Why avoid directly searching for life on Mars?

Factual Questions
21

I’m not clear what your crack above is supposed to mean, but in fact, nearly every mission objective that has been performed by humans (sample return from the Moon, experiments on the International Space Station, space-based observation and astronomy) already has or can demonstratably been done by unmanned systems more easily, cheaply, and effectively. A generous estimate of the amount of effort it takes on a mission just to keep astronauts alive and functioning is 90% of the total cost for a mission to low Earth orbit. A more realistic estimate is probably closer to 98% for extended duration missions, and there are many missions, like exploration of the Galilean moon system or the surface of Venus that will probably never be practical due to environmental conditions that are too hazardous for human beings to survive. The “Grand Tour” Viking mission, done for a relative pittance, could not be accomplished even today with extant technology. (It may be just feasible using nuclear pulse propulsion, but such systems have not been proven out and suffer from large number of fundamental logistical and political hurdles.)

As far as your notion that humans are, in essence, more flexible than semi-autonomous systems, it is true that human beings demonstrate cognition and problem-solving capability far in excess of anything we can build a robotic system to do today, your comparison suffers when you consider the restrictions that humans are under in a non-terrestrial environment. Your assertions of what astronauts could do are based upon operating at ideal conditions, in a shirt sleeve environment, with essentially unrestricted logistics and support. The reality, as we’ve learned from orbital spacewalks and lunar missions is that astronauts have limited dexterity, tire easily, and become extremely cranky when pushed to accomplish a work schedule that would seem trivial on Earth. Some of the Apollo mission transcripts are hilarious; the astronaut corps, in general, had little use for anyone but CAPCOM (who was generally another astronaut) and no regard at all for medical. And remember, to do all of the science and investigation, the astronaut has to carry around with him the equipment including the clunky human-machine interfaces like eyepieces and displays, whereas a lander or rover just dumps the information in to storage and beams it back to mission control where it will be reviewed by dozens or hundreds of scientists and technicians. What the astronaut brings to the table–his creativity–is often a liability in a formal exporation environment where the last thing you want is someone getting “creative” with well-vetted procedures.

Here is a post I made a couple of years ago comparing a single human astronaut versus the Mars Science Laboratory:

*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 KevlarTM 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 (CO2 < 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); ppO2 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.*

You have, of course, still failed to address the personnel hazard and biological contaimination issues brought up previously. Until you demonstrate that you are at least cognizant of these issues, you’re not engaging in an honest discussion.

Stranger

22

My “crack” as yout put it, is supposed to mean that you seem to be parroting the position which has become so popular among those with a career interest in the field. As my grandfather told me, you can’t argue with a man whose position is linked to his livelihood.

Yes, those astronauts are lazy, cranky, untrustworthy people. Sounds like robo-chauvinism to me. If Christopher Columbus had followed this line of reasoning, he would have sent a rowboat with a well-trained dog to investigate the New World.

Until I demonstrate that I am cognizant of these issues? I believe I made plenty of points that you also fail to appreciate. Your filibuster-worthy novel as a response to the undeniable advantage of sending one human mission to accomplish what would take ten robotic missions to accomplish is disingenuous at best.

Yes, space travel is exceptionally hazardous and difficult. And there are DOZENS of astronauts chomping at the bit to risk their lives for a mission to Mars.

You clearly aren’t changing your mind and neither am I. You think robots can do anything humans can do, cheaper and just as effectively. I don’t.

I also believe the steadfast reliance on robotic missions is destroying the spaceflight industry because the failure of robots to produce any kind of revelation that will inspire an entire generation of 12 year olds the way Apollo did has led to dwindling budgets, increased skepticism, and general apathy amongst the public.

In the last several decades, we’ve discovered water ice on the moon and Mars. We’ve discovered dust devils on Mars. We’ve discovered lakes of liquid methane on Titan. We’ve discovered over 500 exoplanets. And the list goes on. And yet the public doesn’t seem to be interested. Do robo-exploration proponents ever ask themselves why? It’s because there are no people in the mix. It’s because the spaceflight community is steadfastly and stubbornly fixated on the singular pursuit of science with no consideration for the need to also feed the imagination of ordinary people – of the human race.

I’m quite certain that a fairly simple bit of theatrics could work wonders for budgets and public interest. But that is downright blasphemy to the scientific community. ***Theatrics? Why the very notion… *** In the 21st century, the information age, we can’t even watch a landing happen – one lander with a camera watches another lander come in – because the idea of wasting a single penny for something so trivial is outrageous to the spaceflight community.

This is the last post I’m going to make on this thread, so please take the opportunity to get the last word and really stick it to me. I’ve said my piece.

To be clear, I have examined many of your other posts, and I respect your knowledge. I just disagree with you, and I believe history will be on my side.

23

sigh I work in space launch propulsion and orbital mission design, not interplanetary probes, so despite your attempt to characterize my responses as biased and reflexive, I have no vested career or vocational interest either way. I do actually believe that there is a use for people in space, but at the current state of the art manned exploration of Mars or other planetary bodies is both prohibitively costly and poses hazards that cannot be mitigated. I have presented actual reasons for these arguments which you have consistently failed to address, and instead you have engaged in hand-waving and diversion, as below:

How, exactly, is my response “disingenuous”? I have explained, in detail, the deficiencies of human agents versus a sophisticated mobile laboratory. You have not in any way demonstrated that “one human mission [would] accomplish what would take ten robotic missions…”, nor have you addressed the repeated statement of the high potential for biological contamination of a human mission. In fact, you haven’t made a single substantive argument or provided a considered response on any detail, nor demonstrated your claim that a human agent could uniquely discover or identify life.

Even a cursory review of the public interest and support for human spaceflight doesn’t agree with this statement. The budget for the Apollo program was already being slashed even before the Apollo XI landing, and the only reason that Apollo XIII made it on air at all was because of the infamous near-catastrophe. Skylab was only notable for falling out of the sky prematurely, and outside of the space enthusiast community the there has been little note of the Shuttle program except for its notable failures. The public at large doesn’t give a flying fuck about space exploration, human or otherwise. As far as inspiration, the images of Jupiter, Saturn, and the other outer worlds taken by the Voyager spacecraft are among the most popular images of space exploration, and both from a science and public awareness standpoint the Voyager missions have reaped vastly greater rewards for the price than a single far more costly Lunar landing mission.

Make sure you leave with a flurish of your cape, and don’t forget to demand your closeup.

As I said above, there is a place for people in space, but the exploration of distant worlds under conditions hazardous to life, to perform menial tasks such as digging samples, is not it. Nor is space tourism either a technically worthy or fiscally viable effort. The real reason to put people in space is to allow humanity to establish a secure presence somewhere other than the delicate surface of the Earth. However, this isn’t going to happen by sending people to low orbit in aluminum cans, or desperate flag-planting expeditions to isolated sites on Mars. It will happen, if it does so at all, by developing the capability to develop in-situ resource utilization via unmanned, semi-autonomous systems to build the necessary infrastructure, and then constructing large scale habitats that are robust and secure from normal hazards, and can provide terrestrial-like conditions of atmosphere, simulated gravity, and protection from radiation. The technology to do this does not currently exist, although I have elsewhere proposed a concept for such habitats that does not require any outlandish or unavailable material resources. But this isn’t exploration; this is exploitation and colonization for its own sake.

Stranger

24

In other words, folks who are experts in any given field develop a general consensus not because of their experience, but because of their interest in self-preservation. :rolleyes:

As an outsider fascinated with the issue of space exploration, I disagree with northdakotaroy’s central theory that the re-introduction of manned missions would create a surge of public interest. It was the sense of urgency created by the cold war era space race that generated interest in the Mercury and Apollo missions. Once we won the race to the moon, all interest evaporated. Ninety-nine percent of Americans can’t name a single shuttle astronaut (with the possible exception of Mark Kelly, whose notoriety stems from the attempted assassination of his wife.

A new mars mission is launching tomorrow morning.

25

Honestly, any time greater than zero would be appreciated.

Stranger, do you have any stats on pounds of food, oxygen, and return-trip fuel per astronaut versus whatever costs are needed to maintain a rover? And then, I dunno, how much it would cost to get all that into orbit?