Yeah, as I listened to the administrator, I thought any Mars mission would require dedicated longterm support over multiple administrations - NOT something the US government excels at. So in part, he may have been trying to spur that sort of commitment. Of course, it made me wonder about the merits/benefits of an international effort…
At the same time, the longtime fed employee part of me wondered about the bureaucratic scheme to try to get so many resources committed to a program that subsequent administrations would be reluctant to write off the sunk costs…
One of my uncles was a mathematician who worked on the equations for the Moon landing and return and said once that any competent mathematician or astrophysicist could get you to the moon. It’s the return trip that’s the hard part. I imagine there is some validity to that with regards to Mars as well.
I put in on a par with 15th-century explorers like Magellan setting off in tiny, overcrowded ships over uncharted oceans, with no accurate means to navigate to see what was out there.
They had no way of knowing whether they would survive the journey, what they would find when they got there or whether they would ever return, but go they did. Astronauts going to Mars have a hell of a lot more information that Magellan or Columbus but it’s the same human need to see for yourself and to be the first that will drive them.
Original series. Earl Holliman was a man in an unpopulated town. Turns out he was an astronaut training in an isolation chamber for a moon mission. Late appearance by a young “Inspector Lugar” as the commanding officer.
I remember hearing about the troubles getting past certain points on the W coast of Africa, but I don’t recall really reading descriptions of how many people ATTEMPTED BUT FAILED various sailing feats before Da Gama, Magellan, Diez, etc…
Not really. He said the “1st Twilight Zone episode.” The first episode of any of the subsequent series wasn’t the first Twilight Zone episode. This was a pretty pointless effort at a nitpick.
There really weren’t any “failed” attempts at those particular voyages. The Portuguese had been inching down the west coast of Africa since the early 1400s before Dias finally discovered and rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, but this gradual approach was intentional. No expeditions were sent to follow up before the successful one of Da Gama in 1497. Magellan made the first attempt to cross the Pacific in 1519-1522. Although it was successful it came very close to failing. Only one of the five original ships and about 20 of the 270 original crew made it back to Spain, not including Magellan.
When talking long-term there are hurdles others haven’t mentioned yet. We don’t even know if humans can survive long term in 38% Earth gravity. Even if we can it would probably take generations, not administrations, to do some like dome-over and terraform Valles Marineris. It would also take a whole lot of infrastructure, which brings up the frustrating catch-22 of developing space: you can’t exploit resources or develop markets without infrastructure and there’s no point if developing infrastructure if there are no resources or markets.
This sounds similar to launching a large ferry ship into a Mars cycler orbit:
The idea is to place a large spacecraft into an elliptical orbit that encounters Mars and Earth on a regular, repeating cycle that can be used to ferry astronauts back and forth. A Mars cycler would spend 16 months on the outbound leg, then after a period of about 6 months beyond the orbit of Mars it would re-encounter Mars and take another 16 months for the return trip. Only a relatively small capsule and lander is required to rendezvous with this ferry vehicle.
Which is why some proposals, like Mars One, involve humans going to Mars but never returning. One-way trip. It got over 200,000 applications from volunteers.
Best just use a compact nuclear reactor, especially since Mars dust could damage the solar panels.
Good catch. I was thinking that Mars’ thin atmosphere would make solar panels about as efficient as they are on earth, hadn’t thought about dust damage at all. How high above the surface would you have to go to avoid the worst of the dust?
Yeah, a Mars One-style mission lets you avoid the costs of the return launch, but on the other hand, it means that instead of having to build sufficient infrastructure to support your crew for a few months, you now have to build sufficient infrastructure to support them for a lifetime or more. I’m not convinced that it actually comes out cheaper.
Metaphorical comparisons between early ocean voyages and human deep space exploration have long been made. It is easy for viewers to grasp (“We set sail on this new sea…”), but in reality the two endeavors are totally different.
Compare the overall cost of Apollo in terms of % of GDP or % of federal budget vs Queen Isabella’s funding of Columbus relative to their economy in the late 1400s. Their economic structure was very different, so it’s difficult to compare exactly. However I have seen estimates ranging from $200k current USD to about $2 million current USD. According to this web site, it cost the Spanish crown relatively little: MYTH: Queen Isabella of Spain sold the crown jewels to pay for Columbus’s voyage. - CSMonitor.com
The reason the Spanish crown paid anything is they expected a relatively near-term financial return from backing the exploration, and which would flow directly back to them.
For Magellan’s voyage, the cargo of spices brought back on a single ship paid for the entire expedition: Ferdinand Magellan | Novelguide
There is no near-term financial return for large-scale crewed lunar exploration, much less Mars exploration which is vastly more expensive. No conceivable cargo or “booty” exists on Mars which could economically justify crewed exploration. Other reasons have been articulated, such as safeguarding the human race against a hypothetical disaster that destroys the earth, but this is totally different justification than Magellan’s voyage.
Despite the difficulty of 15th century exploration, the earth wasn’t trying to kill them. If they reached their destination they could breath, drink water, hunt game, raise food, etc. By contrast deep space is an incredibly hostile place to humans. Mars is a toxic, barren wasteland that will apparently require humans to maintain “clean room” separation from the soil and dust particles. Unlike the 15th century explorers who were motivated by near-term financial gain, there is no financial gain from human Mars exploration – near-term or mid-term.
Perhaps a better ancient analogy from an economic or practicality standpoint would be construction of the ancient Egyptian Pyramids of Giza. According to Greek historian Herodotus it took 100,000 men 20 years, which very roughly (within a factor of 2) roughly the workforce of the Apollo project if spread over that time. The pyramids produced no economic return but were an impressive monument.
I think if anyone goes to mars just for a visitor to stay it won’t be officially sanctioned at first
I think it will be some billionaire like musk or Branson and a space x type of thing just deciding " the hell with it I have the money and tech to try it and I dont have to answer to anyone officially so I’m going to and take some of my people with me were going to go down as either fools or heroes (or both)"
any goverment wont get involved until later if ever…
which brings me ot another question … say musk gets to mars comes back and decides to colonize it people who go sign contracts agreeing to work and the like (like the original us colonies) … do we have something like the old compacts they used in New England? or is there legal precedents ? or will it be a corporate thing until the red faction forms and frees mars from tyranny? (bonus points if anyone gets that last line :))
