“I read them, or some of them and there was nothing convincing about them.”

But then, your conclusion, albeit incomplete per your own admission really doesn’t carry much weight, does it, per your own words: “Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm– First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.”

‘Nuff said.

Talking sense to these people is like trying to tell a 3 year old no candy until after dinner.

People believe what they want to believe, facts be damned. But its worse than that, as If you keep bringing the unfortunate facts up, this lot will do their best to see that they shut you up, and they will continue until reality finally intrudes.

Funding has always been the issue and given the size of the U.S. economy/global economy, a comparatively small increase in funding for space efforts would make the technology more readily available but generating the support is the key.

What is a little? Also Congress was still unwilling to fund at proper levels in a good economy.

So how would you spend your little extra money to “make the technology more “readily” available”?

Last month Boeing came up with a plan for getting to the Moon by 2022. Best part of the plan seemed to be the “Exploration Gateway Platform” for L1.
Here’s the link to the platform design, mostly time tested modules, 80% “off the shelf’ parts:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Hatfield_8-10-11/
Kinda of a slow upload,
but worth a look..and comment?>>

It is a effort looking for a reason…there is no reason to do it other then keeping the groups that have grown up around human spaceflight busy RGO

=yawn= Believe you’ll find a sound ‘template’ for an ultimate goal of an expedition to Mars was sketched out fairly well by Chris Kraft, Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Glynn Lunney, et al, last year in op-eds and letters. ..

I read them, or some of them and there was nothing convincing about them.

All these guys (and others) are stuck in an era that is long gone.

In every other field of exploration known to mankind the notion of humans v robots and where things “sit” if you will has long been answered. We dont explore the ocean floor with crewed submersibles; we do it with robots run by people safe on mother ships; we do more and more exploration of the Polar regions with “machines”…why?

Machines are cheaper and while less versatile then humans we get more bang for the buck in terms of exploration with machines at the pointed end…then we do with people.

The only reason that is not the obvious conclusion in human spaceflight is because in the 1960’s human spaceflight got all caught up in “the person” in the capsule and left behind was mostly the science that the effort did. An entire political infrastructure including well paying jobs in mostly poor states has grown up to support human space “exploration” and that is why the effort has some traction.

on a dollar per dollar science result per science result we have learned more from uncrewed programs about the Moon, then we learned from all of Apollo; or would from a similar type program.

Armstrong et alll had their reason but pushed hard they all hard back to the “Buck Rogers” theory of the 60’s. And that no longer sales.

There is I think a role for people in space, but for it to have some staying power past just raw pork; the price to keep people in space and have them do anything is going to have to come way down. That means less people on the ground “sitting console” and cheaper means of operating in space. I think we will find useful things for people to do in human spaceflight; hubble and ISS building pointed to that.

But “exploration”? Thats a none starter now unless the cost comes way down.

Robert G. Oler

PS- Antarctica is a good model for long-duration expeditions to the moon and Mars. A lot of what has been learned and experienced there can and will most likely be transferred to future off-planet expeditions. Kraft’s plan had the right idea simply in terms of developing the hardware, software, methodolgy and procedures in cislunar space and operating a lunar facility as a precursor to a Martian expedition akin to Gemini as prep work for Apollo. Most likely some kind of Martian ‘beachead’ will eventually be established based on Antarctic and lunar experience.

Funding has always been the issue and given the size of the U.S. ecomony/global economy, a comparatively small increase in funding for space efforts would make the technology more readilly available but generating the support is trhe key. FEllas like ‘common sense’ lack same, pitching robots as a substitute. If you want Martian rocks, a grab and bag mission could be put together fairly cheaply and fast. But the point of gonig to Mars is just that- going there. And an expedition will go one day for sure. Whether it is American led is another matter. But the plan thumbnailed by Kraft, Lunney, Armstrong,Cernan et al, last year in terms of methodogy, hardware development, planning, operations and procesures for mid and lond duration space expeditions was on tyhe right track

@common sense wrote @ December 5th, 2011 at 6:20 pm

Your can’t-do attitude has been duly noted. No matter. We’ll get there w/o you.

Probably wouldn’t balk, because in 1961 we couldn’t do anything from orbit except gaze out the window. We can now. You’re living in the wrong era. But yes, even now we’re unable to drop that anchor or shoot those muskets while we’re on orbit.

I won’t argue that putting a human being on Mars isn’t technologically tractable. It’s just unaffordable right now. In fact, a whole lot of that expense is just about going the last yard. Someday we’ll do it, but we’d be dumb to put on blinders and presume that the whole game is about putting flesh on other worlds.

“Believe you’ll find a sound ‘template’ for an ultimate goal of an expedition to Mars was sketched out fairly well by …snip – a bunch of people no longer responsible for doing anything in space – snip…, et al, last year in op-eds and letters.”

Ooh, op-eds and letters! Well that is a sound basis for spending hundreds of $Billions on a mission to Mars.

“Guess you missed it.”

If someone says something irrelevant, should I care?

Unless these people plan to stick around and actually, you know, DO SOMETHING about their “plans”, then it’s just a bunch of talk. As you demonstrate well, talk is cheap.

Technology isn’t the problem. Money is the problem. Congress is unwilling to fund anything near a Constellation type effort. Mars would be more expensive than the moon. Per Dr. Griffin, Constellation would have cost 7+ billion a YEAR with an additional 1 billion for advance development starting in FY2011. Do you really see congress supporting this kind of program?

NASA needs to be more efficient and Commercial Crew, Nautilus-X, Food growth and In-Situ Resource Utilization start us down that road. These types capabilities allow us to send astronaut/scientist all over the solar system for extended periods. Scientist have been working for years in Antarctica. Don’t you think they will need years to explore Mars? Or is it all for show?