Slashdot Mirror
Going Back to the Moon and Mars
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting three-part interview with author Dr. Andrew Chaikin discusses whether humans or machines could best explore the moon or Mars and even whether a crew could get along with each other for three years on an extended mission. His Mars planning draws on Apollo mission transcripts, and he cites mishaps with the Apollo 15 lunar rover almost sliding catastrophically down a mountain, an astronaut argument as to who took the most famous earthrise picture and what after 14 months in space, the Russian record-holder uses to recover his land legs: 'One vodka, one sauna'."
So is that one shot of vodka, or a 750ml/1000ml bottle? Being russian, I'd only hope it were the 2nd or 3rd.
Well, from my experience with Russian bars & restaurants, if you say to the waiter or the bartender "vodku, pozhaluista" ("vodka, please"), he will understand this order not as a single shot or a single bottle, but as an unlimited refill until you drop unconsciously on the floor. I think this is the case - especially that if you drink vodka in a sauna, you can actually drop unconscious after just one shot (even if you're Russian or compatible).
I guess this just goes to show their is a difference between reading and comprehending.
No amount of nuclear devices or propulsive systems that humans use in long distances space travel will have any noticeable affects given the huge amount of high energy particles given off by the sun. What is given off with be lost in a background noise of radiation/particles from the sun and will be blown/scattered by the solar wind in short order.
I think the answer to anyone who says we should stop sending people into space should be, "Well, when people stop wanting to go, we'll stop sending them." I mean, I'd be the first one to volunteer to go to Mars.
You have missed the point. The point is opportunity cost. People have pointed out that NASA's current budget won't support this new manned space exploration agenda. Even with the budget increases planned, what programs will be cut to finance human exploration?
The question you should be asking is, "What other NASA science programs will we be giving up?" You can't just compare a human vs. robotic mission to Mars. You have to look at all of the science missions you'll have to give up to send humans to Mars, then ask yourself if it's worth it.
Distance really matters very little in spaceflight. Delta-V is what counts, and the amount needed to reach Venus from the Earth's surface isn't a lot different (within 20%) to that needed to reach Mars, or the Moon, because the vast majority is used up in getting to Earth orbit. It would take less time to reach Venus than Mars but you pretty much have to spend several months on-planet anyway to wait for them to be in the right orbital positions again for the return journey... and an extra 3 months in a spacecraft is no big deal technologically.
Furthermore you'd need a lot more rocket fuel for the ascent from Venus due to its substantially heavier gravity than Mars. All this is beside the point because designing something to survive Venus surface temperature for more than a few hours is just about impossible - you somehow have to build a refrigerator that can get its hot/radiative side to at least 700C and have the whole not lot melt. The pressure isn't so much of a challenge but the astronauts wouldn't be able to venture outside in anything short of a submarine, and what's the point in doing that?
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
In my opinion, the real issue in the world is despotism. No quantity of grain can solve the ills of the world so long as tribal gangs can steal that grain for themselves. No amount of donated food can make up for the fact that most of Africa's resources are locked up in game preserves (note I did not call them wildlife preserves because of the original intent of these areas.) People starve because the plains areas of Africa are deserts, where rainfall cannot be a certainty. Farming there can be quite successful, but they need wells and equipment, technical know-how, and educated people.
Starvation is a symptom of man's suffering in the third world, not just a cause. It's indicative of more serious and problematic social problems. One US administration is not enough to fix it. Why is France and Canada not required to give in one year what the USA gives in one month? If you've ever looked at where tax dollars really disappear to, in economic terms, you'll discover that foreign aid is actually quite a hunk of it.
You see, when you build a space station it costs (to your economy) only the amount that your raw material costs if you import it. That's because the money paid to your laborers does not leave the economy, but is circulating within it. Only that value which actually leaves circulation is "destroyed". A space probe costs money to this year's government budget, but to the nation, it costs relatively little. Foreign aid is actually quite expensive because the money that you send will be used outside your economy. That doesn't mean foreign aid should not happen, but it should happen in such a way as to decrease the continuation of need in the countries it benefits. Sending 400 thousand tons of wheat to Zanzibiway doesn't alleviate next year's recurrence of the same problems. Sending 300 thousand tons and some engineers to work on irrigation for when the rains fail is smarter. (for those who don't know, the US does both of these plans depending on State Dept. policy for that nation on an individual basis)
Blaming one US president for these types of ills is allowing them to continue. Whether you like President A or President Candidate B is irrelevant so long as despotism, corruption, theft and strongman politics continue in the world. Using the suffering of mankind under the rule of the strong but unjust for political ends simply adds to the problem.
Propose a solution which does not involve transferring all of US wealth and power into the third world and you might have a chance at a solution. Economically, all politicians enforce status quo, so you must find a solution which allows this to continue if you want your solution to actually happen.
Think about what you would say if I came to your door and said " Excuse me, sir, but you seem to have two cars with tilt steering and power windows, while your neighbor has a 1980 Chevy Citation with an oil leak. You will need to transfer one car to your neighbor so he can get by. " You'd tell me to go to hell, and that's exactly what your politicians will say about your country's financial reserves and budget. And rightfully so, I think. More reasonable would be for me to ask " why does this man have two nice cars while his unemployed and uneducated neighbor has only one shitheap chevy? How can I locate the obstacles to that second man's success and assist in removing them? Also is there a way of assessing that second man's relative ambition and work ethic compared to the first man's? Can I assist with education to alleviate this cultural roadblock? "