Mars and the futur of solar exploration

[sinpix]

I was wondering why the focus was set on mars desert for exploration? IO the jupiter moon seem to have a interesting volcanic activity and the cost is probably the same. has a exemple[/url]sinpix.fr.gd

[fatcitymax]

NASA desperately wants to send astronauts to Mars. It's obvious to anyone with the slightest common sense that there is nothing an astronaut can do on Mars that a robot can't do as well and much, much more cheaply. Similarly for Moon exploration. Mars is simply a dead desert. The only planet that needs significant research is the one under our feet. If NASA won't do it then the agency should be shut down.

[Dr. Skeptic]

NASA desperately wants to send astronauts to Mars. It's obvious to anyone with the slightest common sense that there is nothing an astronaut can do on Mars that a robot can't do as well and much, much more cheaply. Similarly for Moon exploration. Mars is simply a dead desert. The only planet that needs significant research is the one under our feet. If NASA won't do it then the agency should be shut down.

My ignorance meter just went hyper nova on this one!

There have been tens of thousands spin-off technologies from NASA that has saved millions of lives and improved the quality of many more. The list is nearly endless of discoveries made looking/finding for a solution for one problem and having it apply to a different solution never conceived.

Micro-chip, kidney dialysis, .................. the list goes on.

The 26 billion dollars spent on the Apollo project directly returned over 300 billion to the us economy and many times more indirectly.

Your statement implies that the government should be directly responsible for the peoples well being - that's one of the last things I want.

[neufer]

NASA desperately wants to send astronauts to Mars. It's obvious to anyone with the slightest common sense that there is nothing an astronaut can do on Mars that a robot can't do as well and much, much more cheaply. Similarly for Moon exploration. Mars is simply a dead desert. The only planet that needs significant research is the one under our feet. If NASA won't do it then the agency should be shut down.

Wow! That's really tough.

I was with you on your strong preference for unmanned over manned missions though I'm quite sure that the manned missions have more than paid for themselves in non scientific ways. (E.g., many Arabs still admire us for having successfully walked on the Moon despite our botched attempts in Iraq; Apollo was one of the few bright spots that united this country and the world during the dark days of Vietnam.)

Mars is NOT simply a dead desert. Life on Earth exists in rocks miles below Earth's surface and we have, as yet, gone no more than a few inches below the surface of Mars. Quite soon a Mars mission will go to one of the ice caps.

Scientifically, the variety of barren landscapes other planets is fascinating. But for scientists and non scientists alike, pictures of the barren landscapes make them appreciate the preciousness and vulnerability of Earth all the more. (Dorothy Gale only learned to love the seemingly barren landscape of Kansas after traveling to Oz & back.)

NASA does build & launch many satellites that monitor the Earth and it would dearly love to do more but monitoring the Earth is officially the mission of NOAA.

[fatcitymax]

Guys, NASA isn't the only government-funded agency capable of doing the highest quality research that can produce equally valuable spin-offs, and much more cheaply at that. Second, the purpose of the Apollo mission wasn't science--it was political: to show the Russians and the rest of the world that the USA was a technological superpower. Third, OK, maybe there are bacteria within the crust of Mars. Who really cares? Is it worth tens of billions of dollars to find out? Fourth, there already is bacteria on Mars. It arrived on the rovers as contamination. Preserving the Earth is where the research dollars should be spent. If NASA won't do it then their budget should be transferred to NOAA. NASA's real purpose in wanting to send men to the moon and Mars is simply to preserve NASA jobs, nothing more, nothing less.

[bystander]

I was wondering why the focus was set on mars desert for exploration? IO the jupiter moon seem to have a interesting volcanic activity and the cost is probably the same.

Due to the difference in the distance from Earth to Io and Mars, missions to Io would be significantly more expensive.

[neufer]

Guys, NASA isn't the only government-funded agency capable of doing the highest quality research that can produce equally valuable spin-offs, and much more cheaply at that.

That's right! The internet, for instance, was an unintended spin-off of high energy particle physics - an even more esoteric waste of government funds. I'm sure that if we had given the high energy particle physics money to Al Gore he would come up with much better results.

Second, the purpose of the Apollo mission wasn't science--it was political: to show the Russians and the rest of the world that the USA was a technological superpower.

Well that worked out well then.

Third, OK, maybe there are bacteria within the crust of Mars. Who really cares? Is it worth tens of billions of dollars to find out?

Innocent people are being freed from jail today because of DNA evidence that evolved from bacteriology. Who's to say what knowledge and practical benefits will come from studying Mars bacteria.

Fourth, there already is bacteria on Mars. It arrived on the rovers as contamination.

You don't know that.

Earth bacteria would have to survive:
1) A thorough cleaning of the spacecraft on earth
2) A long journey through space with cosmic rays
3) A dry & UV intense Martian surface.

Besides, it's unlikely that we wouldn't be able to distinguish Mars bacteria from whatever Earth bacteria we might accidentally bring along.

Preserving the Earth is where the research dollars should be spent. If NASA won't do it then their budget should be transferred to NOAA. NASA's real purpose in wanting to send men to the moon and Mars is simply to preserve NASA jobs, nothing more, nothing less.

There are few human institutions whose primary function is something other than self preservation. For better or worse, our society crucially depends upon such institutions.

Science is fundamentally curiosity driven. Necessity may be the mother of invention but science is certainly it's father. If we ever should consider curiosity driven science to be a luxury that we can no longer afford then we shall only do so at our peril.

[fatcitymax]

First, the Hubble telescope. It was a success after its mirror was fixed, at an extra cost to the taxpayer of several hundred million dollars. Now, NASA is going to refurbish it, again at cost of several hundred million. The telescope is obsolete. The one at Paranal is much superior. Hubble serves as spotting scope for Paranal. Second, two shuttles destroyed and many lives lost because of NASA management incompetence, pure and simple. Third, the great 'success' of the space station. What else do the astronauts do there other than ride stationary bikes and check each other's vital signs? Oh yes, it does serve as a tourist destination for the Russians! At least they are making some of their investment back. Fourth, NASA gutlessness during the past seven years. NASA scientists were cowed into not publishing anything that might conflict with the political goals of the Bush administration.

[iamlucky13]

First, the Hubble telescope. It was a success after its mirror was fixed, at an extra cost to the taxpayer of several hundred million dollars. Now, NASA is going to refurbish it, again at cost of several hundred million. The telescope is obsolete. The one at Paranal is much superior. Hubble serves as spotting scope for Paranal. Second, two shuttles destroyed and many lives lost because of NASA management incompetence, pure and simple. Third, the great 'success' of the space station. What else do the astronauts do there other than ride stationary bikes and check each other's vital signs? Oh yes, it does serve as a tourist destination for the Russians! At least they are making some of their investment back. Fourth, NASA gutlessness during the past seven years. NASA scientists were cowed into not publishing anything that might conflict with the political goals of the Bush administration.

Your first claim is 100% false. The Paranal observatory is limited in observation time by the earth's rotation. It is therefore incapable of such fundamental research as the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field. Resolution isn't the only factor in telescope performance. Paranal is also limited to the visible and parts of the near infrared spectrum, while Hubble covers a wide swath of near infrared and a bit of the UV spectrum, too. It is not at all a spotting scope for Paranal nor Keck. It's time is far to valuable for that, and it's booked solid for the next year.

The poor decisions and assumptions that led to the shuttle losses are not relevant to the worthiness of exploration, nor are they even indicators of pure incompetance. Only one other organization in the world has built anything remotely close to the shuttle, but they couldn't afford to maintain it. Yes, bad management led to the loss of Challenger, and a poorly founded assumption failed to appreciate the damage to Columbia (whether her crew could be saved is still debatable), but that neither invalidates NASA's mission, nor the other work they do. Keep in perspective there have been countless, far more disastorous industrial accidents on earth, absent the unique challenges of space flight.

The space station is hardly the bustling outpost Reagan envisioned, but neither is it a complete waste. By itself it provides the opportunity for technology development and testing. It also accomodates an increasing amount of research, especially in biology, fluids (gravity is a major hassle in some fluids experiments), materials, and control systems. Don't forget it's not even complete yet. It's two main research modules have yet to be launched, but here's a list of the over 650 formal experiments conducted since it was first manned:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati ... ition.html

On the last point you've taken one example of a presidential appointee placing politics ahead of his job and characterized that as NASA policy. Not even remotely relevant.

Back to the original question, however. Io is certainly of interest, but it is a much more difficult target. First of all, it's far enough from the sun that solar power is not feasible for most probes. Second, it has almost no atmosphere, meaning nearly all the delta-V for a lander like the MER's or even for an orbiter like MRO has to come from rockets. Third, the overall delta-V is greater than for Mars due to the distance and Jupiter's gravity. Fourth, the surface has not been imaged in nearly as much detail as Mars, further complicating landing (JIMO was supposed to do this, but was cancelled as the cost grew). And lastly, Mars gets more attention because it's the most earthlike, which is important not only for potential human exploration, but for learning more about the evolution of the solar system.

[craterchains]

I think someone made a very bad judgement call in moving this one to the cafe.

[fatcitymax]

It was those evil aliens.

[orin stepanek]

I think someone made a very bad judgement call in moving this one to the cafe.

Crater; you're probably right, but if the post was for today;s APOD it would be easier to determine where if belonged if the subject mater referred to this. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080129.html
Orin

[sinpix]

this world is beutiful has a forester...aaa... and my gastrique tube is bizzard happy negative astronaute i guess... still earth lover!!but lot s of planete are marvellous to get to or explore, and for that we got mojoworld....delicious.

[neufer]

First, the Hubble telescope. It was a success after its mirror was fixed, at an extra cost to the taxpayer of several hundred million dollars. Now, NASA is going to refurbish it, again at cost of several hundred million.

Several hundred million dollars!!

My god, that's almost as much as the news media spends on reporting Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, or Nicole Simpson's baby!

[makc]

more fuel to Hubble question fight, fight, fight!

[npsguy]

The internet, for instance, was an unintended spin-off of high energy particle physics

Um... that isn't close to being a correct statement. You are thnking of the World Wide Web.

The Internet was from ARPA/DARPA projects many years earlier

[fatcitymax]

NASA is giving $160k to a NY advertising firm to promote the moon settlement program. Evidently taxpayers are not enthusiastic about investing $230 billion for all the wonderful technology that will spin off from this gigantic boondoggle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03258.html

[Orca]

I support NASA in its endeavors toward scientific research. However, economically speaking, this is hardly the time to be attempting large-scale exploration of the solar system.

I don't like the idea of closing NASA but I do believe that for the forseable future its focus should be on (relatively) low-cost robotic missions.

[Doum]

I'm working on the environnement at a university. That doesnt mean that i am an extremist against all science. I think that human kind should not only explore the solar system but colonise it too and as soon as possible. That is the best way to ensure that human survive any catastroph happening to the earth.

So instead of shutting it down, all nation should give 2% of his national income to a World Space Agency and then colonise the solar system.

So you see fatcitymax, each human (Billion of humans=Billion of opinions) have is own opinion and there is nothing you can do to change that. I will still be working on pollution and i will still encourage space exploration with billions of dollards too.

[sinpix]

I guess the color code for mars lie.... seem to be gold. I meen, i see the face, the brain, the bubble and what next! the freedom? It s still some kind a fake solar this world, bliking red,green,blue from the surface of earth...Hey martian what your for.... doom 3 suck sucking. I hope , solar not that complexe....

[sinpix]

For lover's pedagogery software have tess.exe for solide geometrie and exploration.... advice to martian, anticipate the natural suck(nature surround) and develope when you have the tool for.... i am not too curious but i got tess. Tank s to cow in understander..

[makc]

it is funny you should mention doom3 which I think roxx because it had decent graphics and story (that beats one they used for movie by a margin) and correct shooting time - to - item collecting time ratio... so my point is that missions to mars are cool way to spend some bucks, I mean imagine if milk would be not white but some other color, what then? I have red-cyan anaglyph glasses, so I know stuff about colors... Back on subject, walking the desert makes one feel small and unwanted by God. not to mention it is so damn hot in earth deserts but mars desert is different... with atmospheric pressure 100x less than here it can barely sustain any water, so it is dry just like earth desert. I hope this clears up any question you had, and you now see how wrong you were when you said that.

[makc]

p.s. (also very relevant) I am approaching a 1000th post. Party time!

[Orca]

I hope this clears up any question you had, and you now see how wrong you were when you said that.

I understander now...

[BMAONE23]

(SNIP).... I mean imagine if milk would be not white but some other color, what then?.... (SNIP).

Depends on the milk...Yak Milk is Pink