- Status
Never say never. There is a very slight possibility that a few humans will be enroute to a destination more than one light year away in a few decades. It does, however, appear that arrival at the destination is a century plus in our future. Here is a scenario with a very slight possibility. Some one begins filling orders for CNT, with great specs at one dollar per kilogram. We build an extra long = 300 kilometers Dr. Edwards type space elevator, that flings payloads at 20 kilometers per second in any desired direction. We have 100 tiny habitats at the mass center of asteroids by 2099. One of the asteroid habitats passes too close to Jupiter and the sling shot maneuver accelerates the asteroid to 60 kilometers per second = It will eventually leave our solar system unless it can be decelerated considerably = humans are enroute to the stars. Can we deliver sufficient supplies to the habitat for the many generations it will take to reach another star system? Possibly, as we already have some unmanned probes enroute out of our solar system. It will be expensive, but they are depending on us and have no other survival options that I know of. During their centuries of travel, we have to devise a way for them to avoid over shooting their destination = decelerate, but centuries of technical advance make a method probable.
We are finding new Pluto size bodies beyond Neptune each year, so we may find an Earth size body at less than ten times the distance to Neptune. It is difficult to imagine self sufficient humans being able to live on such a planet, but technology may continue to advance rapidly, making Earth 2 a reality even if it's sun is no brighter than Sirius, the second brightest star. Neil
We are finding new Pluto size bodies beyond Neptune each year, so we may find an Earth size body at less than ten times the distance to Neptune. It is difficult to imagine self sufficient humans being able to live on such a planet, but technology may continue to advance rapidly, making Earth 2 a reality even if it's sun is no brighter than Sirius, the second brightest star. Neil
Nice thoughts, but perhaps not entirely realistic. 1) No one comes near Jupiter accidentally. 2) If they did no one would spend money to save them. Kids die of malaria every day and we don't spend money to save them. 3) If we did decide to save them, we'd send them rocket fuel so they could come back.
vulture4":27k4h2hg said:
Or supplies to keep them there. They could stay in touch and hopefully a few will come back, and a few of them would go back. That's why we need a cycler.
I think we might find most if not all the materials we need from asteroids and no deep gravity well to deal with either. Plus, risky as it might be we can likely alter an asteroids trajectory and have the Earth capture it in orbit as a resource for mining or even station building. Any vehicle going to an asteroid could take full advantage of a VASMIR engine to test the technology to any NEO a couple millions miles away before going on a full trip out to Mars or even further. None of these would really require that we land or build any bases on the moon.
The largest obstacle we face in doing any exploration missions are those first few hundred miles out of Earth's atmosphere. We know other type of space propulsion systems such as ion engines work and perhaps scaled up can place people in orbit around Mars or even some of the outer planets. But all of that is restricted based purely on getting out of Earth's gravity well. It's high time we look at alternatives beyond chemical rockets to take us into space. We need to go beyond chemical rockets or else we are going to face the very same problems we had for the past 40 years. Chemical rockets are too expensive and too inefficient to do the job effectively. We need a better tool.
The largest obstacle we face in doing any exploration missions are those first few hundred miles out of Earth's atmosphere. We know other type of space propulsion systems such as ion engines work and perhaps scaled up can place people in orbit around Mars or even some of the outer planets. But all of that is restricted based purely on getting out of Earth's gravity well. It's high time we look at alternatives beyond chemical rockets to take us into space. We need to go beyond chemical rockets or else we are going to face the very same problems we had for the past 40 years. Chemical rockets are too expensive and too inefficient to do the job effectively. We need a better tool.
I think Japan already did this. They sent out a probe that landed on an asteroid, deposited a tiny capsule with a gold foil with a bunch of peoples names on it, then grabbed a sample and lifted off to return to earth. I don't recall the name of that program, and I think the package was already returned to earth. Seems like a waste of money to do it again, I'm sure the Japanese would be happy to share their data.
The smallest suitable asteroids for a habitat have a mass of about a billion kilograms = a million tons. Even bigger means more shielding from radiation and more material for developing products made from off planet material. That is about a thousand of times the mass of the vehicle that delivered the colonist to the asteroid. Possibly they can abandon the asteroid and travel to Earth or another habitat, if we send them fuel. Possibly one of the supply rockets can be refueled and used as a life boat, but 60 kilometers per second delta v is unlikely with either rocket engine even by 2099. It is unlikely the colonists can be instructed to retrofit the used rocket engines for reuse, especially if they have been idle for several years since last use. They could be past Neptune by the time they completed preparations to attempt a return trip.
Early colonists of asteroids are thinking, no return, and non-steerable asteroid, until we develop a craft that can do the rounds among the 100 asteroid,comet and small moon habitats, sort of like a hospital ship, but possibly centuries in our future. The combined delta v for several rendezvous is huge, and average travel time to the next rendezvous is long, unless there are lots more than 100 habitats. I agree, asteroid habitats have several advantages, but return trip, significant gravity, spacious living and safety are very unlikely.
The mass center habitat of Cerius could have a 100 kilometer radius and be the home of a billion humans, but that is likely many ceturies in our future. Volume = 12.56 million cubic kilometers = 80 humans per cubic kilometer, all in zero gravity. Neil
Early colonists of asteroids are thinking, no return, and non-steerable asteroid, until we develop a craft that can do the rounds among the 100 asteroid,comet and small moon habitats, sort of like a hospital ship, but possibly centuries in our future. The combined delta v for several rendezvous is huge, and average travel time to the next rendezvous is long, unless there are lots more than 100 habitats. I agree, asteroid habitats have several advantages, but return trip, significant gravity, spacious living and safety are very unlikely.
The mass center habitat of Cerius could have a 100 kilometer radius and be the home of a billion humans, but that is likely many ceturies in our future. Volume = 12.56 million cubic kilometers = 80 humans per cubic kilometer, all in zero gravity. Neil
1LY is 2100 times farther than the distance from Pluto to the sun. Probes won’t function long enough to get there never mind 5-10LY.
But a Droid provides direct benefits and profit.
Travelling outside our solar system is still the realm of movies.
But a Droid provides direct benefits and profit.
Travelling outside our solar system is still the realm of movies.
I did a quick Google on this subject and found the article, Japan has already done this with the Hayabusa mission.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/09 ... -home.html
I know it`s not practicle at the moment, but often thought it would be cool to gram a large rock, stabilize it, then colonize it for the purpose of a long distance outpost. Tunnel into it, spray the walls with a sealant comprised of crushed local materials and something else, etc. I know it sounds like sci-fi, but the technology exists today to do it, but the financials behind it make it impracticle. Still, allways thought it would be cool!
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/09 ... -home.html
I know it`s not practicle at the moment, but often thought it would be cool to gram a large rock, stabilize it, then colonize it for the purpose of a long distance outpost. Tunnel into it, spray the walls with a sealant comprised of crushed local materials and something else, etc. I know it sounds like sci-fi, but the technology exists today to do it, but the financials behind it make it impracticle. Still, allways thought it would be cool!
To clarify, Japan sent a probe, not people to that space rock....
Also, given the problems they experienced with thier mission, I can`t imagine why we would want to send people to do a robots job. Isn`t that one of the greatest purpose of a spacebot? To do those jobs too dangerous to risk a human life?
Also, given the problems they experienced with thier mission, I can`t imagine why we would want to send people to do a robots job. Isn`t that one of the greatest purpose of a spacebot? To do those jobs too dangerous to risk a human life?
bimmer4011":3asw96bz said:
Well a robot can do just what it was designed to do, hard to improvise. A crew on Mars could do more in a month then the Rovers have in all these years.
scottb50":3tw4ur5k said:
In all those years, we have only had 5-6 years of total robot operational time. If a manned mission costs 1000 times what a unmanned mission costs, and a manned mission can do in 1 month what robots did in 80... Robots still clean the clock of manned missions.
Unmanned missions until they cease to be useful, and have completely equipped a landing zone for a manned mission. Then a manned mission. Anything sooner is just political games.
SpacexULA":2fze3ftn said:
A bit more than that, both Mars Rovers have operated for more than six years, that is 12.
MSL will cost two billion. Are you saying that a manned mission will cost 2 trillion in todays $$$? No way. It would be at most 80 times as much, and possibly as little as 10 times.
A pair of astronauts in an upressurised rover would be able to cover in a day what the two MERs have done in 12 years. That's four thousand times faster. Assuming EVAs every other day and a 500 day surface stay, in distance alone they should cover 5000 times as much distance as the MERs. Of course an astronaut team would work faster, make more measurements, take more images, and be vastly more mobile, agile, and dextrous, accessing places where the MERs could not go. And they would collect samples for return to Earth.
Not at all. In addition to covering the ground and collecting data much faster obtained different data and returning more sample (together achieving perhaps 10,000 times as much as the MERs), a crewed mission would do things that are fundamentally beyond any unmanned mission.
If this were true then there will never be a crewed mission as there will always be something for unmanned missions to do.
However if we want to really explore Mars we are going to have to do better than 6 metres a day, which is what the the pace of unmanned rovers. Snails would be faster. We need to send people when we can. They are faster, cheaper for the return, and better.
bimmer4011":3dkqfhc0 said:
Because people do that sort of thing faster cheaper, and greater chance of success. Because they also bring so much more knowledge they are also much cheaper for the return.
Not to disparage the achievement of Hayabusa, which was an amazing mission.
I can believe that humans could deliver much more quality science for your dollar. However the value of this science itself is hard to define. This makes arguments based on science for dollar sort of murky. Humans will die learning this science, obviously. On this planet we could find many qualified scientists happy to take those risks. Does that make it ok? On this planet we could also find many individuals willing to duel to the death on public television. Does that make it ok? Even once the ethical problems are solved, can politically a space program survive astronauts on bad trajectories doomed to run out of air in years time with no hope of rescue? Can we just ignore them as we build new missions?
For such reasons, I don't think science is a good justification for risking people.
I think the reason to send people must be to learn to live there. Now you are risking life to extend and safeguard future life. Suddenly this becomes ethically much simpler because you are comparing life with life.
This isn't anti-science. Obviously much science must be done to make this possible, and in the process of learning to colonize another world much other science can be done for pure interest, with very very little additional risk.
For such reasons, I don't think science is a good justification for risking people.
I think the reason to send people must be to learn to live there. Now you are risking life to extend and safeguard future life. Suddenly this becomes ethically much simpler because you are comparing life with life.
This isn't anti-science. Obviously much science must be done to make this possible, and in the process of learning to colonize another world much other science can be done for pure interest, with very very little additional risk.
kelvinzero":noym7xgo said:
the value of public good science is very hard to quantify. The payoffs may be very delayed, indirect, and even non-material. What payoff will there ever be for the billions spent on Hubble (or any other large telescope for that matter)? It is my opinion the thae indirect benefits of the SRTM (STS-99) in my country has already more that recouped the cost of the mission, globally it may well have replayed the cost of the entire shuttle program. But how do you quantify this?
People die doing stuff all the time, it is not their deaths that is the issue, but whether the reason they died is worth dying for. People die providing us with raw materials, energy, food, fibre, goods and services, keeping us safe from crimninals, resucing us from disasters and accidents. They also die from stupidity, substance abuse, and malice. the two catagories are not morally equivalent.
Space programs have survived deaths before. Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, the X-15 program, Challenger, Columbia. The lessons are learned, the programs move on. There have been hundreds of deaths in construction accidents, launch explosions, chemical spills associated with space activities. Why should past and present spacxe programs survive these but somehow Mars missions will not.
People risk their lives doing science all the time. Working in remote areas, down caves, under water, with wild animals, testing new vaccines, doing into the craters of erupting volcanoes, chasing tornadoes and hurricanes, fixing Hubble, flying to the space station, investigating disease outbreaks. I have had friends and colleagues who have died doing science - remote area car accidents, plane crashes, leopard seal attacks. We accept that people will die doing science, even though we try to minimise the risk. Why should going to Mars be any different.
Learning to live on Mars requires science. And a lot of science will be needed before we can even klnow whether it is possible.
Hi again Jon.
The value of science is hard to quantify. However I am not saying that spending money on science is unethical. Only spending human life.
Yes people do die all the time. It is possible to justify this sometimes using the principle of least harm. People can be killed in self defence, they can volunteer to take risks to protect others, they can die through unavoidable accidents in the course of living. The reason these cases can be justified is that you are comparing life against life.
There is one other important case that I think is justified: In general I would support a person's right to risk their own life, for their own reasons. There is nothing ethically wrong with a scientist who is willing to risk their own life to go to mars.
However, just because the scientist is ethical and willing, does not mean it would be ethical for me to choose to enable this scientist to do so, simply because I have considered that his willing life is a good trade for the possible benefits of the science. Where the benefits are clearly to reduce harm, a case can be made. Of the cases mentioned, testing new vaccines, investigating volcanoes, chasing tornadoes and hurricanes, disease outbreaks can clearly be justified in this way.
However even when the science is directly for preserving life, such as vaccines, this is still no slam dunk. This is an ethically very tricky area! Ethics in medicine is not an answered problem. It is repeatedly reexamined.
As you say: learning to live on Mars requires science. And a lot of science will be needed before we can even know whether it is possible. Absolutely. It is possible that if you designed all science missions done on mars in terms of learning to live there, you might perhaps find yourself doing nothing different than we are currently doing.
I am not saying not to send scientists to mars, Im saying that by far the strongest ethical justification for supporting another person to take this risk is to safeguard and propagate life.
The value of science is hard to quantify. However I am not saying that spending money on science is unethical. Only spending human life.
Yes people do die all the time. It is possible to justify this sometimes using the principle of least harm. People can be killed in self defence, they can volunteer to take risks to protect others, they can die through unavoidable accidents in the course of living. The reason these cases can be justified is that you are comparing life against life.
There is one other important case that I think is justified: In general I would support a person's right to risk their own life, for their own reasons. There is nothing ethically wrong with a scientist who is willing to risk their own life to go to mars.
However, just because the scientist is ethical and willing, does not mean it would be ethical for me to choose to enable this scientist to do so, simply because I have considered that his willing life is a good trade for the possible benefits of the science. Where the benefits are clearly to reduce harm, a case can be made. Of the cases mentioned, testing new vaccines, investigating volcanoes, chasing tornadoes and hurricanes, disease outbreaks can clearly be justified in this way.
However even when the science is directly for preserving life, such as vaccines, this is still no slam dunk. This is an ethically very tricky area! Ethics in medicine is not an answered problem. It is repeatedly reexamined.
As you say: learning to live on Mars requires science. And a lot of science will be needed before we can even know whether it is possible. Absolutely. It is possible that if you designed all science missions done on mars in terms of learning to live there, you might perhaps find yourself doing nothing different than we are currently doing.
I am not saying not to send scientists to mars, Im saying that by far the strongest ethical justification for supporting another person to take this risk is to safeguard and propagate life.
JonClarke":3a59ll3i said:
(Googling SRTM (STS-99)...) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission? Mapping the world in 3D?
I can see this data could be put to some good applications. But paying for the entire shuttle program?
HopDavid":vw04vhxw said:
I did not know you posted here too!
It's a good question you make. It is the issue of indirect benefit.
Where I work we use SRTM data as one layer in our GIS. Projects like national seawater intrusion risk assessment, devopment of strategies for protection of critical infrastructure, or basin-wide flood modelling, There are hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure, rural and urban, that have better protection as a result of these studies. If the SRTM contributes less than 1% to this it has more than paid for the mission. Extend this to the Americas and Europe, six times the area and and two hundred times the population, and I would not be surrpised if if the value would indeed would indeed be equivalent to the entire Shuttle program.
And that is not getting to the other uses of SRTM data, as a layer in national and regional scale interpretive geochemical and radiometric maps which can lead to mineral discovers that again collectively might be of greater value the the mission
Of course SRTM data is available for free, so nothing actually is paid for. But the benefit to society is still there.
Probably even possible to take a flight over it, in places like this :JonClarke":1rhtdm46 said:
http://www.flightgear.org/
FlightGear v2.0 Gallery (67 images)
Well since MW didn't move it yet and nobody will respond with it in limbo here is my post.
The more I read and think about our President's stated goal of sending a manned mission to an asteroid the more I question why. Is it just a diversion so he can eventually scrap the USA's manned space program? What could a manned mission to an asteroid accomplish that a robotic mission couldn't? Does he want to send astronauts to a mainstream asteroid that stays between Mars and Jupiter or a NEO that has a highly eliptical orbit. To me a manned asteroid mission falls under the publicity stunt category and has no long term benefit
The more I read and think about our President's stated goal of sending a manned mission to an asteroid the more I question why. Is it just a diversion so he can eventually scrap the USA's manned space program? What could a manned mission to an asteroid accomplish that a robotic mission couldn't? Does he want to send astronauts to a mainstream asteroid that stays between Mars and Jupiter or a NEO that has a highly eliptical orbit. To me a manned asteroid mission falls under the publicity stunt category and has no long term benefit
bdewoody":3kjap22m said:
Hi, the notion that it is a purposeful diversion is rather silly. I don't think this president, nevermind the last or any other president knows enough about space and exploration to make a rational decision as to what is top priority and what is not. For the record I think it is a waste of time and money at least in the short run. As hubble demonstrated along with other scientific instruments, more can be learned for less. At present, the only ROI in space comes from the communications industry. Satelite phones and T.V., gps etc.. make kajillions of dollars. With any luck, the energy industry will be next, but it's a long shot imo.. As for what the govt. should fund, I think my first choice would be more telescopes and robotic solar system explorers.
JonClarke":1rvdi9qe said:HopDavid":1rvdi9qe said:
I did not know you posted here too!
It's a good question you make. It is the issue of indirect benefit.
Where I work we use SRTM data as one layer in our GIS. Projects like national seawater intrusion risk assessment, devopment of strategies for protection of critical infrastructure, or basin-wide flood modelling, There are hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure, rural and urban, that have better protection as a result of these studies. If the SRTM contributes less than 1% to this it has more than paid for the mission. Extend this to the Americas and Europe, six times the area and and two hundred times the population, and I would not be surrpised if if the value would indeed would indeed be equivalent to the entire Shuttle program.
And that is not getting to the other uses of SRTM data, as a layer in national and regional scale interpretive geochemical and radiometric maps which can lead to mineral discovers that again collectively might be of greater value the the mission
Of course SRTM data is available for free, so nothing actually is paid for. But the benefit to society is still there.
This sounds reasonable. You may well be correct.
In my opinion, it makes more sense to send humans to an asteroid than the moon. We need to understand how to land humans on an asteroid should it be necessarily to do so in the future, in order to deflect it. Mostly likely, an asteroid deflection mission could be done with robots, but sending humans allows them to adapt to a different situation (without light speed delay).
The moon, on the other hand, poses no threat to us. Long term, we might want to have scientific bases there, like Antarctica. But you wouldn't colonize it like you would Mars, because it is orbiting the Earth and hence belongs to mankind collectively, and you wouldn't send men there for defense reasons because the moon is not going to crash into the Earth.
Thus, I say, yes on manned asteroid, no on manned Moon. At least, in terms of NASA missions. I support Bigelow setting up a space hotel there.
--Brian
The moon, on the other hand, poses no threat to us. Long term, we might want to have scientific bases there, like Antarctica. But you wouldn't colonize it like you would Mars, because it is orbiting the Earth and hence belongs to mankind collectively, and you wouldn't send men there for defense reasons because the moon is not going to crash into the Earth.
Thus, I say, yes on manned asteroid, no on manned Moon. At least, in terms of NASA missions. I support Bigelow setting up a space hotel there.
--Brian
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram