Crewed or uncrewed missions?

[bearnard97]

Nowadays space technology is developing so rapidly as you can see. Personally, I support uncrewed missions. It's much easier and more important secure to send uncrewed missions ( we just don`t have to risk the crew) But still, there is a lot of important stuff in particular missions machines cannot do without humans. Which kind of mission do you support crewed or uncrewed?

 

[Michel Van]

Both

uncrewed
For Missions to dangerous for Humans
Like in deadly Radiation Belt of Jupiter and Saturn, close to Sun or far far far out in solar system that take decades to arrive
or were manned mission are to expensive

crewed
Robots are build for there task, of they run into problem outside there Design parameter they can fail
Humans can adapt to situation, allot of Apollo mission show that clear that astronaut at site can maximality the results
can do repairs or take decisions outside parameter of robot probe computer.

By the way, to be on Moon or Mars your self is much more fun as to stare on monitor in groundcontrol of a Robot probe

 

[Dilandu]

But still, there is a lot of important stuff in particular missions machines cannot do without humans. Which kind of mission do you support crewed or uncrewed?

Uncrewed missions with humans in local support & control. For example, small manned station on Mars, capable of real-time control & repair of multiple robotic probes would be the optimal solution for exploration of the planet.

 

[bearnard97]

I think crewed exploration is the way to go. As far as science goes, a crewed mission can analyze and return significantly more science than an uncrewed mission.

 

[Grey Havoc]

But still, there is a lot of important stuff in particular missions machines cannot do without humans. Which kind of mission do you support crewed or uncrewed?

Uncrewed missions with humans in local support & control. For example, small manned station on Mars, capable of real-time control & repair of multiple robotic probes would be the optimal solution for exploration of the planet.

Something like that could work for initial exploration efforts. Alternatively, setting up a manned science station on the Martian moon Deimos or Phobos could help greatly improve command & control for orbiters, landers, rovers and such until a manned expedition to the surface is ready.

 

[bearnard97]

But still, there is a lot of important stuff in particular missions machines cannot do without humans. Which kind of mission do you support crewed or uncrewed?

Uncrewed missions with humans in local support & control. For example, small manned station on Mars, capable of real-time control & repair of multiple robotic probes would be the optimal solution for exploration of the planet.

Something like that could work for initial exploration efforts. Alternatively, setting up a manned science station on the Martian moon Deimos or Phobos could help greatly improve command & control for orbiters, landers, rovers and such until a manned expedition to the surface is ready.

That is a good option. It would be great to develop space technology to the point you`ve mentioned. However, I assume it woulb difficult to do it in the decade.

 

[Dilandu]

That is a good option. It would be great to develop space technology to the point you`ve mentioned. However, I assume it woulb difficult to do it in the decade.

Well... the non-landing expedition to Mars probably could be organized within the decade. Using modules from ISS as a basic of expedition ship, adding honking big array of solar panels and a lot of plasma/ion trusters, and adding a chemical booster to boost the whole setup on Mars-bound trajectory.

 

[coanda]

Yeah, I wonder if an in-orbit station around Mars would actually be cheaper and safer than landing and living on the planet at least to begin with - building off any orbital station that ends up around the moon.

 

[bearnard97]

Yeah, I wonder if an in-orbit station around Mars would actually be cheaper and safer than landing and living on the planet at least to begin with - building off any orbital station that ends up around the moon.

I like the idea of building the ISS station in orbit of Mars. But unfortunately it`s not less difficult as making landing campaign on the Mars surface. The main problem is how to get the ISS to the Mars` orbit ( not even take into consideration how to build such station)

 

[coanda]

Stage it from the moon. The station modules can take their time to get to Mars with the appropriate planning.

On the other hand you put those modules together and you have a ship on which you send the crew and insert in to mars orbit that way.

I see an orbiting station as less risky than landing and living on the surface to begin with - at the very least we have a working example of that now, with the ISS. From there you can grow a terrestrial capability using the station as a staging point.

 

[bearnard97]

Another stuff we have to consider too, if we wanna make a living on mars, would also be the irreversible consequences on our human biology. We can mimic a lot in closed facilities: atmosphere, ecosystems, probably even social live if we manage to get enough people there - but there's one thing we can't mimic and that's gravity. Mars only has a third of earth's gravity. Great for earthborns on mars probably, not so much for marsborns on earth. If you were born on mars or even spend a lot of time there, a return to earth might be fatal for you. All I wanna say is, that if we - humans - colonize mars, our paths will split. An earth human can live on mars, but a mars human probably can't live on earth due to its high gravity. A great motivational factor if you are already there, but if you're still