Ridley Scott's "The Martian!"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 61 - 80 of total 86 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jan 21, 2016 - 08:59pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jan 22, 2016 - 04:15pm PT
It's an interesting exercise to compare the overall feel of the two films - Interstellar and The Martian. Regarding narratives, for eg. Regarding the two fates, eg..

The spread of our possible futures is so wide it's mind boggling to try to think about it. And yet it is coming. The future. One way or another it is coming.
dee ee

Mountain climber
Of THIS World (Planet Earth)
Jan 22, 2016 - 05:39pm PT
I loved it.

One of the best films of the year. I haven't seen the other best ones.

Well OK a couple of them.
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 22, 2016 - 08:02pm PT
Bridge of Spies was decent, too. I'm a fan of Tom Hanks.
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 31, 2016 - 03:32pm PT
Now rereading the book, and there are some differences, and more technical explanations as to "what happened." The book seems to have incorporated a lot of Zubrin's "Case for Mars," Mars Direct concepts.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Feb 18, 2016 - 04:07pm PT
space travel is very non-intuitive…it is very hard to imagine the various space environments without spending time there

if you've ever watched flat-lander tourists watching El Cap climbers from the meadows, you know they tend to have amazing mis-perceptions about what they are viewing

astronauts train in a huge swimming pool…the Neutral Buoyancy Lab NBL in Houston…

while for years in the NBL and the Building 4 astronaut offices i've recommended they would be better adapted to working in space by adding big wall environments to their training regime

movies such as Gravity and The Martian actually provide a pretty good introduction

but watching a climbing movie doesn't prepare you for the sensations and activities of hanging out high on El Cap

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 18, 2016 - 04:13pm PT
Tom-

So...where are we w/r to a return to space in U.S. vehicles, instead of rented Russian rides?
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Feb 18, 2016 - 09:59pm PT



I was part of the critical design review for the SpaceX Dragon:

Dragon is a free-flying spacecraft designed to deliver both cargo and people to orbiting destinations. Dragon made history in 2012 when it became the first commercial spacecraft in history to deliver cargo to the International Space Station and safely return cargo to Earth, a feat previously achieved only by governments. It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth. Currently Dragon carries cargo to space, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans. Under an agreement with NASA, SpaceX is now developing the refinements that will enable Dragon to fly crew. Dragon's first manned test flight is expected to take place in 2-3 years.

http://www.spacex.com/dragon


NASA officials admitted today the Space Launch System — the agency’s next big rocket — is a vehicle without a mission plan, NASA Spaceflight reports. The agency acknowledged what is essentially an empty flight manifest for the SLS at NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, during an all-hands meeting on Monday.

The meeting was held to discuss uncertainty about the SLS. Its first test flight with humans aboard has already been delayed once, and the schedule for the SLS’s tests are shaky — there is no definitive launch schedule for the rocket beyond its first uncrewed test flight, which is slated for September 30th, 2018. After that, the SLS's next flight dates are mostly tentative, and the rocket doesn't have any definitive mission plans — only the promise of going to an asteroid and then to Mars someday.

THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE LAUNCH SCHEDULE FOR THE ROCKET

The SLS was born out of NASA's now-defunct Constellation program, an effort aimed at returning humans to the Moon. Though it was once considered the replacement for the Space Shuttle program, the group far exceeded its budget. President Obama cancelled the initiative in 2010, and out of its ashes, the SLS concept was created — both as a way to salvage parts of Constellation and to provide NASA with a primary vehicle for sending astronauts deep into space. It was also a way to save the jobs of thousands of NASA employees who had been working on Constellation.

But the SLS is expensive, and NASA's budget is at the lowest it has been in decades, even with the new budget allotment of $19.3 billion for the 2016 fiscal year. The cost of developing the SLS through 2017 is expected to total $18 billion. And once the rocket is built, each launch is going to cost somewhere between $500 and $700 million, which makes it unlikely that the rocket will carry astronauts more than once a year.

It's uncertain when the SLS will actually fly with people in it, though. A test flight of the rocket, which will send people into orbit around the Moon, was originally planned for no later than August 2021; that was pushed back to April 2023. Follow-up test flights are set for the mid to late 2020s, but no dates have been locked down yet. During the KSC meeting, two NASA administrators blamed NASA’s funding for the lack of SLS bookings, NASA Spaceflight reports.

There are actually two versions of the rocket, which has added to the scheduling and funding complexity. The first version of the SLS will debut with a smaller upper stage, or top portion of the vehicle; that's going to be used for the first uncrewed test flight in 2018. This version was also meant to be used for the first crewed flight in 2023. But NASA has been given more money to accelerate the production of a bigger upper stage for the SLS; now the agency wants to fly that bigger version before people can ride. That means the first crewed test flight will likely be pushed back yet again — becoming the third flight of the SLS rather than the second. The second flight will likely include a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa, as mandated in the new Omnibus bill.

After that, the SLS's future is unclear. The current objectives of NASA are to use SLS to conduct the Asteroid Redirect Mission — an initiative to bring a piece of an asteroid into lunar orbit where it can be explored by astronauts. Then there's the ultimate goal of a Mars mission in the 2030s. But the near term is more mundane: scheduling hell.

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 18, 2016 - 10:06pm PT
THanks Tom! your appearance here has always astonished me...
overwatch

climber
Arizona
Feb 19, 2016 - 05:41am PT
^^^^ and how! Great posts, thanks for taking the time to be here.

I thought it was an awesome movie...I laughed, I cried. Love Matt Damon.
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2016 - 03:24pm PT
Tom-

Thank you for your insight! What appears apparent to me is lack of a clear mission for NASA; in the 60's we had as our goal, making the moon our objective. The approach was perhaps somewhat rough and ready, but through dedication of the entire agency, was successful.

The SLS sounds like a way of keeping NASA gainfully employed until someone figures out what should be the goal. From one of your other posts, re: Constellation, it sounded as though the crew vehicle was being treated something the way the Army treats the infantry. The chairwarmers make decisions of huge impact; oh year, they better carry that too, 'cause they might need it. It's awfully hard to run with 50, 60, or 60 pounds of crap hanging on one's body--just because "they might need that." Your comments, if I recall correctly, was the capsule/vehicle/manned module was too heavy for the launch system?

I'm a great supporter of programs with defined and legitimate goals, and double that for manned exploration of another world: Mars. The Moon? Yeah, we could attempt an encore there, but not until we've "done Mars!"

I'm certain you've seen the Zubrin clip I posted, and the best thing we could do is get Space X involved. I'd love to see a major presence on the Red Planet in a continuous manner, which guarantees ongoing expansion ever outward...
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Feb 19, 2016 - 06:16pm PT
my favorite vehicles under development are Dragon and Dream Chaser…

Elon Musk is targeting Mars


(Washington, DC -- January 16, 2016) NSS congratulates Orbital ATK (Cygnus), Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser), and SpaceX (Dragon 2) for being selected to provide cargo services to the International Space Station as part of the Commercial Resupply Service 2 (CRS-2) contract. The CRS contract covers the delivery of supplies to the ISS, disposal of ISS waste, and the return of scientific samples from the ISS. The new contract provides a minimum of six missions to each of the three winners during the period 2019-2024. A NASA spokesperson said, “NASA’s service contracts to resupply the space station have changed the way the agency does business in low-Earth orbit. With these contracts, NASA continues to advance commercial spaceflight and the American jobs it creates.”

“This announcement represents a major forward advance for NASA and the CRS program,” said Dale Skran, NSS Executive Vice President. “Both Orbital ATK and SpaceX added significant new capabilities over the first contract. In the new contract, the up-sized Cygnus with new solar panels will be used, and the Dragon 2 offers options for both berthing and docking, along with a rapid return to Earth capacity via propulsive landing. However, the selection of Sierra Nevada and the Dream Chaser means that for the first time since the retirement of the Space Shuttle reusable winged vehicles will be returning from space and landing at Kennedy Space Center.”

“NSS congratulates NASA on adding a third CRS provider,” said Mark Hopkins, Chair of the NSS Executive Committee. “The CRS-2 program now has triple redundancy in both orbital components and launch vehicles. NSS members look forward to the Dream Chaser’s first return from space.” See full press release.

http://www.nss.org
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2016 - 10:17pm PT
If Elon Musk is targeting Mars, then we'll actually GET THERE--maybe in my lifetime.
Brokedownclimber

Trad climber
Douglas, WY
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2016 - 09:23am PT
Tom-

I checked out the nss.org website, and the links from there sowed me that you were indeed correct, w/r SpaceX and the Dragon-Heavy technology. Very impressive, to say the least. With Elon Musk guiding things, Congress simply needs to give out a contract for Mars!!
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
May 1, 2016 - 11:25am PT
a very interesting movie, just saw it last night... what I liked best is the realistic situation, though ultimately a paean to NASA. The dust storm is a convenient, and credible to terrestrials, plot mechanism, and totally acceptable for the story telling though perhaps not a realistic depiction of the actual situation on the surface of Mars.

One wonders, though, aside from putting people on the surface, what the purpose of the mission was, actually. And of course, aside from yet another plot mechanism, why a botanist is a part of the crew (not much growing on Mars... the radiation sterilizes the surface), though the fact that the botanist knows better than to eat the potato greens (toxic) helps move the story along.

But what Debbie and I both noted was the very long travel times...
Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0

the one way trip Earth to/from Mars is in the range of 180 to 210 days. The time spend on Mars in this movie was very short, long-stay missions are expected to be of order 500 days... the crew in the movie makes 4 trips, so lets say 800 days, that's 2.2 years... I'd have to do the math, I assume that NASA helped them get it right.

But these times are daunting, and not only that, there is a part of the risk calculation that is linear in time, the clock is ticking and we are swept along by frame titles like "7 months later" as if we're waiting out the trip in complete normalcy, immune somehow from the operational issues of long term spaceflight.

The addendum to the study above has much more detail
Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 Addendum

The basic justification for sending humans to perform the science missions is given:

2.2.2 The unique attributes of humans in scientific exploration
It is important to consider the unique capabilities that humans bring to the exploration of Mars. In so doing, a common set of human traits emerges that applies to exploration relating to the MEPAG science disciplines of Geology, Geophysics, Life, and Climate. These characteristics include: speed and efficiency to optimize field work; agility and dexterity to go places that are difficult for robotic access and to exceed currently limited degrees-of-freedom robotic manipulation capabilities; and, most importantly, the innate intelligence, ingenuity, and adaptability to evaluate in real time and improvise to overcome surprises while ensuring that the correct sampling strategy is in place to acquire the appropriate sample set. Real-time evaluation and adaptability especially would be a significant new tool that humans on Mars would bring to surface exploration. There are limitations to the autonomous operations that are possible with current robotic systems; fundamental limitations to direct commanding from Earth are the time difference that is imposed by the 6- to 20-minute communications transit time and the small number of daily uplink and downlink communications passes.

Humans are unique scientific explorers. We can obtain previously unobtainable scientific measurements on the surface of Mars. Further, we possess the abilities to adapt to new and unexpected situations in new and strange environments; human explorers can make real-time decisions, and have strong recognition abilities and are intelligent. Humans can perform detailed and precise measurements of the surface, subsurface, and atmosphere while on the surface of Mars with state-of-the-art scientific equipment and instrumentation brought from Earth. The scientific exploration of Mars by humans would presumably be performed as a synergistic partnership between humans and robotic probes that are controlled by the human explorers on the surface of Mars (MEPAG HEM-SAG, 2008).

Robotic probes can explore terrains and features that are not suitable or too risky for human exploration. Under human real-time control, robotic probes can traverse great distances from the human habitat, covering distances/ terrains that are too risky for human exploration; undertake sensitive, delicate sample handling operations; and return rock and dust samples to the habitat for triage and laboratory analyses.

Interestingly, while these human attributes can be subject to a cost-benifet analysis vs. robotic missions, this analysis is lacking. Given the great expense of such a mission one might think it likely that spending directed toward robotic scientific missions, at the same levels, would produce a great deal of science, especially considering the large "overhead" of maintaining human life throughout the mission (where much of the non-fuel mass requirements come from).

Not only that, but the communication time lags require autonomous robots, which have obvious and direct applicability to terrestrial applications.

Remote sensing is a NASA forte, and oddly the exploration of Mars should include the same sorts of remote sensing missions that occur over Earth... while expensive, dropping the requirements for human presence (which is not necessary for these remote-sensing missions) makes such missions possible, by freeing up room in the budget.


It is the unvoiced opinion of most of NASA that the US public would not support the expense of merely robotic missions, that the only compelling mission is a human mission. This is somewhat antiquated (in my opinion) and also damaging to larger scientific priorities.

NASA (and all other departments and agencies) are compelled to justify their research in terms of well formulated priorities, and in science, these priorities are set by the importance of the science and the likelihood of being able to do that science. If the science of Mars is so important as to justify the great expense of a Mars study campaign, be it human or robotic, then we can proceed with justification to plan that campaign.

However, if that science does not rise in priority over other science endeavors, we cannot justify the expense on the claim of scientific importance.

Going to Mars, sending humans there, may be important for other reasons, but we should be honest about those reasons. If it is for national prestige, we should admit it; if for the bragging rights of a nation embarking on exploration, to claim new land, we should admit it; if for the hubris of humans, we should admit it.

These features are all evident in the movie... if there were any science being done, it was not depicted (except perhaps in the opening 5 minutes with the routine sample collection of rocks/soil... that is something robots can do quite well).

We are inspired by a tale of human endurance in a hostile environment where all of our biases of human capability are pandered to... of course we like the movie, we like to think we could "science the hell out of this" and get out of any such situation. If it is a Hollywood movie, supported by NASA, we often can. In real life things are somewhat different.

Mighty Hiker

climber
Outside the Asylum
May 1, 2016 - 06:33pm PT
Ed has some good points, from the scientific and engineering aspects particularly. But I bet that a significant proportion of current and past astronauts - that is, people who are undoubtedly qualified and know the risks - would volunteer for a mission to Mars, knowing that they had only a 50% (or lower) chance of returning.

The Martian seemed more realistic than most such movies, and was quite entertaining. Watney being a biologist helped the plot, and given that there were six in the crew, also believable. There'd be little point in humans going there if there wasn't a biologist/geologist in the crew, to help search for and identify signs of life.

It wasn't very plausible, though, that the five astronauts 'escaped' back to the mothership, then immediately headed for Earth. They'd likely have waited in orbit for some time, preparing for the right time for the return trip. They'd almost certainly have seen signs of continuing life at the habitat, before starting the return journey. They wouldn't be able to do anything about it, though, in terms of supplying or rescuing Watney, or even communicating with him.

There doesn't seem much point to humans returning to the Moon. There may not be a lot more to discover there, although there may be ice in craters at the poles, which might help with establishing bases.

Human trips to near earth asteroids seem feasible, to learn more about what they're made up of, and perhaps as a stepping stone. Some asteroids may have enough ice/water to provide fuel and oxygen, and maybe even valuable metals. There's lots of free (solar) power in the inner solar system.

Mars may be just within human reach, physiologically, financially, and technologically. And there's one compelling reason to go there. From what is known about the origins of life on Earth, there may at one time have been simple life on Mars, and it may be possible to find clear evidence of it. (There may even still be unicellular or simple life there, underground.) To find it will probably require a human geologist or two. But three to four billion years ago, Mars had a significant atmosphere, geological activity, lots of water, and perhaps even a magnetic field. In other words, the time and environment for life to arise.

There's still lots of water in the form of ice on and under the surface of Mars, which might provide water, hydrogen and oxygen. (Will all Aresnauts be short/small, as they eat and drink less? And perhaps older, given the risks?) Likewise it may be possible to process the Martian atmosphere to provide oxygen or methane, as propellants.

Robots can travel on Mars' surface, take and analyze samples, even drill cores and return them to Earth. Simple geology, but nothing like what human scientists could do on site, particularly when looking for elusive signs of life in the geological record.

The discovery of even single-celled life on Mars - past or present - would be earth-shattering. Humans may just be able to make the journey and return in reasonable health to Earth. Many explorers have willingly taken much higher risks. It'd take a vessel designed to provide at least some artificial gravity, though, and even then low gravity, radiation, and maintaining an environment that will support humans for two+ years are huge challenges.

IMHO, humans ever try for Mars, it'll be an international effort. The resources and organization required would be beyond any one nation or organization. Certainly private enterprise may be able to build on technologies that are largely based on military science, and add initiative. I doubt that any government would allow such an enterprise to be privately controlled, or allow it at all if there wasn't a reasonable chance that the Aresnauts would survive and return to Earth. Say 50%.

Finding life or signs of life on Mars would revolutionize humanity, just as finding extrasolar planets with oxygen atmospheres, liquid water, or both. If humanity decided, we could probably make the voyage in the next ten or twenty years.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
May 1, 2016 - 08:51pm PT
a mission to look for life on Mars....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoMars_Trace_Gas_Orbiter

...it's robotic.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Outside the Asylum
May 1, 2016 - 10:36pm PT
Leaving aside the importance of adventure and exploration to the human spirit - something that we climbers intuitively understand - is there now, or is there likely to be any time in say the next 50 years, a robot with the abilities of a human geologist/biologist? That is, in terms of looking for evidence on Mars of past or current simple or unicellular life, perhaps in the fossil record?

Robotic explorers do some amazing things, and may identify chemical or geological traces of life on Mars. They've found water (lots in the past, some even now, at least as slurry and ice), and stratified rocks. Are they likely to have the abilities of a human field geologist? Maybe a human-guided return probe will get lucky and bring back a core that has evidence of life. But then we'll have to send humans to follow up.

No aspersion on the amazing things that robotic explorers have done, which humans will probably never emulate. But looking for signs of life on Mars may be beyond on them for quite a while, if ever. Is there a robot now that could find geological proof of simple life on Earth, simply from the geology?
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
May 1, 2016 - 10:50pm PT
biggest problem with life on mars is the fact that it has been contaminated by earth .. both Soviet and US probes have introduced life on Mars.

NEXT PROBLEM.. WHAT IS LIFE?

You try defining it and recognizing it. If it is DNA based and using the same code..hmm did it come from earth? .or for that matter did earth life originate on earth?

if it is not DNA based... how do we recognize it .. simple I suppose if it is very large and highly mobile.. but microscopic? not gunna be so easy
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
May 2, 2016 - 09:12am PT
I think the jury is out on whether or not robots have the "same" capabilities as humans as geologists, at least in terms of field-work. There is a lot of "field-work" that is now done remotely, robotically, and produces very important data.

My main point isn't whether such a capability exists now, but rather, given the cost of a human mission to Mars to execute this science, whether the investment of that budget to the development of a campaign of robotic missions to Mars wouldn't do the same thing...
...this includes the R&D to develop robotic capabilities up to the task, the likelihood of doing this is, of course, a risk.

The further question is whether the science of this mission has priority over all the other science that NASA and the USG supports. Obviously, the Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) was considered a lower priority than the James Web Space Telescope (JWST), the budget over-run of the JWST ate up the budget for the MSO. This was a choice of science program priority as the JWST could have been stretched out to accommodate the costs of the MSO. Apparently this scenario was not adopted.

Weighing the Mars science mission risks against each other, failure of the robotic mission to achieve the capabilities (as demonstrated by mission "failure") against the loss of human life in the pursuit of science (which is also a science mission "failure" as the expertise is lost with the human) is a cold economic/engineering calculation.

It is my conjecture that the robotic campaign can be successful at much less cost per scientific result than the human exploration campaign. NASA, as far as I can determine, has not done the math... but rather appeals to the romantic notion of human exploration. Its hubris is that we can venture out into the unknown without risking loss of life.

Let's for the moment cede to the idea that robots can accomplish the important scientific goals of the mission and ask ourselves why would we want to send humans to Mars, you should answer honestly.

Anders did by way of dismissing that motive in favor of the unsupported claim of human superiority in conducting field-work.
Messages 61 - 80 of total 86 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta