Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

Mission to Mars a go... around 2030

Falcon1Falcon1 Elite Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
Going to take a bit of time and quite a few of us will be old gits by the time they take off :D

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7116834.stm[/url]

Will be a massive challenge though.
«1

Comments

  • FreejackFreejack Jake the Not-so-Wise
    While l believe programs such as a manned mission to another planet are good for the public's and more importantly Congress' interest in spaceflight, I just wonder if our overall energies wouldn't be better spent trying to build a robust space-base infrastructure? Rather than take a role that might be better served by private ventures, why not do one of the few things government generally does reasonably well, develop the infrastructure that enables business and private entitys to get involved in space-based activities.

    Significantly lowering the cost of moving people, goods and materials from earth's surface to orbit then to extra-orbital locations would create the single biggest leap forward in progress of human activity off-world. Lowering the cost from today's $10,000 per pound to even just a few hundred $ per pound would lead to a dramatic increase in business interest in space.

    Jake
  • HuntSmackerHuntSmacker Firstones Ambassador to Starcraftia
    I'd have to agree. I'd rather see some more stations and facilities in Orbit than a mission to Mars.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    I partly agree. Governments should concentrate on the stuff companies won't do, like pure science missions. But you both seem to have it backwards. Companies are going to be rushing to build a space-based infrastructure so they can charge other companies to use it. No company is going to be rushing off to Mars to perform scientific experiments there, and no company is going to try and build an infrastructure to get to and survive on Mars without first building an infrastructure in Earth orbit (and probably on the Moon). In fact, several companies [i]are[/i] rushing to build an infratructure in LEO: Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceX are the two most-advanced, but there are plenty of others.
  • PSI-KILLERPSI-KILLER Needs help
    We have to get to a point where you don't need 100's or 1000's of people involved in one manned space flight departure. The costs are too high yet for private companies. We have to get around 10 or 15 people on the ground needed for liftoff support for private companies to get into this. Private sector likes efficient systems not what you have now with staff levels like this.
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    Yeah, Corporations in space...

    :S

    "I don't care that you died from radiation posioning due to a faulty shield, I don't want to hear your excuses... Get Bak To Work!!!"
  • DarthCaligulaDarthCaligula Elite Ranger
    [QUOTE=JackN;167588]Yeah, Corporations in space...

    :S

    "I don't care that you died from radiation posioning due to a faulty shield, I don't want to hear your excuses... Get Bak To Work!!!"[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Or how about in their endless quest to cut costs and make everything more efficient at the cost of sanity.
  • TridentTrident Ranger
    Don't get me started on Corporation's crap....

    Today the plant manager had a plant meeting with all of us DWU. None of what he said made a lick of sense, neither did their answers to our questions. And we told him that it didn't, and all we got was "We'll look into it."

    Forcing everyone out for one week before our christmas break, laying off all of our temporary workers today despite they were recalled only 3 weeks ago from the last layoff. And then they are focing people to move to differnt teams/shifts despite our union stuff, and not allowing people who bid to not move when they are suppose to....

    Sorry I'll shut up now.
  • FreejackFreejack Jake the Not-so-Wise
    I wasn't clear, I wouldn't propose that private ventures be the those that explore other planets. But I think the focus for the government should be lowering the cost of getting into space. Once payloads can be placed into orbit for 1000th or less of the cost of today, then excursions such as a trip to Mars become much, much easier. I would even venture to say that a dramatic focus on lowering the cost of reaching high orbit would get us to Mar as fast or faster than focusing on that aspect of space flight alone.

    As far as corporations in space, it is inevitable, and will be the catalyst that drives humanity off this planet. We lack the global will to stake out into space purely for science or exploration reasons, nor is there a lot of precendent in human history for that type of exploration. Most of the major exploration activities have been in search of resources and many under the management of some company or corporation.

    Jake
  • MessiahMessiah Failed Experiment
    I disagree, I believe our governments should always be pushing the borders, and let the coorperation fill in the blanks between. Right now, the border is Mars, and the blanks in between is space stations. After Mars, the border will be further out, and coorporation may well be filling in the blanks on Mars, only the future will tell.

    Truth to be told, I dont think any companies are willing to risk the amount of money a trip to Mars would mean. Space stations on the other hand, space tourism, that is already feasible.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    I agree with Messiah. Corporations will be more than willing to find ways to decrease the cost of getting to orbit, living in space, etc. It's up to governments to focus on the stuff corporations are not willing to invest in, things that don't have guaranteed returns like scientific missions and pushing the absolute boundaries of what we can achieve.
  • Vorlons in my HeadVorlons in my Head The Vorlons told me to.
    We don't need corporations to get to Mars. What we need are more communists. The speed at which the goal of getting to Mars is achieved will ultimately be directly proportional to the amount of communist nations trying to get there first :D
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    One advantage to the American ship is that it is being built to be reusable and. The initial costs will cost a bit but all what needs to be done for additional trips is just restocking the craft.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    I hate to break it to you, but America's reusable spacecraft have never been that easy to turn around. They get stripped right down and rebuilt after each mission, and I expect the Orion craft to be the same.
  • Vorlons in my HeadVorlons in my Head The Vorlons told me to.
    The last project to involve a reusable spacecraft supposed to reduce turn around cost wasn't quite that succesfull.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    When I mean reusable I mean the part that will be staying in space. The lander probably would be stripped down, but I am not sure if they will return it to earth for fear of contamination.

    Just ignore my posts in general, I'm under a feverish daze.
  • ChaosedChaosed Ranger
    What I understand from the scientist is they want to use machines for science. Cheaper with no people dieing if something goes wrong. They can handle it from Earth.

    Sending people is for show.

    I'd look for a middle. Sending people to Mars is just too much $$$ and to risky.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Actually, I'd say the majority of scientists much prefer sending people to sending robots. Robots are just a compromise for places where we can't send people. There's no substitute for a trained human.

    The risk thing is usually played up by people who [i]don't[/i] want to spend the money to send someone. The people who actually want to go are willing to take the risk and think that it is worth it.
  • ChaosedChaosed Ranger
    Being to lazy to look it up and having herd many scientist say they would rather send lots and lots of things over sending a few people who have to use things anyway.

    The Alvin around a mile under watter. The scientist was looking at the monitor not out the window. Deep watter subs don't use as many people after that.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    "I firmly believe that a good instrument can measure almost anything better than a person can, if you know what you want to measure. People are so versatile; they can sense things to be done. I find it difficult to imagine what kind of instrument should have been put on the Beagle instead of Charles Darwin."

    -- Allyn Vine, of WHOI, at a symposium on manned undersea vehicles in 1956, after who Alvin (still in operation, with a replacement being created) was named.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    There are some scientists and science minded people who are very robotic over manned, such as Robert Park (read one of his books for one of my classes).

    The reason why we haven't done more tests to test for life or remains of life on Mars is because we haven't sent any robots who could since the Viking landers. Now that there is evidence of former surface water and now very good chance for current subterranean water there is interest to send machines to test for life. If we had people there, chances are they could throw a few supplies together and do it themselves without waiting years to design, build, wait for the right orbit alignments, launch and wait for the craft to get there, make sure it survives landing, deploy it....
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    There's a big reason scientists want to send actual people over:

    People can simply do so much more. A robot is limited exclusively to what it is designed to do. A person, however, is flexible and can adapt to use the same tools for different purposes. Sometimes, this holds true for how a robot is used, but humans can also react much more rapidly. The communications lag from Earth to Mars is significant, meaning rovers and probes and drones all need to be given a slow sequence of orders to ensure they don't fuck up and trap themselves in a pile of dirt that either real-time communications or a human could have avoided. Humans can also perform local maintenance on remote vehicles that makes more complicated machinery feasible. Right now, a rover has to be designed such that it has resistance to possibly dozens of simutaneous failures. Were a human there to replace wear items and possibly swap components, the lifespan of the rover could be extended almost indefinitely.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    Humans can also dust off solar panels as needed too =P
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    The bottom line is, believe it or not, money. It's a lot cheaper to send up robots than humans. I don't have the exact numbers but I read somewhere that it takes around 30,000 people to run the shuttle program. Imagine if it took that many people to keep a handful of airliners up and running? I doubt there would be much traveling.

    I do believe building an orbital spaceport or platform (and I don't mean the ISS) that allows for the assembly of large spacecrafts is a reasonable approach to opening our solar system to business. I do hope that the private ventures that are currently busy getting their stuff into orbit will evolve along that track. Building hotels in space for tourists is a step in the right direction. If we can keep many people in orbit for a certain amount of time, we can also have lasting development in space.

    I'm not quite sure what getting people to Mars is going to accomplish at this time, other than to spend a lot of money for very little return on investment.
  • ChaosedChaosed Ranger
    One of the rovers was sent to Mars for the cost of the move Titanic.

    How many equivalent rovers (and such) could be sent for the cost of sending people?

    The rovers are way beyond there expected life. If people were there with the rovers the people would have come back. If we want to map Mars good enough to see the Marsey license plates we can do that all ready with out people.
    Gone before the need to dust the panels the astronauts would have been.

    I never sed the Alvin was retired or people deep under water would stop.
    Titanic was found unpeopled explored unpeopled. Latter people went down.

    I ame being so lazy. :(
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    The same thing Apollo 11 accomplished: prooving we can do it, encouraging people to believe they can do something they put their mind to, and just generally being an inspiration. If we can go to Mars and back again, we can do anything.

    Provided we're willing to make the sacrifice, economically.
  • ShadowDancerShadowDancer When I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie." London, UK
    I think we could certainly do with recreating that sense of wonder from the days of Apollo 11. I think part of whats wrong with the world these days as a whole is that we've forgotten what its like to dream. It seems humanity is rather listless these days, it lacks something to aspire to beyond the day to day mundane routine
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    [QUOTE=Biggles;167664]If we can go to Mars and back again, we can do anything.[/QUOTE]

    I think we know that already, not all of it, in a good way. I think going to Mars is a bit too pricey just to prove a point.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Never underestimate the value of prooving what amazing things we can do, especially at a time when there are a lot of people doing their utmost to proove what awful things we can do.
  • croxiscroxis I am the walrus
    We have to get off this nice wet rock sometime too. SOME has to start the process. Why not it be us?
  • MundaneMundane Elite Ranger
    Why not the "us" part being the whole earth...and not just USA, or china or japan or....
Sign In or Register to comment.