Manned Mars mission poll

[DAL59]

a

Edited September 20, 2017 by DAL59

[Mitchz95]

There should be a "both" option for #1. If and when it happens, it'll undoubtedly be a joint effort.

And for #3, we'll probably have to live in domes for a while either way.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Mitchz95

[Nibb31]

Another poll ? What does it matter what the majority think ? You need "Both" in 1, because SpaceX isn't going anywhere unless somebody is paying. And you need "Neither" in 3, because landing people on Mars doesn't mean people are going to move there permanently.

[KSK]

Agreed. The first poll needs more options. The second poll - apart from a serious doubt about a pre 2024 launch I have no sensible opinion on any of the other options.

As for the third poll, 'domes' are the only remotely plausible or morally acceptable option for the foreseeable future. 

[Streetwind]

3 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

There should be a "both" option for #1. If and when it happens, it'll undoubtedly be a joint effort.

Well, you can select more than one choice in that question...

[Hannu2]

1. NASA. It may be that SpaceX will make many critical components for the project but NASA will pay it and gets the honor.

2. After 2045. There is no credible plans anywhere in the world in foreseeable future. Many companies and organizations produce papers filled with empty promises but nobody have an idea who will pay the bill.

3. Terraforming or genetic manipulation is not possible in foreseeable future. I think that terraforming will never be reality. We have to make bases isolated from atmosphere several hundreds of years.

[NSEP]

NASA is the house of SpaceX, SpaceX can't live on properly without NASA. But if you are asking me who built the spacecraft and stuff i think its going to be SpaceX

[p1t1o]

1. This is more a financial question than a practical one, I think either would be capable of the design and engineering. Since the two entities are funded and run in very different ways, its very hard to say. Some have suggested a joint effort. This seems a pretty good guess, look at the ISS. The two organisations also have very different skillsets, yeah I see a joint effort as likely, and not just between those two companies.

2. Honestly, I am an unusual camp for KSPers. I do not see manned exploration of the solar system as anything particularly urgent. People wrangle about "Why havnt we been back to the moon?" and "Man must reach for the stars to survive!" but no one ever talks about "why". Because there isnt a "why". We do not need to colonise Mars within the next few decades, or even centuries. It would be great to do it, and we'd get loads of science done, but that is not enough. Until projects are not constrained by cost, profit, or investment risk, there is little reason to expend the resources and risk the stakes. I put 2036-2045 merely because I dont think prediction further ahead are worth much, but it is technically feasible. Certainly it wont happen within a decade, I've said it before, but I dont even think we could get the paperwork done in a decade.

3. Terraforming a whole planet is a project multiple orders of magnitude harder and more significant than anything mankind has done before (unless you regard anthropogenic climate change as a successful "terraforming"). Its also many, many steps down the line in terms of mars exploration. I dont think it really belongs in the poll. Its like having "Will we ever return to the moon?" and "When will the first casino open on the Moon?" in the same poll.

[DDE]

1. Other

If the mission ends up funded by NASA, it won't be anything like the NASA we're familiar with. Current NASA is more interested in finding or even making up new reasons for new R&D programs than actually going to Mars; it is culturally incapable of a major goal-oriented manned program anymore.

Kill it with fire.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by DDE

[Bill Phil]

It'll probably be a NASA mission first (not guaranteed, but the probability of a commercial mission with no viable way to make money... is low). NASA is a customer and SpaceX the producer. SpaceX isn't a space program. 

It'll probably be in the 2030s.

We shouldn't colonize Mars at all. Nor the Moon.

[Hannu2]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

1. Other

If the mission ends up funded by NASA, it won't be anything like the NASA we're familiar with. Current NASA is more interested in finding or even making up new reasons for new R&D programs than actually going to Mars; it is culturally incapable of a major goal-oriented manned program anymore.

Unfortunately this may be true. However, it is quite difficult to see any other organization capable of getting enough money and engaging to such clear and risky goal. Chinese maybe, but not with current effort. Europeans can never achieve agreement of who pays and who is allowed to build everything, Russia do not have real interest at all and private companies can not get reasonable profit.

2 hours ago, NSEP said:

NASA is the house of SpaceX, SpaceX can't live on properly without NASA. But if you are asking me who built the spacecraft and stuff i think its going to be SpaceX

Building is not actual in couple of decades. It is impossible to predict what companies are active when NASA eventually get funding and begin to order components or make development contracts. But probably they order stuff from Boeing, SpaceX, Blue Origin and several other current and new companies. I would guess that they will have also some kind of cooperation with other countries and international companies. NASA has never given such a massive project for one company.

[tater]

Colonizing Mars without first establishing that Mars is suitable for human beings would be silly. At least someone should spin a hab to martian gravity and put a crew there for a year+ and see how they do. ISS can start by doing animal centrifuge testing over longer time durations to test for bone loss, etc.

[kerbiloid]

1. Alliance of International Civil Defense Office and International Committee Against Unemployment. Former NASA and SpaceX employees will be welcomed as historical consultants.
2. When nobody will remember previous failed attempts, and at least Generation IV nuclear reactors will be working in New Zealand. I.e. probably late XXI.
3. Nothing will be terraformed at all in near future. (To live people on the planet - never at all).
Emergency O'Neil cylinder-like vaults with portable mobile construction yard around significant planets, with 1 mln people in total. Not vaults for everybody, but emergency technological personnel to build from scratch the industry on the Earth killed with a supervolcano or an asteroid, and populate it again.
Maybe, kind of mini-Dyson spheres around gas giants much later.

10 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

What does it matter what the majority think

It allows to cast a combine spell. ISP gets 2x higher.

Edited September 14, 2017 by kerbiloid

[KSK]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

 Current NASA is more interested in finding or even making up new reasons for new R&D programs than actually going to Mars; it is culturally incapable of a major goal-oriented manned program anymore.

To be fair, can you imagine the funding bill for a Mars programme?

"Cognisant of the grave financial burden which this venture shall place on American taxpayers and wishing to reduce that burden wherever realistically possible, we Congress hereby mandate the following cost saving measures:

Section 3(2)(a)(iii) Mars Descent Vehicle (MDV)

The crew compartment of the MDV shall comprise a refurbished Apollo capsule. It's flight proven hardware and the Smithsonian needs the extra space anyway.

The MDV engines shall comprise single segment solid rocket boosters derived from Shuttle hardware. It worked for SLS, it'll work for this.

The primary thermal protection system shall comprise no less than 87.3% reprocessed corn husk. We don't understand why MDV needs a heat shield anyway as it's not like Mars has any air. Plus the good voters of Iowa are supporting this Program and they deserve your reciprocal support."

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by KSK

[Pipcard]

16 hours ago, p1t1o said:

2. Honestly, I am an unusual camp for KSPers. I do not see manned exploration of the solar system as anything particularly urgent.

I seem to see this attitude far too often on this forum. I wonder why. Keep in mind, I do understand why people doubt the viability of space colonization. I just don't understand why there is always bound to be several people talking about how we should do virtually nothing in space with humans because "there's no rush."

Edited September 15, 2017 by Pipcard

[Nibb31]

9 hours ago, Pipcard said:

I seem to see this attitude far too often on this forum. I wonder why. Keep in mind, I do understand why people doubt the viability of space colonization. I just don't understand why there is always bound to be several people talking about how we should do virtually nothing in space with humans because "there's no rush."

There is no reason to colonize other planets. Exploration is fine. Science is a great motivation. But colonization is just a massive waste or resources for no real purpose. We are smarter than that.

Mars has been there for billions of years. We have only been around for a few thousand years. Mars and the rest of our solar system aren't going anywhere. It will all still be there in another couple of thousand years, unchanged. So no, there is no rush. The only rush is at a selfish individual level, because your personal time is limited, but that is meaningless for science or for out species. As individuals, we will never know everything there is to know. There will always be new shiny things over the horizon that you won't live to see. You have to accept the fact that you won't live to see a lot of cool stuff, but that's ok. Just live your own life the best you can and enjoy what you have.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Nibb31

[p1t1o]

5 hours ago, Pipcard said:

I seem to see this attitude far too often on this forum. I wonder why. Keep in mind, I do understand why people doubt the viability of space colonization. I just don't understand why there is always bound to be several people talking about how we should do virtually nothing in space with humans because "there's no rush."

Until this thread, I didnt realise how prevalent it was to be honest.

What, exactly, IS the rush? 

[mk1980]

your poll lacks a "noone" option for the first question and a "never" option for the second. and a "we won't colonize mars" option in the 3rd.

[Nefrums]

The first question boils down to who is the most likely to get the funding required to do a manned mars mission.

As had been said before the incentive to fund a mission like this is ether the pride of nations or the egos of billionaires. 

 

Space X will try to raise the funds they need by them self.  This sounds impossible, just like many of the other thins Elon has done..

NASA will not get the funds it requires, unless it looks like some other country is getting there first.

CNSA is more likely to be funded as the pride of the nation is still a big thing over there.  And Chinas economy will be vastly larger then any other countrys middle of next decade.

 

I think the only thing that could trigger a manned mars mission before 2030 is if there is a second space race between NASA ans CNSA in the next decade. 

[p1t1o]

Plot Twist: North Korea beat us all to Mars. (in terms of advances in rocketry, they are probably the fastest advancing country on Earth right now, the most the rest of us are doing is treading water)

[Pipcard]

3 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Plot Twist: North Korea beat us all to Mars. (in terms of advances in rocketry, they are probably the fastest advancing country on Earth right now, the most the rest of us are doing is treading water)

11 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

There will always be new shiny things over the horizon that you won't live to see. You have to accept the fact that you won't live to see a lot of cool stuff, but that's ok. Just live your own life the best you can and enjoy what you have.

I suspect that this is the kind of attitude that would lead to the cancelling of the space program, even a purely scientific one.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Pipcard

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, Pipcard said:

I suspect that this is the kind of attitude that would lead to the cancelling of the space program, even a purely scientific one.

I disagree. I think perhaps the opposite might be the case. If there is anything a NASA engineer CANT afford to be, its wistful about hypothetical technological advances. They can only operate by being hyper-realistic tempered with a little pessimism. They dont send probes to planets because its so cool and awesome, they do it because hundreds of very clever people have been working for decades on some science and have generated a proposal and raised funds to further their field. The fact that it is awesomesauce is incidental, there is a huge amount of earth-bound science of equal importance that is...quite drab and boring to those not in the field.

It makes me nervous when someone says "accept" and someone replies with "no". If you cant accept the reality of limitations, your space program will not get far rockets will blow up. Ideas like "with unlimited mindsets man can get anywhere!" are just sentimental catchphrases that are not even worth a single m/s of dV.

[KerikBalm]

15 hours ago, Pipcard said:

I seem to see this attitude far too often on this forum. I wonder why. Keep in mind, I do understand why people doubt the viability of space colonization. I just don't understand why there is always bound to be several people talking about how we should do virtually nothing in space with humans because "there's no rush."

That attitude is there because there isn't any rush. That attitude is because we realize that resources are finite and everything has an opportunity cost. If a "flag and footprints" mission to Mars costs the same as a robotic submarine on Europa, I'd rather see the robot mission get funded, because we'd learn a lot more.

What we need before human colonization becomes viable is a leap forward in propulsion technology. Sabre engines and scramjets, beamed power, resuable launch vehicles,that sort of thing just to make getting to orbit cheaper. Then nuclear, ideally fusion propulsion for interplanetary transfers.

Then we can talk human colonization. Right now, we can't feasibly sustain a large scale colonization effort of mars, and sending a half dozen humans to live on the surface for 6 months won't teach us much that our robots haven't already taught us, or that we couldn't learn in LEO.

....

Now if I had been selected for an Astronaut training program... and had a plausible shot at going on on of these missions... I'd be super enthusiastic and I'd be singing a different tune...

But I won't be going to Mars. I still like to learn, get pictures etc. - it makes no difference to me if a human took the pictures, or a robot... until the bill comes. We can go father, for less money with robots, so that's what I want.

[DDE]

17 hours ago, Pipcard said:

I seem to see this attitude far too often on this forum. I wonder why. Keep in mind, I do understand why people doubt the viability of space colonization. I just don't understand why there is always bound to be several people talking about how we should do virtually nothing in space with humans because "there's no rush."

I think it's because non-kerbonauts have little to no idea of the magnitude of the challenges involved. The average normie's understanding of spaceflight is informed by Star Wars and Star Trek, not Apollo 13; their view on space policy is informed by usually misunderstood opportunities and not realistic possibilities.

Actual space cadets are forced to learn to consider the costs and sacrifices.

[G'th]

20 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Until this thread, I didnt realise how prevalent it was to be honest.

What, exactly, IS the rush? 

 

So see human beings walking in the dirt on Mars or sinking far below the ocean of Europa, in our lifetimes.

At the rate we're going without a solidified plan to put boots on the ground (regardless of the justification or motivation), its very possible an entire generation of people  (re, my generation) will pass on without seeing even a fly by of Mars by actual human beings, and personally I find that disturbing considering what we're capable of. 

Exploration sometimes just has to be done for the sake of it, but at the same time you should go hard enough at said exploration to ensure that the effort expended produces satisfying results, not just for scientific but also economic purposes. Leveraging heavy exploration into resource exploitation would be a good way to go about it. Course this approach would need some precedence and that'd be hard to find, but its space exploration so duh. 

 

And yes, I have found myself advocating for trashing the Solar system because screw that nonsense. Or at the very least the Moon anyway. Natural heritage my foot, lets open up the Farside to Manifest destiny. 

Same with asteroid exploration. Initial exploration could yield great scientific results, but explore far enough to find a (relatively) easy to mine source of rare elements, you pay for that heavy exploration.