What are your views on the future of Space Exploration

[ralilu]

It is no secret that the days of mankind are numbered on Earth. Humans have the whole universe to explore to find resources or another spaceship. Will this be taken seriously by the general public or will it remain a dream of a fanatical few? Is there future in space exploration and would a career in that field be wise? I'd like to hear all of your opinions!

 

[flatmaster]

Leaving the solar system takes a LONG time to get anywhere, so that's out of the question for now. We'll most likely make it as far as the moon and mars.

 

[Bob S]

We have not yet found an alternative to photosynthesis and agra-(or aqua-)culture for our food. It requires at least 12 visible photons to make a single monosaccharide (sugar) molecule. Any Mars mission will either have to carry all food for the astronauts, or grow it in a special pressurized facility with artificial LED lighting for urban agriculture (solar insolation on Mars is about half of insolation here). The eight earthbound astronauts who lived inside Biosphere 2 for two years were not able to grow enough food on half an acre. If the Mars mission has its own agriculture (including domesticated animals?), all the CO2 (and water vapor) has to be recycled.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the current path is the one that we are going to follow for the forseeable future: phasing-out manned spaceflight in favor of robotic probes. The reason is simple: bang for the buck.

And travel beyond Mars isn't a matter of being taken seriously or not, it is, at the moment, essentially technologically impossible.

 

[ralilu]

I understand the amount of time it would take to travel beyond our solar system ,but maybe one day physicists and engineers will figure out how to make use of wormholes. With wormholes the whole universe will be within our reach.
I feel the only way we can travel further than the solar system is if we can manipulate time (e.g the wormhole)

But for now, i hope we put a lot of emphasis on taking advantage of Mars or the moon because it will offer so many solutions to todays problem...

 

[thomasxc]

i think we have gotten a lot of new technology because of it, but i still think its way too expensive, and i think much of the money could be far better spent.

 

[ralilu]

i think we have gotten a lot of new technology because of it, but i still think its way too expensive, and i think much of the money could be far better spent.

in the short run the government will have to spend lots of money on it ,but in the long run it will be a good investment because besides the new technology and science to be discovered... lots of industries, businesses and jobs will be created.

 

[thomasxc]

this is true. and perhaps I'm a little hypocritical, because i would give a leg to work at NASA.lol (i will be majoring an aerospace engineering)

 

[ralilu]

haha, me too. that's why i started this thread. what college u planning to go to? what do u tnk about embry riddle?

 

[thomasxc]

i am 60 miles from embry riddle. i fell in love with it as soon as i stepped on campus. and then i saw the price tag. ouch! over thirty g's a year...but i think its almost worth it.havent really decided yet.

 

[ralilu]

cool. coz I'm having trouble deciding btw georgiatech (way cheaper than embry riddle) and embry riddle (way more specialized)...i will probably make a last minute decision.

 

[thomasxc]

huh. I am not sure. these days i lean more towards a college w/ an ROTC program so that i can jump into the air force after i graduate..and i will prolly make a last minute decision as well.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand the amount of time it would take to travel beyond our solar system ,but maybe one day physicists and engineers will figure out how to make use of wormholes. With wormholes the whole universe will be within our reach.

Assuming, of course, that they exist!

But for now, i hope we put a lot of emphasis on taking advantage of Mars or the moon because it will offer so many solutions to todays problem...

Such as...?

 

[thomasxc]

russ brings up good points..

 

[ralilu]

Some of the problems space exploration can solve include but are not limited to:

unlimited energy - if solar panels are placed in space and beamed back towards the Earth we will have an unlimited supply of solar energy

One of the main reasons nuclear energy is not used is because of the storage of nuclear waste but if we explore space we could find a place to deposit the waste

unlimited resources - planets and asteriods have resources that are otherwise limited on earth, we can find a way to mine them

etc

Most of todays theories predict hidden dimensions and wormholes so in the future when technology catches up with speculation maybe wormholes and hidden dimension will be manipulated unless all the current theories of physics get some serious revision

 

[russ_watters]

unlimited energy - if solar panels are placed in space and beamed back towards the Earth we will have an unlimited supply of solar energy

That does not require human space exploration.

One of the main reasons nuclear energy is not used is because of the storage of nuclear waste but if we explore space we could find a place to deposit the waste...

That does not require human space exploration (and isn't necessary anyway).

unlimited resources - planets and asteriods have resources that are otherwise limited on earth, we can find a way to mine them

Even if there were gold plated diamonds covering the surface of the moon, it wouldn't be economical to mine them.

Most of todays theories predict hidden dimensions and wormholes so in the future when technology catches up with speculation maybe wormholes and hidden dimension will be manipulated unless all the current theories of physics get some serious revision

"Will"? Just because theory predicts they exist (and maybe they do...), that does not in any way imply they might be able to be exploited.

 

[ralilu]

okay, i guess human space exploration might not solve today's problems and we will just have to wait and see about wormholes...But humans should start exploring space for the sake of the future.

The new technology and science will benefit us all. Setting human outposts in space will ensure the survival of the human race from catasrophes on earth. Mining other planets and asteroids might not be economical today ,but if space travel becomes a everyday thing then it will be.

 

[thomasxc]

i wouldn't hold my breath on the wormhole thing...

 

[bill nye scienceguy!]

Just to add my two cents:

I'm firmly of the opinion that we should continue manned exploration because as Neil Armstrong points out; as humans, it's what we do. We discover a new frontier, we explore it, we colonise it and we exploit it. It's denying our nature not to continue.

 

[Gannet]

It my opinion we need moon mission immediately to provide the innovations required to get us out of this economic doldrums we are now in. I would suggest that we re-engineer both the Apollo and Saturn V designs to current technology.

In addition, we need to develop a propulsion system that can reduce the trip time to Mars from four to six months to approximately four to six weeks.

The U.S. needs to continue prove to rest of the world, especially China, that it is still a Technological Superpower. It appears that we are getting by on our past laurels

 

[ralilu]

It my opinion we need moon mission immediately to provide the innovations required to get us out of this economic doldrums we are now in. I would suggest that we re-engineer both the Apollo and Saturn V designs to current technology.

In addition, we need to develop a propulsion system that can reduce the trip time to Mars from four to six months to approximately four to six weeks.

The U.S. needs to continue prove to rest of the world, especially China, that it is still a Technological Superpower. It appears that we are getting by on our past laurels

i agree

 

[russ_watters]

It my opinion we need moon mission immediately to provide the innovations required to get us out of this economic doldrums we are now in. I would suggest that we re-engineer both the Apollo and Saturn V designs to current technology.

In addition, we need to develop a propulsion system that can reduce the trip time to Mars from four to six months to approximately four to six weeks.

The U.S. needs to continue prove to rest of the world, especially China, that it is still a Technological Superpower. It appears that we are getting by on our past laurels

If we are going to do a crash program of Apollo or Manhattan proportions, why not do one with a targeted goal, such as fusion research or nuclear or solar power deployment instead of hoping that spin-off technologies would make the program worthwhile?

...And if your'e going to do a new mission to the moon and want spin-off technology, why would you re-use Apollo technology?

 

[Bob S]

For any extended manned mission, agriculture becomes a serious problem. On Earth, around ~ ½ acre per person is required world-wide to grow food sustainably, twice as much land on Mars. NASA is developing more efficient (calories out per unit solaration) plants, but there is a limit unless someone discovers a more efficient fourth photosynthesis cycle. Plants now require about 120 gallons of water annually per pound of food. each astronaut will eat about 700 pounds of food per year. Do we want to send astro-farmers to Mars?

Unmanned missions to Mars are more versatile, and less expensive. If we could only train the Mars rovers to avoid the Martian sand traps. See

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/home/index.html

I vote for unmanned missions, with the astronauts using joysticks in Houston.

Bob S

 

[Gannet]

The bailout we gave to AIG would have been more than enough to fund manned missions to the Lunar South Pole. And the rest of the $700 billion TARP money could have funded: the manned missions to Mars, technologies that alleviate climate change, renewable fuels and nuclear fusion energy research, etc. This would have provide innovation needed to produce jobs and generate new wealth instead of redistributing existing wealth. The United States will never maintain its superpower position unless it starts generating new wealth.

I have never seen any reports that stated unmanned missions are more versatile than manned missions. The time delay in communications would make teleoperator control cumbersome, ineffective, and would affect the productivity of surface exploration. Manned missions will also include unmanned vehicles for surface exploration.

Also, what's next robots playing sports for us or taking our vacations.

 

[russ_watters]

The bailout we gave to AIG would have been more than enough to fund manned missions to the Lunar South Pole. And the rest of the $700 billion TARP money could have funded: the manned missions to Mars, technologies that alleviate climate change, renewable fuels and nuclear fusion energy research, etc.

You underestimate the cost of such missions.

I have never seen any reports that stated unmanned missions are more versatile than manned missions.

You clearly have never searched for such information, nor put much real thought into it yourself. google it ( types "manned vs." into google and it'll fill in the rest). You will find that even most learned people who argue in favor of manned spaceflight concede that unmanned is better for science.

The time delay in communications would make teleoperator control cumbersome, ineffective, and would affect the productivity of surface exploration.

I think the Mars rovers would disagree with you. Visit their website and see how they do it. Consider that if a rover can do even 1% of what a human can do in a day (all of it pre-planned the day before), the fact that you don't need to feed it or supply it with oxygen means overall the robot will do about the same amount of exploration as the human. Then multiply that by the fact that for the price of a manned mission, you could send thousands of robots.

Also, what's next robots playing sports for us or taking our vacations.

Obvious non-sequitur. The goals of science and vacations/sports are nothing alike.

 

[Gannet]

You underestimate the cost of such missions.

Suggest you review
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382362main_40%20-%2020090801.1.mars2019.pdf"

By boosting NASA’s projected annual budget of $19.1 billion to $23.8 a year from 2010 to 2025, the agency could return to the moon by 2017 and put Man on Mars by 2019. Some of the funding should come from other space agencies.

Also on page 6 of the report there is a chart showing cost of different scenarios

 

[gmax137]

Also, what's next robots playing sports for us or taking our vacations.

Obvious non-sequitur. The goals of science and vacations/sports are nothing alike.

Russ, I think maybe Gannet's point was more along the lines of the Neil Armstrong quote upthread, "exploration is what humans do..." The question is, does robotic exploration fill that role (satisfy the human imperative), and even if it does, how long will it do so? Do you think in 10,000 years humans will still be planet bound? I don't think so (but I've been wrong before). Time's a-wastin' - let's get on with it!

 

[MotoH]

Until we find a viable form of propulsion, that actually works mind you, we will be stuck to sending robots to far off places, which is fine by me. Quite frankly sending humans into space on an ICBM isn't the best idea, for the 60's sure it was alright but until there is a new form of propulsion humans are Earth bound and must rely on robots to do our bidding.

 

[Bob S]

We should answer the question of whether we need to go to the Moon or Mars, or whether we just want to go. The main objectives of going to either the Moon or Mars are:

1) Life (meaning human life) on Earth is not sustainable, so we need to populate other planets. If we stay on Earth, global warming, population growth, depletion of resources, environmental pollution. etc. will make Earth uninhabitable in xx centuries (fill in xx). Other venues (e.g., Moon, Mars) offer the resources we need (begin with air, earth, fire and water, the four Greek elements) to survive. Nonsense. The least hostile place in the solar system is, and will be, right here. Our energy consumption in the United States, to support our standard of living, is the equivalent of more than 1000 square feet of solar cells per capita continuous, twice as much on Mars.

2) Innovation requires that we populate other planets. Absurd. In the 5 years before President Kennedy proposed the Man on the Moon mission, solid state electronics began replacing the vacuum tube in laboratory instrumentation. The first random-access non-volatile magnetic core memories had been available for ~ten years. Development of integrated circuits had started (DTL or RTL chips). The rapid development of solid state electronics was inevitable. In terms of rocketry, Sputnick (1957) started our rocket development (along with Werner Von Braun's help). Man on the Moon was just a facade for our developing military supremacy in space.

3) "Exploration is what humans do". Explorers of the future should study math, science, engineering, and biology rather than prepare to be astronauts. Space exploration has been the fantasy of youngsters even before Orson Welles' radio broadcast of the alien invasion in 1939. (It is easier to fantasize about walking on the Moon than learning calculus).

Fantasizing about space exploration rather than facing the very difficult problems here on Earth is like eating our dessert before the vegetables. Sooner or later, we have to eat the vegetables. We will need to establish a permanent colony on Mars when we trash this one.

Bob S

 

[slide_Rules]

Unmanned missions to Mars are more versatile, and less expensive. If we could only train the Mars rovers to avoid the Martian sand traps. See

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/home/index.html

I vote for unmanned missions, with the astronauts using joysticks in Houston.

Bob S

I agree with using unmanned missions. However, rovers need more power. While controversial, a small fission powered (10-20kw) rover of 1-2 tons would open up a lot of exploration possibilities. With a small nuke, you get constant speeds of a slow walk and a lifetime of several years. Not to mention the improvements in digging and robotic strength.

 

[MotoH]

I agree with using unmanned missions. However, rovers need more power. While controversial, a small fission powered (10-20kw) rover of 1-2 tons would open up a lot of exploration possibilities. With a small nuke, you get constant speeds of a slow walk and a lifetime of several years. Not to mention the improvements in digging and robotic strength.

The Average time delay is 10 minutes for information to be sent and received from NASA to Mars, and vice versa. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mesur.html" And if there was to be a reactor malfunction, 10 minutes seems plenty enough time for a total reactor meltdown and a complete mission loss. Not to mention the fact that having a LWR on Mars just doesn't seem like a great idea.

 

[slide_Rules]

Not to mention the fact that having a LWR on Mars just doesn't seem like a great idea.

Start with a lunar rover. Time lag is < 3 seconds.

I don't know what type of reactor would be feasible. Sure, it's a challenge. Orbital assembly of components may be necessary. OSHA's Orbital Work Regs may have to be tweaked.

But this is within our current tech ability. Or China's / Japan's near-future tech ability.

 

[MotoH]

Well, it appears that I was relatively wrong. this isn't a Nuclear reactor, but it uses the heat from radioisotopes to power the craft! http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/radioisotope-power-systems.pdf"

It makes sense now, the heat generated will keep the craft warm and operational, and it will also produce electricity to run the craft.

 

[mheslep]

Well said on #1 and #2, as for #3:

...
3) "Exploration is what humans do". Explorers of the future should study ...

More to the point is that, though I agree with premise of "Explorations is what humans do", the human space program as envisioned by NASA does not now nor plan to accommodate 'humans' on any scale, but only a group of a couple hundred elites, which is only funded by the 'humans'. One could argue NASA's been making the situation worse - raising the cost of human space travel over the decades, not reducing it, leaving the rest of us would-be explorers only the role of fan-boys.

 

[D H]

One of the primary goals of the Shuttle program was to make spaceflight cheaper. Unfortunately, the Shuttle program became a typical government-run over-specified and under-funded behemoth that had to not only take people but cargo into space and be able to fly up from Vandenburg, snatch a Russian satellite, and return to Vandenburg all in one orbit. This is one of the reasons to hold some hope for the direction in which Obama and Bolden have redirected NASA.

As for humans versus robots, why send robots if humans will never follow? Those robots aren't doing any more to fix the problems here on Earth. They aren't even advancing science by all that much compared to their price tag. How many geology grad students could be sent out into the fields here on Earth for the 400 million dollar cost of the two year delay in the Mars Science Laboratory program? How many could be sent out into the field for the 2.3 billion dollar total cost of that program?

Those robotic precursor missions are just that -- robotic precursors. They exist primarily as a path finder for the human missions to follow. The rather limited science that they do conduct is a secondary benefit.

 

[mheslep]

One of the primary goals of the Shuttle program was to make spaceflight cheaper.

Yes

Unfortunately, the Shuttle program became a typical government-run over-specified and under-funded behemoth that had to not only take people but cargo ...

Yes, exactly.

As for humans versus robots, why send robots if humans will never follow? Those robots aren't doing any more to fix the problems here on Earth. They aren't even advancing science by all that much compared to their price tag. How many geology grad students could be sent out into the fields here on Earth for the 400 million dollar cost of the two year delay in the Mars Science Laboratory program? How many could be sent out into the field for the 2.3 billion dollar total cost of that program?

How many grad students for a manned mission 100X that cost? Seems to me that while productivity of the remote missions may be comparatively low, the high point discoveries have no alternative with any number of ground based researchers - Hubble, the Gamma Ray Burst discoveries, etc.

Those robotic precursor missions are just that -- robotic precursors. They exist primarily as a path finder for the human missions to follow. The rather limited science that they do conduct is a secondary benefit.

Can that argument apply to any mission besides the Mars bots? No humans are going to follow remote missions onto the surface of Eros (NEAR), Venus (Magellan), Jupiter (Gallileo), etc.

 

[D H]

How many grad students for a manned mission 100X that cost?

Non sequitur. Science is not the sole reason NASA exists. The motivation for human space flight is exploration. (After politics of course. Politics is a very powerful motivator -- particularly when politicians are the ones who fund NASA.)

NASA would not fare very well if science was its sole reason for being. Space flight, whether human or robotic, is a very expensive endeavor. NASA loses to Earth-based science in terms of scientific return on investment.

In terms of technological return on investment, human space flight might well come out on top. Most of NASA's spinoffs are from the NASA's human side rather than robotics. In terms of political return on investment, human space flight is a huge win.

Can that argument apply to any mission besides the Mars bots? No humans are going to follow remote missions onto the surface of Eros (NEAR), Venus (Magellan), Jupiter (Gallileo), etc.

Exactly. That is precisely why most of NASA's planetary budget goes to Mars.

 

[BlackHoleInOn]

i wouldn't hold my breath on the wormhole thing...

Why not, the wormhole bends the spacetime fabric so much, that it might touch something at the other side..
Imagine this: it freezes time the moment it exists (light can't escape, so time =0) so you can theoreticly go back in space and time the moment the black hole formed, and that might well be near Big Bang time..

 

[TeeAOng]

I think that our prospects for space exploration could be better if we had a better consolidation of money and brain power. We (as in the US) with the help of most of the brightest minds in history (and the world) we designed and implemented Nuclear power (and weapons) in less than 10 years. If we had a better consolidation of our resources, many of the issues listed above MAY be solved. With that said, if we were able to solve the issues with space/intersolar exploration we may improve the standard of living for all mankind. For instance if we solved the problem of growing food with fewer photons, we could lengthen growing seasons to reduce worldwide food shortages. We could go on about the benefits...but I digress.

 

[Gannet]

You underestimate the cost of such missions.
You clearly have never searched for such information, nor put much real thought into it yourself. google it ( types "manned vs." into google and it'll fill in the rest). You will find that even most learned people who argue in favor of manned spaceflight concede that unmanned is better for science. I think the Mars rovers would disagree with you. Visit their website and see how they do it. Consider that if a rover can do even 1% of what a human can do in a day (all of it pre-planned the day before), the fact that you don't need to feed it or supply it with oxygen means overall the robot will do about the same amount of exploration as the human. Then multiply that by the fact that for the price of a manned mission, you could send thousands of robots.

Obvious non-sequitur. The goals of science and vacations/sports are nothing alike.

I just happen to have spent 40 years of my career designing both manned and unmanned vehicles (back when they were called remotely piloted vehicles) for both military and civilian aerospace and undersea applications.

It is obvious that unmanned vehicles are a lot cheaper then a manned vehicle; however, you get what you pay for. For example

robotic machines will only do what they are programmed to do; they are not programmed to detect weirdness: the unimaginable, the unknown, the strange non-carbon life that we may have encountered on Mars, for example with the two Viking vehicles, in 1976. Each carried equipment for sampling the Martian soil and miniature chemistry laboratories to test the samples for signs of life.The results these automated labs radioed back to Earth were enigmatic: the chemical reactions from the Martian soil were strange, unlike anything seen on Earth. But they were also unlike any reactions that living organisms would produce.

...that most scientists examining the Viking results, reluctantly concluded that was lifeless: "But the fact is that the landers were equipped only to detect signs of Earth-type life. The chemical reactions observed could have been the results of Martian life.

The above quotes were taken from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/robotic-missions-are-much-cheaper-and-may-provide-more-scientific--information-but-they-dont-catch-the-public-imagination-in.html"

My opinion is that the unmanned precursor surveys should be designed for round trip and bring back samples for testing here on Earth. Because we didn't bring back samples from Mars, we could have found out 34 years ago whether there were non-carbon lifeforms in the universe which would have been major human event.

Furthermore, we should continue doing the research and development required for human exploration of the Moon, asteroids, Mars, etc. If not, we may find our entire future, "unmanned"

 

[litotes]

the stars are not for us

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I just saw this news report on Fox News, and I have to say this has me a bit worried...

I personally have been applying for jobs related to the constellation program, but with the budget in peril they have all been put on hold. With the retirement of the space shuttle coming up and no successor ready for flight, it seems to me that we are in danger of losing a significant portion of our industry experts in human spaceflight, as well as the technology knowledge they bring to the table.

NASA Chief to Senators: We're Going to Mars

NASA chief Charles Bolden told senators Wednesday that sending astronauts to Mars is still the ultimate goal for U.S. human spaceflight, as he defended the agency's new space plan against criticism in a heated budget hearing.

...

But NASA will likely not have the technology to send astronauts to Mars for at least the next 10 years, he said.

"There are too many capabilities that we don't have in our kit bag," Bolden said.

That's where the NASA's 2011 budget request comes in, Bolden said. It sets the stage for future manned spaceflights to the moon, asteroids and Mars, by focusing on the technologies needed to explore beyond low-Earth orbit faster, he added.

But Bolden's comments were met with criticism and, at times, open hostility from some committee members and experts because the new budget request effectively canceled NASA's Constellation program, which was building new rockets and spaceships capable of returning astronauts to the moon.

Without a successor to the space shuttle, NASA will lose talented engineers from layoffs and attrition, which poses a threat to the United States' prowess in human spaceflight, former shuttle commander Robert "Hoot" Gibson told the committee as part of a later hearing with a panel of space experts.

"With the retirement of the space shuttle later this year, and if the administration's proposal is followed, the United States will no longer be a space-faring nation," said Gibson, who flew on five shuttle missions before retiring from spaceflight in 1996.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/25/nasa-chief-to-senators-lets-go-to-mars/?test=latestnews

"The United States will no longer be a space-faring nation" just leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm not sure I'd go that far... I do think it is always a good idea to take a hard look at the budget to make sure isn't being wasted for a loser project; but completely cutting out manned spaceflight altogether seems like a real loser to me.

 

[Gannet]

What worries me, is that China, Russia, and even Iran are now talking about human spaceflight to the moon.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14384510"

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6886171.html"

http://www.physorg.com/news184394537.html"

I am betting on the Chinese being the next visitors to the Moon and possibly Mars. They have the money because they make wealth and not just redistribute existing wealth, and we are in debt to them, and possibly our next superpower superior.

Stop the world, I want to get off

 

[Mech_Engineer]

As irrational as it is, it makes me sad that we are probably going to be passed as the dominant space-faring country due to our government's poor budgeting skills. If we actually passed a balanced budget and looked as critically at other government programs (ahem, medicare, welfare, fannie mae, GM, ...) as we do NASA, we could have hundreds of billions available for space...

 

[mheslep]

As irrational as it is, it makes me sad that we are probably going to be passed as the dominant space-faring country due to our government's poor budgeting skills...

Doubt it. Fifty years ago the Soviets were supposed to dominate. Twenty Five years ago it was going to be the Japanese. Now it is the Chinese. Good luck to them. They'll need it.

 

[Gannet]

I recently saw on NatGeo the show "Five Years on Mars" it was produced back in 2008. It was about the Unmanned Martian Rovers Spirit and Opportunity.

In one scene the mission controllers were discussing how Opportunity was moving from one Crater to another which was approximately 50 kilometer and it took like 200 martian solar days. There is an approximate 20 minutes delay which the mission controller thought Opportunity moved like 50 meters when they actually found out they were digging the Rover wheels to its hub in a sand dune.

Also, there was a six week long dust storm (I believe they were talking Earth weeks) that they couldn't move because they were only getting one percent of the solar power the rover required. Also, during the Martian Winter the rover must find a hill such that it solar panel is facing and tilted toward the Sun and then it hibernates until Spring.

Based on this show, it is my opinion that unmanned rovers in the future should consider dual power sources such as Solar and Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs).

I would recommend seeing this show, if NatGeo re-airs it.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Based on this show, it is my opinion that unmanned rovers in the future should consider dual power sources such as Solar and Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs).

NASA/JPL is way ahead of you, the new Mars Science Laboratory rover scheduled to be launched in September 2011 will be completely powered by an RTG. The MMRTG will put out 125 watts of power at the start of mission, dropping to 100 watts after 14 years. Because the MSL will be operating at much higher latitudes than Spirit and Opportunity, solar panels were not a viable option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Power_source

Overall the RTG on the MSL rover will generate about 4 times the energy per day of the solar panels on one of the MER's, and will be able to operate at night and during the winter.

 

[Gannet]

NASA/JPL is way ahead of you, the new Mars Science Laboratory rover scheduled to be launched in September 2011 will be completely powered by an RTG. The MMRTG will put out 125 watts of power at the start of mission, dropping to 100 watts after 14 years. Because the MSL will be operating at much higher latitudes than Spirit and Opportunity, solar panels were not a viable option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Power_source

Overall the RTG on the MSL rover will generate about 4 times the energy per day of the solar panels on one of the MER's, and will be able to operate at night and during the winter.

Thanks, I did not know that.

Based on

The MSL will be powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), as used by the successful Mars landers Viking 1 and Viking 2 in 1976

from the link you provided, I wonder why they didn't go with RTGs on Spirit and Opportunity?

 

[aquitaine]

What we really need to do is develop a low cost launch system. Getting launch costs down to less than $500 per kilo would be revolutionize the space industry, and effectively open it up to industrialization. We should have done this decades ago, but we didn't because feeding the black hole that is our military was considered to be more important. If we had started such development all the way back in the 70's or 80's, we would have it by now. Space has to be industrliazed and commercialized if we are to be able to establish a permanent Terran prescence in space, and ever have a chance of getting off this rock.