"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?