Re: Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:30:33 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Then Get your ass to Mars!

http://OnToMar.org/forum/


(1) Mars is beyond current technology. Only machines can live in there.
Any human expedition to Mars is just science fiction.

Actually, NASA was planning on going to Mars right after Apollo, back in
the early 1970s. This technology is almost 40 years old.

And this fact is a GOOD thing since

(2) Mars has probably life in it. Many hints in the last years have made
this hypothesis much more real: The methane found in Mars, the
amounts of water, there are, probably underground, mars living
beings.

Life on Mars is a reason for going there, not a reason for not going
there.

(3) Since any human expedition to Mars would destroy the possibility
of finding those bacteria, it is a good thing that humans can't go
to mars now

Doesn't follow that humans would destroy life on Mars just by BEING
there.

(4) The technology for living in an independent vessel for more than
3-4 months is just not there

The Soviets had cosmonauts in LEO for over 6 months. Not to put too fine
a point on it, but you seem to be making stuff up.

(5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there

It's not impossible to do.

(6) The technology for living in Mars is not there:
o -50 C in the day, -100 in the night
Heating energy would need a nuclear reactor to keep humans from
freezing
o No oxygen. All oxygen has to be brought from earth. o No food. All
food must be brought from earth. o No air pressure. You must live in
pressure suits all
the time you are outside
o Etc

We have had people on the moon, where the temperature variations are even
greater.

No, you don't have to bring all the oxygen from earth. Mars has CO2 and
H2O, and you can easily make oxygen from both.

(7) Since Mars bacteria probably exist, we can't take the risk of
introducing them into the earth biosphere. We can't send humans
since they would bring marsian bacteria with them if we bring them
back. Machines can have a one way trip.

A Mars mission would likely last 18 months on the surface. If no bacteria
kill them, and they don't get sick on the six months back to earth, it is
highly unlikely to be a problem.



--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NASA Rushing To Mars As Per Bushs Policy
    ... > WASHINGTON - NASA is racing to carry out President Bush's costly vision ... > of sending humans back to the moon and then on to Mars - despite the ... > Moon-Mars plan is gobbling up funds for other scientific ventures. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: OT Am I crazy?
    ... forming of Mars'. ... Thing is, humans must push forwards, its what we do. ... important than famine, disease and disaster. ... limits of human endeavour. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: OT Am I crazy?
    ... Thing is, humans must push forwards, its what we do. ... disaster will always be with us, long after we terra form Mars, and beyond. ... important than famine, disease and disaster. ... limits of human endeavour. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: New space settlement article
    ... >> fractional gravities to a fractional extent. ... > down to having to go through a fitness training before going back to Earth. ... > how well humans would adapt over a longer period of time. ... Yes - but before you can settle Mars, you need to prove, to the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Minimum size of a Mars mission that could potentailly survive indefinately
    ... I understand that in a single year, a human on Mars might ... Humans should stay within the Earth/Moon system for the next few ... There's no comfort in the statistics for missions to Mars. ... and also in the amount of atmosphere it has then the ...
    (sci.space.policy)