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
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.
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?
The only focusing the USA government wants these days is for people to not focus on their own past and present actions and capabilities (like those WMD).
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.
Of course, send it to the Middle East instead, in the form of lots of smaller rockets and such. Who cares about the long term viability of the species, or exploration of our universe? Pshaw!
Bitchslapped. Neat.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
We (the US) had a space program in the early 40's? Wow, cool.
You (the US) had intercontinental ballistic missiles before the space program? Wow, cool.
Bitchslapped. Neat.
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."
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
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.