Talk:Human mission to Mars

Criticism

I made some slight edits to the criticism section. The article does seem a little unbalanced to me, a disproportionate amount of the article was discussing criticisms, and the article is proportionately light on actual discussion of missins to Mars. The specific mod I made was to change the sentence: the American Physical Society stated that "shifting NASA priorities toward risky, expensive missions to the moon and Mars will mean neglecting the most promising space science efforts. In fact, careful reading of the report referenced shows that in fact it was the ad-hoc subcommittee on the funding of astrophysics that released this report, not the whole APS. Geoffrey.landis 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/26/219877/nasa-manned-mars-mission-details-emerge.html

Maybe we should mention tha project in the article? --The monkeyhate 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The most harsh criticism of a mars mission comes from space advocates. This may sound ironic but there are three opinions involved: Mars, Moon, Asteroids. There is a massive plethora of criticism that is not included in the article and most of it can be found in the publishings of the space advocates that desire a moon and/or asteroid mission, or space infrastructure advocates. I am not sure if the criticism is even necessary on this page. A link at the bottom to the space advocacy page may be better, or an outline of the major points against mars. Rather than an essay.Moonus111 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

final goal

My attempt to give the endeavors a direction failed. From my viewpoint manned missions are not good for just scientific purpose, because they are far too expensive. The same purpose (and even more) can be fulfilled with automatic probes and rovers. I think this article should have a statement about the final goal: Foundation of a human colony on Mars. What else should be the final goal? Why shall be send humans to Mars? -- The Cascade (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about the history of manned Mars expedition proposals, and colonization was not usually the goal for these proposals. By and large it still isn't except perhaps as an extremely long term idea. There's a separate article on Mars colonization. andy (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that "colonization was not usually the goal"? I guess you are talking about short term goals, and in this context you are right. I am talking about the long term goal (= final goal). As far as I see the manned missions to Mars have been planned with just that final goal. What else can be the final goal? This article should be written in a wider context. -- The Cascade (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The "ultimate goal" is also backed by The_Case_for_Mars#Colonization. -- The Cascade (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the article should not be "written in a wider context". It's simply an article about proposals for missions to Mars and not about anything else such as the future of the human race, space colonization or whatever. It should be done the other way round - articles with a wider context, such as the one about colonization - should point back to this one. andy (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

... and not about financial, science, terraforming, the prevalence of life throughout the universe, China's plans of robotic mission and the shortages of russia etc. So, the article really needs some cleaning. Okay, if this is your opinion and unlike Robert Zubrin you do not want to see it in a context, how about renaming the article to "List of proposals for missions to Mars"? A list should suit your idea best. Also, most of the paragraph "Criticism" and "Preparedness" is pure speculation or long-term intentions and should be removed. By the way, do you believe that anything about manned missions to Mars is more than some future fantasy? -- The Cascade (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article. It's a very simple article, just a list of proposals. It's not about visions, ideas, goals, whatever. It's not about Exploration of Mars nor Colonization of Mars, still less Terraforming of Mars... there are dozens and dozens of articles about everything Martian and this is only one of them. Just an overview of mission proposals, their technology and some human and engineering issues. Nothing else. You're quite at liberty to create another article about anything you like but please don't mess with this one. andy (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What I wanted to say is: The article is already messed (with financial, science, terraforming, the prevalence of life throughout the universe, China's plans of robotic mission and the shortages of russia). It really needs some cleaning. Just read it carefully. -- The Cascade (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The "ultimate goal" is also backed by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin: See citation in the article Space colonization. Andy, you seem to be the only person not to see this point. -- The Cascade (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that Griffin quote says nothing of the sort. Firstly it's 5 years old, Griffin has gone and colonisation is not currently on anyone's horizon (nor is Mars, actually). Secondly he talks about colonisation in general and doesn't mention Mars at all. And anyway that's not what this article is about. It's simply about the history of proposals for getting to Mars. Some of them have had colonisation explicitly in mind and some very definitely have not - for example the Soviet TMK plans. By the way, the article that is about the colonisation of Mars, namely Colonization of Mars, states that "Early human missions to Mars... would not be direct precursors to colonization. They are intended solely as exploration missions, as the Apollo missions to the Moon were not planned to be sites of a permanent base". andy (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the two articles should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.160.46 (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian Soyuz ion engine mission videos

I don't mind editors removing references because they are unable to establish their provenance, but it is polite to move them to the talk page when that happens.

video part 1, part 2

Those of you familiar with the Soyuz program might recognize the CAD models involved. 76.254.65.110 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you're upset, but these are clearly not reliable sources for the article and there is no established etiquette that I'm aware of that says that when an anonymous editor with a limited history uploads apparently self-created sources they should be moved to the talk page. IMHO they should go in the bin. It's up to editors to provide reliable sources or argue for the reliability of the sources that they provide: WP:PROVEIT. These videos are interesting and illustrative but they do not support the material that you added. I'm happy to leave it for now because it makes a lot of sense, but it is unsourced and is therefore at risk of deletion. andy (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not upset, but I wonder what material you think I added. I only added citations. 76.254.65.110 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot more information about RKK Energia's Mars mission proposal available here. I've been planning to add this information to the article for a long time, but haven't found the time yet. Offliner (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fine, add it - be my guest. Those videos don't count as citations. andy (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous change by Andyjsmith undone

The topic of the section is "challenges" (...of a manned mission to Mars). It explains the challenges of a manned mission to mars and the ways/ possibilities to overcome these. The severity of a challenge is directly dependend on the amount of experience with the answers to a problem, therefore all available experiences that are relevant to overcome those challenges have at least to be mentioned as there is no way to characterize the severity of the challenges otherwise. This should be considered to be self-evident. Additionally "Somewhat off message" is an unspecific expression that is clearly unfit and it should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaferon (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry but I'm reverting again. Whilst in general terms I'm sure you're correct in saying that there's a lot of relevant experience in various fields you've not provided any evidence for your sweeping statement which covers everything from midget submarines to full body paralysis. There are probably valuable lessons to be drawn from long-term isolation in submarines but paralysis or even meditation? I doubt it. The fact that I can and do challenge that statement shows why you must provide concrete evidence. Otherwise it's just opinion and therefore shouldn't be in the article. WP:BURDEN states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" andy (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Your behaviour is quite problematic: First, you reverted the change because you implied that the additional text wouldn't be on topic, which is clearly a factually false statement. Now you have changed your rationalization and argue that though it is on topic you can't find enough sources to back up the claims (even though whole sections of the cited articles deal with the serious challenges, so that is an unsubstantiated objection):

- Space stations:

Verbatim in the directly linked article:

"Habitability issues

These stations have various issues that limit their long-term habitability, such as very low recycling rates, relatively high radiation levels and a lack of gravity. Some of these problems cause discomfort and long-term health effects. In the case of solar flares, all current habitats are protected by the Earth's magnetic field, and are below the Van Allen belts. Future space habitats may attempt to address these issues, and are intended for long-term occupation. Some designs might even accommodate large numbers of people, essentially "cities in space" where people would make their homes. No such design has yet been constructed, since even for a small station, the current (2010) launch costs are not economically or politically viable. Possible ways to deal with these costs would be to build a large number of rockets (economies of scale), or employ reusable rockets, In Situ Resource Utilisation or space elevators."

What exactly are you disputing here?

- Moon missions

It is similarly unclear what you even want to dispute in the second case. Do you honestly maintain that the moon missions did not pose challenges due to "psychological effects of isolation from Earth" and "inaccessibility of terrestrial medical facilities"?

- Submarines

Do you ask for a peer-reviewed paper that proves that the personnel of submarines have to endure crowded living conditions over prolonged time spans? I'm not joking, but it seems to me, that you are (from the direct link):

"Crew

A typical nuclear submarine has a crew of over 80. Non-nuclear boats typically have fewer than half as many. The conditions on a submarine can be difficult because crew members must work in isolation for long periods of time, without family contact. Submarines normally maintain radio silence to avoid detection. Operating a submarine is dangerous, even in peacetime, and submarines have been lost in accidents."

Submarines have gone done to the bottom of the Mariana trench (US Navy marine specialist Lieutenant Don Walsh and oceanographer Jacques Piccard).

I challenge you to read links first before claiming that they don't exist or don't produce the desired information.

Of course you can also reverse those cited articles because you see no evidence for the claim that "The conditions on a submarine can be difficult because crew members must work in isolation for long periods of time", so - why only annoy me with irrational behavior?

- Midget submarines

And of course you can also claim that conditions are less crowded in midget submarines, but that is only a problem of your understanding, not one of the text.

- Long-term flights

It also escapes me how you can honestly claim that a continuous flight over 65 days in a Cessna does not constitute humans living under crowded conditions for prolonged periods of time. While the time is shorter than the e.g. the Mars 500 experiment, the conditions are crowded to an absolute maximum.

- Oil platforms

The directly linked article says:

"Drawbacks

Risks

The nature of their operation — extraction of volatile substances sometimes under extreme pressure in a hostile environment — means risk, accidents, and tragedies occasionally occur."

- Bunkers

Challenges 3., 6. and 7. are obvious and further discussion is moot.

- Isolation tanks

Isolation tanks are the maximum possible regarding low-light enviroments, isolation and sensual deprivation. There isn't even a theoretical possibility for an enhancement. The field was studied by John C. Lilly, a fact that is cited in the directly linked article.

The article even explains that it is used as a model for identical challenges in similar situations: "Actor Nicolas Cage spent some time in an Isolation Tank to capture the claustrophobia of his character in the 2006 film World Trade Center. He played PAPD Sgt. John McLoughlin, who was trapped in the rubble of the WTC Towers during the attacks."

A link within to article to the Wikipedia article "prisoner's cinema" shows the interdisciplinary aspect of various isolation situations:

"The Prisoner's Cinema is a phenomenon reported by prisoners confined to dark cells and by others kept in darkness, voluntarily or not, for long periods of time. It has also been reported by truck drivers, pilots, and practitioners of intense meditation."

- Long-term meditation

Similar to isolation tank experiences, meditation has been done by yogis who have been buried in the ground over time spans longer than a week. This has been studied, documented and published by physiologists. I added a reference to circumvent any disputes from your side regarding whether or not this is a field of scientific research: "Physiologische Aspekte des Yoga und der Meditation", Dietrich Ebert, Urban & Fischer, Mchn. (Juli 1997), ISBN-13: 978-3437004711

The Wikipedia article "meditation" adds:

"Health applications and clinical studies

Main article: Health applications and clinical studies of meditation

A review of scientific studies identified relaxation, concentration, an altered state of awareness, a suspension of logical thought and the maintenance of a self-observing attitude as the behavioral components of meditation;[5] it is accompanied by a host of biochemical and physical changes in the body that alter metabolism, heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and brain chemistry.[58] Meditation has been used in clinical settings as a method of stress and pain reduction. Meditation has also been studied specifically for its effects on stress.[59][60]"

- Long-term sedation and hospitalization

Long-term sedation is a well-studied field of intensive care medicine. Long-term sedation is an answer to challenge 6., the latter being obviously common during hospitalization.

- Full-body paralysis

Whereas isolation tanks take isolation to the extreme, full body paralysis does so with crowded conditions (challenge 6.). Patients are not only confined to small rooms for the entire time they are paralyzed but also have no ability to experience spatial dimensions or express themselves. As the wikipedia article for "locked-in syndrome" accurately states "The condition has been described as "the closest thing to being buried alive."" which surpasses any crowded conditions of any theoretical space flight in terms of crowdedness.

- High security prisons/ solitary confinement

Involuntary isolation techniques and/ or sensual deprivation have been applied in high security prisons for security reasons or as a form of torture.

The directly linked Wikipedia article explains:

"Prisoner life

In SHU, prisoners are generally allowed out of their cells for only one hour a day; often they are kept in solitary confinement. They receive their meals through ports, also known as "chuck holes," in the doors of their cells. When supermax inmates are allowed to exercise, this may take place in a small, enclosed area where the prisoner will exercise alone. Prisoners are under constant surveillance, usually with closed-circuit television cameras. Cell doors are usually opaque, while the cells may be windowless. Conditions are spartan, with poured concrete or metal furniture common. Often cell walls, and sometimes plumbing, are soundproofed to prevent communication between the inmates."

This constitutes at least partially a combination of the challenges 4. to 7..

- Record attempts

The linked Wikipedia article explains various voluntary isolation and endurance records by David Blaine, constituting at least partially a combination of the challenges 4. to 7.

Bottom line: All cited conditions present at least one of the challenges of a manned mars mision (as cited). This is obvious and indisputable.

Additionally it is clear that your new rationalizations are rationalizations only, as you don't even try to be balanced (you made a full reversion instead of at least make changes that would match an extreme, but still reasonable, different opinion). You are not only reverting "paralysis" because of your lack of understanding of what paralysis is, no, you reverted "space station" (which is clearly undisputable), and there is no place for such hostile and destructive behaviour, neither in the Wikipedia community nor generally in any scientific debate.

Additionally, just because you don't want to understand obvious interrelations that does not mean that they are not obvious.

Additionally, just because you don't understand a text does not mean that you may reverse it. Instead you should use the talk page if you have problems understanding the text or the topic.

Actually the only valid point would be to object that some experiences have been omitted, such as polar expeditions, mountanous base camps, hermits, etc.

I don't think this is the way in which the contribution of other people should be sabotaged. You really should reconsider your behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaferon (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is completely off the wall. If you want to add a paragraph that says that "So-and-so has argued that..." and you give a reference to a paper published by so-and-so, who is a notable academic, then that's perfectly OK. But if you state that something is the case in your opinion then that's not OK. It's called Original Research and it's forbidden on wikipedia. Please read my earlier reference to WP:BURDEN - you must provide a reference for anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged. I challenge all of your assertions in the paragraph that you have added. Let's take one specific example: experience of full body paralysis is relevant to overcoming any of the key challenges faced by a manned mission to Mars. Please provide a reference from a reliable source that states that this is the case. andy (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked for a third opinion on this andy (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The additions by Metaferon are completely original research and/or synthesis of material. You can't just put different experiences together and say "This is what it would be like". You need a source stating "All of these experiences are related to a mission to mars". As it is now you're inserting unsourced material. SpigotMap 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Apparently you have some problems reading the text you are talking about. The text does not state that the research of space stations or full body paralysis is an answer to all (or even any) challenges of a manned mission to Mars. That would be original research. In spite of this, the text is actually:

"There is, however, an abundance of experiences, experiments[3] and observations with similar conditions regarding some of those challenges". This is not original research, but rather an obvious and documented fact. You cannot dispute this. So don't start a strawman argument.

As you didn't read it properly, I'll repeat again: There is a difference between a text that states that it is a documented fact that other situations have similar challenges and a text that states that it is the personal opinion of the author the solutions to other situations with similar situations are helpful or efficient in order to overcome the challanges of the problem at hand (here: a manned mission to Mars). If you really think that other people have difficulties to understand the text you are welcome to change it in a manner that avoids the wrong understanding of it that you obviously have. That would actually be a constructive way to deal with the contribution rather than the obvious destructive and hostile approach you are presenting up to now.

The fact that YOU think those situations are related to a mission to mars is synthesis of material. Besides you stating they are related, they have nothing to do with this article. You can't insert your own observations in to the article because you're not a reliable source. Sign your comments. SpigotMap 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I've reverted the recent move of this article to Human mission to Mars by User:Hektor. The word "manned" is the one that's predominantly used in the literature and is nowadays taken as synonymous with "human", which is a bit clumsy anyway. Also such a significant change should really be discussed on this talk page first. andy (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)