[paul.fr]

http://news.aol.co.uk/volunteers-needed-for-mars-mission/article/20070620094209990001

Volunteers are being sought for an 18-month simulated Mars mission.

The European Space Agency (ESA) is preparing for future human exploration missions to the Red Planet and needs 12 people to take part in the test.

"To go to Mars is still a dream and one of the last gigantic challenges. But one day some of us will be on precisely that journey... a journey with no way out once the spaceship is on a direct path to Mars," the ESA says on its website.

The volunteers will have to take care of themselves during the mission.

"Their survival is in their own hands, relying on the work of thousands of engineers and scientists back on Earth, who made such a mission possible," the ESA says.

"The crew will experience extreme isolation and confinement. They will lose sight of planet Earth"
- ESA"The crew will experience extreme isolation and confinement. They will lose sight of planet Earth. A radio contact will take 40 minutes to travel to us and then back to the space explorers."

To investigate the human factors of a real-life mission, ESA has teamed up with the Russian Institute of Biomedical Problems to create the simulations.

The joint exercise will follow the profile of a real Mars mission, including an exploration phase on the surface of Mars. Nutrition will be identical to that provided on board the International Space Station, the ESA says.

The simulations will take place at a special facility in Moscow. A precursor 105-day study is scheduled to start by mid-2008, possibly followed by another 105-day study, before the full 520-day study begins in late 2008 or early 2009.

ESA is looking for 12 volunteers, four for each of the three simulations. It says the selection procedure is similar to that of ESA astronauts, although there will be more emphasis on psychological factors and stress resistance than on physical fitness.


any takers?

[DoctorBeaver]

If they do a simulation of a trip to Pluto, can I volunteer Tony Blair & John Prescott? That'd get rid of them for a while!  []

[syhprum]

I can think of a no more ridiculous idea than an manned trip to mars!, it would be vastly expensive compared with robot exploration and would produce little of scientific value.
Is the idea to try and ruin the Chinese economy as they try to compete?, I think they have more sense

[another_someone]

I can think of a no more ridiculous idea than an manned trip to mars!, it would be vastly expensive compared with robot exploration and would produce little of scientific value.
Is the idea to try and ruin the Chinese economy as they try to compete?, I think they have more sense

No more silly than trying to plant a European colony on the shores of a distant continent on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.

Even aside from whether a manned mission to Mars is sensible; simply putting humans into such high stress situations in a simulated environment on Earth will potentialy provide enormous improvements in understanding human kind itself.

[edward2007]

I can think of a no more ridiculous idea than an manned trip to mars!, it would be vastly expensive compared with robot exploration and would produce little of scientific value.

I can't think of a more rediculous idea than leaving the sea/water to explore dry land. But I think you are very glad right now that happened, those millions of years ago...

[lyner]

Robots get my vote for the first dozen missions, at least. That takes us into the 22nd century, probably.
Why are people obsessed with actual humans having to go places?  Isn't there enough intellectual excitement here on Earth? 
The project could turn out like 'Space Cadets', on TV last(?) year.

I can't think of a more rediculous idea than leaving the sea/water to explore dry land.

Don't forget; most of the early organisms that tried it perished at the next low tide! They didn't PLAN to be there - it was an accident.

[DoctorBeaver]

Don't forget; most of the early organisms that tried it perished at the next low tide! They didn't PLAN to be there - it was an accident.

Or ended up in a dodgy paella  [xx(]

[another_someone]

Robots get my vote for the first dozen missions, at least. That takes us into the 22nd century, probably.
Why are people obsessed with actual humans having to go places?  Isn't there enough intellectual excitement here on Earth? 
The project could turn out like 'Space Cadets', on TV last(?) year.

One could suggest that by the 22nd century everything could be done more efficiently by robots, so why have humans doing anything at all when you could build a machine to do it more efficiently.

The question is whether you wish humans to do things in human society, or just have humans as useless appendages within a society where all productive activity is undertaken by robots.

[DoctorBeaver]

I think 1 good reason for humans to do it is that eventually we are going to have to start inhabiting other planets; whether the reason be population pressure or the threat of an NEO giving us a hefty wallop.

[another_someone]

I think 1 good reason for humans to do it is that eventually we are going to have to start inhabiting other planets; whether the reason be population pressure or the threat of an NEO giving us a hefty wallop.

I don't think one can reasonably argue that simply because one needs to do something in order to survive, therefore the thing will inevitably be done.

Political imperatives are not the same thing as a prerequisite for survival of the species (not least because there is no inevitability that even if human habitation of Mars might improve the chances of survival of the species, that it will necessarily improve the survival chances of the political entity that sponsors the colonisation).

[lyner]

I think 1 good reason for humans to do it is that eventually we are going to have to start inhabiting other planets;

This isn't going to happen in the next few years - any disaster in the medium future just means we'll die out. This an extremely long - term venture.
OK, when we've done it all with robots and found out all the snags, lets send out some humans. But there's no point having a dog and barking yourself.

The 'new frontier' thing is all very well but how much of our resources per year should we expend on this stuff? My money is on serious, useful research for things in the medium - long term  on this planet. Space observation - not exploration will be better value  for  a long time, yet.  Humans have a habit of upsetting experiments when they're present. Yes - I know they can sometimes mend things too, but fault-tolerant equipment is the best solution.

I also think there's a moral aspect to this. You will always find some poor sap to go and do your exploration for you  - for the glory of it. - despite the dangers. Unless it is pretty much guaranteed safe for your pioneers, it's not fair to send them.

just have humans as useless appendages within a society where all productive activity is undertaken by robots.

Would you say that the greek philosophers' lives were wasted just because they had slaves to do all the 'productive' work? How many of out contributors wash their clothes by hand ?  Robots and machines don't have to take any of the worth out of our lives.

[another_someone]

This isn't going to happen in the next few years - any disaster in the medium future just means we'll die out. This an extremely long - term venture.
OK, when we've done it all with robots and found out all the snags, lets send out some humans. But there's no point having a dog and barking yourself.

Doing it with robots will not really tell us much about the problems about doing it with people.

We know all too well how to get a robot to Mars, and not far off knowing how to do the round trip with a robot.  This tells us nothing useful about how to design human survivable environments for the journey and for our stay on the planet (which is what started this thread).

On the other hand, once we have created a useful and self-sustaining colony of robots on Mars, why would we bother to send out humans at all?  If the robots can perform all the technical, and economically useful, and scientifically useful, roles that are required of them, they are not going to be as much of a headache as having real humans out there.  If I was a politician or industrialist who had a functioning team of robots on Mars, I would rather keep humans as far away from them as possible.  If you want to ever get humans out to Mars at all, it has to be before you establish a fully functioning robotic society there, not afterwards.

The 'new frontier' thing is all very well but how much of our resources per year should we expend on this stuff? My money is on serious, useful research for things in the medium - long term  on this planet. Space observation - not exploration will be better value  for  a long time, yet.  Humans have a habit of upsetting experiments when they're present. Yes - I know they can sometimes mend things too, but fault-tolerant equipment is the best solution.

If it is all about money, then I agree with you - factories (even on Mars) devoid of humans are far more cost effective - whether those factories are creating cars or creating information, the same things, humans are expensive.  That is why I would argue that once you have proven you can do it without humans, then the financial or political imperative to move humans out there will never arise.

I also think there's a moral aspect to this. You will always find some poor sap to go and do your exploration for you  - for the glory of it. - despite the dangers. Unless it is pretty much guaranteed safe for your pioneers, it's not fair to send them.

Is that not for them to decide?

Why do we allow humans to do any dangerous stuff (like climb mountains, race motor cars, race single handed round the world yachts) - is it fair to allow them to put themselves at risk?

Would you say that the greek philosophers' lives were wasted just because they had slaves to do all the 'productive' work? How many of out contributors wash their clothes by hand ?  Robots and machines don't have to take any of the worth out of our lives.

Not quite comparable.

Firstly, yes, we could have a planet full of philosophers, who don't do anything but philosophise - but there were not actually that many Greek philosophers, and most Greeks did have other useful work, both in the military and in farming etc.  The point is that in Greek society, slaves could not do all the work because they could not be trusted to act on their own initiative and without supervision (any more than the slaves in the American cotton plantations could have worked without supervision).  If we send robots to Mars (and further afield), then by nature these robots have to be trusted to act without direct human supervision (if they cannot, then we have to send humans with them from day one).

[DoctorBeaver]

Don't get me wrong; I think robots should be used for trail-blazing. My point was that, at present, all our eggs are in 1 basket. Sure, it will take a lot of money, a lot of political will, and some major technical advances - but chances are it will have to be done 1 day if the human race is to survive.

Political will with regard climate change is beginning to gain momentum (yeah, there are still a lot of big CO₂ producers like China, India, USA who won't cut back - or, at least, not to any great extent) so that shows that major international political movements can happen.

[another_someone]

Don't get me wrong; I think robots should be used for trail-blazing. My point was that, at present, all our eggs are in 1 basket. Sure, it will take a lot of money, a lot of political will, and some major technical advances - but chances are it will have to be done 1 day if the human race is to survive.

But who cares if the human race survives?

What the USA, or the UK, or China, or ..., cares about is whether the USA, the UK, China, or ..., survives.  The USA will send people to Mars insofar as it provides a strategic advantage to the USA.  Ironically, if the USA really creates a colony on Mars that genuinely creates a lifeboat for the human race, then such a colony would have to be able to survive independent of the survivability of the Earth bound nation of the USA.  If it creates such an entity, then the interests of such an entity will inevitable have elements of opposition to the self interest of the parent nation (just as the British colony in Virginia would one day challenge the political dominance of its parent nation, England and Great Britain, and actively seek to undermine Britain's empire and overseas economic structures).

Political will with regard climate change is beginning to gain momentum (yeah, there are still a lot of big CO₂ producers like China, India, USA who won't cut back - or, at least, not to any great extent) so that shows that major international political movements can happen.

Major political movements can occur, and always have; but ultimately they are self serving, and have a limited lifespan (they tend to be undermined by new interests that find the hegemony of these multinational political entities too stifling).

[jolly]

http://news.aol.co.uk/volunteers-needed-for-mars-mission/article/20070620094209990001

Volunteers are being sought for an 18-month simulated Mars mission.

The European Space Agency (ESA) is preparing for future human exploration missions to the Red Planet and needs 12 people to take part in the test.

"To go to Mars is still a dream and one of the last gigantic challenges. But one day some of us will be on precisely that journey... a journey with no way out once the spaceship is on a direct path to Mars," the ESA says on its website.

The volunteers will have to take care of themselves during the mission.

"Their survival is in their own hands, relying on the work of thousands of engineers and scientists back on Earth, who made such a mission possible," the ESA says.

"The crew will experience extreme isolation and confinement. They will lose sight of planet Earth"
- ESA"The crew will experience extreme isolation and confinement. They will lose sight of planet Earth. A radio contact will take 40 minutes to travel to us and then back to the space explorers."

To investigate the human factors of a real-life mission, ESA has teamed up with the Russian Institute of Biomedical Problems to create the simulations.

The joint exercise will follow the profile of a real Mars mission, including an exploration phase on the surface of Mars. Nutrition will be identical to that provided on board the International Space Station, the ESA says.

The simulations will take place at a special facility in Moscow. A precursor 105-day study is scheduled to start by mid-2008, possibly followed by another 105-day study, before the full 520-day study begins in late 2008 or early 2009.

ESA is looking for 12 volunteers, four for each of the three simulations. It says the selection procedure is similar to that of ESA astronauts, although there will be more emphasis on psychological factors and stress resistance than on physical fitness.


any takers?

Happily, it sounds fun...Lol Though I do not see a point to it!

[lyner]

But who cares if the human race survives?

Well, if no one cares,  then what is the point of arranging an escape route if Earth somehow fails?
Another point:
What difference would it make to me, personally, if Mars were to be populated by robots or by humans?
Is there some special intellectual satisfaction just in knowing there are actual people up there? The fact that they would, probably be using a high level of robotic help would make it somehow less justifiable, would it?
This is the same attitude that makes it necessary for people actually to visit the rain forests to see, for themselves, some threatened species. I know  and appreciate the presence of things without having to 'be there' and, by observing, cause disturbance. The appreciation is in the mind, not in the passport full of visa stamps.
 The only difference with the Mars thing would be the cost, to me - much higher if there were humans on Mars than expendable robots. Health and safety are expensive items.

If you want to ever get humans out to Mars at all,

What do we want them to go there for? Is it really likely that they would be going there in order to prepare it as a lifeboat for billions of Earth dwellers? The much-quoted   'parallel' example of  the discovery and colonisation of America demonstrates the reverse - the US made it as hard as possible for immigration, once they had 'enough'. Who would this venture benefit?

And the moral responsibility for others does exist. We do not prevent 'daft' behavior such as mountaineering because there must be a certain amount of free choice.  On the other hand, tempting people to danger and hardships associated with Mars missions and  future colonisation  is  really not fair.  As I said before, there will always be people, prepared to do it and theirs would not be a truly free choice. The issue is exploitation of people for commercial reasons. Yes we do have a moral duty to discourage that.

[another_someone]

But who cares if the human race survives?

Well, if no one cares,  then what is the point of arranging an escape route if Earth somehow fails?

The Earth will not, and cannot, fail - the only question is about the survival of the human species, not the survival of the planet.

What difference would it make to me, personally, if Mars were to be populated by robots or by humans?

Good question - although I could also asks what difference it makes to you if someone (some human) risks their life getting to Mars.  It is certainly legitimate to say that none of this makes any difference to you, but you seems to be somewhat selective and arbitrary about things you think you have moral responsibility for and things you do not feel you have moral responsibility for (but I accept that morality can at times be somewhat arbitrary, so long as we all recognise that - but then it makes it very difficult to argue that one moral standpoint is inherently superior to another).

Is there some special intellectual satisfaction just in knowing there are actual people up there? The fact that they would, probably be using a high level of robotic help would make it somehow less justifiable, would it?
This is the same attitude that makes it necessary for people actually to visit the rain forests to see, for themselves, some threatened species. I know  and appreciate the presence of things without having to 'be there' and, by observing, cause disturbance.

Not sure that any of this makes sense - not least, if it cannot be observed, then for all practical purposes it does not exist - but I am not sure that this has much meaning with regard to whether you know there are men on Mars.

The issue about men on Mars is with regard to whether you have any fellow feeling towards mankind, and so feel that if there is a man on Mars, so there is a little bit of you on Mars.  If you lack that fellow feeling, and your regard it makes no difference if there were men, chimpanzees, or robots, or nothing at all, on Mars, then I cannot argue against such a position, so long as you are consistent in holding that position.  But, if you are to be consistent in holding that position, then why would you even desire to send robots to Mars (that too is like sending robots to the rainforest just to send back TV pictures, but inevitably interfere with the prisine nature of the environment - can you not just appreciate that Mars is there without even sending robots?).

The appreciation is in the mind, not in the passport full of visa stamps.
 The only difference with the Mars thing would be the cost, to me - much higher if there were humans on Mars than expendable robots. Health and safety are expensive items.

And much cheaper if there were neither.

If you want to ever get humans out to Mars at all,

What do we want them to go there for? Is it really likely that they would be going there in order to prepare it as a lifeboat for billions of Earth dwellers? The much-quoted   'parallel' example of  the discovery and colonisation of America demonstrates the reverse - the US made it as hard as possible for immigration, once they had 'enough'. Who would this venture benefit?

The much quoted example of America demonstrates quite a complex mix.

What is clear is that in sending colonists to America we did not denude Europe and Africa of its entire population, and send them across wholesale.  In a sense, aside from the fact that nobody ever intended to denude Europe of its population, nor did it make sense, since most of the people who were to become citizens of America were not even born (either in or outside of Europe) when the first colonists left Europe for the Americas.

On the other hand, what we did export wholesale to America was European civilisation, even if not the European population.  So, insofar as Mars ever being a lifeboat for terrestrial humanity, it will not be the entire of the Earth's population that will ever be transported to Mars, but the Earth's human civilisation (with a representative sample of the population) that would be transported.

Ofcourse, it can quite legitimately be argued the human civilisation can continue even in the absence of the human animal, with all the roles of the human animal being undertaken by robots.  This is a logical scenario, and it may well lead to what will become a successor to the human civilisation we have today.  All I am saying is that if that is the outcome we create, we will not be able to go back from there.  If you are happy with that outcome, then so be it; but the notion that somehow we can create that outcome, but later recreate a human civilisation that retrospectively includes the human animal is simply not going to happen.

[Mr Andrew]

In reading this thread I noticed the arguement of "Why do we need to do it now?" coming up quite a bit.  Well, why not now?  Why wait until the 22nd century, when we won't be around anymore?  Wouldn't you want to be part of the generation or generations who landed people on Mars for the first time?, who were the first people to set foot on another planet?  Whatever happened to human ambition?  I believe it was Orson Scott Card who said in his book Shadow Puppets, and I'm paraphrasing: every man wants to leave something of himself behind in the world.  Now, what he leaves behind can be either children to carry on his genes, or an accomplishment, so we who follow never forget his mind.  In our era, what greater monument is there to the minds of men than to be the first people to set foot on another planet?  We admire the people who lived through WWII for their brave soldiers and great leaders.  The first generation to set foot on Mars would be remembered for the brilliant minds who made it happen and courageous explorers who actually went there.  Why shoudn't that be us?  All we've got right now is the mess in the Middle East, and that's nothing to be remembered for.

[lyner]

If we have so much money and resources then why don't we take our pleasure in sorting out the problems of people worse off than ourselves here on Earth?
Wouldn't you like to be part of the generation which sorted out poverty and hunger, too?
I suggest it's because it's just not glamorous enough or a big enough boys' toy.
People went to the New World for personal gain, mostly. Or they were attracted to it in the same way that village lads were always attracted to the army by the visiting recruiting sergeant.
Human nature, being what it is, will always  mean that people are attracted to big sexy projects rather than unglorious, bread and butter stuff which we all need. It's Mary and Martha all over again - I guess we need both.

[another_someone]

If we have so much money and resources then why don't we take our pleasure in sorting out the problems of people worse off than ourselves here on Earth?
Wouldn't you like to be part of the generation which sorted out poverty and hunger, too?
I suggest it's because it's just not glamorous enough or a big enough boys' toy.
People went to the New World for personal gain, mostly. Or they were attracted to it in the same way that village lads were always attracted to the army by the visiting recruiting sergeant.
Human nature, being what it is, will always  mean that people are attracted to big sexy projects rather than unglorious, bread and butter stuff which we all need. It's Mary and Martha all over again - I guess we need both.

As you say, we need both.

In any case, I doubt it is actually possible to 'solve' poverty and hunger, merely to ameliorate it.

But on a wider issue, the solutions to problems often come from unexpected sources; and if one is too narrowly focussed only on one path of investigation, then one can easily hit a brick wall you cannot punch through.  It is often that by investigating problems that appear irrelevant to everyday life that one finds insights into things that are pertinent to everyday life, insights that would not have been possible if one had not been looking at the supposedly useless and esoteric problems.

It also has to be said, that as long as people are co-operating (or even competing) at trying to reach Mars, at least they are not killing each other.