A manned mission to Mars should be undertaken by people and companies in the private sector. "We" (taxpayers) should not have to foot the bill. I think a manned Mars mission will eventually take place, hopefully with little or no participation by NASA.

and finally this link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyv7qLNe6g

"We take Sabatier reactors with hydrogen as feedstock to run a basic exothermic chemical reaction process to produce methane (CO2 -> 4H2 -> (CH4 +H2O). This provides us with water and fuel. We then use electrolysis to produce oxygen and recapture some hydrogen from the water to cycle back into the system. We now have methane and oxygen."

They did this in Ben Bova's book on Mars and "As It Is on Mars". I don't understand how it works. You still have to bring the H2 and some energy source capable of producing electricity for electrolysis. The only thing Mars provides is the the CO2. I guess it doesn't take that much H2, and you could have some small nuclear reactor doing the electrolysis.

It's a good point that they could send this to Mars, get telemetry on how well it worked and only launch humans to Mars if the return vehicle is ready. I suppose that's obvious to anyone in the space program.

So why don't they do it? Is it that probes are cheaper and some people believe sending humans would just be an emotional gesture that would not actually get more science done than sending multiple probes?

I understand mars has a lot of iron ore. Perhaps.. Rearden Steel, Newtown, Mars 99999 could happen.

Eventually we will need all the resources we can get

Whether we want to go to Mars or not is not the issue. The true issue is the financial resources, the engineering capabilities and the intellect and drive of the American populace. The financial resources are not there, the engineering capabilities have been destroyed by the current educational system of the country and God forbid that this American generation dare risk anything, especially their lives, in order to dream big and achieve big ! These are not the times of the men with 'The Right Stuff'. Hate to say it but it's true. You'd have to reboot and toughen up a whole new generation.

We'd likely already have a thriving colony there, if NASA had adopted the exhaustive plan that Robert Zubrin outlined in his book "The Case For Mars." But NASA is a bureaucracy, not a business, and suffers from all of the indecision, irrational choices and inefficiencies inherent to bureaucracies - that's entirely aside from, and in addition to, the whole issue of funding. It's also steeped in a Platonic "knowledge-for-knowledge's-sake" attitude, as evidenced in the fact that the Kepler planet-finder program was run in such a way as to have yielded vast information about planetary systems tens of thousands of light-years distant, yet made no effort to discover the existence of planets at Centauri, Bernard's Star or Wolf - stars well within the human time-frame for reaching with just the achievement of quarter or half light-speed propulsion. There was a valid reason for pointing Kepler in the direction they did - *to begin with* - but they didn't even bother to point it at nearby stars after its primary data set was gathered. But I digress.

When we look at history, every significant human exploration and expansion across space (more preceisely: land and sea,) has been motivated by the quest for productivity and profit. On forming the company SpaceDev, the late Jim Benson predicted that mining asteroids "would probably create the first trillionaires," and he was correct in that identification. Once some entrepreneur - my money would go with Elon Musk - demonstrates that there is fantastic wealth to be gained off of Earth, an outer space "gold rush" will commence spontaneously.

Whether there is anything about Mars that will prove lucrative enough to draw that kind of traffic is an open question. I'm thinking we'll have far more activity on asteroids, and far earlier than Mars, precisely because of their mining potential. There will be scientific and human missions to Mars that are almost totally divorced from economic motives of course, and as a result will be costly in execution, slow in happening and primitive in form.

The most interesting - if implausible - idea I've ever seen came from (objectivist) writer Ron Pisaturo, in a screenplay he wrote titled "The Merchants of Mars." (If I'm not mistaken, the original idea came from Harry Binswanger, and that it was a collaboration.) A fictitious future President announces a global contest: Any person or company that successfully lands a crew on Mars, lives there for one year, and returns safely to Earth, owns Mars. Yes, owns.

The idea actually makes sense: Mars is currently a useless, barren rock, therefore the only value of it would come from selling off parts of it as real estate. So this single owner would sell off chunks of Mars to other real estate speculators, and they to others, until there were thousands of Martian landowners. At some point one or more of the buyers would be an industrial entrepreneur with a plan and the financial means of exploiting Martian resources - whether mining, a polar ski resort, a hotel on Mons Olympus, etc. - and an infrastructure would take shape.

The only flaw in Pisaturo's concept is the prospect that it might remain an endlessly-traded real estate speculation thing for decades, with no actual development of the planet.

The huge upside to his concept is that it would establish property rights at the ground floor, which is obviously essential, particularly given the breathtaking audacity of the "outer space treaties" excreted in the late '60s by the "United Nations."

Anyhow, long story longer, I highly recommend Zubrin's book "The Case For Mars":
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684827573

(Zubrin has since penned a number of followup books on the human expansion into space - linked on that Amazon page - but I haven't had time to read them.)

Also "Mining The Sky" by John S. Lewis:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0201479591/

You are certainly overgeneralizing here. A "backup" is not Malthusian but rather a disaster preparedness scenario. Malthusian is running out of resources by growing to more demand than exists, not said resources (for example) getting destroyed.

There is a difference between how you seem to be using the phrase "rational argument" and how you may be using it. If you ask me why I climb a mountain and I say because it was there and I wanted to, that is a rational argument. It was in my self interested because I'd rather do fun things than not, am happier when I do so, and so I did. Whether you accept the reasons as "good enough" is a personal choice for you, but that choice does not invalidate the argument itself. You can think climbing a mountain is fun, but that simply reflects your conclusion not the argument itself.

Now, to answer the question I think you are actually asking: *why* go?

Part of scientific exploration and discovery is the collection of data and performing experiments. A key portion of analyzing data is obtaining a broad enough sample size. Our current planetary sample size is one. Essentially, on a larger scale our geological knowledge is an anecdote. Now, it is entirely possible you do not consider advancing scientific knowledge and understanding a goal worthy of effort, but that does not mean it is irrational.

Another reason is expansion of markets and human capability. While I am nowhere near agreeing with any Malthusian argument, it is not realistic to think or assume that while we *can* continue to populate at higher and higher densities that we all *want* to live in high density cities. Thus I find it rational for those who do not want to live under increasingly dense cities and resulting side-effects on nearby areas to be able to choose to go elsewhere. This is reflected in historical and modern history by those who choose to not live in cities today.

Put me in a high density setting with no escape options and I am not a happy camper, nor do I play well with the usual results of such a setting. It is my interest, as well as yours, that we are not in that setting together.

If we want to establish any serious level of spacefaring, Mars is the best bet from a purely rational view. When looking at transportation technologies outside of those currently the realm of fantasy, you have to consider the mass budget. A standard way of doing this is to compare "delta-V" and "mass-ration". The former is how much change in velocity is needed (i.e. how hard you have to hit the thrusters", while the latter is how much mass the vessel has fully fueled compared to it's dry weight. With that explanation in mind, I'll show you why Earth based operations are a last-choice option.


From Martian surface to low orbit: 4.0dV with a mass ratio of 2.9.
For Earth: 9 and 11.4

Big deal, right?

Now let us look at other destinations in our solar system. How about to the surface of Earth's moon.
From Mars' surface: 9.4 / 12.5
From Earth's surface: 15 / 57.6

Yes, it is takes less energy to put a man on Earth's moon from Mars than it does from Earth. And it isn't chump change either.

How about mining ye olde asteroid belt? Let us consider Ceres as many, if not most, proposals about doing so call out Ceres or similar ones.

From Mars' surface: 8.9 / 11.1
From Earth's surface: 18.6 / 152.5

Again, Mars is the clear winner here. But what about the return trip? After all that is the path of the cargo, yes?

To Mars' Surface: 2.7 / 2.1
To Earth's Surface: 4.8 / 3.7

Any transportation scheme we come up with which is mass sensitive favors Mars. Even if you consider nuclear-electric proulsion, Mars still enjoys a 7X advantage over earth. Based on the physics of space travel as we currently know of them, Mars will be the economic hub of a spacefaring human race. Why? Because doing things more efficiently, cheaper, or with more opulence at the same price level is how we accomplish things and advance the state of man.

This also applies to manufacturing of space vessels, such as is referenced in another post on "building the Enterprise". We won't be building that in Earth orbit. The answer to why is simple: it is far cheaper. If you want to build a vessel massing 150 megatons, you aren't finding that mass laying around in orbit, you are importing it from somewhere.

Said somewhere will be planet-side or from the Belt. Now think back to the figures above. Where will it be cheapest to push that mass from? Mars, once again.

Once we've built the tether relay to handle the delta-V of interplanetary travel, the costs will drop even further. But again, that material will not be coming from Earth.

You don't have to be a Malthusian to want to use less resources to accomplish a goal - that is simple efficiency. You don't have to accept the Malthusian argument of overrunning resources to understand that the existence of resources on Earth doesn't mean those who control them are willing to part with them. If some entity controls a crucial resource and will not do business with you, you must find new sources - unless you're a looter. It may be presumptuous but I don't assume we are looters here.

In many ways Mars is richer than Earth in terms of resources. Why not go to where more sources of materials are? That seems to be more of a Looter style argument - "don't develop more resources" - which if acted on would create an artificial Malthusian scenario.

I would also assert there is a case to be made that humanity needs frontiers. Yes, America's free society compared to the rest of the world in the era between the Civil War and the first World War was a significant factor in our technological and industrial advancement. However, it was the frontier nature of the country which provided the fertile ground and even a need for the innovation to be born.

We are rapidly outpacing our terrestrial frontiers - by simple progress and by legislative fiat declaring sections of continents, and even an entire continent, off limits. Even the ocean is becoming more and more off-limits. As we lose our frontiers our innovation will shrink. There is a breed of man which must have the frontier. By nature of not being one, you may not understand it. That does not, however, mean your lack of vision or understanding constitutes these reasons as being irrational.

Your argument about government is a strawman. We are not currently heading to Mars on taxpayer dime as the government isn't currently going to Mars. Robot toys aren't considered us going as we aren't *going* anywhere. The notion of us "doing science" with robotic rovers is a fallacy. It is woefully inefficient. Single manned mission to mars of even as little as four people would accomplish far more than all RoV missions to date.

To explore a planet you need planetary mobility. Yes, that seems obvious. Yet proponents of excluding human exploration for their vastly inferior methods seem oblivious or willfully ignorant of that basic fact. If you devise a ratio of cost-per-explored-area (feel free to use square meters, miles, acres, etc.) you'll find that done is a simple and direct method (i.e. not the enterprise, moon base, or other options - in other words the same way robots are done), you'll find the cost favors human exploration over robotic.


Whilst I am against the government running the show for space exploration, I must disagree with your assertion of "freedom can't be bought that way". It absolutely can, and has been. It was governments which paved the way for the Americas to be explored and settled. Just to be clear I am not arguing government should do it today, simply that history counters your claims.

Freedom of association by building your own settlement is freedom. However, you will not be building your own ships or you the initial colony infrastructure. You will be purchasing that from someone. Buy your transport from Elon Musk, and your settlement starter kit from me, then do whatever trade with other people and settlements you want. ;)

I see this kind of thing as the measure of a truly
capitalistic society -- doing things which we usually
think that the governments would do. it would sure
be closer to fruition if the govt would get out of the
way! -- j

You can't take the sky from me. <grin>
Heinlein is my fave for sci-fi. Spent 3 years in Oz/NZ and most scifi readers were either lacking any knowledge of Heinlein, or very confused about his message in Moon...Mistress. One Israeli thought Heinlein was a fascist.

Don't bet on it growing either.

See the resources I listed, particular the Zubrin books as they are the most detailed yet accessible. Something most don't realize is the existing space industry is far, far larger than is generally discussed.

The magnetic field isn't a problem given the short duration of exposure. Thus it isn't worth it to build a ship that size. The radiation increase is far too minor for anything of this scale.


The method I speak of isn't a quick and dirty mission, but part of a larger strategy to build a perhaps less sexy but orders of magnitude more achievable system.

We didn't start with cruise liners and 747s for many a good reason. We didn't begin westward expansion by beginning with railroads, but rather later - one the economy and demand was there. I think the cost estimate for what you describe is very low given the lack of supporting technology, experience, and expeditious implementation.

Before you could even get, to borrow a phrase, the keel laid for this ship we'd have a fully running colony and likely be mining an asteroid or two and possibly building a tether relay. :)

Someday we will build the enterprise, and it will be a glorious event. But it will be built at Mars (as it should be ;) ) instead of for the purpose to get there. :)

One day some of us will want to go there and if necessary and capable, self fund the trip... just to be out from under the clutches of the tyrants here. Sure, we may reclaim Freedom and Liberty here on Earth for a time here or there, but during the settling, expansion of our nation and the westward movement of people it was freedom, the desire to be left alone and distance from others that drove many. Today, in this world, largely explored, with its technology and powerful governments it is most difficult to avoid their grasp. It is in many a man's nature to be an explorer and to be free of the demands of others. Men climb the highest mountains. Why? "Because it is there." That is what they say.

What other rational argument is there? Now perhaps I am using Malthusian in too broad terms as I am including the back-up planet (we've killed off Mother Earth) folks in this category, but seriously, because it's there? To be free is a specious argument as we are currently headed to Mars on the taxpayer's dime. Freedom can't be bought like that.

There may be a few adventurers, and maybe I am over generalizing, but just for the fun of it is not an argument.

Let's hope it stays that way (no funding, not enough interest) - the US taxpayer should not pay for the vision, dream, or even
(if there is one) economic benefit, of sending a "human" to Mars.

Are the any economic details and analysis behind this vision? I assume it will take money to make this happen, and wondering where it would come from and why.

Such questions seem downright silly when you take a longer view.
Why should tomorrow seem like science fiction? It is certain to happen.

Most people give up the future as unknown and unknowable, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Many things, yet-to-happen, are patently obvious.

I fret not over NASA budgets, Luddites and Earth First'ers. Nor the ambivalence of pampered youth.

I give no more than a smirk to fools who deny all advance, impossible for myriad reasons, usually laid out in considerable detail.
Torrents of sound and fury still signifying nothing.

As a SPECIES we are driven to explore and expand. Empty spaces beckon to us - cry out to be filled, possessed!

ALL persons are excited to learn. From birth. It is inherent to our being.
The unknown may be frightening, but it is also catnip - we just can't leave it alone.

And we are a brave race. (The race of Man, not the races of color - nothing is less important than color.)


Will we ever get to Mars? Do we want to?
PR, come back in a thousand years and behold ALL the worlds of Man.



(Unless, of course, our interstellar neighbors teach us the universe is not so benign as we thought.)
(But, there's no reason to fret about that either.)

"why go to Mars? Because, unique among the rocky planets, Mars gives us the best shot at building a colony on the surface.
"
I am not convinced any group will spend a trillion $ to build a colony on Mars, because it is a better place than Venus...

I am sure with $1 Trillion you could create a many looter free paradises here on Earth.

If you want a crappy place to live - imagine being on the Moon, Mars, or in a metal capsule for years.

The opportunity for human liberty exists here on Earth. It is a huge source of resources useful to life. Space is a dangerous, expensive, and difficult alternative - I think the looters would be incredibly easier to deal with here on Earth.
But I do actually really enjoy Science Fiction - especially Heinlein.

This seems to be a common view - and with some undeniable appeal.
However, whenever I really start to think about it - I am not convinced at all.
It takes a huge amount of resources to get material/mass from Earth;s surface to Mars.

Just thinking about the energy balance and economics makes that prospect of using Mars to thwart an extinction event seem silly. You could create livable environments anywhere on Earth with less energy, less cost (probably even in Antarctica and under the Ocean), not to mention the risk to life.

My opinion is that whoever wants to travel there do it on their dime - and the best way to "get" there is by a virtual presence - forget the risk, cost, energy, and time of actual humans traveling.

You want to go to Mars? Send your supercomputer, multi-sensory robot (perhaps with some of you own self downloaded into it in 50 years...).

While the distance would be a nice benefit looked at from that angle, I think the endeavor of building an entire civilization on our first non-Earth planet would require those with the mindset, ambition, dedication, and work ethic which makes the Gulch possible in the first place. Any Gulch-like qualities would be, IMO, natural derivatives of the act.

And then when the looters have arrived and corrupted the civilization (unless physically prevented from doing so), we'd just start again elsewhere.

I'm curious as to where you draw this conclusion from. I have heard the "backup planet" argument, the "because it is there" argument, the "to be free" argument, the economic or scientific arguments, and even the "just because I like the idea" argument. But not once has anyone who is actually taking time and effort into exploring the idea and even making progress toward achieving it use anything like a Malthusian argument.

While I do not doubt random uninvolved people may do so, I've not seen, to say that view represents anything regarding a substantial portion of us (i.e. worth mentioning and arguing against) is to make an unwarranted generalization

Yes, the tether-counterweight model would at least let the astronauts travel in a gravity similar to that on Mars. You could even load the bulk of their equipment as the counterweight, and land both habitat and counterweight together, and they need not be very far apart.

Now if you're going to land four people, or maybe six, I agree. But the project outlined at the link could land as many as a hundred at a time. And before you even get to landing that crew, you land scores of aircraft, rovers, and even stationary sensors, together with digging and tunnelling machines that can follow their own programs, or take orders from earth, to prepare the habitat for the large exploration colony to come.

Perhaps this quick-and-dirty mission would be acceptable as a preliminary feasibility study--studying the feasibility of martian agriculture, that is. A greenhouse, on a small scale, with a minimal crew to run it--yes, I can see the wisdom of that.

But here's another advantage of the larger vessel with the gravity wheel. It would also be large enough to carry a magnetic deflector, that would guard against the solar wind and the radiation burden this presents. Remember: anyone out there will be beyond the protection of the earth's magnetic field. It might be worth it to build a ship big enough to generate its own protective magnetic field.

Obviously there's a wide diversity of opinion among the posters here. As with almost all things, it must be privately funded to make sense to me.
Other than a handful of actual adventurers, many of those who want to spread to other planets live in the Malthusian delusion that population soon will outstrip the food supply. In spite of centuries of proponents of the concept going back to ancient Egypt, human ingenuity has always won out.
That said, if the proponents can muster the support by making a convincing argument, and succeed, they would reap the benefits of their risk.