You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Given today's political climate, I believe that the small missions to mars are the most practical path for robotic missions until a time when it becomes feasible. I heartily agree with the priorities set by the national science foundation that states that the priorieties be a large mission to europe, a medium on to pluto and a bunch of small ones to mars. For robotics, this is the right path IMHO.
Now for humans, the story is much different. The technologies needed to bring humans to Mars have nothing to do with Mars. What is needed more so is research in closed life support systems, quicker rockets and better habs, to name a few. All of which can be done here on Earth or in LEO.
The idea that we need humans to go to mars to perform science is just wrong. Scientists are happy using their tools to gather data that they can sit and crunch on their computers. The real reason to go there, to be completely honest, is to settle. Its a new frontier and we love new frontiers. Lets not lie and use the science excuse for human travel. Leave data gathering to the robots, they are better at it.
If nothing else I would love to see this story help push into the public's awareness of asteroids and collisions in hopes that congress will help fund more research into this. Currently there is no space based telescope dedicated to tracking asteroids. I am a firm believer that this is a bad thing. With any luck this will help push into NASA or the DoD's budget some more funding for asteroids research.
A nice radio telescope on the far side of the moon would be ideal!
I believe pathfinder had a color camera. Take a look at some of the pictures at JPL's Mars Pathfinder Homepage
It looks a little brownish to me.
I agree with you 100%. Virtually everything developed by private enterprise (cars, computers, cost of travel) has always "been for the rich" in the beginning, but as more technology is developed and greater efficiencies of scale takes place, the costs pretty much always goes down. But in the case of government control (such as the military or social services) the costs almost always goes up.
It's best to leave the Moon alone gov't-wise, and leave it open to whoever wants to go there of their own expense...I'd rather it be them than me anyhow...who knows how safe it'd be in the early going... But that could very well pave the way for real commercialization of space, which can only help us in our goal of getting to Mars, as well as "common man" access to space...
B
I disagree with the sentiment that things are originally for the rich. First off, computers were developed by the military for the government and research institutes. Personal computers were then developed in large part by the hobbiest, generally from middle class. Other great world shaking technologies like the internet were also developed by the government. The idea that one must ignore the government in these matters is just not there.
Private enterprise lowers costs by mass production. If you think somehow we can mass produce habitats on the moon as well as the transportation to get there, sure the costs will come down. However, I highly doubt that would even happen in our lifetimes if we leave the government out of it.
There has not been a SINGLE space enterprise developed without government funds. By this I mean any enterprise that manufactures systems that go into space. This includes spacecraft, rockets, and humans. Every single one of these businesses exist with the help of government funds. There have been a few attempts, like Beal, which tried but they have failed by and large because the market is just not there.
I am not saying that private enterprise should not pursue space. The sector has over $60 billion put into it commercially (non-military funds). This alone attracts many an investor. However, it should be recognized that none of these companies in the sector are able to exist without government contracts. For examples look at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, TRW, Ball Aerospace, Kelly Aerospace, Alcatel, Astrium, Orbital Space Sciences, Energia, and Loral just to name a few. These are the kind of companies that are CAPABLE of putting systems into space with the first two companies mentioned the only ones with experience of putting humans into space.
All these companies depend on government funding. None of them are going to goto Moon or Mars until their governments pay them to. Even Lockheed Martin (which paid Zubrin to develop Mars Direct when it was Martin Marietta) refuses to put their own funds into developing moon or mars mission w/o the government funds.
If we want to leave this planet, we cannot depend on private enterprise alone to get us there. We must convince governments to invest in the means to get us there. Quit squabbling over Moon or Mars and just concentrate on what is in common that the gov't should be funding in order to get humans permanently up there. Things like cheaper space transportation, EVA suits, rovers, habitats, astrobiology and self sustaining life support systems. These are the things we need to push the gov't into funding. These are the things that are needed so we can live in space permanently. With these technologies developed, private enterprise will then be able to step in and make a profit and the "common man" will have access to space.
You are right in saying that it is much more expensive to design for reusability. I am not arguing the short term costs. What I am concerned about is building a long term "sustainable" program of human exploration of mars. The key here is in sustainability. Apollo for all its greatness was not sustainable and a single budget cut was able to destroy the program forever.
IMHO, the greatest problem with Mars exploration is not engineering, but long term funding. Congress and the presidency has shown a pattern that it cannot commit to long term funding of space projects. They demonstrated this in the 70s at the end of Apollo and again are showing this in terms of the ISS.
In order to decrease this risk factor of sustaining long term funding, the biggest chunk of funding needs to be done at an early stage so in the future, when the budget cuts come in, it can sustain itself. This sustainability would come from private enterprise.
Private enterprise cannot and will not pay the upfront costs associated with the first 5-10 years of Mars exploration. There is just not enough tangible benefits to attrack them. Right now a similiar problem is happening in the telecom sector. It costs anywhere between $5000-$10000 per pound to launch something into Geosynchronous orbit. This cost has not decreased in the past decade or so! In fact it has increased. During the economic boom of the 90s, many companies were able to accept this cost and put up networks. This allowed for great expansion into space for a very short period. However, many of these companies (like globalstar and iridium) have since gone bankrupt and the money has dried up. Private enterprise have abandoned the space sector in droves. Traditional commercial space manufacturers have had massive layoffs and have had to realign themselves back with the government. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are great examples of this. Boeing has even gone so far as to claim that the commercial sector will be unable to invest in space again at a sustainable level for the next decade, if ever!
The point here is that one of the largest barriers to SUSTAINABILITY in any space field is space transport. Going with an ELV (expendable launch vehicle) is great for thinking short term. It worked for Apollo and the Moon. However, I want more from Mars. I want there to be a sustained effort
that last forever and will not just be a flag planting exercise.
Phobos has a mass of 10.8 * 10^15 kgs and its little sister Deimos has a mass of 1.8 * 10^15. For other little facts, referes to JPL's quick facts page at: Mars Quick Facts
Both moons are captured C-type asteroids meaning they are similar to carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.
I agree with Shaun, we should not narrow our focus to only Mars. Both a lunar colony and a manned mars mission SHOULD be pursued. Given the incremental nature of US space policy I see no way in which the current administration or congress would put in for a manned mars mission in the near future.
At most, we can hope for a sample return mission within this decade. However, I do believe congress can be pursuaded to allow a combined effort of both the government and private enterprises to create a habitat on the moon within this decade. While Zubrin states in his book that this base is not necessary for his Mars Direct path, its creation would certainly help bring attention towards humans being able to live on the surface of another planet and help us create technologies that would help our future pioneers live on Mars.
Just what the hell is the point of reusability? For Mars, at best you are only going every 26 months at most. Just bolt together the simpliest stuff you can get by with an go.
The biggest point of reusability is in the ability to lower costs. So long as costs are high, they continue to be a deterent to space exploration.
Sure, we could fund a non-reusable mission to mars, but it would probably end up a similiar fate as the other non-reusable piece of hardware nasa created, the apollo module.
Reusability to me is a key to providing for a long term, sustainable space exploration plan. I am not saying this is a key for all missions to Mars, but for human exploration I think it is.
To answer ecrasez_l_infame question on O'neill colonies, check out Gerard O'neill's "High Fronteir: Human Colonies in Space" and check out Space Studies Institute at http://www.ssi.org/ to learn more about people who are still working on his ideas. (space fronteir foundation also are affiliated with this idea).
As far as Planet vs O'Neill colony both have their bonuses.
With Mars you have the safety of a planet with lots of space for growing and less of a curve for building a new place to live. You also have the additional bonus of having open skies and more room to grow. The minuses are a restriction to resources found on the planet and be subject to planetary forces outside of your control.
For an O'neill Island 3 type colony you have a sustainable area of limitted size (a few hundred thousand people I think) and do not have the protection from cosmic events that a planet offers. However, you have the mobility to move around and gather material from different space resources (comets and asteroids) and are able to live in a controlled atmosphere.
Also with with smaller islands, you can allow groups who wish to live within their own culture a chance to go out and not be influenced by others should they so choose to.
Both are achievable given todays state of technology and IMO it should not be a question of either/or but a pursuit of both with their common subsytems (like life support) are needed.
One of the things that most impressed me with anarchy in my youth was anarchistic philosopher Pierre Proudhon's book "What is Property, property is Theft".
In it he holds the view that no one can own anything he/she does not use. To put this in context, he was writing specifically against the ideas of a landlord being able to own property and rent it out. He considered this relationship parasitic (my own phrasing) in that the landlord has no claim to the property as they were not using it.
To my knowledge there is only one society which has ever existed for some time with an anarchistic government, the Inuits of Alaska. In their society nothing was "owned" and there was no codified laws. If someone did something that harmed another, the two people would make their case in front of their peers (anyone who cared to show up) and any retribution to be had was decided there.
Pages: 1