Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the one-small-orbit-for-man dept.

Buzz Aldrin has said that NASA should stop spending $3.5 billion per year on the International Space Station and relinquish low Earth orbit activities to private companies, such as SpaceX, Orbital ATK, Boeing, Bigelow Aerospace, and Axiom Space. This would allow for the funding of "cyclers" to enable a base on the moon and eventually a permanent presence on Mars:

http://www.space.com/36787-buzz-aldrin-retire-international-space-station-for-mars.html

Establishing private outposts in LEO is just the first step in Aldrin's plan for Mars colonization, which depends heavily on "cyclers" — spacecraft that move continuously between two cosmic destinations, efficiently delivering people and cargo back and forth. "The foundation of human transportation is the cycler," the 87-year-old former astronaut said. "Very rugged, so it'll last 30 years or so; no external moving parts."

Step two involves the international spaceflight community coming together to build cyclers that ply cislunar space, taking people on trips to the moon and back. Such spacecraft, and the activities they enable, would allow the construction of a crewed lunar base, where humanity could learn and test the techniques required for Mars colonization, such as how to manufacture propellant from local resources, Aldrin said. Then would come Earth-Mars cyclers, which Aldrin described as "an evolutionary development" of the prior cyclers.

[...] NASA officials have repeatedly said that the ISS is a key part of the agency's "Journey to Mars" vision, which aims to get astronauts to the vicinity of the Red Planet sometime in the 2030s.

Is the ISS a key part of the "Journey to Mars" or a key roadblock?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:26PM (24 children)

    by its_gonna_be_yuge! (6454) on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:26PM (#508299)

    Mars has been there for 4.503 billion years, and it can wait a few more until we get the infrastructure ready to do Mars properly.

    Just ditching someone in a tin can to bounce onto Mars and then maybe bounce back doesn't seem like a worthwhile project. Going there and thriving there as colonists is the end-goal - not just touching our feet in the sand.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:58PM (23 children)

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday May 11 2017, @08:58PM (#508322) Journal

    And I would argue a colony is useless until we have developed terraform technology because all you are doing is shipping a handful of people to live in a tin can, no different if that tin can is on Mars or the Moon or an asteroid, its still gonna be completely inhospitable to human life outside the can.

    If we are gonna be spending that kind of money? Spend it on a probe to Europa that is capable of penetrating the ice and seeing if there is life there. From everything we have seen to this point Europa is the best bet on finding life and the amount of information we would learn about how life begins and evolves, even if all we find down there is an alien version of a flatworm or even bacteria, would advance our knowledge of the origins of life so much it would be the biological equivalent of what inventing of the telescope did for astronomy.

    With limited resources we have to pick the projects that have the most potential for scientific ROI and I would argue finding out if there is life in our solar system is worth a hell of a lot more than sticking some humans in a tin can on Mars.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:08PM (9 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:08PM (#508326)

      Being in the tin can, on site, getting first hand data and more importantly immersion exposure to the challenges, should be enough value add to justify the tin can mission - just like the ISS.

      10,000 scientists poring over scant data returned from robotic probes aren't likely as effective as 1000 scientists supporting 10 more who are direct in the field.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday May 12 2017, @12:24AM (8 children)

        by tftp (806) on Friday May 12 2017, @12:24AM (#508409) Homepage

        Being in the tin can, on site, getting first hand data and more importantly immersion exposure to the challenges, should be enough value add to justify the tin can mission

        One manned expedition will cost as much as 100 unmanned probes. Robots can be sent to different points of the planet and be set up for different research. I do not see /any/ value in sending humans and a small lab if those humans do not also have mobility on the planet. Imagine, we have them there. They walked out and dug up a pit in the sand. Let's assume the walls did not cave in. They found some rocks. That took two days. Now what? They spent one year going there, and there will be one year flying back. And twenty years off of their lifespan because of radiation - which we cannot mitigate. There will be deaths in that expedition - more than one, if the scientists are going to push the limits.

        IMO, at this point manned expeditions are too expensive, too dangerous, too long and too pointless. If you find an alien ship on the surface - sure, then at least there is a good purpose. But to fly there just to wade in the sand? What scientific results are worth such an expense?

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday May 12 2017, @02:02AM (5 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 12 2017, @02:02AM (#508428) Journal

          And twenty years off of their lifespan because of radiation - which we cannot mitigate.

          You had a good comment until you threw this bullshit in there. The radiation risks of a trip to Mars are minimal. Astronauts will be exposed to more radiation than NASA recommendations would allow, but the limits are conservative. Weightlessness will do far more damage to the astronauts than radiation will, and that's a problem that could be fixed by rotating part of the spacecraft.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 12 2017, @02:28AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday May 12 2017, @02:28AM (#508436)

            Radiation concerns are real, but trimming 20 years off lifespan is overblowing it.

            Occasionally one astronaut will get unlucky with the radiation effects and lose 20 years of life to it. Just like commuting to work on the freeway will occasionally do terrible things to lifespan, but not most of the time.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday May 12 2017, @02:38AM (3 children)

            by tftp (806) on Friday May 12 2017, @02:38AM (#508439) Homepage

            Not everyone is so quick [space.com] to dismiss the danger of radiation:

            The Mars rover Curiosity has allowed us to finally calculate an average dose over the 180-day journey. It is approximately 300 mSv, the equivalent of 24 CAT scans. In just getting to Mars, an explorer would be exposed to more than 15 times an annual radiation limit for a worker in a nuclear power plant.

            We can debate whether the limits are conservative, but the absolute figure of 0.3 Sv (one way) is scary. The astronaut will collect about 1 Sv over the trip - and that is already radiation poisoning [xkcd.com], and there will be no treatment until return to Earth. Once on Mars, researchers cannot stay underground - they have to do research on the surface.

            Everything else, like gravity, can be dealt with. But there is no sufficiently powerful source of energy yet (like a small and clean thermonuclear reactor) to create, say, a magnetic deflector for the solar wind. Another good plan is to fly much faster. Both methods require technology that is not yet available. I believe people should focus on that - and on better robots.

            • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 12 2017, @04:37AM

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 12 2017, @04:37AM (#508470) Journal

              I am totally fine with postponing human missions to Mars until they take 30-60 days one-way instead of 180. It will be too bad if those propulsion technologies are not ready to use by the 2030s.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday May 12 2017, @04:54AM

              by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday May 12 2017, @04:54AM (#508479) Journal

              Not to mention that, once there, the astronauts might no longer remember how to get back. [go.com]

              --
              The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 2) by Alphatool on Friday May 12 2017, @12:51PM

              by Alphatool (1145) on Friday May 12 2017, @12:51PM (#508588)

              Radiation doses don't add up like that. To get radiation poisoning from 1 Sv all of the dose needs to be delivered over a short time span, think hours rather than days. If the dose is spread out to e.g. 10 mSv per day for 100 days there will be no immediate health effects. There would be an increase in the risk of cancer (maybe 5% per Sv more likely to die from cancer but it's complicated) but in the context of interplanetary space travel 2 mSv per day is nothing to worry about.

              There are some serious and genuine concerns about brain damage from really high energy cosmic radiation (see the reply by by maxwell demon), but that is a very different problem than anything from a conventional radiation dose.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 12 2017, @02:15AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday May 12 2017, @02:15AM (#508430)

          But one manned mission will get funded, 100 unmanned probes will not get funded in the same timeframe.

          Keep the political reality in focus - whether you like it or not, it exists and will not only influence but determine funding.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @05:52AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @05:52AM (#508505) Journal

          Imagine, we have them there. They walked out and dug up a pit in the sand. Let's assume the walls did not cave in. They found some rocks. That took two days. Now what?

          Right there, that's the equivalent of one or more robotic missions. The answer to "now what?" is that we keep having the humans do more such tasks. They can stay for years, not merely a couple of days.

          And twenty years off of their lifespan because of radiation - which we cannot mitigate.

          Except through simple engineering like radiation shielding. High energy cosmic rays, which are difficult, but not impossible to shield against, only make up part of the space radiation environment. So shielding will protect against much of what radiation is actually in space (even if we don't go all the way to shield against cosmic rays and the resulting particle sprays associated with cosmic rays), particularly from the Sun, which is the most dangerous source of radiation in space.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:34PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 11 2017, @09:34PM (#508337) Journal

      The tin can is useful if it is self-sustaining and can be expanded using resources that are on site. And Mars is better than say, Ceres or Pluto because it has higher gravity and more of an atmosphere (even if it is not hospitable at all).

      The Moon is a useful destination simply due to being so close to Earth, as well as the tidal locking which makes the far side of the Moon an ideal place to put ground telescopes.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @05:33AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @05:33AM (#508498) Journal

      And I would argue a colony is useless until we have developed terraform technology because all you are doing is shipping a handful of people to live in a tin can, no different if that tin can is on Mars or the Moon or an asteroid, its still gonna be completely inhospitable to human life outside the can.

      Or Earth for that matter. There's plenty of places on Earth with these issues as well. We figure out reasons to go there anyway. Further, a lot of people already live in the "tin can" even when the outside is hospitable.

      If we are gonna be spending that kind of money? Spend it on a probe to Europa that is capable of penetrating the ice and seeing if there is life there. From everything we have seen to this point Europa is the best bet on finding life and the amount of information we would learn about how life begins and evolves, even if all we find down there is an alien version of a flatworm or even bacteria, would advance our knowledge of the origins of life so much it would be the biological equivalent of what inventing of the telescope did for astronomy.

      But that still wouldn't help us learn how to live anywhere off of Earth. Colonization will be bigger than discovering non-sentient life off of Earth.

      With limited resources we have to pick the projects that have the most potential for scientific ROI and I would argue finding out if there is life in our solar system is worth a hell of a lot more than sticking some humans in a tin can on Mars.

      Human missions fare well by scientific ROI. But even if we really think scientific ROI is valuable, rather than merely pay lip service to the idea, we still have the matter of time value - ROI isn't instantaneous, but happens over a span of time.

      For example, tftp claims that a human mission would cost as much as 100 robotic missions. Even if we made the unwarranted assumption that 100 robotic missions would generate a competitive amount of scientific ROI, we still have the problem that we're doing Martian missions at somewhere around the rate of 1 every couple of years. In other words, it takes two centuries to generate that level of scientific output via our current rate of robotic missions. So ROI over two centuries is going to have a hard time competing with ROI over a much shorter span of time.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 12 2017, @06:30AM (3 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 12 2017, @06:30AM (#508516) Journal

        For example, tftp claims that a human mission would cost as much as 100 robotic missions. Even if we made the unwarranted assumption that 100 robotic missions would generate a competitive amount of scientific ROI, we still have the problem that we're doing Martian missions at somewhere around the rate of 1 every couple of years. In other words, it takes two centuries to generate that level of scientific output via our current rate of robotic missions. So ROI over two centuries is going to have a hard time competing with ROI over a much shorter span of time.

        Or you send those 100 robotic missions to different places. Send flyby or orbital missions to Pallas, Uranus, Neptune, Eris, Sedna, and Planet Nine if it is located. Send 5 robotic missions to Mars with more capable robots each time. Send drones to Titan since they can fly in the thick atmosphere, and small submarines to explore the hydrocarbon lakes. Send a drill and robotic submarine combo to enter the oceans on Europa and Enceladus. Send something capable of surviving in Venus's atmosphere. Launch five new successor space observatories to Hubble and the James Webb Space Telescope, capable of directly imaging exoplanets to look for life (admittedly, these observatories could be as much as $5-10 billion a pop which adds up fast).

        Meanwhile, if the top Mars science goal is looking for life, Mars looks like a worse target than Europa or Enceladus. Not terrible, but not as good. Exoplanet atmosphere imaging may even find life first, albeit indirectly.

        We should go to Mars sometime. But we should do it after the costs decline (relative to using the stupidly expensive SLS, and propulsion methods that are not fast enough to get humans to Mars in 30 days). And we should aim to create self-sustaining habitats and industry on Mars, so that if humans do settle there, constant resupply is not needed. This could entail sending robots in advance. Robots capable of building a greenhouse and having fresh food grown before humans ever reach the planet. Maybe even robots capable of building the majority of components needed to make more robots.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @02:48PM (#508632) Journal

          Or you send those 100 robotic missions to different places. Send flyby or orbital missions to Pallas, Uranus, Neptune, Eris, Sedna, and Planet Nine if it is located.

          So we would learn massively less about Mars. Those other places aren't Mars.

          Meanwhile, if the top Mars science goal is looking for life, Mars looks like a worse target than Europa or Enceladus. Not terrible, but not as good. Exoplanet atmosphere imaging may even find life first, albeit indirectly.

          "If". I believe the top Mars science goal is helping to figure out how to colonize Mars.

          We should go to Mars sometime. But we should do it after the costs decline (relative to using the stupidly expensive SLS, and propulsion methods that are not fast enough to get humans to Mars in 30 days).

          I'm not advocating going to Mars right this minute. But we need to keep in mind that we can already do things in space for far cheaper than NASA does them. One of those many ways is by not doing science at the hobby level. Seriously, how would NASA's current efforts differ from some incredibly rich dude with a 3 trillion USD revenue stream, doing a little space science so that he'd have something to brag about at parties?

          Similarly, we don't need SLS for anything. SpaceX already has Falcon Heavy which is more than adequate for any assembled Mars missions in Earth orbit. 180 days to Mars is more than adequate to get people to Mars. We don't need 30 day propulsion (particularly, if that gets entangled with Earth anti-nuke politics). And we don't need to stay on Mars for only 2 days as some other poster proposed.

          I believe a variety of very large projects, including early stage colonization of Mars, are doable in the near future, say by 2050. But I don't believe the parties with the resources currently required to carry that out have either the interest in doing such big, long term stuff or the competence to carry it off.

          A key observation here is simply that presently, space, particularly space science, is not important to us outside of some commercial activities in orbit. If it were, you would see more than a few government level projects. A key measure of what we find important, is what we're willing to spend our own money and personal time on, rather than somebody else's. It's easy to speak of using government money for whatever we feel like. For example, if finding extra-terrestrial life in the Solar System were important to us, then where are the private projects to do that?

          You would also see people use some basic economics to improve the ROI of such space activities (such as building more than one or two probes of a particular design in order to take advantage of economies of scale or heavily using existing launch vehicles with better cost per mass rather than rolling your own launch vehicle as with SLS).

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 12 2017, @04:52PM (1 child)

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 12 2017, @04:52PM (#508712) Journal

            "If". I believe the top Mars science goal is helping to figure out how to colonize Mars.

            Tell that to NASA.

            https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/goals/ [nasa.gov]

            Goal 1: Determine whether life ever arose on Mars

            https://mars.nasa.gov/programmissions/science/ [nasa.gov]

            To discover the possibilities for past or present life on Mars, NASA's Mars Exploration Program is currently following an exploration strategy known as "Seek Signs of Life." This science theme is built on the prior science theme of "Follow the Water," which guided missions such as 2001 Mars Odyssey, Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and the Mars Phoenix Lander.

            Make no mistake, the top science goal for Mars is finding evidence of past or present microbial life, upgraded from the more conservative goal of finding water. Maybe you meant to say "should be" instead of "is".

            The colonization goal is not really related to past habitability unless you want to see terraforming, something that will be incredibly hard even on small scales.

            For example, if finding extra-terrestrial life in the Solar System were important to us, then where are the private projects to do that?

            I would drop "in the Solar System" and point to Yuri Milner's Breakthrough [wikipedia.org] initiatives. Planetary Resources [wikipedia.org] launched a kickstarter for a telescope that would look at exoplanets as a "stretch goal".

            Finding life inside the solar system (not on Earth, jokesters) is likely too hard expensive for private industry. Getting anything on Mars is a challenge and the rovers haven't found life. Getting a drill to pierce miles through the icy crust of Europa or Enceladus is going to cost billions, or maybe $10 billion, and even the lite mission that would just land on the surface and dig a little to find frozen microbes will be costly. Governments can step in and foot the bill. Ideally, the U.S., EU, China, Russia, Japan, and others could work together for certain big missions.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @05:30PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @05:30PM (#508745) Journal

              Tell that to NASA.

              So what? They aren't serious about space science. They just have more money to play with than me.

              Make no mistake, the top science goal for Mars is finding evidence of past or present microbial life, upgraded from the more conservative goal of finding water. Maybe you meant to say "should be" instead of "is".

              No, I used the right word here. After all, the whole point of space exploration is that someone, someday will need that information in more than a vague "any knowledge is good" way. For example, a key justification of the Apollo program was that people would live in space, particularly on the Moon. A big step in that process was showing that people can travel to the Moon.

              Finding life inside the solar system (not on Earth, jokesters) is likely too hard expensive for private industry.

              Sure, it is. What would be the point of trying when NASA can outspend you by a couple orders of magnitude.

              Getting a drill to pierce miles through the icy crust of Europa or Enceladus is going to cost billions, or maybe $10 billion

              Or maybe only a few tens of millions USD. Who knows when nobody, including NASA, is trying?

              Governments can step in and foot the bill.

              And in the process make the bill a few orders of magnitude larger, often without actually accomplishing anything.

              My bet is that when we actually start doing serious space exploration and development, initiated by private enterprise rather than some huge, uncritical check from Uncle Sam, we'll find that it's a lot cheaper than you portray above.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 12 2017, @12:33PM (6 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday May 12 2017, @12:33PM (#508581) Journal

      There is technology to be mostly self sustaining on a Moon or Mars base or just free floating. Being on site as a human immersed in the environment without any time lag of minutes would enable research and ideas on a whole new level.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @04:38PM (5 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @04:38PM (#508701) Journal

        Being on site as a human immersed in the environment without any time lag of minutes would enable research and ideas on a whole new level.

        Or a time lag of decades! Keep in mind that the "labeled release" experiments of the Viking landers (which gave an ambiguous result) have never been replicated, even forty years later.

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 12 2017, @04:51PM (4 children)

          by kaszz (4211) on Friday May 12 2017, @04:51PM (#508710) Journal

          Can you expand on that?

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 12 2017, @04:54PM (3 children)

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 12 2017, @04:54PM (#508714) Journal

            Your bad habit of not Googling is showing:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experiments#Controversy [wikipedia.org]

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 12 2017, @05:15PM (2 children)

              by kaszz (4211) on Friday May 12 2017, @05:15PM (#508733) Journal

              So what kind of time lag do you refer to?
              That failed experiments of the past would cause a time lag seems not connected?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12 2017, @06:08PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @06:08PM (#508769) Journal

                That failed experiments of the past would cause a time lag seems not connected?

                Failed? With a human presence and the necessary gear, the label release experiments (a series of batches of organic compounds which showed anomalous reactions) could have been rerun in days. Instead, we still don't know the causes or problems with this particular experiment because no one has tried it since. And it has been 41 years and counting since the experiment was run.

                What is ignored here is the enormously poor quality of science and enormous lag that comes from using probes exclusively. Too often, researchers have had to guess at a phenomenon merely because they have no way to explore it further in any reasonable time frame. White lumps [nasa.gov] at the base of your lander's legs? Probably water ice, but who knows for sure? Nobody will be doing a near polar landing mission again for a few more decades (it's already been almost a decade since).

                • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 12 2017, @07:09PM

                  by kaszz (4211) on Friday May 12 2017, @07:09PM (#508798) Journal

                  You're right on. And it's time to go to Mars not because it's easy or cheap but because it can bring benefits we just won't realize without presence. The possible risk is contamination of Mars which could mess up testing results. And of course the really serious risk of any back contamination. Probably a low risk with high impact.