Is Mars the answer?

September 26, 2001 10:34 PM

Is Mars the answer? The healing process will take years. The moon landing was a peaceful demonstation of America's technological leadership in the 20th century. Could a Mars landing do the same for the 21st?
posted by Loudmax (28 comments total)

With billions being spent on disaster relief and increased security measures, god knows how much to be spent on a war, the economy tanking, tax cuts on the way, and thousands of people losing their jobs, well I can't think of a better time to spend billions of dollars on sling-shotting some guy to a big dead rock.
posted by Doug at 10:43 PM on September 26, 2001

It may be far-fetched, but leading an international mission to Mars would show the world that the United States is still capable of greatness. Normally, I roll my eyes at unnecessary displays of patriotism, like flags on suburban front lawns. But in the Current Situation, we need all the uplift we can get. A mission to Mars would be a peaceful, progressive way of showing the world that we have not lost our spirit. And watching a human being plant a US flag on Martian soil (just next to a UN flag, perhaps) would go a long way toward restoring confidence in ourselves, as Americans, or just as citizens on this planet.
posted by Loudmax at 10:44 PM on September 26, 2001

Government spending during a recession can actually help the economy. It provides jobs, and helps to stimulate economic activity.
posted by Loudmax at 10:45 PM on September 26, 2001

The moon landing was pretty explicitly a Cold War attempt to upstage the Soviet Union since they had beaten the US at launching a satellite and sending people into orbit. A multinational Mars mission would be cool, though.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:54 PM on September 26, 2001

the moon mission was a fake anyway. ;)

it won't take much to fake a mars landing too.
posted by ronv at 11:01 PM on September 26, 2001

I have sooooo been trying to get this issue out into the air here. Though, it seems for slightly different purposes.

Instance 1

Instance 2

Seems to me, as modern and advanced technologically we are, to focus some of that on imagination, awe and the unity involved to get there would serve to fix a great many issues. It would undoubtedly solidify the bonds all humans share. To focus some the hate, fear and uncertainty onto inspiration would inevitably trickle

Yes, I'm a huge "Saganist".

Imagine Mars, the god of war, symbolically and very realistically bringing peace to Mother Earth!
posted by crasspastor at 11:09 PM on September 26, 2001

Yeah, I was concerned that this issue had been posted before. But in light of the Current Situation, there's an argument for renewed effort. In one sense it's completely unrelated to the 9/11 events, but in another sense it could help us get back on our feet.

I like the symbolism too. I'm a Kim Stanley Robinson-ist."
posted by Loudmax at 11:18 PM on September 26, 2001

well I can't think of a better time to spend billions of dollars on sling-shotting some guy to a big dead rock.

Wow, I would like nothing more than to not spend a cent of Doug's tax money on this. Not entirely true, I would like to spend nearly all my tax money on this project just a bit more. Very close tho.
posted by thirteen at 12:09 AM on September 27, 2001

Loudmax: "leading an international mission to Mars would show the world that the United States is still capable of greatness. . . . watching a human being plant a US flag on Martian soil (just next to a UN flag, perhaps) would go a long way toward restoring confidence in ourselves, as Americans"

I wonder how the Canadians (or the English, French, or Germans) feel about themselves. Are they not capable of greatness? Don't their citizens have any confidence in them?

America is as always great. Mars mission or not.

This is still the country that can develop not one, but two flyable prototypes of next generation stealth fighters (JSF) in under three years when France is still trying to make 20 production units of Rafales designed in the 1980's, UK/Germany is trying to make the third prototype unit of Eurofighter and Sweden has given up on exporting the Gripen. This is still the country that produces one new flawless super carrier every 4 years when France succeeded in making Charles De Gaulle's flight deck 20 feet too short for Rafale flight operations. America is the land of Viagra, Propecea, Playboy and Hair Club. Everyone of this world still drinks Coke and Pepsi. Virgin Cola doesn't even come close.

Do you really need a man on Mars to be proud of anything American?
posted by tamim at 12:40 AM on September 27, 2001

What's the big deal? The difference between a moon and a planet? The extra distance? Going to the moon was something completely different to what had gone before, but Mars seems pretty similar.

OK, it's more difficult, but afaik there's no real barriers - it's the kind of problem where, if you throw enough money at it, it can be done. Where's the inspiration in that?

On the other hand I guess it's kind of fitting. The ultimate consumer society spending a pile of money on something pointless to make it feel good - rather like a binge session down the mall...
posted by andrew cooke at 12:41 AM on September 27, 2001

yeah, but imagine -- we could give those terrorists the finger big time. "Hijack this ship, motherfuckers!"

(Though I do hear the Microsoft Flight Simulator of the space shuttle is just like flying the real thing.)
posted by mattpfeff at 12:51 AM on September 27, 2001

Spend that money wisely buying and preserving pieces of this planet, before it becomes just another red desert.
posted by pracowity at 12:54 AM on September 27, 2001

I'd like to see them land a man on the moon. And explain to me again how a flag can fly without any wind.. And how you get those funky shadows in all different directions. And how on Earth did they get through that radiation band around the earth - with that astoundingly protective aluminium foil protecting them?

Aren't the Japanese sending a rocket up there to take pics soon? Who wants a bet that there will be a remarkable lack of footprints etc?

Funny, I'm not normally a sceptic..

In any case, they should just send a hotel into orbit around the earth with a zero G MacDonald's in it - spread capitalism to the stars.. and beyond...
posted by Mossy at 2:28 AM on September 27, 2001

To focus some the hate, fear and uncertainty onto inspiration would inevitably trickle

Jesus. Something, somehow "trickled" out and away from my post a couple of hours ago. And I don't know what it was I meant to write there now.

God I'm absentminded.
posted by crasspastor at 3:17 AM on September 27, 2001

Skallas: Until we develop probes that are as versatile and as intelligent as humans, there are plenty of things that humans can do that probes cannot. Humans can adapt to situations, they can ensure that their spacecraft doesn't land on a slope (as the ill-fated MPL did), they work quicker, more efficiently and more intelligently than anything else existing. And if you ever want to send humans to Mars, you will have to start sometime.

Current plans for a manned mission to Mars would not be a replica of the flag and footprints of the Moon - mission duration on Mars would be at least several weeks to several months long, ensuring that some serious science and exploration can be done.

I feel that I should also point out that a Moon colony would in the medium and long run be far more expensive to maintain than a colony on Mars, despite the distance. This is simply due to the fact that the Moon has absolutely nothing in the form of resources; if you wanted any food or fuel, you'd have to bring it along with you. Shipping costs would be hell. Same for construction materials - you'd need some seriously good mining equipment and lots of power to make anything in-situ. The place is worse than a desert.

Mars, on the other hand, is a planet. Unlike the Moon, it doesn't have two weeks of darkness and two weeks of light, it has a day just half an hour longer than 24 hours. It has enough resources and minerals lying around that you could construct buildings out of the regolith; using technology already demonstrated to work, you could mine fuel and oxygen from the atmosphere.

Sure, the Moon has its uses for telescope work, but things will never be cheap there.
posted by adrianhon at 3:43 AM on September 27, 2001

Yes. We need a mission to Mars. I don't see any other way to restore the country's flagging sense of eptness. And we must hurry, lest France get there first...

Nothing we could do as a society would fill me with more pride than decanting a threesome of calcium-deprived tooothless astronauts onto the surface of the red planet. And we could do it so cheaply - all we have to do is allow for commercial sponsorships. Just think, the rockets, the landing craft, the Mars run-about - they could all be decorated like cars on the Nascar circuit, plastered stem to stern with logos and adverts. This is exciting! A small step for man - a giant step for consumerism.

And we'd be one step closer to the stars! Which, as everyone knows, is where we are destined to go, as soon as we get those damned tricky Tachyon drives figured out, which should be any minute now. Yes, it's time to go to Mars - leave our earthly troubles behind us, and set out on our final journey...

...to the stars...

...and beyond!
posted by Opus Dark at 4:18 AM on September 27, 2001

Whether or not we 'need' a mission to Mars (I personally think that WTC attack or not, a mission would be beneficial) I don't really see what your superbly sharp sense of sarcasm does for this discussion.

There are a few perceived major problems with travelling to Mars. A six month journey in zero-G is tough, but it doesn't make your teeth fall out, as experiments on Mir have demonstrated time and time again. Given proper exercise and drugs, it's no problem. And of course the use of artificial gravity through the deployment of a tether and counterweight would eliminate the dangers of zero-G altogether.

The ISS didn't require commercial sponsorship, so why do people think that a Mars mission would? It certainly wouldn't cost much more than the ISS and in fact might cost less.
posted by adrianhon at 5:28 AM on September 27, 2001

A manned mission to Mars is technically infeasible and scientifically unnecessary.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:39 AM on September 27, 2001

adrianhon:

Sorry, sorry. But when it comes to "men in space" I really don't believe in clunky and expensive incrementalism. Strapping tuna-canned humans to controlled explosions and hurtling them into local space has been done. The "next step" should not be bigger explosions and larger cans - in fact, concentrating on these rusty technologies may well divert research and development monies from more promising areas.

I'd love to see a plentitude of probes firing off in every direction, and I'd like to see a re-vitalization of the public's fascination with off-world phenomena. And when an elegant means for delivering humans to the yonder is developed, I will be the spaciest cadet you ever heard of.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to trivialize your discussion - 'twas merely a colorful way to display my opinion. Carry on.
posted by Opus Dark at 6:03 AM on September 27, 2001

I still haven't seen any kind of satisfactory response to Doug's first post on this thread: Is the alleged symbolic benefit to America enough to justify embarking on a project certain to cost tens of billions of dollars, during a time of grave economic uncertainty?

And adrianhon - what's your justification for the claim that a manned Mars mission wouldn't cost much more than the ISS? The cost of the ISS is somewhere in the 35 to 37 billion dollar range over a planned ten-year lifespan. NASA is estimating that a manned mission to Mars would cost 50 billion dollars - and this is the same agency that promised Congress that the total cost of the ISS wouldn't top $25 billion.

I've read the plans written by Think Mars! and other groups stating that the mission could be done for around $10 billion dollars - they're long on wide-eyed romanticsm and short on science. And even they concede that their low-cost plan would take around 20 years to come to fruition - by which time the world will have changed a great deal from its current post-WTC situation.
posted by Chanther at 6:04 AM on September 27, 2001

More to the point, in 20 years the state of the art will have changed considerably.

But there are some serious issues which have never been solved and may never be solvable. Is it possible to put four people into a confined space for upwards of two years without eventually having a murder? So far it doesn't appear to be possible. Experience from the Russian space station suggests that tempers tend to get heated in just six months -- and that with them knowing that they could potentially come down to earth in a day if they really needed to.

The technical engineering issues pale compared to the social engineering issues.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:34 AM on September 27, 2001

Chanther: I think NASA has a tendency to make somewhat inaccurate estimates of mission costs these days. I would refer you to the 1989 SEI '90 day report' that stated a mission to Mars would cost $500 billion; slightly more than the $50 billion they quote right now.

I'm not even sure what the ISS will cost - I once heard a figure of $100 billion.

I personally don't think that $10 billion is a valid estimate, and I have also read the Think Mars and Zubrin plans. I suspect that it will cost at least double that - but still less than the ISS, and once the basic technology has been developed it will not be much of a problem to start manufacturing lines of habs and interplanetary vehicles. But how do you feel that they are short on science?

I should point out that I'm writing this completely separate to the WTC situation - my view is that the WTC situation won't really make much of an impact on the decision for a manned mission to Mars. Most likely it will delay any mission.

Replying via email to Steven's link.
posted by adrianhon at 6:40 AM on September 27, 2001

Human factors are definitely an important issue. I honestly don't think that a murder would occur though; there have been many instances where small groups of explorers have travelled in harsh conditions for long durations and have managed to avoid killing each other - and they didn't even have the luxury of being in touch with home constantly or having comfortable (if cramped) accommodation and adequate food.

ESA and the Russians have been carrying out a large amount of research into psychological factors and I've talked to some of those involved in '90 days in a can' experiments. They've told me that there are problems, there are tensions, but generally they get by. And they aren't even going to Mars! I suspect that those going to Mars would be much more dedicated and more able to cope with psychological stress.

NASA have also conducted similar research - there's an article at the New Mars magazine detailing the experiences of one participant in a 90-day experiment.
posted by adrianhon at 6:54 AM on September 27, 2001

some people believe that societies need a big project to create adhesion e.g. wars, pyramids,
space program etc.

i would have thought that focussing on mars, as an exercise in creating togetherness is a bit
of a red herring. mars has no ionosphere, which is kind of essential for life as we enjoy it.
terraforming mars would take 10s of thousands of years, as well as humans evolving to cope
with the environment there.

perhaps we could focus on this planet?

we may have ckufed-up our present abode, but it is still approximately 1 billion times more
hostpitable than mars ever will be.

incidentally, sending up the space shuttle once creates as much airborne pollution as the american
domestic airlines create in a year (i think i read somewhere). this dwarfs the pollution created
by all domestic vehicles worldwide. not to mention the amount of aluminium dust (2 million pounds,
imperial) dumped into the upper atmosphere each time.

a successful mars mission would be crewed by women, as i have posted a link before on mefi, i naturally
can't find it now when it is appropriate. something about them being more likely to work together
overcoming problems.
posted by asok at 8:40 AM on September 27, 2001

the moon mission was a fake anyway. ;)


it won't take much to fake a mars landing too.


ronv, I think you've fell victim to FOX's terrible Conspiracy Theory shows. Read this for the objectiveness this particular show was lacking in.
posted by samsara at 8:41 AM on September 27, 2001

samsara, I think you've fallen victim to ronv's wry sense of humor. Notice the emoticon " ;) " for his objectiveness.
posted by carobe at 9:07 AM on September 27, 2001

carobe, I think you've fallen victim to my sincere attempt at being informationally humorless ;-)
posted by samsara at 11:31 AM on September 27, 2001

adrianhon - I think NASA's had a tendency to underestimate, rather than overestimate, the cost of its missions. The $450 billion dollar figure from 1989 was a completely different - more ambitious - mission design. When Goldin forced them to lower their sights, they came up with a plan costing $50 billion - but I have little doubt that the actual cost of that particular plan would end up being higher, given NASA's track record. I think $20 billion is a ridiculously low figure.

The $35 to $37 billion figure for the ISS is from NASA's current budget estimate for the lifetime cost of the station from design to the end of its working life. I'd guess it'll end up higher, too - but probably not as high as $50 billion. I haven't heard the $100 billion figure anywhere - do you have a source?

The reason I said those Think Mars! and similar plans are short on science is because they assume the relatively rapid development and deployment of technologies that don't yet exist, and immediate use of those technologies for the mission without intermediate testing phases.

They're not science fiction, mind you - they're reasonably based on technology that's currently considered or under development. But think of Apollo for a second - Apollo 11 was the successor to a large number of missions sent to make sure the technology was viable and working. These plans are largely making the assumption that the first operational use of new technology will be in the actual manned mission - an assumption that is flimsy at best and dangerous at worst.
posted by Chanther at 2:14 PM on September 27, 2001