You will not go to Mars today
October 21, 2016 4:40 PM Subscribe
Dr Casey Handmer (homepage) gave a talk last month to the Mars Society about why getting humans to Mars will be really hard. He's also written a much more detailed analysis.
the ExoMars lander probably met a fate
At least its twitter feed didn't go all anthropomorphic this time, unlike poor little Philae whose last tweet still makes me choke up.
posted by effbot at 5:34 PM on October 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
At least its twitter feed didn't go all anthropomorphic this time, unlike poor little Philae whose last tweet still makes me choke up.
posted by effbot at 5:34 PM on October 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
The only reason to put people on Mars is because they paid for it and are prepared to die there. If we want to mine, research, explore or claim territory, an army of robots will do.
posted by Brian B. at 5:54 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 5:54 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is a terrific resource. It's going to take me a good long while to get through all of it, but I'm already enjoying this nugget on domes that's linked in the analysis.
posted by phooky at 7:06 PM on October 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by phooky at 7:06 PM on October 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
At its peak the Apollo program employed over 400,000 people. I don't think the USA or even a group of countries is willing to make that kind of effort to go to Mars anytime soon.
China's space program is really firing on all cylinders these days. Maybe some competition will ramp up the USA's space program just like in the 1960s.
posted by LoveHam at 7:22 PM on October 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
China's space program is really firing on all cylinders these days. Maybe some competition will ramp up the USA's space program just like in the 1960s.
posted by LoveHam at 7:22 PM on October 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
For the cost of the development of a military jet that's scrapped before it's even used we could send all the materials needed for a small colony. Will there be failures and tragedies? But will it utterly change the way we see ourselves in the universe, yes, and it ways none can anticipate. Will it push science and technology and develop methods and techniques the improve both worlds? Will it change the very nature of humankind?
posted by sammyo at 7:27 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 7:27 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Note that the entire run of the Apollo program from 1961 to 1972 cost about $110 billion in 2010 dollars. That's a lot but it's about 1/5 of one year of the USA's military budget to put it in perspective.
I hope I live long enough to see humans on Mars.
posted by LoveHam at 7:38 PM on October 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I hope I live long enough to see humans on Mars.
posted by LoveHam at 7:38 PM on October 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Note that these date from before the recent SpaceX thing, in which Elon Musk gives a reasonably credible impression of someone who can figure out how to land many tonnes of stuff on Mars and maybe even bring some of it back. Mind you he seems to have little idea what people will do once they get there.
posted by sfenders at 7:57 PM on October 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sfenders at 7:57 PM on October 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eventually we will move beyond the manned bathysphere phase of space exploration and transition to robotics and AI but I'm not holding my breath...
posted by jim in austin at 8:01 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jim in austin at 8:01 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about we send and retrieve a single naked mole rat first?
posted by benzenedream at 9:01 PM on October 21, 2016
posted by benzenedream at 9:01 PM on October 21, 2016
I think the paper is informative to describe engineering challenges. I don't think that the author intends to imply that those problems are not solvable. I don't think the author's reasoning for going to Mars is very persuasive. Becoming an interplanetary species to avoid extinction events on Earth is very useful for me or my immediate family. IMO more compelling is that in solving these engineering problems we will develop things that will improve the lives of everyone on earth.
posted by humanfont at 9:08 PM on October 21, 2016
posted by humanfont at 9:08 PM on October 21, 2016
"Note that the entire run of the Apollo program from 1961 to 1972 cost about $110 billion in 2010 dollars. "
I learned from Blatcher that the moonshot cost 4-5% of the US budget, which is ASTONISHING.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:24 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I learned from Blatcher that the moonshot cost 4-5% of the US budget, which is ASTONISHING.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:24 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's not a great idea to send humans. Leave Mars to the robots.
posted by Marky at 10:01 PM on October 21, 2016
posted by Marky at 10:01 PM on October 21, 2016
Steve Hillenius works at NASA as a UX Designer. His work involves designing and building software for astronauts to plan and run their own missions in deep space where connectivity back to Earth is limited and researching ways to build usable technology to make training and space operations more efficient.
He gave a talk at Webstock this year on 'Designing Interfaces for Astronaut Autonomy in Space' which was pretty interesting and mentioned going to Mars.
posted by maupuia at 10:47 PM on October 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
He gave a talk at Webstock this year on 'Designing Interfaces for Astronaut Autonomy in Space' which was pretty interesting and mentioned going to Mars.
posted by maupuia at 10:47 PM on October 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
We should look into colonizing Venus with cloud cities more. 94 at least making films about humans over Venus.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:39 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 12:39 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
tl;dr
but I need to know- DOES IT NEED WOMEN?
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 2:04 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
but I need to know- DOES IT NEED WOMEN?
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 2:04 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can see -- speaking as an SF author, not a planetary scientist -- two ways we might go to Mars in the next few years, assuming only that Red Dragon is feasible (and based on SpaceX's proven experience of hypersonic in-atmosphere retropropulsion I'd have to say they're a long way ahead of NASA and ESA in terms of experience in this very challenging flight regime):
1. Suicide mission. Find a 60+ year old astronaut/space scientist who is willing to die on Mars, but wants to get in maybe 5-15 years of field research first. Land them. Throw two capsules a year (~4 tons per capsule) at them full of supplies. This won't be cheap -- the launch costs alone using Falcon Heavy will be on the order of $400M/year, so call it $1Bn a year for a decade -- but it gets us a vastly more effective "Mars rover" than any robot (hint: it can take autonomous action without waiting up to an hour for a return command signal from Earth!).
2. Drones and local controllers. Drop humanoid robots designed for remote control by a human onto the Martian surface -- this can be done using existing payload delivery kit. Then send astronauts, along with a long duration space station -- something like a Bigelow B330 module, tailored for the Martian space environment (e.g. larger solar panels) -- to Mars orbit to control the robots on the surface with minimal signal lag. Ideally have them dig a hole in the surface of Phobos or Deimos to park the habitat's pressure vessel for radiation shielding.
Option 2 does not get human bootprints on the Martian soil -- sorry! -- but gives us a massive improvement in the efficiency of our robotic surface exploration by cutting the control lag from half an hour to double-digit milliseconds. In some respects it's better than putting astronauts on the surface: a robot can be controlled by astronauts working around the clock in shifts in a shirt-sleeve environment, and it doesn't have to be as heavy/bulky/cumbersome as a human in a suit Apollo-era Moon suits, Shuttle suits, and Soviet Orlan-M EVA suits, typically have a mass in the 80-120Kg range before you add the pressurized primate: if you can make a 50Kg humanoid robot, you can land eight of them on the Martian surface as remotes for the same payload that you'd otherwise need for two astronauts and their suits.
Option 2 is also cheaper than option 1 insofar as it doesn't call for permanent resupply missions to Mars orbit (or the scratch monkey dies). Alas, because of the lack of bootprints-on-Mars it's politically unappealing/unsexy. But if Musk is serious, this would be the right way for him to start building that fuel manufacturing station on the surface before trying to land actual real live humans.
posted by cstross at 2:35 AM on October 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
1. Suicide mission. Find a 60+ year old astronaut/space scientist who is willing to die on Mars, but wants to get in maybe 5-15 years of field research first. Land them. Throw two capsules a year (~4 tons per capsule) at them full of supplies. This won't be cheap -- the launch costs alone using Falcon Heavy will be on the order of $400M/year, so call it $1Bn a year for a decade -- but it gets us a vastly more effective "Mars rover" than any robot (hint: it can take autonomous action without waiting up to an hour for a return command signal from Earth!).
2. Drones and local controllers. Drop humanoid robots designed for remote control by a human onto the Martian surface -- this can be done using existing payload delivery kit. Then send astronauts, along with a long duration space station -- something like a Bigelow B330 module, tailored for the Martian space environment (e.g. larger solar panels) -- to Mars orbit to control the robots on the surface with minimal signal lag. Ideally have them dig a hole in the surface of Phobos or Deimos to park the habitat's pressure vessel for radiation shielding.
Option 2 does not get human bootprints on the Martian soil -- sorry! -- but gives us a massive improvement in the efficiency of our robotic surface exploration by cutting the control lag from half an hour to double-digit milliseconds. In some respects it's better than putting astronauts on the surface: a robot can be controlled by astronauts working around the clock in shifts in a shirt-sleeve environment, and it doesn't have to be as heavy/bulky/cumbersome as a human in a suit Apollo-era Moon suits, Shuttle suits, and Soviet Orlan-M EVA suits, typically have a mass in the 80-120Kg range before you add the pressurized primate: if you can make a 50Kg humanoid robot, you can land eight of them on the Martian surface as remotes for the same payload that you'd otherwise need for two astronauts and their suits.
Option 2 is also cheaper than option 1 insofar as it doesn't call for permanent resupply missions to Mars orbit (or the scratch monkey dies). Alas, because of the lack of bootprints-on-Mars it's politically unappealing/unsexy. But if Musk is serious, this would be the right way for him to start building that fuel manufacturing station on the surface before trying to land actual real live humans.
posted by cstross at 2:35 AM on October 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
The suicide mission sounds romantic and all until the person on Mars freaks out, seriously but not fatally injures themselves, or otherwise ends up being more of a horrifying death watch with an ongoing Twitter feed of fear and misery than a great journey. Extreme solitude isn't the easiest thing to endure here on Earth, add thirty three million miles and an unforgiving environment and who knows how that'll turn out?
Of course someone would still try it just because they think they can handle it and MARS! and all, but I think other options might be the better way to go for a while.
posted by gusottertrout at 3:01 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course someone would still try it just because they think they can handle it and MARS! and all, but I think other options might be the better way to go for a while.
posted by gusottertrout at 3:01 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
ALSO: discussions on twitter with a sometime retired aerospace engineer results in an interesting insight: the amount of kinetic energy you need to dissipate from Phobos orbit to Mars surface is about half that of an Earth Direct Landing profile. You can also use a lifting body heat shield and a flat trajectory to reduce the thermal loading on your payload.
We do EDL trajectories for robot probes because a Low Mars Orbit insertion followed by subsequent landing requires a much more complex craft and mission profile -- but imposes horrible restrictions on the landing system. So I'm running up the flag for a Phobos base and drones on the surface mission, with optional small sample return for geological samples, rather than boots-on-Mars direct.
posted by cstross at 3:28 AM on October 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
We do EDL trajectories for robot probes because a Low Mars Orbit insertion followed by subsequent landing requires a much more complex craft and mission profile -- but imposes horrible restrictions on the landing system. So I'm running up the flag for a Phobos base and drones on the surface mission, with optional small sample return for geological samples, rather than boots-on-Mars direct.
posted by cstross at 3:28 AM on October 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
And all the time the moon is like "Guys? Guys? Super-large planetoid style moon right here? Right by you? OK, maybe I'm not as cool as Mars, but you could totally practice on me, so you can really impress Mars... Did I do something wrong that one time? No? Well OK. I guess I'll just keep orbiting, then. No, I'm OK. It just seems... Oh, you're not listening to me."
posted by Segundus at 3:34 AM on October 22, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 3:34 AM on October 22, 2016 [13 favorites]
If we want to mine, research, explore or claim territory, an army of robots will do.
There are self-service checkouts at my local supermarkets I'd happily see sent to Mars.
posted by flabdablet at 4:10 AM on October 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
There are self-service checkouts at my local supermarkets I'd happily see sent to Mars.
posted by flabdablet at 4:10 AM on October 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
but I need to know- DOES IT NEED WOMEN?
Mars needs guitars.
posted by flabdablet at 4:13 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mars needs guitars.
posted by flabdablet at 4:13 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
1. Suicide mission. [...]
2. Drones and local controllers. [...]
3. Human-level artificial intelligence. What could possibly go wrong!?
posted by moonmilk at 6:02 AM on October 22, 2016
2. Drones and local controllers. [...]
3. Human-level artificial intelligence. What could possibly go wrong!?
posted by moonmilk at 6:02 AM on October 22, 2016
Matt Damon already knows how to survive there. Why don't we send him?
posted by blue_beetle at 6:12 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 6:12 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have some domain expertise here. Lots of people, including myself, are very much in favor of exploring Mars (and the moon, and other places) with people, and eventually setting up shop as it were, but people seem amazingly deluded about what living on Mars would be like for a long time. Put another way, do you like the idea of spending the rest of your life in a submarine? Or perhaps spending the rest of your life living in a tent in the high arctic desert with nothing but a thin email connection with the rest of humanity to keep you company? If so, you're going to LOVE living on Mars. You're not joining Star Fleet and all that crap, you're (theoretically) heading off to live in a hugely inhospitable desert.
The Moon is just a PLACE. Mars is just a PLACE. They're not magical and not worth committing suicide for, any more than it would be worth committing suicide to live in the Australian outback for a few years.
Musk is the wealthy European nobleman who, circa the early 1500s, wants to send thousands upon thousands of totally unprepared zealots to North America because why the hell not? How hard could it possibly be? I'm fucking brilliant, look how much money I've made trading with the far east. I can do anything.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:35 AM on October 22, 2016 [18 favorites]
The Moon is just a PLACE. Mars is just a PLACE. They're not magical and not worth committing suicide for, any more than it would be worth committing suicide to live in the Australian outback for a few years.
Musk is the wealthy European nobleman who, circa the early 1500s, wants to send thousands upon thousands of totally unprepared zealots to North America because why the hell not? How hard could it possibly be? I'm fucking brilliant, look how much money I've made trading with the far east. I can do anything.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:35 AM on October 22, 2016 [18 favorites]
21st century Darien scheme?
posted by Emma May Smith at 6:43 AM on October 22, 2016
posted by Emma May Smith at 6:43 AM on October 22, 2016
Paraphrasing Pournelle's "Strategy of Technology."
Space based solar is still the key. Getting the union construction crews into GEO, and keeping them alive to build them gives us the technology to go anywhere.
IMNSHO: Getting them to the moon for long weekends gets us gambling, hookers, and chinese food in space. And thus the path to Human domination of the universe begins...
posted by mikelieman at 6:48 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Space based solar is still the key. Getting the union construction crews into GEO, and keeping them alive to build them gives us the technology to go anywhere.
IMNSHO: Getting them to the moon for long weekends gets us gambling, hookers, and chinese food in space. And thus the path to Human domination of the universe begins...
posted by mikelieman at 6:48 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Musk is the wealthy European nobleman who, circa the early 1500s, wants to send thousands upon thousands of totally unprepared zealots to North America because why the hell not? How hard could it possibly be? I'm fucking brilliant, look how much money I've made trading with the far east. I can do anything.
I can't favorite this enough. I think it's notable that the rich folks funding and promoting Mars missions don't tend to want to go themselves. It's better to send the enthusiastic poors.
posted by neonrev at 7:01 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't favorite this enough. I think it's notable that the rich folks funding and promoting Mars missions don't tend to want to go themselves. It's better to send the enthusiastic poors.
posted by neonrev at 7:01 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Didn't Elon Musk say he wanted to go to Mars?
posted by humanfont at 7:18 AM on October 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 7:18 AM on October 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Forget Mars: too small, too little sunshine, too little atmosphere. Floating habitat on Venus ALL THE WAY!!1!
posted by heatherlogan at 8:07 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by heatherlogan at 8:07 AM on October 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Guys? Guys? Super-large planetoid style moon right here?
Yeah, I love Mars and wish I could visit, but surely a moon base first. Why has it dropped off the radar so much? It seemed for a while that every other week there'd be an article about lunar regolith based building materials, potential water sources, telescope sites or something else.
posted by lucidium at 8:17 AM on October 22, 2016
Yeah, I love Mars and wish I could visit, but surely a moon base first. Why has it dropped off the radar so much? It seemed for a while that every other week there'd be an article about lunar regolith based building materials, potential water sources, telescope sites or something else.
posted by lucidium at 8:17 AM on October 22, 2016
21st century Darien scheme?
A rather expensive idea to woo post-Brexit Scotland back, but okay let's roll with it
posted by Apocryphon at 9:24 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
A rather expensive idea to woo post-Brexit Scotland back, but okay let's roll with it
posted by Apocryphon at 9:24 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Musk is the wealthy European nobleman who, circa the early 1500s, wants to send thousands upon thousands of totally unprepared zealots to North America because why the hell not? How hard could it possibly be? I'm fucking brilliant, look how much money I've made trading with the far east. I can do anything.
Nobody sent anybody to North America until the Spanish started pulling so much silver out of South America they were able to start all kinds of wars in Europe. E.G. until exploration and conquest had proved to be an extremely lucrative pastime you'd be a fool to miss out on, lest your enemies use their new riches to crush you.
posted by Diablevert at 9:56 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nobody sent anybody to North America until the Spanish started pulling so much silver out of South America they were able to start all kinds of wars in Europe. E.G. until exploration and conquest had proved to be an extremely lucrative pastime you'd be a fool to miss out on, lest your enemies use their new riches to crush you.
posted by Diablevert at 9:56 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm against this idea in principle. If there's anything I've learned from anime, it's that no matter how noble-sounding the colony's founding ideals, before you know it they'll be cramming teenagers into giant robots and trying to conquer Earth. So just say no.
posted by happyroach at 10:03 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by happyroach at 10:03 AM on October 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's only if we build orbital colonies.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:24 AM on October 22, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:24 AM on October 22, 2016
So I'm running up the flag for a Phobos base and drones on the surface mission
I thought self driving cars were just around the corner... surely self driving cars on mars is an easier problem? what better advertisement for Tesla...
Didn't Elon Musk say he wanted to go to Mars?
when the revolution comes and we run out of entertaining ways to kill billionaires to please the crowd, Musk will get his wish.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:59 PM on October 22, 2016
I thought self driving cars were just around the corner... surely self driving cars on mars is an easier problem? what better advertisement for Tesla...
Didn't Elon Musk say he wanted to go to Mars?
when the revolution comes and we run out of entertaining ways to kill billionaires to please the crowd, Musk will get his wish.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:59 PM on October 22, 2016
How about we send and retrieve a single naked mole rat first?
Aw, too cruel, picking one of the most obligately social mammals.
posted by clew at 1:17 PM on October 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Aw, too cruel, picking one of the most obligately social mammals.
posted by clew at 1:17 PM on October 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Personally I think sending people to Mars may be the only way we learn how to prosper and survive on Earth. Right now, we have no will to research sustainable prosperous living, so we don't; our economic systems are all based on exponential growth taken from an unbounded ecological footprint, and as a result we have a history of collapsed civilizations (or averting collapse thought expansion). The current civilization is global, so it really needs to get off this path.
The precursor knowledge and R&D for a self-sustaining colony on Mars addresses so many of things that we already need right here on Earth but aren't properly funding or investigating (other than Mars research). Building for a world with zero ecological safety-net results in concrete ways to build and test and develop and measure success and failure in sustainability, it eliminates the ubiquitous habit of simply ignoring externalities, it requires quality of life be untangled from ecological footprint, etc.
We (people) do not seem very good at addressing vague far-away threats, no-matter how dire. By contrast we are absolute rockstars at working together to solve concrete near-term challenges that we can really get our teeth into. Mars turns a vague far-away existential threat into a concrete near-term challenge that we can get our teeth into. Mars moves our weak spot into our strong suite.
posted by anonymisc at 2:52 PM on October 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
The precursor knowledge and R&D for a self-sustaining colony on Mars addresses so many of things that we already need right here on Earth but aren't properly funding or investigating (other than Mars research). Building for a world with zero ecological safety-net results in concrete ways to build and test and develop and measure success and failure in sustainability, it eliminates the ubiquitous habit of simply ignoring externalities, it requires quality of life be untangled from ecological footprint, etc.
We (people) do not seem very good at addressing vague far-away threats, no-matter how dire. By contrast we are absolute rockstars at working together to solve concrete near-term challenges that we can really get our teeth into. Mars turns a vague far-away existential threat into a concrete near-term challenge that we can get our teeth into. Mars moves our weak spot into our strong suite.
posted by anonymisc at 2:52 PM on October 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
I learned from Blatcher that the moonshot cost 4-5% of the US budget, which is ASTONISHING.
Looking around, that's probably a rounded figure I read, the actual numbers are between 3.5-4.5% over 4 years, peaking in 1966. Currently, its 18.4B budgets is .5% of the US budget.
So, NASA probably isn't going to Mars anytime in the next 20 years. The money and the will to spend the money isn't there and frankly, it hasn't send humans beyond low earth orbit for over 40 years, so its badly out of practice. Despite what the constant stream of hype from the agency would have you believe.
Not that it can't learn and not everything has been forgotten. But Mars is a whole new ballgame and humanity has little interest in funding its main team, at least for the foreseeable future. And that's a good thing, because we really don't have a reason to go to Mars, other than being able to wave a flag and say WE DID IT.
Now Elon Musk? He very much wants to say "I DID IT and I'M GONNA RETIRE THERE MOTHERFUCKERS." Since there's no shortage of capable astronauts who would cheerfully leave NASA to attempt this, SpaceX will probably get as close as anyone, but I'm not convinced that anyone will be able to send and safely return humans to the surface of Mars within 20 years. But I'd LOVE to be proven wrong.
We're probably better of concentrating on building a completely self sufficient space station and then a moon base. Conquer the self sufficiency problem and then Mars (and everywhere else) becomes humanity's bitch. Assuming we don't poison our atmosphere and water before then.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:14 PM on October 22, 2016
Looking around, that's probably a rounded figure I read, the actual numbers are between 3.5-4.5% over 4 years, peaking in 1966. Currently, its 18.4B budgets is .5% of the US budget.
So, NASA probably isn't going to Mars anytime in the next 20 years. The money and the will to spend the money isn't there and frankly, it hasn't send humans beyond low earth orbit for over 40 years, so its badly out of practice. Despite what the constant stream of hype from the agency would have you believe.
Not that it can't learn and not everything has been forgotten. But Mars is a whole new ballgame and humanity has little interest in funding its main team, at least for the foreseeable future. And that's a good thing, because we really don't have a reason to go to Mars, other than being able to wave a flag and say WE DID IT.
Now Elon Musk? He very much wants to say "I DID IT and I'M GONNA RETIRE THERE MOTHERFUCKERS." Since there's no shortage of capable astronauts who would cheerfully leave NASA to attempt this, SpaceX will probably get as close as anyone, but I'm not convinced that anyone will be able to send and safely return humans to the surface of Mars within 20 years. But I'd LOVE to be proven wrong.
We're probably better of concentrating on building a completely self sufficient space station and then a moon base. Conquer the self sufficiency problem and then Mars (and everywhere else) becomes humanity's bitch. Assuming we don't poison our atmosphere and water before then.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:14 PM on October 22, 2016
Conquer the self sufficiency problem and then Mars (and everywhere else) becomes humanity's bitch.
Meh... just figure out how to leverage CRISPR to stick some water bear DNA in us and we'll be good to go just about anywhere
posted by Stu-Pendous at 5:42 PM on October 22, 2016
Meh... just figure out how to leverage CRISPR to stick some water bear DNA in us and we'll be good to go just about anywhere
posted by Stu-Pendous at 5:42 PM on October 22, 2016
Probably won't scale, which means we have figure out shrink rays and you know how that goes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:15 PM on October 22, 2016
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:15 PM on October 22, 2016
First, the good news: One of Hillary Clinton's informal advisors on space issues is Neal Lane, and he's strongly in favor of building a sustained base on the moon as a first stepping stone, instead of Obama's loudly over-reaching and absurdly underfunded "plan" to send humans to Mars:
The former science advisor offered two primary reasons for his view that NASA should refocus on the Moon before setting off deeper into the Solar System. For one, the space agency really doesn’t know enough about living and working for long periods of time in harsh environments, Lane said. The lunar surface would offer such a low-gravity test bed, while also offering the safety of being close to Earth.
Perhaps more importantly, Lane views lunar exploration as a powerful tool of international diplomacy. He noted that NASA’s current partners, including Europe, Japan, Canada, and Russia, have all expressed their interest in returning to the Moon. Such a plan might also open the door to cooperation with China and India.
“...the US really ought to consider, in my view, leading international expeditions back to the Moon and to other bodies in the Solar System, and perhaps eventually Mars, and work[ing] with other countries to ensure free access to space. I think the new president could find this to be a real opportunity for leadership.”.
Second, here's the disappointing reason why the USA wasted the last 8 years on a stupid nonexistent plan to get to Mars, instead of the obvious next step of a sustained lunar base that could function as a laboratory for testing humans and equipment (mining equipment, protective shielding etc) in an outer space environment: when Obama took over and convened the standard committee to make recommendations for his space policy, his people turned away from the moon because it had been G.W. Bush's plan. Don't take my word for it; listen to former astronaut Leroy Chiao, who was on that committee:
Chiao suggested the decision to remove the Moon as a possible destination was driven by politics, rather than what might be best for the US space enterprise. “Frankly, it came down to us on the committee to not talk too much about the Moon, because there was no way this administration was going to go there, because it was W’s program,” he said. “Ok, that’s a pretty stupid reason not to go to the Moon. I’m hopeful with this election cycle that maybe the moon will be a possibility again.”
The stupidity got so pronounced that Obama, in a 2010 speech on space policy, with Buzz Aldrin in the fucking room, actually said this out loud about the moon: "I just have to say pretty bluntly here, we’ve been there before."
That sentence will surely go down as one of the stupidest things a U.S. president has ever said about space exploration.
A multinational governmental effort to make a sustained lunar base a reality, taking advantage of the new interest by private companies, is the obvious next step for the human race in outer space, but the Obama administration has ignored that reality in favor of pie-in-the-sky bullshit for 8 years now. As far as the future of human space exploration goes, the next U.S. president can't take office a moment too soon.
posted by mediareport at 7:16 PM on October 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The former science advisor offered two primary reasons for his view that NASA should refocus on the Moon before setting off deeper into the Solar System. For one, the space agency really doesn’t know enough about living and working for long periods of time in harsh environments, Lane said. The lunar surface would offer such a low-gravity test bed, while also offering the safety of being close to Earth.
Perhaps more importantly, Lane views lunar exploration as a powerful tool of international diplomacy. He noted that NASA’s current partners, including Europe, Japan, Canada, and Russia, have all expressed their interest in returning to the Moon. Such a plan might also open the door to cooperation with China and India.
“...the US really ought to consider, in my view, leading international expeditions back to the Moon and to other bodies in the Solar System, and perhaps eventually Mars, and work[ing] with other countries to ensure free access to space. I think the new president could find this to be a real opportunity for leadership.”.
Second, here's the disappointing reason why the USA wasted the last 8 years on a stupid nonexistent plan to get to Mars, instead of the obvious next step of a sustained lunar base that could function as a laboratory for testing humans and equipment (mining equipment, protective shielding etc) in an outer space environment: when Obama took over and convened the standard committee to make recommendations for his space policy, his people turned away from the moon because it had been G.W. Bush's plan. Don't take my word for it; listen to former astronaut Leroy Chiao, who was on that committee:
Chiao suggested the decision to remove the Moon as a possible destination was driven by politics, rather than what might be best for the US space enterprise. “Frankly, it came down to us on the committee to not talk too much about the Moon, because there was no way this administration was going to go there, because it was W’s program,” he said. “Ok, that’s a pretty stupid reason not to go to the Moon. I’m hopeful with this election cycle that maybe the moon will be a possibility again.”
The stupidity got so pronounced that Obama, in a 2010 speech on space policy, with Buzz Aldrin in the fucking room, actually said this out loud about the moon: "I just have to say pretty bluntly here, we’ve been there before."
That sentence will surely go down as one of the stupidest things a U.S. president has ever said about space exploration.
A multinational governmental effort to make a sustained lunar base a reality, taking advantage of the new interest by private companies, is the obvious next step for the human race in outer space, but the Obama administration has ignored that reality in favor of pie-in-the-sky bullshit for 8 years now. As far as the future of human space exploration goes, the next U.S. president can't take office a moment too soon.
posted by mediareport at 7:16 PM on October 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Former ISS commander Chiao and Space Foundation CEO Elliot Pulham wrote a piece in May laying out their arguments for a moon base as a priority, ending with this:
Europe, Russia and China are already pointed in that direction. Partnerships that do not include the U.S. are being forged. The U.S. faces the very real risk of being left behind.
posted by mediareport at 7:34 PM on October 22, 2016
Europe, Russia and China are already pointed in that direction. Partnerships that do not include the U.S. are being forged. The U.S. faces the very real risk of being left behind.
posted by mediareport at 7:34 PM on October 22, 2016
> Mars moves our weak spot into our strong suite.
This is a really inspiring and compelling idea, but I feel like at the moment if we went to Mars our externalities would have names like Poop Mountain and The Nutella Crater.
posted by lucidium at 3:39 AM on October 23, 2016
This is a really inspiring and compelling idea, but I feel like at the moment if we went to Mars our externalities would have names like Poop Mountain and The Nutella Crater.
posted by lucidium at 3:39 AM on October 23, 2016
Partnerships that do not include the U.S. are being forged. The U.S. faces the very real risk of being left behind.
We were afraid of a Moonsday gap
posted by flabdablet at 5:30 AM on October 23, 2016
We were afraid of a Moonsday gap
posted by flabdablet at 5:30 AM on October 23, 2016
Hey, whatever it takes to get us away from the dumbass path we're on to something actually worth doing. This science fiction fan will be a helluva lot happier on his deathbed if he lives in a world where the U.S., China, India, Russia and Europe had just built an international moonbase together.
Seriously: very few U.S. presidents really give a shit about outer space (fewer still during their first year). But after November 8, any non-engineer U.S. citizens who really want to contribute to the struggle to get humans into outer space could probably help most by regularly writing and calling Hillary and all their other national representatives to encourage them to repurpose Obama's garbage Mars plan - all those dollars and all that energy - into a permanently inhabited base on the Moon instead.
I'm begging you to help make my death a happier one.
posted by mediareport at 7:51 AM on October 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Seriously: very few U.S. presidents really give a shit about outer space (fewer still during their first year). But after November 8, any non-engineer U.S. citizens who really want to contribute to the struggle to get humans into outer space could probably help most by regularly writing and calling Hillary and all their other national representatives to encourage them to repurpose Obama's garbage Mars plan - all those dollars and all that energy - into a permanently inhabited base on the Moon instead.
I'm begging you to help make my death a happier one.
posted by mediareport at 7:51 AM on October 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ok everyone, if you could contribute to this gift certificate to the Sexy Sexcapades Space Camp, we can send off mediareport in style at some point. Yes, we're trying to get him the Saturn Five package, wink wink.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:04 AM on October 23, 2016
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:04 AM on October 23, 2016
I did a few moments Googling, and found a video of the talk in question.
posted by MikeWarot at 4:01 PM on October 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MikeWarot at 4:01 PM on October 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Human space exploration is a colossal waste of money. Until human beings are bio-engineered into something we would barely call human, space belong to the machines.
posted by tgyg at 10:38 PM on October 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tgyg at 10:38 PM on October 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
mars is the perfect laboratory for robotic exploration and prep for future human habitation. we give our current martian robot explorers little praise for their astounding accomplishments. let them, over the next 20 years build out a livable environment then send some mind powered meat to take over...
posted by judson at 9:35 AM on October 24, 2016
posted by judson at 9:35 AM on October 24, 2016
I am still totally up for alternate plans to colonize Earth- polar cities, underwater bases, vaults nestled deep in our planet's crust- surely we can find more ways to secure ourselves within our atmosphere against both destruction and pollution. Arcologies for every major city!
posted by Apocryphon at 11:43 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 11:43 AM on October 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Until human beings are bio-engineered into something we would barely call human
I'd be ok with that. But the idea that complex mining operations on Mars, say, wouldn't benefit from a human presence on the spot is certainly arguable. It's an ongoing argument, in fact, and one that usually involves slightly more complex thought than "Human space exploration is a colossal waste of money."
posted by mediareport at 5:21 AM on October 25, 2016
I'd be ok with that. But the idea that complex mining operations on Mars, say, wouldn't benefit from a human presence on the spot is certainly arguable. It's an ongoing argument, in fact, and one that usually involves slightly more complex thought than "Human space exploration is a colossal waste of money."
posted by mediareport at 5:21 AM on October 25, 2016
Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone [PDF]
Abstract
There is a widely held view in the astronomical community that unmanned robotic space vehicles are, and will always be, more efficient explorers of planetary surfaces than astronauts (e.g. Coates, 2001; Clements 2009; Rees 2011). Partly this is due to a common assumption that robotic exploration is cheaper than human exploration (although, as we shall see, this isn’t necessarily true if like is compared with like), and partly from the expectation that continued developments in technology will relentlessly increase the capability, and reduce the size and cost, of robotic missions to the point that human exploration will not be able to compete. I will argue below that the experience of human exploration during the Apollo missions, more recent field analogue studies, and trends in robotic space exploration actually all point to exactly the opposite conclusion.
It's an easily digestible 7-page PDF by a UK planetary sciences professor.
posted by mediareport at 5:44 AM on October 25, 2016
Abstract
There is a widely held view in the astronomical community that unmanned robotic space vehicles are, and will always be, more efficient explorers of planetary surfaces than astronauts (e.g. Coates, 2001; Clements 2009; Rees 2011). Partly this is due to a common assumption that robotic exploration is cheaper than human exploration (although, as we shall see, this isn’t necessarily true if like is compared with like), and partly from the expectation that continued developments in technology will relentlessly increase the capability, and reduce the size and cost, of robotic missions to the point that human exploration will not be able to compete. I will argue below that the experience of human exploration during the Apollo missions, more recent field analogue studies, and trends in robotic space exploration actually all point to exactly the opposite conclusion.
It's an easily digestible 7-page PDF by a UK planetary sciences professor.
posted by mediareport at 5:44 AM on October 25, 2016
Why Space Exploration Is a Job for Humans:
"[Mars rovers] Spirit and Opportunity are fantastic things on Mars, but the fact that they've traveled as far in eight years as the Apollo astronauts traveled in three days speaks volumes."
Anyway, it's a fascinating conversation, and I'd be happy to read any counterpoints you think are worthwhile, tgyg.
posted by mediareport at 5:44 AM on October 25, 2016
"[Mars rovers] Spirit and Opportunity are fantastic things on Mars, but the fact that they've traveled as far in eight years as the Apollo astronauts traveled in three days speaks volumes."
Anyway, it's a fascinating conversation, and I'd be happy to read any counterpoints you think are worthwhile, tgyg.
posted by mediareport at 5:44 AM on October 25, 2016
"We may be able to make robots smarter, but they'll never get tot he point where they can make on the spot decisions in the field, where they can recognize things for being important even if you don't expect them or anticipate them," argues Crawford. "You can't necessarily program a robot to recognize things out of the blue."
This is a bullshit argument. Nobody is arguing for hard AI robots as the solution to space exploration. The rovers are still guided by humans, albeit with a lot of lag. If a rover cracked open a rock and it was full of wriggling critters, a human would still see it and be able to investigate.
posted by benzenedream at 2:02 PM on October 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is a bullshit argument. Nobody is arguing for hard AI robots as the solution to space exploration. The rovers are still guided by humans, albeit with a lot of lag. If a rover cracked open a rock and it was full of wriggling critters, a human would still see it and be able to investigate.
posted by benzenedream at 2:02 PM on October 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, but it's a bit different from having an actual human on site to investigate those wriggling critters. The Genesis Rock was discovered by the Apollo 15 astronauts who observed a glint of it precisely because humans eyes and intelligence were on the ground and noticed it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:10 PM on October 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:10 PM on October 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
And the deeper point is that humans are able to cover far more ground in far less time to turn over far more rocks and see far more "wriggling critters."
posted by mediareport at 2:13 PM on October 25, 2016
posted by mediareport at 2:13 PM on October 25, 2016
How feasible is asteroid mining, with the same effort put into it as a proposed mars mission?
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:54 AM on October 31, 2016
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:54 AM on October 31, 2016
The first big question is where's the asteroid?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:40 AM on October 31, 2016
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:40 AM on October 31, 2016
« Older Bill Bowen, R.I.P. | Ed Motta - Japanese City Pop Mix Vol. 2. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by zabuni at 4:53 PM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]