When are we going to Mars??

Swampcat · Mar 23, 2007

"...and I don't think people like Elon Musk fully realize that (when making silly statements..." What exactly makes his words a silly statement? Mr. Musk did not say let's pack up and go to Mars today. He said "If the cost of a one-way journey to Mars could be lowered to the 'single-digit millions' of dollars...'I think enough people would pay that to actually make the business plan quite viable. I think thousands of people a year would pay that.' The point is that one-way trips to Mars are part of a long term business philosophy for Mr. Musk. He even recognized the likelihood that most people would find it ludicrous to discuss such a thing. He seems to understand that we must walk before we run. Instead of complaining about this or that aspect of the problem, as we do here on Uplink, he's working hard and spending a lot of money building the walker. Mr. Musk also didn't say his one-way trips would be made before any other human trips to Mars. I get the impression from some posters that this is what they believe is being proposed. I think a lot of angst is being generated over something that isn't part of the concept. There's no doubt going to another planet is different than going to another land on Earth...duh. (Sorry, couldn't resist that <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.) Consider, however, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that we're not in the 16th Century. We have technology that is capable of doing things 16th Century explorers couldn't have imagined. It seems to me that if 16th Century people could undertake the exploration and colonization of what, to them, was a New World, certainly 21st Century humankind can figure out how to undertake the exploration and colonization of our New World. One-way trips will be a part of such an undertaking. <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 23, 2007

"My apoologies, I learn something every day." No problem, Jon <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />. I figured it was something like that. And please read my previous post (I'm sure you will <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />). This discussion of one-way trips versus two-way seems to have gotten polarized over which type to do first. I don't quite understand why that should be since that was not part of anything anyone said. Mr. Musk didn't suggest jumping right into one-ways. I don't believe I did either. I'd like to say more, but unfortunately I have to go earn some money to support my rocket hobby <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <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>

no_way · Mar 23, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />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.<hr /></blockquote> Would you believe, i agree with that statement. But what is missing from here, is the big picture. Private industry currently works on the smaller problems that would make manned martian flight eventually achievable. It is achievable even now, but the project would bear too much of a risk, too many unknowns, too large costs, and the organizations that could afford such risks and costs are few and far between. But, while private industry and government-sponsored robotic explorers are working on the building blocks, each of them being part of the bigger puzzle, the prospects for that project will get more realistic, every day. Be it SpaceX Falcon that is pretty close to lower US unmanned cargo launch price per pound to LEO significantly, be it the pack of groups working on VTOL landers for Lunar Lander Challenge, be it Mars Express or Recon Orbiter circling the planet and qualifying further the data on water and hospitability of the planet. Eventually, you reach a point, where the barriers are lowered enough, both the risks and the monetary costs, that either an organization or individual will be able to afford a project to put a human on Mars. Very likely this will not happen for the profit motive, but it will be enabled by lots of stepping stones put to place with profit motives. Now, if you draw a "demand graph" for the project, you will see that its not linear. If the project bears the risk of 50% fatality for participiants, and costs a ten billion dollars, you wont find any interest. Lower the barriers to 90% of fatality and a billion, and you will likely find one or two takers. Lower the barrier further, and the amount of "customers" will go up exponentially. So to sum it up, the cur

JonClarke · Mar 23, 2007

I would agree with that. 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>

rocketman5000 · Mar 23, 2007

Careful docm, it is starting to sound like you want the old NACA back...

spacester · Mar 23, 2007

Hi Jon, I'm sorry if I over-reacted. I wasn't offended, just frustrated once again that my efforts to talk about a third approach seem to be ignored by you. I've been trying for years to get you to move away from the either/or thinking that IMO holds us back in the real world. I've made a series of posts lately that you seem to be studiously ignoring. I never know what that means, it feels like you're blowing-off everything I say. Fortunately, no_way's EXCELLENT post seems to have gained acceptance. I didn't offer my family history to prove my point or disprove yours. I was aware that it is entirely consistent with your thinking. Like I said, we're having a discussion here. I'll get back to my reason for mentioning it later. (BTW, you might want to check your reply again. I think you missed a negation.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · Mar 23, 2007

Yeah, good post, no_way. No way I can disagree with what you said <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <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 23, 2007

"Biosphere...remember that experiment?" I wanted to respond to this earlier, but got caught up in other things. Yeah, the failure of Biosphere was a disappointment. I really believe that an environmental control and life support system of the magnitude of Biosphere is an important part of establishing humans off Earth. I would like to see more efforts made to develop and fully test out living conditions analogous to what would be experienced by a group of people in an extraterrestrial community. It seems to me that if we can't do something like that here on Earth it would be unwise to carry all this stuff to Mars and expect it to support colonists for the rest of their lives. As no_way says, in situ animal studies would seem to be necessary as would some robotic ISRU experiments. NASA and the planetary scientists have been focusing on Mars' areology, the search for water, mapping and the characterization of the physical environment and rightly so, but sooner or later we've got to get a better understanding of how humans and their food plants are going to fare in this environment. The same goes for the Moon. <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>

dreada5 · Mar 23, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />When are we going to Mars? About 20 years after a valid economic reason which will benefit people here on Earth is found. <hr /></blockquote> Here's how I see it. If in the future, 25 years from now, when we have a simple, working moonbase and robust cislunar capabilities, if industry should find a lucrative reason to go to Mars's vicinity, eg. ISRU works and mining resources worth billions is then technolgically feasible... then industry just may end up at Mars BEFORE gov't/NASA. In this context. the $ is the universe's one driving, constant. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />

JonClarke · Mar 23, 2007

No worries! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

quasar2 · Mar 23, 2007

actually, one-way may have started when the guy voluntereed one-way to The Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Mar 23, 2007

I love the scene in "From the earth to the Moon" when this is discussed! <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>

qso1 · Mar 24, 2007

Once we finally decide were going to send humans to mars, they will then have some kind of simulation here on earth. There was one ongoing study by the Planetary Society IIRC and it was in an arctic climate. Devon Island or somewhere. This type of simulation will get us closer to being able to establish a presence on mars. <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>

docm · Mar 24, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Careful docm, it is starting to sound like you want the old NACA back...<hr /></blockquote> No, my comment was because of frustration; I just want some balance back. NASA used to have some balance between developing cutting edge tech and flying it. Now they can't bring themselves bring much innovation to 'market'. For 30 years they have come up with great concepts for propulsion and planetary flight but rarely followed through, and with the impending closure of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts that's even less likely. Yeah, yeah...blame Congress and sometimes you'd be correct, but that argument is hard to make with many techs that are now bearing fruit in private hands. In most cases it looks to be an inability to prioritize, best exemplified by developing the HL-20 almost to flight then dropping it but continuing less immediate needs. For whatever reason if they're not committed to developing new tech nor flying new concepts they might as well change the name back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Mar 24, 2007

That was the Mars Society's FMARS and MDRS stations, on Devon island and Utah, respectively. There is a crew currently at MDRS and there will be a four month mission to FMARS this year. Other stations hopefully be built by the European and Australian Mars society's In Iceland and at Arkaroola. 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 24, 2007

For whatever reason if they're not committed to developing new tech nor flying new concepts they might as well change the name back. Let's look at some NASA projects ate the moment.... Building a space station larger and more complex than anything that's being done beore. Developing an ion propelled mission to the two of the largest and most interesting main belt asteroids (Dawn) Developing a solar powered Jupiter polar orbiter (Juno) Developing a Mars rover that is larger and more complex than any previous rover and which will employ an innovate landing system. Developing the technology that will will in more people going to the Moon and staying longer than was done previously. How is the not new technology or cutting edge? Soime people seem to think anything short of the starship Enterprise a failure. 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>

docm · Mar 24, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Let's look at some NASA projects atethe moment....<hr /></blockquote> OK, but I reserve the right to correct your spelling <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Building a space station larger and more complex than anything that's being done before.<hr /></blockquote> And that's the problem: so complex and taking so long to construct it's forcing us to keep flying a spaceship that is both dangerous to launch and dangerous to land. IMO the ISS construction method was out of date the day TransHab held pressure. Moving on to private solutions at the rate they're going Bigelow should be able to build something bigger, cheaper and faster using yet another one of those techs NASA hastily abandoned; the aforementioned TransHab. BTW: 3 BA-330's and a hub trump ISS for completed habitable volume and would constitute just 4 launches at a small fraction of the cost. The only thing NASA could do right that if Bigelow's modules work use them instead of repeating the original mistake. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Developing an ion propelled mission to the two of the largest and most interesting main belt asteroids (Dawn)<hr /></blockquote> One of the few props I'll give them but on the other hand its logical follow on, VASIMR, was de-funded and relegated to the private community. NASA should have made this, MPD and other electric thrusters a much higher priority. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Developing a solar powered Jupiter polar orbiter (Juno)<hr /></blockquote> Yup, and what happened to JIMO? Dropped. So much for a Jupiter a mission that would let ION drive really shine and explore the real jewels of the Jovian system. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Developing a Mars rov</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Mar 24, 2007

Sigh. Once again a thread degenetates into another NASA bashing exercise. And that's the problem: so complex and taking so long to construct it's forcing us to keep flying a spaceship that is both dangerous to launch and dangerous to land. IMO the ISS construction method was out of date the day TransHab held pressure. The shuttle is still the safest manned spacecraft ever to fly. As for Transhab, the supposed advantageswhen looked at critically were marginal. NASA made the right decision at the time not to use. Moving on to private solutions at the rate they're going Bigelow should be able to build something bigger, cheaper and faster using yet another one of those techs NASA hastily abandoned; the aforementioned TransHab. It's going to be a decade or more before Bigelow are anywhere near NASA's capability, at the rate they are going. NASA developed the technology, but made the decision it was not what they wanted at the time. It is there for others to use and develop if they wish. Whether they will make a success of it remains to be seen. BTW: 3 BA-330's and a hub trump ISS for completed habitable volume and would constitute just 4 launches at a small fraction of the cost. The only thing NASA could do right that if Bigelow's modules work use them instead of repeating the original mistake. It will probably be a decade before this is even possible. Whether it will happen is not assured. Bigelow may have gone bust by then. Plus you are ignoring the fact that there is more to a space station than simple volume. VASIMR, was de-funded and relegated to the private community. NASA should have made this, MPD and other electric thrusters a much higher priority. If the private community is so superior to NASA then development should go faster. Why are you complaining? Yup, and what happened to JIMO? Dropped. So much for <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 24, 2007

"That was the Mars Society's FMARS and MDRS stations, on Devon island and Utah, respectively. There is a crew currently at MDRS and there will be a four month mission to FMARS this year. Other stations hopefully be built by the European and Australian Mars society's In Iceland and at Arkaroola." As important and useful as the Devon Island and Utah stations are (and correct me if I'm wrong) they are not truly Mars analog stations as they do not fully simulate being on Mars. (OK, I know that's not totally possible...gravity, atmosphere and all that, no need to go there.) IOW, there's no ECLSS, they don't suit up and go through an airlock to go outside, the greenhouse is really just an experimental building in which the plants wouldn't stand a chance of surviving on Mars, etc. Again, don't get me wrong. This is definitely a good start and worth doing. I guess I'm just curious when these Mars analog stations will see more accurate simulations of Mars living, with ECLSS, etc. Any inside info on that? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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 24, 2007

There is probably not much point simulating life suppprt in those remote localities. Such research is probably better done in a space centre, for example in the forthcoming 500 day mission at IBMP, or the at Johnson. The MARS are designed to test 1) approaches to living and working in the field 2) social-psychological issues of small groups in remote areas, and 3) realistic environments to test science concepts and methods. 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>

Swampcat · Mar 24, 2007

"At the end of the day you seem to expect NASA to do everything you think it is important. You want this to happen regardless of the political context and with a limited budget. When they don't do this you turn and sneer at them saying that private industry will do it faster, cheaper, better anyway - but at the same time complain when private industry does develop something you think NASA should have. Can't you see how inconsistent this is?" I see nothing inconsistent here. NASA has a long history of tossing off almost developed technology...abandoning it in favor of doing things the old-fashioned corporate welfare way. It's sometimes hard not to sneer at the NASA/government approach to doing things when you see the list of failed or abandoned projects. Of course, it still remains to be seen if the technologies that NASA abandoned and private enterrpise has picked up will actually amount to anything, but I guess I'm more optimistic about this than you are, Jon. OTOH, NASA did develop those technologies. That's the kind of thing that can be very useful and I applaud NASA for sharing these developments. Budget constraints are a reality. Oftentimes complex technology decisions favor the tried and true and that's not always a bad thing. Unfortunately, a lot of NASA's major projects are mandated by politics and not by scientific or economic realities. It often seems to be a very irrational system and method of getting anything accomplished, but there it is. Fighting it is, IMHO, a necessity while at the same time working within its constraints to actually move forward. Jon, docm, both of you make some very valid points and this is a really interesting exchange of views. Thanks to both of you. I happen to agree with docm that NASA's approach often seems irrational. It seems that the whole operation is more intended to increase their funding than actually getting something accomplishe <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 24, 2007

There is probably not much point simulating life suppprt in those remote localities. Such research is probably better done in a space centre, for example in the forthcoming 500 day mission at IBMP, or the at Johnson. The MARS are designed to test 1) approaches to living and working in the field 2) social-psychological issues of small groups in remote areas, and 3) realistic environments to test science concepts and methods." All good and useful things, but I'm curious to know why you think simulating ECLSS at the remote locations is not such a good idea. Mars is remote. If the Haughton-Mars Project is intended to test "realistic environments" shouldn't it have a better simulation of a Mars Habitat, a pressurized greenhouse and other more "realistic" equipment? It would seem that the remote location would be the ideal place to test these things. I remember some discussion of the Russian IBMP. This is also a useful study, but IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong), the participants would be kept inside a environmentally sealed habitat and there would be no "outside" activities. What seems to be needed here is a combination of the HMP and IBMP studies into a full and as accurate as realistically possible simulation of Mars living. Do you know of any plans for the Mars analog projects that you participate in to go in this direction? <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>

j05h · Mar 24, 2007

> Do you know of any plans for the Mars analog projects that you participate in to go in this direction? Not sure about Jon, but the FMARS station (or whatever they call the Haughotn Crater site) does do "operational" testing with airlocks, simulated space suits, comm delay and all that. It's just to much trouble to do that 24/7. They run a trial, then go back to doing their other research. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

Swampcat · Mar 24, 2007

"the FMARS station...does do "operational" testing with airlocks, simulated space suits, comm delay and all that. It's just to much trouble to do that 24/7. They run a trial, then go back to doing their other research." Yeah, understood...and I'm glad they do that sort of necessary research. I suppose it's too early in all of this to expect anyone to try a full-fledged 24/7 long term simulation. Probably will take more bucks to do something like that as well. Found this image of the site. Interesting place. <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 24, 2007

Oops. I posted the wrong image <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. I was just dreaming a little <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Here's the right one. <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>

When are we going to Mars??

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

no_way

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

spacester

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

dreada5

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

quasar2

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

qso1

Guest

docm

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

docm

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

j05h

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page