4 ms·

Shouldn't they consider a staged approach, not unlike FDA trials. Start with a Laika dog, proceed with a chimp, as all other space programs have done in the pas

Shouldn't they consider a staged approach, not unlike FDA trials. Start with a Laika dog, proceed with a chimp, as all other space programs have done in the past? Also, if this succeeds, what happens to Google's moonshot projects? Is rebranding in the works?

M_Grey 10y ago
Probably they should. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745315
- godelski 10y ago
  Well there's a huge difference when talking about radiation exposures going to the moon and Mars. For one you don't expect a solar event to happen, you really hope one doesn't, when going to the moon. Going to Mars you expect a few. With cosmic radiation we're talking about the difference between a few days and a year. Plus you have to have pretty good shielding when crossing the Van Allen belts. You can consider the Apollo missions the trial phases. We learned a lot there.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I'm less worried about this mission, and more than it's going to give people an (increasingly) false confidence that we're ready for Mars.
    - godelski 10y ago
      Ah, in that context, yes. We'll have to see a lot about the flight performance of the Heavy and whatever crew capsule they come up with. I would imagine they would do it similar to how the Apollo missions were done. First you do the dress rehearsal where no one lands. They could use that mission to put supplies in orbit as well. For Mars, they might need more than one. I'll be interested in what they come up with, but I still think their goal of 2025 is pretty quick. Doable, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Mars as a goal is laudable, but 2025 strikes me as more likely to be murderous. There's no doubt that human lives can grease the wheels of progress, and often have in the past. I feel like people have already accepted that as the way space will be too, when it still doesn't have to be... yet.
rco8786 10y ago
AFAIK, those incremental tests in the past were done because we didn't know the effect(s) space would have on humans. That's not really an issue now. There's not much point in saying "Ok we've got this thing 98% safe let's send up a chimp and see if we explode" when you could just as easily not send up a chimp and get the results you need to get to the next level of safety, eventually reaching something reasonable to put humans in.
heretoo 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_research_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_research_ban There are ethical concerns and legal limitations regarding experimentation on some animals.

M_Grey 10y ago

Probably they should. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745315

godelski 10y ago
Well there's a huge difference when talking about radiation exposures going to the moon and Mars. For one you don't expect a solar event to happen, you really hope one doesn't, when going to the moon. Going to Mars you expect a few. With cosmic radiation we're talking about the difference between a few days and a year. Plus you have to have pretty good shielding when crossing the Van Allen belts. You can consider the Apollo missions the trial phases. We learned a lot there.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I'm less worried about this mission, and more than it's going to give people an (increasingly) false confidence that we're ready for Mars.
  - godelski 10y ago
    Ah, in that context, yes. We'll have to see a lot about the flight performance of the Heavy and whatever crew capsule they come up with. I would imagine they would do it similar to how the Apollo missions were done. First you do the dress rehearsal where no one lands. They could use that mission to put supplies in orbit as well. For Mars, they might need more than one. I'll be interested in what they come up with, but I still think their goal of 2025 is pretty quick. Doable, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Mars as a goal is laudable, but 2025 strikes me as more likely to be murderous. There's no doubt that human lives can grease the wheels of progress, and often have in the past. I feel like people have already accepted that as the way space will be too, when it still doesn't have to be... yet.

rco8786 10y ago

AFAIK, those incremental tests in the past were done because we didn't know the effect(s) space would have on humans. That's not really an issue now. There's not much point in saying "Ok we've got this thing 98% safe let's send up a chimp and see if we explode" when you could just as easily not send up a chimp and get the results you need to get to the next level of safety, eventually reaching something reasonable to put humans in.

heretoo 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_research_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_research_ban There are ethical concerns and legal limitations regarding experimentation on some animals.