59 replies to this topic

[DONTEATUS]

synchronomy, on 23 September 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

If "they" won...why are we enjoying the sunshine and "they" are living in caverns?

Just as Long as I can take my Little monkey with me. ANd Theres underground water ,rivers,Lakes,But Not Slave drivers !

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

It is not a matter of "should", it is a matter of when. We will go to Mars, and beyond, it is our destiny. My parents were children in sixties and thought we would have permanent base on Moon and been to Mars by year 1980...

[Bavarian Raven]

Yes - its a must.

[jimbur]

I still think we should start with the moon. Set up a station there, get all the bugs worked out of the systems, then try to go further out. The moon is a lot closer for a rescue in case of problems then mars is.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

I think it would be nice if some real serious plans were begun to be put in hand as a tribute to Neil Armstrong, don't you think.

[pallidin]

IMHO, it's only a matter of time, money and technology before a manned mission to Mars happens.
After all, we did it on the moon.

Humans are the greatest "robots" ever created... with extra equipment of course while exploring.

What concerns me is whether or not they can, or want to, return to Earth. Surely a lauch facility similar to NASA would have to be constructed on Mars for a return trip. That, in itself, is a massive undertaking.
I've heard loose talk about a "non-return" manned mission. That is, establishing a human colony(including proper male/female breeding) that will likely never see earth again(excepting grandchildren of course)

I'm too old, but I would be most willing... with copious amounts of sedatives, or vodka and such...

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

pallidin, on 23 September 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

IMHO, it's only a matter of time, money and technology before a manned mission to Mars happens.
After all, we did it on the moon.

Humans are the greatest "robots" ever created... with extra equipment of course while exploring.

What concerns me is whether or not they can, or want to, return to Earth. Surely a lauch facility similar to NASA would have to be constructed on Mars for a return trip. That, in itself, is a massive undertaking.
I've heard loose talk about a "non-return" manned mission. That is, establishing a human colony(including proper male/female breeding) that will likely never see earth again(excepting grandchildren of course)

I could understand that with a voyage to the Stars, but surely Mars is near enough for it not to have to be a one-way trip? I'd have thought the most sensible way would be for a mother ship to remain in orbit and for a lander to go down, and while that would still leave questions to be addressed about where to find enough fuel for the return trip, at least you'd need a lot less fuel than you would if you were taking off directly from the surface.

[DONTEATUS]

747400, on 23 September 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

I could understand that with a voyage to the Stars, but surely Mars is near enough for it not to have to be a one-way trip? I'd have thought the most sensible way would be for a mother ship to remain in orbit and for a lander to go down, and while that would still leave questions to be addressed about where to find enough fuel for the return trip, at least you'd need a lot less fuel than you would if you were taking off directly from the surface.

Agreed It would be smart  to have several round trips ongoing  with orbiting stations  Earth side,and Mars side. THen landers and robotic supply missions ect. Make it a planet sized endeavor. I still would go If it was just one way !

[pallidin]

I suppose the issue is two-fold.
First, drop fuel, food, water, re-launch and other supplies on Mars by somewhat current methods. Very expensive of course.

Then, establish "way-stations", perhaps 2 - 4 between Earth and Mars(with one or 2 as an emergency redundency), which contain necessary supplies for both the transit to and from Earth as well as emergency supplies regarding technology and life support. Again, very, very expensive.

Must be in the multi-trillions of dollars. But, could be done.

[TheMolePatrol]

jimbur, on 23 September 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

I still think we should start with the moon. Set up a station there, get all the bugs worked out of the systems, then try to go further out. The moon is a lot closer for a rescue in case of problems then mars is.

Just restating this quote, since it's pretty much my opinion too.

[27vet]

pallidin, on 23 September 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

I suppose the issue is two-fold.
First, drop fuel, food, water, re-launch and other supplies on Mars by somewhat current methods. Very expensive of course.

Then, establish "way-stations", perhaps 2 - 4 between Earth and Mars(with one or 2 as an emergency redundency), which contain necessary supplies for both the transit to and from Earth as well as emergency supplies regarding technology and life support. Again, very, very expensive.

Must be in the multi-trillions of dollars. But, could be done.

Way-stations will be a difficult one because of the relation of the orbits of the Earth, Mars and the way-stations themselves.

[IamLegend]

Yes, we should, eventually. Run it like the Apollo program.

If we want to colonize, without it being a oneway trip, we should start with the Moon. Colonize at, or near, the Moon's poles.

[goodgodno]

Depends if the Curiosity exploration program finds mineable ore... urgh, sorry I mean it depends if the Curiosity scientific program finds life.  I know which is more likely.

[DONTEATUS]

I see money wisking by the Monitors as we speak ! THats the Human way afterall ! Cha-Ching !

[jbefumo]

Maybe we can start by sending humans to Washington - it would be a first.