Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Southwind17]

I would assume it would depend on your point of view. Germany was left shattered by the end of WWII, The United States, on the other hand, emerged as a primier super power.

The atom bomb devestated Hiroshima and Nagasaki but Japan emerged as a financial powerhouse second only to the U.S.. Although China is coming up rather fast.

The making of the atomic bomb was one of the biggest and most expensive scientific endevours ever undertaken by man. Several fundamental discoveries in physics had to made and thoeries tested and confirmend before the bombs could been made. Building of the bomb cost $2 billion over three years. (in 1945 dollars which comes to about $23 billion in 2007 dollars). It was actually almost two thirds of the total money spent by the U.S. in WWII.

The only other comperable endevour was the Apollo program, which cost about $28 billion (in 2007 dollars) spread over more than ten years.

Wars today cost well into the hundreds of billions. How much has the Iraq war cost to date?

And how effective was the Vietnam war? Did it change anything in Vietnam? North Vietnam still fell to the communists even after our involvment. How about Korea?

How about the War in Iraq. Are the people any better off now then they were under Sadam? Did we ever find the WMDs? Did we ever find the terrorist training camps there?
How is the economy over there? How about terrorist attacks?

What's NASA budget for this year?

My point is that it's wrong to generalize between military spend and space exploration when comparing budget allocations. We can analyze any particular war involvement to the nth degree and conclude afterwards that the money would have been better spent trying to send a manned mission to Mars. We could probably do likewise regarding a space exploration/social welfare trade off, for example, if it turns out in 50 years time that, after spending however many zillion dollars on a manned mission to Mars, we're still trying to get over some major hurdles before we can even attempt lift off.

 

[uruk]

My point is that it's wrong to generalize between military spend and space exploration when comparing budget allocations. We can analyze any particular war involvement to the nth degree and conclude afterwards that the money would have been better spent trying to send a manned mission to Mars. We could probably do likewise regarding a space exploration/social welfare trade off, for example, if it turns out in 50 years time that, after spending however many zillion dollars on a manned mission to Mars, we're still trying to get over some major hurdles before we can even attempt lift off.

I understand your point. But I think Radrook was making a pithy comment on our priorities on spending. NASA's budget is but a mearest fraction of our GNP. While the Military's budget is quite abit larger. On top of that we get a return on the investment in the space program without the destruction that comes with the military investment.

I'm not saying defense is not important. Just when people start to complain about the money we spending on Space exploration I think they need to put things into perspective.

We spend far more money on defense and social/corporate welfare. In fact they take quite a sizable chunk of our GNP. It's like complaining about spending a few bucks on a book while at the same time shoveling tons of cash buying guns and sending gobs of money to your uncle Joe because he's out of work.

At any rate, spending more money on welfare doesn't really address the problems at the heart of poverty. Poverty is a socio-politcal issue rather than a money issue.

And the nature of our enemy has changed. We are developing advanced weapon systems like supersonic jets and selfpropelled artillery when our enemy fights us with suicide bombers and hijacking. The most advance weapons they have is RPGs and ingenuity.

I do like that we are shifting to unmanned weapon and survellance systems. And guess where alot of that research came from?

 

[Michael Redman]

I agree I cannot see a manned mission to Mars happening for another Twenty to Thirty years ,unless there is some really revolutionary breakthrough in technology.

I can't see a manned mission to Mars unless there are some really revolutionary breakthroughs in technology, period. And I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting otherwise.

The fact that plans are being made now does not imply that the intent is to proceed with current technology, and ignore all the problems that have been raised here and elsewhere.

Even more money could be saved if you sent cannibals. They'd draw straws to see who gets eaten along the way. You could get away with packing less food, and only one person would need to make it all the way back to Earth.

Don't quit halfway! If you're willing to sacrifice the crew, the last astronaut dies in place when he is no longer needed. Don't return anyone. Tremendous savings.

 

[mhaze]

I recently watched the Mars voyage plans as described on the Discovery Channel and could not but feel ill at ease with all the emphasis given to the extreme dangers involved and the possible deaths that might occur. I came away with the impression that NASA is rushing things, or that due to lack of funds, it isn't doing all that's possible to make the trip safer. I for one would not get on that ship based on all the nerve wracking "ifs" and "maybes" mentioned.

1. If rocket doesn't precisely on time and for the precise duration you die.

2. Returning earlier than usual via a Venusian gravity boost might mean missing the earth.

3. Most Russian efforts to land a craft on Mars have failed.

4. The crew living quarters are cramped = the size of an average apartment.

6. Fears of crew going ballistic due to stress were expressed.

7. No rescue mission planned if something goes wrong on the Martian surface.

8. No mention made of any radar to detect incoming objects such as meteorites.


In short, it seems to me as if they will be playing Russian Roulette. The only difference is the hi tech equipment is used instead of a loaded gun. Anyone else get that impression?

But a one way trip to Mars is twice as safe as the round trip!

 

[Cainkane1]

At least wild savages won't scalp them.

 

[Radrook]

I agree 100%. Most people don't realize that NASA'a budget keeps getting smaller rather than bigger. And the money we spend on NASA gives us a better return in the long run.

They also don't realize all the great technology and spinoff benefits we gained from NASA.
Weather and telecom satellites, advancement in aviation technology and safety, computers, medicine, agriculture not to mention pure scientific knowledge.

It is really an investment in our future.

I agree, the spinoffs from the space program have been very significant and those which we will gain from further efforts will surely be even greater. Actually, when NASA landed men on the moon approx. forty years ago, I expected the surge in exploration to accelerate not diminish. I was sure that the achievement would be followed by the establishment of a moon base and that by the year 2001 we would achieve the technology portrayed inn the film "2001 A Space Odyssey." If someone had told me then that we would still be wallowing about in orbit I would not have believed it. But then we just stopped.

True, probes have been sent and in that sense we haven't been totally inactive, But the dream was not of robotic exploration but of direct human presence on Mars. Now suddenly we seem to be in a rush and maybe within 25 years it will be done. Even so, many of us who had that dream of seeing men land on the moon will die of old age or sickness before it happens. From their standpoint-that's the real sadness of the whole thing.

 

[Corsair 115]

Building of the bomb cost $2 billion over three years. (in 1945 dollars which comes to about $23 billion in 2007 dollars).

And that total is based on using the CPI to adjust the value. If you use the nominal GDP per capita or the relative share of GDP to adjust the value, the cost comes in even higher.

The following conversions come from this web site.

$2 billion in 1945 would be $22.4 billion in 2006 dollars based on the CPI. But it would be $55.2 billion in 2006 dollars based on the nominal GDP per capita, and $118.3 billion using the relative share of GDP.

As for Apollo, assuming a total cost of $22 billion in 1969 dollars, that translates into $121 billion in 2006 dollars based on the CPI. But it would be $199 billion in 2006 dollars based on the nominal GDP per capita, and $295 billion based on the relative share of GDP.

 

[Southwind17]

I agree, the spinoffs from the space program have been very significant and those which we will gain from further efforts will surely be even greater. Actually, when NASA landed men on the moon approx. forty years ago, I expected the surge in exploration to accelerate not diminish. I was sure that the achievement would be followed by the establishment of a moon base and that by the year 2001 we would achieve the technology portrayed inn the film "2001 A Space Odyssey." If someone had told me then that we would still be wallowing about in orbit I would not have believed it. But then we just stopped.

True, probes have been sent and in that sense we haven't been totally inactive, But the dream was not of robotic exploration but of direct human presence on Mars. Now suddenly we seem to be in a rush and maybe within 25 years it will be done. Even so, many of us who had that dream of seeing men land on the moon will die of old age or sickness before it happens. From their standpoint-that's the real sadness of the whole thing.

Maybe what you describe is simply a harsh reflection of the magnitude of the technical difficulties that space exploration beyond Earth orbit presents, tempered by the disproportionate benefit to mankind as a whole that such exploration is likely to derive. You don't seriously believe there's merit in pursuing the colonization of other planets within our solar system do you?!

 

[Southwind17]

And that total is based on using the CPI to adjust the value. If you use the nominal GDP per capita or the relative share of GDP to adjust the value, the cost comes in even higher.

The following conversions come from this web site.

$2 billion in 1945 would be $22.4 billion in 2006 dollars based on the CPI. But it would be $55.2 billion in 2006 dollars based on the nominal GDP per capita, and $118.3 billion using the relative share of GDP.

As for Apollo, assuming a total cost of $22 billion in 1969 dollars, that translates into $121 billion in 2006 dollars based on the CPI. But it would be $199 billion in 2006 dollars based on the nominal GDP per capita, and $295 billion based on the relative share of GDP.

And how would you quantify the upside of building the bomb, and then compare it with the upside of Apollo?!

 

[drzeus99]

I agree I cannot see a manned mission to Mars happening for another Twenty to Thirty years ,unless there is some really revolutionary breakthrough in technology.

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.

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).

DrZ

 

[drzeus99]

I suspect that considerable savings in weight could be made by sending pygmies in terms of food stores.....

So....I get it. The astronauts can eat the pygmies, right?

 

[Puppycow]

I agree with the OP.

But additionally, I don't see any benefit to sending people. There's nothing there. We already know what's there. It's a bunch of red dust. The only purpose would be like the purpose of somebody climbing Mt. Everest or going to the South Pole. This is the next thing.

By 2030 robots will probably be able to do everything humans can do better including thinking. And they won't need the same life support systems.

 

[Southwind17]

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?

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?!

 

[Radrook]

Maybe what you describe is simply a harsh reflection of the magnitude of the technical difficulties that space exploration beyond Earth orbit presents, tempered by the disproportionate benefit to mankind as a whole that such exploration is likely to derive. You don't seriously believe there's merit in pursuing the colonization of other planets within our solar system do you?!

No, what I believe is that once the race for the moon was finished, the motive for going there and establishing a moon base wasn't strong enough. If the Soviet Union would have immediately landed its own ship and then threatened to establish a moon base, the USA would have continued to compete until one or the other nation had won that part of the race. A thrust for Mars would have been initiated based on the same competition. All that was needed at that time was the competitive motivation.

Funds would have been diverted and financing would never have been the issue it is today. But since the Soviet Union bowed out and concentrated on orbital flights instead and there wasn't any commercially exploitable resource which at that time was deemed necessary, the USA followed suit and here we are some forty years later.


As for merit, it depends what you mean by that. Can you please elaborate.

 

[Southwind17]

No, what I believe is that once the race for the moon was finished, the motive for going there and establishing a moon base wasn't strong enough.

Even though:

I agree, the spinoffs from the space program have been very significant and those which we will gain from further efforts will surely be even greater.

?

If the Soviet Union would have immediately landed its own ship and then threatened to establish a moon base, the USA would have continued to compete until one or the other nation had won that part of the race. A thrust for Mars would have been initiated based on the same competition. All that was needed at that time was the competitive motivation.

So I wonder why that 'competitive motivation' never materialized!

True, probes have been sent and in that sense we haven't been totally inactive, But the dream was not of robotic exploration but of direct human presence on Mars.

Yes, perchance to dream eh!

Now suddenly we seem to be in a rush and maybe within 25 years it will be done. Even so, many of us who had that dream of seeing men land on the moon will die of old age or sickness before it happens. From their standpoint-that's the real sadness of the whole thing.

Freudian slip, perchance? Closet fan of Dark Moon?!

Funds would have been diverted and financing would never have been the issue it is today. But since the Soviet Union bowed out and concentrated on orbital flights instead and there wasn't any commercially exploitable resource which at that time was deemed necessary, the USA followed suit and here we are some forty years later.

Mmm ... I wonder why the Soviets did that?!

As for merit, it depends what you mean by that. Can you please elaborate.

OK, try 'benefit' or 'advantage'. I really don't think it can be said any clearer.

 

[ben m]

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.

Yep. Imagine that for the same price, the choices are:

a) a 10,000,000 kg Mars lander consisting of 100 kg microscope, 200 kg crew, 100,000 kg life support, and 900,000 kg return vehicle/rocket.

b) a 10,000,000 kg Mars lander with a 500,000 kg analytical lab (with electron microscopes, ICP-MS, GC-MS, PIXE), 100,000 kg fleet of long-distance, RTG-powered sampling robots (something that can drive 1000km and bring samples back to the lab), 100,000 kg of weather-balloon-launching equipment, a constellation of Martian Positioning System satellites, and a 100,000 kg sample-return vehicle/rocket.

The manned return rocket is the killer in my opinion. Think about how big the machinery, crew, support systems, etc., needed to be to launch, say, John Glenn into Earth orbit. You need something of that to land on the surface of mars, sit there for 6 months, and take off into low-Mars orbit with no repairs or major setup. (Who would do the repairs? The 4- or 6-person crew that's also doing the geology? With what machine shop?) It's a whole different story than Apollo: Apollo got two people off of the Moon with 2,353 kg of propellant in a 2,317 kg capsule with the structural integrity of a soda can.

Seriously. Humans are pretty good scientists, but a pair of eyes isn't the end-all-be-all of geology and exploration. If you want Buck Rogers, make your lab-sample-handling robots bipedal and anthropomorphic.

 

[Radrook]

Even though:

?

So I wonder why that 'competitive motivation' never materialized!

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?

Yes, perchance to dream eh!

Unfortunately

Freudian slip, perchance? Closet fan of Dark Moon?!

What is a dark moon's meaning?

Mmm ... I wonder why the Soviets did that?!

OK, try 'benefit' or 'advantage'. I really don't think it can be said any clearer.

I feel that there would be the usual tech innovative benefits. Whether these would supersede the cost in human life in value....opinions would differ. I tend to think not. However, if we haven't as yet fixed things here on earth what are we doing going to Mars. The moon trips of course can be justified due to the fuel resources which will make nuclear fusion economically feasible.

 

[R.Mackey]

I agree with the OP.

But additionally, I don't see any benefit to sending people. There's nothing there. We already know what's there. It's a bunch of red dust. The only purpose would be like the purpose of somebody climbing Mt. Everest or going to the South Pole. This is the next thing.

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

Let me indulge in some speculation. While there is hardly any proof of this, there is a reasonable chance that Mars has or had microbiotic life somewhere on or near its surface. Calculating the odds is impossible, but I will argue that Mars is the best place to look, within our solar system. It is also the most accessible place to look of all the candidates that have emerged.

So what? Well, any life form on Mars would be an extremophile, or a class of organism that thrives in conditions radically different and harsh compared to the preferred niche of most known life forms. As a result, its proteins -- if they can be replicated -- are likely to be tremendously valuable in bioengineering. The best-known example would be the high-temperature resistant DNA polymerase derived from Thermus aquaticus, discovered in boiling hot springs in Yellowstone where it was thought nothing could survive. This in turn led to the PCR method of DNA replication, which is instrumental in modern biochemistry.

This is a potential direct technology benefit, above and beyond the absolute goldmine of scientific insight that study of a divergent life-form, no matter how primitive, would be to biologists.

Just as we cannot quantify the odds of finding anything alive there, we cannot quantify the benefit to its discovery, but it is potentially enormous. For this reason, Mars is, in my opinion, the absolute best target for in-depth exploration. (Second-best would be small bodies, e.g. asteroids or extinct comets.)

By 2030 robots will probably be able to do everything humans can do better including thinking. And they won't need the same life support systems.

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.

 

[Corsair 115]

And how would you quantify the upside of building the bomb, and then compare it with the upside of Apollo?!

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.

 

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I agree with the OP.

But additionally, I don't see any benefit to sending people. There's nothing there. We already know what's there. It's a bunch of red dust.

There is also visible hot ice at both poles, regular ice, and unseen frozen and possibly liquid water beneath the soil. The largest volcano and biggest canyon in the salar system. Also, a planet which can be terraformed.

The only purpose would be like the purpose of somebody climbing Mt. Everest or going to the South Pole. This is the next thing.

Well, not quite. Those who climb Everest do so only for the prestige and personal satisfaction of knowing they did it or for monetary gain. In contrast, those going to Mars will be explorers of a new world seeking knowledge. However, if indeed the same information can be gained via robotics, then I am in favor of using robotics until the time when we can send people there with a larger margin of safety.