Q. Can We, Should We, Go To Mars?

Yes, we absolutely should go to Mars. Robotic missions are nice and relatively cheap--and they are getting better all the time--but they are no substitute for the versatility of humans.

As far as the probable cost goes, I would not be inclined to disagree with your estimate at this early date--unless I felt it was necessary to ever get the mission off the ground, in which case I would be inclined to lowball the probable cost in order to increase the political acceptability of the endeavor.

If one counts the development of a Moon base into the overall cost of the mission, including the capability to manufacture many of the materials needed for the Mars mission, as well as extensive communications and observation capabilities and life sustaining/support capabilities, etc., etc., etc., then your estimate may prove realistic or even low.

One of the things a Moon base would be good for would be to serve as a terminus point for a Lunar space elevator. Constructing such a facility on the Moon would, in the long term, prove cost effective. Bear in mind though that doing things right could take quite a while.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Astronomer70]

Another thought on a Mars mission.

Get the governments of the world out of the way and let private and/or public enterprises do everything needed to further space based resource exploitation. It would certainly not be as fast, or as safe, as letting the governments of the world continue their monopoly, but once started and left alone positive results would accrue rapidly.

Originally posted by elevatedone
Lets remember that this is all assuming that we have not already been to Mars and / or are not there at this very minute.

There are people who believe we've been going there since the 60's.

Heheh...yep, that's right. The 'Alternative 3' theory Good TV show, interesting book - but most likely a fake. Shame though... But who knows? We *could* already be there...


J.

I don't know, I'm in the camp that believes that we have already been there or that the probes that have been sent know more then Joe Public does. I have nothing to back it up, may just be wishful thinking but if it we haven't been there I would think it would be a much higher priority than it is. I mean, going to another PLANET let alone the moon is a pretty big deal in my eyes.

We should go to Mars eventually, but the establishment of a Moon base and proper space station must be the first priority. Unfortunately NASA isn't competant enough to properly build these things. It's hierarchy is so steeped in missle culture that it can't think of anything else.
First we need a large rotational structure that can create centrifugal force gravity to use as a waystation. Some place for the inefficient Earth to orbit ships to dock and transfer their cargo. Then we can use purpose built space craft to go from the space dock to the moon. These don't have to be aerodynamic or sexy, just practical and assembled in space.
Then you build a under ground Lunar base with solar panels designed to track the sun. From there, you have the option of building in Lunar orbit or Earth orbit.
After the ship comes back from Mars, you can park it in Lunar orbit and refit it for a trip somewhere else.
But it won't happen. It makes too much sense.

The more I think about it........

When bridges collapse and kill people, huge pot holes on my street, homeless people living in dumpsters, poor old people eating cat food for dinner, American infant mortality below Cuba's, 50% of Americans with out health insurance, High school seniors that can't name the Secretary of State, American infrastructure on the brink of meltdown, etc....

I think I would rather see my tax dollars spent on Americans rather than have NASA waste them on some "high profile" selfagrandizing boondoggle that they are so good at generating.

Let's set some priorities here....

posted by Direwolf
We should go to Mars eventually, but the establishment of a Moon base and proper space station must be the first priority. Unfortunately NASA isn't competent enough to properly build these things. It's hierarchy is so steeped in missile culture that it can't think of anything else.

I agree. Werner von Braun! Redstone Arsenal. Huntsville, Alabama. Jupiter-C missile. And etc. Those of you who are into near-space history will recall the embarrassing Navy attempt to counter the USSR Sputnik with its 4 stage Vanguard missile that failed on its first attempt. The Army to the rescue with its Jupiter-C! NASA is a lineal descendant of Werner von Braun.

Then you build a under ground Lunar base with solar panels designed to track the sun. From there, you have the option of building in Lunar orbit or Earth orbit. After the ship comes back from Mars, you can park it in Lunar orbit and refit it for a trip somewhere else. But it won't happen. It makes too much sense.

It does make sense and frankly, it is the only way we can go to Mars. We cannot afford to fly from Earth to Mars and back. Watch my numbers but I think the Shuttle launch vehicle generates 5 million horsepower while the Saturn 5 generated 30 million horsepower. I bring that up to point out that the Saturn 5 needed every ounce of power to push the 3 man Apollo to the Moon and back, but the Shuttle is more the size of craft you’d need to go to Mars in. I don’t know how much more the Shuttle weighs than an Apollo with lunar lander return capsule and so on but its got to be more than we can do with chemicals directly from Earth. And we don’t want to even think about the Russian’s N1 with how many engines in Stage 1?

[edit on 8/7/2007 by donwhite]