Should we go to Mars? How would we get there? How do we live there?

[iiandyiiii]

I know there are a lot of space exploration threads, but on a cursory look I did not see one just about Mars.

I believe that space exploration is as worthwhile and valuable as any other scientific endeavor. I also believe that Mars is the most interesting potential place to explore (that we can realistically reach), and that human exploration is far more valuable than robotic exploration.

So how would we get there? If the political will existed, then how much would it cost? How long would it take? I've read a few of the independent proposals (like Mars Direct), but which one of them is best?

And once we get there, how (with regards to engineering/economics) do we stay there? Could we make a self-sustaining (with regards to food/water/air) colony on Mars? How long would that take? Would it be worth it?

[Candyman74]

I'm not personally sold on the wisdom of manned space ventures. Adding people adds greatly to the cost, size, and difficulty - you gotta give them living space, feed them, protect them from radiation, all sorts of stuff. Robots, on the other hand, need none of that, and can accomplish tasks much more cheaply.

I do agree that it would have a positive morale-boosting effect, though. Humans on Mars is undeniably cool. I'm just not sure I see the value in it when you consider the straordinary expenditure needed to do that to no real material gain, when there are so many things on Earth that need that money.

What do you envisage we accomplish there? Or would you say that the morale/cool factor is enough of a payoff in itself?

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

What do you envisage we accomplish there? Or would you say that the morale/cool factor is enough of a payoff in itself?

We pave the way for the future colonization of the solar system (and eventually, elsewhere) by humans. In the (very) long term, humans won't last indefinitely on Earth. A meteor/comet impact will kill us all, or the sun's expansion will burn us to cinders. The best way to minimize the risk of extinction from these causes is to establish other outposts of humanity- preferably many self-sufficient outposts.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

We pave the way for the future colonization of the solar system (and eventually, elsewhere) by humans. In the (very) long term, humans won't last indefinitely on Earth. A meteor/comet impact will kill us all, or the sun's expansion will burn us to cinders. The best way to minimize the risk of extinction from these causes is to establish other outposts of humanity- preferably many self-sufficient outposts.

Sure, I can see that. But that is very long term, while many people will die of starvation right here at home in the very short term.

I can see arguments either way. I guess it's hard to tell a starving person "we're spending your lunch money so that our 300-year future descendants can live on Mars". And that's not to mention the thousands of other problems - perhaps cancer research would be a better expenditure, or social security, or renewable fuels, and so on.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do it. I'm just not sold on it fully; at least for right now.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

Sure, I can see that. But that is very long term, while many people will die of starvation right here at home in the very short term.

I can see arguments either way. I guess it's hard to tell a starving person "we're spending your lunch money so that our 300-year future descendants can live on Mars". And that's not to mention the thousands of other problems - perhaps cancer research would be a better expenditure, or social security, or renewable fuels, and so on.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do it. I'm just not sold on it fully; at least for right now.

Those are understandable. But I think those arguments could essentially always be made- there will always be problems on Earth.

But I think going to the Moon was a positive- for national prestige, for pure science, and for inspiration of young people. And we didn't really do it for any of those reasons.

I don't think anyone looks back and says "we should have spent the Apollo money on cancer".

If we made it to Mars and back, would anyone say "we should have spent the money on issue x"?

[Simplicio]

I'm not sure a Mars mission would really pave the way for future colonization either. The reason people don't live on the Moon or Mars isn't because they're hard to get to, but because there isn't really any reason for anyone to live there. If someone found something productive to do there, I imagine actually getting there would be solved pretty quickly.

After all, Antartica is much more hospitable then the Moon and much much easier to get to, but even that hasn't been colonized beyond a few scientific outposts. People won't live on the Mars or the Moon in any sort of sustainable way even if we send a dozen more manned missions there.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I believe that space exploration is as worthwhile and valuable as any other scientific endeavor.

Yep.

I also believe that Mars is the most interesting potential place to explore (that we can realistically reach),

Mars is in the top handful of places, that's for sure. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn rank pretty highly, too.

...and that human exploration is far more valuable than robotic exploration.

You lost me here. Human exploration is marginally more valuable than robotic, but it's thousands or tens of thousands of times more expensive. Would you rather send several Mars rovers now, at a price we can afford, while at the same time send robotic explorers of the asteroids, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, Saturn, etc., or wait for a few decades while we fund a single manned mission to Mars? That's the real choice we have.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

... human exploration is far more valuable than robotic exploration.

I'm with CurtC on this. 15 years ago you'd have found ample agreement on this point, but events since then have called this seriously into question. Current trends suggest that the price/performance gap between unmanned and manned exploration, already large, is increasing rapidly with no near-term limit in sight.

Could we make a self-sustaining (with regards to food/water/air) colony on Mars?

This is probably at (or perhaps somewhat beyond) the extreme outer limit of what's currently possible. The cost would be vastly greater than simply going there and returning, itself staggeringly more expensive than robotic exploration.

A much more feasible scheme would be to continue robotic missions with a view toward eventually sending robots that can start to create the infrastructure human visitors/residents would need.

[ralph124c]

Maintaining a human colony on Mars would be horrendously expensive.
It is theorized that we could roof over a small crater (or canyon), pressurize the space, and grow crops-but life there would be less bearable than living on Antarctica-plus a lot more dangerous.
We are stuck here until we develop nuclear pulse rockets-chemical rockets are too slow, too expensive, and too unreliable to think of planting a colony on Mars.

[erislover]

Mars is just there, and it is a planet. I think the moon has much better chances for actual colonization, though probably not in the historical sense of a permanent group of living humans. There are endless problems with space travel but lugging stuff out of a planet's gravity is a huge one. If we wanted a base for such operations, we'd not choose a planet I don't think, without really awesome reasons that so far Mars doesn't seem to offer.

[CurtC]

Lawrence Krauss, and probably others, have proposed the idea that while a manned trip to Mars would be way more expensive than a whole army of robots, that if we did want to send humans to Mars, a one-way trip would be much much much less expensive than a round trip.

Would you go? I wouldn't yet, but in a few years I may be at a point where I'd be willing.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Would you go? I wouldn't yet, but in a few years I may be at a point where I'd be willing.

Better question: how much do you trust people willing to volunteer for a one-way trip to certain (eventual) death? Willing to take the gamble they'll fulfill mission objectives? Maybe the shot at being in the history books will be enough to keep them motivated and engaged.

[JThunder]

Forget about manned exploration of Mars. We should send some women instead. I hear that they're needed.

[TriPolar]

No. We are not ready. The first person to land on Mars will probably die on impact or before. If they live, they'll spend the rest of their life there. We don't have a great track record for robots landing on Mars so far, and they are much smaller, and need way less food, water, and oxygen than humans do.

[BMalion]

We better go there before they come here.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BMalion

We better go there before they come here.

. . . Until our invasion-force dies of Martian viruses . . .

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I'm not sure a Mars mission would really pave the way for future colonization either. The reason people don't live on the Moon or Mars isn't because they're hard to get to, but because there isn't really any reason for anyone to live there. If someone found something productive to do there, I imagine actually getting there would be solved pretty quickly.

After all, Antartica is much more hospitable then the Moon and much much easier to get to, but even that hasn't been colonized beyond a few scientific outposts. People won't live on the Mars or the Moon in any sort of sustainable way even if we send a dozen more manned missions there.

In the case of Antarctica, there is stuff to do, but the nations of Earth have all pretty much agreed to leave it alone. Fragile ecosystem, blah, blah, blah.

There are no fragile ecosystems to worry about in space.

[even sven]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

In the case of Antarctica, there is stuff to do, but the nations of Earth have all pretty much agreed to leave it alone. Fragile ecosystem, blah, blah, blah.

There are no fragile ecosystems to worry about in space.

Do you really think, for a moment, that a "fragile ecosystem" would keep us from doing anything? We eat "fragile ecosystems" with our morning commute. The nations of the earth have nearly destroyed the seas, are happily fracking the earth, and generally not worrying all that much about the trade offs.

If there were any economic benefit, we'd do it. If it was too messy for us to do, we'd pay China to do it and let them live with the environmental consequences. The only reason nothing is happening down there is that there is nothing really to do.

[XT]

I know there are a lot of space exploration threads, but on a cursory look I did not see one just about Mars.

There have been tons of threads on this if you do a search. Nothing recent that I recall, but I haven't been around much lately so maybe.

I believe that space exploration is as worthwhile and valuable as any other scientific endeavor. I also believe that Mars is the most interesting potential place to explore (that we can realistically reach), and that human exploration is far more valuable than robotic exploration.

Yeah, I agree, but you aren't going to get a lot of traction here for this viewpoint. Oddly, the 'dope is by and large against stuff like this (or maybe it's not all that odd), and manned space exploration seems to really run against the grain. I think robotic missions are very important, but I also believe that manned missions to places like Mars are equally important. IMHO (and it's an opinion not shared widely around here) we could accomplish more in a single manned mission to Mars, exploration wise, as all of the robotic missions to date combined. Mostly this is because if you actually go to Mars you are going to have to be there either 3 months or well over a year (and the safest way, interestingly, is the over a year trip), which is going to give you boat loads of time to really explore. I think one mission would settle once and for all whether there was or even is life on Mars...a question I think is one of the biggest ones out there right now.

Sadly, I doubt such a mission is in the cards in my lifetime, and a big part of that is attitudes such as prevail on this board. It's too expensive. It's too dangerous. There is no value in going (ironic on a scientifically oriented board, but there you go)...etc etc. Politically it's just not in the cards for the US to do this anytime soon, and I have serious doubts anyone else can or will give it a real shot.

So how would we get there? If the political will existed, then how much would it cost? How long would it take? I've read a few of the independent proposals (like Mars Direct), but which one of them is best?

The best way I've seen is a variation on Mars Direct. Costs would be anywhere between $20 billion and $100 billion...take your pick. I've seen both numbers tossed about (Zubrin claims the lower number, but I think realistically it would be more like the higher one...possibly MUCH higher, all things considered). But a multi-stage mission would be best, again IMHO (and I'm no rocket scientist...I have a degree in Aero-Space engineering, but it's just an interesting piece of paper since I have never used the degree or worked a single job using that degree). Basically you send everything you need for your stay and return trip ahead of time, verify it's all there, then do your manned mission with full backup. Assuming everything goes as planned and there are no big problems you have all the stuff you need for the next mission in place and waiting. If there IS a problem you have backup.

The problem isn't doing it. We could, though there would be real risks involved. The problem is there isn't political will to do it, nor to spend that kind of money (though, to me and given our budget it doesn't really seem all that much, considering the potential gains).

And once we get there, how (with regards to engineering/economics) do we stay there? Could we make a self-sustaining (with regards to food/water/air) colony on Mars? How long would that take? Would it be worth it?

I doubt a colony or self-sustaining mission would be what we'd do initially. What we'd be doing is basic exploration. Is it worth it? Don't know...is any pure scientific pursuit of knowledge 'worth it'? What do we get out of large particle collides and space telescopes? What do we get out of mine shafts to detect particles that might or might not exist?

IMHO, we get lots out of that. The expansion of basic human knowledge is worth the costs and risks. Answering the question 'did life exist/does life exist on Mars?' is worth quite a lot. Whether you find life or not it answers a ton of questions and leads to a ton of new questions (such as the follow up, assuming we find life, 'Is the life there related to that on the Earth, or is it completely different?')

-XT

[The Man In Black]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Lawrence Krauss, and probably others, have proposed the idea that while a manned trip to Mars would be way more expensive than a whole army of robots, that if we did want to send humans to Mars, a one-way trip would be much much much less expensive than a round trip.

Would you go? I wouldn't yet, but in a few years I may be at a point where I'd be willing.

I think the idea of sending people to Mars just to die there is horrible. Unless you mean to also send what they need to live out there lives there and die of old age. That I would be Ok with. But sending them there with a month supply and then having them die would be one of the worst things to do.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Oddly, the 'dope is by and large against stuff like this (or maybe it's not all that odd), and manned space exploration seems to really run against the grain.

I don't see that the Dope is necessarily against stuff like this. What I see is that most Dopers agree that there's little scientific or economic purpose served by this type of mission versus a bunch of robotic probes.

I think if you asked, "ignoring the dubious economic and scientific benefits, would it be worth going to Mars?" there's be overwhelming support. Going to Mars would be incredible. And a whole generation of kids would be influenced by the attempt. I know I'd personally love to set foot on a different planet, while still agreeing that there'd be little point to it.

The practical problem with that manned 3 month/over one year trip is that for the same money, you don't send 1 robotic probe or the handful we've sent. You could send dozens of such probes, which could explore much more effectively than that single manned mission. So, it's still not an apples to apples comparison.

Exploration of the Moon is the perfect example. The Apollo missions, while a phenomenal example of human achievement, accomplished very little scientifically that could not have been achieved at much lower cost (money and lives) by robotic probes and satellites.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

Exploration of the Moon is the perfect example. The Apollo missions, while a phenomenal example of human achievement, accomplished very little scientifically that could not have been achieved at much lower cost (money and lives) by robotic probes and satellites.

They were flags and footprints missions...and I disagree with you. They DID accomplish quite a bit, scientifically. Just the samples alone that were brought back, if they did nothing but that, would be valuable scientific achievements about the composition of the Moon. And we did more than just bring back samples, even though it WAS just a flags and footprints mission with some science thrown in on the side (for instance there is the laser reflectors that were put in place by the astronauts that have given us tons of data).

A mission to Mars, however, would not be a flags and footprints affair (not entirely) simply because we'd have to be on Mars for months or over a year, depending on which mission profile we went with. That alone would give us tons of valuable data, and would be worthwhile.

-XT

[robinson]

There is actually a fair bit of scientific work going on there. No glamor, so invisible.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

The practical problem with that manned 3 month/over one year trip is that for the same money, you don't send 1 robotic probe or the handful we've sent. You could send dozens of such probes, which could explore much more effectively than that single manned mission. So, it's still not an apples to apples comparison.

Exploration of the Moon is the perfect example. The Apollo missions, while a phenomenal example of human achievement, accomplished very little scientifically that could not have been achieved at much lower cost (money and lives) by robotic probes and satellites.

That's not how it works though. If a manned Mars mission cost $500 billion, and a robotic mission cost $5 billion, then you aren't going to get to send up 100 robotic missions. The manned mission will be canceled, you'll get one robotic mission, it'll have its funding cut and get postponed for five years, and you'll be told your robot better perform miracles, and otherwise keep you mouth shut and be happy or next time it'll be worse.

[robinson]

Mars is, with effort, marginally habitable. If we put a colony there, it would have to be self-sustaining and it would be only a genetic insurance policy. It would have no substantial relations with earth because you still have the gravity well working against you. For manned science, it might be better to put a station on one of the martian moons, and use a short-range lander for excursions. Such a station could have a lifespan measured in decades (similar to antarctica), and the personnel could be rotated to earth orbit.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by xtisme

I disagree with you. They DID accomplish quite a bit, scientifically. Just the samples alone that were brought back, if they did nothing but that, would be valuable scientific achievements about the composition of the Moon.

Note that Antibob didn't say the missions accomplished little - he said they accomplished little that couldn't have been achieved by unmanned missions.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

you'll get one robotic mission, it'll have its funding cut and get postponed for five years, and you'll be told your robot better perform miracles, and otherwise keep you mouth shut and be happy or next time it'll be worse.

In that political climate, how do you sell the manned mission, at 100 times the cost? (In reality, that factor is probably a lot more than 100.)

[2sense]

Humanity is a plague. We spread everywhere we possibly can and wreck devastation and war wherever we go. We have no business colonizing Mars or anywhere else offworld before we address this basic flaw in our character. This is our only chance. Once humanity spreads out into space we will be too divided to ever evolve socially together. Man shall inherit the stars but you don't get your inheritance until you grow up.

I'm not talking about some abstract respect for the purity of nature or any kind of mystical bullshit like that. I'm talking a basic understanding that you don't shit in your own nest. You don't exploit resources to the point that you pollute your habitat. Sustainable growth. And all humans living together and resolving differences without wars. A single democratic world government. Then we would be ready to head out to the rest of the Universe without wrecking it.

[Grumman]

It's a big, cold, barren desert with poor sunlight. There is nothing about Mars that's worth spending billions of dollars of other people's money to send a person there.

[BMalion]

Originally Posted by Grumman

It's a big, cold, barren desert with poor sunlight. There is nothing about Mars that's worth spending billions of dollars of other people's money to send a person there.

Like Ohio?

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by xtisme

And we did more than just bring back samples, even though it WAS just a flags and footprints mission with some science thrown in on the side (for instance there is the laser reflectors that were put in place by the astronauts that have given us tons of data).

I personally think the footprints and flag are incredibly cool. But I stand by my assertion that the scientific benefit of manned missions is being overblown.

As Xema noted, I didn't claim they accomplished nothing. I claimed they accomplished nothing that couldn't have also been accomplished via probe (and much more cheaply, at that).

The Lunar laser reflectors could have been placed by robots. Likewise, a remote probe can pick up soil samples and be set to return to Earth. Actually, the USSR managed to accomplish this a few times and both the US and China are in the planning stages for probes to collect and return more lunar samples.

Likewise, on Mars, robotic probes can accomplish all of what early manned missions can accomplish scientifically at a significantly reduced cost.

Do I think it's still worth it to send a human to Mars? Heck yeah. I think it's worth it for the 'awesome' factor. It would be awe-inspiring for an entirely new generation of kids to see it happen. And it would make the funding of robot probes more politically palatable. But I'm not going to claim some kind of scientific benefit from the attempt that couldn't be more easily and cheaply managed with other technology.

An analogy may be deep sea exploration. It's vastly cheaper and less dangerous to send remote probes to the deepest parts in the sea. There are few reasons to send a person to such depths (even if it were possible). But it's still awe-inspiring when such feats are accomplished.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

...and that human exploration is far more valuable than robotic exploration.

Bob Park strongly disagrees with you. He says that robots can do everything humans can do, and more, for longer times, at greater extremes, with less danger, and far less cost. Humans are quite vulnerable to the hazards of space and it's an astronomical expense to protect and supply them.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Bob Park strongly disagrees with you. He says that robots can do everything humans can do, and more, for longer times, at greater extremes, with less danger, and far less cost. Humans are quite vulnerable to the hazards of space and it's an astronomical expense to protect and supply them.

I'll see your Bob with a Bob of my own- Bob Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I'll see your Bob with a Bob of my own- Bob Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society.

I don't think your reference says what you think it does. The Mars Society wants humans on Mars for reasons beyond basic science research (mainly settlement and colonization).

I don't see how that's incompatible with the fact that basic exploration is more cheaply and effectively done with robots. It's just that they have additional criteria - going to inspire children, to spread humanity beyond Earth, to challenge humanity, etc.

Those reasons are all well and good (and I agree with a number of them), but they don't speak to how/why human exploration is cheaper or more effective than robot exploration.

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

I don't think your reference says what you think it does. The Mars Society wants humans on Mars for reasons beyond basic science research (mainly settlement and colonization).

I don't see how that's incompatible with the fact that basic exploration is more cheaply and effectively done with robots. It's just that they have additional criteria - going to inspire children, to spread humanity beyond Earth, to challenge humanity, etc.

Those reasons are all well and good (and I agree with a number of them), but they don't speak to how/why human exploration is cheaper or more effective than robot exploration.

I think it does- because (in addition to being more versatile and independent) human exploration more effectively does all that stuff- inspiration, spreading and challenging humanity, etc. Because that stuff is a big part of why I think we should go, humans are far more effective explorers.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Grumman

It's a big, cold, barren desert with poor sunlight. There is nothing about Mars that's worth spending billions of dollars of other people's money to send a person there.

Originally Posted by BMalion

Like Ohio?

Except for that person. They'll be thinking, holy fucking shit! I'm the first person on Mars! (S)He will look pensively toward to blue, setting sun as John Williams score from Star Wars comes to a dramatic soar, and (s)he'll think... "Where are all the cows?"

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I'll see your Bob with a Bob of my own- Bob Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society.

So now we have dueling Bobs, eh?

My Bob Park just sent this to his email list today (bolding mine):

2. BACK TO THE APOLLO MOON RACE?

<snip>

Nothing of significance has been learned from human spaceflight. Apollo itself was a political mission. The space shuttle was terminated and the ISS, which produced nothing of value, now belongs to an international consortium. For an American astronaut to visit the ISS, a ticket on a Russian rocket would have to be purchased. We already have a word for those who clamor to send Americans back to the moon: "lunatics."

It's a popular idea in Florida, which lost a lot of space jobs. Mitt Romney warns that the Gingrich plan would be "an enormous expense." It's worse than that; it's insane. Gingrich says his Moon base would be "90% private sector." How do you persuade the private sector to get involved in something as useless as a Moon base? Gingrich says he will offer incentives to the private sector in the form of "prizes" for meeting specific technical goals. Is a prize cheaper than a contract?

[This_Just_In...]

The only conceivable advantage manned space exploration has over robotic exploration is this intangible thing - that it is supposed to inspire us because it is 'cool' for someone to go somewhere out of the ordinary. Otherwise the rapidly improving field of robotics is superior for space and planetary exploration.

Lets generalize and simplify the math. What should our tax dollars go towards – say manned Mars exploration costs $100 dollars, a Mars robot cost $1 and a next generation Hubble or other type of telescope costs $5. We have $10/year to spend. Should we do nothing for 10 years and then blow the shot on a single manned Mars trip. Or should we launch a combination of increasingly powerful telescopes and planetary rovers every year – with more great science learned every year. I personally want the science. I want to understand the universe, not see video of some guys going to Mars.

Other than video/snapshots of guys standing on Mars, what is a manned Mars mission going to give me? I doubt NASA will send everyone a personalized Mar’s rock. At the end of the day, what do I really care if anyone goes to Mars – unless it is me. Similarly, it is ‘cool’ to go to Tahiti, but unless I’m going, why would I care? As for inspiration for kids – well do your homework so you can make enough money to pay for a private flight into space. That will be much more achievable and realistic than hoping you’re one of the chosen 4-6 astronauts who would actually go to Mars.

[levdrakon]

Bob Park is apparently an idiot.

I can just as easily say we've never learned anything of value from any sort of ground travel or air travel. So? The world's airlines fly over 1 billion passengers per year.

What we learn from flying planes is how to fly planes. What we learn from flying spaceships is how to fly spaceships.

ETA: in response to:

Originally Posted by Bob Park

just sent this to his email list today (bolding mine):
Quote:
2. BACK TO THE APOLLO MOON RACE?

<snip>

Nothing of significance has been learned from human spaceflight. Apollo itself was a political mission. The space shuttle was terminated and the ISS, which produced nothing of value, now belongs to an international consortium. For an American astronaut to visit the ISS, a ticket on a Russian rocket would have to be purchased. We already have a word for those who clamor to send Americans back to the moon: "lunatics."

It's a popular idea in Florida, which lost a lot of space jobs. Mitt Romney warns that the Gingrich plan would be "an enormous expense." It's worse than that; it's insane. Gingrich says his Moon base would be "90% private sector." How do you persuade the private sector to get involved in something as useless as a Moon base? Gingrich says he will offer incentives to the private sector in the form of "prizes" for meeting specific technical goals. Is a prize cheaper than a contract?

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I think it does- because (in addition to being more versatile and independent) human exploration more effectively does all that stuff- inspiration, spreading and challenging humanity, etc.

It does inspire well and certainly introduces a challenge.

But that's a separate question.

Define "effective".

If we mean effective at motivating people, then certainly we should send humans to Mars.

If we mean effective to mean attaining basic geologic, biologic, and chemical knowledge about Mars, human exploration is incredibly cost inefficient and wasteful. I'm not even sure how this is close to debatable.

The Apollo program is a good example. It was a massive attempt to one-up the Russians, who, politics and deaths aside, arguably had (have) a much more successful space program without landing men on the moon (and even still managed to get lunar samples).

I'll agree that sending humans up for the purpose of inspiration or as a testbed for space colonization is a worthwhile goal in itself.

But that's completely separate from whether or not humans are cost-efficient at performing basic scientific research on Mars. They're not.

It's not an either/or thing. You can still be for human exploration of Mars without believing any real scientific benefit exists.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

What we learn from flying planes is how to fly planes. What we learn from flying spaceships is how to fly spaceships.

We have that without having humans on board. We can fly spaceships remotely, so it doesn't help us learn much about that task. Even onboard the space shuttle and ISS, course corrections are computed/commanded from the ground, even if the onboard crew actually perform the tasks.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

I can just as easily say we've never learned anything of value from any sort of ground travel or air travel. So? The world's airlines fly over 1 billion passengers per year.

Yes, because there's actually something worth doing at the other end (unless you're flying to Ohio). Until the day a Mars rover stumbles over a cache of Martian archaotech, there's no reason to want to go until we've got the technology to do it for a hell of a lot cheaper.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by even sven

Do you really think, for a moment, that a "fragile ecosystem" would keep us from doing anything? We eat "fragile ecosystems" with our morning commute. The nations of the earth have nearly destroyed the seas, are happily fracking the earth, and generally not worrying all that much about the trade offs.

If there were any economic benefit, we'd do it. If it was too messy for us to do, we'd pay China to do it and let them live with the environmental consequences. The only reason nothing is happening down there is that there is nothing really to do.

Protecting the environment keeps us from doing lots of things, yes. It's becoming increasingly important, too. It's not in humanity's best interests to keep drilling and strip-mining everywhere more and deeper. Doesn't everyone understand that, at this point?

When or if things get genuinely desperate, we'll destroy Antarctica, but not 'til then. We can easily learn to exploit space resources before turning on our last nature preserves, and that should be a global priority.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Xema

Note that Antibob didn't say the missions accomplished little - he said they accomplished little that couldn't have been achieved by unmanned missions.

So, you are saying that in the time frame of Apollo there were unmanned missions that could have brought back hundreds of pounds of moon rocks, emplaced laser reflectors, and done everything else the Apollo missions accomplished? That's news to me. What do you base this on? That we COULD have done all of this if we'd have poured the resources from Apollo into unmanned missions? If so, then the trouble with that is, basically, we wouldn't have.

Also, AFAIK the best unmanned robotic missions to the Moon in that era were by the Russians, and they came no were near accomplishing what the manned Apollo missions accomplished. Again, if you have evidence otherwise I'm all ears.

As to the Mars unmanned missions, we have nothing to compare them to, manned mission wise. I'd say it's pretty clear that if we DID have a manned mission to Mars it would overshadow everything we've accomplished over the past 2 or 3 decades unmanned wise in one mission, simply because of the time humans would be there, but since we haven't gone there is no way to to know at this point.

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

I personally think the footprints and flag are incredibly cool. But I stand by my assertion that the scientific benefit of manned missions is being overblown.

I don't think so. What I think is that manned missions are being vastly underrated on this board wrt scientific benefit, and unmanned missions are being overstated. That said, I DO think there is a place for unmanned missions, and if we did go to Mars my guess is they would go with tons of unmanned probes to augment the manned mission. The nice thing would be the near real time applications of those probes by humans that are right there, instead of the huge lag times from Earth to Mars that hampers current robotic missions. Also, since there would be real humans there, I think they will see things by simply being able to turn their head on their own instead of having to wait for instructions that that robotic probes could be missing now...or by trying or testing things that the folks who designed the robotic missions years before they got to Mars didn't think of or couldn't afford to include when they sent the probe off.

As Xema noted, I didn't claim they accomplished nothing. I claimed they accomplished nothing that couldn't have also been accomplished via probe (and much more cheaply, at that).

I think you are wrong about everything but the cost. You could, eventually accomplish as much with robotic missions to Mars as you can with a single successful manned mission, no doubt. If you are willing to wait for decades to get the answers and then piece them together. We've been sending probes to Mars for over 3 decades now, and we've certainly learned quite a bit. But we have yet to definitively prove if there was or even is life there. Yeah, we might find that out in another 3 decades or so of probes, all of which would probably end up costing as much or perhaps less than one manned mission. I suppose it comes down to whether waiting for a few more decades to slowing accumulate the data is cool, or whether it wouldn't just be better to go and find out now. After all, there is more to explore in our solar system, so if we have to wait decades for this stuff it's going to be a long time in coming.

The Lunar laser reflectors could have been placed by robots. Likewise, a remote probe can pick up soil samples and be set to return to Earth. Actually, the USSR managed to accomplish this a few times and both the US and China are in the planning stages for probes to collect and return more lunar samples.

They could have...but they wouldn't have been. Samples COULD have been brought back....but not hundreds of pounds of them, as was done with the manned missions. Everything the Apollo astronauts did COULD have been done by probes...but we'd still be waiting for them to catch up right now (which would have been less for Mars and everything else).

Yeah, Russia sent unmanned probes to the Moon, and they spent quite a bit doing it...but they didn't come near to the accomplishments with their probes that we did with a couple of manned missions. AFAIK, they got all the moon rocks they used for study from us, right? And all of their soil samples too.

Again, I'm not dissing unmanned missions. They have discovered tons of stuff, and as augments to manned missions they are invaluable. But as the sole means of exploration? They still aren't ready for prime time, not if you actually want to discover stuff in a timely manner. They also aren't going to get the same budgets as manned missions, no matter what you do, so you aren't ever going to be able to spend Apollo scale price tags on unmanned missions.

-XT

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

I think it does- because (in addition to being more versatile and independent) human exploration more effectively does all that stuff- inspiration, spreading and challenging humanity, etc. Because that stuff is a big part of why I think we should go, humans are far more effective explorers.

I will concede the point that if your goal is to get humans into space, manned spaceflight achieves that goal better than sending robots does.

[Doubticus]

How much science could be performed by a scientist with his boots on Mars than a probe in the same time frame? The obvious answer is the scientist could perform and do way more tasks. The open question then is do we do one manned Mars mission and reap a huge amount of data, or spread the effort over decades and learn a little bit at a time? I would love to see a manned mission and I think the technological advances made during the attempt would be enormously beneficial. That said, that is a lot of risk to put into a single program rather than mitigating the risk over several robotic missions.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Xema

In that political climate, how do you sell the manned mission, at 100 times the cost? (In reality, that factor is probably a lot more than 100.)

I made up the numbers. The latest Mars rover currently en route to Mars came in at $2.5 billion.

I'm not really the biggest fan of a manned Mars mission right now. Certainly not a quick touch & go flag-planting mission. When we go it should be a serious long-term science mission and semi-permanent space settlement attempt.

Meanwhile, we've got plenty to do closer to home. We need energy. Space is where it's all at. We need space-based solar power. Along with that, we need space habitats filled with more or less regular workers trained to maintain the solar power satellites, and whatever else we put up there. We need cheap, reliable transportation to and from orbit.

Someone asked me if I thought the ISS counted as living in space. I'd say no, not really. It was cute at first, but fairly useless now. The ISS should be growing its own food in large, rotating greenhouses. They should be growing their own hamburger in vats. They should be learning how to fabricate basic structural materials from raw material. All sorts of stuff. The ISS doesn't cut it, as is.

As for selling a manned Mars mission, I dunno. I guess when our planet-killing asteroid finally shows up, at least some robots will survive.

[This_Just_In...]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Yeah, Russia sent unmanned probes to the Moon, and they spent quite a bit doing it...but they didn't come near to the accomplishments with their probes that we did with a couple of manned missions. AFAIK, they got all the moon rocks they used for study from us, right? And all of their soil samples too.

I don't believe it is fair to compare robot technology from the 60's & 70's to what is available today. And when we talk about a manned Mars mission, we really need to talk about the robot technology that will be available today and a minimum 10-20 years out when people could possibly make it there if earnest work started today.

I won't argue that Spirit and Opportunity are superior to a person. But Curiosity will hopefully land this August and it is getting close to being superior when you consider:
- The Cost, simple dollars
- Curiosity can work 24/7 collecting data. Humans will be essentially spend most of their time surviving. They will need to be preparing for their trip back (especially if they need to manufacture fuel and/or food while they are on Mars). Only a small percentage of their time could be spent doing actual science work.
- Mobility - humans will need to have some sort of a base, where they will need to return to each day. Long surface treks around the planet are out of the question
- Longevity - it is designed to explore for at least 687 Earth days, but if Spirit and Opportunity are any indicators the mission life could long exceed this. Humans would likely last 3 months to a year at most.
- The Cost - for a still small fraction of the cost we could sent a Curiosity like probe (improving each year) to several different points of the planet - maximizing the science gain from various geographies. As mentioned above, humans would be far less mobile.

[XT]

Originally Posted by This_Just_In...

I don't believe it is fair to compare robot technology from the 60's & 70's to what is available today. And when we talk about a manned Mars mission, we really need to talk about the robot technology that will be available today and a minimum 10-20 years out when people could possibly make it there if earnest work started today.

Sure it is, if we are doing an apples to apples comparison. Apollo happened during that time frame, so saying we could have done better with unmanned missions has to compare unmanned technology that existed during Apollo to the manned Apollo missions. We couldn't have done similar missions with the unmanned tech that existed when we did do Apollo.

I doubt we could do most of that today, at least as far as the heavy lifting stuff of getting hundreds of pounds of rock samples back from the Moon and doing all the other stuff that they did.

I won't argue that Spirit and Opportunity are superior to a person. But Curiosity will hopefully land this August and it is getting close to being superior when you consider:
- The Cost, simple dollars
- Curiosity can work 24/7 collecting data. Humans will be essentially spend most of their time surviving. They will need to be preparing for their trip back (especially if they need to manufacture fuel and/or food while they are on Mars). Only a small percentage of their time could be spent doing actual science work.
- Mobility - humans will need to have some sort of a base, where they will need to return to each day. Long surface treks around the planet are out of the question
- Longevity - it is designed to explore for at least 687 Earth days, but if Spirit and Opportunity are any indicators the mission life could long exceed this. Humans would likely last 3 months to a year at most.
- The Cost - for a still small fraction of the cost we could sent a Curiosity like probe (improving each year) to several different points of the planet - maximizing the science gain from various geographies. As mentioned above, humans would be far less mobile.

None of the probes work 24/7 collecting data. That's total horseshit. They don't have the power budgets to work 24/7/365 (well, 668 and a touch I suppose), and they aren't fully autonomous, so they need periodic command instruction type uploads as well as on the fly mission planning.

It's also horsehit that humans would last 3 months at most. The long mission would REQUIRE humans to be on planet for over a year...nearly 2 in fact, IIRC. And humans are MUCH more mobile than any probe that lands on any planet. They are also much more adaptable since they don't need to have a programmer or controller figure everything out ahead of time or on the fly for them to do. That's because ultimately it's humans who ARE controlling the probes, just with a 40+ minute time lag and limited visual input and mobility issues.

Costs are a fraction, you are right about that, but I think that the gains are a fraction as well. A real manned mission to Mars would accomplish everything that all of these robotic missions (the lander missions that is) combined in the space of the single manned mission. It WOULD cost many times the total cost of all those unmanned missions, and of course there would be far greater risks (if you crater an unmanned probe you are just out a few billion at most...crater a manned mission and you cost lives), but we'd get more out of it, IMHO.

-XT

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Would you rather send several Mars rovers now, at a price we can afford, while at the same time send robotic explorers of the asteroids, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, Saturn, etc., or wait for a few decades while we fund a single manned mission to Mars? That's the real choice we have.

I'd like to send somebody along to change the tires as so as we can.
I'm all for rovers now and astronauts as we find out how.

[Chronos]

I think we should send humans to Mars eventually, but it doesn't need to be the next problem we tackle. I'd be perfectly happy to put it on hold until we have cheap access to space (something I plausibly hope to see in my lifetime). Once we have that, we'd be hard-pressed to find reasons not to go.