Live data from Hacker News

Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

theguardian.com

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#11
post #10

I 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.

[deleted]

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#12
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Avoiding the need to wait 26 months between launch windows certainly reduces the degree of difficulty. Going from "oh we wish we had X that we didn't think of" to having it is literally almost 3 years on Mars.

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#15
post #3
post #2

A 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…

The whole point of Apollo 10 was to be the dry run for Apollo 11.

Doing all of that with no actual plans to land seems silly.

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#16
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So, go to moon. No real need to go to another planet just to irradiate some astronauts and in case shit hits the fan they have chance of surviving

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#17
post #4
post #3

Earlier 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.

Interplanetary space is significantly different environment, compared to low earth orbit, for spacecraft and crews. The only knowledge we have of humans beyond the Van Allen Belts is from Apollo, for relatively short durations.

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#18
post #10

I 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.

There was, in fact, a plan in the Apollo Applications Program for a crewed Venus flyby, using the SIVB as a wet workshop for habitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_flyby

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#19
post #3
post #2

A 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…

>finally Apollo 11-17 actually were "boots on the ground"Nitpick: Apollo 11, 12 and 14-17 were boots on the ground. 13 had no boots on the ground.

Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say

#20
I've been wondering about the "experts say" part of a headline like this. Qualified people lending their opinion is an important piece of information to the context of the article, absolutely, but it also seems exclusive. It's not the opinion of the editorial board of The Guardian, however I also know for a fact that other "experts" would vehemently disagree. Would qualifying this as "some experts say" erode the confidence of the title and thus how sensational it is? Is it maybe implied in the framework of news titles that this is not a universally held opinion by "experts" so much as at least that of several?
Post reply on HN