Space Exploration

[Andy Hunt]

Have we missed the boat on this one? I ask because while talking to my Granddad yesterday he mentioned that we 'would be on Mars by the end of the century'

End of the century?? Some of us are on Mars already (like the economists for example), others may have not gone as far but are certainly on our Moon - like the majority of our elected representatives (paid for as 'expenses', naturally - under the 'Second Homes on a Neighbouring Planet/Moon' entitelment scheme.

As for the majority of us, as always, we've been left in the dark and are actually on Pluto (but can't tell as there's not enough light over here).

Class!

[Adam1]

I was always fascinated by space travel and exploration of the planets.

I think that money and politics will exclude any trips to Mars for a long time. Even a return to the moon seems unlikely now.

When we come out of the other side of the coming energy crunch, if we haven't lost too much knowledge and if we can find a way to deliver some sort of sensible financial and energy or material return from an expedition, maybe it will happen. I think that a robotic mining mission to asteroids is more likely, as the energy cost of landing and takeoff is so much less than the moon or Mars. The fact that the asteroids are a bit further away isn't really a problem, if there are no humans on board to cater for.

Ultimately, if we want to persist as a species, we will need to find a way of living in the outer reaches of the solar system or perhaps in one of our nearer neighbouring systems, once the sun exhausts its hydrogen supply and starts to collapse to a red giant. Not a problem to worry about for now though!

[clv101]

Ultimately, if we want to persist as a species, we will need to find a way of living in the outer reaches of the solar system or perhaps in one of our nearer neighbouring systems, once the sun exhausts its hydrogen supply and starts to collapse to a red giant. Not a problem to worry about for now though!

The timescales aren't the same - our species will have evolved beyond all recognition or far more likely simply have become extinct long before we have to worry about the Sun.

[Ludwig]

I don't think we'll ever have a significant number of people anywhere other than Earth. We could put dozens on the Moon and Mars within a decade if we chose too. Peak oil is irrelevant for that it's just technology and politics, Apollo era technology could do it!

But Peak Oil is highly relevant to money. Sending people into space is very expensive.

[PS_RalphW]

I'm afraid the costs of putting either a viable long term life support structure or an intelligent self-supporting robot system on a moon or another planet a quite punningly astronomical.

Just look at the money and and time spent on the ISS. Of course it could have been done much more cheaply and efficiently, and technology is improving, but risk tolerance is falling steadily and negative feedback issues like space junk are making the problem harder.

space exploration is facing acutely diminishing return on investment. None of the major governments will be willing to make the sacrifices for what must be a multi-generational payback period when the earth bound economies appear to be a far higher priority. Space can always wait until the economic upturn.

Humans evolved as a single species in a multi-million species ecosystem.
Engineering an equivalent, self-sustaining ecosystem on a rock with fundamentally different geology, atmosphere and energy flows is going to take centuries of major investment and almost unlimited energy resources.

Permanent bases on a moon or planet will not happen in my children's lifetime.

[Ludwig]

Nope, it's an earth-bound dystopian future for us I'm afraid.

Sleeping Satellite
I blame you for the moonlit sky
and the dream that died
with the eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights
when I wonder why
are the seas still dry?
Don't blame this sleeping satellite
Did we fly to the moon too soon?
Did we squander the chance?
In the rush of the race
in the reason we chase is lost in romance
and still we try
to justify the waste
for a taste of mans greatest adventure.
Have we lost what it takes to advance?
Did we peak too soon?
If the world is so green
then why does it scream under a blue moon?
We wonder why
the earth's sacrificed
for the price of its greatest treasure
Did we fly to the moon too soon?
Did we squander the chance?
In the rush of the race
in the reason we chase is lost in romance
and still we try
to justify the waste
for a taste of mans greatest adventure.
And when we shoot for the stars
what a giant step
have we got what it takes
to carry the weight of this concept?
Or pass it by
like a shot in the dark
miss the mark with a sense of adventure
Did we fly to the moon too soon?
Did we squander the chance?
In the rush of the race
in the reason we chase is lost in romance
and still we try
to justify the waste
for a taste of mans greatest adventure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuhDDx49TTw

I've thought before, that must take the prize for the deepest song ever to reach number 1.

I like the line "Did we peak too soon?"

[Ludwig]

Of course we can reach Mars if we want to.

It's a political not an energy issue ... unless we want to set up a 100,000 person base there or something equally profligate.

Space travel was always a political issue; some say it would never have happened if it weren't for the Cold War. It's difficult to say: I think there must have been an element of technological idealism in it.

[dudley]

This thread reminds me of my dad. He was fond of saying that he'd seen so many inventions in his own life he wondered what I'd see in mine and he talked a lot about the progress of society.

He also said that society wouldn't stop using the internal combustion engine for transportation because it's so convenient. This was probably during the 70's oil crisis.

When I told him in the 90's I thought we'd never go back the moon he looked very sad but he didn't ask me why.

In his later years he listened to right wing radio and watched TV court trials obsessively.

[Adam1]

Ultimately, if we want to persist as a species, we will need to find a way of living in the outer reaches of the solar system or perhaps in one of our nearer neighbouring systems, once the sun exhausts its hydrogen supply and starts to collapse to a red giant. Not a problem to worry about for now though!

The timescales aren't the same - our species will have evolved beyond all recognition or far more likely simply have become extinct long before we have to worry about the Sun.

Yes, of course. I am sure, assuming we don't die off, we will have evolved beyond all recognition, although whatever form a sentient, successor species may take, a few eons from now, it will still need a biosphere with liquid water, or is that too limited a view of what form life can take? If the earth can no longer offer provide a suitable biosphere for that species and those it depends on, it would have to deal with the problem of the sun's collapse.

Perhaps we have to accept that, just as an individual's life will always comes to an end, species' lifespans are also limited: they always either evolve or die off.

I think there must have been an element of technological idealism in it.

I think this is very true. The phenomenon of space travel flourishes in a society which believes its energy supply will grow indefinitely. "To infinity and beyond" and all that.

[clv101]

Yes, of course. I am sure, assuming we don't die off, we will have evolved beyond all recognition, although whatever form a sentient, successor species may take, a few eons from now, it will still need a biosphere with liquid water, or is that too limited a view of what form life can take? If the earth can no longer offer provide a suitable biosphere for that species and those it depends on, it would have to deal with the problem of the sun's collapse.

Perhaps we have to accept that, just as an individual's life will always comes to an end, species' lifespans are also limited: they always either evolve or die off.

This is a really good book on the time-scales involved. One of their conclusions is that complex life will only exist for a short period, maybe a tenth of the planet's life. Complex life is a temporary aberration.

[Ludwig]

Perhaps we have to accept that, just as an individual's life will always comes to an end, species' lifespans are also limited: they always either evolve or die off.

I have always taken this for granted, and been surprised at how many people just blithely assume that the human race will last forever.

Perhaps in my case it stems from having been interested in dinosaurs and astronomy as a kid - invaluable interests in giving one a sense of perspective at an early age.

I've spoken to people who are really troubled by the idea that the human race will ultimately die. They are really sad that all human achievements in science, technology and the arts will have been for "nothing".

Maybe it shows how much we miss religion: without a belief in an afterlife, we need to conjure up a belief in human perfectibility and eternal prosperity. We can't manage without the idea of something always "beyond".

[Adam1]

Complex life is a temporary aberration.

I'll park that book in the reading queue! Looks interesting.

[2 As and a B]

Even if we did go to Mars what would be there for us when we got there?

Have you people learned nothing?! Why, the chance to fugg up another planet of course!

[goslow]

There's talk that the Chinese will get men back to the Moon and even Mars before anyone else. They've got loads of cash and something to prove, several hundred years of humiliation at the hands of the Western powers galvanises the national pride somewhat.

Mass colonisation of space very unlikely now, sorry Arthur C. Clarke, we blew it! But I can see the feasibility of robotic mining of asteroids for rare metals etc being worthwhile in the long term. Robotic missions to the planets, space tourism for the rich and communication satellites will probably continue regardless of peak oil I think.

[AndySir]

There's a gentleman at NASA named Geoffrey Landis - fellow that designed the Mars Rover - who believes that Venus is the logical target for ET colonisation. It makes sense - I would suggest that the big barrier to ET civilisation is not resources, technology or even politics but the human body and it's ability to cope with micro-gravity.

If we did colonise Mars (forget about the moon for long term living - our body couldn't cope) it would be a one way trip for all colonists and their decendants. They would be completely unable to cope with the crushing effects of 1g. Venus does not suffer that problem.

Have a look at the Landis station, or even at his proposed plane for exploring the upper atmosphere. Conditions on Venus are almost perfect for human colonisation if you ignore the fact that the grounds a few kilometers too low. I think the only tech problem is dealing with the sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.