CycleChat investigates - human missions to Mars.

[classic33]

The moon mission was a huge boost to space operations and a necessary step but the real science was done by the pioneer and esp Voyager missions as well as Hubble telescope
The shuttle was a design disaster that no one really wanted. A cargo carrier built to human safety standards instead of a smaller human transporter. The Space Station had been nothing but a black hole for funds. It was a destination for the shuttle, and a job creation scheme for Russian space engineering to stop them doing something worse. No serious science had come out of the ISS.
Hubble could have been launched by a cargo rocket and maintained by crew from a smaller shuttle. The staring role of the space shuttle in the Hubble story was because there was no other heavy lifter available to NASA. The US military abandoned shuttle for their own rockets.
The technical argument for people in space reduces as the missions become longer in duration and AI and robotics become more advanced.

What of the Boeing X-37B and its earlier X-20 Dyna-Soar(Ranger 1)?

America suffered from various companies, each fighting for their share of the money. Whilst keeping as much of their technology away from the prying eyes of the rest of those involved. Think Apollo 13, the square filter that was required to work in a round hole.

The driving force behind single use launch systems was that they were developed from existing military designs. Making them cheaper to produce, as all the design, development and testing had already been done on the rocket systems themselves.

 

[stephec]

To successfully deliver a mission to Mars a number of technological innovations will be required, not least how to feed them once there. This latter need may lead to advances in food growth and production that solve problems in food supply and climate change back here.

I can see that, but let's say it costs x amount to send the rocket to Mars, and y to work out how to do it, once the technology is in place why not add x and y together and use the extra to solve more earthbound problems?

For the food supply example would it be better to send a rocket to Mars and cure 40% of the food supply problem, or just solve 80% of the food problem?

 

[matticus]

<snip>
...
For the food supply example would it be better to send a rocket to Mars and cure 40% of the food supply problem, or just solve 80% of the food problem?

Sadly I'm not aware of any major government putting the 80% option on the table

 

[MichaelW2]

I can see that, but let's say it costs x amount to send the rocket to Mars, and y to work out how to do it, once the technology is in place why not add x and y together and use the extra to solve more earthbound problems?

For the food supply example would it be better to send a rocket to Mars and cure 40% of the food supply problem, or just solve 80% of the food problem?

According to the FAO, total global budget for agricultural R&D us $24billion.

 

[stephec]

Sadly I'm not aware of any major government putting the 80% option on the table

Probably because they're more interested in trying to piss higher up the wall than any other government.

 

[classic33]

There's a flaw in the poll question, it doesn't say if they need to be alive or not.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I can see that, but let's say it costs x amount to send the rocket to Mars, and y to work out how to do it, once the technology is in place why not add x and y together and use the extra to solve more earthbound problems?

For the food supply example would it be better to send a rocket to Mars and cure 40% of the food supply problem, or just solve 80% of the food problem?

Same arguments are made against scientific research. Sometimes the benefits aren’t always known at the time. But the ROI is nearly always many times better than just putting money into the status quo., and benefits us in many many ways.

The Human need to explore has driven much of the progress of our race.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Interesting how these conversations go. This isn't the first time ive had these discussions and it ends the same way...

Getting a Human to Mars would cost a LOT... Solving world hunger would cost a LOT too... If i was presented a choice and it was a simple one. Solve world hunger or fund a mission to Mars. I would obviously solve world hunger... But the reality is it is NOT that simple. Moreover, the UK government back in March announced £5bn to fund faster internet for more of us and £1.5bn towards upgrading the Further Education Colleges as a few examples. Why not put towards solving world hunger? These sorts of funding initiatives don't share the same rhetoric, yet people are starving...

Innovation will lead the way technological advances of such projects often have, there are tangible benefits from previous manned space programs in all of our lives we simply take for granted, many lives have been saved and improved. It is constantly evolving and long may it...

 

[Profpointy]

Large Hadron Colider, some of the truly amazing deep space telescope arrays, Cassini- Huygens Saturn and landing on Titan mission, the recent Pluto flyby are all wonderful achievements, each one doubtless costing less than, I don't know, a single aircraft carrier. The "we could solve world hunger" comparison is in my view bogus - we could and should do that anyway, but let's do that by savings elsewhere, not by cutting some of the most outstanding bits of exploratory science and human intellect.

 

[Low Gear Guy]

I don't doubt the benefits of exploring Mars. The point is that you could have multiple unmanned missions for the price of a manned expedition. AI has advanced to the stage where a completely unmanned scheduled passenger flight is theoretically feasible. Why carry extra bodies and the associated life support systems into space if you don't need to?

 

[HMS_Dave]

I don't doubt the benefits of exploring Mars. The point is that you could have multiple unmanned missions for the price of a manned expedition. AI has advanced to the stage where a completely unmanned scheduled passenger flight is theoretically feasible. Why carry extra bodies and the associated life support systems into space if you don't need to?

We didn't need the first car, we didn't need the first aeroplane, we didnt need to Crest the hill on the horizon from the caves...

But I bet you're glad they did....

 

[Profpointy]

I don't doubt the benefits of exploring Mars. The point is that you could have multiple unmanned missions for the price of a manned expedition. AI has advanced to the stage where a completely unmanned scheduled passenger flight is theoretically feasible. Why carry extra bodies and the associated life support systems into space if you don't need to?

There is something in that too. But that said, at some point, and maybe it's a century off, we'd want a manned base, mining resources locally - maybe a step to the stars ?

I do think thinks like the ISS and space shuttle were of questionable value for their cost

 

[classic33]

There is something in that too. But that said, at some point, and maybe it's a century off, we'd want a manned base, mining resources locally - maybe a step to the stars ?

I do think thinks like the ISS and space shuttle were of questionable value for their cost

There's research that can only be done in a zero gravity/extremely low gravity situation, that will impact on any manned mission that will involve a prolonged period in such an environment. That being how the human body reacts to such conditions.

 

[MichaelW2]

There's research that can only be done in a zero gravity/extremely low gravity situation, that will impact on any manned mission that will involve a prolonged period in such an environment. That being how the human body reacts to such conditions.

The biggest claim is zero g research on the ISS is protein growth experiments. You don't need people to carry out these experiments, they can be done in automated modules in micro satellites.
The ISS has too much vibration for many activities.
The point of unmanned exploration is still exploration. Would the Voyager mission have been better as a manned mission? It would have been unfeasable and unaffordable but would have been a bit more versatile as long as the crew survived.

 

[classic33]

The biggest claim is zero g research on the ISS is protein growth experiments. You don't need people to carry out these experiments, they can be done in automated modules in micro satellites.
The ISS has too much vibration for many activities.
The point of unmanned exploration is still exploration. Would the Voyager mission have been better as a manned mission? It would have been unfeasable and unaffordable but would have been a bit more versatile as long as the crew survived.

It's the long term effects on the human body that can't be replicated on earth. The same sort of effects that will come into play on long term manned missions.