Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says
bbc.com
bbc.com
Few people are willing to call the shuttle a failure, but it was. It cost much more per mission than estimated and was supposed to lunch every two weeks. It averaged approximately one every 3 months. The payload was supposed to cost $635 per pound, but ended costing $27,000. You need a critical review of NASA if they are going to be effective in the future (Humans or no). This article may read as overly negative, but there is a lot of Pollyanna reporting regarding NASA.
Aside from the financial waste, the Challenger disaster never would have happened with the other team's bid because that subcontractor manufactured on the East coast -- boosters would have been manufactured in one piece and floated down on barges, not broken into segments to fit in rail cars (hence the seams and O rings).
Almost everyone calls the shuttle a failure
So yes, if the goal was for it to be cheap and it turned out to be expensive, then it was pretty clearly a failure.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Concepti...
NASA is cheap. Direct your ire at Rockwell, not NASA.
SpaceX used up 1B in the first 10 years; I would rather spend that 20B/yr to fund 200 spacex-es. My 2c.
However, for the shuttle the lower price was the #1 goal which it failed to achieve. So it is a failure. Sorry. And that overfunded failure held back other options, because it is hard to compete when the competitor has many extra billions for development.
I don't think people really understand the tyranny of the rocket equation and the propellant mass fraction. For the space shuttle, about 80% of the mass was fuel. Propellant mass fractions are typically around 0.8 to 0.9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_mass_fraction
Going to Mars with people implies we're going to bring those people back. We've never launched something off of Mars before, and getting up to escape velocity on another planet (more than 2x the gravity of the Moon) isn't an easy task. The slower you go on the return trip also means you need more consumables (air, food, water) for the travelers. Not only do you have the mass to go up, but you have to land with that mass in order to launch again from the surface.
I think the future is automated settlements. A group of robots 3d printing and producing things automatically (things like methane fuel, simple parts, what if we could build a rover on Mars) would be a huge boon and start bootstrapping Mars for human settlement. We would need to take a huge amount of stuff to start doing anything interesting on Mars. Something that would take lots of trips, before we could support just a few people. People are generally quite fragile and more of a liability: limited life span, unable to easily repair, get sick or ill, bored or depressed easily...
Also, Elon's take on this three years ago:
So, to answer your question I don't think it's the case that it's similar to celebrities talking about moral and political issues in any way. I assume that he's pretty well informed but just has a totally different view that's less forward-thinking than others of his astronaut brethren.
And that may be besides the point: It seem to me this astronaut didn't make make a cogent argument from the perspective of cost-benefit tradeoffs and risk of human lives. Instead he raised vague criticisms: "It's ridiculous" and "what's the imperative... I don't think the public is that interested"
In fact available data directly refutes this astronaut's view: at least one survey from a few years ago found widespread support (about 75%) for a manned mission [0]. As of this year interest has declined somewhat [1], but still 63% rate mars as important or higher.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-america...
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-americans-s...
My assumption is that these habitable zones would be required to generate the necessities of life in an environment devoid of any of them. Nutrients, oxygen, water... we could make recycling them very efficient, but there's always some loss. And even if you had zero loss, that's insufficient. If you're going to make a habitable zone that can support new population, you need to operate at a surplus.
The other option if you can't manufacture these resources from nothing is to import them. But that's extremely expensive. That's not a problem if the recipient is generating something of roughly equivalent value, such as mining valuable resources that can be shipped back (classic colonialism), or conducting important research (as in the case of the ISS), but if the recipient isn't generating anything of value besides somewhere to run later, then it never really gets there because it relies entirely on receiving continued shipment from the motherland.
I'm happy to be set straight on any of the above points, but these are the doubts that come to mind whenever someone argues the moon or Mars have potential as off-planet habitable zones.
Mars is not "devoid" of these things. It requires some energy to get them into usable form, but all of the basic chemical elements needed for life are there on Mars. Similar remarks apply to many other planets and similar objects (like satellites of the gas giants).
I think it's hubris to think we'd even get close to getting that correct.
On Apollo 8, which got to orbit the Moon but not land there. Anders didn't get any further Apollo missions, so he never got a chance to actually land on the Moon. I wonder if that might be coloring his opinions.
I think it's the opposite -- the general public is much more interested in sending humans to space than yet another unmanned mission.
I agree that robotic missions give the most bang for the buck, and should continue for the foreseeable future, but as far as the general public goes, a manned mission is much more glamorous and more likely to keep Nasa funded.
https://spacenews.com/poll-shows-more-public-support-for-nas...
The article doesn't talk about preference for planetary expiration via robots vs humans.
In this article from Pew, people prefer human exploration vs robotic exploration only, 58% to 41%:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-...
And, I mean, why the hell not? We're all just dust in the wind anyway, dancing on this earth for a short time. If some folks think going to another planet is cool and are willing to endure what that takes, why should that desire be deemed invalid?
From what I gather, space programs are a unique combination of highly inspirational and requiring tremendous rigor and have, thus, fostered innovation the world would otherwise have never pursued. I imagine that has sufficient value to offset the high costs of space exploration, though I'm not actually willing to look up sources and try to prove that.
Even the most inhospitable parts of the Sahara desert is much more hospitable than Mars. Its also much more accessible.
There are plenty of good reasons for humans to go to Mars, but getting access to more space for people isn't one of them.
"Dig your well before you are thirsty." -- Proverb from somewhere or other.
If we wait until we have completely run out of "room" -- and I am not really thinking of just warehousing people, but room to grow the food for them, etc and support the high quality of life that people in first world countries generally have and people in developing countries generally aspire to -- then you pretty much guarantee failure of that path. Developing options elsewhere takes quite a lot of time and resources. It won't happen overnight.
So I have no clue what you are talking about.
In any case, I doubt the community was self sufficient. I'm suspecting that much if not all consumables were actually produced outside the desert.
It's one of the hottest, driest places in the US. Annual precipitation is about 6 inches a year.
No, I'm sure the community was not self sufficient as it was a military base. Probably all food was shipped in from elsewhere.
However, in California, a great deal of food in produced in the desert. They just irrigate. If you aren't that familiar with the US, I'm not sure how much I need to explain here.
I was getting sunburned during the day just walking back and forth from house to car
You'd be less likely to get sunburn in Death Valley as you would in non-desert terrain above sea level (given similar exposure and albedo).
I'm aware of that.
I think you misread something. I wasn't in Death Valley. I was near Death Valley.
As stated above, I was about 3000 feet above sea level. Death Valley is below sea level.
The sun is generally harsher at altitude and there wasn't a lot of vegetation, so there wasn't a lot of shade. So sunburn was a big issue there. I'm also part Irish. So it was more of an issue for me than for some people.
Mars hopefully creates a backup plan in case there is a huuuge disaster on Earth.
Probably kind of people which were telling "They're talking about landing rockets, that's nonsense".
Here's another benefit: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" people can leave. And pioneer-spirited in general. Before NA was so colonized, the US used to have a doctrine that if you went out West far enough and worked a piece of land (alone or with a small community) it was yours. Such opportunities aren't around anymore, everything is claimed. On the larger scale, competition in governance models is probably a good thing, if the colony can be made self-sufficient they can get out from the political thumb of whichever parent nations helped set them up.
Of course if I had to pick one future tech to focus on it'd be brain emulation since besides greater consequences that seems feasible on a shorter time scale than terraforming a planet enough for say a million people to live without a dome / in a crater / underground. Non-ems will still probably want to go to Mars but there'd be less urgency for ems who haven't retired. But crater life seems doable even before ems, and we don't need to pick just one thing.
Huge, absolutely huge. We are resource constrained on earth. We are at risk of extinction from a huge number of not-that-small probability events. We could all do with some inspiring things in our lives.
It's so huge it's hard to quantify, because it starts bringing in to question fundamental values. What do you think we, as a collection of smart and capable people, as a nation, as a civilization, as a species, or otherwise ought to be trying to achieve?
The maximum happiness for the maximum number of us possible? Gaining access to another planets resources and a defense against extinction events is almost certainly a step in the right direction?
The most impressive legacy possible? Colonizing another planet seems to be our best shot at that.
Making the next generation proud of us? Well, I mean, look at things we admire the previous generation for. I think the moon landing is up their and it's a hell of a lot less impressive.
Minimizing human suffering? Well yes, then I suppose you don't want to colonize mars, instead you want to start a nuclear war or burn a lot of coal or something.
Maximizing some reasonable average of human suffering and happiness? Well, that's a vague goal so it's harder to argue to, but the benefits are clear, both in longevity of our species and happiness of the members of it. I think it's pretty clear that inspiration and achieving grand goals is very important to human happiness.
Of course, the first thing I said is the issue. What's the expected utility of attempting colonization. Colonizing mars is pretty unlikely to succeed, so it's far lower than the utility of a successful colonization. Still, I think supporting SpaceX is probably a worthwhile investment for our species/civilization/nation/... currently.
If you want to argue for a backup planet, you should invest your resources into long term hibernation biology and then send the humans to an actual Earth II in another part of the galaxy. If you truly believe humans are at risk of extinction and need another planet, finding an actual acceptable planet to colonize is a better idea.
Interstellar travel is certainly a very very high risk concept all by itself. We don't even have the ability to send unmanned things to another star, nor do we have the ability to have humans hibernate for any period of time on earth, nor do we have a clear path to either of those technologies.
Moreover we don't know where any earth like planet is. Even if we nailed interstellar travel, chances are we'd arrive at another star system and discover that we didn't have the things we need to colonize the planet (do we need to live in domes? Or floating cities like on Venus? Deal with hot temperatures? Volcanoes? Is solar power available in high quantities or not? Assuming we are looking for somewhere with an atmosphere, how strong winds do we need to design for? What chemicals do we need to be equipped to filter? And so on and so forth).
Nor is extinction the only goal we are talking about here. We also benefit immensely from communication with more people. We can communicate with mars, but not people on other stars. We benefit immensely just from the inspiring achievement, which we don't really get if we (and our children) won't live to see the success or failure of the mission. And so on.
Successful establishment of a colony on mars is of course not without its own challenges. I think the risks I mentioned at the end of my previous post will mostly be about what it takes to establish a colony once we can get their, not the getting their. But the chance of success is obviously far higher with current/near future technology, and the value of success is greater.
Settling mars is like colonizing the Sahara desert, except this time with no oxygen or camels.
However, in general, there are immense resources and energy sources in space that can benefit humanity. Pioneering space will also require many technological advancements that will benefit people back on Earth.
There is also the question of learning about the universe. If, for example, there was bacteria on Mars, that would one of the greatest discoveries of all time.
I don't think your comparison is fair.
The value proposition just isn't there for colonization of Mars. If you want to say you did it for bragging rights, then just say it. Anything else is foolishness.
With commendable growth of private space organisations within USA, it's perhaps inevitable that an American would be the first to land on Mars; which politics apart would still be a giant leap for mankind in general.
What's the point of a suicide mission to Mars?
If we're even hazily serious about Mars, it seems like we should spend a couple of decades practicing on the moon. Mars does have a bit of atmosphere (0.6% of Earth's), but with a travel time 100x larger, minor issues quickly turn fatal.
"When I looked at the Earth itself... I started to wonder why I was here, what's my purpose here… it sort of dawned me," he said.
"And my perspective is that God has given mankind a stage on which to perform. How the play turns out, is up to us."
We go to Mars because people with the means to send people there want to. It's as dumb as wanting to cross the ocean to travel to a new unexplored continent.
So far, no robot we've sent has been better at tool use than a human. Sure, they don't require life support or consumables, so their longevity is extraordinary, but man, there are so many things that took decades to test for with the robots that a single manned mission would've been able to solve in a few days.
For the same amount of money as sending humans to Mars, we can develop better robots. Those robots will also be useful on earth of course.
From HN in 2014:
Someone dying is devastating. Trying to conquer space a handful of people at a time is the slow and dangerous way of accomplishing this task. We should be building machines to explore the solar system. This can be done for a fraction of the cost, time, and it will allow him to allow us to iterate quickly. In 100 years, more humans will live off earth if we iterate with machines, etc now than if we move slowly trying to reduce the risk in order to keep humans safe.
If I lived a long time ago I would rather have died alone with arrows in my back as an explorer of the American West, than in a warm bed in my old age having never explored or tested fate.
"The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time." — Mark Twain
I couldn’t convince anyone. Perhaps if some of the people realize how much time has past, they’ll realize that we can move much faster with robots:
> "And my perspective is that God has given mankind a stage on which to perform. How the play turns out, is up to us."
I think they are saying; that there's nothing out there that humans are capable of taking advantage of. If going to the Moon has any benefit, then it is to point out clearly that we shouldn't explore more and stay right here on earth, and taking care of whatever we mere human can take care of. If going to the moon is that hard and costly, then how does this compare going to the mars? Even if we did managed to, which few selected population can reap the benefit? Is it worth it for us to pay so much civilian money only for it to be a special planet for very few selected capitalist from earth?
At some point, we just had to lose our interest in space exploration. Just because there's too much of this world to keep us busy with.
We become multi-planetary for survival.
To each his own.