Four-man mission to Mars? No.

[Bored@Work]

What to do with a dead body - Eject it into space - what else. 

A waste of fertilizer.

[Lightages]

Radiation protection in interplanetary space is not a trivial thing. Any shielded room will add huge amounts of mass. It is still not clear what is needed.

Digging below the surface of Mars is not just to protect from radiation. Meteors basically have no problem making it to the surface and you will need a lot of soil above you to protect from bigger ones that might make it down. When I say bigger ones I mean things the size of a small rock that would just burn up harmlessly in our upper atmosphere.

The money spent on Earth killing people is most certainly a huge amount. Getting politicians to go along with using this money for space instead of paranoia and for more than the ten year we will need to make it work is harder than getting to Mars IMHO.

As far as sending only atheists, I am all for that. I would actually like to buy an island and make an atheist country too. The problem with trying to push too many frontiers and alienating the public will surely make sure the politicians oppose any funding like that.

If we discovered a huge asteroid on its way to hit the Earth in 20 years and it would wipe out all life, I bet even the most opposed to going to Mars would be climbing over each other to get on the space craft. Maybe we need to find that killer asteroid so we can convince people that getting off this planet and spreading out is a good idea!

Actually, here is a cool concept:


And again, whatever the plan, I would sign up to go!

[Jeroen3]

But...  I'm afraid the era of such high minded goals for human society has passed.   We could do it but we won't.

First there needs to be a motivator. Such as a new cold war space race or a financial profit on exotic mars-oil. Or maybe a killer asteroid, but is mars the best choice in that case?

Before any of that, nobody is going to anywhere apart from small robots funded by scientists.

The radiation is an issue, but not a direct life threatening situation. You'd just die younger due to cancer.

[EEVblog]

But...  I'm afraid the era of such high minded goals for human society has passed.   We could do it but we won't.

Not with people with attitudes like that. Thankfully you don't get a say in it.
So what's your grand plan to get society excited about something again? You know, the stuff that makes us uniquely human.
Or should we just sit here and mope on forums?
If governments won't do it, private enterprise will.
A trip could probably be funded by media and sponsorship rights alone from someone cluey enough. And there are plenty of people working on that right now.
You will be proven wrong.

The money and resources needed to accomplish this task will not be made available.

You can read see the future can you?

  We have no leaders who are willing or able to take us there.

Leader typically change every 4 or 8 years or so.

If one arose and dare try - they would not last long.

Wanna bet.

We're in a different world than the 1960s. The corporations (and their sock puppet politicians and military muscle) will not allow us to go there unless short term profits are to be had. 

They don't have a say in it if you have a leader with big enough balls.

Sorry for the downer perspective...

It's ok to be wrong 

[EEVblog]

What to do with a dead body - Eject it into space - what else. 

A waste of fertilizer.

Actually, on second thought it would be better to use it as a science experiment. Decompression to space or mars atmosphere etc. Could learn a lot.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

We need to start building the "B" Ark like the Golgafrinchams in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

We will build the other ones later.

http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Adams.htm

[stitch]

The money and resources needed to accomplish this task will not be made available.

That's correct.  A full scale expedition to Mars would be way too costly.  And the only kind of people who believe in the 4-man stunt are dreamers, "experts" selling a book, and dot com posers with no known physical address.  So we are where we are, right where Carl Sagan said we should be … robots.

[Rigby]

The money and resources needed to accomplish this task will not be made available.

That's correct.  A full scale expedition to Mars would be way too costly.  And the only kind of people who believe in the 4-man stunt are dreamers, "experts" selling a book, and dot com posers with no known physical address.  So we are where we are, right where Carl Sagan said we should be … robots.

Robots are very effective and they have a very good price -> performance ratio, definitely.  Mankind will send itself to other planets and establish bases/colonies on those planets in the not too distant future, though.  Saying "what we're doing is good enough" with something like space exploration is a red flag, to me.  Once we lose the impetus to send ourselves further, and to learn more, we're dead as a species.

[stitch]

The money and resources needed to accomplish this task will not be made available.

That's correct.  A full scale expedition to Mars would be way too costly.  And the only kind of people who believe in the 4-man stunt are dreamers, "experts" selling a book, and dot com posers with no known physical address.  So we are where we are, right where Carl Sagan said we should be … robots.

Dreamers are good, however.  We need them.  Just don't let them handle the money.

[retrolefty]

The money and resources needed to accomplish this task will not be made available.

That's correct.  A full scale expedition to Mars would be way too costly.  And the only kind of people who believe in the 4-man stunt are dreamers, "experts" selling a book, and dot com posers with no known physical address.  So we are where we are, right where Carl Sagan said we should be … robots.

Dreamers are good, however.  We need them.  Just don't let them handle the money.

 Especially if it's not their own money. 

[mtdoc]

But...  I'm afraid the era of such high minded goals for human society has passed.   We could do it but we won't.

Not with people with attitudes like that.

Shoot the messenger, huh?

So what's your grand plan to get society excited about something again?

  Don't have one. Don't want one. 

You know, the stuff that makes us uniquely human. 

Or should we just sit here and mope on forums?

OK, so my only choices are expecting a manned mission to mars or being in-human and moping on forums?  Well that sucks.

If governments won't do it, private enterprise will.

Only if there's a profit in it.  I don't see it.

You can read see the future can you?

Well, no of course I can't and neither can you. These are only probabilities and opinions.  I think it is a low probability that there will ever be a manned Mars mission (not that I'm happy about that) and you think it's a high probability.  Viva la difference!   

  We have no leaders who are willing or able to take us there.

Leader typically change every 4 or 8 years or so.

If one arose and dare try - they would not last long.

Wanna bet.

We're in a different world than the 1960s. The corporations (and their sock puppet politicians and military muscle) will not allow us to go there unless short term profits are to be had. 

They don't have a say in it if you have a leader with big enough balls.

Tell that to the Kenedeys....

Sorry for the downer perspective...

It's ok to be wrong 

Yes, it is.

Look - I have 2 young boys (who are not much older than Sagan).  I would love for them to live in a world with a sustainable population and a steady state economy powered by clean, renewable energy and full of high tech gadgetry and manned missions to Mars. But unfortunately I see the likelyhood of that happening having about the same probability as a world full of rainbows powered by unicorn farts.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

[EEVblog]

Well, no of course I can't and neither can you. These are only probabilities and opinions.  I think it is a low probability that there will ever be a manned Mars mission (not that I'm happy about that) and you think it's a high probability.  Viva la difference!   

Ah, the classic argument of assuming that both points of view have equal merit, they don't.
You see, there are several counties, space agencies, and private corporations working on manned mars missions. And there is growing consensus in the space community that it's not only viable, but it's going to happen. It's "the vibe" (aussie joke). A lot of money and time is being invested in this. So if you actually look at it, there is a lot of evidence there that it's more likely than not going to happen.
To bet against it happening in our lifetime are I think are very long odds indeed.

What do you think are the odds are manned missions back to the moon? And if that happens, does that improve the chances of a manned mars mission?

[retrolefty]

Well, no of course I can't and neither can you. These are only probabilities and opinions.  I think it is a low probability that there will ever be a manned Mars mission (not that I'm happy about that) and you think it's a high probability.  Viva la difference!   

Ah, the classic argument of assuming that both points of view have equal merit, they don't.
You see, there are several counties, space agencies, and private corporations working on manned mars missions. And there is growing consensus in the space community that it's not only viable, but it's going to happen. It's "the vibe" (aussie joke). A lot of money and time is being invested in this. So if you actually look at it, there is a lot of evidence there that it's more likely than not going to happen.
To bet against it happening in our lifetime are I think are very long odds indeed.

What do you think are the odds are manned missions back to the moon? And if that happens, does that improve the chances of a manned mars mission?

 I think the Chinese will go to the moon within the next decade or so, as a national ego thing. But a mars mission is still way off in the future in my opinion.

 

[mtdoc]

You see, there are several counties, space agencies, and private corporations working on manned mars missions. And there is growing consensus in the space community that it's not only viable, but it's going to happen. It's "the vibe" (aussie joke). A lot of money and time is being invested in this. So if you actually look at it, there is a lot of evidence there that it's more likely than not going to happen.
To bet against it happening in our lifetime are I think are very long odds indeed.

What do you think are the odds are manned missions back to the moon? And if that happens, does that improve the chances of a manned mars mission?

Well I'm sure you know a lot more about the current state of manned Mars mission R and D than I do. I do remember back in the 1990's when I lived in the San Francisco Bay area, I had 2 friends who worked for Nasa/JPL. One was activey involved in Mars mission work. They were really excited about it at the time - so I only can imagine the progress and large numbers of enthusiastic engineers working on it now.  I do think it is technically possible and very achievable. But I think there's a huge difference between the R and D costs and the actual resources required to do it, between what's possible and what's likely.  I just don't see it happening.

Odds of new manned missions to the moon?  Low, I suspect but more likely than Mars. Yeah maybe China will do it.

The problem is that the USA is an empire in decline. We can't even keep our roads and bridges in good repair.  China would like to be next in the global empire line.  IMO they are making a big mistake in trying to mimic the Wests approach to rapid industrialization - they're too late to the party. The easy resources are gone. They're getting all the problems (ie pollution, urban slums) and will see little of the benefits.  But a trip to the moon - sure - they may try it as a national morale booster.

[lewis]

Forget Mars, Alpha Centauri is where it's at.

Check this out - the warp drive might actually be possible. Not only possible, but practical. Now THAT'S a vision for mankind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/06/11/this-is-the-amazing-design-for-nasas-star-trek-style-space-ship-the-ixs-enterprise/

[mtdoc]

Forget Mars, Alpha Centauri is where it's at.

Check this out - the warp drive might actually be possible. Not only possible, but practical. Now THAT'S a vision for mankind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/06/11/this-is-the-amazing-design-for-nasas-star-trek-style-space-ship-the-ixs-enterprise/

Pretty cool to fantasize about but..

Essentially, the empty space behind a starship would be made to expand rapidly, pushing the craft in a forward direction — passengers would perceive it as movement despite the complete lack of acceleration.
 
White speculates that such a drive could result in “speeds” that could take a spacecraft to Alpha Centauri in a mere two weeks — even though the system is 4.3 light-years away.

Remember..

[lewis]

Not that I pretend to understand it, but apparently nothing can move faster than the speed of light through space. But there's nothing stopping space itself moving faster than light. This explains why the universe is bigger than 13.7 billion light years in radius.

More interesting stuff here:

[mtdoc]

Pretty cool. But I don't think that helps us get to Alpha Centauri.

For an explanation of Relativity. Nothing beats Marylin Monroe...

[rob77]

Not that I pretend to understand it, but apparently nothing can move faster than the speed of light through space. But there's nothing stopping space itself moving faster than light. This explains why the universe is bigger than 13.7 billion light years in radius.

More interesting stuff here:

the other explanation could be:  we're just wrong

[stitch]

Forget Mars, Alpha Centauri is where it's at.

Check this out - the warp drive might actually be possible. Not only possible, but practical. Now THAT'S a vision for mankind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/06/11/this-is-the-amazing-design-for-nasas-star-trek-style-space-ship-the-ixs-enterprise/

Great concept art - probably mostly done in 3D Modeling programs then finished in Photoshop.  Makes you think that they actually built it. 

[gildasd]

All this number crunching is really neat and all.

However, in the maritime sector the crew sizing is done in a very different way.
The IMO rules (International Maritime Organization) are based on a worst case scenario:
Why? Because the bean counters will tell you that you can run a 150m plus ship with 4 or 5 crew (equivalent to a 2 person Mars crew).

But what happens when the shit hits the warp drive? Because, whatever probabilities tell you, it always will. Murphy ALWAYS wins.

IMO crew numbers are based on the minimal team size needed to save the ship/and or the crew. And thus you need 17 to 30 men (depending on ship type) on board.
But they don't just stand around waiting for a container to burn or the deck officers to get food poisoning from frozen lobster, they are used to do maintenance that avoid costly time in dry dock.
And in any case, the cost of the crew is but a rounding error of the cost of fuel and lubricants.

So for a trip to Mars, the same idea would be true. How many men do you need to do a 2 team emergency repair? 3, 4 even 5? Well that's your crew and they represent an insignificant amount of weight to put in orbit compared to the weight of the fuel to get them there.

So effort should be focused on getting fuel in space cheaper and using it more efficiently rather than cutting the crew leaving it unable to react to an emergency.
And if you got more crew hanging around, well, do MORE science.

Disclaimer - I sometimes brainstorm silly ideas for Copenhagen Suborbital.

[gildasd]

Reading the X15 data...

It's amazing how close and FAST the US airforce was to building a fully reusable SPACEfrickingPLANE before the politicians, MBA's and other meeting/useless paperwork/buttcovering addicted bureaucratic dickheads got in the way.

The design were tooling up a bigger fuel load X15 with Ramjets (for the atmospheric acceleration phase) that was going to go suborbital.
Basically do the same thing as the  Alan Shepard hop, but with a SPACEfrickingPLANE!!!

Was the X15 project expensive? Yes, but got a lot more done in much less time AND money than what NASA has done since.

How has the X15 project evolved in the 44 years since? A bloody hardly working RC model on the end of a Pegasus rocket. Pathetic. Billions just for that.
But I bet it followed all the design management phases taught in all MBA courses. Oh golly gee.


Want to go to space? Simple, fire all the managers.

http://history.nasa.gov/x15conf/toc.html
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tu2000.htm

[TimMcDonald]

Mars is certainly a touch stone the idea of people on another planet is neat but the real goal should be working to assure the survival of the human race in the event of a catastrophic event on Earth or in our solar system. Finding a way to support Human life outside of our Magnetosphere and creating an infrastructure off planet that can support further exploration and colonization regardless of what happens on Earth or Mars should be the goal. Colonies on phobos and the moon would achieve and prove more than colonizing mars. 

The first thing we should do is lick the radiation issues a habitat outside of the earths magnetosphere that can support multiple generations of life should be a top priority. The earths magnetosphere the great protector is a measly fraction of a gauss so creating an artificial magnetosphere thousands of time stronger should be achievable. As for the shielding afforded us by atmosphere,  the amount of air in the half square meter above your head is approximately a ton to achieve the same with water would require about 30 feet of water. These specs seem achievable and would achieve more than colonizing mars would.

I wonder how safe the lagrange points are? Placing space stations at major lagrange points might be the way to go. Meteor strikes are certainly a threat but there are many scenarios that could create apocalyptic conditions on Earth and Mars simultaneously so spreading ourselves far and wide and identifying the safest spots in the solar should be a priority.

[TimMcDonald]

As far as crew sizes go I will take a few top notch generalists, expert systems and extensive libraries over a throng of specialist any day.

[crusader66]

What a great discussion and too bad it is tucked in a far away corner of the forum.  Dave's enthusiasm for exploration is inspiring and necessary and it is a shame that more humans have lost this.  I am commenting because I think this is a fascinating topic and am hoping my 3-month-late response will bring the discussion back to life.  A few more thoughts.

Why go?  Because it is there.

Why are human explorers better than probes and rovers?  Because I don't remember the rover looking at a hill and asking, "What the hell is that?" and then going over to check it out. 

Will people die?  Yes, but at least it is for something that might be spectacular.