Happy New Year (belated)
I just realized that I hadn’t wished a Happy New Year to some of my best and oldest friends. (“Just who are you calling old?” – thought I should beat anyone to that line.) So, all the best for a good year. I hope you all keep improving…and enjoy clear (clearer) skies. I rang in the new year by watching much of “Mars Rising” on the Discovery Channel – I think. For anyone who hasn’t seen the program, I thought it was very well done. And you get to listen to William Shatner not being cheeky for a change. I hope that we get there in my life time. We should begin a pool for the landing date. If we start now and bank the money, it could be worth quite a bit by the time we launch. Anyway, the program suggested that a Mars mission might be 30 years out. I’m thinking much longer, in part because a 30-year occupation of Iraq now seems much more likely than a mission to Mars. Oops, there I go getting political. Sorry. So, does anyone have thoughts on a Mars mission, such as technology, timing, should Patrick volunteer, etc.? Kim Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.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
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 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:46 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) I just realized that I hadn't wished a Happy New Year to some of my best and oldest friends. ("Just who are you calling old?" - thought I should beat anyone to that line.) So, all the best for a good year. I hope you all keep improving...and enjoy clear (clearer) skies. I rang in the new year by watching much of "Mars Rising" on the Discovery Channel - I think. For anyone who hasn't seen the program, I thought it was very well done. And you get to listen to William Shatner not being cheeky for a change. I hope that we get there in my life time. We should begin a pool for the landing date. If we start now and bank the money, it could be worth quite a bit by the time we launch. Anyway, the program suggested that a Mars mission might be 30 years out. I'm thinking much longer, in part because a 30-year occupation of Iraq now seems much more likely than a mission to Mars. Oops, there I go getting political. Sorry. So, does anyone have thoughts on a Mars mission, such as technology, timing, should Patrick volunteer, etc.? Kim 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
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
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. Exoplanets with the possibility of advanced life are fascinating to me personally, while Mars is turning out to be about as interesting as the South Pole -- cold, incapable of much life, dreary landscape. Within far fewer years and with much less expense than a Mars expedition, advanced telescopes will actually image exosolar planets. Not much later, we will be able to analyze Earth-sized exoplanets to determine if carbon-water-oxygen based life exists there. When we round up a few of these promising exoplanets, attention will shift from actually going to a barren nearby planet to learning more about these distant worlds. Mars is often pictured as a stepping-stone to more advanced human exploration. But it's not worth a huge expenditure of resources for just a visit or two. If we come up with better transportation, which I think is fairly likely, a Mars run might be a good training exercise. When I was born in the middle-1940s, going to the moon was unthinkable. In another 20 years some system may be in place that would make an exoplanet visit possible. -- Just my 1.3 cents worth. jb On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Seth Jarvis wrote:
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
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:46 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
I just realized that I hadn't wished a Happy New Year to some of my best and oldest friends. ("Just who are you calling old?" - thought I should beat anyone to that line.) So, all the best for a good year. I hope you all keep improving...and enjoy clear (clearer) skies.
I rang in the new year by watching much of "Mars Rising" on the Discovery Channel - I think. For anyone who hasn't seen the program, I thought it was very well done. And you get to listen to William Shatner not being cheeky for a change. I hope that we get there in my life time. We should begin a pool for the landing date. If we start now and bank the money, it could be worth quite a bit by the time we launch. Anyway, the program suggested that a Mars mission might be 30 years out. I'm thinking much longer, in part because a 30-year occupation of Iraq now seems much more likely than a mission to Mars. Oops, there I go getting political. Sorry. So, does anyone have thoughts on a Mars mission, such as technology, timing, should Patrick volunteer, etc.?
Kim
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
_______________________________________________ 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
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.
One more thing: This hope that a revolutionary technology is just around the corner is not something we can count on. Most of us on this list have been around long enough to know that the engineering hurdles that must be overcome for space travel are orders of magnitude beyond the engineering advancements we've seen leading up to and through the Industrial revolution, to the present day. Our cultural memory extends to times when we had nothing more than fire, wheels, and bronze, so of course a ramjet, computer and iPod seem futuristic. But there is still a LONG way to go before we can contemplate travels to exoplanets. You think risk is high going to Mars? "It's so very lonely, you're a thousand light-years from home..." -the Rolling Stones
Chuck, I was discouraged reading this post until I realized that you were talking about interstellar space travel and not getting to Mars. I agree that the difference between discussions of solar system exploration and the eventual exploration of worlds beyond our solar system is the difference between science fiction and science fact. We are now developing real technologies that can get people to Mars. Technologies for interstellar space travel are still fantasies. "Man those cats can really swing They got music in their solar system They've rocked around the Milky Way They dance around the Borealice They're Space Truckin' everyday..." -Deep Purple -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) One more thing: This hope that a revolutionary technology is just around the corner is not something we can count on. Most of us on this list have been around long enough to know that the engineering hurdles that must be overcome for space travel are orders of magnitude beyond the engineering advancements we've seen leading up to and through the Industrial revolution, to the present day. Our cultural memory extends to times when we had nothing more than fire, wheels, and bronze, so of course a ramjet, computer and iPod seem futuristic. But there is still a LONG way to go before we can contemplate travels to exoplanets. You think risk is high going to Mars? "It's so very lonely, you're a thousand light-years from home..." -the Rolling Stones 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
It may be fantasy now to imagine going to exoplanets, but it certainly is not science fiction to talk about exploring them remotely. An exoplanet atmosphere already has been analyzed. Soon we'll be able to detect and analyze much smaller ones. The cost of getting boots on Mars, undoubtedly some uninteresting place because we don't want to risk lives on tumbled terrain, would be far greater than concentrating on the real science of exoplanets. A Mars landing would have no practical payback beyond just doing it. I doubt there's any science that humans can be done there that can't be done better by robots. And someday it just might happen that there's a breakthrough in transportation and some kind of interstellar exploration by robot IS possible. I've heard of studies involving accelerating small probes to extreme speeds. For all we know, inhabited exoplanets could be as close as five light-years. If we could develop a drive to accelerate probes to half the speed of life, we might see cities on another planet 15 or 20 years after launching a probe. At the same time, we're talking about a 20 to 35 year project to go to Mars, at extreme cost. I say let's talk about options other than letting a few astronauts bounce around on the sands of Mars. -- jb On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Kim wrote:
Chuck, I was discouraged reading this post until I realized that you were talking about interstellar space travel and not getting to Mars. I agree that the difference between discussions of solar system exploration and the eventual exploration of worlds beyond our solar system is the difference between science fiction and science fact. We are now developing real technologies that can get people to Mars. Technologies for interstellar space travel are still fantasies.
"Man those cats can really swing They got music in their solar system They've rocked around the Milky Way They dance around the Borealice They're Space Truckin' everyday..." -Deep Purple
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces +kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
One more thing: This hope that a revolutionary technology is just around the corner is not something we can count on. Most of us on this list have been around long enough to know that the engineering hurdles that must be overcome for space travel are orders of magnitude beyond the engineering advancements we've seen leading up to and through the Industrial revolution, to the present day. Our cultural memory extends to times when we had nothing more than fire, wheels, and bronze, so of course a ramjet, computer and iPod seem futuristic. But there is still a LONG way to go before we can contemplate travels to exoplanets. You think risk is high going to Mars?
"It's so very lonely, you're a thousand light-years from home..." - the Rolling Stones
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
Joe, We are simply not talking about comparable scenarios. Robotic probes are a long way from having the kind of "situational awareness" that humans have. That is one reason that the work done by Spirit and Opportunity could have been done in a few days by humans versus the years that the probes have been on the surface. For the near future, robotic probes are only capable of collecting data. The data must still be analyzed by humans at home on Earth. Probes capable of doing both on the spot (read: people) are a much better solution.
From what I understand, the studies to which you refer are just that: purely conceptual at this point. The technologies to get to Mars are being developed right now and are decades beyond the conceptual stage. Comparing the development of manned space exploration within our own solar system to the development of any kind of interstellar travel is an apples-and-oranges argument. They are not analogous. That said, I surely hope that we can develop technologies to launch probes to explore distant worlds, but the pool for a launch date for the first exoplanet mission is one to which I won't be contributing any of my money.
Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:37 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) It may be fantasy now to imagine going to exoplanets, but it certainly is not science fiction to talk about exploring them remotely. An exoplanet atmosphere already has been analyzed. Soon we'll be able to detect and analyze much smaller ones. The cost of getting boots on Mars, undoubtedly some uninteresting place because we don't want to risk lives on tumbled terrain, would be far greater than concentrating on the real science of exoplanets. A Mars landing would have no practical payback beyond just doing it. I doubt there's any science that humans can be done there that can't be done better by robots. And someday it just might happen that there's a breakthrough in transportation and some kind of interstellar exploration by robot IS possible. I've heard of studies involving accelerating small probes to extreme speeds. For all we know, inhabited exoplanets could be as close as five light-years. If we could develop a drive to accelerate probes to half the speed of life, we might see cities on another planet 15 or 20 years after launching a probe. At the same time, we're talking about a 20 to 35 year project to go to Mars, at extreme cost. I say let's talk about options other than letting a few astronauts bounce around on the sands of Mars. -- jb 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
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
Joe, You're raising an important point. Is Mars sufficiently interesting to warrant a crewed mission? I'm of the opinion that the answer is "Yes - if we can afford it." The Martian terrain is incredibly varied, and a boots-on-the-ground understanding of Mars' geology would be hugely valuable. I also know that if the negatives of attempting human footprints on Martian soil become so huge (costs, risks to the lives of the crew, biohazard risks for Earth or Mars) then in spite of a high level of interest we're stuck sending only robots. BTW, I can get behind abandoning plans for crewed missions to Mars in favor of an all-robots strategy in a heartbeat. It's a much higher bang-for-the-buck investment. So what's _really_ intriguing then becomes this question: Which world is the logical stepping stone for further exploration of the solar system - the Moon or Mars? I think the answer has to be the Moon. Can you do astronomy from the surface of Mars better than from Earth? Not a prayer. From the Moon, oh yeah! Is it conceivable that there are economic benefits to exploiting Martian resources? Unlikely, at least not in this century. Exploiting lunar natural resources? Absolutely! Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) 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. Exoplanets with the possibility of advanced life are fascinating to me personally, while Mars is turning out to be about as interesting as the South Pole -- cold, incapable of much life, dreary landscape. Within far fewer years and with much less expense than a Mars expedition, advanced telescopes will actually image exosolar planets. Not much later, we will be able to analyze Earth-sized exoplanets to determine if carbon-water-oxygen based life exists there. When we round up a few of these promising exoplanets, attention will shift from actually going to a barren nearby planet to learning more about these distant worlds. Mars is often pictured as a stepping-stone to more advanced human exploration. But it's not worth a huge expenditure of resources for just a visit or two. If we come up with better transportation, which I think is fairly likely, a Mars run might be a good training exercise. When I was born in the middle-1940s, going to the moon was unthinkable. In another 20 years some system may be in place that would make an exoplanet visit possible. -- Just my 1.3 cents worth. jb On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Seth Jarvis wrote:
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
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:46 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated)
I just realized that I hadn't wished a Happy New Year to some of my best and oldest friends. ("Just who are you calling old?" - thought I should beat anyone to that line.) So, all the best for a good year. I hope you all keep improving...and enjoy clear (clearer) skies.
I rang in the new year by watching much of "Mars Rising" on the Discovery Channel - I think. For anyone who hasn't seen the program, I thought it was very well done. And you get to listen to William Shatner not being cheeky for a change. I hope that we get there in my life time. We should begin a pool for the landing date. If we start now and bank the money, it could be worth quite a bit by the time we launch. Anyway, the program suggested that a Mars mission might be 30 years out. I'm thinking much longer, in part because a 30-year occupation of Iraq now seems much more likely than a mission to Mars. Oops, there I go getting political. Sorry. So, does anyone have thoughts on a Mars mission, such as technology, timing, should Patrick volunteer, etc.?
Kim
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Seth, I disagree in that it doesn't have to be an "either/or" case. Your argument is strictly for funding and policy priorities in your own lifetime, or a few decades beyond. Both need to be included in the exploration of the solar system-at-large, perhaps with a timescale of scores of years, not a couple of decades. Meaningful, large-scale lunar exploration, colonization, resource management, etc., will represent a huge monetary investment, one that will in a relatively short amount of time pretty much dwarf single manned missions to Mars. On Jan 2, 2008 1:16 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
So what's _really_ intriguing then becomes this question: Which world is the logical stepping stone for further exploration of the solar system - the Moon or Mars? I think the answer has to be the Moon.
Chuck, I didn't intend my comments to indicate an either-or choice, but perhaps in a short period of time (<50 years) it actually is one. It's not clear we can even afford one of these options, let alone both. What's most of interest to me is the fragile confluence of political interest and national funding capacity that is necessary to even speak of a crewed mission to Mars or an ambitious presence on the Moon. Remember "2001: A Space Odyssey"? When that film was being made it looked like we'd land people on the Moon in time to fulfill Kennedy's vision, and then in another 20 years we'd have Pan-Am delivering people to orbiting hotels, a major, permanent base on the Moon, and crewed missions to the outer solar system. From the perspective of 1968 that vision of the future of space flight seemed both logical and inevitable. All that enthusiasm and know-how and then... phfft! Gone when the public lost interest. We're even more ADHD-afflicted today than we were 35 years ago. We face the prospect that, as with Apollo, we send a small number of successful short-term missions to Mars and then discover that we no longer have the will or the money to take it to the next level. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:24 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Seth, I disagree in that it doesn't have to be an "either/or" case. Your argument is strictly for funding and policy priorities in your own lifetime, or a few decades beyond. Both need to be included in the exploration of the solar system-at-large, perhaps with a timescale of scores of years, not a couple of decades. Meaningful, large-scale lunar exploration, colonization, resource management, etc., will represent a huge monetary investment, one that will in a relatively short amount of time pretty much dwarf single manned missions to Mars. On Jan 2, 2008 1:16 PM, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
So what's _really_ intriguing then becomes this question: Which world is the logical stepping stone for further exploration of the solar system - the Moon or Mars? I think the answer has to be the Moon.
_______________________________________________ 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
Seth, I respectfully disagree. While robotic missions to Mars are important, I believe that they should primarily be for laying groundwork for manned explorative missions. Without eventually landing people on the surface to explore Mars, much of the knowledge that we gain from robots is academic. I also disagree with the cost argument. We can find the money. Invest in space exploration instead of occupying foreign countries and its done - with money left over. The cost argument, for me, is a non-starter. Another issue: share the cost with the ESA, China, Russia, Japan, Iran - whomever wants to help. Many nations are doing so anyway. We can and should better coordinate efforts and share costs. I agree that we should explore the Moon further, including permanent habitations, as another stepping stone to eventual Mars exploration and colonization, and not just to do astronomy from the Moon or exploit its resources. The addition of manned lunar missions and habitations to the whole Mars exploration plan is one of the reasons that I don't think we'll get to Mars in 30 years. But we have to start. The gap from the discovery of the Americas to successful colonies in North America was well over 100 years. We're now re-playing that kind of scenario. (I hope with an accelerated timetable.) 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 1:17 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Joe, You're raising an important point. Is Mars sufficiently interesting to warrant a crewed mission? I'm of the opinion that the answer is "Yes - if we can afford it." The Martian terrain is incredibly varied, and a boots-on-the-ground understanding of Mars' geology would be hugely valuable. I also know that if the negatives of attempting human footprints on Martian soil become so huge (costs, risks to the lives of the crew, biohazard risks for Earth or Mars) then in spite of a high level of interest we're stuck sending only robots. BTW, I can get behind abandoning plans for crewed missions to Mars in favor of an all-robots strategy in a heartbeat. It's a much higher bang-for-the-buck investment. So what's _really_ intriguing then becomes this question: Which world is the logical stepping stone for further exploration of the solar system - the Moon or Mars? I think the answer has to be the Moon. Can you do astronomy from the surface of Mars better than from Earth? Not a prayer. From the Moon, oh yeah! Is it conceivable that there are economic benefits to exploiting Martian resources? Unlikely, at least not in this century. Exploiting lunar natural resources? Absolutely! 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
Kim, Yes, sharing costs among nations would be a good idea on a number of levels. I also absolutely agree that tax dollars would be more wisely spent on R&D for space exploration than on Blackwater and Haliburton. (But that's just my opinion.) I remain skeptical, however, that we'll ever see the level of national commitment, even with international partners, needed to marshal a half-trillion dollars for a major program of crewed exploration of Mars. We were a much more homogeneous society in the sixties, we had a much larger sense of national destiny, a much deeper anxiety and sense of urgency about our "competition" in the space race, and we weren't a tiny fraction in debt the way we are now. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that the benefits we would derive - financially, technologically, politically and culturally - from undertaking an ambitious Mars program would be huge and would do a great deal to unify not only Americans, but the people of all countries participating in the endeavor. That said, when I look at the political and financial landscape of the world I think that maybe we'd be smarter by concentrating on the less expensive and more politically palatable robotic missions. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:45 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Seth, I respectfully disagree. While robotic missions to Mars are important, I believe that they should primarily be for laying groundwork for manned explorative missions. Without eventually landing people on the surface to explore Mars, much of the knowledge that we gain from robots is academic. I also disagree with the cost argument. We can find the money. Invest in space exploration instead of occupying foreign countries and its done - with money left over. The cost argument, for me, is a non-starter. Another issue: share the cost with the ESA, China, Russia, Japan, Iran - whomever wants to help. Many nations are doing so anyway. We can and should better coordinate efforts and share costs. I agree that we should explore the Moon further, including permanent habitations, as another stepping stone to eventual Mars exploration and colonization, and not just to do astronomy from the Moon or exploit its resources. The addition of manned lunar missions and habitations to the whole Mars exploration plan is one of the reasons that I don't think we'll get to Mars in 30 years. But we have to start. The gap from the discovery of the Americas to successful colonies in North America was well over 100 years. We're now re-playing that kind of scenario. (I hope with an accelerated timetable.) 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 1:17 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Joe, You're raising an important point. Is Mars sufficiently interesting to warrant a crewed mission? I'm of the opinion that the answer is "Yes - if we can afford it." The Martian terrain is incredibly varied, and a boots-on-the-ground understanding of Mars' geology would be hugely valuable. I also know that if the negatives of attempting human footprints on Martian soil become so huge (costs, risks to the lives of the crew, biohazard risks for Earth or Mars) then in spite of a high level of interest we're stuck sending only robots. BTW, I can get behind abandoning plans for crewed missions to Mars in favor of an all-robots strategy in a heartbeat. It's a much higher bang-for-the-buck investment. So what's _really_ intriguing then becomes this question: Which world is the logical stepping stone for further exploration of the solar system - the Moon or Mars? I think the answer has to be the Moon. Can you do astronomy from the surface of Mars better than from Earth? Not a prayer. From the Moon, oh yeah! Is it conceivable that there are economic benefits to exploiting Martian resources? Unlikely, at least not in this century. Exploiting lunar natural resources? Absolutely! 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
Ah - you're just a realist. I'm usually more realistic myself, but I have to hope. 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 2:11 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Happy New Year (belated) Kim, Yes, sharing costs among nations would be a good idea on a number of levels. I also absolutely agree that tax dollars would be more wisely spent on R&D for space exploration than on Blackwater and Haliburton. (But that's just my opinion.) I remain skeptical, however, that we'll ever see the level of national commitment, even with international partners, needed to marshal a half-trillion dollars for a major program of crewed exploration of Mars. We were a much more homogeneous society in the sixties, we had a much larger sense of national destiny, a much deeper anxiety and sense of urgency about our "competition" in the space race, and we weren't a tiny fraction in debt the way we are now. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that the benefits we would derive - financially, technologically, politically and culturally - from undertaking an ambitious Mars program would be huge and would do a great deal to unify not only Americans, but the people of all countries participating in the endeavor. That said, when I look at the political and financial landscape of the world I think that maybe we'd be smarter by concentrating on the less expensive and more politically palatable robotic missions. 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
I immediately knew you were referring to Guy. ;o) Happy New Year to you too, Kim! Set up a PayPal account for the pool and we're in business. If you promise to be around in 30 years, I will too. On Jan 2, 2008 10:45 AM, Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
("Just who are you calling old?" – thought I should beat anyone to that line.)
Does anyone know if there will be a speaker at tonight's SLAS meeting or it solely the January budget/planning meeting? They can be very entertaining and educational in their own right ;-) but it's not everyone's cuppa-tea. Thanks, Dave Bennett
I've been looking for a response all day to Dave's question. Since I have about a 1-3/4 hour drive, I'd prefer to know what's going on before I commit to come. Is there a speaker? Anyone? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Dave Bennett Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:08 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS Meeting Tonight Does anyone know if there will be a speaker at tonight's SLAS meeting or it solely the January budget/planning meeting? They can be very entertaining and educational in their own right ;-) but it's not everyone's cuppa-tea. Thanks, Dave Bennett _______________________________________________ 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 ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________ 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 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
participants (5)
-
Chuck Hards -
Dave Bennett -
Joe Bauman -
Kim -
Seth Jarvis