The most important issue in space exploration area

[bearnard00]

What are the most important issues we have now in space exploration area? As we can see now space explorations are developing very rapidly and by doing this, it causes a lot of issues to solve. Humans have a lot of stuff to figure out to get closer to particular purpose and which one do you consider is the most important and must be solved the first?

[Gfamily]

What are the most important issues we have now in space exploration area? As we can see now space explorations are developing very rapidly and by doing this, it causes a lot of issues to solve. Humans have a lot of stuff to figure out to get closer to particular purpose and which one do you consider is the most important and must be solved the first?

Planetary protection has to be the priority - ensuring that we preserve potential life-bearing environments against contamination from Earth based organisms.
I would argue that there are no benefits from exploring other worlds that outweigh the risk of contaminating them.

[John Donne]

My Silly Opinion:

Historically, humanity's colonialisms have fraquently been sorted out by war. Already some of the players in "Space Exploration" are making territorial claims.

The colonized will rebel.

As the accessible points of interest become crowded one colonial power will resist the expansion of another colonial power. It will be a matter of carving up the parts by the dominant powers bit by bit untill there is an equilibrium of interests, and control.

Space exploration is a form of colonialism.

Humanity drives technology. Technology drives humanity.

The issues are mostly found in the habits of our species.

Human beings have demonstrated no historical precedent to lead me to any other conclusion about the trajectory over time of this activity.

Space is a giant vacuum sucking humanity into the measurable void of fantastic expectation and fortune. All that is wrong with us will not only come with us everywhere we go but it is the seedbed of our striving to get there.

Our real existential problem is that no matter what we touch we turn it to destruction and excuse it by pointing out the benefit.

Humanity will be ready to explore space, leave earth, when we no longer find ourselves driven from earth by our own follies. In other words when we no longer want to go.

[notFritzArgelander]

Interesting responses so far.

I’m of the view that at present the lethal radiation environment will keep us out of trouble. There are no credible efforts to make a voyage to Mars survivable for instance.

[GCoyote]

With respect John, I'll take the other side of the argument. For the next few generations at least, the only point of contention that might lead to human conflict in space is an attack on the orbital reconnaissance and communication satellites of one power or another. That sort of conflict would be driven by events on the Earth, not in space.

Colonization, at least as commonly understood, is not going to be practical for a very long time and will probably never be profitable in the manner of imperial expansion of the 16th - 19th Centuries. There just won't be anything worth fighting over.

So for the time being, I would prioritize the identification and characterization of all NEOs and at least a series of demonstration programs for moving, diverting, or destroying any that pose a significant risk to life on Earth. We are just coming off a once-in-a-century event. It might be a good time to convince people we should invest in preventing a less likely but potentially more catastrophic one in the form of a major impact.

Beyond that, I'd like to see a cooperative international program of solar system exploration, both robotic and manned. There are a great many questions of scientific and public interest such as the search for life that don't benefit any one nation more than another but would make us all richer by what we can learn.

[bearnard00]

What are the most important issues we have now in space exploration area? As we can see now space explorations are developing very rapidly and by doing this, it causes a lot of issues to solve. Humans have a lot of stuff to figure out to get closer to particular purpose and which one do you consider is the most important and must be solved the first?

Planetary protection has to be the priority - ensuring that we preserve potential life-bearing environments against contamination from Earth based organisms.
I would argue that there are no benefits from exploring other worlds that outweigh the risk of contaminating them.

I partialy agree with you. I found that UK Space Agency wins global award for sustainable development This article tells us about the way how Earth observation microsatellites are beneficial for our environment. Also, they worry about the issue of space junk and trying to solve it by making particular missions. Space exploration this is a thing we must have to increase our knowelange about the universe but we mustn`t forget about environment on Earth and how to protect it.

[bearnard00]

Interesting responses so far.

I’m of the view that at present the lethal radiation environment will keep us out of trouble. There are no credible efforts to make a voyage to Mars survivable for instance.

You`ve made a good point. Journey to Mars is really dangerous staff at all. That is why I think we are not ready, out technology is too weak for that journey and nobody knows how to bring the crew back from Mars if everything goes well and the the crew will reach the planet.

[Gfamily]

Interesting responses so far.

I’m of the view that at present the lethal radiation environment will keep us out of trouble. There are no credible efforts to make a voyage to Mars survivable for instance.

You`ve made a good point. Journey to Mars is really dangerous staff at all. That is why I think we are not ready, out technology is too weak for that journey and nobody knows how to bring the crew back from Mars if everything goes well and the the crew will reach the planet.

According to Everyday Astronaut, one of the features of the Methane burning Raptor engine is that in principle, and given enough solar panels, it would be possible to synthesise Methane at the surface of Mars, so that over 18 month period between landing and beginning a return journey, sufficient fuel could be generated for the crew carrying Starship (or whatever) to take off again and return home.
https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/
(an excellent article on the engineering considerations that go into making rocket engines )
But, yes, radiation protection whilst en-route is a problem

[bearnard00]

Interesting responses so far.

I’m of the view that at present the lethal radiation environment will keep us out of trouble. There are no credible efforts to make a voyage to Mars survivable for instance.

You`ve made a good point. Journey to Mars is really dangerous staff at all. That is why I think we are not ready, out technology is too weak for that journey and nobody knows how to bring the crew back from Mars if everything goes well and the the crew will reach the planet.

According to Everyday Astronaut, one of the features of the Methane burning Raptor engine is that in principle, and given enough solar panels, it would be possible to synthesise Methane at the surface of Mars, so that over 18 month period between landing and beginning a return journey, sufficient fuel could be generated for the crew carrying Starship (or whatever) to take off again and return home.
https://everydayastronaut.com/raptor-engine/
(an excellent article on the engineering considerations that go into making rocket engines )
But, yes, radiation protection whilst en-route is a problem

Another question is if the crew can survive there during these 18 month in the harsh and upredictable environment of the red planet. And can these solar panels can get enough power to charge raptors to bring the crew back to Earth.

[SkyHiker]

Sending humans into space is just a political stunt, there is no point in doing that if the end point is not inhabitable. Robots can do the job just fine and don't require special survivability gear and supplies. The development of motors for sending a probe to a nearby star within years not decades would be nice.

[bearnard00]

Sending humans into space is just a political stunt, there is no point in doing that if the end point is not inhabitable. Robots can do the job just fine and don't require special survivability gear and supplies. The development of motors for sending a probe to a nearby star within years not decades would be nice.

I agree with your point but only partially. The are some stuff that robots cannot do and that is why people must be involved in some space missions. I agree that uncrewed mission are more secure and cheaper and this is a better way to explore space but still our technology is to weak to have only uncrewed mission and must be better developed.

[Chich]

Have to agree that sending people has more to do with chest beating than real need. We should concentrate on the robotics and if something is found then send people if warranted.

We could get much further if international co-operation was upped several notches. Just have to figure out how to get politicians out of the way. Too may people with no idea of what they are talking about pull the strings. They have to learn to put specialists in charge (with *some* oversight to be sure) and then shut up and get out of the way.

[notFritzArgelander]

When I did space consulting work for various agencies I briefly flirted with the idea of taking a position in the manned spaceflight area. It was short lived. I felt that the expense wasn't worth the cost and declined on principle. After that I only worked on unmanned projects. Humans in space are just too expensive and don't add any science capability that a robotic mission can't achieve for a tiny fraction of the cost. In a few decades of working in the area I often heard the "there are some things that only a human can do" argument but it is always very vague and hand-waving. I think that the only thing a human in space can do that a robot can't is to add burnish and lustre to a politicians resume.

[Chich]

I often heard the "there are some things that only a human can do" argument but it is always very vague and hand-waving.

This may have been the case in the early years, and I remember reading that "a human is the cheapest computer we can send". Technology has put that to rest.

Back to the original question - another issue is that the nuclear fuel used to power the craft/landers may be getting in short supply.

[notFritzArgelander]

I often heard the "there are some things that only a human can do" argument but it is always very vague and hand-waving.

This may have been the case in the early years, and I remember reading that "a human is the cheapest computer we can send". Technology has put that to rest.

Humans are certainly cheaper to build. You just let the parents subsidize the construction of offspring. It's the sending of humans on a mission that's so expensive.

Back to the original question - another issue is that the nuclear fuel used to power the craft/landers may be getting in short supply.

It's true. The thermoelectric generators (most popularly used by NASA, Cassini, Juno Perseverance) run on plutonium. The fuel is a by product of nuclear weapons manufacture. So its availability is episodic.

[bearnard00]

When I did space consulting work for various agencies I briefly flirted with the idea of taking a position in the manned spaceflight area. It was short lived. I felt that the expense wasn't worth the cost and declined on principle. After that I only worked on unmanned projects. Humans in space are just too expensive and don't add any science capability that a robotic mission can't achieve for a tiny fraction of the cost. In a few decades of working in the area I often heard the "there are some things that only a human can do" argument but it is always very vague and hand-waving. I think that the only thing a human in space can do that a robot can't is to add burnish and lustre to a politicians resume.

Crewed missions are not olnly expencive they are dangerous for the people who take part in these missions. I support the way to develop more uncrewed mission that will save a lot of money and probably human life and health.