Mars Voyage too Soon?

[uruk]

No. I said it before, but I'll say it again for those who missed it the first time: any technology which could be used to make an airless, waterless location which is bombarded by cosmic rays and has an average temperature below -50 degrees centigrade habitable could more easily and more economically be used to make a meteor-smacked or volcano-belched earth habitable, for a vastly wider range of genetic diversity.

And they can be developed and deployed in extreme locations here on earth, with less expense, easier deployment, faster and broader feedback, nimbler turnaround, and a bigger base of motivated designers. If you want to advance another reason for the "necessity" of manned space exploration, feel free; "insurance against global disaster" doesn't cut it.

You are missing the point. The research would not even been looked into if it wasn't for the idea of trying to learn how to live elsewhere in the solar system.

 

[Belz...]

Sure, I can say meteor. I can also say that life seems to have survived 4.5 billion years of collisions (since the event that presumably created our moon), including the one that may have killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Yeah. Now replace "dinosaurs" with "humans" and you might understand why it's crucial to spread out.

I can also say "supervolcano eruption," and "nuclear winter." None of those scenarios render earth less inhabitable than Mars is today.

Irrelevant.

Any technologies which could be used to make Mars or the moon inhabitable could be used to enable humans to survive on earth in the event of a cataclysm.

False.

Nonsense. People will always be motivated to solve human problems.

Not if they're all dead.

 

[uruk]

{snip}The research into geothermal power, wind power, and tidal power has not been driven by the space program, manned or otherwise. It's pure fallacy to argue that improvements to battery storage, solar power, and fuel cells would not have occurred if there had been no space program. People have always had a natural drive to improve the human condition.
{snip}.

It's not a fallacy when it, in fact, happened. At least where solar power, battery storage and the fuel cell is concerned.
You are arguing a hypothetical.

 

[Gonzo Skeptic]

I also do believe that a manned Mars flight will still be a long ways off. Politics and money being what it is.

Politics and money would become secondary issues if there was a real point in sending people there.

There isn't.

 

[shadron]

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

...

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.

Has anyone considered Pate de Foie Gras? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pâté_de_Foie_Gras_(short_story)))

Just kidding.

 

[uruk]

Politics and money would become secondary issues if there was a real point in sending people there.

There isn't.

*sigh* Here we go again.
Well you know there is no real point to even sending robotic probes into space other than pure scientific knowledge. With the exception of Pluto/Charon and a few moons orbiting the gas giants, we got plenty of pictures and data.

And yet the knowledge we gain from overcoming the challenges of sending people to Mars is somehow less valuable?

At least the manned space program allows for a direct human experiance. And alot of the knowlegde relates to physiology, psychology, life sciences, medicine, and soforth.


I

 

[Gonzo Skeptic]

At least the manned space program allows for a direct human experiance.

At least for a chosen few. The rest of us will just be stuck watching it on TV.

And alot of the knowlegde relates to physiology, psychology, life sciences, medicine, and soforth.

Why not just give the money directly to "physiology, psychology, life sciences, medicine, and soforth"? NASA is a very inefficient middleman.

 

[bokonon]

Why not just give the money directly to "physiology, psychology, life sciences, medicine, and so forth"? NASA is a very inefficient middleman.

In addition, many of the things we learn (how to protect people from cosmic rays, how to keep bones strong during prolonged zero-G) are not things that will have much practical application here on earth.

Instead of solving problems for guys who don't need to be where they are in the first place, we can spend 1/100 of the money and send a 1-way robot who can get all the same scientific knowledge, and spend the other 99/100 on research problems that need to be solved closer to home.

 

[rockoon]

Why not just give the money directly to "physiology, psychology, life sciences, medicine, and soforth"?

They will continue to get money too.

 

[uruk]

At least for a chosen few. The rest of us will just be stuck watching it on TV.

I will, in all probability, will never even get to LEO but I would not want to deny that experiance to others. And at least a person who has been there would be able to give a better concept of the experiance than just watching videos and pictures.

Why not just give the money directly to "physiology, psychology, life sciences, medicine, and soforth"? NASA is a very inefficient middleman.

Well why not give all the money spent on the space exploration to earth bound geological, ecological and meterolgical sciences. Isn't that more important than knowing what the chemical composition of Mars is? Do you mean to imply that there is no room for pure scientific exploration?

And, ofcourse, there are some things we can do on the earth as far as physiology and space is involved. But then you can learn how to fly a plane with a flight sim but that is not the same as flying an actual plane.

I will agree that at this point NASA could improve it's leadership and direction, but as I've often repeated, NASA suffers from being a government agency.
Eventually corporations will take over the exploitation part while NASA can continue with the science. But often, in the past, the government will help to establish an infrastructure that then corporations and the public can get a start or take advantage of. That is one of the purposes of government today. Look at the railroads and highway system.

 

[uruk]

In addition, many of the things we learn (how to protect people from cosmic rays, how to keep bones strong during prolonged zero-G) are not things that will have much practical application here on earth.

Helping to keep bones strong in prolonged zero-G can have applications toward curing or preventing deseases such as osteporosis.

Cosmic radiation isn't the ony kind of radiation out there in space.

And if, as you say, in 10,000 years when we are ready to go into space, how much better it would be for our distant decendence to not have to re-discover all that knowledge and be given a head start while at the same time we benefit from the knowledge gained.

Instead of solving problems for guys who don't need to be where they are in the first place, we can spend 1/100 of the money and send a 1-way robot who can get all the same scientific knowledge, and spend the other 99/100 on research problems that need to be solved closer to home.

The goal of manned space program isn't just about exploration. It's about learning to expand our presence into the solar system. It's also about learning to exploit the resources out there rather than the limited ones here. Yes these are long term goals, but we are just laying down the initial ground work now. These are things that are an investment in our future.

And the money we are spending on it now is just a small fraction of our total GNP.
As you said in a earlier post, Space isn't going anywhere. There will always be time and money for robotic missions and manned exploration as well.

I say there is room for both and both are equally important.


I suspect that you believe that man isn't meant to be in space huh? Land locked forever are we?

 

[bokonon]

Helping to keep bones strong in prolonged zero-G can have applications toward curing or preventing deseases such as osteporosis.

Maybe, maybe not. If all we learn is how to create artificial g-forces in space, it isn't going to do much to cure or prevent osteoporosis.

The goal of manned space program isn't just about exploration. It's about learning to expand our presence into the solar system. It's also about learning to exploit the resources out there rather than the limited ones here. Yes these are long term goals, but we are just laying down the initial ground work now. These are things that are an investment in our future.

What resource in space do you think there's any possibility of exploiting? We haven't even been able to come up with commercial uses for "microgravity," which is the easiest resource to acquire. Do you think we're going to drag asteroids millions of miles for their metal content? Even if that were possible, and there was a way to lower them safely to earth, do you think it would be necessary to send men to shepherd them across the solar system?

The biggest resource in space is "location, location, location." We have a location above the atmosphere, from which we can observe the rest of the universe. We have a birds-eye view of the earth itself. We have a place to park communications satellites. When you, or anyone, can offer some concrete, specific resources that can only be provided by putting men on Mars, you'll be on your way to making a case.

You assume there will be gains in knowledge that will repay the additional R&D and human costs. I don't think that's a valid assumption. I don't think it's smart to spend 100 times more for the same gain in knowledge we could get from unmanned exploration, just to satisfy some thirst for adventure.

As you said in a earlier post, Space isn't going anywhere. There will always be time and money for robotic missions and manned exploration as well.

I say there is room for both and both are equally important.

Room for both? Sure. For the foreseeable future, I think the place for manned missions is in earth orbit. People can do things like repair the Hubble. They can get plenty of experience with zero-G, isolation, and (with higher orbits) radiation exposure, and if there's a problem, we have more options available to solve it. Trips to the moon should be routine (with all the advances in technology that implies) before we even begin to consider mounting a manned mission to Mars.

I suspect that you believe that man isn't meant to be in space huh? Land locked forever are we?

We are in space. Even in earth orbit, where 95% of the benefits of our presence in space are realized, that presence is primarily unmanned.

So far, you haven't made a case for manned missions elsewhere. You speculate that we will gain knowledge that will be unavailable otherwise, but there is no guarantee that this is so. Most of the knowledge we've acquired from the space program has been via unmanned exploration.

The "space ark" that some have proposed can be created in earth orbit more economically than on Mars. Believe me, if people were actually living on Mars, they'd all be lining up for the chance of emigrating to earth. Being "stuck" here isn't that bad. As planets in our solar system go, this is as good as it gets.

 

[Radrook]

They will continue to get money too.

I just finished watching the latest two Mars Rising programs and could not help but notice the nonchalant unconcerned manner in which these scientists keep brandishing about the words death and dying and lost. If the return date coincides with Martian bad weather, the astronauts die. If the parachutes fail, or if the descent rockets fail-they are dead.
If they land too far from the waiting abode, they perish ad infinitum.

Now, most of these I can accept as being inevitable risks. But as we all know, with a bit more money expended some risks can be significantly reduced. And that's where I take offense with the tongue in cheek attitude of these scientist on the program who consider the reduction of risk unacceptable because:


1. It will mean more fuel expenditure

2. Only some of the astronauts will be able to descent to the surface.

3. Equipment for experimentation will have to be sacrificed to make room for additional fuel.

In short, it's more acceptable that the astronaut's perish either by crashing onto the surface or because of getting stranded for an extra six months than provide additional fuel for rocket-breaking descent or providing an extra abode as a redundancy to cover that stranding possibility due to sudden Martian bad weather.

Disgusting!

 

[uruk]

Maybe, maybe not. If all we learn is how to create artificial g-forces in space, it isn't going to do much to cure or prevent osteoporosis.

That's what cool about science. There are many possibilities to look into. Many things to learn and gain from. Reasearch into one does not exclude the other.

What resource in space do you think there's any possibility of exploiting? We haven't even been able to come up with commercial uses for "microgravity," which is the easiest resource to acquire. Do you think we're going to drag asteroids millions of miles for their metal content? Even if that were possible, and there was a way to lower them safely to earth, do you think it would be necessary to send men to shepherd them across the solar system?

So you'd think that would be the only way to do it? Your thinking is a bit Earthbound. I don't why you would have to bring the asteroid down to Earth to mine it. Have you looked at some of the ideas for mining asteroids? None require the asteroid to be brought to Earth.
There has been interest in microgravity in medicine, manufacturing and electronics but the infrastructure is not yet established. Corporations are just now starting to get interested and eventualy they will take over in that area. All this will happen slowly and over a long period of time. But none of it will happen at all if the initial research never gets done.

The biggest resource in space is "location, location, location." We have a location above the atmosphere, from which we can observe the rest of the universe. We have a birds-eye view of the earth itself. We have a place to park communications satellites. When you, or anyone, can offer some concrete, specific resources that can only be provided by putting men on Mars, you'll be on your way to making a case.

Well what are the concrete reasons for putting robots on Mars? Science? Well manned space exploration is another type of space exploration science with it's own dataset that robots can't provide.

Look, none of things mentioned abouve are going to happen anytime soon. Full exploitation will not happen for several centuries. Heck we aren't even talking about putting a man on Mars for another four or five decades.
At this point the manned space program is still research. Just like astronomy, robots and atom smashers.

You assume there will be gains in knowledge that will repay the additional R&D and human costs. I don't think that's a valid assumption. I don't think it's smart to spend 100 times more for the same gain in knowledge we could get from unmanned exploration, just to satisfy some thirst for adventure.

And you assume they wont. The knowledge we gain from robots serve no practical purpose other than science. And pure science does not give a return financialy. But we do gain something from developing the hardware.

Manned space program gives us data biology, physiology, medicine and psychology that robots can't. And that also gives a return on technology as well.

Room for both? Sure. For the foreseeable future, I think the place for manned missions is in earth orbit. People can do things like repair the Hubble. They can get plenty of experience with zero-G, isolation, and (with higher orbits) radiation exposure, and if there's a problem, we have more options available to solve it. Trips to the moon should be routine (with all the advances in technology that implies) before we even begin to consider mounting a manned mission to Mars.

I agree with you here. Like I said before, noone is seriously talking about putting people on Mars for several decades. Everything is happening step by step, and all the problems with going to Mars are being addressed in due time. Going back to the Moon is just one of those steps.

We are in space. Even in earth orbit, where 95% of the benefits of our presence in space are realized, that presence is primarily unmanned.

The manned space program has had its setbacks and delays. Apollo was killed way before it's time. Right when it was starting to do real science. Apollo 17 has the first actual scientist to go to the moon. Astronaut Harison Schmitt is a geologist.
There was hardware devloped for extended stays. It was a roving research platform based on the lunar ascent stage. It never had a chance to go. It is now being refurbished to go on display at the Smithsonian.

So far, you haven't made a case for manned missions elsewhere. You speculate that we will gain knowledge that will be unavailable otherwise, but there is no guarantee that this is so. Most of the knowledge we've acquired from the space program has been via unmanned exploration.

True there is no guarantee but we will never know unless we try.

Again, the manned space program had it's set back. There were no manned space missions between Skylab and the Space Shuttle. Almost 15 years. Robotic missions never stopped. It has had a big head start.

The "space ark" that some have proposed can be created in earth orbit more economically than on Mars. Believe me, if people were actually living on Mars, they'd all be lining up for the chance of emigrating to earth. Being "stuck" here isn't that bad. As planets in our solar system go, this is as good as it gets.

I never heard that an orbiting habitat has to be build around Mars.

I agree Earth is a great place. And I hope it stays that way. The Earth can only give us so much and it can only take so much. If you follow global warming than you know some of those limits can be reached. It would be better, I think, if we could find other sources for certain resources rather than disrupting ecosystems here on Earth.

Wonderlust is a human tendency. As much as some people would like to keep it from happening, man will eventually learn to live off of the Earth.

I know people who give significant portions of thier anatomy just to be givin the chance.

 

[rockoon]

In short, it's more acceptable that the astronaut's perish either by crashing onto the surface or because of getting stranded for an extra six months than provide additional fuel for rocket-breaking descent or providing an extra abode as a redundancy to cover that stranding possibility due to sudden Martian bad weather.

Disgusting!

You are conveniently missing the part where they recruit volunteers to go.

The volunteers might call your opinion "disgusting," for how dare you misrepresent the situation.

 

[Radrook]

You are conveniently missing the part where they recruit volunteers to go.

The volunteers might call your opinion "disgusting," for how dare you misrepresent the situation.

I never said they are going involuntarily.

BTW

Willingness to risk life or go along with a policy which unnecessarily risks lives doesn't morally justify the policy. So your premise is all skewed.

 

[rockoon]

Willingness to risk life or go along with a policy which unnecessarily risks lives doesn't morally justify the policy. So your premise is all skewed.

Willingness to risk lives does not show immorallity either. Mighty one-sided of you.

 

[Radrook]

Willingness to risk lives does not show immorallity either. Mighty one-sided of you.

Another strawman since I never said that a mere willingness to risk lives always constitutes immorality. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. It all depends on the situation. One important factor is necessity. If the risk taken is unnecessary then it constitutes immortality. Unnecessary, an adjective I used and which you are conveniently chose to ignore.

 

[rockoon]

Another strawman since I never said that a mere willingness to risk lives always constitutes immorality.

You didnt say otherwise either.

Perhaps you should explain why it is immoral in this case?

One important factor is necessity.

You mean like driving at night with your children in the vehicle?

Risk.. yet not necessary.. immoral, right?

How about taking your children out to a restaurant to eat dinner?

They could die while on the road.. and even if you succesfully avoid all the travel hazards.. they could die of food poisoning..

Risk.. yet not necessary.. immoral, right?

If the risk taken is unnecessary then it constitutes immortality.

Well that answers those questions.

Note to self: nearly all risk is immoral.

Unnecessary, an adjective I used and which you are conveniently chose to ignore.

Or one I have spent time thinking about...

 

[Radrook]

You didn't say otherwise either.

When one writes one assumes that certain basic knowledge is common by default and needs no explanation unless there exists a handicap.

BTW
All my references are to the program "Mars Rising" and the manner of its presentation.

Perhaps you should explain why it is immoral in this case?

It's so clear there isn't a need for an explanation.

You mean like driving at night with your children in the vehicle?
Risk. Yet not necessary. immoral, right? How about taking your children out to a restaurant to eat dinner? They could die while on the road. and even if you successfully avoid all the travel hazards. They could die of food poisoning.
Risk.. yet not necessary.. immoral, right?

Wrong. That's another straw-man.

BTW

Your Reductio ad absurdum is exactly that-absurd.

Well that answers those questions. Note to self: nearly all risk is immoral. Or one I have spent time thinking about...

Your thinking deviates considerably from the cogent though it qualifies as thinking nevertheless.