Humans to Mars, please sign this!

[sojourner]

Gosh, wow Ebeneezer, thanks for the history lesson. But I have to disagree on the public backlash thing. As I mentioned earlier we already have a good idea on what the public would do in the case of such a tragedy. Just look at Challenger and Columbia.

So, if you're not saying all we should do is crawl, what are you saying? I agree that we should take measured steps, but we do need to take steps.

Going to Mars should be a goal because to strive for it expands humanity in numerous ways. Going recklessly does not.

And yes, I have been a proponent of nasaspaceflight.com for years here. It's really the best place to go to get a good feel of where we are headed.

Besides, where was it said in this thread that we should drop everything and start building a "super mars or bust" rocket?

Just because we want mars as the goal does not mean it has to be done without a reasoned plan of growth in capability.

 

[Lindley]

There's really no plausible scenario in which we don't get there *eventually*, except perhaps nuclear war. The important question is what the immediate next step should be.

Eventual manned Mars missions provide a number of unique challenges:
1) Extended space voyages with the increased radiation exposure this entails.
2) Extended stay in a self-contained habitat with limited access to local resources.
3) Creation of a launch infrastructure to get people back off the surface again.

I like the Flexible Path option because ti allows us to tackle each of these challenges (and others) individually rather than trying to do everything at once.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why sooner rather than later? So we can watch it live on TV?

 

[Irishman]

I guess it's lost on the two of you, so I have to draw you pictures:

The US space program didn't just start one day and head to the moon. First, we had to build rockets. Once that hurdle was covered, we then attached some funny little object on it called an artificial satellite. The satellite had some instruments on it that transmitted telemetry and other data back to earth, which was then further analyzed. After some more work, we started sending dogs and monkeys, not people into space to orbit the earth. Would a man have volunteered to go? I'm certain a few would have; however, our forefathers of the space program had the wisdom to proceed with caution. Once the animals experiments provided enough data, we then launched a man into space. Did he go straight to the moon? Nope. Instead, he orbited the earth, first for a few hours at a time which was incrementally extended into days. Once that was accomplished did we then push forward to land men on the moon and return them home. We also continued with the Skylab program to start practicing for longevity in space.

Then came the Shuttle program. It was heralded as a major leap in the Space program, but instead did not deliver what was promised (hundreds of launches, etc). The shuttle was still using mainframe computers, which are extremely heavy and bulky up until the early 1990's. Hell, it almost took an employee rebellion in NASA's younger engineers to get off of mainframe computers and to a client-server style network in the late-1990's.

Anyway, I'm not saying all we need to do is crawl. Look at what's going on in NASA right now. There are engineers with their own forum who are claiming that NASA is going about building the next stage in space faring vehicles all wrong. There is disagreement (on a large scale) how to build and equip a mission to Mars.

We've lost some know-how due to the last 30 years being vested in the shuttle program. We have to depend on the Russians to get supplies to the Space Station and are basically grounded once the shuttle fleet stops.

Testing new propulsion systems, is not something to be performed on such an ambitious voyage. This is what the crawl, walk, run phase is. No one can give any good reasons *WHY* we have to go to Mars beyond, "<snivel> THEY DID IT ON STAR TREK!!!" Real life doesn't work like that and I would think that a (reasonable) person would understand that.

I think what gets lost is that people do not remember how overly-optimistic scientists/mankind became during the nuclear age. Need I remind you that in the 1950's testimony before Congress was that within a few years, nuclear energy would give us electricity "too cheap to meter"? There were all of these bold, daring predictions what society and life in general would be like 10, 20, and 50 years down the road. I hate to break it to you, but very few, if any, panned out.

So yes, I'm going to state that we're better off buying cheap probes to gather data while efforts are underway to analyze that data. Look at the twin Mars rovers. Their life expectancy was 90-days, yet they're still operating. I know there are risks; however, I know from my observations of the Court of Public Opinion that efforts to pump BILLIONS of dollars into such a massive efforts will be greatly criticized. If the mission fails, get ready for the backlash. If the mission fails and people die, all hell *will* break loose.

I view the Space Program as an investment since many technologies have been developed because of it and as a result of it; however, where we are right now, a manned Mars mission isn't going to provide much, if any, ROI.

What's wrong with exercising patience? It's not like the planet is going anywhere.

While I do respect your view, I think that it's sadly ignorant to the manner in which space exploration has progressed over the decades.

Further, it's clear by your posts that you just don't get the explorer's mindset. It's okay. It's not for everyone. The mountain-climber's credo of "because it was there" still applies today to everyone who wants to go farther, faster.

It's why NASA alum Franklin Chang-Diaz is developing a new engine design called the "VASIMR", which is vastly superior to current chemical rockets. It would cut in half the transit time to Mars (from 6 months to 3).

It will be a drive like that which will get us to Mars, not Apollo-on-steroids.

And while it is true that Mars isn't going anywhere (barring any unforeseen celestial destructive event), each of us IS going somewhere. A human lifespan is not long enough to enjoy a molasses' slow progress in space travel technology and politics. Many of us want to see it in our lifetime.

If the mission fails, and people die, all hell will NOT break loose. History has proven that. How many astronauts died when the Columbia broke up on reentry? Is NASA still functioning?? Yes.

 

[Lindley]

It's why NASA alum Franklin Chang-Diaz is developing a new engine design called the "VASIMR", which is vastly superior to current chemical rockets. It would cut in half the transit time to Mars (from 6 months to 3).

It's superior in the sense that it has greater endurance and can provide constant acceleration over a far longer time using the same quantity of fuel.

However, the actual thrust produced is much lower, so that thing won't get a rocket off the ground; it's only effective on something already in LEO.

Just a minor clarification.

 

[sojourner]

^yes. many people miss the difference between high impulse and high thrust.

 

[Irishman]

^yes. many people miss the difference between high impulse and high thrust.

Right, and we're still struggling to get SSTO right.

SpaceshipTwo is on the right track, and so are a half dozen former contenders for the X-Prize.

It will happen, but probably not under the auspices of NASA or its ilk.

 

[Delta1]

C) As Lindley and I have pointed out repeatedly, where do you think that money gets spent? Whether the mission fails or succeeds it helps the economy.

So if we embarked on a string of failed missions, our economy would benefit? I guess building scientific equipment and blasting it into space does increase the GDP. (Is it considered government spending or net exports?) Maybe we could engage in a window-breaking campaign, too. The uptick in glazier activity and glass sales would really help the GDP.

 

[Lindley]

Of course successful missions are better. The point is, once the money is spent, it's spent, no matter how the mission turns out.

 

[Myasishchev]

Here is a petition to Obama to consider the future direction of NASA to be one where manned space exploration is the main priority.

http://www.humanstomars.org/

There don't seem to many signitures yet but its only been going a few days.

Mars no, L5 yes, Europa maybe.

 

[Klaitu]

I am in favor of manned missions to Mars, but I really have no illusion that Obama will do anything in favor of the space program. Space exploration is not a hot-button social issue that gets you re-elected when you're low in the polls.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

You'll never learn to run if you never try it, Ebeneezer. You'll spend eternity crawling. You see, you'll never acquire the necessary skills if, before you even try, you throw your hands up and give up.

You'll never develop interplanetary transport if you're content to just use some probes, using the same basic technology, investing little, if anything, in innovative propulsion methods, for example.

[...]
Testing new propulsion systems, is not something to be performed on such an ambitious voyage. This is what the crawl, walk, run phase is. No one can give any good reasons *WHY* we have to go to Mars beyond, "<snivel> THEY DID IT ON STAR TREK!!!" Real life doesn't work like that and I would think that a (reasonable) person would understand that.

So yes, I'm going to state that we're better off buying cheap probes to gather data while efforts are underway to analyze that data.

What's wrong with exercising patience? It's not like the planet is going anywhere.

Using "cheap probes" to gather some data might help scientists in various disciplines, but such a strategy doesn't even pretend to be a program that valorifies the opportunities space could provide in the long term - alleviating the population pressure, resources, etc.

What we need at this point is to find propulsion technologies that can get us cheaply and safely in LEO, and then, an efficient interplanetary propulsion method.
This means funds should be invested in these areas of research. Up until now, the efforts in this direction were timid, at best - that would be because no one was sure that such objectifs could be accomplished in this or that research program. Instead, the money were spent on tried and tested - but also clearly lacking/insufficient - technologies, simply because there was a high chance of success.
This, of course, lead to the near-stagnation we experienced for the last half a century in propulsion technology.

And that's what I meant when I said - in order to walk or run, one must first try to walk or run. If you're content to crawl, you'll crawl forever - and that's what's wrong with "patience" as you understand the concept.

 

[RobertVA]

Even with spacecraft that are a lot more efficient than what's remotely feasible in the next few centuries it will be a easier to meet people's needs here on Earth than ship them off to Mars, Earth's moon or even low Earth orbit. Since you can't modify the laws of physics it will always require massive amounts of some combination of propelants and energy, probably both, to get each of those people into orbit. All those horny people remaining behind are going to continue making babies at a much higher rate.

There would be some benefit of increasing the specie's range, allowing the lunar, space habitat or martian immigrants to survive if some disaster like a large scale nuclear war or another asteroid hit killed the billions remaining on Earth. Those colonies would have had to be operating for quite some time before having enough infrastructure for their inhabitants to prosper without some imports from Earth.

 

[sto vo kor]

Bugger Mars, I've just wastched Avatar in 3D, I want to go to Pandora now! :-D