Talk:Human mission to Mars/Archive 1

New section Enforcing a Mars Treaty
I've added this as a new section, removed the corresponding sentences out of the last paragraph of the previous section.

This section is a "place holder". It is something that comes up in discussions of legal protection and Mars colonization. I'm not sure though if there is much published about it directly. It is an obvious question for someone to ask though. So have added a refimprove tag to it. All the individual statements within the new section are easily verified. It is just the way that they are combined as a synthesis that could do with citations. I will see if I can find any, and if anyone reading this knows of a published discussion of enforcement issues for a Mars treaty, do please say or add your citations to the section, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

New Section "Has Mars been contaminated by Earth life already?"
I've just added this new section, as it seemed important to address this point. Has Mars been contaminated by Earth life already? Robert Walker (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Style
Does this come across, to any other users, as stylistically or vernacularly exclusive? I note the prolific usage of the phrase "we know" throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.61.25 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are definitely issues, the tag I placed applies especially to the "Critiques" section. --No qwach macken (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? I fixed the things you mentioned particularly. Note that use of "we" etc is normal in the scientific literature as is clear from the quotes used in this section, so it seems not out of place to have a few "we"s in the article too.
 * I remmoved the "we"s when the result was more concise and readable but left them in when removing them would make it harder to read, and e.g. turn sentences into the passive voice unnecessarily. Removed both cases of "we know" including the Star trek quote, which is commonly used in this context in the literature, referring to life "as we know it" just as a nod towards the possibility that there might be other forms of life that we don't know about which is a respected scientific point of view - but it's not needed, found another way to phrase it. Hope it helped Robert Walker (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the issues, have removed the taq. See also the discussion below which was similar. Do say if there are still issues of this type in the Critique section of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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 missions 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)
 * I've edited and expanded the criticism section as suggested in a remark at the top of the section, and was going to add a note to the talk section to say what I've done. But just now read what you say here. I feel your version had the problem that it was too much slanted towards human exploration of Mars, which didn't seem appropriate for a section meant to be criticism. Maybe there should be a separate article on issues with human exploration of Mars specifically? There is plenty enough material on it to merit an article of its own, just dedicated to problems with Mars itself as you'll see from the references I cited. Particularly when you say "At the same time, manned missions to Mars would allow for the undertaking of experiments that are impossible or impractical to conduct with rovers or orbiting spacecraft. " - that is very much a POV thing to say, you can argue just as convincingly the other way that rovers can do things humans can't do - for the expense of a human piloted mission to Mars you could send probably hundreds of landers and aerial rovers to Mars and return samples to Earth for further analysis - which might well have just as much science return as human exploration. So, I thought in a criticism section you should either leave it out altogether or put the other POV - I decided to edit it and put in the other POV. Also - my own point of view is very much in favour of Mars colonisation, but the more I think about it and find out more, the more it seems unsafe and unwise for humans to land on the planet quite yet. So the nearest that seems wise to do now is to establish a community on Deimos and explore Mars by Telepresence as the article you cited suggested as a possible solution. So hopefully I'm able to give a reasonably accurate approach to the criticism section. Motivation to edit it came out of this discussion on the New Mars forum, where no-one seems to have any answers to all these questions and issues with contamination of Mars - and they are mainly pro-mars colonisation by inclination as I am myself Risks of introducing Earth Life to Mars Robert Walker (talk)
 * However reading it again just now, it seems to fit in okay with the rest of the article, especially as it does have a reasonably "up beat" conclusion - perhaps because my own POV is very much aligned with the rest of the article. Do you agree? Robert Walker (talk)
 * Just to say I've done a lot more editing of the section in response to criticism of the existing version on another discussion forum I belong to (at nasaspaceflight.com), also added many more references, removed some duplicate content, and deleted some sections that verged on "original research". I removed the first para. of the original version as it was a general criticism of manned spaceflight generally and not of Mars particularly. In this section it seemed best to focus particularly on Mars issues, and of course, issues to do with life most of all. Also sorry for all the edits in the history for the article. Many are minor updates but I have a tendency to forget to check the "minor updates" check box. Robert Walker (talk)
 * Just spotted the note about first person "we". I can't see anything about it here on the talk page. It's obviously about my contribution, and it's used entirely in the "inclusive we" style as used by mathematicians and many scientists, and used by many of the scholarly articles cited and quoted.
 * For instance this is an example of a similar scholarly use of we, in the quote on the page: " The water required for this process is present in the morning and evening of the Martian day, when humidity condenses as precipitation across the surface, and the organisms can absorb it. ... We must be extremely careful not to transport any terrestrial life forms to Mars, Otherwise they might contaminate the planet", where we refers to humans as a whole in an inclusive way. Looking up TONE in wikipedia it seems this is permissible. Also, especially when the "we" refers to humans as a whole and our responsibilities as regards forward and backward contamination, I can't see any easy way to rephrase it to remove the we and still make an easily readable article. It is clumsy to keep saying "humans must be ..." and you can't use third person pronouns to refer to humans in this situation where the discussion is about a moral responsibility for all humans including the author and the reader. Robert Walker (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can see that is a bit colloquial is the quote "life as we know it" but that is a quote, also it is a commonly used phrase in this context, see the Nature article about Encladus for instance: Enceladus named sweetest spot for alien life. It refers originally to the Star trek use, in quotes such as this one : (Spock speaking) in The Devil In The Dark "Life as we know it is universally based on some combination of carbon compounds, but what if life exists based on another element? For instance, silicon"
 * I've added a reference for the Star Trek quote, perhaps this resolves the issue? Robert Walker (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the discussion here: User_talk:Nick_Number - have now removed the tag, though more work is probably still needed. will review again later on.

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. -- 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. Spigot  Map  12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"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.
 * 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:

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. Spigot  Map  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)

This issue should be re-evaluated, as I see no clear evidence for the claim that "manned" is or should be the predominant usage. The gender-neutral term "human" is clearly becoming dominant compared to "manned," both in the scientific literature and at NASA.130.113.141.207 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

on google search

 * site:nasa.gov "human mission to mars" = 18,900 hits
 * site:nasa.gov "manned mission to mars" = 222
 * site:nasa.gov "human exploration of mars" = 55,600
 * site:nasa.gov "manned exploration of mars" = 17,600

on google scholar
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.141.207 (talk • contribs)  23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "human exploration of Mars" garners 966 hits since 2000 (1570 total)
 * "manned exploration of Mars" gets only 89 since 2000 (273 total)
 * "human mission to Mars" = 413 (617)
 * "manned mission to Mars" = 675 (1370)


 * I would appear these google search results show that NASA prefers the term "human" to "manned". I certainly don't see justification to move the page title.. especially the last two search results, which favour the current title. Also, I should point out that the use of the word "manned" here is from the verb "to man", which explicitly states "To supply with staff or crew (of either sex)."
 * I'd guess that the motivation here, of the initial page mover, and of the anon, is to make the title gender-neutral.. but a correct interpretation of the word "manned" in this context shows that, in fact, it is gender-neutral. Mlm42 (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The definition of "gender-neutral" (from AHD) is "Free of explicit or implicit reference to gender or sex, as is the term police officer (instead of policewoman or policeman) or the term crewed (instead of manned)."

Your "correct interpretation" of "manned" explicitly requires a non-gender-neutral perspective, while the MOS states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." There is nothing unclear or imprecise about "Human Mission to Mars". 130.113.141.207 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorize mission proposals into "Earth-Return" and "Mars to Stay"?
Hi all,

Shall we categorize those mission proposals into two big categories (1) Earth-Return and (2) "Mars to Stay"?

By the way, I think the "One-person One-way" proposal by James C. McLane III in 2006 is actually one of the "Mars to Stay" proposal. It is definitely not a suicide mission although it sounds like one. Ykliu (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are several manned proposals, some are 2-way, some are 1-way trip. I think that reorganizing and grouping them in relevant sections is needed. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There seems to be a lot of interest (or hype?) in Mars To Stay at the moment. andy (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mars Piloted Orbital Station
Why is the Mars Piloted Orbital Station, which was first proposed in 2000 and has apparently not been cancelled yet not mentioned in the article? Deathmare —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the tipoff, I just copied the summary from the main article to the Russian mission proposals section. Wingman4l7 (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mars entry problems
(I was going to turn this into a subsection, but don't have enough time; it's here if someone else wants to pick it up. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

As explained by Rob Manning, chief engineer for JPL's Mars Exploration Directorate, there is currently no known way to land payloads large enough for a manned mission on the Martian surface. The atmosphere is thick enough to destabilize retro-rockets (the "peeing upwind into a hurricane" problem), but too thin to aerobrake a large payload without an implausibly large heat shield. The larger the payload, the lower it has to come in the atmosphere before the velocity drops low enough (approximately Mach 2) that a parachute can open. And a martian parachute must be huge, so will take considerable time to open.

Put together, this limits landable payloads to less than one tonne. Compare with the 10 t mass of the Apollo lunar modules, and a Mars mission's far longer duration would require much more mass.

A pure rocket landing would have to slow below hypersonic speed above the atmosphere, and lower itself slowly. Unfortunately, the thickness of the atmosphere would require extremely large amounts of fuel.

Inflatable heat shields are being investigated as possible solutions.
 * http://news.softpedia.com/news/Studying-Inflatable-Heat-Shields-for-Heavy-Mars-Landings-118976.shtml
 * http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090811/full/news.2009.818.html?s=news_rss
 * http://blogs.nature.com/news/2009/08/inflatable_spacecraft_test_suc.html

"A typical estimate of round-trip flight time for a manned expedition to Mars is 400 to 450 days" is too vague.
Is this with current technology or theorised future technology? Who undertook this research? How did they calculate this? Robo37 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

At a guess, they're assuming a Hohmann transfer orbit. — (71.139.171.83 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

The source of this estimate was finally made accessible by Fotaun at 22:39 hours on the 20th of June 2012. It is Dr. Von Braun as in the footnote. - Fartherred (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unclear source of quotation
In the article section Manned_mission_to_Mars, there is no clear source for two block quotes as required by WP:Quotations. - Fartherred (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's just because I wasn't sure how you put a citation at the end of the quote - was trying to do fancy things with the quote template and it didn't work, just realised all you have to do is to just put in the ref tag into the quote itself, case of missing the obvious! So all the citations are before the quotes, will go and fix it and put them after instead. Robert Walker (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * fixed, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The attribution is clearly claimed now. I trust that it is correct and still might verify that later.  Good work.  - Fartherred (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV
I think the sentence "This is like introducing placental animals to a continent with only marsupials on it, or rats to Mauritius at the time of the Dodo." violates a Wikipedia policy by its phrasing. I would suggest "This has been compared to", except that the referenced source does not make that comparison and it's not clear the argument didn't originate in Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.171.83 (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The footnote at the end of the paragraph containing the "placental animals" text gives a source that makes a similar argument referring to cane toads. I consider the reference supportive.  - Fartherred (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to ever be absolutely certain that there is not some undiscovered evidence of independently evolved live on Mars. However, people ought to at some time decide that there has been enough search for life on Mars and the small possibility of finding some previously hidden evidence is not worth holding up the effort to colonize Mars. There should be some criterion for when the search is sufficient. I hope I am not alone in this opinion. Help us out and find a reliable source that supports that point of view, or if you are a reliable source, for mercy's sake publish something. - Fartherred (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has the text: "...could be useful for any future colonists on the surface - once the scientific studies are complete, and the effects of introducing Earth life to Mars and to any existing native Mars lifeforms are well understood." It would be interesting to know what reliable source is responsible for that thought so one could ask what is meant by well understood.  - Fartherred (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's referring back to Carl Sagan's "vigorous program of unmanned Martian exobiology and terrestrial epidemiology" - since such a program has only just begun with the MSL, and we know so little about what forms of life can survive on Mars or whether there is any life there yet, it's too soon to say. It will depend for instance on whether life on Mars is indigenous and unrelated, related to Earth life, or whether Mars is sterile, and on many other factors. Also it's a matter of ethics and debate, so there is sure to be vigorous discussion about what the best way forward is and varying points of view. The article by Christopher Mackay referred to earlier is a good starting point for the ethical debate on when or whether one should colonise Mars in each of those cases, so I've added that as a link. Hope this is what is needed - I've removed the citation needed tag assuming that this answers your question. Robert Walker (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also referring to the concluding paragraph in the Herro paper. I've just added that in as a quote, which I think improves that section. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not address the question of what criteria determine when "the effects of introducing Earth life to Mars...are well understood"; so a citation is not required for that. Still I want to find out what NASA has in mind and would like to be able to put it into the article.  I hope that the exploration program does not amount to searching for life and not taking no for an answer.  - Fartherred (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article at present is very unbalanced in its treatment of the subject matter, with slightly over half of the main body of the article comprising a near-polemic against the advisability of near or medium term manned exploration of Mars (arising from concerns of forward or backward life-contamination). Whilst such a stance is certainly defensible, I believe that such staunch opposition to near and medium term manned Mars exploration as exhibited by the "Critiques" section does not accord with the prevailing mood of the space exploration community. I move that the majority of the content of the "Critiques" section ought to be moved into a separate article on the concerns over possible contamination arising from manned exploration of Mars, rather than being by far the largest and most detailed section in a general article on past, present and future plans for manned missions to Mars. Barneypitt (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it isn't anti Mars exploration at all if you read it carefully, I think a bit unfair to call it a Polemic. The information presented there might lead one to conclude that even medium term manned exploration of the surface is unadvisable. But that's just because of the nature of the situation on Mars, it is hard to see how one can come to any other conclusion other than Carl Sagan's, and we simply haven't had anything like the amount of research done on Mars to be able to come to a decision on a method to colonize or explore the Mars surface with humans safely in the near future.I wrote most of it and am in fact personally keenly in favour of Mars exploration if it is at all possible, both robotic and human. But then discovreed these issues with human exploration and realised that much though one might want to do it, it is just not wise or safe to do that right now. It is just saying what the problems are and suggesting that exploration should be via telerobotics to start with until we know more about the situation on Mars and what effect humans landing on the planet would have on it.Exploration of Mars by telerobotics is a form of mars exploration, and is even a form of Manned mars exploration too, especially as telerobotics becomes more advanced and becomes almost like being there, or indeed, even heightened reality over being there - especially for Mars with the sandstorms meaning you sometimes can't see anything for months, the ability to enhance the vision so you see interesting landscapes rather than the dull reddy browns of Mars,Also I think it can be genuinely called a "manned mission to mars" because although the astronauts would be in orbit around the planet rather than on the surface, still they are very close to it, they are indeed in orbit around it, and via telepresence they are actually exploring the surface directly. Indeed they are doing so in a more thorough way than they could do if they were on the surface of the planet, and save hours every day of exploration time because they don't have to put on spacesuits. So - as you think that over more and more, you can realise, it is actually better and more immediate experience of exploring Mars than you would get stuck in a base station on the surface, having to put on a spacesuit to go anywhere, freezing cold outside at night (well below antarctica minimum temperatures) and not able to see the details of the landscape too clearly either when you get outside because everything seems to be more or less the same muddy red colour.Although many advocates of Mars exploration seem to just ignore these concerns about contamination both ways, many scientists regard them as of considerable importance as the references show. The concerns will certainly have to be addressed before anyone sends a manned mission to the Mars surface. Apart from anything else, they would be breaking the current internationally agreed treaty if anyone sent a manned mission to Mars without addressing these concerns and explaining how they will prevent contamination of Mars, or else, explaining to the international community why protection of Mars from contamination no longer matters.Putting this into a separate article would create the impression that you can go to Mars without addressing these issues. It was in fact originally added in because the previous version of this article had a minimal criticism section, with a request that it be expanded to address neutrality concerns about an article on manned missions to Mars that said nothing about the issues involved.As for the level of detail - that was needed due to the criticism that was received, and the only way to show in a clear way that everything said there is accurate was to back it up with many references as I did.If the article was called "Manned exploration of the surface of Mars" you might have a point. But the subject of the article I think clearly includes also exploration of the Moons of Mars, and telerobotic exploration of the surface. The critique section just suggests that those should be attempted first. All the time you are adding new hardware to Mars and its vicinity which will be useful if a surface future Mars mission becomes advisable. Robert Walker (talk) 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made the last part of the Critique into its own separate top level section on manned missions to explore the Mars surface via telepresence. That way it is clearly part of the article. I called it (for now) "Exploration of the surface from orbit, via telerobotics and telepresence". Perhaps that helps with the length of the critique section relative to the rest of the article, hopefully. Robert Walker (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also edited the "Enforcing a Mars Treaty" section to make it a bit more up beat. It might be part of the reason you felt that it was a relentless polemic, reading it afresh it did seem a bit "anti mars" - though that was the opposite of my intention when writing that section. Hopefully that is mainly fixed with this rewrite. It was a particularly hard section to write because unlike the other sections, there doesn't seem to be a good primary source on the issues involved in policing a Mars treaty. At least, I haven't found one yet, which is why I added the refimprove tag to that section. One solution is to just remove this section - it originally wasn't there - but that seems to leave too many unanswered questions after you have read the section on the need for a treaty. I will continue to search for a good primary source for this section and welcome any suggestions for good ones. Robert Walker (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also added an extra para to the Summary section, makes it more "up beat" too, and doesn't make the section noticeably longer as I have found ways to trim some of the rest of it and make it more succint. Anyway I think that's the best I can do right now, but will revisit this again with a fresh look at it in the near future to see if further improvements in the presentation and integration with the rest of the article are possible. Robert Walker (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Deimos a D-type asteroid with elements necessary for life?
The references given do not support the statement that Deimos "probably has all the materials needed for colonization". At the First International Conference on the Exploration of Phobos and Deimos, Ashish H. Mistry indicated that Phobos' density was too low to match solid rock, and it is porous. Based on that it might have a subsurface store of ice. Gladman refers to the "mystery" of the origin of Mars' moons, and addresses both asteroid capture and accretion in orbit about Mars. Rivkin refers to our incomplete knowledge. Spectrographic evidence does not show ice on the surface of the moons, but we do not know if there is subsurface ice. A better summary of the sources is that there are suggestions for the use of Deimos' substance to support exploration and colonization and that Deimos might hold carbon and water ice. - Fartherred (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point improves the article, thanks! Yes many theories about their formation and could be C or D type, and not yet proved to have ice, just seems likely so far, as you say high priority to find out if there is ice there. Robert Walker (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Add new Pages for DRM 1 to 5 ?
There is an amazing lack of information on NASA's DRA 1 to 5. Can we start a new article page for each one ? I am kind of new here so I am not sure how to proceed. Thanks!

Also we need new pictures, this article looks boring, and could use better quality pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allusion.Doze (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is more of an essay
"Critiques - should humans visit the surface of Mars? This section addresses questions about whether humans should visit Mars at all, especially, whether they should visit the Mars surface. It also discusses what precautions should be taken to protect the planet Mars, and to protect Earth, during or prior to human exploration of Mars."

Everything from here down reads like an essay more than a wiki article. Instead of only presenting factual information, it's attempting to tell a story to the reader. The article is in need of major rewrites. 184.166.14.190 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I think it is mainly due to the new section I added "Transfer of life between Earth and Mars via meteorites" that's responsible. It is too verbose and also repeats something said in the next section. I have managed to trim it to a single remark "the latest common ancestor is likely to be 65 million years ago (since only the largest impacts with Earth can send material to Mars)". I added this in since a common objection is that life from Earth is sent to Mars via meteorites, and it is not often appreciated how hard it is for rocks from Earth to reach Mars, and how long ago the most recent likely occurrence of this is.
 * I think that's likely to be the reason because there have been no objections for months, and then after I added that section yesterday, got your objection here today almost immediately. It is easy for just one section to "colour" the perception of a whole article.
 * Also I have edited the title of the section to "Contamination concerns for surface missions to Mars" to help distinguish from other concerns which are dealt with elsewhere in the article on colonization concerns. I see you added a link to it. The introduction used to have a link to it as well and don't know what happened to it - have added it back in.
 * Perhaps you can re-read it, I think you may find it is much tighter and more coherent just as a result of removing that section Robert Walker (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP editor made the essay comment on 25 April, whereas you added that segment on 5th May. So you are probably referring to my edit summary. It wasn't actually your section addition that makes this seem essay like, it's because:
 * There is a great overuse of direct quotations; out of the 21 instances, only one of them (the outer space treaty quote) is actually preferable over a paraphrase.
 * The general tone is very essay-like as well. "We have a good precedent to follow though, the Antarctic Treaty. as Hurtak and Egan point out". A more encyclopedic rephrase would be "It has been suggested that legal protection of Mars can be based on the Antarctic Treaty, given the similarities...etc."
 * The section is split into a summary and elaboration. There's really no need for this, it just repetition and unnecessary bloat.
 * Several segments seem to digress. "Life on Mars", "Relict communities on Mars" and "Possible habitats for life on Mars" give background info rather than specifically dealing with concerns for a manned mission to Mars and could be greatly shortened by a link to Life on Mars. "Risks of sample return to the Earth's surface" and "Risks of Mars sample return to a lunar base or large orbital station" don't even relate to Manned mission to Mars, they are talking about a Mars Sample Return.
 * I removed the link to colonization of Mars because I moved it to a Further information hatnote.  Reatlas  (talk)  03:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First, yes that was the reason for the confusion I was going by your editorial comment on the date, understand now.
 * Okay will need to take a good look at this.
 * One point right away - there is a move in science writing away from the passive voice and third person ways of stating things. Somewhere in the wikipedia style guides then the same thing is said, that you don't have to put everything into a passive voice and that it is okay to use "we" instead of "it". Using "it" and passive voice extensively can make the text harder to read. Having said that though, most of the wikipedia articles are in third person mode. So I can give it a go and see if I can make it third person and still easily readable. The problem is that I find excessive use of the passive voice very unreadable. In that particular example you give, I'd rephrase it as "Hurtak and Egan take the Antarctic Treaty as a precedent". or something like that. Maybe that will do - looking at other wikipedia articles they tend to avoid the passive voice much of the time.
 * With the quotes I felt that it gave more authority because you have the actual voice of the authors of the papers while with a paraphrase there can be doubt in the mind of the reader about whether it is paraphrased correctly. I particularly wanted there to be no doubt in the reader's mind about what was said in the quoted articles, because this is a topic where there is much misunderstanding and controversy. So that's the reason, maybe there is some other way to address it though.
 * The reverse contamination issues do apply to manned missions to Mars but perhaps that hasn't been explained too well. The thing is that humans will return from Mars or export from Mars back to Earth. It also relates to the issue that micro-organisms introduced to Mars by human visits can evolve through adaptive radiation to be harmful and then returned to Earth. But perhaps these sections can be merged with the sample return article and then link to that from here. I notice that the wikpedia mars sample return article doesn't even mention criticism which is a serious omission.
 * Yes if the background can be reduced all well to the good. The problem is that the reader won't understand the issues if you just have a link (unless they follow the link, read it and come back again) but something between just a link to another section leaving the reader baffled about the connection, or not knowing enough to follow what is said, and the current rather full treatment here may work well.
 * I will give it some thought and come back to it. I have felt myself that the section was too long compared with the rest of the article but not sure how to make it shorter without losing important points. Your comments may well help to make it more concise and indeed more readable too. Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have suggested the move for the concerns for Mars sample return on the talk page for that article. Removing the Mars sample return sections and replacing them by a short section making the link between the two pages would reduce this Concerns section here a lot and help to focus on the essentials just by itself. It will probably take a bit of time to sort this all out and a fair bit of work involved but I do understand what you are saying, thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also understand what you are saying about the summary. With the section shorter then there may be no need for a summary though I think still a one or two para. summary may be useful. Particularly it should be mentioned right at the head of the section that a landing on Mars will break the Outer Space Treaty - shouldn't have to read to the end of the section to see that. Because, in my experience, that is the one point that really strikes home for enthusiasts for missions to the surface, that it breaks international law. Once you have that established you can then explain the scientific, humanity and ethical reasons for those laws and reasons why they are unlikely to be altered any time soon at our current level of knowledge of the planet.Robert Walker (talk). So you could have a short one or two para. section saying that.
 * Wikipedia present a neutral point of view; the article needs to provide information but not skew opinions one way or the other, for or against a mission to Mars. At least in the way it's currently phrased, the summary (and the section) is rather argumentative. This is why a first/second person perspective and so many quotes is not preferable, it gives the impression the article is giving opinions rather than facts. We also can't assume that every reader is going to read the whole article, from top to bottom, so the section headers should be sufficient for summarizing their contents.  Reatlas  (talk)  00:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, not quite true. The NPOV means that you present all the main competing points of view. It is okay to have an argument for one side or another, indeed it is hard to present any of the points of view clearly without having a chain of argument in support of it. This is a Concerns section - originally was titled "Critiques". I actually wrote the section because of early comments that the article was too unbalanced presenting only the case for colonization of the surface of Mars. It is okay to present even very strong minority arguments such as Christopher McKay's ones in this case, if you clearly attribute them, and they are notable arguments deserving of encyclopedic mention. You have to be careful how you do it in an encyclopedia, but it is certainly okay to present a chain of argument to help explain a point of view that is held by many people. See NPOV.Robert Walker (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not saying we shouldn't be giving concerns, certainly they need to be present for a balanced, neutral article. It's fine to mention earth microbes might be invasive, it's fine to bring up legal issues and it's fine to mention concerns with terraforming and pathogens. However, a summary (if necessary) should be something like, "several different concerns about a manned mission to mars have been raised regarding contamination". Linking all these individual points together in a grand, rather specific "because of this and that and so on we shouldn't be going to Mars" chain pushes this more towards an essay or WP:SYN even if the point of view and the individual arguments hold up. Also, I don't actually see anything in the article that is arguing for a manned mission to Mars; the article up to that point seems to quite technical and factual. But then this isn't really the biggest issue of the article right now anyway. I'm too busy this week but there are several other major changes I would like to make or propose for this page.  Reatlas  (talk)  15:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand what you are saying here. When I revise the section then I'll do my best to deal with these concerns and concentrate on saying what the individual concerns are rather than to make an attempt to summarize them all, especially also to focus any diversity in views on the matter. I'm making progress with the process of removing material here, hope soon to remove the mars sample return and the abiogenesis sections and replace with a short summary. See Mars_sample_return_mission (on the talk page I'm discussing the possibility of a longer section there, but that already summarizes the main point concisely enough for a link here to be sufficient) and Life_on_Mars where we came to a reasonable solution quickly. Again it leaves out some of the material here which is non essential, the mention of protobionts (which is obvious anyway that it would include those) and the mention of the idea of "living fossils" on Mars - that's just because I can't right now find the paper that discusses the idea, but it again is only a minor inessential point.
 * Another section that could be moved elsewhere on wikipedia is the section on possible habitats for life on Mars. I think I've seen a reasonably complete treatment of it on wikipedia but can't remember where, so will work on this next.
 * Have now done this, turned out that some of what I say here is already covered in the section Water_on_Mars though it doesn't mention the lichen experiments or the underground caves in the equatorial regions as possible habitats - have added those to the section. Robert Walker (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially since you have a lot on, please don't be too concerned about it at this stage because I expect to be able to make a fairly major change in the article soon, at least a lot shorter, and then it will be easier to comment on it. But if you have particular points to think about right now you'd like to mention do of course say Robert Walker (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As for neutrality of the article - a factual article about proposed missions can not be considered neutral if it makes no mention of the main objections to those actions. Presenting them as proposed missions, without mentioning well known ethical objections to the missions, is enough to count as putting forward a point of view. It could of course be presented in a separate article with a link to it from the first one. But not left out altogether. I actually contributed this section in the first place due to suggestions that the article was unbalanced and that not enough emphasis was given to concerns with the proposals. It was a short stub section when I started, with a request to expand it to make the article more neutral, as I remember Robert Walker (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and I want to keep it clear that this section is just about contamination of the Mars surface. The reason is that before, when it was less clear, I had someone editing it and adding concerns about astronauts traveling to Mars - things already discussed in detail in the other Concerns section. It is confusing to try to mix the two together in a single section. Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also suggested a move for the Abiogenesis section to the Life on Mars page see Talk:Life_on_Mars
 * This probably is the way ahead, to work through the various sections here and find out which ones are usefully moved to other parts of wikipedia - and then to keep shorter summary sections in the article here so making it much shorter and a quicker read. Does that sound a good approach to you? Robert Walker (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what should be done; keep a brief but adequate summary of the information needed, then provide a link to the main article where most of the content is moved.  Reatlas  (talk)  00:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. So, am working on it, will take time. Thanks! No replies to those talk page posts yet, but I should give them a few more days to reply. Also should wait a day or two after that post edit before removing the content here. BTW if anyone else has any thoughts on this do be sure to step in and comment :)Robert Walker (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to say, will return to this soon some time in the next week or two. Have been caught up with work on the new page Concerns for an early Mars sample return which took a fair while to do and is based on a couple of sections from this page, expanded. So as suggested will need to do a short summary here and link to it, not that difficult to do but it all takes time. More later. Robert Walker (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Review update of the current technology & challenges.
The main editors of this article may find this recent review useful as a source of information. "Why we can't send humans to Mars yet, and how we'll fix that"  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of taikonaut or astronaut
A Chinese traveler in space is referred to as a taikonaut in the People's Daily Online Rillian's use of a Wikipedia article to explain an edit in the edit summary is inappropriate. - Fartherred (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * there are some non-wiki sorces that have used the term taikonaut: Oxford Dictionaries, Andrew Purcell, online producer of a NEW SCIENTIST blog, BBC News  - Fartherred (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted sections detailing Robert Walker's WP:SYNTH opinions
This article doesn't need a section on Walker's "concerns" that is longer than the rest of the article. For other editors who don't know, Robert suffers from a bad case of doomsday phobia. He is extremely worried that crewed exploration of Mars will bring an Andromeda Strain back to Earth that might cause the extinction of Homo sapiens. cf. his recent published opinion piece: http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/need_caution_early_mars_sample_return_opinion_piece-113913

His overall project is to derail Mars exploration by spamming every nook and cranny of the internet with his fear-mongering. Not content with blogs and discussion forums (since he can't get his stuff into peer reviewed journals) he's attempting to move into Wikipedia as well. He is not interested in improving Mars articles overall: only adding long, long, ever-so-long sections on why we shouldn't do Mars exploration. He is not interested in collaborative editing. It's all or nothing with him. Therefore, it must be nothing since his POV-laden walls o' text do not belong in an encyclopedia. Warren Platts (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This was expected as this editor has declared that he is on a mission to remove all my contributions from Wikipedia. This seems to involve totally removing any section I wrote or contributed to. Backed up material here for this page - he removed the Concerns section and the section on human piloted telerobotics missions to Mars. User:Robertinventor/deleted_sections_from_Manned_mission_to_Mars Robert Walker (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I don't care about your contributions to microtonal music, or even your little ICAMSR article. Why don't you go there and express your "concerns"? You are way out of line spamming your original research here. Warren Platts (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved the telerobotics/telepresence section to a subsection of technology, seems more relevant there and the content is reasonably acceptable if a tad long. However, the Contamination concerns for surface missions to Mars section reads rather like an essay arguing a POV, so I won't restore it immediately or entirely. It isn't irrelevant though, there is at some useful content that could be used in this article.  Reatlas  (talk)  05:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, once the long quotes, the speculation, the editorial comments, and the off-topic verbiage is removed there sure wasn't much left of any substance. Feel free to expand.... Warren Platts (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a good article somewhere at nasa.gov that details how they plan on dealing with the contamination issue. I will try to track it down. Warren Platts (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally I give up for good in face of this censorship and its tacit approval by the admins
The wikipedia editors and admins for WikiProject Mars clearly approve this censorship You have won! Go and celebrate Robert Walker (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)