On December 24 2015 16:15 cLutZ wrote: (...) All that said, I know the serious people (Musk, NASA, etc) aren't serious about Mars because they aren't experimenting with prolonged underwater and prolonged closed-environment studies. A responsible human would make sure a crew of 5 can survive in a mini-submarine together for 12 months before presuming they will accomplish that feat in space.
I just want to point out, that this is a totally invalid concern. The problem of staying alive once we are there, is dwarfed by the problem of getting there and back alive. I mean, it's not like there is a space station right now out in space where we study those kind of things firsthand for the past 15 years.
Actually, to quote a section from Wikipedia's page on "human mission to mars":
NASA's Journey to Mars: Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration (2015)
On October 8, 2015, NASA published its official plan for human exploration and colonization of Mars. The plan operates through three distinct phases leading up to fully sustained colonization.
The first stage, already underway, is the "Earth Reliant" phase. This phase continues utilizing the International Space Station until 2024; validating deep space technologies and studying the effects of long duration space missions on the human body.
The second stage, "Proving Ground," moves away from Earth reliance and ventures into cislunar space for most of its tasks. This is when NASA plans to capture an asteroid (planned for 2020), test deep space habitation facilities, and validate capabilities required for human exploration of Mars.
Finally, phase three is the transition to independence from Earth resources. The "Earth Independent" phase includes long term missions on the lunar surface which leverage surface habitats that only require routine maintenance, and the harvesting of Martian resources for fuel, water, and building materials. NASA is still aiming for human missions to Mars in in the 2030s, though Earth independence could take decades longer.
So according to NASA at least I think it is still a concern and testing is on-going. I would also expect that SpaceX and other companies would learn from NASA's research rather than duplicating it themselves, so I'm not sure that its necessary for everyone to be doing these kinds of studies.
Yes, plus, I think they have said there is an important psychological aspect. The ISS has rotating crews and near instant ground communication, they need to study what happens with one, small crew is isolated and has long delays in communication with the outside world.
On December 24 2015 16:15 cLutZ wrote: Well thats the problem, really, with space flight, is that it was subject to so much malinvestment, much of it caused by the over-investment in the Apollo/Shuttle missions. The reality is that we went to the moon and for sustained outer space missions way before the private sector was ready to support it. Thus we have smartphones with 100x the computing power of the shuttle, several American disasters, and an unknown (but assumed quite high) number of missing Cosmonauts. Judging by other advances, around the 90s is when a sane (and economical) set of moon missions would have been begun to form. However, we blew that wad early by stretching our capacity to insane limits in the 60s and 70s, and so no development since has really been noticeable because we are simply doing things we should have done before engaging in those missions.
So people have been focused on Mars for about 40 years, when the focus really should have been safe orbits and then safe moon landings (instead of the incredibly lucky versions of those we got).
All that said, I know the serious people (Musk, NASA, etc) aren't serious about Mars because they aren't experimenting with prolonged underwater and prolonged closed-environment studies. A responsible human would make sure a crew of 5 can survive in a mini-submarine together for 12 months before presuming they will accomplish that feat in space.
The Apollo era "worked" for two reasons. 1) Since it was a government program, when they ran into the functional problem with Engineering ("Pick 2: Fast, Cheap or Good"), they could simply opt out of the worry about being "cheap". Or even "semi-cost effective". 2) It was run like the rapid development programs during WW2 and the start of the Cold War. They had specific goals and objectives and met them. That's why there was disarray after the fact: there was little functional utility to landing on the Moon.
But it's a bit beyond malinvestment. The technology was produced, but it was ruinously expensive. It simply was going to take time for new iterations to come online, making it worthwhile to do other things in Space. Obviously, Communications Satellites ended up being the functional use since the 60s, but there is only two real reasons for Beyond Orbit launches: Science Missions and Asteroid Mining.
The Moon really isn't terribly important for any long-range planning. What's really important is an automated Station at Earth-Moon L1 and the lift capacity to maintain it. Add in the ability to manufacture in space (via 3D printing), and you have the basis to capture & mine the asteroids trapped at L3 & L4, plus the ability to mine the Moon if there's something valuable. (He3 maybe) You don't spend a lot of money to go exploring if there isn't something valuable out there to come back with.
Wayne Hale, " rocket engines are high performance machines with little margin for error and `whether or not this is a really practical thing to save money depends on how much work goes into refurbishing them,` he said. `That’s kind of the key thing. It could save a lot of money, or wind up like the shuttle and not save anything.` ”
On December 25 2015 04:59 Taf the Ghost wrote: and you have the basis to capture & mine the asteroids trapped at L3 & L4, plus the ability to mine the Moon if there's something valuable. (H3 maybe)
Hm, why would you want to mine tritium and bring it back from the moon? In what chemical form would the tritium be in?
On December 25 2015 04:59 Taf the Ghost wrote: and you have the basis to capture & mine the asteroids trapped at L3 & L4, plus the ability to mine the Moon if there's something valuable. (H3 maybe)
Hm, why would you want to mine tritium and bring it back from the moon? In what chemical form would the tritium be in?
Good point, that should be He3. Let me edit that.
There is thought to be collectible He3 on the Moon, and there's a possibility it would be a good fuel for Fusion-based Reactors. A lot of "possibilities" that might not work out, depending on where the tech finally lands for a scalable containment design.
Apollo wasn't a continuous technology roll-out. Technology was developed, but more importantly, engineering problems were solved. And then it was left at that.
They stopped flying the Saturn V or the Apollo spacecraft. If they had continuously developed and improved it and it was still being used today, then there you have continuity and the cost is sort of an investment.
The costs of the Apollo program were not an investment. They were a cost. Solving engineering problem A doesn't make you better at solving engineering problem B. In some way, when it comes to engineering, you have to reinvent the wheel over and over. In fact, the more technology you have in your system, the more often you have to reinvent the wheel.
He3 from the moon as a motivator for human spaceflight is so weak. We don't even know fusion is a technology pathway that we will ever use for energy production. And it's not only a question on if we can get fusion to work, but if all competitive technologies will fail. Then spending a lot of energy to get some fuel to get energy, just seems a waste. The He3 line doesn't quite ring like the 'Why don't we shoot our nuclear waste into the sun'-line, but it reminds me that people even suggest that.
There's a lot of super-smart scientists out there that are willing to say whatever they think will get the most support for more money for NASA.
The idea to have robots mine asteroids for platinum, as crazy as that sounds, will be a lot more likely. But even there people need to think about if it wouldn't just be safer to solve the same problem another way. As hard as it can be to refine very low amounts of rare metals from the earth crust, it is right there below our feed. Depending on what we want to use the rare element for, there are also other solutions like using bio-catalysts for reactions that used to need rare metal catalysts, or carbon nanotube conductors instead of copper, gold, platina.
And there's also solutions like just wasting less and recycling more rare elements.
On December 24 2015 16:15 cLutZ wrote: (...) All that said, I know the serious people (Musk, NASA, etc) aren't serious about Mars because they aren't experimenting with prolonged underwater and prolonged closed-environment studies. A responsible human would make sure a crew of 5 can survive in a mini-submarine together for 12 months before presuming they will accomplish that feat in space.
I just want to point out, that this is a totally invalid concern. The problem of staying alive once we are there, is dwarfed by the problem of getting there and back alive. I mean, it's not like there is a space station right now out in space where we study those kind of things firsthand for the past 15 years.
Actually, to quote a section from Wikipedia's page on "human mission to mars":
NASA's Journey to Mars: Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration (2015)
On October 8, 2015, NASA published its official plan for human exploration and colonization of Mars. The plan operates through three distinct phases leading up to fully sustained colonization.
The first stage, already underway, is the "Earth Reliant" phase. This phase continues utilizing the International Space Station until 2024; validating deep space technologies and studying the effects of long duration space missions on the human body.
The second stage, "Proving Ground," moves away from Earth reliance and ventures into cislunar space for most of its tasks. This is when NASA plans to capture an asteroid (planned for 2020), test deep space habitation facilities, and validate capabilities required for human exploration of Mars.
Finally, phase three is the transition to independence from Earth resources. The "Earth Independent" phase includes long term missions on the lunar surface which leverage surface habitats that only require routine maintenance, and the harvesting of Martian resources for fuel, water, and building materials. NASA is still aiming for human missions to Mars in in the 2030s, though Earth independence could take decades longer.
So according to NASA at least I think it is still a concern and testing is on-going. I would also expect that SpaceX and other companies would learn from NASA's research rather than duplicating it themselves, so I'm not sure that its necessary for everyone to be doing these kinds of studies.
Yes, plus, I think they have said there is an important psychological aspect. The ISS has rotating crews and near instant ground communication, they need to study what happens with one, small crew is isolated and has long delays in communication with the outside world.
Sorry, I must have miss phrased myself. I meant that the statement " aren't serious about Mars because they aren't experimenting with prolonged underwater and prolonged closed-environment studies." is an invalid concern, because as the quoted wiki article says, there are experiments on going, right now (and I would add, these kind of experiments are one of the main reason for the ISS either way). Now, I don't want to downplay the problem of making sure a small isolated crew can effectively succeed in space, but it IS researched, thoroughly I might add, and we do HAVE experience with it, already, multiple humans have been in space continuously for 12 or more months. I just think, SpaceX does the right thing by developing rocketry, instead of looking at the human aspect.
Why would we want to go to Mars anyway? There is no economical reason to do so at this time. It is the same as the Moon back in the day. The only reason to go is to show we can. Simply not worth it right now.
On December 25 2015 19:12 Gorsameth wrote: Why would we want to go to Mars anyway? There is no economical reason to do so at this time. It is the same as the Moon back in the day. The only reason to go is to show we can. Simply not worth it right now.
Basically:
Note, his definition of what is a good reason to spend money may differ from yours (or mine) but here is a video of an advocate explaining his point, I think rather well.
On December 25 2015 19:12 Gorsameth wrote: Why would we want to go to Mars anyway? There is no economical reason to do so at this time. It is the same as the Moon back in the day. The only reason to go is to show we can. Simply not worth it right now.
Note, his definition of what is a good reason to spend money may differ from yours (or mine) but here is a video of an advocate explaining his point, I think rather well.
They are good reasons (and pretty similar to the reasons we had to go to the moon) and for an institute like NASA that could be enough but if space flight is moving towards the private sector (and I believe it is) then the issue becomes economy and it is simply to expensive to go to Mars and because of that not worth the effort at this time.
That is why there is such a push for reducing costs going on right now because if we can get space flight cheap and effective enough then it becomes viable to go on expeditions to Mars ect.
On December 25 2015 19:12 Gorsameth wrote: Why would we want to go to Mars anyway? There is no economical reason to do so at this time. It is the same as the Moon back in the day. The only reason to go is to show we can. Simply not worth it right now.
Note, his definition of what is a good reason to spend money may differ from yours (or mine) but here is a video of an advocate explaining his point, I think rather well.
They are good reasons (and pretty similar to the reasons we had to go to the moon) and for an institute like NASA that could be enough but if space flight is moving towards the private sector (and I believe it is) then the issue becomes economy and it is simply to expensive to go to Mars and because of that not worth the effort at this time.
That is why there is such a push for reducing costs going on right now because if we can get space flight cheap and effective enough then it becomes viable to go on expeditions to Mars ect.
Agreed, and that is why I think SpaceX should stick to developing cheap rocketry, and NASA should stick around, and keep doing the "not economical" sciency stuff, yes, with public money.
On December 25 2015 19:39 Evotroid wrote: Note, his definition of what is a good reason to spend money may differ from yours (or mine) but here is a video of an advocate explaining his point, I think rather well.
manned space exploration has been a financial black hole for decades with zero progress. i prefer what NASA is currently doing to explore Mars.
until there is a dramatic breakthrough in technology ( as big as the Steam Engine for example) i wouldn't waste any time or money on manned space exploration. the kind of tech breakthrough i'm talking about will require new discoveries in theoretical physics and chemistry... direct R&D on the problem won't solve it. All any one is doing right now is refining and evolving the current paradigm and a dramatic breakthrough is what is required.
its now been over 43 years since a human has been more than 400 miles off the surface of the earth and people are still blabbing away about going to Mars... seems rather banal.
On December 25 2015 19:39 Evotroid wrote: Note, his definition of what is a good reason to spend money may differ from yours (or mine) but here is a video of an advocate explaining his point, I think rather well.
manned space exploration has been a financial black hole for decades with zero progress. i prefer what NASA is currently doing to explore Mars.
until there is a dramatic breakthrough in technology ( as big as the Steam Engine for example) i wouldn't waste any time or money on manned space exploration. the kind of tech breakthrough i'm talking about will require new discoveries in theoretical physics and chemistry... direct R&D on the problem won't solve it. All any one is doing right now is refining and evolving the current paradigm and a dramatic breakthrough is what is required.
its now been over 43 years since a human has been more than 400 miles off the surface of the earth and people are still blabbing away about going to Mars... seems rather banal.
Yeah, we didn't achieve much, because we didn't set big and ambitious goals since then. Also, what is the timeline on your kind of breakthrough? Until then thanks, but I would rather just see how far we can go, and not just sit idle, and hope for some miracle finding happening. It is not like you, or I am that much poorer because of this.
in 2004, Bush's goal was a return to the moon by 2020.
funny how Bush gave NASA 16 years to get to the moon. JFK gave NASA 7.5 years and they did it in 6.25 years.
what a giant waste of time and effort that Bush thing was. But, it is a great excuse to screw taxpayers out of billions though.
regarding your other question, huge advancements in science and technology have no timeline.. they just happen. you can not plan them. But, I stick by my Steam Engine analogy... that big a leap forward in tech is what is needed before we can entertain manned space exploration. No one planned the Industrial Revolution... its not like some guy in 1580 said "hey.. the steam engine will get developed in 1715 and it'll change the world"
Also, some lead scientist at NASA recommending 700 Billion in new funding is not proof it is money well spent. The top NASA guys are all trying to build their little empires and they need government money to do it.
On December 25 2015 19:39 Evotroid wrote: Note, his definition of what is a good reason to spend money may differ from yours (or mine) but here is a video of an advocate explaining his point, I think rather well.
manned space exploration has been a financial black hole for decades with zero progress. i prefer what NASA is currently doing to explore Mars.
until there is a dramatic breakthrough in technology ( as big as the Steam Engine for example) i wouldn't waste any time or money on manned space exploration. the kind of tech breakthrough i'm talking about will require new discoveries in theoretical physics and chemistry... direct R&D on the problem won't solve it. All any one is doing right now is refining and evolving the current paradigm and a dramatic breakthrough is what is required.
its now been over 43 years since a human has been more than 400 miles off the surface of the earth and people are still blabbing away about going to Mars... seems rather banal.
Yeah, we didn't achieve much, because we didn't set big and ambitious goals since then. Also, what is the timeline on your kind of breakthrough? Until then thanks, but I would rather just see how far we can go, and not just sit idle, and hope for some miracle finding happening. It is not like you, or I am that much poorer because of this.
We didn't achieve much because we spared no expense solving engineering problems to get to the moon that had minor real world applications and stretched our space capability to its limits. I guarantee you we could do the same with a trip to Mars starting today, you just have to pick which two or three of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the DOD you want to 100% defund in the intervening years.
all kinds of plans, simulation videos, and diagrams... all costing billions of dollars and resulting in no actual real life hardware...
Obama's decision to exclude funding for the constellation program in the 2010 budget was a good one.
i'm not singling out Obama's leadership... . because this crap has been going on in the area of NASA's man space exploration plans since basically December of 1972.
any manned exploration program must produce immediate real life results or be cancelled... if 60s NASA can have 3 men orbiting the moon in 6.25 years then 21st century NASA can do it far faster. if NASA can't execute fast enough.. then cancel it and save the US taxpayer the money.
So your argument against manned space exploration is it's too expensive? There are so many things that bring zero or negative value which receive orders of magnitude more funding. Here are a few examples.
The United States spent more than $5.5 trillion building and maintaining its nuclear arsenal from 1940-1996. Obviously the Manhattan Project and H-bomb development were worthwhile, as is maintaining a minimal deterrent. However, 30,000 warheads is a little excessive and wasteful. Even our current arsenal is orders of magnitude larger than necessary for use as a deterrent.
The United States spent more than $20 billion per year (larger than the NASA budget at the time) air conditioning tents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course the total cost of those wars is orders of magnitude larger than anything ever spent on NASA.
The United States spends $39 billion dollars annually subsidizing solar energy when we have an efficient zero emission energy source available today (nuclear). And so on...
Sure, NASA has had its share of mistakes and wasted money, but what government (or even private industry) hasn't? Manned spaceflight's ROI has been incredible. Encouraging even one in one hundred children to pursue careers in science and engineering is worth the money we've spent, even ignoring the other benefits. If you want to save the taxpayers money, go after real government waste, fraud, pork-barrel politics and tax loopholes, not NASA's budget.
The fact that other inefficient projects exist (most of those being subsets of other projects that happen to be costly) does not justify other projects that are not efficient.
But on top of that, what arguments like that do not account four is that what you think NASA cost to get to the moon (even if you "adjust for inflation") is not what it actually cost, or it would cost today. Like I said earlier, the cost to replicate 60s-70s era NASA is 3 entitlement programs, or 2+the DOD. That is because government programs in the modern day simply work in that manner. You would end up hiring a bunch of engineers and PhDs who had been struggling for the past 15 years (but graduated "good" schools) and needing nearly an infinite budget to satisfy their "needs".
Old NASA barely worked, and it only managed to barely work because the administrative state had not ossified as it has here in America, and had even in that time in much of Europe.
I started typing a long response, but then I noticed that your entire post is ridiculous. You think it would cost 2 entitlement programs, plus the budget of the DOD? Since you didn't specify which entitlements, let's go with: $888 billion for Social security, $505 billion for Medicare and $585 billion for the DOD. Assuming it took us 7 years (the same time as the Apollo program) that would be $13.8 trillion dollars.
EPT
