A manned fly-by let's them get a proof of concept for dealing with a number of potential issues: feeding them, providing enough air, preventing substantial muscle and bone degeneration, having the ability to actually arrive at Mars and return safely. Probably more things I'm not thinking of right now.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
What advantage was there for us to land on the moon? There's nothing there as well. It's to learn and discover, that's why.rutger5000 said:What advantage would there be for them to actually touch down? There's nothing of interest for humanity on Mars, these missions are simply preparation in case there ever will be.thaluikhain said:Yeah, that seemed a little odd.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
OTOH, just a proposal at the mo, we'll see if they cough up the funds to do anything.
O my god, it's full of stars.Remus said:Beware any large black monoliths. If found, attempt no landing on Europa. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE
i think mostly its about the cost of keeping a running base on the moon, its not like we go there oftenAlcamonic said:Any specific reason as to why they don't try to construct a small base on the moon first? Seems like the most logical step to see if everything works in practice.
Having them in a space station wouldn't really test a lot of the variables, most notably radiation. A space flight, for example, would be direct sunlight for most of the trip, and wouldn't be anywhere near the earth's magnetic field, both of which would not be the case for a space station.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
No real point to that I'd think. NASA has already made it to the moon before, so no real need to practice that. Nor is it likely to be that helpful doing one trip around Mars. It'd be a decent idea if we wanted to many future missions, but that's a different idea, and unlikely to be done in the current political climate.Alcamonic said:Any specific reason as to why they don't try to construct a small base on the moon first? Seems like the most logical step to see if everything works in practice.
Actually, the Russians set the record for that back on the Mir, around 437 days for one person, Valeri Polyakov, with the runner-up record being 379 days. This proposed Mars flyby will still be the longest spaceflight on record by months if and when it happens, but there is some information available already on long-term effects of spaceflight on the human body. You are right, though, the ISS wouldn't be ideal for managing a lot of the experiments that a Mars flyby would do.Vivi22 said:They could test out some of that on the space station, but it really wasn't set up for dealing with all of it. Particularly the issue of muscle and bone loss since astronauts don't stay on the space station for that length of time.
Seems like it's supposed to be a stepping stone. It's easier to to do a flyby than to land but it still represents a huge challenge because of the distance they have to travel. If it works and they can safely get to Mars and back, it opens the way to future landing missions.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
There'd be no point. An interplanetary vessel landing on and taking off from the moon as a stop-off point before leaving earth orbit would be too fuel inefficient to justify any kind of surface base. The cost of manning and maintaining one would also make it highly impractical. An orbital refuelling station would be of more use, depending on the size of the vessel, but even then fuel needs to be spent on lunar capture, rendezvousing and lunar escape, meaning a lunar gravity assist would be more prudent. Really, unless we find a new energy source or some other resource on the moon that we couldn't otherwise synthesise or extract from the earth, the moon has very little of value to offer.Alcamonic said:Any specific reason as to why they don't try to construct a small base on the moon first? Seems like the most logical step to see if everything works in practice.
Astronauts on the ISS do regular exercise including running on treadmills (held down by straps so they can actually run) to keep up their muscle tone.Alleged_Alec said:Ouch. 19 months in space. I really hope they'll have some form of artificial gravity on those ships. I don't want to know what would happen to your bones if they don't have that...
Please the Moonlandings were nothing more than an last attempt to beat the Russians in anything space related. Sure the US learned from it, and sure there was significant spin off. But it taught you nothing you next to couldn't have learned by putting a space station in orbit larger than SkyLab and doing it sooner. Which admittedly would have similar costs, but it would have been much more useful.Somethingfake said:What advantage was there for us to land on the moon? There's nothing there as well. It's to learn and discover, that's why.rutger5000 said:What advantage would there be for them to actually touch down? There's nothing of interest for humanity on Mars, these missions are simply preparation in case there ever will be.thaluikhain said:Yeah, that seemed a little odd.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
OTOH, just a proposal at the mo, we'll see if they cough up the funds to do anything.
So there's no point going anywhere if we can do it here? Hmm didn't know we can explore other planets/moons by sitting around on Earth. My education continues. How are we to visit the moon/Mars/planets in the solar system if we camp LEO?rutger5000 said:Please the Moonlandings were nothing more than an last attempt to beat the Russians in anything space related. Sure the US learned from it, and sure there was significant spin off. But it taught you nothing you next to couldn't have learned by putting a space station in orbit larger than SkyLab and doing it sooner. Which admittedly would have similar costs, but it would have been much more useful.Somethingfake said:What advantage was there for us to land on the moon? There's nothing there as well. It's to learn and discover, that's why.rutger5000 said:What advantage would there be for them to actually touch down? There's nothing of interest for humanity on Mars, these missions are simply preparation in case there ever will be.thaluikhain said:Yeah, that seemed a little odd.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
OTOH, just a proposal at the mo, we'll see if they cough up the funds to do anything.
Honestly, not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission full stop.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down.
You learn something new everyday Though I'm honestly a bit surprised that you weren't aware that you can learn a lot about the universe, without actually having to go to the place you wish to learn about. In fact almost everything we've learned about our solar system, we learned on earth. We've done so with use of very special equipment, perhaps you've heard about it before, they're called telescopes.Somethingfake said:So there's no point going anywhere if we can do it here? Hmm didn't know we can explore other planets/moons by sitting around on Earth. My education continues. How are we to visit the moon/Mars/planets in the solar system if we camp LEO?rutger5000 said:Please the Moonlandings were nothing more than an last attempt to beat the Russians in anything space related. Sure the US learned from it, and sure there was significant spin off. But it taught you nothing you next to couldn't have learned by putting a space station in orbit larger than SkyLab and doing it sooner. Which admittedly would have similar costs, but it would have been much more useful.Somethingfake said:What advantage was there for us to land on the moon? There's nothing there as well. It's to learn and discover, that's why.rutger5000 said:What advantage would there be for them to actually touch down? There's nothing of interest for humanity on Mars, these missions are simply preparation in case there ever will be.thaluikhain said:Yeah, that seemed a little odd.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
OTOH, just a proposal at the mo, we'll see if they cough up the funds to do anything.
And whilst the moon landings were politically motivated, good came from it. The inspiration and excitement that drove people to become astronauts/scientists still has impact today.
Captcha sold out? Showing a picture of pepsi max and the pepsi slogan. For shame.
rutger5000 said:You learn something new everyday Though I'm honestly a bit surprised that you weren't aware that you can learn a lot about the universe, without actually having to go to the place you wish to learn about. In fact almost everything we've learned about our solar system, we learned on earth. We've done so with use of very special equipment, perhaps you've heard about it before, they're called telescopes.Somethingfake said:If I couldn't handle snark, I wouldn't be dishing it out.rutger5000 said:Please the Moonlandings were nothing more than an last attempt to beat the Russians in anything space related. Sure the US learned from it, and sure there was significant spin off. But it taught you nothing you next to couldn't have learned by putting a space station in orbit larger than SkyLab and doing it sooner. Which admittedly would have similar costs, but it would have been much more useful.Somethingfake said:What advantage was there for us to land on the moon? There's nothing there as well. It's to learn and discover, that's why.rutger5000 said:What advantage would there be for them to actually touch down? There's nothing of interest for humanity on Mars, these missions are simply preparation in case there ever will be.thaluikhain said:Yeah, that seemed a little odd.Pyrian said:Not sure what advantage we're getting from a manned mission that never touches down. We could just leave them in the space station for a few years.
OTOH, just a proposal at the mo, we'll see if they cough up the funds to do anything.
So there's no point going anywhere if we can do it here? Hmm didn't know we can explore other planets/moons by sitting around on Earth. My education continues. How are we to visit the moon/Mars/planets in the solar system if we camp LEO?
And whilst the moon landings were politically motivated, good came from it. The inspiration and excitement that drove people to become astronauts/scientists still has impact today.
Captcha sold out? Showing a picture of pepsi max and the pepsi slogan. For shame.
Sorry for being snarky but you started it.
My point is that it is currently almost useless to visit the moon/Mars/Planents. The only reason we should try it near future, is to get some practice in case we ever find something of interest on them.
Funny, I heard lasers actually make things explode.Racecarlock said:NASA: "We landed on the moon, *****. Move aside, spacex. We got this."
Oh man I love nasa. They are easily one of the most badass science organizations on the planet, coming ahead of CERN and just behind whoever the hell makes lasers that burn things.
Not really. As long as you have a rotating crew section, you have artificial gravity. You don't need science-fiction like stuff. Just place some high ISP, low impulse engines on the ship in a way which would impart rotation when fired, and after making the burn for Mars, fire those engines until you have the proper amount of simulated gravity.MetalMagpie said:Astronauts on the ISS do regular exercise including running on treadmills (held down by straps so they can actually run) to keep up their muscle tone.Alleged_Alec said:Ouch. 19 months in space. I really hope they'll have some form of artificial gravity on those ships. I don't want to know what would happen to your bones if they don't have that...
As far as I know, we're still a little way off artificial gravity.
I've heard that idea proposed before but I thought it wasn't especially practical. Unless the ship is very very large, you end up with noticeably different "gravity" between your head and your feet, which means all the blood gets pulled away from your brain. Which isn't ideal.Alleged_Alec said:Not really. As long as you have a rotating crew section, you have artificial gravity. You don't need science-fiction like stuff. Just place some high ISP, low impulse engines on the ship in a way which would impart rotation when fired, and after making the burn for Mars, fire those engines until you have the proper amount of simulated gravity.MetalMagpie said:Astronauts on the ISS do regular exercise including running on treadmills (held down by straps so they can actually run) to keep up their muscle tone.Alleged_Alec said:Ouch. 19 months in space. I really hope they'll have some form of artificial gravity on those ships. I don't want to know what would happen to your bones if they don't have that...
As far as I know, we're still a little way off artificial gravity.