What do you think the medium term future of space exploration will be like?

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Just because a massive network of millions of people are required to make something in this system, doesn't mean it is the most efficient.  You could also 3-d print a pen, with the materials mined by robots.   

3d printing is just another way of machining, pleace 3d print an computer mouse for me, no not the body the entire thing, electronic and optic. 
Next 3d print an space suit. both fabric helmet and life support part. 

Yes you can make pencils with less logistic chain but it would drive up price. 
The reason things are cheap is that they are made in specialized machines in very large quantities. If you make something in small series its expensive. 
 You could actually make one yourself from scratch so the video is wrong, you need an graphite mine however. And it would take a lot of time. 

Pencils however are very simple they was made before the industrial revolution. 
To survive in space you need lots of advanced stuff like space suits and life support. 
this has their own industrial requirements. And lots of the stuff can be bought cheap from earth. 

You focus on producing bulk stuff you need and buy the complex low quantity stuff. 
On earth you don't need advanced technology to survive just to be comfortable. 

[PB666]

5 hours ago, tater said:

While you are technically right about flags and footprints (which require a world on which to plant a flag, and leave footprints), I think that NASA has indeed been about the analog of flags and footprints---which is all manned spaceflight is.

The only science in space that requires humans is the science of human biology in the space environment. All other science is best, and most cost-effectively done without humans at all. 

So I would argue that the budget of the Shuttle program, and the following budgets for Constellation and Orion/SLS are nothing if not the analog of "flags and footprints."

I would also disagree about dazzling pictures. People for the most part don't care about space at all (we all do here, but we are a vanishingly small subset of the population at large). To the extent they do, adding people to the mix in the right circumstance (say on a world) would certainly increase interest above the very low baseline. How long it would sustain, I have no idea (even Apollo became "boring" to many people pretty fast).

Planetary safety is another huge can of worms, you are right. Any crew mission has that as a failure mode, as well (a hole in a spacesuit is all it would take). As for the 30 billion, I was merely pointing out what the Mars Direct argument was, I wasn't agreeing with the number. Anything done by NASA is going to be more expensive for a number of reasons (some good, some less good).

Yes but cost of ISS is shared and Russians found at least a cheaper way to get our crews up . . . . .and. . . . .its in a relatively low orbit, only 300 km above the surface. So in terms of study-humans (and other biology) in space its a lower cost per person that doing the same thing on the moon or mars.

The is not really about NASA goals, I like lofty goals, particularly when it includes science, like the moon-rocks and dust studies. That is not the primary problem, the primary problem is for many problems a computer can do it with alot lower payload mass. For the curiosity mission the only reason humans would be useful for is dusting the panels and changing the tires. The problem is that the remedy cost >10 times more than just sending an new rover to the point in which the previous rover dies and continue on.  The reason the cost are so incredibly high is really due to the fact we do not know how to land humans on Mars. IN the same way a prototype car is way more expensive than a production model, the manned mars mission has the same problem. You go there, you analyze, to debug the problems, you repair problems then you farm the data to contractors to make it go more efficiently. They test them out on something like the moon, then go into production.

Most of the unmanned Mars missions have worked well beyond programmed life, with humans, you go there, you execute until return window appears and you go home. There is no mission extensions. As far as I understand from NASA, they are not saying they are ready to send men to Mars, they are saying that there still major problems to work out. If that is the case you can't blame NASA for waiting for more efficient technologies to come along.

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

3d printing is just another way of machining, pleace 3d print an computer mouse for me, no not the body the entire thing, electronic and optic. 
Next 3d print an space suit. both fabric helmet and life support part. 

Yes you can make pencils with less logistic chain but it would drive up price. 
The reason things are cheap is that they are made in specialized machines in very large quantities. If you make something in small series its expensive. 
 You could actually make one yourself from scratch so the video is wrong, you need an graphite mine however. And it would take a lot of time. 

Pencils however are very simple they was made before the industrial revolution. 
To survive in space you need lots of advanced stuff like space suits and life support. 
this has their own industrial requirements. And lots of the stuff can be bought cheap from earth. 

You focus on producing bulk stuff you need and buy the complex low quantity stuff. 
On earth you don't need advanced technology to survive just to be comfortable. 

You mean the pencils made with lead? lol.

[tater]

I think we're entirely on the same page here, lol. 

NASA is very much more risk-averse than they used to be. In many ways this is a good thing, but it slows everything to a crawl. Human spaceflight is a stunt, and it should be possible to find people willing to accept greater risks than NASA currently allows to achieve goals, since the goals are about human striving, and not in fact about science (which doesn't mean they won't do as much science as possible with a crew, even if we all know robots would do the same job for less $).

My point about ISS was that it was make-work for the Shuttle (i.e.: manned) program, and the goals of ISS are really circular. Put people in space to learn how to put people in space. I still think that modern, HD video of people on the Moon, for example, will be riveting for many people in a way the same camera on a robot rover would not be. That's really the only reason I can see for going places like the Moon or Mars, honestly, for the sheer awesomeness of it. Obviously other people would prefer the money spent differently, lol.

[Urses]

11 hours ago, tater said:

That's really the only reason I can see for going places like the Moon or Mars, honestly, for the sheer awesomeness of it.

This statement is maybe the only chance for us to see something will be happening spacewise. The modern societies are all hype junkies. 

Now i am wondering... will we see a youtuber presented cashfund program for the big mars hop somewhere next time....?

"We send people to mars, and you can participate. You will never belive how we do it!!!!" (Read for more)

[DDE]

11 hours ago, tater said:

I still think that modern, HD video of people on the Moon, for example, will be riveting for many people in a way the same camera on a robot rover would not be. That's really the only reason I can see for going places like the Moon or Mars, honestly, for the sheer awesomeness of i

And that’s ultimately where I’ve arrived as well. The only pragmatic purpose of manned spaceflight is that pesky externality called “inspiration”. A giant middle finger to the seeming mediocrity and risk-aversity that stifles modern society.

All of which is, of course, difficult to pitch to investors, and even to taxpayers. But this ultimately explains why manned spaceflight is a government’s job, because the market is unfit for these kinds of tasks.

5 minutes ago, Urses said:

"We send people to mars, and you can participate. You will never belive how we do it!!!!" (Read for more)

Remember that crowdsourcing campaign for a movie which ended up with the team shooting a movie about how they blew their budget on alcohol and hookers?

You Won’t Believe What Hapenned Next!

Hm. Now I really want Geert Hofstede to run an intergenerational version of his cultural dimensions theory.

Edited October 28, 2017 by DDE

[DAL59]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

for the sheer awesomeness of i

 

2 hours ago, DDE said:

pesky externality called “inspiration”

To quote Elon Musk: "“You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great - and that's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and thinking that the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than going out there and being among the stars.”"

[tater]

It's funny that people who are supportive of Musk's vision then go on and have to try and make up economics to back it up. There are none, which is why Musk doesn't lead with economics. It's not about that. 

2 hours ago, DDE said:

A giant middle finger to the seeming mediocrity and risk-aversity that stifles modern society.

This.

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, tater said:

It's funny that people who are supportive of Musk's vision then go on and have to try and make up economics to back it up. There are none, which is why Musk doesn't lead with economics. It's not about that. 

The low cost of even the expendable falcon 9 makes it look like economics are huge in Musk's thinking (I'll never forget my then Chief Engineer's rant that "cost is a spec").  He might be rich, but the thing has to be self-perpetuating  (Bezos might not care, Carmack didn't quite have the mad money to build a space company).  But the economic considerations are to keep the thing heading to Mars, not a justification of themselves.

On the other hand, I'm rather concerned that the Gigafactory (Tesla's battery building project) will do a lot to stop electric car progress (capacitors and LiFePO4 batteries may be key to Tesla level performance in hybrids.   Likewise flow batteries could easy be critical for high range.  Don't be surprised to see a "power/storage" hierarchy in power storage, much like the hierarchy used in data storage).  Of course, this is one of the effects of making Telsa a public company (the other is making Musk wildly rich, even compared to his paypall  fortune) Tesla is expected to primarily make money while Spacex has no such limitations.

[tater]

I mean the idea that there is an economic rationale to colonize mars

[DDE]

Honest question in continuation of my argument: is permanent colonization required to achieve the goal I outlined above? Because I'm a proponent of a few long-duration (MARS DIRECT-style) flag-and-footprints missions just to blaze a trail. Musk's plan doesn't really have a "demonstrator" or "pilot plant" stage..

[Nibb31]

Musk wants to skip the exploration phase and go directly to the colonization phase. This, IMO, is the biggest fundamental flaw in his plan.

We currently know zero about long duration stays on another planetary body. We know nothing about the toxicity of Mars, the physiological or psychological implications of partial gravity, cosmic radiation, including reproduction. We have not experimented with ISRU, closed loop ECLSS, or off-world mining, agriculture, power production or construction. And we have no idea how to make any of this economically or socially sustainable.

Yet musk is handwaving all of these problems away, either relying on someone else to figure them out, or dramatically underestimating their importance and difficulty. Sending "colonists" without going through those baby steps first is simply not going to end well.

[DDE]

53 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Yet musk is handwaving all of these problems away, either relying on someone else to figure them out, or dramatically underestimating their importance and difficulty. Sending "colonists" without going through those baby steps first is simply not going to end well.

Come on, the ITS handwaved radiation and gravity problems from Day One.

[Ultimate Steve]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

Come on, the ITS handwaved radiation and gravity problems from Day One.

To be fair, it has at least somewhat of a plan, which is to limit transit time, and therefore, exposure to radiation and microgravity.

[DAL59]

The microgravity duration will be less than on the ISS.  And after the zero gravity, the transition is eased by only 40% gravity on Mars.  It is not really an issue.

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

not experimented with ISRU

They are sending an unmanned ship in advance with a fuel plant.  Unless colonization takes place right away, more money has to be spent.  

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

closed loop ECLSS,

On Mars, there is plenty of ice for water and oxygen.  No need for closed loop.  

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

power production

We have solar panels on Mars right now.  Sure, they can get covered with dust, but you can just brush them off.  

3 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

exposure to radiation

The ISS gets half the radiation of interplanetary space.  If duration of travel is 6 months(Musk says it will be less), then equivelent LEO time is less than a year.  Scott Kelly and several russians have done longer stays than that.  

[tater]

I think that manned space is worth doing (on any timescale yu can mention, from flags and footprints to settlements of some kind) simply as an adventure. While certainly for a minority of people, I think it would raise the bar for the rest of humanity.

I'm certainly not sanguine about the prospects of Martian or other colonies any time in the near future, but I see the appeal of it as an aspirational goal.

Regarding Musk, I think it's partially in his nature. When Mueller said that to make Merlin cheaper he'd have to use face shut off, and it would be really hard, Musk just said something to the effect of "Do that, then." It's not a bad methodology, honestly. Sometimes you have to ignore common wisdom, and just bull through a problem. 

@Nibb31, At that meeting in Australia, Musk actually said they had been working on ISRU, and they were pretty far along---which surprised the heck out of me. Obviously we have no data on what they have done so far, but I was surprised that they had messed with it physically at all (and I'm assuming that they must have for him to have said that, but I have no idea).

[DAL59]

Also, Neil de Grasse Tyson has just said something about early explorers vs. Mars mission:

 

1 minute ago, tater said:

they were pretty far along

That makes sense.  The sabatier reaction has been known for quite a long time.  

[tater]

Tyson is right in specifics, but wrong in general here. Knowing about Mars helps, and is required because it is so very much harder than anywhere on Earth, but the two explorations are not even remotely comparable, IMHO.

[DAL59]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

so very much harder than anywhere on Earth

With current technology, yes.  We managed to land on the moon with 60s technology.  With the technology in the 15th century, I'd still say Magellan had a more difficult voyage than a 21st century astronaut.   

[tater]

3 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

With current technology, yes.  We managed to land on the moon with 60s technology.  With the technology in the 15th century, I'd still say Magellan had a more difficult voyage than a 21st century astronaut.   

It's harder now, it will be harder in 500 years.

If you step outside without a life support system more complex than warm clothes, will you die, yes, or no?

Unless that changes, Mars will ALWAYS be vastly harder than anywhere on Earth.

[DAL59]

I agree.  But, it is still very possible with current technology.  Especially given that Mars landings were proposed with Apollo technology.  

[Kerbal7]

On 10/27/2017 at 8:21 PM, tater said:

Human spaceflight is a stunt, and it should be possible to find people willing to accept greater risks than NASA currently allows to achieve goals, since the goals are about human striving, and not in fact about science (which doesn't mean they won't do as much science as possible with a crew, even if we all know robots would do the same job for less $).

Yes.

Human spaceflight is a stunt. A gimmick. 

It sucked for me coming to that conclusion because I love manned spaceflight, but logic took me to that conclusion. For example, with the $$ of one manned Mars mission, you can send dozens and dozens and dozens of probes that can do much more for science. 

There is no scientific reason to send people to Mars unless you can terraform Mars.

Mining on Mars? Its surface could be covered with gold bars and diamonds and you wouldn't make a profit going to get the stuff.

A human colony on Mars? Forget about it. Colonizing Antarctica , the Sahara and Gobi desert would be far easier, safer, and cheaper! 

People's ambitions are WAY ahead of the technology. No Star Trek.

The future of space exploration will be advanced robots.

But!!, a vacation resort on the moon or LEO, space tourism, that's a very low % possibility. 

[tater]

It's a stunt I love, though. I like mountaineering, too, go figure. Spend a few weeks trekking in Nepal, and you want nothing more than to go even higher up, it's like a drug. 

I think tourism is actually a legit market, however, unlike most economic claims. Not for Mars, it's too far, too expensive. The Moon, OTOH? I think that could actually be a thing. Adventure tourism (not as safe as flying to Milano), but tourism.

[DAL59]

1 hour ago, Kerbal7 said:

can do much more for science.

Humans always are much, much more capable of science and creativity than robots.  

1 hour ago, Kerbal7 said:

Human spaceflight is a stunt.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.  

[Pipcard]

1 hour ago, Kerbal7 said:

Yes.

Human spaceflight is a stunt. A gimmick. 

It sucked for me coming to that conclusion because I love manned spaceflight, but logic took me to that conclusion. For example, with the $$ of one manned Mars mission, you can send dozens and dozens and dozens of probes that can do much more for science. 

There is no scientific reason to send people to Mars unless you can terraform Mars.

Mining on Mars? Its surface could be covered with gold bars and diamonds and you wouldn't make a profit going to get the stuff.

A human colony on Mars? Forget about it. Colonizing Antarctica , the Sahara and Gobi desert would be far easier, safer, and cheaper! 

People's ambitions are WAY ahead of the technology. No Star Trek.

The future of space exploration will be advanced robots.

But!!, a vacation resort on the moon or LEO, space tourism, that's a very low % possibility. 

If you came to hate crewed spaceflight so much, just call yourself RoboticProbe7.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Pipcard

[DAL59]

On 10/24/2017 at 12:48 AM, kerbiloid said:

Space are for cats.

Why?????

No, space is not for cats

 

1 hour ago, Pipcard said:

Antarctica , the Sahara and Gobi desert would be far easier, safer, and cheaper! 

True, but it would accomplish nothing(plus we should save the deserts for solar arrays).  A mars colony would likely cause scientific innovations, ensure human survival, and just be interesting.  As Arthur C. Clarke said, space travel is the "moral equivalent of war".       

Edited October 31, 2017 by DAL59