How much (if any) crewed spaceflight should there be?

[Camacha]

This is pretty circular.

It is not, because:

Public money is ALWAYS spent politically in a democracy, by definition.

[tater]

True, we got what we got. Counterfactuals are always difficult. Asking how much should be spent on manned, is the thread, though, so we can try and avoid politics and be rational. There is no rational defense of manned space science. Manned is unambiguously better/cheaper for science (excepting experiments that require people for circular reasons).

Again, I'm pro manned flight, "just because."

Any science mission can be done cheaper for the same goals, or better with the same money than manned.

Same science goals? No life support, vastly lower mass to lift. No man-rating. All make it hugely less expensive.

Same dollars available? All that LS/crew mass can be devoted to science payload/capability, net result, more science.

Apollo is a great example. The principle science was placing a few, small instruments, and collecting a few hundred kg of lunar rocks/soil. Sample return probes have collected smaller amounts, but for vastly lower expense. Had those missions had the Apollo budget, they could have collected far more samples than apollo (take total LS and crew mass, subtract the robotic rover/collector, then the remaining mass is what you could return in excess of Apollo.

[cryogen]

Could've would've should've, but what country has launched another hubble like telescope. NASA is not alone, there's ESA.

ESA made the Herschel telescope!

It's built world-leading space telescopes, in several types of astronomy. Planck is the world's best telescope at CMBR wavelengths; Gaia is the highest-precision astrorometry telescope; XMM-Newton is one of the two giant x-ray telescopes (and the upcoming ATHENA telescope will be even bigger). Another European intergovermental, ESO, is building the largest ground-based telescope (E-ELT, 39 meters).

It's not quite NASA-size, but it's certainly competent, especially when you consider how small a budget it works with.

Our planet hunter telescope lost attitude control (2 of 4) after a couple years of life, another scope lost it helium. If these had be part of an advanced shuttle mission we could have dispatched the shuttle and repaired them and returned.

That couldn't work for Kepler, because it's in a heliocentric orbit. Actually a lot of space observatories are in very distant orbits, the biggest reason being to avoid earthshine.

Edited August 18, 2015 by cryogen

[Camacha]

There is no rational defense of manned space science.

As I have argued before, there is. Even if it is not rational in pure science yield per dollar, the fact is that science stems from a basic human property - an unstoppable curiosity. Is satisfying human nature not rational? Is doing what mankind has done since its birth not rational? As I have stated before, science is just a formalized form of curiosity. Science research and results are rational, but the act of pursuing science goals is not rational. The rationality of science only holds try within its own world, but it is our curiosity (and if you are less optimistic, our urge of self-preservation, greed or sense of importance) that drives it.

It's not quite NASA-size, but it's certainly competent, especially when you consider how small a budget it works with.

That just goes to show what a more stable budget does.

[tater]

As I have argued before, there is. Even if it is not rational in pure science yield per dollar, the fact is that science stems from a basic human property - an unstoppable curiosity. Is satisfying human nature not rational? Is doing what mankind has done since its birth not rational? As I have stated before, science is just a formalized form of curiosity. Science research and results are rational, but the act of pursuing science goals is not rational. The rationality of science only holds try within its own world, but it is our curiosity (and if you are less optimistic, our urge of self-preservation, greed or sense of importance) that drives it.

That is a rationale for manned spaceflight. Curiosity---ADVENTURE. I'm fine with that.

It is not a rationalization that supports science being better or more cost effective with people. Manned flight only benefits science to the extent it might create budgets for robotic space based science that are in excess of what they would get with no manned program. So the only real scientific defense of manned flight is in fact political if it does secure more funding.

[TheSaint]

And no, people don't typically migrate to places that are life-threateningly dangerous. A minority of people like to explore extreme places because of the thrill that it gives them, but that's a minority, and it's usually for short visits. Most humans only usually migrate to places that are likely to provide safety, comfort, wealth, and a better life for their children. Space is none of that.

If you look at the statistics for life in the early New World colonies you will find that this is completely untrue. People died off in droves from disease, famine, conflicts with the Native Americans. And yet they still came by the shipload looking for exactly what you said: a better life than what they could have in Europe for themselves and their children. They also sought political and religious freedom. You saw the same dynamic in the 18th and 19th Centuries as the United States began its western expansion. The death rates on the wagon trains were staggering, but people still went. The prairies they settled on were in Tornado Alley. They had no hospitals, very few doctors. If the natives attacked there was nobody to defend them except themselves. They were in a remarkably precarious position. But they still went.

As population increases on Earth stagnate the economy and decrease the standard of living and the level of freedom that people experience in their lives and advancing technology makes living on Mars a more attractive option the exact same thing will happen, in spite of the discomfort and danger of getting there and living there. I'm not talking about tomorrow, or the next day, I'm talking about a century from now, when nanotechnology is mature and terraforming is a reality. I probably won't live to see it, but I bet my kids will.

[Camacha]

If you look at the statistics for life in the early New World colonies you will find that this is completely untrue. People died off in droves from disease, famine, conflicts with the Native Americans. And yet they still came by the shipload looking for exactly what you said: a better life than what they could have in Europe for themselves and their children. They also sought political and religious freedom. You saw the same dynamic in the 18th and 19th Centuries as the United States began its western expansion. The death rates on the wagon trains were staggering, but people still went. The prairies they settled on were in Tornado Alley. They had no hospitals, very few doctors. If the natives attacked there was nobody to defend them except themselves. They were in a remarkably precarious position. But they still went.

Agreed. The human story is riddled with people moving to new places, despite danger and adversity. It is one of the things that defines our species. There is little reason this would stop now.

[PakledHostage]

If you look at the statistics for life in the early New World colonies you will find that this is completely untrue. People died off in droves from disease, famine, conflicts with the Native Americans. And yet they still came by the shipload looking for exactly what you said: a better life than what they could have in Europe for themselves and their children.

...

As population increases on Earth stagnate the economy and decrease the standard of living and the level of freedom that people experience in their lives and advancing technology makes living on Mars a more attractive option the exact same thing will happen, in spite of the discomfort and danger of getting there and living there. I'm not talking about tomorrow, or the next day, I'm talking about a century from now, when nanotechnology is mature and terraforming is a reality. I probably won't live to see it, but I bet my kids will.

While it is certainly true that many people emigrated to the new world because they were looking for a better life, I feel compelled to ask how bad would life have to be here on Earth such that living in a box on Mars would be a better option? No honestly?

As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, we've had the technology to live in places like Nanisivik for literally thousands of years yet there's no rush of people moving to the high arctic. Mars is orders of magnitude less habitable than the high arctic. The high arctic is dozens of degrees warmer than the warmest places on Mars and you can actually breath the air!

If life here on Earth becomes so bad that moving into a box on Mars is preferable to staying here, then we and everything else on Earth are in very grave trouble indeed.

[peadar1987]

I understand that there is no rational reason to move to Mars, that's fair enough.

However, the "nobody lives in the Arctic" brigade usually ignore the fact that people aren't always rational. Look at Mars One. In spite of it being obviously a completely unrealistic money sink, possibly a scam, tens of thousands of people spent actual real-world money just to put themselves on a waiting list to die on Mars. There would always be people who would go for the adventure. To see things and go places never before experienced by humankind. It wouldn't be for everyone, but there would definitely be no shortage of volunteers for a Mars colony.

[Camacha]

While it is certainly true that many people emigrated to the new world because they were looking for a better life, I feel compelled to ask how bad would life have to be here on Earth such that living in a box on Mars would be a better option? No honestly?

No matter what you think of Mars One, it has shown people are already willing to do that.

I understand that there is no rational reason to move to Mars, that's fair enough.

There are, as has been explained. Why do people keep insisting on this?

And why did you have to steal my thunder by ninja posting me

[PakledHostage]

No matter what you think of Mars One, it has shown people are already willing to do that.

And there is the apocryphal story of Sir Ernest Shackleton's advertisement for crew in a UK newspaper:

People seek adventure, no matter the risks. As a sailor and a climber, I understand this all too well myself. But there is a difference between seeking adventure in the high arctic and living there because where you are coming from sucks so bad that you were better off to leave.

[TheSaint]

While it is certainly true that many people emigrated to the new world because they were looking for a better life, I feel compelled to ask how bad would life have to be here on Earth such that living in a box on Mars would be a better option? No honestly?

As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, we've had the technology to live in places like Nanisivik for literally thousands of years yet there's no rush of people moving to the high arctic. Mars is orders of magnitude less habitable than the high arctic. The high arctic is dozens of degrees warmer than the warmest places on Mars and you can actually breath the air!

If life here on Earth becomes so bad that moving into a box on Mars is preferable to staying here, then we and everything else on Earth are in very grave trouble indeed.

Why does everyone keep ignoring the word "terraforming" in my posts? And even if terraforming is still a long way off, mature nanotech makes things like domed cities a possibility as well. And, currently, moving to Nanisivik doesn't relieve anyone of anything, so there isn't any rush to move there. If by moving to Nanisivik you suddenly didn't have to pay income taxes, you were given free land, you were free to practice your religion without interference, and you actually had a real choice in political party, a real say in your future, then their immigration office might be a little busier.

You all keep thinking in terms of physical comforts. That as long as everyone has three hots and a cot they will all be happy sitting in shoebox apartments and riding public transit and laughing at reruns of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" for the rest of their lives. And that's true, for the vast majority of the population. But there is a fraction of the population, God bless them, for whom that will not be true, for whom that will never be true. These are the people who have always left in the past, and these are the people who will leave in the future. The fact that you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edited August 18, 2015 by TheSaint
One critical distinction

[Camacha]

People seek adventure, no matter the risks. As a sailor and a climber, I understand this all too well myself. But there is a difference between seeking adventure in the high arctic and living there because where you are coming from sucks so bad that you were better off to leave.

People heading for the west in the US were promised the chance to own land and start something new, though at great risk. People that looked to join Mars One were promised the chance of going to a new planet and start something new, though at great risk. I would easily categorise them as similar, if not the same.

The argument is that people would not be crazy or desperate enough to give up what they have here to go live in space or on Mars, but it seems there is quite a large pool of people willing to do this - quite a bit more than we can reasonably send to space in the next 50 years or so.

[PakledHostage]

Why does everyone keep ignoring the word "terraforming" in my posts?

Because terraforming is science fiction? And even if it wasn't, because it would take on the order of tens of thousands of years to terraform Mars into a planet that is habitable for terrestrial creatures and humans?

People heading for the west in the US were promised the chance to own land and start something new, though at great risk. People that looked to join Mars One were promised the chance of going to a new planet and start something new, though at great risk. I would easily categorise them as similar, if not the same.

Let me echo some of TheSaint's frustration: Doesn't anyone read my posts? People signing up for Mars One are almost certainly looking for an adventure. Like millions of other people today and throughout history, they are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for that thrill. But that doesn't mean that living in a box on Mars is ever going to be any better than living at Ammundson-Scott station or in Nanisivik. In fact, it will be worse because it is colder on Mars and you can't breath the air.

Edited August 18, 2015 by PakledHostage

[TheSaint]

Because terraforming is science fiction? And even if it wasn't, because it would take on the order of tens of thousands of years to terraform Mars into a planet that is habitable for terrestrial creatures and humans?

Terraforming is an engineering problem at this point. We're fairly certain of what needs to be done, it's just a matter of figuring out how to do it and working around the unforeseens as they come up. And sure, it would take tens of thousands of years, if technology never changed ever again. With self-replicating nanotechnology I bet it will happen a lot faster than that. Fifty years, that's my bet on how long it will take. And I think the technology to do it will be available within a century. I'll put $100 on it, which I feel pretty safe in, since I won't live long enough for anyone to collect it. (And since by that time inflation will will have made $100 practically worthless.) Crash a couple of comets into it for water and heat, seed the atmosphere with some self-replicating nanites that use sunlight to break CO2 down into carbon and oxygen, seed some more on the surface to start liberating the oxygen from the iron oxide. Once you have some O2 building up in the atmosphere you can start feeding some modified algae and lichen to start breaking down the dust into usable soil. This will take millennia to work its way across the whole surface, but only a couple years in localized areas. Organisms that live on the surface will need genmods to deal with the different gas mix for a while. None of this is impossible, or even that far down the pike, technologically speaking.

It never ceases to amaze me how on a board dedicated to a game about spaceflight there is such a preponderance of people who are so pessimistic about the advancement of science and technology. We walk around with computers in our pockets that we can use to access information from almost anywhere in the world. We flew a probe by Pluto last month.

Technology is advancing at an incredible rate.

Let me echo some of TheSaint's frustration: Doesn't anyone read my posts? People signing up for Mars One are almost certainly looking for an adventure. Like millions of other people today and throughout history, they are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for that thrill. But that doesn't mean that living in a box on Mars is ever going to be any better than living at Ammundson-Scott station or in Nanisivik. In fact, it will be worse because it is colder on Mars and you can't breath the air.

I hear what you are saying, but as I said in my post above, it isn't about creature comforts. People didn't leave Europe for the New World because they were starving to death (not most of them, anyway). They left because they wanted more out of life than just creature comforts. They mostly left because they wanted freedom: economic freedom, religious freedom, political freedom. They wanted to be free from persecution for their beliefs. They wanted to be in charge of their own destiny. They wanted, in great part, to own land, which was all but impossible for them in Europe. And they were willing to risk life and limb to acquire these things.

So your core argument is, "Nobody will move to Mars until life on Earth is more physically miserable than it is on Mars, because life on Mars is more miserable than it is in Nanisivik and nobody is moving to Nanisivik." My point is that they will eventually move to Mars, because, A) I believe that by the time it comes to down to it, Mars will be as hospitable (if not more so) as Nanisivik, and, moving to Mars will have the same intangible advantages in personal freedom that drew the immigrants from Europe to the New World, which Nanisivik does not.

[tater]

Many left because it was WORSE where they were leaving. My wife's family came to the Lower East Side of NYC to live 8 people in a 300 square foot tenement apartment next to an elevated (coal) railway because while their living conditions were better materially, there were active pogroms in the works that might easily have lead to their deaths.

Many did come for adventure, even at risk, but conditions in the New World were largely better than "home," particularly upward mobility (zero vs non-zero). That said, I know the Caribbean was a nightmare in the age of sail, getting posted they in the RN was like playing Russian Roulette due to tropical diseases (likely true of all the Spanish colonies, as well).

[peadar1987]

Terraforming is an engineering problem at this point. We're fairly certain of what needs to be done, it's just a matter of figuring out how to do it and working around the unforeseens as they come up. And sure, it would take tens of thousands of years, if technology never changed ever again. With self-replicating nanotechnology I bet it will happen a lot faster than that. Fifty years, that's my bet on how long it will take. And I think the technology to do it will be available within a century. I'll put $100 on it, which I feel pretty safe in, since I won't live long enough for anyone to collect it. (And since by that time inflation will will have made $100 practically worthless.) Crash a couple of comets into it for water and heat, seed the atmosphere with some self-replicating nanites that use sunlight to break CO2 down into carbon and oxygen, seed some more on the surface to start liberating the oxygen from the iron oxide. Once you have some O2 building up in the atmosphere you can start feeding some modified algae and lichen to start breaking down the dust into usable soil. This will take millennia to work its way across the whole surface, but only a couple years in localized areas. Organisms that live on the surface will need genmods to deal with the different gas mix for a while. None of this is impossible, or even that far down the pike, technologically speaking.

Self-replicating nanotechnology of the sort you describe isn't happening any time soon. They don't play nice with the laws of thermodynamics at the scales you are talking about. They are probably impossible, and certainly impossible in the short-term.

GMOs are going to take many, many years to work their way across the Martian surface, and you're going to need several strains as the atmosphere changes composition.

Redirecting comets is something that requires huge amounts of both thrust and delta-V. We simply don't have the propulsion systems for this. It would need a massively powerful ion drive, reliable over a timescale of decades at full thrust, and small-scale fusion that can use energetically unfavourable reactions, because it will need to find its fuel once it arrives. Comets are BIG. You need a lot of energy to move them even by a few m/s.

It's not happening within the next 100 years. Controlled fusion maybe within the next 100 years. We probably won't be redirecting comets for another 100. Getting enough on the proper intercept trajectories, maybe another couple of hundred years after that.

It never ceases to amaze me how on a board dedicated to a game about spaceflight there is such a preponderance of people who are so pessimistic about the advancement of science and technology. We walk around with computers in our pockets that we can use to access information from almost anywhere in the world. We flew a probe by Pluto last month.

Technology is advancing at an incredible rate.

Not pessimistic, realistic. There are a lot of scientists and engineers here, we know the likely limits of technology in the near to mid future.

[PakledHostage]

My point is that they will eventually move to Mars, because, A) I believe that by the time it comes to down to it, Mars will be as hospitable (if not more so) as Nanisivik, and, moving to Mars will have the same intangible advantages in personal freedom that drew the immigrants from Europe to the New World, which Nanisivik does not.

Maybe, but your point hinges upon your predictions about terraforming technology coming true. To that, I refer you to Peadar1987's comments above.

[Camacha]

Doesn't anyone read my posts? People signing up for Mars One are almost certainly looking for an adventure. Like millions of other people today and throughout history, they are willing to take risks and make sacrifices for that thrill. But that doesn't mean that living in a box on Mars is ever going to be any better than living at Ammundson-Scott station or in Nanisivik. In fact, it will be worse because it is colder on Mars and you can't breath the air.

I did read your posts, but I also explained why the Mars One candidates are more akin to the early settlers than to thrill seeking adventurers. Sure, the latter certainly will be in the group, but there will still be people lining up when the gimmick wears off. Many settlers knew there was a fair chance they would end up in an unmarked grave, or not even that, but still they went in numbers. I will leave the snooty comment whether you read my posts to your own imagination

Maybe, but your point hinges upon your predictions about terraforming technology coming true. To that, I refer you to Peadar1987's comments above.

Terraforming is not needed. People will come when the structures are there to survive, many more will come the the structures are there to live. Both are viable current or near future tech engineering problems. Please remember that the American settlers did not have anything, they literally built their own homes from the mud they lived on. Granted, they could breathe the air and drink the water, but that was about it.

[NuclearNut]

The reason, the only reason really, is to establish self sustaining populations in space to increase survivability. It should also be noted that, as of today, humans are the only things that can effectively repair things, robots do not do so well by themselves, so that is a possible reason to send humans into space, assuming you happen to have mining in space too that is.

However if your goal is science, there is little to no reason, probes generally are not doing anything that intensive and thus do not need as many repairs as industrial equipment.

[PakledHostage]

I did read your posts, but I also explained why the Mars One candidates are more akin to the early settlers than to thrill seeking adventurers.

You are a prolific poster on these forums and I do read what you have to say about the topics that I am interested in, but this won't be the first or last time that we will have to agree to disagree.

Please remember that the American settlers did not have anything, they literally built their own homes from the mud they lived on. Granted, they could breathe the air and drink the water, but that was about it.

And go outside without a pressure suit, and plant crops in naturally fertile soil, etc, etc...

[Camacha]

You are a prolific poster on these forums and I do read what you have to say about the topics that I am interested in, but this won't be the first or last time that we will have to agree to disagree.

I just do not see how you can be so sure that all people willing to go to Mars would be thrill seekers. Thrill seekers go for intense journeys, achievements they can show off or that will reward them with plenty of adrenaline. Not for life long commitments to dreary conditions. Thrill seekers are quite the opposite of the type of people a Mars journey requires: the former means someone who seeks (relatively) short and intensive goals with high yield results, while the latter requires a slow, steady marathon towards better conditions over time. Without a rush being repeated again and again, a one way journey is just not interesting for a thrill seeker.

Besides, like I said: there certainly will be quite a few thrill seekers in the larger group, but even if in some worst case scenario just 200 or 300 people (out of 7 billion, or even just the 202.586 Mars One applicants) would remain that are not, it is still plenty to get things started elsewhere. I think we can at least agree that that number of people could be pulled out of a hat somewhere, right? Just one in well over every 1.000 applicants has to be suitable, if you base things on Mars One numbers, to have enough for a permanent base.

Though, of course, initially you would not even need that much. Just a small team of 5, 15 or 25 could get a lot done, even if it is too little for a permanent backup base. If you can find volunteers for kamikaze missions and certain death nuclear reactor rescue work, there must be some interested in that too.

and go outside without a pressure suit, and plant crops in naturally fertile soil, etc, etc...

The point is, those people had nothing except their own wits and two hands. They literally had to build their lives from the ground up. Yet they went, and flourished. People with a lot more knowledge, training and many times the technological support will certainly be able to carve out a living.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Camacha

[PakledHostage]

...

Besides, like I said: We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Camacha]

Besides, like I said: We'll have to agree to disagree.

I guess we will have to settle with you agreeing with that and me disagreeing, because as long as fair points have been made without being countered, I cannot agree. Refusing to discuss further is not the same as disagreeing.

No hard feelings though, I appreciate your efforts and arguments so far

[Nibb31]

If you look at the statistics for life in the early New World colonies you will find that this is completely untrue. People died off in droves from disease, famine, conflicts with the Native Americans. And yet they still came by the shipload looking for exactly what you said: a better life than what they could have in Europe for themselves and their children.

Because the perspective of disease, famine, and conflicts was better than the conditions they were living in at home. The same is true for the hordes of migrants who drown crossing the Mediterranean every year. It's an ongoing tragedy.

The difference is that the people who are going to afford a ticket to Mars aren't typically the same as those migrants. The Venn diagram of:

a) people who can afford to settle on Mars

people who are persecuted on Earth, and

c) people who have skills that can be useful to for a new colony,

doesn't have a really big intersection.

They also sought political and religious freedom.

In the countries where people could afford to migrate to Mars, you pretty much have your political and religious freedom. Actually, if you have a million dollars to spend on that, then it's likely that you are among the privileged, not the persecuted. And there is no reason to believe that a privately owned colony controlled by Elon Musk or anyone else is going to be a political and religious utopia that would be any better than where you currently live. It's actually likely to have less freedom than on Earth due to rationing and safety concerns and to ask more of its citizens than to just contribute taxes.

You saw the same dynamic in the 18th and 19th Centuries as the United States began its western expansion. The death rates on the wagon trains were staggering, but people still went. The prairies they settled on were in Tornado Alley. They had no hospitals, very few doctors. If the natives attacked there was nobody to defend them except themselves. They were in a remarkably precarious position. But they still went.

Colonization was funded by European nations because there were resources and lucrative trade routes and a power struggle for grabbing territories before their opponents. There also weren't any required qualifications. Nations had no trouble finding candidate colonists, because the colonies offered a hope of settling on fertile land or finding resources that would improve their subsistence. The conditions are completely different today.

There is no fertile land on Mars. There are no resources that can be traded on Earth. Nothing on Mars will make you wealthier, safer, or more confortable. The soil is poisonous. If you go outside, you die. If you breath the dust, you die. If supplies arrive late, you die. If your power breaks down, you die. If you don't have someone with a specific skillset, you die.

It would be like spending the rest of your life inside an air-conditioned trailer feeding on hydroponic lettuce and recycled urine, and never again feeling a breeze of wind in your hair or rain on your face. Why would anyone who has a million dollars on Earth want that kind of life, instead of moving the Bahamas for example?

As population increases on Earth stagnate the economy and decrease the standard of living and the level of freedom that people experience in their lives and advancing technology makes living on Mars a more attractive option the exact same thing will happen, in spite of the discomfort and danger of getting there and living there. I'm not talking about tomorrow, or the next day, I'm talking about a century from now, when nanotechnology is mature and terraforming is a reality. I probably won't live to see it, but I bet my kids will.

This assumes that:

a- An increasing population is inevitable and can't be controlled. Well, nowadays, we have the pill and ...-education, which can make the World a better place for everyone.

b- That technology will keep on advancing even though the economy stagnates and the standard of living decreases. If we get to a point where life on Earth is so bad that we need to go elsewhere, scientific progress will probably be stagnating too.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Nibb31