Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Southwind17]

Isn't it ironic how the government is willing to slurge on wars but every dollar assigned to NASA is like having a tooth pulled without novacain?

Well, one could argue that it comes down to what's more important. We could debate the ins and outs of the justification of certain historical and contemporary wars, but generally speaking, if certain wars hadn't had the outcomes they did through American intervention or instigation, how and when man might walk on Mars could well be the very least of your concerns!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I suspect that considerable savings in weight could be made by sending pygmies in terms of food stores, living space design etc.

It's my understanding that during the Mercury-Apollo era, there was a maximum height for astronauts. For some reason, 5'8" comes to mind.

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.

 

[Southwind17]

With minor modification (such as the "Venusian gravity boost"), it could easily be said that all of these hold true for a jaunt up to the space station and back, as well. Yet we've been doing just fine with that.

Not to equate a trip to Mars with a trip to orbit, but just to point out that there are similar risks in any spaceflight.

I think that if the risk register was anything close to comparable we'd have walked on Mars by now!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I think that if the risk register was anything close to comparable we'd have walked on Mars by now!

Well, let's take a look point-by-point, then.

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

I don't know about the space station, but this is certainly true for moon shots. Too steep and you burn up. Too shallow, and you skip off the atmosphere into space.

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

Again, I take this to mean that you have to get Newtonian mechanics just right, or the mission is a bust. True, no matter how far into space you go.

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

Without knowing the reason for failure, I can't say whether this is relevant or not.

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

True for short-term space travel as well.

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

Astronauts undergo intense psychological examination for short-term missions for precisely this reason.

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

I'll grant you this one. If something goes wrong on the space station, we could get a rescue vehicle up there if we realy needed to.

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

No mention made doesn't mean none exists. And space debris is a real concern for shuttle astronauts and space station crewmembers.


All in all, the risks for long-term space travel appear to be fairly comparable to those for short-term. Of course, with an extended time factor, there's more time in which those risks can occur, so it certainly is more risky. But the types of risks are the same as the ones we currently deal with. Just not the duration.

 

[uruk]

The TV program, Mars Rising, pointed this out and contrasted the Russian cautious approach with ours. It did however say that we intend to gain experience via establishing a moon base first. The program also mentioned that the trip to Mars could be cut back to nine days. This would be done by stripping the ship of fuel and relying on some type of energy beam set up on the ISS and aimed at the ship. An orbiter would have to be waiting in Mars orbit to slow the ship down. But that technology is still in development and would force us to wait. Here is a brief synopsis of the program contents and airing times:

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK...ery.com/convergence/mars-rising/episodes.html

I need to watch the shows, but I suspect there is a little bit of sensationalisim on the producers part.

If we really intend to go to Mars, I think that returning to the Moon would be a necessary first step.
The Moon is a perfect location to test the equipment and proceedures that would be necessary for the longer trip to Mars. The Moon is only a couple of days away in case of emergency.

But to reiterate, We are probably not going to be ready to go there for a couple more decades. But that should not keep us from starting the ground work. The sooner we start, the sooner we will be ready.

 

[sts60]

All in all, the risks for long-term space travel appear to be fairly comparable to those for short-term. Of course, with an extended time factor, there's more time in which those risks can occur, so it certainly is more risky. But the types of risks are the same as the ones we currently deal with. Just not the duration.

I have to disagree somewhat. The much longer time frame for a Mars mission (just the one-way travel time is roughly 10 - 30 times longer than an entire Apollo mission) changes some things in a fundamental way. We won't be able to rely on the probability that a significant radiation event won't happen; we'll have to deal with a much longer dose time for cosmic radiation; we won't be able to use fuel cells and batteries as primary electrical power; we'll have to have reliable regenerative life support, not just oxygen tanks and scrubbers; and, while I think most people can handle being crammed together for a few days, it seems to me (I Am Not A Psychologist) that being stuck together for months is a different prospect altogether.

Again, none of these are insurmountable challenges. But they will take a lot of work and $$$, just as will simply lifting all that stuff into space and sending it on its way (as R. Mackey pointed out).

 

[uruk]

Isn't it ironic how the government is willing to slurge on wars but every dollar assigned to NASA is like having a tooth pulled without novacain?

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.

 

[uruk]

Well, one could argue that it comes down to what's more important. We could debate the ins and outs of the justification of certain historical and contemporary wars, but generally speaking, if certain wars hadn't had the outcomes they did through American intervention or instigation, how and when man might walk on Mars could well be the very least of your concerns!

I'm sure you'll agree that there are and were some wars where things would have been better if America would have not started or gotten involved in. Hindsight being twenty-twenty and all.

I think Radrook was pointing out that there is a tendency to be more loose with the purse strings when it comes to destruction rather than construction.

 

[tsg]

I suspect that considerable savings in weight could be made by sending pygmies

AND DWARVES!!!!

 

[Southwind17]

Well, let's take a look point-by-point, then.

I don't know about the space station, but this is certainly true for moon shots. Too steep and you burn up. Too shallow, and you skip off the atmosphere into space.

Again, I take this to mean that you have to get Newtonian mechanics just right, or the mission is a bust. True, no matter how far into space you go.

Without knowing the reason for failure, I can't say whether this is relevant or not.

True for short-term space travel as well.

Astronauts undergo intense psychological examination for short-term missions for precisely this reason.

I'll grant you this one. If something goes wrong on the space station, we could get a rescue vehicle up there if we realy needed to.

No mention made doesn't mean none exists. And space debris is a real concern for shuttle astronauts and space station crewmembers.

All in all, the risks for long-term space travel appear to be fairly comparable to those for short-term. Of course, with an extended time factor, there's more time in which those risks can occur, so it certainly is more risky. But the types of risks are the same as the ones we currently deal with. Just not the duration.

I'm glad that's sorted then. Ever thought of applying to be a safety risk manager at NASA?!

 

[Southwind17]

I'm sure you'll agree that there are and were some wars where things would have been better if America would have not started or gotten involved in. Hindsight being twenty-twenty and all.

I think Radrook was pointing out that there is a tendency to be more loose with the purse strings when it comes to destruction rather than construction.

Well that, I think, would be the cynical view.

Was the British and American participation in the Second World War 'destructive' or 'constructive', in the wider senses of those words? Was the dropping of the atomic bombs similarly 'destructive' or 'constructive'?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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.

Recently NPR interviewed a top-level manager from NASA. My understanding was that the budget remains about the same percentage of the GNP, but the number of projects they are asked to do keeps increasing.

I'm glad that's sorted then. Ever thought of applying to be a safety risk manager at NASA?!

No, for good reason.

 

[Corsair 115]

It's my understanding that during the Mercury-Apollo era, there was a maximum height for astronauts. For some reason, 5'8" comes to mind.

I think the limit was just over 6'. There's a story in the book A Man on the Moon about astronaut C.C. Williams who was just over 6' tall and only made it under the height limit. (Williams was to have been on the crew of Apollo 12, but was killed in an aircraft crash during training.)

 

[patnray]

Fact is that unmanned space exploration simply does not get the public attention the way that manned exploration does. And in a Democracy,that is important. Public support equals more money.
Or,as they said in "The Right Stuff": "No Buck Rogers,No Bucks".

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.

 

[uruk]

Well that, I think, would be the cynical view.

Was the British and American participation in the Second World War 'destructive' or 'constructive', in the wider senses of those words? Was the dropping of the atomic bombs similarly 'destructive' or 'constructive'?

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?

 

[uruk]

Recently NPR interviewed a top-level manager from NASA. My understanding was that the budget remains about the same percentage of the GNP, but the number of projects they are asked to do keeps increasing.



No, for good reason.

That's interesting. But spreading your budget thinner has the same effect, The amount you have to spend on the individual projects gets smaller.

 

[patnray]

Unless you consider keeping the people alive a good scientific return. And no, I'm not saying that to be glib. There are problems with sending humans into space that won't be solved by sending robots into space. The knowledge acquired by keeping people alive in space is very valuable.

But all we learn is how to keep humans alive in space. What makes you think this is valuable knowledge? Is that important enough to cancel or delay satelites needed to monitor the Earth's climate? Is that one subject more important than all the knowledge that could be obtained from robotic probes? Furthermore, any realistic plan for human exploration of Mars requires development sophisticated robotic equipment to support the mission. So focusing on that now, rather than on manned flights, makes far more sense, even if you think manned flight should be our eventual goal.

 

[uruk]

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.

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

I think you are short changing what we gain from manned space exploration. Learning how to live and work in space has it own contributions to science that is no more or less important than getting yet another picture of the rings of Saturn or the chemical composition of Martian soil.
Manned space exploration has its place too just as science for science sake.

Granted, the space shuttle is a boondoggle amd ISS is not being used to its fullest potential. Such is the consequence of being a government agency.

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

 

[uruk]

But all we learn is how to keep humans alive in space. What makes you think this is valuable knowledge?

It does have some value in human physiology, medicine/medical knowledge. Is it any less important than what the chemical make up of a comet is or how Saturn looks with sun behind it?

Is that important enough to cancel or delay satelites needed to monitor the Earth's climate?

I believe that falls under NOAA's budget. NOAA pays for them NASA helps design them and launch them.

Is that one subject more important than all the knowledge that could be obtained from robotic probes?

No, But manned space exploration has it's place too just as robotic exploration does.

There was no manned space exploration between the Apollo/Soyuz
and the first space shuttle launch. Almost twenty years. Robotic exploration never stopped.
And it will never stop.

Furthermore, any realistic plan for human exploration of Mars requires development sophisticated robotic equipment to support the mission. So focusing on that now, rather than on manned flights, makes far more sense, even if you think manned flight should be our eventual goal.

I don't think that there is anyone who is saying that robotic exploration or development will ever stop. But there are people who want manned exploration to stop.

Do you think that it is smart to develop robots in support of manned mission without actually having manned missions to test them? You can test them in theory all you want but won't get actuall results untill it is tested with the people it is supposed to support.

In Apollo they did test the vehicles unmanned, but ultimately they had to test them with people.

 

[tsg]

But all we learn is how to keep humans alive in space. What makes you think this is valuable knowledge?

That is a pretty big chunk of knowledge to be described with "all we learn". If we are going to send humans into space, then we have to start sending humans into space. It doesn't get done otherwise. And that's not even considering how that knowledge might help people here on Earth.

Is that important enough to cancel or delay satelites needed to monitor the Earth's climate? Is that one subject more important than all the knowledge that could be obtained from robotic probes? Furthermore, any realistic plan for human exploration of Mars requires development sophisticated robotic equipment to support the mission.

The assumption is that we can't do all of the above.

So focusing on that now, rather than on manned flights, makes far more sense, even if you think manned flight should be our eventual goal.

Then when do we start?