what do you want

[ehs40]

Its such a big argument all the time so lets vote and explain why <br /><br /><br />maned exploration or probes?

 

[nacnud]

Both

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Probes first, then Manned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

You can send a lot of probes for real cheap, the<br />information you get from them will allow you to plan<br />your manned missions better and get much more bang<br />for the buck out of the manned missions.

 

[kane007]

Both, seconded.<br /><br />Definately probes to scout ahead and then when technologies/resources suffice, manned!

 

[qso1]

Both, but unmanned is already well underway for Mars. We could mount a manned mission just about anytime with the information we now have. Within 15 years, we should have enough info to put people on Mars. <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>

 

[baktothemoon]

Manned for inner solar system, probes for Jupiter and beyond.

 

[webtaz99]

We should never be so black-and-white-ish. They both have their uses, and one is pointless without the other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

Both. Robots still can't breed.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[chidave]

Both <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Robots still can't breed."</font><br /><br />True, but robots could build more robots <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /><br />As was said before, why the choice? Until robotics advances to the point where robots can autonomously function with all the serendipitous capabilities of an intelligent human being it seems silly to not send humans out to explore beyond Earth. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[j05h]

I am for settlement of the solar system, which requires human presence. Robots and bio-tech will enable this. Until they reach a cyber-AI-Singularity, robots will only be our tools. This is regardless of how much we anthropomorphize them. The MER rovers, for instance, are "just" advanced remote-control cars with sensors. They may be cool, but they have a stronger similiarity to a chainsaw than a person. They are just tools. <br /><br />What I really want is to find a way to live and work in space, myself. My wife promised me she'd go to Mars. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[hurricane4911]

Probes, and lot's of them.<br /><br />We can send an armada of probes throughout the solar system on the cheap and learn a whole lot more. Colonize the moon first.<br /><br />IMHO, for the forseeable future, forget a manned mission to Mars. Too costly, and way to long before we get a mission off the ground. Technology moves at a far faster rate than we can incorporate into manned hardware to Mars. <br /><br />Probes, Probes, and more robots

 

[j05h]

Would you promote a political ban on private Mars expeditions? Or any other space venture (tourism, mining, etc) ? This is the beautiful part about a frontier, you go your way, I'll go mine. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I agree. We need to colonise space, not plant flags.<br /><br />I think the moon is a dead-end, an Azore or Canary Island. Mars and it's moons provide all the resources to build a new civilization. I'm looking for the next New York City, not the next Reykjavik. Cis-Mars is the NYC of the "Americas" that the Main Belt Asteroids and NEOs will develop into. <br /><br />Again, just my opinion. Please, please prove me wrong and develop something profitable on Luna. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Its such a big argument all the time so lets vote and explain why<br /><br /><br />manned exploration or probes?</font><br /><br />I'd challenge the assumptions that seem to underly the question. There is no good reason not to do both -- and do them well.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Ahhhh... others seem to have already made the point.<br /><br />Silly Lampblack. Read the thread and <i>then</i> post. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I can see your point that it may be better to bypass the Moon and head straight for better destinations, but they are so far away. <br /><br />Distance is only part of the equation. Ease-of-extraction to raw materials, energy costs and aggregated customer demand (see my Private Mars Mission thread) should all be much stronger drivers than mere distance. My thinking is this: if you are part of a consortia building a large habitat in LEO or L1, mulitple-year lead times for materials like water and metal are not a hold-up, if you know to plan for it. If the difference is getting water that takes 2 years instead of 2 days to arrive, the longer lead-time doesn't matter if it costs 1/10th the other product, or the Lunar water/metal isn't available. You might live in California, surrounded by water, but still buy Poland Spring Water because it tastes better, despite being shipped thousands of miles.<br /><br />I think the operational and development issues will prevent or impede Lunar development. We already have half the technology to develop Phobos, Deimos, Apophis and other asteroids, we are much closer to mining them than the Moon, IMHO. I think dust, 28 day orbits and other issues (dangers in Polar shadows) will make the moon a much harder place to develop. <br /><br />The path I see as most likely: ISS continues to stagger along, bigelow-derived LEO structures proliferate over next 2 decades. A Lunar fly-by leads to asteroidal landings in the 2015 timeframe. An L1 facility begins construction by a private, international consortia. Water demand in this facility (which will evolve into Humanity's first off-world city) drives further expeditions to water-rich Earth-crossing asteroids and provides the anchor-tenant on a Phobos base. L1 city and Phobos Base co-develop, spurring Martian, NEO and Main Belt settlements. <br /><br />Freefall water and metal extraction are not proven tech, but can not be as hard as mining an unknown hydrogen source in -100s degree F shadowed crat <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

AMEN!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Pretty true, though I think the moon would be good experience before moving on the Mars and asteroids. I also don't see the facination with the L points and Phobos.<br /><br />More important if we use the same technology thoughout the System it will be well proven well before it gets to the moon and even more mature before venturing off to Mars and other distant points. LEO 2010, moon 2012 and Mars 2014. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I also don't see the facination with the L points and Phobos. <br /><br />I'm not exactly sure of the origin of L-point interest beyond Dr. O'Neill, but I share the interest as they are good places for stable, massive strucutres. Phobos, Deimos and other small, mixed bodies are my own personal interest because of the shear amount of resources available in them. Very easy to mine compared to some other asteroids (Eros, etc), and without that inconvenient gravity well to ship out of. Phobos and several of the Earth-crossing/NEO objects are known to have significant volatiles content - becomes water, plastics, fertilizer. <br /><br />LEO has station-keeping issues, the Moon has dust and temperature issues, Mars has distance/time issues. Take your pick. I think the Mars system has the most social/industrial potential, while the NEOs offer a certain stripmine/gas-station cachet. I don't see the Moon as a natural steppingstone for space industrialization - it might get developed as such, but will require significant external resources, probably from cis-Martian industry. <br /><br />Remember, when I'm discussing development of Mars, it is not with NASA at the helm. At most they would rent time from the organizations that build the Phobos and Mars bases. They simply aren't a player (except tech dev) in the scenario I'm talking about. What we need is a Frontier Authority or Ports Authority, per the Private Mars thread. It's not about exploration alone, but development, construction and resource exploitation - all of which NASA is largely prevented from doing by charter. The new Space Age is about what private (or pub-priv) organizations can do in space, not about a New Socialist Space Age. Even the Russians understand this. You and I will never fly on the Shuttle, but we both have a very good chance of flying in space.<br /><br />Thank you for the Amen. Sometimes I know I'm preaching to the choir.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[quasar2]

How important is Equatorial launch? Is it worth building more facilities on the equator or sea launch? Is this more difficult, than using existing facilities? Are existing facilities difficult because of politix? Are politix in general "holding us back"? Is LEO becoming too unsafe because of Space Junk? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

> How important is Equatorial launch? Is it worth building more facilities on the equator or sea launch? Is this more difficult, than using existing facilities? Are existing facilities difficult because of politix? Are politix in general "holding us back"? Is LEO becoming too unsafe because of Space Junk?<br /><br />Personally, I think equatorial LEO launch makes a lot of sense. There is no pressing need to build more facilities than currently planned: Ariane, SeaLaunch and the future Soyuz pad at Kourou can handle a lot of traffic. Ariane has been flying from about 4 degrees N for decades and SeaLaunch is wildly successful for telecomm launch. Sea and air-launch make a lot of sense, you can choose any inclination. Some existing facilities are not useful due to politics, NewSpace will never have access to Shuttle tech or pads, the Air Force is tight on their control of Vandenburg. It's fine though, there are plenty of rockets available. Politics are not holding us back anymore in the US, the economics are: entrepreneurs need to make the business case for it to happen. Space junk is not that big a problem.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>