Jump to content

Talk:Human mission to Mars/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Crewed orbital missions

I think this should also mention Zubrin's Athena double flyby - historically the first, and I think, the mission of this type that needs least delta v.

This is the material that was deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/deleted_sections_from_Manned_mission_to_Mars#Exploration_of_the_surface_from_orbit.2C_via_telerobotics_and_telepresence

Since I wrote that there has been more work on it, especially the Exploration Telerobotics Symposium.

The article no longer mentions the conclusions of HERRO that you could do more scientific discovery for the same budget with a telerobotic exploration of Mars than with a human landing party, because each crew member could operate, typically, three rovers spread out over the surface of Mars via telepresence, and they don't have to suit up (saves an hour or so a day), and then the whole mission cost is also just a fraction of the cost of a mission to the surface as well. HERRO paper argument there, not mine.

That's summarized in that quote in the deleted section.

Just pointing that out, won't try to correct it, but for consideration as possibly deserving mention.

Actually I think there is easily enough on this subject for a small separate article, which this section here could be a short summary of. But won't pursue that any further right now. Robert Walker (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Because there is a lot of talk about manned missions right now, I just wanted to point out that, except for the usual explorer's excuse ("Because it was there") or bragging rights, there is absolutely no reason for people to go to Mars unless they are planning to stay there permanently.
Robots are already doing much research, just fine, thank you, and by the time you could go to Mars, there will be much more effective robots, certainly able to explore Mars as well or better than humans. That could be a precursor to human settlement, but it makes no sense to go to Mars and come back, since what would it prove except that you could do it?
I realize that is not going to stop anyone, but perhaps they could focus more on how to live and stay on Mars and less on how to get back. P.S.: It is much easier in some ways if you don't have to worry about getting back!
Mars missions sound visionary, but really don't offer very much. We found that out in the moon missions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't go into space, however, just do it for good reasons. I feel the article should reflect some of these concerns.
And by the way, we have already proved that a human could get to Mars and get back, at least theoretically. So the only thing left is to just live there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.173.78 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The main reason given for sending humans to Mars is that they are better for on the spot decision making. With our rovers, then so far at least, they don't have much autonomy. It's often said that a human on the spot on Mars could do as much in a few hours as a rover operated from the Earth could do in, perhaps many months or years. This could also be dealt with by increasing the autonomy of our rovers on Mars and increasing the bandwidth so you get communication with them more often than the current situation where we hear from them only once a day typically. It can also be dealt with by sending humans to Mars orbit close enough for telepresence type operation of rovers on the surface. Both of these approaches have the major advantage that they don't increase the risk of contaminating Mars with Earth microbes. As for cost effectiveness, not much has been published on this but the HERRO report said that a single human mission to orbit could do as much as three missions to the surface, for less cost (the astronauts in orbit don't have to get in and out of their spacesuits, which can take more than an hour each day, it's a slow process - and can operate telerobots anywhere on the surface of Mars with telepresence type operation and haptic feedback). That report was done some years ago and I haven't seen any newer report for a detailed comparison of the three possible methods of exploring Mars.
As for humans to Mars and to stay - first you have the issues of planetary protection. Nobody has yet mapped out a way this can be done without increasing the risk of introducing microbes to Mars, leading to the possibility that you find life there, but it's life you brought there yourself. As well as that - it has practical issues involved. The place is a near vacuum after all, no oxygen to breath, pressure so low your saliva would boil, and with any water bound up in ice, and extremely cold at night (down to the temperature of dry ice frequently even in equatorial regions). So any colonists would of course be totally dependent on complex equipment to stay alive. A recent MIT report by students at MIT looking at logistics figured out that if we followed the Mars One approach of using existing or near future (Space X launches) technology, that by the time we had 16 colonists on Mars you would need 41 launches every two years to supply them with all the equipment they needed, e.g. for replacement parts as things break down. Which is understandable as we have to send many tons to the ISS every three months just to supply up to six astronauts - it probably wouldn't be feasible to supply the ISS either if we had to send supplies only once every two years. They assumed use of smaller replacement modules than the ones used for the ISS, to reduce the weight but this still left many launches required.
That was a lower bound also, as they only focused on a few key areas, didn't do a complete analysis of all the things that would need to be supplied to them to keep them alive. Apart from the costs involved, we don't have the launch capacity to launch that many rockets one after another in the short time window required for a transfer orbit to Mars. For details, see AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE MARS ONE MISSION PLAN. This is a major issue for the idea of setting up a permanent, non returning, expanding colony anywhere in the solar system, in a situation where high technology is required. It is less of an issue if you have a small crew, and astronauts can return - as you just need to supply replacement parts etc for the duration of the mission, say two years or whatever - if necessary you could send much of the material they need in advance several years before you send the astronauts. And of course it may change as future technology develops, but this is the situation for the near term foreseeable future. BTW they also found that the cheapest way to supply food was to send it all from Earth not attempt to grow it on Mars. I can add this, and other similar material to the articles, if editors feel it is appropriate to mention material critical of the colonization plans. Robert Walker (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

cut subsection?

I suggest cutting the subsection "Cyanobacteria for ecopoiesis and on-site production processes" (at the end), This is almost completely peripheral to the main topic. Lulu71339 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Gender-Neutral Language

If you (the unregistered editor) don't like "crewed", then would "human" or "human-staffed", which are gender-neutral, be satisfactory? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Manned" is already a gender-neutral pronoun, and is standard use by NASA. There is no need to use "crewed", it isn't very common; however "human" is standard use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MeanMotherJr (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"manned" has not been the NASA standard language for decades now. The language NASA uses is "piloted" [1] or "crewed" [2]. For a Mars mission, the terminology is typically "human Mars mission" and "human exploration."
It does seem reasonable, however, to keep the historic usage "manned" for discussing mission proposals before 1990.
by the way, let me point out that the word "human" is an adjective.[3] There's no need grammatically to add "staffed" -- "human mission" is fine, you don't need "human-staffed" (and if it's ever used, it's pretty uncommon). Lulu71339 (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

US program prominence in lede?

Is there a Wikipedia-justifiable reason for the prominence of the US government program in the lede, to the exclusion of mention of other programs? If not, then it's WP:UNDUE.

We could certainly develop some criteria for programs that are mentioned in the lede (active programs, currently funded, with plans to get humans to Mars in the next nn years, etc.) But I'm not sure that has ever been done on this Talk page. So, why the US government space agency program getting so much prominence in the lede over and above the programs of other nation states?

(It is a separate question to address how to address the increasing number of private programs and program concepts that purport to be getting humans to Mars. But I suggest we leave that part of the issue aside for now, and take it up after we rationalize how the agency-based programs, which is mostly what the lede is about, get balanced in a fair way.)

Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove MARS ONE from page

I think MARS ONE should be removed from this page, as it is not and has never been an actual plan and is simply a scam.

Here is a former NASA engineer who applied to MARS ONE for fun and became a top finalist describing the MARS ONE scam: https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously-flawed-project-2dfef95217d3#.vcs25z7fu

From the above article, MARS ONE has virtually zero money, no TV contract, and has not interviewed any of its "candidates" in person.

At least the entry should be edited down to remove any descriptions of what MARS ONE's plan is, because it has no actual plan, just PR stories to get donations.

Yes, MARS ONE has publicity and some concept drawings, but there are literally hundreds of Mars colonization ideas with concept art...nothing MARS ONE has done merits inclusion on this page.

67.5.213.235 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)j

  • Mars One is unquestionably notable per WP:ORG; MarsPolar is not. Try Googling it, removing all the social media, self-references, forums and other non-reliable sources (e.g. "marspolar" -wiki -twitter -facebook -marspolar.space) - there's virtually nothing left. Mars One is quite possibly a scam but it still merits inclusion in wikipedia because its notability is supported by plenty of reliable sources. Maybe one day when Marspolar has gained some traction it too might be included, but not right now.. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Really, EMDrive?

Why is there a yeay!/boo! EMDrive discusion in this article under China's plans for Mars? None of China's plans for Mars have anything to do with EMDrive. It feels jarringly offtopic. -- 213.176.153.106 (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Quite right. It's off topic. I deleted it. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Planetary Protection

Just made a separate Planetary Protection section as for Colonization of Mars, copied over that section here. Robert Walker (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human mission to Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mars race

Mars race is an unnecessary fork and in addition is too discursive to stand on its own. It works best as a subheading of a more comprehensive article about efforts to get to Mars. Andyjsmith (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No merge because the articles are different and human mission to Mars is already too long. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative split proposal

I think the proposed missions section should be split into a separate article (List of proposed human missions to Mars or somesuch) as this article is too long and large WP:SIZE being over 50kB -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • This idea has merit. The obvious split is in the Mission Proposals section, e.g. Von Braun and other early (pre-Sputnik) proposals; Apollo-era and late 20th Century proposals; 21st Century proposals. I'd support something like that. But Mars race is another kettle of fish - it's really an attempt to provide an over-arching interpretation of these proposals as a kind of race in the same way that the 1960s US-Soviet rivalry really was a race. As such it may merit a brief para in this article if it can be sustained by proper references. So I'd say, split out a big chunk of proposals into one or several articles, and add Mars race into the "Current intentions" section here. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You introduced that element into this discussion, not I. If you didn't want to discuss that element, you shouldn't have injected it into the discussion. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Human mission to Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human mission to Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to retain the current titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

– This request is to reverse two undiscussed moves made to be "gender-neutral" ([4] [5]). The original titles are more precise, verifiable, and common for the following reasons:

  1. "Human mission" is inaccurate as it encompasses all known missions, manned and unmanned, as being initiated by humans, but the topics discuss only missions sending humans to these places.
  2. "manned mission" is not a gendered phrase. If it was, would an all-female mission be considered "unmanned"? No, that's an insulting concept. The reason given for these moves smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is not based on any evidence or Wikipedia policies.
  3. Of the sources I have access to in the Mars References section, these are described primarily as "manned mission"s, while "human mission" and several other phrases are used occasionally.
  4. Google Ngrams shows that "manned mission to Mars" is the more common phrase, and more broadly "manned mission beats out "human mission", which is used in a lot of unrelated contexts and is currently barely more than historic usage levels.
  5. Google Scholar results show "manned mission to Mars" (2,990) vs. "human mission to Mars" (2,050) and that again could include mentions of unmanned missions.

For these reasons, these moves should be reversed. -- Netoholic @ 20:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose NASA terminology in the recent years have clearly stated that "manned" is outdated and gender neutral language should be used. see Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors to quote: "in general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned)". see also A Lesson in Crewed Language Golan's mom (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • NASA is a organization which is open to political pressures: they can do what they like but they aren't able to dictate usage across the entire concept. I am well aware that there are a lot of people that find offense where none is present, but WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we're here to document verifiable concepts with precision. -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed -Both Wikipedia and NASA strive for gender-neutral terminology and naming. Please see: WP:Gender-neutral language, and MOS:GNL as it applies to tiles as well. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. Also, if there is no consensus then the previous undiscussed moves need to be reverted. <--В²C ☎ 22:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) striking note about revert since the earlier move was 3 years ago --В²C ☎ 22:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Striking this !vote - see below. --В²C ☎ 02:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose whether the original move was right or not (I personally agree with the move to the current title) it was done over 3 years ago. The fact no one has tried to dispute a reasonably heavily edited article in that time gives it consensus. Making a move request to move it back to the gendered version after 3 years is rather odd and strikes me as a bit pointy and makes it seem more like you're the one trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Canterbury Tail talk 22:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Your vote cites none of our editing policies, so it amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article existed as "manned" far longer than just 3 years. So far as I can see, this issue has not been thoroughly examined via a process like RM, so there is no established consensus. -- Netoholic @ 01:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Already been linked above, WP:GENDER specifically covers this. The appropriate line as a specific example to avoid is "Man to stand for both genders in general, either as a separate item (man's greatest discoveries), a prefix (mankind, manmade), or a suffix (businessman, fireman)." It's existed as a gender neutral form for over 3 years, to try and move it back is blatantly against that. Yes GENDER is an essay, not policy, but it's one that's heavily supported. Also not every move needs to go through an RM process, only controversial ones. That it's existed in this form for over 3 years and no one protested after the move was made over the course of approximately 800 edits shows it was non-controversial. Additionally it seems more like you don't like it, hence the trying to move it back. Also note, I did not cast a vote. On Wikipedia we do not vote, this isn't a democracy, per WP:VOTE. Canterbury Tail talk 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose The NASA style guide makes this extremely clear, "manned" is considered an outdated and sexist term. I see no convincing reason to switch it back, since "manned" still redirects there.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I've stricken my Support !vote above. I Googled site:nytimes.com and they stopped using "manned" around 2010 and our now using "human space program", etc. That, along with the NASA style guide, is good enough for me. --В²C ☎ 02:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: It concerns me greatly how many people are basing their votes on what amounts to WP:ONESOURCE (NASA style guide), which seems to be Americentric cherry-picking. I'm going to increase the visibility of this RM. Hopefully, others will examine it with a less narrow lens. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the standard and correct style. We don't need to use outdated terminology because... I'm not even sure what the proposed rationale is. If you're opposed to "human" then suggest "crewed." Incidentally, List of manned Mars mission plans still exists. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's appropriate to use the accepted gender-neutral term. In response to point #1, we often use terms such as Time clock that have a widely understood non-literal meaning. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - does this really have to be an issue? The term "manned mission" has been used in spaceflight for decades, including when female astronauts were part of the Shuttle Program. Even today, females in the Air Force and Coast Guard are referred to as "Airmen". The "man' part of "airman" being short for "human" was one explanation given. Couldn't that abbreviation concept be applied here as well? - theWOLFchild 06:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We should not be contradicting sources. If a source is used for a particular cited passage, that passage should use the same style that source uses. When a preponderance of the sources use one particular style, then we name the article in that way. Any other option is a violation of our core content policies, most notably WP:VERIFIABILITY. -- Netoholic @ 06:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Common sense violates nothing. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
That is not always necessarily so... - theWOLFchild 09:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


 Done Also updated all articles which include this navbox. — JFG talk 01:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That is the way it should be since the parent article defines the associated categories, navbar, templates, etc. A non-controversial maintenance follow up. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Project Orion

I see no mention of Project Orion in "U.S. proposals (1950s, 1960s, and 1970s)" which seems a curious omission. I have a copy of George Dyson's book and could easily add something, but I guess this may be a hardy perennial which there's already consensus to leave out, so I'm checking first. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Not aware of any decision to leave this mission concept out. I think a mention of it at "U.S. proposals (1950s, 1960s, and 1970s)" is OK. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Done. (I think one possible argument against inclusion, which occurred to me while I was doing it, is that Orion wasn't Mars-specific... but obviously I don't really buy that or I wouldn't have done it.) Pinkbeast (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_mission_to_Mars/Archive_3&oldid=1155095668"