The time spent on a Mars trip shouldn’t be a psychological problem. Polar exploration voyages, up until about 90 years ago, regularly took 2-3 years in a far more physically uncomfortable environment (the ships weren’t even close to temperature-tight or airtight, unlike spacecraft.)

But those ships were substantially larger than anything inside which we could send people to Mars is likely to be (assuming current propulsion technology). And you could go outside for a time to get away from your companions if you felt the need.

I recognise the point you make, but I’m not sure it is a close enough parallel.

Except for that pesky ionizing radiation. Don’t fool yourself: If the weather gets bad, NASA can’t keep people alive in space long enough to get to the Moon.

Well, if a CME had happened to hit during one of the Apollo missions, the astronauts would certainly have received a hefty dose of radiation, but this probably would not have been enough to kill them outright. It certainly would have exceeded occupational exposure limits, and would have elevated their risk of cancer.

On a mission to Mars, the problem is compounded by the duration of the journey. In 6 months, you are perhaps 20 or 25 times as likely to be hit by a CME as you would be in a 8-day voyage. And there are two 6-month trips to make (out and back). However, various solutions have been proposed, and it would probably be possible for the astronauts to have a section of their vessel that is more heavily shielded for them to retreat to in the event of a CME.

That does not get around the issue of high-energy cosmic rays, against which adequate shielding would be impractically heavy.

Most engineering spin-offs do not depend on manned flight. The challenges, except for life support, are the same whether the payload is man or machine. In manned flight up to 99% of the mission cost and complexity is for life support.

I’d be interested in seeing your source for this information. I had no idea that putting a man into the equation made it 100x more difficult.

Compare that to manned spaceflight where the stuff we learn is being applied today. A lot of it is adapted into everyday uses, like the water system, ceramics, etc. Not to mention the ISS is starting to pay dividends, with a salmonella vaccine applying for human testing right now and research on a possible MRSA (resistant staph) vaccine now underway.

Well, I don’t think that the vaccine research you mention benefits specifically from microgravity, but I agree with some of your other points.

You may also be interested to know that the Apollo programme kick-started the microprocessor industry. Without Apollo, microprocessor technology would be decades behind its present state. NASA needed a lightweight microcomputer for the LEM, but microprocessor technology at the time was clunky and bespoke and unreliable. NASA’s order for 1,000,000 microprocessors enabled the companies involved to develop their fabrication technology to a point where it was reliable.

The ISS is an embarrassment if we can be honest about it. It’s done virtually nothing and has cost billions of dollars. Can we please, for the love of science, exploration, human discovery, and achievement – kill off the idiotic and inept manned program so we can fully fund all of the other programs that actually achieve results?

The Apollo programme achieved something wonderful:- it inspired a generation. What robotic explorer has done the same?

I agree, BTW, that the ISS really has not achieved what was promised for it. And that we would probably be better off putting the money for it into other programmes. But what other programmes?

Shuttle was an even bigger white elephant than ISS. NASA was hamstrung by the budget cuts of the Nixon era. So many plans for exploration fell flat because there was no money for them. So, they came up with the concept of Shuttle – let’s make access to space cheaper and routine.

Well, the various military requirements of Shuttle made it far larger than originally conceived, so it needed an external fuel tank, and then it needed SRBs to get off the launch pad, and these alterations made it far more costly than the original conception would have been. And Challenger and Columbia showed that it was anything but routine.

So, the only real objectives for a manned space programme would be establishing a moon base (e.g. to run a radio telescope on the far side) or to go to Mars. This latter goal would be truly inspirational, but it is a very difficult thing to do – far harder than landing men on the moon.

We aren’t sending people (who apparently would need to be homosexual if I read one of the above posts right. Wow. Really?!)

No, you didn’t read it aright.

I said that you need to have the capability to deal with a pregnancy during the trip, unless you sent a crew that was entirely same-sex and homosexual. Or, I guess, a crew that had all been sterilised (but who would volunteer for that?).

The only possible scientific justification I can see for going to the moon would be to build a ginormous radio telescope on the far side of the moon, where it would be shielded from radio noise from the Earth…

Yeah, but wouldn’t that be the best and most sensitive radio telescope ever?

I want to get off this rock before I die. That is the one thing on my bucket list.

You keep your list in a bucket? Really? Won’t it get all soggy?

I keep mine on the pinboard.

***

“… he had left out a planet. It was not his fault; everyone leaves it out. I leave it out myself when I list the nine planets, because it is the four-and-a-halfth planet. I’m referring to Ceres; a small but respectable world that doesn’t deserve the neglect it receives.”
- Page 63, chapter 5 “The World Ceres” in ‘The Tragedy of the Moon’ by Isaac Asimov, Mercury Press, 1973.

“I consider it quite conceivable that the day may come when Ceres will be the astronomical centre of the solar system.”
- Page 66, chapter 5 “The World Ceres” in ‘The Tragedy of the Moon’ by Isaac Asimov, Mercury Press, 1973.

Once thought to be rocky, we now believe Ceres may contain 200 million cubic kilometres of water in its mantle. This is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.
- Page 10, “Ceres may be a failed miniplanet” by Jeff Foust in Astronomy Now magazine, November, 2005.

Put a big old giant fresnel lens in front of it and warm it up, and you get a nice vacation spot in a couple of hundred years. Mars would take a bit more effort.

We know how to keep people alive in space long enough to get them to Mars.

Except for that pesky ionizing radiation. Don’t fool yourself: If the weather gets bad, NASA can’t keep people alive in space long enough to get to the Moon.

The idea of assembling giant rockets in space is a carry over from the 1960′s. It is far easier, and more economical, to use multiple smaller rockets, although there may be some value in refueling once in earth orbit. Using the moon as a launch pad adds an unnecessary layer of complexity and cost.

Most engineering spin-offs do not depend on manned flight. The challenges, except for life support, are the same whether the payload is man or machine. In manned flight up to 99% of the mission cost and complexity is for life support. Although failures are unwelcome, they are not tragic in unmanned missions.

Meanwhile, important projects, such as climate monitoring satelites, have been postponed or canceled because so much of our space budget is consumed by the ISS.

1) You limit science by ignoring all the engineering needed to conduct manned spaceflight. Why is designing a rocket not science? Why is learning how things react in space not science? Why is building things in space and learning these techniques not science. Opening whole new avenues of thought and investigation not science, even if it is simply how do I do this more cheaply?

2) Now I don’t really believe this myself, but tell me what has Cassini done for my life other than give me pretty pictures? I can go down the street to a museum and see pretty images for $10, rather than $1 billion for a spacecraft. How can I apply what I learn from Hubble or the discovery of another exoplanet now? Can I do it in 5 years? 10? 20? Compare that to manned spaceflight where the stuff we learn is being applied today. A lot of it is adapted into everyday uses, like the water system, ceramics, etc. Not to mention the ISS is starting to pay dividends, with a salmonella vaccine applying for human testing right now and research on a possible MRSA (resistant staph) vaccine now underway.

3) The two areas help each other. The systems developed for manned spaceflight help unmanned systems and vice versa. The new interplanetary internet (Delay tolerant network) protocol is a prime example. Being refined on the ISS and developed to help future manned exploration, it will also make space missions better because there is less chance data will be lost.

By ignoring either manned spaceflight or unmanned spaceflight all you do limit yourself and what can be discovered.

OTOH, it is fun to speculate about how a manned mission could be accomplished assuming an unlimited budget. But it is more science fiction than real science. Unfortunately too many people, some in influential positions, don’t see the difference.

The ISS is an embarrassment if we can be honest about it. It’s done virtually nothing and has cost billions of dollars. Can we please, for the love of science, exploration, human discovery, and achievement – kill off the idiotic and inept manned program so we can fully fund all of the other programs that actually achieve results?

How many amazing articles has the BA written about science and what we have discovered about our universe over the past few years? How many of those had anything to do with putting people into the floating white elephant? Yeah, ’bout none of ‘em. I will admit that the ISS is the best place to test new Japanese underwear designs and do Zero G clown shows – but I’m not entirely sold on the idea that either of those things is worth the cost of what we have done up there.

Click my name for Easterbrook’s latest column on NASA in The Atlantic Monthly. How frighteningly stupid is our current aim and spend at NASA today? But to be a glass half full guy – imagine what new extraordinary things this agency (and its associated ones) could achieve with a new mandate, funding, and killing off its old way of thinking (i.e.- that putting mustached people in Rugby shirts into a space station is ideal).

Gamercow: Yes, it would take a decade of “throwing things at Mars to get ready for a manned landing.” We’d have to send at least two of everything. And we couldn’t even begin until we solve the problem of landing heavy payloads at a precise location. It would be a huge and expensive project. We should recognize that from the beginning and not try to cut corners, especially with human lives at stake. As for learning how to deal with unforeseen issues: a common justification for sending people rather than robots is precisely because men can (supposedly) deal better with unexpected problems. The moon is an unnecessary step that will only delay going to Mars.

The only possible scientific justification I can see for going to the moon would be to build a ginormous radio telescope on the far side of the moon, where it would be shielded from radio noise from the Earth…