In fact, the government could just fake it and produce a bunch of phony videos in a Hollywood movie studio or stage a complete hoax using digital animation.

When we tried to fake it in 77, the result was a disastrous PR nightmare (it failed so badly they made a bad movie about the failure).
This time we should do it for real.

 

The tendency in most industries is to minimize the risk to humans and employ machines or robotics where ever possible.

Increasing mechanization in coal mines is eliminating the need for men to go 100s of feet down and risk being trapped by cave ins or explosions. Sewer cleaning is relying on cameras and remote controlled machines. It would be absurd to promote a mission to send more men down in coal mines or sewers so why is anyone thinking it's a good idea to send men to Mars when remote controlled explorers can do the job?

The manned mission to Mars is just another "pork barrel" project to keep the aerospace industry working and the result of sending 100s of lobbyists to Washington rather than a legitimate endeavor. In fact, the government could just fake it and produce a bunch of phony videos in a Hollywood movie studio or stage a complete hoax using digital animation.

Then when the astronauts return from their fabricated "journey" to Mars, the government and the Mouth Piece Media could stage a hero's welcome complete with parades, a documentary, infomercials, book and movie deals and, a blitz of product endorsements .

Yep. We should definitely eliminate all risk from every aspect of life that we can. Why should we allow people to go scuba diving to take pictures of coral reefs and when we can just send down some robot cameras? Why should we allow people to climb mountains when we can send up a UAV with a camera and some instruments? Why should we allow people to fly on airplanes that might crash or get hijacked just so that they can go see some old castles someplace? Just use robots to make a documentary that they can download and watch from the safety and comfort of their recliner.

 

But even still, in this context I draw a distinction because people don't usually undertake a drive to the grocery store as a decision to accept a mortal risk in the attempt to achieve some grand desire. I think a good fraction of those I alluded to weighed that possibility quite seriously before embarking on their journey.

Strangely, as having ridden motorcycles from a very (too) early age, there were many occasions when in deciding whether to ride the bike or use the car, I would weigh up the risk factor of the particular journey. With so many "Bike unaware" drivers on our roads, and the ones who seem to think that using their mobile phone while at the wheel is ok, the risk factor is very high here in the U.K, and no matter how experienced a rider you may be, the potential for some pillock to wipe you out is always there. Even so, bearing that in mind, I still made the decision to ride the bike and accept the risk.

 

Yep. We should definitely eliminate all risk from every aspect of life that we can. Why should we allow people to go scuba diving to take pictures of coral reefs and when we can just send down some robot cameras? Why should we allow people to climb mountains when we can send up a UAV with a camera and some instruments? Why should we allow people to fly on airplanes that might crash or get hijacked just so that they can go see some old castles someplace? Just use robots to make a documentary that they can download and watch from the safety and comfort of their recliner.

Hi,

Well eliminate when we can right? Some people have to fly to sustain their living conditions, the people that dont have more choice. I was returning from a field service/mod trip once going from Canada to Boston and we lost an engine and almost crashed. I had to go though it was a company policy at the time where we had to take turns going on field trips for one reason or another.

 

Strangely, as having ridden motorcycles from a very (too) early age, there were many occasions when in deciding whether to ride the bike or use the car, I would weigh up the risk factor of the particular journey. With so many "Bike unaware" drivers on our roads, and the ones who seem to think that using their mobile phone while at the wheel is ok, the risk factor is very high here in the U.K, and no matter how experienced a rider you may be, the potential for some pillock to wipe you out is always there. Even so, bearing that in mind, I still made the decision to ride the bike and accept the risk.

Hi,

Funny you should mention motor bikes here. To date i do not know one person who rides a motorcycle who did not get into at least one accident. Even i did long time ago, although i was a daredevil back then, jumping over things with ramps and such, until one day i landed in a rose bush. Lucky i didnt get hurt but it does make you think.

One of the reasons for failure is because we get so used to success and so eventually start to overlook things we used to take care to notice.

 

To date i do not know one person who rides a motorcycle who did not get into at least one accident.

Me neither, and I lost several good friends over the years through accidents, but still we ride! Indeed, my forum name "Recklessrog" was acquired from my style of Motocross and speedway riding and some would say road riding too, although I was not purposely reckless on the roads, just quicker than some of my friends. Certainly had my fair share of "offs" but mostly on the track. I think because of the acquired skills from speedway and motocross, I was able to avoid most difficult situations and also get out of trouble when others may not have.
I remember once being pulled up by a cop who had followed me in an unmarked car along a road out in the sticks known locally as the mad mile. (actually more like 3) He only caught up when I reached the end and slowed down. Thinking I may as well take my licence out and burn it there and then, I was surprised when he asked me to review the dash cam video. We watched it and at one point he said " I'm doing 155mph and you are pulling away from me, how fast do you think you were going"? I said, erm, a little over 155?? he laughed and said, Now I will tell you why I'm not giving you a ticket,.... at every hazard your brake light is on and you are slowing down, on the clear straight you wound it up, but entered the 30 limit at 29mph. Had you not done that you would lose your licence. There is speeding, and dangerous inappropriate speeding, 35 near a school is a no no, but 155 on that bike and where we are, not inappropriate. illegal yes, so you have been warned!!!
Well, I could hardly believe it, but I took the warning seriously and slowed down a lot after that.

 

Yep. We should definitely eliminate all risk from every aspect of life that we can. Why should we allow people to go scuba diving to take pictures of coral reefs and when we can just send down some robot cameras? Why should we allow people to climb mountains when we can send up a UAV with a camera and some instruments? Why should we allow people to fly on airplanes that might crash or get hijacked just so that they can go see some old castles someplace? Just use robots to make a documentary that they can download and watch from the safety and comfort of their recliner.

Those are mundane recreational activities performed by private individuals at their own risk and not government sponsored occupational ventures. They are also dealing with known risks that have been mitigated and refined over many decades.

However, routine space travel exposes astronauts to an enormous amount of stress (both physical and psychological) and the ultimate goal of the industry is to completely eliminate human involvement from the process whenever possible. Furthermore, the sheer cost of a manned mission to Mars is way, way, way out of line with the cost of obtaining the same results through robotics.

Why spend a $Million for 100s of men to push shovels when a CAT bulldozer can do the job?

 

Why spend a $Million for 100s of men to push shovels when a CAT bulldozer can do the job?

Maybe because life is short and we derive emotional pleasure from using our brains and brawn on one off, unique projects even if we know a machine can do the job if the project becomes routine.

 

Some people make choices and weigh risks totally differently than others.

Why would anyone want to do this?

http://www.wingsuitfly.com/

People do not want to be eliminated from the process.

If government sponsorship is the problem, would the manned mission to Mars be o.k. if it was attempted by a private company?

 

Some people make choices and weigh risks totally differently than others.

Why would anyone want to do this?

http://www.wingsuitfly.com/

People do not want to be eliminated from the process.

If government sponsorship is the problem, would the manned mission to Mars be o.k. if it was attempted by a private company?

If a private company wants to launch a Manned mission to Mars, that's OK with me.

A manned mission to Mars is just "An exercise in vanity" and "Conspicuous consumption". However as long as the taxpayers aren't picking up the tab, I don't give a rat's putoosh what private individuals do with their finances.

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-collateral-cosmic-rays-cancer-mars.html

 

Hi,

Funny you should mention motor bikes here. To date i do not know one person who rides a motorcycle who did not get into at least one accident. Even i did long time ago, although i was a daredevil back then, jumping over things with ramps and such, until one day i landed in a rose bush. Lucky i didnt get hurt but it does make you think.

Well, after 150,000 miles over 40 years of riding and 6 bikes, I sold my bikes and I'm done for the foreseeable future because of a medical issue - and I'm happy to say, I have never laid a bike down.

 

Still working on that Mars Mission.

 

regarding the big question,
how do we 110 % guarantee bio security for samples from afar ?

We got away with it on the moon landings,
now we know there is water on the moon, seems more by luck than anything else,

Given what happened when Europeans went to "the new world",
and even now what happens when us "civilised" find new tribes,

Personally I think its very very unlikely that we will find any Bio hazards on mars,


BUT

are we as a planet prepared to gamble ?

Cause as we have seen with CV19, things spread.

 

regarding the big question,
how do we 110 % guarantee bio security for samples from afar ?

There's a bureaucracy for that:
https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/planetary-protection

They're down the hall from the bureau of bureaus and dressers.

 

Stupid robot.

I get the reference

 

Someone let me drive an Italian bike around a parking lot. My cousin let me take an 18 wheeler around a parking lot. I'm like 17 or 18 YO and confronted with a pick-up with 3 on the tree for the first time. I was able to handle 4 and 5 on the floor.

I never got to drive the farm tractor though. Brakes for each wheel. Accelerator on the column. The starter switch looks like an old headlight hi-beam switch.

I did drive a Gravely stand-on mower and a riding lawn mower.

A Fiereo when impaired was fun too. She was far worse than I was. I never drove one before. The emergency brake was on the left of the driver's seat, I think.

Interesting driving lessons.

 

regarding the big question,
how do we 110 % guarantee bio security for samples from afar ?

We got away with it on the moon landings,
now we know there is water on the moon, seems more by luck than anything else,

Given what happened when Europeans went to "the new world",
and even now what happens when us "civilised" find new tribes,

Personally I think its very very unlikely that we will find any Bio hazards on mars,


BUT

are we as a planet prepared to gamble ?

Cause as we have seen with CV19, things spread.

I had thought about these issues also.

The thing that bothers me is how do we know we have not already contaminated Mars.
We know that some microbial life can live in extreme environments. What if we go back 10 years from now and we see bacteria on many rocks. Were they there all the time or was it because we brought them there by accident on a previous expedition.

Of course the real danger is what we bring back here. We have to be very very careful with samples. If something gets out that we cant handle, there is some chance that it can literally kill all life on earth if we cant stop it.

A corollary to that is we dont even know for sure that our current techniques for isolating species is adequate. We assume whatever we bring back is not too different from what we know about life so far. What if it is so different that it can escape what we believe is adequate for keeping the entity contained.

I have to wonder also if there could be a virus on Mars. We could bring something back that really causes humanity a lot of problems.

We end up having to trust the scientists that are working on it.
Some say they already screwed up by sending information about us into deep space. The intention is that we are inviting friends. But in nature we see that different species dont always get along and when they dont they fight and kill each other. So we may be inviting a new enemy.
We never got to vote on that either it was decided for us without us.

 

Just my opinions:

1. There's plenty of "life" in our galaxy, but it's all pond scum. Earth life was a fluke.
2. Even if higher level aliens exist, humanity will never interface with them. Distances just too great.
3. Before settling Mars, establish self-sustainable space colonies first.
4. Try to tera-form Mars. Probably takes millennia though, if possible at all.
5. The odds of compatible life-like pathogens on Mars (or anywhere else in space) is essentially zero.

 

Just my opinions:

1. There's plenty of "life" in our galaxy, but it's all pond scum. Earth life was a fluke.
2. Even if higher level aliens exist, humanity will never interface with them. Distances just too great.
3. Before settling Mars, establish self-sustainable space colonies first.
4. Try to tera-form Mars. Probably takes millennia though, if possible at all.
5. The odds of compatible life-like pathogens on Mars (or anywhere else in space) is essentially zero.

#1 -> Disagree: We simply do not have enough data at this moment​

#2 -> Disagree: We don't know all there is to know about physics, nor about possible tech that might circumvent the light speed limit.​

#3 -> Partially agree: It's probably cheaper to start and maintain space colonies before venturing into Mars.​

#4 -> Agree​

#5 -> Almost completely agree: There's a chance that Martian bacteria or microbes have already been transported to earth through ancient meteorites. So there's a (admittedly tiny) chance that there might be some compatibility.​