Risk Adversity

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
Often a reason given for not going to mars is the risk involved.&nbsp; Why is this a major issue?&nbsp; Sending three people on a historic and important mission who may lose their lives in the process seems worthwhile to me.&nbsp; I have never seen any evidence that there would be a lack of qualified volunteers, and many days more than seven people die in wars, traffic, etc, etc.&nbsp; Risk is an important consideration, but it should not be a show-stopper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Often a reason given for not going to mars is the risk involved.&nbsp; Why is this a major issue?&nbsp; Sending three people on a historic and important mission who may lose their lives in the process seems worthwhile to me.&nbsp; I have never seen any evidence that there would be a lack of qualified volunteers, and many days more than seven people die in wars, traffic, etc, etc.&nbsp; Risk is an important consideration, but it should not be a show-stopper. <br /> Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Radiation, psychology, and cost. Radiation protection is the biggest factor, no sense in sending 3 men to mars to die along the way b4 we develop a technology to protect them. Right now the trip is so long that most likely the 3 men/women would kill one another from cabin fever. it cost a lot of money just to show the world how big your <span style="text-decoration:underline;font-weight:bold">&@%#</span> is.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">Often a reason given for not going to mars is the risk involved.&nbsp; Why is this a major issue?&nbsp; Sending three people on a historic and important mission who may lose their lives in the process seems worthwhile to me.&nbsp; I have never seen any evidence that there would be a lack of qualified volunteers, and many days more than seven people die in wars, traffic, etc, etc.&nbsp; Risk is an important consideration, but it should not be a show-stopper. Posted by tampaDreamer</font></p><p>I agree that risk aversion is not a reason to keep from going to mars. However, risk aversion alone is not the reason we haven't gone to mars. The cost is the overwhelming reason for not going. Sometimes risks are brought up as a way of dodging the larger issue of cost.</p><p>We should go to mars, but we should have sound rational for going, and we should minimize the risks to the extent humanly possible. There are certainly plenty of volunteers, there are even people who believe the mars mission should be a one way mission. That those going are going to stay and eventually die...or start a colony on mars. All to avoid spending too much money in their view.</p><p>The cost of a human mars mission has been estimated at between $20 to 500 billion depending on the type of mission. $20B for a Zubrin Mars Direct no frills mission. $500B for a Von Braun type mission with all the bells and whistles.</p><p>The actual cost may well fall between those figures, or like ISS, could get well beyond estimates making the whole venture at risk for cancellation. But at say, $250B for a human mission from go ahead up to the first couple of missions. Most of the public and politicians will want to know why we are going to a planet that cannot readily support human life without artificial life support such as enclosed habs right on up to Terraforming.</p><p>For those of us in the space community, there are all sorts of reasons for going to mars. But the majority of the public wants their tax dollars to go to practical things such as education. Had mars been more like what Percival Lowell thought it was...a dying planet with aliens...we probably would have already been to mars.</p><p>The reality is mars is cold, inhospitable to human life and expensive to send humans to.</p><p>This leaves us with very few reasons for sending people when viewed from the taxpayers perspective. One of those reasons would be setting up a mars base for the study of life if life is discovered by robotic probe. Thats probably the only reason we would send anyone to mars nowadays.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Radiation, psychology, and cost. Radiation protection is the biggest factor, no sense in sending 3 men to mars to die along the way b4 we develop a technology to protect them. Right now the trip is so long that most likely the 3 men/women would kill one another from cabin fever. it cost a lot of money just to show the world how big your &@%# is.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by danhezee</DIV></p><p>There is no way that anyone would die of radiation on&nbsp; trip to mars in even a half decent spacecraft.&nbsp; There is no way that a well selected crew would kill each other either.&nbsp; People historically have done much tougher trips with their sanity and friendships intact.&nbsp; A crewed mission to Mars need not cost any more than Apollo or the ISS and might cost a lot less.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
Europeans did not make it to america in risk-free craft.&nbsp; They set off not knowing what they were even sailing to, battling disease and mutiny and environment.&nbsp; Now we're afraid to journey to other planets because 14 lives have been claimed in 30 years of exploration.&nbsp; It's.. wimpy! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no way that anyone would die of radiation on&nbsp; trip to mars in even a half decent spacecraft.&nbsp; There is no way that a well selected crew would kill each other either.&nbsp; People historically have done much tougher trips with their sanity and friendships intact.&nbsp; A crewed mission to Mars need not cost any more than Apollo or the ISS and might cost a lot less.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Given that we do not at the moment have the infrastructure or technology in place for a manned mission to Mars and return, what is the basis for your cost projections ?&nbsp; Remember that official estimates have often proved woefully off the mark -- ISS for instance.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

danhezee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no way that anyone would die of radiation on&nbsp; trip to mars in even a half decent spacecraft.&nbsp; There is no way that a well selected crew would kill each other either.&nbsp; People historically have done much tougher trips with their sanity and friendships intact.&nbsp; A crewed mission to Mars need not cost any more than Apollo or the ISS and might cost a lot less.Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Ok i agree they wont die along the way from radiation, i was being dramatic </font><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" />.&nbsp; <font size="2">However, they will die a much earlier in their lives then if they didn't go.</font></p><p><font size="2">an expedition in a submarine is the closest analog on earth, I don't know if they have had a 3 man crew under the water for six months at a time.&nbsp; I know that the nuclear powered military subs can stay under that long but they are much bigger than a 3 man sub.&nbsp;</font> </p><p><font size="2">3 people in a tight space with nothing to do is a big problem complicate it with the strange feelings of being wieghtless that long and the mental problems become much bigger.</font></p><p><font size="2">I think VASMIR will solve the radaition and length problems and IIRC it will have a small amount of acceleration and so the people wouldnt be in completely weightless environment&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Edit: I didnt spell check the first time and reworded some things&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok i agree they wont die along the way from radiation, i was being dramatic .&nbsp; However, they will die a much earlier in their lives then if they didn't go.</DIV></p><p>Very probably not.&nbsp; Even a slightly shielded mission will stay inside the current radiation limit which specifies a lifetime&nbsp;risk of increased&nbsp;cancer death of only 3%.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>an expedition in a submarine is the closest analog on earth, I don't know if they have had a 3 man crew under the water for six months at a time.&nbsp; I know that the nuclear powered military subs can stay under that long but they are much bigger than a 3 man sub.&nbsp; 3 people in a tight space with nothing to do is a big problem complicate it with the strange feelings of being wieghtless that long and the mental problems become much bigger.</DIV></p><p>Space station missions are even better analogues in terms of crew size, hazards, environment, and crew type.&nbsp; Early polar expeditions are also good analogues too, with much higher risk, less well selected crews and worse living conditions.&nbsp; Specially good examples were Nansen's polar drift and Amundsen's south polar trek and Nort West Passage voyage.&nbsp; As my sig says, people aare the strongest link, not the weakest, on a Mars mission.</p><p>Why do you think that a Mars mission would have a crw of three?&nbsp; Most stduies propose 4-8.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think VASMIR will solve the radaition and length problems and IIRC it will have a small amount of acceleration and so the people wouldnt be in completely weightless environment&nbsp;&nbsp;Posted by danhezee </DIV></p><p>High Isp systems would certainly help, but they are a long way from realisation.&nbsp; There are much easier ways to reduce the radiation risk thaat developing costly and technically risky high Isp systems.</p><p>Cheers</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok i agree they wont die along the way from radiation, i was being dramatic .&nbsp; However, they will die a much earlier in their lives then if they didn't go.an expedition in a submarine is the closest analog on earth, I don't know if they have had a 3 man crew under the water for six months at a time.&nbsp; I know that the nuclear powered military subs can stay under that long but they are much bigger than a 3 man sub.&nbsp; 3 people in a tight space with nothing to do is a big problem complicate it with the strange feelings of being wieghtless that long and the mental problems become much bigger.I think VASMIR will solve the radaition and length problems and IIRC it will have a small amount of acceleration and so the people wouldnt be in completely weightless environment&nbsp;&nbsp;Edit: I didnt spell check the first time and reworded some things&nbsp; <br />Posted by danhezee</DIV><br /><br />I wonder if using the bigelow modules as a living environment during a journey has been investigated?&nbsp; If you could attach one or two to a port on a smaller metal spaceship, and then disassemble them before getting to mars it could help with the space issues. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">I wonder if using the bigelow modules as a living environment during a journey has been investigated?&nbsp; If you could attach one or two to a port on a smaller metal spaceship, and then disassemble them before getting to mars it could help with the space issues. Posted by tampaDreamer</font></p><p>Before they were called Bigelow modules, they were simply known as inflatable modules and yes, these have been investigated. The Bigelow modules are the modules or descendants of modules originally proposed for ISS by NASA. NASA had to suspend development due to budget cuts.</p><p>Were still a long way from ever sending humans to mars and if we actually ever do within the next couple decades...inflatables will most likely play a role, especially for the reasons you mentioned.</p><p>If the private sector sees any profit in a mars mission, will get there one way or the other.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">Ok i agree they wont die along the way from radiation, i was being dramatic .&nbsp; However, they will die a much earlier in their lives then if they didn't go.</font></p><p>Much earlier? Not necessarily. As with any study involving radiation exposure, the risk factor is greater but whether the outcome will actually match the risk is nearly impossible to prove.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">an expedition in a submarine is the closest analog on earth, I don't know if they have had a 3 man crew under the water for six months at a time.&nbsp; I know that the nuclear powered military subs can stay under that long but they are much bigger than a 3 man sub.&nbsp; 3 people in a tight space with nothing to do is a big problem complicate it with the strange feelings of being wieghtless that long and the mental problems become much bigger.</font></p><p>Serious mars proposals usually involve a minimum of four crew persons in craft somewhat larger than the confines of a three man sub. Even Zubrins bare bones proposal was a little more spacious than a three man sub. I do think if we really had to for some reason, a three person crew in a small craft could do the job. But were not hard pressed for those kinds of minimums.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">I think VASMIR will solve the radaition and length problems and IIRC it will have a small amount of acceleration and so the people wouldnt be in completely weightless environment&nbsp;&nbsp;Edit: I didnt spell check the first time and reworded some things Posted by danhezee</font></p><p>I agree that a VASIMR derived system would be the ideal way to get humans to mars. It would minimize exposure to radiation by shortening trip times. You would still have to develop radiation protection for the surface expedition part of the mission but thats no showstopper based on what we know today.</p><p>VASIMR accelleration would probably be insufficient to be of any real benefit to the crew from a "G" vs micro "G" perspective. The shorter transit times and crew excercise routines should be sufficient to assure crew health during the transit to and from mars.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts