Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: syhprum on 12/11/2016 19:49:22
-
From a scientific point of view I consider a manned trip to mars a crazy idea although there may be political reasons.
To demonstrate a countries superior technology might be an idea but beware another country may leapfrog you.
the cost of a manned mission would be at least ten times that of a robotic mission and the scientific benefit probably negligible as survival in an hostile environment would take all their energy.
The biggest downside would be the contamination of Mars by Earth type organisms ruining any investigation of native Martian life, the record of successful landings on Mars is abysmal only about 50% so one likely scenario is the scattering of a large quantity of Earth type biological material around the landing site.
-
A one-way manned mission would actually be a lot cheaper than a robotic one since the landing craft will be autonomous and driven in real time by a human pilot.
There's plenty of solar energy there, just of a rather lower surface density than on earth but not mitigated by clouds or water vapor.
The cost of manned planetary exploration arises from the supposed requirement for a return flight, which demands the uplift of an entire return rocket with a life support system and re-entry vehicle.
At the age of 72 I see no point in coming back to die on this planet, but you can resupply me with as much curry and beer as necessary until I peg out, and I'll give you the best TV science show ever!
-
I thought the idea was "To boldly go where no man (or woman) has gone before...", and reopen an exciting age of human exploration.
It doesn't make economic sense, but the thought that someone is out there, risking their life every day will get some public attention every time some new disaster happens.
Unlike earlier ages of exploration, where a ship or caravan would set off, and return years later (or not), these missions will be very much in the public eye, and disasters will be public knowledge, usually in under 24 hours. Probably the longest time these astronauts (Arienauts?) will be out of contact with Earth is during the few weeks that Mars is out of sight behind the Sun. And a resupply vessel en-route could act as a relay station.
There was no shortage of explorers willing to risk their lives in earlier ages, and I am sure there will be no shortage of volunteers for a trip to Mars (even a 1-way trip). But I fear that we may have become so risk-averse that the inevitable, very public deaths will force governments to step in and kill manned exploration.
This is despite the fact that thousands of young adults die every year as they "push the boundaries" in their motor vehicles; this has become an invisible and "accepted" cost to society, while deaths of dozens of astronauts may not be considered "acceptable".
-
A one-way manned mission would actually be a lot cheaper than a robotic one since the landing craft will be autonomous and driven in real time by a human pilot.
There's plenty of solar energy there, just of a rather lower surface density than on earth but not mitigated by clouds or water vapor.
The cost of manned planetary exploration arises from the supposed requirement for a return flight, which demands the uplift of an entire return rocket with a life support system and re-entry vehicle.
At the age of 72 I see no point in coming back to die on this planet, but you can resupply me with as much curry and beer as necessary until I peg out, and I'll give you the best TV science show ever!
Well, you wouldn't survive the takeoff for one thing, and if you want to live on frozen curry and stale beer that's your choice.
There is no point at all in a manned mission to Mars. The only reason we got to the moon was because of the cold war, and the cost in lives and $$ was not worth it. The only place we'll ever have to live on is this little planet so we'd better take care of it.
-
There doesn't seem any point in manned Mars missions, because the planet isn't suitable for humans to live on.
It can't give us any new "living space". All it can do is give scientific data. Such data can be got by us remotely, from unmanned probes, without our having to go there personally.
It'd be quite different if we could live on Mars. Then we could colonise it, build cities, and make it a kind of "New World". Just like the discovery of America created a "New World" for 16th-century Europeans.
Unfortunately, Mars is not like America, but more like Antarctica. Except even worse, because at least in Antarctica there's air to breathe, whereas on Mars there isn't.
So Mars is a dead loss. Forget it.
To find habitable planets, we must go beyond the Solar System. That's the new challenge!
-
Well, you wouldn't survive the takeoff for one thing, and if you want to live on frozen curry and stale beer that's your choice.
Plenty of astronauts have survived one rocket takeoff and I have survived (and indeed enjoyed) hundreds of takeoffs and landings in various vehicles. No problem there. As for living on frozen curry and stale beer, I thoroughly enjoyed student life in a previous century: interesting work, and plenty of sex and music, compensated for a narrow but wholly nutritious diet, and I don't see why work and pleasure should be any different now. Pasteurised IPA and canned American piss-and-wind may lack character but they don't spoil like cask Abbott.
There is no point at all in a manned mission to Mars. The only reason we got to the moon was because of the cold war, and the cost in lives and $$ was not worth it. The only place we'll ever have to live on is this little planet so we'd better take care of it.
There is no "point" in soccer or ballet, but people do it and pay handsomely to watch it because it is challenging and entertaining. I have no intention of colonising Mars, any more than Benidorm, Everest, the Marianas Trench, or wherever else people go out of interest. You'd have a hard job convincing any astronaut that it wasn't worth the risk, and given the investment interest in private space flight and Premier League soccer, I don't think there would be much problem raising $$$ for my TV spectacular.
-
But I fear that we may have become so risk-averse that the inevitable, very public deaths will force governments to step in and kill manned exploration.
I despair of legitimate governments doing anything useful or interesting, but ISIL seems well funded and has no problem persuading people to die for no good reason. Perhaps my one-way mission could be supported by an unelected bunch of publicity-seeking fanatics? Indeed, since it will end in the televised death of a Jewish intellectual, maybe ISIL itself might take an interest!
-
Well, you wouldn't survive the takeoff for one thing, and if you want to live on frozen curry and stale beer that's your choice.
Plenty of astronauts have survived one rocket takeoff and I have survived (and indeed enjoyed) hundreds of takeoffs and landings in various vehicles. No problem there. As for living on frozen curry and stale beer, I thoroughly enjoyed student life in a previous century: interesting work, and plenty of sex and music, compensated for a narrow but wholly nutritious diet, and I don't see why work and pleasure should be any different now. Pasteurised IPA and canned American piss-and-wind may lack character but they don't spoil like cask Abbott.
There is no point at all in a manned mission to Mars. The only reason we got to the moon was because of the cold war, and the cost in lives and $$ was not worth it. The only place we'll ever have to live on is this little planet so we'd better take care of it.
There is no "point" in soccer or ballet, but people do it and pay handsomely to watch it because it is challenging and entertaining. I have no intention of colonising Mars, any more than Benidorm, Everest, the Marianas Trench, or wherever else people go out of interest. You'd have a hard job convincing any astronaut that it wasn't worth the risk, and given the investment interest in private space flight and Premier League soccer, I don't think there would be much problem raising $$$ for my TV spectacular.
Hmm, the whimsical musings of an ancient man....
I've no doubt that blasting off into space is no more dangerous then boarding a 747, which is why astronauts receive no special training. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't be sarcastic.
Sport is a very big business indeed, employing lots of people and generating huge profits and hence taxation. It also keeps young men from killing each other which is probably why it was invented. Ballet must have some function, I suppose. Maybe it's the tights.
If private individuals want to arrange space flights then that's their right: it's their money. Whether it's commercially viable to watch the lift-off, and then endless videos of someone eating curry and drinking beer before colliding with the red planet at 10,000mph, I somehow doubt.
The serious point is that it would be an utter waste of lives and money.
-
Not whimsy. A one-way trip for a septuagenarian is entirely feasible.
I generally arrive at my destination at around 30 - 90 mph horizontally depending on the plane, and about 1 ft/sec vertically , or 0 mph if I'm flying a balloon or helicopter. Moon landings were close to the helicopter parameters . That's the reason for using a human pilot - you can choose where and how to land in real time. Even a ballistic lump like Soyuz hits the ground at about 10 ft/sec. Where do you get 10,000 mph from?
Of course space flight is dangerous. So is playing rugby or living in Aleppo. But not everybody wants to sit at home staring at a computer until he dies from boredom. Given that I have no interest in a return flight I can probably cut out half of the training schedule, and I have no other urgent calls on my time for the next 5 years. Special training? Me? No, I was capable at birth of driving, sailing, flying, speaking French and building linear accelerators, so I'll just take the keys and jump in, thanks....sorry, I mustn't be sarcastic.....
I doubt that many people would be interested in watching me eat curry (I suck it through my left ear, just like everyone else), but considering that David Attenborough's explorations of this planet attract a bigger audience than the Great British Bakeoff, I would have thought that a live broadcast of Mars exploration might entertain more than a few dozen. If all else fails I could bake a cake and then very slowly announce that I had won the Great Martian Bakeoff!!!!! (14,000,000 real-time viewers, for chrissake. Get a life, people!)
-
I am surprised that no one has responded to my point as to how disastrous you would be to research into Martian live forms the residue from beer and curry would certainly stymie such research.
Not coming back would be a good idea pathogens that have evolved under harsh Martian conditions would have a field day on our benign planet
.
-
A manned mission to Mars would be an incrediblly exciting experience, but also challenging and potentially risky. Exploring the world is one of the most wonderful things and it is also science not only entertainment.
-
I am surprised that no one has responded to my point as to how disastrous you would be to research into Martian live forms the residue from beer and curry would certainly stymie such research.
Not coming back would be a good idea pathogens that have evolved under harsh Martian conditions would have a field day on our benign planet
.
That is a very good point. In fact there may have ben pollution already, although the scientists take precautions to sterilise the equipment they send.
-
Not coming back would be a good idea pathogens that have evolved under harsh Martian conditions would have a field day on our benign planet.
There are places on Earth with conditions worse than those on Mars, like streams of boiling water, and stiil no sign of dangerous pathogens evolving there. It seems to me quite the opposite. The better the conditions the more pathogen diversity.
The Mars contamination with Earth lifeforms is real issue. But if you care about knowing whether there are or not lifeforms on Mars, you still have to go there someway or someday. Even if Mars was already contaminated, you can still find lifeforms that do not live here but that is hard to tell because we don't know all lifeforms on Earth.
-
Mars is a dead loss. Forget it.
To find habitable planets, we must go beyond the Solar System. That's the new challenge!
The longest journey begins with a single step.
The first step was Earth orbit; the next was a Moon landing.
Mars seems a very long (but ultimately achievable) subsequent step for humans.
-
Mars is a dead loss. Forget it.
To find habitable planets, we must go beyond the Solar System. That's the new challenge!
The longest journey begins with a single step.
The first step was Earth orbit; the next was a Moon landing.
Mars seems a very long (but ultimately achievable) subsequent step for humans.
Well we certainly seem to be taking a heck of a time taking this "next step" to Mars. Earth orbit was achieved in 1961, and the Moon landing soon after in 1969.
Since then, nothing. No landing on Mars. Even though it could've been accomplished in the 1970's. With chemical rockets like an upgraded Saturn-V. No fancy nuclear-propulsion required, like an Orion "Saturn by 1970"-style atomic pulse-rocket.
So why wasn't it? Simple - because the Mariner probes showed that Mars is just a bigger version of the Moon. Equally dead and uninteresting. Offering no incentive to go there.
We must face the fact, that we are living in an essentially "dead" Solar System. OK, there may be microbes on Mars, or small sea-creatures in the sub-surface oceans of Europa and other Jovian, or Saturnian moons. Perhaps even the moons of Uranus and Neptune. But there's nowhere in the Solar System where humans can live without prohibitively expensive engineering.
To find habitable planets, we must go beyond the Solar System, as I said already.
-
Habitability is not the point. The top of Everest, the bottom of the sea,and the middle of Antarctica are not usefully habitable but still worth exploring. The middle of London is entirely habitable but of no conceivable scientific interest.