Beldensb5
Harmless
Posts: 5
Registered: 30-11-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Arguments for a Manned Mission to Mars?
Starting in about 1 week, I will start doing the debate section of an argumentative project for English class. We had to pick a debatable topic,
research it, and hold a debate with the teacher. I said that NASA should have a manned mission to Mars. Not the easiest topic. 
So, I have already researched it quite a bit. My argument is largely based on Robert Zubrin's book, "A Case For Mars." Arguments include, if we go to
Mars we could find out more about our own world by studying it's geology, climate, etc. Also, the search for extraterrestrial life which could
influence many fields including medicine, genetic engineering, biology, etc. (Anyone have any good sources for this?) Also, for the possible new
inventions/technology that could be made with a Mars Mission.
According to Zubrin, the mission would cost about $50 billion, spread over 20 years (10 to develop technology, 10 to fly the missions) would only
represent about 6% of NASA's budget (about $2.5 billion/year). For the debate, I would rather try to re-allocate some of NASA's funding rather than
give them more money, as I think this is more debatable. What areas do you think I should take the money from. They already have about $600
million/year set aside for exploring Mars so that could be used. Plus, we give about that same amount of money to private corporations to help them
out. Maybe this could also be re-allocated to a manned mission to Mars. What else could we use?
I'm not trying to 'crowd source' or anything, and I realize that many of you aren't from the United States, but I'm just trying to get the general
opinion on some of these questions. Here's what I'm still having some trouble trying to explain...
The amount of money... Is it really worth $50 billion to send humans to Mars? What could possibly make it worth it?
Why explore outer space, when we haven't even explored most of our oceans?
Why couldn't we just send robots up? What could humans do that robots can't? How could sending humans up vs. robots possibly be justified when it
costs so much more.
Thanks. My comp. teacher is a pretty adept debater, and actually enjoys destroying kids arguments for this project (not in a mean way, just to help
them become a better debater). I am trying to get as ready as possible. By the way, anyone hear about Curiosity's new discovery. It found traces of
organic molecules in some of the Martian dirt, or at least I think thats what it was... It was announced today at noon. Pretty cool stuff.
[Edited on 4-12-2012 by Beldensb5]
|
|
|
Twospoons
International Hazard
Posts: 1324
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline
Mood: A trace of hope...
|
|
For the same reason we climb mountains, run fast, jump high, attempt to eat more peppers than anyone else, break land speed records .....
Its just a cool thing to do.
And that is a hard argument to shoot down without denigrating the achievements and efforts of thousands of people.
I would expect a lot of tech spin offs would result from the science and engineering needed to keep a couple of people alive during a mission like
that. A mars mission provides motivation and funding for research that would otherwise never get done.
Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
|
|
|
sbbspartan
Hazard to Self
Posts: 61
Registered: 6-3-2012
Location: Minnesota, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: DEAD (diethyl azodicarboxylate)
|
|
I remember hearing once that WI-FI was once partly invented by NASA. I think it had to do with black holes. Some scientists were trying to see if the
black holes would emit a specific type of radiation, and they were trying to find it. They devised some kind of system, but the radio waves were too
dispersed. They tried to solve the problem using an FFT chip, or something like that. There experiment failed, but later, while working on a form of
wireless Internet, one of the scientists remembered the FFT chip. He applied it to the jumbled signals, and it worked. Not sure how true it is, but
you could use it as an example of a spin-off NASA technology.
There are quite a few ways in which sending humans to Mars could possibly benefit us. Arguing that it actually will benefit us would be the main task
I think. There is always the possibility that we could go up there, not discover anything that interesting, and waste $50 billion. You would have to
prove that wrong somehow. Good luck.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
But is it rational?
Doing something merely for the sake of doing it may be a laudable goal, but it isn't very rational. Modern research is primarily motivated by this,
but with the understanding that, even if it's not useful now, it may be later. To defend an argument (or attack it!!), you must be able to create a
rational basis for that position. So you'll have to read deeper than "because I can" [sic].
And remember, debate is about both sides of an issue. I don't know if this is the kind of debate where you'd have to present an issue from the for-
or against- side, but there must be some sides-taking to both attack and defend it. Find everything that could possibly be wrong with your idea and
list it. Don't defend against them, simply present them. Only then, present the reasons in favor.
Off the top of my head, you can reason from a number of starting points:
- Evolutionary ethics: it is a worthwhile venture to explore any worlds we can, in order that we might spread the human race as far as possible. What
greater pinnacle of evolution could there be than a race that has outgrown its entire planet of origin?
- Moral imperative: it is beneficial to all peoples to explore other worlds (of course, this needs to be explained in terms of another reason..).
- Economic: the technologies required to support a manned expedition for an extended period of time (or extraplanetary colony, etc.) will feed into
many current fields, for example, survival in remote, inhospitable locations (desert, ocean, underwater). Many others depending on the nature of the
mission (chemical, biochemical or genetic breakthroughs, depending on the method of survival; nuclear power sources, perhaps; areology (i.e., geology
on Mars) and the resources found as a result; the list goes on.
- Social: a grand challenge draws together all of humanity, distracting us from our petty differences, giving us something to aspire to.
- Reasons against: Martian environmentalism -- do we really want to develop Mars? What gives us that right? Is it better as-is? To whom? If we
discover life on Mars, does it have any rights? How far should it be developed, if we do? Is it 'damage" to transform the planet from its desert
environment to any other (through colonization, mining, terraforming, etc.)?
- Economic: we have enough problems here, the money would be better spent elsewhere. Though the outcomes are hopeful, the return on investment is too
speculative and distant.
- Social: going to Mars is just a gimmick to distract us from the important issues we must deal with at home.
- Practical: why send squishy weak humans? Robotic technology is growing every day; we should send e.g. mining robots instead to perform the same
tasks. The outcomes would be much greater, since they would directly benefit our knowledge of automation, autonomous design, self-supporting (even
self-replicating!) machinery, and could be programmed to build us colonies when, and if, we do finally decide if it's worth putting people on Mars.
The list goes on, but I hope I haven't done too much homework for you already. 
If you'd like this as a more cite-able source than this forum, I could gladly add it as a Response on my website. I love talking about speculative
stuff like this.
Tim
|
|
|
Beldensb5
Harmless
Posts: 5
Registered: 30-11-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for the replies. My debate is next Thursday, and I am working quite hard on it. I agree with the fact that a mission to Mars would most likely
help out many fields and could potentially greatly benefit our economy, but I am still having trouble debating the cost side of it. Especially since
almost none of that is guaranteed to happen, or is it? More specifically, why not just send robots up vs. humans. If it is so much less expensive, how
would I argue for a manned mission. I guess I will have to try to list things that humans can do that robots wouldn't be able too.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You're not going to find solid arguments for manned missions to anywhere unless humans need to be there again for some reason. Thus, I'd recommend
basing any argument upon a larger argument for Mars colonization, with manned missions as the first step in a very long process.
|
|
|
Beldensb5
Harmless
Posts: 5
Registered: 30-11-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Wouldn't that be sort of hard to argue though? The majority of people are impatient and usually want results quickly vs. a 'very long process'. I
agree with you, I just think that a lot of people wouldn't want their tax money going to something that isn't going to directly benefit them in some
way or another. I agree that it will be hard to argue, but I think when a lot of people hear the word 'colonization' they automatically tune out,
unfortunately. I think the easiest thing to argue would be if it somehow gave us a direct benefit that is guaranteed to happen, as opposed to only
suspected to help us. Unfortunately however, I haven't been able to find much info like that.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Beldensb5  | | Wouldn't that be sort of hard to argue though? The majority of people are impatient and usually want results quickly vs. a 'very long process'. I
agree with you, I just think that a lot of people wouldn't want their tax money going to something that isn't going to directly benefit them in some
way or another. |
Your biggest problem is that there's no material advantage in sending humans over robots,
and that's true for pretty much any purpose in space. The cost disadvantage is about a factor of ten, and humans just are not that much of a benefit
for targeted missions. Any argument that relies on humans working out better is easily rebutted. The only time there's an advantage is when large
amounts of adaptability are required, and that's only applicable for long time spans, any of which is a form of colony, no matter whether it's a
temporary or permanent one.
There's plenty of information about colonizing Mars, including that Wikipedia page. Just start reading, following links. One piece of advice: pay attention to who the writers are.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
