Manned Spaceflight - the Next 30 Years
Discussion
I don't think anyone is suggesting you go to the moon in order to get to Mars. You go to the moon because the moon is a worthwhile destination ion its own right.
And we have to get out of the habit of describing these places as "rocks". They are "worlds" with complex geologies and histories and will take centuries of detailed exploring for us to know and understand them properly.
The one thing we have learned from 60 years of manned and unmanned exploration of our Solar System is that the planets, moons, asteroids and comets are all far more complex and interesting than we once thought them to be.
And we have to get out of the habit of describing these places as "rocks". They are "worlds" with complex geologies and histories and will take centuries of detailed exploring for us to know and understand them properly.
The one thing we have learned from 60 years of manned and unmanned exploration of our Solar System is that the planets, moons, asteroids and comets are all far more complex and interesting than we once thought them to be.
Eric Mc said:
I don't think anyone is suggesting you go to the moon in order to get to Mars. You go to the moon because the moon is a worthwhile destination ion its own right.
Yes, ideally you'd go to both. But that will dilute resources. If Moon was a necessary step in getting to Mars, either for astronomical or scientific/technological reasons. But I don't think it is, and of the two Mars is the bigger catch. And if public support is a factor, there will be infinitely more for Mars.By far the biggest limitations to space exploration IMO are the ludicrously delicate and demanding bags of blood and bones that we (apparently) desperately need to transport to other worlds.
Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
I don't think anyone is suggesting you go to the moon in order to get to Mars. You go to the moon because the moon is a worthwhile destination ion its own right.
Yes, ideally you'd go to both. But that will dilute resources. If Moon was a necessary step in getting to Mars, either for astronomical or scientific/technological reasons. But I don't think it is, and of the two Mars is the bigger catch. And if public support is a factor, there will be infinitely more for Mars.You are also assuming that exploring these places is a "one or the other" option. I can see different agencies and nations setting different targets for their programmes. It's perfectly feasible that the moon AND Mars may be targeted at the same time by different groups.
The moon has one huge advantage - it's near.
Blackpuddin said:
By far the biggest limitations to space exploration IMO are the ludicrously delicate and demanding bags of blood and bones that we (apparently) desperately need to transport to other worlds.
Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
So, no manned spaceflight?Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
Is space exploration purely a scientific exercise or are there all sorts of geopolitical reasons behind it. The history shows that the latter has played a vital part and will continue to do so - and having manned programmes is a massive part of that.
Columbus was not sent across the Atlantic for scientific reasons.
I'd prefer this discussion to concentrate on what humans will be doing in space over the next few decades - not whether they should be there in the first place.
Eric Mc said:
Blackpuddin said:
By far the biggest limitations to space exploration IMO are the ludicrously delicate and demanding bags of blood and bones that we (apparently) desperately need to transport to other worlds.
Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
So, no manned spaceflight?Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
Is space exploration purely a scientific exercise or are there all sorts of geopolitical reasons behind it. The history shows that the latter has played a vital part and will continue to do so - and having manned programmes is a massive part of that.
Columbus was not sent across the Atlantic for scientific reasons.
I'd prefer this discussion to concentrate on what humans will be doing in space over the next few decades - not whether they should be there in the first place.
Clearly the Columbus example is spurious as no alternatives were available back then.
No - it illustrates that we didn't put humans in the most interesting places.
It's not that we learned nothing from Apollo - we learned a huge amount. The problem was that the data from the Apollo samples was assumed to be typical of the entire moon. We now know that was a wrong assumption.
It's time to send some more humans to these other places.
It's not that we learned nothing from Apollo - we learned a huge amount. The problem was that the data from the Apollo samples was assumed to be typical of the entire moon. We now know that was a wrong assumption.
It's time to send some more humans to these other places.
Blackpuddin said:
Clearly the Columbus example is spurious as no alternatives were available back then.
No alternatives to what? Exercising political power and seeking new resources for exploitation before others did it first?THOSE were the reasons Columbus was sent across the Atlantic and these will largely be the reason for manned exploration of the Solar System. Science will have a part to play, but it won't be the major part. It never was.
Eric Mc said:
Blackpuddin said:
Clearly the Columbus example is spurious as no alternatives were available back then.
No alternatives to what? Exercising political power and seeking new resources for exploitation before others did it first?THOSE were the reasons Columbus was sent across the Atlantic and these will largely be the reason for manned exploration of the Solar System. Science will have a part to play, but it won't be the major part. It never was.
So - humans are going to be are trapped forever on one vulnerable planet?
To be honest, I do not really want to discus the whys and wherefores of whether humans should actually travel places in space.
For the purpose of this thread I am assuming they will - because that is what is going to happen anyway, whether their motives are good or bad.
What I would like people to discuss is WHERE and HOW this will be achieved over the next few decades.
And maybe discuss what nations and/or agencies are going to carry this out.
To be honest, I do not really want to discus the whys and wherefores of whether humans should actually travel places in space.
For the purpose of this thread I am assuming they will - because that is what is going to happen anyway, whether their motives are good or bad.
What I would like people to discuss is WHERE and HOW this will be achieved over the next few decades.
And maybe discuss what nations and/or agencies are going to carry this out.
OK sorry, I will butt out in that case with a final thought, which is that our failure to explore the mind – and on a much simpler level, as a consequence of that, the available options – is one of the biggest mistakes we are making in this emotionally-driven need to physically explore places that can (and should) be mechanically explored much more easily. I have no argument against colonisation but I do feel that this should be stage 2, not stage 1 of a meaningful space exploration process.
Edited by Blackpuddin on Saturday 24th October 13:21
I think Mars is definitely going to be a combination effort.
Seems to make more sense to send automated "supply" ships ahead of the manned mission before humans get there.
Also, I'm still not convinced by the Moon as a long term option, for someone who convinced me the Shuttle was a short term solution that held back development of space flight, I feel the Moon might have the same effect on going to Mars.
Seems to make more sense to send automated "supply" ships ahead of the manned mission before humans get there.
Also, I'm still not convinced by the Moon as a long term option, for someone who convinced me the Shuttle was a short term solution that held back development of space flight, I feel the Moon might have the same effect on going to Mars.
But not on going to the moon. As I keep saying, the moon is not a "dead" dull and uninteresting place.
It looks to me that the moon will become the playground of the Chinese - and maybe the Indians - whilst America debates what it needs to do next as different Presidents come and go.
It looks to me that the moon will become the playground of the Chinese - and maybe the Indians - whilst America debates what it needs to do next as different Presidents come and go.
Eric Mc said:
But not on going to the moon. As I keep saying, the moon is not a "dead" dull and uninteresting place.
It looks to me that the moon will become the playground of the Chinese - and maybe the Indians - whilst America debates what it needs to do next as different Presidents come and go.
Sorry, I can't resist one more go It looks to me that the moon will become the playground of the Chinese - and maybe the Indians - whilst America debates what it needs to do next as different Presidents come and go.
It's this wasteful, agenda-driven approach to space that is so frustrating. We should be exploring as planet Earth, not as a bunch of disparate entities. This is such a ridiculous duplication of resources and effort. We've had 40 years of "non-competitive" co-operation in manned spaceflight and we are stuck in earth orbit.
We had ten years of competition and we reached the moon.
Despair if you will about how men are motivated, but competition gets the job done.
I'd prefer to go ahead on the basis of knowing the way people think and what motivates them rather than do nothing whilst we wait for humanity to become more enlightened.
We had ten years of competition and we reached the moon.
Despair if you will about how men are motivated, but competition gets the job done.
I'd prefer to go ahead on the basis of knowing the way people think and what motivates them rather than do nothing whilst we wait for humanity to become more enlightened.
I would expect a first colony on the moon to develop the knowledge needed, then a go at Mars. At least on the moon if it goes tits up, there is the possibility of a rescue mission.
Meanwhile, robotic exploration of Mars and the rest of the solar system.
But we do need faster spacecraft to make anything other than Mars viable.
Meanwhile, robotic exploration of Mars and the rest of the solar system.
But we do need faster spacecraft to make anything other than Mars viable.
Blackpuddin said:
Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
So you land a little robot on Mars that travels at 1mph, goes 'bleep' and then gets stuck in a rut. Wow.Toys with cameras on are a cheap easy cop-out. By all means survey the moon/planet from orbit and assess the best place to land, send a few probes to make sure, but then you need humans.
Consider any human explorers from the past, where they went and how far they travelled. What battery-powered toy could scale Everest, cross Antarctica, explore the depths of darkest Africa, fix things that broke, make on-the-spot decisions, improvise or think?
Simpo Two said:
Blackpuddin said:
Transporting human beings is a pure vanity project and not in any way necessary when far more efficient exploration technologies are already available to us. Efficient exploration by the best means is surely the first priority. And that rules out human beings.
So you land a little robot on Mars that travels at 1mph, goes 'bleep' and then gets stuck in a rut. Wow.Toys with cameras on are a cheap easy cop-out. By all means survey the moon/planet from orbit and assess the best place to land, send a few probes to make sure, but then you need humans.
Consider any human explorers from the past, where they went and how far they travelled. What battery-powered toy could scale Everest, cross Antarctica, explore the depths of darkest Africa, fix things that broke, make on-the-spot decisions, improvise or think?
rhinochopig said:
grumbledoak said:
I am with you, unromantic though it is. People need air and water and food and toilet facilities, none of which are in abundance on the nearby rocks. It makes any manned mission a very expensive picnic. We need faster spaceships.
You're way off the mark there. Lunar water is a very real possibility. Further, H3 is highly likely to exist in large quantities on the moon. H3 is an important element of fusion research. Should we crack fusion as tech then commercial mining becomes more viable. Plus with water you have air and food.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff