Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

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

#51

Post by s1artibartfast »

tuatoru wrote: post #29
xani_ wrote: 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.

> Engines running for long time ? Not with chemical rockets. Perhaps you meant "engines sitting idle for years in interplanetary space, and then restarting reliably".

Really depends on the mission profile. If you are refilling in space for a "short" burn, it could still be longest in human history.

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

#52

Post by s1artibartfast »

ncmncm wrote: post #37
causality0 wrote: post #26

“You’d be learning about how people work in deep space, without committing yourself to a full Mars mission,” he said. All of these "Not Mars" people always seem to fall into the same boat where they know there's zero point to sticking human beings and life support systems into an observation probe so they trot out this "it's good practice, guys!" horseshit. Scientific progress is not the point of putting the first se…

Going to Mars will be among humanity's least revered achievements. There is nothing there. The only plausibly valuable exports from Mars might be the engines that got your supplies there. With their bells cut off.

How could first foot on an alien planet possibly not be a historic achievement?

The point is not and could never realistically be exports.

The point is to overcome the challenge and develop capability.

You can't learn how to live on another planet in silico

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

#53

Post by ofrzeta »

loufe wrote: post #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 conf…

I've come to the conclusion that "experts" is just a wildcard for journalists to quote random people. Of course every "expert" has to have some track record of the subject in question but there's no measure in qualification.

For instance having a track record of wrong predictions in specific economic questions doesn't seem to invalidate your status as an "expert". So what does? And what could an "expert" possible be if there are no usable criteria.

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

#54

Post by ncmncm »

Phrenzy wrote: post #44
ncmncm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to Mars will be among humanity's least revered achievements. There is nothing there. The only plausibly valuable exports from Mars might be the engines that got your supplies there. With their bells cut off.

Among the least revered? You mean, below peanut butter and jelly in the same jar? If humanity is going to emerge out of the cradle, Mars will have to be the 2nd step. Right after Luna. As we are out there exploring & homesteading, maybe we will realize what a gem the Earth truly is.

Gravity too low, too cold, weak sun, no air. Really, all Mars has is dirt, and that is corrosive. We could do much better building spinning cans to live in, out in orbit. Even Venus cloudtops would be a better place to camp than Mars.

Peanut butter reliably on the shelf certainly is a greater achievement than people on Mars would be, if we ever bother. When Elon quits hyping it, Mars will slip out of the collective consciousness.

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

#55

Post by Tepix »

dehrmann wrote: post #22
ufmace wrote: 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.

It would essentially be an ISS mission with a few extra rocket burn stages and a different view.

With a much different radiation environment.

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

#56

Post by remarkEon »

ofrzeta wrote: post #53
loufe wrote: post #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 conf…

I've come to the conclusion that "experts" is just a wildcard for journalists to quote random people. Of course every "expert" has to have some track record of the subject in question but there's no measure in qualification. For instance having a track record of wrong predictions in specific economic questions doesn't seem to invalidate your status as an "expert". So what does? And what could an "expert" possible be…

It’s part of the sea change that happened starting with social media but significantly accelerated in the 2010s. It hit foreign policy first, I think, but by now it’s a feature of reporting for basically everything.

> Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”[1]

Rhodes here is talking about geopolitics, but it extends to everything. So many news outlets don’t actually have many people with practical experience anymore, and so they call random people for quotes.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-nov...

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

#57

Post by eganist »

ufmace wrote: post #46
layer8 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're pretty confident we can […] keep humans alive in space for years Are we? In outer space? Radiation, psychology/isolation, months away from any support in case of an emergency? My understanding is that there are a lot of open questions, and that even a mere fly-by mission would constitute a major new step in manned space flight.

I'm not a super expect in space, but I'd argue yes. There is more radiation there, but we know how much and how to shield from it. The ISS does have an "escape module" descent craft allowing the crew to evacuate in a few minutes any time needed, but they've never had to use it yet. IMO that's a good argument that it isn't that big of a deal. Yes, it'll be a bit riskier for the crew in that there's no security blanket…

We have absolutely no experience shielding people from solar winds and cosmic radiation in any way that would be meaningful for an interplanetary journey. Even the ISS is benefiting from Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere.

We have a few vague ideas:

* Thick plating. (How? Not like we can launch it, so we'd have to build the space craft in space using materials mined from e.g the moon or asteroids)

* An artificial magnetosphere, which researchers are still doing feasibility studies on. But there'd be a litany of challenges there as well, such as figuring out how to design it so that we don't see deleterious effects on electronics or people.

Moon jaunts were short enough that it didn't matter, but anything interplanetary will need this challenge to be solved lest we want our explorers to suffer excruciatingly painful deaths.

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

#58

Post by eganist »

AstralStorm wrote: post #38
layer8 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're pretty confident we can […] keep humans alive in space for years Are we? In outer space? Radiation, psychology/isolation, months away from any support in case of an emergency? My understanding is that there are a lot of open questions, and that even a mere fly-by mission would constitute a major new step in manned space flight.

Indeed, we should rather attempt sending such a ship in one piece to the moon first. Right now we would have problems actually assembling such a craft. Note how long and cost intensive it was to assemble a bigger space station. Gateway program is such a baby step, assembling a base in moon orbit. Ultimately, we would need an orbital facility to assemble bigger ships well without paying the immense costs of ultra heav…

This is also why a moon base makes so much sense:

* short enough that radiation issues can be swerved.

* can build shielded moon bases (or dig them?) to protect people on the moon itself.

* can mine the resources for and build heavy, shielded ships on the moon itself and launch far more cheaply.

* can also build (on the moon) the shuttles needed to ferry people from earth orbit out to the moon, making it so that the only people exposed to any radiation at all are the first crew to arrive on the moon and stand up a moon base.

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

#59

Post by MomoXenosaga »

causality0 wrote: post #26

“You’d be learning about how people work in deep space, without committing yourself to a full Mars mission,” he said. All of these "Not Mars" people always seem to fall into the same boat where they know there's zero point to sticking human beings and life support systems into an observation probe so they trot out this "it's good practice, guys!" horseshit. Scientific progress is not the point of putting the first se…

With the advances in robotics and AI manned spaceflight may very well serve no scientific purpose at all. Machines can deal with the harshness of space better than any human crew.

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

#60

Post by Workaccount2 »

remarkEon wrote: post #56
ofrzeta wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come to the conclusion that "experts" is just a wildcard for journalists to quote random people. Of course every "expert" has to have some track record of the subject in question but there's no measure in qualification. For instance having a track record of wrong predictions in specific economic questions doesn't seem to invalidate your status as an "expert". So what does? And what could an "expert" possible be…

It’s part of the sea change that happened starting with social media but significantly accelerated in the 2010s. It hit foreign policy first, I think, but by now it’s a feature of reporting for basically everything. > Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t…

> The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.

And on twitter. It's pure cancer to journalism and "journalists" can't seem to help but do all their reporting from the comfort of their home browsing twitter for the "news" and takes all day. Honestly I think honest journalists should take an "Oath of No Twitter" to keep their jobs.

Post reply on HN