China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

[Arariel]

Lots of things are possible with current technology that aren't really practical or affordable with current technology.

Sure, Mars direct could get a human crew to mars with current technology, but the cost is an open question, as are the effects of such a long mission through inter-planetary space, where stellar radiation and other phenomena may jeopardize the crew. More research and study is required to answer these questions.

You don't say. This is why I'm saying Mars Direct would be a pointless waste of money currently. We could spend more years making Martian travel cheaper, and not have to spend billions on a trip. But the principle of "let's land someone on Mars because [achievement unlocked!] and shit" would dictate sending someone as soon as it was verified as safe to do. A landing on Mars would be a completely unworthwhile goal in that respect, and a poor use of taxpayer money. But if Martian landing were part of a worthwhile goal that would lead to benefits that colonisation would, that would be justifiable to spend taxpayer money. And please no one give me the "how do you expect to colonise Mars without landing someone there" spiel. It's stupid. Of course we have to send people there, but prioritising that part is wrong. And making a big deal of whether we or the Russians or the Chinese land on Mars first is even more wrong.

I've been in China. They have enough money to build a one-time-use palace the size of a medium-sized university for a visit by Hu Jintao, don't you know? It was in the middle of nowhere, too. I visited it. Only a few guards there. No one was using it. I'm just saying, it's completely wrong to think of this as "poor little China, only now have they been able to scrape the money to send a woman to space".

The British have enough money to build two aircraft carriers of ~64,000 tons each; so what? Random anecdotes of spending proves nothing. I provided actual data, your anecdote is effectively useless as a rebuttal.

Everything Arariel has said has been self-contradictory, dismissive, vitriolic nonsense. There comes a point where you have to realize that the person you are arguing with isn't discussing anything in good faith.

With all their talk of measuring penis size, I think we can all put 2 and 2 together and come up with a reason they are so bitter...

Oooh, and I'm the one with the vitriol? You have yet to tell me how I've been saying self-contradictory things. Rather, you've been proceeding to make rather snide remarks that only don't qualify as ad hominems because ad hominems are at least a more honest kind of attack.

Mars Direct is a proposal for a manned mission to Mars that is both cost-effective and possible with current technology.

Oh hey. Look at that. Cost-effective is debatable. Maybe that $55 billion (what Soralin said it would cost; not mentioned in the article) could instead go toward, I dunno fixing ageing satellites.

Current technology in this context means we don't need to develop any new physics or chemistry. We have materials that can handle the stress. We have the computing power to handle the mission. Etc. Still, putting all those technologies together is a non-trivial task. It would require the development of new tools and the development of new knowledge to actually use the current technology to accomplish the mission. So, yes we could do it with current tech. But this:

Except I do recall we already have the technology for landing on Mars, right?

No, not even close. And this:

Please clarify. I do remember a few people mentioning ways to get to Mars with tools we already have, no?

It depends on what you meant by 'tools'.

[citation needed] or are you just talking out of your ass here?

[Ghostbear]

Everything Arariel has said has been self-contradictory, dismissive, vitriolic nonsense. There comes a point where you have to realize that the person you are arguing with isn't discussing anything in good faith.

With all their talk of measuring penis size, I think we can all put 2 and 2 together and come up with a reason they are so bitter...

Attack the positions held, not the person who holds them.

I'm just saying. The government has plenty wealth. You think they're spending very much on regular people there? Spending per capita is a pointless argument, since the per capita bit isn't particularly a priority.

No, you're tossing a worthless anecdote in and using it as proof. What does the fact that the Chinese can build an expensive building prove? Britain's 2 aircraft carriers I mentioned will cost substantially more than that building, but that doesn't prove that they're wealthy enough to build their own space agency from scratch and use it for human landings on Luna. If you don't think per capita matters, then you really don't have even the vaguest sense of how wealth and government work. Take the US -- cut it's population in half, but keep the GDP the same. Now compare that to the US with the population doubled, also with the GDP kept the same. One of those nations hypothetical versions of the US is far wealthier than the other one, and the controlling factor for that is the "per capita" bit. To create China from those hypotheticals, you'd need to about triple the population of the US while cutting the GDP about in half. They're not as wealthy as GDP numbers make them appear. There is some benefit to an outright large economy, regardless of population, but you are attesting far, far, far too much to such.

There's a reason the plural of anecdote is not "data", and it's because it doesn't prove anything. Provide something other than an anecdote or ignorance.

Oh hey, look, it's that link that Soralin posted earlier.

If you actually read the proposal, it requires quite a bit of re-use of our Lunar tech, which isn't in a situation to be re-used. Making the proposal actually viable and not just a theory will require a lot of research to make all the various steps workable. EdgarJPublius already addressed it better than I though -- we could strap a person to a rocket and hurl them at Jupiter just fine with current technology too, but the risks and other issues associated without that would be unacceptable to us. If that was a truly viable and acceptable way to get a person on Mars, I expect that it would have happened -- any president would love to be able to say they got a person on Mars for just $50 billion.

And please no one give me the "how do you expect to colonise Mars without landing someone there" spiel. It's stupid. Of course we have to send people there, but prioritising that part is wrong.

Every single bit of technology that you would need to get a successful manned landing on Luna or Mars would be vital to colonizing it. A manned landing is the perfect stepping stone to preparing for a colonization effort -- so perfect, in fact, that I would say it's a vital stepping stone. These are not short term goals either -- it would take a several years (perhaps even decades) to incorporate all the lessons learned from a human landing into the equipment being used for the colonization effort. It needs to be prioritized, because it needs to be finished first, and by a large margin.

[Soralin]

If we could get a person to Mars without researching or designing anything new, we would do so -- actually building everything wouldn't be that big of a cost compared to the costs of designing those things and researching what we need to be able to design those things.

Oh hey, look, it's that link that Soralin posted earlier.

Mars Direct is a proposal for a manned mission to Mars that is both cost-effective and possible with current technology.

Oh hey. Look at that. Cost-effective is debatable. Maybe that $55 billion (what Soralin said it would cost; not mentioned in the article) could instead go toward, I dunno fixing ageing satellites.

Hmm, there was an "initial cost estimate of $55 billion" on one of the earlier revisions for Mars Direct, but I don't know what specifically those costs are for. (And by "current technology", there's a difference there between "should be possible with current technology, although we haven't done it yet" and "we have what we need already sitting on the shelf")

And you could probably get it there even cheaper than that, since that was including costs for designing and building new rockets. SpaceX is planning on launching their Falcon Heavy next year, which could be useful with that. And they're working on integrating a launch abort system which can also be used for powered landings, into their Dragon spacecraft. And in fact they have a Red Dragon proposal, where they can use a Falcon Heavy to launch a Dragon module to land on Mars, with 1000kg+ of payload (Spirit and Opportunity rovers were 185kg each, Viking landers were 572kg, Curiosity(Mars Science Laboratory) is 900kg). Also, 6500kg of Dragon spacecraft, it's probably a bit overbuilt (i.e. heavy) for this mission compared to most Mars landing systems, but it would be all off-the-shelf stuff, and it would also be suitable for landing humans on the planet in just the same way. For a manned mission, you'd probably need some additional craft to carry your 6 months of life support or such for the trip over there, but you could use it as your lander, after having landed sufficient supplies ahead of it on the surface.

And getting some of the heavier or bulkier stuff over there, like a return rocket, would likely require some additional work to be able to get it down intact. And of course besides getting there, there's living there, setting up something that's capable of supporting humans there for long spans of time.

[Arariel]

No, you're tossing a worthless anecdote in and using it as proof. What does the fact that the Chinese can build an expensive building prove? Britain's 2 aircraft carriers I mentioned will cost substantially more than that building, but that doesn't prove that they're wealthy enough to build their own space agency from scratch and use it for human landings on Luna. If you don't think per capita matters, then you really don't have even the vaguest sense of how wealth and government work. Take the US -- cut it's population in half, but keep the GDP the same. Now compare that to the US with the population doubled, also with the GDP kept the same. One of those nations hypothetical versions of the US is far wealthier than the other one, and the controlling factor for that is the "per capita" bit. To create China from those hypotheticals, you'd need to about triple the population of the US while cutting the GDP about in half. They're not as wealthy as GDP numbers make them appear. There is some benefit to an outright large economy, regardless of population, but you are attesting far, far, far too much to such.

There's a reason the plural of anecdote is not "data", and it's because it doesn't prove anything. Provide something other than an anecdote or ignorance.

Fine. Want some numbers? How about the second-largest military budget in the world? Defence spending isn't exactly something spent per capita seeing as it's a public good. The government has plenty of money.

If you actually read the proposal, it requires quite a bit of re-use of our Lunar tech, which isn't in a situation to be re-used. Making the proposal actually viable and not just a theory will require a lot of research to make all the various steps workable. EdgarJPublius already addressed it better than I though -- we could strap a person to a rocket and hurl them at Jupiter just fine with current technology too, but the risks and other issues associated without that would be unacceptable to us. If that was a truly viable and acceptable way to get a person on Mars, I expect that it would have happened -- any president would love to be able to say they got a person on Mars for just $50 billion.

Re-use, or rebuild. But it's all what we've already done.

And have I once said I am opposed to research?

Every single bit of technology that you would need to get a successful manned landing on Luna or Mars would be vital to colonizing it. A manned landing is the perfect stepping stone to preparing for a colonization effort -- so perfect, in fact, that I would say it's a vital stepping stone. These are not short term goals either -- it would take a several years (perhaps even decades) to incorporate all the lessons learned from a human landing into the equipment being used for the colonization effort. It needs to be prioritized, because it needs to be finished first, and by a large margin.

If the endgoal were truly colonisation, manned landings would be one of the final steps, a step and not the priority in and of itself. Colonisation requires a significant reduction in the cost of transportation, and it doesn't make sense to send out test landings when each one could cost billions of dollars.

If we could get a person to Mars without researching or designing anything new, we would do so -- actually building everything wouldn't be that big of a cost compared to the costs of designing those things and researching what we need to be able to design those things.

Oh hey, look, it's that link that Soralin posted earlier.

Mars Direct is a proposal for a manned mission to Mars that is both cost-effective and possible with current technology.

Oh hey. Look at that. Cost-effective is debatable. Maybe that $55 billion (what Soralin said it would cost; not mentioned in the article) could instead go toward, I dunno fixing ageing satellites.

Hmm, there was an "initial cost estimate of $55 billion" on one of the earlier revisions for Mars Direct, but I don't know what specifically those costs are for. (And by "current technology", there's a difference there between "should be possible with current technology, although we haven't done it yet" and "we have what we need already sitting on the shelf")

And you could probably get it there even cheaper than that, since that was including costs for designing and building new rockets. SpaceX is planning on launching their Falcon Heavy next year, which could be useful with that. And they're working on integrating a launch abort system which can also be used for powered landings, into their Dragon spacecraft. And in fact they have a Red Dragon proposal, where they can use a Falcon Heavy to launch a Dragon module to land on Mars, with 1000kg+ of payload (Spirit and Opportunity rovers were 185kg each, Viking landers were 572kg, Curiosity(Mars Science Laboratory) is 900kg). Also, 6500kg of Dragon spacecraft, it's probably a bit overbuilt (i.e. heavy) for this mission compared to most Mars landing systems, but it would be all off-the-shelf stuff, and it would also be suitable for landing humans on the planet in just the same way. For a manned mission, you'd probably need some additional craft to carry your 6 months of life support or such for the trip over there, but you could use it as your lander, after having landed sufficient supplies ahead of it on the surface.

And getting some of the heavier or bulkier stuff over there, like a return rocket, would likely require some additional work to be able to get it down intact. And of course besides getting there, there's living there, setting up something that's capable of supporting humans there for long spans of time.

The Earth Return Vehicle was part of the plan, I believe.

[sardia]

I'm lost, what was Arariel's point again?

[Arariel]

Impressive goals that are only good for looking impressive should not be our priority. Our priorities should be goals that will have return. Like fixing old satellites or preparing for Lunar/Martian colonisation.

[KestrelLowing]

Impressive goals that are only good for looking impressive should not be our priority. Our priorities should be goals that will have return. Like fixing old satellites or preparing for Lunar/Martian colonisation.

I think everyone agrees with you there, I just think that the definition of "return" is different. The majority of people are saying that the return is all the sort of new knowledge that could come with attempting to go to Mars. Your definition of return doesn't appear to have that in it.

Now, competition is a good thing typically - it makes people really try to do things better. If soccer was a one team sport, it would be pretty boring. There would be no real reason to get better. That's why the space race was so productive. People wanted to be better - I think that' just a universal trait. It's easier to say that you're 'better' by comparing yourself to someone else which is what the US did with the Russians. If competition with China means more focus on science, I am all for it.

[sardia]

There are bad forms of competition, like the armed rivalry between pakistan and india. Neither of them can afford to waste money on armed forces and nukes, yet they do so for fear of falling behind. Between the USSR and US, I rather we compete to see who can advance mankind more rather than who has the biggest and most guns on earth.

As for returns on our investment, I'm ok with investments whose only return is furthering the frontiers of science, and knowing more about the universe. Not everything has to be so cold and calculating. Yes, we could strip NASA's budget and give it to the poor, OR we could ask the country for 1% more money to go where no one has gone before.

[Arariel]

Impressive goals that are only good for looking impressive should not be our priority. Our priorities should be goals that will have return. Like fixing old satellites or preparing for Lunar/Martian colonisation.

I think everyone agrees with you there, I just think that the definition of "return" is different. The majority of people are saying that the return is all the sort of new knowledge that could come with attempting to go to Mars. Your definition of return doesn't appear to have that in it.

My definition of return doesn't appear to have that in it because my definition of return happens to include opportunity cost. Do you think the return would be higher if, in two cases where we spent the same amount of money on R&D over the next century, the first case we landed on Mars when it cost billions per round trip and the second case we landed on Mars for a few hundred million per round trip (adjust for inflation and all that)? Logically, if our priority were colonisation, our first landing may be later, but our colonisation would be sooner. OTOH, if our priority were landing, our first landing may be sooner, but our colonisation would be later, by the simple virtue that what's studied in only landing and returning a human will not apply to all facets of colonisation.

Now, competition is a good thing typically - it makes people really try to do things better. If soccer was a one team sport, it would be pretty boring. There would be no real reason to get better. That's why the space race was so productive. People wanted to be better - I think that' just a universal trait. It's easier to say that you're 'better' by comparing yourself to someone else which is what the US did with the Russians. If competition with China means more focus on science, I am all for it.

... are you seriously comparing the progress of mankind to a sport? Really? What next? Should we revoke Fields Medal recipients if we find they made their contributions under performance-enhancing drugs like amphetamines? Please, this is ridiculous. Would it be more productive for us to have several small particle accelerators working in competition or one large one? The people complaining about the U.S. falling behind Europe with the LHC miss the point; the goal of science is not to "beat the other team". No doubt the U.S. and the E.U. could have made a better particle accelerator working collaboratively, and that would certainly be better than competition.

[lutzj]

Should we revoke Fields Medal recipients if we find they made their contributions under performance-enhancing drugs like amphetamines?

Yes.

[Arariel]

Should we revoke Fields Medal recipients if we find they made their contributions under performance-enhancing drugs like amphetamines?

Yes.

Because taking amphetamines magically lessens their contributions.

[lutzj]

Should we revoke Fields Medal recipients if we find they made their contributions under performance-enhancing drugs like amphetamines?

Yes.

Because taking amphetamines magically lessens their contributions.

No, but it does make them cheaters, like plagiarism. People who do illegal things to make scientific advances should be acknowledged for their discoveries, but should not, in my opinion, be eligible for competitive accolades such as the Fields Medal.

[Arariel]

Should we revoke Fields Medal recipients if we find they made their contributions under performance-enhancing drugs like amphetamines?

Yes.

Because taking amphetamines magically lessens their contributions.

No, but it does make them cheaters, like plagiarism. People who do illegal things to make scientific advances should be acknowledged for their discoveries, but should not, in my opinion, be eligible for competitive accolades such as the Fields Medal.

Except amphetamines are not illegal in all countries? And how is dishonestly representing someone else's work as your own equivalent to popping pills?
Also, glad to note that this makes Erdős eligible for the posthumous revoking of a few awards.

But most importantly:
The point of maths and the sciences is NOT competition. Why would it, and why should it? The awards in maths and the sciences are meant to distinguish people who have made an important contribution. If they plagiarised, they didn't make that contribution, so that argument is completely wrong.

[KestrelLowing]

Now, competition is a good thing typically - it makes people really try to do things better. If soccer was a one team sport, it would be pretty boring. There would be no real reason to get better. That's why the space race was so productive. People wanted to be better - I think that' just a universal trait. It's easier to say that you're 'better' by comparing yourself to someone else which is what the US did with the Russians. If competition with China means more focus on science, I am all for it.

... are you seriously comparing the progress of mankind to a sport? Really? What next? Should we revoke Fields Medal recipients if we find they made their contributions under performance-enhancing drugs like amphetamines? Please, this is ridiculous. Would it be more productive for us to have several small particle accelerators working in competition or one large one? The people complaining about the U.S. falling behind Europe with the LHC miss the point; the goal of science is not to "beat the other team". No doubt the U.S. and the E.U. could have made a better particle accelerator working collaboratively, and that would certainly be better than competition.

Yes, actually I am. Human progress isn't this mystical thing. We're all playing a game. I know that's a philosophical stance, but I happen to believe it.

I'm not saying that competition is the be-all-end-all. I'm saying it can be an important driving factor in humans. Take, for example, the DARPA Grand Challenge. Many technologies were developed or taken from other fields or simply made better because of that challenge. In addition, those people who worked on that challenge are really, really invested in it and will do anything to make their team better. Competition can be a huge driving force.

It's not the only driving factor. You make an important note about collaboration. That's a really important thing too. I'm not saying that everything should be a competition (although everything can be seen as one - but typically you're competing against the environment or something like that) just that having a competition can be a positive driving force. It can also be a negative one, but you can't ignore the power of competition.

No, the goal of science isn't to beat the other team, but if you get better, faster results because you've got that motivation of trying to beat the other team? I say that's a win.

[Zamfir]

There's a secondary effect as well: if amphetamines are part of the necessary lifestyle to have shot at the top of the field, how many talented people will decide to focus on some other field instead?

[Arariel]

Yes, actually I am. Human progress isn't this mystical thing. We're all playing a game. I know that's a philosophical stance, but I happen to believe it.

I'm not saying that competition is the be-all-end-all. I'm saying it can be an important driving factor in humans. Take, for example, the DARPA Grand Challenge. Many technologies were developed or taken from other fields or simply made better because of that challenge. In addition, those people who worked on that challenge are really, really invested in it and will do anything to make their team better. Competition can be a huge driving force.

It's not the only driving factor. You make an important note about collaboration. That's a really important thing too. I'm not saying that everything should be a competition (although everything can be seen as one - but typically you're competing against the environment or something like that) just that having a competition can be a positive driving force. It can also be a negative one, but you can't ignore the power of competition.

No, the goal of science isn't to beat the other team, but if you get better, faster results because you've got that motivation of trying to beat the other team? I say that's a win.

The inherent purpose of a game is to provide entertainment. Entertainment may be a result of scientific development for scientists and scientific development may be a result of a game (such as Foldit). Science's principal purpose is to enlighten us to how the universe works and how we can use our knowledge to help humanity.

Do you really think most mathematicians and scientists go into the field for the sole purpose of competing? Does even a significant number of them expect to win a Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, or Abel Prize? Somehow, I doubt it. The prizes are not something mathematicians and scientists compete for; the prizes are awarded to people who have made a contribution to the world, and the prize is only a bonus, not something they specifically made a goal.

I'd say the "important driving factor(s)" in much of mathematics/science are curiosity and challenge ("competing against the environment"? That doesn't really make much sense). People go into mathematics and science not because they want to beat the other person/team, but because they find it interesting, they want to know the answers, and they want to prove something can be done. I doubt any decent mathematician or scientist goes into the field without that.

Multiple teams competing is better than just one team. But those same teams working in collaboration would produce better and faster results. Therefore, competition is only good when collaboration is not possible, or prohibitively costly; competition is good for research that can be done at a low cost per team and not particularly likely to be done (efficiently, at least) on its own. Thus, DARPA Grand Challenge and green energy competitions, etc. But for research that has a high cost per team, and likely to occur (and have occurred) anyway without a competition (nuclear research, particle accelerators, space research)? Collaboration works much better in situations like these. Either way, the U.S.A., China, Russia, and the E.U. are going to invest in space research. So why waste money researching the same thing four times instead of allocating scientific resources more efficiently and collaborating?

There's a secondary effect as well: if amphetamines are part of the necessary lifestyle to have shot at the top of the field, how many talented people will decide to focus on some other field instead?

I find that highly unlikely. Mainly because 1) most people study a field because they find it interesting, not so they can be the best in their field, 2) amphetamines don't make exactly make people smarter, 3) Non-doped mathematicians can perform as well as doped mathematicians.

[Ghostbear]

Fine. Want some numbers? How about the second-largest military budget in the world? Defence spending isn't exactly something spent per capita seeing as it's a public good. The government has plenty of money.

Little late jumping back in, but no, that doesn't prove anything either. Military budgets are a function of many things, not just wealth; total population, geopolitical goals, neighboring threads, land area, the geography of that land area, contested territories... If it was just wealth, then Germany would be outspending France, who would in turn be outspending the UK, who would themselves be outspending Russia. Instead, that order is reversed. So, wrong, and also, still just an anecdote; even if it wasn't wrong, it wouldn't have proven anything.

Yes, China has ~10% of the world's GDP; it also has ~19% of the world's population. They have a long way to go to being wealthy in any sense other than a pure absolute one; just compare it with the US, with ~22% of the world's GDP, but just ~5% of the world's population.

And have I once said I am opposed to research?

You've stated opposition to things that would lead to research based on a dislike for their end goals.

If the endgoal were truly colonisation, manned landings would be one of the final steps, a step and not the priority in and of itself. Colonisation requires a significant reduction in the cost of transportation, and it doesn't make sense to send out test landings when each one could cost billions of dollars.

It most definitely does make sense to send out multiple test landings! You can't find out what is wrong with something without testing the equipment in the first place, and it would be far wiser to test one set of equipment (the attach people to a controlled explosion and hurl them at something else equipment, plus the "keep them alive, too" equipment, specifically) while you're still developing other sets of equipment (e.g. the colony specific stuff) that will rely on it. If launch device is designed to carry up to 10,000 tons, then a design flaw is discovered that means it can only actually handle 9,000 tons, I would rather that be found before I spent a decade designing my 9,743 ton colonization module.

Those goals most definitely need to be staggered.

But most importantly:
The point of maths and the sciences is NOT competition. Why would it, and why should it? The awards in maths and the sciences are meant to distinguish people who have made an important contribution. If they plagiarised, they didn't make that contribution, so that argument is completely wrong.

Nobody has said that the point of math and science was competition: the point of the competition is to get people to do more math and science!

[Arariel]

Fine. Want some numbers? How about the second-largest military budget in the world? Defence spending isn't exactly something spent per capita seeing as it's a public good. The government has plenty of money.

Little late jumping back in, but no, that doesn't prove anything either. Military budgets are a function of many things, not just wealth; total population, geopolitical goals, neighboring threads, land area, the geography of that land area, contested territories... If it was just wealth, then Germany would be outspending France, who would in turn be outspending the UK, who would themselves be outspending Russia. Instead, that order is reversed. So, wrong, and also, still just an anecdote; even if it wasn't wrong, it wouldn't have proven anything.

Yes, China has ~10% of the world's GDP; it also has ~19% of the world's population. They have a long way to go to being wealthy in any sense other than a pure absolute one; just compare it with the US, with ~22% of the world's GDP, but just ~5% of the world's population.

No, but it does show a fairly wealthy and successful government (successful here not necessarily meaning successful at governing); the government of, say, Nigeria can't exactly dedicate that much money to defence spending. My point is that the government has money.

You've stated opposition to things that would lead to research based on a dislike for their end goals.

I've stated opposition to misplaced priorities. There would be nothing wrong with pulling off Martian landings for status if doing so didn't mean less money to spend elsewhere. Unfortunately, we live in a universe that happens to have opportunity costs.

It most definitely does make sense to send out multiple test landings! You can't find out what is wrong with something without testing the equipment in the first place, and it would be far wiser to test one set of equipment (the attach people to a controlled explosion and hurl them at something else equipment, plus the "keep them alive, too" equipment, specifically) while you're still developing other sets of equipment (e.g. the colony specific stuff) that will rely on it. If launch device is designed to carry up to 10,000 tons, then a design flaw is discovered that means it can only actually handle 9,000 tons, I would rather that be found before I spent a decade designing my 9,743 ton colonization module.

Those goals most definitely need to be staggered.

Mostly conjecture and hypotheticals; all contrived "what if X"? Anything concrete? It doesn't explain a necessity of sending someone to Mars. The launch device could be completely robotic and sent somewhere closer, like the Moon, and the life support devices tested separately, such as in a space station, which would be much cheaper than actually sending someone to Mars.

Nobody has said that the point of math and science was competition: the point of the competition is to get people to do more math and science!

Except for the comparisons of maths and science to a sport, and that if it were all one team it would be "boring"?

As I've said, competition between multiple teams is better than just having the one team. But cooperation will produce better and faster results. Unless you think CERN would be much more effective if it were dissolved and each constituent country carried out its own nuclear/particle research program independently, researching the same exact thing at a slower pace a dozen times.