Did you see his last presentation for his robots?
Artemis (NASA moon mission)
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
Did you see his last presentation for his robots?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Where's the fun in that? Where's the adventure? Where's the challenge?
There's still going to be plenty of challenge for any humans on mars, even if there's some supplies and infrastructure waiting for them when they arrive.
It's ******* Mars, man.
For what it's worth, from my side, I think there's a place for the manned space program, I just think that supporting it with robotic missions and unmanned cargo drops makes a lot of sense and means that the manned program could accomplish much more than it could without those things.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
My opinion is that we should send robotic missions first, then follow them up with crewed missions. Which is pretty much exactly how we've been doing it. There's a bunch of robots on Mars, and there's room for more. But eventually we're going to want to send people there.For what it's worth, from my side, I think there's a place for the manned space program, I just think that supporting it with robotic missions and unmanned cargo drops makes a lot of sense and means that the manned program could accomplish much more than it could without those things.
Sounds like we agree (and it sounds like you agree with Beerina, who you quoted earlier, too).
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
There are massive problems with sending humans to Mars. The radiation they will be exposed to during the journey could kill them. Plus the mass would be much greater than a robot mission.
The last time I looked at it the radiation exposure expected over the course of the trip (there and back) is close to NASA's lifetime limit on radiation exposure, but doesn't exceed it. They'll have a higher chance of getting cancer than average, but they won't die on the trip or anything.
I think there is some concern about solar storms when radiation from the sun is particularly high for brief periods. There are potential solutions to that problem, though.
Ryan O'Dine
OD’ing on Damitol
I don't know why they can't make a spacesuit that's 24" thick of lead. So what if the color is awful, just paint the outside.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Yeah, Musk's geriatric-speed cartoonbots are not ideal for remote construction. If one of those things falls over it's not going to be able to stand up again.
Ideally something wheeled or tracked and stable, and purpose built for the construction work, is going to have to do the job. Remote base construction is going to need something like self-leveling prefab modules or module components that can be more or less "snapped" together.
"In its release, NASA said that during an Artemis flight test, teams discovered
battery issues and challenges with a component that controls air ventilation
and temperature control. Additionally, NASA has been investigating why char
layer pieces from its spacecraft's heat shield were lost during the Artemis I
mission."
Humans cannot know everything about how a particular system will respond
in an environment. Imperfect knowledge before hand means lots of testing
and delays.
Crony capitalism, uhm, not exactly.
National prestige: it involves everyone in the nation in every congressional
district to impress other nations around the world the importance of the
United States. Through out history nations have sought to influence others,
not for the cost conscious.
Yeah, I griped about that earlier. Give me a government engineer any day.
Fortunately NASA didn't put all their eggs in once basket, maybe Blue Origin
will pull it off. Very risky promoting private industry in space.
Again from the wikipedia page, SpaceX Starship Cost And Funding, I find
a different price entirely. NASA gave them 2.89 billion dollars for one
lander and another 1.15 billion for a second lander, so averaging I find
that Starship costs at least 2.02 billion a piece.
Now, that doesn't include the cost of the two stages, here I'll do a guess
based on: Superheavy Launch Vehicle.
The first stage costs 154 million dollars and the second stage costs
92 million dollars for a total cost of 2.266 billion dollars per launch.
So out of the 5 billion SpaceX has spent on the Starship program that
leaves 468 million dollars for other things related.
NASA 2.50 billion a launch, SpaceX 2.25 a launch, about the same.
I expect probably one more launch of Starship in May of 2024,
and will continue so long as he doesn't say, "We dug our own grave
with ..." Then it's a goner.
battery issues and challenges with a component that controls air ventilation
and temperature control. Additionally, NASA has been investigating why char
layer pieces from its spacecraft's heat shield were lost during the Artemis I
mission."
Humans cannot know everything about how a particular system will respond
in an environment. Imperfect knowledge before hand means lots of testing
and delays.
Crony capitalism, uhm, not exactly.
National prestige: it involves everyone in the nation in every congressional
district to impress other nations around the world the importance of the
United States. Through out history nations have sought to influence others,
not for the cost conscious.
Yeah, I griped about that earlier. Give me a government engineer any day.
Fortunately NASA didn't put all their eggs in once basket, maybe Blue Origin
will pull it off. Very risky promoting private industry in space.
Again from the wikipedia page, SpaceX Starship Cost And Funding, I find
a different price entirely. NASA gave them 2.89 billion dollars for one
lander and another 1.15 billion for a second lander, so averaging I find
that Starship costs at least 2.02 billion a piece.
Now, that doesn't include the cost of the two stages, here I'll do a guess
based on: Superheavy Launch Vehicle.
The first stage costs 154 million dollars and the second stage costs
92 million dollars for a total cost of 2.266 billion dollars per launch.
So out of the 5 billion SpaceX has spent on the Starship program that
leaves 468 million dollars for other things related.
NASA 2.50 billion a launch, SpaceX 2.25 a launch, about the same.
I expect probably one more launch of Starship in May of 2024,
and will continue so long as he doesn't say, "We dug our own grave
with ..." Then it's a goner.
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Going all the way baby, 100%! NASA is little more than a conduit for Congress to funnel billions to contractors. China will get there first, because they give short shrift to safety, budget and environmental concerns. (I am NOT saying that's a good thing.) If Xi wants people on the Moon, there will be people on the Moon. And maybe they'll even get back safely!
As for Muskmelon, he can't even build a safe car.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Sure, it's going to be hard. Since when has that stopped anyone?
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
I just googled it.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Explora...he_radiation_showstopper_for_Mars_exploration
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/high-radiation-low-gravitation-perils-trip-mars/story?id=79036539
There are other problems with sending humans to Mars, a lack of gravity is one. It would mean that they may not be very healthy when they come back.
100%? Cool, you should be willing to take a bet at 10000 to 1 odds then, given that you're still 100% certain to win. I'll bet you $1 to your $10000 that a successful Artemis human landing happens by 2029. If $1 is too low, I'd be willing to go $10 to your $100,000, but I don't think I'm willing to go to $100 as I'm doubtful you've got the million.
PS credences should never be 100%
Yep. All consistent with what I said. The radiation dose on a Mars trip isn't trivial, but it's not fatal on the timeframe of the trip.
Yep, though NASA has developed good protocols for mitigating muscle/bone atrophy due to zero-g, it's still an issue. I would worry somewhat about astronauts being able to do work when they arrive on Mars, and again there are issues with when they return, but this isn't a showstopper either. The trip-time (in zero-g) is within the bounds of what we have experience with, and the time on Mars, while being at low-g, is still likely to offer a chance for recuperation, particularly if astronauts can continue with an exercise protocol designed with that in mind.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Wow. This looks very dodgy:
Each mission apparently will require multiple refueling missions. Unlike Apollo where it was one rocket per mission, here it requires like 6 or more.
Each mission apparently will require multiple refueling missions. Unlike Apollo where it was one rocket per mission, here it requires like 6 or more.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
There's an upper limit to the the payload that can be launched from the earth's surface. Refueling after launch is a a way to send more people and more stuff to the moon than Apollo could ever dream of.
It's not dodgy at all.