SpaceX

[Area54]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not specious, IMO. We haven't sent crewed craft places because we either can't or won't. Robotic craft can survive a much wider range of environments as opposed to humans. Even if you aren't counting on the humans to return to earth, they still need to survive to their destination to do the mission. Missions with crewed craft are much more expensive, owing to the need to protect the fragile crew.

How do you justify the added cost and complexity, while accounting for the reality of finite budgets?

I was responding to what I perceived as an absolute statement with an equivalent absolute statement as a rhetorical device.

What we have learned from Mars via orbiting craft has been immense and a human presence in orbit would have added practically nothing to our knowledge. However, boots on the ground, if they harboured a geologist, would have achieved more in a week than a rover could in a year. $ for $, human surface exploration of Mars would deliver more than robotic surface investigation. The finite budgets are choice. As long as we value defence spending and cosmetics over Mars exploration that will prove a limitation. But it is an artificial, not a natural limitation.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I was responding to what I perceived as an absolute statement with an equivalent absolute statement as a rhetorical device.

What we have learned from Mars via orbiting craft has been immense and a human presence in orbit would have added practically nothing to our knowledge. However, boots on the ground, if they harboured a geologist, would have achieved more in a week than a rover could in a year. $ for $, human surface exploration of Mars would deliver more than robotic surface investigation. The finite budgets are choice. As long as we value defence spending and cosmetics over Mars exploration that will prove a limitation. But it is an artificial, not a natural limitation.

The moon landings cost us $260 billion in todays dollars. The Perseverance mission is projected to cost slightly more than 1% of that ($2.7 billion)

https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo

https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance

Mars would be more expensive, of course. So it’s likely your claim of 50x more accomplishments leaves you on the short end. Ignoring the part about “we haven’t shown how to do it yet” (no actual rocket, no demonstration of keeping people alive for that long under those conditions, etc)

[zapatos]

In the long term I think human habitation off-Earth is inevitable. History tells us that Governments fund exploration, private enterprise gets involved, and eventually people who are simply looking for adventure or a new place to put down roots follow.

It starts off as expensive and dangerous and moves toward everyday normal.

At some point in time, people of Europe quit saying "I am going to the New World but will return", moved onto "Profit can be made there and be brought back", and finally settled on "I am moving there with no plans to return, hoping to make this new place my future".

I'm sure that time is quite a bit off in the future for us as we explore our solar system, but I don't see any reason why we would stop doing what we've been doing our entire history.

[Area54]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

So it’s likely your claim of 50x more accomplishments leaves you on the short end.

No:

• A manned mission would include more than a single scientist.
• Active ground time on the mission would exceed 1 1/4 years.
• (Also, reaction to discoveries can be implemented in situ with humans, but often require new missions with robotics.)

As you appear to have provisionally accepted my 50:1 ratio the arithmetic looks like this.

Let Perseverance daily work output = D_{P  ,} Daily output per scientist = D_S    Thus, D_S = 50D_P

Total work output of  Perseverance = 365 days x 8 years x D_P  =  2920D_P

(Perseverance planned liftime is 2 years. I have assumed a fourfold extension, based upon historical performance of NASA probes.)

Total work output of human mission = 300 days x 3 scientists x 50D_P = 45,000D_P

Ratio D_S to D_P = 900:1

A manned mission offers the best return per dollar invested compared with robotics/rovers/probes.

 

 

 

[Curious layman]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

 

Wouldn't 50/50 be best. 

Have astronauts orbit Mars and send small reusable landers to the surface for samples. You could cover more area then. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Total work output of human mission = 300 days x 3 scientists x 50D_P = 45,000D_P

What’s the longest astronauts have been in space without resupply?

300 days + 400-500 days or more of travel time. 

 

Launch cost of Perseverance was about $200k per kg of payload. What’s the launch cost of a crewed mission going to be? You need to get them back off the planet and home, which is not a cost associated with a robotic mission.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

We are exploring and better than ever. 21st century humans do space exploration from swivel chairs in front of computer monitors on Earth

Yes and it is and has achieved plenty. But you are simply overlooking the fact that mankind needs and will continue robust space exploration, when technology becomes available and a safe return is reasonable. It is part of our makeup and will lead to the extention of our race.

As I said, since the ISS was habitable more then 20 years ago, we have had a presence in space every day over that period. Man and machine will continue our exploration beyond this Earth. Let me ask you a question. Your reasons for the non essential manned Mars missions are known...my question is, irrespective, do you believe we will or "should" go to Mars? Was it wrong to climb Mnt Everest? was Columbus wrong? "Should" we have gone to the Moon?

I could be run over by a bus when I go for my early morning walk, or worse get taken by a shark when going for a surf. Your swivel chair could collapse under you causing an injury. Our robotic machines are doing a great job, and will continue to do a greater job when needed. Robotic exploration is needed...no one cheers louder then I do when Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix, Curiosity and Persevernece made their highly successful and dangerous landings. They have and are doing a great job preparing the way for an eventual manned landing.Is that wrong in your eyes?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Not specious, IMO. We haven't sent crewed craft places because we either can't or won't. Robotic craft can survive a much wider range of environments as opposed to humans.

We probably can but not safely. Once all the known problems that may kill or harm any potential astronaut is nullified, eliminated or minimalised, then and only then should we go. Our robotic craft will always do a great job preparing the way and exploring hand in hand with their creators, mankind.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Missions with crewed craft are much more expensive, owing to the need to protect the fragile crew.

How do you justify the added cost and complexity, while accounting for the reality of finite budgets?

Yep, most certainly, which is why like the ISS, it should be an International effort. 

Again, as per my question to Ken, "should we go to Mars?" My answer, if we can do it safely and return them safely, then yes. It will certainly be a small step for mankind in helping to perhaps extend the species.

Edited April 18, 2021 by beecee

[Ken Fabian]

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

However, boots on the ground, if they harboured a geologist, would have achieved more in a week than a rover could in a year

I don't agree. The resources needed for putting those boots on the ground can do multiple missions and multiple rovers, and can not just deliver and examine a very few samples within close proximity to the lander but do thorough surveys and mapping across vast areas. The data can be on the monitors of teams of the world's best geologists in short time. And in any case I expect any crews will sit within the safety of their base and send out rovers!

We've visited Mars by proxy and it offers no path forward to the stated grand dreams of expansion into space I am reading. There are no shortages of better ways to push and celebrate human limits than pointless ones like Mars and most frontiers that matter are still on Earth, frontiers of science.

The alleged motivations of Columbus don't even appear to be true - Columbus sought different route to a well known region of rich trade and potential plunder and found an unexpected region to plunder, one with fewer defenses. Any comparison of the opportunities Mars presents to modern humans and the opportunities The Americas offered - unparalleled opportunities to advanced raiders with ships, steel and gunpowder - looks ridiculous. Look at The Americas. Look at Mars. The Americas offered real opportunities to Europeans using everyday technology in common use. Mars offers no real opportunities without technologies that do not exist, technologies that would probably bypass Mars.

Space is nothing like the explorations and colonisations of the past and such comparisons offer nothing but illusion; the Grand Space Dreams will be advanced by Earth's economy being sustainable, by using spin off tech from what Earth develops and makes and uses for itself.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

The Americas offered real opportunities to Europeans using everyday technology in common use.

The Americas offered a dream of cities of gold, silver, and a fountain of youth. When that dream was found to be false it was considered a bit of a waste. It wasn't until years of exploring that Europeans brought home anything other than invasive species and communicable diseases.

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

The alleged motivations of Columbus don't even appear to be true The Americas offered real opportunities to Europeans using everyday technology in common use.

Did Chris set out to discover America? Did he even know America was there? How many died on that and his other trips to the new world, and while we are at it, how many died in any of the voyages taken by the old seafaring explorers? 

You see while you are certainly able to offer reasons why we should not attempt to put men on Mars, in time, and when it can be reasonably safe to do, it will be done. And space exploration will still continue further afield, even when tripping to Mars becomes an everyday concern. That's simply the nature of the beast and necessary to extend our use by date. 

Marc Millis: Aerospace Engineer
NASA Glenn Research Center

and https://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1962    https://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=11493

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Did Chris set out to discover America? Did he even know America was there? How many died on that and his other trips to the new world, and while we are at it, how many died in any of the voyages taken by the old seafaring explorers?

The difference is, how much more "can" we know???

For instance, we know the distance to Mars; we also know, that's a trip to the local shop...

 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, we don't go looking...

Just that we need to spend our budget wisely...

[beecee]

On 4/19/2021 at 2:50 AM, zapatos said:

In the long term I think human habitation off-Earth is inevitable. History tells us that Governments fund exploration, private enterprise gets involved, and eventually people who are simply looking for adventure or a new place to put down roots follow.

It starts off as expensive and dangerous and moves toward everyday normal.

Yes, 100%.

On 4/19/2021 at 2:50 AM, zapatos said:

I'm sure that time is quite a bit off in the future for us as we explore our solar system, but I don't see any reason why we would stop doing what we've been doing our entire history.

Again, yes, 100%

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The difference is, how much more "can" we know???

I don't know. Ask me again in a 1000 years.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just that we need to spend our budget wisely...

Yes, agreed, 100%

[Ken Fabian]

On 4/19/2021 at 2:50 AM, zapatos said:

History tells us that Governments fund exploration, private enterprise gets involved, and eventually people who are simply looking for adventure or a new place to put down roots follow.

It starts off as expensive and dangerous and moves toward everyday normal.

I don't think History tells us that at all. This is the popular retelling of colonial history by space dreamers but I don't see any real substance to it, not adventure as the initial motivation for exploration nor the searching for places to put down roots.

What History tells me is that colonies depended on trade and the use of cost effective existing technologies - the gap to bridge between expensive to normal was relatively small. There was an abundance of readily available exploitable resources both for basic survival and for trade. Once provided with maps and rutters plenty of ships could get there and back - and do it profitably. But the gap between expensive to go to Mars and normal remains such a huge gulf that even the superficial resemblance to Europeans colonising The Americas breaks down.

It won't be bold adventurers but meticulous planners - and bean counters - that will make any expansion into space possible; the bold adventurer type will be low on the list of preferred crew characteristics.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

I don't think History tells us that at all.

Hmm.

Who has been funding exploration to this point? Individuals? Or governments from the US, the EU, China, Japan, India, etc.?

Or are you suggesting that private enterprise is not now getting involved? Like SpaceX, Orbital, Boeing, Blue Origin, etc.?

Perhaps you are unaware of people looking for adventure. Space Adventures sent seven private citizens to the ISS. NASA has announced plans to send private citizens to the ISS. Mars One has signed up 2700 people who have asked to be part of a one-way mission to Mars.

I am unsure exactly what history you are looking at.

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

What History tells me is that colonies depended on trade and the use of cost effective existing technologies

Certainly there were companies that profited from trade. No everyone in the colonies was involved in trade with Europe though. Some actually farmed, raised animals, traded goods between the states only, became lawyers, coopers and blacksmiths. Not everyone is involved in trade.

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

the gap between expensive to go to Mars and normal remains such a huge gulf that even the superficial resemblance to Europeans colonising The Americas breaks down.

Your vision is short term. At one point the idea that one might cross oceans for a short holiday was also unimaginable to some. We seem to have arrived at that point just fine though.

Edited April 20, 2021 by zapatos

[cannongray]

There are no reasons against Mars landing in 2024. I believe he surely reaches 

[IDNeon]

Elon Musk can't get anyone to even the Moon.

Do you think space travel is magic? Has anything changed since Apollo? Physics maybe? 

Absolutely not.

dV hasn't changed. Rocket engine thrust hasn't changed. Nothing is "magically" more efficient than it was in 1960s.

So is Musk capable of spending the roughly 30billion dollars per launch it will take to get a small Apollo type craft to the Moon?

No.

[Sensei]

On 4/16/2021 at 6:08 PM, ThatSpaceBoy said:

Do you think that SpaceX and Elon Musk can get us to Mars by 2024?

Unlikely. It is too late for it..

But question is ill formed. It should be whether they can get people back.. alive...

ps. There was no Musk's team landing on the Moon yet.. Step by step.. baby steps..

"Hurry up" is ready procedure of failure in any serious endeavour..

[beecee]

24 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

Elon Musk can't get anyone to even the Moon.

Do you think space travel is magic? Has anything changed since Apollo? Physics maybe? 

Absolutely not.

dV hasn't changed. Rocket engine thrust hasn't changed. Nothing is "magically" more efficient than it was in 1960s.

So is Musk capable of spending the roughly 30billion dollars per launch it will take to get a small Apollo type craft to the Moon?

No.

While the timeframe maybe a bit ambitious, the point is we will return to the Moon, and that return will probably be a stepping stone towards an eventual manned Mars landing, and a safe return.

[IDNeon]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

While the timeframe maybe a bit ambitious, the point is we will return to the Moon

China will return to the Moon. I don't know what America has planned but whatever it's doing with Musk is criminal.

Physics hasn't changed.

It still takes a Saturn V to launch a CSM and LM to the moon.

It takes the GDP of a super power to build even one of those.

Musk isn't even close. He's not even off by a long shot.

It takes something like 4x the dV of a geosynchronous orbit just to be captured by the moon.

Then you have to repeat all that dV to get back to Earth.

It's another doubling to land and get back up to LLO.

Musk can barely get into geosynch

Edited May 2, 2021 by IDNeon

[Area54]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

While the timeframe maybe a bit ambitious, the point is we will return to the Moon, and that return will probably be a stepping stone towards an eventual manned Mars landing, and a safe return.

And eventually a safe non-return, aka colonisation.

[IDNeon]

4 minutes ago, Area54 said:

And eventually a safe non-return, aka colonisation

No. There's nothing out there and no reason to be there.

1/4 gravity over a lifetime is unsustainable.

Radiation is too high.

I think space enthusiasts just don't realize how worthless space is.

Machines can do all the work.

And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

Edited May 2, 2021 by IDNeon

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

China will return to the Moon. I don't know what America has planned but whatever it's doing with Musk is criminal.

Physics hasn't changed.

It still takes a Saturn V to launch a CSM and LM to the moon.

It takes the GDP of a super power to build even one of those.

Musk isn't even close. He's not even off by a long shot.

It takes something like 4x the dV of a geosynchronous orbit just to be captured by the moon.

Then you have to repeat all that dV to get back to Earth.

It's another doubling to land and get back up to LLO.

Musk can barely get into geosynch

Whether it is China or Musk/NASA we will return to the Moon like I said. In saying that it most liklely won't be China but Musk, like I said and  that's why NASA has given that job to Musk.  

Musk has already shown what he can do.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

[IDNeon]

Just now, beecee said:

like I said and  that's why NASA has given that job to Musk

Boy you're naive.

NASA gave money to Musk because Musk is now a billionaire and can tell congressmen to give him money. 

The days of the US accomplishing anything are fastly deteriorating. 

The US is like Rome in the 300s AD just eating itself.

Musk has shown ZERO capabilities of putting anything on the Moon 

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, IDNeon said:

No. There's nothing out there and no reason to be there.

1/4 gravity over a lifetime is unsustainable.

Radiation is too high.

I think space enthusiasts just don't realize how worthless space is.

Machines can do all the work.

And there is no work to be done because there's nothing of any value out there.

Thankfully, many more in the know, then yourself, disagree with you. It is going to be difficult and dangerous, but it will happen, in time. We are not going to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by beecee