Zone Anime forum - Anime , Manga and GFX online community

well? what to you think? should we really go to mars or not?

__________________
You can pick your nose. You can pick your friends. But you can't pick you're friends nose(Billy, from Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy)

Well, honestly.. It's a waste of money. I mean there's nothing at mars ! It's all empty , what's the point of going to mars ? The moon I can understand , but mars ? The billions of dollars that could be used in other ways!

If I remember correctly they wanted to make a base on the moon and use that base to go from the moon to mars. I think it's useless, but I don't know too much about this subject so I can't be 100% sure ^^

__________________

thanks beefjurky ;p
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

There is really no point in going to mars, except for the chance to learn, and thats about it. It's not like we can actually live there, the enviroment sucks too much <<<


and I don't know jack about this either, but thats a total no-go from me! those billions could be used to develope awesome weapons, like a gundam! (a gundam "shell" was made a while ago, I'll try to dig up link later, but don't expect anything)

__________________

It's not labor, it's just an unreasonable amount of forced favors ~ Peter

The Japanese are trying to build a gundam, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news...alizing-gundam

now before we go off topic : Do we really need to do research ? Robots can be sent to do it for us anyway..

__________________

thanks beefjurky ;p
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

- | -

Govanator Quote
" I'll be back "

- - - Well Im going to be back, but Im typing my response in a Document program - - It's going to be very very long. . ( Space exploration and utilization ) Just let me dig out that old theses. . . for reference.

__________________
Some people have great things to say, I have only my silence to your questions.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

People are being sent mainly because they wanna feel what it's like to be on mars. There are already photos, but they want to experience the whole thing themselves

__________________

It's not labor, it's just an unreasonable amount of forced favors ~ Peter

Space Exploration and utilization

Abstract
Manned mission to mars: Should we or shouldn't we? That is the question and the answer is not a short nor easy one. Many would say that robotic probes can now replace human presence on the far frontier. The ability of the human to deal with the unexpected and the ability to comprehend there surroundings still far surpasses any available to robotic probes.


Introduction

Exploration has driven humanity to push against its boundaries since the before recorded history. This drive has ensured our races survival against calamity, and extinction. Why should we explore with living humans when we can send our robotic surrogates in our place? Right now and in the foreseeable future the abilities of robotic exploration will pail in comparison to the abilities of a small child.

The misconception of robotic exploration has been perpetuated by the use of anthropomorphic terms that are not appropriate for the machines. For example the NASA press release about the mars exploration Rover (MER):

July 28, 2000 -- In 2003, NASA plans to launch a
relative of the now-famous 1997 Mars Pathfinder
rover. Using drop, bounce, and roll technology, this
larger cousin is expected to reach the surface of the
Red Planet in January, 2004.... This new robotic
explorer will be able to trek up to 110 yards (100
meters) across the surface each Martian day.... “This
mission will give us the first ever robot field geologist
on Mars…” said Scott Hubbard, Mars Program
Director at NASA Headquarters. (NASA 2000, italics
added)

Along with casting the machinery as part of a biological family, NASA has also Posted missions reports regularly ascribe machine initiative to remotely controlled actions. "Spirit collected additional imagery of the right front wheel" (1) This causes confusion. The truth is that the machines have no scientific goals, let alone personal interests, including survival, no ability to use time wisely let alone plan the missions strategically, no ability to decide what data to record , perceive meaningful distinctions in the photos and measurements, and no ability to relate data to geological or biological hypotheses. (2)

Referring to robotic probes as people has negative implications for the space program.
The (MER) principal investigator, Steve Squyres, Stated at the NASA Symposium on Risk and Exploration:


We are very far away from being able to build robots
- I'm not going to see it in my lifetime - that have
anything like the capabilities that humans will have to
explore, let alone to inspire. And when I hear people
point to Spirit and Opportunity and say that these are
examples of why we don't need to send humans to
Mars, I get very upset. Because that’s not even the
right discussion to be having. We must send humans
to Mars. We can’t do it soon enough for me. (Dick
and Cowing 2005)

Each MER is a kind of mobile laboratory, that is remotely controlled by computer programs laboriously designed and transmitted from Pasadena, California to Mars every day.

The abilities of one well trained human, far exceed the abilities of robotic exploration vehicle (REV).

Dr. Michael Duke of NASA's Johnson Space Center has indicated that a manned Mars mission would help to answer three important scientific questions: (1) What caused the change in atmospheric conditions of Mars? (2) What do these changes mean with respect to environmental changes that have occurred, and are presently occurring, on Earth? (3) Did life begin on Mars like it did on Earth; if so, can supporting evidence be found on Mars? A manned mission to Mars would produce a wealth of scientific information about issues people have pondered for years, and would in all likelihood increase the number of questions that have yet to be pondered.(3)
Planetary Insurance
Dr. Richard Poss, a University of Arizona humanities professor, proposed a scenario of planetary insurance: if Earth were destroyed, western civilization would continue if Martian colonies already had been established. According to Dr. J. Richard Gott III, a Princeton University astrophysics professor. We live on a small planet covered with the bones of extinct species, proving that such catastrophes do occur routinely.; Gott believes, Asteroids, comets, epidemics, climatological, or ecological catastrophes or even man-made disasters could do our species in. We need a life insurance policy to guarantee the survival of the human race. With all people on one planet, a catastrophe could theoretically wipe out all human life, or at least a majority of life, thereby eliminating the chances of recovery. With a new Mars colony away from Earth, humankind would have a better chance at long-term survival.(3)
Cultural and Economic Evolution
Another important reason why a manned Mars mission should be attempted has been termed;cultural and economic evolution.; Mars is the next logical step in the cultural evolution from Earth. A first mission, and eventually other missions, would bring colonists and supplies from Earth to Mars. Migrations of people in the past have eased overcrowding and the depletion of natural resources from the original homeland, thus improving economic conditions. These migrations have almost always concluded with a permanent settlement. More importantly, the newly settled establishments eventually have become economically self-sufficient, and have provided economic benefits back to the homeland. The settlement of Mars could begin the process of relieving population pressures on Earth.
A Martian colony also could provide a select few colonists with a territory that is not heavily laden with bureaucracy and frustrating regulations, and where people with innovative ideas could maximize their benefits. This viewpoint is a far-future ideal, but it is possible that Mars eventually could serve the same role in the twenty-first century that the United States did in the eighteenth century. Without anywhere to expand, there is a danger that society will stagnate. It is important for society to grow, and almost all progress is driven by that need. The exploration and settlement of the planet Mars could enable continued human development.(3)


Akka -- Closed Document with out saving rest . . . Will re do it and post it soon. . . With foot notes. .

__________________
Some people have great things to say, I have only my silence to your questions.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

hmm interesting, but the points given aren't great, if their is a catastrophy on earth, what makes them think living on mars will make things better ?

__________________

thanks beefjurky ;p
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

i agree that we might need some where to go if earth has a catastrophy and we have to leave, but i also agree that mars does not have what we need to live and i might not have proper knowledge on the subject as well but we could be spending the billions of dollars to make more efficeint energy sources that wont destroy our environment that way we can live on earth longer. or use the money to put into reasearch that can get us to another place in a different gallaxy that could support human life.

a lot of people dont know this, but if we send some people to mars now to start terraforming then in the next 50 years or so the planet will have a livable atmosphere

__________________
You can pick your nose. You can pick your friends. But you can't pick you're friends nose(Billy, from Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy)