3 ms·

Somehow, this sound more interesting than sending Buzz Lightyear to Mars. OK, a Mars mission would be pretty cool, but this would be some serious science. Can

Somehow, this sound more interesting than sending Buzz Lightyear to Mars. OK, a Mars mission would be pretty cool, but this would be some serious science. Can you image any planets in the system of the 3 closest stars? What are their spectra? Can we confirm any inferred orbital periods with direct observation?

imaginenore 10y ago
You don't think a mission to Mars is "serious science"?
- Roboprog 10y ago
  Meta: I like how both you and I were down-voted. Even though we have opposing opinions. Whatever.
- Roboprog 10y ago
  It is, you're right. But finding out something about the chemical makeup of an extrasolar planet seems much more interesting to me, especially if we find a "goldilocks zone" planet, regardless of whether or not there is evidence of (oxygen generating) life.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
While this would be serious science, I'm not sure why you believe a manned mission to Mars would result in less. It just wouldn't be the same.
- imglorp 10y ago
  Looking back at the Moon program, it was not a science goal--it was political, and a boon for the defense contractors. Now, did some real tech and science benefits result? Yes of course, some of both, but that wasn't the goal really. Similarly, feet, flags and colonization on Mars is a straight engineering problem. If we only wanted to do science there, we should iterate on the rovers and get more done sooner, for less. That said, I think we need to do both the OP astronomy and the colonization!
  - hood_syntax 10y ago
    > Similarly, feet, flags and colonization on Mars is a straight engineering problem. I agree with this and the rest of what you said, but the engineering isn't everything. We'd have to get fully sustainable food supplies on Mars, and as far as I know that's not a solved problem (and, if it is not, it's one that might require knowledge we don't have yet). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, this is not my area of expertise.
    - prewett 10y ago
      I think the point was that thing like sustainable food supplies on Mars is an engineering problem, not a basic science problem. We already know how to grow food given water, atmosphere, temperature, and light, no basic science needed. However, since Mars is lacking all those things, the engineering problem is figuring out a way to get them. It's possible to do that with what he have today (e.g. hydroponics with artificial lights), just not easy or cost-effective.
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        What this misses is that it provides selection pressure for scientific research that can solve these problems in a better way than our current ability. Not all engineering problems end up solved in a way that could be envisioned at the start.
      - vacri 10y ago
        We know how to grow food on Earth. We don't yet know if there is something on Mars that would change things. Until we actually do it, all we have are educated guesses.

imaginenore 10y ago

You don't think a mission to Mars is "serious science"?

Roboprog 10y ago
Meta: I like how both you and I were down-voted. Even though we have opposing opinions. Whatever.
Roboprog 10y ago
It is, you're right. But finding out something about the chemical makeup of an extrasolar planet seems much more interesting to me, especially if we find a "goldilocks zone" planet, regardless of whether or not there is evidence of (oxygen generating) life.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

While this would be serious science, I'm not sure why you believe a manned mission to Mars would result in less. It just wouldn't be the same.

imglorp 10y ago
Looking back at the Moon program, it was not a science goal--it was political, and a boon for the defense contractors. Now, did some real tech and science benefits result? Yes of course, some of both, but that wasn't the goal really. Similarly, feet, flags and colonization on Mars is a straight engineering problem. If we only wanted to do science there, we should iterate on the rovers and get more done sooner, for less. That said, I think we need to do both the OP astronomy and the colonization!
- hood_syntax 10y ago
  > Similarly, feet, flags and colonization on Mars is a straight engineering problem. I agree with this and the rest of what you said, but the engineering isn't everything. We'd have to get fully sustainable food supplies on Mars, and as far as I know that's not a solved problem (and, if it is not, it's one that might require knowledge we don't have yet). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, this is not my area of expertise.
  - prewett 10y ago
    I think the point was that thing like sustainable food supplies on Mars is an engineering problem, not a basic science problem. We already know how to grow food given water, atmosphere, temperature, and light, no basic science needed. However, since Mars is lacking all those things, the engineering problem is figuring out a way to get them. It's possible to do that with what he have today (e.g. hydroponics with artificial lights), just not easy or cost-effective.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      What this misses is that it provides selection pressure for scientific research that can solve these problems in a better way than our current ability. Not all engineering problems end up solved in a way that could be envisioned at the start.
    - vacri 10y ago
      We know how to grow food on Earth. We don't yet know if there is something on Mars that would change things. Until we actually do it, all we have are educated guesses.