When are we going to Mars??

rocketman5000 · Mar 22, 2007

This is getting a little off the current disscussion topic, but assuming that the Goddard and New Sheppard from Blue Origin reach their full potential wouldn't they make an optimum vehilce for return capability? Maybe they would only take passengers to LMO (Low Martian Orbit?) where the craft would meet up with a crew stage to return to earth. Does Goddard or New Sheppard have the ability to land on an unprepared surface? Blue Origin

chyten · Mar 22, 2007

Fatal291 - I do not expect a human being to step on Mars until year 2100 or so. Which, given the advances in medicine, may well be in your lifetime if you are 18 now and live in the developed world. But I know this is not the answer you are looking for. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> There are several reasons for my pessimism. The biggest one is this: NASA can not admit that space is dangerous. Normally in any dangerous activity, be it soldiering, firefighting, or test-flying airplanes, the people in charge decide what level of risk is acceptable, and plan their budgets, training, and operations accordingly. The lower is acceptable risk, the less operation can be carried out on a given budget, and vice versa. The risk level decisions are almost never publicized – on your local fire department’s website you won’t find “we expect X deaths and Y injuries over next decade”, - but you can be sure fire chief has that information, and brings it up at the next municipal budget hearing. And both fire chief and city council know that the only way to bring X (let alone Y) to zero is not fight fires at all. So fire departments balance expected deaths, expected number of fires and available money, and when someone dies they grieve, do their best to learn from the experience, and carry on. The quandary of NASA’s Office of Manned Spaceflight is that it is too much in the public eye, yet does not have a clearly defined purpose. A city can not live without a fire department; nothing drastic will happen to USA if Office of Manned Spaceflight closed tomorrow. Mike Griffin knows that space is dangerous and every once in a while people will die – but he wouldn’t last a week if he went before Congress and said “This mission architecture cost X dollars, has Y percent chance of landing on Mars on schedule, and Z percent chance of killing one or more astronauts. Double the X, and Y will increase such and such, and Z will decrease such and such.” Even though i

no_way · Mar 22, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I do not expect a human being to step on Mars until year 2100 or so. ..There are several reasons for my pessimism. The biggest one is this: NASA can not admit that space is dangerous.<hr /></blockquote> Your pessimism is somewhat caused by your tunnel vision. Failures of just one bueraucratic establishment does not mean that mankind is unable to advance as a whole Put it in simple terms: NASA isnt the only organization doing the manned spaceflight.

chyten · Mar 22, 2007

Put it in simple terms: NASA isnt the only organization doing the manned spaceflight That's what I said -- it will be someone other than NASA. I just don't see ANYONE doing it soon, unless it's US military (which is very unlikely).

quasar2 · Mar 22, 2007

Great to see you back, Spacester. i don`t get much time on here lately, so last i saw you`d left. i`m glad some are noticing the rigidity factor. it trips up many endeavors. i`m actually hoping someone on MarsCrew will actually desert & hole up. sometimes rigidity is noticed that way. i remember reading about some of the Skylab & Mir crews being a bit rebellious. another factor not brought up here: salvaging earlier probes. any mars endeavor needs capabilty to meltdown & reconfigure if necessary. we have process for that nowadays. the military uses it. the mobile parts hospital. also called the museum factor. whether to domeover old sites or recycle. if it`s a matter of survival &/ eventual settlement, i say save the museum for later, we can build replicas. unsless of course the museum brings revenue, which wouldn`t be a quick ROI. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

thereiwas · Mar 22, 2007

In large I like chyten's analysis. But <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Unless either a) life is unambiguously discovered on Mars*, or b) military-related reason to go there comes up. Then all bets are off. * In fact, if life is unambiguously discovered on Europa, I would expect a manned expedition to Jupiter BEFORE one to Mars.<hr /></blockquote> I would say life being unabiguously discovered on Mars would be an excellent reason to not send a manned mission right away (wierd space bugs, etc) until bio-lab equipped robots had done extensive testing. Talk about your risk to life... If there's anything there I'd bet its under the south polar ice.

chyten · Mar 22, 2007

I know where you come from, and you are certainly not alone. If life is discovered on Mars, many people would fight tooth and nail against manned (and some, even against unmanned) Mars missions. But many other people would fight just as passionately FOR it. I happen to think the latter would win eventually. But I may be wrong. Personally, in such situation I would favor placing a manned spacecraft equipped with a bioscience lab in orbit around Mars, or perhaps on/in Phobos, and have astronauts teleoperate (sterilized) landers, rovers and surface-to-orbit sample retrievers in real time.

mithridates · Mar 22, 2007

Interesting post. I'm a bit more positive on the future of spaceflight though for a number of reasons: -Conflicts per capita are at an all-time low -Illiteracy is also at an all-time low: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-Literacy-Rate-1970to2015.TC.png -Poverty as well, everywhere but sub-Saharan Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image

ercentage_living_on_less_than_%241_per_day_1981-2001.png -Life expectancy in most places is going up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Life_expectancy_1950-2005.png -As is the total population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-Population-500CE-2150.png Adding to that the private sector developments you mentioned and the possible soon discovery of an Earthlike extra-solar planet, I think we're about to see some exponential growth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

spacester · Mar 22, 2007

Hey quasar2, good to see you too, and thanks for the kind words. Yeah, I'm an sdc addict, it's as simple as that. I agree that all previously delivered hardware is a resource, and you jumped right ahead to the 'museum factor'. To me it is an interesting balance, decided on a case-by-case basis. You outline it very nicely. At one extreme, Apollo 11 is IMO off-limits, a "sacred site." At the other extreme are the heat shields of Spirit and Opportunity: take pictures and melt 'em down. Pathfinder might be as sacred as Apollo 11, along with the Viking probes. I would want to hear from a lot of other people on the subject, in general and about the specific probes, before settling in on a more specific position than that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 22, 2007

One of the MERS should wind up in the Terran Smithsonian, someday far far away. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

rocketman5000 · Mar 22, 2007

Agreed

Swampcat · Mar 22, 2007

"Do you honestly believe a one way mission will somehow be 50 or more percent...or even 30 percent less than a two way cost wise? Unless return vehicle is ready how can you venture?" Frankly, I have no idea how much less expensive a one-way trip would be versus a two-way, but it would certainly be cheaper. I'm not sure I understand why a particular percentage of savings is so important. It could be 10%. Let's see, 10% of $500M is $50M. That's still a lot of money...could be enough to make or break. But I would again like to point out to everyone that this is not something I think NASA or any government agency would seriously consider. The whole genesis for any kind of one-way trip would only come from a private organization. I'm not necessarily an advocate of a one-way trip, at least initially, but the idea was publicly discussed by Mr. Musk of SpaceX, he seemed to think that it was worth considering and I got the impression that he was willing to put his own fortune into realizing it. It's not a done deal...just an interesting concept that, IMHO, isn't as ludicrous as some want to believe. As far as venturing out without a return vehicle, consider that many thousands of Europeans left Europe during the 17th through 19th Centuries with every intention of staying in North America. Yes, the possibility of returning was there and some few took advantage of it, mostly the wealthy who found out that life on the frontier was a bit too rough for them. Most were poor and couldn't afford a return ticket, so it wouldn't have mattered if there was one or not. That's how colonization works. It's a totally different point of view than scientific missions or base operations. Did the English who traveled with Sir Walter Raleigh to Roanoke Island in 1584 expect to return? My understanding is that they did not. That's the paradigm for a one-way trip to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."Thomas Jefferson </div>

Swampcat · Mar 22, 2007

"... SpaceX wants to help satisfy other people's "space" interests, which are wildly varied." Important point there, J05H, and thanks. It's not an either-or. NASA's approach is what satisfies NASA's mandates and the nation's consensus. Assuming the capability (a big assumption at this point in history, no doubt <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />), the ways of approaching human spaceflight and exploitation of space resources will be as varied as people can make them. All it takes sometimes is for someone with enough money, desire and the ability to see things others don't see and great things can happen. That's what makes the future so unpredictable and so interesting to contemplate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."Thomas Jefferson </div>

JonClarke · Mar 22, 2007

One way trips are not cheaper when you factor in the equipment and supplies that need to be sent to sustain that person on Mars for another 40 years. Living off the land will only supply so much. It won't provide you with medical equipment, spacesuits, rovers, reactors, etc. Comparision with European expansion in the 17th century is inapt, IMHO. Those settlers were travelling to environments that were much better known and not particularly more dangerous compared to what people were leaving behind. They also offer new opportunities. Mars may well be become this, but not until there has been extensive exploration by return missions first. Besides, the first European explorers had every intention of coming back. It was not until decades or even centuries after the first explorers that settlers went to the new worlds with the intention of staying. Jon [edited to substitute a more appropriate word <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

Swampcat · Mar 22, 2007

"Comparision with European expansion in the 17th century isinvidiousfont color=yellow>, IMHO." invidious: –adjective 1. calculated to create ill will or resentment or give offense; hateful: invidious remarks. 2. offensively or unfairly discriminating; injurious: invidious comparisons. 3. causing or tending to cause animosity, resentment, or envy: an invidious honor. Jon, I assure you this was not intended at all. With all due respect, I really don't understand why you would say this. And again, I'm not suggesting we all pile into a spaceship and head off to Mars without having a better grasp on how to survive there. That would be ridiculous and I'm not going there. Even the early attempts to colonize North America were preceded by exploration. Of course, they didn't have robotic probes to do their exploration for them. We do. And modern communications. Different times. Different circumstances. Different capabilities. My understanding of the first attempt to colonize North America is that Sir Walter Raleigh dropped off his colonists and returned to England to get more supplies. Perhaps if he had had robotic ships or sufficient funds to hire more than what he had he wouldn't have had to return. The unalterable fact is that he dropped off his colonists and left them there with no return capability until he got back, to face hostile natives (probably only hostile because of the way the English treated them, but another topic altogether <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) and an environment that they were ill-prepared for. I'll readily admit that the historical comparisons are not perfect. As I said, different times, different circumstances, different capabilities, different expectations...a ton <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."Thomas Jefferson </div>

spacester · Mar 22, 2007

Ah geez, Jon, was that really called for? "Invidious?" Crikey, man, we're having a nice discussion here and you come in with that? Your position on Private Industry is well known to most of us: you can barely conceal your contempt. I just went back thru the thread to find the most confrontational posts, and you appear to be leading the pack. I won't quote you, but really, you should take a look at your own posts. My maternal grandmother came from Sweden to the plains of North Dakota. Our family history indicates she had NO idea what she was getting into. She had atmosphere and water and a strong devoted husband, but not much more than that. There was no going back, and she died young. It's called Pioneering. FWIW. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kosmonavtkaa · Mar 22, 2007

An article from 2005 that came to mind when reading through this thread: The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Visiting or colonizing another planet is the hardest task humans will ever do, and I don't think people like Elon Musk fully realize that (when making silly statements as in the Space Review article ). Going to another world is very different (physically and psychologically) from colonizing another land on Earth. (Just my inexpert opinion!) (Though while looking at Earth analogies for Martian colonies, has anyone read about the First Fleet? That was an 8-month voyage to what was essentially an alien land, and the people never saw their homeland again.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Mar 23, 2007

gunsandrockets: "The one way mission to the best of my understanding was proposed because someone somewhere down the line came up with the idea that the mission would save money by eliminating the cost of developing return capability." No one anywhere at any time has said that except for you. It's an idea of your own creation. A strawman, easily knocked down. Me: Let me get this straight...the one way is now my idea, then I come and do everything I can to show its flaws? I know I'm not the smartest person on SDC but somethin is wrong with this pic LOL. Seriously guns, there was an entire thread devoted to this very thing months ago when some other entrepreneur started a website that someone here found a link to. I'd look it up but I don't have time right now but it is here. I don't know if its in M&L but its here somewhere. Better yet: http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2004/01/paul_davies_has.html Paragraph from above URL: Paul Davies has put forth an interesting proposal for a one-way trip to Mar as the most cost-effective way to establish a permanent human presence on Mars. It's a smart and novel idea. Me: I'm not Paul Davies. http://digg.com/general_sciences/One_way_trip_to_Mars._Would_you_go_ Paragraph from above URL: The idea of one-way Martian settlement missions, with no provision made for returning to Earth, has been seriously kicked around for a couple of years... Me: Not my website. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12666101/ Scroll down the above URL...not my writeup. http://www.ke5ter.com/archives/2006/05/10/one-way-tr</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Mar 23, 2007

J05H: Depends on your definition of "private". If the Mormons, Hassids or another church decide that God is on Mars, they might go, stay, and never worry about profits. Me: But so far, this has not actually ever been proposed, and their are a few very wealthy oil shieks that might well have the money. J05H: Alternatively, maybe a rich artist decides that making Mars trinkets and shipping them back (instead of self) is where it's at. Me: How will he ship them back if this scenario is based on one way missions? J05H: You are creating a very Either-Or situation between NASA and SpaceX (etc) and Flags-Footprints Vs OneWay, while the truth is that SpaceX wants to help satisfy other people's "space" interests, which are wildly varied. Me: Its not my intenet to create an either or...I'd be glad to see either or both entities finally get humanity to mars in a responsible manner. I favor establishment of a base on mars for the initial purpose of seeking out possible life forms, then as the base grows, the colonization eventually takes root and trade is established and the artist you speak of can ship his wares back because the return capability exists even if he wishes to remain on mars. The other thing here is that so far...the only actual human spaceflight to take place outside the auspices of government has been the suborbital Rutan/Scaled Composite "X" prize flights. It remains for Space "X", Musk, even Bigelow...to demonstrate their goals, (Bigelow is well on his way). And I hope they all succeed. I also hope that in their success, they come to realize that the most profitable way to operate a mars colony is to have two way capability between mars and earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Mar 23, 2007

chyten: Unless either a) life is unambiguously discovered on Mars*, or b) military-related reason to go there comes up. Then all bets are off. Me: Pretty close to what I'm thinking. The cost of going to mars is such a hard sell for NASA. Private industry won't go unless there is a profit to be made or some company has an enormous amount of money to spend as it sees fit. The problem with finding life is that ideally, it will take a human presence to know for sure life has been found. Once found, the rationale for studying that life lends itself to establishing an outpost or base to allow study and catalogue of other possible life forms in their natural environment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

no_way · Mar 23, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA's approach is what satisfies NASA's mandates and the nation's consensus.<hr /></blockquote> Since when did you guys achieve national consensus on space issues ? NASAs mandate satisfies congresscritters bringing home pork, there has been no US national consensus on space issues after Apollo was done.

docm · Mar 23, 2007

Agreed, which is why the best future for NASA is as a technology clearing house for the private space companies so they can start commercial space operations. Once they establish an infrastructure for space access to make bux then the explorers can use that tech to extend the reach. That's how cargo & war ships turned into the 15th and 16th century explorations and that's how space will be settled. Of course that all goes in the tank if they keep doing stupid things like close the Institute for Advanced Concepts <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Mar 23, 2007

Fatal291, When are we going to Mars? About 20 years after a valid economic reason which will benefit people here on Earth is found. Until then, Mars will probably be the province of advanced robotics and Artificial Intelligence researchers, as well as remote sensing, solar power, and microbiology specialists. If you are looking for input as to where to study to be involved in Mars exploration, I would consider Chemistry as a major, (non-organic) and geology. This way, you can make a living while waiting for Mars to happen. To my mind, the biggest obstacle to doing anything in space right now is the horrible cost of getting past our atmosphere. The difference between the Earth's surface and Out There is about 5 miles per second, and that is extremely difficult to achieve with an atmosphere to deal with. For really large payloads, the old fashioned step-rocket is hard to beat, but that is because of economies of scale and an obtuse aspect of aerodynamics. For most payloads, we still don't have the answer, but Burt Rutan is on the right track, I think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

JonClarke · Mar 23, 2007

My apoologies, I learn something every day. I have always used "invidious" to mean something less strong than that. I will edit my post. However, the example of Walter Raleigh's Roanoke Colony illustrates my point exactly. The European exploration of North America began almost than a century earlier. The colony was itself preceeded by a exploration voyage. Furthermore the Roanoke Colony was not envisgaged as a one-way affair. The settlement was not evisaged as one wayaffair, indeed, most of the first wave of settlers who returned to England. The plan was for annual contact with the colony. So the pattern is an extended period of exploration first, then settlement. The same pattern was repeated in South America and Australia. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Mar 23, 2007

I regret you chose to take offense at my choice of words. I have fixed it. I am sure my opinion of private industry is well known. It's based on many years involvement in it, large and small. If you were as familiar with my posts as you claim, you would know I have no contempt for it at all, I simply don't think it is the universal panacea for everything people want to do in space. You would also know that I have always supported space tourism, be it Space Adventures selling tickets on Soyuz or Virgin Galactic underwriting Space Ship 2. I have also supported initiatives such as COTS. As for finding my posts confrontation, I regret you find them so, it is not my intention. But the facts remains that private industry has neither the means nor motive to carry out the sort of exploration to make Mars settlement possible. Once that exploration has happened, and assuming the costs are reduced and viable economies possible, then settlement, perhaps indeed by private industries, may be possible. Your family history illustrates my point regarding the difference between exploration and settlement precisely. the first European explorers passed through North Dakola imore than a century before your ancestors arrived. Once that preliminary exploration had occurred then the settlers arrived. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

When are we going to Mars??

rocketman5000

Guest

chyten

Guest

no_way

Guest

chyten

Guest

quasar2

Guest

thereiwas

Guest

chyten

Guest

mithridates

Guest

spacester

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

spacester

Guest

kosmonavtkaa

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

no_way

Guest

docm

Guest

halman

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page