# Do you think we should visit Mars?



## The Condition of Keegan (Feb 1, 2016)

Yes or no? And why? 

I say no, mostly because we don't fully understand our planet and how it works yet. Why start with a new one so soon? We haven't even discovered 10% of what's in our oceans. I'd like to know what else is down there first. 




Sent from my RCT6213W87DK using Tapatalk


----------



## SofaKing (May 9, 2014)

If it's just to clean up after all these rovers have littered the place, then yeah.


----------



## knightofdespair (May 20, 2014)

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.


----------



## The Library of Emma (Mar 3, 2016)

No, there's nothing useful on Mars. waste of resources.


----------



## Beast And The Harlot (Jun 14, 2015)

Yes, people should absolutely go to Mars. It could teach us quite a fair bit about alien planets and their contents. It would be foolish to stand and not act.



The Library of Emma said:


> No, there's nothing useful on Mars. waste of resources.


Nobody knows what's on Mars, only what we've seen from a few photos of the atmosphere and surface. There could be water streams or ice, there could be living organisims. Or, there could just be a bunch of rocks and clouds. We don't know for sure.


----------



## knightofdespair (May 20, 2014)

Beast And The Harlot said:


> Nobody knows what's on Mars, only what we've seen from a few photos of the atmosphere and surface. There could water or ice, there could be living organisims. Or, there could just be a bunch of rocks and clouds. We don't know for sure.
> 
> Yes, people should absolutely go to Mars. It could teah us so much about alien planets and their contents. Ot would be foolish to stand and not act.


The biggest reason humanity wants to go is to toss the earth and start over with a new place to exploit and pollute and stripmine. Exploration has very little to do with it.


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

Yeah, could be useful


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

The Library of Emma said:


> No, there's nothing useful on Mars. waste of resources.


It's a milestone though. First we learn to go there, and then we learn to go further. Plus it is the possibility of colonization there sometime in the future.


----------



## 2Milk (Oct 29, 2014)

Yeah. We have to push forward and become at least a type 3 civilization.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

The Condition of Keegan said:


> Yes or no? And why?
> 
> I say no, mostly because we don't fully understand our planet and how it works yet. Why start with a new one so soon? We haven't even discovered 10% of what's in our oceans. I'd like to know what else is down there first.
> 
> Sent from my RCT6213W87DK using Tapatalk


Think about it Keegan. When you are going to Mars vs traveling in the ocean you are using two completely different technologies, and you are traveling in space vs the ocean for two completely different reasons as well, so it's not like you should pick one or the other. They aren't competing so you should do both.

The vast exploration of the sea happens because there is oil down there as far as I know, but there are definitely ongoing research on life and drugs down there as well. The thing though that makes the ocean uninteresting for a lot of people is that it is mostly empty. That's because of the pressure, the little (no sunlight) sunlight and the really low temperatures makes it hard to develop life down there, so the vast majority of what you find down there is just gonna be sand and stone. If you find a creature down there it probably won't survive the trip back up to the mainland, just as we won't survive down there without highly advanced tech because our bodies aren't built for that kind of pressure.

There are also no benefits to building houses down there vs on another planet that might be fit for human life. Like I said you can't exactly make food down there because there won't sunlight(I guess you could have those blue lights but meh) to make the plants grow, and then you'll have limited amount of air because you can't make plants, so you need a continuous stream of oxygen down there, and then think about the pressure and the kind of buildings we would need to live in.. They have to be feet thick to withstand the kind of pressure that's down there.

I am not saying that the colonization of another planet is easy though, but it just sounds so much manageable if you compare them side by side and to me at least is much more interesting.


----------



## scooby (Jun 24, 2009)

I think we should visit everything humanly possible in our solar system. I find space exploration so fascinating. I wish we put more resources into it.


----------



## herk (Dec 10, 2012)

why not both


----------



## Smallfry (Oct 11, 2004)

I watched this video a while back... if what the boy claims is true then no I don't think we should try to colonise Mars


----------



## farfegnugen (Aug 16, 2010)

Yeah, we have to move forward. It's not like planets are closed systems anyhow as long as precautions are followed. As they say, life on Earth is a dead end. We have to move beyond this planet's surface if life here is to be more than a novelty act.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

I'd prefer we spent resources managing what we have here but what makes man great is the drive to explore the unknown.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Yeah, we need to learn to terraform. And also we need to explore space more so space pirate jedi knight xenobiologist becomes a viable career path.

I also want the title of technomancer, using alien technology.



2Milk said:


> Yeah. We have to push forward and become at least a type 3 civilization.


Woah there, we're not even a type 1 at the moment.


----------



## Disheveled and Lost (May 9, 2015)

Persephone The Dread said:


> Yeah, we need to learn to terraform. And also we need to explore space more so space pirate jedi knight xenobiologist becomes a viable career path.
> 
> I also want the title of technomancer, using alien technology.
> 
> Woah there, we're not even a type 1 at the moment.


When I used to smoke weed as a teenager I would think of things like that, exploring space. Did you see Rogue One and The Force Awakens? I saw both twice in Imax, I think you would love them, right up your alley. It is all about that same type of weird scientifical stuff =0)>


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

I think we might as well try to explore Mars as opposed to spending money on a space program but staying in Earth orbit and never doing anything new. Actually sending people to other places in the solar system is what is going to get people excited and engaged. Sending robots is fine but it's boring.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

mate . we can not even visit our oceans and deep under earth and you are talking about MARS? lets explore earth first .


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

Currently the main reason to go to Mars is the scientific knowledge and the experience. It's obviously the first step before exploring and colonizing the rest of the Solar System. People always say stuff like 'we already have a home', but they also ignore that:

-This isn't rechnically "our home". It's just a planet we happened to have evolved in, and that could turn inhabitable any time, either because of us or because of nature. Whatever the case, the deadline will still be established by the expansion of the Sun itself.

-We're not a united species yet. There are so many conflicts down here, that I guess we can all agree that waiting for us to change before leaving the planet will be useless. Becoming an inter planetary species before an extinction event happens on Earth will surely increase the chances of surviving.

-"exploring the oceans" or any other argument like that most likely won't be as useful as exploring space, like I explained.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

I'm good with space exploration, just as long ad we stay away from LV-426...


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

I don't know why people think that ocean exploration/use should naturally come before space exploration/use

Space has a pressure of 0 atmospheres, a human habitat needs a pressure of 1 atmosphere. So a space suit, or any structure you build in space only needs to survive a pressure difference of 1 atmosphere (~14.7 PSI) (and even less on Mars, which at least has a thin atmosphere)

The deepest parts of the ocean have a pressure of over 1000 atmospheres (~15,750 PSI), building an ocean suit, ocean floor research station, or colony would be ridiculously more difficult, and is way beyond our level of technology for the foreseeable future

In other words, the oceans are closer, but they're way harder to work with or do anything useful with. Somehow I can't see humans terraforming/mining/colonizing the ocean floor before being able to do those things on other planets.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Absolutely should.
Regardless of whether there's anything useful there (the commercial and legal aspects of colonising Mars are very complicated as well), it is bound to help create new technologies, new opportunities and new understandings in society that can help us going forward.


----------



## reese444 (Dec 28, 2016)

Hell ya theres probly some cool rocks there n ****


----------



## Neal (Jan 14, 2012)

Im pretty sure Im from that planet, so it'd be nice to get back out there and discover my roots. In all seriousness I say we could go either way, but the important thing I think is that we shouldnt stop exploring or stop being curious.


----------



## Limmy (Feb 15, 2013)

I want to establish a colony on Pluto and not come back until the government gives it back its status as a planet

Just because pluto is small, doesn't mean it is not a planet, that is 100% discrimination and racism


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

I don't know, do they have WiFi?


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Sometime in the near future we should establish some sort of base there to pave the way for later colonization, in my opinion.


----------



## railcar82594 (Mar 1, 2016)

I think space science research should prioritize faster than light travel technology. Then it wouldn't be such a slow and physical hassle to put and maintain a colony on mars and mine the rest of the solar system, then spreading out to the stars which helps diffuse the overpopulation problem.


----------



## BAH (Feb 12, 2012)

Yas because I heard they have nice restaurants there


----------



## hammert (Feb 18, 2017)

We don't know what dangers awaits in visiting Mars so human beings should continue focusing in the development of space technology first. it's ok to send a robot in Mars to conduct study but it's not time for humans to visit it yet.


----------



## hypestyle (Nov 12, 2003)

The Condition of Keegan said:


> Yes or no? And why?
> 
> I say no, mostly because we don't fully understand our planet and how it works yet. Why start with a new one so soon? We haven't even discovered 10% of what's in our oceans. I'd like to know what else is down there first.
> 
> Sent from my RCT6213W87DK using Tapatalk


Send robots and that's it. I'm not going.

What are people supposed to do about food? water? shelter? sex?

Desert environments on earth can be used for experiments for "what it's like" to be on the Mars surface.


----------



## OcularZero (May 17, 2017)

Yeah, "for science." Our understanding is always partly limited by the extent of our "domain," so expanding the domain is one way of furthering our understanding. We can learn more about Mars, the solar system, planets, habitability, etc. by going there. If those are unimportant to you, then your issue is not so much with Mars as it is with science or at least contemporary institutionalized science. So I guess the question is really more about your opinion on our science. I don't see any grounds on which to oppose going to Mars unless you take issue with the "telos" of increasing range in science besides the common misunderstandings.

The earth/oceans first argument is silly and was already addressed in the thread.

A less common but still prevalent opinion is that we'd shouldn't "ruin" Mars (too) for various reasons, e.g. because it's wrong to alter another planet, or we need to learn to take care of our planet first, or anything along those lines. The problem with this argument is firstly that it misunderstands what planets and ecosystems are like. It presumes that a given environment and its members are stable and beneficial unless altered by humans. Nope. They're always changing, sometimes to the point of mass extinctions in extreme cases by both biotic or abiotic events and processes. For example, it's currently thought that when cyanobacteria developed photosynthesis billions of years ago, it contributed to a mass extinction event. Photosynthesis produces oxygen, which is toxic to anaerobic organisms and these were prevalent on Earth and therefore killed off many of them. No human presence required.

Secondly, you can only do harm if it's an alteration of something _important to organisms_; rocks and dunes aren't intrinsically valuable. We do harm when we destabilize _ecosystems_ (not just environments) and harm organisms in them, or interfere with objects of scientific and cultural value. If Mars, has no organisms, no biosphere, there's nothing to ruin. Our alterations don't affect anything else, unlike Earth, which has a sensitive (but resilient) biosphere. So it wouldn't really matter what we do to any bodies without life as long as it doesn't interfere with scientific work or harm the humans on it.

Of course, Mars might have life, and that's part of why we want to go. Precautions are being taken, though. NASA, for example, sterilizes the rovers to avoid terrestrial organisms being taken to Mars and interfering with any ecosystems that the rovers might encounter.


----------



## unemployment simulator (Oct 18, 2015)

thats not really a sufficient reason not to go to another planet. its like saying well I haven't explored all the roads in my neighbourhood so I am not going to go on holiday.

there are numerous beneficial reasons as to why we should explore our galactic neighbourhood. the only caution I would suggest is not making such a mess of the planets we do visit since we haven't done a great job at keeping this one tidy imho. then again I think we (the vast majority of humans) greatly over estimate our contribution to the environment and find it a bit arrogant to think we are planet destroyers.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

unemployment simulator said:


> thats not really a sufficient reason not to go to another planet. its like saying well I haven't explored all the roads in my neighbourhood so I am not going to go on holiday.
> 
> there are numerous beneficial reasons as to why we should explore our galactic neighbourhood. the only caution I would suggest is not making such a mess of the planets we do visit since we haven't done a great job at keeping this one tidy imho. then again I think we (the vast majority of humans) greatly over estimate our contribution to the environment and find it a bit arrogant to think we are planet destroyers.


I dont think its good that money is going towards space research rather than towards fixing the problems of the world. But if we're gonna spend that money on space research, i's say that a colony on mars soon would be good. The sooner we can establish some sort of colony on another planet, the sooner we can establish ourselves as a interplanetary civilization, if that makes sense. In other words, we wouldnt be confined to this one planet and limited by our planet and by robotic space probes, but we would actually have a piece of territory in a very extraterrestrial environment. It would allow research, a better perspective* of the universe we live in, experience of space colonization, new resources, etc.


----------



## unemployment simulator (Oct 18, 2015)

sad1231234 said:


> I dont think its good that money is going towards space research rather than towards fixing the problems of the world. But if we're gonna spend that money on space research, i's say that a colony on mars soon would be good. The sooner we can establish some sort of colony on another planet, the sooner we can establish ourselves as a interplanetary civilization, if that makes sense. In other words, we wouldnt be confined to this one planet and limited by our planet and by robotic space probes, but we would actually have a piece of territory in a very extraterrestrial environment. It would allow research, a better perspective* of the universe we live in, experience of space colonization, new resources, etc.


yea that's a fair enough reason although that is entirely different to not wanting to explore space because we should limit our exploration.

there was actually a strong opposition movement to the moon landings, although in the decades following opinion gradually shifted. I see the moon landings as entirely different to any landings on mars. the moon was more symbolic of what we can do/achieve and it was tied into the space race. whereas mars exploration will be more in-line with small steps towards interplanetary colonisation, scientific research into that and the evolution of life in space and on earth.
I think when (and I do think it will happen) we actually go to mars, any opposition to it will largely depend on the nations economic situation and any divisions within the socio-economic sector.


----------



## Canadian Brotha (Jan 23, 2009)

I think we should go to Mars for sure. I think it would teach us just as much about ourselves as a species as it would about what's out there far beyond us. I'm surprised we've not gone back to the moon really. I know space exploration is dangerous and expensive but I find it fascinating and always look forward to mission updates in the science podcasts I follow


----------



## 8888 (Oct 16, 2014)

No, the money could be better spent doing something else. Some people are starving, people are homeless, I feel we should be helping then instead of sending some satellite to Mars to find out almost nothing anyway.


----------



## probably offline (Oct 8, 2012)

unemployment simulator said:


> thats not really a sufficient reason not to go to another planet. its like saying well I haven't explored all the roads in my neighbourhood so I am not going to go on holiday.


:lol


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Barry: "Should we go somewhere **** today?"
Malcolm: "Hythe?"
Barry: "nope, Mars"
Malcolm: "no"


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

8888 said:


> No, the money could be better spent doing something else. Some people are starving, people are homeless, I feel we should be helping then instead of sending some satellite to Mars to find out almost nothing anyway.


The money invested in space exploration is a tiny part of what'd be necessary to "solve" all those problems. Military budget on the other hand...


----------



## Brawk Shady (Jan 19, 2015)

Eventually, yes. I think we should try to gather as much info as we can from Mars using rovers before we start sending people.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

We should send some people to the sun.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Brawk Shady said:


> Eventually, yes. I think we should try to gather as much info as we can from Mars using rovers before we start sending people.


 They've been doing the rover thing since I was your age. It was exciting then. They know that people are losing interest in remote controlled cars landing on Mars. Public interest fuels their budget so it's crucial for them to always be doing something new and exciting.

They're not going to order anyone to go. They're going to find people who want to go to Mars. If it's dangerous, it's dangerous. If it ends badly, it ends badly.


----------



## mt moyt (Jul 29, 2015)

The Mars One mission that started in 2012 is set to depart in 2024, where 4 people are going on a one way trip to Mars, reaching by 2025. There was even a woman who decided to leave her husband and kids to go to mars, something that is hard for me to understand (maybe she is depressed?)

However, there is a possibility that it is a scam.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

mt moyt said:


> The Mars One mission that started in 2012 is set to depart in 2024, where 4 people are going on a one way trip to Mars, reaching by 2025. There was even a woman who decided to leave her husband and kids to go to mars, something that is hard for me to understand (maybe she is depressed?)


 Well, I would think that it's easier to sign up for a one way trip to Mars than it is to actually get on the spacecraft when it comes right down to it.

I don't think they're going to really do it until there's a way to bring them back.

That said, as I understand it, the space radiation is the main thing they haven't figured out. They have said they don't even know if it can be done without lethal radiation exposure eventually. So it comes down to practicality. If they really want to send people to Mars they can probably do it but those people might not come back. But if they do they're probably not going to spend all that much time on the planet. So it's basically going to be a huge effort, a lot of expense and a hell of a long trip for a landing a ceremony and a long trip back.

I kind of doubt anyone is really going to intentionally send people to their death just to say "Hey! We went to Mars!"


----------



## Omni-slash (Feb 10, 2016)

Such a cute Hollywood fantasy.


----------



## mt moyt (Jul 29, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Well, I would think that it's easier to sign up for a one way trip to Mars than it is to actually get on the spacecraft when it comes right down to it.
> 
> I don't think they're going to really do it until there's a way to bring them back.
> 
> ...


the interesting part is how they plan to stay, rather than plan a trip back. The idea is to colonise mars, so its true they dont intend on dying immediately, but there has been a lot of criticism:


> Many have criticized the project's US$6 billion budget as being too low to successfully transport humans to Mars, to the point of being delusional.[92][93] A similar project study by NASA estimated the cost of such a feat at US$100 billion, although that included transporting the astronauts back to Earth.


and i realised i had read the initial plans..its actually very vague for the current plans, and different details are given in different places so yeah its probably not going to go ahead


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

mt moyt said:


> the interesting part is how they plan to stay, rather than plan a trip back. The idea is to colonise mars, so its true they dont intend on dying immediately, but there has been a lot of criticism:
> 
> and i realised i had read the initial plans..its actually very vague for the current plans, and different details are given in different places so yeah its probably not going to go ahead


 Then again, there are some pretty amazing things they've had to do to make the space station work and keep it alive. Watched a few documentaries on it and I was kind of surprised at some of the technology they have put into things like dealing with space junk hitting it and things like that.

It's probably really just a matter of cost. If they decide to do it they're going to have to have a money is no object outlook. Otherwise they're going to end up really making it harder than it needs to be. If they just threw everything they could at it I have a feeling it wouldn't be hard. Trying to do it cheap is going to be a real PITA.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

WillYouStopDave said:


> We should send some people to the sun.


"We" sounds like a group of scientists, as far as I know...


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Siegfried said:


> Such a cute Hollywood fantasy.


The space station was a fantasy 50 years ago.


----------



## sabbath9 (Dec 30, 2014)

no, nasa should spend every penny it gets cleaning the oceans, stop looking for planets, this one is dying


----------



## Hollo (Feb 16, 2017)

The Condition of Keegan said:


> Yes or no? And why?


This would be amazing, honestly. There's a reason why visionaries like Musk think of it as a science fiction dream come true. I just don't think we're really there yet socially or technologically to colonize, let alone terraform Mars. The main roadblocks I keep reading about comes down to solar radiation and extended space travel. Vacuums do weird things to our anatomy and unshielded exposure to solar radiation is extremely carcinogenic. To top it off, Mars' magnetosphere is weak -> so the atmosphere is thin. So I don't think some insane, monolithic scheme to grow hybridized plants to pump oxygen into the atmosphere is possible because our sun will just blast it away. It's amazing that we can travel between the inner ring planets fairly quickly now, but it would just amount to sending astronauts to their deaths. We're not ready yet


----------

