I agree with Matt_B about manned exploration. Whats the point of endangering human lives? Also things like feeding humans, removing human excrement, space suits cost a lot of money, and even then, when we do colonize Mars, what can we do there that a robot can't do? Why would it be necessary for mankind to go to Mars? i mean, it's cool and all, but it isn't necessary for the well being of the human race, and it isn't worth all of the money that would go into it.

Matt_B wrote:As for a closed self-sustaining system, there's no such thing. I'd think that something that'll last for three or four years for a round trip with a minimal amount of consumables is probably going to come in a lot cheaper and lighter than one that's got to last a lifetime and beyond.

I agree with your first comment about the closed system. Obviously the addition of sunlight ensures it's not. So that statement was incorrect.

Matt_B wrote:And how much do you think those workshops weigh and how many workers are required?

Weight I don't know, but workers? Just a few. That's what they have on board a ship. Typically the engineers double up as machinists also.

Matt_B wrote:We're still talking a million dollars a kilo here, after all. And a crewed mission to Mars would probably have no more than half a dozen astronauts in total and quite possibly as few as two or three; there's no way you could get the necessary skill set aboard to be able to maintain all the systems when a typical space probe is constructed by thousands of engineers. Having enough redundancy to keep it all working for the entirety of a round trip would be bad enough.

I think with guidance from Earth you most certainly could. You know, a few mechanical/electrical/electronics engineers (unless you believe that an engineer can't be skilled in all three?). Then you would have some scientific and medical staff. A mission like this would require everyone to be a jack of all trades.

Matt_B wrote:Similarly, as you say, ships survive at sea for months not indefinitely. It's a myth that they could last that much longer if they could grow food aboard. Rather, they'd rapidly run out of consumables and many systems require servicing in port. Also, ships generally need to be scrapped or rebuilt after twenty years or so, and it's not like the latter will be an option for anything you send to Mars.

I think you underestimate what people can do with raw materials and a food supply.

HughMcB wrote:Weight I don't know, but workers? Just a few. That's what they have on board a ship. Typically the engineers double up as machinists also.

I think with guidance from Earth you most certainly could. You know, a few mechanical/electrical/electronics engineers (unless you believe that an engineer can't be skilled in all three?). Then you would have some scientific and medical staff. A mission like this would require everyone to be a jack of all trades.

Remember, you've got to get this entire skill set into a crew of at most six people, possibly as few as two or three. And the thing about Jacks of all trades is that they're invariably masters of none. Getting the right combination for a mission that lasts three or four years would be tough enough; one that'll keep a habitat going for a lifetime just makes it a lot harder.

As for expertise and guidance from Earth, I'm sure it can help sometimes, but only if the people on board actually have the tools for the job and with the limited weight budget they probably won't. Again, remember Columbia; all the expertise in the world couldn't have helped them.

I think you underestimate what people can do with raw materials and a food supply.

I think you underestimate how much time ships, especially submarines, spend in port undergoing maintenance that can't be done at sea; the world's dockyards would be out of business by now if it could all be done aboard ship. Given that a spaceship - or similarly a space transportable habitat for a Martian colony - is going to be an even more complex proposition that's also going to have to be incredibly lightweight, it's even more of a stretch to expect it to be able to last practically indefinitely without the benefit of serious maintenance facilities.

I don't want to come across as unduly negative as I'd support the eventual colonization of Mars, but we're simply not there yet with the technology. Rather, sticking a colony on the Moon would be a much more practical near term objective for crewed space exploration. It could be supplied every few months rather than every couple of years, routine rotation of crew would also be possible, and so would emergency evacuation so long as they can hold out for that time. That's not to say it would be an easy or cheap option, and there are still a lot of technologies to perfect before it's practical again; not least we've got to start building large rockets in the same sort of class as the Saturn V once more. Also, much of the technology could ultimately transfer itself to Mars missions, and with no pressing reason to go there first, it would seem prudent to take the easier step.

Ok Matt I agree with most of what you're saying. But would there be any purpose to a base on the moon? Or would it serve as more of a dry run for future exploration?

Nuclear rockets. Weight restrictions reduced. Only sensible option.

HughMcB wrote:Ok Matt I agree with most of what you're saying. But would there be any purpose to a base on the moon? Or would it serve as more of a dry run for future exploration?

In the immediate future, like most crewed space exploration, there's no real purpose other than demonstrating what's possible and the prestige of being able to do it. In the longer term though, the Moon would make an excellent site for an observatory and there's the potential to harvest helium-3 for future nuclear fusion reactors. These could both be done with robotics, but once you get beyond a certain scale the case for putting people there is much stronger.

So, although it would provide most of the same challenges as establishing a Martian colony, I wouldn't necessarily see it as a dry run. Indeed, the Moon does appear to have plenty of water in the polar regions and that's the critical resource for topping up the life support systems, as well as opening up the possibility of things like hydroponic farming and local production of rocket fuels.

Mars will always be a far more interesting destination to astrobiologists like Davies, but I think they'll have to make do with robotic missions for the foreseeable future.

I think we should go for a manned trip to Mars. It has to be done sometime and I'm sure there's plenty to justify such a scientific expedition. Not so long ago there was a greater ordeal involved in exploring Antarctica, so we're more than capable of an exploratory trip to Mars. In fact in comparison to Antarctic expeditions, the trip to Mars would be a pleasant, civilised affair.

As Horwood Beer-Master touched upon in the "catch 22" post above, we need to fnd the gumption to grasp the nettle of these challenges. Look at the shoebox they sent man to the Moon in, look at the sophistcated technology of Concorde which was started in the same decade as Apollo. Which shows both that we can build incredible machines to fit any task and that even the poorest of these will often suffice.

I don't think we should attempt a permanent settlement on Mars, if we're going to build a serious base anywhere off-world, the first one surely has to be on the Moon.

A trip to Europa would also be great because if nothing else, it would finally give closure to millions of suspense-raddled Arthur C. Clarke readers, but let's not start saying "we shouldn't do x we should do y." We should do 'em both and more besides!


Eta: P.S. I'm available for crew selection should my services be required.

I'd go. There's got to be plenty of volunteers that feel giving up their life on Earth is a small price to pay. I'd still be worth it even if I crashed upon entry.

Although I accept the argument that manned space flight/exploration is mostly for show, in the long term it's necessary to develop these skills and technology. I'd love to see the Moon and Mars colonised, along with centrifugal space stations. But I think the first thing we need to do is create processing capabilities in orbit. The moment we can build spaceships and other technologies in orbit we automatically reduce the cost, as well as the environmental damage to Earth. We could even get the raw materials from space. Hell! Eventually we'll have to get them from there, we might as well start now.

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote: Why would it be necessary for mankind to go to Mars? i mean, it's cool and all, but it isn't necessary for the well being of the human race, and it isn't worth all of the money that would go into it.

I disagree.

The moment we create permanent colonies off-world is the moment we double the human race's chances of long term survival. At the moment we have all our eggs in one basket, or planet, and that makes our civilisation and our species vulnerable.

Matt_B wrote:In the immediate future, like most crewed space exploration, there's no real purpose other than demonstrating what's possible and the prestige of being able to do it. In the longer term though, the Moon would make an excellent site for an observatory and there's the potential to harvest helium-3 for future nuclear fusion reactors. These could both be done with robotics, but once you get beyond a certain scale the case for putting people there is much stronger.

Which reminds me, have you seen this film? Moon

It is a kind of psychological thriller about a man living permanently on the moon harvesting Heluim-3 for Earth. I would highly recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it.

Best science fiction flick in a long time.

I thought it was quite good for a low-budget effort, although I did twig the ending from a way off.

Anyway, it should be noted that most current fusion research is concentrating on deuterium-tritium reactions as it gives a much higher reaction rate, so the future market for helium-3 is a somewhat hypothetical one.

How about we go this route:

Begin construction of a shipyard in orbit
Research into shielding required for spaceships with human crew which are outside of powerful magnetic fields

Build a ship on the scale of a aircraft carrier in said orbital shipyard
Design said ship to be a moveable 'ISS' which has the addition of docking bays for planet transfer craft, 3D printing workshops, farms and have the ability to start a small 'temporary' planetary base.

Send said ship into orbit around Mars, set up small scientific outpost on the planet but keep majority of the crew aboard the main ship, planetary transfer craft will have an easier time going in/out of Mars due to its lower g and tenuous atmosphere.

andyx1205 wrote:

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:...Personally I say fuck Mars, sounds like a waste of time (unless we want to terraform it and colonize it)...

Terraforming it is not a prerequisite for colonising it. If we're to be serous about colonising space we can't be so picky as to only choose places that either are, or can be made, Earthlike. We're going to have to learn to adapt at some point - why not start with a (relatively) easy target?

Well it really depends if we want to go to Mars for future prospects of colonization or we just want to go there to learn more about Mars for scientific purposes, if the latter...Europa would be a better trip.

How would going to Europa help us understand Mars?

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote:I agree with Matt_B about manned exploration. Whats the point of endangering human lives? Also things like feeding humans, removing human excrement, space suits cost a lot of money, and even then, when we do colonize Mars, what can we do there that a robot can't do? Why would it be necessary for mankind to go to Mars? i mean, it's cool and all, but it isn't necessary for the well being of the human race, and it isn't worth all of the money that would go into it.

While I wholeheartedly support the notion of robotic exploration as being the majority of a space programme, I do think manned exploration has a few important factors.

First, we need to get all our eggs out of 1 basket - it's no good saying we can do it when our tech improves because our tech will only improve by doing it.

Secondly - as you noted - this stuff costs money, and that money comes from the public - humans doing stuff is exciting for humans, whether that be climbing dangerous mountains, throwing themselves off cliffs, trekking to the poles, or what-have-you. None of this is 'necessary', but this human element is the thing that grabs the public's interest, the pioneering spirit, and consequently lends itself to a public will to fund such programmes.

Finally, such a programme would require international cooperation on a near unprecedented scale - perhaps we can stop finding novel ways of killing each other for a bit if we've all got representatives of our nation states sharing a lonely rock 56 to 401 million kilometres away.

Along with the moon, I think asteroids are another plausible goal, especially as we could conceivably move them into a useful position like a Lagrangian point. I was watching Plait's video on what to do about meteors striking the earth, and he was talking about using very low powered ion drives to slowly coax an asteroid into position by the miniscule gravity the ship/probe exerts.

Joe09 wrote:How about we go this route:

Begin construction of a shipyard in orbit
Research into shielding required for spaceships with human crew which are outside of powerful magnetic fields

Build a ship on the scale of a aircraft carrier in said orbital shipyard
Design said ship to be a moveable 'ISS' which has the addition of docking bays for planet transfer craft, 3D printing workshops, farms and have the ability to start a small 'temporary' planetary base.

Send said ship into orbit around Mars, set up small scientific outpost on the planet but keep majority of the crew aboard the main ship, planetary transfer craft will have an easier time going in/out of Mars due to its lower g and tenuous atmosphere.

I suppose that's the science fiction version we've had popularized by the movies.

Realistically though, I don't think we'll be building any spaceships the size of aircraft carriers in the foreseeable future. It costs around $10 million per ton to send something to low Earth orbit, so if you want 100,000 tons of steel up there that's a $1 trillion spend before you've even started building it. Even the ISS weighs in at just under 420 tons, took thirty-odd launches, and that's way too big for a Mars mission as well; at least when you consider that it'd need to carry around ten times its own weight in fuel if it were to do the trip. Rather, we'd probably be looking at a spacecraft with a dry mass of no more than about 50 tons, possibly quite a bit less than that according to some proposals. Basically, it's going to be little more than a tin-can with a life support system on board.

Of course, if you're to forego the return trip as Davies proposes, the mass ratio drops dramatically and you can either do it for a about a fifth as much money with the same payload or take five times more equipment for the same budget. Still, even with 250 tons of carefully selected kit - assuming you can get it to the surface of Mars intact - I still think you'd be pushing your luck to start a self-sustaining colony with the resources the planet offers.

People have been persuaded in their billions to take part in destructive wars that have cost enormous amounts of blood and treasure. A Mars mission, especially in terms of a large, one way colony is dooable given sufficient will. The best-all round diagnostic repair tool is a human being, so despite the cost of protecting humans from space flight, it is worth while. They must be prepared by sending robot logistic ships that carry payloads not only for immediate need, but to convert in situ materials into food, water, air, habitat and so on. The colony should dig underground: safe from radiation, easy to maintain temperature, and an atmosphere. Nuclear power plants and solar power. All this might take the equivalent of what the USA spent on the Vietnam war. The difference being is that eventually as technology improves, Mars and other colonies in the solar system could be a provider of bulk raw materials for Earth, so the system will eventually more than pay for itself. Space elevators have lots of problems, but I see no reason why such things could not become viable.

Right now, as well as for much of our history, humans have spent enormously on how to kill each other. If even a fraction of this effort was put into serious space colonies, they would not be expensive at all. In the final analysis, expense just means commitment. Put aside dangerous toy guns and make space ships and space infrastructure. "Value" depends on what people agree is valuable. We just need different values. Valuing our Earth as our spaceship, and realizing that there are other space ships out there, called asteroids, moons and planets. They need a little terraforming to become Humans and Earth-life friendly, but we are [or can be when we put our minds to it] intelligent designers.

Matt_B wrote:

I suppose that's the science fiction version we've had popularized by the movies.

I havent watched any.

Realistically though, I don't think we'll be building any spaceships the size of aircraft carriers in the foreseeable future. It costs around $10 million per ton to send something to low Earth orbit, so if you want 100,000 tons of steel up there that's a $1 trillion spend before you've even started building it. Even the ISS weighs in at just under 420 tons, took thirty-odd launches, and that's way too big for a Mars mission as well; at least when you consider that it'd need to carry around ten times its own weight in fuel if it were to do the trip. Rather, we'd probably be looking at a spacecraft with a dry mass of no more than about 50 tons, possibly quite a bit less than that according to some proposals. Basically, it's going to be little more than a tin-can with a life support system on board.

Its not a lot of money, countries throw far more away in wars, propping up toxic banks and funding anti-environment propaganda. Its quite a disgusting shame.

Of course, if you're to forego the return trip as Davies proposes, the mass ratio drops dramatically and you can either do it for a about a fifth as much money with the same payload or take five times more equipment for the same budget. Still, even with 250 tons of carefully selected kit - assuming you can get it to the surface of Mars intact - I still think you'd be pushing your luck to start a self-sustaining colony with the resources the planet offers.

Agreed, which is why a moveable station makes more logical sense, even if it costs far more.

None of this will ever happen of course, most humans only care about killing each other and doing all the wrong things.

Europa is a bit too difficult yet. There is also nothing there but ice. It is doubtful we could drill through that much ice even here on Earth with the resources we have locally let alone on Europa. You would also have to transport a nuclear reactor, or at least an oversize RTG to have a viable energy source. On Mars solar energy is still viable. Robotic probes would be far more useful to investigate Europa.