Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
Joe and others, Some comments on a manned Mars mission 1. I believe that the first few manned missions will end in failure. We will have to do many manned missions until we solve all the problems involved if we do at all. This will up the cost tremendously. 2. After one successful mission the cost of the next mission probably will still be too great to repeat so that we would not be able settle Mars with a permanent base. 3. Going to Mars with a manned mission does not entail solving one or a few engineering challenges but rather a vast slew of them so analogies to other challenges may not be relevant. On a brighter note check out this website www.windows.ucar.edu It has a neat space information including about Mars. Sincerely, Gary Vardon see my website www.wealthbuilder.wwdb.biz use gary1234 as the id -----Original Message----- From: Joe Bauman Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 2:28 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Good point, and you are right about Mars having a varied terrain. But A geology alone doesn't add up to interesting or justify the cost, as far as I'm concerned. You could argue tat the moon has fascinating geology, with mountains, rilles, basins and volcanoes. And Antarctica is even more interesting. But let's face it, Mars probably never had substantial life. If it was as expensive to visit Antarctica, and we already knew what it's like because of robotic exploration, would there be a good cost-benefit reason for going? On the other hand, we may be able to find signs of life on exoplanets within a few years, by analyzing the atmosphere. I'm just saying we may be better off thinking about astronomical research rather than going to Mars, because the payoff for the former could be much better and less expensive. -- Joe On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Joe, I'm stumped. Are you talking about the same Mars as the rest of us?
I find Mars fascinating- hardly the world you describe. Robots have shown Mars to be a dynamic, diverse world, with an ancient natural history just crying for human explorers to go and discover. And I think you've read far too much into the exo-planet stories. All seem pretty bleak from the mostly surmised conditions posited on some of them. Mars isn't earthlike in many respects, but it's a heck of a lot closer than any exoplanets in the current inventory, and infinitely more accessable. It will be centuries, literally, to thousands of years, before humans ever actually think of those planets as "places"- if we ever do. They will remain mere data until long after our culture has crumbled to dust.
I think it likely that Mars will be terraformed long, long before any exo-planets are ever even imaged with resolution greater than a spectrographic smear.
Mars and other solar-system bodies are right here, practically in our own back-yard. We would be derelict in our duty to our species if we didn't go there and explore them in person. It is our nature. Well, most of our natures.
I also don't place much credence in the stance that robot explorers are better than humans. The reasons are numerous and go beyond just the risk argument- which is utter nonsense when you take into account that we send our best young people off to be killed in foreign lands by the thousands, right here on earth. I guarantee you that even with odds weighted against them, you'd have thousands of scientists and engineers lining-up to volunteer to crew a Mars mission. That is part of being an American. We love challenges. But the mere presence of a human crew is what ups the odds of success. We can repair, jury-rig, replace, engineer solutions right on the spot. A profound, total failure can occur, of course, but that can and does happes even with the robotic probes. Mars does not have a good success record with robot probes. I believe the historical failure rate is over 1/3 of all missions launched. I think manned missions stand a much better chance because of our ability to improvise and change plans.
I could go on, but lunch is over and I have to get back to work.
Viva Marte!
On Jan 2, 2008 12:43 PM, Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Yes indeed, Happy New Year to all our friends!
My predictions about a crewed Mars expedition are:
1, it will happen pretty soon because we have discovered a cheap new transportation system;
OR
2, it will never happen because robots are proving Mars isn't that interesting.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
The pessimism I've seen in this thread reminds me of the 1920 New York Times editorial that ridiculed the idea of rockets functioning in space and going to the Moon. It also reminds me of the following which appeared in the Times during the Apollo 11 mission: "Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century, and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error." patrick On 03 Jan 2008, at 06:52, Gary Vardon wrote:
Joe and others, Some comments on a manned Mars mission 1. I believe that the first few manned missions will end in failure. We will have to do many manned missions until we solve all the problems involved if we do at all. This will up the cost tremendously.
2. After one successful mission the cost of the next mission probably will still be too great to repeat so that we would not be able settle Mars with a permanent base.
3. Going to Mars with a manned mission does not entail solving one or a few engineering challenges but rather a vast slew of them so analogies to other challenges may not be relevant.
Please excuse the intrusion, I rarely post to this list, but this discussion is fascinating. I don't see pessimism in the previous posts, but realism. I am a litigator by training, a judge by profession and a politician by necessity. My experience is that an elected official that can see past the next election cycle is rare. As a result, any project that has a thirty year wait for a payoff is probably DOA. Having said that, I find the political problems of funding a project to land men and women on Mars and return them back to Earth safely reminds me of a story I learned from China. A man lived in a mountainous region of China and to get to his farmland, he and his family would have to cross a mountain. It was a difficult and sometimes dangerous journey. So one day, he decided to move the mountain. The next morning, as he and his family went to work, he told them of his plan. They told him it was impossible to move a mountain by hand. He smiled and said, "Of course, you're right. It would take an army of people to move the mountain." He then asked if they would each take a pocketful of dirt and rocks from their path. They complied with the simple request. Each day, he repeated the request. Everyday, they each dutifully each took some dirt and rocks from the mountain. One day a group of men from the city happened to meet the man and his family on the mountain path. The men saw the family each picking up some dirt and rocks and asked the man what they were doing. After he explained, the men laughed and said that they were crazy. "Don't you know that you'll never live long enough to move this mountain," they asked? The man replied that he knew there was no way for him to see the mountain moved. But, he replied, "I have my wife and my children helping me. One day, my children will have children and then those children will have children. If each day my family honors me by taking a few rocks from the mountain, one day, my family will no longer have to climb this mountain." As they left, the man saw each of them pick up a few stones and carry them down the mountain. Ask a man to build you a "Great Wall" or Pyramid and you will likely get a look of incredulity (at least). Ask for a brick and you might get one. We can't ask Congress to fund a multi-billion dollar manned mission to Mars while people are dying for lack of medical care, while children go to bed hungry and frankly, there are potholes to fill on the highway. Voters care about those issues more than space exploration and politicians care most about the things that brings votes to them. Voters will care about research that can improve their lives in tangible ways. We can ask Congress to fund research into developing say, an air scrubbing system to improve life in an ever more polluted atmosphere that just happens to have specifications sufficient to go to Mars and come back. Perhaps we can get funding to develop a low energy electrical system that could power lights. Smaller projects with practical application on Earth could and would get funding. The fact that they could be useful for other purposes is simply an added benefit. Each year the "space community" needs to go to Congress with a few hundred "dirt and rock" sized projects. These can be earmarked for funding. Over time, these small projects will add up to the billions we need to go to Mars. At some point, our scientists will tell us that we now have the technology and knowledge to justify risking human life on a trip to Mars. Even knowing the risks, I am confident that there will be no shortage of qualified (and unqualified) people wanting to go. Will there be loss of life and failures along the way? Probably, but it is absolutely worth it. It is worth it not just to say we got there first or vast mineral deposits or even for the mere prospect of discovering new life. We do not seek personal glory or great profit. We go simply because it fulfills our innate basic need to know what exists beyond the next horizon; to discover and to learn; and, to bring our knowledge back for the betterment of all mankind. It is my belief that it is our destiny to explore. It is why we were created or evolved (depending on your preference). It is also our gift, our legacy to our children, grandchildren and each successive generation. Even knowing that we may not personally live to see the day when man steps foot on Mars, we choose to sacrifice and to believe that the day will come. Perhaps this is our collective expression of faith. I have no doubt that all that people have written about the technological mountains that must be crossed in order to achieve a fully successful manned mission to Mars are entirely accurate. For a non-scientist, the concept of sending someone to Mars and back alive seems nearly impossible. Despite knowing this, I have to admit that I do not believe it is a question of can or should we go to Mars, but simply that we must. Whether it takes 30 years or 300 years, we must send people to Mars and beyond as it is our destiny. (Cue: Darth Vader respiratory track) Michael Kwan Chances are high that one or more of the foregoing statements was intended as humor by an individual with little to no discernible sense of humor. No offense was intended to any person, animal, religion, political party, spirit, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, plant, fungus or other as-of-yet-to-be-discovered form of life or death. If you find any statement to be offensive, I sincerely apologize and humbly beg for your forgiveness. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:17 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Happy New Year (belated) The pessimism I've seen in this thread reminds me of the 1920 New York Times editorial that ridiculed the idea of rockets functioning in space and going to the Moon. It also reminds me of the following which appeared in the Times during the Apollo 11 mission: "Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century, and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error." patrick
Your posts are never an intrusion, Michael. Always well thought-out and eloquent. Your thoughts, like everyone's, are most welcome. On Jan 3, 2008 12:04 PM, Michael Kwan <mwkwan@sisna.com> wrote:
Please excuse the intrusion, I rarely post to this list, but this discussion is fascinating.
Excellent post, Michael and not an intrusion at all. I look forward to more posts from you. patrick On 03 Jan 2008, at 12:04, Michael Kwan wrote:
Please excuse the intrusion, I rarely post to this list, but this discussion is fascinating. I don't see pessimism in the previous posts, but realism. I am a litigator by training, a judge by profession and a politician by necessity. My experience is that an elected official that can see past the next election cycle is rare. As a result, any project that has a thirty year wait for a payoff is probably DOA...
participants (4)
-
Chuck Hards -
Gary Vardon -
Michael Kwan -
Patrick Wiggins