Learning about Mars IS the only motivation - when logic and science applies. There is not yet one good reason to send a man. Robots on Mars do just same as robots everywhere including on Hawaii telescopes. To assume otherwise is to not understand the point of that previous post. Where the man happens to be (and even "lag") is totally irrelevant. The only thing important is technical facts - what science needs - which is why robots continue to be moreso every year a better alternative.

If being inside the environment is so important to observe it, then show me the man inside a nuclear reactor or inside a microprocessor? That need to be 'inside the environment' is political mumbo gumbo for those among us who believe Rush Limbaugh when he talks about McNabb.

A micro intelligent president is more concern with those among us who use emotion - rather than reality - to think with. The Mars idea is for the ill-informed who also believe Saddam had a part in the WTC attack. After all, Cheney said so repeatedly, so it must be true!!! Emotion rather than reality is more important to these people. Their vote is more important to George Jr than the advancement of America.

Monetary considerations are only part of the equation to determine cost benefit. There is no benefit to sending a man to Mars, scientifically. And costs would simply be at the expense of other real science - ie. the super collider that would have advanced science to make that Mars journey more practical.

Someday we will put men back on the moon and on Mars. It will be when science finds logical reasons to do so - or when George Jr decides so spend so much more money we don't even have.

Monetary and other science based factors are why we send robots to Mars - and not humans. We want to do as much successful science as possible which means humans do not (yet) belong on Mars. There is too much advanced science to do now - and before we could ever send a man to Mars. No place - not any - room for emotion in that decision.

But then logic will eventually take hold. People will then forget the stupid George Jr Mars idea (as they have the hypersonic airplane idea). Idea that will rank right up there with the George Jr anti-ballistic missile system- so that Osama bin Laden cannot fire missiles at the US. We have the leader we deserve - which is why this manned Mars mission is being discussed. With an intelligent President, this discussion would not even exist.

Did Vulcans ever go space-faring in their own vessels?

Whenever I see a post in which the poster claims (or implies) that he is the only one using logic, it raises a red flag for everything in their post.

There are good reasons to expand the space program and to send men and women to the moon and mars.

1) Investing in science like this always pays off. We're still coasting on the technology developed for the space program of the 60s. Most of the high tech gadgets that we use today can be traced back to the space program. I admit that much of this would be true for unmanned missions, but not to the same extent. The harder the problem solved, the more good stuff falls out of it.

2) Robot missions are limiting. A robot mission can only do what we can think for it to do ahead of time (more or less). Whatever we hope to accomplish has to already be built into the robot. And that means you can only find out stuff you expect or hope to find.

3) I think mankind needs a frontier - something that excites the imagination. Otherwise we will shrivel up and waste away. It's the racial equivalent of old guys who shrivel up after they retire because they can't think of anything to do.

4) Mother earth is a fragile blue marble. If man or nature ruins it, I'd like to think that mankind had a hope of going on.

I don't have any objections to starting with robots, as long as we continue after that with manned missions.

The whole political argument is bogus as far as I'm concerned. Manned missions are a good idea no matter whether Bush advocates it or not. Even an idiot like Bush hits the mark by accident once in a while.

NOTE: I typed most of this up a few hours ago, but was called away on an emergency before I could finish it. Sorry that it rehashes some points that dar512 already made.

I don't really see any cohesive counterpoints in your posting, tw, just contradiction peppered with some insults towards Dubya. I don't care much for the man either, but the merit of sending men to Mars isn't based solely on one man's intelligence... he didn't dream up the idea, he's just promoting it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Well, OK... there is a counterpoint, which mysteriously appeared after I refreshed:
These ridiculous analogies do not reinforce your argument. Can a man even fit inside a microprocessor? No. THAT'S why we don't put men inside of them, NOT because of financial limitations. Not to mention that we know everything that is in there, in exacting detail... because WE put it in there. Here's a more applicable analogy...say your car breaks down, and you contact your mechanic for help. Can he more capably help you if you A) Mail him some photos taken under the hood of your car, or B) Have him come over and take a look? He'll charge for the visit, yes, but he can learn more in an hour on-site than he might with a hundred photos. He may even be able to warn you of some looming problems which you didn't expect.

You state that learning about Mars itself is the ONLY motivation to send explorers there. But it's not. You are overlooking some important ones:

1. Improve our space-travel capabilities and methods, which will be necessary when we eventually travel BEYOND Mars.
2. Allow the execution of scientific tests which robots cannot be designed to feasibly perform (core samples, etc).
3. National pride in the accomplishment.
4. All the incidental knowledge which is gathered by such intense, focused research (like the TONS of useful everyday stuff that was developed using data from the Apollo missions).

Whether or not you agree that these are worthwhile motivations, they are for many, including myself. Fifteen years from now, if we haven't at least started on an effort to put a few explorers on Mars, then we suck.

The most important commodity that Mankind (tm) has is its imagination.

Without it, we would have never decided to bang two rocks together. Try to think of sending men to Mars as the modern equivalent of banging two rocks together, and there is no limit to where it might lead.

Re: Re: People in space will happen..
 

Ummmm...hmm?

Point being: we have areas on this planet that are harsh and inhospitable. Makes more sense to try to populate those areas, where 'colonists' have a better chance of being rescued should something go wrong, than someone living on another planet.

Re: Re: Re: People in space will happen..
 

Well, the reason we want to go to Mars isn't because it's inhospitable, nor to colonize (at least not in the near future). We want to go because no one has ever been there before, and it is a unique environment to study and learn from. Also, developing the technology to go to Mars will significantly increase the area of explorable space.

That's the reason research teams went to Antarctica in the first place. They learn a lot from scientific visits, but the environment isn't hospitable enough to set up permananet residence. Mars would be the same.

I think that Griff was referring to the negative reaction one might get from a number of nations as a result of setting up a permanant colony on Antarctica... ownership of the landmass is debatable.

I think Bush is trying to stir up something Americans can be proud of. All you see in the news is Enron, Kobe & MJ, Iraq, jobs exported, ad infinitum.

Re: Re: Re: Re: People in space will happen..
 

Man originally went to Anarctica to learn - good and logical reason. No robots then. And with each visit, more science was learned. So much so that good reasons were found to put men and a permanent station at the South Pole. All done for good scientific reasons.

One thing learned is that we still cannot maintain life in a harsh environment without massive amounts of outside support. And that does not even include massive amounts of oxygen and water. Not just to keep men alive but massive amounts more to make equipment work. Mars is an atmosphere of sulfur, chlorine, and dangerous radiation. Tropical compared to Anarctica (where science learning and testing would also make space flight possible). So do we also cut off all funding for Anarcitic research to pay for this boondoogle to Mars? Or do we keep doing research even in Anarctica so that a future and productive Mars mission is eventually possible?

How does one sell any problem to the masses? Often the science is too complex for sound bytes. So we tell the masses we are going only because it exists. Nonsense. But the masses will buy it. IOW the selling of a manned mission to Mars is really an insult to the intelligence of American citizens.

Eventually, when robots find a reason, then man will go to Mars. Either because good reason exists or because a president seeks more votes by promoting a boondoogle. Another self serviing agenda where the mission is promoted, then reasons for the mission are sought later. Sounds like this president's reasoning and very characterisitc of extremists.

Good science first finds a good logical reason. None (as usual) was put forward by this extremist president.

1) Space travel capabilities are found in fundamental science that we would be doing today had the super collider not been canceled by another boondoogle - the ISS. Other fundamental research would also be quashed by misdirected $trillions, using conventional technologies (application research) to put a man on Mars. It is nonsense to think fundamental research will occur because application research eats all the money. But that is what George Jr would have us think.

Before a man on Mars is reasonable, we have so much fundamental research still to do. Research that would have human travel on Anarctica and so deep in the oceans routine and simple.

Furthermore what is better to develop new space travel capabilities? Robots. Lots of robots trying out many new and different technologies while seeking new science. All those many robot missions would be canceled to pay for a single man on Mars mission. Did we not see this already with Hubble? Already fundamental science destroyed so that boondoogles such as ISS can continue.

2) Virtually every significant science test we do today requires something that man cannot do. That includes what we do inside microprocessors and nuclear power plants. Without his robots, man cannot take those "core samples". Without man, robots can still take the same core samples - and many more. More because a human requires too much overhead. How to identify those who love the status quo. They still think a man's presence is required. Innovators say, "Put one man to take a few core samples or hundreds of robots to take thousands of core samples." Don't understand why anyone would think a man's hand does a better job when it still requires a robot attached to the end of it. Too many still think in the myopic concepts of science based upon early 20th Century perspectives. They still think, like the miner John Henry, that man will always do a better job than machines. Its the 21st Century. And yet even in the 20th Century, too many John Henrys were even stifling computer technology (ie Xerox).

Get out of 20th Century thinking. Don't be so myopic. Stop thinking battleships are more important than aircraft carriers. Don't let such old men like me be so much more progressive. Robots are the future.

3) National pride is the bullshit we hand to those who also think Listerene does something. There is just as much national pride in Spirite - a robot -that is doing more to advance mankind than any human could in that environment. Emotions are what an extremist president used to intentionally kill the Oslo Accords, to invade a sovereign nation, and to have us thinking that terrorists are still behind every door (when no other nation can find any evidence of all these recent terrorist plots). Emotion and flag waving are for manipulating the less intelligent masses. The real patriots are the innovators - who make machines do work better than man ever could do in harsh environments such as Mars.

4) All that benefit from the Apollo missions? What technologies? The basic research was done regardless of whether Apollo existed or not. It is outright lie to think velcro or the 8080 microprocessor was developed due to Apollo. But again, it is what we tell the masses that would not know better. Where is Tang today? Same place it was before those space missions. Show me the intense research profits that Apollo created. Apollo was application research. Even the rocket technology used was scrapped. Technology made obsolete by better technology that was required by robots - also called space satellites.

Where is one good reason in all this to justify a man on Mars. The best reasons, such as new technologies as from Apollo, are myths that we told the masses. Emotion - again nonsense for the masses. And then there is reality - all the fundamental research (stuff with far more benefit) that must be canceled so that we can put a man on Mars.

I can understand why George Jr would believe all this. I am just amazed that Cellar dwellers would by taken in by these myths. George Jr presents not one good reason to justify men on the moon or Mars. But that is how he does everything - including destruction of the Oslo Accords. Facts be damned. This Mars mission is really a question about the intellect of and lies from George Jr - extremist.

Welcome to democracy, where "the masses" are what make the decisions.

You seem incapable of leaving Dubya out of this question. Whether he wants to do it or not really has no relevance on the merit of going in the first place. None. Zero.

I'm not going to spend the time to reply point-by-point to your posts, because they are bloated with mistruths, ill-supported facts, non-relevant commentary, perpendicular "parallels," and incorrect assumptions. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

:thumb: Nicely said.

Its not possible to talk about a man to Mars mission and not talk about why the idea exists. George Jr is mentally incapable of doing what Kennedy did. But then George Jr is an MBA. The man to Mars missions is classic MBA thinking. Big on idea. Devoid of reality. Spend money with no limit. All problems can be solved by throwing money at it - like a grenade. First decide to do it. Then learn facts to justify the decision. Reality be damned.

Man on Mars is classic George Jr thinking. No way around that fact. Provided is not one logical reason - from George Jr or hot_pastrami - to send a man to Mars. Justify a $trillions project by "national pride"? Do any reasonable humans still exist? Eliminate the 'national pride' angle and not one reason exists to send a man to Mars. What remains? Only more reasons to send robots.

Show me responsible science organizations that advocated this silly mission at such costs. You can't. Quite bluntly - you can't because the logical reasons do not exist! Demonstrated by hot_pastrami's implicit concession: advancement of science is not a reason for this mission. National pride is. Reasons for sending a man to Mars is best found in fiction books - in how George Jr makes decisions - and in his legacy. Not possible to leave George Jr out. He is why a technically naive Mars mission is being promoted - mankind and basic research (ie Hubble) be damned.

Mission will not happen. But 'the' reason why this Mars mission is even discussed - this president's intellect. Its not about Mars. Its about an extremist and MBA president making decisions. His need for a Kennedy type legacy. A distorted decision making process; where reality is not part of the decision. Classic MBA management. No way to leave George Jr's thought process out of this topic. He and his legacy justify fiction; where money is something to be spent freely and without regard to reality. Sounds more like an Enron CEO; not a responsible world leader. George Jr - not science - is why a Mars mission was proposed.

Oh, brother. I conceded no such thing, implicitly or otherwise. I asserted that there are reasons to send men to Mars in addition to the advancement of science.

In this discussion, you have made the following, and only the following, quite clear:

1. You don't like George W. Bush (neither do I).
2. You think anybody with an MBA is a moron.
3. You don't know what a "robot" is.
4. You don't like Tang.
5. You question the effectiveness of Listerine.
6. Antarctica is a harsh environment.
7. You like to use long words like "boondoggle," but you don't know how to spell them ("boondoogle?").
8. You like to use the word "logic" but you fail to demonstrate any in your argument.
9. You think "the masses" are all dim bulbs.
10. Aircraft carriers are more important than battleships.

Some of these points are valid, but none has anything to do with whether we should go to Mars. Despite what you may think, the president is NOT the first person to conceive of sending people to Mars, so his views on it are a non-issue when discussing the worthiness of such a mission. That's like saying you don't like the Internet because Al Gore invented it. As far as I can tell, if Dubya had decried sending people to Mars, you'd probably side with me on this argument.

Just because something is difficult does not mean it's not worth doing. There are lots of reasons to send people to Mars within the next twenty or so years, and I, for one, think it's worth doing. You don't. And that's ok. But if you want to affect anyone's opinion on the matter, you'd best start using some of that logic you keep talking about.

By the way, tw, your habit of posting something, and then going back a little while later and altering it significantly... it's very annoying. If you have new thoughts after posting, how about just posting a new reply? Editing an existing post's content, aside from correcting grammar and spelling, is obnoxious and misleading. It doesn't say much for the strength of your argument to have to go back and edit, either.