why the hell have we not gotten to mars yet

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

What would people do on Mars if they went? It's a long way to go to just look around and leave again.

Do SCIENCE!

41 minutes ago, PB666 said:

This looks a bit like troll bait. Ill bite anyway.

1. Moon is 400,000 km and Mars, along the transfer is around 1000 times as far.
2. The minimum efficient transfer time is around 8 months
3. Landing heavy stuff on mars is challenging.
4. The fuel required to regain orbit is very heavy if human is the cargo.
5. Quick land and transfer windows that are not sci-fi (including anything that elon musk has to offer) do not come promptly after good earth to mars. Efficient trips take more than 2 years.
6. Humans have this thing about need to be fed, watered, change their diapers, supplied oxygen, deplete carbon dioxide, warmed, and protected from all kinds of perilous things in space.
7. Human flybys offer little advantage, the goal has to be land or bust.
 

 

Human flybys are stupid, unless it is integrated into an asteroid or Mars program. Then, it also offers a testing opportunity, along with political points.

[Vanamonde]

Several posts have been removed or edited. Please leave politics for other forums, since it never ends well here (2.2.b). Also, please express yourself in words rather than relying on 'reaction images' (2.3.c). 

[Darnok]

19 hours ago, alpha tech said:

it's been 40 years ago since we last left the moon why haven't we got to Mars yet. Come on NASA where did that desire to spread out amongst the stars go. Besides the stupid space shuttle we haven't made an accomplishment in manned spaceflight in 40 years

Because every expansion creates "wild west" like places, where current governments have zero control over people.

Just look at history of British colonies, they were all profitable for some time, but after people get smarter they created local governments. And same thing is going to happen when we build self sufficient colony, it doesn't matter it will be on Moon, Mars or Venus.

That is why no government is interested in huge investments that are going to be independent competition in near future, they have learned their lesson 

 

EDIT: Sorry, made post before read entire thread

Edited March 11, 2016 by Darnok

[panourgue]

About our favourite SpaceX. I honestly don't think they would go there as pioneers. It's a business after all. At least not until someone else would hire them to deliver something to Mars like right now they are making profit by lifting stuff to earth's orbit. I may be wrong but I think Elon's plan is to make technology and advocate Mars expeditions so when someone (probably NASA) is ready he will be there to get a nice contract. Best case scenario is to force their hand to hire SpaceX.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but is a SpaceX is a business, not politics, so they need to make money.

[Hannu2]

57 minutes ago, panourgue said:

Sorry if I offended anyone, but is a SpaceX is a business, not politics, so they need to make money.

It is difficult to say. Also rich people have fantasies (although most of them want to get just power over others) and it may be that Musk wants seriously to send some kind of colony to Mars including himself. He probably have enough money to by anything which can be bought in this world. However, funding of such project need some huge business. Current launch business is far away from needed hundreds or thousands of billions. Therefore I think that it is not realistic program. Musk also knows it but he tries to create popularity which helps to increase space business.

[panourgue]

37 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

Also rich people have fantasies (although most of them want to get just power over others) and it may be that Musk wants seriously to send some kind of colony to Mars including himself. He probably have enough money to by anything which can be bought in this world.

I both agree and disagree with you  You see, successful businessmans are not about money per se but about creating a successful business model. It may as well be Musk's biggest dream, but if it puts his creation in jeopardy it's not gonna happen. That's what I'm talking about. "Let's colonize Mars!" doesn't sound like a good business model, don't you agree? "Let's provide needs for Mars colonization" on the other hand does.

[Bill Phil]

4 hours ago, Darnok said:

Because every expansion creates "wild west" like places, where current governments have zero control over people.

Just look at history of British colonies, they were all profitable for some time, but after people get smarter they created local governments. And same thing is going to happen when we build self sufficient colony, it doesn't matter it will be on Moon, Mars or Venus.

That is why no government is interested in huge investments that are going to be independent competition in near future, they have learned their lesson 

 

EDIT: Sorry, made post before read entire thread

Britain managed to keep its colonies for quite some time. Heck, plenty of areas are still owned by Britain. Even Australia is an ally of Britain.

The problem wasn't the colonies, per se, it was mercantilism and "tyrannical" rule. Admittedly, some of the things they did were tyrannical, after all, they were focused on profit. Britain's North American colonies were willing to stay in the British Empire, but the King decided to send troops, albeit for a reason. Maybe not a good one, but only a few of their colonies rebelled. The rest were either let go, or stayed loyal.

[panourgue]

Topic creator asked not 'when' but 'why', so I think much more interesting would be to come up with really good reason of "why SHOULD we go to Mars?". Besides collecting surface EVAs and planting flags. You know, like economics stuff.

Anyone? 

 

[sevenperforce]

8 minutes ago, panourgue said:

Topic creator asked not 'when' but 'why', so I think much more interesting would be to come up with really good reason of "why SHOULD we go to Mars?". Besides collecting surface EVAs and planting flags. You know, like economics stuff.

Anyone? 

Improving our chances of enduring as a species?

[Hannu2]

1 hour ago, panourgue said:

I both agree and disagree with you  You see, successful businessmans are not about money per se but about creating a successful business model. It may as well be Musk's biggest dream, but if it puts his creation in jeopardy it's not gonna happen. That's what I'm talking about. "Let's colonize Mars!" doesn't sound like a good business model, don't you agree? "Let's provide needs for Mars colonization" on the other hand does.

I agree that colonization of Mars will not be business. As someone wrote, soon after colony would be self-sufficient it would declare itself independent and would not pay anything to governments or companies which established it. Only possibility to get space colonies is that it is made due to ideological reasons.

I agree also that colonization equipment manufacturing or transport services could be a good business for companies like SpaceX if governments of richest countries were interested in colonization. Unfortunately, it seems that such interest is negligible. Political interests change so slowly, that it is practically not good business for a rocket company. Therefore SpaceX launches telecommunication satellites and cargo to ISS. Raptors, larger rockets and other Mars technology waits or develops very slowly. There is not interest even to asteroid mining which could be business of thousands of billions of Dollars.

[panourgue]

3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Improving our chances of enduring as a species?

How do you figure? We can improve plenty right here on earth. How is that going for you btw, if you really think about it, hmm?

And that's what I'm talking about: space agencies barely manage to convince everyone to let them send people in orbit, let alone go to Mars. Finding a good reason for that is tough. For The Science? Nope. For the betterment of humanity? What are you taking about? To improve our life on Earth? Okay, give me something concrete and I'll think of a way of doing it closer to home.

Anything else? 

[Octa]

11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Improving our chances of enduring as a species?

Everytime i think of that i remember that currently nothing of value will be lost. I hope technology for this evolves at the same pace as human society evolves into something worthy to preserve

 

Manned Mars flights could push economy with all the new stuff that has to be engineered. But for science? No...we have probes and rovers for that. Far cheaper and less difficult. Research for long term interplanetary travel? Would be done only for the sake of itself. It does not look like we could benefit from the ability to travel around the solar system. Interstellar travel so humanity could really be preserved? We're light years away from even accomplishing a small part of that. Literally.

[HebaruSan]

43 minutes ago, panourgue said:

Topic creator asked not 'when' but 'why', so I think much more interesting would be to come up with really good reason of "why SHOULD we go to Mars?". Besides collecting surface EVAs and planting flags. You know, like economics stuff.

Anyone? 

That was discussed pretty thoroughly, pretty recently. Necro-ing that thread would probably be a more venial forum sin than diverting this one (and it's a decent read if you're interested).

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by HebaruSan

[Hannu2]

23 minutes ago, panourgue said:

Topic creator asked not 'when' but 'why', so I think much more interesting would be to come up with really good reason of "why SHOULD we go to Mars?". Besides collecting surface EVAs and planting flags. You know, like economics stuff.

It is very simple. There are not any economically feasible reason to send humans to Mars. No colony and no expeditions. And there will not be in foreseeable future. There are nothing on Mars which can not be achieved from Earth.

Only possible reasons are more or less ideological. Scientific curiosity, political display of technology and economic power (this was main motivation of Apollo), some kind of backup population against natural disasters or humans natural urge to expand. None of them give economic profit to them who pays the bill. Also taking part of such project as an colonist will be extremely painful experience suitable only those who have extreme personality.

On the other hand, it is very difficult question why such ideology has not developed. There was some spirit during Apollo-project and cold war, but after that average spending to ideological space projects has been only few dollars per human per year. It is practically nothing. Or what should space enthusiasts do that large mass of people or politicians would get interested in space.

I believe that it is just natural fluctuation of human societies. Next generations will want to something more communal and larger than just more stupid electronic scrap and fashion clothes than neighbor. Maybe it creates interest to investigate and colonize space too. We probably will not see it but Mars and other planets will wait.

[panourgue]

10 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

I agree that colonization of Mars will not be business. As someone wrote, soon after colony would be self-sufficient it would declare itself independent and would not pay anything to governments or companies which established it. Only possibility to get space colonies is that it is made due to ideological reasons.

I didn't say that. In fact I beleive it WILL be buisiness. At least not until the next big cold or hot war. About "self-sufficient colonies". Man, what are you talking about? HOW are they gonna be self-sufficient? Can't really grasp what you mean by that. Right now we don't even have self-sufficent countries, for crying out loud. Please explain.

18 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

I agree also that colonization equipment manufacturing or transport services could be a good business for companies like SpaceX if governments of richest countries were interested in colonization. Unfortunately, it seems that such interest is negligible. Political interests change so slowly, that it is practically not good business for a rocket company. Therefore SpaceX launches telecommunication satellites and cargo to ISS. Raptors, larger rockets and other Mars technology waits or develops very slowly. There is not interest even to asteroid mining which could be business of thousands of billions of Dollars.

Since talking about politics is not welcome here I'll just say that you are completely wrong about slowly changing polical interests (they change all the time and quite drasticly) and won't give you examples, but I beleive you can think of something  

[sevenperforce]

22 minutes ago, panourgue said:

How do you figure? We can improve plenty right here on earth. How is that going for you btw, if you really think about it, hmm?

Colonizing beyond Terra is the only way to continue existing if something happens to Terra.

[Hannu2]

34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Improving our chances of enduring as a species?

It is ideological objective, not economical in any sense. It is extremely low probability that single investor die due to global natural disaster. He can extend his life (length and quality) far better by investing to safety against more common risks. In any case it would take thousand years or more before space colonies would realistically be self sustained and able to grow without support from Earth. It would help those who begin to build it. It is also extremely difficult to imagine such disaster which makes Earth worse than Mars. Asteroid may make winter which lasts couple of years and kill most useful species. But there is eternal winter in Mars with far lower temperatures, lack of breathable air (for humans, animals, plants), lack on any useful species etc. It would be much easier and cheaper to make bunkers against such disasters on Earth.

[sevenperforce]

1 minute ago, Hannu2 said:

It is ideological objective, not economical in any sense. 

Definitely.

[panourgue]

19 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

That was discussed pretty thoroughly, pretty recently. Necro-ing that thread would probably be a more venial forum sin than diverting this one (and it's a decent read if you're interested).

My bad, forget I even asked

11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Colonizing beyond Terra is the only way to continue existing if something happens to Terra.

Until something very conctrete would threaten Earth no one will do anything about it. Why would they?

Also it's not a very good life policy. We should make more effort not letting bad stuff happen than making plans on what to do when it did.

Edited March 11, 2016 by panourgue

[Hannu2]

7 minutes ago, panourgue said:

I didn't say that. In fact I beleive it WILL be buisiness. At least not until the next big cold or hot war. About "self-sufficient colonies". Man, what are you talking about? HOW are they gonna be self-sufficient? Can't really grasp what you mean by that. Right now we don't even have self-sufficent countries, for crying out loud. Please explain.

Since talking about politics is not welcome here I'll just say that you are completely wrong about slowly changing polical interests (they change all the time and quite drasticly) and won't give you examples, but I beleive you can think of something  

Colony is by definition an organization which have objective to be self sufficient. Otherwise it is some kind of base. I do not know how colonies will be self sufficient but I do not see any known natural law against it. Of course it does not happen in 2030's like optimists think, but maybe at year 3000. I believe that humankind expands itself to solar system during next couple of thousands of years if there will not be any global megadisaster.

There are extremely few examples of rapid political changes towards better world. Such development has always been slow and politicians and other powerful individuals have resisted it in all countries because they have believed that it threatens their power.

[panourgue]

7 minutes ago, Hannu2 said:

Colony is by definition an organization which have objective to be self sufficient. Otherwise it is some kind of base. I do not know how colonies will be self sufficient but I do not see any known natural law against it. Of course it does not happen in 2030's like optimists think, but maybe at year 3000. I believe that humankind expands itself to solar system during next couple of thousands of years if there will not be any global megadisaster.

There are extremely few examples of rapid political changes towards better world. Such development has always been slow and politicians and other powerful individuals have resisted it in all countries because they have believed that it threatens their power.

Look. I argued your point about colonies becoming self-sufficient SOON (your word), so businesses would not be interested in creating them (if some economical reason would arise) on accout of those pesky colonies escaping their grasp. Okay?

Stepping on the dangerous ground of politics again I must say, that even if you see it in a very cynical way, it really doesn't matter what it's motivation really is as long as space travel is the result. After all cold war WAS the gold age of space

[Hannu2]

2 minutes ago, panourgue said:

Look. I argued your point about colonies becoming self-sufficient SOON (your word), so businesses would not be interested in creating them (if some economical reason would arise) on accout of those pesky colonies escaping their grasp. Okay?

Stepping on the dangerous ground of politics again I must say, that even if you see it in a very cynical way, it really doesn't matter what it's motivation really is as long as space travel is the result. After all cold war WAS the gold age of space

OK. I wrote sloppy. Of course business does not think so far. I thought that it is reason why governments does not see colonization as a productive operation unlike colonization of different continents couple of hundreds of years ago. But if government is not interested in space colonization of course it does not buy equipment from companies.

I think that we can discuss politics on general level without comparing countries or political ideologies (if not, moderator please notify). It is impossible to talk about ideological space projects, like colonization and exploration, without politics because politicians decide practically all of it. Maybe I am little cynical. It is better with politics. But I do not see that cold war begun suddenly in normal conditions. There was World War II in which USA and Soviet Union was allies and cold war developed after that. Developing of space race took 10 years and its main motivation was development of intercontinental ballistic missile. There is no such motivation on next cold wars. Even relatively poor countries can achieve ballistic missiles now and colonization equipment have not straight military applications.

There is also other thing. Apollo was short period project compared to any colonization projects. Even most primitive space colonies need huge investments over several decades. I think that it is very improbable that cold war like situation can stay stable so long. It ends or leads to actual war. It is also difficult project for democratic governments because it should stay over tens of election periods.

[Raven Industries]

“The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space - each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.”
― Randall Munroe

I think that sums up why manned exploration and colonization is potentially useful in the long run.

[Spaceception]

2 minutes ago, KerbalSaver said:

“The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space - each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.”
― Randall Munroe

I think that sums up why manned exploration and colonization is potentially useful in the long run.

Take a look at my sig   VVVV

Edited March 11, 2016 by Spaceception

[Raven Industries]

42 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Take a look at my sig  

I saw your sig in another place, and that's what reminded me of the quote.