Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Southwind17]

My post was strictly about converting the dollar amounts involved. I wanted to point out that there are other ways of performing such conversions beyond using the CPI. By using GDP values, it puts the expenditures made on the Manhattan Project or Apollo into a different context.

I understand, but if that's the sole purpose of your post then it's somewhat out of context of this thread. Perhaps a new thread in the Business Skepticism Forum would be more appropriate?!

 

[Southwind17]

Soviets had a penchant at tat time to prove that communism was culturally superior and that the proof was scientific advancement. Once the race was lost the point was mute.
They also found themselves failing more often than the USA in unmanned landers there. So perhaps to avoid further embarrassment.

Of course there are those who claim we were warned to leave the moon alone by aliens.

What are your views?

I think it could be as I alluded to earlier - the technological obstacles differentiating Earth orbital or lunar expeditions from inter-planetary are poles apart, and the upside of a Mars expedition is extremely difficult to justify in the context of those obstacles, the inherent risks (the two being related, of course) and the cost.

What is a dark moon's meaning?

It's just a book refuting the Apollo manned moon landings, that's all.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't feel that's in any way certain.

Let me indulge in some speculation. [snip]

The question of who to send and how to investigate is different. There are strong arguments for both robotic and human exploration, provided feasibility can be achieved. Most of my work focuses on robotic exploration but I support both.

Again, all opinions mine alone, I do not speak for NASA, no investment advice offered or implied by my posts.

OK for the first part of your post. But send robots, not people. You never know what sort of medical or mental problem might develop. Look at Lisa Nowak. You never know when a person will go off the deep end. But even if the people can handle it, you have to bring all sorts of extra things along to prevent them from dying. And with robots it can be a 1-way trip, which makes it easier. If microbes are there, robots can find them as well as astronauts.

I would want to know of at least one tangible benefit to sending humans instead of robots before committing all the extra resources that would be required. The humans in the 2030's will presumably be about the same as the humans of today, but the difference betwee the robots of today and those of the 2030's would probably be like the difference between the Wright Flyer and a WWII era aircraft. By the latter half of the century, it'll be supersonic jet aircraft and rockets.

If Mars can be terraformed to create permanent habitable colonies, robots should probably do the initial work. People can come later. I just don't see a practical use for sending people to go and come back.

 

[Belz...]

Let me echo what several others have said -- NASA is not rushing to Mars. We have no real ETA for a crewed Mars mission of any kind. Any speculation that such a rush involves disregard for safety or testing is simply incorrect.

There are many, many technical challenges. The two biggest, in my opinion, are the following:

1. Mass Fraction

"Mass Fraction" refers to the size of the launch stack that is actual payload. The rest is fuel, engines, more fuel, structure, fuel, other consumables, and so on. Typical launch vehicles are in the 8-1 to 20-1 range, with Shuttle at roughly 15-1.

A Mars mission requires several launch phases -- Earth to Earth orbit, Earth orbit to Mars transfer orbit, transfer orbit to Mars orbit, Mars orbit to Mars surface, and all that in reverse. All those mass fractions add up. The studies I've read show the overall mass fraction is in the range of 2000 to 1, if done traditionally.

This isn't going to happen.

Either we need breakthrough propulsion, or we need some other clever way to get this number down. One hot idea is to mine the Martian surface for fuel, but so far, this is purely hypothetical. Lots and lots and lots of research is needed before this could possibly be attempted for real.

2. Radiation Exposure

This is harder than it sounds. In the Apollo missions, the astronauts were in danger of being killed by solar weather. This was an accepted risk, because the mission durations were short, and bad solar flares rarely spring up in a few days without first producing warning signs. For a Mars mission, this no longer holds.

We need shielding, and we need better space medicine. There's no escaping this conclusion. There have been many ideas floated about the best way to achieve these, but it's not a simple choice. The weight of shielding, no matter what form it takes, will drive the entire mission design. So will the size of the shielding. This is an open question.

It should be obvious that no Mars mission will be attempted, not even reserved on the calendar, until these and a myriad of other technical hurdles can be overcome. Right now we're focused on the Moon, which is vastly easier, yet still a tremendous challenge. Yes, we've been there before, but we never tried to stay before. We cut corners last time. We developed an architecture that really wasn't sustainable or flexible. Hey, we were in a race. This time it's different.

As always, my opinions alone, I do not speak for NASA, post made on my own time, all information available in open literature, etc.

Ugh. Why was I born in the 20th century ? Why couldn't I get the 30th, instead ?

 

[Radrook]

I must admit I have enjoyed the Mars Rising series so far. Personally I hope we do go to Mars and do it as soon as is reasonable. Imagine that the geologic discoveries alone would be phenomenal.

And that's the operative phrase, "as soon as reasonable." Do you think that the technology as is or as will be when the trip is attempted will make the trip reasonable. Better yet, what do you consider "reasonable?". What would you demand be improved now to make that trip reasonable for YOU. That is, for you to get on that ship and feel that you are making a reasonable decision and not playing unnecessary Russian Roulette with your life?

 

[Corsair 115]

Ugh. Why was I born in the 20th century ? Why couldn't I get the 30th, instead ?

Well, you could always try delivering a pizza to Applied Cryogenics and get yourself accidentally frozen for a thousand years like a certain Philip J. Fry did...

 

[drzeus99]

It's not the technology (or any lack of, in this instance) that's in question. With just the technology we posses today, man can be walking the Martian surface within 5-7 years time if MONEY was no object.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

On speaking with my contacts at NASA, Lockhead Martin, Boeing and other sources. Do you honestly think that if the US Govt. HAD to land a crew on Mars in 5-7 years to save the planet (for whatever reason) and had $1 Trillion bucks set aside that we "couldn't" get a crew there safely and return them? In that case, maybe it's because I know people in the industry, and I'm aware of what can and can't be done. The only reason we aren't there already is NOT lack of science/technology. It's lack of thousands of people working on it daily like was done when we wanted to get men to the moon.
Not enough funding and political will. You'd be surprised at what a TRILLION bucks could buy and how fast it can be made and tested with 1,000's of people working on something. You'd be amazed.

It's the lack of unlimited (or astronomical) funding, as well as political muster (but it's mainly a money issue) that is the only thing preventing humankind from landing (and safely, I might add) on Mars. If NASA received a blank check today, and the safety of mankind was in question, and the only way to keep mankind alive was to send humans to Mars to do something silly there, and all the nations of the world were counting on this to succeed, there's no question that within 5 (but no more than 7) years, man would triumphantly be walking upon the Martian surface (and be able to successfully make it home after that).

Dream on. The only operative word above, in my opinion, is 'silly'! What 'silliness' do you have in mind that will lead to meaningful colonization?!

No need to dream. Also, where did I say anything about "meaningful colonization?" I said we could be on the moon in 5-7 years if we had to. And bring a crew back safely. And we could..trust me. Colonization would take longer than that. But initially getting to the Mars and safely returning is the first step obviously. I'll leave it at that.

Believe, what you will.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Travis]

And that's the operative phrase, "as soon as reasonable." Do you think that the technology as is or as will be when the trip is attempted will make the trip reasonable. Better yet, what do you consider "reasonable?". What would you demand be improved now to make that trip reasonable for YOU. That is, for you to get on that ship and feel that you are making a reasonable decision and not playing unnecessary Russian Roulette with your life?

I feel it will be reasonable when all the necessary components have been built, the astronauts recruited and the orbits are in alignment. When this will be is beyond my ability to guess, but it will be a matter of money and politics that decide the speed with which it is delivered. Whenever this time does arrive it will still be a dangerous journey but so was Apollo, Soyuz, Gemini, Mercury and Vostok.

As for when it would be reasonable for me, that would be never. I wouldn't go up in the Space Shuttle now let alone to Mars. But I'm not supposed to go up, there are trained people who want to do it for that. When the time comes to go to Mars there will also be trained people who will want to do it regardless of the dangers. In the same way that it was dangerous to seek the poles, or climb mountains, it is always dangerous to explore new frontiers like Mars. However so long as there remains a drive in the human psyche to seek new places and trod the unbroken ground there will be people willing to do it whatever the risks and I, for one, think we should allow them to.

 

[Radrook]

I feel it will be reasonable when all the necessary components have been built, the astronauts recruited and the orbits are in alignment. When this will be is beyond my ability to guess, but it will be a matter of money and politics that decide the speed with which it is delivered. Whenever this time does arrive it will still be a dangerous journey but so was Apollo, Soyuz, Gemini, Mercury and Vostok.

As for when it would be reasonable for me, that would be never. I wouldn't go up in the Space Shuttle now let alone to Mars. But I'm not supposed to go up, there are trained people who want to do it for that. When the time comes to go to Mars there will also be trained people who will want to do it regardless of the dangers. In the same way that it was dangerous to seek the poles, or climb mountains, it is always dangerous to explore new frontiers like Mars. However so long as there remains a drive in the human psyche to seek new places and trod the unbroken ground there will be people willing to do it whatever the risks and I, for one, think we should allow them to.

I get the general impression of unpreparedness. Until survival odds improve and I get the impression that the effort isn't an unnecessary risk of human life. True, we will always find people willing to risk death for whatever reason proposed. Some do it just for the thrill of it. Others out of a sense of duty to country. Others seeking financial rewards and fame. Or a combination of all threse. But willingness to risk life per-se doesn't make the effort a reasonable one. This is especially true if budget cuts affect the mission's safety level by restricting the numbers of necessary testings to the minimum or forcing ship designers to go with the least in terms of survival-enhancing ship living quarters comfort features. As it stands now, they look like they are packed like sardines. Not good on a voyage of that type.

IMHO


Excerpt:

....The $16.7 billion is nearly $100 million less than what the President requested in his FY2007 budget proposal in February, although it does increase NASA's budget by $86 million over its 2006 budget. During markup of the bill earlier in the month, appropriators moved $175 million from other NASA programs, primarily exploration, to add money for aeronautics and science programs. The Senate is expected to start work on its version of the NASA budget in July.
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ...5893/**http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/3401

 

[Radrook]

Certainly, but remember that manned missions use systems designed and tested to higher reliability than unmanned ones. And, as I mentioned earlier, piloted vehicles can mitigate some of the failures which doomed unmanned ones. (Like shutting off the descent engine in midair because of a spurious touchdown signal - see Mars Polar Lander).

Yes, I know. Interestingly though, the Mars Rising scientists interviewed stated that the landing phase would be left to the computers in order to avoid placing mental stress on the astronauts after such a long period of inactivity. This decision is based on studies made by psychologists which indicate that human error is more likely when the mind is demanded to function full blast after being relatively at rest. So the plan is to have the astronauts merely supervise the entry and landing and interfere only if something begins to go wrong.

I'm pretty certain you're confusing a proposed Russian circumlunar tourist scheme with a Mars mission. [t makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to send humans merely to orbit Mars, and as big a proponent of manned space exploration as I am, I would rise up in righteous taxpayer anger should any such scheme be seriously proposed.]

Not at all, The Mars Rising program had a Russian scientist stating seriously and clearly that a manned flyby would be the best choice for Russia. This is nothing unusual since it has been under consideration for some time now.

BTW
If you are Russian then you would rise up in anger.
But since that proposal isn't a NASA or ESA one....

Excerpt

Spacecraft: Athena. In 1996 Robert Zubrin proposed a new version of a manned Mars flyby mission, dubbed Athena. Unlike previous fly-by concepts, Athena would remain in the vicinity of Mars for a year while the crew remotely operated probes of the Martian surface and atmosphere. This would eliminate the round-trip radio time lag of ten to forty minutes in trying to operate such probes from the earth. Athena would follow a low-energy earth-Mars trajectory. At Mars encounter the planet's gravity would be used to change the spacecraft's orbit to one similar to but inclined 9.5 degrees from that of Mars. The spacecraft would spend a year 'shadowing' the planet and operating four remote-controlled rovers delivered separately to the surface. At the end of that period Athena's orbit would again bring it to Mars. The flyby would send it on a slow nine month trajectory back towards earth. On approach to earth the crew would an ISS ACRV-derived re-entry vehicle to renter the earth's atmosphere. The 2.5 year mission would finish with splashdown in the ocean for recovery by the US Navy. Athena would have a crew of two. The spacecraft and its trans-Mars injection stage would be assembled in low earth orbit using two shuttle launches and four Proton launches. The Mars probes (four rovers) would be launched separately by Delta 7925 or Molniya launch vehicles. Other possible probes would include subsonic remotely piloted drones or controlled balloons equipped with imaging systems and deployable/recoverable rovers.



http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craftfam/martions.htm

 

[VonNeumann]

...

 

[bokonon]

I stand up and applaud the people who have enough belief in spaceflight that they are willing to put their lives on the line. As long as it isn't done unnecessarily.

If it's ever done, it's being done unnecessarily. There is no valid reason to send people to Mars.

 

[bokonon]

I am not in favor of cringing in fear in terms of space exploration. In fact, I am disappointed that this present effort had not been made sooner. However, I don't believe in taking NEEDLESS risks when human lives are concerned.

Why are you disappointed? There is no valid reason to consider sending people to Mars. Unmanned robots can do the scientific legwork, with vastly better cost/benefit ratios.

 

[bokonon]

Why do people see the risk in spaceflight differently than any other risky or dangerous endevour here on Earth? Death is still death wether it is here on Earth or in space.
Certainly, the dangers are different. The challenges are different. But then that's the point. Meeting and overcoming challenges.

There are alot of risks and dangers in life. That did not stop the early explorers.

I suspect the critics who use the danger aspect really have a different agenda.

The early explorers were exploring areas where people could potentially live, with resources which could be economically exploited.

None of that is true for Mars. We have a good idea of what is there, and it's nothing that we'll have any use for in the foreseeable future. Which is lucky, because there wouldn't be any way to get it economically if there was.

 

[bokonon]

Half of the missions to mars have missed. I don't like those odds. Let's do some more unmanned missions before we send people.

And let's have a better reason than "looking for weapons of mass destruction" before we send people. So far, I haven't heard one.

 

[bokonon]

I agree that fear in this matter can only serve to keep us earthbound.

Not really. There can still be orbital missions, and even a return to the moon. I can imagine scientific research that would benefit from permanent installations (not necessarily manned) on the dark side of the moon. I can see no reason for sending people to Mars.

 

[bokonon]

I am not a proponent of manned space exploration because it produces very little scientific return for each dollar spent (99% of the mission cost is to keep the people alive...)

Far too much of our space budget is being consumed by pointless manned missions such as the ISS and returning to the moon).

I agree. For the foreseeable future, we'll get more bang for the buck with instruments. There's no reason to be sending people to Mars.

 

[bokonon]

But that should not keep us from starting the ground work. The sooner we start, the sooner we will be ready.

Okay, start the ground work.

Step 1: State a compelling reason why any nation should be attempting to send a manned mission to Mars.

 

[bokonon]

But far less money would be required, and many more scientific missions could be undertaken, if we cut out the manned missions. We could send 100 robotic missions to Mars for the cost of a single manned mission.

The ISS has no scientific justification, yet it consumes the lion's share of NASA's budget. It hasn't really inspired the public, either. It's boring, except when there are problems. The "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" quote is revealing. Should our space dollars be spent on scientific research or romantic adventures? My vote is for scientific research.

Finally, a voice of reason.

I vote for scientific research over romantic adventures too. To hell with the swashbuckling wannabe spacemen who take all that "Space...the final frontier" stuff a little too seriously.

 

[bokonon]

It would not be in our best interest to completely give up on manned space exploration.

I don't think anyone's arguing for that. It was helpful to have people available to repair the Hubble -- a robot would probably not have been successful doing those repairs.

I think NASA does need a better direction for Manned space exploration.

I think any meaningful "exploration" at this point is best left to unmanned probes.