Why isn't the ESA going to the Moon and Mars?

[MG1962]

I refer back to the spin-out developing technology and skills on how to live and work in space. A mission to Mars is more long term anyway. We need to find out how to last that long in interplanetary space. The moon is the perfect test bed. It has fine dust to wear out seals and wind up the astronauts, high UV and radiation, and high vacuum. I don't believe it's an either/or situation, We need both. We need the probes to develop the intelligence for the manned missions, as well as the science that we gain from them. There's also the spin-out of developing low power, autonomous robotics.

It doesn't have zero g

 

[Travis]

I think purposeful manned missions are worthwhile. If for no other reason than they give us something positive to point to as an achievement. We need grandeur. We need these types of things to kindle that spirit of curiosity in us. Sure maybe no one outside the US cared that Eagle was landing on the Moon back when it did but I think most would care today if someone were to land on Mars.

 

[MG1962]

I think purposeful manned missions are worthwhile. If for no other reason than they give us something positive to point to as an achievement. We need grandeur. We need these types of things to kindle that spirit of curiosity in us. Sure maybe no one outside the US cared that Eagle was landing on the Moon back when it did but I think most would care today if someone were to land on Mars.

Actually it was quiet the opposite. Aside from China and the USSR - The world stopped that day - looked up and went yeah!!!! thats cool

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But nevertheless there's only so much propaganda you can milk out of that. I mean, it's sorta like being the first guy jumping over the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle. First time the world would probably stop and go "whoa!" at that too, but if you want to do that once a year for the next two decades, it just becomes non-news. To get the same reaction again, you'd probably need to do it while juggling chainsaws with your dick.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Anyway, to get back to the OP.
I think the overall conclusion is that the ESA isn't going to the moon and mars because those would be very expensive prestige missions of good scientific and low economic value.
At the moment its concentrating its budget on something that has good economic value, namely a GPS competitor that allows the EU to be ensured of the service even if the US military decides to limit its own system and would generate revenue that is now going to the US when people pay for the GPS, which can lead to a bigger budget and possibly more scientific missions in the future.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Humans trump robots at field work level scientific investigation. Look at the quality of Moon rock samples brought back by humans and the ones retrieved by robots.

Was there any concentrated effort to make robots bring back samples form the moon? And when did this happen?

As you may have noticed, robotics is advancing almost daily. Sure there are things humans do better than robots, even when they have to be in a space suit, but the expenses of sending humans are huge, compared to robots. My point is that if we spend those ressources on robots instead, including developing better robots, we will very likely get more for our money.

But even if we accept that robots are better why isn't the ESA sending out more probes? I mean if Europe does everything better than the USA then their probes should be doing sample returns from Titan by now.

Money. And, no doubt, the habit of playing second fiddle to the US, in space exploration. Then, of course there is the fact that Europe is not a single nation. While we may be richer just now, the decision chain is MUCH longer.


Hans

 

[Eddie Dane]

it just becomes non-news. To get the same reaction again, you'd probably need to do it while juggling chainsaws with your dick.

Nonsense.

All you'd have to do is misjudge the distance, crash into the wall of the canyon and disappear into a hug fireball.

It would get more hits on Youtube than the moonlanding.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Rofl. There is that. But I doubt that any country wants to make that kind of headlines when it comes to space exploration. The idea is to show off to the world to the effect of "look what awesome things we can do" rather than "look how spectacularly we can screw up"

Plus, even that gets old. Apollo 13 was watched by a whole world with baited breath, but Columbia was already hardly Youtube worthy, and when they discovered a damaged heat shield on Atlantis last year (with all the potential to cause a verbatim Columbia re-enactment) hardly anyone was glued to the TV to hear what happens next.

Basically even there being the first guy who ploughs in the canyon wall would get you some fame, being the 20'th becomes just a "yet another idiot" footnote. For a space disaster to get the whole world gasping, by now it would have to involve colliding with Santa's flying sled and crashing into a clown school

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think purposeful manned missions are worthwhile. If for no other reason than they give us something positive to point to as an achievement. We need grandeur. We need these types of things to kindle that spirit of curiosity in us. Sure maybe no one outside the US cared that Eagle was landing on the Moon back when it did but I think most would care today if someone were to land on Mars.

Sure. OTOH, I can think of grandeur we could achieve right here on Earth, which would be far more useful. I know you can't compare putting a human on Mars with eradicating hunger in Africa, or developing safe fusion energy, still.....


Don't get me wrong: I'd be GLUED to the TV while they landed on Mars, like I was when they landed on the moon, but we do need priorities.

Hans

 

[SezMe]

We need to find out how to last that long in interplanetary space.

Why?

 

[Rasmus]

Why?

And why now?

If the knowledge was readily available to us, what would we do with it? there's no where we could go to. As in: no where we could go to and stay at, much less with more than a handful of people.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And why now?

If the knowledge was readily available to us, what would we do with it? there's no where we could go to. As in: no where we could go to and stay at, much less with more than a handful of people.

That is an important point. Prolonged stays in space can be (and are) researched in orbit around Earth. A mission for interstellar colonization is an entirely different ball-game. Such a mission would surely require artificial gravity (centrifugal would do fine).

The purpose of going to Mars is mainly to explore Mars, because the trip as such doesn't give us much we can't get cheaper.

The moon has an interesting potential as a low gravity, no air resistance launch-pad, but not so much if whatever we launch has to be sent up from Earth. If we could mine it locally, OTOH......

Perhaps we should work on the space elevator.

Hans

 

[Rasmus]

Perhaps we should work on the space elevator

It is being worked on.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1894327&postcount=1

(Way old thread, there are more. I just liked and remembered the opening line...)

As far as I know, the main problem here is the rope, since it doesn't exist yet.

But I couldn't agree more, if we want to stay in space, this is the way to go.

 

[Mikemcc]

None of what you suggest requires a manned Lunar base to acquire. How about a truly functional rotating orbital platform with a significant permanent crew to perform research, service and maintain our various orbiting devices and assets, and give us a true toe-hold into the rest of the system. When we decide that technology and costs dictate that lunar, Apollo rendevous, or other manned interplanetary ventures are doable, it will provide a much better embarkation point than the Lunar surface. Additionally, such a platform provides a good location for commercial/corporate space ventures and tourism to take root. In the near term, until we have a much larger, more complete, near-earth orbital infrastructure in place, I'd be hard pressed to identify any significant advantage that the lunar surface offers us over LEO.

Again, it shouldn't be an either / or situation. There's room for both (but not the money unfortunately). LEO structures, launchers, tourism and industry are better suited to private exploitation. Use the governmental resources to clean up the old junk and put up proper comm stations like Arthur Clarke originally foresaw.

Work in LEO is all well and good but it doesn't help us develop techniques to operate outside the Van Allen belts, develop powerful multi-start engines suitable for heavy load interplanetary flight, deal with fine dust (as present on the moon and mars), and a whole host of other challenges.

 

[Mikemcc]

Why?

Because we can...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

"Because we can" fails to convince me in any case.

1. There are plenty of things you can do, but aren't a good idea anyway. Like shooting yourself in the head. Just being able to do something is not automatically reason to.

2. Because we can do a finite number of things, among other reasons because we have finite industry and resources to divert. We should do those which promise the best bang per buck, not some random silliness, and "because we can" is sadly lacking that crucial bang/buck information.

 

[Mikemcc]

"Because we can" fails to convince me in any case.

1. There are plenty of things you can do, but aren't a good idea anyway. Like shooting yourself in the head. Just being able to do something is not automatically reason to.

2. Because we can do a finite number of things, among other reasons because we have finite industry and resources to divert. We should do those which promise the best bang per buck, not some random silliness, and "because we can" is sadly lacking that crucial bang/buck information.

It's good enough for people to climb mountains, sail round the world, and for governments to waste resources by going to war.

What happens when the resources start to run out? "Oh we'll go and develop the know-how now to spread out into the solar-system... pity we wasted the fossil fuels by burning them and the uranium, and...". In the Army we were always reminded of the 6Ps - Planning and preparation prevent p*ss poor performance. It would take decades to develop the skills to even the most basic levels to permit long deep space missions, why wait until the last moment?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

1. Even wars and whatnot aren't done "because we can".

2. Because in the meantime we might have better technology, and do the same stuff with less effort and cost.

3. Because investing in something -- e.g., R&D -- often yields more benefits later than pissing all the resource you can right away. E.g., the kind of benefits from point 2. Ask North Korea how it worked for them to blow all their resources on some pointless megalomania projects instead of, say, industrializing some more or doing some research.

ETA: and,

4. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because we spend some stuff irresponsibly, doesn't mean that adding even more irresponsible spending is OK.

 

[Rasmus]

It's good enough for people to climb mountains, sail round the world,

If they want to, they can freely chose to do. If they are, however, convinced by that argument that they ought to, they are fools at best.

and for governments to waste resources by going to war.

I really rather doubt that.

What happens when the resources start to run out? "Oh we'll go and develop the know-how now to spread out into the solar-system... pity we wasted the fossil fuels by burning them and the uranium, and...".

The desire to harvest resources from space isn't a reason to travel to space. We have the technology to get to the moon; if the resources there are worth it, we need different stuff to get them.

In the Army we were always reminded of the 6Ps - Planning and preparation prevent p*ss poor performance. It would take decades to develop the skills to even the most basic levels to permit long deep space missions, why wait until the last moment?

Long deep space missions will not be efficient to get resources. But feel free to provide a plan first. It might actually change some minds.

 

[MRC_Hans]

For space mining, the asteroid belt is the prime choice (as several Sci Fi writers have long since noticed). One gravity well less to lug heavy stuff up and down. You might even tow smaller asteroids to convenient positions.

Hans