Slashdot Mirror
The Case For Going To Phobos Before Going To Mars
MarkWhittington writes: The current NASA thinking concerning the Journey to Mars program envisions a visit to the Martian moon Phobos in the early 2030s before attempting a landing on the Martian surface in the late 2030s, as Popular Mechanics noted. The idea of a practice run that takes astronauts almost but not quite to Mars is similar to what the space agency did during the 1960s Apollo program. Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 each orbited the moon but did not land on it before the Apollo 11 mission went all the way to the lunar surface, fulfilling President John. F. Kennedy's challenge.
So why would we send people?
Because it'd be cool as fuck. Mind you, I ain't going.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
If we were inclined to go to Mars (which we don't appear to be) Phobos would be a natural choice because it's a ready-made space station. Probably mostly hollow, built-in radiation protection. You could probably pressurise some natural caverns in there.
But we won't do any of that, because we prefer aircraft carriers and strategic nukes.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Makes sense. It doesn't take nearly as much fuel getting off a mun as it does a planet.
We can't build a sustainable habitat in Antarctica or in the middle of a desert, why bother with the Moon? :)
Who said we can't? We should aim the Moon. It shouldn't be fully manned, an automated base which can sustain visitors like the ISS, would be enough as starters.
The Moon has smaller gravity than Earth, yet it has gravity, so people can live there for a long time without various problems, it makes sense to have a base there if we plan longer journeys in space. The Moon could have a fuel station and probably also an automated spaceship factory. If water / metal resources could be brought there from extra terrestrial sources, we would spare a lot of fuel by bringing them to a low gravity environment instead of Earth. It is cheaper than maintaining simulated gravity on a full space based assembly station (by rotation, i guess, pending invention of artificial gravitation).
We called it Doom.
We can't build a sustainable habitat in Antarctica or in the middle of a desert
Can't or won't? I would have thought that it would be possible to create a habitat in either that would require nothing incoming. Not easy, but not impossible. It would just cost a fuck of a lot to build and would probably require a very large area (either above or below ground) to support just a few people.
Both locations, however, have the immeasurable benefit of being on a planet with a breathable atmosphere and getting the huge amount of resources required to set up this habitat to the location would not involve climbing a gravity well.
It's definitely a "won't" for anywhere on Earth and likely a "can't" for anywhere else in the solar system.
Also, a budget padding enthusiasts wet dream.
It suggests 3 (three) separate trips for what can be achieved by 1 (one). Namely, getting astronauts to Mars surface for a prolonged stay and an extensive scientific mission.
First, send astronauts to hop around on Phobos in 2033.
Then, send astronauts to land on Mars in 2039 - and fuck off back to Earth almost immediately.
Then, in 2043, send astronauts for a year-long stay on Mars.
Supposedly, (paper is paywalled) "each mission campaign would build on previous campaigns, leaving a legacy and new capabilities for those that follow."
Except the cost of all three missions is in getting to Mars orbit and back.
And if the last mission is supposed to last a whole year on Mars, a full DECADE after the first mission, and 4 years after the second one - they are NOT carrying ANY supplies or building ANY infrastructure on or near Mars surface.
For a simple reason that you can't rely on anything still being there in working order 10 years in the future.
Or 6. Or 4.
You can't even use the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE as they will be a decade older and maybe dead or maybe doing another job.
Astronauts have to eat too, you know.
Further, anything done on Phobos has fuck all to do with any following mission. They are not gonna build a base there or store supplies - it's a hop-around mission.
And should a second mission happen, only reason why not to stay there for a whole year is - SUPPLIES! Or the lack there of.
Which won't be there because... "Meh... not this time. We'll bring it the next time. Not right now. Later."
This is NOTHING like an Apollo missions to the Moon.
This is like swimming to America from Scotland, getting to Liberty Island, eating a sandwich brought with you, then swimming back home.
Then, 6 years later, do the same thing - only climbing out of the water in New York Harbor, sleeping over night in Central Park, eating another sandwich in the morning (again brought from back home) and swimming back to Europe.
THEN, 4 more years later, you take another swim across the ocean, only instead of taking a sandwich, this time you take a credit card and you spend a year living in USA.
Oh and yeah... Each trip there is a team of thousands of people and dozens of boats sailing right next to you and keeping you safe from the sharks and tigers (You don't know... maybe there are tigers along the way... better safe than sorry.), tweetering your progress online and whatnot.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
We really cannot build a "sustainable habitat" anywhere, "biosphere 2" has the longest record of about 2 years, the experiment ended when they ran out of oxygen, food, and patience with each other.
We can build a base that is resupplied, and it would be a much cheaper to experiment with base building technology on the moon than it would be on Mars. The Moon is a couple of days away in a space capsule, Mars is two years away at best. Keeping humans alive is the hardest and most expensive part of space exploration and Earth is by far the most livable planet in the solar system, so why bother sending people? Why not spend that money understanding and repairing the incredibly sophisticated life support systems of the space ship we are all riding on now? We won't be making any interstellar trips until we do understand it enough to replicate it on a small scale.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
landing on the Martian surface in the late 2030s
The US being the Hare, who is the tortoise? Hint: they all live in China.
. . but . . the Chinese live in China!
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
We've been to Mars already, we've sent probes and robots.
WE haven't been to Mars. We've sent tools there. Huge difference.
So why would we send people?
Lots of reasons. We'd learn a ton by doing it. We'd develop a lot of amazing technology. The economic benefits would be enormous. It would advance our knowledge faster than almost anything else we could do including sending more probes. It would be the greatest exploration in human history. It would inspire generations of scientists and engineers.
Need I go on?
The real question is why wouldn't we go there? The only answer to that is because we lack vision or courage or political will. The likely benefits of going greatly outweigh the likely benefits of staying on Earth.
Can't or won't? I would have thought that it would be possible to create a habitat in either that would require nothing incoming.
So far we cannot. We've tried several times and haven't cracked the problem yet. That's not to say we won't figure it out or that the problem is intractable but so far we haven't even figured it out on Earth much less in zero-G. I have some confidence that with enough resources applied we can solve the problem but to date that hasn't happened.
Fess up... it's for all the leather goddesses, right?
>lewd
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
We need to learn how to leave this planet and live elsewhere if the only life that we know of is going to continue to survive in this cold dead universe.
If the goal is to build a habitat in extreme cold conditions, I'm sure Alaska has plenty of places to build it. Before we likely spend trillions of dollars sending a body to mars, I'd like to see a self sustaining habitat on Earth last for at least 10 years. And have it be one that is the same size and contents as would be buildable off planet. And it would be even better if they were able to do more than just survive.
As I've said before, even if we totally trashed the earth, it would still likely be more habitable than the moon or mars or anywhere else we could go to. I suspect a post-nuked earth would be more human friendly than dwelling on another planet.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Mod it to -1 if you like, people will never *be* on Mars. The closest they'll get is to see it through a visor or a monitor.
And if that's the case, a monitor on a different planet is more convenient.
You are obviously not a geologist. A person, even in a suit, and wielding a rock hammer, and equipped with a rather small lab can do more geology in one day than all of the Mars probes ever sent have done, combined.
Not to mention the fricking communications latency of using RPVs, or depending on the cleverness of remotely targeted semi-autonomous robots.
Can't or won't? I would have thought that it would be possible to create a habitat in either that would require nothing incoming.
So far we cannot. We've tried several times and haven't cracked the problem yet.
We can and we did. It was euphemistically called "The U.S. Government Relocation Facility", but it's code name was "Project Greek Island", and it was capable of sustaining a fairly large population and support staff for 30 years, in the event of a nuclear war.
"The Raven Rock Mountain Complex" was built as a similar "relocation facility" intended for the Pentagon.
"The Cheyenne Mountain Complex" was another facility, for SAC/NORAD.
"The Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center" was intended for use by FEMA; it's sometimes called "The High Point Special Facility".
There are a bunch of U.S. COG facilities (Continuation Of Government) besides that, and most major countries have their own equivalents.
Generally most of them have nuclear power plants, of the type used on U.S. nuclear submarines. Several of the facilities have more than one of them.
We've been to Mars already, we've sent probes and robots.
Yes. And I've been to Paris, because one time I saw a picture of the Eiffel Tower.
We can and we did. It was euphemistically called "The U.S. Government Relocation Facility", but it's code name was "Project Greek Island", and it was capable of sustaining a fairly large population and support staff for 30 years, in the event of a nuclear war.
Project Greek Island was a fallout bunker at the Greenbriar Hotel. It was NOT a biosphere or even close to one. It was a fallout shelter, nothing more. I have personally been in that particular bunker myself now that it is open to the public. I stayed at the hotel a few years back. It certainly wasn't designed or equipped to operate for 30 years. The facility EXISTED for 30 years of operation but it was only designed to be occupied for a relatively short time. It had enough space to have congress and the senate plus a few of the white house staff and not much more. A few hundred people maximum.
Why invest in coaches and roads when we have horses? Why build electricity infrastructure when we have oil lamps? Why build research flight when we have trains? All of these started off as a silly research project/experiment. Why perform any research when we have functional tech now?
You're short sighted. Researching interplanetary travel costs a miniscule percent of our budget, and the potential rewards are well with the risk. R&D is fascinating because you never know what, if anything, it will yield. Not knowing what we might learn is utterly stupid reason not to invest in a project. I suspect you know this and are just being a dick.
*Sigh* why do ass-holes not know their science. The Moon does not get you closer to Mars. Just because it is in space, does not make the Moon closer to Mars. If you are going to Mars a direct flight would be the better option.
Going to Phobos is not a better option than going to Mars - it's the same damn thing.
With Phobos being so close to Mars, setting up a station there could be useful beyond just a stepping stone onto Mars.
We could send robots onto the surface that could be directly and nearly instantaneously piloted by humans that are stationed on Phobos. Essentially it could be a form of telepresence without the dangers and difficulties associated with actually landing on Mars.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
We could send robots onto the surface that could be directly and nearly instantaneously piloted by humans that are stationed on Phobos.
An automated car can drive 30 miles on US Highway 101, avoiding thousands of other moving objects going between 0mph and 65mph. Do we really need a human driver for the Mars robots, which only have to steer around some rocks, and are thousand of miles from any other vehicle? Especially as this would be the most expensive human driver ever.
If a person is going to live in a new land, he must first have some idea how he's going to live. For example, you don't just pack up your family's day sailer and go to Antarctica without any idea where you're going to get food or warmth...or anything. That's the problem with Mars now. The moon is a good place to figure out such things...and magnitudes cheaper.
The moon has one interesting feature, and it's not colonization. Aluminum has about the same concentration there as on Earth, but the gravity is significantly lower. Iron has a slightly higher concentration than aluminum.
A railgun can achieve lunar orbital speed (2.4km/sec). We have the technology. General Dynamics has a gun that can shoot at 2.55 km/sec.
This technology is more commonly known as a mass driver.
The thought is that a mining operation could use the 14-day light cycle to orbit refined metal or construction components. Since very little propellant would be necessary, a lot of material is attainable. Metal is the heaviest and therefore costliest material to move out of a gravity well.
Proposals like this show a profound misunderstanding of space flight costs. The two principal costs in space flight are the costs of making the space flight hardware, and the cost of maintaining and managing the vast ground-based infrastructure of a space flight program. Launch costs are relatively unimportant, and the focus on launch and orbital velocity changes is completely misplaced.
Currently, with SpaceX, we are at point where we can project $1000/lb launch costs. At that price point, space exploration would be essentially unchanged in its cost structure if launches were free. Any type of aerospace hardware costs several thousand dollars a pound to build. Look at an undemanding commercial system like the Boeing Dreamliner. Here you have a competitive marketplace, well proven technologies and designs, a benign operating environment, and the cost the plane is $1000/lb. Any spaceflight hardware costs an order of magnitude (or more) more than this. The SpaceX Dragon capsule for example weighs 7000 lb, and is expected to have a unit cost around $140 million, of $20,000/lb.
The aluminum on the moon would be extremely expensive aluminum, considering the cost of the fully automated factory that would have to be designed from scratch, built on Earth, launched to the Moon, and installed there. Yet, even if the aluminum produced there were free, it would do little to reduce the real costs of spaceflight.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj