NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover

[Jimbo.]

Blackpuddin said:

I agree with Fundoreen on the point that a lot can be achieved through telescopes and computers. The biggest limitation to space travel is definitely the human body which at this point in our evolution is hopelessly unsuited for the distances involved. We don't need to physically BE somewhere to know about it. Some of our 'need' to explore is down to vanity and 'human achievement' and unfortunately that is the most expensive part of the whole deal.

There’s no need to spend billions and travel for millions of miles through the hostile environment of space to reach a barren, rocket, dusty, lifeless planet when you can simply catch the 0825h to Swindon.

[Beati Dogu]

Eric Mc said:

Viking (1976)

Incidentally, that star shaped logo was to celebrate America’s bicentennial in 1976. It was designed by Bruce Blackburn, the same man who designed the NASA ‘worm’ logo. He died at the beginning of February, aged 82.

[Eric Mc]

The logo appeared in lots of places that year -





Sad to hear that he died this year but glad to see that NASA are using the "worm" again alongside the "meatball".

[rxe]

Fundoreen said:

They need to speak to some oil rig divers. At least they rotate out after a couple of weeks.
Maybe get some people to spend 1 year working and living underwater. Less dangerous and you have a way out if you go barmy.
Too much star trek on the telly giving the impression its all like a cruise ship lol.
nobody born even this morning will live to see any pictures from a planet in another solar system.
Our best hope is the telescopes and robotic space probes.
Obviously musk can spent his money how he wants but its all a vanity project for giant egos.

I’ve got a mate who was an oil rig diver. Let’s just say he wasn’t carefully selected for the job based on any analysis of his personality.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that SpaceX get Starship up and running in the next decade? I think that is a reasonable punt. Quite frankly, for 4 astronauts, Starship will be a bit like a cruise ship. And once you’ve made one work, the industrial approach that they’ve taken means that they can get 10 up there in short order. I would be surprised if we don’t have humans on Mars within the decade.

While a lot can be done with telescopes, humans are far more adaptable and robust. If you want to turn a rock over, a human can do that. If you want to repurpose an experiment, a human can do that too. If something breaks, the human can fix it.

[Blackpuddin]

rxe said:

Fundoreen said:

They need to speak to some oil rig divers. At least they rotate out after a couple of weeks.
Maybe get some people to spend 1 year working and living underwater. Less dangerous and you have a way out if you go barmy.
Too much star trek on the telly giving the impression its all like a cruise ship lol.
nobody born even this morning will live to see any pictures from a planet in another solar system.
Our best hope is the telescopes and robotic space probes.
Obviously musk can spent his money how he wants but its all a vanity project for giant egos.

I’ve got a mate who was an oil rig diver. Let’s just say he wasn’t carefully selected for the job based on any analysis of his personality.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that SpaceX get Starship up and running in the next decade? I think that is a reasonable punt. Quite frankly, for 4 astronauts, Starship will be a bit like a cruise ship. And once you’ve made one work, the industrial approach that they’ve taken means that they can get 10 up there in short order. I would be surprised if we don’t have humans on Mars within the decade.

While a lot can be done with telescopes, humans are far more adaptable and robust. If you want to turn a rock over, a human can do that. If you want to repurpose an experiment, a human can do that too. If something breaks, the human can fix it.

Adaptable and robust humans may be, on Earth anyway and arguably Mars, which is relatively close at a minimum of four months travel away and relatively kind temperature-wise with up to 20 deg C available at the equator, but what about the other planets? We can forget about the idea of 'visiting' any of the other planets in our own solar system for the foreseeable future on the basis of either temperature or distance, or both. Plus of course none of the outer ones bar Pluto have anything to stand on.
I just don't get the desperation expressed by some in this forum for humans to 'be there' as that approach automatically proscribes real and meaningful exploration to anywhere other than the Moon or Mars. The focus at our current stage of evolution and corporeal fragility should be almost entirely on non-human investigation – unless human space travel is actually only about planting a flag for financial and/or colonising purposes, which would be a more honest (if deplorable) human rationale for 'being there'.

Edited by Blackpuddin on Wednesday 24th February 18:13

Edited by Blackpuddin on Wednesday 24th February 18:22

[Smiljan]

I know there's lots of talk of putting someone on Mars. I don't believe that's going to happen in my lifetime unless a private company decides to go there as a one way mission.

NASA's next manned missions are back to the moon in 4 years time to put the first woman on the moon and the stretch aim is to be able to do this sustainably by the 2030. Mars is next on the list after that and for NASA at least I don't see it happening for a very long time.

SpaceX are laying down the foundations, funding themselves privately with starlink as their intended income to do so.

Unless someone else can point me in the right place I don't see any manned mission plans even remotely started yet. Given it takes several years of testing, testing and testing again just for rovers and orbiters to be given a 40% chance of success of just landing and still working I'm thinking it's decades before a human occupied lander can be sent which has a high enough chance of landing and then leaving again to come back.

Whether you think it's worth it or not or a valid use of resources is moot, there are people out there funded and working towards doing so anyway.

[Blackpuddin]

Smiljan said:

Whether you think it's worth it or not or a valid use of resources is moot, there are people out there funded and working towards doing so anyway.

That's the really weird thing for me. Unless these people know something the rest of us don't, which could be possible if they're aliens in human form, it looks like the ultimate vanity project.

[Eric Mc]

And the answer to that is “So what” - if it gets the job done.

[Smiljan]

There's a view, right or wrong, that extremely long term humans need to inhabit and colonise another planet in case of catastrophic damage to our planet. Mars is the choice given the restraints of the current technology.

You don't have to understand why or agree with it, it's a plan in place and the early steps are happening while we're alive. Just sit back and enjoy it, it really is amazing what can be done when there is a goal to work towards.

[Blackpuddin]

Eric Mc said:

And the answer to that is “So what” - if it gets the job done.

What is the job though? What's the end goal? Genuine question. I find the science and achievements inspiring and endlessly fascinating. One of my life ambitions is to witness (or 'be there at' ) a rocket launch, and I'm old enough to remember Kennedy's 'we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard' speech, but somewhere along the line I've lost track of what we as a species are aiming to get out of the space programme. If it's just to colonise Mars or the Moon, that's one thing - but shouldn't we be setting loftier goals?

[MartG]

Blackpuddin said:

but shouldn't we be setting loftier goals?

Racial survival ?

Chelyabinsk in 2013 was just a tiddler of 20m diameter yet caused widespread damage - what if the next one we don't see coming is 200m or 2km or more across ?

[Eric Mc]

Blackpuddin said:

What is the job though? What's the end goal? Genuine question. I find the science and achievements inspiring and endlessly fascinating. One of my life ambitions is to witness (or 'be there at' ) a rocket launch, and I'm old enough to remember Kennedy's 'we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard' speech, but somewhere along the line I've lost track of what we as a species are aiming to get out of the space programme. If it's just to colonise Mars or the Moon, that's one thing - but shouldn't we be setting loftier goals?

No - let those who want to have a go get on with it.

[Blackpuddin]

I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to, but the question remains: what are they 'having a go' at?

[MartG]

Blackpuddin said:

I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to, but the question remains: what are they 'having a go' at?

Elon Musk has stated many times that his goal is to make humans a multi-planet species, so we don't get wiped out by some random cataclysm like an asteroid hitting Earth at several miles a second

[Eric Mc]

Blackpuddin said:

I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to, but the question remains: what are they 'having a go' at?

Whatever they want. It's their money and their business and their ambition.

[rider73]

Blackpuddin said:

I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to, but the question remains: what are they 'having a go' at?

its simple - they want to have their names in the history books as the founders of earthlings colonising the universe.... because lets face it, no one really remembers rich people after a generation....

[AW111]

MartG said:

Blackpuddin said:

I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to, but the question remains: what are they 'having a go' at?

Elon Musk has stated many times that his goal is to make humans a multi-planet species, so we don't get wiped out by some random cataclysm like an asteroid hitting Earth at several miles a second

And while I understand that logic, colonising another planet is a century or more away.
Putting a few dozen people on Mars or the moon is possible with today's technology, but a self-sufficient colony* is a pipe dream at this stage.

* self sufficient as in not just growing their own food, but medicine, industry, the ability to survive without resources from earth.
Many earth colonies failed, despite breathable air and fertile soil. Those that survived were dependant on their parent country for many decades or more - the US was still importing tools from Europe several centuries after settlement.

[Smiljan]

I think we all agree colonising another planet seem improbable or impossible to us in the way that putting a man on the moon would have seemed the same to someone a hundred years ago.

Just look at the advances made in just 6 years of global war back in the 40's. among those rocket scientists were men who kept quiet their dreams of space travel whilst working on weapons which would eventually help realise that dream.

It's not a stretch to imagine we'll have a permanent base on Mars at some point in the future just like we have a permanent base in Earth orbit now.

It's just a matter of will, time and technology advancement to do so. It's reasonable to expect technology will exist in the future that no one had though of right now. I don't believe we'll advance quickly enough to safely send and return manned missions to Mars in my lifetime but I also don't see why it won't happen in the future either.

[fiatpower]

AW111 said:

And while I understand that logic, colonising another planet is a century or more away.

Of course it is but you've got to start somewhere. You wouldn't go from nothing to a colony straight away.

[rxe]

Blackpuddin said:

Adaptable and robust humans may be, on Earth anyway and arguably Mars, which is relatively close at a minimum of four months travel away and relatively kind temperature-wise with up to 20 deg C available at the equator, but what about the other planets? We can forget about the idea of 'visiting' any of the other planets in our own solar system for the foreseeable future on the basis of either temperature or distance, or both. Plus of course none of the outer ones bar Pluto have anything to stand on.
I just don't get the desperation expressed by some in this forum for humans to 'be there' as that approach automatically proscribes real and meaningful exploration to anywhere other than the Moon or Mars. The focus at our current stage of evolution and corporeal fragility should be almost entirely on non-human investigation – unless human space travel is actually only about planting a flag for financial and/or colonising purposes, which would be a more honest (if deplorable) human rationale for 'being there'.

Edited by Blackpuddin on Wednesday 24th February 18:13

Edited by Blackpuddin on Wednesday 24th February 18:22

Planets other than Mars are a load harder, of course. Moons may be more interesting (and solid). But, it is an iterative journey. Have we learned a lot by going to the moon - of course. Will we learn more by going to Mars - yes. Could we put humans in orbit around Mars with today’s tech - yes. Land them and recover them - right now, probably not, but that is what SpaceX are working on.

What are the blockers? Journey time is a good one. But as an example question - does journey time change it you start in orbit with a fully fuelled rocket rather than whatever you could lift from earth in your own rocket? Does it get better still if you’ve parked a load of fuel in Mars orbit that gets you home?

SpaceX has already changed the economics of launching, and they will change it further. I see no reason why they could not get to Musk’s intended position of “cost of fuel + crew cost + launch pad fees”. If they can do that, then getting a horde of Starships orbiting Mars could cost less than NASAs SLS programme.

Say they manage fix their Raptor issue in the current SN rockets. SN10 lands perfectly, and then manages to land perfectly for 10 further flights, each one higher than the last. Then they nail together the booster, which is a much more simple beast, no flips required. Could they have something with Saturn V payloads flying (non human rated) in 2024? Probably. Could you then prove orbital refuelling? Yes. Could you then stick 150 tonnes of payload in Mars orbit? Yes.