NASA will pay $5000 for your best ideas on what you'd need to survive on Mars

[EnigmaO01]

A breathable atmosphere, food and water.

Where do we send the check?

 

[EnigmaO01]

No, it's a research station and little else. What we need is the development of a orbital station that is not only able to provide for research but also resource development. Our current focus shouldn't be on Mars, it should be on near Earth asteroids. Learn how to wrangle them into stable orbits where they can be utilized, learn how to alter their course, so that if we do detect a "dinosaur killer", we can prevent it from turning into a "mankind killer". Mars buys us NOTHING that we need today or for the foreseeable future. Think about dumb it would be to pour tens of BILLIONS of dollars into getting to Mars, only to get wiped out by an asteroid that we could have stopped from hitting Earth had we put that money into asteroid wrangling instead.

So living in the space station has not taught us anything about living in space?

Chasing asteroids can be done remotely. Landing on Mars will be as ground breaking as the first time we landed on the moon.

 

[Kal'Stang]

That makes the false assumption that none of those developments would have come about without NASA. Without NASA, most if not all of them would still come about and their development would have paid for by private entities, not public ones. Since we would have ended with most of the things that NASA has developed, then the money spent was wasted, since it would have ended getting developed any way. Your "fact sheet" is one of the grossest examples I've ever seen. Giving NASA credit for highway grooving is pathetic. The winglets, were a BOEING innovation that NASA and the USAF bought and would have been developed without either NASA or the USAF. I could tear apart just about every item on your "fact sheet" in the same way...

That argument is a double edged sword ya know. You, nor I, have proof for either direction. What we DO know however is that those developments DID happen WITH NASA. You can continue to bring up "what if" scenarios all that you want but it doesn't change that fact.

Basically what you're attempting to do here is pretend that, for example, Einstein's work on quantum mechanics or Theory of Relativity is meaningless because some other scientist would have eventually come to the same conclusions also. Yeah sure, some other scientist may very well of come to the same conclusions that Einstein did if Einstein hadn't been around. But no matter how you spin it Einstein's conclusions happened because Einstein did them when he did them, before any other scientist. You will never be able to take it away from Einstein, just like you cannot take away the accomplishment's that NASA has been a part of. You certainly can belittle them and try and discount them. That is your right. But you cannot take away the fact that those accomplishment's happened by both Einstein and NASA respectively.

 

[faithful_servant]

So living in the space station has not taught us anything about living in space?

Chasing asteroids can be done remotely. Landing on Mars will be as ground breaking as the first time we landed on the moon.

But it gains us nothing that we can't learn right here and may cost us EVERYTHING. We need to prioritize and establishing a near Earth long term presence and an asteroid wrangling program MUST be first priority. Going to Mars now is like buying a Ferrari when you have 5 kids, a $30,000 a year income and a mortgage that's 4 months behind.

 

[faithful_servant]

That argument is a double edged sword ya know. You, nor I, have proof for either direction. What we DO know however is that those developments DID happen WITH NASA. You can continue to bring up "what if" scenarios all that you want but it doesn't change that fact.

Basically what you're attempting to do here is pretend that, for example, Einstein's work on quantum mechanics or Theory of Relativity is meaningless because some other scientist would have eventually come to the same conclusions also. Yeah sure, some other scientist may very well of come to the same conclusions that Einstein did if Einstein hadn't been around. But no matter how you spin it Einstein's conclusions happened because Einstein did them when he did them, before any other scientist. You will never be able to take it away from Einstein, just like you cannot take away the accomplishment's that NASA has been a part of. You certainly can belittle them and try and discount them. That is your right. But you cannot take away the fact that those accomplishment's happened by both Einstein and NASA respectively.

More false arguments. These developments would have come about because their need isn't exclusive to the space program. Where there is a need, there will be someone working to fill it.

Also, you never addressed that PATHETIC "fact sheet". C'mon, explain to me how without the space program we would never have had grooved pavement...

 

[Kal'Stang]

More false arguments. These developments would have come about because their need isn't exclusive to the space program. Where there is a need, there will be someone working to fill it.

Also, you never addressed that PATHETIC "fact sheet". C'mon, explain to me how without the space program we would never have had grooved pavement...

Why should I address the fact sheet? From what I saw that was someone else's argument, not yours.

And no, there is no guarantee that just because something is "needed" it will be invented. For example, I've yet to see any cure of aging. Have you?

And how is it a false argument that Einstein did in fact postulate the theory of relativity and made the conclusions that he did regarding quantum mechanics and therefore he gets the credit versus your argument of belittlement of "oh well someone else would have come up with it anyways so why should he get any credit"? (paraphrased to fit the example)

And there is another argument against you.

Even IF something were to be guaranteed to be invented because of some "need" how long would it have taken without NASA's help? 10 years? 20 years? 100? How long did it take since the wheel was invented for motorized vehicles to be invented? Thousands of years. Or how long did it take for medical science to get past the point where people made laws against even cutting into people to fix their insides much less conducting brain surgery? How many people would have had to suffer before someone had invented the MRI without NASA's help?

Fact is NASA has helped. No matter how you try and spin it that is a Fact. They deserve just as much credit for their contributions as Einstein gets for his contributions. You can say "yeah well..." all that you want. It does not and will not change the Facts.

 

[Kal'Stang]

But it gains us nothing that we can't learn right here and may cost us EVERYTHING.

How in the world would it cost us "EVERTHING"? We made it to the moon several times and we're still kicking.

And how do you know what we will learn by a trip to Mars? Do you know something that our greatest minds don't know about Mars or the trip to get there? If so you might want to pipe up and tell them. Heck, I'm not even slightly on par with our greatest minds and I'd like to know what you apparently know that they don't.

Personally though I know of several things that we might learn. Theoretical of course but they're still possibilities. Such as a new energy source that's better than anything we have here on Earth. The possibility that life may exist there (and yes, it is a real possibility, particularly around the polar caps). Those micro organisms that are more than likely there could help with many medical problems here on Earth. Heck, there might even be evidence that some type of civilization was built on Mars with technology that may be as advanced (but different) as our own, or even more advanced. There could be a new element sitting on Mars that could help with wormhole technology (which means going to other stars if you know anything about wormhole theories). And this is just a few of the things that might be found on Mars that we have no idea exists or not because they are not here on Earth. Granted, at least some of these are at best "highly unlikely" to be found...but it is still a possibility.

And before you get your knickers up about the civilization theory...the only reason I postulated it is due to many scientists thinking that Mars may have once been very much like Earth today as far as climate goes. Which means there is a possibility of historical life having been there and even a possibility of advanced life.

 

[faithful_servant]

Why should I address the fact sheet? From what I saw that was someone else's argument, not yours.

And no, there is no guarantee that just because something is "needed" it will be invented. For example, I've yet to see any cure of aging. Have you?

And how is it a false argument that Einstein did in fact postulate the theory of relativity and made the conclusions that he did regarding quantum mechanics and therefore he gets the credit versus your argument of belittlement of "oh well someone else would have come up with it anyways so why should he get any credit"? (paraphrased to fit the example)

And there is another argument against you.

Even IF something were to be guaranteed to be invented because of some "need" how long would it have taken without NASA's help? 10 years? 20 years? 100? How long did it take since the wheel was invented for motorized vehicles to be invented? Thousands of years. Or how long did it take for medical science to get past the point where people made laws against even cutting into people to fix their insides much less conducting brain surgery? How many people would have had to suffer before someone had invented the MRI without NASA's help?

Fact is NASA has helped. No matter how you try and spin it that is a Fact. They deserve just as much credit for their contributions as Einstein gets for his contributions. You can say "yeah well..." all that you want. It does not and will not change the Facts.

Sorry about the fact sheet question, when you interjected into the discussion, I got mixed up.

I never said that a need will bring about a solution, I said that people would be working towards filling that need, kind of like how people are working on stopping/reversing aging.

There's no doubt that NASA has helped, but there's also no doubt that it was VERY expensive help and that they most likely took money away from the private parties who most likely would have developed these advances. NASA did so some things outside the space program, but the argument that without NASA they wouldn't happened is WRONG. To try to justify the high cost development of these advances is intellectually dishonest. Go back to that post with the link to the "fact sheet" and see what people are trying to tell us we wouldn't have had without NASA. Almost all of it is just plain insulting to anyone with more than 6 connected neurons in their brain.

 

[faithful_servant]

How in the world would it cost us "EVERTHING"? We made it to the moon several times and we're still kicking.

And how do you know what we will learn by a trip to Mars? Do you know something that our greatest minds don't know about Mars or the trip to get there? If so you might want to pipe up and tell them. Heck, I'm not even slightly on par with our greatest minds and I'd like to know what you apparently know that they don't.

Personally though I know of several things that we might learn. Theoretical of course but they're still possibilities. Such as a new energy source that's better than anything we have here on Earth. The possibility that life may exist there (and yes, it is a real possibility, particularly around the polar caps). Those micro organisms that are more than likely there could help with many medical problems here on Earth. Heck, there might even be evidence that some type of civilization was built on Mars with technology that may be as advanced (but different) as our own, or even more advanced. There could be a new element sitting on Mars that could help with wormhole technology (which means going to other stars if you know anything about wormhole theories). And this is just a few of the things that might be found on Mars that we have no idea exists or not because they are not here on Earth. Granted, at least some of these are at best "highly unlikely" to be found...but it is still a possibility.

And before you get your knickers up about the civilization theory...the only reason I postulated it is due to many scientists thinking that Mars may have once been very much like Earth today as far as climate goes. Which means there is a possibility of historical life having been there and even a possibility of advanced life.

Because if we spend all that money getting to Mars and don't deal with the threat of near Earth asteroids, we can ALL die. My point is that we need to have our priorities straight. Mars is NOT a high priority. EARTH IS!!! Your SILLY examples are so far-fetched that I'm kind of embarrassed for you for even trying to use them.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Sorry about the fact sheet question, when you interjected into the discussion, I got mixed up.

I never said that a need will bring about a solution, I said that people would be working towards filling that need, kind of like how people are working on stopping/reversing aging.

There's no doubt that NASA has helped, but there's also no doubt that it was VERY expensive help and that they most likely took money away from the private parties who most likely would have developed these advances. NASA did so some things outside the space program, but the argument that without NASA they wouldn't happened is WRONG. To try to justify the high cost development of these advances is intellectually dishonest. Go back to that post with the link to the "fact sheet" and see what people are trying to tell us we wouldn't have had without NASA. Almost all of it is just plain insulting to anyone with more than 6 connected neurons in their brain.

So your main objection is how much it costs? And that it "most likely" took money away from private parties?

First, how much it costs. The amount of funding that NASA has is a drop in the bucket compared to other government programs. Indeed its a drop in the bucket compared to ALOT of things. NASA's budget for 2015 is 17 Billion. The USPS lost 5.5 Billions dollars in 2014 even with a revenue of 67.8 billion. Yet NASA with its drop in the bucket comparative budget encouraged roughly $10 in economic growth. Or to put it another way, in 2005 due to NASA contributions the economy got a 180 billion dollar boost. (average budget for NASA for its entire lifespan averages to roughly $15 billion per year...and that is adjusted for inflation). Or to put it in ANOTHER way, of 15 private companies surveyed, those 15 companies made $1.5 billion in benefits with NASA's contribution of $64 million. How Much Does NASA Cost? $1 of NASA Spending Is a Catalyst for $10 of Economic Benefit. The spending on NASA is and has been nothing BUT beneficial to the US both technology wise and economically wise.

As for NASA taking money away from private parties? NASA routinely hands out money to private companies for R&D research. (R&D research which those companies then get to market and make money off of) Take a look here to see all the money that NASA invests in other companies. You can click on each state to show the benefits each specific state gets in R&D investment.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because if we spend all that money getting to Mars and don't deal with the threat of near Earth asteroids, we can ALL die. My point is that we need to have our priorities straight. Mars is NOT a high priority. EARTH IS!!! Your SILLY examples are so far-fetched that I'm kind of embarrassed for you for even trying to use them.

First, you're worrying to much about the Earth being impacted by an asteroid big enough to cause an ELE (extinction level event). Here is a link for NEO's and their impact probability. It only lists NEO's that have a potential of hitting earth going out 100 years. Look through it. There is PLENTY of time to figure out how to move an asteroid that is going to impact Earth. Which btw is something that they are also working on in relation to Mars.

For ARM, a robotic spacecraft will capture a boulder from the surface of a near-Earth asteroid and move it into a stable orbit around the moon for exploration by astronauts, all in support of advancing the nation’s journey to Mars.
.
.
.
Before the piece of the asteroid is moved to lunar orbit, NASA will use the opportunity to test planetary defense techniques to help mitigate potential asteroid impact threats in the future. The experience and knowledge acquired through this operation will help NASA develop options to move an asteroid off an Earth-impacting course, if and when that becomes necessary.

NASA Announces Next Steps on Journey to Mars: Progress on Asteroid Initiative

So you see, even the planning for going to Mars is being helpful regarding moving asteroids in order to save Earth from an ELE. That's the advantage that we as humans have. We can work on more than one thing at a time.

And its ok if you think my theoretical ideas are "silly". You can't change the fact that they ARE possibilities.

 

[Fiddytree]

I can't say I am going to expect this reward system to produce even a footnote of a contribution to these likely Mars mission(s), but I am also amused at the near abhorrence at the suggestion of inter-planetary travel and the insistence that pushing the envelope of human potential won't likewise improve our technological capabilities on earth.

 

[faithful_servant]

So your main objection is how much it costs? And that it "most likely" took money away from private parties?

First, how much it costs. The amount of funding that NASA has is a drop in the bucket compared to other government programs. Indeed its a drop in the bucket compared to ALOT of things. NASA's budget for 2015 is 17 Billion. The USPS lost 5.5 Billions dollars in 2014 even with a revenue of 67.8 billion. Yet NASA with its drop in the bucket comparative budget encouraged roughly $10 in economic growth. Or to put it another way, in 2005 due to NASA contributions the economy got a 180 billion dollar boost. (average budget for NASA for its entire lifespan averages to roughly $15 billion per year...and that is adjusted for inflation). Or to put it in ANOTHER way, of 15 private companies surveyed, those 15 companies made $1.5 billion in benefits with NASA's contribution of $64 million. How Much Does NASA Cost? $1 of NASA Spending Is a Catalyst for $10 of Economic Benefit. The spending on NASA is and has been nothing BUT beneficial to the US both technology wise and economically wise.

As for NASA taking money away from private parties? NASA routinely hands out money to private companies for R&D research. (R&D research which those companies then get to market and make money off of) Take a look here to see all the money that NASA invests in other companies. You can click on each state to show the benefits each specific state gets in R&D investment.

You just don't get it. You want so desperately to be right, that you won't eve try to see the facts. All the developments that NASA gets credit for could have been (and almost certainly would have been) developed privately. Regardless, that's not a reason to spend the 100s of billions it would take to get to Mars. Our #1 priority should be near Earth. Lets' do this the right way and stop this idiotic "cart before the horse" nonsense. Build up close to home, develop an orbital infrastructure that will help us build more of an orbital presence, develop an asteroid protection system. Let's do this the SMART way instead of the popular way.

 

[faithful_servant]

First, you're worrying to much about the Earth being impacted by an asteroid big enough to cause an ELE (extinction level event). Here is a link for NEO's and their impact probability. It only lists NEO's that have a potential of hitting earth going out 100 years. Look through it. There is PLENTY of time to figure out how to move an asteroid that is going to impact Earth. Which btw is something that they are also working on in relation to Mars.



NASA Announces Next Steps on Journey to Mars: Progress on Asteroid Initiative

So you see, even the planning for going to Mars is being helpful regarding moving asteroids in order to save Earth from an ELE. That's the advantage that we as humans have. We can work on more than one thing at a time.

And its ok if you think my theoretical ideas are "silly". You can't change the fact that they ARE possibilities.

How about a list of the asteroids big enough to kill a couple million people?? We haven't even come close to mapping all those.

Possibilities? How about "pipe dreams"?

 

[Kal'Stang]

You just don't get it. You want so desperately to be right, that you won't eve try to see the facts. All the developments that NASA gets credit for could have been (and almost certainly would have been) developed privately. Regardless, that's not a reason to spend the 100s of billions it would take to get to Mars. Our #1 priority should be near Earth. Lets' do this the right way and stop this idiotic "cart before the horse" nonsense. Build up close to home, develop an orbital infrastructure that will help us build more of an orbital presence, develop an asteroid protection system. Let's do this the SMART way instead of the popular way.

How about a list of the asteroids big enough to kill a couple million people?? We haven't even come close to mapping all those.

Possibilities? How about "pipe dreams"?

No, you don't get it. No other company made those developments. NASA did. Could other companies have done the same development? Sure. Did they? No. That is a fact. You may not mind waiting an extra 10-20-30- or a hundred years before a private company figured out how to create an MRI, I personally am glad that we have it sooner.

And developing the rocketry necessary to get to Mars actually helps our ability to defend this planet from an asteroid. And as you saw, NASA is also working on how to deal with the asteroids in other ways. You believe that we should only work on one thing at a time. I see no problem in working both problems at the same time. Either way its going to cost the same amount of money. And eventually we ARE going to do both. There is no reason to worry about asteroids for the next 100 years at least to the extent that you are worrying about them. We have plenty of time to figure out how to deal with them. Due to that there is nothing wrong with developing other things also, things which can help in multiple fronts...including taking care of the asteroids.

Now, the only reason that I can see for your complaint about the money AND your talk about private companies might have been able to make the same developments is to get NASA completely out of the picture (which is why you're attempting to discredit their achievements). To give the money directly to private companies. The problem with that is that no private company is going to set up a monitoring program to track NEO's or develop the necessary developments to get rid of any of them that are potentially hazardous. The reason for this is that there is no monetary gain to be had from it. So relying on companies is nothing but a foolish pipedream.

Last thing, NASA is tracking any asteroid that can possibly enter and crash onto the surface. That includes the ones that can kill the "few million people" that you mention. Have they been able to find them all yet? Nope. It is one hell of a big sky after all. But they are working on it. They even recently improved their efficiency at detection of NEO's by over 60% recently. They are constantly working on it.

 

[Deuce]

You just don't get it. You want so desperately to be right, that you won't eve try to see the facts. All the developments that NASA gets credit for could have been (and almost certainly would have been) developed privately. Regardless, that's not a reason to spend the 100s of billions it would take to get to Mars. Our #1 priority should be near Earth. Lets' do this the right way and stop this idiotic "cart before the horse" nonsense. Build up close to home, develop an orbital infrastructure that will help us build more of an orbital presence, develop an asteroid protection system. Let's do this the SMART way instead of the popular way.

Could have.

Didn't.