Mar's Mission unlikely NASA says
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/22/radiation-exposure-make... Guess we aren't going to Mars anytime soon.
Agreed, Jay. Mars is looking less and less attractive. This inhospitality is another reason that I think NASA should concentrate much of its effort in sending unmanned probes to Europa. Fresh material in the form of ice from the interior ocean is always spreading across the surface. If complex life evolved in the warm water beneath the ice, remnants should show up on the surface. We have focused on Mars because for many decades it was seen as the romantic planet next door, where canals stretched across deserts to keep cities alive. Today we know that's bunk, but the old drive to land astronauts on Mars persists. For scientific studies, Europa may be far richer than Mars. -- Joe ________________________________ From: Jay Eads <jayleads@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 2:01 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Mar's Mission unlikely NASA says http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/22/radiation-exposure-make... Guess we aren't going to Mars anytime soon. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I've been pretty sure I wouldn't live to see humans on Mars for the last ten or fifteen years. Most people don't seem to realize that human space exploration is still in it's infancy. Because many of us grew-up with highly optimistic science-fiction, we tend to expect more than current technology (and our wallets) can provide. We also desperately want to see certain things happen in our own lifetime, and each of us probably has different goals from that perspective. We still build "tinker-toy" spacecraft, both manned and unmanned. Every one of them is a roll of the dice whether it works or not. When spacecraft are the size of battleships, adequately shielded, and have practically unlimited endurance and power, either nuclear or otherwise, then we can consider ourselves a space-faring species. Debate about targets for robotic missions at this stage is just so much banter based on personal opinions of what is "important". If we don't kill ourselves off first, the entire solar system will eventually get explored in the next 100 to 300 years and I'm good with that timetable. It doesn't matter where we go next year, next decade. "Bang for the buck" is short-term, budget-limited thinking and not part of a long-term philosophy about space exploration. It's more about public perception than anything. Even a ten-year project is peanuts when considering humanity's long-term goals for space exploration. Let's set a grand goal that will span generations and actually make a difference in the long run. The sad part is, most taxpayers will never think like this. I sometimes think we need to take an evolutionary step ourselves, before our social dynamics will change enough to make a difference. "Homo Sapiens" may not be destined for space travel. It might be up to the next branch in the tree of evolution. My 3 cents. On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Agreed, Jay. Mars is looking less and less attractive. This inhospitality is another reason that I think NASA should concentrate much of its effort in sending unmanned probes to Europa. Fresh material in the form of ice from the interior ocean is always spreading across the surface. If complex life evolved in the warm water beneath the ice, remnants should show up on the surface. We have focused on Mars because for many decades it was seen as the romantic planet next door, where canals stretched across deserts to keep cities alive. Today we know that's bunk, but the old drive to land astronauts on Mars persists. For scientific studies, Europa may be far richer than Mars. -- Joe
It doesn't matter what we explore? That's kind of a defeatist attitude, Chuck. The question matters a great deal to people with a burning curiosity to know whether life exists elsewhere. Discussions about probes aren't silly banter. True, we might not be destined for space travel -- in which case the next step up the tree of evolution on our particular planet is a better-adapted cockroach. Why not at least try to learn about our surroundings? ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mar's Mission unlikely NASA says I've been pretty sure I wouldn't live to see humans on Mars for the last ten or fifteen years. Most people don't seem to realize that human space exploration is still in it's infancy. Because many of us grew-up with highly optimistic science-fiction, we tend to expect more than current technology (and our wallets) can provide. We also desperately want to see certain things happen in our own lifetime, and each of us probably has different goals from that perspective. We still build "tinker-toy" spacecraft, both manned and unmanned. Every one of them is a roll of the dice whether it works or not. When spacecraft are the size of battleships, adequately shielded, and have practically unlimited endurance and power, either nuclear or otherwise, then we can consider ourselves a space-faring species. Debate about targets for robotic missions at this stage is just so much banter based on personal opinions of what is "important". If we don't kill ourselves off first, the entire solar system will eventually get explored in the next 100 to 300 years and I'm good with that timetable. It doesn't matter where we go next year, next decade. "Bang for the buck" is short-term, budget-limited thinking and not part of a long-term philosophy about space exploration. It's more about public perception than anything. Even a ten-year project is peanuts when considering humanity's long-term goals for space exploration. Let's set a grand goal that will span generations and actually make a difference in the long run. The sad part is, most taxpayers will never think like this. I sometimes think we need to take an evolutionary step ourselves, before our social dynamics will change enough to make a difference. "Homo Sapiens" may not be destined for space travel. It might be up to the next branch in the tree of evolution. My 3 cents. On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Agreed, Jay. Mars is looking less and less attractive. This inhospitality is another reason that I think NASA should concentrate much of its effort in sending unmanned probes to Europa. Fresh material in the form of ice from the interior ocean is always spreading across the surface. If complex life evolved in the warm water beneath the ice, remnants should show up on the surface. We have focused on Mars because for many decades it was seen as the romantic planet next door, where canals stretched across deserts to keep cities alive. Today we know that's bunk, but the old drive to land astronauts on Mars persists. For scientific studies, Europa may be far richer than Mars. -- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I never wrote that, Joe. My post was to the effect that discussions about what targets are more important than others in the short-term is pointless in light of a lack of national will and miniscule budgets. There is a natural progression of where we explore, how we explore it, and on what timetable, but that prioritization is always mucked-up by politics and personal agendas of people on the "inside" and those who want to do things before we are truly ready, either technologically, fiscally, or mentally. We go forward in fits and starts, often taking backwards steps because of the reasons I listed. A long-term plan would help smooth out space exploration immensely. Long-term means more than ten, fifteen, or twenty years. On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what we explore? That's kind of a defeatist attitude, Chuck. The question matters a great deal to people with a burning curiosity to know whether life exists elsewhere. Discussions about probes aren't silly banter. True, we might not be destined for space travel -- in which case the next step up the tree of evolution on our particular planet is a better-adapted cockroach. Why not at least try to learn about our surroundings?
Can you imagine if the National Academy's Institute of Medicine were deciding the fate of our first Great Space Race? We'd never have left low-earth orbit. Jared On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
I never wrote that, Joe. My post was to the effect that discussions about what targets are more important than others in the short-term is pointless in light of a lack of national will and miniscule budgets.
There is a natural progression of where we explore, how we explore it, and on what timetable, but that prioritization is always mucked-up by politics and personal agendas of people on the "inside" and those who want to do things before we are truly ready, either technologically, fiscally, or mentally. We go forward in fits and starts, often taking backwards steps because of the reasons I listed. A long-term plan would help smooth out space exploration immensely. Long-term means more than ten, fifteen, or twenty years.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what we explore? That's kind of a defeatist attitude, Chuck. The question matters a great deal to people with a burning curiosity to know whether life exists elsewhere. Discussions about probes aren't silly banter. True, we might not be destined for space travel -- in which case the next step up the tree of evolution on our particular planet is a better-adapted cockroach. Why not at least try to learn about our surroundings?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
NASA has always been concerned with safety, if they thought there was zero chance of man surviving a moon mission it would never have happened. There is currently zero chance of man surviving a Mars Mission, the radiation, lack of water, and lack of fuel for return trip are all issues that remain unresolved.
Can you imagine if the National Academy's Institute of Medicine were
deciding the fate of our first Great Space Race? We'd never have left low-earth orbit.
Jared
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
I never wrote that, Joe. My post was to the effect that discussions about what targets are more important than others in the short-term is pointless in light of a lack of national will and miniscule budgets.
There is a natural progression of where we explore, how we explore it, and on what timetable, but that prioritization is always mucked-up by politics and personal agendas of people on the "inside" and those who want to do things before we are truly ready, either technologically, fiscally, or mentally. We go forward in fits and starts, often taking backwards steps because of the reasons I listed. A long-term plan would help smooth out space exploration immensely. Long-term means more than ten, fifteen, or twenty years.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what we explore? That's kind of a defeatist attitude, Chuck. The question matters a great deal to people with a burning curiosity to know whether life exists elsewhere. Discussions about probes aren't silly banter. True, we might not be destined for space travel -- in which case the next step up the tree of evolution on our particular planet is a better-adapted cockroach. Why not at least try to learn about our surroundings?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
NASA has become *extremely* risk averse. I worked on flight software for an instrument on a SMEX mission about seven years ago. There was a travelling trove of reviewers for everything we did. There were more people reviewing us than we had on our development team. Part of it, I suspect, is a swing back from the better-faster-cheaper days. There were a number of high profile failures from that time period. However, I also think it reflects what has become of our nation. We don't dare to take giant leaps anymore. Clear skies, Dale. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jared Smith Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:43 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mar's Mission unlikely NASA says Can you imagine if the National Academy's Institute of Medicine were deciding the fate of our first Great Space Race? We'd never have left low-earth orbit. Jared On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
I never wrote that, Joe. My post was to the effect that discussions about what targets are more important than others in the short-term is pointless in light of a lack of national will and miniscule budgets.
There is a natural progression of where we explore, how we explore it, and on what timetable, but that prioritization is always mucked-up by politics and personal agendas of people on the "inside" and those who want to do things before we are truly ready, either technologically, fiscally, or mentally. We go forward in fits and starts, often taking backwards steps because of the reasons I listed. A long-term plan would help smooth out space exploration immensely. Long-term means more than ten, fifteen, or twenty years.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what we explore? That's kind of a defeatist attitude, Chuck. The question matters a great deal to people with a burning curiosity to know whether life exists elsewhere. Discussions about probes aren't silly banter. True, we might not be destined for space travel -- in which case the next step up the tree of evolution on our particular planet is a better-adapted cockroach. Why not at least try to learn about our surroundings?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
of course as we become more technologically advanced the "giant leaps" become smaller. The moon impacts the earth more than Mars, there would and will be benefits of a Mars Mission but, the science gotten from moon missions is more relevant to earthlings than what we are likely to learn from Mars. I favor a Mars Mission in the future just seems right now we are putting the cart before the horse. The next unmanned mission to Mars is not until 2020, we need to test some of the concepts before someone goes to Mars.
Erik NASA has become *extremely* risk averse. I worked on flight software for
an instrument on a SMEX mission about seven years ago. There was a travelling trove of reviewers for everything we did. There were more people reviewing us than we had on our development team.
Part of it, I suspect, is a swing back from the better-faster-cheaper days. There were a number of high profile failures from that time period. However, I also think it reflects what has become of our nation. We don't dare to take giant leaps anymore.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jared Smith Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:43 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mar's Mission unlikely NASA says
Can you imagine if the National Academy's Institute of Medicine were deciding the fate of our first Great Space Race? We'd never have left low-earth orbit.
Jared
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
I never wrote that, Joe. My post was to the effect that discussions about what targets are more important than others in the short-term is pointless in light of a lack of national will and miniscule budgets.
There is a natural progression of where we explore, how we explore it, and on what timetable, but that prioritization is always mucked-up by politics and personal agendas of people on the "inside" and those who want to do things before we are truly ready, either technologically, fiscally, or mentally. We go forward in fits and starts, often taking backwards steps because of the reasons I listed. A long-term plan would help smooth out space exploration immensely. Long-term means more than ten, fifteen, or twenty years.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what we explore? That's kind of a defeatist attitude, Chuck. The question matters a great deal to people with a burning curiosity to know whether life exists elsewhere. Discussions about probes aren't silly banter. True, we might not be destined for space travel -- in which case the next step up the tree of evolution on our particular planet is a better-adapted cockroach. Why not at least try to learn about our surroundings?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
You can't defend that position, Chuck. Discussions about what targets are more important than others definitely are not "pointless" in our present economy. I'm sure NASA has many scientists talking about that very thing; whole panels probably. Why is it pointless what we explore? I can't understand that thinking. Just because astronauts are not going there in person doesn't mean we can't discover a great deal within our present budget and national interest. NASA has a whole fleet of Mars explorers in the pipeline, and a switch from Mars to Europa probably wouldn't be much more costly. You can throw up your hands and say it's all pointless, but I won't. ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Mar's Mission unlikely NASA says I never wrote that, Joe. My post was to the effect that discussions about what targets are more important than others in the short-term is pointless in light of a lack of national will and miniscule budgets. There is a natural progression of where we explore, how we explore it, and on what timetable, but that prioritization is always mucked-up by politics and personal agendas of people on the "inside" and those who want to do things before we are truly ready, either technologically, fiscally, or mentally. We go forward in fits and starts, often taking backwards steps because of the reasons I listed. A long-term plan would help smooth out space exploration immensely. Long-term means more than ten, fifteen, or twenty years. On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter what we explore? That's kind of a defeatist attitude, Chuck. The question matters a great deal to people with a burning curiosity to know whether life exists elsewhere. Discussions about probes aren't silly banter. True, we might not be destined for space travel -- in which case the next step up the tree of evolution on our particular planet is a better-adapted cockroach. Why not at least try to learn about our surroundings?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joe, I expressed my opinion and have no interest in defending it, other than to state that once again, you really don't understand what I wrote. I'm not against exploration, just the desire to do things in a short-term environment. Long-term plans will have the greatest scientific payoff. But what happens will happen regardless of what I think. I don't really like to talk about political policy and it's a waste of time in an online forum anyway, so I'll refrain from such commentary going forward. I can hear the cheers. On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com>wrote:
You can't defend that position, Chuck. Discussions about what targets are more important than others definitely are not "pointless" in our present economy. I'm sure NASA has many scientists talking about that very thing; whole panels probably. Why is it pointless what we explore? I can't understand that thinking. Just because astronauts are not going there in person doesn't mean we can't discover a great deal within our present budget and national interest. NASA has a whole fleet of Mars explorers in the pipeline, and a switch from Mars to Europa probably wouldn't be much more costly. You can throw up your hands and say it's all pointless, but I won't.
participants (6)
-
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper -
Erik Hansen -
Jared Smith -
Jay Eads -
Joe Bauman