The next frontier: MARS!
Ok, so the moon would probably be good too, but I want to talk about what kind of people you would want to send to Mars.
In Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, the optimal explorers are four married couples with varied expertise including:
an astrogator, medical doctor, cook, machinist, commander, semantician, chemical engineer, electronics engineer, physicist, geologist, biochemist, biologist, nuclear engineer, hydroponicist.
Presumably, you would want people that could function without contact from earth in the case of disaster.
With space exploration to Mars tantalizingly close, what do you think are the best skills to look for in a Mars crew? What kind of situations would they probably face?
It could take a year and a half each way on a Mars trip so before sending anyone, I would give them a minimum of six months at a North Pole station in the middle of winter as training. They have to be able to get on with others and endure literally months when almost nothing happens. Obviously there will be some multi-tasking as the crew will be small, maybe 3 or 4 people. I would not send couples because being in such close company all the time with virtually no privacy, it is not just rows to worry about but infidelity. The last thing you need in such close quarters for such a long time is some very angry people.
Human suspended animation is being worked on and it would be ideal if you could put people to sleep for months at a time. It would conserve oxygen, food and water.
The big thing for them when they arrive is to search for bacterial life which will probably be below the surface. If they went in the Martian summer, possibly they could find a use for the methane released (assuming they could get it in the first place).
Human suspended animation is being worked on and it would be ideal if you could put people to sleep for months at a time. It would conserve oxygen, food and water.
The big thing for them when they arrive is to search for bacterial life which will probably be below the surface. If they went in the Martian summer, possibly they could find a use for the methane released (assuming they could get it in the first place).
I have the perfect crew for you Q - Fishy and all his sockpuppets!!!
That´s right Q - and no inter-personal relationship problems among the crew. And, think of the fuel saving - and a few bags of fish-food would get them there and back - well, there anyway!! Might even find water there and live happily ever after!
e.
e.
Hey Q - Is this true? You should have told me yourself. I mean , relying on the likes of Fishy, I might never have known!! xxxxx !
Trout Posted: Yesterday at 10:18 PM
Negative QuaterAss has the hots for you. He wants to date you
Trout Posted: Yesterday at 10:18 PM
Negative QuaterAss has the hots for you. He wants to date you
Submarine crews. On Boomers we spent nearly 3 months at a time submerged in a hostile environment depending on just ourselves for survival. With 120 men in a 425 foot long, 40 foot in diameter tube of stainless steel for three months you learned to get along. At east on Mars you could go outside once in while and see something besides Grey paint.
So, perhaps make them do a three month patrol on a submarine, 6 months in either the Arctic or Antarctica then another 3 month patrol.
First off it should probably be an all male crew to establish the colony, followed by a mixed group that would populate it.
Mike
So, perhaps make them do a three month patrol on a submarine, 6 months in either the Arctic or Antarctica then another 3 month patrol.
First off it should probably be an all male crew to establish the colony, followed by a mixed group that would populate it.
Mike
Edward 3. Considering the sad state of Trout's mind, I would be very worried if we agreed on anything and if he liked me. I suppose we should feel sorry for him as he sits in a corner and rants and rants. Poor, poor Trout.
mault
I would send retired, experienced submariners and it would be a one way trip. Set up robot missions for a few years ahead of time, send enough shelter and robot tractors to bury that shelter, set up solar panels, etc. and, for the first crews, anyway, go to mars to stay. But you could include equal amounts of men and women from the start. Once you get to Mars, land and power and materials are cheep and free.
I would volunteer to go on the very first ship, danger and all.
Grumpy
I would send retired, experienced submariners and it would be a one way trip. Set up robot missions for a few years ahead of time, send enough shelter and robot tractors to bury that shelter, set up solar panels, etc. and, for the first crews, anyway, go to mars to stay. But you could include equal amounts of men and women from the start. Once you get to Mars, land and power and materials are cheep and free.
I would volunteer to go on the very first ship, danger and all.
Grumpy
Me too! Of course my wife wouldn't go withou the grand children!
I have a question about suspended animation. What are the limitations to a medically induced coma, would that work similarly? I don't know how long you can stay in the coma, aftermath damage to the body, or how to get out of it. Is it a valid idea ?
QUOTE (Cusa+Apr 22 2009, 03:40 AM)
Why are people fascinated with the red planet?
If I was there I would kick a rock or two and then get bored...
There is almost certainly bacterial life below the surface of Mars. Finding proof of life elsewhere in the universe will be amazing news fort all except creationists.
If I was there I would kick a rock or two and then get bored...
There is almost certainly bacterial life below the surface of Mars. Finding proof of life elsewhere in the universe will be amazing news fort all except creationists.
QUOTE (Michael J+Apr 22 2009, 03:49 AM)
I have a question about suspended animation. What are the limitations to a medically induced coma, would that work similarly? I don't know how long you can stay in the coma, aftermath damage to the body, or how to get out of it. Is it a valid idea ?
The trouble with such comas is that they have to be closely supervised and there should be a competent person available to bring them out of a coma, and a staff nearby to treat any problems that may occur from it. We really need suspended animation rather than a coma. Or possibly hibernation, like bears do.
The trouble with such comas is that they have to be closely supervised and there should be a competent person available to bring them out of a coma, and a staff nearby to treat any problems that may occur from it. We really need suspended animation rather than a coma. Or possibly hibernation, like bears do.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 02:32 PM)
The trouble with such comas is that they have to be closely supervised and there should be a competent person available to bring them out of a coma, and a staff nearby to treat any problems that may occur from it. We really need suspended animation rather than a coma. Or possibly hibernation, like bears do.
You may find it will be difficult to get any experimental subjects for any trials. I mean rats and monkeys are one thing, but will anyone actually volunteer to be the 1st person to be actually frozen?
You may find it will be difficult to get any experimental subjects for any trials. I mean rats and monkeys are one thing, but will anyone actually volunteer to be the 1st person to be actually frozen?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 09:25 AM)
Finding proof of life elsewhere in the universe will be amazing news fort all except creationists.
Why would you say that? There is nothing relevant to "creationism" involving life elsewhere.
That is, finding life on Mars or an extra-solar planet would not in any way change my world view.
====
As for the trip, sign me up. Let's go right now, yesterday even...
Why would you say that? There is nothing relevant to "creationism" involving life elsewhere.
That is, finding life on Mars or an extra-solar planet would not in any way change my world view.
====
As for the trip, sign me up. Let's go right now, yesterday even...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 10:32 AM)
That is, finding life on Mars or an extra-solar planet would not in any way change my world view.
The true sign of a religious extremist.
The true sign of a religious extremist.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 29 2009, 09:48 AM)
The true sign of a religious extremist.
How so?
Where has any Christian ever claimed that God couldn't do whatever he wanted with his universe? If he has 5 trillion intelligent races, hopefully most smarter and more moral than us, throughout this universe and others, so what? Its his business and simply shows his splendour all that much more.
Nobody has ever claimed that humans are God's only intelligent creation, nor that earth was the only place of life. Christians have always maintained that their are other intelligent beings in the universe.
How so?
Where has any Christian ever claimed that God couldn't do whatever he wanted with his universe? If he has 5 trillion intelligent races, hopefully most smarter and more moral than us, throughout this universe and others, so what? Its his business and simply shows his splendour all that much more.
Nobody has ever claimed that humans are God's only intelligent creation, nor that earth was the only place of life. Christians have always maintained that their are other intelligent beings in the universe.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 11:46 AM)
How so?
Where has any Christian ever claimed that God couldn't do whatever he wanted with his universe? If he has 5 trillion intelligent races, hopefully most smarter and more moral than us, throughout this universe and others, so what? Its his business and simply shows his splendour all that much more.
So alien Jesus died on 5 trillion planets?
Where has any Christian ever claimed that God couldn't do whatever he wanted with his universe? If he has 5 trillion intelligent races, hopefully most smarter and more moral than us, throughout this universe and others, so what? Its his business and simply shows his splendour all that much more.
So alien Jesus died on 5 trillion planets?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 29 2009, 10:51 AM)
So alien Jesus died on 5 trillion planets?
1) Nobody said Jesus was an alien.
2) There is no need for Jesus to have died repeatedly on other planets, even if their populations somehow needed salvation in the same manner humans have. The reason is given in the Bible.
Hebrews 9:23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
===
1) Nobody said Jesus was an alien.
2) There is no need for Jesus to have died repeatedly on other planets, even if their populations somehow needed salvation in the same manner humans have. The reason is given in the Bible.
Hebrews 9:23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
===
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 29 2009, 11:55 AM)
2) There is no need for Jesus to have died repeatedly on other planets, even if their populations somehow needed salvation in the same manner humans have. The reason is given in the Bible.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 16 2009, 07:35 PM)
mault
I would send retired, experienced submariners and it would be a one way trip. Set up robot missions for a few years ahead of time, send enough shelter and robot tractors to bury that shelter, set up solar panels, etc. and, for the first crews, anyway, go to mars to stay. But you could include equal amounts of men and women from the start. Once you get to Mars, land and power and materials are cheep and free.
I would volunteer to go on the very first ship, danger and all.
Grumpy
I would send retired, experienced submariners and it would be a one way trip. Set up robot missions for a few years ahead of time, send enough shelter and robot tractors to bury that shelter, set up solar panels, etc. and, for the first crews, anyway, go to mars to stay. But you could include equal amounts of men and women from the start. Once you get to Mars, land and power and materials are cheep and free.
I would volunteer to go on the very first ship, danger and all.
Grumpy
That's not a bad idea Grumpy. One way crews could include retired experts, the terminally ill, and suitable long term prison inmates. Shelters and material processing units could be kinetically embedded into suitable geologic sites, negating the need to bury them with machinery. Using hibernation would minimize payload weight and crew stress.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum @ Aug 29 2009, 11:55 AM)
2) There is no need for Jesus to have died repeatedly on other planets, even if their populations somehow needed salvation in the same manner humans have. The reason is given in the Bible.
x 10^loads.
2) There is no need for Jesus to have died repeatedly on other planets, even if their populations somehow needed salvation in the same manner humans have. The reason is given in the Bible.
x 10^loads.
Send prisoners and 'lifers' ... if they die in the process - no loss because we'd just kill them anyway or they'd rot away in jail at our expense (Though it would be a significant investment to send them up to Mars - and you run the risk of not having anybody alive by the time the shuttle makes there). Maybe don't send the serial murderers with groups ..... hmmm needs work
QUOTE (Drive The Nail+Sep 1 2009, 08:54 AM)
Send prisoners and 'lifers' ... if they die in the process - no loss because we'd just kill them anyway or they'd rot away in jail at our expense (Though it would be a significant investment to send them up to Mars - and you run the risk of not having anybody alive by the time the shuttle makes there). Maybe don't send the serial murderers with groups ..... hmmm needs work
Ummmm, why? What's the point in sending humans to space if you don't send trained astronauts? Monkeys would be more useful than prison inmates on a space mission.
That's, one small step for man, one giant leap for psychopaths everywhere.
In other news, 1000 POSTS!!!!
Ummmm, why? What's the point in sending humans to space if you don't send trained astronauts? Monkeys would be more useful than prison inmates on a space mission.
That's, one small step for man, one giant leap for psychopaths everywhere.
In other news, 1000 POSTS!!!!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 1 2009, 09:55 AM)
Ummmm, why? What's the point in sending humans to space if you don't send trained astronauts? Monkeys would be more useful than prison inmates on a space mission.
That's, one small step for man, one giant leap for psychopaths everywhere.
In other news, 1000 POSTS!!!!
If you are going to have a manned mission to mars, given the distance and time involved in travel both ways, you may as well plan on staying on the surface for at least several months to possibly several years to maximize the benefit of the mission.
The Lunar missions were a few days, like a vacation or business trip. But Mars is at least for several years all together.
A single guy(or gal) probably isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from earth, and a married person isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from their spouse. So that leaves willing prisoners or willing couples. I'd prefer couples.
That's, one small step for man, one giant leap for psychopaths everywhere.
In other news, 1000 POSTS!!!!
If you are going to have a manned mission to mars, given the distance and time involved in travel both ways, you may as well plan on staying on the surface for at least several months to possibly several years to maximize the benefit of the mission.
The Lunar missions were a few days, like a vacation or business trip. But Mars is at least for several years all together.
A single guy(or gal) probably isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from earth, and a married person isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from their spouse. So that leaves willing prisoners or willing couples. I'd prefer couples.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 09:29 AM)
A single guy(or gal) probably isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from earth, and a married person isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from their spouse. So that leaves willing prisoners or willing couples. I'd prefer couples.
Given that prisoners are not known to have astronaut training (one exception), I would have to agree.
On the other hand, I'm still not exactly clear on why we should send people when a robot can do a better job. Given an equivalent price tag, a sophisticated robot would do a better job of contributing to scientific knowledge than a human would. With a human, you are getting a more intelligent, flexible, adaptable, and versatile tool of exploration, but the price tag of life support, return vehicle and provisions is too much. With that money, you could send twice the amount of scientific instruments and a much better surface vehicle. Imagine the current rover and double the size, give it a nuclear reactor, give it a supercomputer and give it an electron microscope.
Given that prisoners are not known to have astronaut training (one exception), I would have to agree.
On the other hand, I'm still not exactly clear on why we should send people when a robot can do a better job. Given an equivalent price tag, a sophisticated robot would do a better job of contributing to scientific knowledge than a human would. With a human, you are getting a more intelligent, flexible, adaptable, and versatile tool of exploration, but the price tag of life support, return vehicle and provisions is too much. With that money, you could send twice the amount of scientific instruments and a much better surface vehicle. Imagine the current rover and double the size, give it a nuclear reactor, give it a supercomputer and give it an electron microscope.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 01:29 PM)
A single guy(or gal) probably isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from earth, and a married person isn't going to want to go on a several years long mission away from their spouse. So that leaves willing prisoners or willing couples. I'd prefer couples.
This prisoner for the most part would be a good candidate.
User posted image: User posted image
Pluses: High IQ, thrives on isolation, and is very self reliant.
Negatives: Hates technology, and may possibly need meds to carry out the intended mission.
User posted image: User posted image
Pluses: High IQ, thrives on isolation, and is very self reliant.
Negatives: Hates technology, and may possibly need meds to carry out the intended mission.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 2 2009, 01:44 PM)
On the other hand, I'm still not exactly clear on why we should send people when a robot can do a better job.
I fail to understand why the answer "Because it's there" isn't satisfactory. It was good enough for Lucy and her descendants when they migrated out of Africa. Humans are explorers.
It is only by exploring and investigating that we learn the things we need to know so we can make decisions about our potential futures. You think robots can provide that. I couldn't disagree more.
Robots lack a vital part of the sharing of that knowledge. Humans will come back from Mars and share their experiences. They will excite others to continue their efforts. The response of the world to robot exploration is nothing other than "Wow... that's really cool". Vicarious living is something we all participate in. We cant empathize with the robots journey or experiences.
Compare the expense of a comprehensive first mission to mars to the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan. Compare it to the cumulative spending on defense by the nations of the world for that matter. Going to Mars for nothing other than the sake of accomplishing the feat is good enough for me. The moon missions created a generation of interest in science. And the 40 years since have been the most productive period of scientific innovation and contribution to civilization in the history of mankind. If we'd gone with robots I doubt those contributions would be quite as extensive.
I fail to understand why the answer "Because it's there" isn't satisfactory. It was good enough for Lucy and her descendants when they migrated out of Africa. Humans are explorers.
It is only by exploring and investigating that we learn the things we need to know so we can make decisions about our potential futures. You think robots can provide that. I couldn't disagree more.
Robots lack a vital part of the sharing of that knowledge. Humans will come back from Mars and share their experiences. They will excite others to continue their efforts. The response of the world to robot exploration is nothing other than "Wow... that's really cool". Vicarious living is something we all participate in. We cant empathize with the robots journey or experiences.
Compare the expense of a comprehensive first mission to mars to the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan. Compare it to the cumulative spending on defense by the nations of the world for that matter. Going to Mars for nothing other than the sake of accomplishing the feat is good enough for me. The moon missions created a generation of interest in science. And the 40 years since have been the most productive period of scientific innovation and contribution to civilization in the history of mankind. If we'd gone with robots I doubt those contributions would be quite as extensive.
Capracus
Why reward prisoners when there will be an overflow of scientists that will volunteer to retire to Mars.
Grumpy
QUOTE
suitable long term prison inmates
Why reward prisoners when there will be an overflow of scientists that will volunteer to retire to Mars.
Grumpy
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 3 2009, 08:47 AM)
I fail to understand why the answer "Because it's there" isn't satisfactory. It was good enough for Lucy and her descendants when they migrated out of Africa. Humans are explorers.
Humans are still exploring, they're just using robots. If Lucy had robots, I'm sure she would have used them.
Human expeditions may contribute more to public attention to science, but robots inevitably contribute more to scientific understanding, on a dollar by dollar basis.
Human expeditions may contribute more to public attention to science, but robots inevitably contribute more to scientific understanding, on a dollar by dollar basis.
Compare the expense of a comprehensive first mission to mars to the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan. Compare it to the cumulative spending on defense by the nations of the world for that matter. Going to Mars for nothing other than the sake of accomplishing the feat is good enough for me. The moon missions created a generation of interest in science. And the 40 years since have been the most productive period of scientific innovation and contribution to civilization in the history of mankind. If we'd gone with robots I doubt those contributions would be quite as extensive.
Out of 7 moon attempts, 6 were successful and 1 required a mission abort. The trip to Mars would take 2 years. The Apollo missions took 8 days. That's 91+ times longer. On Apollo 13, 1 tiny part blew off the side of the spacecraft. Any Mars craft would be many times more complex, and have much higher probability of failure. Until we can figure out a better method of propulsion and reduce the transit time, I'm not sure how any mission to Mars could be considered safe. Nothing would be worse for NASA PR than a crew of dead astronauts.
Not so. I can't account well for the contribution to scientific understanding that the huge increase in interest amongst a generation was responsible for. It is I suppose somewhat of an indirect relationship but I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that 25% of the innovations we've seen wouldn't have happened because little Johnny Johnson and Sally Smith weren't inspired by the Moon mission and instead became junk bond traders. If you measure discovery by discovery then the two missions might be comparable. What human on the planet wouldn't be transfixed for the duration by a Mars Mission? Most humans on the planet wouldn't be excited in any major way by a robotic mission.
Not so. I can't account well for the contribution to scientific understanding that the huge increase in interest amongst a generation was responsible for. It is I suppose somewhat of an indirect relationship but I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that 25% of the innovations we've seen wouldn't have happened because little Johnny Johnson and Sally Smith weren't inspired by the Moon mission and instead became junk bond traders. If you measure discovery by discovery then the two missions might be comparable. What human on the planet wouldn't be transfixed for the duration by a Mars Mission? Most humans on the planet wouldn't be excited in any major way by a robotic mission.
Out of 7 moon attempts, 6 were successful and 1 required a mission abort. The trip to Mars would take 2 years. The Apollo missions took 8 days. That's 91+ times longer. On Apollo 13, 1 tiny part blew off the side of the spacecraft. Any Mars craft would be many times more complex, and have much higher probability of failure. Until we can figure out a better method of propulsion and reduce the transit time, I'm not sure how any mission to Mars could be considered safe. Nothing would be worse for NASA PR than a crew of dead astronauts.
Tragedies in space have a dramatic way of binding the rest of humanity together. I'd argue that an accident would have the opposite PR effect. The world rallies and empathizes greatly with tragedy ... see 9/11 and Xmas Tsunami.
It isn't something anyone would ever want to happen but the loss of 8 lives from a population of 6 billion represents a pretty small percentage. In an earlier age of exploration many ships of 40-50 men were lost and the population of the planet was 200-300 million. The risk profile in that sense is minimal.
Chemical rockets are for boobs. There is no reason we couldn't have some reasonably powerful Ion Engines ready within a decade for such a journey. I've seen estimates that cut travel times by much more than half from your "2 years" for such a system. But in any case, you'd have tons of folks lining up for their shot to go no matter the propulsion method and total round-trip time.
I think robot advocates greatly underestimate the overwhelming positives that only the human factor can contribute. I restate that the "vicarious factor" for us watching back on Earth and the interest it creates in the next generation for science cannot be overstated. It is HUGE.
No robot can replace the eyes of a geologist. You can extrapolate that statement to include various scientific disciplines. Robots are greatly limited and incredibly sensitive to unforeseen challenges. Humans handle unforeseen challenges everyday ... especially MacGiver.
Humans are still exploring, they're just using robots. If Lucy had robots, I'm sure she would have used them.
QUOTE
Robots lack a vital part of the sharing of that knowledge. Humans will come back from Mars and share their experiences. They will excite others to continue their efforts. The response of the world to robot exploration is nothing other than "Wow... that's really cool". Vicarious living is something we all participate in. We cant empathize with the robots journey or experiences.
Human expeditions may contribute more to public attention to science, but robots inevitably contribute more to scientific understanding, on a dollar by dollar basis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Robots lack a vital part of the sharing of that knowledge. Humans will come back from Mars and share their experiences. They will excite others to continue their efforts. The response of the world to robot exploration is nothing other than "Wow... that's really cool". Vicarious living is something we all participate in. We cant empathize with the robots journey or experiences. |
Human expeditions may contribute more to public attention to science, but robots inevitably contribute more to scientific understanding, on a dollar by dollar basis.
Compare the expense of a comprehensive first mission to mars to the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan. Compare it to the cumulative spending on defense by the nations of the world for that matter. Going to Mars for nothing other than the sake of accomplishing the feat is good enough for me. The moon missions created a generation of interest in science. And the 40 years since have been the most productive period of scientific innovation and contribution to civilization in the history of mankind. If we'd gone with robots I doubt those contributions would be quite as extensive.
Out of 7 moon attempts, 6 were successful and 1 required a mission abort. The trip to Mars would take 2 years. The Apollo missions took 8 days. That's 91+ times longer. On Apollo 13, 1 tiny part blew off the side of the spacecraft. Any Mars craft would be many times more complex, and have much higher probability of failure. Until we can figure out a better method of propulsion and reduce the transit time, I'm not sure how any mission to Mars could be considered safe. Nothing would be worse for NASA PR than a crew of dead astronauts.
QUOTE
Human expeditions may contribute more to public attention to science, but robots inevitably contribute more to scientific understanding, on a dollar by dollar basis.
Not so. I can't account well for the contribution to scientific understanding that the huge increase in interest amongst a generation was responsible for. It is I suppose somewhat of an indirect relationship but I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that 25% of the innovations we've seen wouldn't have happened because little Johnny Johnson and Sally Smith weren't inspired by the Moon mission and instead became junk bond traders. If you measure discovery by discovery then the two missions might be comparable. What human on the planet wouldn't be transfixed for the duration by a Mars Mission? Most humans on the planet wouldn't be excited in any major way by a robotic mission.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Human expeditions may contribute more to public attention to science, but robots inevitably contribute more to scientific understanding, on a dollar by dollar basis. |
Not so. I can't account well for the contribution to scientific understanding that the huge increase in interest amongst a generation was responsible for. It is I suppose somewhat of an indirect relationship but I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that 25% of the innovations we've seen wouldn't have happened because little Johnny Johnson and Sally Smith weren't inspired by the Moon mission and instead became junk bond traders. If you measure discovery by discovery then the two missions might be comparable. What human on the planet wouldn't be transfixed for the duration by a Mars Mission? Most humans on the planet wouldn't be excited in any major way by a robotic mission.
Out of 7 moon attempts, 6 were successful and 1 required a mission abort. The trip to Mars would take 2 years. The Apollo missions took 8 days. That's 91+ times longer. On Apollo 13, 1 tiny part blew off the side of the spacecraft. Any Mars craft would be many times more complex, and have much higher probability of failure. Until we can figure out a better method of propulsion and reduce the transit time, I'm not sure how any mission to Mars could be considered safe. Nothing would be worse for NASA PR than a crew of dead astronauts.
Tragedies in space have a dramatic way of binding the rest of humanity together. I'd argue that an accident would have the opposite PR effect. The world rallies and empathizes greatly with tragedy ... see 9/11 and Xmas Tsunami.
It isn't something anyone would ever want to happen but the loss of 8 lives from a population of 6 billion represents a pretty small percentage. In an earlier age of exploration many ships of 40-50 men were lost and the population of the planet was 200-300 million. The risk profile in that sense is minimal.
Chemical rockets are for boobs. There is no reason we couldn't have some reasonably powerful Ion Engines ready within a decade for such a journey. I've seen estimates that cut travel times by much more than half from your "2 years" for such a system. But in any case, you'd have tons of folks lining up for their shot to go no matter the propulsion method and total round-trip time.
I think robot advocates greatly underestimate the overwhelming positives that only the human factor can contribute. I restate that the "vicarious factor" for us watching back on Earth and the interest it creates in the next generation for science cannot be overstated. It is HUGE.
No robot can replace the eyes of a geologist. You can extrapolate that statement to include various scientific disciplines. Robots are greatly limited and incredibly sensitive to unforeseen challenges. Humans handle unforeseen challenges everyday ... especially MacGiver.
I'll give you that manned missions are much more inspiring than automated ones.
I'm not sure where you are getting those very optimistic projections for ion drives. The more you increase the thrust, the more fuel you have to carry. Currently, ion drives work by accelerating very minute amounts of atoms/molecules out the back of the rocket. An increase in that amount would require a much more powerful magnetic field. I guess it doesn't sound so unrealistic. We'll see where we are in a few years.
I'm not sure where you are getting those very optimistic projections for ion drives. The more you increase the thrust, the more fuel you have to carry. Currently, ion drives work by accelerating very minute amounts of atoms/molecules out the back of the rocket. An increase in that amount would require a much more powerful magnetic field. I guess it doesn't sound so unrealistic. We'll see where we are in a few years.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 01:43 AM)
I'll give you that manned missions are much more inspiring than automated ones.
I'm not sure where you are getting those very optimistic projections for ion drives. The more you increase the thrust, the more fuel you have to carry. Currently, ion drives work by accelerating very minute amounts of atoms/molecules out the back of the rocket. An increase in that amount would require a much more powerful magnetic field. I guess it doesn't sound so unrealistic. We'll see where we are in a few years.
The first link I investigated with a google search of "current Ion engine"
Which lead to a google search of VASIMR ...
Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket.
The advantage of any sort of Ion propulsion seems to me that it's pretty scalable. Need more thrust ... add another engine of whatever type you're using and bingo. Yes ... you still have to carry fuel ... but vastly lesser amounts compared to chemical propulsion ... it's a no-brainer.
Robert Zubrin's Ares plan was fine when conceived more than a decade ago. But to proceed with it when we can go with far superior systems seems silly to me. But I ain't in charge ... as long as they go I'll be satisfied. When we go the second time we can use the Ion drives. If 39 day trips are really possible then we should be going balls to the wall to make that happen. That would also alleviate the need for extensive efforts to simulate gravity for the crews. Then again you could use power from the Ion engines to easily spin a crew module fast enough to simulate 1 earth G if you thought it necessary or if you were on a low budget 180 day trip.
I'm not sure where you are getting those very optimistic projections for ion drives. The more you increase the thrust, the more fuel you have to carry. Currently, ion drives work by accelerating very minute amounts of atoms/molecules out the back of the rocket. An increase in that amount would require a much more powerful magnetic field. I guess it doesn't sound so unrealistic. We'll see where we are in a few years.
The first link I investigated with a google search of "current Ion engine"
Which lead to a google search of VASIMR ...
Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket.
The advantage of any sort of Ion propulsion seems to me that it's pretty scalable. Need more thrust ... add another engine of whatever type you're using and bingo. Yes ... you still have to carry fuel ... but vastly lesser amounts compared to chemical propulsion ... it's a no-brainer.
Robert Zubrin's Ares plan was fine when conceived more than a decade ago. But to proceed with it when we can go with far superior systems seems silly to me. But I ain't in charge ... as long as they go I'll be satisfied. When we go the second time we can use the Ion drives. If 39 day trips are really possible then we should be going balls to the wall to make that happen. That would also alleviate the need for extensive efforts to simulate gravity for the crews. Then again you could use power from the Ion engines to easily spin a crew module fast enough to simulate 1 earth G if you thought it necessary or if you were on a low budget 180 day trip.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 3 2009, 10:13 PM)
Robert Zubrin's Ares plan was fine when conceived more than a decade ago. But to proceed with it when we can go with far superior systems seems silly to me. But I ain't in charge ... as long as they go I'll be satisfied. When we go the second time we can use the Ion drives. If 39 day trips are really possible then we should be going balls to the wall to make that happen. That would also alleviate the need for extensive efforts to simulate gravity for the crews. Then again you could use power from the Ion engines to easily spin a crew module fast enough to simulate 1 earth G if you thought it necessary or if you were on a low budget 180 day trip.The first link I investigated with a google search of "current Ion engine"
I definitely think that they should launch a habitat and return module in advance of the astronauts. Keeping the spacecraft as simple as possible should reduce the probability of catastrophe.
Also, they need to figure out an alternative to the "bounce landing" that has been standard practice up until now.
I definitely think that they should launch a habitat and return module in advance of the astronauts. Keeping the spacecraft as simple as possible should reduce the probability of catastrophe.
Also, they need to figure out an alternative to the "bounce landing" that has been standard practice up until now.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 02:29 AM)
I definitely think that they should launch a habitat and return module in advance of the astronauts. Keeping the spacecraft as simple as possible should reduce the probability of catastrophe.
Also, they need to figure out an alternative to the "bounce landing" that has been standard practice up until now.
And any necessary "staging" can be done without regard to how long it takes to get there.
I guess the bounce landing isn't scalable much beyond the mass of what we've sent using that method ... which is one reason that Phoenix didn't use it. I'd expect more "areobraking" perhaps even using several passes like the MRO did.
Also, they need to figure out an alternative to the "bounce landing" that has been standard practice up until now.
And any necessary "staging" can be done without regard to how long it takes to get there.
I guess the bounce landing isn't scalable much beyond the mass of what we've sent using that method ... which is one reason that Phoenix didn't use it. I'd expect more "areobraking" perhaps even using several passes like the MRO did.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 3 2009, 01:16 PM)
Capracus
Why reward prisoners when there will be an overflow of scientists that will volunteer to retire to Mars.
Grumpy
I'm not crazy about sending any manned missions to Mars, or anywhere else for that matter. Unfortunately the manned space advocates are in the majority, and manned spaceflight seems destined to go forward, so your idea of a one way trip appealed to my desire to minimize the effort. Sending prison inmates is just another step to further minimize that effort. Since we are already spending some $40k a year on their incarceration, we might as well get something in return for our investment. If retired scientists want to make a contribution to the advancement of research, their efforts will be maximized by keeping them here on Earth. Sending humans to mars is for the most part done out of a sense of romance, and not an honest attempt to engage in good science.
Why reward prisoners when there will be an overflow of scientists that will volunteer to retire to Mars.
Grumpy
I'm not crazy about sending any manned missions to Mars, or anywhere else for that matter. Unfortunately the manned space advocates are in the majority, and manned spaceflight seems destined to go forward, so your idea of a one way trip appealed to my desire to minimize the effort. Sending prison inmates is just another step to further minimize that effort. Since we are already spending some $40k a year on their incarceration, we might as well get something in return for our investment. If retired scientists want to make a contribution to the advancement of research, their efforts will be maximized by keeping them here on Earth. Sending humans to mars is for the most part done out of a sense of romance, and not an honest attempt to engage in good science.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 4 2009, 08:39 AM)
I'm not crazy about sending any manned missions to Mars, or anywhere else for that matter. Unfortunately the manned space advocates are in the majority, and manned spaceflight seems destined to go forward, so your idea of a one way trip appealed to my desire to minimize the effort. Sending prison inmates is just another step to further minimize that effort. Since we are already spending some $40k a year on their incarceration, we might as well get something in return for our investment. If retired scientists want to make a contribution to the advancement of research, their efforts will be maximized by keeping them here on Earth. Sending humans to mars is for the most part done out of a sense of romance, and not an honest attempt to engage in good science.
Why doesn't anyone understand? Sending inmates to space completely undermines the point of manned spaceflight! One, it's not inspiring, which is the whole point of manned spaceflight. Two, they have no astronaut training. Three, they aren't scientists by any stretch of the imagination, so they won't be able to study Mars in any sense of the word. Four, how long would it take for them to create outer space's first shank?
Why doesn't anyone understand? Sending inmates to space completely undermines the point of manned spaceflight! One, it's not inspiring, which is the whole point of manned spaceflight. Two, they have no astronaut training. Three, they aren't scientists by any stretch of the imagination, so they won't be able to study Mars in any sense of the word. Four, how long would it take for them to create outer space's first shank?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 01:25 PM)
Four, how long would it take for them to create outer space's first shank?
Zero time. It would be in their rectum before they boarded the spacecraft.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 4 2009, 09:51 AM)
Zero time. It would be in their rectum before they boarded the spacecraft.
I would hate to see what 3G's do to a rectum-shank. I think you have your first fatality.
I would hate to see what 3G's do to a rectum-shank. I think you have your first fatality.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 01:56 PM)
I would hate to see what 3G's do to a rectum-shank. I think you have your first fatality.
Well said, you 'ring' god.
Well said, you 'ring' god.
For much the same resources it will take for a return journey, you could support a permanent colony indefinitely. Mars should be a one way trip from the start, but not with prisoners, send older scientists looking for a low G environment to ease their aching bones. I would volunteer right now, so would a lot of others. Mankind needs a seperate civilization to protect against catastrophe.
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 5 2009, 10:07 AM)
For much the same resources it will take for a return journey, you could support a permanent colony indefinitely. Mars should be a one way trip from the start, but not with prisoners, send older scientists looking for a low G environment to ease their aching bones. I would volunteer right now, so would a lot of others. Mankind needs a seperate civilization to protect against catastrophe.
Grumpy
At least then you'd be taking your whole "HEY YOU BASTID KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN" act somewhere else. The neighborhood kids will be grateful.
Seriously, I've got only one real problem with everyone staying. It means something to people to touch, see and/or experience people that have accomplished something noteworthy. And a live representative of mankind's greatest accomplishment has some serious cachet in those terms. Let half of them stay. Then fire up the 39 day ion engines and let the rest of us visit. I bet Olympus Mons is a disappointment from the surface. It's so bloody big that it must extend beyond the horizons.
Grumpy
At least then you'd be taking your whole "HEY YOU BASTID KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN" act somewhere else. The neighborhood kids will be grateful.
Seriously, I've got only one real problem with everyone staying. It means something to people to touch, see and/or experience people that have accomplished something noteworthy. And a live representative of mankind's greatest accomplishment has some serious cachet in those terms. Let half of them stay. Then fire up the 39 day ion engines and let the rest of us visit. I bet Olympus Mons is a disappointment from the surface. It's so bloody big that it must extend beyond the horizons.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 5 2009, 10:07 AM)
For much the same resources it will take for a return journey, you could support a permanent colony indefinitely. Mars should be a one way trip from the start, but not with prisoners, send older scientists looking for a low G environment to ease their aching bones. I would volunteer right now, so would a lot of others. Mankind needs a seperate civilization to protect against catastrophe.
Grumpy
Grumpy
Pack your bags Grumpy, the bus might leave in about 30 years.
QUOTE
Sticking with the present program would give the United States its heavy-lift Ares 5 by about 2028, but there would be no money to develop a lunar lander or even a rocket motor to leave Earth's orbit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090908/sc_nm/us_space_strategy
As long as NASA's annual budget is equal to the annual spending on bottled water, you're not going to see career astronauts get very far, let alone retired scientists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090908/sc_nm/us_space_strategy
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.