There are several tough problems to solve before years-long deep space missions can be carried out. For starters, we have to be able to build spacecraft capable of insulating astronauts from cosmic radiation. We have to deal with either the biological consequences of extended weightlessness or provide some kind of artificial gravity (a severe problem for a ship of limited size). We have to have closed-loop life support systems that can operate for years without failure. We have to ensure that astronauts can psychologically handle being trapped in a small space for the better part of a decade. These problems may not seem all that big to you (I can already hear "just add shields," "make the ship rotate," "have the astronauts psychologically qualified," etc.) but the solutions are not so easy when you get into the details. Look at how many technical problems arise on the ISS, which is large, in (relatively) easy re-supply range, and in a much less harsh environment. At least on the ISS, you can drop home on a Soyuz if things go too far south. Not so on a deep space mission.
At a minimum, I think space program budgets around the world would receive a fairly hefty bump. And it would be about damn time.
Not really. 1) You don't have to shield against cosmic radiation. At worst it raises an astronauts chances of cancer over their lifetime by a handful of points. Not worth noting. 2). Dr. Robert Zubrin has already shown how you can rotate a manned spacecraft along a common axis with a counterweight that is not overly complex or expensive to generate the effect of gravity. 3) People have psychologically handled worse conditions in the past. The ISS is largely a hassle because of the word "international".
And you became an expert on deep space missions when? How about explaining how it would be done instead of stating it can be done?
Try reading Ed. Dr. Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" and "Entering Space" for starters. And yes I do consider him an expert on deep space missions. Most reasonable people would.
I don't think we can yet totally quantify what the radiation risks are in deep space. Without shielding that handles ALL cases encountered by the spacecraft, the crew is in peril. Remember all that early work at NASA measuring conditions in orbital space around the Earth? We're going to need similar data for anywhere the ship goes. And your "oh, well, they may have some health problems later" attitude is not an acceptable basis for a realistic mission. You're still talking about a large, massive mechanism that has to operate for years in a hostile environment. And you're mistaking "someone has an idea that might be useful" for "the technology is developed, proven, and ready for spaceflight." People HAVE, that doesn't mean the small group of people you send WILL. This isn't something you just roll the dice on. We've lost 14 astronauts in the sky and 3 on the ground all by ourselves. Even leaving basic humanity aside, you're still talking about a mission costing tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. You're not going to put that much on the line until risks have been quantified and minimized to reasonable levels.
Estimated risks of death for the Mercury flights was considered to be 10%. At least that is what the astronauts were told IIRC. To me that is an acceptable level of risk for any "first time" space mission whether to Mars, Callisto, or Pluto. You still would have hundreds of well qualified astronauts clamoring to go on such missions even with that risk level. If they're willing then why aren't the rest of us willing to make it happen? And lots of items on deep space missions CANNOT be proven short of a manned flight. As Dr. Robert Zubrin points out the ridiculousness of performing YEARS of tests in microgravity while orbiting the Earth. "Bomber pilots don't train by flying their planes through real flak. If you're going to take the health risks of microgravity and radiation, why not just do it while en route to Mars anyway?"
IIRC, NASA sent 9 manned missions to the moon (six landed) with 27 astronauts total WITHOUT first sending any other living creatures through the Van Allen radiation belts around the Earth.
And nothing anywhere near that would be acceptable today. I think the risk of dying on a shuttle had been re-calculated post-Columbia to be around 2% (1 in 56) and we promptly quit flying it. Because the rest of us aren't willing to risk lives and enormous amounts of money for something--manned spaceflight--that, frankly, doesn't NEED to be done. And any astronaut who would go on a mission with large, unquantified risks should be disqualified. Because it's way more expensive and way harder to get people back if something goes wrong?
But not without sending probes through them. The radiation belts had been pretty thoroughly mapped and were well understood by the time of Apollo.
There are things men must do if they wish to call themselves men. At any rate, Dr. Robert Zubrin in "The Case For Mars" gives massive concrete reasons for manned space exploration. I won't go into them here. If you haven't read his book then it is hard to take an opinion on manned space exploration seriously.
Actually you've shown no such capability as far as I can see. In regards to Zubins work. http://wp10988215.server-he.de/MSE/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mars-Direct-Scenario_Zubrin_19911.pdf
Remember when you asked "How many large moons could a gas giant have?" I explained why your statement of... Could not work, which goes to show that I am more than capable of explaining such concepts.
tell other men what do do from one's armchair, obviously. but it's good that we have another thread turned into a dayton turdfest. there are too few of those
There is a BIG problem with high-Z GCR (galactic cosmic rays) that was written up in a recent paper in California. They zapped mice with it (using a particle accelerator) for a couple weeks. They got really stupid. They did autopsies. It turns out that the hard ionizing radiation rips your brain's dendrites apart. The longer you are exposed, the more senile you get. They think outside the Van Allen Belt the effects would start showing up in possibly a couple of months. By the time an unshielded astronaut got to Mars he'd be suffering memory loss, possibly profound memory loss. NASA hasn't addressed the issue yet, nor has anyone else that I have seen.
OFFICIAL MOD NOTE: I'm going to remind everyone what forum you're in (Techforge), keep the discussion civil, or I will pull this thread over to the side of the road, and you are not going to like what happens next.
IIRC from the HOPE mission planning, the massive output from a VASIMIR engine could shield against cosmic rays.
Try reading, you'll see that I didn't. But I can understand you jumping to that conclusion as well considering you consider copy and paste the pinnacle of computer development.
At any rate Ed, I linked to the detailed description of Dr. Robert Zubrins Mars Direct Plan. You have all that you need.
Are you able to pull all the manned mission derp out of this thread into another and keep it focused on Pluto? Thanks.
Without the hopes of a manned mission someday, there would be no interest in the U.S. in funding unmanned space missions. No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.
Nope. Like Meg Griffin in the Family Guy episode where they get super powers, I'm stuck with the lamest ones. Unlike Meg, however, I do know how to use my extending nails to do more than scratch your asses.
After reviewing the manned mission posts, I think they fit just fine. They are a tangent perhaps, but one that is relevant. The real problem is that some of them got a bit smoky with flames. Like Tuckerfan said, knock that shit off, but tangent discussions are just fine as topics so far.
