NASA new idea , and it makes sence

Folks,
I read an artical tonight on another site, talking about NASA sending Astronauts too Mars first, orbiting the Planet and doing remote work with rover style robots, before landing on the Planet.
I look at it as safer,cheaper, and will let technology and logistics work itself out first. An orbiting platform with shipments of supplys and other great ideas I feel is the way too go. We might see the work done on ISS , as not in vane, but deffinately a steping stone as we learn. What do you think guys ?
Let me have it !

bill

I'm not thrilled with the idea of driving all the way to Mars and not getting out the car. But, it probably has some merit as a prudent stepping stone. My thought process went like this --
1) Building an orbital platform around Mars has merit.
2) That would require multiple trips dedicated just to construction.
3) What if something went wrong on one of those trips?
4) How would people get back from those trips?
5) Why not just build the orbital platform around earth, test it, and then send it to Mars as one ship.
6) How would the astronauts get back?
7) How would the orbit of the platform be adjusted when the platform is unmanned?
8) How long would we need the platform?

Then, it struck me. Instead of going through all that, why don't we build a re-usable interplanetary space ship? We'd build it in orbit here. Send it to the Moon. Let it orbit the Moon for awhile. Let it send a shuttlecraft down to the moon with astronauts. Bring the astronauts back. Return to Earth orbit. Refit. Go to Mars. Orbit. Send a shuttlecraft down. Retrieve shuttle. Return to Earth refit. Pick a new planet to explore.

This way, we'd only have to build one good ship and a shuttlecraft. We could also build it here in Earth orbit.

Right now our technology makes manned space travel way too expensive and risky. The efforts seem to be more focussed on how to put man out there than what information can be gathered. We have already proven that data can be collected remotely without the cost of sending humans there. The majority of our efforts would be focussed on them instead of the information.

My feelings are that actual space travel should remain robotic until we have better defined how we can transport and maintain humans in space in a more cost effective manner. The long term goal may be intergalactic travel in order to maintain the human species. Chances are we will disappear from other causes way before the technology catches up to our dreams.

Call me fuddy duddy, but our infrastructure here on earth is too tenuous to maintain our current population, so there are bigger fish to fry here on earth. We are so interdependent that should some parts of our infrastructure fail, 10s of millions would be at risk. Just check out the sophisticated civilizations throughout Central and South America that no longer exist and you should get the message. If you don't, then go on and build your manned space mission to Mars, and happy oblivion.

There is limited value added in sending humans all the way to Mars orbit but not going the last "mile" to set them on the surface. Any robotic control that requires execution from Martian orbit can also be acomplished from Earth - the only difference is round trip time. Having said that, robotics are not as capable as people in assessing and reacting to their environment, or autonomously changing the game plan after deployment. We need to put humans on Mars - not only to facilitate exploration but to incentivize development and validate technologies that will allow people to sustain themselves and to foster spin-off technology that will benefit those remaining behind (much as the Apollo program did and continues to do to this day). Most importantly, we cannot afford to delay propagation of our species off Earth to increase the probability that humans will continue to survive. Its our absolute imperative and obligation to do so.

Scott
url http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/
(Preserving Space History for the Future)

putting a man on Mars makes more emotional and political sense than common sense. The logistics complicate missions well beyond what would be cost effective with robotics. Until other issues are solved such as time in space, the need to return, the ability to go into sleep mode, etc., efforts would be better spent improving the logistics of manned travel and continuing with robotic missions. Too much effort would be spent maintaining the astronauts well beyond the value.

We have demonstrated the difficulties of maintaining life in severe locaitons on earth without traveling to Mars to make the same point. Arguing at this point that we need to learn how to maintain life in space and relocate to save mankind is weak when we are nowhere near finding the means to make the trip. We have the cart before the horse. Star Trek has ruined our ability to think straight. I am not against space travel reseach, my concern is for reasonable priorities and proper sequencing research.

OK, let me throw this out....
Lets first try to make a orbital platform , orbiting the Moon first, than on too Mars.
Anyway you look at it, we are leaving the Planet..