Still surprised that on a space forum there is almost no interest in this.
Here is a map of the sites of scientific and resource interest in the exploration zone.
I think I'm with bknight here. The plans for a manned mission to Mars are still too embryonic for there to be much sense of anticipation. Especially seeing as Presidents since Bush I have been touting Mars missions (or some expansive space program) in some form or other but without committing anywhere near enough money. So there's a bit of a sense of Boy Who Cried Wolf - it's all too theoretical and there's little feeling of impending reality: there's no timeline for a mission, there's no mission profile, there's no plan for a manned Mars lander, the SLS hasn't flown, and space still seems to be treated as a boondoggle opportunity for members of Congress.
However a substantial number of people in the space community disagree with you. This paper is the result of work presented at a conference with more than 200 delegates and several thousand more people viewing on line (I was one of them). Here is the conference link https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/explorationzone2015/ - there are links to conference abstracts, videos of presentations, and supporting material.
You seem to misunderstand me.
You started by expressing surprise at the lack of interest in the thread. I answered by providing a reason for my lack of interest - at the moment manned missions to Mars appear to be decades away, and I'm not interested in space missions which are currently hypothetical and decades away. I have a similar lack of interest in missions to Europa involving spacecraft-submarines designed to explore that moon's ocean, as such missions are just as hypothetical and distant.
The view of the conference organisers and participants is that this is not premature, the time is right. We know enough about Mars and the requirements for a crewed mission to start the process of selection of sites suitable for crewed missions. There has been a substantial volume of work generated on the subject of NASA Mars missions over the the past 2-3 years and a number of key decisions have been made about approach and architecture.
That's fine - sensible even - for the people involved. It just doesn't interest me because we're still at a very hypothetical stage of a manned mission to Mars.
Now if President Trump was to make a Kennedy-esque announcement tomorrow giving NASA the objective of getting people to Mars by the end of his Presidency, then that might make me interested. But I'm not holding my breath.
By contrast, companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX are actually achieving things (even if with NASA money): they've reached tangible goals in the last few years and months, and that gives them credibility when they speak about their impending goals. Sure, Elon Musk's Interplanetary Transport System looks even more optimistic than NASA's plans for Mars, and absurdly so, and SpaceX has slipped behind on its schedule (still waiting for Falcon Heavy). But they can point to solid records of achievement in the steps towards these goals. That gives them a greater sense of impending reality than discussions on where to land humans on Mars.
Sigh. If I had wanted to discuss Blue Origin or SpaceX I would have titled the post accordingly!
First, the site selection process is not unique to NASA. It is applicable to any organisation interested in going to Mars. The proposals is as relevant for China, ESA, or even SpaceX as they are for NASA. the requirements for Mars missions will still be driven by safety and engineering,and by what you want to do on Mars, both in terms of science and resources.
Secondly, for these reasons This is not crying wolf. Its reporting on what is happening now.
Yes, fair enough, that expression wasn't the right one. I was writing in haste and that was the expression which came to mind.
Blue Origin have no Mars plans at all. Bezos has specifically stated that he is not interested in Mars.
Yeah, not my point. You may note from my post that I never suggested BO have Mars plans. I said that they were achieving things in the field of Space (generally) at the moment, and things that are happening at the moment are what I find interesting.
Thirdly, SpaceX plans, other than the Red Dragon concept for unmanned missions, are little more than powerpoint and a couple of test articles. They won't be landing people on Mars anytime soon. Any progress by them on this front will need substantial funding from NASA, much more than the 7.7 billion they have received to date.
Yes, I realise that. In fact I even said so in my post: "Sure, Elon Musk's Interplanetary Transport System looks even more optimistic than NASA's plans for Mars, and absurdly so..."
So let's avoid obsessing about SpaceX, Blue Origin, and the rest,and discuss the paper. Have you (or anyone else) actually looked it, or are just dismissed it without reading?
Thank you, but
I'll choose what I wish to obsess about. And at the moment, manned Mars mission landing sites are not on that list.
Please understand, I haven't "dismissed" the paper. I'm simply not interested in it. There is a difference.
