3 ms·

I hope getting humans to Mars can inspire more investment in space travel and exploration, or even another space race... but I'm not sure that it will happen. P

I hope getting humans to Mars can inspire more investment in space travel and exploration, or even another space race... but I'm not sure that it will happen. Putting 1000 people on a ship seems like a pipe-dream adjacent to full-self driving at this point. At the moment all of this feels like a mistake... for the cost of a manned program we could be sending out dozens of probes and rovers, not only to Mars but to more interesting places like Jupiters moons, Io and Europa, the former being the most volcanically active body in the solar system, and the latter one of the most promising places to find liquid water.

photochemsyn 3y ago
People and governments make all kinds of mistakes, and when comparing manned to unmanned space programs and their relative costs, it's worth examining what the overall societal expenditures look like. For example, the cost of maintaining the USA's nuclear arsenal is very comparable on a yearly basis to the entire NASA budget (~25-30 billion). However this pales in comparison to the complete amortized cost of the US adventure in Iraq from 2003-2008 or so, which is on the order of $2.5 trillion (large error bars there), or about $500 billion per year. Conclusion: we certainly have the civilizational resources to increase both unmanned and manned space programs by at least 15-fold each if we'd just stop wasting money on stupid wars. Note that's just USA expenditures, as well.
distortionfield 3y ago
> Putting 1000 people on a ship seems like a pipe-dream adjacent to full-self driving at this point. we have centuries of experience with doing the exact same thing to people at sea. > for the cost of a manned program we could be sending out dozens of probes and rovers Why not both? I see the value in each.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  Eventually yes, but it seems we're putting the cart before the horse. I really hope it goes well and we end up accelerating things with another space race, this is the best outcome and maybe this is why we're shooting for manned Mars missions... but it's risky. A crew of dead astronauts on Mars could have the opposite effect. Imagine if Nixon really had to deliver that failure message about the moon landing, space exploration could be even worse off than it is now.
- kjs3 3y ago
  I think sending a person across the ocean, under an atmosphere, protected from radiation, with gravity isn't "the exact same" thing as through space. Much less 1000. Pretending that it is...charitably...is silly.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    True, but this works in reverse too. Much harder to get the initial, small scale version of a cycler-based transit system established. But then, because you don't have an atmosphere or ocean or particularly noticeable gravity, scaling it up it probably much, much easier than doing so for ocean-going vessels and the like.
    - kjs3 3y ago
      Maybe? My point is if you are going to do it, start with a mental model that fits the task, not one that both isn't remotely the same engineering challenge and ignores the actual hard problems.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Well, we're a good part of the way towards being able to move people from the earth's surface into orbit. Somewhere between, say, 20% and 80%. If that claim is true, then it seems reasonable to be thinking about what comes next, and building a small cycler seems like a potentially reasonable choice. If we can indeed build a small cycler, then getting to a big one may be much easier than going from a small yacht to a transoceanic liner.
        accrual 3y ago
        > If we can indeed build a small cycler, then getting to a big one may be much easier than going from a small yacht to a transoceanic liner. It still falls apart a bit due to the rocket equation. [0] When you're in a safe harbor on earth, it's somewhat simple to increase the size of your boat, most of the rules stay the same. But as you build bigger cyclers, one will either need bigger rockets or more rockets and then possibly assembly/docking in space, so it's definitely more complicated than making a larger displacement in the water. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
ceejayoz 3y ago
Liquid water? On Io? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon) "the lowest amount of water (by atomic ratio) of any known astronomical object in the Solar System"
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  My mistake, Io is volcanically active with a possible ocean of magma, Europa has the possible subsurface liquid ocean. Edited to reflect this.

photochemsyn 3y ago

People and governments make all kinds of mistakes, and when comparing manned to unmanned space programs and their relative costs, it's worth examining what the overall societal expenditures look like. For example, the cost of maintaining the USA's nuclear arsenal is very comparable on a yearly basis to the entire NASA budget (~25-30 billion). However this pales in comparison to the complete amortized cost of the US adventure in Iraq from 2003-2008 or so, which is on the order of $2.5 trillion (large error bars there), or about $500 billion per year. Conclusion: we certainly have the civilizational resources to increase both unmanned and manned space programs by at least 15-fold each if we'd just stop wasting money on stupid wars. Note that's just USA expenditures, as well.

distortionfield 3y ago

> Putting 1000 people on a ship seems like a pipe-dream adjacent to full-self driving at this point. we have centuries of experience with doing the exact same thing to people at sea. > for the cost of a manned program we could be sending out dozens of probes and rovers Why not both? I see the value in each.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
Eventually yes, but it seems we're putting the cart before the horse. I really hope it goes well and we end up accelerating things with another space race, this is the best outcome and maybe this is why we're shooting for manned Mars missions... but it's risky. A crew of dead astronauts on Mars could have the opposite effect. Imagine if Nixon really had to deliver that failure message about the moon landing, space exploration could be even worse off than it is now.
kjs3 3y ago
I think sending a person across the ocean, under an atmosphere, protected from radiation, with gravity isn't "the exact same" thing as through space. Much less 1000. Pretending that it is...charitably...is silly.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  True, but this works in reverse too. Much harder to get the initial, small scale version of a cycler-based transit system established. But then, because you don't have an atmosphere or ocean or particularly noticeable gravity, scaling it up it probably much, much easier than doing so for ocean-going vessels and the like.
  - kjs3 3y ago
    Maybe? My point is if you are going to do it, start with a mental model that fits the task, not one that both isn't remotely the same engineering challenge and ignores the actual hard problems.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Well, we're a good part of the way towards being able to move people from the earth's surface into orbit. Somewhere between, say, 20% and 80%. If that claim is true, then it seems reasonable to be thinking about what comes next, and building a small cycler seems like a potentially reasonable choice. If we can indeed build a small cycler, then getting to a big one may be much easier than going from a small yacht to a transoceanic liner.
      - accrual 3y ago
        > If we can indeed build a small cycler, then getting to a big one may be much easier than going from a small yacht to a transoceanic liner. It still falls apart a bit due to the rocket equation. [0] When you're in a safe harbor on earth, it's somewhat simple to increase the size of your boat, most of the rules stay the same. But as you build bigger cyclers, one will either need bigger rockets or more rockets and then possibly assembly/docking in space, so it's definitely more complicated than making a larger displacement in the water. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

ceejayoz 3y ago

Liquid water? On Io? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon) "the lowest amount of water (by atomic ratio) of any known astronomical object in the Solar System"

micromacrofoot 3y ago
My mistake, Io is volcanically active with a possible ocean of magma, Europa has the possible subsurface liquid ocean. Edited to reflect this.