Monday, April 4, 2011

Space Missions

Okay, this is going to be a small rant, but it should be a good read.  I'm also attempting to appeal to reason and see if people agree or disagree with me.  Please let me know regardless!

I've seen lots of programs and read a lot about various missions from NASA, the ESA (European Space Agency) and the Russian program, and they always talk about the risk to lives.  It's currently estimated with all things considered with up to date technology a 3 year mission to Mars, including over a year on the surface to have a fatality rate of about 1 in 5.  In other words, 20%.  They claim this risk is too great to astronaut lives.  I believe the reason they are worried about it is the damage to the space programs if astronauts were to die because I'm sure many would take that risk.  I would not bet all my possessions on a poker hand with an 80% chance of winning, but for the chance to be the first human on another planet?  Oh hell yes!

There are a number of different propellant technologies that have not been tested enough to be considered safe for these space agencies to use.  Some of them can get the travel time down to weeks, thus cutting the trip time, radiation exposure, risk of random medical emergency, and gravitational body damage down immensely.  Why not try to use such a system?  If the odds are 1 in 5 I can get a team of people willing to risk their lives in 10 minutes.  Well, they might not want to take someone like me, because my first words on the planet's surface would not be something so epic as Neil Armstrong.  Can they deal with me saying "Hi, my name's Commander Shepard and this is my favorite planet in the solar system?"

So what do you guys think?  Do our space agencies need a 98% chance of success before attempting to broaden the human footprint?

20 comments:

  1. If it was up to me, i would take the chance. It would be one of the greatest achievements in man kind..

    ReplyDelete
  2. just do what they did way back when, MONKEYS! lol

    but when you think how NASA is gov't funded and so is the military, you think we really have an issue with percentages, im not sure of exact numbers of the 3 wars weve had, but im sure theyre rather close to the percentages going to mars

    ReplyDelete
  3. i like your blog. keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
  4. They're not only risking lives but billions of dollars of equipment, and the moral blow to the space programs as you said if it fails... I think they need at least 95% chance of success before they consider it. And by "they" I mean the heads of the agencies, not the astronauts, those would go because they're adventurers and risktakers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think they got some seriously bad press after the last incident of a spaceship blowing up. So I think they are just trying to evade every possible bad end.


    Check out this Vid though I guarantee you'll enjoy it
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0

    Cheers

    Check out Lifehack's Guide to Homeless Markings!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Patres, that may well be true. If that is the case they should probably say they don't want to stake the space agency reputation on an 80% chance. I suppose the reason they wouldn't say that is due to politics. It sounds a hell of a lot nicer if they say it's to save astronaut lives.

    Mike, thanks for the video. Carl Sagan was a great man and a visionary. His words are very true. I only hope that when we do settle Mars we do something reasonable to prevent wars, like build a resource economy. Machines can easily do the agriculture, provide power and recycle air. Why work a pointless job that just creates envy and jealousy amongst people if there's no need? Clearly, Earth isn't ready for that transition yet, but starting fresh, I'd like to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hmm, I think I'll make a post later about that economic idea because I can expand on it quite a bit. I've been up about 22 hours working on some seriously cool differential equations, so it might end up being tomorrow after I get back from class many hours from now and had been up even longer :( lol

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that we should let space exploration continue on its way despite success rates and setback. How else do you think we'll discover anything worth discovering?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree completely but really the general public has lost interest in space travel, if something were to go wrong on a manned trip to Mars it could set the whole space program back a decade.

    A globalized pooled effort would do more for sustainable spaceflight than one country going it alone, a worldwide space program is the way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Danny, yes the general public has lost interest because the entire world is going bankrupt and every country in the world is doing cutbacks. An unfortunate setback of our current system.

    A globalized effort is the way to do it these days. I think a lot more was accomplished during the space race years due to the competition. Think of it like war. Every country trying to develop superior weapons and lots of new technology is invented in said race. I'm all for a coordinated effort if we can ever get anything done.

    What kills me is knowing the International Space Station will be abandoned in a few years to burn up in the atmosphere. They already propel it outwards every so often to correct for the drag on the atmosphere so it doesn't crash to Earth. Why not propel it slightly farther into geosyncronous orbit so it isn't all wasted? Sure, some of the technology will be dated, but if nothing else, it can expand living quarters on a vessel in the future. Why let it all go to waste? Maybe a billionaire will buy it and push it out to a stationary place! Now all I need is a billion $!

    ReplyDelete
  11. As long as they are upfront about the risks, people will volunteer..

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think we should attempt missions at a lower success rate, maybe 80% and let astronauts sign up for them based on their own decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't know if they need 98 per cent, but they certainly need to do better than 80 per cent - probably between 90 and 95 per cent would be okay. A 90+ per cent chance of winning something is VERY good. I don't think we have the technology developed in a cost-effective, time-tested way yet; but I think we will have it within a decade.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have always been amazed by space travel, and I just have to agree with you on this rant. I believe that every astronaut would do anything, no matter what the risks are, to be the first human being to ever step on another planet. Sure, these agencies can send other creatures to test how they would survive the travel, but I believe humans should try it already. It took from 1958 to 1969 to get man on the moon by NASA. We are already in 2011...it's about damn time! Following, mate, nice blog!

    ReplyDelete
  15. 80% is ok, for me. Space travel will rely on the private industries, because there's so much to exploit out there. The "public perception" won't be something to care.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would take the chance hands down, even at a higher risk rate. A job like that would be too rewarding, they need to sack up and get us out there on some new planets. Great post bud, as always.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd pay a lot to be the first to an unexplored planet, regardless of the risk. Okay, maybe if it was 80% chance of death, I wouldn't, but that's the great thing about technology, right? You say 20%, but in another 10 years that'll be about 5%, right?
    People always forget that stats like these are relative.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This really makes me ponder. I think it would be really cool if this were to happen but honestly, this country and this world need to figure out things on our own planet like taxing wealthy people more than average people.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 98% may be a bit extreme, but I do think the current success rate is unacceptable. We can't be throwing away this much money and human life..

    ReplyDelete
  20. The current success rate is >98%. Out of the many hundreds of human spaceflights, only a few have ended lives. Challenger and Columbia along with a few other incidents.

    Now space probes have not had such a great success rate with Mars. Something like half have been lost, mostly due to Russia's attempts. Of course, many of those were lost many years ago. It is now 2011, we suck less.

    ReplyDelete