"Personally, I don't think any of those three rockets is taking people to Mars," Hadfield told Business Insider. " I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because they're dangerous and it takes too long."Hadfield's stance stems from the fact that all three rocket systems rely on similar fuels (plus oxygen) to lift off Earth and propel their ships through space."My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on any of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he said.
"We could send people to Mars, and decades ago. I mean, the technology that took us to the moon back when I was just a kid, that technology can take us to Mars — but it would be at significant risk," he said. "The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions wouldn't make it. They'd die. Because the technology is still quite primitive."
Hadfield said the rocket ships currently being developed will be key stepping stones in the quest to explore our solar system.But he added that using those vessels to shuttle people 140 million miles to Mars — even with new materials and computer automation— would be akin to crossing a giant ocean in a canoe or paddle boat.
His opinions were both interesting & disappointing. His conclusion of not sending humans to mars with SX/BO/SLS, while reasonably probable, are not due to any of the main issues quoted in the article. How exactly did fuel choice & rocket cycle become the culprit for NASA’s record in loss of life? (Non sequitor) He strikes me as person using his laudable accomplishments as a mission specialist to insert his opinion on issues that he is not an expert. If he’s suggesting new technology “hail marry’s“ have a better chance at Mars than scaling real proven technology & engineering, he’s wrong on the math. Ultimately he’s inserting his value judgement, apparently based on safety, over any other consideration, while hand waving red herring arguments to support him.
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 06/17/2018 03:23 pmHis opinions were both interesting & disappointing. His conclusion of not sending humans to mars with SX/BO/SLS, while reasonably probable, are not due to any of the main issues quoted in the article. How exactly did fuel choice & rocket cycle become the culprit for NASA’s record in loss of life? (Non sequitor) He strikes me as person using his laudable accomplishments as a mission specialist to insert his opinion on issues that he is not an expert. If he’s suggesting new technology “hail marry’s“ have a better chance at Mars than scaling real proven technology & engineering, he’s wrong on the math. Ultimately he’s inserting his value judgement, apparently based on safety, over any other consideration, while hand waving red herring arguments to support him.The simple fact is he’s been into space, he’s ridden a rocket into orbit and from my prospective that gives him a leg up over the rest of us who haven’t when it comes to the hazards of space flight. So at least as far as that particular issue is concerned we have to give his words weight.
His basic argument is they are all too dangerous for humans because of the fuels they use. Also that they are too slow & the technology is far too primitive that human exploration of Mars will have to wait for the development of alternative, faster propulsion systems.
And you know what I don’t think he’s wrong. After all what we need to do at Mars now can be done by robotics.
"We're sort of like those early sailing ships, in that we don't even know what we don't know yet," he said, referring to the historic voyages of Columbus, Magellan, and Cook. "I think we need some more improvements in technology before we'll cross the oceans that are between us and Mars in any sort of practical way."
I think Chris needs to read this.http://duckboardsandstilts.com/waiting-right-moment-often-mistake/
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/18/2018 08:13 amI think Chris needs to read this.http://duckboardsandstilts.com/waiting-right-moment-often-mistake/My network security blocks that site as a security risk. So maybe don’t be posting links to it.
The polynesians crossed the pacific ocean in canoes and settled the region, including Hawaii. So where is the problem?
Quote"We could send people to Mars, and decades ago. I mean, the technology that took us to the moon back when I was just a kid, that technology can take us to Mars — but it would be at significant risk," he said. "The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions wouldn't make it. They'd die. Because the technology is still quite primitive." Quote"We're sort of like those early sailing ships, in that we don't even know what we don't know yet," he said, referring to the historic voyages of Columbus, Magellan, and Cook. "I think we need some more improvements in technology before we'll cross the oceans that are between us and Mars in any sort of practical way." Well, the fastest way to mature technology and learn what we don't know that we don't know, is to have a short-term programme in the first place. You're never going to know what you don't know, or mature systems before you've actually done the thing, no matter how many magic engines materialize without a clear need for them. If it turns out they're really necessary or beneficial for continued human presence on Mars, the new technology will materialize much faster.I totally agree there are a lot of technologies that still require a lot of development before humans can survive on Mars and get back safely. However, propulsion technology by itself is not high on that list. And there are ways of maturing all of the subsystems without sending humans to Mars as guinea pigs. Not more than astronauts have always been guinea pigs, that is.
Quote from: high road on 06/18/2018 08:20 amQuote"We could send people to Mars, and decades ago. I mean, the technology that took us to the moon back when I was just a kid, that technology can take us to Mars — but it would be at significant risk," he said. "The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions wouldn't make it. They'd die. Because the technology is still quite primitive." Quote"We're sort of like those early sailing ships, in that we don't even know what we don't know yet," he said, referring to the historic voyages of Columbus, Magellan, and Cook. "I think we need some more improvements in technology before we'll cross the oceans that are between us and Mars in any sort of practical way." Well, the fastest way to mature technology and learn what we don't know that we don't know, is to have a short-term programme in the first place. You're never going to know what you don't know, or mature systems before you've actually done the thing, no matter how many magic engines materialize without a clear need for them. If it turns out they're really necessary or beneficial for continued human presence on Mars, the new technology will materialize much faster.I totally agree there are a lot of technologies that still require a lot of development before humans can survive on Mars and get back safely. However, propulsion technology by itself is not high on that list. And there are ways of maturing all of the subsystems without sending humans to Mars as guinea pigs. Not more than astronauts have always been guinea pigs, that is.Like going to the Moon for instance?An immediate and productive effort to establish a base on the Moon would completely negate his argument.
As a person disappointed in NERVA's cancellation in the 70's, it is always the balance of risk and reward.My opinion is we can and should go with the best available because waiting on better always leaves you waiting.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 06/19/2018 03:52 pmAs a person disappointed in NERVA's cancellation in the 70's, it is always the balance of risk and reward.My opinion is we can and should go with the best available because waiting on better always leaves you waiting.Wise words IMO. Better is the enemy of good enough.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/20/2018 06:58 amQuote from: Kansan52 on 06/19/2018 03:52 pmAs a person disappointed in NERVA's cancellation in the 70's, it is always the balance of risk and reward.My opinion is we can and should go with the best available because waiting on better always leaves you waiting.Wise words IMO. Better is the enemy of good enough.Even if it costs some people their lives?
Quote from: Star One on 06/20/2018 08:38 amQuote from: woods170 on 06/20/2018 06:58 amQuote from: Kansan52 on 06/19/2018 03:52 pmAs a person disappointed in NERVA's cancellation in the 70's, it is always the balance of risk and reward.My opinion is we can and should go with the best available because waiting on better always leaves you waiting.Wise words IMO. Better is the enemy of good enough.Even if it costs some people their lives?To name just a few examples: aircraft, trains, automobiles. Despite continuous improvements in safety features people still get killed in those human transportation vehicles. That however had not led to them not being used any more. Why should space transportation be any different?The only form of sustained human spaceflight that results in NO deaths is NO human spaceflight.If the USA wishes to fly people in space it will have to accept that ultimately, inevitably, people will die.If the USA is not willing to accept that than the USA might just as well stop flying people in space altogether.To quote Gus Grissom: "The conquest of space is worth the risk of life".
.. snip..But is that something the public at large will accept these days. To me the attitude seemed different back in the sixties compared to now, that there was a greater toleration for risk in the public mood.
Quote from: Star One on 06/20/2018 11:42 am.. snip..But is that something the public at large will accept these days. To me the attitude seemed different back in the sixties compared to now, that there was a greater toleration for risk in the public mood.More than "public mood" I would say NASA/ESA mood, and, above all, in their managers, more concerned about careers than space exploration.For what concerns Hadfield: he is right about current rockets, just forgot to mention Nerva.I believe we need nuclear power to go and, above all, stay on Mars.
If people fly into space, at some point people will die in space. Period. How we feel about that depends on our perception of risk versus reward. Now we are in the realm of fundamental human behavior. I was a test engineer for many years. Some of our tests were inherently risky. That could not be prevented. All we could do was try to quantify and mitigate the risk. The usual criteria was to limit the known risk to one in a million. It was impossible to get the known risk to zero, and it was impossible to quantify the unknown risks (since we didn't know what they were). Then someone had to decide -- is this test worth it?We do the same thing unconsciously every day. In 2016 37,461 people died in traffic accidents in the U.S. Obviously, the risk that you will die the next time you are in a motor vehicle is not zero. As a matter of fact in 2016 about 12 people died per 100,000 population. Engineers have done everything they can to minimize the risk (within the design constraints) but about 10-15 people still die per 100,000 each year. We as a people have decided that the reward associated with driving is worth the risk. (The numbers came from wikipedia.)The only question is: Is expanding into space worth the risk?
The only way I see us ever getting to Mars, even with future technology that would get us there much faster, is if every little subset that had their hands on the vehicle, from the engineers and programmers, down to the dude who drove the truck that delivered the vehicle to the launch pad, accepts the risk that something could go wrong, and finger pointing isn't necessary.