Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#2A crewed flyby? What is the point of that? Colonizing the clouds of venus is a good idea eventually, but it's certainly not a viable first target.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#3A crewed flyby? What is the point of that? Colonizing the clouds of venus is a good idea eventually, but it's certainly not a viable first target.
Just like the moon, we did not attempt to land there on the first go-around. Neil Armstrong was on Apollo 11. Apollo 4-6 were unmanned launches, 7-9 were testing the hardware with humans, mostly with "free return" orbits where even if the engines didn't start again, they would land back on earth in about a week. Apollo 10 was a wet rehersal that did everything except land on the moon#, including "parking" in lunar orbit, then starting up the engines again and going back to earth; finally Apollo 11-17 actually were "boots on the ground"
A venus flyby would be similar to Apollo 10 where they would go to another body, and then do a free return fly-by, maybe with engine assist, and return back in a year. Regardless of if/when we go to mars, there will be at least one "free return" mission before they attempt future missions that have a "parking orbit" around mars.
Going to Venus would allow us to simulate a mars free return trip, but in only 1 year (which would mean for a mars-class ship, a minimum safety factor of 3 (really, six) for fuel, water, air, food, medical supplies etc), instead of a 3 year mission with only a safety factor of 2.
#Apollo 10 was functionally identical to Apollo 11, to the extent that the only difference was that they did not provide enough fuel on the lander/ascent module to return to lunar orbit, to deter Apollo 10 astronauts from "going rogue" and attempting a landing ahead of schedule
Also, for completeness sake, Apollo 1 crew died during testing in a fire; Gus Grissom, Edward H. White II, Roger B. Chaffee
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#4A crewed flyby? What is the point of that? Colonizing the clouds of venus is a good idea eventually, but it's certainly not a viable first target.
Just like the moon, we did not attempt to land there on the first go-around. Neil Armstrong was on Apollo 11. Apollo 4-6 were unmanned launches, 7-9 were testing the hardware with humans, mostly with "free return" orbits where even if the engines didn't start again, they would land back on earth in about a week. Apollo 10 was a wet rehersal that did everything except land on the moon#, including "parking" in lunar or…
> Going to Venus would allow us to simulate a mars free return trip, but in only 1 year (which would mean for a mars-class ship, a minimum safety factor of 3 (really, six) for fuel, water, air, food, medical supplies etc), instead of a 3 year mission with only a safety factor of 2.
Simulate what ? Sitting in place ? We can do that on earth orbit. Engines running for long time ? No need for people aboard for that.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like the moon, we did not attempt to land there on the first go-around. Neil Armstrong was on Apollo 11. Apollo 4-6 were unmanned launches, 7-9 were testing the hardware with humans, mostly with "free return" orbits where even if the engines didn't start again, they would land back on earth in about a week. Apollo 10 was a wet rehersal that did everything except land on the moon#, including "parking" in lunar or…
> Going to Venus would allow us to simulate a mars free return trip, but in only 1 year (which would mean for a mars-class ship, a minimum safety factor of 3 (really, six) for fuel, water, air, food, medical supplies etc), instead of a 3 year mission with only a safety factor of 2. Simulate what ? Sitting in place ? We can do that on earth orbit. Engines running for long time ? No need for people aboard for that.
I think space is one of those places where you can appeal to unknown unknowns being a major risk factor and everyone agrees. But I personally think that the better option is to just do all of this on the moon. Making a human-habitable base on the moon, to me, still makes the most sense for preparing for habitation on other worlds.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like the moon, we did not attempt to land there on the first go-around. Neil Armstrong was on Apollo 11. Apollo 4-6 were unmanned launches, 7-9 were testing the hardware with humans, mostly with "free return" orbits where even if the engines didn't start again, they would land back on earth in about a week. Apollo 10 was a wet rehersal that did everything except land on the moon#, including "parking" in lunar or…
> Going to Venus would allow us to simulate a mars free return trip, but in only 1 year (which would mean for a mars-class ship, a minimum safety factor of 3 (really, six) for fuel, water, air, food, medical supplies etc), instead of a 3 year mission with only a safety factor of 2. Simulate what ? Sitting in place ? We can do that on earth orbit. Engines running for long time ? No need for people aboard for that.
For one, leaving the safety of Earth's magnetosphere. We haven't really ventured far enough for radiation to not be tempered by Earth's magnetic field, from what I understand. It would shorten the duration of radiation and help study the effects on astronauts.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#7Yea, because we need more harder problems to solve. /s
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#8A crewed flyby? What is the point of that? Colonizing the clouds of venus is a good idea eventually, but it's certainly not a viable first target.
Fully agree. If we're committing to multi-month crewed missions I think we should be planning for boots on the ground and setup of barebones support for long term habitation. In that situation you can send and land several loads of supplies in advance of the crewed mission, significantly improving chances of success. Landing the crew is risky but that's always going to be true, no many flybys you do.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#9Clickbait headline -- the proposal is for a flyby, not a landing.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#10I don't get what the point is of a crewed flyby. The crew would just be cooped up in the craft the whole time with nothing to do except take measurements with instruments that could just as easily be done by a machine.
This isn't the Apollo era, we're pretty confident we can send spacecraft all over the solar system and keep humans alive in space for years.