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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
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.
Note that Antibob didn’t say the missions accomplished little - he said they accomplished little that couldn’t have been achieved by unmanned missions.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?”
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.
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:
[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
