High definition video from Mars - money well spent?

[AndyDT]

Curiosity launches on Saturday. Finally we'll get some video footage from Mars all being well. It seems that the rover should last at least 14 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Specifications

https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/24/mars-rover-curiosity-nasa-planet

[BlobVanDam]

Oh Andy. Why must you take something as cool as a giant Johnny 5 on Mars with phasers, and post it obscurely in P/R with some political spin that only you could manage to find?

[Chino]

We don't spend enough money on space exploration.

[kirksnosehair]

We don't spend enough money on space exploration.

+1

I think it's better than spending money to drop bombs on people because we're "fighting for freedom" 

Fighting for freedom is like fucking for virginity.

[MasterShakezula]

We don't spend enough money on space exploration.

+1

I think it's better than spending money to drop bombs on people because we're "fighting for freedom" 

Fighting for freedom is like fucking for virginity.

Well-put. 

Very little, if any, good can come from the U.S. fighting others' wars.

But, back on topic here:

Very little bad can come of more space exploration.

We can only benefit from a greater understanding of the expanses beyond us.

[Super Dude]

It's time we sent a crew out on a five-year mission to explore the unknown and seek out new life and new civilizations.

[Orbert]

Nah, we're not ready for that yet.  They'd get partway across our solar system, then have to turn around and come back.  Five years, blown.

"Nope, didn't find anything."

[Super Dude]

Oh I know, I was just hoping someone would get the reference.

[Scheavo]

Now, we *could* send a probe to another star for a couple of billion, and it would get there and send signals back within my life time.

[BlobVanDam]

It's time we sent a crew out on a five-year mission to explore the unknown and seek out new life and new civilizations.

The problem is that mission would probably struggle to last 3 years, and suffer budget cuts along the way. Maybe a decade later they'd be ready to try another mission though.

[hefdaddy42]

Fighting for freedom is like fucking for virginity.

"Well, if firefighters fight fires, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?" - George Carlin

[Orbert]

Oh I know, I was just hoping someone would get the reference.

I got it, but we need warp speed first.  Gotta walk before we can run.

[El Barto]

I have a decent understanding of the nature of change, and because of that I'm all for space exploration.  Not only are there things to be learned out there,  but there's a great deal to be learned in trying to get there;  all incredibly useful. 

I'm not so crazy about this one,  though.  It sounds to me like it's just going to be a slightly better version of what we've already done.  The Mars rovers did fantastic work,  as did Global Surveyor and Odyssey.  Think it's time we did something else now.  They're planning a sample return mission now.  So if they're looking to bring chunks of it home,  why go there to look at them? 

When it comes to something as time consuming and expensive as space exploration,  every endeavor is a rare opportunity.  We should be planning them out better.  Spend a little time doing something, and then move on along to something else for a while.  In twenty years,  we'll be capable of going back and doing much better research.  We'd probably be better off focusing our attention back on the moon, or in some completely different direction,  rather than putting another science kit on Mars. 

[rumborak]

Agree with El Barto here. I'm not sure Mars is really a worthwhile target at this point.

Given how much money goes into this thing, I think it should serve a certain amount of public desire (as opposed to pure scientific investigation, which is fine too of course, to a certain extent). The thing that would really capture the public desire IMHO would be a moon base.

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

I haven't read about this in a long time but Plasma engines might also be a better use of that money. That way it will increase our ability to travel further in less time.

[ResultsMayVary]

Agree with El Barto here. I'm not sure Mars is really a worthwhile target at this point.

Given how much money goes into this thing, I think it should serve a certain amount of public desire (as opposed to pure scientific investigation, which is fine too of course, to a certain extent). The thing that would really capture the public desire IMHO would be a moon base.

rumborak

A Moon Base should definitely be something that NASA is looking at doing. It only takes a few days to get there and a project a few days away could be monitored very well. Mars is too far away (at the current travel speeds) to undertake anything of that nature right now. And doing something like that on the Moon could be good practice for something similar for Mars.

Space Exploration is something we need to focus more on, tbqh.

[AndyDT]

Now, we *could* send a probe to another star for a couple of billion, and it would get there and send signals back within my life time.

How?

[Chino]

Agree with El Barto here. I'm not sure Mars is really a worthwhile target at this point.

Given how much money goes into this thing, I think it should serve a certain amount of public desire (as opposed to pure scientific investigation, which is fine too of course, to a certain extent). The thing that would really capture the public desire IMHO would be a moon base.

rumborak

A Moon Base should definitely be something that NASA is looking at doing. It only takes a few days to get there and a project a few days away could be monitored very well. Mars is too far away (at the current travel speeds) to undertake anything of that nature right now. And doing something like that on the Moon could be good practice for something similar for Mars.

Space Exploration is something we need to focus more on, tbqh.

But a moon base won't really teach us a whole lot. I feel like Mars was close enough to earth (geologically) thatnwencould learn a great deal about it.

[El Barto]

But a moon base won't really teach us a whole lot. I feel like Mars was close enough to earth (geologically) thatnwencould learn a great deal about it.

It would teach us how to build a base on the moon,  and that's a real game-changer.  Having a base outside of Earth's gravity would also be a huge boon to further exploration; particularly if there's enough water up there to be useful.

[jsem]

It's money well spent.

[Scheavo]

Now, we *could* send a probe to another star for a couple of billion, and it would get there and send signals back within my life time.

How?

If it's small enough, we have several methods of propulsion which are hypothetically possible. It wouldn't be a huge satellite by anyways, probably just something small enough to do basic, basic data collection. Cant find the original article I read about it, it was an article listing possible NASA projects hat wouldn't cost us all that much, and would be incredible to do.

[kirksnosehair]

I think the key word in the post above this one is "hypothetical"

[Scheavo]

I didn't say it would launch tomorrow, and it would cost something like $20 billion. I think we might run into massive unknowns once we're out of the Solar System, but it's not "out there," we have several known working low acceleration methods now that could get us something.

[El JoNNo]

Neil deGrasse Tyson states my opinion on this subject better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_F3pw5F_Pc

[ResultsMayVary]

But a moon base won't really teach us a whole lot. I feel like Mars was close enough to earth (geologically) thatnwencould learn a great deal about it.

It would teach us how to build a base on the moon,  and that's a real game-changer.  Having a base outside of Earth's gravity would also be a huge boon to further exploration; particularly if there's enough water up there to be useful.

This. It would be good to have a place outside of Earth's gravity to launch probes and other vessels that aren't doing anything around the Earth or the moon. We could potentially save some fuel getting probes/vessels out of Earth's gravity by sending several to the Moon Base and launching them individually from there, rather than launching every single package individually from Cape Canaveral.

[gmillerdrake]

We don't spend enough money on space exploration.

This. Exploration is a part of the human spirit....it is one of our greatest qualities. We cannot eliminate this part of our being..period.

[Chino]

But a moon base won't really teach us a whole lot. I feel like Mars was close enough to earth (geologically) thatnwencould learn a great deal about it.

It would teach us how to build a base on the moon,  and that's a real game-changer.  Having a base outside of Earth's gravity would also be a huge boon to further exploration; particularly if there's enough water up there to be useful.

This. It would be good to have a place outside of Earth's gravity to launch probes and other vessels that aren't doing anything around the Earth or the moon. We could potentially save some fuel getting probes/vessels out of Earth's gravity by sending several to the Moon Base and launching them individually from there, rather than launching every single package individually from Cape Canaveral.

I'm not challenging you, I'm honestly interested seeing as I can't wrap my head around it. How will that save fuel? Wouldn't we need to use fuel to escape Earth's gravity, then additional fuel to escape the moons? I understand it's only 1/6 the gravity of Earth, but it will still require more fuel. Are you suggesting send up small shipements to the moon, assemble something huge, then launch the finished product?

I'd think it would be more logical to build a space assembly building, something like a highly advance space station. Ship all the parts for say a mars rover, assemble them in zero gravity, then let it drift out into space. Once in space we would need very little fuel to send it anywhere. Heck, we could even use the earth itself to then sling shoot it toward Mars.

[Chino]

Thought this might interest some of you. If 1 out of every 500 people thought like this man, the world would be a much better place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_F3pw5F_Pc

[El Barto]

But a moon base won't really teach us a whole lot. I feel like Mars was close enough to earth (geologically) thatnwencould learn a great deal about it.

It would teach us how to build a base on the moon,  and that's a real game-changer.  Having a base outside of Earth's gravity would also be a huge boon to further exploration; particularly if there's enough water up there to be useful.

This. It would be good to have a place outside of Earth's gravity to launch probes and other vessels that aren't doing anything around the Earth or the moon. We could potentially save some fuel getting probes/vessels out of Earth's gravity by sending several to the Moon Base and launching them individually from there, rather than launching every single package individually from Cape Canaveral.

I'm not challenging you, I'm honestly interested seeing as I can't wrap my head around it. How will that save fuel? Wouldn't we need to use fuel to escape Earth's gravity, then additional fuel to escape the moons? I understand it's only 1/6 the gravity of Earth, but it will still require more fuel. Are you suggesting send up small shipements to the moon, assemble something huge, then launch the finished product?

For one thing,  they keep increasing the estimated amount of water on the moon.  Water*energy is rocket fuel.  If fuel can be obtained outside of the Earth's gravity,  then you've significantly increased potential payload. 

I'd think it would be more logical to build a space assembly building, something like a highly advance space station. Ship all the parts for say a mars rover, assemble them in zero gravity, then let it drift out into space. Once in space we would need very little fuel to send it anywhere. Heck, we could even use the earth itself to then sling shoot it toward Mars.

That's actually not the case.  Getting things in Earth orbit isn't that hard.  Getting them outside of it is a real bitch.  The space shuttle has to reach 17.5k mph to get to it's relatively low orbit, and uses all of it's fuel to do it.  To break that orbit and head to the moon requires 25k mph;  far outside the scope of what the shuttle can do.  Look at how big the Saturn V was in relation to the equipment that actually went to the moon.  Trying to do it in two steps isn't going to happen.  You either shoot for an Earth orbit,  or you shoot for the moon.

[Chino]

That makes perfect sense.

The water on the moon as always interested me. We have proven that water can be extracted out of what appears to be nothing but rock dust. However, to power a rocket even a 10th of the size of a Saturn 5 would require a shit load of water (I assume you are talking about some kind of hydrogen fuel rocket). Having to bring all that equipment to the moon would be insanely expensive, it might be cheaper to keep launching from Earth.

[El Barto]

As I've said,  the experience gained would be far more valuable than the actual end objective.  It's quite possible that in trying to set up such a program on the moon,  we'd learn 5 different things that would make the project obsolete.  Such is the nature of progress.

[Chino]

Hypothetically

Say once SpaceX becomes the main space exploration company, if they assure they can build a base on Mars by 2025, should we even bother with a moon base? Or should we go straight to Mars?

[ResultsMayVary]

Hypothetically

Say once SpaceX becomes the main space exploration company, if they assure they can build a base on Mars by 2025, should we even bother with a moon base? Or should we go straight to Mars?

Moon first.

Mars is so far away, that the Moon should essentially be the 'test run' for building a base on Mars. If they can do it successfully on the Moon, where it's only a few days of flight away and still in almost-instantaneous radio contact, then they'll know how to do it on Mars and would be aware of any potential problems or issues. Otherwise, they'd be fucked because Mars is an 8-month flight away from Earth, unlike the 3-5 days flight to the Moon.

The Moon is just more practical at this point in time.

[rumborak]

Definitely the moon. They would have to demonstrate that they can put a self-sustaining base up there, because that's what it's really about.  You can't keep on shipping oxygen and water up there,  that would have to come from the moon itself.
BTW, I very much doubt that it would be the US putting the base up there. Right now the Chinese are hellbent on making their mark in space, and a moonbase would be *the* achievement.

rumborak

[Chino]

Definitely the moon. They would have to demonstrate that they can put a self-sustaining base up there, because that's what it's really about.  You can't keep on shipping oxygen and water up there,  that would have to come from the moon itself.
BTW, I very much doubt that it would be the US putting the base up there. Right now the Chinese are hellbent on making their mark in space, and a moonbase would be *the* achievement.

rumborak

The Russians are still in it too. They announced a while ago that they were developing emergency plans for Apophis. They asked the US if we wanted to help.