h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We cannot let ourselves be crippled by the troubles and crises of the world. If we did, we would not have climbed down the tree, for we could have lived safely there too. Humanity is all about taking risks to further our own knowledge and test ourselves. We always have been that way. If we were concerned about the other problems, there are alternate solutions to money. Money does not solve every problem, and indeed, created many of the problems we are trying to fix. It is possible also that through our scientific exploration, we may find the cure to what we are worrying about.

Neutrino

So then the question becomes, how can we explore space without further draining the resources of the planet? Some group would have to start a feasible bootstrap operation that could become self-sufficient. But our current planning abilities are somewhat in doubt, because we seem to have difficulty managing the resources of earth as it is. It's not a matter of can we do it, but can we focus enough to get past the greed and the money to do it.

In the process of becoming smart enough to plan life in space, we will become smart enough to balance our lives on earth.

We have explored the unknown before. Sailors really did think that they would sail off the edge of the world. The make up of these expeditions was a mixed bag, explorers who wanted to find new routes, traders who wanted to make big money, missionaries who wanted to convert new souls, soldiers who wanted to conquer new territory and politically motivated people who wanted to impress the influential. I think a space programme to Mars would have a range of purposes too.

indeed it would. the current launch methods are aking to the circus dog walking upright. it isn't that it can do it well that is impressive, it's that it does it at all.

there are a host of "heavy lift" launch solutions that could be massively cheaper, but they need sustained funding to create them which will have to be done in a mars program, but which can be ignored in a moon program.

Also, mars direct have worked out that it is no more expensive for us to go to mars now than it was for the pilgrim fathers to go to america was for them.

as to resources, once you get to mars, it is a small leap to go from the mars space station out to mining the asteroids, which will release massive amounts of resources.

>it is no more expensive for us to go to mars now than it was for the pilgrim fathers to go to america was for them<

I believe it is true that over 90% of americans don't have a passport. The cost to the Pilgrim Fathers was immense. To leave the country you have grown up in to move to another strange place with little knowledge of whether it will work or not is not an everyday thing. The vast majority of america has not been to another country never mind thinking about emigrating.

Mars cannot supply the smallest amount of food. If there is water it will take very advanced means to extract it. If earth is destroyed what hope would you give the people stranded on the barren rock of Mars when we can't feed the population on earth with the huge riches we already have?

Simply moving to Mars would not be a primary goal of any initial exploration of Mars. It is true that in history, if we wanted to explore new territory, we had to go there ourselves and see it with our own eyes. But today, we have the technology to remotely explore the surface of Mars without anyone leaving town. We would not have to go there to extract its usefulness, either. If and when the technology is developed that enables us to recall whatever machinery we sent there, we would be able to extract anything from the landscape that is there, the minerals in the dirt, and whatever lies beneath the surface. These resources could help in the development of solutions to the problems we face here. On the other hand, we have the resources here to solve world starvation, etc. without using any financial means. American farmers produce enough food to feed the entire world, but much of it goes to waste due to economic reasons. If we expect to develop as a species beyond our earthly capabilities, we cannot let ourselves be governed by greed, money, and politics. Until we can get past these boundaries, we cannot hope to navigate further than Mars in our exploration of space. The resources are not available to one nation alone, and it would take a world wide movement. But we must place our priority on science for this to happen. What is needed is a paradigm shift.

Neutrino

From a humanitarian view point the astronomical (sorry) cost of space exploration cannot be justified when there are bilions without clean drinking water. If you want to create civilisation on other planets in the solar system then you need to help civilisation here first.

I think it is less an issue of humanity than a lesson in where our money goes. Governments already have the means to solve problems such as clean drinking water, starvation, and other issues. However, most of it is squandered away in politics and the middle men. It is far better for private organizations, such as church missions and Red Cross-type organizations, to provide the aid so many despartely need. Not only do the overhead costs and other expenses tend to stay low, but they have the personal drive to really help people out of a sense of pity or justice rather than a sense of duty or political mongering. Of course, the same could also be said for the space program, but like I said, it would take a world wide movement to develop this science, and inevitably, would involve politics.

Neutrino

actually, it wouldn't.

bill gates could afford to do it all by himself.

mark shuttleworth is aready putting up massive amounts of prize money for better ways of doing what we do now. the problem with space is that it is currently funded and run by politicians who need to get reelected.

give it to the businessman, and it will go forwards in leaps and bounds, all you need is 1 "killer application" which requires bulk transport to space, and the businessmen will take over and we will have space done properly.

I support space exploration, and I hope I can make my case here without offending anyone.

Not a lot of people know this, but every $1 of American taxpayer money that goes into space exploration comes out as $7 in the economy as spinoffs, and therefore jobs. And if you don't think those spinoffs are important, think again. Fuel cells, anyone? How about pacemakers? Satellite photographs for defense purposes? I could list many more products and services that are directly or indirectly related to the space program. Not only that, but those spinoffs into the corporate world mean jobs, for professionals, skilled workers, and unskilled workers alike. I know this sounds like trickle-down economics, but it's nowhere near as costly as giving tremendous tax breaks to the rich.

OK...so space exploration makes sense on an economic level. It also helps on an environmental level. For example, the big blue marble picture. It's used in nearly every reputable environmental campaign. It inspires people, lets them know that as far as we can see, our Earth is all we have. On a more practical level, space exploration is also beneficial by showing us what the environment does for us (cleans air, removes waste, recycles water) is darn hard to replicate, but that there are ways that can be applied, especially in places that are too polluted for anything to live.

Finally, I'd like to mention that I'm not a Republican (don't blame me, I voted democratic), but I would support Bush's space exploration plan if it didn't smell like one big fat red herring. And if it were fully funded. For Pete's sake, they're scrapping Hubble!!! And $1 billion isn't near enough!

actually--- private organizations are already talking space. Ther was an article in the wall st. journal about 3 private co.s that are planning for suborbital tourism. Its not quite mars, but its a pretty good start.
And there are tons of things from cell phones to PDAs that would not be possible without the technology provided by space exploration.
As a pure and basic science, I personally thing exploring mars for life is a waste of time. But as long as great tech advances keep coming out of it, I support it.

Asking the question of life is not very important, but if it results in an answer, it is massively important.

basiclly if we are the only life, then why are we here.

if we are not, then how do we recognise it elsewhere.

The primary reason for going to mars is not because we are looking for life, but for all the knowledge we will gather on the way, and the facilities we will end up with once we set out to go.

I was not aware that the Mars program included looking for signs of life. I thought it was a broader program, just to glean whatever kinds of information we can from exploring the surface of Mars. Certainly there's a lot to learn from just the planet. Perhaps we would learn why the Earth is so unique, maybe for reasons we don't know yet, and it would induce us to take better care of it.

Neutrino

I'm not sure where I read about them looking for the possibility of life on mars- or actually the possibility that there was once life on mars-as well as the possibility of sustaining life on the red planet- but it might have been a seperate Wall St. Journal article. I'm sure that the search for life is just another by-the-way in a spectrum of research they plan on doing.

looking for life (past or present) is not the primary goal, but is often presented as being the main reason.

there are a lot of other things you would have planned in any sensible mars program.

This is in reply to the point about not being able to manage our own resources. I agree, mars is simply going to turn into a big bucks venture for large American companies to rape Mars of all its resources. I think that an international version of NASA (forgive my ignorance if one already exists) only with the funding and the power to see the project and to make sure that the project doesn’t become just another money making opportunity!
Orion

I agree that a thing like space exploration should be international, until a certain point it already is (NASA in America, ESA in Europe, and oriental space projects already exist), and cooperation is a reality.
Another big question is really about: money in space or money in direct improvemnent in earth life?

First: money in space is money invested in new better earth technologys.

I also see that if we conquer a stable and good place in space site like the moon, mars or in orbit (like the ISS), we will be able to give big jumps. What i mean is: a place wih lower gravity, and quick mining resources, will get us (mankind) new places to build factories (high tech, and with no work exploration), we would be able to build new starships, the kind who polutes less, and envolves less investment. Areas like medicine research would be easy to develop.

And so on, and on.
We all should contribute to that idea, at least i think so. As a person who enjoys physics, a space lab would be of great importance to test said impossible physics theories.

Kandarian

I agree, any major space exploration would necessitate a worldwide cooperative movement. One nation or group of nations simply does not have the resources, funds or manpower to really pull anything major off. Of course, with the world in its current state, this idealized picutre is not going to happen anytime soon. However, if someone like Bill Gates or other such rich people, decided to take an interest in funding this sort of research, it would be easier to cross international boundaries, since it wouldn't be so political (you know, Bill Gates wouldn't need to develop spy satillite technology and the like). However, what do I know? I'm simply a physics major, but I think it would best for all if we really got underway in exploring the universe we exist in. We could learn so much about ourselves from this kind of research!

Neutrino