Mars has far more self support capability at a research base level than the ISS or the Moon. I don't think Mars is a stretch at all compared to setting our sites on the Moon in the early 60's. We've already had people in 0 g longer than a trip to Mars and Astronauts who could function in 1 g after 6 months in 0 g. Radiation is a risk that is managable. You don't need 100% recycle or even any recycle as long as you have the launch capacity to launch the once through supplies required. The ISS also is more comparable to a permanent base on another world than a mission of exploration so the self sufficiency card should definitely be considered when making analogies to it. Please tell me what necessary technologies you think it would take us more than 10 years to develope if we set our sites on Mars.
Terraforming definitely energizes a lot of the people interested in exploring Mars whether it appeals to you or not, but it is Mars' resource riches in comparison to other extraterrestrial destinations that makes Mars a favorite over the Moon for almost all Mars enthusiasts.
Happy Holidays,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to Ok, that's true. But it's too far-future for our present purposes
That's The Problem With Setting Your Sites On A Resource Poor Destination
The whole thread (51 posts)
- Reasons
- An anti-imperialist view
- Our purpose to expand into space is to propogate and protect Gaia
- Very interesting thoughts. Thanks
- I'm sure you're with me on this
- Not so much "manifest destiny" as biological imperative
- You really do suprise me
- Going To Mars Does Not Require Any More Than Going To The Moon
- You make a good point...
- You really do suprise me