Long-Term Space Exploration Problems...

[Nephtys]

Regarding the proposals of again, long-term space colonies on the moon, or a trip to Mars... I've read and seem to be under the impression that (aside from political/economical considerations) the biggest problem happens to be that technologically, our modern life support and resource recycling capabilities are too limited to even consider a year long voyage without support.

What do you all think is the biggest limitation on us as of now? Any articles on the subject?

[Jaepheth]

$$$

money is the limitation

If long term colonies anywhere were proven profitable, it'd be done, or at least in the works.

[Dangermouse]

One major concern on long space travel is radiation exposure from cosmic rays and high energy solar particles. I think that we need better shielding on our crafts if trips far beyond the Earth's magnetic field are to become a reality. For example:

New Scientist on Space Radiation

Mars Risks

Nasa say Radiation A Top Concern

[Darth Servo]

There is only so much food you can fit on a space ship too.

[Haruko]

Only a few nations would dare spend billions upon billions on a continuous and ambitious space program, and the U.S. is one of them. Unfortunately, there isn't a rival superpower to serve as a great motivator. If the U.S.S.R. did not collapse, it's probable that the U.S. would be far, far further ahead than it is now.

[drachefly]

There is only so much food you can fit on a space ship too.

That's a pretty trivial concern, comparatively speaking. All that mass you would bring as radiation shield can be food or waste.


Suppose you eat an astonishing 3 kilos per day. One year becomes a metric ton. With a crew of 30, that's just 100 tons for a whole 3 years.
And 100 tons compared to the size of a ship capable of carrying 30 people to Mars and back in 3 years is pretty insignificant.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think the mental aspect of being couped up in a ship for years is a seldom addressed issue. We all work with someone who is profoundly annoying to the rest of the team. Any long term mission needs to make sure such a person is not on board. Otherwise he/she will be pummeled to death by the rest of the crew.

Even with crews that are buddies I'd image nerves will wear thin after a year or so

[Ender]

I think the mental aspect of being couped up in a ship for years is a seldom addressed issue. We all work with someone who is profoundly annoying to the rest of the team. Any long term mission needs to make sure such a person is not on board. Otherwise he/she will be pummeled to death by the rest of the crew.

Even with crews that are buddies I'd image nerves will wear thin after a year or so

People deal with worse stress now, and out ancestors certainly dealt with that and worse during their exploration. The stress of constant interaction and being cooped up all the time are vastly over rated.


Really the big problems are fueling the craft, building it to last, and the cost.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think the mental aspect of being couped up in a ship for years is a seldom addressed issue. We all work with someone who is profoundly annoying to the rest of the team. Any long term mission needs to make sure such a person is not on board. Otherwise he/she will be pummeled to death by the rest of the crew.

Even with crews that are buddies I'd image nerves will wear thin after a year or so

The Soviet crews that stayed up on Mir for almost an entire year at a time managed to avoid killing each other, although almost certainly arguments arose.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think the mental aspect of being couped up in a ship for years is a seldom addressed issue. We all work with someone who is profoundly annoying to the rest of the team. Any long term mission needs to make sure such a person is not on board. Otherwise he/she will be pummeled to death by the rest of the crew.

Even with crews that are buddies I'd image nerves will wear thin after a year or so

The Soviet crews that stayed up on Mir for almost an entire year at a time managed to avoid killing each other, although almost certainly arguments arose.

I thought I'd heard the Soviets did have problems with crews getting into fist fights? In orbit over the Earth there is the realistic possibility if things get bad you can always come down or get picked up. Halfway to Mars this does not exist. Do you think that could make a difference?

[Sarevok]

I think the biggest problem is the basic task of sending payloads to orbit. Currently this is a very expensive process. If that cost could be cut down everything else becomes much more simpler.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Regarding the proposals of again, long-term space colonies on the moon, or a trip to Mars... I've read and seem to be under the impression that (aside from political/economical considerations) the biggest problem happens to be that technologically, our modern life support and resource recycling capabilities are too limited to even consider a year long voyage without support.

What do you all think is the biggest limitation on us as of now? Any articles on the subject?

That is one of our biggest problems right now . . . creating a perfectly closed-loop life support system. Spaceship life support, as it stands right now, is open-loop. They eat food, they drink water, it all comes out the other end a day or so later, and is promptly flushed out the airlock. As a result, they require a lot of consumables for a long trip. Of course, for a relatively short trip to the Moon, this is more trivial, as you're just a few days away from Earth. But, if one plans to stay there for any reasonable length of time, of if one plans to go to Mars (where the total round-trip time is close to two years long, and a multi-month stay is mandatory, unless one was willing to invest in obscene amounts of fuel to make the trip back to Earth regardless of the favorability of the orbital mechanics.) This problem becomes even worse if you want to go to the asteroids, or further out into the solar system, or send more than a small handful of people to do more than leave a flag and a bunch of litter behind. So yes, a major problem is closing the loop on life support.

The second major problem is the effects of microgravity on the crew of a spaceship. Muscles atrophy, bones lose calcium, fluid accumulates where it shouldn't. Even with rigorous exercise, the crewmembers of the ISS don't walk off the Soyuz at the end of the mission, they're generally carried off in stretchers. For long-term space exploration, one has to come up with a mass and space-efficient means of creating artificial gravity (such as turning the ship into an enormous centrifuge while it's in the cruise stage,) developing drugs to counter the effects of prolonged microgravity, or dooming future space-explorers to one-way trips . . . i.e. they leave Earth and can never, ever return.


A third major problem is propulsion. This includes propulsion in deep-space, and getting people off Earth to do the deep-space exploration. A modern rocket is 90% fuel 9% rocket and under 1% payload. That fuel is either highly expensive to make and store (on the account that it has to be kept very cold, or well away from the environment,) or it is fiendishly toxic and/or volatile. As a result, launch costs are high. It costs roughly as much to buy a lump of pure gold (BOTE calculation warning) with the same mass as the spaceship as it does to put the actual spaceship into orbit. This is very much the reason why so many of us here get hard-ons at the prospect of a working space-elevator. This problem of propulsion also plagues us when we're in space. Right now, virtually all of our spacecraft have chemical rocket motors for thrusters. Since a space-probe can't carry much fuel, the most it can do is make minor trajectory changes, or change its orientation. This is why our robotic probes take years to get anywhere, and have to rely on highly complex series of planetary flybys to get to where they're going. This is why we're looking into alternatives to chemical rockets. (Now while you can make a manned trip to Mars using chemical rockets, you have to wait for the orbital mechanics to be just right to do so. And since a large fraction of the ship's mass must be fuel, either the ship has to carry enough fuel for both the outbound and return trips, or we build a factory on Mars to make rocket fuel while we're waiting for the planets to properly line up again.)

[Guardsman Bass]

I think the mental aspect of being couped up in a ship for years is a seldom addressed issue. We all work with someone who is profoundly annoying to the rest of the team. Any long term mission needs to make sure such a person is not on board. Otherwise he/she will be pummeled to death by the rest of the crew.

Even with crews that are buddies I'd image nerves will wear thin after a year or so

The Soviet crews that stayed up on Mir for almost an entire year at a time managed to avoid killing each other, although almost certainly arguments arose.

I thought I'd heard the Soviets did have problems with crews getting into fist fights? In orbit over the Earth there is the realistic possibility if things get bad you can always come down or get picked up. Halfway to Mars this does not exist. Do you think that could make a difference?

Almost certainly. You would probably have to train a crew in isolation for a long period of time, by placing them somewhere without any outside human contact, in an environment that will kill them if they don't co-operate. Like Antarctica, for example.

Another interesting thing to consider is that your crew would have to be extraordinarily independent compared to your normal crews, which are almost continuously in contact with NASA while in orbit.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The Soviet crews that stayed up on Mir for almost an entire year at a time managed to avoid killing each other, although almost certainly arguments arose.

I thought I'd heard the Soviets did have problems with crews getting into fist fights? In orbit over the Earth there is the realistic possibility if things get bad you can always come down or get picked up. Halfway to Mars this does not exist. Do you think that could make a difference?

Almost certainly. You would probably have to train a crew in isolation for a long period of time, by placing them somewhere without any outside human contact, in an environment that will kill them if they don't co-operate. Like Antarctica, for example.

Another interesting thing to consider is that your crew would have to be extraordinarily independent compared to your normal crews, which are almost continuously in contact with NASA while in orbit.

Nuclear submariners face a few of the same challenges that a crew on a deep-space exploration mission would. They live in a very cramped tin can that stays submerged for months on end. Though "months" is not quite the same as "years," and if the submarine gets into trouble, they can surface and have a Navy rescue ship come to them, whereas a spaceship crew has to fix all their problems on-site, lest their spaceship become their tomb.

[Centurian99]

Nuclear submariners face a few of the same challenges that a crew on a deep-space exploration mission would. They live in a very cramped tin can that stays submerged for months on end. Though "months" is not quite the same as "years," and if the submarine gets into trouble, they can surface and have a Navy rescue ship come to them, whereas a spaceship crew has to fix all their problems on-site, lest their spaceship become their tomb.

That's why I'm firmly convinced that when we finally do get into space in a large-scale way, it's going to be the US Navy, not the US Air Force, that's in charge.

[drachefly]

As far as fuel for the way back is concerned, it should be possible to send a fuel tank on a very low-cost trajectory (very efficient but slow propulsion) AHEAD of the mission to mars, so when they get there they can just pick it up and use it to get back, instead of having to carry it there on their high-delta-V trip.

That would greatly cut down on the exponential issues of carting fuel around -- neither factory nor extra fuel tanks need to be brought out WITH the crew.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Propulsion isn't as big a problem so long as we maintain investments in JPL and similar R&D sites. The likes of NERVA and VASIMR make flying to and from mars something to be attained in under a year, and also allow for fuel economy and low Isp, high thrust if you have to leave a gravity well from a planet surface.

Radiation is being looked at. There are numerous medications being made to combat radiological effects, but the best bet is to use plenty of dense (to the radiation at least) yet light materials that can absorb all but the most high-energy particles. There's even an EM shield concept to be used with a large disc shield on one design of craft (see the BBC's Space Odyssey mini-docu-drama) to help lessen effects even when flying round Sol to slingshot to the outer four or so planets.

Hydroponics and other renewable food and nutrient sources are a real problem. Oxygen can be gathered from water (assuming you have enough of that even) and waste water can be collected from the atmosphere and recycled, as can air using CO2 scrubbers. Projects like Biosphere 2 have failed in having a sealed environment capable of supporting life for even a half-dozen humans or so. This needs to be worked on.

An alternative would be to send a craft full of food ahead to the landing spot and have your own vessel carry as much in the way of supplies as possible on the way there. At least then spares of anything can be at hand, though this is still a reliance on consumables with no way of being self-sufficient.

[drachefly]

Projects like Biosphere 2 have failed in having a sealed environment capable of supporting life for even a half-dozen humans or so. This needs to be worked on.

keep in mind though that Biosphere 2 was attempting to replicate an earth ecosystem, not merely keep the place livable to humans for a finite period.

An alternative would be to send a craft full of food ahead to the landing spot and have your own vessel carry as much in the way of supplies as possible on the way there.

An additional layer to my fuel idea, above. Yes, bulk supplies should definitely be sent on a more efficient long-term course in advance. But it should be left in orbit. Less chance of losing it all that way...

[Redleader34]

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
I think the mental aspect of being couped up in a ship for years is a seldom addressed issue. We all work with someone who is profoundly annoying to the rest of the team. Any long term mission needs to make sure such a person is not on board. Otherwise he/she will be pummeled to death by the rest of the crew.

Even with crews that are buddies I'd image nerves will wear thin after a year or so
There was a discover magsine from 2000 that addresed your isuue of mental stability if you are liiking for refeences.

[anybody_mcc]

i think there is one more thing ( somewhat connected with money considerations ) : Does it even have sense going there , is it not better sending there automated robots with continually better AI ( as we develope it ) ? What is really the point of going there "personally" ?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

i think there is one more thing ( somewhat connected with money considerations ) : Does it even have sense going there , is it not better sending there automated robots with continually better AI ( as we develope it ) ? What is really the point of going there "personally" ?

Eventually we're going to want to start to establish colonies off-Earth, as sort of an extinction insurance policy. We would rather go extinct by genetically engineering smarter, better, faster humans who gradually replace us, rather than go extinct from a disease or asteroid impact wiping us out wholesale. To do that requires eventually solving many of the problems that plague us today, regarding space exploration. After all, our very long-term vision of Mars exploration involves us eventually establishing a growing permanent presence.

[anybody_mcc]

I think right now going extinct by asteroid or something like this is not our greatest concern. If such asteroid would really struck , our species would survive with high probability and mars colony would not be selfsufficient so they would die. Of course in the farther future it may be something worth doing , but right now the only thing worth doing is r&d in that general area , not wasting money that can be used for better purposes.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I think right now going extinct by asteroid or something like this is not our greatest concern. If such asteroid would really struck , our species would survive with high probability and mars colony would not be selfsufficient so they would die. Of course in the farther future it may be something worth doing , but right now the only thing worth doing is r&d in that general area , not wasting money that can be used for better purposes.

A mass extinction event capable of wiping out a majority of land-based life would spell the end of the human species as well. We've cleverly made it so our survival is reliant on the machinery of civilization continuing unimpeded. And our highly technological infrastructure doesn't hold up very well in the face of even minor catastrophes. A person living in a high-rise apartment in downtown Tokyo or Manhattan would be dead within a month if the enormous complex, intricate chain of supply and industry supporting his or her existence collapsed. Billions of people on Earth are reliant on food produced from industrial agriculture. If we were forced back to subsistence living, almost every human on Earth will die a horrible death, with the survivors being some remote aboriginal hunters living in the depths of Africa or South America. You'd likely be looking at a few tens or hundreds of thousands of survivors scratching out a living our ancestors 100,000 years ago would've recognized, and since we've transformed most of our readily available resources into forms that a stone-age hunter would find unusable, it would take a very, very long time to get back to where we are now.

And this attitude of "oh, it might be worth doing sometime farther in the future" is one that can concievably be extended outward to the end of the human species. To futurists such as myself, such attitudes are dangerously short-sighted and like other harmful memes, like organized religion, tend to stick around long after they've ceased being useful.

Space research does produce tangible benefits on Earth, and solving the problems inherent in manned space exploration will have benefits on Earth. Create a closed-loop recycling system that works in space? Great, we can then apply this technology to Earth to make living here less wasteful and less destructive on the environment. Solve the problems of degradation of bodily functions in microgravity? Great, great-grandma Jones will benefit from the development of drugs to help her retain calcium in her bones to combat her osteoperosis. Develop light, yet strong materials that can handle the rigors of space travel? Great, light yet strong materials are just the things we need for the next generation of efficient, safe automobiles. Figure out how to build a space-elevator? Excellent, you can build longer and safer suspension bridges. Figure out how to assemble large structures in space, and endow them with ultra-efficient solar cells? Awesome, build an enormous structure in space coated with ultra-efficient solar cells and beam the power gathered back to Earth. No more problems with burning fossil fuels, or storing radioactive waste.

I could go on like this until my carpal tunnels begged for mercy, but hopefully the point has been demonstrated that space exploration can have tangible benefits to those who'd otherwise not care about such things.

[anybody_mcc]

I think right now going extinct by asteroid or something like this is not our greatest concern. If such asteroid would really struck , our species would survive with high probability and mars colony would not be selfsufficient so they would die. Of course in the farther future it may be something worth doing , but right now the only thing worth doing is r&d in that general area , not wasting money that can be used for better purposes.

A mass extinction event capable of wiping out a majority of land-based life would spell the end of the human species as well. We've cleverly made it so our survival is reliant on the machinery of civilization continuing unimpeded. And our highly technological infrastructure doesn't hold up very well in the face of even minor catastrophes. A person living in a high-rise apartment in downtown Tokyo or Manhattan would be dead within a month if the enormous complex, intricate chain of supply and industry supporting his or her existence collapsed. Billions of people on Earth are reliant on food produced from industrial agriculture. If we were forced back to subsistence living, almost every human on Earth will die a horrible death, with the survivors being some remote aboriginal hunters living in the depths of Africa or South America. You'd likely be looking at a few tens or hundreds of thousands of survivors scratching out a living our ancestors 100,000 years ago would've recognized, and since we've transformed most of our readily available resources into forms that a stone-age hunter would find unusable, it would take a very, very long time to get back to where we are now.

And i do not deny it. I just said that this reason for space exploration is too far in the future , because what difference would even a few thousand people on mars make in this scenario.

And this attitude of "oh, it might be worth doing sometime farther in the future" is one that can concievably be extended outward to the end of the human species. To futurists such as myself, such attitudes are dangerously short-sighted and like other harmful memes, like organized religion, tend to stick around long after they've ceased being useful.

Space research does produce tangible benefits on Earth, and solving the problems inherent in manned space exploration will have benefits on Earth. Create a closed-loop recycling system that works in space? Great, we can then apply this technology to Earth to make living here less wasteful and less destructive on the environment. Solve the problems of degradation of bodily functions in microgravity? Great, great-grandma Jones will benefit from the development of drugs to help her retain calcium in her bones to combat her osteoperosis. Develop light, yet strong materials that can handle the rigors of space travel? Great, light yet strong materials are just the things we need for the next generation of efficient, safe automobiles. Figure out how to build a space-elevator? Excellent, you can build longer and safer suspension bridges. Figure out how to assemble large structures in space, and endow them with ultra-efficient solar cells? Awesome, build an enormous structure in space coated with ultra-efficient solar cells and beam the power gathered back to Earth. No more problems with burning fossil fuels, or storing radioactive waste.

I could go on like this until my carpal tunnels begged for mercy, but hopefully the point has been demonstrated that space exploration can have tangible benefits to those who'd otherwise not care about such things.

As you may have noticed i said it is worth doing r&d in this area. To clarify i am against manned mission to other planets , but i have nothing against space program in general. I say more money to r&d , no money for actual manned flight to mars or somewhere else , since there is no real need to go there personally. And sometime in the future when such mission is not so expensive and we have solved more pressing matters on earth , why not. As for my not so rational part , i would love to see it done.

[McC]

And i do not deny it. I just said that this reason for space exploration is too far in the future , because what difference would even a few thousand people on mars make in this scenario.

Says who? Our ability to track incoming asteroids is fairly limited. We could be dead tomorrow as a result of an asteroidal impact. Only the small-minded attitude of "Well, it hasn't happened yet, so it's probably not going to!" doesn't recognize the notion of an asteroid impact as an ominous reality. It will happen. The question is only when.

As you may have noticed i said it is worth doing r&d in this area. To clarify i am against manned mission to other planets , but i have nothing against space program in general. I say more money to r&d , no money for actual manned flight to mars or somewhere else , since there is no real need to go there personally. And sometime in the future when such mission is not so expensive and we have solved more pressing matters on earth , why not. As for my not so rational part , i would love to see it done.

I have a hard time even thinking how to respond to this. "I am against manned mission to other planets" makes me breakdown into spiddle and fumes, rendering my ability to shred this attitude extremely limited. Suffice it to say, you are not winning points in my book.