Buzz Aldrin: Cancel Ares, reprieve shuttle, colonise Mars
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
Because there is too much solar and cosmic radiation, and no one would survive the trip. And enough shielding to block it is too heavy to launch (from earth). Which is why we want to go to the moon first.
Nonsense. If you can hop in a shelter to avoid the occasional solar storm that can kill you instantly, the remaining associated risks are like smoking.
And enough shielding to block it is too heavy to launch (from earth).
Again nonsense. Water is a very good shield medium. You'll need to carry a lot of it anyhow, and you only need to shield a small short-duration shelter for radiation storms.
So we can extract the shielding from the moon? Waste of time for exploration. So you save on launch costs for the expedition. How much is it going to cost to launch the lunar shielding extraction equipment? Yes, it's desirable to have infrastructure on the moon, eventually. But for exploring Mars, it's superfluous. It's like Lewis and Clark needing to establish Tulsa before going to the Pacific.
Read Zubrin. He's got the facts on his side.
You are wrong. The radiation is lethal. What you wrote only applies near earth.
And it's not solar particles that are the main problem. It's cosmic particles, which have much much higher energies, and do not come in bursts.
See here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=magnet-forc... and here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shielding-s... and here: http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/05/the_real_reas... and here: http://marsjournal.org/contents/2006/0004/files/rapp_mars_20... (pdf) and here: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080331-radiation-shield...
Is that enough? We are not going to mars anytime soon. Even a colony on the moon is not possible right now. We would either need to send people on once only short term construction trips, or some sort of robotic construction to make a shield first. Or a biological protectant of some kind.
The people pushing for more sophisticated radiation shielding than tanks of water are hoping to get funded to build that stuff. It's unnecessary.
Again, the lethality rate for Mars transit is about the same as picking up a bad smoking habit. Acceptable for early explorers and initial colonists, and actually an argument for settling Mars as soon as possible. (Many people already know these risks, and they still want to go! Once you have a native workforce living up there with a local infrastructure, the risks are minimized because the resources for shielding form radiation are also more available.)
We are not going to mars anytime soon. Even a colony on the moon is not possible right now. We would either need to send people on once only short term construction trips, or some sort of robotic construction to make a shield first. Or a biological protectant of some kind.
Again nonsense. You can build bricks and masonry arches out of local Martian materials. Ship a "vault-laying" robot up there, and you can create lots of living space quickly. Bury it in soil, and you get the physical support to pressurize those environments as well as radiation shielding.
(You can't do the same trick on the Moon, because you need lots of water to make bricks. Far less of it on the Moon, and easily extracted concentrations of it are probably only at the poles. To build weight-pressurized compressive structures on the Moon, you're going to have to make silica blocks. A lot more energy intensive and expensive, with high temperature handling of materials. Smelting aluminum? Fuggedaboudit!)
Also, the radiation question is actually an argument for Mars over the Moon. Mars has an atmosphere that reduces the radiation load of humans walking outside. In fact, this is another reason why lunar industry should be established from Mars with teleoperated robots controlled form Earth.
The reason the high energy particles are more of a problem is because it's harder to shield from them. Especially without the shielding becoming a problem in and off itself. Which is more or less what you said. So you agree that hiding during solar storms is not enough.
I have no arguments about water working just fine as shielding. I think it will. It's the amount of water that is the problem. There is no practical way to launch the amount that is needed. And even once you launch it, it's so massive that you'll have a really hard time getting to mars fast enough.
I haven't run the numbers myself, but I've read works from people who have, and they say that it's not practical. Water is just too heavy.
PS. For the moon, there is little reason to build up - dig under instead, and line the inside with weak, but airtight material.
You're spreading pop-science FUD designed to create the exact misconceptions you are spreading. Read the other side in Zubrin's books and articles. No big conspiracies, just people using fear of radiation to sensationalize articles and get more money out of our federal government.
The reason the high energy particles are more of a problem is because it's harder to shield from them
There's less need to shield from them.
Especially without the shielding becoming a problem in and off itself. Which is more or less what you said. So you agree that hiding during solar storms is not enough.
By not shielding the entire vessel, you can create a small booth with enough shielding to also absorb the secondaries. Again, this is well trodden territory. Most public libraries have Zubrin's books. Read the other side, and you will find that you have been fed incomplete pictures. Shielding the whole craft is a straw man. Trying to give complete protection for initial explorers and colonists is overkill and FUD for selling expensive and unnecessary R&D to bureaucrats who want to cover their asses.
If you protect the astronauts from just the promptly lethal solar flares, you wind up with lethality something like a bad smoking habit.
I would gladly accept a 1% or even a 4% mortality rate if I could have the chance to be one of the founders of the Mars colony. My children won't have that problem, shielded by the Martian atmosphere and the soil used for radiation shielding.
I don't think you looked at a single one of the links I posted. You are very caught up in what Zubrin says, but you are not looking at what anyone else says. So how do you know he's right, and they are wrong?
Sure there are problems with Ares, but isn't that what engineers are for?
The shuttle, as it is, came out of an engineer's drawing board, but not before addressing the wishes of a lot of politicians.
I am all in for Ares, as long as engineers are in control. It seems they are not.
Politicians have a lot of vision, but little commitment.
We would have not went to the moon in the 1960s without the cold war.
1) why isn't the URL linking to the article on Popular Mechanics? (which is a lot better than this article)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.ht...
2) would someone care to explain what the point in colonising Mars is? Unmanned exploration of Mars would be a whole lot cheaper because robots don't need life-support systems. Moreover, losing a couple of robots is more acceptable than losing a couple of human astronauts. Sure, we could colonise Mars, but at what cost, and what for? In case Aldrin hasn't noticed, the USA is not in the same financial situation as in 1960.
Basically, colonizing Mars is desirable for the same reasons that colonizing North America was. Whichever nation does it can expect the resulting civilization to break away and surpass those on Earth. But the "old country" can expect much better relations with the new superpower.
(Actually, we could build a space elevator on Mars with materials we already have. The citizens of a Mars colony could eventually access space with the same ease with which we fly overseas.)
As for the Martian space elevator, it would involve the demolition of Deimos and Phobos or some moving of the counterweight in order to miss their orbits.
The major downside is that the vicinity of Jupiter is as cozy as the interior of a microwave oven and sunlight is not that abundant as it is down here.
Helium 3 is probably going to be the next oil. It will be the stuff you run your military machine with. Mars is in a better position than Earth to control the resources of the gas giants, and it is in a very good position for even control of the Moon's He3. The higher population of Mars due to agriculture and vast potential living space will probably mean political domination of the Jovian moons by Mars.
Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? If this endeavor were cheap, it could be worth it. But let's face it: it won't be cheap.
I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. One step at a time. In a few decades the time might be right. Sending humans to Mars in the next couple of decades would be a bad investment imho.
Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet.
Sorry, but you're not quite there yet. The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride. A big part of the reason why the US rocked the world economically was because of advantageous economic geography. (No need to devote resources to defend borders, lots of ports with easy access to waterways, waterways with good access to vast agricultural resources, advantageously situated synergistic natural resources like iron and coal, etc.)
If you look at the economic "geography" of the Solar System, it's quite obvious that Mars will eventually be the next North America. It's much cheaper to get almost anywhere in the Solar System from Mars than Earth. Heck, it even takes less energy to get to Earth's Moon from Mars than Earth. (This makes it likely that initially lunar industrial equipment will be made on Mars, shipped to the Moon, and teleoperated from Earth's surface.)
Also note that you are making the classic mistake of not extrapolating technology. Perhaps certain English shipwrights pooh-poohed the vast American forests. After all, the infrastructure was all in Europe. How many of them could have predicted that ships would be made of steel, sails would be obsolete, and ships would be propelled by coal and steam? Industrial technology in the late 21st century is likely to even more unpredictable to us as our industry was unimaginable to all but a few denizens of 1909. The only sure thing is that they will want to be able to marshall vaster resources and energies. To do that, you must go to space.
I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation.
Yes, but whatever we do, we need to do it first. It will be much better for the US if the future superpower of Mars is not settled by the Chinese.
Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet.
Have you read Zubrin? He thinks along similar lines. However, he's probably spent a lot more time working out the difficulties, likely steps, even specific chemical processes.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. American Industrial Revolution?!?
Let us look at Europe. In the early 15th Century, while England was fighting France and Spain was fighting the Moors, the Portuguese started exploring the western coast of Africa. The goal was to seize access to commodities such as gold, silver, silk, spices, etc. Spain then started its own explorations, but while the Portuguese went east, Spain went west. Then the Dutch, the French and the English joined the party. The old continent had no resources, so yes, it was a hunt for resources that triggered the European expansion.
Of course technology is constantly changing. If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense. However, I keep saying there are more urgent problems to be addressed. One of them is energy. If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place.
It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars.
Okay, I see. You're taking a shorter term view. In the 15th century, they didn't know the potential advantage of the conveniently situated coal and iron resources of North America.
"Gold, silver, silk, spices, etc," weren't strategic resources for the American Industrial Revolution, not so important if you want to understand the ultimate potential of North America as home to a future superpower.
If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense.
Please get this already: using North American history as a model, we should figure out that going there to bring resources back is not the point. That's obviously stupid. The point is from what set of values the next superpower draws its lineage. I think human history will be far better if it's the US that gives rise to Mars civilization.
If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place.
I agree. But there's no reason why we can't go to Mars while we are doing this.
It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars.
In the longer term view, it is imperative that we start as soon as we can.
It depends on what kind of time horizon we're talking here. Each shuttle launch cost over 1 billion USD. Hence, killing the shuttle program would release enormous amounts of capital to be used to "conquer" Mars. Say, 10 billion a year. That's enough money to fund the space exploration effort if the time horizon is a few decades, instead of 1 decade (as it happened in the 1960s).
Carl Sagan was against the shuttle program because he said that one can't keep going to the very same place and call it "exploration". In a way, he had a good point.
So, it perhaps would make sense for the U.S. to allow the Europeans and Russians to manage the ISS, and while the Chinese spend trillions becoming the world's super power, the U.S. could spend trillions becoming the Solar System's one and only colonizer. It would take decades for the other nations to catch up.
Last but not least, I am a bit concerned about the impact on Mars. It's a very long shot, but suppose there's life on Mars. Colonizing Mars would contaminate, if not destroy, the original habitat and prevent us from learning more about it, which would be unfortunate.
I am not willing to bet on faster-than-light travel and finding Earth-like worlds, first because FTL must be somewhere between insanely hard and plain impossible and second because we would have first to get permission from the natives.
And that arrangement, provided the ludicrously lucky situation of environment requirements being compatible, would make a lot of sense - by allowing reciprocal settlement both species would be insured against extinction.
Sound even like the start of a nice screenplay. Most probably someone already did it.
Coming from a man who's been in space, that is a stupid claim to do without first colonizing the moon and learning in the process.
Walk, run, fly.
Yes, if we had Single Stage to Orbit fully reusable rockets and if all issues involved in living on another world were understood, Zubrin's plan(s) would be a shoo-in. However, we can't even construct a reliable artificial biosphere fully enclosed here on Earth!
Learn to walk before you try to run. Let's work on sustained outposts on a world no more than three days' travel away first.
Certainly not essential to Zubrin's plan. There are modifications to Zubrin's plan that can be implemented with existing boosters, with on-orbit assembly limited to linking together 4 components. Seems doable to me.
However, we can't even construct a reliable artificial biosphere fully enclosed here on Earth!
Where do you get that from? For one thing, the most publicized efforts were tried by questionable people. I think a legitimate effort would account for things like curing concrete absorbing lots of oxygen. For another thing, there's a huge difference between a biosphere and air/water recycling combined with local agriculture. The point is not to get a 100% viable self-regulating biosphere. It's just to be able to use local resources. For initial colonization, it's just life support for plants. The 100% viable self-regulating biospheres will take decades to get right, but we'll have decades and lots of economic incentive once the colonization efforts are under way.
Learn to walk before you try to run. Let's work on sustained outposts on a world no more than three days' travel away first.
If the only thing to be gained from the moon is a stepping stone to Mars, then it's a waste of time. The environmental challenges are just about all different, so it's not even a good rehearsal. That's more like "Learn to swim before you run. Let's work on movement while partially buoyant, not subject to a full G, first."
I'm sure you could train babies to swim-crawl-walk. But if you want to walk, it's an unnecessary detour.
>However, we can't even construct a reliable artificial
>biosphere fully enclosed here on Earth!
Where do you get that from?
We just don't know how to live on other worlds. We are almost completely ignorant of the complexities involved in the process and have a whole bunch of unpleasant discoveries to make yet. That's not to say it _can't_ be done and that we don't know what should happen in theory, but we have never done it before. Ever. There is no experience to build upon.
If you want another flags and footprints mission to plant a candelabra of pennants on Mars and then scurry back after a few days of visiting, by all means piss away hundreds of billions of dollars and go to Mars direct for a quick visit. However, if you want to learn the actual skills required to live and work on other worlds, you should focus on building missions which demonstrate and refine the skills required to live and work on other worlds.
Doing so on our Moon and near-Earth asteroids (the nearest locations to support and safety) is the best way to do that and will give us the tools needed to move outwards permanently.
So, as soon as possible, start on agriculture. If you're going to prioritize that, then you need to prioritize the knowledge and skills for the most productive environment. If you had to settle North America from scratch, would you first try to figure out how to farm in North Ontario? No, you'd try to figure out how to farm in places like Virginia, for the toehold, then as quickly as possible move out to the midwest, where the really big yields are possible.
Mars is probably going to be the off-Earth agricultural power, like the American midwest. The Moon, with its lack of resources, including suitable forms of sunlight, is going to be like North Ontario.
Doing so on our Moon and near-Earth asteroids (the nearest locations to support and safety) is the best way to do that and will give us the tools needed to move outwards permanently.
Near-Earth asteroids are a good rehearsal for expeditions to Mars. Any techniques useful to Mars that we might learn from the Moon, we would also learn from Near-Earth asteroid exploration. I am all for this. They will also yield information relevant to preventing asteroid collisions. I say we save the Moon for when we have a use for He3.
However, we can't even construct a reliable artificial biosphere fully enclosed here on Earth!...no one has done it yet. Ever.
I don't think you need a reliable artificial biosphere to get started. All you really need is life support for growing plants. I'm sure there's some grow houses out there in extreme northern latitudes that qualify as exactly this. If you can reduce the weight of supplies by a factor of 10 or 20, then this is enough.
The ISS is also self-contained.