Talk:Space Shuttle to Mars

A U.S. congress person is more likely to cut his or her throat than to approve a one way manned mission to Mars.--Farred 06:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And other U.S. congress persons might not. It depends on how this enterprise is put into a context and, for the first degree, on the public opinion. Do you know something about the latter? -- Rfc 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I should qualify what I wrote. Until there is sufficient development of our knowledge, capabilities and the industrial infrastructure on Mars (which could be placed by artificially intellegent remotely operated devices) that a colony on Mars could survive and prosper, congress will not aprove a one way manned mission to Mars. I do not know much about congress, but I feel confident in that. If I am wrong, it could be demonstrated by congressional action to the contrary. Until then my belief is firm.--Farred 11:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is exactly what we are doing here: Collecting knowledge and finding ways to ensure the prosperity of a Martian colony. Eric's proposal might just be a piece of the big enterprise. He himself states, the proposal is just a thought, a beginning. Naturally, it is not a very good plan to go to Mars only in order to die there. It is, too, not a very good plan to go there and come back after a short time. A much better plan is to go there, stay there, and build another civilization. That is my favorite view to a manned one-way mission. I personally would never ever go there with a return ticket, because it is too dangerous to do the trip twice. For me, it makes no sense to head for Mars just for the fun of it. From a scientific point of view a manned return mission makes no sense at all, and I hope the congress people think alike. So it depends on how this enterprise is put into a context. -- Rfc 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As for one way missions, you could compare them to killing someone on national TV. It would merely be an expensive publicity stunt, which the population is too conservative to accept. I'd regard one way colonization missions are more dangerous then return ones, as we do not have the knowledge at present (or in the forseeable future) to sustain people long term on the surface of Mars. Again, the population is likely to be too conservative to accept such a mission.

As for using shuttles to go to Mars, the idea is utter nonsense- there are numerous reasons why this is not possible. T.Neo 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel confident enough to declare such ideas "utter nonsense", you must be well trained in space technology. Could you please explain, what these "numerous reasons" in your opinion are? Furthermore, if you are so sure about our lacking knowledge at present or in the foreseeable future, why are you contributing to Marspedia? -- Rfc 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One does not have to be well trained in space technology to see that this is not feasible- The Shuttle is designed for hauling cargo into LEO, not going to Mars, or landing there. Shuttles, or shuttle based technology, could be used to get to Mars in a far more sensible manner, i.e. carrying cargo or crews into LEO.

And just because we lack knowledge, does not mean we cannot learn. T.Neo 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)