Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.

Tired of all the flame wars? Insane posts? Off topic postings?

Want to try a moderated forum?

Then Get your ass to Mars!

http://OnToMar.org/forum/

A new forum where you can discuss space policy, particularly if you
understand why Mars, and not the moon, should be our immediate goal of
our space program.
http://www.ontomars.org/blog/?m=200903

Why the Moon isn’t a Stepping Stone to Mars

Mars has an atmosphere however thin, the moon doesn’t. A Mars day is 24
hours and 40 minutes, a moon day is about 14 earth days. Temperatures are
different between Mars and the Moon. The new technologies needed to go to
Mars like the simulated gravity tether and large mass aerobraking to get
to the Mars surface, have nothing to do with the Moon. So, other than
they require totally different technologies, the moon has little to offer
in the way of Mars development.

The moon would be a good place to build telescopes. Better than Mars.
That’s just about the only thing the Moon has going for it.
Now, what does Mars have?
Climate Science.

Many people are interested in the science of climate change. Mars is a
cold planet that once was much warmer. Further, like earth, the climate
of Mars is also changing. Ice core samples taken on Mars would advance
the science of climate change a great deal.

Since we WANT a warmer Mars, tinkering with greenhouse gasses on Mars
would not only help to terraform Mars, but provide a great deal of
science about climate change.

You don’t get any of this by going to the Moon, the Asteroids, NEOs or
any other dead rock.
Biology

The Moon, the Asteroids, and NEO are all dead, lifeless rocks. In the
past, Mars had an ideal environment for life with a warmer environment
and flowing water. What’s more, gas releases from Mars suggest that life
may be there to this day. What a fantastic discovery it would be to find
fossil life on Mars. And the probability of finding extra-terrestrial
life on Mars would be the most significant scientific discovery since…
well, FIRE. You don’t get this by going to the Moon.
A Home for Humanity.

Mars has carbon. Mars has oceans of frozen water. Mars can be
terraformed. The moon has no carbon, trace amounts of water. It makes no
sense at all for a carbon based life form made mostly of water to try and
colonize a world where there is no carbon and almost no water. What’s
more, because there is no volcanic activity or water on the moon, there
are no ores. Materials like copper will be hard to gather on the moon.
You can build bases on the moon, only on Mars can you build a colony.

What’s more, you can grow crops in greenhouses on Mars, as the Martian
day is close enough to an earth day that our plants can grow there in a
greenhouse with a low pressure atmosphere. On the moon, the nights are
two weeks long!

Mars is the Gateway to the inner solar system

Because Mars can support a colony and the moon can only support a base,
Mars will eventually become humanity’s gateway to the inner solar system.
Once every two years, the energy required to go from Mars to the Moon is
much less than going from the earth to the moon! You can get much larger
payloads into space from Mars than you can from earth. A Mars
civilization would be a spacefaring civilization.
The Danger of going to the moon

Most of you are too young to recall, but in the early 1970s, when the
Apollo program was returning bags of rocks from the moon, people were
saying things like “We can go to the moon but we can’t cure the common
cold� or “We can go to the moon but we can’t end poverty� and so one.
People saw the product of the moon program: Moon rocks, which appeared to
be ordinary earth rocks and were only of interest to scientist. The
payback for space programs seemed small. Many people could put together a
bag of rocks for far cheaper. Space programs seemed wasteful, and the
Mars program was convicted by guilt by association with the Moon program
in the eyes of public that didn’t know better. There’s a PAYBACK for
going to Mars.

History repeats itself. Today, it is very much like it was in the 1960s.
We have a plan to return to the moon in 15 years or so. However, in 15
years , the people are once again going to see bags of rocks coming back
from the moon. They will not see the discovery of extraterrestrial life.
They will not see new discoveries in climate science. And they will not
see an exciting new self supporting colony. WE didn’t learn from Apollo
and we are in danger of making the same error.



--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

On Apr 12, 12:12*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Tired of all the flame wars? Insane posts? Off topic postings?

Want to try a moderated forum?

Then Get your ass to Mars!

http://OnToMar.org/forum/

A new forum where you can discuss space policy, particularly if you
understand why Mars, and not the moon, should be our immediate goal of
our space program.http://www.ontomars.org/blog/?m=200903

Why the Moon isn’t a Stepping Stone to Mars

Mars has an atmosphere however thin, the moon doesn’t. A Mars day is 24
hours and 40 minutes, a moon day is about 14 earth days. Temperatures are
different between Mars and the Moon. The new technologies needed to go to
Mars like the simulated gravity tether and large mass aerobraking to get
to the Mars surface, have nothing to do with the Moon. So, other than
they require totally different technologies, the moon has little to offer
in the way of Mars development.

The moon would be a good place to build telescopes. Better than Mars.
That’s just about the only thing the Moon has going for it.
Now, what does Mars have?
Climate Science.

Many people are interested in the science of climate change. Mars is a
cold planet that once was much warmer. Further, like earth, the climate
of Mars is also changing. Ice core samples taken on Mars would advance
the science of climate change a great deal.

Since we WANT a warmer Mars, tinkering with greenhouse gasses on Mars
would not only help to terraform Mars, but provide a great deal of
science about climate change.

You don’t get any of this by going to the Moon, the Asteroids, NEOs or
any other dead rock.
Biology

The Moon, the Asteroids, and NEO are all dead, lifeless rocks. In the
past, Mars had an ideal environment for life with a warmer environment
and flowing water. What’s more, gas releases from Mars suggest that life
may be there to this day. What a fantastic discovery it would be to find
fossil life on Mars. And the probability of finding extra-terrestrial
life on Mars would be the most significant scientific discovery since…
well, FIRE. You don’t get this by going to the Moon.
A Home for Humanity.

Mars has carbon. Mars has oceans of frozen water. Mars can be
terraformed. The moon has no carbon, trace amounts of water. It makes no
sense at all for a carbon based life form made mostly of water to try and
colonize a world where there is no carbon and almost no water. What’s
more, because there is no volcanic activity or water on the moon, there
are no ores. Materials like copper will be hard to gather on the moon.
You can build bases on the moon, only on Mars can you build a colony.

What’s more, you can grow crops in greenhouses on Mars, as the Martian
day is close enough to an earth day that our plants can grow there in a
greenhouse with a low pressure atmosphere. On the moon, the nights are
two weeks long!

* *Mars is the Gateway to the inner solar system

Because Mars can support a colony and the moon can only support a base,
Mars will eventually become humanity’s gateway to the inner solar system.
Once every two years, the energy required to go from Mars to the Moon is
much less than going from the earth to the moon! You can get much larger
payloads into space from Mars than you can from earth. A Mars
civilization would be a spacefaring civilization.
The Danger of going to the moon

Most of you are too young to recall, but in the early 1970s, when the
Apollo program was returning bags of rocks from the moon, people were
saying things like “We can go to the moon but we can’t cure the common
cold” or “We can go to the moon but we can’t end poverty” and so one.
People saw the product of the moon program: Moon rocks, which appeared to
be ordinary earth rocks and were only of interest to scientist. The
payback for space programs seemed small. Many people could put together a
bag of rocks for far cheaper. Space programs seemed wasteful, and the
Mars program was convicted by guilt by association with the Moon program
in the eyes of public that didn’t know better. There’s a PAYBACK for
going to Mars.

History repeats itself. Today, it is very much like it was in the 1960s.
We have a plan to return to the moon in 15 years or so. However, in 15
years , the people are once again going to see bags of rocks coming back
from the moon. They will not see the discovery of extraterrestrial life.
They will not see new discoveries in climate science. And they will not
see an exciting new self supporting colony. WE didn’t learn from Apollo
and we are in danger of making the same error.

--http://OnToMars.org*For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

I agree, that Mars would make a super terrific off-world penal colony,
that which I think only the rich and powerful should have to pay for.

Then we can get our greedy and selfish selves back to our primary task
of raping and systematically pillaging mother Earth for all she's
worth, before our Eden is taken over by ETs that have other ideas.

~ BG

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:04:47 -0700, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 12, 12:12Â*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Tired of all the flame wars? Insane posts? Off topic postings?

Want to try a moderated forum?

Then Get your ass to Mars!

http://OnToMar.org/forum/

A new forum where you can discuss space policy, particularly if you
understand why Mars, and not the moon, should be our immediate goal of
our space program.http://www.ontomars.org/blog/?m=200903

Why the Moon isn’t a Stepping Stone to Mars

Mars has an atmosphere however thin, the moon doesn’t. A Mars day is 24
hours and 40 minutes, a moon day is about 14 earth days. Temperatures
are different between Mars and the Moon. The new technologies needed to
go to Mars like the simulated gravity tether and large mass aerobraking
to get to the Mars surface, have nothing to do with the Moon. So, other
than they require totally different technologies, the moon has little
to offer in the way of Mars development.

The moon would be a good place to build telescopes. Better than Mars.
That’s just about the only thing the Moon has going for it. Now, what
does Mars have?
Climate Science.

Many people are interested in the science of climate change. Mars is a
cold planet that once was much warmer. Further, like earth, the climate
of Mars is also changing. Ice core samples taken on Mars would advance
the science of climate change a great deal.

Since we WANT a warmer Mars, tinkering with greenhouse gasses on Mars
would not only help to terraform Mars, but provide a great deal of
science about climate change.

You don’t get any of this by going to the Moon, the Asteroids, NEOs or
any other dead rock.
Biology

The Moon, the Asteroids, and NEO are all dead, lifeless rocks. In the
past, Mars had an ideal environment for life with a warmer environment
and flowing water. What’s more, gas releases from Mars suggest that
life may be there to this day. What a fantastic discovery it would be
to find fossil life on Mars. And the probability of finding
extra-terrestrial life on Mars would be the most significant scientific
discovery since… well, FIRE. You don’t get this by going to the Moon. A
Home for Humanity.

Mars has carbon. Mars has oceans of frozen water. Mars can be
terraformed. The moon has no carbon, trace amounts of water. It makes
no sense at all for a carbon based life form made mostly of water to
try and colonize a world where there is no carbon and almost no water.
What’s more, because there is no volcanic activity or water on the
moon, there are no ores. Materials like copper will be hard to gather
on the moon. You can build bases on the moon, only on Mars can you
build a colony.

What’s more, you can grow crops in greenhouses on Mars, as the Martian
day is close enough to an earth day that our plants can grow there in a
greenhouse with a low pressure atmosphere. On the moon, the nights are
two weeks long!

Â* Â*Mars is the Gateway to the inner solar system

Because Mars can support a colony and the moon can only support a base,
Mars will eventually become humanity’s gateway to the inner solar
system. Once every two years, the energy required to go from Mars to
the Moon is much less than going from the earth to the moon! You can
get much larger payloads into space from Mars than you can from earth.
A Mars civilization would be a spacefaring civilization. The Danger of
going to the moon

Most of you are too young to recall, but in the early 1970s, when the
Apollo program was returning bags of rocks from the moon, people were
saying things like “We can go to the moon but we can’t cure the common
cold� or “We can go to the moon but we can’t end poverty� and so one.
People saw the product of the moon program: Moon rocks, which appeared
to be ordinary earth rocks and were only of interest to scientist. The
payback for space programs seemed small. Many people could put together
a bag of rocks for far cheaper. Space programs seemed wasteful, and the
Mars program was convicted by guilt by association with the Moon
program in the eyes of public that didn’t know better. There’s a
PAYBACK for going to Mars.

History repeats itself. Today, it is very much like it was in the
1960s. We have a plan to return to the moon in 15 years or so. However,
in 15 years , the people are once again going to see bags of rocks
coming back from the moon. They will not see the discovery of
extraterrestrial life. They will not see new discoveries in climate
science. And they will not see an exciting new self supporting colony.
WE didn’t learn from Apollo and we are in danger of making the same
error.

--http://OnToMars.orgÂ*For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

I agree, that Mars would make a super terrific off-world penal colony,
that which I think only the rich and powerful should have to pay for.

Then we can get our greedy and selfish selves back to our primary task
of raping and systematically pillaging mother Earth for all she's worth,
before our Eden is taken over by ETs that have other ideas.

~ BG

So, you disagree with me, and are not going to actually discuss the merit
of human missions and a human presence on Mars.

Why did you post this stuff, tho?



--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Then Get your ass to Mars!

http://OnToMar.org/forum/


(1) Mars is beyond current technology. Only machines can live in there.
Any human expedition to Mars is just science fiction.

And this fact is a GOOD thing since

(2) Mars has probably life in it. Many hints in the last years have made
this hypothesis much more real: The methane found in Mars, the
amounts of water, there are, probably underground, mars living
beings.

(3) Since any human expedition to Mars would destroy the possibility
of finding those bacteria, it is a good thing that humans can't go to
mars now

(4) The technology for living in an independent vessel for more than
3-4 months is just not there

(5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there

(6) The technology for living in Mars is not the
o -50 C in the day, -100 in the night
Heating energy would need a nuclear reactor to keep
humans from freezing
o No oxygen. All oxygen has to be brought from earth.
o No food. All food must be brought from earth.
o No air pressure. You must live in pressure suits all
the time you are outside
o Etc

(7) Since Mars bacteria probably exist, we can't take the risk of
introducing them into the earth biosphere. We can't send humans
since they would bring marsian bacteria with them if we bring
them back. Machines can have a one way trip.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:

(5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there

"Heave Vessel?"
Sounds like space sickness to me. :-D

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

jacob navia wrote:

(5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there

"Heave Vessel?"
Sounds like space sickness to me. :-D

Pat

Well, I'd suggest a landing technology similar to that used for
the Mars Exploration Rovers would work well....

;-)

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:

jacob navia wrote:
(5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there
"Heave Vessel?"
Sounds like space sickness to me. :-D

Pat

Well, I'd suggest a landing technology similar to that used for
the Mars Exploration Rovers would work well....

Not for a vehicle heavy enough to carry humans.

That's why MSL's not using it.

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:

jacob navia wrote:
(5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there
"Heave Vessel?"
Sounds like space sickness to me. :-D

Pat

Well, I'd suggest a landing technology similar to that used for
the Mars Exploration Rovers would work well....

Not for a vehicle heavy enough to carry humans.

That's why MSL's not using it.

Jorge,

Please note the smiley at the end of my post and the literal
use of the term "heave vessel".

But you're right. A vechicle to carry humans would likely be
too "heavy" (let alone "heevy") for gas bags.

But if the goal is to preserve the "heevy" part, how about
a "roton" design where the blades are just rigidly attached
to the body of the lander and the whole thing rotates down
to a landing?

- :-) -

Dave "Wear the badge of Idiot with pride" Spain....

David Spain wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:

jacob navia wrote:
(5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there
"Heave Vessel?"
Sounds like space sickness to me. :-D

Pat
Well, I'd suggest a landing technology similar to that used for
the Mars Exploration Rovers would work well....
Not for a vehicle heavy enough to carry humans.

That's why MSL's not using it.

Jorge,

Please note the smiley at the end of my post and the literal
use of the term "heave vessel".

But you're right. A vechicle to carry humans would likely be
too "heavy" (let alone "heevy") for gas bags.

But if the goal is to preserve the "heevy" part, how about
a "roton" design where the blades are just rigidly attached
to the body of the lander and the whole thing rotates down
to a landing?

- :-) -

Dave "Wear the badge of Idiot with pride" Spain....

I noticed the smiley.

But even then, it is not clear what parts of the post were intended to
be serious and which were intended to be humorous,

If the entire post was intended to be humorous, then here is my response:

"Ha, ha!"

But if any of the post was intended to be taken seriously, I'm not sure
what my response should be.

A "Roton" type system would not work in the thin atmosphere of Mars, period.

I suspect that any attempt to design a human Mars lander by "scaling up"
from existing Mars landers is doomed to failure.

I suspect that, like the Apollo LM, the first successful human Mars
lander will depend on propulsive braking. Any braking derived from drag
will be considered a useful bonus but the design will not depend on it.

David Spain wrote:

:Pat Flannery writes:
:
: jacob navia wrote:
:
: (5) The landing technology for a heave vessel in Mars is not there
:
: "Heave Vessel?"
: Sounds like space sickness to me. :-D
:
: Pat
:
:Well, I'd suggest a landing technology similar to that used for
:the Mars Exploration Rovers would work well....
:

You might want to take a look at the density of the packaging and then
figure out how big a manned mission vehicle would have to be.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn