Americans: Would it upset you if China or Russia landed on Mars before the United States?

Great Debates
81

No. The same arguments apply; the increased cost, needed technology development to support a crewed landing mission, the amount of effort that is necessarily devoted to crew maintenance and health, et cetera. In fact, while the hypothetical scheduling of human missions is dependant upon minimizing Earth-Mars transit times, an uncrewed vehicle could use any interval for the interplanetary transit with minimial concern for exposure to the charged particle and energetic cosmic ray environments. This would allow more and sooner opportunies to launch missions and collect information that may facilitate later missions, both remotely operated and eventual crewed.

While just looking at the cost of a space mission versus combating poverty or illness is a false dichotomy (there are many other things we could reduce or eliminate to provide funding for social causes if we were so inclined) this does highlight the consideration that money spent on space exploration and development should provide a benefit to the population overall rather than just one narrow segment of scientists, aerospace interests, and enthusiasts. Access to precious space resources, Earth and solar weather surveillance, navigation and telecommunications, hazard abatement, et cetera are all things that have and will continue to benefit the population writ large (whether people realize it or not). Going to Mars is of very modest benefit for only a tiny portion of scientists. If the cost were small (as with current uncrewed missions) the expense can be justified as expanding our scope of knowledge; when the cost is so massive that it would detract from both other exploration programs and science funding in general, the onus is on supporters to demonstrate some tangible benefit in accordance with the cost.

Actually, in 2001: A Space Odyssey, there were definite national interests that actually drove the plot (and served to highlight the narrow thinking of humanity); the US discovered SMA-1 on the Moon and concocted an “embarassing” cover story about an infection to keep the Russians from learning about the monolith. The Discovery mission to Jupiter was modified with the scientists being placed in hibernation and the HAL 9000 ship’s computer being given a “secret directive” which caused it to go insane over the conflict of not informing the crew.

Realistically, an internationally crewed mission adds significant complexity in planning, funding, political decision-making, and priority, a situation demonstrated by international projects such as the ISS (although since the US has borne most of the cost it has made most of the decisions essentially unilaterally, often to the grumblings of other member nations), the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) where it has been cited as a major cause of delays and cost increases. Since the cost of a crewed mission would also probably be largely borne by the US–no other nation has the assets or technical prowess to engage in such a mission alone–the bulk of a crew of six or twelve (depending on scale) would likely be half or more American, leaving limited slots for astronauts from other partner nations.

You continue to focus on the distance travelled by the Mars rovers as some kind of figure of merit even though I have repeatedly explained that the limited rate at which they travel is due to the limited power available and not any kind inherent restriction in robots. Yes, it is true that circa 1970 the best sample collection and return system we could devise was an astronaut but believe it or not the discipline of robotics and autonomous systems has advanced significantly since that time, and we routinely use robots in all kinds of applications such as mining, radio- and toxic material handling, explosive ordnance disposal, et cetera where the hazard and cost of using people is simply not justified. For the cost of even a simple high-risk short surface duration crewed Mars mission (~US$200B for a 30 day surface duration, or over US$100M per person-day of effort) we could literally pepper the surface of Mars from pole to equator to pole with robotic probes of various and multiple capabilities with far more vast range and much longer mission duration than any crewed mission could attempt.

For illustration, here is a comparison I made between the capabilities and limitations of a human astronaut versus the Mars Science Laboratory:
*Let’s make an apples to apples comparison between human astronauts and a robotic mobile science platform (rover) like the Mars Explorer Rovers:

Human Astronaut
On-Board Sensors: Mark I binocular imagers (effective feature resolution ~0.1mm), restricted bi-aural receptors, external signals transmitter/receiver
Manipulators: (2) five digit appendages enclosed in KevlarTM gauntlets with minimal tactile feedback
Communications: Auditory, hand-held or helmet-mounted camera
Control: Auditory commands only via multi-variant “ENGLISH” language; single on-board control system subject to malfunction by hypoxia, dehydration, malnutrition, or, contamination; complex autonomous internal codes (fear, anxiety, anger, depression) may interfere with optimum functioning
Power: Self-powered, requires complex balance of nutrients and potable water at several hour intervals
Operating Duration: 8-12 hours/day (effective maximum, depending on workload, fatigue)
Consumables: ~2 kg/day of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, sterols, vitamins; 2 liters/day of liquid water; oxygen
Maintenance: Multiple daily waste removal; continuous removal of respiratory waste (CO2 < 1%); periodic external cleansing with mild solvent; routine examination for injury and buildup of self-producing toxins; external stress-relieving stimuli (entertainment)
Environmental Tolerance: 0-55 deg C (absolute limits), 14-30 deg C (optimum function); ppO2 0.2-0.8 bar; highly susceptible to chemical contaminants, ambient radiation, mechanical and acoustic shock
Reliability Requirements: Environmental and power sustainment required to be reliable >4 stdev throughout entire mission duration without interruption; support and delivery systems must be qualified to “man-rated” standards
Launch/Delivery Vehicle: One or more unspecified heavy lift launch vehicle; unspecified interplanetary transit vehicle with environmental sustainment and Earth-return capability for multiple (3+) exploratory units; unspecified surface landing and return module

Mars Science Laboratory (“Curiosity”)
On-Board Sensors: mast-mounted high definition multi-spectra cameras (MASTCAM), manipulator-mounted ultra high definition (0.014mm resolution) camera (MAHLI), X-ray diffraction system, pulsed neutron emitter (DAN), tunable laser spectrometer, alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, laser-induced breakdown spectroscope (ChemCam), gas chromatograph, quadrupole mass spectrometer, multiple sensors for navigation and self-diagnostics
Manipulators: High precision robotic manipulator arm with survey and sampling apparatus built-in
Communications: Redundant low- and high-bandwidth transmitters for command upload, precision diagnostic feedback, data return
Control: Precision command control via explicit (single value) instructions; semi-autonomous on-board redundant radiation-hardened computer (Rover Electronics Module) utilizing established operational and contingency protocols; ability to upload novel skill set via firmware patch
Power: Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), 2.5 kWh/day
Operating Duration: Continuous operation for intended 2 year mission, MMRTG rated for 14 years output
Consumables: None.
Maintenance: Firmware uploads; no physical maintenance required
Environmental Tolerance: Design tolerance for anticipated mission environment conditions (-127 to 30 deg C, near vacuum atmosphere, ambient radiation) with standard qualification margins (+/- 10 deg C)
Reliability Requirements: >3 stdev (99.7% reliability) acceptable for mission duration
Launch/Delivery Vehicle: Atlas V (541) with Dual Engine Centaur upper stage/Earth Orbit Escape vehicle, aeroshell landing vehicle similar to Viking lander; no return vehicle required

There is no question that both the overall mission cost and the value of science per dollar spent is vastly greater with robotic probes, notwithstanding the emotional reluctance and ethics of placing human astronauts in harm’s way without taking extraordinary measures to reduce hazards. A rule of thumb about manned missions is that at least 90% of the effort is just keeping the “meat puppets” alive and functional, and a look at the historical costs of manned versus unmanned missions (not including launch costs) shows at least another order of magnitude difference in cost. That means that at best, for every dollar’s worth of science data you get from a robotic mission you’re getting one penny from a manned effort.*

This is notwithstanding the capabilities we could build into a larger Mars rover with a more capable power source and current technology, or the economies of scale of performing multiple parallel missions versus a single crewed mission to one or at most two landing sites, and the risk of complete loss of multi-hundred-billion dollar mission should the habitat or charged particle radiation protection systems fail for even a relatively short duration, and the near certainty in the case of failure that another very costly attempt would not be made in the foreseeable future.

The only real argument for performing a crewed mission in the near future against significant hazards that we can only poorly mitigate is that it would be “cool” or demonstrate national prestige. I like cool and think the US is pretty keen (although to be fair, I like New Zealand, Switzerland, and Okinawa a lot, too) but not to the tune of a cost that makes even a jaded politician cringe to say out loud, and not at the expense of doing other comparable exploration and science at a small fraction of the cost. The question isn’t really one of whether people are better in some abstract, “people can pick up things and touch stuff” sense; it’s essentially a problem of optimization, i.e. how can you do the most useful science and advance the general technology of space resource utilization for a given (realistic) budget. The answer is definitively not to spend a vast amount of money to do send people at high risk as soon as feasible in order to accomplish the same things that could be done as well or better and without incurring the cost of maintaining a narrow range of habitable conditions both on the journey there and return. That is just about the least optimial solution of all, and one that is far more likely to retard the ultimate development of human space habitation and exploration than to foster it.

Stranger

82

Fix the rovers, like the one that is stuck in a rut on Mars. Needs a guy with a jack. :slight_smile:

83

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
You continue to focus on the distance travelled by the Mars rovers as some kind of figure of merit even though I have repeatedly explained that the limited rate at which they travel is due to the limited power available and not any kind inherent restriction in robots. Yes, it is true that circa 1970 the best sample collection and return system we could devise was an astronaut but believe it or not the discipline of robotics and autonomous systems has advanced significantly since that time, and we routinely use robots in all kinds of applications such as mining, radio- and toxic material handling, explosive ordnance disposal, et cetera where the hazard and cost of using people is simply not justified. For the cost of even a simple high-risk short surface duration crewed Mars mission (~US$200B for a 30 day surface duration, or over US$100M per person-day of effort) we could literally pepper the surface of Mars from pole to equator to pole with robotic probes of various and multiple capabilities with far more vast range and much longer mission duration than any crewed mission could attempt.

[/QUOTE]

And yet, we don’t. Where are your high performing large power budget rovers? Are they being built as we speak? Are they perhaps en route to Mars as we speak? No, they aren’t…this is the next generation rover NASA is looking at (don’t get me wrong here…this thing is pretty cool and will have a lot more capabilities. But not on the order of what a human crew could do). It’s an incremental upgrade, not a vastly more capable rover. So, you can continue to bring up this point I’ve already addressed if you like, or you could perhaps focus on reality. The reality is that the rovers we have sent and are planning to send aren’t going to have the power budget to do all that great stuff either today or 10 years from now. Saying that we COULD do it is simply ignoring reality. And the reality is that, in the real world, a human crewed mission is going to have the power budget to do all the science and exploration, while a realistic robotic mission that the US or any other space faring power would or will send won’t.

And these larger, more capable Mars rovers with vastly larger power budgets and abilities? Are they getting shuffled up to the launch pad soon? When can we expect to see them…and what will they cost?

Yes…in your opinion.

84

Sending someone to fix a rover is stupid. Why fix one rover when for the same price you could send a hundred replacement rovers?

Neither would a human. People are not perpetual motion machines, and are even more constrained by the requirement to either generate power in situ or operate off of stores than a rover is.

85

[QUOTE=Grumman]
Sending someone to fix a rover is stupid. Why fix one rover when for the same price you could send a hundred replacement rovers?

[/QUOTE]

Feel free to come back when we send 100 rovers…or 10 for that matter.

If we send a human crewed mission to Mars it will have a sufficient power budget to do all of the stuff we are talking about. We won’t send a similar rover. That’s reality. Or, as above, feel free to come back when we are actually planning to send the mega-rover with generous power budget and abilities to do all of this stuff. Not if we COULD do it, WHEN we are PLANNING to do it. I’ll wait. Hell, I’ve been waiting for decades. And listening to the same stuff. We don’t need to send humans to Mars, we’ll send rovers! Cool! We send one or two that go a few kilometers. Still cool but, you know, it’s not a lot. Well, that’s because they don’t have the power budget! Cool…when will we be sending one of those? Er…well, we COULD send one! Cool…what’s the time table? Um…well, we don’t need to send humans to Mars because we have rovers! We could send enough rovers to cover the entire surface of Mars with rovers for what it costs for a manned mission! Cool! When will we be sending enough rovers to cover the surface of Mars then? Um…

We don’t need human crewed missions! Rovers! :smack:

86

The reality is that there is exactly zero funding for a crewed Mars mission of any scale despite proposals and studies dating back from Project EMPIRE in the early 'Sixties through “Footsteps to Mars” and “Mars Direct” in the 'Eighties and early 'Nineties, and the 1989 Space Exploration Initiative “90-Day Study” which may have definitively put a nail in the coffin for funding a crewed Mars mission without both substantial advances in space launch capability and significant reductions in cost of all phases of the mission. Despite the string of subsequent Design Reference Missions and studies from NASA from that point through the present day and the occasional pronouncement by various presidents of our intention to go to Mars, there has not been one nickel of funding actually devoted to doing anything more than studies for a credible crewed Mars mission.

Claiming that the budget for a crewed Mars mission would or could be sustained at some point in the future over remote exploration is a complete hypothetical, and hypothetically speaking, the amount of science and range of exploration that could be done with probes and rovers for that same hypothetical cost is substantially more than could be performed by a single crewed mission, by somewhere on the order of a couple of magnitudes. “Doing science” isn’t walking around banging on rocks with a geologist’s hammer or climbing cliffs; it is collecting and categorizing data, and then interpreting it in the context of hypothesis and testing. Being able to cover a wider area than that around a single site and over a longer duration than any human would be able to credibly survive on the surface without resupply or replacement is part and parcel of getting good value per dollar spent.

Well, yes, in my opinion. An opinion formed, as it happens, by working on adjunct studies for the NASA Design Reference Missions 3.0 and 4.0, in which the team sought to find ways to refine the requirements and reduce cost and complexity but came away with the conclusion that both studies underestimated cost, risk, and needed technological development to support a crewed Mars mission. And the successive information about human physiological response to freefall and radiation has only increased the requirements to provide protection from both during the Mars transit, which adds more cost and complexity, and notwithstanding the yet-to-be resolved problem of landing a large, multi-ton craft on the surface of Mars with adequate precision.

Look, I’d like to see people explore Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system, too. And at some point in the future the necessary propulsion, habitat, and radiation shielding technology (among others) may be able to support that. But a critical look of the state-of-the-art and what we know about hazards, with a credible extrapolation into the next few decades shows that such a mission could only be undertaken at enormous cost and significant unmitigatable hazard, with the concomitant impact on the budget to support other space exploration and astronomy programs and the peril that a not-unlikely mission failure may retard space exploration–crewed and uncrewed–for decades to come. The necessary technology and infrastructure to support low (or at least lower) cost space launch capbility, permanant human habitation in space, utilization of space resources, and other enabling technologies exists only in studies and the fanciful dreams of a few informed enthusiasts. It is necessary to build and mature this infrastructure and develop the technology in an incremental fashion in order to be able to perform a high value, moderate or less risk crewed mission beyond Earth orbit at a reasonable cost. Trying to do it all right now is like trying to build a canal across the continental United States instead of surveying the continent and figuring out where the best place to build would be, i.e. it makes absolutely no sense and will cost an enormous amount of money to build something that will be of zero use to anyone.

It’s okay; we can wait. Mars, and the rest of the solar system, isn’t going anywhere except around the Sun. We can develop the technology which will both enrich ourselves, provide a boon to humanity just as weather surveillance, GPS, and telecommunications has previously, and then use those developments to support practical crewed exploration missions. We may well find that it is easier to modify ourselves than to try to protect our primate bodies from harms of radiation and freefall exposure. We will certainly find that some new advances in tools and technologies will gives us capabilities that we hadn’t even guessed at. And in the meantime, we can explore major parts of the solar system, including those that we would never be able to survive directly, by proxy in a cost-effective and vigorous fashion and without the risk of major handwringing should we lose a billion-dollar probe to some unforeseen or unmitigated hazard versus the loss of a multi-hundred billion dollar crewed mission. In fact, we’ll need to learn the patience and foresight to do this, because the next step in our evolution as space explorers is to move beyond our own solar system and to other stars (and the potentially interesting objects between stars), which are missions which will be longer than any human lifetime. And in the interim, we can look not only to the stars above but also down here on Earth and the ways in which we can use space resources to improve and protect to the people living today and in the future.

Stranger

87

When will we have a sample return probe? That should answer most of the questions about ancient life on Mars. Sending humans is just not feasible (unless we develop nuclear pulse rockets), with a 4 week transit time.

88

Probably a softer reply than I deserved. :o I get frustrated at the pace of our space program, both manned and unmanned. And it’s frustrating to hear people dismiss the exploration of our solar system as a waste. You are right…none of this stuff is going anywhere. The only caveat is a selfish on on my part…I want to know and at least vicariously be able to explore the solar system and find out if there was or is life on Mars or on the moons of Jupiter or on some other icy body out there before I shuffle off this mortal coil. I want to see humans step off on another world before I go into the great beyond. Selfish, as I said…I mean, I got to see the first moon landings after all, so seeing more would just be a bonus.

No…there isn’t a current budget for a manned mission, though NASA does spend money on development of both human and unmanned missions. We COULD create such a budget if we ever got a consensus on doing it, in the same way we COULD create an unmanned rover with all the bells and whistles and power budget and abilities to do some deeper, more serious exploration.

ETA: And just for the record, Stranger, while I might seem argumentative towards you, I love your posts on this subject, even when I disagree with them…even when I know you are right and I’m disagreeing with them because I don’t want you to be right. :slight_smile:

89

Except Gemini retro rockets. :slight_smile:

90

A sample return probe is neither likely to resolve that question, nor necessary. Current efforts to identify life is looking for complex or unexpected organic molecules as we’ve seen no evidence of multicellular life. We’ve seen a few methane plumes of indeterminate origin but no measurable amounts of more complex molecules. The infamous “fossil meteorite” spurred on speculation of at nanobacterial life without consensus, but the odds of a random sample coming up with something more definitive is unlikely at best. If there was ever life on Mars it was likely very simple and left minimal presence unlikely to be found in surface samples, and if there is still life in existence it is almost certainly well below the surface, sustained by some unknown source of energy and nutrients.

I share your frustration on both a personal and professional level, and the fact is that a commitment to development of a space infrastructure circa 1990 (when it was fully apparent that the Space Transportation System would never achieve the goals that it had been intended to perform) would have likely resulted in a significantly expanded capability for interplanetary exploration including crewed missions to the extent possible. The lack of foresight or commitment to space development and exploration has resulted in decades of essential inaction, and aside from a smattering of impressive robotic missions (largely championed by JPL) there has little in terms of development of a sustainable interplanetary exploration infrastructure; not even the relatively inexpensive and indefensible solar orbiting communication array. Of course, at the end of the day, there needs to be a demonstration that the money put into exploration is of some eventual benefit to the taxpayers at large. But that value can be demonstrated in terms of resources available and hazards mitigated, including the precious elements and protection against asteroid strikes and other cosmic hazards. While not popular with legislators who are focused on photo ops rather than effective missions and the mostly boring progress of infrastructure development, it is critical to putting space access on a fiscally and technically viable foothold.

Aarrgghh…one offhand failure to fact check I have to live with forever. But a good reminder to make sure I have my facts straight rather than rely off of memory.

Stranger

91

What chances for missions to celestial objects in the Earth Neighbourhood?

92

To Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto? We’re sending remote probes there once or twice a decade. A crewed mission? Unlikely in the foreseeable future. Just as a crewed Mars mission is a couple orders of magnitude more costly or difficult than the lunar landings, a crewed mission to Jupiter or beyond is an order or two of magnitude more difficult than a Mars mission even without the landing component. In particular, the propulsion requirements for the interplanetary vehicle (minimum I[SUB]sp[/SUB] of 10,000 s, better at >15,000 s) are really necessary to make a transit in a reasonable period of time and with a practicable mass ratio. This means using nuclear pulse propulsion or some kind of fusion-powered drive just to achieve temperatures to get that scale of propellant efficacy; the for er would require a very large vehicle; the latter means a lot of heat that has to be rejected in addition to achieving sustainable or repeated controlled nuclear fusion. There are also the same issues as habitat, consumables, and protection from radiation, especially inside the orbit of the Galilean moons of Jupiter.

There is a proposed combined robotic and crewed mission to redirect a Near Earth Asteroid to Lunar orbit robotically and “explore” it with a crewed mission using the Space Launch System circa 2026, but this is widely regarded as giving the SLS launcher and Orion spacecraft a mission to perform rather than a valuable crewed mission, and the NASA astronaut corps has collectlively expressed dismay at both the scope of the mission and the limited opportunities it will provide for a crewed operations.

Stranger

93

I am thinking about something like 3753 Cruithne. Its what, 15 million KM away. Thats a mission of several weeks. Possibly doable?

A flyby of Venus?

94

As mentioned up-thread, manned spaceflights should only be financed in the near future (i.e. decades, hundreds of years) if they can reap real rewards and can be done without breaking the national/Earth piggy bank.

But, what real rewards can manned spaceflight reap over and above unmanned spaceflight with sophisticated robotics? I think the primary, if not only real reward is if manned missions are a stepping stone to human colonization on another planet. But, is this really a logical expectation, now, or ever? I dunno, that’s why I’d like to get opinions from our resident Doper with space chops (those are better than lamb chops), Stranger.

It’s a long time before we need to worry about the sun expanding like my ex’s waistline into a red giant, necessitating our leaving the solar system, but I can foresee other catastrophic events occurring in some not distant time period (e.g. less than 5,000 years) necessitating our having to leave this planet for some other intra-solar system home.

But, is terraforming some other planet really anything more than science fiction with little to no chance of becoming reality for our species? Sure, I can foresee extraterrestrial space bubble colonies at some point, but is that really a viable long term option for mankind, with any kind of quality of life? At some point, we as a species should conclude, “that’s not the kind of life I want to live…let’s just go extinct.”

So, maybe mankind’s destiny really isn’t on some other object besides Earth within our solar system. That means we have to find some other star system to live in. But, is that really an option, either? Absolutely it’s not an option now, but can it ever be? Can a human, or something with a human consciousness ever be expected to reach another planet in another star system? I have my doubts. The distances may be too large to conquer.

I’d like to take a couple things off the table right now, because I have doubts they are anything but pure conjecture with little chance of ever becoming reality for mankind. What do you think, Stranger?

  1. Navigable wormholes/warp drive. I just don’t see us harnessing that, ever.
  2. Downloadable human consciousness into something non-biological.
  3. Suspended animation for 1000+ years. I don’t buy it, do you?

I also have doubts about multi-generation space colony flights. Who wants to sign up for that kind of life for you and your progeny? Sounds like a pretty sucky life to me—I’d rather stay on Earth and burn up with the rest of the biosphere. And, even if you and yours could cope with the psychological claustrophobia of living your life in a space ship, what are the chances it would ever reach its destination. A 1000+ years is a long time to miss all the space debris between stars when you’re going faster than a tricked-out Corvette.

And, what if you do reach your destination and what was thought to be a Goldilocks planet turns out to be something like Detroit instead? Or, the whole star system could be infested with space-squids. “Time to head over to that next star, guys and gals, ETA: 1200 years. Who’s got the People Magazine?”

I believe there are real barriers in the Universe that restrict all possible conscious beings (biological, robotic, or something else), no matter how advanced their propulsion systems are (e.g. can anything even theoretically ever reach a galaxy in a non-local cluster that’s receding from it, without harnessing low probability worm hole travel?). I think biological lifeforms like humans are restricted even more so, perhaps even to the point of never reaching the next closest star.

What do you think, Stranger?

95

As an American, I would not be upset if some other nation succeeded in getting humans on Mars before the USA did. For one thing, we’ve already gotten used to being unable to ferry our own astronauts back and forth from the ISS (as was mentioned up-thread a bit). National pride has its limits.

For another thing, I’ve become convinced by the fascinating discussion here between Stranger and others, that if this were to happen, it couldn’t happen for many decades. The ‘surviving the radiation’ problem alone is much more serious than I had ever guessed. It seems extremely likely that we’ll solve the ‘portable power source’ and ‘sophisticated-enough robotics’ problems before we’ll solve the shielding issue; exploration of Mars will be by robots, not humans, for many years to come.

(So, what I’m saying is: I think it’s highly unlikely that I’ll live long enough to be put nose-out-of-joint over a Chinese national being first to step onto Mars–unless my mind can be uploaded into a robot body, of course.^_~)
One point that I don’t think has been made, yet: the Space Race to ‘put a man on the Moon’ was about more than simply national pride. It was about the actual-or-perceived danger represented by one nation acquiring the power to launch missiles from the Moon. Whether that would actually have been a more practical expedient than satellite-launch isn’t really the point–the point was that we all look up and see the Moon, and Americans foamed at the mouth about the possibility of the Soviet military being up there–and vice-versa.

Mars doesn’t have any analogous potential to serve as a base for launching weapons–therefore it has less power as a symbol of nationalist pride.

96

The distance from Earth to Cruithne varies along the orbit, with Cruithne sometimes being further away (and harder to reach) than Mars. When assessing the difficulty in reaching objects in space it is necessary to look not only at distance (which is always changing) but the energy and time needed to reach the object. With enough time it is easy enough to reach practically any destination at any arbitrary level of energy expended once you are in geostationary or higher orbit; however, unless you are prepared to wait centuries you’re going to need a significant propulsive capability to reach anything further than the moon. There are Near Earth Asteroids that are at least periodically easier to reach than the moon, but it is questionable that sending astronauts is the most viable way of reaching them, especially since the most efficient round trip may require coasting for months.

We’ve done Venus flybys and probes several times (Mariner 10, Pioneer Venus 1 & 2, Magellan), and the Russians have done even more. There is nothing on or around Venus that requires human observation, and it would expose astronauts to increasing amounts of charged particle radiation.

I doubt planetary modification will be possible with any foreseeable technology, and by the time we get to the point of being able to control enough energy and resources to be capable of terraforming a hypothetical planet we will no longer be interested or needing of a planetary body. In the near term (by that I mean in the next few centuries) constructing solar orbiting habitats that recreate terrestrial conditions is not implausible, and I’ve proposed a method using water ice, silica, and conventional graphite fiber to manufacture a mostly self-contained, thermodynamically stable habitat that could host tens of thousands of people using entirely space based resources with a minimum of manufactured materials. This is a much more efficient use of material and energy than trying to create a terrestrial environment on the surface of Mars, and much more appealing than burrowing in holes beneath the Martian or lunar surface.

However, if humanity is to become a spacefaring (and eventually starfaring) species, giving up the meat puppet bodies for more durable forms is almost a given, as “generation ships” would not only require enormous amounts of energy but would also be thermodynamically limited by the amount of waste heat they could possibly reject before succumbing to thermal decomposition. This doesn’t mean turning ourselves into ‘machines’ per se or downloading consciousness (whatever that is) into a computer. In fact I posit that what would really happen is that our machines would become more like living organisms but with the additional cellular organization and complexity of living systems, except composed in more robust forms that are less sensitive to radiation and thermal variance than our mostly-water filled bodies, and we would end up merging with them in a symbiotic fashion. By gaining control over the energy producing and reconstruction mechanics of such organisms, the post-human species could also extend individual life indefinitely and/or transmit knowledge and experience directly and widely rather than in the crude audio/video/literary forms we do today, providing a direct continuum of experience without limit to lifespan or even continuance of a single organism.

This seems far more plausible to me than human water socks running around at warp speed in spandex onsies, though we cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that revelations in physics may make practicable the loopholes that some have found in current theories of relativity and quantum mechanics and allow us to travel further. However, even limited to the normal rules of relativity, once we’ve conquered the whole dying every eighty years problem and no longer have to hurry about rushing from star to another before perishing in useless agony or dementia, the geometric spread of a post-human, post-death species could occur over a relatively short time scale in cosmic terms; across the galaxy in a few tens of millions of years, or perhaps even quicker with advances in propulsion technology beyond what we can hypothesize today.

Of course, this begs the question of why we aren’t overrun by other, previous species who could have done the same thing. Either it is impossible, or we’re the first, or other species just aren’t interested in us just as we have negligible interest in pond scum. Or perhaps other civilizations go through the “machine phase” and onto something else so rapidly that physically exploring and colonizing the universe gives way to some higher degree of existence. We can only speculate wildly, but going to Mars–as much of an accomplishment it may seem to the children of the 'sixties, or posters here today–achieves essentially nothing in terms of ultimate exploration of space or exploitation of space resources. And before we evolve beyond our earthly confines, we should probably learn something more about compassion and cooperation for all of our species (and how to police the worst aspects of it effectively for the benefit of everyone else); otherwise, we’ll just take the same ethnic, religious, social, economic, and national strife along with us into space, with a grasp of energy and materiel to make the wars and weapons of previous wars look like a children’s water balloon fight.

Stranger

97

You’ll get there to find a German towel already laid out.

98

I’d be ecstatic. Human boots on a new planet, a giant leap for all mankind! Somebody else paying for it? Even better! Being upset about this makes as much sense to me as being upset that my roommate bought a 60" flatscreen TV with deluxe surround sound for the den.

99

To be accurate, I need to stress that the ‘mechanical failures’ that have resulted in astronaut deaths have been the result of management insisting that the Space Shuttle fly in conditions which were known to be significantly more hazardous than optimum flight conditions; in other words, Challenger launched when overnight temps on the pad had dropped to 28 degrees, and temps had only risen to 36 degrees by the time of launch. Morton Thiokol, the manufacturer of the Solid Rocket Boosters, had previously stated that the O-rings were unlikely to seat properly if temperatures were below 45 degrees. Somebody important wanted the shuttle to fly that day, and they ignored the engineers. Just as the engineers were ignored prior to the last flight of Columbia. Endeavor had returned with a hole the size of a briefcase in the leading edge of one wing a few flights before the Columbia was lost. The engineers were demanding that the fleet be grounded until the foam insulation on the External Tank could be improved so that it would not be so dangerous to the shuttle. But management wanted to get the International Space Station done as quickly as possible, so they kept the shuttles flying.

100

Now, see, your solar orbiting habitat does sound like an environment with a quality of life sufficient to make life worth living on for generation after generation. I assume the habitat needs to be tethered into solar orbit during the building phase, but does it need to be thereafter? Could it get the energy and material and protection it needs for interstellar travel if a propulsion system were included? It could even travel at speeds low enough to avoid damaging space debris collisions, because with a pleasant ship environment, we’d be in no rush to reach the next star—it could take hundreds of thousands of years as long as each generation has a good quality of life aboard the “ship.”

However, if we are forever bound to our solar system, under what conditions do you think it’s worthwhile to fund a large project like the orbiting habitat that you propose? I can certainly foresee it if future Earth becomes uninhabitable for whatever reason or even stressed by overpopulation to the point of making life aboard the space habitat a place with equal or better quality of life and helping to depopulate Earth. But, if we assume a future sustainable earth with homeostatic population, are there other significant benefits to building large space habitats; benefits that outweigh those that can be had with less expensive robotic missions?

This presents an interesting thought experiment and questions about what it means to be human. I know interstellar travel, if it occurs, will not directly benefit me, or my near term progeny. Yet, I would not be opposed to paying a significant amount of tax today if it would help future generations of humans explore beyond our solar system (assuming quality lives for them in that environment). So, I suppose I’m a specieist.

I would even be willing to pay a fair amount of tax to fund future chimpanzees exploring deep space. I suppose that makes me a hominidist.

If for some reason, it was determined that only chipmunks could survive interstellar travel, as a mammalist, I’d even pay a little money to fund rodents exploring the universe. The generation chipmunk spacefaring habitrail could even be built with progressively more difficult mazes and dexterity facilitators, selecting for progressively smarter, more dexterous chipmunks, so by the time they reach other star systems they’ll have evolved into intelligent, talking chipmunk-people with opposable thumbs. I’d be proud for them to make contact with alien beings and squeek, “greetings, we are Earthlings…got any seeds and nuts on your planet?”

I may even chip in a couple bucks to fund trees or bacterial space travel (making me a deoxyribonucleic acidist). But, I draw the line at funding interstellar travel for robots, even with strong AI, because I feel no kinship with them. If they want to go off and explore the universe let them get jobs and build space ships on their own dime. To me, it would be no different than sending off a ship of smart phones, or toasters—I’m not opposed to it, and I’ll even give them a bon voyage gift of 3-IN-ONE oil but I’m not going to pay their space fare.

Your bio-mechanical “human” hypothetical presents an interesting grey area. What biological parts are human, or even DNA-based, and what parts are mechanical? DNA-based support structures don’t thrill me—e.g. I’d feel no kinship with a Dell laptop on top of a human body. Can a long-living human mind exist in a synthetic brain (hence my reference to “downloadable consciousness”)? I’m not sure if that’s theoretically possible. Alternately, can a biological human brain be modified to regenerate neurons (CNS neurons generally don’t regenerate) in order to survive extended life and also survive the hazards of interstellar space travel? Not too sure about that either.

But, perhaps others don’t share my thoughts on kinship (of some type) being a requisite for putting big money toward a project that will have no direct benefit to them. Let’s assume that whatever we do send out, we will have no contact with them after they leave the solar system. Is it worth it to you to fund future human space exploration? Future terrestrial lifeform of any type? Machines that we build with consciousness, but not human consciousness? Machines that we build with no consciousness (just proud to show those space aliens that we are builders of gadgets)? Inquiring minds want to know.