Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Glad to read you enjoyed the movie, Ed.
My interest in going to Mars has less to do w science,
more to do with the human spirit.
But if we can do some science along the way,
all the better.
Sign me up!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
My interest in going to Mars has less to do w science,
more to do with the human spirit.
go for it HFCS! "go west young [sic] man"
you don't need no stinkin' government to send you, set out on your own and realize your dream...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
Agreed that humans getting any farther than Mars, or perhaps the asteroid belt, seems very unlikely given current knowledge and technology. We might find evidence of life in the sub-surface oceans of the ice satellites, but a robot capable of drilling through kilometres of ice and exploring beneath seems a considerable stretch.
My question about a robot finding life on Earth was limited to geology - that is, could we even now build a robot with the ability to land on Earth and find proof of life here, either fossils or by drilling and finding live microbes. That was all - clearly even current technology could remotely 'see' circumstantial evidence of life. Liquid water, oxygen atmosphere, and so on.
It seems quite possible that the various probes will find convincing circumstantial evidence that there has been or is life on Mars - methane in the atmosphere would be pretty convincing, when added to everything else. But can we build a machine that can do good paleontology there, and drill deep holes and see what can be found, or at least return cores and samples to Earth?
The geological record of early life on Earth is rather elusive, and the 'ologists argue about it. Any traces on Mars may be even harder to identify. Robots have come an enormous way in the last 50 years, so maybe they can build one that has the ability to ferret out whatever may be on Mars.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
compared to a $500B estimated cost of a human mission to Mars,
what do you think you could do in robotics with a budget of about that order of magnitude?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
That being the $640 billion rhetorical question...
If convincing circumstantial evidence of current life on Mars is found, the question as to what to do about it, and when and how, may suddenly become much more acute. It would make sense then to send some sample return missions, aimed for likely spots, to drill in five or ten metres and bring back cores for analysis. The technology for getting a worthwhile payload off Mars and back to Earth might be the most difficult part, but could happen within perhaps a decade, if there was popular support and political commitment. That'd be a start. But what then?
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 3, 2016 - 03:00pm PT
|
There have been lots of comments with objections to a Manned Mars mission, so I didn't respond immediately before getting all the ducks in a row and marching in a desired direction. I'm going to address the problems mentioned by the other posting members in something of an order of diminishing relevance.
(1) Cost. The posts from others simply indicate they haven't kept up with the change in scale of he proposed mission, or with the tremendous advantages conferred by the Mars Direct, or the now official NASA position of what is normally called Mars Semi-Direct.
Back in 1990, the Bush administration tasked NASA with the preparation of a plan for a mission to Mars under the name of Space Exploration Initiative, and after the report was finished, The 90 Day Report. This had become the wishful-thinking shopping cart for all the separate divisions within NASA, each one of which didn't care to be "left out" and deemed unnecessary or irrelevant. The Space Station group demanded a major expansion in size and scope of the ISS, International Space Station, complete with gigantic hangar bays to house an orbitally constructed monster spacecraft. The Moon group included a Moon base for a supply depot. The Advanced Propulsion group wanted a yet-to-be-built ion plasma drive utilizing nuclear power. The tab for the entire project: $450 Billion. The engineers at Martin Marietta were appalled at the proposal--both in sheer magnitude and overall cost. It became jokingly knlown as the "Battlestar Galacitca" proposal. Robert Zubrin was at the time a senior engineer at Martin, and was able to convince management to produce a different proposal, since the NASA program didn't have a chance of obtaining the needed congressional funding. A group of 12 engineers was formed, including Zubrin's colleague, David Baker who was assigned the task of conceiving an entirely new mission architecture--stressing a minimalist approach that could be accomplished with 1990's technology. Baker came up with a plan based on the idea that he would not only have to build it, but pay for it as well. Voila! Mars Direct was born. Price tag at least an order of magnitude less than the 90 Day NASA plan. Management came onboard and had Zubrin and Baker visit NASA with the proposal, where it was initially met with much enthusiasm. Over time, objections began to arise from NASA divisions feeling left out, so the plan was modified to a larger mission format involving 3 ships sent to Mars utilizing the Sabatier synthesis system to refuel in situ. Hence, Mars Semi Direct was born, and over time has become the currently approved mission architecture. Estimated cost spread over 5 years: $40 Billion, or $8 Billion annually, which is within the present NASA budget.
(2) Science and Robotics. There is no doubt in my mind that Robotics have a major role in space and planetary exploration. However what can be accomplished robotically also has its limits. Since one of the principal reasons for visiting Mars is part and parcel, search for life, the Robots have paved the way for visits by competent Geologists and Paleontologists. I seriously doubt that 100 robotic explorers dropped on Colorado and Wyoming would ever find a dinosaur skeleton, in spite of there being many. It requires a thinking scientist ON THE SPOT to casually "notice" an interesting rock outcrop, and proceed to carefully chip away at some sedimentary rock to find a piece of shale to split and find that Trilobite or Nautiloid fossil. Most of the robotic explorers couldn't move up the steep slope to get there, and not have the needed dexterity to remove a sample, and on the site, split it open. Leave the Robotic probes for Jupiter's moons, with Europa being the most interesting.
(3) Radiation dangers. Radiation has different classes of hazard. First is getting through the Van Allen belts of charged particles (protons) which although hazardous, can be endured briefly during a rapid transit of them. In deep space there is Cosmic radiation. Same as at the ISS. Astronauts have spent up to a year in space with no ill effects thus far. OK, the proposed flight to Mars is 6 months. Once on the planetary surface, the dose rate drops below 50% of the deep space levels, since the rays only impinge an astronaut from a hemispherical direction as opposed to spherically as in transit. Another 6 months of exposure at a reduced (< 50%)level, which is also attenuated by the thin but present Martian atmosphere. So this is actually an issue that's really a non-issue. Granted, there is a potential hazard from Solar flares, but the structure and layout of the spacecraft can ameliorate the situation by having a small protected shelter within. Protection doesn't need to be anything more than the onboard food and water supplies.
(4) Time and mental stability. The crew would need to undergo careful evaluation, but the stresses would be no worse than those experienced by old time Arctic explorers, whalers, and seamen in general.
This has been edited for spelling and grammar.
I'll continue later but I'm just tired of typing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!