Artemis 2

[Sarkus]

I am a strong supporter of meteor defense as an international, cooperative goal. It also appears to be the most supported goal for NASA amongst Americans (according to Pew Research).

For a moment there I thought you were going to reference the "Pew Pew Pew" Research into meteor defense.

 

[Roosters for ever]

You don't need to be an astronaut to gain that perspective. After all, I don't recall Sagan's name on the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, or Shuttle missions? But I agree with the sentiment.

You are correct, he certainly wasn't one of the astronauts, but it was he, that asked for the cameras of Voyager 2 to be turned around and focused on the inner solar system, for a so called "Solar System Family Portrait", when it was out past Neptune. What then eventuated is well known. It was named one of the most important photographs in history, inspiring a famous reflection by Carl Sagan on human insignificance and the duty to protect our only home.
If I appear somewhat taken in and impressed by Sagan, you would be correct. I watched religiously, his original "Cosmos" series in the late seventies and have read many of his books, watched many of his educational videos, and see him as one of the greatest educators of our time. He probably more then anyone really sparked my interest in cosmology and science in general.

I'm all in favour of international endeavours in this regard. More so than private ones, even, as the latter can be exploited for profit at the expense of (pun intended), well, everything else. With international endeavours there's an implicit sharing and equality of who can do what with the results. The downside is bureaucracy, and lack of speed. It'd be nice to have an international cooperation and budget, with no corruption, that can focus on manned expansion into space. But, well, we're not there (yet?).

Yes sadly you are correct. Let's hope time fixes that.

Hopefully. Even if not in the areas expected. I mean, it may be that the development of the systems for the habitats becomes more of a benefit than any of the science they might do on the surface of the moon (I'm not saying it will be, just offering it as a hypothetical).

I see that as a reasonable hypothetical.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Whereas I think a whole lot of taxpayer funded R&D got us those things, many of which still depended on R&D done by not-space-focused agencies for other reasons (notably, but by no means only commercial) to successfully develop.

I support wide ranging R&D and I believe the different kinds all feed off each other. And we can never be sure which strand will give the pivotal developments.

I would never argue on the fact that many of the branches of science feed off each other, but one of those branches will always remain space exploration, both unmanned, (satellites) and manned (the HST and ISS) plus of course the Moon landings and the mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.

But I believe you are certainly wrong in the following....

But expanding into space in any sustainable way is not feasible. It is not even close to feasible. Even if we can envisage technological solutions to each impediment the economics of applying them all do not work. Not even close. And colonising that works is an economic activity of the parent economy, not a saving the human race activity, no matter what those involved may want to believe such goals are fundamental.

At best we might see trying a colony as an experiment in enduring survival in a closed system - and it will be within closed systems, no matter the existence of space and of planets and moons, asteroids and comets. But we would be much better to run such experiments here on Earth, at much lower cost and with much less risk of loss of life. And probably still struggle to apply lessons learned to existence on Earth.

It is not feasible NOW, granted. Too many damn problems on Earth to fully apply humanities urge to keep learning, going higher, farther, and in the course of time, overcoming the barriers and impediments for a Moon base and Boots on Mars.
Time, time, time! Can we survive? can we overcome our follies to apply our efforts to the sciences, and getting to Mars, While sadly the chances of that today are less then yesterday, they are not zero. I remain hopeful and certainly optimistic. Artemis is a part of that.

I am a strong supporter of meteor defense as an international, cooperative goal.

As am I. Sadly though, the last time I checked, Australia was not part of that international cooperative.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Sadly though, the last time I checked, Australia was not part of that international cooperative.

A quick check shows Australian observatories and universities are involved in identifying Earth orbit crossing objects, sharing and cooperating with US and other science agencies in this - this is a foundational element of meteor defense. There is ongoing Australian cooperation with NASA for deep space communications in support of US space missions, which will include any meteor defense related missions. Arguably Osiris-Rex/Bennu mission was related to that - knowing what they are like is important to appropriate means to disperse or deflect.

I think sticking to uncrewed exploration will continue to deliver far more scientific knowledge about the planets, moons and other objects in our solar system than any crewed missions can.

I think the costs and difficulties for permanent human settlements off Earth are staggeringly enormous and cannot be overcome by investing more in crewed missions to the moon or Mars. Comprehensively capable advance industrial economies are the essential ingredient and the ones we have on Earth are still highly dependent on low cost international trade - and may not exist without it. At this point even something as fundamental as the array of essential mineral resources such a moon or Mars economy requires - as usable ore bodies - have not been identified. They may not exist.

As I've said, the economics don't work and proponents appear to offer only platitudes and sci-fi fantasies about ongoing advancement overcoming the problems. Which advancement is a product of Earh economies investing in R&D and is not open ended nor inevitable; physics and economics constrain them. Transport costs reduced to thousands of US$ per ton - a thousand fold improvement - is still too expensive for space economies to be viable and grow.

And if preserving a portion of humanity from major catastrophes really were a priority we would start with bunkers on Earth for as many people and industries as possible, not moon or Mars colonies. I think Switzerland sort of does that - taking advantage of the large number of tunnels. Bunkers do exist, but the biggest, best equipped ones are for preserving defense capabilities and more usually dedicated to saving as much of their nation as possible, not for Dr Strangelove style hideaways for the select few. Even if some regimes may try and slip that in for themselves and their families.

You are free to believe expansion of humanity into space is possible and even inevitable. I think it is fantasy. I would like to be proven wrong but I can't see any signs of that.

 

[Roosters for ever]

A quick check shows Australian observatories and universities are involved in identifying Earth orbit crossing objects, sharing and cooperating with US and other science agencies in this - this is a foundational element of meteor defense. There is ongoing Australian cooperation with NASA for deep space communications in support of US space missions, which will include any meteor defense related missions. Arguably Osiris-Rex/Bennu mission was related to that - knowing what they are like is important to appropriate means to disperse or deflect.

OK, that's great.

I think sticking to uncrewed exploration will continue to deliver far more scientific knowledge about the planets, moons and other objects in our solar system than any crewed missions can.

Uncrewed missions have delivered incredible scientific and planetary knowledge, and have more then proved their worth. And imo some of that knowledge will be the impetus in planning manned missions, certainly for the science and knowledge, but also for that age old humanity thing, of simply going where no man has gone before.

I think the costs and difficulties for permanent human settlements off Earth are staggeringly enormous and cannot be overcome by investing more in crewed missions to the moon or Mars. Comprehensively capable advance industrial economies are the essential ingredient and the ones we have on Earth are still highly dependent on low cost international trade - and may not exist without it. At this point even something as fundamental as the array of essential mineral resources such a moon or Mars economy requires - as usable ore bodies - have not been identified. They may not exist.

Yes, incredibly and staggeringly enormous and dangerous. But still that age old human trait of going where no man has gone before, will not stop such manned missions. The only thing that will stop such missions further afield, is the limitation in technology in overcoming the obstacles and limiting the dangers.

As I've said, the economics don't work and proponents appear to offer only platitudes and sci-fi fantasies about ongoing advancement overcoming the problems. Which advancement is a product of Earh economies investing in R&D and is not open ended nor inevitable; physics and economics constrain them. Transport costs reduced to thousands of US$ per ton - a thousand fold improvement - is still too expensive for space economies to be viable and grow.

And if preserving a portion of humanity from major catastrophes really were a priority we would start with bunkers on Earth for as many people and industries as possible, not moon or Mars colonies. I think Switzerland sort of does that - taking advantage of the large number of tunnels. Bunkers do exist, but the biggest, best equipped ones are for preserving defense capabilities and more usually dedicated to saving as much of their nation as possible, not for Dr Strangelove style hideaways for the select few. Even if some regimes may try and slip that in for themselves and their families.

You are free to believe expansion of humanity into space is possible and even inevitable. I think it is fantasy. I would like to be proven wrong but I can't see any signs of that.

That's OK. Obviously I don't believe it is a fantasy, and simply offer the human trait of going where man has gone before, as evidence, and of course spreading the possibility of human settlements elsewhere off the Earth.
Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" narrative says in part......
"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand" (illustrating the time factor I mentioned)

I would like to be proven right also. But I am an old bastard, and while in reasonable good health, may see a Moon base established, but probably miss out on further manned exploratory adventures. Like boots on Mars.

 

[Sarkus]

The key to any permanent expansion, rather than just a "manned base", is surely self-sufficiency in the basics (food, water, oxygen etc). It's not impossible that we can achieve this on Mars, but, sure, it's a loooooong way off. Hundreds of years, once we set foot, maybe longer. Fantasy? In terms of me ever seeing it, sure. In terms of it ever happening, I'd like to think not.

 

[Roosters for ever]

it's a loooooong way off. Hundreds of years, once we set foot, maybe longer. Fantasy? In terms of me ever seeing it, sure. In terms of it ever happening, I'd like to think not.

I give it a century and a half.
Perhaps a sample return mission as a precursor to a manned mission, will be the green light for GO!

 

[Roosters for ever]

And obviously also the same impetus that saw NASA put men on the Moon more then fifty years ago, will be a driving force. (To be brutally honest, I had forgotten about this.
China's Zhurong Mars Rover China's first Mars rover, Zhurong, is pictured next to its landing platform on the surface of the red planet. The rover traveled approximately 10 meters to drop off a wireless camera, then backed up into frame in order to capture this spectacular image.Image: CNSA

When did Tianwen-1 reach Mars?​

Tianwen-1 entered Mars' orbit on February 10, 2021.

As China’s first Mars mission, Tianwen-1 is uniquely ambitious. No nation had ever attempted to send an orbiter and rover to Mars on the first try. But China succeeded, making Tianwen-1 a historic victory.

Tianwen-1 arrived in Mars orbit as a single spacecraft. Once on Mars, the landing platform extended a ramp, allowing the Zhurong rover to roll gently onto the surface—similar to the way China’s Chang’e Moon rovers are deployed.




And while I certainly wish the Chinese all the luck in the world, and congratulate them on the above incredible "first attempt" success, I hope the Artemis missions will have continued success in establishing a Lunar base and continuing explorarion.

 

[Roosters for ever]

(google)The Artemis program currently has five officially named missions (Artemis I-V) scheduled through late 2028, with plans for at least annual lunar missions afterward to establish a long-term presence. Artemis I (2022) and II (2026) were successful, with Artemis III scheduled for 2027 to test landers and Artemis IV in 2028 aimed at lunar landings

Key Artemis Mission Details:

• Artemis I (Completed 2022): Uncrewed test flight of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft.
• 
  
• Artemis II (Completed April 2026): First crewed flight of the program, a flyby of the Moon.
• 
  
• Artemis III (Targeted 2027): Planned to test commercial landers (SpaceX Starship/Blue Moon) in orbit.
• Artemis IV (Targeted Early 2028): Planned crewed lunar landing and delivery of a Gateway module,
• Artemis V (Targeted Late 2028): Planned surface mission and further development of a lunar base.

The program is designed to continue indefinitely beyond 2028, aiming to establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon and facilitate future missions to Mars.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Roosters for ever - I don't think it is wise to do expensive, difficult, dangerous things on the basis of wishful thinking.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Roosters for ever - I don't think it is wise to do expensive, difficult, dangerous things on the basis of wishful thinking.

I don't believe Carl Sagan said what he did, based on wishful thinking, and neither is NASA.
Was JFK's speech in 1962 wishful thinking?

 

[Pinball1970]

I don't believe Carl Sagan said what he did, based on wishful thinking, and neither is NASA.
Was JFK's speech in 1962 wishful thinking.

Professor Dave is a good science commutator and here is his view.
You have heard it and discussed it all before but it is a nice take.
You can skip to 6.20 where he has an interesting conversation with a biologist regarding, hazards and long term considerations.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Professor Dave is a good science commutator and here is his view.
You have heard it and discussed it all before but it is a nice take.
You can skip to 6.20 where he has an interesting conversation with a biologist regarding, hazards and long term considerations.

Nice stuff! I also remember a talk given by Professor Stephen Hawking in a "white House millennium lecture " when Clinton was the USA President, expressing the same biological evolution that humans may have with further afield, longer stay space missions.
Not sure if it is in this video, havn't watched it all yet.

 

[Roosters for ever]

(google) Yes, Stephen Hawking predicted that human biology and DNA will change as we stay longer in space, specifically highlighting that humanity will need to genetically engineer or "redesign" itself to survive long-term space colonization, particularly within the context of his "Science in the Next Millennium" remarks.

• The Specific Lecture/Remarks: In his "Science in the Next Millennium" remarks (delivered in 1998 at the White House), Hawking argued that the slow process of biological evolution will be replaced by a rapid increase in DNA complexity, driven by humanity's need to adapt and by advancements in genetic engineering, stating that it is likely we will be able to completely redesign our DNA within the next thousand years.
• • Space Adaptation: Hawking argued in these and later lectures that to explore and inhabit the galaxy, humans cannot remain the same. He argued that to deal with the challenges of space travel—and to keep pace with rapid electronic AI developments—humanity would need to improve its mental and physical qualities.
  
  
• The Shift in Evolution: Hawking noted that while there was no significant change in human DNA over the last 10,000 years, the pressure to expand into space would force a rapid evolution.
• 
  
• Context of Survival: He argued that long-term survival demands colonizing space to avoid being wiped out by, for example, genetically engineered viruses, and that humanity’s future is "out there".
• While the "Science in the Next Millennium" remarks directly address the redesign of DNA, this theme was also covered in various speeches about space colonization and the long-term survival of the human species, such as his NASA 50th Anniversary Lecture