Mars mission will be a suicide mission.

[marvin martian]

Mars has 1/5th the gravity of Earth.

Closer to 2/5ths.

Correct. 38% to be exact.

 

[YoursTruly]

One would think that we are drifting in space when in reality, we are screwing our way. The next time you find yourself getting screwed, remember, you will have something in common with our Solar System.

And we're doing it at about 500,000 miles per hour.

 

[Vrenn]

The first problem is solved by sending women, and then teasing them about being FAT the whole way out ... that keeps the weight down ... the second is a bigger problem going to the Moon, we're closer to the Sun and so receive much higher radiation levels ... although I believe the Apollo missions used aluminum foil as shielding, the ISS is slightly more robust ... and we've stuck folks in that tin can for long periods ...

The cost to provide a human habitation for that long is prohibitively expensive ... and just a single system will break and kill the astronauts ... triple, or quadruple, redundant systems and we can't get from the Earth's surface to Low Earth Orbit ... the sad truth is getting from LEO to Mars and back is easy, cheap and routine ... there's really no issues at all ...

Look at the Saturn V rocket ... only the top ten feet came back with a quarter ton of cytoplasm and a few hundred pounds of rocks ...

All that time and expense for rocks ... we're better off spinning gold out of straw ...

Fuel can be made cheaply on Mars so that's not a problem. It won't take a S5 booster to get something into orbit at Mars. Since the gravity is 1/5th of that of Earth, it takes a whole lot less than 1/5th the thrust to get to orbit. The Atmosphere is not as thick as in the boundary layer is much less meaning orbit speeds are slower. Unlike the Moon, Mars has the natural resources to provide for industry. But, no, it ain't easy or cheap.

Do you support putting a permanent base on the Moon? Like Mars, the gravity of the Moon is 1/5th that of Earth. But it hasn't the resources. Again, do you support a base on the Moon? Believe it or not, it doesn't cost that much less to get the initial products to the moon than it does Mars. But, unlike Mars, on the moon, you will have to keep resupplying it using those Sat IV Rockets.

 

[YoursTruly]

Before populating Mars, unmanned craft with appropriate technology needs to be sent down to terra form the planet.

There's no way to do that with todays technology.

Before we go to other planets, I think we should try fixing this one.

Because when I think about putting life on mars, I'm thinking Elysium or 2012. Where only the super rich get to escape earth.

 

[ReinyDays]

Fuel can be made cheaply on Mars so that's not a problem. It won't take a S5 booster to get something into orbit at Mars. Since the gravity is 1/5th of that of Earth, it takes a whole lot less than 1/5th the thrust to get to orbit. The Atmosphere is not as thick as in the boundary layer is much less meaning orbit speeds are slower. Unlike the Moon, Mars has the natural resources to provide for industry. But, no, it ain't easy or cheap.

Do you support putting a permanent base on the Moon? Like Mars, the gravity of the Moon is 1/5th that of Earth. But it hasn't the resources. Again, do you support a base on the Moon? Believe it or not, it doesn't cost that much less to get the initial products to the moon than it does Mars. But, unlike Mars, on the moon, you will have to keep resupplying it using those Sat IV Rockets.

Why do you think Mars has useful resources? ... 90% is covered with basalt ... and absolutely zero fossil fuels ... trace amounts of water ... any station on Mars or the Moon would require massive supply convoys for a very long time ... it doesn't really matter how far away, it's the first 200 miles that cost all the money ... from Earth's surface to Low Earth Orbit ...

 

[westwall]

Why do you think Mars has useful resources? ... 90% is covered with basalt ... and absolutely zero fossil fuels ... trace amounts of water ... any station on Mars or the Moon would require massive supply convoys for a very long time ... it doesn't really matter how far away, it's the first 200 miles that cost all the money ... from Earth's surface to Low Earth Orbit ...

Yeah, Mars is potentially rich in economic minerals like gypsum, hematite, and possibly molybdenum, but the cost to extract them, and bring them here are so high that it would be ridiculous to mine them. As far as use by a colony, that would make some sense, you would be able to manufacture your own cement, and steel, but once again, the cost would be enormous.

 

[Blaster]

Instead of a mission to Mars the government should try to invent a time machine that would allow us to travel either backward or forward in time.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The first problem is solved by sending women, and then teasing them about being FAT the whole way out ... that keeps the weight down ... the second is a bigger problem going to the Moon, we're closer to the Sun and so receive much higher radiation levels ... although I believe the Apollo missions used aluminum foil as shielding, the ISS is slightly more robust ... and we've stuck folks in that tin can for long periods ...

The cost to provide a human habitation for that long is prohibitively expensive ... and just a single system will break and kill the astronauts ... triple, or quadruple, redundant systems and we can't get from the Earth's surface to Low Earth Orbit ... the sad truth is getting from LEO to Mars and back is easy, cheap and routine ... there's really no issues at all ...

Look at the Saturn V rocket ... only the top ten feet came back with a quarter ton of cytoplasm and a few hundred pounds of rocks ...

All that time and expense for rocks ... we're better off spinning gold out of straw ...

Cytoplasm????

 

[ReinyDays]

Yeah, Mars is potentially rich in economic minerals like gypsum, hematite, and possibly molybdenum, but the cost to extract them, and bring them here are so high that it would be ridiculous to mine them. As far as use by a colony, that would make some sense, you would be able to manufacture your own cement, and steel, but once again, the cost would be enormous.

I'm sure materials exist on Mars in pretty much exactly the same proportions as would have been found on Earth ... but until we set up industry there, humans won't be able to use these resources, not for a very long time ...

We regularly send robots on suicide missions ... and save the money on breathable oxygen ... the technology is easy, just expensive ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Cytoplasm????

That's the goop inside cell membranes ... an allegory to all that of a biological nature ... something that would be completely absent on Mars, other than what we bring with us ...

I suspect minerals that require water circulation would also be in very very short supply ... so there's a few important resources that would require new technology and new methods ...

 

[Vrenn]

Why do you think Mars has useful resources? ... 90% is covered with basalt ... and absolutely zero fossil fuels ... trace amounts of water ... any station on Mars or the Moon would require massive supply convoys for a very long time ... it doesn't really matter how far away, it's the first 200 miles that cost all the money ... from Earth's surface to Low Earth Orbit ...

Considering that there will be an extreme increase in Science and Technology from the attempt, you still haven't told me why it should not be done. You owe the Moon Missions for most of the technology you use today.

 

[ReinyDays]

Considering that there will be an extreme increase in Science and Technology from the attempt, you still haven't told me why it should not be done. You owe the Moon Missions for most of the technology you use today.

I did tell you why we shouldn't ... robots can do the same job for cheaper ... none of that nasty biology stuff to fool with ...

We have the Science and Technology to get to Mars, then spend some time, and return safely home ... it's exactly the same as Apollo just more fuel, more food, more water, more air, more everything ... all transported to space in rockets; big expense, noisy, polluting rockets ...

'Tis said we've the far side of the Moon mapped to ten times the detail of our ocean floors ... and the untapped resources found there ... seems Science and Technology is better spent there with much better chances of success ...

 

[Flash]

Any mission to Mars will be a suicide mission. The first problem has to do with gravity, and the return liftoff from the surface of Mars. Once any craft lands on the Martian surface, it will become to heavy to launch back into space. The second problem, has to do with radiation. The space radiation that has been on the Martian surface is very dangerous for humans from Earth. The third and most obvious problem is the cost and the navigation to get to Mars and back to Earth. As I understand it, you only have a certain window of time when the Earth is in close proximity to Mars, for the journey to Mars to be reachable. Your thoughts on all of these issues.??

There is a forth problem. The soil on Mars is very toxic. Perchlorates that will get all over the suits and eventually on the explorers.

 

[YoursTruly]

Considering that there will be an extreme increase in Science and Technology from the attempt, you still haven't told me why it should not be done. You owe the Moon Missions for most of the technology you use today.

Considering some extremely important facts about space travel, I'd say anything beyond the moon is a waste of time.
There's no way to terraform Mars or the moon.
The closet possibly habitable planet is over 4 light years away. Meaning if we could travel over 1000 miles per second, it would still take generations to get there from earth. Or Mars, for that matter.
And that one planet, the ONLY thing that makes them think it's habitable, is shadows from it's sun/star. Seriously, it's just a shadow cast by that sun as it eclipses the camera they're using to video it.

All those pretty video's NASA comes up with to make people believe there's another planet we can live on, are fakes. Basically all nasa has is a dark planet with a star behind it.

But to build support for the billions NASA gets, they have to come up with theories, pictures and computer generated video's to sell to the public.

 

[ReinyDays]

... if we could travel over 1000 miles per second ...

Fastest man made objects are solar satellites that pass close to the Sun, 44 miles per second ... man-hole covers at a slightly less 37 miles per second ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fastest man made objects are solar satellites that pass close to the Sun, 44 miles per second ... man-hole covers at a slightly less 37 miles per second ...

Project Orion would have been cool.

 

[westwall]

Fastest man made objects are solar satellites that pass close to the Sun, 44 miles per second ... man-hole covers at a slightly less 37 miles per second ...

Sadly, there is no actual evidence that the manhole cover did anything but vaporize. It's a fun theory, but that is all it is.

 

[Vrenn]

I did tell you why we shouldn't ... robots can do the same job for cheaper ... none of that nasty biology stuff to fool with ...

We have the Science and Technology to get to Mars, then spend some time, and return safely home ... it's exactly the same as Apollo just more fuel, more food, more water, more air, more everything ... all transported to space in rockets; big expense, noisy, polluting rockets ...

'Tis said we've the far side of the Moon mapped to ten times the detail of our ocean floors ... and the untapped resources found there ... seems Science and Technology is better spent there with much better chances of success ...

Guess you won't be asked to go to Mars then. I can live with that. But you damn sure are going to pay for part of it like everyone else.

 

[Vrenn]

Considering some extremely important facts about space travel, I'd say anything beyond the moon is a waste of time.
There's no way to terraform Mars or the moon.
The closet possibly habitable planet is over 4 light years away. Meaning if we could travel over 1000 miles per second, it would still take generations to get there from earth. Or Mars, for that matter.
And that one planet, the ONLY thing that makes them think it's habitable, is shadows from it's sun/star. Seriously, it's just a shadow cast by that sun as it eclipses the camera they're using to video it.

All those pretty video's NASA comes up with to make people believe there's another planet we can live on, are fakes. Basically all nasa has is a dark planet with a star behind it.

But to build support for the billions NASA gets, they have to come up with theories, pictures and computer generated video's to sell to the public.

And the Earth is flat, right?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The first problem is solved by sending women, and then teasing them about being FAT the whole way out ... that keeps the weight down ... the second is a bigger problem going to the Moon, we're closer to the Sun and so receive much higher radiation levels ... although I believe the Apollo missions used aluminum foil as shielding, the ISS is slightly more robust ... and we've stuck folks in that tin can for long periods ...

The cost to provide a human habitation for that long is prohibitively expensive ... and just a single system will break and kill the astronauts ... triple, or quadruple, redundant systems and we can't get from the Earth's surface to Low Earth Orbit ... the sad truth is getting from LEO to Mars and back is easy, cheap and routine ... there's really no issues at all ...

Look at the Saturn V rocket ... only the top ten feet came back with a quarter ton of cytoplasm and a few hundred pounds of rocks ...

All that time and expense for rocks ... we're better off spinning gold out of straw ...

I'm not a fan of "colonizing" Mars, but it's not impossible. They've accounted for every concern you've listed. At 175, I only weigh 66 lbs on Mars.

Escape velocity of Mars is just over 11,000 mph.

We are returning to the moon so we don't have to lift off earth. The escape velocity of the moon is only about 3,000 mph