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.
We can't build a sustainable habitat in Antarctica or in the middle of a desert, why bother with the Moon? :)
It doesn't take nearly as much fuel getting off a mun as it does a planet.
I think you meant to write:
"It doesn't take nearly as much fuel getting off a nun as it does a planet."
But I am not certain.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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 ^_^
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.
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.
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.