NASA's InSight lander on Mars

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On the other hand. What is the point in spending Billions of dollars annually to keep humans puttering around in LEO like we have for the past 50 years? It makes no sense.

They do science that results in knowledge we will need in space travel. New technologies are invented, and existing ones refined.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For a long time to come, robots are going to be the only travelers in this solar system.

Yep, but not forever ...

 

[fncceo]

For a long time to come, robots are going to be the only travelers in this solar system.

Yep, but not forever ...

In order to make human space travel practical, we have to find another way of getting humans and their material off this planet. The existing 1950's based technology is just too expensive and dangerous.

There isn't enough money on this planet to fund a human colony on Mars or even the Moon.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For a long time to come, robots are going to be the only travelers in this solar system.

Yep, but not forever ...

In order to make human space travel practical, we have to find another way of getting humans and their material off this planet. The existing 1950's based technology is just too expensive and dangerous.

There isn't enough money on this planet to fund a human colony on Mars or even the Moon.

Well, that's going to take practice and ingenuity...

 

[fncceo]

For a long time to come, robots are going to be the only travelers in this solar system.

Yep, but not forever ...

In order to make human space travel practical, we have to find another way of getting humans and their material off this planet. The existing 1950's based technology is just too expensive and dangerous.

There isn't enough money on this planet to fund a human colony on Mars or even the Moon.

Well, that's going to take practice and ingenuity...

We've been practicing and using our ingenuity in making rockets for over 70 years. Our rocket technology remains largely unchanged. We've pushed the limits of chemical rocket technology and human space travel still remains impractical.

To change that requires not just practicing and refining, but a completely new technology. Something that currently hasn't been created. I predict, like with most technological innovations, when it comes around, it won't be immediately applied to space travel. But, if a new technology can be developed (the ability to manipulate gravitational fields for example), it will open the door for humans to set foot into space.

However, when they finally do make that step, it will require not just the technology, but the economic need to do so.

Humans for example, had the ability to make transoceanic voyages for more than a century before someone finally got around to sailing for the New World, albeit accidentally.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For a long time to come, robots are going to be the only travelers in this solar system.

Yep, but not forever ...

In order to make human space travel practical, we have to find another way of getting humans and their material off this planet. The existing 1950's based technology is just too expensive and dangerous.

There isn't enough money on this planet to fund a human colony on Mars or even the Moon.

Well, that's going to take practice and ingenuity...

We've been practicing and using our ingenuity in making rockets for over 70 years. Our rocket technology remains largely unchanged. We've pushed the limits of chemical rocket technology and human space travel still remains impractical.

To change that requires not just practicing and refining, but a completely new technology. Something that currently hasn't been created. I predict, like with most technological innovations, when it comes around, it won't be immediately applied to space travel. But, if a new technology can be developed (the ability to manipulate gravitational fields for example), it will open the door for humans to set foot into space.

However, when they finally do make that step, it will require not just the technology, but the economic need to do so.

Humans for example, had the ability to make transoceanic voyages for more than a century before someone finally got around to sailing for the New World, albeit accidentally.

I like the space elevator idea. I think it's inevitable. I think we'll "colonize" LEO first, with resorts and casinos.

 

[fncceo]

For a long time to come, robots are going to be the only travelers in this solar system.

Yep, but not forever ...

In order to make human space travel practical, we have to find another way of getting humans and their material off this planet. The existing 1950's based technology is just too expensive and dangerous.

There isn't enough money on this planet to fund a human colony on Mars or even the Moon.

Well, that's going to take practice and ingenuity...

We've been practicing and using our ingenuity in making rockets for over 70 years. Our rocket technology remains largely unchanged. We've pushed the limits of chemical rocket technology and human space travel still remains impractical.

To change that requires not just practicing and refining, but a completely new technology. Something that currently hasn't been created. I predict, like with most technological innovations, when it comes around, it won't be immediately applied to space travel. But, if a new technology can be developed (the ability to manipulate gravitational fields for example), it will open the door for humans to set foot into space.

However, when they finally do make that step, it will require not just the technology, but the economic need to do so.

Humans for example, had the ability to make transoceanic voyages for more than a century before someone finally got around to sailing for the New World, albeit accidentally.

I like the space elevator idea. I think it's inevitable. I think we'll "colonize" LEO first, with resorts and casinos.

At least for now, even a Space Elevator would be beyond the capability of a single nation.

A ground-based Space Elevator would require bundles of carbon nanotube cables 50,000 Km long (including a counterbalace) .

Japan has a plan for a 4,000 km 'Skyhook' that would lift mass from sub-orbital altitudes to LEO and higher orbits.

Both those technologies are still very theoretical.

 

[Karl Rand]

All of these scenarios are contingent upon our species surviving long enough to overcome the technological challenges. At this point in time I’m not optimistic. Given our colonial history any other intelligent life forms out there might wish we’d stay home if they knew.

 

[fncceo]

All of these scenarios are contingent upon our species surviving long enough to overcome the technological challenges. At this point in time I’m not optimistic. Given our colonial history any other intelligent life forms out there might wish we’d stay home if they knew.

The human race isn't going anywhere. Technologically and social, we are advancing all the time. Statistically, we live in the safest, most egalitarian time since we became civilized.

 

[Karl Rand]

All of these scenarios are contingent upon our species surviving long enough to overcome the technological challenges. At this point in time I’m not optimistic. Given our colonial history any other intelligent life forms out there might wish we’d stay home if they knew.

The human race isn't going anywhere. Technologically and social, we are advancing all the time. Statistically, we live in the safest, most egalitarian time since we became civilized.

And what to you count as an ‘advance’? Genetic Science, C.A.T. scans,nuclear weapons, global warming?

 

[fncceo]

All of these scenarios are contingent upon our species surviving long enough to overcome the technological challenges. At this point in time I’m not optimistic. Given our colonial history any other intelligent life forms out there might wish we’d stay home if they knew.

The human race isn't going anywhere. Technologically and social, we are advancing all the time. Statistically, we live in the safest, most egalitarian time since we became civilized.

And what to you count as an ‘advance’? Genetic Science, C.A.T. scans,nuclear weapons, global warming?

Statistically, people on Earth are less likely to die a violent death at the hands of another human than at any other time in human history. Our lifespans are increasing, not just in the First World but in the Third. Literacy rates are at an all time high globally, Famines occur less frequently and result in fewer deaths than ever before.

Social advancement, due in large part to technological advancement.

 

[Karl Rand]

All of these scenarios are contingent upon our species surviving long enough to overcome the technological challenges. At this point in time I’m not optimistic. Given our colonial history any other intelligent life forms out there might wish we’d stay home if they knew.

The human race isn't going anywhere. Technologically and social, we are advancing all the time. Statistically, we live in the safest, most egalitarian time since we became civilized.

And what to you count as an ‘advance’? Genetic Science, C.A.T. scans,nuclear weapons, global warming?

Statistically, people on Earth are less likely to die a violent death at the hands of another human than at any other time in human history. Our lifespans are increasing, not just in the First World but in the Third. Literacy rates are at an all time high globally, Famines occur less frequently and result in fewer deaths than ever before.

so what?

Social advancement, due in large part to technological advancement.

I try not to be rude on forums but I have to say you’re deluded by blind optimism.

 

[james bond]

Wouldn't you agree that if no microbes can live there, then humans can't?

No. We can actually bring our own microbes. We have plenty.

You can keep yours. I'll keep mine. The point is they won't survive panspermia.

 

[james bond]

Pew Research updated in 2014. Americans keen of space exploration, but don't want to pay for it.

"Despite these positive opinions of the space program, just a two-in-ten Americans in the 2012 GSS survey said that the U.S. spends too little on space exploration. Four-in-ten believed the current spending was adequate, while three-in-ten believed further cuts should be made to the program. Instead, Americans strongly preferred increased spending on programs closer to home, including education (76%), public health (59%), and developing alternative energy sources (59%)."

Americans keen on space exploration, less so on paying for it

You have no evidence of life on Mars. Wouldn't you agree that if no microbes can live there, then humans can't? I'm not sure if we can colonize our moon either. Maybe it can be a fueling stop, but even then it would be difficult to have people there to stock and provide fuel and supplies for space stations or rocket travelers. There are other countries in the lead for doing that. Why not wait to see how they do? What about Europa instead of Mars? I don't want to nuke Mars just to see if the ice there can be melted into water. That was one of the most hair-brained ideas from Elon Musk.

Depends on how the questions were asked. Suppose all the cost benefits were provided along with some of the most obvious spinoffs?

So what if there is no life on Mars?

Who are the companies competing for an economical, effective method to reach and do research on Mars? Or do you know such a competition is underway?

It's better to spend our money elsewhere than Mars until we've found something worthwhile to explore. I already mentioned Europa. Maybe the moon is worth going back to if they can terraform it to produce oxygen.

NASA is planning to make water and oxygen on the Moon and Mars by 2020 - ExtremeTech

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wouldn't you agree that if no microbes can live there, then humans can't?

No. We can actually bring our own microbes. We have plenty.

You can keep yours. I'll keep mine. The point is they won't survive panspermia.

Actually, NASA says that there may have been life on Mars a long time ago, based on a Martian meteorite they found with microbes in it.

Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars

"For two years, we have applied state-of-the-art technology to perform these analyses, and we believe we have found quite reasonable evidence of past life on Mars," Gibson added. "We don't claim that we have conclusively proven it. We are putting this evidence out to the scientific community for other investigators to verify, enhance, attack -- disprove if they can -- as part of the scientific process. Then, within a year or two, we hope to resolve the question one way or the other."

"What we have found to be the most reasonable interpretation is of such radical nature that it will only be accepted or rejected after other groups either confirm our findings or overturn them," McKay added.

The igneous rock in the 4.2-pound, potato-sized meteorite has been age-dated to about 4.5 billion years, the period when the planet Mars formed. The rock is believed to have originated underneath the Martian surface and to have been extensively fractured by impacts as meteorites bombarded the planets in the early inner solar system. Between 3.6 billion and 4 billion years ago, a time when it is generally thought that the planet was warmer and wetter, water is believed to have penetrated fractures in the subsurface rock, possibly forming an underground water system.

Since the water was saturated with carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere, carbonate minerals were deposited in the fractures. The team's findings indicate living organisms also may have assisted in the formation of the carbonate, and some remains of the microscopic organisms may have become fossilized, in a fashion similar to the formation of fossils in limestone on Earth. Then, 16 million years ago, a huge comet or asteroid struck Mars, ejecting a piece of the rock from its subsurface location with enough force to escape the planet. For millions of years, the chunk of rock floated through space. It encountered Earth's atmosphere 13,000 years ago and fell in Antarctica as a meteorite.

It is in the tiny globs of carbonate that the researchers found a number of features that can be interpreted as suggesting past life. Stanford researchers found easily detectable amounts of organic molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) concentrated in the vicinity of the carbonate. Researchers at JSC found mineral compounds commonly associated with microscopic organisms and the possible microscopic fossil structures.

The largest of the possible fossils are less than 1/100 the diameter of a human hair, and most are about 1/1000 the diameter of a human hair - small enough that it would take about a thousand laid end-to-end to span the dot at the end of this sentence. Some are egg-shaped while others are tubular. In appearance and size, the structures are strikingly similar to microscopic fossils of the tiniest bacteria found on Earth.

 

[Karl Rand]

Why are we even thinking about life on Mars when life on planet Earth is under threat?

 

[james bond]

Wouldn't you agree that if no microbes can live there, then humans can't?

No. We can actually bring our own microbes. We have plenty.

You can keep yours. I'll keep mine. The point is they won't survive panspermia.

Actually, NASA says that there may have been life on Mars a long time ago, based on a Martian meteorite they found with microbes in it.

Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars

"For two years, we have applied state-of-the-art technology to perform these analyses, and we believe we have found quite reasonable evidence of past life on Mars," Gibson added. "We don't claim that we have conclusively proven it. We are putting this evidence out to the scientific community for other investigators to verify, enhance, attack -- disprove if they can -- as part of the scientific process. Then, within a year or two, we hope to resolve the question one way or the other."

"What we have found to be the most reasonable interpretation is of such radical nature that it will only be accepted or rejected after other groups either confirm our findings or overturn them," McKay added.

The igneous rock in the 4.2-pound, potato-sized meteorite has been age-dated to about 4.5 billion years, the period when the planet Mars formed. The rock is believed to have originated underneath the Martian surface and to have been extensively fractured by impacts as meteorites bombarded the planets in the early inner solar system. Between 3.6 billion and 4 billion years ago, a time when it is generally thought that the planet was warmer and wetter, water is believed to have penetrated fractures in the subsurface rock, possibly forming an underground water system.

Since the water was saturated with carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere, carbonate minerals were deposited in the fractures. The team's findings indicate living organisms also may have assisted in the formation of the carbonate, and some remains of the microscopic organisms may have become fossilized, in a fashion similar to the formation of fossils in limestone on Earth. Then, 16 million years ago, a huge comet or asteroid struck Mars, ejecting a piece of the rock from its subsurface location with enough force to escape the planet. For millions of years, the chunk of rock floated through space. It encountered Earth's atmosphere 13,000 years ago and fell in Antarctica as a meteorite.

It is in the tiny globs of carbonate that the researchers found a number of features that can be interpreted as suggesting past life. Stanford researchers found easily detectable amounts of organic molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) concentrated in the vicinity of the carbonate. Researchers at JSC found mineral compounds commonly associated with microscopic organisms and the possible microscopic fossil structures.

The largest of the possible fossils are less than 1/100 the diameter of a human hair, and most are about 1/1000 the diameter of a human hair - small enough that it would take about a thousand laid end-to-end to span the dot at the end of this sentence. Some are egg-shaped while others are tubular. In appearance and size, the structures are strikingly similar to microscopic fossils of the tiniest bacteria found on Earth.

Later findings showed it was too small to be evidence of life on Mars.