Neil Armstrong has died

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

vonRocko
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:05 pm

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by vonRocko »

There is nothing a manned mission to Mars can accomplish, that robotic probes can't do. There is no reason to spend the money just to have an astronaut land and raise a flag.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

There is nothing a manned mission to Mars can accomplish, that robotic probes can't do. There is no reason to spend the money just to have an astronaut land and raise a flag.

There is an argument that a human can accomplish so much more than robots in the same time, but essentially I agree with you. IMHO Mars can wait until we become a truly space-faring civilisation. I'd rather see us develop the tech required for that in orbit and on the Moon.

The Moon is about as hostile as anywhere, offers resources and is a brilliant place to do science but it's close enough for hope of rescue in an emergency.

NASA's proposed heavy lift booster and long duration missions to asteroids etc are cool and all but if you look at the value for money compared to say SpaceX, it's terrible. There's not a lot of money for space (despite what people think), so we should be trying to wring every drop of value out of it. SpaceX reckon they can produce a heavy lift booster faster and WAY cheaper and given their track record, I'd put money on it.

The U.S. has a fantastic legacy and current expertise in unmanned spacecraft. I just wish more money would be put into them. The public loves stuff like the new Mars rover too but powerful political forces are at play here.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Lieste »

Well... you can halve the mission duration (or better) and eliminate the return fuel penalty if you accept the certain loss of the Martian landers... Not possibly an acceptable one, but it is a possible pragmatic solution to a difficult engineering problem.
In the spirit of the early Space flights too ~ success was uncertain, and several 'occupied' but non-manned capsules were abandoned in space/decayed orbits because the problem of safe-return was at that time unsolved.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Well... you can halve the mission duration (or better) and eliminate the return fuel penalty if you accept the certain loss of the Martian landers... Not possibly an acceptable one, but it is a possible pragmatic solution to a difficult engineering problem.
In the spirit of the early Space flights too ~ success was uncertain, and several 'occupied' but non-manned capsules were abandoned in space/decayed orbits because the problem of safe-return was at that time unsolved.
Oh yeah. There are plenty of advocates for the one-way mission with colonisation beginning immediately. After all, settlers to new places on Earth often just arrived and carved out an existence with similar trip times. Mars is a very tough place though. You need a spacesuit to go outside and the dust destroys everything eventually because it is so fine. It's an interesting idea though.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Lieste »

Oh, I hadn't got as ambitious as colonisation... I was thinking more a one-way trip like Laika.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Oh, I hadn't got as ambitious as colonisation... I was thinking more a one-way trip like Laika.
Ahh...well there's the odd person who wouldn't care about coming back but can you imagine trying to sell the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars on a kamikaze mission? I don't think that's going to happen.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Lieste »

I dunno, it brings the technology required to only *a bit more* than the currently achieved for unmanned landers... you'd need to do a whole lot better to get a crew there, get them back and have them remotely healthy after ~12 months (minimum) in space... Plus novel technology to even escape from the surface of Mars on the way back.

As for Billions of dollars on a Kamikaze mission ~ this is exactly what the rovers are ~ and they are considered good value... and any travel into the space at 'orbital' + velocities is potentially one-way in a not insignificant proportion of cases... Merely suggesting a "low" cost alternative which is only a deliberate acceptance of an already present risk into a certainty.

Probably the only realistic chance for a round trip would be a revisiting of the Project Orion concepts... though I have reservations about how that would fare against environmental concerns with deliberately operating for a sustained period and through the height of the atmosphere/ionosphere/magnetosphere.
The payload capability of the design principle would make adequate shielding possible for long voyaging, would permit a relatively large crew capable of actually performing many tasks simultaneously and covering more ground than a single rover/3 man capsule could attain.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I dunno, it brings the technology required to only *a bit more* than the currently achieved for unmanned landers... you'd need to do a whole lot better to get a crew there, get them back and have them remotely healthy after ~12 months (minimum) in space... Plus novel technology to even escape from the surface of Mars on the way back.

As for Billions of dollars on a Kamikaze mission ~ this is exactly what the rovers are ~ and they are considered good value... and any travel into the space at 'orbital' + velocities is potentially one-way in a not insignificant proportion of cases... Merely suggesting a "low" cost alternative which is only a deliberate acceptance of an already present risk into a certainty.

Probably the only realistic chance for a round trip would be a revisiting of the Project Orion concepts... though I have reservations about how that would fare against environmental concerns with deliberately operating for a sustained period and through the height of the atmosphere/ionosphere/magnetosphere.
The payload capability of the design principle would make adequate shielding possible for long voyaging, would permit a relatively large crew capable of actually performing many tasks simultaneously and covering more ground than a single rover/3 man capsule could attain.

Supporting humans for long periods in space requires VASTLY more complication and mass than a robotic mission. You have to man-rate everything, you need food, life-support, medical, entertainment...it goes on and on. Even a one way trip is a massive undertaking and as I've described above, if it is a kamikaze mission no-one will fund it and if it's a colonisation mission it becomes even more complicated again.

No-one cares about robots not coming back but they very much care about humans not coming back. Not sure what you mean by "and any travel into the space at 'orbital' + velocities is potentially one-way in a not insignificant proportion of cases" but the whole idea of manned spaceflight is that the crew survives. It's one of the reasons it's so complicated and expensive. Again, no-one is going to fund a mission that is certain death for the crew.

After Apollo, NASA was planning a Mars mission for 1981. It was going to use nuclear thermal propulsion, which has been extensively tested ages ago and works. No vast Project Orion type ship detonating nukes behind it is required, just lots of detailed engineering and testing. Likewise, no novel tech is required to get off the surface of Mars. Chemical rockets will do fine.

To summarise. A one-way, no colonisation mission isn't much cheaper than a return trip and no-one will fund it anyway. A return mission is complicated and expensive but definitely do-able with current tech.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
OldSarge
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by OldSarge »

Mars is a tantalizing world! It sits at the edge of our knowledge and just within fingertip grasp of our technology. We will go there one day! However, for now, we’re going to have to settle exploring Mars via our robotic probes.
I do favor going to Mars but I believe it is both too difficult and too expensive with the technology we have available at the current time -- Neil Armstrong

Neil Armstrong was an advocate that NASA should focus on a return to the Moon, with a view toward a permanent base, as its next big project. For many of the reasons the Neilster has already mentioned. The Moon is an excellent training ground for any venture further into deep space. We still have much to learn about...well…everything.

When we’ve become the Masters of the Moon and/or the twin Lagrange points L4 & L5, then, we’ll be ready for Mars and the worlds beyond.

Small steps, Ellie! Small steps! [;)]
You and the rest, you forgot the first rule of the fanatic: When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.
Jeffrey Sinclair, "Infection", Babylon 5
User avatar
LitFuel
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by LitFuel »

I haven't posted on here in a long time but this topic is one that eats at me almost every month at some point. Some say to send a man to Mars isn't worth the effort or the money...well I beleive it is if not for any other reason than to bring the world together on something...to make us all look at the screen in amazement as we did in 69. The fact we couldn't land a man on the moon and back now to save our lives over 40 years later is depressing. What have we done since...it's sad. We used to be explorers...seekers of the unknown, but now we just sit on our hands and bicker with each other on who's religion is right and who has the better economy...bah, if Aliens came down and offered a ride I would gladly take it to get off this tired old rock. If not to take chances and strive to seek the unknown why bother existing. Whatever power or country that takes the lead in space will own this planet in time...maybe not right away but down the line. That hot ball of rock we call the sun won't be stable forever and even more short term one of these days a meteor will hit and we will be cursing the sky wondering why we never developed anything to get off it.

Maybe I'm a dreamer but it would be nice for the world to come together on something to take our minds off the hatred we seem to have for each other.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

I haven't posted on here in a long time but this topic is one that eats at me almost every month at some point. Some say to send a man to Mars isn't worth the effort or the money...well I beleive it is if not for any other reason than to bring the world together on something...to make us all look at the screen in amazement as we did in 69. The fact we couldn't land a man on the moon and back now to save our lives over 40 years later is depressing. What have we done since...it's sad. We used to be explorers...seekers of the unknown, but now we just sit on our hands and bicker with each other on who's religion is right and who has the better economy...bah, if Aliens came down and offered a ride I would gladly take it to get off this tired old rock. If not to take chances and strive to seek the unknown why bother existing. Whatever power or country that takes the lead in space will own this planet in time...maybe not right away but down the line. That hot ball of rock we call the sun won't be stable forever and even more short term one of these days a meteor will hit and we will be cursing the sky wondering why we never developed anything to get off it.

Maybe I'm a dreamer but it would be nice for the world to come together on something to take our minds off the hatred we seem to have for each other.

I'm not too worried about the Sun because it's got 5 billion years of fuel left before it goes nova but I agree that space colonisation should be humanity's global project. It would have multiple benefits, as you have described above, and would give our civilisation a second chance if anything disastrous happened to the Earth.

Apart from the money, a manned Mars mission isn't possible in the foreseeable future because of the risk of bio-contamination. Robots can be made very clean (although not completely) but humans are full of bacteria and a crash on the surface would spill them all over the place. This isn't my opinion. It's current NASA policy.

I'm very interested in the Planetary Resources asteroid mining proposal. There are some very heavy hitters with serious money behind this and the asteroids offer all the stuff we need. Some are energetically even easier to get to than the Moon.

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

Cheers, Neilster

Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I'm not too worried about the Sun because it's got 5 billion years of fuel left before it goes nova but I agree that space colonisation should be humanity's global project ...

I'm very interested in the Planetary Resources asteroid mining proposal. There are some very heavy hitters with serious money behind this and the asteroids offer all the stuff we need ...

... and which we will all be fighting over.

When we finally get into outer space, we will bring all our "baggage" with us.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
LitFuel
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by LitFuel »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I'm not too worried about the Sun because it's got 5 billion years of fuel left before it goes nova but I agree that space colonisation should be humanity's global project ...

I'm very interested in the Planetary Resources asteroid mining proposal. There are some very heavy hitters with serious money behind this and the asteroids offer all the stuff we need ...

... and which we will all be fighting over.

When we finally get into outer space, we will bring all our "baggage" with us.


I knew that about he Sun but I don't think "Human" science is ever totally sure of anything. There is so much we don't know about the universe...for all we know we have "lemon" of a sun and it has a early ticker. We are wrong about so many things..but anyway yes my first worry would be the planet itself not the sun.

And Joe D., what can I say...it's thinking like that that has us where we are now. Someplace, sometime, people have to decide enough is enough. It's like that movie Wargames..tic tac toe...there is no real win for anyone. We need a Klaatu (the 50's version not Keanu Reeves.lol) to come down and set us straight [:D]
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Neil Armstrong has died

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

And Joe D., what can I say...it's thinking like that that has us where we are now. Someplace, sometime, people have to decide enough is enough ...

Like when we decided upon the Treaty of Versailles that settled once and for all the "war to end all wars," WW I?

What makes you think that putting people in space will make them think and act any differently than we do now?
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”