I don't fundamentally disagree. We are too risk averse. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that the point of being a pioneer is still to build something. We can't do that on mars right now.
But, based on what we know today and how we are proceeding (even with the new plan), we are 50 years from a suicide mission that assumes you may live for more than a few months on Mars' surface.
And we still don't have a rocket to get you there. This heavy lifter ain't that guy.
With the technology we currently have, everyone will very probably die on their way there.
Now, if we as a U.S. population gave a crap: Maybe we make Japan patrol their own waters and cinched our belts here, we could do what I'm talking about in 10 years (full blown lunar habitat) and have a reasonable chance of success to mars in 20.
Again, the moon is relatively easy and we still know so little about living somewhere else.
Escaping to implies getting back to earth. If your habitat is wrecked to the point where it cannot sustain you, you need to get home.
Its a real long trip from mars to earth, and there are many, MANY more issues than simply getting off the surface. You need a return vehicle that is significantly different than any currently available for that trip. Getting back to earth from the moon (or sending back an injured person) is simple by comparison.
If you escape a cataclysm on mars only to die in space... well, you're still dead.
There is a tiny bit of good thought in this: We will finally discuss space radiation and advanced propulsion systems. Without a nuclear propulsion system that works, a mars mission or a mission to anything but a close flying asteroid is foolhardy. We have built them before (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA).
This is how engineering works: 1. Find elephant 2. Take SMALL bite. 3. Chew bite. 4. Spit out bones (of dead mars crew in slow rocket) 5. Continue until elephant is gone It is rare that we get a huge leap in technology where physics is involved. We have been working on the fusion reactor for 60 years. No breath holding or life betting on this one. Trust me. You don't want to build the next Tokamak and try and power Chicago with it. Stated otherwise: You don't build a boat and test it by taking a transatlantic voyage.
Additionally, the moon part of these missions isn't really about "going" to the moon. It's about *building* on it. What we did before was the equivalent of a day trip in the woods. Going to mars with chemical rockets is like taking a backpack into the woods across an ocean with only a Columbus style sailing ship back across that ocean to call on for help. The moon is close, relatively speaking. The moon can be landed on, and then escaped from, with 40 year old technology as it sits. If you build an Apollo era lunar module as an escape capsule, you're done. You only have to live in it for a couple of days.
Mars CANNOT be escaped from with ANY technology currently available. Period. And building a habitation on mars makes the job significantly more difficult. Everything about Mars is harder and will require more time and money with much larger potential for failure and longer lead times.
If you build a habitation (read beginnings of colonization) on the moon, you may be able to build some things which can be tested in a "real" environment prior to getting to a place where you have no help. There is almost no possibility of resurrection of your (scientific/monetary/personnel) outlay on mars. This is less true with the moon.
And the moon is still a huge challenge. Did I say huge? I meant *HUGE*.
We haven't been to the moon. We touched it, for a brief moment. Do we need to make it to Mars, HELL YES. But we need to be smart about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't fundamentally disagree. We are too risk averse. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that the point of being a pioneer is still to build something. We can't do that on mars right now.
But, based on what we know today and how we are proceeding (even with the new plan), we are 50 years from a suicide mission that assumes you may live for more than a few months on Mars' surface.
And we still don't have a rocket to get you there.
This heavy lifter ain't that guy.
With the technology we currently have, everyone will very probably die on their way there.
Now, if we as a U.S. population gave a crap: Maybe we make Japan patrol their own waters and cinched our belts here, we could do what I'm talking about in 10 years (full blown lunar habitat) and have a reasonable chance of success to mars in 20.
Again, the moon is relatively easy and we still know so little about living somewhere else.
Escaping to implies getting back to earth. If your habitat is wrecked to the point where it cannot sustain you, you need to get home.
Its a real long trip from mars to earth, and there are many, MANY more issues than simply getting off the surface. You need a return vehicle that is significantly different than any currently available for that trip. Getting back to earth from the moon (or sending back an injured person) is simple by comparison.
If you escape a cataclysm on mars only to die in space... well, you're still dead.
There is a tiny bit of good thought in this: We will finally discuss space radiation and advanced propulsion systems.
Without a nuclear propulsion system that works, a mars mission or a mission to anything but a close flying asteroid is foolhardy.
We have built them before (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA).
This is how engineering works:
1. Find elephant
2. Take SMALL bite.
3. Chew bite.
4. Spit out bones (of dead mars crew in slow rocket)
5. Continue until elephant is gone
It is rare that we get a huge leap in technology where physics is involved.
We have been working on the fusion reactor for 60 years. No breath holding or life betting on this one. Trust me. You don't want to build the next Tokamak and try and power Chicago with it.
Stated otherwise: You don't build a boat and test it by taking a transatlantic voyage.
Additionally, the moon part of these missions isn't really about "going" to the moon. It's about *building* on it. What we did before was the equivalent of a day trip in the woods.
Going to mars with chemical rockets is like taking a backpack into the woods across an ocean with only a Columbus style sailing ship back across that ocean to call on for help.
The moon is close, relatively speaking. The moon can be landed on, and then escaped from, with 40 year old technology as it sits. If you build an Apollo era lunar module as an escape capsule, you're done. You only have to live in it for a couple of days.
Mars CANNOT be escaped from with ANY technology currently available. Period. And building a habitation on mars makes the job significantly more difficult. Everything about Mars is harder and will require more time and money with much larger potential for failure and longer lead times.
If you build a habitation (read beginnings of colonization) on the moon, you may be able to build some things which can be tested in a "real" environment prior to getting to a place where you have no help.
There is almost no possibility of resurrection of your (scientific/monetary/personnel) outlay on mars. This is less true with the moon.
And the moon is still a huge challenge. Did I say huge? I meant *HUGE*.
We haven't been to the moon. We touched it, for a brief moment. Do we need to make it to Mars, HELL YES.
But we need to be smart about it.