Besides the cost, there’s the relative risk. No human life to lose or return if all you send is a bunch of non-returnable robots.
What part of unsticking the robot sent to unstick the robot do you not understand?
There’s no reason to be so polarized over the manned/unmanned issue. I don’t think it has to be either/or. Humans, computers and robots make a great team. That’s how it is on Earth, and that is how it will be in space. Robots will be/are invaluable when it comes to exploring the outer planets, moons, asteroids etc. Radiation and life support are major concerns, of course. Humans can still do millions of things no robot can, and never will be able to.
Scientists and engineers are well aware of the cosmic ray problem. There are plans to mitigate the risk, so astronauts don’t get too much more radiation exposure than workers are allowed to receive here on Earth. One of the plans involves a sort of “safe room” in the center of the ship astronauts can retreat to during especially heavy radiation events.
Another way to mitigate radiation exposure is to simply shorten the trip. Once we have sufficient infrastructure in orbit (and on the moon) JPL and NASA, ESA and whoever else wants to, can build and test nuclear powered propulsion, for instance. It’s a pipe dream right now, but I’ve heard of some proposed nuclear propulsion ideas that could shorten the trip to a month or so, or even as little as two weeks, theoretically.
What is our long-term goal here? To have the solar system filled with robots while humanity sits on Earth, unemployed, fat and depressed?
That’s a good point. I’m assuming our goal is science, to learn about our solar system.
If someone’s goal is the colonization of the solar system with humans, that’s a completely different thing. However, I don’t think this goal is practical. We can’t even make a self-sufficient biosphere here on Earth in the temperate zones. If we get to the point that we can do that successfully in Antarctica, then that will be a small step towards considering doing it on Mars.
So we’re not ready for colonization yet. Right now, science is what we’re after.
Even if that’s true (I’d argue that it isn’t), probe technology isn’t stagnant- it’s progressing at leaps and bounds. Every year it is getting closer and closer to the physical capabilities and dexterity of a human. Meanwhile, the human inside the suit hasn’t changed much in the last 10,000 years.
Even if autonomous AI never really progresses much and the probes are always going to need to be controlled by a human on Earth with the associated lag time, at some point its going to be cheaper to just send 2 or 3 robots out there to do an equivalent amount of science as one human being.
Humans can do cartwheels. Can a robot do a cartwheel?
At least in 2006 they could.
I’d love to see an astronaut do a cartwheel on Mars, though. I doubt the fuddy-duddies at NASA would approve.
does cartwheel on Mars
“In your robot FACE! HA!”
hissing sound from torn pressure suit
BEEP This unit will rescue you when it has been unstuck. Press any key to continue. BEEP
Well, shit. That’s what we send to unstick the stuck robot probes. And also to entertain us via MarsCam. An entire army of those things.
And while we’re at it, send this thing up there to.
Biosphere? That greenhouse dome that some hippy “scientists” tried to occupy for awhile?
To be fair, to be really, really fair, that was a joke. How much money was spent? A million? Two? What was the selection process for the hippy scientists? How large and well funded and trained was the whole project support team? Was it anything like NASA-level?
Nope! Two things:
-
It wasn’t a serious attempt. It could never have been, at the amount the group was willing to spend.
-
We should probably abandon the 100% self-sufficiency requirement. The whole Earth is not self-sufficient. Put a huge dome over the United States, isolating it from the outside, and see how long it stays “self-sufficient.”
People on Earth don’t live in isolation, and people in space shouldn’t either. We can build biospheres, we just need to accept that they will occasionally need to be supplied with some extra of this, that or the other thing. Sounds like commerce.
They’ve edited out the scene just after the guy kicks it to try and knock it over, where it stands up on its hind legs and rips his throat out.
I’d argue your characterization is a bit off. But until/unless we can get it to work on the Earth, we have no chance of getting it to work anywhere else.
IIRC, the big problem was that they couldn’t control the CO2 levels properly. There was some speculation about how the different gas levels were interacting with the materials used to build the structure (including sequestration and release by even the basic concrete).
So, let’s get it working on Earth. Why try the experiment for the first time on Mars if it fails on Earth?
So far, $200 million over the years and involving some smart people. Characterizing them as “hippies” shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about the project and personnel.
Here’s the wiki link.
-
It was a serious attempt with serious money and personnel involved.
-
Except for sunshine, how is the Earth not self-sufficient? The US isn’t self-sufficient (though it could be), but the Earth certainly is. We’re certainly not getting any significant amounts of minerals, water, or other resources from outer space. :dubious:
Why are you so worried about the rover getting stuck. I assume you are refering to the Spirit rover. But to be fair you must cosider that the rover was built and intended for only a 90 day mission. 5 years, 3 months, 27 Earth days after landing (21.6 times the planned mission duration) it became stuck. It is a fantastic accomplishment that it lasted this long to begin with. Mars is not a hospitable place. Many cars on driven earth don’t last that long.
And the Spirit rover is still going - 30 times the planned mission duration.
These rovers were built with technology from 10 years ago. Things have advanced since then. Yes, future rovers may become stuck as well, but you may have to consider a person driving a rover on Mars could easily get stuck beyond their capability to get out as well. They are not going to be driving on paved highways out there. And no tow trucks are going to be coming along to get them out.
Sounds like Star Trek to me, and that’s what bothers me about most of these threads. Especially the ones (not your explicitly) that state that we need to colonize the universe, because our planet won’t last forever.
This biosphere in Mars will never be even close to self sustaining. It will require a constant stream of repair parts, modernization and maintenance. Every nut, bolt, ounce of lubrication - everything will have to come from earth, at an astronomical price. And it we are there for 100 years, it will still never be self sustaining. So what is the point or men on Mars? It seems to always come down to “because it’s cool” or “man needs to reach for the stars” or some other Roddenburyesk term.
?
That is an example of the sort of problems humans should be around to serve.
I was a little snarky. I get that way. We can’t really ever get a biosphere to work on Earth the way it will have to work in space, on the moon, inside a lunar/Martian lava-tube, etc. The environments are just too different. We’re going to have to build one in space, and make it work there.
There wasn’t really one major problem. The problems were many. I’m not proposing trying a working biosphere on Mars first.
Okay, I was way off on the price. Still, since you linked to it:
Things like that really don’t sound nearly as serious as it should have been. Please read the rest of that section, as well as the section, “psychology and conflict.”
Sunshine is kind of a deal-breaker, isn’t it?
Who unstucks the unstuckers? What happens when the astronaut(s) gets pinned under a boulder?
We can always play “what if this horrible scenario unfolds?” games but at some point the resolution has to be we plan adequately to minimize risks and just go ahead with the mission.
In this case, we’ve got little reason to think a human will be necessary in case of stuck rovers. They’re (relatively) cheap and expendable and can still gather some data if they are stuck. Contrast that with a human being, who would cost a lot to send to Mars, is not all that expendable and would die soon if stuck.
How so? That’s quite a subjective judgment and unfounded based on the amount of science uncovered by the project.
The point still stands. Space is harder to design for than Earth, yet we can’t build isolated structures on Earth that can survive without continuous, on-going support. If we can’t get something even reasonably decent on Earth, there’s no way we can do it in space.
Besides, these kinds of experiments aren’t limited to Biosphere 2. The Russian space agency has run a series of experiments to deal with similar situations. Of course, the exact terms of the test were different, but there’s definitely concern about psychological effects of living in cramped quarters isolated from other humans for extended periods of time?
:dubious: Now, I can’t tell if you’re being serious here. Mars has sunshine.
If by “self-sufficient”, you mean the Earth could exist independently of the rest of the universe, obviously that’s not the case. But that’s also an impractical standard. Mars has sunshine and that would be the least of the problems of living on Mars, anyway.
I thought the debate was about the practical issues dealing with exploration of Mars, not bizarre hypotheticals.
I’m sorry it bothers you the Earth isn’t going to last forever, but it just isn’t. I’m sorry it bothers you human history is pretty much humans opening up new territories and exploiting the shit out of them, but that’s what we do. We’re really good at it.