Humans Will Never Colonize Mars

1) It isn't unproven and untested technology. It is literally not rocket science.
2) The idea is that is should prevent bone loss and muscle degradation and fluid ships. Or at least reduce them.
3) Who gives a damn about what kind of shape the crew is once the mission is over? At that point they've accomplished what they set out to do.

 

Actually it IS rocket science and what shape they are in is the whole point of this discussion...or did you forget.

 

I say it isn't "rocket science" in the sense that the term "rocket science" is often used to indicate something state of the art and utterly without precedent. And this is definitely not.

And once again, who gives a damn about the physical condition of astronauts once they have completed their mission? It isn't like we're going to use them again.

 

Wow...Apparently I was the only one participating in this discussion.

Have A Nice Day

 

Probably not a good thing to do...colonize Antarctica.

Surely humans are a by-product of Earth and how we evolved is directly connected to Earth's physics, biology and chemistry. Placing a human on another planet for long-term scenarios, is going to challenge human characteristics. Can humans adjust? Will humans fail? Will there be enough life time to allow evolution in the new environment? If humans cannot reproduce then humans cannot be sustained.

How will humans handle exposure to new bacteria and nasty bugs?

These and a million other issues will be relevant whether it's Mars or any place away from Earth...

 

There are no bacteria or bugs on Mars. If there were it would be the greatest scientific discovery in a millennium.

 

I suspect this stuff is everywhere in the Universe where it survived...

 

And you have evidence to support this?

 

Well, this is absolutely false. A manned mission to Mars at this point would be a short stopover and return.

And, it would really have nothing to do with scientific exploration of any part of Mars.

That can't be compared to the years of rover activity on Mars or compared to what would be possible given the budget that a manned mission would require.

 

You didn't lay out all the factors that are significantly different between here and Mars.

And, I didn't claim that all of them were beyond human capacity of survival. I responded to one that came from a discussion with other posters.

 

Actually NASA in their planning have endorsed broad outlines of the Mars Direct mission plan which calls for a year and a half stay time on the Martian surface from the beginning.

 

Interestingly enough, this type of order comes from congress. NASA does stuff for science. It is also ordered by LAW to do stuff they wouldn't have any reason to do for science.

Today, the largest rocket NASA is building is being built because of orders from congress to do so. And, that rocket doesn't even have a future, given the performance of SpaceX and other private enterprise.

Given a few more successful unmanned ISS resupply missions, SpaceX will be allowed to start ferrying humans to the ISS. And, SpaceX is building a gigantic rocket that will be able to have its stages land back on Earth for reuse - a monumental cost savings. In the end, the stupendously expensive NASA heavy lifter may be no more than backup plan.

So, Trump and the Republicans want NASA to put a man on the moon. Before, the administration wanted to put a man on Mars. Before that, the administration wanted to do a better job of exploring asteroids. Before that, Bush wanted NASA to do something else. Etc.

The problem with these government ordered missions is that there is no particularly clear view and not enough justification to hold a direction even for a full presidential term in office!

 

Surely you would agree that Congress would never approve the funding for unmanned missions that is remotely comparable to a manned mission.

No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

 

What is it that you think an unmanned mission can't do?

We've done numerous missions that humans can not do.

 

For example?

And unmanned missions have lacked the ability to do the kind of in depth analysis regarding different kinds of data which might be contradictory.

Viking I & II were two of the most sophisticated missions ever sent to the surface of Mars to analyze soil samples and look for signs of life. Yet even then the results were contradictory and gave no definitive results.

Surely you must agree that if those soil samples were on Earth being examined by hundreds or even thousands of scientists that much more information would've been gleaned from them?

 

We can bring samples of all kinds from Mars for far cheaper without humans than with humans. And, the issues of analysis will be ones of what equipment is available for the analysis, not whether there is a human operator. Earth is where we have far and away more analytical power than we can land on Mars or the Moon at this time.

We've had rovers on Mars for years - which we can't do with humans. We've sent satellites to Jupiter, Saturn and even Pluto - which we can't do with humans. We've sent missions to the sun, Mercury and Venus which we can't do with humans. Etc. The most likely location in our solar system besides Earth is probably the moons Titan and Enceladus. We can't send humans to either location, but there are several proposals for unmanned missions that would have the power to search for life.

Overall, I don't see a reason pertaining to science for sending humans to any of these places at this time.

 

Sure we can. It is well within our current technology to send astronauts to any of those locations. Especially to Mars for years.

And before you complain otherwise remember we haven't sent an unmanned sample return mission to Mars yet either.

 

You're just saying words now. It took 9 years for New Horizons to get to Pluto, and require. It took an Atlas V to launch it even though it weighed only 900 lbs. Had it required life support for a human (of some as yet to be figured out method) as well as fuel and rockets for a return it would have been monumentally larger.

Astronauts returning from the ISS show signifiant health issues as Tecoyah pointed out. Plus sufficient current technology radiation protection would be seriously heavy.

As much as you don't care whether astronauts live, bringing back a radiated astronaut, or the body of someone who committed suicide after 15 years in a tiny can is just not acceptable.

 

New Horizons was part of NASA's "cheaper, faster, better" concept that focused on using extremely lightweight and cheaper space probes to cut development time and transit times.

NERVA, a nuclear rocket engine was tested by the U.S. all the way back in the 1960s. It was designed for a Mars mission but it could cut mission times to the outer planets to only a few years one way.

And you don't seen the fuel for a return trip anyway. An Earth return vehicle say for Pluto would arrive there years ahead of time and break down water ice using nuclear power into hydrogen/oxygen fuel. Or if simply using nuclear thermal reactor for fuel, just hydrogen for reaction mass for the return trip. Plus with ice available. it dramatically cuts the required supplies that have to be taken by any mission.

 

OIC, you want to LAND a human on Pluto and hang around while gathering ice.

Or, you want to use a rocket that was abandoned almost 50 years ago, and which never flew.

We "know" how to build chemical rockets today, but actually DOING it takes an incredibly long time. The SLS was ordered by congress in 2010. NASA is still working on the SLS, with the SLS Block 2 required for any possible Mars mission. Yet, after numerous slips the SLS can not have its first test launch before 2021. Any possible manned mission would have to come well after that.


Beyond that, SpaceX, Boeing and others are working on private enterprise space programs, making it quite reasonable to ask why we aren't just allowing THEM to do this "spaceman" thing, rather than blowing huge dollars on something that doesn't appear to me to have any justification.

If these "spaceman" tax dollars were spent on healthcare, saving the lives of US citizens, making people able to work, to support their families, to not require tax dollar support, would you oppose that?

I would not. I would be more than happy to divert "spaceman" money to healthcare, to reducing taxes for working America, etc., and to have NASA work on science with its current budget, on this world and in space - which doesn't require humans at this point.

 

Imagine growing up on Mars. What type of Mom or Dad would make that choice? It's only slightly better than abortion.

 

Not necessarily - assuming a lot of 'ifs' have been answered.

If humans have been there long enough and have established a large enough human population to make a viable 'community for children to grow up in.
If that community can grow, mine or manufacture a healthy enough surplus of all the resources it needs to support a growing population without any significant input from Earth.
If research has established that other mammals can breed healthy offspring on Mars which then go on to prosper and then breed healthy offspring of their own in turn.
If the infrastructure supporting the community is large and elaborate enough to provide plenty of space and opportunities for learning and development.

In short lots of ifs before anyone should reasonably consider it safe enough to start bouncing little humans on their knees. Not that the local workforce wouldn't make good parents. They would all be highly educated, highly motivated individuals.

 

Guess I'm just to hung up on outdoor life.

 

Regarding a manned mission to Pluto. Using technology from 50 years ago, you can get there in two years.

https://interestingengineering.com/after-new-horizons-will-humans-ever-walk-on-pluto

 

We would not go there when Titan is bigger and much safer.