Slashdot Mirror
Europe Joins Race To Send Humans To Mars
hereisnowhy writes "CBC reports that the ESA hopes to send humans to Mars within three decades. They first hope to return a Martian soil sample by 2014. They stress the importance of determining whether Mars ever supported life before humans touch down on the surface, because "You can sterilize a robot. But you cannot do the same to an astronaut. Inevitably a human will introduce microbes to the planet ... and contaminate it."" Kame-sennin links to a Reuters article on the plans.
I would like to see us collaberate with the Europeans.
Not only for good relations, but because it is such an expensive venture
for us to go it on our own.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Given the massive amount of resources it takes to put a man in space, I think we as a community should really focus on encouraging cooperation between these different organizations. Not only would it allow us to make the problem more tractible, it would also be more efficient and safer. We all share one world, and if one party should introduce a biological danger it would affect ALL of us. Let's hope the beurocrats will use their heads--or at least listen to the reason of scientists!
I'm sorry if this sounds trollish, but I think we really need to focus on stuff down here on the earth (like those WMD's) before we send anyone out into space.
The other day I was listening to some public radio when I heard this song being played called "Whitey on the moon" I think it was written during the 60s, who knows though. The lyrics went something like this.
Here I am standing in a welfare line
and whitey's on the moon
My kids are starving, that's why they're crying
Cause whitey's on the moon
The goverment takes taxes from my check
To send whitey to the moon
If I can't work from a broken neck
Whitey will still be on the moon
I'm still living in a ghetto project slum
And whitey's on the moon.
Should I rob a liquor store with a gun?
While whitey's on the moon.
Basically, it was a song from an angry black man. It was funny and entertaining to listen too, but it brings up a very valid point.
USA right now is still suffering from a financial downfall. The last thing we should be thinking about doing is sending our money up in a rocket.
I don't know what the obsession with Mars is either. It's so close to Earth anyway. I'd rather know what's out in the farther reaches of space. We don't know much about what's beyond our own solar system. Let's send some robots to the deepest reaches of space and see what's there.
Free Wii Points
It is a rather useful catalyst for innovative technology. A rather expensive one some might say. But, it took a lot of thought and creation to get people to The Moon, and it will be the same to get them to Mars. And hopefully, this technology will find a use in other markets. Plus, if life is found on Mars, there is no telling what will come from that. It may serve as a window into evolution (or maybe help to prove it).
this will solve all of life's problems...
We need another space race, CMON people, pilgrims didn't send boats to america to collect soil, they populated it!
Why do we need humans on Mars?
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint. What do humans bring to the table? Propaganda value, and local decision-making ability. That is all. They need to be pampered and babied with one atmosphere of room temperature oxygen for the entire trip. And worst of all, they must be guaranteed passage back to Earth. So they have to take a huge rocket for a return trip with them when they go up- which is grossly impractical. It was bad enough when we had to do it from the moon. Mars is a much deeper gravity well to rocket out of. For some reason we are unwilling to accept the notion that we might send someone to another planet like Mars and leave them there or expect them to efficiently commit suicide. But that's because we're hypocrites. With failure rates as high as they are, committing suicide is practically what you're doing when you get on a NASA shuttle or rocket. So why don't we just admit this is a one-way trip and at least junk the requirement for a return trip? Or this is not going to happen.
"But we're running out of space for all these people on Earth!" I hear you say. May I point out that sending a man to Mars will deplete far more of the Earth's resources than merely allowing him to quietly live here in a crappy apartment. This probably implies that sending people into space will not be a practical method of relieving Earthbound congestion.
You mean the USA and Russia's weapons of mass destruction, right? The ones that were made possible by the technological advancements of their respective space programs?
We (the US) had a space program in the early 40's? Wow, cool.
No sig for you!!
Humans aren't going to be the ones that build up Mars either. We can't take the extreme temperature changes, we're too weak, inefficient, and vulnerable to radiation. It's going to have to be robots. We do NOT need to send humans to do a job that robots are much better for.
I think it makes sense that we follow in the footsteps of our tools, which ready the planet for our habitation.
In the mean time, wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure we can have long term viability on planet Earth?
Serriously, Earth is the only suitable planet where we can freely exist in the natural environment, and there is nothing even close anywhere near by. Humans will not be leaving Earth in our current form. If the cosmic rays don't get you, the loss of bone mass will...or maybe the insanity imposed by the ten thousand years you would be travelling to get anywhere...if you could live that long.
Well, the problem is that something as bold as a human Mars mission does take decades to prepare for.
That wouldn't be such a big deal if we had started seriously working toward that goal while the Apollo missions were still going on, but now we are 30 some odd years late at getting started.
Instead, we invested nearly everything into the Shuttle, which IMO has been a major diversion, as well as a money pit. The Shuttle is an amazing machine, but it still boils down to basically being a high-tech glider which can withstand re-entry (sometimes!). I'm not totally convinced that the Shuttle technology has been a total waste, but I know that the money could have been better spent trying to develop simpler, effective systems to get us out of LEO, rather than keep us in it. The Apollo missions should have been the first steps to a Mars mission, but we withdrew and went down the Shuttle path, and all we have to show for it after 30 years is a partially built ISS and a couple of major disasters.
We can do better than that. But we are basically back to 1972 again, and it's going to take a while for a Mars mission to materialize. America has a problem with long term investments. People don't see immediate payoffs, so they withdraw the funding.
I just want to see humans reach another planet in my lifetime.
Yes, but the rest of the world's exports to the US have just got more expensive. With the weak global economy who's to say that those other countries are even going to be able to afford cheaper US goods? As it is, the US needs foreign investment and that's not gonna happen whilst the USD$ stays low.
The fact of the matter is, exchange rates also reflect the perceived health of an economy, not just what the administration wants it to be. Right now people aren't seeing good signs. There's a huge deficit from a president who doesn't seem to know how to control spending. And don't give me that crap about being at war: Iraq was a war of choice that the Bush wanted an excuse for from before he came to power. If the economy falters again and spending isn't reigned in, then there will be some dire consequences - it is these fears that are causing the weak dollar, not clever management by the government. It's getting of their control.
Evolution of the U.S. budget surplus/deficit:
1986 -$221.2; 1992 -$290.4; 2000 236.4; 2004 -$521
General G7 governments' net financial liabilities as a percentage of GDP for 2003:
Britain 31.9; Canada 35.0; France 42.7; Germany 52.1; Italy 93.9; Japan 79.1; United States 46.9
BTW, intentional attempts to invoke Godwin's Law don't work.
hummmm. I wonder what attenuated virus do? I guess we just inoculate ourselves for no reasons.
Likewise, all the cowpox really did not protect against smallpox.
I would guess that you should quit using a MS speller and consider the idea of getting an education quick. It is a bad idea to be in the miltary and pushing Bush without one.
... before America was colonised by Europeans that it was explored by them beforehand.
A few months ago, I read an interesting comment on these explorations by some historian (whose name I've forgotten). His study of the records of the early expeditions to New England showed that the first around 1500 reported a coast lined with villages every few miles. The second, around 1520, described a coast nearly devoid of people, with uninhabited ruins every few miles.
What had happened during those 20 years? Measles and smallpox, mostly.
There's a reason some people are worried about carrying contagion to Mars.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I am excited at the prospect of multi-national space competition. Now that we have a small handfull (the EU/Russia, China, India, and the US) of countries, rather than two, with endevors focusing on projects out of Earth orbit, prospects for that competition we have all been looking for are getting better and better.
My second thought is that its nice to see a government policy toward space which isn't pure politi-bullshit. Its cool that the ESA came out and said they want to make sure to get the soil samples before they send people. Their statements sounds like commitment, while Bush's space plan sounds like election year politics.
Last time I checked, babies needed to learn how to crawl before learning how to run a 6-minute mile.
How about we take some baby steps first? Or....Lets wait the thousands of years it would take to get a probe to even the closest star, let alone "the deepest reaches of space". That would be a REAL waste of time.
They can have feeling, they can encourage the public. We put a robot on Mars!! Who cares, A robot just needs sunlight, That's not an accomplishment.
We put a MAN on Mars, That's an accomplishment, and a man sees, feels, and can confinscate for problems instantly. A man wouldn't see so much shit his memory would fill up and have to have NASA restore him.
Sending a man to mars would be the step in putting humans in space. Humans in space are the ultimate goal, Is Star Trek full of robot human represenatives?
Garmong is right - man's accomplishments in space will be best reached when such endeavors are released from the government tether.
Why do we need humans on Mars?
This means less resources for robotic missions, which frankly make a lot more sense than manned missions. From every practical standpoint.
As evidence, I point to the 2 rovers currently on Mars. As recently as last week, we didn't even know if they'd be able to move and collect data, all due to a programming glitch (and yes, I realize I'm simplifying greatly). Now that they're working perfectly again, we have the opportunity to explore perhaps a few dozen/hundred metres in any given direction.
Humans are self-programmable, and can potentially fix their own antennas when they go out of alignment. We have amazingly dextrous manipulators and locomotion systems that are simply beyond our current technology to reproduce artificially. A rover can get stuck on a rock, the human steps over it.
And a human can cover several KILOMETRES of ground to do experiements, with little added expense.
From a practical standpoint, there is a hell of a lot that robotic missions can't do.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
who's suplying the ISS right now?
huh, yes Russians
(someone ought to beat that attitude out of you)
and you'll get plenty of competition from China...in a few years.
Actually, the topic here was travel to Mars, not to another star. It's true that we'll probably never have a 6-hour flight to Mars. But there are no major engineering obstacles to reducing the time to a few months. This is quite comparable to the travel times from England to the New-World and Australian colonies in 1600.
It is well within our capabilities to colonize much of the solar system. Whether we'll ever reach another star is indeed a serious question, or rather a topic mostly for science-fiction writers. Unless we discover some Star Trek physics, we may never make it.
And in comparison with the Cro Magnon "invasion" of Europe 50,000 years ago, what little evidence we have of that implies that it took generations. The conquest actually took around 10,000 years. Scandinavia was only settled by modern humans about 5,000 years ago. The Solar System looks fairly easy in comparison.
We do have much better technology now. But we'll have to learn to do farming on asteroids and such to make a go of it.
And if there are living bacteria on Mars, it would be a real shame to contaminate them before we have a chance to study them thoroughly. They're probably not on the surface, of course; too much UV there. But it'll be interesting to see what's a few meters down.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
No, you cannot compare cosmic distances to travelling across the oceans. Sorry, in the real universe scale matters.
Approximate travel time to Mars: 1 year. Approximate travel time to row across the Pacific ocean: 6 months - 1 year. These are comparable figures, therefore your bald assertion above would appear to be incorrect.
The ocean analogy has been brought up before and it continues to demosntrate how ignorant most people are of basic science.
The ignorance being demonstrated here is your own. We are talking about going to Mars, not to another star system.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
The shuttle has definitely cost a lot of money (and lives), and perhaps has lived longer than it should have, but it was an important step in our ascension to space. It is not entirely clear that any other path would have been faster or even possible, given the issue of funding, and the positive feedback loop resulting in getting the USAF and government behind the program.
The shuttle was a marvel for its time, and now somewhat antiquated in a large part due to the onward march of technology. This will be the history of every major human technological achievement for the forseeable future. It is easy to look back and see all the flaws. But it is not so easy to stop a multi-billion dollar project and start from scratch when you barely have the funds to continue operating on the current path.
--
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
(AXCH) 2004 Mars Exploration Rovers - News, Status, Technical Info, History.
I fear that something that the world could rail against, such as a super-SARS, a 'killer' asteroid, or sudden climate change would destroy the human race before we could become organized, especially when information is withheld from citizens, other countries, and competing corporate scientists.
Mars could be a couple of years away or less, if everyone worked together. Mind you, I in no way think that this will happen. Sadly, I find the vison of earth as a self-created wasteland far more accurate.
I realise this is a generalisation, and with that in mind I agree, but you are forgetting one VERY important milestone that could not have been done without a shuttle type vehicle, and thast is Hubble.
Hubble has redefined our understanding of the universe in so many ways it's not funny. Go read Alpha and Omega for a descent run down of the leaps we have gained from that single piece of equipment.
Normal people worry me!
Based on that logic no earth born bacteria could live on Mars... so what are we worried about?
Normal people worry me!
Admittaly, the conditions are harsh, but bacteria and other animals grow here under harsher conditions. At the mars equator, there is warmth. There is a small atmosphere that will support micro aerophilic bacteria if there is water. We have bacterial life here that grows literally at the south pole. It is not as barren as many would claim.Likewise, we have lots of nematodes, alge, and bacteria that grows in the total absence of sunlight (feeding on valcano's sulfer). We have lived here for quite some time on this planet and we still have new life that shows up in strange locations. It is very possible for life as we know it to be on Mars (assuming that there is water), or for a different type of life
As to a change of agenda, I seriously doubt it. The Europeans have been explorers for quite some time. They are keenly aware of the reasons for expanding explorations. Besides, it would be useful just to get mankind of this rock to help ensure the survivability of us
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Shouldn't isolating sentience and building a computer around that sentient core come first? Maybe we'll even be able to upload ourselves into it. This goal dwarfs space exploration completely, but once accomplished, Mars exploration will be a lot easier without having to deal with all that evolutionary load. No need to terraform.
-I am an elective eunuch.
You said: "On Mars, with the presence of gravity, this bulky, massive suit would just be plain useless. Instead, a more sleek body suit might be prefered. Something like a scuba suit here on earth, ribbed with heating and cooling and bio-sensors, and instead of zipping or snapping or locking, make it skintight and put on simply by crawling in. Put on a sterile helmet and air supply."
There are a couple of reasons I don't think this would work.
(1) Since Mars has no method of shielding UV radiation, the chemistry in the soils has become very reactive, so that it is believed that contact with the soil would cause chemical burns. A 'breathable' suit would allow injury.
(2) Martian air pressure is less than 1% of what it is on Earth. What this means is that any exposed water will rapidly evaporate into the air if it doesn't have a chance to freeze first (and then it will probably sublimate). This may be an undesired condition for your skin.
(3) I think you underestimated the coldness of Mars. Air temperatures typically range from -20 to -90 C. The surface rocks are typically warmer in the day and colder at night, and rocks under the surface are typicically colder than surface rocks. This means that your suit must be able to able to heat across at least a 140 C difference (and you can't say the low specific heat of the low pressure air will act as a great insulator because you must also take into account that the astronaut may want to sit down). This will take some thick tubing and insulation.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
The scientific answer would be that we can adapt to our surroundings. Robots may be designed to do one or many things well, but humans can do almost anything reasonably.
The philosophic answer would probably be that it's in our nature to wander off and explore, just like Columbus.
The political answer is that "no one ever threw a ticker tape parade for a robot."
There is a universal speed limit - c - but there is no lower bound on the amount of proper time it takes to get from one place to another.
.93-4 interstellar dust, and eventually gas, starts being a major concern. At these velocities a shield is essentual, which limits you cargo and fuel mass. The closer a ship is to C, the larger a shield. (Plus, gas and dust collisions also reduce ship momentum: over long voyage this is effectively a very non-linear viscosity ...). The trade-off and viscosity limits spaceship velocities so that time-dilations much more than 10 are not feasible.
Although I generally agree with the spirit of your message, this specific statement is not accurate:
First, there's a biophysical upper bound on acceleration: the body cannot concievably withstand much more than several g's for long. This limits your Lorentz factor.
Second, once v/c ~
Working for necessity's mother.
We know the suits arent sterile, that's the point, why not sterilize them? Bringing the suits back on would be easy to sterilize, just put the suit in an autoglave and tada..
Sterilizing something that big is really hard, even on earth. Making something as big as the habitation module impermeable and sterile is even harder.
Once people land on Mars, it will definitely be contaminated, and in a big way.
In the 50s-80s, it was about beating the USSR, now, Europe is still behind Russia and Russia is a 3rd world country!
Perhaps your impression is just related to the fact that the US media like to portray joint missions domestically as pure NASA successes, a phenomenon not entirely absent from other kinds of international ventures the US participated in. One of the examples that annoys many people to no end is the US seemingly taking sole credit for winning WWII.
In any case, Europe has mostly focused on commercial and astronomical use of space: unspectacular, but either financially or scientifically profitable. "First to..." kinds of missions don't seem to have been of so much interest.
Imagine there's no heaven, etc. No doubt you are right that a united humanity could achieve some impressive feats, be it for good or ill. One question, though: if there are to be no political, religious, or cultural boundaries, then whose political, religious, or cultural agenda is being followed?
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
To quote the parent poster, "I reel at the idea of what we could accomplish if everyone was united to one idea."
How do those two ideas disagree? Obviously not everyone in the Soviet Union was united in those ideas, even if most of the resources were forcibly allocated to them by those in power.
You are right, it's unlikely that _everyone_ in the world would unite behind _one_ idea. However as things currently stand almost _no one_ (statistically speaking) is doing what they'd really want to do, given the education and freedom to do it. Most people are too constrained by the systems under which they live (political, societal, economical, enviromental, etc)
"Imagine if everyone on earth was able to combine their resources and technology with no political, religious, or cultural boundries."
I think those are big problems, but equally important are money and energy. Money because so many people and groups are obsessed with getting it and because almost everyone needs it to survive. Energy because if everyone was able to do whatever they wanted we'd quickly run out of power to support everything.
If everyone on the planet was educated and lived under a government that allowed them to freedom to do what they want, were free of the constrictions of money, and had access to an effectively limitless source of power, things would be very different. Either we'd see a huge surge in the development of science and technology and the arts, or everyone would sit at home watching tv all the time and all progress would cease. I'm not sure way it would go, but it would certainly be interesting finding out.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Of course, that's just the surface temperature, if you're standing on the right part of Mars, at the right time of day, with no suit on the soles of your feet will be a nice and toasty 20C, everything above your toes is going to be sub-zero though.
I think it will be like this:
:)
If we find present life on Mars extra care will be taken to sterilize everything on a manned mission. But if we realize that we can't sterilize everything 100%, that wont stop us from going to Mars.
If we don't find present life before a manned Mission, it doesn't mean there aren't any, so extra care will still be taken - maybe just as much as in the first case.
But with *sigh!* more than 20 years before a manned mission will take place I'm sure that science will find a way to sterilize everything - perhabs with some "magic" nanocoating sprayed on everything before you exit a habitat
btw: as far as I'm informed the warmest temperature on Mars is'nt 100 deegrees (20C)but rather 70, and the coldest around -270 (-170C)...
You didn't mean it this way, I know, but that kind of uniformity is just what our good friend Osama bin Laden is aiming for: Once God (his), one Nation (his), one Vision (his). No thanks, even if it is "mine" instead of "his". Maybe 150+ countries are a bit much, but a world government concentrates power in a way that makes me nervous -- ask your average German or Brit what they think of the European Union, and you'll see what I mean.
I have to prefer the society where everyone does what they feel is important
like eating at McDonalds, wearing nike and getting some bling-bling?
Just because your particular public-mythos includes the concept of free-will dont belive that your *own* public discourse isnt totally dominated and directed.
Imagine for a moment the effects on Joe Public by Marketing. Now tell me Joe makes his own decisions... In fact, Joe's decisions are limited to the ideas he is exposed to (marketing frames public discourse); in fact, I'd say the USA has less freedom in the public sphere than many other places.
Remember, to dissent means your with the terrorists. This meme may seem timely, but consider how powerful its use was. The US public reacts very predictably.
"Naturally the common people don't want war..... but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, wether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a paliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works in every country." -- citiation left off to avoid invoking goodwin's law.
Now, imagine the word "war" is variable, how many ways does this idea apply?
Anyone against GM food wants to starve people. Anyone against cars wants you to live in a cave. Anyone against lawn-mowers wants you to live in a cave. Anyone against mcdonalds wants you to loose your job. Anyone against starbucks wants america's economy to fail.
The truth is public opinion *is* formed at the top -- the real danger is when you cannot trust / loose control of who is at the top that the trouble begins.
The USA lost control of its destiny to Plutocrats at least 75-100 years ago.
It's still in the budget the white house just released. Of course he still has most of the cost increases planned for after he leaves office.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Even the dead bugs will be dessicated and scattered by the wind, so if we fing old bugs after man has wandered around a landscape, we will have no idea if they are native to mars.
Its not about contamination with live bugs, its about not destroying the evidence of old dead ones.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
"Stop knocking communism, It was never communism that failed - it was the people that ran it and the people that served it."
I assume when you say "Communism" you mean "Marxism". Karl Marx envisioned that after the revolution a few people would take over power, create equality and then give the power back to the people and slowly fade away. Only in the end when the state has faded away could one speak of communism (Of course this has never happend).
I think the problem with Marxism is that it usually leads to a totalitarian state where the government controls everything. The problem with power is that it corrupts. Those who have power are usually quite unwilling to let it go. I believe this is why Marxism is more likely to lead to a dictatorship than to Communism.
I am not trying to say there are no alternatives to capitalism, though. I am personaly quite interested in Anarchism. By Anarchy I mean organisation without hierarchy, not chaos and/or mob rule. Unlike Marxism, Anarchism has a mistrust of any kind of authority (authority as in leader, not as in expert) at it's basis. The only problem with Anarchy is that it might not work on a large scale.