The Real Mission to Mars 159
The Mars Society is looking for "anyone in good physical condition between 18 and 60 years of age... Scientific, engineering, practical mechanical, wilderness, and literary skills are all considered a plus." Only the passionate need apply: "conditions are likely to be tough and the job will be very trying." And that's before the robot switches into hunter-killer mode.
If you prefer roasting to freezing, there's a mission somewhere in the Australian Outback next year as well. Either way, go visit the Mars Society homepage and check it out.
I spoke with a friend of mine, Daniel Slosberg, who coordinated Mission Support for the Michigan Mars Society during two similar, less-audacious experiments this year. His was the easy job of sitting at home, coordinating communications (chiefly email, with simulated 20-minute round-trip delay), answering questions from the field, and giving advice.
Daniel happens to be working on an idea for distributed mission support; if you're interested in being part of the ground crew, drop him a line.
For the team that actually goes into the wilderness and lives in the "hab," you'll be simulating Mars isolation as accurately as possible. You'll be brutally far north, for one thing. You'll wear a mock-spacesuit every time you go outside, which will help identify where the problems are in e.g. mobility or hygiene. You'll also spend an hour in the airlock when you enter or leave, which will help remind you not to forget your hammer.
The excursions get more sophisticated each year: next year will be the first with an already-completed hab and the first with more than one mock-suit. Your chance to be part of history.
In related news, Odyssey continues aerobraking, and its mission looks good -- if you've read Robinson's Red Mars series, you know how delicate orbital insertion is. Great work, JPL.
And just for kicks, here's a New Scientist article about synthesizing fuel from the Martian atmosphere to power a "hopper"-lander. If you find the practical chemistry of planetary travel interesting, go read Robert Zubrin who is just all about using whatever resources already exist outside Earth's gravity well.
Will it run Linux? (Score:1, Funny)
Hey, it had to be asked!
Re:Will it run Linux? (Score:2, Funny)
The onboard workstations will be FreeBSD to provide a stable working environment, where you can't just plug in Quake 3.
The onboard servers will be running Solaris.
All software will be Open Source, eg the Office suite will be Open Office, and the email and calendar will be Ximian Evolution.
And if you need to know - yes, I'm just making this up as I go.
Re:Will it run Linux? (Score:2)
Re:Will it run Linux? (Score:1)
Re:Will it run Linux? (Score:2)
Most ATI cards are also supported. Rumour has it there is a group attempting to write NVidia drivers as well -- but I can imagine it'll prove to be a daunting task.
Re:Will it run Linux? (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:1)
I was joking when I wrote that. I think I'm starting to get serious.
Isolation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isolation (Score:1)
No, but at least you'll have email; Ascii's small. And if they're lucky maybe they can have a small usenet feed or something. :)
Re:Isolation (Score:1)
IP In Space FAQ [nasa.gov]
Sounds like NASA is already thinking about how its folks will be able to hop on IRC when they get bored or send email to the family.
-bbh
What about the explorers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or consider the contestants on Big Brother - the producers choose them specifically because they believe that they'll be entertaining on television when mixed in with the other contestants, not for mental stability. They don't allow them any contact with their family and friends while they're in the house. They don't provide them with any news of the outside world. They *do* spy on them 24 hours a day. They ply them with alcohol in attempts to get them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. And yet the overwhelming majority of contestants on the various versions around the world came out sane and (publically at least) claim to have enjoyed the experience.
Now, I'm not claiming that being a member of a Mars crew wouldn't be challenging, stressful, and lonely at times. I find it hard to believe that it's beyond the efforts of a specially-selected, well-trained team.
Re:What about the explorers? (Score:1)
on a small boat shaped like a..
I'm going to have night mares tonite.
Re:Isolation (Score:2)
Why would you assume this? They'll need a high-bandwidth data link, and I imagine that low-bandwidth internet access would be considered a good investment in morale. Sure, the lag would be a killer, but it would still be good.
I dunno about you, but for all I know, I might have been on my way to Mars for the last week. I think there are lots of people now who wouldn't be bothered by the isolation much.
Re:Isolation (Score:5, Insightful)
'High Bandwidth' in space terms is nothing like what would be considered such dirtside. (Think 56.6 modem *at best*, with a lot of demands on the channel, even considering it'll be as close to 24/7 as can practically be managed.) Ditto for 'lag', round trip time will be generally in the vicinity of at least an hour, usually worse.
I dunno about you, but for all I know, I might have been on my way to Mars for the last week. I think there are lots of people now who wouldn't be bothered by the isolation much.
I really doubt most of those who think they "wouldn't be bothered much" really have a clue. When I was in the Submarine Service new guys were constantly astonished by what the close quarters and lack of communication with the outside world really meant. It's not like anything you've likely ever encountered before. It's almost impossible to describe it to someone who has not encountered it.
From another poster:
Lots of explorers, some of whom weren't particularly sane, managed to survive extended periods of similar isolation and once they went out they didn't have *any* contact with others outside their own party for months or even years. Or, to take another example, what about the crews of WWII U-Boats? From all reports, most of them stayed sane, under conditions that seem to me to be similar (but harsher) than those faced by a hypothetical Mars mission.
I submit that those explorers, and WWII Submariners of all nations, came from a time when extended periods without communications were the norm, not the exception. In the last twenty years personal communication and connecticity have become so pervasive that again it's hard to communicate the differences to someone under thirty or so.
Re:Isolation (Score:1, Funny)
Isolated by connectivity (Score:1, Offtopic)
Aren't we all a bit less dependent on interpersonal contact thanks to the ability to drown ourselves in information at the click of a mouse?
Or is it just me?
Come on, you can be honest...
And this will be leading to? (Score:1)
Re:And this will be leading to? (Score:1)
Seriously, though, with each passing year we learn more. Technology advances as does our understanding of what the trip will take. Every year that passes, the trip becomes easier to embark upon. I doubt very much that man will resist the temptation to explore the solar system for ever.
I fear I am only serving to feed a troll, but what is it that you think? That since it's been 30 years, we'll never visit another world again? Why? Or do you believe that it was all an elaborate hoax? [geocities.com] That NASA never sent men to the moon? [nasa.gov]
If you're not a simple troll, I'd love to hear your line of reasoning.
Re:And this will be leading to? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, the opinion of most at JSC is that we are at the sunset of manned space travel. The astronaut program has all but finished (no new astronaut selection). The ISS is effectively atrophying (it's basically just Mir 2 at the moment).
Fortunately, companies like Xcor Aerospace [xcor.com] are developing reusable propulsion technology at a fraction of the price that governments do - so maybe there's a chance that space exploration will continue once NASA throws in the towel and reverts to being NACA.
Re:And this will be leading to? (Score:2, Interesting)
No new astronauts? [nasa.gov] They don't have a new class every year, so just because there's not a 2001 class does not mean they're not selecting.
Mir 2? I hardly think so. Why don't you give Culbertson a call next month after he gets back and ask him if he thinks it's anything like Mir. Sure, they've cut the hab module and crew return vehicle, which severely limits the capabilities (from crew of 7 to 3), but I wouldn't be surprised to see those return after completion.
January 28, 1986 (Score:1, Troll)
January 28, 1986 (so mid-eighties)
Space shuttle Challenger
Seven crew members "sent to another world".
We still don't know whether Nasa or Morton-Thiokol caused the accident (through neglect, or otherwise), but is was definitely Nasa who sent them.
Loads of info here [fas.org]
Be all that you can be (Score:3, Funny)
Tha's odd, the US Army is trying to ask for the same demographic for Afghanistan. The land is about the same: baren and dry.
Sure... if.. (Score:1)
Re:Sure... if.. (Score:1)
HEY! get in at the END of the line!!
Devon Island (Score:1)
Re:Devon Island (Score:2)
What about the Money? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about the Money? (Score:1)
That's a good point. The Mars Society should make a deal with some sleazy network like Fox to do a Mars Project reality series. They did the live web-cam [marssociety.org] thing last time around. A reality show would make for some great funding, and the Mars Society wouldn't even have to offer a prize because people will volunteer just for the experience.
Hell, I'd watch the first episode.
Survivor Season X (Score:2, Funny)
"OK, for your first task we need you to convert meters to feet.
You don't get anything for it...We just don't know how."
But... but... (Score:1)
I'm in (Score:2)
Re:I'm in (Score:1)
Re:I'm in (Score:1)
All in a days work! (Score:1)
Re:All in a days work! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:All in a days work! (Score:1)
And why can I see hair at the bottom of the picture? Is that a victim of bad driving or of not wearing a spacesuit when stepping outside the habitat?
First hand account. (Score:2)
Great Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
How cool is that? Beats the hell out of reading "Walden" again.
Fun things to do (Score:3, Funny)
Why would it take the airlock on Mars a full hour to open? Pressure should make little difference, since people are wearing spacesuits. Is it for decontamination? Quarantine? Fun?
In any case, they need to build game consoles into the airlocks, or a DVD player so you can watch movies while you wait for the door to open. Movies are perfect - you watch the first hour on the way out, which will encourage you do work quickly so you can go back in and see the happy ending. Or maybe a pr0nStation. Otherwise people will just take naps in the airlock and not wake up when the door opens.
Re:Fun things to do (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently it's to vacuum the dust of Mars off your suit. Mars dust is so fine that if you track it inside the hab it'll choke everything up in short order.
Re:Fun things to do (Score:2)
That's what showers are for. And by the very nature of the dust being so fine, what will it track up?
It does seem awefully strange to require an hour in the airlock... very very strange indeed.
Re:Fun things to do (Score:1)
Re:Fun things to do (Score:1)
Re:Fun things to do (Score:2, Funny)
Know what else is fine? NASA chicks. Yowza!
Re:Fun things to do (Score:3, Informative)
--Bob
Re:Fun things to do (Score:2)
Re:Fun things to do (Score:1)
I don't know, but I think Colnel Panic works for him ...
Cold? In Summer? Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't be your idea of a hot summer, but it won't be that cold. Although, it will be quite sunny...
North of 49th?? (Score:1)
Middle of february, now that's a different story.
Chicago is Heaven.
The human element is the weak link (Score:5, Funny)
The Mars Society are alternatively hailed as heroes or decried as demagogues. Mars Society president Robert Zubrin [amazon.com] is especially vulnerable, being labeled no less than a "messianic" "cult" leader by Robert Park in his acclaimed book Voodoo Science: the Road from Foolishness to Fraud [amazon.com], remarks for which Zubrin supposedly pursued legal action against Park.
The attacks are somewhat ad-hominem, but Park raises an important concern. Whatever the merits of the science the Society is pursuing, it does us no good if the work is blemished by association with individuals of dubious social qualities. If the Society is dominated by demagogues, then their work will be dismissed as just another fancy of another crackpot institution, and civilian space research will be set back for untold years.
The Mars Society has a lot riding on the line. Let's hope they don't fumble the ball this time.
Re:The human element is the weak link (Score:3, Insightful)
For perspective Bob Park also believes that the space shuttle program has been a major delay to scientific research in space. He would much prefer a space program focused on unmanned (ie. robotic) exploration. I've never heard him speak about the ISS, but I'd bet he doesn't like that too much either. I'm sure he has a point that robotic exploration could be doing a lot more, but his opposition to manned space flight never sat well with me, personally.
Well hopefully that offers some insight on Bob Park versus the Mars Society. Of course I suspect some of the criticisms are still valid. Thoughts of going to Mars does seem to attract lots of people with a nearly fanatical mindset.
Re:The human element is the weak link (Score:2)
The thing that stuck out in my mind was a single line.
"One wonders if genuine Astronauts would leave their dirty dishes lying in the sink all day"
That kind of detail allows the world to treat the Mars Society as a bunch of big kids playing in the desert. It certainly lowered my expectations of their 'work' actually proving fruitful. One assumes they would be on best behaviour with Journos around... imagine what they do when their not there!
Re:The human element is the weak link (Score:1)
I really can't reproduce it in a way that would do it justice, but suffice to say it was very well reasoned out and encouraging. The guy is a genius and I for one totally support his Mars project. Read about it at http://marssociety.org, it's really good stuff.
As for this Park guy, I don't know what his beef with Zubrin is, but I encourage people to check his ideas out for yourselves; it's high time we as a species got something like this in motion.
I've met Bob Zubrin (Score:2)
I've met Bob Zubrin. The guy is a strong advocate and sometimes exudes a little bit of a used car salesman vibe... but that aside, the guy is as sharp as a tack and really knows what he's talking about. Calling Zubrin a crackpot is totally unfair. He has written many papers and journal articles that are widely referenced.
Zubrin is very strongly focused on the goal of putting humans on Mars and he has very strong opinions on how that goal ought to be reached. Sure, he is very aggressive in pursuing his agenda -- but he needs to be if he is to see people on Mars in his lifetime.
If Robert Park thinks what Zubrin's talking about is voodoo science, Park doesn't know anything about aerospace engineering. Ask any professor or engineer who actually knows about rocket science and they'll tell you that Zubrin's Mars Direct scheme is currently one of the best ideas out there for sending humans to Mars.
If it's an accurate simulation, (Score:1, Insightful)
Where do I sign up?
...there are perks to being the navigator who has to stay awake and go stir-crazy during the trip...
-Kasreyn
moderators: learn to appreciate my sense of humor! Or... er... mod me down. Yeah, or that, too!
A few thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nowhere better than Canada to do that!
What I don't understand about this "mission" is what it's supposed to accomplish. It's a great publicity stunt, but it's surely expensive (even if the Mars Society does have Discovery Channel and some company called Flashline sponsoring it). The science and technology are fairly lacking (is there anything about testing a "space suit" that can't be done in a lab, as opposed to hauling it to the middle of nowhere - I mean, Canada, at much less cost?)
One would think that developing cheaper ways to send rockets to Mars and the like would have a lot more long term benefit considering the Mars Society's goals.
OTOH, riding around on ATVs carrying shotguns (in case of polar bears) for a month sounds like fun.
Re:A few thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
Everything works in the lab. basically they want to see what happens when you're NOT in the lab. can you really ride an ATV and climb around in a meteorite crater while carrying tools? Do you trip and fall a lot, what is it like for someone to learn to walk in it? Can you pick up rocks and anylize them wearing the gloves? How easy is it to get in and out of in an airlock by yourself? Etc...
Re:A few thoughts... (Score:2, Interesting)
A: Everything works in the lab. basically they want to see what happens when you're NOT in the lab. can you really ride an ATV and climb around in a meteorite crater while carrying tools? Do you trip and fall a lot, what is it like for someone to learn to walk in it? Can you pick up rocks and anylize them wearing the gloves? How easy is it to get in and out of in an airlock by yourself? Etc...
This is one of the biggest criticisms leveled at the whole project: none of these answers require going to Devon Island. Suit designs should be tested somewhere cheap to get to (the designers backyard), not somewhere expensive to get to. Science protocols should be tested in the Rockies, or the Sierras, or the high desert outside of Phoenix or Salt Lake, or somewhere else within a days drive of civilization.
Re:A few thoughts... (Score:2)
The suit designers don't necessarily have a real geologist on hand to tell them if the gloves work for geology in the lab, but in this field environment, they can get the real geologists to try out things they otherwise wouldn't run across. Cross-pollination of ideas occurs, just like any conference or gathering.
You can debate how cheap it would be to do everything in Utah, but don't underestimate the importance of good publicity-friendly science. Doing a $100k project in Utah won't get you as much money as doing a $500k project in Devon. NASA learned long ago that people only pay for what they get excited about, which is half the reason we use human astronauts. It woud be cheaper and safer to just send all-robotic missions, but if there were no people going they would have an even HARDER time getting money.
Re:A few thoughts... (Score:1)
I don't underestimate the value of publicity friendly science. I do however question grandstanding and game playing masquerading as science. The basic fact is that much money is being wasted at Devon because of the lack of prepratory work done in Denver. Looking at the expedition logs it's blatantly obvious. Devon is more about Bob Zubrin's ego than real science.
Re:A few thoughts... (Score:2)
The guys in the Hab wearing suits don't really have much to do with the real science -- they're the publicity part.
The suits they're wearing are not even remotely Mars prototypes, they're just suits they built to simulate wearing a spacesuit. They look kinda like the soft design that Hamilton Standard has, but even HS doesn't know for sure what they're going to do. NASA hasn't gotten to the point of really making specs, so everythign is a guess on that point.
But the geology, biology, communications work, etc, are real. I've finished my paper on the medical research that I did, and it wasn't fake (though it certainly could have been done wihtout me flying so far). But it sounds better to say we did the research on Devon with the whole MARS group than to say we did it last tuesday in my aprtment. It makes a big difference in funding (fortunately and unfortunately).
But if I had done it in the lab, I wouldn't have spent a week with the HS guys learning about space suit design, and suggesting to them ways that they could incorporate new medical technology into the suit itself. I wouldn't have learned about the biological research going on with bacteria that can survive space, or the communications workon how we send this data around.
I'm not really defending it so much as sayign it's not as harebrained as it seems from the outside. Having a regular research season -- ANYWHERE -- that space/mars researchers can get together and work is a good idea. Having it someplace "exciting" helps pay the bills and get volunteers and news coverage for the ultimate goal of space exploration.
But yes, Zubrin can (and has) damaged the notion of Mars exploration as much as help it. You'll notice NASA is not participating as visibly (though many NASA researchers are still going on their own projects). That's part of why I'm not there again -- the Mars Society and NASA have their own personality issues to sort out before NASA will pay my airfare again. I'm optimistic about the project and goals, but not so much that i want to go on my own dime or work for free...
Re:A few thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but that's the primary requirement for getting a Mars mission up - convincing enough people that it's a good idea so it'll get funding (most likely from government, possibly privately).
It cost about a million US dollars, IIRC. That's chicken feed compared to what it costs to develop propulsion systems and stuff.
Their next planned major experiment is basically to put a bunch of mice in low earth orbit in a craft rotating so as to provide simulated Mars-level gravity. If successful, the mice will reproduce and eventually be brought back to earth for study.
Such a mission will provide much information on the feasibility of both using artificial gravity on a manned Mars mission (thus avoiding problems of loss of muscle tone, bone demineralisation etc.), and whether raising mammal babies in Martian gravity will be feasible (crucial to the feasibility of one day colonising Mars).
Serious wilderness on Mars. (Score:1)
Maybe they ought to leave the real research to NASA rather than some bizarre cult.
Hmm. (Score:1)
That's because (Score:2)
really? thats hopeful? (Score:1)
do we have to hope for real problems? cant we just hope all the astronauts will have a good time?
Could it be any more uncomfortable? (Score:1)
Re:Could it be any more uncomfortable? (Score:2)
Re:Could it be any more uncomfortable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who needs habs for this? (Score:4, Funny)
Why bother with building expensive habs? I know tons of OSS programmers who haven't seen the light of day in aeons!
Or perhaps this is targeted advertising...
Let me get this right.... (Score:3, Funny)
So let me get this right. They have not 1 but 2 stations, but no photocopier in the office...
Realistic simulation of NASA supply chain (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least the NASA methods for delivering payloads to Mars (smashing them into the rock) are being realistically simulated
Re:Realistic simulation of NASA supply chain (Score:1)
Re:Realistic simulation of NASA supply chain (Score:4, Funny)
Simulated nothing, they are using UPS [slashdot.org]. :)
I speak Klingon, can I go? (Score:1)
Next base here in U.S. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a team member for the Mars Desert Research Station [marssociety.org], which is about to begin assembly on site in Utah. Just wanted to clarify some things...
First, MDRS, here in the U.S., will be the next simulation to begin, not the one in Australia. They are still looking for sites in Oz.
The first field season of a Mars Society hab (this past summer in the Arctic) featured a completed hab and at least three mock suits.
Also, several teams are developing pressurized rovers to test engineering designs. Some of these rovers will be tested as part of the mission simulations.
I was on the site selection committee for the MDRS and I was also a field scout. The Mars Society uses a combination of satellite and aerial reconnaisance, GIS data, and on-site scouting to locate potential sites. This is the phase Mars Society Australia is currently in.
The field season for Utah will be focused primarily on the cooler seasons, but it will be equipped with air conditioning.
3 Australian Sites Found (Score:1)
Link Here: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_pag
preparing for close encounters of the 3rd kind (Score:1)
Let's hope any martians that real astronauts might encounter are more like polar bears than mormons.
:)
Exploration and Discovery (Score:2, Interesting)
We fight and spend to discover the earth around us, and ourselves. And yes, we fight and spend also to discover what is beyond our puny world. We have spent billons of dollars exploring the wonder that is ourselves, and the world around us. We have spent billions of dollars on space exploration. But space exploration has not yet gained a momentum that makes the world comfortable, and I find this very sad. Just as our own DNA is still a mystery unfolding, so also is the Universe that surrounds us. If we don't bother to set up groups to prepare for space missions, if our scientists didn't run simulation after simulation, how are we to succeed at this momentous, and necessary task?
And why do we care anyway? Some don't, it's obvious by the comments made by users here. But what about those of us who don't care about how it's done, or how long it takes. We care because, like medical research and hi-tech research, space exploration is just another form of exploration and discovery that we, as humans, are driven to do.
Just because this type of research doesn't include a box lunch and a dedicated T1 connection doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. So please...let's have a little respect for the groups of people devoting their time and resources to something that has not yet gained the momentum we need for results,.
As usual, the people here on Slashdot are more inclined to nitpick at the smallest detail, then they to indicate any actual serious interest in our space program. And my god, yes there are so many millions of details about any space mission. So go ahead, nitpick as many as you can. But as I'm starting to realize, my voice on Slashdot has never been one of detail. It's an emotional voice that usually fades away in the background, as thousands of Slashdot users post details that were missed in the original post, arguments about who is right or wrong, and the usual lower threshold posts involving sexual innuendo. So feel free to mod me down, or flame me. I really could care less.
Re:Exploration _is_ Discovery (Score:1)
Low Fidelity Simulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really... There's frequent contact with support staff not living in the hab, and many other differences that render the usefulness of the Hab 'simulation' questionable.
The project suffers continuously from poor planning and communication. (This summer when a generator, known to fail in cold conditions, was sent to Devon, and failed, it was replaced with the exact same model.) Much of the 'science' is done the same way, haphazardly, and with little forethought. They routinely fail to practice protocols and procedures until they are tried in the field.
With the short length of the field season at Devon Island, this is very wasteful. There is concern among many that when it's discovered that the emperor has no clothes, it will hurt the funding of future endeavors of this type. The Mars Society has (rightfully) come under fire in many quarters as portraying this publicity stunt as real science. Like Biosphere II, the Hab is more show than go.
For those interested, this topic (the validity of the simulation and the usefulness of the science) is a routine topic of discussion on the sci.space.policy newsgroup.
Re:Low Fidelity Simulation (Score:1)
Olympus Mons is NOT a Crater. (Score:3, Informative)
I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 94276.251/140136.303/132759.960/98834.596 ms
[elroy@mars elroy]$ ping mars.nasa.gov
PING mars.nasa.gov (209.67.50.203) from 192.168.0.99 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from mars.nasa.gov (209.67.50.203): icmp_seq=0 ttl=4238 time=7108.837 msec
Right Idea, Wrong Place (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, get real - Mars is going to be out of touch for a good nine or more months, except for the radio communications. Or much longer - how many flights/cruises/tours of duty will be able to be sent in such a short space of time?
Kind of like Antarctica, I would've thought.
I'd jump if they were offering it in Antarctica, cause that's right next door to where I'm living - NZ itself - but I suspect Deep Freeze would have fits
Re:Right Idea, Wrong Place (Score:2)
The eco-system is so fragile that it cannot handle anyone trampling around the area. The only living creatures over there live for centuries and you can destroy a hundred years worth of growth just by stepping off the path.
How far the Russkies have gone... (Score:2, Informative)
Time for my sabbatical! (Score:1)
Human exploration of space is a waste of $$$ (Score:3, Interesting)
Thirty years ago man walked on the moon and the whole world watched in awe. It was a great accomplishment, both in its sheer difficulty and its scientific value. Making goals and managing the missions of NASA is a complicated task. It is a government organization with no income, and no clear objective, yet 14 billion dollars of the entire federal budget is dedicated to it each year1. Although sending a man to the moon was an appropriate goal in the 1960's, I believe that because of many conditions that have changed in the past thirty years all human space travel should be suspended for the time being in light of other, equally exciting robotic missions.
Missions to space can have many positive outcomes besides the immediate and direct objectives of the mission and all of these must be considered when determining the value of a mission. In the 1960's there was a huge race for the first nation to land a man on the moon. When the Russians beat the United states to launching a satellite, "it seemed that everyone[In the United States] from school children to newspaper reporters to politicians was bemoaning national failure."2 The space race was a huge unifying force within the nation and so space missions to land on a moon had huge political purpose as well as their scientific purpose. In the 1960's not very much was known about the surface of the moon and human observation and collection of samples, including 384 kg of moon rocks3 provided a great deal of scientific data. There was also a lot of discovery about the effects of space on humans. In that era of time, human exploration of the local space around the Earth and of the moon provided huge amounts of scientific information while also having large political uses.
It is thirty years later and NASA has come a long way in its scientific discovery of the moon and its superiority over other nations in space travel. The United States is now the predominant force in space, and after twelve men on the moon and thirty years of humans living in space the human race has discovered huge amounts of information about the moon and living in space. Instruments have been placed on the moon, we have maps of its complete surface and we are still doing analysis on samples of its rocks. National pride, although still an aspect of the space mission is not nearly as huge an aspect as it was in the 1960's and there is no longer a race with any other nation. Because of changes in our understanding of space and the technology available to us today's space missions have the opportunity to make new discoveries about the many other planets in our solar system and many other things about the expansive space beyond it. We should be focussing our energy on exploring other planets as we have the moon, as well as performing experiments on the nature of the universe and on how the Earth is changing. Missions along these lines are the exploration of Mars, advanced biological and physical experiments in microgravity situations, the satellites and space telescopes which collect information about outerspace as well as many other missions that have not yet come to light. NASA is in a situation in which they have a huge potential that is currently not being utilized.
Currently NASA is making some progress in the exploration of mars with robots but they are spending huge amounts of money and time on the International Space Station (ISS) which is an orbiting laboratory designed to perform experiments in low gravity conditions.4 Performing these kinds of experiments is a good idea, but due to advances in robotic technology, this mission does not need to be performed by humans.
In the 1960's robots were very primitive, basically non-existent. The computer brains that powered them were only a fraction as powerful as today's computers. If any dynamic task were to be achieved it had to be done by a human, so sending humans to space was a given for planetary exploration and in space experiments. Today humans have the exact same capabilities as they did in the 60's, but their robotic colleagues have matured greatly. Robots are good in space because they do not need life support systems and they can detect many more things than humans. A robot can have 10 different kinds of cameras detecting 10 different kinds of information and recording it all perfectly whereas a human can only see one kind of information, visible light, and has no perfect memory of the encounter. A robot is also reproducible and it would be feasible to design one robot and then send 20 to a planet instead of just sending one human. Quote on success of mars pathfinder mission. The robots of today are different than the robots of the 60's, and are much better suited to space travel.
When sending a human into space there is a large amount of effort spent on life support systems. The cost and design time to provide a human with oxygen, food, water, heat and to return the human to Earth is incredibly huge compared to the cost of installing a solar panel on a robot which can meet all of its needs, and if the robot mission fails, no lives are lost so the amount of safety precautions and over-engineering is greatly reduced. The cost of the ISS is being estimated to run over $100 billion5, whereas the cost of the mars pathfinder mission was only $264 million6.
In the 1960's due to the hype surrounding the space race, the US government was giving basically unlimited funds to NASA to sponsor the space race 7 This gave the huge amount of monetary resources required for the development and deployment of many manned missions. Whatever was needed to get a man on the moon was given to NASA.
In the beginning of the 21st century the budget for NASA is much tighter, less than 1% of the federal budget or about $14 B. The developments of new technologies have opened the possibilities for many new kinds of missions so the reduced funding is spread more thinly and the full potential of the space program is not being realized. The best way for NASA to deal with this is to take funding away from very inefficient missions such as human space flight, which can not compete with robotics for the amount of scientific discovery per dollar spent, and to spend that money on the robotic and electronic discovery sectors. The human space flight division currently uses up $5.5 billion of the $14 billion in the NASA budget. That would be enough money for 21 complete Mars Pathfinder missions, each year or if applied to a robotic ISS the number of experiments could increase.
Due to shifts in the goals of space exploration, the monetary resources available, and the technical resources available, a dramatic shift towards robotic exploration in space should be made. In the future the variables will shift again and we will be faced with this question again, but if the program is to remain successful it must be able to adapt to these changing conditions.
Re:Human exploration of space is a waste of $$$ (Score:1)
Could you post some references where I could back up your statements in a research paper?
handout.pdf [fries.net] Thanks!Re:Human exploration of space is a waste of $$$ (Score:2)
Engineering solutions to previously impossible problems produces lasting, valuable side effects.
This has always been true.
Keep funding space and subatomic physics and Britney Spears's career. The end goal may seem to give us nothing, but the intellectual entropy they stir up in their wake are solid gold.
--Blair
Survivor Mars!!! (Score:1)
Outwit. Outplay. Outlast.
One more bonus (Score:1)
That may be a high price to pay for a cool laptop, but then so is my current job.
Re:How do they hope to put a man on Mars ? (Score:1)
Re:How do they hope to put a man on Mars ? (Score:2)
And then people have the GALL to criticise NASA when the consider advertising/commercial revenues. With that attitude they are doomed to failure.
And also notice that if there was a human at the helm, they'd have a lot better chance at controlling the craft... most of the failures have been simple logistical failures... with someone onboard you can fix those without a big deal.
Re:How do they hope to put a man on Mars ? (Score:2)
Well, I expect them not to spend money on it anymore. After all, this is supposed to be a capitalist democracy.
If they want to waste money on going to mars, let them get it from speculative investors, people who take risks for a living, and not from the poor taxpayer.
Re:How do they hope to put a man on Mars ? (Score:1)
Investors take risks in order to get profits; the bigger the risk, the bigger the return they demand. Given that this is an extremely risky endeavor, any investor is going to expect an enormous return on whatever investment they put up. How will they get it? Most of the benefits of going to Mars are intangible.
Not too many entities can raise funds for a project of this magnitude. They'd have to be willing to spend a lot of money on a project with few monetary benefits, but intangible benefits for everybody. That's a large part of what governments are for in a capitalist democracy. No investor is going to fund the army; there's no profit in it, and why should she pay to protect everyone else? The only kind of organization that can collect from everyone who benefits in order to fund "public-good" projects is a government.
So if this is something worth doing, I argue that the taxpayers (through the government) are exactly the ones to do it. They stand to benefit (albeit intangibly), after all.
If you don't think it's worth doing, then say so, and tell your congressperson so, but don't expect anyone else to do it instead.
Re:How do they hope to put a man on Mars ? (Score:2)
Glad I understand.
Most people don't know where their tax dollars go, and I'm certain that if they knew exactly where it was going, and that the percentage of the tax dollars would be required to ressurect NASA and other research and science industries would be unnoticable, I doubt they'd object.
If you were to ask everyone if they wish NASA would get some more funding, I'd bet that you'd see many people saying yes... Far far more than is proportional to the amount of money that they are getting.
So how, exactly, is this democracy? The leaders are deciding, and marketing it to the public, where the money is spent, and they have given the public too much else to worry about. Also with the way that the corporations are digging their hands into the government, I'm sorry to say that this is hardly the ideal capitalistic government that it is supposed to be.
Re:Off on a tangent... (Score:1)
Re:Biosphere 2 ring a bell? (Score:1)
It's worth noting that Biosphere II failed because it's designers were ecological philosophers and guru's, not engineers. The failure was made worse by pressure from their financial sponsors (investors) to get the simulation going ASAP. Thus no real engineering models were built, and test runs of any significant length were run in the 'production' habitat.