Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 2 of 6«123456»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Mars One 2023 (The first permanent Human Settlement in Mars)
Mars One 2023
AerospacefagDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 18:12 | Message # 16
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
if something went wrong

I case of, well, budget cuts, we'll have to return every single person from Mars, because it will be easier to return them - than supply them for the rest of their life. Otherwise they're just signing their death sentence - this is not how colonization of other planet should start.

Quote (midtskogen)
But governments also tend to make things very expensive.

Because it tends to pay off later. Modern commercial satellite, I believe, is a good example - there are almost no breakthrough technologies left, and most of launches have commercial or scientific applications. On the other hand, our human-flight capabilities isn't that advanced, and we're half-way to that state of affairs that will allow us to launch a person in orbit with only commercial interest, probably we'll see it in 10 years, if situation won't get worse.

To summarize, I believe in leading role of government in space explorations, because they can take very volumetric risks that appear in the department. They can experience failures, delay, loss of particular projects, but eventually, they accumulate largest amounts of interest from science, military, civilian and entertainment sources.

If you ask me something like - why NASA is loosing its grasp on the situation - my opinion will be, that's not a cause, that's consequence of commercialization.


Edited by Aerospacefag - Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 18:15
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 18:38 | Message # 17
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (Aerospacefag)
than supply them for the rest of their life

You don't have to supply them. Any colonization effort should be made to be self-sufficient from an early stage. If this can't be done then you should not start a colony.

Quote (Aerospacefag)
budget cuts

You are thinking too much in terms of government operations, which this would not be.

Quote (Aerospacefag)
I believe in leading role of government in space explorations, because they can take very volumetric risks that appear in the department. They can experience failures, delay, loss of particular projects, but eventually, they accumulate largest amounts of interest from science, military, civilian and entertainment sources.

I agree with this. Unfortunately the government space agencies are making bad operating choices lately and are not focusing on efficiency and innovation, and in the case of NASA are engaged too much in political relationships with large, well-established and long-lived corporate partners. This leads to very slow progress and high expense, and this is why private efforts might surpass the efforts of the government space agencies. One of the big reasons is that they have well-defined goals, which is the most important thing when trying to achieve something in a reasonable amount of time. Currently all of the government space agencies lack that kind of clear vision for the future.

Quote (Aerospacefag)
If you ask me something like - why NASA is loosing its grasp on the situation - my opinion will be, that's not a cause, that's consequence of commercialization.

It is not a consequence of commercialization, it is a consequence of the internal culture of conservatism in NASA and of increasing government micromanagement and bureaucracy.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
AerospacefagDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 19:28 | Message # 18
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
If this can't be done then you should not start a colony.

That is the point. We're nowhere near self-sufficiency in space - mostly because of degradation of materials.

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
You are thinking too much in terms of government operations, which this would not be.

I imagine that business projects are even more unstable in that matter. These days, they tend to go bankrupt even if income is dropping, not to speak about drop of interest. The project can be cut off before the start of hardware development. Or before any annual report - their statistics is not for public and nobody knows, what is going on inside the company. Or, to say, inside Planetary Resources.

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
increasing government micromanagement and bureaucracy

That reminds me something a lot - here in Russia we hear about these things for at least 30 years. Not that the situation tends to become more easy - most of us became inclined to believe that he problem is somewhere else. Since the collapse, space industry experienced a huge drop and than a promising recovery - but the assurances are all the same. I see that my government is going to spend a lot of funds on this matter, but I do not fear, because it will also mean economy development and conquering the leading role at the worldwide scale.

 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 20:54 | Message # 19
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (Aerospacefag)
I imagine that business projects are even more unstable in that matter.

No. Private enterprise can enact big long-term projects with a lot more stability than governments can since their funding is not dictated by the whims of a small group of people. This is the main reason why SpaceX is still a privately held company, so they can pursue long-term plans with no immediate benefit without having to worry about shareholders cutting their support.

Quote (Aerospacefag)
I see that my government is going to spend a lot of funds on this matter, but I do not fear, because it will also mean economy development and conquering the leading role at the worldwide scale.

It seems that every few years a new space project is started in Russia but then halted because it is not funded, so I don't put much faith in the words of politicians. The same is true in the USA. But hopefully you're right and the space program gets better funded, develops new vehicles and leads a good program of space exploration.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
AerospacefagDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 21:26 | Message # 20
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Private enterprise can enact big long-term projects with a lot more stability than governments can since their funding is not dictated by the whims of a small group of people.

I don't really want to go deep in the field of politics, but I cannot agree because for me it is completely opposite to what I know about governments and private companies, their responsibility and potential. Probably, for US exclusively it's a different situation, though.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 21:37 | Message # 21
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (Aerospacefag)
Probably, for US exclusively it's a different situation, though.

Must be.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
midtskogenDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 22:10 | Message # 22
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1668
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Private enterprise can enact big long-term projects with a lot more stability than governments can since their funding is not dictated by the whims of a small group of people.

Depends somewhat on the owner structure. If it only has a few, big owners, stability is more realistic compared to a company gone public, which will attract investors whose motivation is to sell again with profit as fast as possible. While the shareholders of a public company might not involve themselves in the details of how the company is run, the management will still have to keep them happy by sacrificing long term goals for short term gains if they ever might need to raise more money.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 24.04.2013, 22:33 | Message # 23
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (midtskogen)
If it only has a few, big owners, stability is more realistic compared to a company gone public,

This is why I specifically mentioned SpaceX at the end and this benefit being a product of their having not gone public.

Quote (midtskogen)
While the shareholders of a public company might not involve themselves in the details of how the company is run, the management will still have to keep them happy by sacrificing long term goals for short term gains if they ever might need to raise more money.

Indeed. There is a similar problem with government programs, especially in my country. No one can see beyond the next election.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
kairunotabiDate: Thursday, 25.04.2013, 00:16 | Message # 24
Astronaut
Group: Users
Philippines
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
Didn't realized that this thread will start a debate dry




 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 25.04.2013, 00:23 | Message # 25
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (kairunotabi)
Didn't realized that this thread will start a debate

Mars One is a very polarizing subject, and most of the people around here are very critical of it, myself among them.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
kairunotabiDate: Thursday, 25.04.2013, 01:20 | Message # 26
Astronaut
Group: Users
Philippines
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
But what if they did really made it and settled to Mars? They will make history and another big leap for mankind




 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 25.04.2013, 02:02 | Message # 27
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (kairunotabi)
But what if they did really made it and settled to Mars? They will make history and another big leap for mankind

I have no problem with going to Mars, I strongly support creating Martian colonies. My problem is with Mars One's stated methods and also their timetable. Funding this project through the creation of a reality television show could be disastrous on so many levels, not the least of which could be creating a bizarre and false impression of what it's really like to explore and settle other worlds or to trivialize something that is in fact wonderful. Also, their timetable is completely unrealistic and demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of what is involved in the creation of a settlement on Mars. I also think that the Mars One project has a very high risk of failure, and given that their main source of funding is publicity then that failure would be a cataclysmic blow to the Mars colonization movement and might set back colonization efforts by decades.

That is why I oppose Mars One.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Thursday, 25.04.2013, 02:03
 
kairunotabiDate: Thursday, 25.04.2013, 03:53 | Message # 28
Astronaut
Group: Users
Philippines
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
I can't believe that they didn't even reached the average fund of 100 M USD for the project to succeed...They only got half a million fund and increasing slowly. It looks like they really don't know how to properly plan and do this thing, they'll kill the first 4 astronauts if they did failed. But I'm still hoping they will do the job and also their current plans specify that the entire mission is to be filmed and broadcast back to Earth as a media event.






Edited by kairunotabi - Thursday, 25.04.2013, 03:55
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 25.04.2013, 03:57 | Message # 29
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2608
Status: Online
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
*snip*
That is why I oppose Mars One.


^Very well said; my sentiments exactly.







Edited by Watsisname - Thursday, 25.04.2013, 03:58
 
desertsoldier22Date: Thursday, 25.04.2013, 04:56 | Message # 30
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 51
Status: Offline
There are some feasibility problems I see with the mission.

1. No talk of dealing with Solar and Stellar radiation either on the ship or on the colony except for maybe buring the colony pods under Martian soil

2. They only have a 150 day survival threshold for dealing with Martian dust storms because of solar power generation. Martian Dust storms can last for over a year.

3. No means of generating artificial gravity on the ship, so they expect a group of people to live in Zero-G for 8 months then land on Mars and somehow build a colony in 1/3 gravity with heavy Spacesuits and atrophied muscles and bone.

4. No emphasis on life discovery, they think that they need to preserve the Martian environment. Well if those lifeforms are so hardy to exist in the conditions on Mars, no human with a shovel probably won't wipe them out. Also why go then...whats the point, without making that discovery or attempting to.... the place is a damn dust ball


Edited by desertsoldier22 - Thursday, 25.04.2013, 05:02
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Mars One 2023 (The first permanent Human Settlement in Mars)
Page 2 of 6«123456»
Search: