Who Cares if Astronauts die/are doomed in a Mars Mission?

[raptorborealis]

In 'the real world' little is more damaging to manned space flight than an accident. Accidents just about finished the Shuttle. It's noble to talk about the need to take risk, etc. but the folks who create the risk...politicians, agency officials, engineers, etc. live with the consequences. Another Shuttle accident would have been an end to Shuttle funding and even greater emphasis on the safety of any future manned space project......more costs...more delays.

Not Nasa or any other country is going to to send people on 'one way' missions to Mars. It is the minsdset of impatient little boys who haven't yet learned of consequences. it would not be acceptable to world opinion. It also indicates a total lack of understanding on how difficult and costly it would be to builld the infrustructure needed to supply those individuals.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

This argument is stupid and insulting. Astronauts are not test subjects, they're the ONLY ones who can get the job done. Mission success is absolutely necessary for a manned Mars mission. It will be long and difficult to get there and back, but the NASA engineers and astronauts are the best of the best. They will not be going that whole way to have the mission fail. If the astronauts do not return to Earth, then it is a FAILURE in the mission log. And if the first mission fails then I think you'll find it VERY difficult to get more support for future missions.

Who cares if astronauts die on a Mars mission? EVERYONE who cares about not only the astronauts but the future of manned spaceflight as well. I can't believe you're talking about such a disastrous thing to happen and then suggesting that it would be okay.

First I would like to be clear that I do not advocate suicide missions. It is pointless to explore, but not to return to tell about it.

However exploration has been and will always be a risky business, therefore we must not have any delusions about the fact that we will lose people. WE ARE GOING TO LOSE PEOPLE, AND WHEN WE DO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP GOING. If NASA, Congress, and the American public approaches human spaceflight with the attitude that loss of life is absolutely unacceptable then we will not have a human spaceflight program because the only way to achieve that is to not have a human spaceflight program.

Fact of the matter is that this concept is not difficult for us. We do it on a daily basis. Everyday 115 people die in car accidents or approximately 1 every 13 minutes. When it happens it is sad of course, but we hope right back in our cars keep on driving.

Same goes with exploration.

Saying that we will certainly lose people on the Mars missions is like saying we would certainly have lost someone on the moon missions. Even though we came close, we managed to bring every Apollo astronaut to the moon and back alive. Don't immediately assume that some disaster will happen and we will lose a crew there.

That being said it may happen and if it does it will be important for us to rectify our mistakes and keep going forward. But the argument from the OP is that it doesn't matter whether they die or not, which is certainly not true. As raptor said it shows a complete lack of understanding of mission importance.

 

[DarkenedOne]

In 'the real world' little is more damaging to manned space flight than an accident. Accidents just about finished the Shuttle. It's noble to talk about the need to take risk, etc. but the folks who create the risk...politicians, agency officials, engineers, etc. live with the consequences. Another Shuttle accident would have been an end to Shuttle funding and even greater emphasis on the safety of any future manned space project......more costs...more delays.

Not Nasa or any other country is going to to send people on 'one way' missions to Mars. It is the minsdset of impatient little boys who haven't yet learned of consequences. it would not be acceptable to world opinion. It also indicates a total lack of understanding on how difficult and costly it would be to builld the infrustructure needed to supply those individuals.

First of all, accidents did not doom the Space Shuttle, its price tag did. Every year this country paid about 4-5 billion for the space shuttle. That amounts to about half of the money allocated for human spaceflight. I guarantee you that if the space shuttle was comparable in cost to the Soyuz no one would even think of getting rid of it.

Secondly accidents are not what is causing the demise of manned space flight. The principle argument against human spaceflight is not that it costs to much in terms of human life. The principle argument against human spaceflight is that it costs to much and produces too little.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Saying that we will certainly lose people on the Mars missions is like saying we would certainly have lost someone on the moon missions. Even though we came close, we managed to bring every Apollo astronaut to the moon and back alive. Don't immediately assume that some disaster will happen and we will lose a crew there.

That being said it may happen and if it does it will be important for us to rectify our mistakes and keep going forward. But the argument from the OP is that it doesn't matter whether they die or not, which is certainly not true. As raptor said it shows a complete lack of understanding of mission importance.

First of all, we lost astronauts in the Apollo program before the first spacecraft left the ground. You are forgetting about Apollo 1, Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. There was no public out roar. The space program did not die that day. It went on.

Second of all we have no lost anyone in space during Apollo because we canceled it before it happened. Even when the probability of something happening is relatively low say 1/100 chance of loss of crew, which is very low for something as complicated as a trip to Mars. The probability of losing eventually grows with the number of missions. Say if you do 10 mission at 1% chance of loss of crew it comes out to a 10% chance of it happening once. If you do 50 missions that comes to a 40% chance. If you do 100 missions than you have a 64% chance of lose a crew and 18% chance of it happening more than once.

So yes. Human spaceflight will lose people. It is a statistical inevitability. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. When it happens we cannot simply stop human spaceflight.

 

[tampaDreamer]

I think I’m seeing a few misconceptions here.

First Old Chris and his crew was no different from men today. It’s easy to think we are substantially different humans from the ones from a few hundred years ago. We are not. Self preservation was just as strong then as it is now. When old Chris set sail it was not intended to be a suicide mission. Not even a one way mission. They would not have taken any more risks then we would. He knew where he was headed and about how long it would take. He just didn’t know there was a continent in the way.

Comparing military operations to space exploration is unfair. They have little to do with each other.
The military will send a few men on a suicide mission if it will save a greater number of men. Not for the sake of exploration. They would never send in men knowing that they would die from starvation. That is not an acceptable way for your men to die. Especially if you have a technological alternative.

Lastly Space explorers are a highly intelligent breed of people. They wouldn’t take a course of exploration that would have a relatively defined date of death. Largely because they wouldn’t want to miss out on the next great discovery. They wouldn’t shorten their lives for data that could be obtained by machines.


In answer to your original question of who cares if they die?
They do!

You would too if it were your life on the line.

I disagree. So does this author, a former nasa employee:
http://www.universetoday.com/13037/a-on ... n-to-mars/

He says that finding a volunteer would likely be the easiest part of the whole mission.

 

[planetling]

I disagree. So does this author, a former nasa employee:
http://www.universetoday.com/13037/a-on ... n-to-mars/

He says that finding a volunteer would likely be the easiest part of the whole mission.

I would risk my life for a one way trip to Mars. If given the chance, and told that the odds of returning were only 10% probable, I would still go. Of course I would do the best job that I could possibly do, and try my hardest to work out any potential problems so that I would not die, because I have absolutely no wish to die. But knowing that I could contribute something (mostly for myself), even to study a soil sample for the existance or non-existance of microbes and relay that information back to Earth, I would go on that 10% chance of survival.

Others would not be up for that challenge, even if the chance of survival was increased to 50%. But I am also sure that I am not the only person on this Earth who would risk going either, on that 10%. Would I care if others care if I die? My basic honest answer is no. But I also know that I have loved ones who would care, but know why I would take that chance. And if I didn't have loved ones who cared for me, even easier.

 

[samkent]

I don't misunderstand you at all - here and on ther boards you are always attacking human spaceflight. As you did here, saying we would hbe been better off without the space shuttle program.

Oh Contraire! You said:

A lot further down the road that if we had followed your advice and killed for human spaceflight, that's for sure.

I don’t advocate killing for any space flight.
I do think that going back to the Moon with boots is a waste of money.
I also think that the benefit from circling humans overhead has diminished to the point of being another waste of funds.

I disagree. So does this author, a former nasa employee:
http://www.universetoday.com/13037/a-on ... n-to-mars/

He says that finding a volunteer would likely be the easiest part of the whole mission.

I read his article and I find it more off the cuff and not very well thought out.
Example:

The best location on Mars would be a low, sheltered area, perhaps at the bottom of a canyon, which would provide protection from radiation and weather, as well as the highest possible atmospheric pressure.

There maybe some protection from radiation but there wouldn’t any real gain in pressure. So perhaps you can go from 1% of Earths to 2% or even 3%? Where’s the benefit?

"There would be tremendous risk, yes," said McLane, "but I don't think that's guaranteed any more than you would say climbing a mountain alone is a suicide mission.

When you plan your ascent you also plan you descent. No one plans to stay at the top of Everest for more than a few hours let alone years.

"I think people have forgotten how exciting the Apollo program was, and this would bring that excitement back," he said.

Yea the excitement would last about as long as Apollo did. Just about the time of the first re-supply mission the majority of tax payers would be asking questions. A good example of the public apathy would be to ask a few random people if they can name one astronaut in the past five years.

"You would have constant communication," he said. "The astronauts on the International Space Station have an army of people on earth keeping track of what they are doing. They really have no peace.

Didn’t the Russians have a cosmonaut go a bit nuts on their old space station a few years back after he spent over a year up there?

McLane said the early designers of the Apollo spacecraft gambled that in 3 or 4 years, high powered transistors and small guidance computers would be developed. That was the only way the spacecraft would be lightweight enough to land on the moon. "It was almost science fiction, but someone thought it could be done in just a few years, and sure enough the technology was perfected in time to make the mission possible," he said.

That wouldn’t work in today’s environment. And besides is there anything in the works that could make a huge impact on a workable design?
I could go on but..

 

[raptorborealis]

[Yea the excitement would last about as long as Apollo did. Just about the time of the first re-supply mission the majority of tax payers would be asking questions. A good example of the public apathy would be to ask a few random people if they can name one astronaut in the past five years.

..

The 'excitement' would be even less...way less.

In 1969 probably 95% of the population knew that man had not yet stepped on the Moon before Apollo 11.

Ask this question of folks "Do you think that the USA should send and land ANOTHER manned spacecraft on Mars?" I bet only half the folks, (if that) would answer, 'what do you mean 'another'? Humans haven't yet landed on Mars'. The other half wouldn't blink an eye before they gave their opinion.

Re naming an astronaut in the last five years...no idea...I might recognize a name if someone said it... and I think there was musician (or other celebrity).