Vice President tells NASA to get to the Moon in 5 years.

[atomheartbevo 90677]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/an-alabama-representative-just-let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-with-the-sls-rocket/?amp=1

Quote

On Wednesday, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine appeared before the United States Congress to talk about the president's budget request for fiscal year 2020. There, Bridenstine faced a slew of questions about the Space Launch System rocket, particularly from representatives whose states have a large number of jobs tied to the program.

The questions came a day after Vice President Mike Pence put the SLS rocket program on notice in regard to his desire to send humans to the lunar surface by 2024. "If our current contractors can't meet this objective, then we'll find ones that will," Pence said. During the House appropriations hearing, legislators from SLS states wanted to make sure NASA still plans to use the rocket for the agency's heavy-lift needs.

Damn, they really do want to rush this as quickly as possible. 

Quote

For example, Alabama Rep. Martha Roby asked for Bridenstine's assurance that the SLS rocket was truly a great rocket the agency couldn't live without: "Can you highlight for us the key reasons SLS is the best approach for these missions and what capabilities it provides that other alternatives cannot?" she asked.

A Florida representative wanted to make sure that his state, home of the Kennedy Space Center, continued to receive lucrative contracts to build ground launch systems. A Mississippi representative was concerned that NASA's plan to accelerate development of the SLS rocket would take work away from southern Mississippi's Stennis Space Center, which is slated to perform key test firings. No one, aside from Bridenstine, seemed particularly concerned about the president's goal of a 2024 human landing on the Moon.

Congress gonna Congress when it comes to the space program. 

This is really freaky that some in Congress appear to be going along with the rushed schedule, as long as their districts get jobs.  

We gonna get somebody killed in a very public fashion. 

[Trey3216 15453]

56 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How many carbon offset credits does a rocket development program cost?

Edited March 28, 2019 by Trey3216

[woohorn 1131]

Speaking of Tang, its hard to believe nobody has ever had sex in space.  Unless Ramjet has some top secret info.

Bond, ... James Bond.

[relapse98 634]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

We gonna get somebody killed in a very public fashion. 

Nah. They aren't going to spend the money to come close to that timeline.

The one blowing people up with be Elon.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

On 3/27/2019 at 12:27 PM, atomheartbevo said:

I could be wrong, And @RamjetFDOcan correct me, but the only reason to use the Moon is if you already have a refinery producing rocket fuel there.  Otherwise, you could end up hauling fuel for a trip to the Moon, and then to Mars. 

We are many, many years from having a theoretical refinery producing enough fuel to be useful, and there is nothing in the budget for a refinery (which would cost another $100 billion or three).   Hell, there is nothing in the budget for this now.  They are talking about reorienting NASA and killing off some of its responsibilities and moving the money around as it is.  

While using the Moon as a launching point for Mars is a very popular and very cool/science-fiction-y idea, from a trajectory/physics/orbital mechanics standpoint, it's really not a viable idea.  

When you think about the fuel required to (1) go to the Moon, (2) insert into orbit around the Moon, (3) land on the Moon, (4) bring or produce the fuel to the lunar surface, (5) assemble the vehicle on the Moon or in lunar orbit, and (6) leave the Moon and go to Mars vs the simple Earth-Mars transit orbit plan, you can see the wasted effort and significantly added complexity.  The concept of using lunar He-3 as a fuel source is an interesting concept, but more for lunar-area exploration and production (i.e., using it to fuel established lunar bases/outposts, as opposed to providing interplanetary rocket fuel).

The "reason to use the Moon" is that it's *close*.  Use it to test, perfect, and validate the technologies to move on to Mars.  There's no rush to get to Mars, regardless of political bloviations (on any side).  So - why rush, when you can spend a 5-10 year effort developing, building, launching, and validating the techniques at the Moon (only 1.5 seconds comm time and ~3 days away), in the event of an emergency... rather than trying things for the first time on the surface of Mars (anywhere between 4 and 24 minutes comm time, depending on the relative positions of Earth and Mars and 6-7 months - best case - transit time).

So - while I admire the thought of using the Moon as a waypoint/launching station for Mars missions (and it would look really really really cool), it's just not going to happen for a variety of reasons in the near term.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

Ye Olde Double Poste

Edited March 28, 2019 by RamjetFDO

[El Diablo 4232]

1 hour ago, RamjetFDO said:

While using the Moon as a launching point for Mars is a very popular and very cool/science-fiction-y idea, from a trajectory/physics/orbital mechanics standpoint, it's really not a viable idea.  

When you think about the fuel required to (1) go to the Moon, (2) insert into orbit around the Moon, (3) land on the Moon, (4) bring or produce the fuel to the lunar surface, (5) assemble the vehicle on the Moon or in lunar orbit, and (6) leave the Moon and go to Mars vs the simple Earth-Mars transit orbit plan, you can see the wasted effort and significantly added complexity.  The concept of using lunar He-3 as a fuel source is an interesting concept, but more for lunar-area exploration and production (i.e., using it to fuel established lunar bases/outposts, as opposed to providing interplanetary rocket fuel).

The "reason to use the Moon" is that it's *close*.  Use it to test, perfect, and validate the technologies to move on to Mars.  There's no rush to get to Mars, regardless of political bloviations (on any side).  So - why rush, when you can spend a 5-10 year effort developing, building, launching, and validating the techniques at the Moon (only 1.5 seconds comm time and ~3 days away), in the event of an emergency... rather than trying things for the first time on the surface of Mars (anywhere between 4 and 24 minutes comm time, depending on the relative positions of Earth and Mars and 6-7 months - best case - transit time).

So - while I admire the thought of using the Moon as a waypoint/launching station for Mars missions (and it would look really really really cool), it's just not going to happen for a variety of reasons in the near term.

The larger problem as I see it is that we lack the technology currently to launch a large rocket from a sphere made of cheese. You can launch small rockets from a cheese ball but not the really big rockets.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

[Brisketexan 107027]

[Buzzrock 15148]

How many carbon offset credits does a rocket development program cost?

We’ll use electric rockets, stupid.

[jimmyjazz 47327]

1 hour ago, Buzzrock said:

We’ll use electric rockets, stupid.

 

That's a really long power cord.

[Brisketexan 107027]

That's a really long power cord.

If you’re me, it’s 473 cords of 26 different colors from 5 decades strung together, in a tremendously unsafe manner.

 

In fairness, my people’s space agency is MASA.

[Rusty Shackelford 414]

18 hours ago, RamjetFDO said:

While using the Moon as a launching point for Mars is a very popular and very cool/science-fiction-y idea, from a trajectory/physics/orbital mechanics standpoint, it's really not a viable idea.  

When you think about the fuel required to (1) go to the Moon, (2) insert into orbit around the Moon, (3) land on the Moon, (4) bring or produce the fuel to the lunar surface, (5) assemble the vehicle on the Moon or in lunar orbit, and (6) leave the Moon and go to Mars vs the simple Earth-Mars transit orbit plan, you can see the wasted effort and significantly added complexity.  The concept of using lunar He-3 as a fuel source is an interesting concept, but more for lunar-area exploration and production (i.e., using it to fuel established lunar bases/outposts, as opposed to providing interplanetary rocket fuel).

The "reason to use the Moon" is that it's *close*.  Use it to test, perfect, and validate the technologies to move on to Mars.  There's no rush to get to Mars, regardless of political bloviations (on any side).  So - why rush, when you can spend a 5-10 year effort developing, building, launching, and validating the techniques at the Moon (only 1.5 seconds comm time and ~3 days away), in the event of an emergency... rather than trying things for the first time on the surface of Mars (anywhere between 4 and 24 minutes comm time, depending on the relative positions of Earth and Mars and 6-7 months - best case - transit time).

So - while I admire the thought of using the Moon as a waypoint/launching station for Mars missions (and it would look really really really cool), it's just not going to happen for a variety of reasons in the near term.

Ok, maybe not the lunar surface, but I guess I'm confused by this: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations 

Quote

March 28, 2017

 

Deep Space Gateway to Open Opportunities for Distant Destinations

NASA is leading the next steps into deep space near the moon, where astronauts will build and begin testing the systems needed for challenging missions to deep space destinations including Mars. The area of space near the moon offers a true deep space environment to gain experience for human missions that push farther into the solar system, access the lunar surface for robotic missions but with the ability to return to Earth if needed in days rather than weeks or months.

 

The period of exploration in the vicinity of the moon will begin with the first integrated mission of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion spacecraft, and will continue as we explore further. NASA aims to begin a cadence of one flight per year after the second mission, and the agency has established an initial set of integrated human exploration objectives combining the efforts aboard the International Space Station, SLS and Orion, and other capabilities needed to support human missions to explore deep space. 

 

Flight hardware for SLS and Orion is currently in production for the first and second missions, life support and related technologies are being tested on ISS, and habitation and propulsion development activities are also underway. NASA is working with domestic and international partners to solve the great challenges of deep space exploration. Missions in the vicinity of the moon will span multiple phases as part of NASA’s framework to build a flexible, reusable and sustainable infrastructure that will last multiple decades and support missions of increasing complexity.

 

Deep Space Gateway

This first phase of exploration near the moon will use current technologies and allow us to gain experience with extended operations farther from Earth than previously completed. These missions enable NASA to develop new techniques and apply innovative approaches to solving problems in preparation for longer-duration missions far from Earth.

 

In addition to demonstrating the safe operation of the integrated SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, the agency is also looking to build a crew tended spaceport in lunar orbit within the first few missions that would serve as a gateway to deep space and the lunar surface. This deep space gateway would have a power bus, a small habitat to extend crew time, docking capability, an airlock, and serviced by logistics modules to enable research. The propulsion system on the gateway mainly uses high power electric propulsion for station keeping and the ability to transfer among a family of orbits in the lunar vicinity. The three primary elements of the gateway, the power and propulsion bus and habitat module, and a small logistics module(s), would take advantage of the cargo capacity of SLS and crewed deep space capability of Orion. An airlock can further augment the capabilities of the gateway and can fly on a subsequent exploration mission, Building the deep space gateway will allow engineers to develop new skills and test new technologies that have evolved since the assembly of the International Space Station. The gateway will be developed, serviced, and utilized in collaboration with commercial and international partners.

 

“I envision different partners, both international and commercial, contributing to the gateway and using it in a variety of ways with a system that can move to different orbits to enable a variety of missions,” said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The gateway could move to support robotic or partner missions to the surface of the moon, or to a high lunar orbit to support missions departing from the gateway to other destinations in the solar system.” 

 

Deep Space Transport

The second phase of missions will confirm that the agency’s capabilities built for humans can perform long duration missions beyond the moon. For those destinations farther into the solar system, including Mars, NASA envisions a deep space transport spacecraft. This spacecraft would be a reusable vehicle that uses electric and chemical propulsion and would be specifically designed for crewed missions to destinations such as Mars. The transport would take crew out to their destination, return them back to the gateway, where it can be serviced and sent out again. The transport would take full advantage of the large volumes and mass that can be launched by the SLS rocket, as well as advanced exploration technologies being developed now and demonstrated on the ground and aboard the International Space Station. 

 

This second phase will culminate at the end of the 2020s with a one year crewed mission aboard the transport in the lunar vicinity to validate the readiness of the system to travel beyond the Earth-moon system to Mars and other destinations, and build confidence that long-duration, distant human missions can be safely conducted with independence from Earth. Through the efforts to build this deep space infrastructure, this phase will enable explorers to identify and pioneer innovative solutions to technical and human challenges discovered or engineered in deep space.

 

To achieve the agency’s goal to extend humanity’s presence in the solar system will require the best research, technologies and capabilities from international partners and the private sector. NASA will look to partners for potential contributions of spaceflight hardware and the delivery of supplemental resources. The gateway and transport could potentially support mission after mission as a hub of activity in deep space near the moon, representing multiple countries and agencies with partners from both government and private industry. NASA is open to new ideas of both a technical and programmatic nature suggestions as we develop, mature and implement this plan.

Last Updated: Aug. 24, 2018

Editor: Kathryn Hambleton

Can you shed some light on this?  Is this just an idea?

[RamjetFDO 10655]

28 minutes ago, Rusty Shackelford said:

Can you shed some light on this?  Is this just an idea?

"An idea", for sure ... it combines the "do things near the Moon for experience and validation" points I made above with using (although this doesn't mention it) LaGrange libration points for assembly and perhaps using L2 for this Gateway concept.

[Pato del Muerto 53599]

You know what I’m talking about. 

[smuggs 9399]

18 minutes ago, RamjetFDO said:

"An idea", for sure ... it combines the "do things near the Moon for experience and validation" points I made above with using (although this doesn't mention it) LaGrange libration points for assembly and perhaps using L2 for this Gateway concept.

 

 

[Rusty Shackelford 414]

"An idea", for sure ... it combines the "do things near the Moon for experience and validation" points I made above with using (although this doesn't mention it) LaGrange libration points for assembly and perhaps using L2 for this Gateway concept.

That NASA post makes it sound like we are 10 years away from it happening. Sad!

[RamjetFDO 10655]

2 minutes ago, Rusty Shackelford said:

That NASA post makes it sound like we are 10 years away from it happening. Sad!

Oh we can be 10 years away from doing *anything*, honestly ... just need the fully-funded budget and national commitment.  Of which you may never get the first (which will eventually kill the second).

[Armybrat 41448]

I think the NASA budget should be set at a minimum of 2 or 3% of the national budget.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

23 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

I think the NASA budget should be set at a minimum of 2 or 3% of the national budget.

It's less than 0.5% right now, so ... that would be awesome.

[phdhorn 6225]

I think for one year it should be like 93%.  Everybody else can suck dicks for a year.

[XYZ 2154]

NASA is gonna have to science the shit out of this.

[Armybrat 41448]

20 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I think for one year it should be like 93%.  Everybody else can suck dicks for a year.

We are already doing that. 🤪

[Born to Run 6601]

If you’re me, it’s 473 cords of 26 different colors from 5 decades strung together, in a tremendously unsafe manner.
 
In fairness, my people’s space agency is MASA.

One of my painters used to write MASA on the jobsite Port-o-can with a sweet little logo of a shitter rocketing into space. Lulz

[ABSR 5373]

On 3/26/2019 at 7:08 PM, futureman said:

obviously we would nuke from orbit. 

It’s the only way to be sure!

[Pato del Muerto 53599]

It’d be easier to get to the moon if first we built a tractor beam and pulled it into near earth orbit...

[InkaUtexas 26963]

8 hours ago, RamjetFDO said:

It's less than 0.5% right now, so ... that would be awesome.

Would it mean we get more MS Paint productivity from you? 

[Jkwellborn 7066]

It’d be easier to get to the moon if first we built a tractor beam and pulled it into near earth orbit...

Preparations A - G were complete failures but we not have a working tractor beam.

[elfenix 34780]

I think for one year it should be like 93%.  Everybody else can suck dicks for a year.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

Meh. Easier and cheaper to send robots all over the solar system. I know it’s not as exciting or relative when wall-e is exploring instead of Neil Armstrong but we can accomplish more with robots. 

[RamjetFDO 10655]

45 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Meh. Easier and cheaper to send robots all over the solar system. I know it’s not as exciting or relative when wall-e is exploring instead of Neil Armstrong but we can accomplish more with robots. 

The correct answer is "all of the above".  Manned and Unmanned Exploration are *complementary*, not exclusionary. 

Saying we can accomplish everything robotically that we can with humans just shows a lack of understanding of (1) the current state of robotics/remote sensing and (2) the ability of humans to adapt to previously unplanned (e.g., not previously programmed into the software) situations.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

2 hours ago, RamjetFDO said:

The correct answer is "all of the above".  Manned and Unmanned Exploration are *complementary*, not exclusionary. 

Saying we can accomplish everything robotically that we can with humans just shows a lack of understanding of (1) the current state of robotics/remote sensing and (2) the ability of humans to adapt to previously unplanned (e.g., not previously programmed into the software) situations.

 

Agree they don’t have to be exclusive but imho sending humans to mars provides nothing but a sense of pride. I would be cheering it on as well but I don’t see the roi of sending humans.  At least not now.  

And yes robots may struggle to open human doors on mars.  Lets hope they don’t run into any. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie

[RamjetFDO 10655]

Agree they don’t have to be exclusive but imho sending humans to mars provides nothing but a sense of pride. I would be cheering it on as well but I don’t see the roi of sending humans.  At least not now.  
And yes robots may struggle to open human doors on mars.  Lets hope they don’t run into any. 

[atomheartbevo 90677]

On 3/30/2019 at 1:58 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Agree they don’t have to be exclusive but imho sending humans to mars provides nothing but a sense of pride. I would be cheering it on as well but I don’t see the roi of sending humans.  At least not now.  

And yes robots may struggle to open human doors on mars.  Lets hope they don’t run into any. 

Survival of the human species goes way up if you can get us going on another planet.  

Somebody here is going to fuck up or destroy us.  Virus, whatever.  

[Jkwellborn 7066]

You don’t think that wouldn’t wind up on the next planet?

[Neonmoon 38130]

39 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

You don’t think that wouldn’t wind up on the next planet?

What happens on Earth stays on Earth

[XYZ 2154]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

What happens on Earth stays on Earth

Username doesn’t check out.

[Texaskimo 135]

On 3/30/2019 at 1:58 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Agree they don’t have to be exclusive but imho sending humans to mars provides nothing but a sense of pride. I would be cheering it on as well but I don’t see the roi of sending humans.  At least not now.  

And yes robots may struggle to open human doors on mars.  Lets hope they don’t run into any. 

The technology that would need to be developed to sustain life on the moon/mars as well as the lessons learned in developing that technology would be tremendously valuable to our ability to sustain life here on earth.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

I’m skeptical that we will learn lessons or build tech that allows us to survive on the moon and Mars and that it will help us survive on earth.  

Im sure some great tech will be created but the roi is suspect.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13742]

On 3/30/2019 at 2:51 PM, RamjetFDO said:

I got the point of your opinion, I just think you’re wrong.

[RamjetFDO 10655]

19 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I got the point of your opinion, I just think you’re wrong.

Actually ... not an opinion, but a demonstrable fact.

Computers and unmanned devices are an absolutely critical, but limited, first step (and continued partner) in staged space exploration. 

• Critical, in that (1) they're less expensive, (2) quicker to produce, and (3) allow us to gather lots of core fundamental data without risking a human.  No one debates that.  You seem to not have the visionary capacity to think beyond this tiny little bubble.
• Limited, in that they cannot go beyond the fundamental hardware/software capabilities of the original design (conceived, designed, and built many years prior to actual arrival on-site).

Humans provide the ability to modify and adapt to the situation. 

• If a Mars Rover or future probe is designed and built to accomplish Tasks "A" through "D", is that all you want to do?  Ever? 
• What happens if some REALLY COOL thing is right there, in front of the amazingly cool Mars Rover Version 23, but is not even considered, because it's not in the programming for Tasks "A" through "D"?  
• And, before you say "well, I'd just program Mars Rover Version 24 to do it"... what if MRv23 was not even capable of reporting the new scenario so that v24 could be programmed to handle it?

Are you so 100% arrogantly confident that you have the sum total knowledge of EVERYTHING that you will encounter in an unknown environment that you think you can program a remote-sensing platform to account for it?  The fact that *you* don't "see the ROI in sending humans" does not mean that the return on that investment isn't there.  

That, my friend, is *your* opinion... and is demonstrably wrong.

 

One of many examples:

 

[XYZ 2154]

Manned space exploration is the most fucking awesome thing. Fuck the ROI. We must land a man on the moon again, and on Mars. 

[Mole 4344]

Space is totally gay.

http://www.theunticket.com/wp-content/uploads/media/jakez-space-sg-intro.mp3

[SquishMitten 10497]

1 hour ago, RamjetFDO said:

Actually ... not an opinion, but a demonstrable fact.

Computers and unmanned devices are an absolutely critical, but limited, first step (and continued partner) in staged space exploration. 

• Critical, in that (1) they're less expensive, (2) quicker to produce, and (3) allow us to gather lots of core fundamental data without risking a human.  No one debates that.  You seem to not have the visionary capacity to think beyond this tiny little bubble.
• Limited, in that they cannot go beyond the fundamental hardware/software capabilities of the original design (conceived, designed, and built many years prior to actual arrival on-site).

Humans provide the ability to modify and adapt to the situation. 

• If a Mars Rover or future probe is designed and built to accomplish Tasks "A" through "D", is that all you want to do?  Ever? 
• What happens if some REALLY COOL thing is right there, in front of the amazingly cool Mars Rover Version 23, but is not even considered, because it's not in the programming for Tasks "A" through "D"?  
• And, before you say "well, I'd just program Mars Rover Version 24 to do it"... what if MRv23 was not even capable of reporting the new scenario so that v24 could be programmed to handle it?

Are you so 100% arrogantly confident that you have the sum total knowledge of EVERYTHING that you will encounter in an unknown environment that you think you can program a remote-sensing platform to account for it?  The fact that *you* don't "see the ROI in sending humans" does not mean that the return on that investment isn't there.  

That, my friend, is *your* opinion... and is demonstrably wrong.

 

One of many examples:

 

I get what you’re saying, but couldn’t you somewhat account for that by programming in something like “if you encounter something that is not catalogued in your database, run scans on it, report the results, carry on with Tasks A -D, and await instructions if more detailed scans are needed.”

[RamjetFDO 10655]

5 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I get what you’re saying, but couldn’t you somewhat account for that by programming in something like “if you encounter something that is not catalogued in your database, run scans on it, report the results, carry on with Tasks A -D, and await instructions if more detailed scans are needed.”

Then that probe would probably grind to a full-stop within 5 minutes of beginning operations, because 95% of what is there isn't in the "database".  

Don't get me wrong - and again, re-iterating my point, unmanned exploration is not only key, but CRITICAL, to space exploration and should be fully-funded and implemented!  There are times, places, and situations where unmanned probes may be the ONLY thing to go (i.e., outer planets, asteroids, areas where after the fact we rule OUT manned exploration because of the data returned by unmanned probes, etc.).

But to say (not you, but "Eddie") that there's no reason to send people, once the unmanned probes have concluded or at least made massive inroads in remote sensing to the best of their programming/capabilities, because there's nothing to be added by having a human explorer is ... well ... short-sighted and will be guaranteed to miss those things/opportunities/scenarios that weren't planned for, but could become that "Hey, look, I found a fossil!" moment.

[Nivek 17425]

While using the Moon as a launching point for Mars is a very popular and very cool/science-fiction-y idea, from a trajectory/physics/orbital mechanics standpoint, it's really not a viable idea.  
When you think about the fuel required to (1) go to the Moon, (2) insert into orbit around the Moon, (3) land on the Moon, (4) bring or produce the fuel to the lunar surface, (5) assemble the vehicle on the Moon or in lunar orbit, and (6) leave the Moon and go to Mars vs the simple Earth-Mars transit orbit plan, you can see the wasted effort and significantly added complexity.  The concept of using lunar He-3 as a fuel source is an interesting concept, but more for lunar-area exploration and production (i.e., using it to fuel established lunar bases/outposts, as opposed to providing interplanetary rocket fuel).
The "reason to use the Moon" is that it's *close*.  Use it to test, perfect, and validate the technologies to move on to Mars.  There's no rush to get to Mars, regardless of political bloviations (on any side).  So - why rush, when you can spend a 5-10 year effort developing, building, launching, and validating the techniques at the Moon (only 1.5 seconds comm time and ~3 days away), in the event of an emergency... rather than trying things for the first time on the surface of Mars (anywhere between 4 and 24 minutes comm time, depending on the relative positions of Earth and Mars and 6-7 months - best case - transit time).
So - while I admire the thought of using the Moon as a waypoint/launching station for Mars missions (and it would look really really really cool), it's just not going to happen for a variety of reasons in the near term.

The moon and a launch point idea was killed long ago. I believe the last plan I heard was to use the midpoint between the earth-moon so as to conserve fuel (reduce the # of planetary escapes).

[Wally Fairway 5678]

23 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I get what you’re saying, but couldn’t you somewhat account for that by programming in something like “if you encounter something that is not catalogued in your database, run scans on it, report the results, carry on with Tasks A -D, and await instructions if more detailed scans are needed.”

If it were that easy, why don't we have more robots doing things on this planet?
You know repetitive things  - like drilling oil wells, farming, building buildings, driving cars, doing surgery, cooking ......

Sure there have been some preliminary steps taken in all of those, but with them is also a lot of direct supervision and intervention.
For what you say should work, the first thing that they have to send up is robots to repair the robots, because they certainly will break. I really think you have an overly simplistic view of how complex it is to complete the tasks which would be required to industrialize a foreign planet/moon/etc.
There is certainly one advantage - not having to keep humans alive, which is even more complex.

[Nivek 17425]

I get what you’re saying, but couldn’t you somewhat account for that by programming in something like “if you encounter something that is not catalogued in your database, run scans on it, report the results, carry on with Tasks A -D, and await instructions if more detailed scans are needed.”

Spirit got stuck in the sand, and went offline for 10 days due to a software issue. I believe there was also an issue with 2 sensors reporting information incorrectly (criss-cross) but that was from over a decade ago at a metsoc meeting. I believe the other rover Opportunity got covered in sand from a sandstorm and could not recharge its batteries.

The rovers are designed to be maintenance free and are slow. With a human out there at a hub in a support role to the rovers the exploration coverage would be significantly more. Plus the added flexibility a person could provide would be advantageous.

[Buzzrock 15148]

Is the space elevator concept still a thing? I always thought that was fascinating (and don’t really understand it).

[Nivek 17425]

If it were that easy, why don't we have more robots doing things on this planet?
You know repetitive things  - like drilling oil wells, farming, building buildings, driving cars, doing surgery, cooking ......
Sure there have been some preliminary steps taken in all of those, but with them is also a lot of direct supervision and intervention.
For what you say should work, the first thing that they have to send up is robots to repair the robots, because they certainly will break. I really think you have an overly simplistic view of how complex it is to complete the tasks which would be required to industrialize a foreign planet/moon/etc.
There is certainly one advantage - not having to keep humans alive, which is even more complex.

Even picking first breaks on geophysical data has long been a goal that has eluded the industry.