly beginning to think this: The media is controlled by idiocy and political correctness, they are not even sure why they say what they say sometimes, just that it seems like the correct thing. For some reason the media has decided astronauts are not allowed to die. I really cannot fathom this as nobody gives a rats (insert comment here) that millions of HUMANS are aborted every year (they are humans not any other species).

On top of that what is a life worth? Even though we don't want it lives are given a price-tag and the new healthcare bill is a prime example. Some humans will be too expensive to save.

This may seem extreme but think about this. Obamas vacation to Spain cost millions of dollars. That money could have been used to save probably thousands of people in Africa dieing of hunger, or a few hundred people in the UK dieing of cancer that were not given prescriptions.


We have seen what happens when technology, the economy and science stagnate, why not reverse this. I would be willing to argue that if 50% of the stimulus funds (I know this is crazy) had been spent designing a nuclear pulse rocket or thermno-nuclear rocket that our economy would double in size directly as a result of this investment within 70 years (aside from other expected growth). Also, as for the short-term, the entire country would be energized, and sentiment is a huge factor in the economy.

One retired Astronaut (I think he was the last man on the moon or perhaps the 2nd, I lost the article) was quoted as saying we should send a one-way trip to Mars every 2 years during the opportune launch window.

If we were to build a space elevator on Mars extending from Olympus Mons (it is the only part of Mars surface not exposed to dust storms and is already so tall that it is in space basically), leaving Mars would be as simple as traveling up the elevator. You would have to wait until the 2 year window was up, but all you would have to do is be released and maybe accelerate slightly and you would be traveling very fast.


Nuclear greatly reduces the time spent in space, and could arguably "save lives". I say no to a rocket mission to Mars, it is a waste of time and delusional. If we make it to Mars, it does have 40% of Earths gravity. I see no reason why people living in a city underground beneath the radiation exposure with access to exercise, food, and water could not live long lives. We could also probably engineer a pretty sweet mix of drugs that could keep humans relatively healthy or boost muslce growth (they would have to at least cancel out the life regular life expectancy loss).

I say we should start sending humans to Mars now on 1-way trips, this would begin colonization. If we wanted to, we could set up a space elevator on Mars within 30 years. Mars has much less gravity than Earth, and I am willing to argue that is much more suitable to be a space hub than Earth. In terms of access to raw materials and the most Earth-like conditions possible in the solar system (outside the Earth).

There could be large quantities of uranium and other precious metals on Mars. Least we not forget that Mars probably has 40km of less pressurized, mineable minerals. What I am saying is that Mars may have an almost completely solid core. It will be easier to dig there as it is less pressurized, and it will be less hot. Furthermore, digging is advantageous as we will eventually have access to geothermal energy. It might even be worth it someday to build a city very deep down in Mars with access to geothermal heat and aquafers and take an elevator to the surface.

Aside from this there are asteroids alone that are worth 400 trillion dollars. We are willing to put our children and grandchildren in a national debt that they will probably not escape (unless the system crashes or is re-engineered) but we are not willing to invest in the future?

 

[samkent]

Whoa that’s a real hard position. Dare I say a terminal position? I would bet based on your thoughts you are under the age of 25. Be that as it may, I’ll try to give you a few answers.

The odds of human extinction in the next 5- 100 years is next to nil. Therefore humanity as a whole is not in the least worried.

While the cost of dropping a few men to the surface (one way) with a few months supplies is doable cost and technology wise. The cost of feeding them year after year is staggering. Not to mention the cost of shipping all the materials and technology to create a self-sustaining colony. That cost is far beyond any country to afford. Even if several countries pooled their resources it would drain all of their space budgets. And what would they get in return? Very little science per dollar spent. If you haven’t checked lately almost every country is running in the red with their budgets. There is no money for grandiose schemes.

The mention of soldiers sacrificing themselves, it’s a spur of the moment decision. Not something they train for over a period of years. You will have a hard time finding funding for one way missions with a high probability of fatalities. If the supply missions stop the people die. And it won’t be a quick death. It would likely be a long and drawn out one. Running our of air, food or water due to a failed part and no replacements.
Can you imagine the radio transmissions broadcast over the media with astronauts pleading for their lives. All we need is a new converter! Please spend the 20 billion to send us a new converter. Don’t lets us die!
How could we send another mission 10 years later knowing we allowed the last one to die slowly? The PR would be brutal. We are humans not cattle. We will not send people to a slow death for science.

Aside from this there are asteroids alone that are worth 400 trillion dollars.

Our entire planet doesn’t have 400 trillion dollars. Therefore no asteroid is worth 400 trillion.


I could go on but…

 

[zigi_24]

I totally agree with you. From explorers we were in the past, in the last 30 years we become conformists. For our "safety" and lavish lifestyle we sacrificed 80% of things that makes what we really are, and what can we really do with our mind. Instead of spending money on new car, house, laptop, cell phone, party, vacation like this was give us for granted, we cand use our money and skills to help others around the world who are sick and hungry, and invest in technologies that will save our lives in the future when things get rough. Even if someone, and will try hard to make sure that this doesn't happen, die in the process.

 

[SteveCNC]

Generally speaking we don't send people on kamikaze missions , when a soldier dies it sucks big time but it's not as if he was marked to die by anyone here , it's merely a casualty of war . So in that respect we do care , this isn't a dictatorship or fanatical religion running the country so I honestly doubt that type of mission will ever happen from the US , maybe someone else would do it though .

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

It's always sad when you see the documentaries about astronauts dying on missions. This is part of the sacrifice and the risk though, and the last thing most astronauts are thinking about is whether or not they will die.

I understand your position, but the reason people care is that astronauts have worked hard for their whole lives dedicated to advancing humanity and they die for that cause. Having an astronaut die on a Mars mission would be horrible. Anytime an astronaut dies it is counted as a failure in the mission log. If an astronaut dies on Mars, what would that say? It would say that one of the best humans, trained for years for that mission, could not make it there. What chance then would there be for colonists?

A lot of your information seems to be wrong as well. An asteroid 1 mile in diameter contains $20 trillion, that is a lot of wealth. I have never heard of 400 trillion in an asteroid though. I also have the feeling you pulled the cost of Michelle Obama's vacation out of thin air. If we do the Mars Direct plan, then the mission cost is only about $50 billion (This is extremely favorable for a Mars mission, for comparison Apollo cost $170 billion) and those are not one way trips. I guess some astronauts may want to do a one way trip, but it's important to bring some of them back so we can study the effects that living on Mars had on their bodies.

You also must realize that any time astronauts die in space it is a disaster for the responsible space agency. There are delays, people accusing them of irresponsibility, and worst of all, the threat of further budget cuts. If Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin died on the moon there would likely be no further moon missions. If Yuri Gagarin died in space, then it is unlikely that there would be further missions.

It is of the utmost importance to protect astronauts on their mission. They are serving a great duty not only to their country but also for all mankind. Therefore, I think you should show a bit of respect when talking about matters such as this in an extreme way. Astronauts are people, not bugs that are sent off to see what happens.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I don't understand the media and apparently America's obsession with the health of Astronauts. Seriously? Humanity cannot sacrifice 1-10 people to advance us leaps and bounds? You can't put a number on it, but imagine if after the failed first few colonies in America everyone just gave up?

Whats most hilarious/sick about this is on a routine basis we accept the death/sacrifice of our soldiers to improve America's perception to the rest of the world. We are willing to disallow our soldiers in Afghanistan from returning fire to such an extreme that they are greatly endangered.

I would say that millions of people would be saved medically in the next 150 years (at least) if we sent a manned mission to Mars now and everyone died. I'd go further and say the the lives of mankind in general would be advanced and better off.

What about the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his 6 comrades? Is this a waste? We send our soldiers into battle knowing that many of them will die.

On top of all those things, I can guarantee you that there are probably millions of people who would be willing to volunteer for a one-way mission to Mars. Sure, atheists might not volunteer but there would be many a religious person who would.

We don't even know if they would die but I say who cares.

Carrying the bastion of science and mankind is sometimes worth sacrifices, and especially when it is voluntary, I do not understand. When I heard about the Columbia accident (media called it the columbia disaster) as I would call it, I didn't really feel any strong emotions. Astronauts know what they are getting into when they strap themself to a giant rocket, it is a priveledge to have their jobs.


I'm honestly beginning to think this: The media is controlled by idiocy and political correctness, they are not even sure why they say what they say sometimes, just that it seems like the correct thing. For some reason the media has decided astronauts are not allowed to die. I really cannot fathom this as nobody gives a rats (insert comment here) that millions of HUMANS are aborted every year (they are humans not any other species).

On top of that what is a life worth? Even though we don't want it lives are given a price-tag and the new healthcare bill is a prime example. Some humans will be too expensive to save.

This may seem extreme but think about this. Obamas vacation to Spain cost millions of dollars. That money could have been used to save probably thousands of people in Africa dieing of hunger, or a few hundred people in the UK dieing of cancer that were not given prescriptions.


We have seen what happens when technology, the economy and science stagnate, why not reverse this. I would be willing to argue that if 50% of the stimulus funds (I know this is crazy) had been spent designing a nuclear pulse rocket or thermno-nuclear rocket that our economy would double in size directly as a result of this investment within 70 years (aside from other expected growth). Also, as for the short-term, the entire country would be energized, and sentiment is a huge factor in the economy.

One retired Astronaut (I think he was the last man on the moon or perhaps the 2nd, I lost the article) was quoted as saying we should send a one-way trip to Mars every 2 years during the opportune launch window.

If we were to build a space elevator on Mars extending from Olympus Mons (it is the only part of Mars surface not exposed to dust storms and is already so tall that it is in space basically), leaving Mars would be as simple as traveling up the elevator. You would have to wait until the 2 year window was up, but all you would have to do is be released and maybe accelerate slightly and you would be traveling very fast.


Nuclear greatly reduces the time spent in space, and could arguably "save lives". I say no to a rocket mission to Mars, it is a waste of time and delusional. If we make it to Mars, it does have 40% of Earths gravity. I see no reason why people living in a city underground beneath the radiation exposure with access to exercise, food, and water could not live long lives. We could also probably engineer a pretty sweet mix of drugs that could keep humans relatively healthy or boost muslce growth (they would have to at least cancel out the life regular life expectancy loss).

I say we should start sending humans to Mars now on 1-way trips, this would begin colonization. If we wanted to, we could set up a space elevator on Mars within 30 years. Mars has much less gravity than Earth, and I am willing to argue that is much more suitable to be a space hub than Earth. In terms of access to raw materials and the most Earth-like conditions possible in the solar system (outside the Earth).

There could be large quantities of uranium and other precious metals on Mars. Least we not forget that Mars probably has 40km of less pressurized, mineable minerals. What I am saying is that Mars may have an almost completely solid core. It will be easier to dig there as it is less pressurized, and it will be less hot. Furthermore, digging is advantageous as we will eventually have access to geothermal energy. It might even be worth it someday to build a city very deep down in Mars with access to geothermal heat and aquafers and take an elevator to the surface.

Aside from this there are asteroids alone that are worth 400 trillion dollars. We are willing to put our children and grandchildren in a national debt that they will probably not escape (unless the system crashes or is re-engineered) but we are not willing to invest in the future?

Floridian. What you have hit on is one of the reasons why US human spaceflight is not going anywhere, and why I doubt they will be going anywhere in the near future.

Generally explorers plan to make it back because it would likely defeat the purpose of exploring if you were unable to make it back.

However exploration itself is a risky endeavor by nature. Whenever you travel to some place or do something that has never been done before your taking a risk. Historically great explorers took on huge risks, and endured great hardship. When Christoper Colombus discovered America in the 1500s he did so without ever knowing what he would find, what the conditions would be like there, or if there was something there at all. Hell he did not even know a continent was there. As a result of the risks he took a significant fraction of his men died.

Astronauts by comparison have it easy. We have telescopes and unmanned probes that identify every obstacle and condition that the astronauts could possibly run in to. All of their equipment is extensively tested to ensure that it runs perfectly when needed. Hell it is even assembled in a clean room to prevent the possibly of disease. They get to eat many of the same foods that they eat here on Earth.

Truth is that all real exploration is being done by robots these days. The reason is because people do not care about the lives of these mechanical heroes. They go to their deaths in the name of science and advancing human knowledge without so much as a peep of complaint. As a result they conduct missions that NASA would not even dream of sending humans on.

NASA's "failure is unacceptable" culture holds human spaceflight back. The unwillingness to fail means that extensive testing must be done to ensure success, which leads to everything being super expensive. At the same time the unwillingness to fail results in an unwillingness to risk trying new technology.

The "failure is unacceptable" mantra of NASA will have to be replaced in order for significant human space exploration to occur. NASA will have to accept a culture similar to the of the military. The military understands that causalities are an unavoidable aspect of their endeavor. They believe that their endeavor is worth the lives lost. They have a whole infrastructure including graveyards to honor the fallen in order to deal with this aspect.

 

[kk434]

The original poster is so right, we can accept 4000+ dead soldiers in iraq, but when an astronaut dies it's a show stopper. NASA's 0 risk policy harms space exploration, every exploration suffered countless lives of the explorers, columbus voyage was very deadly and still it was whorthwile. If space exploration must be as safe as your regular bus trip to work we are going no where.

 

[andrew_t1000]

The OP is "dead" right.
We can get entwined into an immoral war that was foisted upon us by a dipstick, but 7 people dying in a shuttle becomes a punch line!
I came close to decking someone just the other night for that damn punch line.

When I got up him over it and he became defensive, I countered by suggesting a bunch of yuppies and drunken footballers dying in a Bali bar was probably not such a bad thing.
That shut him up quick smart.

By now you guys probably have come to realise I'm a dog lover, my hounds are the most important thing in my life.

A month or so ago, 2 Australian SAS soldiers and their dog were killed in Afghanistan, the soldiers bodies were bought home, but what happened to the dog that tried to warn them about the roadside bomb?
No mention of the dog that tried to save them, no pomp, no ceremony, he was probably left where he died.
The soldiers at least knew why they were there, but the poor dog, trusting in his handler and his human mates, did his job, right to the end.

And was ignored.

When an astronaut or cosmonaut dies, pushing the envelope of exploration, extending the bounds of discovery, the media jump all over it, first they wax lyrical about "brave explorers", then some ******* starts bleating about the human "cost".
Any exploration into the unknown carries risk, we know that.
A person who willingly puts themselves into harms way, does so knowing the risks.
Hell, I'd go in a heartbeat, to go where no one has gone before, to see what only a few have seen, not to be remembered, just to do it, is worth any risk.

Robots do a great job, in a limited way, but a person, on the ground can do more science in an hour than a robot could do in a year.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Comparing soldiers and astronauts is apples and oranges. Soldiers die on a much more regular basis than astronauts do, so of course there is going to be a media storm whenever there's an accident. NASA has a commitment to ensuring the protection of its employees and astronauts. What you people are failing to realize is that in all accidents where astronauts and cosmonauts have died, the whole crew dies, meaning mission failure. And mission failures are crippling to space programs, especially when they are manned.

Another part of it is the appeal that space gives to the public. While extremely sad and unfortunate, soldiers die just about every day in the middle east, and soldiers dying in war is nothing new. But when you hear about astronauts dying, it's very out of the ordinary and the accident becomes a major part of the news.

NASA's 0 risk policy harms space exploration,

No, what harms space exploration is when people die in space and missions fail. It sets us back and makes the public and the government weary of future missions. If astronauts die on a Mars mission, then what will that say for potential colonists and investors? If a full fledged manned mission with the best pilots and scientists with the full resources of several world governments can't make it, then what will that make investors think?

 

[samkent]

I think I’m seeing a few misconceptions here.

First Old Chris and his crew was no different from men today. It’s easy to think we are substantially different humans from the ones from a few hundred years ago. We are not. Self preservation was just as strong then as it is now. When old Chris set sail it was not intended to be a suicide mission. Not even a one way mission. They would not have taken any more risks then we would. He knew where he was headed and about how long it would take. He just didn’t know there was a continent in the way.

Comparing military operations to space exploration is unfair. They have little to do with each other.
The military will send a few men on a suicide mission if it will save a greater number of men. Not for the sake of exploration. They would never send in men knowing that they would die from starvation. That is not an acceptable way for your men to die. Especially if you have a technological alternative.

Lastly Space explorers are a highly intelligent breed of people. They wouldn’t take a course of exploration that would have a relatively defined date of death. Largely because they wouldn’t want to miss out on the next great discovery. They wouldn’t shorten their lives for data that could be obtained by machines.


In answer to your original question of who cares if they die?
They do!

You would too if it were your life on the line.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Comparing soldiers and astronauts is apples and oranges. Soldiers die on a much more regular basis than astronauts do, so of course there is going to be a media storm whenever there's an accident. NASA has a commitment to ensuring the protection of its employees and astronauts. What you people are failing to realize is that in all accidents where astronauts and cosmonauts have died, the whole crew dies, meaning mission failure. And mission failures are crippling to space programs, especially when they are manned.

Another part of it is the appeal that space gives to the public. While extremely sad and unfortunate, soldiers die just about every day in the middle east, and soldiers dying in war is nothing new. But when you hear about astronauts dying, it's very out of the ordinary and the accident becomes a major part of the news.

NASA's 0 risk policy harms space exploration,

No, what harms space exploration is when people die in space and missions fail. It sets us back and makes the public and the government weary of future missions. If astronauts die on a Mars mission, then what will that say for potential colonists and investors? If a full fledged manned mission with the best pilots and scientists with the full resources of several world governments can't make it, then what will that make investors think?

Well lets think about that shall we. Suppose NASA launches a manned mission to Mars. The astronauts arrive there, and conduct operations for a year. Unfortunately when it comes time for them to return home the rocket on their lander fails resulting a fire death for the entire crew.

Even in this scenario the mission may have not been a success, but it would of broken a number of records, inspired the entire world, proven that mankind can indeed travel to other worlds, and proven the concept of manned interplanetary flight. From a colonists or investors prospective the risk would be greatly reduced now that they know a proven method of accomplishing the two largest hurdles of such a venture.

The real question is what will the investors think if "the best pilots and scientists" never try at all because they are unwilling to take the risk? Well you can sure as hell bet that if the government with its unlimited funds will not try it then any private venture most certainly will not try it.

Point is that failure is not a crippling experience. Failure is a learning one. Failure teaches you what works and what does not work. It is better to fail than to not try at all. "NOTHING ventured NOTHING gained."

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Well lets think about that shall we. Suppose NASA launches a manned mission to Mars. The astronauts arrive there, and conduct operations for a year. Unfortunately when it comes time for them to return home the rocket on their lander fails resulting a fire death for the entire crew.

Even in this scenario the mission may have not been a success, but it would of broken a number of records, inspired the entire world, proven that mankind can indeed travel to other worlds, and proven the concept of manned interplanetary flight. From a colonists or investors prospective the risk would be greatly reduced now that they know a proven method of accomplishing the two largest hurdles of such a venture.

The real question is what will the investors think if "the best pilots and scientists" never try at all because they are unwilling to take the risk? Well you can sure as hell bet that if the government with its unlimited funds will not try it then any private venture most certainly will not try it.

Point is that failure is not a crippling experience. Failure is a learning one. Failure teaches you what works and what does not work. It is better to fail than to not try at all. "NOTHING ventured NOTHING gained."

I see what you're saying, but you have to realize astronauts are people too. You can't just send them off to their deaths like that. We need to make sure that the spacecraft is safe, reliable, and can get the job done well. And if astronauts die on Mars I don't think people will take it so enthusastically as you're saying.

 

[MeteorWayne]

A suicide mission is just not a viable concept. Unless YOU want to volunteer.

 

[JonClarke]

Who Cares if Astronauts die/are doomed in a Mars Mission?

This statement is ambiguous. Do you mean dying from accidents on actual missions, sending people on one way missions, or suicide missions? These are very different propositions.

I don't understand the media and apparently America's obsession with the health of Astronauts. Seriously?

Because most cultures in recent history don't approve of sending people to their deaths and so want to reduce fatalities in all fields of activity.

Flying in space is a very dangerous business, with a higher death rate per participant that recent US wars. That is why safety is taken seriously by all space-faring nations.

What do you consider an acceptable fatality rate? One in 10, one in 50, one in 100, one in 200?

Human space flight is also very expensive. Loss of crew will generally equate to loss of mission, therefore to ensure success considerable attention needs to be paid to safety.

Humanity cannot sacrifice 1-10 people to advance us leaps and bounds?

Are you volunteering? If not, why should others?

How much does safety cost? Does reducing the chance of a fatal accident from 1/100 to 1/200 mean that costs are doubled?

You can't put a number on it, but imagine if after the failed first few colonies in America everyone just gave up?

How is this comparison going to work without numbers? How is the comparison between North America and Mars valid, given very different technologies, logistics, safety standards, risk levels and hospitability of the colonised environment?

Whats most hilarious/sick about this is on a routine basis we accept the death/sacrifice of our soldiers to improve America's perception to the rest of the world. We are willing to disallow our soldiers in Afghanistan from returning fire to such an extreme that they are greatly endangered.

The chances of dying are much higher going into space than in going to Afghanistan. Even in the military people are not sent on suicide missions. Especially not in limited wars.

But even if they were, that would not justify sending people to their deaths in space.

I would say that millions of people would be saved medically in the next 150 years (at least) if we sent a manned mission to Mars now and everyone died.

How does a spacecraft full of dead astronauts advance medical science?

I'd go further and say the lives of mankind in general would be advanced and better off.

Quite probably. But what defines the cut off? At what cost of human life and treasure does it do longer becomes worthwhile?

What about the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his 6 comrades? Is this a waste?

That is an individual act of sacrifice. Not a matter of ordering people to do that.

We send our soldiers into battle knowing that many of them will die.

No, people are sent into battle knowing that there is a probability of some deaths. Like astronauts knowing there is a probability of death. A wise commander minimises the probability of deaths to their own troops (and, where possible may well chose to do so amongst the enemy as well). Likewise mission planners.

On top of all those things, I can guarantee you that there are probably millions of people who would be willing to volunteer for a one-way mission to Mars. Sure, atheists might not volunteer but there would be many a religious person who would.

There is a different between a one-way mission and a suicide mission.

Most religions don't approve of suicide.

We don't even know if they would die but I say who cares.

This statement is more illuminating of your attitudes than it is of space missions.

Carrying the bastion of science and mankind is sometimes worth sacrifices, and especially when it is voluntary, I do not understand. When I heard about the Columbia accident (media called it the columbia disaster) as I would call it, I didn't really feel any strong emotions. Astronauts know what they are getting into when they strap themself to a giant rocket, it is a priveledge to have their jobs.

Again this illuminates your mind set more than it does the situation. Do you similarly feel an absence of strong emotions over the deaths of soldiers of emergency workers?

I'm honestly beginning to think this: The media is controlled by idiocy and political correctness, they are not even sure why they say what they say sometimes, just that it seems like the correct thing. For some reason the media has decided astronauts are not allowed to die.

How has media attitudes impacted on flight safety?

I really cannot fathom this as nobody gives a rats (insert comment here) that millions of HUMANS are aborted every year (they are humans not any other species).

Some of us do care, but how is this relevant?

On top of that what is a life worth? Even though we don't want it lives are given a price-tag and the new healthcare bill is a prime example. Some humans will be too expensive to save.

This may seem extreme but think about this. Obamas vacation to Spain cost millions of dollars. That money could have been used to save probably thousands of people in Africa dieing of hunger, or a few hundred people in the UK dieing of cancer that were not given prescriptions.
Why is this section in bold? How is it even remotely relevant?

We have seen what happens when technology, the economy and science stagnate, why not reverse this. I would be willing to argue that if 50% of the stimulus funds (I know this is crazy) had been spent designing a nuclear pulse rocket or thermno-nuclear rocket that our economy would double in size directly as a result of this investment within 70 years (aside from other expected growth). Also, as for the short-term, the entire country would be energized, and sentiment is a huge factor in the economy.

Nuclear pulse rockets probably come at too high a price. Hundreds of nuclear explosions per launch are not a good idea. Thermonuclear rockets are not feasible until we can have sustained fusion reactions, which we can't.

One retired Astronaut (I think he was the last man on the moon or perhaps the 2nd, I lost the article) was quoted as saying we should send a one-way trip to Mars every 2 years during the opportune launch window.

There is a difference between one-say settlement missions and suicide missions.

Given the cost of sending people to Mars, even one way, you will want to minimise fatalities.

You now off the topic of fatalities into more general issues.

If we were to build a space elevator on Mars extending from Olympus Mons (it is the only part of Mars surface not exposed to dust storms and is already so tall that it is in space basically), leaving Mars would be as simple as traveling up the elevator. You would have to wait until the 2 year window was up, but all you would have to do is be released and maybe accelerate slightly and you would be traveling very fast.

Building a space elevator is much more difficult than sending people to Mars by more conventional means.

Nuclear greatly reduces the time spent in space, and could arguably "save lives". I say no to a rocket mission to Mars, it is a waste of time and delusional.

You contradict yourself. Earlier you stated you want to develop nuclear pluse propulsion and/or thermonuclear propulsion, both of which are rockets. Now you don't want rockets? What's your alternative - tethers? How is using rockets delusional? Go to a paper descirbing Mars mission architecture and show why. Start with this one http://www.marssociety.org.au/library/willson-et-al.pdf

You do realise that sending people to Mars can be done with today's technology? That sending them to Mars with tethers isn't yet?

If we make it to Mars, it does have 40% of Earths gravity. I see no reason why people living in a city underground beneath the radiation exposure with access to exercise, food, and water could not live long lives. We could also probably engineer a pretty sweet mix of drugs that could keep humans relatively healthy or boost muslce growth (they would have to at least cancel out the life regular life expectancy loss).

Now you are talking the importance of settling Mars safely, in contradiction to your original point which was that you did not care about safety. To be consistent you should want people to settle Mars regardless of safety, if there is a high death rate, just have them breed faster to keep up.

I say we should start sending humans to Mars now on 1-way trips, this would begin colonization. If we wanted to, we could set up a space elevator on Mars within 30 years.

We don't want to send people on one way trips until we know it is worthwhile doing so.

Mars has much less gravity than Earth, and I am willing to argue that is much more suitable to be a space hub than Earth. In terms of access to raw materials and the most Earth-like conditions possible in the solar system (outside the Earth).

Mars is the most Earth-like planet, but still has only a fraction of the resources of Earth and is far from hospitable.

There could be large quantities of uranium and other precious metals on Mars.

Probably not uranium, Mars has not undergone sufficient differentiation.

Least we not forget that Mars probably has 40km of less pressurized, mineable minerals.

What does this mean?

What I am saying is that Mars may have an almost completely solid core.

Mars has a liquid core, which requires temperatures of several 1000 degrees

It will be easier to dig there as it is less pressurized, and it will be less hot.

You could probably dig three times further on Mars than you could on Earth. That gets you down perhaps 12 km. That's not even through the crust of Mars.

Furthermore, digging is advantageous as we will eventually have access to geothermal energy. It might even be worth it someday to build a city very deep down in Mars with access to geothermal heat and aquafers and take an elevator to the surface.

Maybe one day. But there are no large aquifers within about 5 km of the surface or we would have seen them by now.

Aside from this there are asteroids alone that are worth 400 trillion dollars.

Asteroids are worth precisely zero. The cost of exploring, mining, processing, and transporting useful materials from asteroids to Earth is many times their value. For the cost of a crewed mission to an asteroid you could almost certainly prove up a world-class deposit of any commodity you care to mention.

We are willing to put our children and grandchildren in a national debt that they will probably not escape (unless the system crashes or is re-engineered) but we are not willing to invest in the future?

Sadly at present only in projects that don't cost the tax payer much or that offer a 20% annual rate of return.

 

[kk434]

The one way Mars mission isn't as stupid as it sounds. A couple of astronauts land on Mars and are stuck there. But they get regular resuplyes and keep on liveing. In 20-30 years the tech. improves and there is a possibility to bring them back to Earth again. Just imagine the Ticker-tape parade when they return!!!! The whole World would be inspired.

 

[DarkenedOne]

A suicide mission is just not a viable concept. Unless YOU want to volunteer.

Well MeteorWayne. You have to put things in perspective. Sure dying in space sounds bad in isolation. However when you consider that hundreds of thousands of people die every single day for all sorts of completely meaningless reasons. The overwhelming majority of those people die for stupid reasons like car accidents, cancer, and heart disease.

Point is everyone dies. However astronauts die for a greater purpose. Their efforts to advance humanity will be remembered for thousands of years.

SO yes if I had the option of living out a long regular life and dying of heart disease, or dying having been the first human on Mars I would definitely choose the later.

 

[samkent]

However astronauts die for a greater purpose. Their efforts to advance humanity will be remembered for thousands of years.

Oh so wrong. Can you name all the names of the astronauts that have died so far? (without looking them up)

SO yes if I had the option of living out a long regular life and dying of heart disease, or dying having been the first human on Mars I would definitely choose the later.

Have children and then grand children and reach the age of 60. Then ask yourself if you would have given up the last 20 years to catalogue a new Mars rock.

A couple of astronauts land on Mars and are stuck there. But they get regular resuplyes and keep on liveing. In 20-30 years the tech. improves and there is a possibility to bring them back to Earth again.

Ask yourself something. If you had a ‘do over’ button. Would you do the shuttle? Or would you take the billions and put it into many probes and rovers all over the solar system? Before you answer remember all the promises made about the shuttle. Cheaper access to space. Improvements in tech to achieve orbit. Well it’s been that 20-30 years and where are we? Not all science produces improvements.

 

[DarkenedOne]

However astronauts die for a greater purpose. Their efforts to advance humanity will be remembered for thousands of years.

Oh so wrong. Can you name all the names of the astronauts that have died so far? (without looking them up)

The only people I can name off the top of my head who died for great cause is Jesus, MLK, and JFK, so that is a terrible metric, so lets establish a better one.

How about the fact that you can look them up. How about the fact that they have had high schools named after them. How about the fact that every news network in the country covered the event in great detail. How about the fact that practically everyone in the country was informed the day it happened.

I could go on, but it would be pointless. History will remember them.

SO yes if I had the option of living out a long regular life and dying of heart disease, or dying having been the first human on Mars I would definitely choose the later.

Have children and then grand children and reach the age of 60. Then ask yourself if you would have given up the last 20 years to catalogue a new Mars rock.

Its a matter of personality. Some people in fact I would say most people strive for their own personal gratification in life. They live, they have fun, they die, and the world goes on as if they never existed. They may be remembered for a little while by their relative, but they are entirely forgotten within a generation or two.

Some other people dedicate themselves and risk their lives in pursuit of nobler ventures.

 

[JonClarke]

The one way Mars mission isn't as stupid as it sounds. A couple of astronauts land on Mars and are stuck there. But they get regular resuplyes and keep on liveing. In 20-30 years the tech. improves and there is a possibility to bring them back to Earth again. Just imagine the Ticker-tape parade when they return!!!! The whole World would be inspired.

Again accidental one-way trips are different from planned ones.

 

[JonClarke]

Oh so wrong. Can you name all the names of the astronauts that have died so far? (without looking them up)

I can name about half without looking them up. Grissom, White, Chaffee, Komarov, Adams, Jarvis, Mcauliffe, McCool, Husband, Chowla, Ramon....

Have children and then grand children and reach the age of 60. Then ask yourself if you would have given up the last 20 years to catalogue a new Mars rock.

Just one rock? You have a very limited idea of what people would achieve in even a few months on Mars, let alone 20 years. There are plenty of people who would sacrifice children and granchildren for 20 yeares exploring a new planet. Just as they have done to explore our planet.

Ask yourself something. If you had a ‘do over’ button. Would you do the shuttle? Or would you take the billions and put it into many probes and rovers all over the solar system? Before you answer remember all the promises made about the shuttle.

A lot

We got the Shuttle and space stations and probes and rovers all over the solar system. Your point is?

Cheaper access to space. Improvements in tech to achieve orbit. Well it’s been that 20-30 years and where are we?

A lot further down the road than if we had followed your advice and killed off human spaceflight, that's for sure.

Not all science produces improvements.

Since science is investigating the unknown we don't know what improvements will come of it ahead of time, or when. Sometimes the benefits come many decades later. So your point is?

edited for spelling

 

[mark_d_s]

To compare space exploration to Iraq is just dumb.

No civilised nation is going to send people on a suicide mission. Fighting in a war is a totally different thing. Going to Mars is an extremely expensive thing to do, paid for by the tax payer, therefore success is paramount. And the fact of the matter is, no matter how hard we try, right now, Mars just ain't gonna work. We're at least 50 years away from a real Mars mission. Yeah, I know that's sad, but it's true.

 

[samkent]

A lot further down the road that if we had followed your advice and killed for human spaceflight, that's for sure.

I think you misunderstand my position. I am against on way/suicide missions.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

This argument is stupid and insulting. Astronauts are not test subjects, they're the ONLY ones who can get the job done. Mission success is absolutely necessary for a manned Mars mission. It will be long and difficult to get there and back, but the NASA engineers and astronauts are the best of the best. They will not be going that whole way to have the mission fail. If the astronauts do not return to Earth, then it is a FAILURE in the mission log. And if the first mission fails then I think you'll find it VERY difficult to get more support for future missions.

Who cares if astronauts die on a Mars mission? EVERYONE who cares about not only the astronauts but the future of manned spaceflight as well. I can't believe you're talking about such a disastrous thing to happen and then suggesting that it would be okay.

 

[JonClarke]

A lot further down the road that if we had followed your advice and killed for human spaceflight, that's for sure.

I think you misunderstand my position. I am against on way/suicide missions.

I don't misunderstand you at all - here and on ther boards you are always attacking human spaceflight. As you did here, saying we would hbe been better off without the space shuttle program.

 

[DarkenedOne]

This argument is stupid and insulting. Astronauts are not test subjects, they're the ONLY ones who can get the job done. Mission success is absolutely necessary for a manned Mars mission. It will be long and difficult to get there and back, but the NASA engineers and astronauts are the best of the best. They will not be going that whole way to have the mission fail. If the astronauts do not return to Earth, then it is a FAILURE in the mission log. And if the first mission fails then I think you'll find it VERY difficult to get more support for future missions.

Who cares if astronauts die on a Mars mission? EVERYONE who cares about not only the astronauts but the future of manned spaceflight as well. I can't believe you're talking about such a disastrous thing to happen and then suggesting that it would be okay.

First I would like to be clear that I do not advocate suicide missions. It is pointless to explore, but not to return to tell about it.

However exploration has been and will always be a risky business, therefore we must not have any delusions about the fact that we will lose people. WE ARE GOING TO LOSE PEOPLE, AND WHEN WE DO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP GOING. If NASA, Congress, and the American public approaches human spaceflight with the attitude that loss of life is absolutely unacceptable then we will not have a human spaceflight program because the only way to achieve that is to not have a human spaceflight program.

Fact of the matter is that this concept is not difficult for us. We do it on a daily basis. Everyday 115 people die in car accidents or approximately 1 every 13 minutes. When it happens it is sad of course, but we hope right back in our cars keep on driving.

Same goes with exploration.