RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
An excellent tv called Mars Rising addressed the problems of a manned mission to Mars. Boy, the problems are sever. For example, The temperature on Mars can get to 60 below zero during the day and minus 100 degree Fahrenheit at night. Another problem is fine dust that can jam technology. How about fixing equipment that is highly complex without experts and sophisticated repair technology and spare parts? How about blasting off from Mars with a rocket that has not been used for years and that has been exposed to the Martian elements and with no support personnel? These are just a few of the many problems on a manned mission.. I think that robotic probes are a better use of funds and much more likely to succeed. Sincerely, Gary Vardon see my website www.wealthbuilder.wwdb.biz use gary1234 as the id -----Original Message----- From: Kim Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 11:45 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) I don't know about the "never" part, but to me, a 20-year timeline is a bit too optimistic. I understand that the social and technological hurdles are huge. I'm wondering if the situation today is comparable to say, 1945, and looking ahead to landing on the Moon. I'm reminded of a story from 1969. I may have messed up the details, but here's the gist of it: During WW2 (the year 1945 rings a bell), some GI made a bet with a British barkeep that the US would land a man on the Moon by 1970. The barkeep offered odds of 10,000 to 1, and the GI bet him $1.00 that it would be done. The bet was dutifully recorded to make it legal. In July of 1969 the WW2 vet flew to Great Britain to pick up his winnings. Anyone else remember this story? Did I get the details about right? Does anyone want to give odds of finding life on Mars? I'm convinced that it will happen. As Jeff Goldblum's character said in Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way." I want to be here when it happens so that I can hear what the creationists/intelligent lifers have to say about it. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:35 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Happy New Year to you, too. Thirty years before a crewed mission to Mars? That's as good as saying "Never." Too much changes in so long a period of time. The stuff I'm reading says twenty years may be more realistic, yet there's still a real threat of the public losing interest because of the long lead time. Assuming that the federal budget permits our nation the luxury of such a thing, then the way I'm predicting this will shake out goes along these lines: 2018 to about 2025 we spend on the Moon figuring out how to spend extended periods of time on the surface of another world. It turns out that while our technology in 1970 was adequate to spend a couple of days on the Moon, attempting to spend and entire week there would have been disastrous. Meanwhile, we're sending more advanced robotic missions to explore Mars and have a go at a couple of sample return missions. If the sample return missions indicate no potential for nasty biological interactions, either Earth-to-Mars or Mars-to-Earth, and we've figured out how to keep astronauts sane and productive on 30-month missions, and we're confident that we can not only place objects reliably into Martian orbits but also get large objects in Martian orbits safely back to Earth, then the thinking is that a crewed mission to Mars could leave Earth around 2025 - 2030. Of course, we haven't got so much as a clue about what the national mood will be ten years from now, let alone in 25 years, nor can we accurately predict where funding for this adventure stacks-up against other national funding priorities. And yes, Patrick should sign up. Seth Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007 11:09 AM _______________________________________________ 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
Gary, that's the program that I watched. I think that I might have missed an episode, but you're right - the problems are daunting. We don't even have many of the technologies that will be needed to succeed. It's been much easier to develop weapons technologies to kill the planet hundreds of times over than it is to fund a little space technology research. I love the robotic technologies, and I believe that they should continue. I also believe that we should send people to Mars. Hopefully astronauts will get there before the militarists. The war in Iraq could have paid for a mission to Mars. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Gary Vardon Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) An excellent tv called Mars Rising addressed the problems of a manned mission to Mars. Boy, the problems are sever. For example, The temperature on Mars can get to 60 below zero during the day and minus 100 degree Fahrenheit at night. Another problem is fine dust that can jam technology. How about fixing equipment that is highly complex without experts and sophisticated repair technology and spare parts? How about blasting off from Mars with a rocket that has not been used for years and that has been exposed to the Martian elements and with no support personnel? These are just a few of the many problems on a manned mission.. I think that robotic probes are a better use of funds and much more likely to succeed. Sincerely, Gary Vardon see my website www.wealthbuilder.wwdb.biz use gary1234 as the id Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 11/13/2007 11:09 AM
On 02 Jan 2008, at 19:29, Gary Vardon wrote:
I think that robotic probes are a better use of funds and much more likely to succeed.
I agree that robotic exploration has its place but during a recent NASA training session I participated in someone from NASA's Mars Exploration program was asked about the human vs. machine debate. He noted that as great as the two current Mars rovers have performed, a human with a 4 wheeler and some basic equipment could do all the rovers have done in the years they've been there and more "in about 2 weeks". patrick
Yes, but... The cost of those two weeks for a human and a four-wheeler on Mars would be about ten times the cost of the last two years of the rovers. Also bear in mind that the cost of the two rovers is (in constant dollars) a fraction of what we spent landing the two Vikings on Mars in 1976. What needs to be investigated are the types of science that can _only_ be done by humans. Is there such a thing? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Happy New Year (belated) On 02 Jan 2008, at 19:29, Gary Vardon wrote:
I think that robotic probes are a better use of funds and much more likely to succeed.
I agree that robotic exploration has its place but during a recent NASA training session I participated in someone from NASA's Mars Exploration program was asked about the human vs. machine debate. He noted that as great as the two current Mars rovers have performed, a human with a 4 wheeler and some basic equipment could do all the rovers have done in the years they've been there and more "in about 2 weeks". patrick
On Jan 2, 2008 2:28 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
Also bear in mind that the cost of the two rovers is (in constant dollars) a fraction of what we spent landing the two Vikings on Mars in 1976.
Only because earlier missions developed the technology, techniques, procedures. Spirit and Opportunity "stand on the shoulders of giants". No modern missions can be looked at as existing in a vacuum (pun intended). What colors this whole debate is that all of want to see something tangible happen while we are still alive to see it. I doubt that happening for all but the youngest among us. A ten-year-old will surely live to see some remarkable manned scientific voyages in his or her lifetime, but not Seth, Kim, Joe, or Chuck. We did get to see some cool robotic missions and that's a remarkable thing in itself, not a consolation prize at all. But the best things are yet to come, however far distant. Yes, Seth, I surely do remember the promise of "2001: A Space Odyssey". I don't attribute the lack of progress since then to primarily a change in the national social complexion, but as you indicated, the vast, unanticipated costs of a large-scale space presence, including research and engineering. This is only a hindrance when we realize the truths of Kim's argument- that the costs of manned space missions to either Mars, the moon, or both- absolutely pale in comparison to military budgets. Take just 25% of the military budgets of the USA, China, Russia, and the next half-dozen big spenders worldwide- and there's your missions all bought and paid-for, in spades, repeatedly. We need world vision, world goals. Maybe a "killer asteroid" is just the ticket to get us to stop killing each other and working together toward something constructive and meaningful? Personally, I don't hold-out much hope on that score. As a species we seem to be much better at killing than exploring the universe around us. We certainly spend A LOT more time, money, and energy on it, don't we?
Maybe killing and exploring the universe go hand in hand. You don't know what lies of the other side of this mortal existence. Perhaps life does continue on in another form. If so, think of the Marine Corps as your friendly local travel agency... ;) Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
Maybe a "killer asteroid" is just the ticket to get us to stop killing each other and working together toward something constructive and meaningful?
Personally, I don't hold-out much hope on that score. As a species we seem to be much better at killing than exploring the universe around us. We certainly spend A LOT more time, money, and energy on it, don't we?
Those are all excellent points. Thanks, Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com on behalf of Chuck Hards Sent: Wed 1/2/2008 3:15 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Happy New Year (belated) On Jan 2, 2008 2:28 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
Also bear in mind that the cost of the two rovers is (in constant dollars) a fraction of what we spent landing the two Vikings on Mars in 1976.
Only because earlier missions developed the technology, techniques, procedures. Spirit and Opportunity "stand on the shoulders of giants". No modern missions can be looked at as existing in a vacuum (pun intended). What colors this whole debate is that all of want to see something tangible happen while we are still alive to see it. I doubt that happening for all but the youngest among us. A ten-year-old will surely live to see some remarkable manned scientific voyages in his or her lifetime, but not Seth, Kim, Joe, or Chuck. We did get to see some cool robotic missions and that's a remarkable thing in itself, not a consolation prize at all. But the best things are yet to come, however far distant. Yes, Seth, I surely do remember the promise of "2001: A Space Odyssey". I don't attribute the lack of progress since then to primarily a change in the national social complexion, but as you indicated, the vast, unanticipated costs of a large-scale space presence, including research and engineering. This is only a hindrance when we realize the truths of Kim's argument- that the costs of manned space missions to either Mars, the moon, or both- absolutely pale in comparison to military budgets. Take just 25% of the military budgets of the USA, China, Russia, and the next half-dozen big spenders worldwide- and there's your missions all bought and paid-for, in spades, repeatedly. We need world vision, world goals. Maybe a "killer asteroid" is just the ticket to get us to stop killing each other and working together toward something constructive and meaningful? Personally, I don't hold-out much hope on that score. As a species we seem to be much better at killing than exploring the universe around us. We certainly spend A LOT more time, money, and energy on it, don't we? _______________________________________________ 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
Give him some beer and take away his map and he will cover every inch of that entire planet in two weeks. ;) Quoting Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>:
He noted that as great as the two current Mars rovers have performed, a human with a 4 wheeler and some basic equipment could do all the rovers have done in the years they've been there and more "in about 2 weeks".
patrick
participants (6)
-
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Gary Vardon -
Kim -
Patrick Wiggins -
Seth Jarvis