Problems with Humans on Mars

cIclops · 2008-05-01 08:39:16

And it's much easier to land at lower altitudes because of the denser atmosphere.

Note also that those maps are based on estimates, there is no direct measurement of radiation levels at the surface. MSL will carry an instrument (RAD) to measure levels.

Some areas on Mars have weak fossil magnetic fields, these may also give extra protection from charged particles.

louis · 2008-05-02 01:25:07

Marsman -

I agree entirely with your analysis:

"Lack of political will is the problem. "

This has always been the issue with exploration and colonisation going back centuries. It's why China, despiting having far greater technical and economic resources in 1400 AD to explore the world than did puny Europe chose instead to look inward and concentrate on its problems at home.

I actually think a Mars mission based fundamentally on existing technology and focussed on ISRU rather than science and "roving", would be relatively cheap - say $40 billion over 10 years - about $13 per person per annum in the USA.

Even if I'm wrong by a factor of 2 or 3 I still think it is eminently affordable and will repay huge dividends in terms of technological development and prestige.

Gregori · 2008-05-02 14:14:55

Marsman -
I agree entirely with your analysis:
"Lack of political will is the problem. "
This has always been the issue with exploration and colonisation going back centuries. It's why China, despiting having far greater technical and economic resources in 1400 AD to explore the world than did puny Europe chose instead to look inward and concentrate on its problems at home.
I actually think a Mars mission based fundamentally on existing technology and focussed on ISRU rather than science and "roving", would be relatively cheap - say $40 billion over 10 years - about $13 per person per annum in the USA.
Even if I'm wrong by a factor of 2 or 3 I still think it is eminently affordable and will repay huge dividends in terms of technological development and prestige.

It could be afforded. Its probably even possible in less than 10 yrs. The trouble is that it could easily end up like Apollo and stop once all the prestige and political goals have been acheived and it become too expensive,

For the moment, a Mars mission thats not based on science would just be retarded. Its the biggest "look how I've marked my territory and shown the size of my weiner" contest. We neeed to know a lot more about mars before we decide to vanadalise it.

One of the great things of the post-apollo era was the intense focus on meaningful science and exploration.

louis · 2008-05-02 14:57:36

Gregori -

You're right Gregori, it could end up like that but ISRU technology is far advanced beyond what was around 40 years ago. I think ISRU does allow us to create a permanent base for humans which will serve a platform for exploration and further expansion.

cIclops · 2008-05-03 01:44:53

It's not quite as simple as a lack political will. The political will to fast track a human Mars program is the reflection of the agendas and interests of many groups. The largest of these groups is the public, opinion polls have not shown any great interest in such a project. The public do support the space program, but they rate many other program higher, for example medical ones as well as the usual suspects: jobs, crime, education etc etc.

If the president got excited about Mars and announced a high priority program and the funding, that would do the trick. Bush has responded, that's why VSE was launched and why NASA has Mars set as a goal, however, funds were not appropriated. The timing was bad because of the enormous cost of the WOT, yet this may change in the next few years. There's a big opportunity to convince the next president to fully support the space program. It's important that everyone pushes for this and pushes for a truly big increase in funding for the whole program, both exploration and science.

louis · 2008-05-03 05:08:40

I think NASA lost credibility when they came up with the $400 billion figure for a Mars mission, which even they have now revised down I believe.

I'm not expert on this but my guess is that NASA is an arena of competing interests. Quite rightly so, as there are other things to do in space apart from colonise Mars and NASA is (again, quite rightly) very science based, so pure scientific research often gets priority.

My own feeling is that it would be better for the US government to set up the Mars mission as a separate entity from NASA, with NASA acting as a contractor and consultant. It would be great if the USA were to create a consortium also involving private companies and donors and a couple of other useful space nations from among the democratic countries.

Gregori · 2008-05-03 05:29:50

I've to agree with what c1clops has said.

The public support is just not there.

If the people in the goverment wanted to make it happen, they could probably drum up public support but those in goverment are not interested.

They would have to set a goal like going there in 5-8 years. If its too far away the public will loose interest. THe only way the public will get behind it is if its now.

I would certainly prefer that the money that was wasted over the last couple of years on invading Iraq was spent on Mars colonization and human exploration. It was nearly a TRILLION. Thats enough to do a Mars Direct style mission nearly 50 times over!!

The people in goverment won't get behind that idea because there is not much money to be made from Mars and it doesn't give the US a millitary advantage. There is also no rival nation for the US to get into a pissing contest with like the former USSR.

cIclops · 2008-05-03 06:08:23

louis,

that $400 billion figure may not be so incredulous. Just returning to the Moon will cost over $100 billion, GAO estimated $230 billion but they added in ISS out to 2020. Add constructing the Outpost and supporting it for a decade and that's probably another $50 billion. Add to that the cost of the Mars robotic program and that could be another $50 billion over the next 30 years. Plus the research for human factors, high mass landing systems, reliable closed loop life support, perhaps NTP as well as the development cost of MTV and the Mars surface systems and in total there may not be much change from $400 billion.

Missions to Mars are going to be expensive in both development and operations unless some big breakthroughs happen. However spread that $400 billion over 25 years say and it's $16 billion a year, not that far away from NASA's budget today.

Gregori,

5-8 years is impossible without a national crash program like Apollo - and that only gets us back to the Moon. Mars will take longer. More than 8 years automatically means a change of president and probably two, that makes it harder but not impossible. ISS has taken 20 years and its still not compete, yet it's survived (only just) several administrations.

Gregori · 2008-05-03 07:24:17

Gregori,
5-8 years is impossible without a national crash program like Apollo - and that only gets us back to the Moon. Mars will take longer. More than 8 years automatically means a change of president and probably two, that makes it harder but not impossible. ISS has taken 20 years and its still not compete, yet it's survived (only just) several administrations.

I'm not saying that its very likely or practical. We probably won't see anybody going there before 2030's

If there was a crash program like Apollo or the Manhattan Project to get this done, with enough funding it could be done in 5-8 years .

Unlike Apollo and the A-Bomb, It wouldn't necessarily require any revolutionary new technology to do it. The only factors against this are that its very risky and very very expensive.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-03 11:18:42

Marsman -
I agree entirely with your analysis:
"Lack of political will is the problem. "
This has always been the issue with exploration and colonisation going back centuries. It's why China, despiting having far greater technical and economic resources in 1400 AD to explore the world than did puny Europe chose instead to look inward and concentrate on its problems at home.
I actually think a Mars mission based fundamentally on existing technology and focussed on ISRU rather than science and "roving", would be relatively cheap - say $40 billion over 10 years - about $13 per person per annum in the USA.
Even if I'm wrong by a factor of 2 or 3 I still think it is eminently affordable and will repay huge dividends in terms of technological development and prestige.
It could be afforded. Its probably even possible in less than 10 yrs. The trouble is that it could easily end up like Apollo and stop once all the prestige and political goals have been acheived and it become too expensive,
For the moment, a Mars mission thats not based on science would just be retarded. Its the biggest "look how I've marked my territory and shown the size of my weiner" contest. We neeed to know a lot more about mars before we decide to vanadalise it.

One of the great things of the post-apollo era was the intense focus on meaningful science and exploration.

A rather misanthopic view using the term "vandalise it". Is there anyway Mars is "supposed" to be? I doubt there is alot we could do to Mars that would seriously degrade it right now, we can barely afford to "scratch the surface" as it is.

Post Apollo was a time of cutbacks. During the Apollo years we had plenty of money to spend of space science. The reason why we did science missions in the late 1970s was because it was all we could afford due to all the cutbacks and the Austerity measures embraced by Jimmy Carter, plenty of money for wasting on welfare though. Taxes were high in those years, and the economy was on the ropes because of them, and the government's response was to squeeze the economy even harder, while at the same time pumping up money supply to create inflation.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-03 11:30:49

louis,
that $400 billion figure may not be so incredulous. Just returning to the Moon will cost over $100 billion, GAO estimated $230 billion but they added in ISS out to 2020. Add constructing the Outpost and supporting it for a decade and that's probably another $50 billion. Add to that the cost of the Mars robotic program and that could be another $50 billion over the next 30 years. Plus the research for human factors, high mass landing systems, reliable closed loop life support, perhaps NTP as well as the development cost of MTV and the Mars surface systems and in total there may not be much change from $400 billion.
Missions to Mars are going to be expensive in both development and operations unless some big breakthroughs happen. However spread that $400 billion over 25 years say and it's $16 billion a year, not that far away from NASA's budget today.
Gregori,
5-8 years is impossible without a national crash program like Apollo - and that only gets us back to the Moon. Mars will take longer. More than 8 years automatically means a change of president and probably two, that makes it harder but not impossible. ISS has taken 20 years and its still not compete, yet it's survived (only just) several administrations.

Necessity is the mother of invention. I wouldn't categorize the return to the Moon as part of the Manned Mars mission, nor would I catergorize the ISS as part of such, these are seperate programs. The ISS has little to do with going to Mars, the orbital inclination is too high for it to take part in the assembly of the Mars vehicle in orbit.

I also would suggest that maybe the Air Force ought to handle the Manned Mars mission, because there is a chance that lives may be lost on such a long extended mission, this is easier to justify if the organization undertaking it is military. Having a civilian agency do it only increases expectations that the mission will be perfectly safe. The Air Force does alot of things that aren't safe for its pilots, and the public will be more understanding if their are some casualities during one of its missions. No one after all expects the Air Force to keep all of its pilots perfectly safe when it flies missions over hostile territories during military operations, there is an understanding that sometimes lives will be lost, and a space mission of the duration required for going to Mars should be treated like a military operation, with the forces of nature, and the hostile environment being treated as the "enemy" to be overcome. What do you think of that?
Perfect "Airliner" safety is only an illusion, and just because something like the Shuttle looks something like a passenger jet doesn't mean it is as safe as one.

Gregori · 2008-05-04 05:31:27

A rather misanthopic view using the term "vandalise it". Is there anyway Mars is "supposed" to be? I doubt there is alot we could do to Mars that would seriously degrade it right now, we can barely afford to "scratch the surface" as it is.
Post Apollo was a time of cutbacks. During the Apollo years we had plenty of money to spend of space science. The reason why we did science missions in the late 1970s was because it was all we could afford due to all the cutbacks and the Austerity measures embraced by Jimmy Carter, plenty of money for wasting on welfare though. Taxes were high in those years, and the economy was on the ropes because of them, and the government's response was to squeeze the economy even harder, while at the same time pumping up money supply to create inflation.

There is nothing Misanthropic about it. If the only intention to go to Mars is to cynically exploit it, that begs the question - Why bother?

Mars is a planet with a seperate history that we should learn about first before embarking upon any "terraforming" projects. It deserves a degree of respect and patience. It has great stuff to teach us.

If the planet has any form of life on it - this puts a great question over human colonization. We would have to deal with this.

louis · 2008-05-04 07:00:52

I think Gregori has brought in sharp relief the difference between the scientific approach and the colonisation approach - and I think he's given us a clue as to why NASA, who I believe is really dedicated to the scientific approach - keeps coming up with these way off estimates.

I don't believe the estimates. I've never believed them since I read they included provision for taking 2 tonnes of medical equipment with them. Someone's obviously said "go away and think of the most expensive mission you possibly can".

I say: Let's start with the minimal mission idea and work back from that.

As far as I can see the rocketry and the ISRU are essentially there. The main development effort would be required with the lander which needs to be radiation safe and capable of safe landing.

Gregori · 2008-05-04 07:11:32

I think Gregori has brought in sharp relief the difference between the scientific approach and the colonisation approach - and I think he's given us a clue as to why NASA, who I believe is really dedicated to the scientific approach - keeps coming up with these way off estimates.
I don't believe the estimates. I've never believed them since I read they included provision for taking 2 tonnes of medical equipment with them. Someone's obviously said "go away and think of the most expensive mission you possibly can".
I say: Let's start with the minimal mission idea and work back from that.
As far as I can see the rocketry and the ISRU are essentially there. The main development effort would be required with the lander which needs to be radiation safe and capable of safe landing.

NASA is not allowed to kill people.

SpaceNut · 2008-05-04 08:08:16

The scientific approach Vs the colonisation approach with respect to Nasa is why man is still stuck in LEO and it is the Space tourist business that shows the way out of it. It is the sake of doing science for science answers that never is utilized by Nasa as it is private businesses that must make use of it.

Gregori · 2008-05-08 17:00:30

The scientific approach Vs the colonisation approach with respect to Nasa is why man is still stuck in LEO and it is the Space tourist business that shows the way out of it. It is the sake of doing science for science answers that never is utilized by Nasa as it is private businesses that must make use of it.

Space tourist buisness hasn't taken anybody ever out of low earth orbit....

Putting anything into space for time being is just inherently very expensive. There is no "colonization aproach" because its just not a practical prospect for time being. If it were, it would have been done years ago. The ISS has done very little in the way of science, but maintaining that space colony has been insanely expensive.

There is nothing out there that couldn't be obtained more easily on Earth in this century.

If you think putting stuff into orbit is expensive, think about how expensive maintaining even a small colony will be! They will be dependent on Earth for decades, probably even centuries.

Some day , we'll put a man on Mars and Beyond but I think it's better to get to know the Solar system in depth before we piss all over it

Robotic missions have been very successful at that, and they will be insanely sophisticated in 2-3 decades. Improvments in AI, Nano-Tech, Photonics, CPUs etc etc

A practical effort at space colonization will need either:

1) A Breakthrough in energy+propulsion, like Fusion Power, Mass Drivers..

2)A massive goverment financed infrastuctural program to transport and exploit space resources, by moving the manufacturing base off Earth.

SpaceNut · 2008-05-08 19:21:27

The scientific approach Vs the colonisation approach with respect to Nasa is why man is still stuck in LEO and it is the Space tourist business that shows the way out of it. It is the sake of doing science for science answers that never is utilized by Nasa as it is private businesses that must make use of it.
Space tourist buisness hasn't taken anybody ever out of low earth orbit....

The government Soyuz vehicle has taken I believe 7 to the ISS while yes no non government has done so as of yet.

Putting anything into space for time being is just inherently very expensive. There is no "colonization aproach" because its just not a practical prospect for time being. If it were, it would have been done years ago. The ISS has done very little in the way of science, but maintaining that space colony has been insanely expensive.

Yes the cost to use such things as a shuttle is very high but since there is only one other manned capable ship to us in the soyuz we have nothing else to make a cost comparison with.

There is nothing out there that couldn't be obtained more easily on Earth in this century.
If you think putting stuff into orbit is expensive, think about how expensive maintaining even a small colony will be! They will be dependent on Earth for decades, probably even centuries.

The way to offset this high shipping cost is to learn how to make what you need from the materials that are there.

Some day , we'll put a man on Mars and Beyond but I think it's better to get to know the Solar system in depth before we piss all over it
Robotic missions have been very successful at that, and they will be insanely sophisticated in 2-3 decades. Improvments in AI, Nano-Tech, Photonics, CPUs etc etc
A practical effort at space colonization will need either:
1) A Breakthrough in energy+propulsion, like Fusion Power, Mass Drivers..
2)A massive goverment financed infrastuctural program to transport and exploit space resources, by moving the manufacturing base off Earth.

Actually none of this is needed other than to get there faster, to give higher levels of power, and to get more supplies there.

A nasa sized budget is not needed when it is the bloated cost plus contracts that are causing the high expense to go to space.

Gregori · 2008-05-09 04:38:41

Actually none of this is needed other than to get there faster, to give higher levels of power, and to get more supplies there.
A nasa sized budget is not needed when it is the bloated cost plus contracts that are causing the high expense to go to space.

Thats bullshit. Even when you take out the factor of NASA using cost plus contracts and generally wasting money - going into space is still insanely expensive. Putting just about any commerical satelite into orbit costs a fortune.

If you want to do space realistically and economically, there needs to be an economy of scale to offset the high price or breakthrough in energy and propulsion. There also needs to be something in space that can be obtained cheaper and in greater bulk than here on Earth.

This could be done, but there has to be an infrastructure for it based mostly in space. This is an area that needs massive R&D and funding.

SpaceNut · 2008-05-09 06:16:18

Science, exploration, and even R&D will not lower the cost of access to space and as you spoke of commerical satelites as being expensive it is those launch vehicles that are being used that have no manned capability that makes for a higher cost to space.

Gregori · 2008-05-09 06:55:07

Science, exploration, and even R&D will not lower the cost of access to space and as you spoke of commerical satelites as being expensive it is those launch vehicles that are being used that have no manned capability that makes for a higher cost to space.

Manned space flight and the launch vehicles involved are much much more expensive than commercial satelites! Without a breakthrough technology even the best attempts by the private sector will not make it much cheaper.

Science and exploration allows us locate and exploit useful resources.

Enough R&D would allow would allow the creation of manufacturing and mining facilites off-earth. The less stuff we need to launch from Earth, the cheaper it will be in the long run.

JonClarke · 2008-05-14 00:03:30

*Cough* Chief scientist? As in, the people who say "forget sending man, lets just send robots!" A pox be upon him!

Excuse me. I am a scientist and I am strongly in favour of people exploring Mars. Per kg they are faster cheaper and better than robots.

If you look at the scientists who oppose human missions to Mars you will find that they are physicists, and astronomers, and the like. None of them are actually the type of scientists who are interested in exploring Mars. Every Mars scientist I know advocates human exploration. To name just a few: Chris McKay, Ken Edgett, Mike Malin, Steve Squyres, Carol Stoker, Penny Boston, Jeff Kargel, Bill Hartmann.

Jon

louis · 2008-05-14 01:16:51

Thanks for that Jon. It confirms my impression that this is a lot about competition for scarce resources within the scientific/technological/business community. There is nothing odd about that - it is perfectly natural. But as tends to happen I think some people have ended up arguing a little dishonestly (again, that happens on all sides).

I don't think that there can be any doubt that, as you say, kg for kg, humans make by far the better explorers, being so versatile and so well able to zero in on the important.

The real question in the human v robots debate is the cost of getting humans to location X which with current technology is always going to favour robots. That said, if you were to look at the relative cost in terms of knowledge output, I think the calculation would favour humans. I mean - how many robots would you have to put on Mars to replicate the abilities of one trained geologist with his mobility, a laptop, a knapsack and a spade? I think you'd probably be talking in terms of 20 or 30 separate machines working for just 4 hours a day if you are lucky and even then they would have to avoid certain types of terrain.

cIclops · 2008-05-14 03:16:39

Excuse me. I am a scientist and I am strongly in favour of people exploring Mars. Per kg they are faster cheaper and better than robots.

Humans require much more overhead than robots: air, water, food etc etc. and they usually want to come back again. Humans can only work efficiently for about 8 hours per day. They are certainly not cheaper per kg and for many tasks not faster or better either. Furthermore, robots are rapidly improving, humans are not.

JonClarke · 2008-05-14 06:02:26

cIclops wrote:

Excuse me. I am a scientist and I am strongly in favour of people exploring Mars. Per kg they are faster cheaper and better than robots.
[Humans require much more overhead than robots: air, water, food etc etc. and they usually want to come back again.
Those overheads allow on human creativity, imagination, intution, insight, flexibility adaptability, and dexterity to be on the spot rather than locked away at the other end of a time delay of up to 40 minutes.
The more complex robotic missions, e,g, sample return, also need to come back.
Humans can only work efficiently for about 8 hours per day.
People in the field generally work productively for more than 8 hours a day. And robots don't work at night either.
[They are certainly not cheaper per kg...
Let's see, average cost per kg of unmanned Mars orbiters (constant $) is $480-$610,000. For landers $1 million per kg, for rovers $2-2.6 million per kg. For crewed misssions, the final cost of the ISS will be $212,000, Apollo $342,000. Unmanned missions are roughly twice as expensive per kg as crewed missions.
and for many tasks not faster or better either.
For simple tasks you are correct. They are the best tools for such tasks. But the majority of exploration tasks are complex and robots are completed unsuited to them or at best to them excruciatingly slowly and in panifully limited ways..
Furthermore, robots are rapidly improving, humans are not.
Robots are improving at a much slower rate than pundits predicted 30 years ago. Tasks that were thought to be easy have turned out to be extremely hard. It is still impossible to build a semi-autonomous Mars rover that can come within an order of magnitude of matching what the remotely controlled Lunokhod could do 30 years ago.
Until those advances allow human level creativity, imagination, intution, insight, flexibility adaptability, dexterity and consciousness to be present on the martian surface there humans will always out perform robots for a great many tasks. Such robots are technology indistinguishable from magic and can play no part in realistic planning.
So any reasonable human Mars mission will out perform any robotic surface mission by a many orders of magnitude in every parameter I can think of. It will also investigate whole catagories of problems completely impossible for robotic missions.
Any reasonable human Mars mission will use robotics. Whatever advances will happen in the field of robotics will make human presence morer effective, not less.
This is why those scientists with hands on experience of robotic missions - Steve Squyres, Ken Edgett, Mike Malin, Carol Stoker and others - are strong advocates for human missions to Mars. Unmanned missions are excellent scouts and pathfinders for the detailed exploration that will begin when people get there.
Jon

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-05-01 08:39:16

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#27 2008-05-02 01:25:07

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#28 2008-05-02 14:14:55

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#29 2008-05-02 14:57:36

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#30 2008-05-03 01:44:53

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#31 2008-05-03 05:08:40

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#32 2008-05-03 05:29:50

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#33 2008-05-03 06:08:23

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#34 2008-05-03 07:24:17

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#35 2008-05-03 11:18:42

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#36 2008-05-03 11:30:49

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#37 2008-05-04 05:31:27

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#38 2008-05-04 07:00:52

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#39 2008-05-04 07:11:32

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#40 2008-05-04 08:08:16

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#41 2008-05-08 17:00:30

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#42 2008-05-08 19:21:27

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#43 2008-05-09 04:38:41

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#44 2008-05-09 06:16:18

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#45 2008-05-09 06:55:07

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#46 2008-05-14 00:03:30

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#47 2008-05-14 01:16:51

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#48 2008-05-14 03:16:39

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#49 2008-05-14 06:02:26

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

#50 2008-05-14 06:18:58

Re: Problems with Humans on Mars

Board footer