This message was self-deleted by its author

[guyton]

This message was self-deleted by its author (guyton) on Tue Jun 21, 2016, 12:48 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Lugano]

1. I would imagine the person would be put in suspended animation or deep sleep

for 7 months....

Medically induced coma....

[longship]

7. Somebody has been watching too many SciFi flicks.

So-called suspended animation is a science fiction MacGuffin. It's like warp drive within the Star Trek narrative. It is a vehicle to take one from one part of the narrative to another.

Just as it was in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, the suspended animation of the other crew members served both as a plot device as well as to reducing production costs.

But there are no practical reasons for doing such a thing even if it were possible, let alone practical. Which it is not.

[qazplm]

15. I don't know about that

they are making a lot of advancements in medically induced suspended animation for short periods, particularly for folks who might die otherwise.

It's baby steps, but I can imagine 50 years from now it would be advanced enough to be in the realm of the possible.

[longship]

18. Possibly, however...

One thing is for sure. Hibernation is not likely going to be used on a Mars mission considering that they would likely not be doing a mere boots on the ground mission after months in transit each way. They will likely be staying there a while.

I guess one could argue that consumables would be a huge issue on a Mars mission. Months in transit; possibly months on the planet. If we don't want to embrace cannibal astronauts they are going to have to take along a helluva lot of food and water.

This brings up a topic that the Orion capsule is in no way Mars mission capable. It just isn't big enough, let alone able to land on Mars. A docked Mars lander would have to be significantly larger than the Orion itself. Maybe they could send a landing craft ahead of time.

Plus, how does one shield the Orion astronauts from a probable CME? If the Sun belches one of those, those guys would be toast, maybe literally.

It is a very tough mission no matter how one looks at it.

And no, we are not even close to having hibernation technology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. The latest NASA 'reference mission' (2009) uses Orion as a re-entry vessel to Earth

and to carry them up to low earth orbit. They do the voyage to and from Mars in a separate vehicle, and have another to descend to, and another to ascend from, Mars. Here's a criticism of it: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2618/1

[longship]

21. Thank you.

It is still a very tough mission. I wish them luck. However, I would prefer a permanent base on the moon to a one-off boots on ground on Mars.

[arcane1]

27. The people-on-Mars thing just seems way too expensive and wasteful to me.

All that food, water, air, and sanitation, combined with what would need to be a whole lot of lead for a solar radiation bunker?

And for what?

It's already hard enough sometimes to justify the expense of the ISS (and its "purpose" changed a few times over the years to justify the expense).

What we're doing with probes and landers and rovers is VASTLY more sophisticated than I imagined it would be 20 years ago.

[longship]

31. Well, then there's this argument...

If we could land a geologist on Mars, with appropriate tools (like a shovel and appropriate supplemental instruments, but mostly just a shovel), they could do more in a few minutes than all the landers have done in all the years of all the robotic landers.

That is why we need footprints on Mars. As long as it is a given that we will be back soon. That's why I advocate for a permanent return to the moon where we can hone our technology for interplanetary travel, and long stays on other solar system bodies. IMHO, that's the only way we get to Mars where we go back.

Baby steps, my friend.

[arcane1]

34. Very good points! But it's a very low priority at the moment, considering things like climate change

Until we can prove that we can actually survive on our home planet, I don't think we should be allowed outside of our neighborhood. The pride of footprints on Mars would be eclipsed by the shame of collapsed ecosystems

[longship]

45. BING, BING, BING, BING, BING!

We have a winner!

Best post of the thread.

Thanks, Warren. You nailed it.

Science wins. Always.

[Posteritatis]

50. "let's solve our problems here" ALWAYS = "never never never never no no no no never."

Haven't seen anyone try making that argument who wouldn't just shift the goalposts as necessary to draw their line at the heat death of the universe. It feels like the "but the COSTS!" kneejerk from people who can't guess NASA's budget to within the correct order of magnitude - an automated "I don't like this" response rather than anything more substantial.

[Posteritatis]

46. Oddly enough people can walk and chew gum at the same time. (nt)

[truedelphi]

33. Kill Joy. I betcha next you will be telling us that we can't just

Beam people to Mars.

Which is clearly a possibility ever since before Star Trek went into re-runs!

[longship]

36. Well, there's always the continuity problem with Star Trek transporters.

You step onto the transporter platform. Your atoms are disassembled and reassembled at the destination. Dr. Leonard McCoy had it right -- he was a physician after all. There is no continuity. You step into the transporter beam and you die, but a duplicate takes your place. In the case of McCoy, an equally cranky physician, but nevertheless one that hates transporters.

Because, as a physician,he knows about the continuity problem.

Here. Read about it:
The Continuity Problem. (Yale clinical neurologist and uber geek, Steven Novella).

My best regards.

[truedelphi]

52. I am off to read your link. I do want to point out

That for those of us who can't normally keep track of our glasses, and keychains, without the additional problem of those items being "beamed" well, I have to admit I might be reluctant to go through witha "beaming."

And regards to you too. Speaking of "Beam": here is a Sunday evening

[longship]

53. And to you, too.

And BTW, Steven Novella is also the host to the best damned science podcast in the universe, posted weekly for years and years without a missing week -- gotta be a record.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.

Try it. Edgy fun and lots of science with the Novella brothers, Rebecca Watson, and guests which include many geeks, including Jimmy Carter. And. And. And.

There are also puzzles and games to play. And they have not missed a week in many years.

[truebluegreen]

2. Only the beginning...of a program that would take 20 years and 500 Billion dollars....

But hey! Huntsville AL workers kept their jobs so it's all good. I'm sure the red staters (including my BIL) don't want to see the government waste money on a project to nowhere.

[truebluegreen]

13. If there is no intention to spend the money it would actually take to make that goal a reality

--currently estimated at $500,000,000,000.00--then yes, this is corporate welfare. Put simply, it is government waste and abuse...According to my BIL, whose job was affected, the program was canceled right after Obama came into office, but somehow politicians from Alabama managed to resurrect it, on behalf of their constituents.

Somehow "pork" spending is only legitimate when it is your own.

[Orsino]

57. Intentions will come and go as the program progresses...

...or is canceled, or is replaced. The earliest LEM designs didn't look a lot like what actually went to the moon, either. There was supposed to have been an Apollo 18. Gemini missions didn't launch on Saturn Vs. Plans change.

No, a Republican Congress isn't going to approve any expenditures that aren't corporate welfare, or that aren't also corporate welfare. If the goal of the designers is Mars, however, what we're seeing so far looks sensible. What turns out to be best for particular roles in a landing (after we know more about the target) or later landings may look a little--or a lot--different.

John Boehner's golfing buddy's brother-in-law's aerospace business will no doubt be a consideration, but that has no bearing on whether or not a crewed Mars mission should be attempted.

[on point]

43. Engineering discover and experiment IS SCIENCE. ^^^ support 1000%

[MannyGoldstein]

5. It's designed as a giant immersive bong

They'll be utterly wasted the whole "trip". Each ergonomic chair is fitted with AKG K240 headphones, Spotify, and a personal selection of snack foods. And a cockpit with many undulating lights.

They won't need to go anywhere, trust me.

[longship]

6. The problem with Orion going to Mars is shielding.

There's no place to hide during a CME (coronal mass ejection) which is more likely to happen the longer one is outside Earth's magnetosphere. On a many month trip to Mars it becomes ever so likely to occur. With Orion, we'd be delivering dead bodies to the surface of Mars. Either that, or back to the surface of Earth.

Orion is incapable of safely doing a Mars mission for that reason alone.

And yes, it is much too small, even considering the micro-gravity 3D aspects.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I can't tell if they intend to send an Orion capsule to Mars at all

or if it would just be waiting in a high Earth orbit for them to transfer into at the end. If you went for the latter, then you could park the vehicle that came back from Mars in that orbit, and retrieve more contents/components from it later. If you took an Orion capsule with you to Mars and back, you'd be taking some extra mass all that way and back, but might be able to go straight to reentry for the humans. Could they also then manoeuvre the remainder of the return vehicle into an orbit, rather than letting it go into some unreachable orbit (or burning up in an uncontrolled orbit)?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. I looked further, and found their most recent plan, from 2009

See reply #20. In that, they do take an Orion capsule to Mars and back, and re-enter straight from the return trip, and leave the living space for the outward/return journey in solar orbit.

I'm not sure if the 'lifeboat' idea would be much use - fine for a day or two, while the supplies in it hold out (like Apollo 13), but not enough for weeks or months if it's a problem away from near the return to Earth.

[truedelphi]

35. Thanks for all the information.

I feel like I am learning a lot.

My vote is still for figuring out the "Beam me up, Scottie" methods, but imagine we are some decades way from that one also.

[arcane1]

29. They'll need shielding once they get there, too, if they plan to stay awhile.

Then there's the matter of roaming around on Mars, and having shielding for that.

[Callmecrazy]

11. Why the hell do we need to put men on Mars?

Or back on the moon for that matter? There's nothing there that we need or can exploit or export. The radiation exposure will kill a man. And there's that pesky need for oxygen that isn't there so we have to bring it with us.
We'd need a vessel the size of the space station to go there. There wouldn't be enough room for men AND food AND water.
Sending probes is costly enough. Sending humans to Mars "because it's there" is a financial and scientific boondoggle.

[qazplm]

16. because sooner or later

we are going to have to leave this planet. It will not sustain us forever, and the risk of things like an asteroid strike over time is an issue.

The wide list of advancements we got from NASA going to the Moon and whatnot is so extensive that yes "because it's there" still leads to a whole lot of good things down here on Earth. Going to Mars "because it's there" will too.

[Callmecrazy]

17. All going to the Moon proved was that we could do it.

It was done to show the USSR that we had technology superior to theirs.
What other advancements in science were achieved by going to the moon?
When Earth dies, we die.
There is nothing close enough to our world that we can reach to save humanity. The moon is a rock. Mars is dead already. We're not going to bring it back without killing Earth in the process.
I think the science and money would be better spent on preserving the world we already inhabit. On a cosmic scale, we can't move away because we refuse to clean up our mess.
We're already cluttering up low-earth orbit with space debris as to make it hazardous to both manned and unmanned spacecraft.
Orion will never take anyone to Mars. Not in our children's lifetime. Too expensive.

[lob1]

30. What other advancements in science were achieved by going to the moon?

You're typing on one. Before the space program, computers filled a room or rooms. We needed computers to go in space, but we couldn't take anything that big, so necessity force them to invent smaller computers. Now everyone has one. The space program has changed the life of everyone on earth.

[cpwm17]

48. No, the only place humans belong is here on Earth

We've evolved here on Earth for billions of years. We can't change that fact. Any place else beyond Earth that we could ever dream of reaching means instant death without extreme measures and costs. Mars and the Moon are nasty places for humans, and every place else is much worse.

If we want to explore space then unmanned missions are the way to go. We get far more bang for the buck.

[FiveGoodMen]

62. WE will never leave this planet

The resources to move 7 billion or more will never be allocated.

If an asteroid is heading our way, WE will be history.

Sending a few humans to start populating another planet might be possible.

If you just can't stand the thought of a universe without humans, then you might be happy with that.

But WE are here. Period.

[NickB79]

14. Unmanned supply delivery before astronaunts arrive at Mars

Instead of building one MASSIVE spacecraft that can carry all your supplies with you, and land with you, you launch unmanned capsules months or even years in advance, land the cargo on the Martian surface, and then launch astronauts in a larger vessel unencumbered by supplies (beyond what they need for the voyage).

Self-inflating habitats, greenhouses, water and gas collection and purification, etc. Hell, you can launch a small automated power plant early on, have it deploy and activate, and start storing rocket fuel for the return voyage so you don't even have to pack as much of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization#Mars

[longship]

19. This is the only practical solution.

Also, remember, landing on Mars is a real bitch, too much of a gravity well and way too little atmosphere. That's why so many Mars missions have failed. I don't know if I'd want to volunteer given these facts.

[longship]

26. And you are correct.

But the sky crane was a fairly radical solution to a fairly knotty problem, How does one land a rather massive spacecraft on Mars?

That it worked is fucking amazing -- remember those seven minutes of terror?

Does anybody think that a manned mission to Mars will be anything other than a one-off? Once we've done it, will we go back? Or will we merely check off an item on the bucket list? Meanwhile, we could do something much bolder, a permanent base on the moon.

I think we should do both. But our emphasis should be the moon. It has a rather shallow gravity well. We've been there before. It only takes a very few days to get there. Plus, there is much to be learned which will help us reach out to other land falls in our solar system.

As Carl Sagan said in Contact, baby steps. Isn't conquering the moon enough for now?

I would love to see footprints on Mars. But I would hate them to be like the footprints on the moon. A check off on a bucket list. I suspect that is what it will become.

[longship]

40. I concur.

But as a dreamer, I would love to see Moonbase Alpha, but without the huge explosion sending the moon off into never-never land.

Or just maybe that would be very interesting:


At least it might provide some good plot lines.

[longship]

44. And don't forget Barbara Bain.

[longship]

54. Who plays a nun in PBS's (BBC) "Call the Midwife"

Always loved her. Never forget American Werewolf in London.

My best to you.

(BTW, to those who do not know, Barbara Bain was Martin Landau's wife when they made both Mission: Impossible and Space: 1999.)

[longship]

56. She's just great. Period.

Best regards.

[Posteritatis]

47. Heh, I remember how many people here were *utterly* certain that wasn't going to work. (nt)

[Thor_MN]

58. Mars missions have failed due to the distance and human error.

By the time we had information that the Curiosity Rover had reached Mars' atmosphere it was on the ground, dead or alive, for several minutes. The delay between Mars and Earth can be as short as 4 minutes or as long as 24 minutes. A simple error in programming that would doom a robotic lander would be easily detected and corrected in a manned lander.

The distance to Mars is simply to great to catch an error from Earth.

[longship]

59. You've got a good point there.

There would be no delay on a manned mission, unless something goes wrong at the Mars end of things. Then the delay comes back into play.

Regards.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I like the idea of using Deimos as a refuelling point

Put a machine on that which converts its carbonaceous chondrite material into usable fuel and oxidant, using solar or nuclear power. Then arriving missions have fuel from that to descend to the Mars surface, and to get them back to Earth. Much less lugging of fuel and oxidant up from gravity wells.

[eppur_se_muova]

61. AKA "Mars Direct" ...

http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/mars-direct

[LongTomH]

63. Can Elon Musk and SpaceX put humans on Mars before NASA -- and for less money?

I put my reply to this thread in the form of an OP.

Sorry kids; but, I've seen NASA manned Mars missions cancelled when costs skyrocketed and Congress wasn't ready to foot the bill. I don't see NASA following through, unless their budget is increased; which is unlikely unless:

1. Top marginal tax rates are increased to pre-Reagan levels (70% or more) and/or:
   
2. Military spending is brought under control.

Both are worthy goals for their own sake; but, not likely in the near-term.

I'd like to see Elon Musk have his chance.