Sending Men To Venus Options

[JRehling]

[...]

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

That hasn't stopped ISS.

But perhaps it should. As you know, many Americans are not happy about ISS. We are spending most of the money on something that seems to just be a "feel good" political venture.

[dvandorn]

Enough with the anti-manned-spaceflight agenda?

Please?

-the other Doug

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Enough with the anti-manned-spaceflight agenda?

Please?

-the other Doug

An opinion is not an "agenda". But since Bruce Moomaw was kicked off this forum for expressing that opinion, I guess I should watch out, eh? I don't think we should stifle people's opinions, just becaues we disagree with them. It is not an unusual opinion to think ISS is an unsound project.

I am not opposed to manned spaceflight. I am opposed to wasteful manned spaceflight. ISS is expensive and has little real scientific value. If nations were paying equally for it, I might feel better about the "Every country gets to have an astronaut!" concept. But ISS and the shuttle are a serious drain on NASA's resources now.

People should go into space when there is a real destination, not just as a publicity stunt. We should start thinking about robotic terriforming projects, for example. Or figure out a commercial value for space stations, like for example human entertainment.

[elakdawalla]

The issue with Bruce Moomaw was not which opinion he held but the fact that discussions he participated in tended to become manned - vs - unmanned arguments, inspiring lots of ranting by him and others, regardless of the original topic under discussion. After discussion with the other admins Doug has decided that the debate isn't constructive toward the stated point of this forum -- discussing unmanned spaceflight. It's not that your or anyone else's specific opinion on the subject isn't 'approved' here; the whole discussion isn't approved, because it derails other discussions. Doug has asked people to refrain from beginning manned-vs-unmanned arguments, and has banned Bruce and others from the forum for failing, first, to honor that restraint and, second, to respond to his requests to desist. I'm sure each of us has a strong opinion on the topic but for the sake of this forum we are all being asked to follow the same rule and keep those opinions off the table.

--Emily

[centsworth_II]

It could be argued that the "Venus" forum on UMSF is for discussion of UNMANNED missions and this thread on a fantastical manned mission is out of place. The appearance of a manned flight thread in an unmanned flight forum invites comment on manned missions in general.

There is a specific forum for discussion of manned missions, real or imagined.

edit: I'm not against any mention of manned flight in any of the forums, I think it has its place. It's useful to use a theoretical human mission to discuss the environment of a planet, moon, etc. But I don't think the philosophy or nuts-and-bolts of a manned mission should be discussed outside of the manned flight forum.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

"Sending Men To Venus" has had some interesting ideas. Should a manned orbiter control a rover? That's sort of a manned and an unmanned mission. The argument was made that if ISS is successful, then manned orbit of Mars or Venus would be successful. But that begs the question of the usefullness of ISS.

To me, unmanned spaceflight serves a short term goal of answering scientific questions. But I think it can have a long-term goal of preparing the way for manned exploration or colonization.

There is an important issue of how to plan that efficiently, but unfortunately, the space programs of every nation have been highly political. America sent men to the Moon because it had become a contest between the USA and USSR to prove who had the superior society. For China its propoganda, maintaining control of a dictatorship. For Europe, its a source of pride and emerging national identity as a union.

But given $100 billion, how do you make the most progress? Do you blow it on collecting one rock from Mars, and then never go back again? Do you build an expensive new space station to explore low-Earth orbit, so thoroughly understood already? Or do you dole it out to a series of robotic missions that lead up to some actual plan?

I don't see that plan. ISS and Bush's Mars and Moon missions all seem like missions with a politcial agenda. And scientists struggle and compete over the remaining slice of the NASA pie. Does everyone else believe things are just fine as they are?

This becomes a controversy only when people lose their tempers instead of engaging in discussion.

Incidently, I assume this thread can be moved to the "manned flight" folder at any time. Why not do so?

[RNeuhaus]

I would rather change the forum name from UMSF to SF. The guygs who are participating this forum aren't only bond to unmanned space flights but also of manned ones. Both are complementary. The manned space flights depends from unmanned space flights since the unmanned ones are the first to conquer the unknown frontiers. Then, the unmanned space flight will depend from manned space for a more advanced explorations that might happen in the future such as children spaceships obeying the commands from the mother spaceships to facilite special explorations.

Rodolfo

[centsworth_II]

The [guys] who are participating this forum aren't only [bound] to unmanned space flights but also of manned ones. Both are complementary.

Not with the current budget. Sure, it would be great to plan a manned orbiting mission to Mars and talk about all the wonderful robots that they could control on the surface from orbit. But this is pure science fiction for the forseeable future.

Unfortunately the reality is that manned and unmanned missions are competing, fiercely, for sparce budget dollars.

[djellison]

I would rather change the forum name from UMSF to SF.

Not going to happen. Ever. Want a place to talk about manned spaceflight in a major way, make one yourself. The manned spaceflight section here has been THIS CLOSE (fingers close together) to getting culled, because it's the place where 90% of the arguments, flame wars and resultant bans and mod activity have to happen.

There are plenty of places that disucss manned spaceflight...but very few that do what this place does.

Doug

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

I would rather change the forum name from UMSF to SF. The guy[]s who are participating this forum aren't only bond[ed] to unmanned space flights but also...manned ones.

Well, since Doug owns this forum, that's his call to make, though I'm sure he appreciates the input.

But for those who feel that their particular opinions are getting short shrift here, there's a simple, free solution to cure that. Once you get up and running, let me know. I'd love to read what you (and others) have to write on a given subject -- elsewhere.

[centsworth_II]

Well, since Doug owns this forum, that's his call to make...

Doug receives much deserved praise for maintaining a place for intelligent discussion of UMSF. He rightly (IMHO) sees that this quality would be jepardized if the forums were opened to discussion of manned flight. I generally trust current UMSF members, but once the Buck Rogers, spaceplane types showed up I would face the same problem picking through the forums for realistic, rational discussion of UMSF as I do on other web sites.

[JRehling]

[...]

[dvandorn]

Don, I must say that, with your clarifications, I agree with you much more than I don't.

This thread is good, I think -- though there is a definite self-limiting factor to a manned Venus orbiter right now (energetic cosmic rays and solar flares, with no really good way to shield against them). To safely operate manned vehicles at Venus, I think you'd first need to maneuver an asteroid into orbit around it and dig your manned vehicle into that asteroid. (Unlike Mars, Venus doesn't present us with a ready-made natural piece of real estate in the right location.)

I somehow get a feeling that, by the time we know enough to be able to maneuver asteroids into planetary orbits, we'll have come up with a shielding solution for energetic particles...

-the other Doug

[edstrick]

It's not THAT difficult to shield solar cosmic rays. They're relatively low energy. You do need pounds of mass <perferably low atomic weight mass> per square inch surrounding you (sea level on earth has 14 pounds of mass per square inch over it)

What's a real problem is high atomic weight high energy galactic cosmic rays. But 14 lb/sq-in stops most of them, and shatters most into smaller and lower energy particles (cosmic-ray showers, they call'm)

The problem is the simple one of having to live inside a radiation shelter most of the mission. And you have to take that mass with you whereever you go.