Nostalgia For Medieval Explorers Won't Make Us Space Explorers




I've cut the article down so if you'd like to read the whole, just click on the title at the top of this post.

Question; Does Jeffrey F. Bell make a good point?

Are we simply not ready to begin space exploration?

Or do we need the ISS and the manned space flight programs in order to learn how to live in space?

How else can we learn the knowledge we need if we intend to explore the solar system?

This is something I've thought about quite a bit. Having been an avid reader of science fiction for about four decades, my feelings have changed somewhat over the years. There was a time when the world of 2001: A Space Odyssey seemed plausible. Here it is, a couple of years overdue, and now it seems ludicrously optimistic in its view of the ability of human beings to venture into space.

I think Bell makes a good point, and I might go even farther. I don't think that space exploration can be compared to Earthly expeditions at all. Despite how the great the deprivations might have been, at least the explorers were usually able to find food and water -- and they didn't have to bring their own air.

The analogy I'd make might be to the very earliest human explorations of Antarctica. They were just barely able to get there, and they could not live there. And many of them died.

What to do? I'm not sure. Humanity needs to take tiny little steps into space; we can't do anything else. It will happen someday, but I despair of even living to see a human being on Mars.

Give us a couple of centuries, I think, before there is any real possibility of living in space.

Bell makes a good point that humanity needs goals to pursuit in the exploration of space other than pure thirst for knowledge.

But despite the lack of technology for advanced spaceflight and reliable orbit transport systems, we now live in a world where knowledge and discoveries can be shared by many ingenious people, making the speed of advancement much faster than in the stagnating middle ages.

Of course in 200 years we might have much more advanced and cheaper-to-use technology to explore our solar system, but as the Apollo missions have shown, it is important to set up goals if you want to get somewhere. And the more intriguing these goals are, the more people will be fascinated by them. So it is up to us in what tempo we will reach out for the stars.

If the US would have spent the money they threw out for invading Iraq to develop new ways of interplanetary travel, in ten years we would have a second generation of space shuttles, a Moon base and be able to fly to Mars in two months rather than 9. [Project Prometheus]

Besides: How much prestige would a nation gain by sending the first humans to another planet??? This time with permanent bases I have to add, this was the main fault in the Apollo Missions.

The steps must be:
Space Orbit Transporter
Space Station
Lunar Base
Inner Solar Transporter
Martian Base
Outer Solar Transporter
Extrasolar Transporter and so on...

The need for commercial involvement in this will be huge when the advantages of mining in space become clear.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here:

A lot of people, usually Science Fiction fans, claim that we need to explore outer space. I answer, why?

Let me put it another way. I can see the value in exploring the solar system, the scientific knowledge is valuable, as is the prestige and sense of exploration. What I have never understood is this need to put people out there. We are speaking of a manned Mission to Mars, what on earth for? People are soft, fragile and weak, sending them to Mars increases the cost of any venture by 20-fold, not to mention the Danger.

People talking of a manned trip to mars should remember that 4 of the last 5 unmanned probes to mars met with some kind of eaither serious or catastrophic failure.

Right now, I am all in favour of continuing unmanned exploration of the solar system, and maybe even the wider galaxy, though that is essentially impossible given the travel time.

But to send people into space is unecessarily expensive, dangerous, and for very little gain. Almost all of the tangible 'gains' people speak of with manned settlements are simply silly science fiction right now. (mining space, and such absurdities) All the practical problems of long space travel are multiplied by 1000 when it comes to any kind of permanent or semi-permanent settlement. (And they will eat, drink and breathe what exactly?)

It is quite possible that in the future thechnology may improve to the point where sending people into speace is not proibitive in terms of cost and danger, and might actually serve a purpose, but that time is not now.

I dont want to sound all ultra-left here, but there is some merit to the statement that the hundreds of billions of dollars used to send 3-4 people on a brief trip to Mars could accomplish far more lasting and valuable impacts if spent on some of the pressing problems currently facing us on this planet.

Last Missions:
Opportunity: success
Spirit: success
Mars Express: success - Beagle 2: lost after landing
Nozomi (Japanese mission): engine failure, failed to reach Mars, still transmitting
Mars Odyssey: success
---
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/log/
and
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/




To the contrary, on Moon and Mars are most of the resources needed for permanent settlement (soil for plant growth and shelter, water[ice], sunlight), the journey itself might be even more hazardous.
Energy comes from nuclear power plants (like submarines have), Oxygen can be produced from water.


Agreed, right now we need to develop and test new way to travel in space. Automated systems have the disadvantage that they are machines and rely on humans to guide them and tell them what to do. A signal from Mars to Earth and back needs about 16 minutes. Humans can react instantaneously. Robots need to be the first wave of exploration, but just to pave the way for humans.


True. But let me ask you back: Could not the money spent on the war in Iraq have been used to "accomplish far more lasting and valuable impacts if spent on some of the pressing problems currently facing us on this planet"?
I have the opinion that before you spend money on war you spend it on research and quest for knowledge.

Spirit suffered a serious failure upon arrival, and now rebooted and in low power mode, they MAY be able to get it to fulfil a portion of its original mission, just how much is unclear.

Mars Climate Orbiter: failure.
Mars Polar Lander: failure.

Lets be clear, out of 30 attempted Mars missions over the past 40 years, just 12 have succeeded, and many of those failures have been in the last 6 years. Thats not a success rate that would make me want to start thinking about sending a manned mission.



There is neither soil nor water on the moon. On Mars, we have found evidence that there might be traces of water at the poles, but there is no soil at all. Please keep in mind that for plant growth organic soil is required, not rock dust.

All that remains of your list is sunlight, which it is true exists, but hardly makes life habitable on its own. Thus, quite the opposite of your contention, these bodies contain almost no resources which would be needed to sustain life in any permanent or semi permanent manner.



Yes, absolutely. However, even if you believe the Hawk line that there was a benefit to the money spent on invading Iraq, that benefit affected humans, here now. There is no benefit to putting 4-5 people on Mars and then bringing them back again at the potential cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Exploration can be done far more easily and efficiently (and less dangerously) with automation than with man.

Well, you said the 4 of the last 5 missions ended in failure. I just listed the last five missions and despite Spirits flash memory problem (which does not affect the mission any more) only 2 were not totally successful.

Okay, soil is not available on the moon, true, I meant the rocks and dust which might be enough to grow plants with the right environmental adjustments. It is possible to keep men alive on the ISS for months, Luna is not much farther away that a supply of critically needed cargo is impossible.


I believe that Mars Express has not only confirmed NASAs results of evidence of water but has also located water in the polar regions of Mars. I am not quite sure about the amount, but the "traces of water" you are referring could be the traces found in the atmosphere.


I would consider the quest for knowledge of great benefit for mankind. I do not consider 'just going there and bringing them back' as my dream of the next steps of space exploration. But just like the Apollo Missions, the Mars Mission could fascinate millions of children and change their lifes. Many would consider to become scientists themselves and thus advance the speed of human knowledge.

Besides, we may not be able to mine in space right now, but there are elements in space which could change all mankind.
Helium-3 found to be on Luna, is potentially the answer to our energy problems, which causes so much trouble all over the world.

From the stars we came, to the stars we return. From now until the end of time. We are stardust.

I am sorry, but there is nothing resembling soil on either the Moon or Mars, the complete lack of any organic cmponent makes the rock dust surface of both planets about as appropriate fro growing things as broken glass. One would not have to bring up 'environmental adjustments, one would have to bring up proper soil and fertiliser in its entirety.

The ISS has a three man crew, and must be supplied with about 2 tons of food, water and O2 every few months, as a fairly tremendous cost.

I am not sure what your definition of 'not much further away" is, but the ISS is about 360 km from earth, while the moon is 384,400 km from earth, over 1000 times further away. Returning from the ISS involves gravity and attitude adjustments, returning from the moon is an exceptionally dificult proposition.

So in fact there is several orders of magnitude of difference between maintaining the ISS and attempting to set up a semi-permanent base on the moon. With everything needing to be brought from earth, the cost and difficulty baloons, and for no real benefit to mankind at all. Yes, I too have read the near-science fiction regarding He-3 on the moon, but until this becomes more than a pipe dream, there is nothing to be gained by a manned moon base. Far too many things in the last 100 years have promised to solve the energy problems on earth, with a delivery rate of 0%.

I am all for space exploration, Mars and the rest of the solar system: to me Mars is dull, the Jovian moons are exciting. I am simply against the fantastic cost, great danger, and very limited return of manned space exploration. The Apollo program was a Cold war relic when competition in space was tied to national prestige, this is no longer anywhere near as much the case. The ISS has generated almost no excitemet at all. The Mars probes have to be sure, but that just goes further towards showing that an unmanned probe can generate excitement with far less cost in funds, resources and potentially lives.


Hey, in the future, when we can generate gravity, and ceate air from rock and such other sci-fi technology, then absolutely go with manned flights but in the meantime they are neither practical nor worthwhile.

It takes a day to get to the ISS, three days to Luna.

I never said it was going to be easy or without cost, I am just saying that the scientific gains outweigh the costs, you disagree. Can't find a compromise and we don't need to.

I guess I just have not seen, or had anyone explain any scientific progress or discovery which can be achieved by a manned flight that canot also be achieved by a safer, cheaper unmanned flight.

I happen to believe that nothing we do in space is a failurer because with each mistake we gain knowledge and with each achievement we gain even more knowledge. And also the cost's are great but don't you think its worth it. "and don't go and say that people can die because they know the risks and take them any way so we as a human race can expand to new worlds.

Locke1

This is where I really turn against Space exploration, not because I think it is valueless (I think it has value) but because a few too many proponents of space travel are Star trek fans.

Expand to other worlds? What other words exactly?

No planets even remotely capable of supporting human life have been found, and the nearest Non-habitable planet is over 18 light years away. Mars and Venus are garden spots compared to the baren rocks and gas Giants that we have found so far, none useful and all too far away to reach.

Thats right, too far away to reach, because Star Trek and Star wars aside, FTL travel is not possible. In fact even speeds remotely closing on the speed of light are not possible.

The fastest we have ever moved as a race in space is about 20,000 miles per hour. The theoretical M2P2 propulsion system out of NASA might be able to obtain extraorbital speeds of 10x that, or about 200,000 miles per hour.

18 light years is 105,654,844,800,000 miles. With this hypothetical new technology that has never been tried or tested, we might be able to make the journey to the nearest planet in just over 60,000 years. Of course, it is an atmosphereless rock, so what is the point... So far, despite the discovery of over 100 planets out to as far as 180 light years, all are either gas giants or completely atmosphereless rocks. We may yet find one to be sure, further out, but now, at over 180 light years, we are now speaking of a travel time (with this meybe technology) of 600,000 years, significantly longer than mankind has existed in its present form.

If you are going to discuss space travel and space exploration, do it from within the realm of science, not science fiction.

Space exploration has value to be sure, but nobody has managed to explain to me what the value would be of sending people into space when increasingly sophisticated robots can do this for a fraction of the cost and at no risk to human life.

Saying "Oh its worth it" is great, but you have to be able to follow that up by saying HOW its worth it, not just make that bland assertion.

The nearest Sol type star (Alpha Centauri) is only 4.3 Light years away. It may have an Earth type planet, it may not. At that distance its impossible to say because only super gas giants are gravity heavy enough to effect their parent star enabling us to detect them. Alpha C could have many small worlds and we'll never know until we send a probe to find out.

Getting there would require a major engineering feat, and the best candidate so far is the Daedalus unmanned probe. Originally designed as a concept for a hypothetical mission to Barnards Star (6Ly from Sol) Daedalus is a Deuterium/ Helium3 nuclear rocket design, in theory capable of producing several times more energy output than the entire planet Earth.
Even this 50,000 ton monster would take fifty years to reach Alpha C with a tiny six tonne payload.

In truth. There are no worlds we can colonise, or even visit with any degree of comfort. But that does'nt mean we should'nt go and have a look.