Cost of the Perseverance Mars trip.

[Joey Shabadoo]

@Edwardoka has put it really well but I'd add in this - our lifestyle is built upon exploiting resources, something we've done extremely well to the point that we live a life of ease and comfort that most of the planet doesn't. Every environmentalist solution to climate change I've seen requires us to expect less, to create less, to grow less, eat less, consume less. Do you want to be the one to tell 1.2 billion Africans they can't have the lifestyle currently enjoyed by the West? Are you going to tell 1.3 billion Indians they must stop aspiring? 1.4 billion Chinese have just started to get a taste and they're not going to be stopped.

The planet is screwed. Humans will devour it. It's our nature.

 

[Wobblers]

In theory, yes. In reality, god no. The Shuttle program (which I have wittered on about at length elsewhere) was crippled by Nixon as part of a compromise between NASA and the DoD who had a requirement for it to be able to launch military satellites, service them in-orbit and securely deorbit them.

What should have been only one part of a network of craft for staging interplanetary missions, became a glorified (and hideously expensive) heavy lifter that mainly earned its way through DoD contracts. Contracts now handled by (hoikkk, ptooie) the heavily NASA-subsidised SpaceX.

Yes, the Shuttle was enlarged to carry military payloads. And that ended up lumbering NASA with an unreliable and hugely expensive white elephant, not to mention unsafe. So expensive and unreliable that in the end the DoD continued to use mostly their own launch systems - as they continue to do so now. NASA did have plans to do precisely what you say - construct a network of craft, but that was canned by the budget cuts of the early 70s (you can thank Nixon for that one).

Remind me, when was the last time the Shuttle flew? The origins of the Shuttle simply aren't relevant today.

SpaceX are a commercial company. They are not "heavily subsidised" by NASA as you claim. Thay have received funding for R&D, but that's very much less less than, say, Boeing has received for SLS (which has still failed to reach the ISS, far less carry crew or payloads). NASA pays SpaceX for deliveries and crew to the ISS on a commercial basis.

 

[mudsticks]

@Edwardoka has put it really well but I'd add in this - our lifestyle is built upon exploiting resources, something we've done extremely well to the point that we live a life of ease and comfort that most of the planet doesn't. Every environmentalist solution to climate change I've seen requires us to expect less, to create less, to grow less, eat less, consume less. Do you want to be the one to tell 1.2 billion Africans they can't have the lifestyle currently enjoyed by the West? Are you going to tell 1.3 billion Indians they must stop aspiring? 1.4 billion Chinese have just started to get a taste and they're not going to be stopped.

The planet is screwed. Humans will devour it. It's our nature.

Well I'm not sure that all those people really do expect, or even want to have the westernised lifestyles that we have.

I think you may be underestimating the intelligence and awareness of the peoples of those countries.

And their ingenuity in provisioning for themselves, if allowed to do so.

Look at the strength of the farmer protests in Delhi, who for months now, have been resisting the introduction of industrialised agriculture, and opening up to totally unregulated market led models, which would imperil the currently finely balanced model of resilience, and diversity. .

I think many people in these other countries see our moribund 'culture' in the west, and can see perhaps a chance of leapfrogging the peak fossil fuel dependency stage, that weve gone through and how they could choose cleaner greener more socially equitable, regenerative models.

I'm no fan of the political regime, or behaviour towards minorities of the Chinese system, but they are moving forward fast with renewables, and soil conservation (and thereby carbon sequestering) techniques, and regen ag for example.

Yes there are major causes for concern, but still some reasons for hope.

The stand against extractive, exploitative, violent culture of untramelled capitalism, for capitalisms sake, is being called into question, more loudly by mainstream voices all over the globe.

True cost accounting, triple bottom line, eco-social responsibilty, green new deals these are in the lexicon of decision makers now.

Maybe it's all a bit eleventh hour, yes, but if we all just say.

" Oh it's all buggered, it's hopeless, not worth even trying" That then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

And absolves us of the responsibility of even trying.
- I fear that may be behind some of this "not worth bothering" attitude.

Not everyone is greedy, many people do know when enough is enough, and care about conservation, and ecology, not everyone aspires to supposed fulfilment through more and more 'stuff' and 'status' possessions and activities.

I'd say the Chinese, African, and Indian mindset of "we and ours" not so much "me and mine" less ego led way of being - a over- generalised characterisation, I know, but still it has some validity, I think .

This way of being, is far better placed to lead us out of this.

Only time can truly tell, of course.

Meanwhile..

Back on Mars..

 

[Edwardoka]

There's enough sunshine that falls on the continent of Africa in one day, that's equivalent to our present global energy usage for a year.. And we could easily cut our consumption.

Except... solar panels don't come from nothing. The materials they are made from (predominantly silicon) are mined.
Sand mining and refining is energy intensive and at a large-enough scale has severe ecological effects (coastal erosion, habitat destruction, marine pollution etc).

And with renewables you need storage to take up the slack when generation dips, batteries require rare earth minerals that are highly intensive, terribly polluting, and with horrendous lifespans.

I'm trying not to be a Debbie Downer here, there are solutions, but they're not mutually exclusive with space exploration. If anything, asteroid mining would allow us to offload some of the worst-offending industries. Mining, refining and construction. There are concepts for orbital power stations that capture solar power and beam it via microwaves to a receiving station on the planet's surface, but it will never be economical to build those on Earth and launch them into orbit.

By all means go adventuring in space, if its so imperative, or irresistable to some, but let's not use it as an excuse for our present profligacy.

Not to mention the impracticality of transporting of these depleted resources which were allegedly going to source from there to here.

What if someone else already has the mining rights??

I've heard Clangers can turn right nasty, if you mess with their green soup reserves.

It's unlikely that there will ever be any value in mining on Mars for Earth consumption, unless we find some incredibly rare and useful material there. At least not until there's an interplanetary logistics network, because as it stands, it requires several orders of magnitude more fuel and rocketry to do a trip from Earth's surface to the Martian surface and back than it does to do a one-way trip.
There's a reason the Saturn V rocket was so big and the Apollo missions were split into several craft - the less mass you land with, the less you have to get back into space.

Asteroid mining OTOH doesn't have the problem of having to escape from the bottom of gravity wells.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Good morning



Do you get the advert for the ad blocker?

View attachment 574606

Bye

Ian

I don't get ad blocker ads since I installed one....

 

[Edwardoka]

The origins of the Shuttle simply aren't relevant today.

They really, really are. The Shuttle severely hobbled NASA's independence, and created the public perception of them as a money pit, paving the way for the private space industry to take over. It's easy to say "Look at how much more efficiently the private sector can do it than NASA!" when NASA was stuck with the millstone of that horrible thing around its neck for nearly 40 years.

SpaceX are a commercial company. They are not "heavily subsidised" by NASA as you claim. Thay have received funding for R&D, but that's very much less less than, say, Boeing has received for SLS (which has still failed to reach the ISS, far less carry crew or payloads). NASA pays SpaceX for deliveries and crew to the ISS on a commercial basis.

Found the Musk fanboy

 

[mudsticks]

Except... solar panels don't come from nothing. The materials they are made from (predominantly silicon) are mined.
Sand mining and refining is energy intensive and at a large-enough scale has severe ecological effects (coastal erosion, habitat destruction, marine pollution etc).

And with renewables you need storage to take up the slack when generation dips, batteries require rare earth minerals that are highly intensive, terribly polluting, and with horrendous lifespans.

I'm trying not to be a Debbie Downer here, there are solutions, but they're not mutually exclusive with space exploration. If anything, asteroid mining would allow us to offload some of the worst-offending industries. Mining, refining and construction. There are concepts for orbital power stations that capture solar power and beam it via microwaves to a receiving station on the planet's surface, but it will never be economical to build those on Earth and launch them into orbit.


It's unlikely that there will ever be any value in mining on Mars for Earth consumption, unless we find some incredibly rare and useful material there. At least not until there's an interplanetary logistics network, because as it stands, it requires several orders of magnitude more fuel and rocketry to do a trip from Earth's surface to the Martian surface and back than it does to do a one-way trip.
There's a reason the Saturn V rocket was so big and the Apollo missions were split into several craft - the less mass you land with, the less you have to get back into space.

Asteroid mining OTOH doesn't have the problem of having to escape from the bottom of gravity wells.

Yes thanks Ed
I am aware of the embodied energy, and resource demands of solar panels and battery tech.

But these are being refined adapted and developed quickly.

There's plenty of future mileage in hydrogen cells too .. For both static storage, and larger mass transportation

But okay if asteroid mining makes sense to you go right ahead, worse things could happen, I guess.

Just leave the potato moons of Mars be, ok??

In truth, there's plenty for all of us to do, all sorts resource conservation, and recycling.

Regeneration, of all sorts, at all levels from the micro to the macro as well .

May as well build back better after Covid, seems like a good chance to change the way we carry on from here..

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Well I'm not sure that all those people really do expect, or even want to have the westernised lifestyles that we have.

I think you may be underestimating the intelligence and awareness of the peoples of those countries.

And their ingenuity in provisioning for themselves, if allowed to do so.

Look at the strength of the farmer protests in Delhi, who for months now, have been resisting the introduction of industrialised agriculture, and opening up to totally unregulated market led models, which would imperil the currently finely balanced model of resilience, and diversity. .

I think many people in these other countries see our moribund 'culture' in the west, and can see perhaps a chance of leapfrogging the peak fossil fuel dependency stage, that weve gone through and how they could choose cleaner greener more socially equitable, regenerative models.

I'm no fan of the political regime, or behaviour towards minorities of the Chinese system, but they are moving forward fast with renewables, and soil conservation (and thereby carbon sequestering) techniques, and regen ag for example.

Yes there are major causes for concern, but still some reasons for hope.

The stand against extractive, exploitative, violent culture of untramelled capitalism, for capitalisms sake, is being called into question, more loudly by mainstream voices all over the globe.

True cost accounting, triple bottom line, eco-social responsibilty, green new deals these are in the lexicon of decision makers now.

Maybe it's all a bit eleventh hour, yes, but if we all just say.

" Oh it's all buggered, it's hopeless, not worth even trying" That then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

And absolves us of the responsibility of even trying.
- I fear that may be behind some of this "not worth bothering" attitude.

Not everyone is greedy, many people do know when enough is enough, and care about conservation, and ecology, not everyone aspires to supposed fulfilment through more and more 'stuff' and 'status' possessions and activities.

I'd say the Chinese, African, and Indian mindset of "we and ours" not so much "me and mine" less ego led way of being - a over- generalised characterisation, I know, but still it has some validity, I think .

This way of being, is far better placed to lead us out of this.

Only time can truly tell, of course.

Meanwhile..

Back on Mars..

Interestingly I'm reading 1491 - The Americas Before Columbus just now and it's describing amazing advanced cultures that were miles ahead of European equivalents of the time but a repeated aspect is overpopulation leading to over-exploitation of resources leading to agricultural collapse. It's a never-ending cycle, we've been doing it for thousands of years. We all seem to think we're smarter than those who came before us but we keep doing the same bloomin' things.

If humanity has a future it's by getting off the planet and accessing more resources, not trying to live within our means. 10,000 years of history says I'm right.

 

[mudsticks]

Interestingly I'm reading 1491 - The Americas Before Columbus just now and it's describing amazing advanced cultures that were miles ahead of European equivalents of the time but a repeated aspect is overpopulation leading to over-exploitation of resources leading to agricultural collapse. It's a never-ending cycle, we've been doing it for thousands of years. We all seem to think we're smarter than those who came before us but we keep doing the same bloomin' things.

If humanity has a future it's by getting off the planet and accessing more resources, not trying to live within our means. 10,000 years of history says I'm right.

Yup developing agriculture leading to the likelihood of over population, then famine , thats a well known boom and bust cycle..

But now, unlike the last 10,000 years, we thankfully have far more of womankind emancipated from domestic servitude, and endless cycles of pregnancy, childbirth, and child and eldercare - we can do lots of other stuff as well, or instead , and limit the number of kids we have ...

Once upon a time - and sadly its still the case for many in other parts of the globe - The best, or even only chance of long term security, of any kind of status, or even fulfilment for womankind, was via being married, becoming someones chattel and unpaid servant , and broodmare either for labour for the barons fields, canon fodder for armies, or more latterly labour for the satanic mills -

Breeding was about it really - in terms of possible options - and all that was imposed by patriachal laws and religions - Those laws that said it must be so .

Questioning those norms got you vilified / outcast / dispossed by your tribe / burnt as a witch / thrown into destitution or bodily servitude of other kinds etc ..

And once on that treadmill of child production, the most likely ways out of that endless cycle was menopause, or death.

Thankfully that's changing now - emancipation of women - more freely available contraception - equality in law - if not quite yet in the whole of society.

Birth rates are markedly falling in most developed countries, where women have so many more life options, and fertility choices open to them.

Its also, quite telling how some of the strongest, and most persistent voices on all things environmental have been , and still are female.

From lady Eve Balfour through Rachel Carson, Marina Silva, Jane Goodall, Vandana Shiva, and many many others, to more latterly young Greta herself -

I'm not sure if its an instinctive - Good Home (Planet) Keeping - being able to see the whole, as well as the constituent parts at the same time - recognising the need for cooperation and collaboration, rather than conflict - Borne perhaps from the days when we formed gangs to gather berries and roots while also looking out for the kids - who knows - maybe thats just my fancy .

Anyhoo up - For centuries one whole half of the population has been effectively shut out and silenced on 'planetary, political, resource and societal management' -

But now - our voices are becoming louder - and sometimes we are even listened to, and heard - and our ideas and solutions taken more notice of .

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Yup developing agriculture leading to the likelihood of over population, then famine , thats a well known boom and bust cycle..

But now, unlike the last 10,000 years, we thankfully have far more of womankind emancipated from domestic servitude, and endless cycles of pregnancy, childbirth, and child and eldercare - we can do lots of other stuff as well, or instead , and limit the number of kids we have ...

Once upon a time - and sadly its still the case for many in other parts of the globe - The best, or even only chance of long term security, of any kind of status, or even fulfilment for womankind, was via being married, becoming someones chattel and unpaid servant , and broodmare either for labour for the barons fields, canon fodder for armies, or more latterly labour for the satanic mills -

Breeding was about it really - in terms of possible options - and all that was imposed by patriachal laws and religions - Those laws that said it must be so .

Questioning those norms got you vilified / outcast / dispossed by your tribe / burnt as a witch / thrown into destitution or bodily servitude of other kinds etc ..

And once on that treadmill of child production, the most likely ways out of that endless cycle was menopause, or death.

Thankfully that's changing now - emancipation of women - more freely available contraception - equality in law - if not quite yet in the whole of society.

Birth rates are markedly falling in most developed countries, where women have so many more life options, and fertility choices open to them.

Its also, quite telling how some of the strongest, and most persistent voices on all things environmental have been , and still are female.

From lady Eve Balfour through Rachel Carson, Marina Silva, Jane Goodall, Vandana Shiva, and many many others, to more latterly young Greta herself -

I'm not sure if its an instinctive - Good Home (Planet) Keeping - being able to see the whole, as well as the constituent parts at the same time - recognising the need for cooperation and collaboration, rather than conflict - Borne perhaps from the days when we formed gangs to gather berries and roots while also looking out for the kids - who knows - maybe thats just my fancy .

Anyhoo up - For centuries one whole half of the population has been effectively shut out and silenced on 'planetary, political, resource and societal management' -

But now - our voices are becoming louder - and sometimes we are even listened to, and heard - and our ideas and solutions taken more notice of .

Aye, women aren't nearly as acquisitive, wasteful and aspiring as men right enough. </sarcasm>

I don't see anything in history that goes against the basic animal instinct to procreate. Some Mayan and other Native American societies were matrilineal precisely because of the importance accorded to women as others and creators.

Yours is not the majority view @mudsticks. The vast majority of humanity want to consume and have done throughout the entire length of human history. We either meet that need by expanding beyond Earth's limited resources or destroy the biosphere and see the end of our species - a mere 200,000 year blip in geology.

 

[mudsticks]

Aye, women aren't nearly as acquisitive, wasteful and aspiring as men right enough. </sarcasm>

I don't see anything in history that goes against the basic animal instinct to procreate. Some Mayan and other Native American societies were matrilineal precisely because of the importance accorded to women as others and creators.

Yours is not the majority view @mudsticks. The vast majority of humanity want to consume and have done throughout the entire length of human history. We either meet that need by expanding beyond Earth's limited resources or destroy the biosphere and see the end of our species - a mere 200,000 year blip in geology.

Thanks for the sarcasm - i wouldn't expect any less from your good self

I don't think i did say it was the majority view - but its becoming increasingly popular - and an aversion to procreation is shown in the dropping birthrate in developed countries - its borne out by firm hard data.

Of course I'm not suggesting not consuming at all - that would be daft - and as I'm sure you know - not what i was suggesting - i'm talking about provisioning and consuming within our limits - not being profligate.

Which we can do - if that's made to be easier - not the exception - by all sorts of methods and technology .

 

[BoldonLad]

.............
Birth rates are markedly falling in most developed countries, where women have so many more life options, and fertility choices open to them.

.................

Exactly... developed countries..... where everyone has more life options (including potentially a degree of control over their fertility).

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I'm more inclined to believe that birth rates are falling due to sperm counts falling - possibly linked to poisoning our environment.

 

[mudsticks]

Exactly... developed countries..... where everyone has more life options (including potentially a degree of control over their fertility).

Yup and as countries develop and women have access to better control over their fertility, and other life options, so the downward birthrate trend continues.

Which is why the education, and empowerment of girls, and women is so important globally, in the fight for global sustainability - as well as being a good thing in and of itself for those humans anyhow.

Of course a higher birthrate in a country doesn't necessarily chime with higher overall consumption - not everyone is as profligate with resources per capita as the wasteful west..

Although we definitely need to enable or even just allow those presently living in dire poverty to have decent lives - empowering women in communities has been proven time and again to help with this - alongside cancelling 'debt' etc.

I'm more inclined to believe that birth rates are falling due to sperm counts falling - possibly linked to poisoning our environment.

You might be inclined to think that .

Experts would say other factors have more bearing ...


Anyhow - what about this confounded Mars mission ?? We're getting distracted from the main event - by bloomin' babies - come on guys stay on topic

 

[BoldonLad]

...........
Anyhow - what about this confounded Mars mission ?? We're getting distracted from the main event - by bloomin' babies - come on guys stay on topic

Kettle / Fryingpan