Pedestal
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/11/06
Posts: 2832
Loc: Smoggy Bottom, Baytown,Texas
|
|
I don't mean to be facetious with the question.
It would seem to me that the ultimate objective of space exploration is exploitable resources. (If not the actual resources, at least the expansion of knowledge to get more out of what we have).
Given that, would not the asteriod belt make more sense? You would only have a significant gravity well one end, anyway.
We're spending a gazillion bucks sending probes to Mars, a dubious prospect at best. I want to know WHAT'S OUT THERE, an the asteroid belt seems much more interesting.
Or is it simply that Mars is Mars, and has always fascinated mankind because you can see it?
Hubert
--------------------
www.smoggybottom.org
|
Charlie B
super member
Reged: 03/22/08
Posts: 124
Loc: Virginia
|
|
If it were only resources, you are correct but not all expansion is driven by resources. Mars appears to be the best bet for human colonization. If the raw materials are there for humans to make a home, it would be much more appealing. In addition, as long as the human race is only on Earth, we are subject to going the way of the dinosaurs. Maybe some day we could make habitats in space and on asteroids without suffering from the physical problems of a gravity-less environment, but for now we need the security of gravity and a cave to crawl in.
Charlie B
--------------------
Meade SN-8, DS-90, AT-66
DSI Pro II (Schuler Filters), DSI-C, LPI, Canon XTi
AIP4WIN, Nebulosity, DSS, Registrax, GIMP
running on Dell 1420 with Vista
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 9501
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
Artificial gravity is pretty easy to provide. I'm with Hubert that, at least from a standpoint of resource extraction and economic advantage, the asteroids, and eventually comets, are a better bet than Mars. Mars is more useful, I believe, as a research base. The asteroids have more promise as colonization destinations.
--------------------
Homebuilt 10" dob, old Coulter mirror.
16" Royce conical mirror: Construction on S.O.E. (Sauron's Other Eye) has officially begun!
|
Kobayashi
super member
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 100
|
|
Quote:
It would seem to me that the ultimate objective of space exploration is exploitable resources. (If not the actual resources, at least the expansion of knowledge to get more out of what we have).
Access to space is incredibly expensive; There are no known natural resources (materials) out there that is worth the cost of transport. Even if you find an asteroid made of solid platinum, a trip to retrieve it wouldn't be profitable.
The main purpose of the current space program is to expand our knowledge. Mars is the planet most similar to our own, and studying the differences and similarities can tell us much about our own planet. Also, there is some evidence that liquid water once exited on Mars; that means there is some chance that we'll find life there, or evidence that life once existed there in the past. If we get a chance to study a life form completely different from what's on earth, again that may tell us a lot about ourselves.
|
Charlie B
super member
Reged: 03/22/08
Posts: 124
Loc: Virginia
|
|
I also agree with respect to resource extraction. Gravity can be provided by centrifigul spinning. However, nothing beats mass for providing protection from radiation and give gravity with large living space. We currently would have a problem hollowing out and spinning a large asteroid to produce living space for thousands to millions of people.
Charlie B
--------------------
Meade SN-8, DS-90, AT-66
DSI Pro II (Schuler Filters), DSI-C, LPI, Canon XTi
AIP4WIN, Nebulosity, DSS, Registrax, GIMP
running on Dell 1420 with Vista
|
Pess
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/12/07
Posts: 1638
Loc: Toledo, Ohio
|
|
Quote:
I also agree with respect to resource extraction. Gravity can be provided by centrifigul spinning. However, nothing beats mass for providing protection from radiation and give gravity with large living space. We currently would have a problem hollowing out and spinning a large asteroid to produce living space for thousands to millions of people.
Charlie B
If we wanted to live in a hollow asteroid, it could be done.
Mars has no magnetic field, so protection offered against cosmic radiation is nil. You'd need to be underground just as you would on the moon or an steroid.
Hollowing out an asteroid would be the way to go for resource extraction and when you are done you have a nice, hollow home ready to move into.
Spinning a large asteroid would be the easiest thing in the world: Simply stick a few Ion drives around the equator and let them fire for a few years. We have that technology right now.
If the asteroid rock walls proved insufficient for radiation sheilding, it may be possible to stick a metal grid on the surface and use fusion or fission to power an atrificial magnetic field around it. Radiation protection may thus be much easier to build in then on the Mars or Lunar surface.
From a certain point of view Mars and the moon are nothing more than large asteroids. They lack a useful atmosphere and both are near vacume in relation to Earth. In addition to this neither offers any protection from radiation.
Thus there is no benefit of colonization of Mars with present or currently foreseeable technology. Lunar colonization has the benefit of proximity. Asteroid colonization requires impractical travel times at present but comes without the extreme gravity well penalty that Mars carries.
Pesse (Just my two cents) Mist
--------------------
12" RCX400
WILLIAM OPTICS 110mm APO ZENITH STAR refractor
Custom Wyorock focuser for refractor
SBIG ST2000XM
CFW-10
Astrodon Series I LRGB
Douglas Schwan DC
Befuddled visual observer, bewildered astrophotographer, bemused tinkerer.
Purveyor of cognitive dissonance.
Todays Quote: "It is the sign of a solid mind that cherished beliefs can be released in the face of incontrovertible contrary observations."
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1162
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
"Because, it's there." James T. Kirk - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
|
Rick Woods
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 3875
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
We're spending a gazillion bucks sending probes to Mars, a dubious prospect at best. I want to know WHAT'S OUT THERE...
Exactly!
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
8" Meade 826C
|
Mister T
super member
Reged: 02/01/08
Posts: 189
Loc: Upstate NY
|
|
Mars would make an excellent dark sky site...
long way from the nearest light dome...
--------------------
Tony
"After the Laws of Physics, everything else is opinion"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Oberwerk 11x70 Binoc
old camera tripod
mags and books
Meade 60mm refractor
Elmira-Corning Astronomical Society,
http://www.corning-cc.edu/visitors/observatory
|
deSitter
sage
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 418
|
|
Quote:
Access to space is incredibly expensive; There are no known natural resources (materials) out there that is worth the cost of transport. Even if you find an asteroid made of solid platinum, a trip to retrieve it wouldn't be profitable.
Building aircraft carriers is also incredibly expensive, yet the government pays for it and it provides a lot of good jobs, and people feel that in the end it's necessary.
If the will were there, the expense would mean nothing. To a 16th century European, colonizing Arizona or Nevada, not to mention the South Pole, would have seemed as impossible as going to Mars and living there. Yet it happened because there was a will to expand into new territories. Similarly I think eventually the will to colonize the Solar System will outweigh the short-sighted analysis of everything based on some abstract idea of "cost". The need for concentrated energy sources will eventually lead to mining the Moon's He3 when it becomes generally understood that fossil fuels are being exhausted and alternatives are mandatory. That will be the real kick-off point.
-drl
|
smokin oakum
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 09/24/07
Posts: 1303
Loc: Wilmington, NC
|
|
Well I think missions to the "Moon" and "Mars" are invaluable! They are proving grounds at the least, to test our equipment, and work out what we need to ensure a long lasting pressence in space. I don't think it should be about why, but why not, and it should not come down to money.
Neil
--------------------
Live, real time views of the night sky
Neil Horne @ Ustream, or Y Live
CGE EQ mount with rings
Orion 12" XTi f/4.9
MoonLite Focuser
MallinCam Hyper Plus Color
Round Table Platform
Cape Fear Astronomy Club
|
LesB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 1610
Loc: Z-Hills, FL
|
|
Quote:
Well I think missions to the "Moon" and "Mars" are invaluable! They are proving grounds at the least, to test our equipment, and work out what we need to ensure a long lasting pressence in space. I don't think it should be about why, but why not, and it should not come down to money.
Neil
Money equates with resources. If the Chinese are focused on the moon then why are we running to Mars?
What kind of seed are we planting here? I don't see a potential for a colony on Mars returning resources to earth. It's really a one way trip fueled by the hubris of humanity.
--------------------
"The genius of humanity is to establish an identity which lies at an ever-increasing distance from our organic nature." Ray Tallis
|
Kobayashi
super member
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 100
|
|
Quote:
To a 16th century European, colonizing Arizona or Nevada, not to mention the South Pole, would have seemed as impossible as going to Mars and living there.
The South Pole is not "colonized" - there is only a research outpost there, completely dependent on airlifted supplies and manned by scientists who only live there for the duration of their research work.
There's already a research outpost in space as well, in low earth orbit. In the coming decades we'll probably build others, further out in space. And I'm not disputing the value of those. However, it's very unlikely there'll be anything more. We haven't even colonized South Pole or the Sahara Desert even though those places already have breathable air. We haven't colonized the ocean floor even though there's liquid water and other resources there. Evidently "because it's out there" is not a sufficient reason to colonize those places; I don't see how the asteroid belt or Mars would be any different.
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1162
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
Actually, the plan is to go to the moon first. This PDF from NASA's policy website outlines the strategy.
-S
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
|
Pedestal
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/11/06
Posts: 2832
Loc: Smoggy Bottom, Baytown,Texas
|
|
So, basically we're gonna go to Mars because its Mars. With a rather nebulous exception that the study of Mars may contribute to Earth science. Humm... [edited to add: there is the search for life, but we don't need to send people for that]
As far as exploitable resources, I would maintain that we could get resources from the asteroid belt, that would be impossible from Mars -or the Moon- for that matter. Be it platinum or ice, being on one end of a gravity well can have it's advantages.
Very interesting comments, thanks,
Hubert
--------------------
www.smoggybottom.org
Edited by Pedestal (07/20/08 09:32 PM)
|
Kobayashi
super member
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 100
|
|
Quote:
With a rather nebulous exception that the study of Mars may contribute to Earth science.
There's nothing nebulous about scientific goals of unmanned mars probes. They only get funded if they have very specific achievable goals. Just look at the web page of any such mission, they usually discuss the scientific goals.
Quote:
Humm... [edited to add: there is the search for life, but we don't need to send people for that]
I agree with that, unmanned missions are more cost-effective for scientific research. That's even true for low-earth orbit missions. (And please don't bring up the Hubble as a counter-example - a manned repair mission is almost as expensive as building a replacement and launching on an unmanned launcher.)
Quote:
As far as exploitable resources, I would maintain that we could get resources from the asteroid belt...
What resources? I don't know of any resources in the asteroid belt (or Mars) that you can't find on earth.
|
smokin oakum
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 09/24/07
Posts: 1303
Loc: Wilmington, NC
|
|
First we'll go back to the Moon, and establish a base of sorts there. This will be the proving grounds for long term outposts in low gravity environments where we find what we need there without the need of re-supply ships to keep bringing us what we need. After we get that established, then we start thinking about Mars, the asteroid belt and anything else we can imagine.
The biggest reason for going to mars in my opinion is research on teraforming. We need to start heating up that planet (which we do very well already), and bringing it back from the dead as it were, so we can start to colonize it. The bottom line with the whole Mars vs the asteroid belt is that Mars is larger, closer, and easier than doing something similar on a asteroid.
Neil
--------------------
Live, real time views of the night sky
Neil Horne @ Ustream, or Y Live
CGE EQ mount with rings
Orion 12" XTi f/4.9
MoonLite Focuser
MallinCam Hyper Plus Color
Round Table Platform
Cape Fear Astronomy Club
|
Rick Woods
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 3875
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
We need to start heating up that planet (which we do very well already), and bringing it back from the dead as it were, so we can start to colonize it.
What if Mars isn't dead? Should we still terraform it?
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
8" Meade 826C
|
smokin oakum
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 09/24/07
Posts: 1303
Loc: Wilmington, NC
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
We need to start heating up that planet (which we do very well already), and bringing it back from the dead as it were, so we can start to colonize it.
What if Mars isn't dead? Should we still terraform it?
Well either way we have to get there first to find out, and then we can make that determination once we have done the research required to make sure we don't tread on indiginous life forms. The bigger question is, do we replace a small amount of life with all thats possible? By heating up the planet we might jumpstart a chain reaction that spurs life that was being held back!
Neil
--------------------
Live, real time views of the night sky
Neil Horne @ Ustream, or Y Live
CGE EQ mount with rings
Orion 12" XTi f/4.9
MoonLite Focuser
MallinCam Hyper Plus Color
Round Table Platform
Cape Fear Astronomy Club
|
Deep13
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/25/05
Posts: 1417
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Considering the effort to get anywhere, I really don't see how resource exploitation could ever be feasible.
--------------------
Preserve the night sky. Join the Internat. Dark Sky Assn. for less than a cheap eyepiece.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
