Quote from: testguy on 11/17/2017 08:06 pmQuote from: AncientU on 11/17/2017 07:25 pmSpaceX need not follow the 'professional astronaut' model. Individuals on Mars will need to be creative and innovative problem solvers and techies, since for much of the time, they won't have an army of Earth-based personnel choreographing their every move. They have 7,000 employees who are proving quite adept at getting hardware built and launched... this is the pool from which they should select* their technical experts, 'crew' if you will. There will be room for scientists like field geologists, analytical chemists, biologists (and for medical professionals) that they may lack in the workforce, so there will be some outside selection.If they vertically integrate all the way up to the astros being sent, then they are training that cadre already.* Another perkThat is a way of looking at it that I hadn’t considered. It makes perfect sense that employees designing and building the physical systems are by default in training. I like it. Not being addressed today is training for the space environment in LEO and BEO.Exactly. While I like the general idea of sending people, who developed the systems, I also argue for having e.g. 2 crew members with the 'professional astronaut' background. For instance, 'EVA prep.' is a human situation much more complex, than handling the suit hardware. You are supposed to control your nervousness caused by the danger, and work carefully and methodically, exactly because of the danger. I think I could learn the technical side easily - but would fail on the emotional side. The latter issue requires the huge training. Sure, they will not pilot the landing.
Quote from: AncientU on 11/17/2017 07:25 pmSpaceX need not follow the 'professional astronaut' model. Individuals on Mars will need to be creative and innovative problem solvers and techies, since for much of the time, they won't have an army of Earth-based personnel choreographing their every move. They have 7,000 employees who are proving quite adept at getting hardware built and launched... this is the pool from which they should select* their technical experts, 'crew' if you will. There will be room for scientists like field geologists, analytical chemists, biologists (and for medical professionals) that they may lack in the workforce, so there will be some outside selection.If they vertically integrate all the way up to the astros being sent, then they are training that cadre already.* Another perkThat is a way of looking at it that I hadn’t considered. It makes perfect sense that employees designing and building the physical systems are by default in training. I like it. Not being addressed today is training for the space environment in LEO and BEO.
SpaceX need not follow the 'professional astronaut' model. Individuals on Mars will need to be creative and innovative problem solvers and techies, since for much of the time, they won't have an army of Earth-based personnel choreographing their every move. They have 7,000 employees who are proving quite adept at getting hardware built and launched... this is the pool from which they should select* their technical experts, 'crew' if you will. There will be room for scientists like field geologists, analytical chemists, biologists (and for medical professionals) that they may lack in the workforce, so there will be some outside selection.If they vertically integrate all the way up to the astros being sent, then they are training that cadre already.* Another perk
Am I the only one that sees two competing problems with crew personnel? On the one hand you need people with calm, collaborative, problem solving, and highly technical skills. Basically, the type of person who is likely highly successful here on Earth and unlikely to consider the high risk of death acceptable as a replacement to their current life. On the other hand, there are plenty of unstable Looney tunes who would lineup for the first mission and that voyage would be like an asylum. I dunno, I for one would need to see every technical challenge accomplished in some form before seriously considering going to Mars. Maybe it's the distance & time that's too much of a leap for me. Maybe some would say it's cowardly (to which I disagree, but will accept the label vs going). I don't feel this way about any other current/past HSF.
Agave is also a food source. The flower stalks and the base leaves of agave americana can be roasted and consumed. A sweet juice which is tapped from the flower stalks, can be drunk or used to make an alcoholic beverage such as pulque.Other agave species are also used to make traditional alcoholic drinks such as mescal and tequila, which is made from Agave angustifolia and Agave salmiana.The leaves from both Agave americana and the sisal agave (Agave sisalana) are used to make woven mats and also to make paper. The sharp thorns at the tip of the leaves of Agave Americana also serve as needles and nails.
I hear he does a good line in terraforming plants as well. They shoot up to 14 ft in days even in a rarefied atmosphere. Take Nomadd and they'll have a Green Mars.... in a century! The Agave americana is a really tough dessert plant ideally suited to the job. As is its human.
Sadly I suspect an astrogator would be even more redundant than a pilot. Perhaps some ritual checking of star positions and some hand calulations just to "prove" the spaceship knows which way to go. Residual responsibilities go to the Captain
I think EM's too impatient with results to go with 4. 12 would be more like it.4 risks mission "failure" through slowness and minor issues. 12 risks more lives and a bigger fallout if the whole mission is lost, but then a loss of 4 would be a massive impediment, so why not go for 12.As for risks to life, the SS will have been tested manned, in orbit, and around the moon with many landings on Earth, and at least 2 unmanned landings on Mars. At least minimal ISRU methane production on Mars would have been completed, and excessive rations and equipment pre-placed. A bigger team will be better for morale, better for coping with individual accidents, a better range of technical skills to cope with a wider range of tasks and deviations from expectations, and will lead to more space and comfort more quickly for all. Obviously it will cost more, but not 3x more than for 4. Or if 3x more was spent, it would add a lot of redundancy and flexibility. And in terms of financial time it will make the project advance more quickly, drawing in more investment earlier. In the next synod, quite likely an ESA, a NASA, and ISRO, and a Russion team may all be willing to pay to be on board. SX's progress will not be swamped. But after a Synod with 4, SX will not be ready for that.In the first manned synod, 2 NASA, and 10 SX would make a good balance, but 1 NASA and 3 SX might not!These are just opinions. However I just don't see EM sitting on his hands for two years whilst 4 ppl get a couple of things working. Its not how he works. In fact its more likely he has 12 in one ship, and another 12 in a ship one month behind. If there is a disaster with the first the second team could at a pinch not land, but if things are going well it'll be like the model 3 ramp should have been!
Yes. 4 seems too few. Even with autonomous equipment, I have a hard time imagining there isn't physical work for a lot of hands, notwithstanding the number of systems that will need significant technical expertise.