Jump to content

Manned missions to Mars


Rusakov

Recommended Posts

Recently I suggested some companies to an organization that's trying to get a manned mission to Mars. How feasible do you think a manned Mars mission is? Should we go if it's possible? Should we terraform Mars if we find no life there?

Answer to your heart's content.

Personally I think we should go. And if there is no life there then we should terraform it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is cost-effective I say go for it; although we may have a hard time assuring that there is absolutely NO life on Mars; what about beneath the surface? :P

Imagine that; terraforming the planet only to find out a species of incredibly large worms live right beneath it, just waiting to break shit. :lol:

In all honesty it would be pretty awesome though ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a manned mission to mars would be a good one, however right now it is not an economic feasibility.

I would say in about 10 to 20 years we may have one of the first missions especially once the Plasma Rocket that the Astra Rocket company has been working, could get us to the moon in less time. Especially without the need for Cryo-chambers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be difficult to figure out if life does or doesn't currently exist on Mars. But there may be a place where we could do a check for it.

http://www.space.com/12543-mars-mystery-slopes-salt-water.html

To be really sure we could drill down several miles (we've found life on Earth that deep) to make sure there aren't any microbes down there. In case we aren't certain we could warm up the planet a bit and add a little water to check once and for all whether life exists there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a manned mission to mars would be a good one, however right now it is not an economic feasibility.

I would say in about 10 to 20 years we may have one of the first missions especially once the Plasma Rocket that the Astra Rocket company has been working, could get us to the moon in less time. Especially without the need for Cryo-chambers.

The founder of SpaceX is thinking about sending a manned mission to mars in 10 to 20 years. As for it being economically infeasible, we could probably send a crew of four to Mars (the Mars Direct plan) if we spent a portion of the defense budget on a mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say pointless. Other than beating chests over 'flags and footprints' type missions, I feel investing in more effecient/practical space projects is the way to go. Space Elevators, Moonbases, Microwave Satelites ect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good idea to me, in the event we screw up earth enough, having a backup planet would be a good idea... Of course I'm in full support of any space travel whatsoever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a manned mission to mars would be a good one, however right now it is not an economic feasibility.

I would say in about 10 to 20 years we may have one of the first missions especially once the Plasma Rocket that the Astra Rocket company has been working, could get us to the moon in less time. Especially without the need for Cryo-chambers.

mah thoughts exactly. Also you'd half to wait 8 years for the plants to aline correctly for the fastest safest journy, and then stay on mars another 8 years for the same route back :( its just not a good idea with were we are technologicaly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I say no. Human kind should not be spreading to other planets until we learn to actually take care of them, and if we were to terraform Mars, or the moon, or where ever before then, there goes all possibility of a reform to human nature, as people would have a, "Oh, we fucked up this planet, too? Move to another one!" mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is alot of planets, so that doesn't matter. Without more effiecent travel though, it would be to expencive to be sustainible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is alot of planets, so that doesn't matter. Without more effiecent travel though, it would be to expencive to be sustainible.

Ignoring the obvious moral wrongness of that, as well as the possibility of aliens getting pissed at a bunch of douchebag humans running around stinking up the universe and vaporizing our collective asses, there's still several issues with that sort of mentality. Your point of being able to travel efficiently is one, which goes hand in hand with the problem that not many planets are really suitable for sustaining life. Venus is made of piss and acid, and Mercury is made of hot. After Mars, we have gas planets and Pluto. There may be plenty of planets, but only one in our solar system that could even plausibly sustain life outside Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your forgetting the two of jupiters many moons that have proved possibly life sustaining: Titan for having near earth conditions, and the other one i cant remember the name of thats covered in water ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the other one i cant remember the name of thats covered in water ice

Enceladus?

And Xortberg, about Venus being uninhabitable, there is a layer above the acid clouds that has Earth-like temperatures and pressures. It would be mostly CO2 so you would still need a facemask, but other than that you could go out in normal clothes. Plus there are ideas on terraforming it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your forgetting the two of jupiters many moons that have proved possibly life sustaining: Titan for having near earth conditions, and the other one i cant remember the name of thats covered in water ice

Didn't forget, just never knew of them in the first place. In any case, landing on one of two moons in Jupiter's harem after working our way through the asteroid belt would most likely be obscenely impractical, so in any foreseeable future Mars is our only bet.

Enceladus?

And Xortberg, about Venus being uninhabitable, there is a layer above the acid clouds that has Earth-like temperatures and pressures. It would be mostly CO2 so you would still need a facemask, but other than that you could go out in normal clothes. Plus there are ideas on terraforming it too.

A layer above the clouds doesn't do us much good. See, we can't fly. We need solid ground to walk on. And I seriously doubt we have the technology to terraform it. If we could make Venus inhabitable, we wouldn't be so worried about our own environmental problems I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the obvious moral wrongness of that, as well as the possibility of aliens getting pissed at a bunch of douchebag humans running around stinking up the universe and vaporizing our collective asses, there's still several issues with that sort of mentality. Your point of being able to travel efficiently is one, which goes hand in hand with the problem that not many planets are really suitable for sustaining life. Venus is made of piss and acid, and Mercury is made of hot. After Mars, we have gas planets and Pluto. There may be plenty of planets, but only one in our solar system that could even plausibly sustain life outside Earth.

Morals don't bother me. Somebody already mentioned the moons, and you kind of shot your own argument in the foot with a joke.

First, the idea of only a few planets that can sustain life. Assuming we are limited only to the solar system, then we don't have to worry about aliens. If we do go outside the solar system, we still dont have to worry about aliens, at least for a while. One of the biggest flaws with the 'aliens are among us' idea is that the universe is pretty big. So big that you likely a break if you tried to cross it with a bicycle. :P

In other words, there is always more planets. Infinity is pretty big. Even if we came across a earth like planet and strip mined it for 1000 years, we would still have plenty more. The hard bit is finding them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morals don't bother me. Somebody already mentioned the moons, and you kind of shot your own argument in the foot with a joke.

Not to sound rude, but you're not the center of the discussion here. The human population at large generally have morals and are bothered by them, so it's a valid point. I already pointed out that the moons are impractical because, as you said, efficient transportation to them is very difficult, and making a joke does not invalidate an argument.

First, the idea of only a few planets that can sustain life. Assuming we are limited only to the solar system, then we don't have to worry about aliens.

Assuming the aliens don't come to our system themselves, but that's an extremely hypothetical situation so meh.

If we do go outside the solar system, we still dont have to worry about aliens, at least for a while. One of the biggest flaws with the 'aliens are among us' idea is that the universe is pretty big. So big that you likely a break if you tried to cross it with a bicycle. :P

The universe is indeed big, but if aliens do exist and we begin expanding it's only a matter of time until we come across them. In fact. the longer it takes to encounter a potentially more technologically advanced alien race (and one that would vaporize us for being galactic douchebags) the more we would have done to piss them off, so yeh.

All that said, the aliens point was more a joking remark than a legit point. I'm not dismissing it as a possibility, but I'm not too worried about defending it, especially considering it's extremely hypothetical.

In other words, there is always more planets. Infinity is pretty big. Even if we came across a earth like planet and strip mined it for 1000 years, we would still have plenty more. The hard bit is finding them.

Indeed, the hard bit is finding them. Our solar system, officially eight planets, has one that holds life, one that feasibly could hold life, one that would need to be completely overhauled to hold life and two moons that might be able to hold life if we could feasibly pick them out of the moon harem that is Jupiter's orbit and navigate to them. The nearest star to the sun is 4.2 light years away, and there's no guarantee that it even has life-supporting planets. Mars is our most feasible chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A layer above the clouds doesn't do us much good. See, we can't fly. We need solid ground to walk on.

But we can make colonies that can fly and we can live on or inside them. Carbon dioxide is denser than the gas mix of our atmosphere so the envelope could be filled with normal Earth atmosphere gases and still float.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if/when we actually need to get away from Earth, "moral" (whatever you mean by that) won't prevent us from going away and settle wherever possible.

But let's stay on the initial subject. Manned missions to Mars. An excellent idea I think. Going to Mars arise a wide range of problems, the first one being propulsion/fuel reserves and so on and so forth. The most practical work around would be to go in space (on an orbital station or on the Moon) and benefit from the lesser gravity there to actually launch shuttles to Mars. But that'd require some advanced logistics (something rather interesting/challenging to develop and sustain in itself!).

Aside that aspect, travels to Mars would be waaaay longer than the previous ones attempted. Missions would be harder to monitor "in live" because of the distance, and the food/water/air supplies management would be even more tricky.

That's a kind of engineering milestone that'd be very challenging to reach indeed.

Then for what is beyond the solar system, well... I'm afraid that stay out of reach until some major propelling tech breakthrough! :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's stay on the initial subject. Manned missions to Mars. An excellent idea I think. Going to Mars arise a wide range of problems, the first one being propulsion/fuel reserves and so on and so forth. The most practical work around would be to go in space (on an orbital station or on the Moon) and benefit from the lesser gravity there to actually launch shuttles to Mars. But that'd require some advanced logistics (something rather interesting/challenging to develop and sustain in itself!).

Actually, things need not be so complicated. According to Zubrin's Mars Direct plan you'd just need a capsule big enough to sustain four people and a heavy lift rocket. The upcoming Falcon Heavy rocket could serve the role quite nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing's simple with passengers that need to breath, eat, drink, piss n' poop... Supply recycling technologies definitely need some major improvements to sustain long travels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing's simple with passengers that need to breath, eat, drink, piss n' poop... Supply recycling technologies definitely need some major improvements to sustain long travels.

Grow plants. Plants produce oxygen from CO2, food from amonia and organics (plenty in human waste) and water via transpiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you don't picture the scale of such a setup to be sustainable, even for only a few persons... There are ratios (reserves/production and consumption/production mainly), plants need (much) more water than they let out, you'd have to maintain their soil properties... You just can't grow a garden in the back of your pod and live from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you don't picture the scale of such a setup to be sustainable, even for only a few persons... There are ratios (reserves/production and consumption/production mainly), plants need (much) more water than they let out, you'd have to maintain their soil properties... You just can't grow a garden in the back of your pod and live from it.

Fair point. How about using plants that store lots of water for later use like cacti? Or after giving the waste to plants, use a biofilter to purify the water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...