Martian robot rovers near 3rd anniversary

Statesman.com ^ | 12/31/06 | Mike Toner

[Omega Man II]

Europa is wee bit far away. We need to baby step our way to Mars first.

Who would have thought in the 1960s after the moon landing that our space exploration program was basically going to stop there?

[J_Baird]

We have been top mars and way past Europa. Getting to Europa is not that much more difficult than getting to mars. Not much to see on Mars really, a wetter slightly larger version of the moon.

[Batrachian]

"I'm probably in a real minority here but I'd probably rather see an Europa unmanned ocean-drilling mission than a manned mission to Mars (certainly more than another manned mission to the Moon.)"

That's like saying all cars should be remote-controlled so that we wouldn't have to go anywhere.

Manned exploration would be it's own reward even if there where no other, but there are. If Europeans had your attitude there would be no United States of America.

Life on Earth is too fragile. We could be wiped out by some disaster. Space colonization is an insurance policy against that, as well as a fulfillment of the destiny of human life. It is a step of evolution as great as when life first left the sea, or even greater. Can you really be against all those things?

Anyway, you can't stop the outward march of life. The only question in my mind is whether the U.S. will continue to lead, or even be involved in the long run.

[Omega Man II]

Well put.

The easiest answer to why we should send men to Mars... "because it is there."

[RightWhale]

We could be wiped out by some disaster. Space colonization is an insurance policy against that, as well as a fulfillment of the destiny of human life. It is a step of evolution as great as when life first left the sea,

Reorganized a little:
1. We could be wiped out by some disaster. Space colonization is an insurance policy against that,
2. as well as a fulfillment of the destiny of human life.
3. It is a step of evolution as great as when life first left the sea,
----------------------
1. It doesn't matter and it wouldn't be the first time, but space colonization wouldn't make much difference
2. Destiny needs to be a little grander than having a colony on Mars.
3. Actual evolution would require a higher resonant point, which isn't present in mere additional planets.

[Erasmus]

Headline:

Research into zero-gravity nosepicking produces unexpected scientific fallout

[Unmarked Package]

"Nah, it's far more important and interesting to ship people back and forth to the International Space Station and have them pick their noses or do whatever it is they do up there."

LOL!

I'll give you an abbreviated explanation and justification that NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has said in the past about the value of ISS for future manned missions to Mars. Please don't shoot the messenger.

It's NASA's position that we don't currently have the knowledge necessary to survive in space on a manned mission to Mars and back with an extended stay on the surface and can't get that knowledge without a manned, zero-G laboratory to run the necessary long term experiments. The ISS is a critical first step to get the knowledge required for future manned missions and outposts on Mars and the Moon. Now, if you don't think manned space exploration is important it doesn't mean much, but it's one critical justification for the ISS.

The Columbia accident delayed the completion of ISS long past the original plan and only recently did they return to a full three-person crew on ISS.

The real science onboard ISS has suffered in the delayed schedule but that will change very soon. Construction of ISS is going full speed ahead now. The Europeans will have their Columbus research module added to ISS this year and the Japanese Kibo research modules start going up in December, 2007. By the way, the Japanese have some really impressive science facilities planned for ISS.

The ISS is doing some real science now, but it has been a PR event to a large extent since the Columbia accident, but not due to lack of planned research activities. We'll soon see a full crew of six researchers aboard ISS with very little time to pick their noses, at least not caught on camera I hope. :-)

[Mr. Jeeves]

Haven't we been warned to stay away from Europa?

That was Europe. Some guy named Dolf. We didn't listen. ;)

[Mr. Jeeves]

It's NASA's position that we don't currently have the knowledge necessary to survive in space on a manned mission to Mars and back with an extended stay on the surface...

I've read (can't recall where - could either be a false statement or a truth NASA doesn't want to advertise) that the astronauts who went to the moon stopped producing red blood cells once outside of Earth orbit. If being outside the protective influence of Earth's atmosphere and radiation protection does have such a drastic effect on human physiology, then we aren't going anywhere for a long while - at least until we can invent spaceships that can more accurately simulate the conditions on Earth.

[Batrachian]

I don't understand your points. A Mars or moon colony is just the first baby steps. Eventually we'll be sending frozen ova or just genetic codes to other stars. That's a big insurance policy. As for resonance, I don't get it. Life leaving the Earth for the first time is a very big deal. It's never happened before. Now's the time. Human brain power makes it possible. There's no such thing as an unused capability, and this is no exception. It'll happen, and soon. The only question is whether the USA will continue to lead, or join in at all. A lot of people don't give a damn. They'd rather have their prescription drugs paid for than watch a grand endeavor like space flight. There's nothing more heroic or noble, and nothing more worthwhile

I've tried to explain this before, to no avail. Maybe I'm not eloquent enough, or maybe you just can't see past the end of your nose, but if your interested in space science, how can you not be interested in space travel? One must always follow the other. Otherwise, as you say, it won't make much difference.

If America won't participate then we've lost that forward drive that's always been the hallmark of our nation. Regrettably, that seems to be a real possibility.

[Batrachian]

The easiest answer to why we should send men to Mars... "because it is there."

I don't know if we can commit tremendous national resources for that reason, but if it's good enough for you then it's good enough for me. Another reason is because "it's cool".

[RightWhale]

I don't understand your points.

Only one thing will work and none of that destiny stuff is it. Repeal the Treaty.

[Unmarked Package]

"I've read (can't recall where - could either be a false statement or a truth NASA doesn't want to advertise) that the astronauts who went to the moon stopped producing red blood cells once outside of Earth orbit. "

Although the effect of cosmic radiation on human blood cells wasn't a concern for the astronauts on the earlier Apollo missions to the Moon, it is a concern for missions of longer duration and extended stays on the surface of Mars and the Moon. A short article published by NASA on the topic and available on the web is titled Have Blood, Will Travel.

Understanding the effects of cosmic radiation on human physiology during long space voyages is a major research goal of several long term experiments aboard the ISS.

One such experiment is the Anomalous Long Term Effects in Astronauts' Central Nervous System (ALTEA) which will help us better understand the effects of cosmic radiation on the human central nervous system and vision during long exposures in space.

Below is a video screen shot of the Expedition 13 ISS Science Officer, Jeff Williams, wearing the bizarre helmet apparatus used in the ALTEA experiment.

[Batrachian]

"Only one thing will work and none of that destiny stuff is it. Repeal the Treaty."

Yes, the treaty is liberal idealism at its worst. It won't be repealed, but it can be ignored, like any other treaty we don't like. However, that won't lead to a land rush is outer space, if that's what you're thinking. Forty acres and a mule doesn't work when it cost $10 million a day just to stay alive out there.

Do I take it, then, that you do support manned spaceflight and colonies after all?

[RightWhale]

Investment funds would have been available and space development underway two decades ago but for the Treaty. The lack of development funds is directly due to the presence of the Treaty and consequent lack of collateral.