Well, you can’t say I didn’t warn you…
Cite?
Which parts are you asking me to cite there? Some of the things are my own opinions on how worthwhile manned exploration is. Others are talking about specific NASA technology currently under development (like the rovers and the integrated space suits)…I can certainly dig that stuff up if you like. Or were you looking for cites on the possible durations a manned mission might have to stay? That’s pretty well known, but I could get you a cite on that as well. Or, maybe you want a cite showing exactly how much area the rovers have currently explored on the surface of Mars and over what duration, along with the capabilities of the proposed manned rover with it’s lab and long duration capability?
Honestly, much of what I am saying here I’ve gleaned from the recent rash of solar system exploration shows on NatGEO and SCI, especially the point about how humans could easily explore the area that the rovers have explored in a week or two, tops. In one of the shows, one of the lead scientists on Spirit was saying that the rovers have gone above and beyond their designed limits and have performed exceptionally, but that even though he’s a robotic guy he feels its vital that we get a human mission to Mars because of how much more data could be collected in a shorter time and from a larger area, than can be done currently with the rover technology.
So…which parts of what I’m saying do you want a cite on? No guarantees I’ll have the time to look the stuff up tomorrow, as I’ll be flying out of town in the early afternoon, but if I don’t get it I’m sure someone else will, if they are interested…nothing I’ve said is really all that controversial or unknown.
-XT
If you volunteer to go on even a return trip, you are in my WAG volunteering for about a 10 percent chance you’ll die without even getting there, die while landing, or die trying to get back home.
Once you think of it in those terms, a suicide mission that keeps you alive for a very long time doesnt look so bad math wise.
Not a bad point at all. I am sure that one-way mission is a lot easier to engineer and much less prone to failure than one with a return.
Let’s make an apples to apples comparison between human astronauts and a robotic mobile science platform (rover) like the Mars Explorer Rovers:
Human Astronaut
On-Board Sensors: Mark I binocular imagers (effective feature resolution ~0.1mm), restricted bi-aural receptors, external signals transmitter/receiver
Manipulators: (2) five digit appendages enclosed in Kevlar[sup]TM[/sup] gauntlets with minimal tactile feedback
Communications: Auditory, hand-held or helmet-mounted camera
Control: Auditory commands only via multi-variant “ENGLISH” language; single on-board control system subject to malfunction by hypoxia, dehydration, malnutrition, or, contamination; complex autonomous internal codes (fear, anxiety, anger, depression) may interfere with optimum functioning
Power: Self-powered, requires complex balance of nutrients and potable water at several hour intervals
Operating Duration: 8-12 hours/day (effective maximum, depending on workload, fatigue)
Consumables: ~2 kg/day of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, sterols, vitamins; 2 liters/day of liquid water; oxygen
Maintenance: Multiple daily waste removal; continuous removal of respiratory waste (CO[sub]2[/sub] < 1%); periodic external cleansing with mild solvent; routine examination for injury and buildup of self-producing toxins; external stress-relieving stimuli (entertainment)
Environmental Tolerance: 0-55 deg C (absolute limits), 14-30 deg C (optimum function); ppO[sub]2[/sub] 0.2-0.8 bar; highly susceptible to chemical contaminants, ambient radiation, mechanical and acoustic shock
Reliability Requirements: Environmental and power sustainment required to be reliable >4 stdev throughout entire mission duration without interruption; support and delivery systems must be qualified to “man-rated” standards
Launch/Delivery Vehicle: One or more unspecified heavy lift launch vehicle; unspecified interplanetary transit vehicle with environmental sustainment and Earth-return capability for multiple (3+) exploratory units; unspecified surface landing and return module
Mars Science Laboratory (“Curiosity”)
On-Board Sensors: mast-mounted high definition multi-spectra cameras (MASTCAM), manipulator-mounted ultra high definition (0.014mm resolution) camera (MAHLI), X-ray diffraction system, pulsed neutron emitter (DAN), tunable laser spectrometer, alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, laser-induced breakdown spectroscope (ChemCam), gas chromatograph, quadrupole mass spectrometer, multiple sensors for navigation and self-diagnostics
Manipulators: High precision robotic manipulator arm with survey and sampling apparatus built-in
Communications: Redundant low- and high-bandwidth transmitters for command upload, precision diagnostic feedback, data return
Control: Precision command control via explicit (single value) instructions; semi-autonomous on-board redundant radiation-hardened computer (Rover Electronics Module) utilizing established operational and contingency protocols; ability to upload novel skill set via firmware patch
Power: Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), 2.5 kWh/day
Operating Duration: Continuous operation for intended 2 year mission, MMRTG rated for 14 years output
Consumables: None.
Maintenance: Firmware uploads; no physical maintenance required
Environmental Tolerance: Design tolerance for anticipated mission environment conditions (-127 to 30 deg C, near vacuum atmosphere, ambient radiation) with standard qualification margins (+/- 10 deg C)
Reliability Requirements: >3 stdev (99.7% reliability) acceptable for mission duration
Launch/Delivery Vehicle: Atlas V (541) with Dual Engine Centaur upper stage/Earth Orbit Escape vehicle, aeroshell landing vehicle similar to Viking lander; no return vehicle required
There is no question that both the overall mission cost and the value of science per dollar spent is vastly greater with robotic probes, notwithstanding the emotional reluctance and ethics of placing human astronauts in harm’s way without taking extraordinary measures to reduce hazards. A rule of thumb about manned missions is that at least 90% of the effort is just keeping the “meat puppets” alive and functional, and a look at the historical costs of manned versus unmanned missions (not including launch costs) shows at least an order of magnitude difference in cost. That means that at best, for every dollar’s worth of science data you get from a robotic mission you’re getting one penny from a manned effort.
This statement makes it abundantly clear that you don’t have any real knowledge or understanding of mission planning and execution beyond some pop-sci t.v. shows. The MERs don’t just “stand around…waiting for the next set of instructions from NASA,” after completing one task; their actions are coded and transmitted days or weeks in advance to make maximum use of their operational capacity. And as long as they have power, they can function continually without rest, whereas astronauts require food, water, air replenishment, rest, and other non-productive downtime.
Nor did the astronauts on the Lunar missions go off doing whatever they were so inclined; they followed a tightly choreographed script on what, when, where, and how to perform the required actions during EVA. It’s a good thing, too, as despite field geology training the astronaut corps were demonstratively uninterested in learning about geological science or “autonomously” doing any kind of useful research. And even if a suitable professional scientist candidate was identified for a Mars mission, a single trained mission specialist isn’t going to be a match for a large team of planetologists, geologists, biologists, physicists, et cetera who can interpret data and make useful, multi-discipline decisions about mission modifications from the shirt-sleeve comfort of their offices and briefing rooms.
Returning to the original question by the o.p., nobody is going to send a one-way suicide mission to Mars; not even the Chinese. There is no credible reason why such a mission would be necessary or useful, and the public relations, ethical, psychological, and other blowback would be prohibitive. Those advocating the (questionable) personal benefits of volunteering for such a mission are neglecting the vast different between voluntary and reversible separation from human society, and the permanent and ultimately isolating division of such a mission.
Stranger
And your statement makes it equally abundantly clear that your level of hostility on this subject has yet to abate, so I might as well return hostility and sarcasm tit for tat, as that’s what you seem to want. Why that has to be the case remains a mystery, but I’m willing to just say ‘fuck it’ and continue on.
No…the rovers don’t just sit around waiting for instruction. Not when the sun is out and when it’s not winter. However, they DO just ‘sit around’ in a stand by mode when both of those conditions are in effect…and this can be for weeks or months during the winter season. Since I assume you know that, and that you equally know that during those periods is when the planning and coding are being done, all I can assume is you are intentionally trying to be both caustic AND to mislead the discussion in order to bolster your position.
As you are also well aware the things very slowly, especially through difficult or unknown terrain. Also, as you very well know, they can and have become stuck several times, necessitating all manner of on the fly reprogramming, testing back here on earth with mock ups to try and get around problems, and other delays. Trying to insinuate that they are gathering data around the clock, or that the data they are gathering is far in advance of what a human team could do is, at best, misleading. What they give us that humans don’t is they can get there cheaply and they can be sent without all the preparation a human mission would entail. But to say that even if humans were there that the rovers would do a better job? Horseshit. Pure and simple. And at least on my despised ‘pop-science’ shows even the engineers who man the rover teams acknowledge that boots on the ground would be superior (if much more costly) AND is necessary at some point if we really want to explore Mars.
No, they didn’t just wander off, though, again as you know they did do a certain amount of autonomous exploration in and around the landing site. Of course, as you carefully didn’t say, a Mars mission would be slightly different, in that instead of being on the Moon for 3 days on a tight schedule they would be there for several months or over a year, depending on the mission profile.
Also, unlike the Apollo astronauts, the suits the Mars explorers will use will be both lighter and less fatiguing to wear AND will be MUCH easier to get in and out of (not to mention that it will prevent all the dangers of dust and other contaminants getting into the crew compartments), which, coupled with the durations on planet we’d be talking about, is going to make for a hell of a lot more flexible of an exploration schedule, as well as increase the amount of exploration that can be done.
Are you saying the rover is better trained than an astronaut to be able to carry out instructions from a team of experts back on earth? 
Even leaving aside the possibility that the NASA crew chosen to go to Mars might be just a BIT different than those chosen in the past to go to the Moon (or, to spell it out for you, that perhaps NASA might actually include an astronaut who is a specialist in geology for this mission, as well as astronauts who have other specialties suited for such a mission). Maybe you should watch more of this popular science stuff…you’d see that NASA has kind of gotten away from the fighter jock mentality for astronauts that they had during the Apollo days. They actually send up astronauts now who AREN’T fighter pilots now! I know…gasp
And all of this assumes it would be the US to go. What makes you think that, even assuming we are too stupid to send a specialist, that the EU or China won’t?
Yeah…because if we sent people to Mars we couldn’t possibly have such a team back on Earth consulting with them just like we do with the rovers. Once we send out PEOPLE it’s time to let the let the testosterone fly and fuck all that science shit. Can’t have specialists and experts actually TALK to astronauts on Mars in the way they can with a rover.
There are pros and cons to both unmanned and manned explorations. They compliment each other, since both have strengths and weaknesses. Unmanned exploration is something we can do fairly cheaply and quickly, and it helps out a lot for picking where is might be interesting to send people to go to REALLY take a look at what’s happening there. To me, it’s a silly meme that there is nothing that people can do that robots can’t, or that there is no value to direct human exploration. One manned mission to Mars will give us orders of magnitude more data than all of the robotic lander missions to date…or robotic lander missions for the decade. We’ll have people that are literally on the surface for months, able to deploy a host of additional sensors, robots and directly explore the surface.
Anyway, I’m done so reply if you like, or don’t if you so chose. I really don’t care, and don’t have anything more to say to you on this subject as, frankly, even as knowledgeable as I know you to be on this subject, your hostility here and in the past makes me militantly uninterested in further discussing it with you. Ado.
-XT
The thing is not to compare the ROI for one robot vs one man, though -* cost-wise*, you have to compare 1 man to, I don’t know, 10 robots? 20? more? I mean, 1 man + a year’s food, water + air, plus man-usable science equipment, is a lot of payload. How many robots would fit into the space for that new closed Mars Vehicle, for instance?
And our robot tech has moved on quite a bit since the Rovers, just like our suit/vehicle tech has. If you get to use the capabilities of the new vehicles and suits in the argument, then new robot tech (better, smaller processors & power tech, smaller sensor suites, new firmware & software, etc) have to be considered.
Me, I think the biggest bang for buck is sending a *fleet *of robots simultaneously, that can communicate with each other as well as Mission Control. More than one sort of robot, with different mission profiles (fast Scouts, slower Examiners, strong Samplers) and the ability to repair/rescue each other, would be able to get the most actual science done, IMO. Rather than each new mission being autonomous, each new robot will add to the existing site’s abilities and equipment suite. Hell, open-source the platform and let other space agencies and private companies into the mix, designing & even building new additions to the “Hive”.
Let’s just start with the most basic scenario. Send a complete idiot with a feather duster and a radio so you can tell him to pick up the rover when it gets stuck. You already have a huge gain. There is nothing preventing an astronaut from carrying all the sensors that make the rover so special.
Yet I must agree with the comment that the correct comparison is 2-3 humans to 2-3 robotic missions each with 10 robots, if we want to be dollars to dollars.
Except for the mass and bulk of the instruments, plus the necessity for making a human-accessible interface, the difficulty of conveying to an astronaut exactly what task you want him to perform, and of course, the necessity for stopping whatever activity you may be involved in to allow the astronaut to rest and replenish.
There is a massive downside–both in terms of absolute cost, and the level of effort that has to be devoted to basic sustenance–in manned exploration versus robotic missions. All of the space, mass, resources, maintenance and down time, et cetera that is required just to sustain human explorers in a non-terrestrial environment could literally support hundreds of specialized probes and rovers that could be spread at widely separated points on the planet. The assumption that human astronauts are more capable, more flexible, et cetera can only be achieved by handwaving away all of the downsides of manned exploration and assuming that people will act like perfect robots themselves rather than suffering from physical ailments and psychological issues stemming from isolation and lack of self-determination.
Stranger
Yes, yes, yes. All I am saying is that comparing human eye versus super camera doesn’t make much sense since the human can carry that camera. Ditto for the rest of the gear. After that we agree that there are tons of benefits and problems with either approach.
If I were to make the NASA budget, I would probably slurp a billion or two from manned exploration and give it to robotic exploration, but that is not to say that human exploration is not worth it. It is just that with our current technology we can afford robots better than we can afford people. Still, at some point we will reach the limit of robotic exploration and will have to get ourselves there.
And there is nothing to prevent the astronauts from actually carrying sensor and even other robotic rovers with them and deploying them via their rover to interesting locations. Unlike an unmanned mission that can’t bring along humans, a manned mission almost certainly WILL bring along additional rovers, sensors and the like…just like the ones that we deployed on the Moon and that are still in use.
The astronauts will be there for quite some time after all, so after the initial flags and foot prints photo-ops they have to do SOMETHING with the months they will be there. I’ve seen (granted, on despised TV) NASA developing small, compact and cheap robots that are like baseballs or tubes with wheels (and even balloons) and could be dropped off and sent out autonomously to explore and collect data. If the astronauts dropped them off on their various excursions at interesting sites then that would further up the amount of data collected. By several orders of magnitude I should think.
Yes, it’s more expensive to send people to Mars than to send robotic missions. But a human mission has a lot more potential for discovery than many robotic missions. In one shot we COULD solve many of the mysteries about Mars past, about it’s climate and how it got that way, about life and whether it existed in the past, exists today, or never existed at all. With robotic missions we might get that same data…in a few decades or a century or so.
I’m all for robotic exploration and I still follow them on NASAs web site. But robotic missions are limited by what the designers can think up, they are limited in whether or not they actually make it to the surface in one piece, in how long they remain functional, and in where they are put down on the surface. They don’t move well enough to move substantially beyond where they are deployed, and though they are ‘cheap’, that’s a relative term, especially when you factor in the missions that failed.
-XT
Strikes me the same caveats apply to humans.
I don’t like where this is going.
ETA: I just finished watching Moon, btw. You should definitely watch it if you haven’t already.