Comments on: Mars News Release . . . https://habitablezone.com/2020/01/25/mars-news-release/ Tue, 12 May 2026 20:11:45 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DanS https://habitablezone.com/2020/01/25/mars-news-release/#comment-43993 DanS Sat, 25 Jan 2020 18:18:03 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=79907#comment-43993 “Whatever the reason we first mustered the Apollo program, however mired it was in Cold War nationalism and the instruments of death, the inescapable recognition of the unity and fragility of the Earth is its clear and luminous dividend, the unexpected final gift of Apollo. What began in deadly competition has helped us to see that global cooperation is the essential precondition for our survival. Travel is broadening. It's time to hit the road again.” “Whatever the reason we first mustered the Apollo program, however mired it was in Cold War nationalism and the instruments of death, the inescapable recognition of the unity and fragility of the Earth is its clear and luminous dividend, the unexpected final gift of Apollo. What began in deadly competition has helped us to see that global cooperation is the essential precondition for our survival. Travel is broadening. It’s time to hit the road again.”

]]> By: hank https://habitablezone.com/2020/01/25/mars-news-release/#comment-43992 hank Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:33:08 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=79907#comment-43992 Another moon landing would be nice, but why bother? We've already done that. If we're going to commit to a project like this, it should be one that offers the possibilities of new and unexpected discoveries. As for the argument that further lunar exploration would be good training for other deep space missions, I disagree. We can train in earth orbit, where emergency repair and rescue missions are relatively easy, quicker, a lot safer and cheaper, and can be kept ready-to-go on a moment's notice. A lunar mission would be live-fire training, you'd be just as likely to suffer a major disaster as you would on some other expedition. A lunar landing or even a colony would be distant and isolated, and mounting a mission there would very difficult (after all, we can't do it now). In the event of a human or material casualty, coming home or getting help there in time would be next to impossible. Sure, some other deep space mission might be just as remote and exposed, but at least we would be playing for potentially higher stakes. If we're going to take those risks and pay those bills, we might as well go for something with the potential for real payback. Besides a manned Mars mission, there are other possibilities. We could go visit a comet, or an asteroid; all three would have excellent scientific benefits and the latter two would require less delta-v to accomplish (you wouldn't have to climb out of the moon's gravity well). If justified by remote probes, perhaps a Venus, Mercury or even Solar fly-by manned visit might be worthwhile. Personally, I favor automated probes, unmanned missions, to do our exploratory and survey work in space. Its a lot cheaper and safer, and we have a lot more experience at it. The time for sending men is when you find something out there worth sending a crew to take a closer look at. If we find major deposits of primordial solar nebular material, biological organisms, or alien artifacts, then sending men would certainly be justified. If you determine the risk and expense to send humans out there is worth it, then it should be for a mission only humans can accomplish. Apollo successfully accomplished its mission: it humiliated the Soviets. But if we're honest with ourselves, not much else got done. Another moon landing would be nice, but why bother? We’ve already done that. If we’re going to commit to a project like this, it should be one that offers the possibilities of new and unexpected discoveries. As for the argument that further lunar exploration would be good training for other deep space missions, I disagree. We can train in earth orbit, where emergency repair and rescue missions are relatively easy, quicker, a lot safer and cheaper, and can be kept ready-to-go on a moment’s notice. A lunar mission would be live-fire training, you’d be just as likely to suffer a major disaster as you would on some other expedition.

A lunar landing or even a colony would be distant and isolated, and mounting a mission there would very difficult (after all, we can’t do it now). In the event of a human or material casualty, coming home or getting help there in time would be next to impossible. Sure, some other deep space mission might be just as remote and exposed, but at least we
would be playing for potentially higher stakes. If we’re going to take those risks and pay those bills, we might as well go for something with the potential for real payback.

Besides a manned Mars mission, there are other possibilities. We could go visit a comet, or an asteroid; all three would have excellent scientific benefits and the latter two would require less delta-v to accomplish (you wouldn’t have to climb out of the moon’s gravity well). If justified by remote probes, perhaps a Venus, Mercury or even Solar fly-by manned visit might be worthwhile.

Personally, I favor automated probes, unmanned missions, to do our exploratory and survey work in space. Its a lot cheaper and safer, and we have a lot more experience at it. The time for sending men is when you find something out there worth sending a crew to take a closer look at. If we find major deposits of primordial solar nebular material, biological organisms, or alien artifacts, then sending men would certainly be justified. If you determine the risk and expense to send humans out there is worth it, then it should be for a mission only humans can accomplish.

Apollo successfully accomplished its mission: it humiliated the Soviets. But if we’re honest with ourselves, not much else got done.

]]>