Human vs. Robot Explorers! An Easy Debate to Win!
Jonathan
In all these discussions about returning men to the Moon, and someday
Mars, there seems to be a wide assumption than humans
are better for exploring than robotic spacecraft.
It's an erroneous assumption. For so many glaring reasons.
Just a few....
At the rate at which all things computers are advancing these days, by
the time we ever put a human at /either/ destination, that person
will be more of a burden than anything else. Since....
Humans can only see in visible light.
Our ability to 'sniff' atmospheric gasses and such is rather limited
and highly subjective. How accurately we can 'feel' temperatures
and pressures and so on are anecdotal at best. Old war wounds etc.
Even if our human senses were ever to directly experience any
of the local 'habitat', any human contact will be filtered through
all the same bells-and-whistles that 'Robbie' has.
So why not just cut out the very expensive middle-man?
What about that 'time-lag' in decision making, which favors humans?
For the Moon, don't even try to argue. And with all the recent successes
of Mars rovers and orbiters, if the competition is close today between
men and robots, then what will it be some FIFTY YEARS OUT, when
we finally get men to Mars?
The answer is obvious. This debate isn't even close and there's still
plenty of ammo left, such as.
Even if manned missions were more efficient at exploring, is a longer
or slower robotic mission really an issue? And even if manned missions
can do some things no robot could ever do....like wax poetic ... or
philosophize~ well remember, that 'artistic' view will probably be penned
by someone like ...Buzz Aldrin or Neal Armstrong.
But of course I haven't mentioned the simple glaring reason robots
are better. Manned missions take TEN times as long, and cost
a HUNDRED times as much. And everyone knows it!
For that difference, the debate shouldn't even be close.
Yes and maybe the robot can't quite capture the true beauty
of a sunset from the bottom of Big Valley, Mars.
That's ok, we'll just have to soldier on without.
Jonathan
"I Never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be."
s
Brian Gaff
I suspect robots will, by then have built our habitats and be maintaining
them, and we will live there for other reasons.
However, if we reduce everything to cost, its against what some call the
human spirit, or destiny etc. I think its this inbuilt need that may, in the
end, irrational as it may seem to a bean counter, get humans living on other
worlds.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Jonathan" <s...@thise.net> wrote in message
news:KomdnYuWgJdvABHX...@giganews.com...
Joseph Nebus
>But of course I haven't mentioned the simple glaring reason robots
>are better. Manned missions take TEN times as long, and cost
>a HUNDRED times as much. And everyone knows it!
>For that difference, the debate shouldn't even be close.
I noticed, to my interest, the other week that the Apollo missions
returned comfortably close to a thousand times the mass of lunar samples
as did the Soviet's contemporary unmanned program. I was curious if there
were estimates of the Luna program cost which were something near as
believable as the estimates for what the Apollo program cost.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu...
Keep in mind to, that besides the quantity, there's a question of quality.
I suspect the overall quality of the American samples is better since
decisions could be made in realtime more easily; i.e. spotting what became
named the Genesis rock.
That said, the real mistake is assuming this is an OR argument, ultimately
it'll be an AND. BOTH together are the ultimate way to go.
Just like we have Earth observation satellites, research planes and the like
and still send humans in for the ground truth.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Jeff Findley
> Mars, there seems to be a wide assumption than humans
> are better for exploring than robotic spacecraft.
This is absolutely true. Men in suits can do more in a day or two than
robotic probes can do in years. Look at the distance that the Mars rovers
have traversed over their lifetimes and compare that to what was done on
manned lunar missions, specifically the ones which used the lunar rover.
Also, any manned mission automatically has "sample return" built in. As far
as I know, there have been zero unmanned US sample return missions from the
Moon and Mars. But there were 6 manned lunar missions which returned a lot
of samples.
> It's an erroneous assumption. For so many glaring reasons.
> Just a few....
We'll see what you can come up with.
> At the rate at which all things computers are advancing these days, by
> the time we ever put a human at /either/ destination, that person
> will be more of a burden than anything else. Since....
I see, you're basing your entire argument on wishful thinking. These sorts
of arguments have been made for decades and they just aren't coming true at
the rate that wishful thinkers thought they would.
> Humans can only see in visible light.
> Our ability to 'sniff' atmospheric gasses and such is rather limited
> and highly subjective. How accurately we can 'feel' temperatures
> and pressures and so on are anecdotal at best. Old war wounds etc.
> Even if our human senses were ever to directly experience any
> of the local 'habitat', any human contact will be filtered through
> all the same bells-and-whistles that 'Robbie' has.
>
> So why not just cut out the very expensive middle-man?
This is a bogus argument. It's easy enough to put cameras in the hands of
spacesuited astronauts, on the manned spacecraft, on the manned rovers and
etc. In fact, this was done on Apollo missions which returned a heck of a
lot of photography. No doubt future manned missions will be littered with
updated cameras which will be as good as, or better than, the ones being
sent on unmanned missions today.
> What about that 'time-lag' in decision making, which favors humans?
> For the Moon, don't even try to argue. And with all the recent successes
> of Mars rovers and orbiters, if the competition is close today between
> men and robots, then what will it be some FIFTY YEARS OUT, when
> we finally get men to Mars?
This absolutely favors humans. Having a man on the spot is always better
(in terms of time delays) than having something remote try to do the same
job. A man on the spot can deal with the unexpected *without* waiting for a
decision from Earth. Even the best unmanned systems can't deal with the
unexpected. They can only deal with situations they're programmed to
handle. When all else fails, they go into "safe mode" and wait for the guys
on Earth to sort it all out.
> The answer is obvious. This debate isn't even close and there's still
> plenty of ammo left, such as.
The answer isn't obvious. Your points aren't terribly convincing.
> Even if manned missions were more efficient at exploring, is a longer
> or slower robotic mission really an issue? And even if manned missions
> can do some things no robot could ever do....like wax poetic ... or
> philosophize~ well remember, that 'artistic' view will probably be penned
> by someone like ...Buzz Aldrin or Neal Armstrong.
Who cares about "waxing poetic". The facts are the manned Apollo missions
did more exploration, science, and sample return than all of the other
unmanned missions to the moon combined.
> But of course I haven't mentioned the simple glaring reason robots
> are better. Manned missions take TEN times as long, and cost
> a HUNDRED times as much. And everyone knows it!
> For that difference, the debate shouldn't even be close.
But the results are also orders of magnitude more impressive. There are
places where "robots" make sense, like telescopes. With telescopes,
vibrations caused by people are a disadvantage. But when it comes to
putting something on the surface and doing surface exploration and sample
return, manned missions are definately more effective.
> Yes and maybe the robot can't quite capture the true beauty
> of a sunset from the bottom of Big Valley, Mars.
> That's ok, we'll just have to soldier on without.
Again, this isn't an either/or choice. Manned missions will have cameras,
only some of which will be completely controlled by the astronauts on the
spot. Many others will be controlled by the ground and will be used 24/7.
When the ground isn't using them to keep an eye on what the astronauts are
doing on an EVA, they'll surely be used for science in an unmanned mode.
The point here is that even manned missions will benefit from "unmanned"
equipment. The nice thing about a manned mission is that when one of these
pieces of equipment doesn't deploy right or develops a problem, a man in a
suit can fix it. When that happens on an unmanned mission, sometimes it can
be fixed remotely (by teams of people spending all their time on the
problem), but sometimes it can't. Remember the deep space (unmanned)
mission where the high gain antenna didn't deploy properly? A man in a suit
would have had a shot at fixing that problem (like the solar array
deploy/stow problems on ISS were fixed).
In conclusion I find your argument weak and unsupported.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
is an
advancing field and monies spent on its improvement should have other
applications. Further at site assay make more sense than shipping
rocks between planets. Equating 1960's robotics to 2020 robotics
seems wrong to me.
Taking humans to Mars or some other planet and do it repeatedly will
take better
technology. Better ways to orbit. Faster ways to travel, in other
words
not chemical propulsion. Better habitats i.e. good radiation
shielding and spinning living quarters to
maintain the astronaut's strength and health. The vessels need to be
much more massive than the "tin cans" of the Apollo era.
And then better landers suitable to the various shallower gravity
wells.
Not in my day............Trig
Jeff Findley
<trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e1b83be-b8df-46f0...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Getting men to Mars is still in the wishful thinking realm. Robotics
> is an
> advancing field and monies spent on its improvement should have other
> applications. Further at site assay make more sense than shipping
> rocks between planets. Equating 1960's robotics to 2020 robotics
> seems wrong to me.
No one knows where robotics will be in 2020. Predictions of the
advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence have been overblown in
the past.
I agree that having men on the spot would cost far more money, but they'd
also be far more efficient than today's robotic probes.
> Taking humans to Mars or some other planet and do it repeatedly will
> take better
> technology. Better ways to orbit. Faster ways to travel, in other
> words
> not chemical propulsion.
This is simply not true. Chemical propulsion is a perfectly feasable way to
get a spacecraft to Mars. It's just that you need quite a bit of it.
> Better habitats i.e. good radiation
> shielding and spinning living quarters to
> maintain the astronaut's strength and health. The vessels need to be
> much more massive than the "tin cans" of the Apollo era.
> And then better landers suitable to the various shallower gravity
> wells.
Better is the enemy of good enough.
Pat Flannery
>
> I noticed, to my interest, the other week that the Apollo missions
> returned comfortably close to a thousand times the mass of lunar samples
> as did the Soviet's contemporary unmanned program. I was curious if there
> were estimates of the Luna program cost which were something near as
> believable as the estimates for what the Apollo program cost.
It's very hard to estimate the cost of any Soviet era space program as
the Soviet Union's financial system worked in a completely different way
than the US system, with resources and manpower being _assigned_ to a
project rather than being _purchased_ with currency.
It's obvious that the cost of developing the sample return Luna Ye-8-5
spacecraft was only a small fraction of what the Apollo program cost,
but there is no real way to figure out the specifics...even the Soviets
considered it a pretty minor project in comparison with the main N-1/L3
manned landing program as far as effort went.
It certainly wasn't as cheap as the US Surveyor program by a long shot,
but it probably didn't go over what? Around five to ten times Surveyor's
cost?
Surveyor cost 469 million dollars total:
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~shane/PTYS_395_MOON/presentations/PTYS_395B_Previous_Robotic.ppt
...and was considered to have gone over-budget. Using that as a
yardstick, the sample return mission could be estimated to have cost the
equivalent of around two to four billion US dollars, small potatoes
compared to Apollo's cost:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=601086
Pat
Pat Flannery
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Keep in mind to, that besides the quantity, there's a question of quality.
> I suspect the overall quality of the American samples is better since
> decisions could be made in realtime more easily; i.e. spotting what became
> named the Genesis rock.
The Soviet landers were also very limited in where their touchdown
points on the Moon could be, as they could only land at a point where
launching their sample-return stage directly at the zenith would send it
on a trajectory that would allow the reentry capsule with the samples to
fall in the Soviet Union at the end of its Earthward journey with no
course corrections or velocity adjustments on the way.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> This is absolutely true. Men in suits can do more in a day or two than
> robotic probes can do in years. Look at the distance that the Mars rovers
> have traversed over their lifetimes and compare that to what was done on
> manned lunar missions, specifically the ones which used the lunar rover.
Note that the LRVs were never allowed to get further away from the LM
than the crew could get back to it on foot with their remaining life
support in case the rover broke down. So although they covered a lot of
miles, it was all mileage in the fairly close proximity of the LM.
A unmanned rover doesn't suffer from that problem and can set off across
the terrain to any distance it desires.
Pat
Eric Chomko
> I think, though we will send people, assuming the race lasts that long, but
> I suspect robots will, by then have built our habitats and be maintaining
> them, and we will live there for other reasons.
>
> However, if we reduce everything to cost, its against what some call the
> human spirit, or destiny etc. I think its this inbuilt need that may, in the
> end, irrational as it may seem to a bean counter, get humans living on other
> worlds.
It is the difference between science and art. You simply can't feel
art through a robot.
Eric
>
> Brian
>
> --
> Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
> graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
> Email: bria...@blueyonder.co.uk
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > s- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pat Flannery
> Getting men to Mars is still in the wishful thinking realm. Robotics
> is an
> advancing field and monies spent on its improvement should have other
> applications. Further at site assay make more sense than shipping
> rocks between planets. Equating 1960's robotics to 2020 robotics
> seems wrong to me.
Particularly in regards to size and weight versus capability due the the
vastly decreased size of control electronics and computers since the 1960s.
Pat
giveitawhirl2008
I appreciate all the pro human responses. WIth < 3 min on my computer,
I just say: and, a human can TELL YOU what it was LIKE!
Pat Flannery
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> "I Never saw a moor,
>> I never saw the sea;
>> Yet know I how the heather looks,
>> And what a wave must be."
>>
>> s
>
> I appreciate all the pro human responses. WIth < 3 min on my computer,
> I just say: and, a human can TELL YOU what it was LIKE!
"I've seen a bull take a dump,
and a horse take a pee;
And even though Jonathan's killfiled,
I know what his postings must me." ;)
Pat
Jonathan
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:-pudnSzhTvc4ZhDX...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
You do know about half of the postings by OM are
really by me...right? I thought I told everyone?
Sorry if you didn't hear it.
>
> Pat
Jorge R. Frank
> "Jonathan" <s...@thise.net> writes:
>
>> But of course I haven't mentioned the simple glaring reason robots
>> are better. Manned missions take TEN times as long, and cost
>> a HUNDRED times as much. And everyone knows it!
>> For that difference, the debate shouldn't even be close.
>
> I noticed, to my interest, the other week that the Apollo missions
> returned comfortably close to a thousand times the mass of lunar samples
> as did the Soviet's contemporary unmanned program. I was curious if there
> were estimates of the Luna program cost which were something near as
> believable as the estimates for what the Apollo program cost.
>
IIRC, Henry Spencer once estimated that the combined cost of the Soviet
Luna program and the US Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiter programs was
around a tenth of Apollo/Saturn.
Jochem Huhmann
> "Jonathan" <s...@thise.net> wrote in message
> news:KomdnYuWgJdvABHX...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> In all these discussions about returning men to the Moon, and someday
>> Mars, there seems to be a wide assumption than humans
>> are better for exploring than robotic spacecraft.
>
> This is absolutely true. Men in suits can do more in a day or two than
> robotic probes can do in years. Look at the distance that the Mars rovers
> have traversed over their lifetimes and compare that to what was done on
> manned lunar missions, specifically the ones which used the lunar
> rover.
You're not only comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to
truckloads of oranges. Land one or several robotic probes with the same
payload (and money poured into it) as a manned mission and *then*
compare both. Each manned lunar landing was about two orders of
magnitude more mass then the Mars rovers (and this is just for the mass
landed to the surface, excluding the Apollo CSM in orbit). Have 50 or
100 rovers driving around a few miles each and analysing for a few years
and compare that to what was done on any of the lunar landings. Eagle
had a mass of 16,448 kg, Spirit 185 kg. That you even *think* of
comparing both shows that the unmanned option can't be that bad.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
bob haller
tasks of life
if we put the manned space budget into R&D for robotics in general and
space exploration imagine what we could have. in less than 10 years
change the nasa charter so anyone using the technology would pay a
license fee, and invest the fees in manned space.
have the robots lead the way and set up a base frreeing the astronauts
of the grunt work, their time is too valuable.....
robots are coming anyway but this could speed it up a lot.
heck add robot expolorers to that plasma engine and go see the solar
system and beyond, beginning with the asteroid belt.
Jeff Findley
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lf7s855q09150midg...@4ax.com...
> Note the difference. A human can cover in a day what a rover took
> FIVER YEARS to cover.
>
> A PLSS backpack is good for 7+ hours. Even if you assume the suited
> human can only walk 1 MPH he can pretty much walk back to the landing
> site from where either rover is AFTER FIVE YEARS.
>
> Yeah, people are obsolete in space, all right.
Incredible, isn't it? Unmanned landers/rovers are lower cost, but they're
still far less capable than a man in an EVA suit.
Also, I'd like to note that if new missions use pressurized rovers, the
distance traveled from the lander can be far greater than on an
unpressurized rover because the pressurized rover becomes your safe haven.
This does require more than one rover for redundancy, but the ability to
perform multiple EVA's away from the lander would be a huge improvement over
a single unpressurized rover based EVA's which are limited to walking
distance from the lander in case the single rover breaks down.
Jeff Findley
"Jochem Huhmann" <j...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:m2eir5j...@revier.com...
>
> You're not only comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to
> truckloads of oranges. Land one or several robotic probes with the same
> payload (and money poured into it) as a manned mission and *then*
> compare both. Each manned lunar landing was about two orders of
> magnitude more mass then the Mars rovers (and this is just for the mass
> landed to the surface, excluding the Apollo CSM in orbit). Have 50 or
> 100 rovers driving around a few miles each and analysing for a few years
> and compare that to what was done on any of the lunar landings. Eagle
> had a mass of 16,448 kg, Spirit 185 kg. That you even *think* of
> comparing both shows that the unmanned option can't be that bad.
What you say is true, but that's the point! All things are *not* equal
between manned versus unmanned missions.
When you make a mission manned, you necessarily gain orders of magnitude of
increased capability when compared with unmanned missions. Certainly this
costs a lot of mass and this costs a huge amount of money. But, the fact
that the manned space program can gain billions of dollars of funding easier
than an unmanned program says something about the politics behind them both.
Pat Flannery
>
> Also, I'd like to note that if new missions use pressurized rovers, the
> distance traveled from the lander can be far greater than on an
> unpressurized rover because the pressurized rover becomes your safe haven.
There's the atmosphere problem if you go that route though; I assume you
want the crew to EVA from the rover, and if you use a oxygen-nitrogen
atmosphere like on the Shuttle, they will need to prebreath oxygen
before an EVA or get the bends - unless you use a hardsuit full pressure
concept, and then the life support gets involved over the simple low
pressure pure oxygen set-up
Go pure low-pressure O2 in the rover itself and you have a potential
fire hazard.
Go full pressure helium-oxygen and you avoid both the bends on getting
into the low pressure EVA suit and the fire problem, but they end up
sounding like UFO's Purple Haired Moon Ladies. :)
Pat
Jeff Findley
> Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> Also, I'd like to note that if new missions use pressurized rovers, the
>> distance traveled from the lander can be far greater than on an
>> unpressurized rover because the pressurized rover becomes your safe
>> haven.
>
> There's the atmosphere problem if you go that route though; I assume you
> want the crew to EVA from the rover, and if you use a oxygen-nitrogen
> atmosphere like on the Shuttle, they will need to prebreath oxygen before
> an EVA or get the bends - unless you use a hardsuit full pressure concept,
> and then the life support gets involved over the simple low pressure pure
> oxygen set-up
> Go pure low-pressure O2 in the rover itself and you have a potential fire
> hazard.
Not so much. Pure O2 at the pressures used in the suits isn't that much of
a fire hazzard. That's essentially what the Apollo CM did. The problem
with the Apollo 1 ground test was using pure O2 at *far* higher pressures
than would be used in space.
> Go full pressure helium-oxygen and you avoid both the bends on getting
> into the low pressure EVA suit and the fire problem, but they end up
> sounding like UFO's Purple Haired Moon Ladies. :)
That's another way to solve the problem. Just stick a voice changer in the
communications system to fix that little problem. ;-)
Eric Chomko
> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> A manned one doesn't either. Just have more than one vehicle and keep
> one handy for rescues.
>
> Think about it, Pat. The RECORD one day distance for a rover is 220
> meters. How long would it take a man in a suit to walk 300 meters?
>
> Spirit traveled a total of 4.7 miles since the start of the mission to
> the beginning of this year. Opportunity did much better, managing an
> 8.5 mile total distance. Note that neither of those is that far from
> the original landing point.
>
> However, even if one of them was, how long would it take a human being
> to walk home from 9 miles away if their vehicle broke down? It'd take
> them some small part of an hour to drive that far, so they'd have most
> of the day left to walk home.
>
> Note the difference. A human can cover in a day what a rover took
> FIVER YEARS to cover.
>
> A PLSS backpack is good for 7+ hours. Even if you assume the suited
> human can only walk 1 MPH he can pretty much walk back to the landing
> site from where either rover is AFTER FIVE YEARS.
>
> Yeah, people are obsolete in space, all right.
>
I'd be happy to see then bring home some Martian dirt first.
Eric
Eric Chomko
wrote:
Also, no one ever writes a sci-fi story to Mars that is unmanned. At
least I have never read one!
Eric
Joseph Nebus
>What you say is true, but that's the point! All things are *not* equal
>between manned versus unmanned missions.
>When you make a mission manned, you necessarily gain orders of magnitude of
>increased capability when compared with unmanned missions. Certainly this
>costs a lot of mass and this costs a huge amount of money. But, the fact
>that the manned space program can gain billions of dollars of funding easier
>than an unmanned program says something about the politics behind them both.
Oh, now, there you go again, talking as if major policy decisions
are hard or as if there are trade-offs among different strategies that
affect decision-making.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Flannery
>
>> Go pure low-pressure O2 in the rover itself and you have a potential fire
>> hazard.
>
> Not so much. Pure O2 at the pressures used in the suits isn't that much of
> a fire hazzard. That's essentially what the Apollo CM did. The problem
> with the Apollo 1 ground test was using pure O2 at *far* higher pressures
> than would be used in space.
They went with the mixed gas at launch, transition to low pressure pure
O2 during flight system on Apollo as it was possible to do it without
greatly modifying the life support system after the Apollo 1 fire.
But when it me time to design the Shuttle, it was mixed gas during the
whole flight right from day one.
>
>> Go full pressure helium-oxygen and you avoid both the bends on getting
>> into the low pressure EVA suit and the fire problem, but they end up
>> sounding like UFO's Purple Haired Moon Ladies. :)
>
> That's another way to solve the problem. Just stick a voice changer in the
> communications system to fix that little problem. ;-)
I'm trying to remember If I've ever heard a high-pitched voice woman
talk in a He/O2 gas mixture...that must be damn near ultrasonic.... oh,
Jane Wiedlin... :)
Regarding the suits, I think they will almost certainly end up using
hardsuits due to the severe abrasive wear that the Apollo fabric suits
experienced from the lunar dust, so maybe the mixed oxygen/nitrogen at
full pressure can be used with good suit design and lots of rotary
joints to keep the volume constant. Gloves built like that would really
be something to see; the Apollo spring steel strips in the gloves to
precurl your fingers against the air pressure and that also detached
your fingernails are obvously not the ideal solution.
God help you if you get a puncture in your full pressure hardsuit
though, as the sudden drop in pressure is going to cause a case of the
bends as the nitrogen in your blood boils - and that's the last thing
you need when trying to patch the leak.
One problem we discussed in relation to the EVA suits in the past was
dragging back dust on them into a pressurized environment where it can
be breathed in by the crew. It's best if the suits remain attached
outside the rover and are entered and exited via hatches in their
backpacks that mate with some sort of "docking collar" on the exterior
of the rover to keep the dust out of its interior.
There's one instinctive thing the astronauts are going to have to be
taught _not_ to do while on EVA, and that's attempt to wipe dust off of
their faceplates - as that will scratch the hell out of the plastic and
make it hard to see through in future use. Maybe a can of compressed gas
can be carried to blow the dust off of the faceplates, like is done with
delicate dust removal from optics here on Earth.
Pat
Glen Overby
>Note the difference. A human can cover in a day what a rover took
>FIVER YEARS to cover.
That was a very slanted comparison. The rover stopped and made observations
every single day, and spent many days making observations instead of
traveling. A human exploring along the same route would also stop to make
observations.
Why do the proponents of human exploration always want to destroy robotic
exploration?
Glen Overby
Len Lekx
<coreSPA...@charter.net> wrote:
>Why do the proponents of human exploration always want to destroy robotic
>exploration?
Personally, I do NOT want to destroy robotic exploration in favour of
human presence - I feel that one can complement the other.
Conversely, though - why do the proponents of robotic exploration
always wanto to destroy human exploration? ;-)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:tv83m6-...@monolith.nodomain...
> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Note the difference. A human can cover in a day what a rover took
>>FIVER YEARS to cover.
>
> That was a very slanted comparison. The rover stopped and made
> observations
> every single day, and spent many days making observations instead of
> traveling. A human exploring along the same route would also stop to make
> observations.
It also stopped due to dust storms, low light levels and simply to plot
course.
Humans wouldn't be stopping nearly as often or for as long.
>
> Why do the proponents of human exploration always want to destroy robotic
> exploration?
Why are so many people bent on making it an either/or proposition. Both
have their place.
>
> Glen Overby
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Pat Flannery
>
> Why do the proponents of human exploration always want to destroy robotic
> exploration?
Because that's not the way it was done in the science fiction they read,
or the science fiction movies they saw, as kids.
Ever notice how many sci-fi fans are politically conservative?
Liberals look forward to a future utopia that will never be;
conservatives look back to a golden age that never was.
They want the future to be the way they remember it.
Pat
bob haller
> :Why do the proponents of human exploration always want to destroy robotic
> :exploration?
> :
>
because sadly the ISS is accomplishing near zero science, and neither
is the shuttle. let alone the ARES replacement a complete
waste..............
for the money being wasted on ISS shuttle we could advance robotics
and artificial intelligence while having a univers class exploration
program
> They don't. �Send all the robots you want. �Just don't try to pay for
> it by raiding manned space funding, since if people aren't going
> there's no point in sending robots as we don't need the data.
>
so there was no point in any robotic mission unless humans will be
going soon? hey why send a probe to pluto? or outer planets at all?
Damien Valentine
> It's very hard to estimate the cost of any Soviet era space program as
> the Soviet Union's financial system worked in a completely different way
> than the US system, with resources and manpower being _assigned_ to a
> project rather than being _purchased_ with currency.
Is there any record of which resources were assigned to the project?
Can we translate that into currency?
Pat Flannery
They were bureaucrats, so no doubt there was some (secret) record about
it somewhere in the mountain of files, although if it still exists is a
good question.
Even if you could get it though, trying to convert it into some sort
of monetary equivalent would be very hard to do, as top-notch Soviet
engineers were paid nowhere near as much as their western equivalents,
the whole project wouldn't be run to generate any sort of a profit for
the design bureaus or construction entities involved, and even such
basics as the raw materials used to build it would have one value inside
of the Soviet Union and another, higher one if sold on the open market.
According to Wikipedia, the total cost of the overall Luna program was
around $4.5 billion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_programme
although that amount of money would buy far more in the USSR than it
ever would in the US, and the two really high-ticket projects in the
program - the sample return missions and the Lunokhod rovers - both used
basically the same descent stage to land, so there were some savings there.
As a guess, maybe 1.75-2.0 billion for the sample return missions?
Pat
Jonathan
"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7a33a4b3-4499-4853...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> I'd be happy to see then bring home some Martian dirt first.
> Eric
Exactly. Let's have a race! Starting now let's build a couple of
nex-gen rovers, and a manned missions to the Moon then Mars.
(which is their stated plan)
I think the robots will win by about FORTY YEARS..give or take.
Why anyone /interested in the scienctific aspect/ of exploration would
prefer the long slow expensive route is beyond me. Why, so people
like Buzz or Neal can wow us with their personal meanderings, cliched
poems or 'modern' paintings from Mars?
A sample return isn't needed, we can take the lab there instead.
Much faster.
From the Mars Science Labaratory page...
APXS
"The Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer will measure the abundance
of chemical elements in rocks and soils."...."Its sensor head is designed
to be smaller than a soda can..."
ChemMin
"Designed to be about the size of a laptop computer inside a carrying
case." ..."The Chemistry and Mineralogy instrument, or CheMin for
short, will identify and measure the abundances of various minerals
on Mars.' "To prepare rock samples for analysis, the rover will be
able to drill into rocks, collect the resulting fine powder, sieve it, and
deliver it to a sample holder. It will use a scoop for collecting soil...."
"MAHLI will provide earthbound scientists with close-up views of the
minerals, textures, and structures in martian rocks and the surface layer
of rocky debris and dust. The self-focusing, roughly 4-centimeter-wide
(1.5-inch-wide) camera will take color images of features as small as
12.5 micrometers, smaller than the diameter of a human hair."
"The Mast Camera, or Mastcam for short, will take color images and
color video footage of the Martian terrain. One of the two Mastcam
camera systems has a moderate-resolution lens, similar to the
Pancam on the Mars Exploration Rovers. The other camera
system has a high-resolution lens in order to study the landscape
far from the rover."
RAD
"The Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) will be one of the first
instruments sent to Mars specifically to prepare for future human
exploration. The size of a small toaster or six-pack of soda,..."
ChemCam
"Looking at rocks and soils from a distance, ChemCam will fire a laser
and analyze the elemental composition of vaporized materials from areas
smaller than 1 millimeter on the surface of Martian rocks and soils."
SAM
"The Sample Analysis at Mars instrument suite will take up more than half
the science payload on board the Mars Science Laboratory rover and
feature chemical equipment found in many scientific laboratories on Earth.
Provided by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Sample Analysis at
Mars will search for compounds of the element carbon, including methane,
that are associated with life and explore ways in which they are generated
and destroyed in the martian ecosphere."
DAN
"...the Mars Science Laboratory rover will carry a pulsing neutron generator
called the Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons that will be sensitive enough to
detect water content as low as one-tenth of 1 percent and resolve layers
of water and ice beneath the surface."
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/index.html
I find it telling that more than half the science payload is devoted to the
search for life on Mars. Must be the idea of life on Mars is no longer
the fringe view eh?
And keep in mind the big question is about life elsewhere. The big draw or
allure of Mars is in answering this most timeless question of all.
Once that question is answered, the desire to go there will evapoarate.
Just like interest in the Moon and Apollo evaporated directly after the
successful landings
Jonathan
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:c85c4$4a8eaf90$927a2cda$32...@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Jochem Huhmann" <j...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:m2eir5j...@revier.com...
>>
>> You're not only comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to
>> truckloads of oranges. Land one or several robotic probes with the same
>> payload (and money poured into it) as a manned mission and *then*
>> compare both. Each manned lunar landing was about two orders of
>> magnitude more mass then the Mars rovers (and this is just for the mass
>> landed to the surface, excluding the Apollo CSM in orbit). Have 50 or
>> 100 rovers driving around a few miles each and analysing for a few years
>> and compare that to what was done on any of the lunar landings. Eagle
>> had a mass of 16,448 kg, Spirit 185 kg. That you even *think* of
>> comparing both shows that the unmanned option can't be that bad.
>
> What you say is true, but that's the point! All things are *not* equal
> between manned versus unmanned missions.
>
Well here's some of the science payloads going to Mars in just two short
years from now. We must be clear about the roles, analyzing all the data
these instruments will gather is for the hundreds of researchers on the
ground. Astronauts will be /gathering/ the data at the instructions of the
brain-trust at home. Maybe people can get around faster, but I'm not
so sure that's going to mean more discoveries, or stepping right past them.
With rovers, ever step is studied carefully by many eyes. If an astronaut
makes their own decisions, I would think that's a reduction in ability
not a benefit.
If a human were riding along with this mission, how much better would
the results be? Marginal at best, not worth the enourmous time lag
in getting people there. Face it, by the time we ever get people to
Mars, we'll already have all the answers we want from robots.
If not, then the answers aren't there to be found.
Jonathan
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:RfOdnWyX1qjmpBLX...@earthlink.com...
I don't think so. Robots will have answered all the important questions
decades before manned missions are even a gleam in a designers eye.
But I suppose a manned mission could clean up some lingering
questions, plug a few holes in the data decades after the robots have
rusted away. As if that would justify the cost.
And what about exploring far more hazardous places?
Or far more distant? As we continue exploring, manned missions
become less useful, and far more costly. Let's put men
on Venus, Europa or Titan, ya right. Even the most ideal site, Mars
can't be justified.
Below is from the Mars Science Laboratory page...launching in just
two short years. These instruments essentially place hundreds of
researchers on Mars, and for years. But even more importantly
these rovers place all of us there too.
Now, when will manned missions be returning any data from Mars?
APXS
"The Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer will measure the abundance
of chemical elements in rocks and soils."...."Its sensor head is designed
to be smaller than a soda can..."
ChemMin
"Designed to be about the size of a laptop computer inside a carrying
case." ..."The Chemistry and Mineralogy instrument, or CheMin for
short, will identify and measure the abundances of various minerals
on Mars.' "To prepare rock samples for analysis, the rover will be
able to drill into rocks, collect the resulting fine powder, sieve it, and
deliver it to a sample holder. It will use a scoop for collecting soil...."
ChemCam
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/index.html
>
>
>>
jonathan
> Glen Overby wrote:
>>
>> Why do the proponents of human exploration always want to destroy robotic
>> exploration?
>
> Because that's not the way it was done in the science fiction they read, or
> the science fiction movies they saw, as kids.
Oh is that why? Do you even have anecdotal evidence that is true
let alone any facts?
> Ever notice how many sci-fi fans are politically conservative?
Speak for yourself.
> Liberals look forward to a future utopia that will never be;
All liberals do that?
> conservatives look back to a golden age that never was.
And all conservatives too? My how uniform we all are.
Or how simple your opinions are.
> They want the future to be the way they remember it.
Could you please translate that last sentence into English?
My gibberish dictionary is off-line.
Since you're killfiling me, I know you won't read any of this.
That allows me to practice flaming on you without hurting feelings.
I'm just practicing, so don't take it personally.
As long as you claim to be killfiling, I'll keep practicing....thanks!
Jonathan
>
> Pat
Pat Flannery
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:DZmdnQ06GOZvWRLX...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>> Glen Overby wrote:
>>> Why do the proponents of human exploration always want to destroy robotic
>>> exploration?
>> Because that's not the way it was done in the science fiction they read, or
>> the science fiction movies they saw, as kids.
>
> Oh is that why? Do you even have anecdotal evidence that is true
> let alone any facts?
The day that someone who believes that if you leave rocks alone long
enough they will become alive and immediately head toward some sort of
ideal intellectual and moral future...starts telling me that _I_ am
lacking on proof regarding my arguments...is the day that I realize that
squirrels have had a profound Zen insight since their first evolution,
and go to live with them and understand the insight of their enlightened
urges to run in front of oncoming cars.
You know, I thought I had you killfiled in all the newsgroups I
subscribe to, but just like the mythological behavior of my Hydra model
I repainted two days ago, I just keep whacking the damn annoying thing
on the heads to see them spring right back up again, and more eager to
bite than ever.
Pat
jonathan
> jonathan wrote:
>> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>> news:DZmdnQ06GOZvWRLX...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>>> Because that's not the way it was done in the science fiction they read, or
>>> the science fiction movies they saw, as kids.
>>
>> Oh is that why? Do you even have anecdotal evidence that is true
>> let alone any facts?
> The day that someone who believes that if you leave rocks alone long enough
> they will become alive.
Oh you can hear me?
Well then, would you believe space dust self organizing towards life?
Have you read any non rocket science in the last thirty years?
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/08/15/self-organizing-space-dust-could-be-a-precursor-to-life/
After the initial rover excitement and confusion wore off ....(sponge
gemmules).... I've been consistantly claiming they showed signs of
self organization. Which is my hobby. I claimed over and over that the
form, chemistry and distribution showed a level of order that simple
erosional processes couldn't account for. And constantly claiming that
underground hydrothermal systems (the ideal conditions for microbial life)
must be part of the process?
4 years later.....
"CHARACTERIZATION OF NAVAJO SANDSTONE CONCRETIONS:
MARS COMPARISONS (2009)
Results and Discussion: Navajo Sandstone concretions
have many similarities with Martian "blueberries""
"...distinct size populations; in situ self-organized
spacing and distributions within the host rock; and
conjoined forms. The strength of the similarities from detailed
characterizations all point to an origin of groundwater diagenesis
in a porous and permeable eolian sandstone."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2100.pdf
And I claimed many times that the understanding of microbial mediation
in how such spheres on Earth formed was poorly understood at the time.
Insisting microbial mediation in a underground hydrothermal systems
must be the more likely choice for this kind of concretion growth?
Over and over I said such things.
Note the dates of these papers.....
"OVERVIEW OF IRON OXIDE CONCRETIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR MARS: CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND GAPS. (2009)
Terrestrial studies of concretions
have been strengthened from the NASA programs,
with the study of "blueberries" in the Burns formation
discovered by the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Opportunity.
Scientific interest on iron oxide concretions
has increased from a point just a decade or two ago,
when concretions were viewed simply as geologic "curiosities"."
"The role of biomediation is still unclear, and while
it seems very likely that bacteria played a role in
terrestrial concretion formation, original organic
matter it is not well preserved and is currently difficult
to detect"
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2187.pdf
There wasn't anyone out there claiming the early photos
from either Spirit or Opportunity showed any signs of possible life.
From the day Opportunity landed I've been ranting relentlessly that
Meridiani shows us something special and exciting wrt life on Mars.
And I've been right more often that not.
And at this year's Lunar and Planetary Conference this paper appears
from your own Johnson Space Center.
"Development of Life on Early Mars (2009)
In our view, life is probably present beneath
the surface on Mars today, possibly associated with
aqueous water reservoirs, ice-rich areas near the poles,
and equatorial frozen lakes and outwash features."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1175.pdf
And the next Rover, the Mars Science Lab, is devoting over
half of it's science payload to one thing, searching for life.
So, I'm no kook, but mainstream it seems!
And I've claimed over and over the spheres were either
biologically mediated, not life, but a byproduct of life. Or, a kind of
'missing link' or intermediate form between simple geology and simple life.
Since then the notion of an 'autocell' has been put forward for just
such a 'link' between geology and biology. To my searching, no one
before me suggested any kind of 'missing link' that is neither geology
or biology, but a third self organized transitional form connecting the two.
The next two /recent/ papers explain the idea better.
"The Pattern Which Connects Pleroma to Creatura: The Autocell Bridge
from Physics to Life
By his own standards Gregory Bateson was unsuccessful in his lifelong quest to
explain how the informational or living realm (creatura) could emerge out of the
energetic or physical realm (pleroma). Drawing upon recent insights in
self-organization theory, the authors suggest a missing link connecting the
realms; a simple spontaneously arising, non-living, yet evolvable molecular
system called an "autocell" consisting of the reciprocal linkage between an
autocatalytic cycle and a self-assembling encapsulation process (modeled on
viral encapsulation) where the molecular constituents for the capsule are
products of the autocatalysis. Autocells are shown to have the rudiments of
individuality, end-directedness, function, and valuation; thus bridging the
critical initial gap between pleroma and creatura."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r6w682145126552p/
"Biological Theory (Berkely)
Autocells are susceptible to a limited form of evolution, capable of leading to
more efficient, more environmentally fitted, and more complex forms. This
provides a simple demonstration of the plausibility of open- ended reproduction
and evolvability without self-replicating template molecules (e.g., nucleic
acids) or maintenance of persistent nonequilibrium chemistry. This model
identifies an intermediate domain between prebiotic and biotic systems and
bridges the gap from nonequilibrium thermodynamics to life."
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/biot.2006.1.2.136
Remember when I speculated the dark soil on Mars might be a biosignature?
Yes I did! Years before this paper....not the date. Those dark dunes and
dark crater bottoms I went on and on about?
MARS SEDIMENT ANALOG? DARK BIOMINERALIZED
MN-OXIDE/HYDROXIDE CEMENTED SANDSTONE
OF LOW-T SPRING ORIGIN (2009)
The deposition environment of this sandstone may
mimic early Martian environments where subsurface
bacteria-laden water deposited Mn minerals as thinly laminiated
biofilm structures along clastic grain boundaries.
The resulting indurated sedimentary rocks
would likely take on a uniformly dark color.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1963.pdf
Oh and remember whenn Steve Sqyres (sp) came out and flatly
stated that Victoria was an impact crater? I spent some time
after that claiming it started out as a small impact crater, but grew
as a water feauture, either a sinkhole or a hydrothermal spring.
And guess what? A couple of months later, when they finally got
to Victoria, guess what the Rover science team were naming
all the Victoria 'crater' features?
Capes and Bays! Cabos and Bahias!
A body of water, not an impact crater, has capes and bays.
I was the first one here calling it a lake.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002045/
And from early on I've been speculating that Rio Tinto in the
best earth analogue for Meridiani, while the geologists still use
Najaho sandstone, and using the biosignatures from that kind
of environment to compare with the spheres.
While also speculating that what we're seeing on Meridiani might
be the result by a form of sulfate reducing bacteria?
Over and over I said that.
"THE ASSOCIATION OF CARBONATE MINERALS TO ACIDIC
ENVIRONMENTS: A POSSIBLE BIOSIGNATURE FOR MARS.
(2009)
However, carbonate minerals have been recognized associated to
extremely acidic environments of R�o Tinto, Spain. The
mineralogical similarity of these deposits at Rio Tinto
and those in the Meridiani region of Mars suggest that
carbonates may be more widespread on Mars than
originally thought.
The presence of sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB)
that oxidize organic matter (or compounds) [1, 3]
would induce the precipitation of carbonate minerals in
the subsurface..."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1214.pdf
I was one of the first ones screaming that Meridiani showed signs of
life, or at least the precursors of life. And the very next lander, the
Mars Science Lab is dedicating over half the science payload to
do just one thing. Search for life on Mars.
I'm quite happy with my interpretations on this issue, I'm turning
out to be right more than wrong. And concerning science that
was quite often yet to be devoloped btw.
Just as I've been correct for saying in here for years that the idea of
going back to the Moon would probably kill the manned space program
if not NASA. And btw /I don't/ hate to say I told you so.
> and immediately head toward some sort of ideal intellectual and moral future
Are you totally uneducated?
Evolution is a directed, not random walk, through time.
I can back that statement up easy. It's well established
mathematics now. Sorry if you're so far behind the times.
Self-organized criticality
"Crucially, however, the paper demonstrated that the complexity observed
emerged in a robust manner that did not depend on finely-tuned details of the
system; variable parameters in the model could be changed widely without
affecting the emergence of critical behavior (hence, self-organized
criticality) Thus, the key result of BTW's paper was its discovery of a
mechanism by which the emergence of complexity from simple local
interactions could be spontaneous - and therefore plausible as a source
of natural complexity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality
> ...starts telling me that _I_ am lacking on proof regarding my arguments
Logic is good enough btw, proof is not really needed for debates.
But your statements of opinion lack any sort of logic that I can see
let alone proof. And your sweeping generalizions invite a dismissive
reply.
>...is the day that I realize that squirrels have had a profound Zen insight
>since their first evolution,
Funny as always.
> and go to live with them and understand the insight of their enlightened urges
> to run in front of oncoming cars.
My parrot trains me a little every day. But I'll leave feeding and talking
to the squirrels to you.
> You know, I thought I had you killfiled in all the newsgroups I subscribe to,
> but just like the mythological behavior of my Hydra model I repainted two days
> ago, I just keep whacking the damn annoying thing on the heads to see them
> spring right back up again, and more eager to bite than ever.
So you're not even aware how many times I've embarrassed you in front
of the ng? You see, that's a fatal flaw with killfiling. It's like giving
someone a licence to slap you without any worry of getting slapped
back. You shouldn't complain when you hang your ass out like that just
for the sake of insulting someone in order to make yourself feel superior.
I just think killfiling...publicly..is rather rude, and especially childish.
It's the kind of thing a jr high school girl would do. And I find it
embarrassing to see in an ng that should be somewhere near an adult level.
I've always been respectful to you. But you're public killfiling is an
unprovoked
and undeserved hostility, and shows your ignorance of recent science.
Your ridiculing of Dickinson is like hearing someone mock Einstein or Galileo
as kooks. Which further demonstrates that your narrow educational background
is only equalled by your narrow mind.
I fully expect any response from you to be no more than ...another...forth
grade response like I smell bad or something. Or maybe you can go cry
to your momma...ah I mean...moderator for help.
Because you see, I've been here about as long as anyone else, I spend more
effort writing here than anyone else, and I'm not going to let some old
tight-assed fart drive me out of this ng with the whole killfile ploy/idiocy.
And what is especially odd is that on most other threads, our opinions
are much the same, which makes your calling me an idiot at the same time
kinda embarassing to witness. Every time I made some claim, you called
me a kook, and almost every single time I was right, and you
...were wrong.
Jonathan
>
> Pat
jonathon
"OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
news:ncs1959vrlsp5ibdv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:34:33 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You know, I thought I had you killfiled in all the newsgroups I
>>subscribe to,
>
> started showing up again over here as well. I've tossed him back into
> Killfile Hell with the rest of his ilk, but the fact that he's still
> around means *someone* must be replying to him. Probably his fellow
> neo-Nazi trolls, Guthball and Elfnazi.
Maybe you should put that someone in your killfile list too?
I mean, how could any of us get through the day
without knowing who is in your favor, and who is not?
Why it's so important to you to make sure we know is beyond me
and only shows you have some psychological issues that have
been left alone way too long.
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
Glen Overby
>(as in 'not very').
That doesn't justify how you inflated your comparison.
I should also point out that there are robots on mars, and no humans.
>They don't. Send all the robots you want. Just don't try to pay for
>it by raiding manned space funding, since if people aren't going
>there's no point in sending robots as we don't need the data.
Depending on how you want to view it, you could pose the argument that ALL
robotic missions are taking money from manned missions, since if the robots
weren't sent the money could be spent on the rocket jocks. A similar argument
is used by those who oppose all space programs, usually citing the money could
be "better" spent down here on earth.
I refute the argument about no point in sending robots. Two examples:
1. The radition in the vicintiy of Jupiter is too intense for a human to
survive, yet we send robots there.
2. The temperature and pressure on Venus are too high for a human to survive,
yet we send robots there.
In both cases, they gather useful data and we learn things about the place.
I don't believe that all robotic missions should have to be linked to a later
manned mission.
Glen Overby
Eric Chomko
Follow the money. It is because they work in manned spaceflight or the
military and not in unmanned spaceflight or science.
Eric
Jochem Huhmann
> What you say is true, but that's the point! All things are *not* equal
> between manned versus unmanned missions.
>
> increased capability when compared with unmanned missions.
Well, you certainly gain orders of magnitude more of mass delivered to
the planet, because the lower threshold of useful manned landings (that
is: landings that allow the crew to survive and return) is much larger.
But the question is if this really increases capability. Most of the
mass is for keeping the crews alive and to return them. You *may* profit
from humans used as universal robots but the question is if this is worth
all the mass. One could easily argue that all that mass is mostly
wasted.
> Certainly this costs a lot of mass and this costs a huge amount of
> money. But, the fact that the manned space program can gain billions
> of dollars of funding easier than an unmanned program says something
> about the politics behind them both.
There has been *one* manned space program landing human crews on
another body in space (Apollo). There have been unmanned missions
landing on the Moon, Mars, Venus, Titan and Jupiter ("landing" used
loosely here). That manned missions (if they are finally flown) can gain
billions of dollars proves just that manned missions are much more
expensive, not that they are easier to gain.
Of course you're right that manned missions are very different and they
tend to capture public awareness in a much greater way. I'd agree with
that and I also think that manned missions are much more interesting.
But I don't think that this has anything to do with increased
capabilities for the money invested. For purely scientific reasons I
think that unmanned missions get more for the buck. But science is not
the only reason to go to space and it's for these other reasons that I
think that manned missions should be flown. But I still think it's
totally bullshit to pretend that humans make so good universal robots
that they're worth all that money when you have to keep them alive and
to return them through years of spaceflight along with all the supplies
and redundancy they need. You need to be more honest to be able to
support that. "I want to see a crew on that damned planet, because it is
hard, expensive and possible!" is reason enough to try it. That all the
supporters of manned spaceflight are lacking the balls to say that and
instead retreat to easily refuted arguments of more capabilities is the
real tragedy.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
jacob navia
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> writes:
>> What you say is true, but that's the point! All things are *not* equal
>> between manned versus unmanned missions.
>>
>> When you make a mission manned, you necessarily gain orders of magnitude of
>> increased capability when compared with unmanned missions.
>
> Well, you certainly gain orders of magnitude more of mass delivered to
> the planet, because the lower threshold of useful manned landings (that
> is: landings that allow the crew to survive and return) is much larger.
> But the question is if this really increases capability. Most of the
> mass is for keeping the crews alive and to return them. You *may* profit
> from humans used as universal robots but the question is if this is worth
> all the mass. One could easily argue that all that mass is mostly
> wasted.
>
Wasted... And what about waste management?
Humans can't be sterilized and if we are looking for life
humans will only find their own bacteria and fungi that
will follow them EVERYWHERE.
How do you do waste management in Mars? Without much water,
without much energy?
Sure you can have waste management in the return spaceship, but
that will mean that humans can explore only until they need to
go to the next toilet :-)
In a small vehicle for Mars exploration, waste management will be a
nightmare.
What about the contamination problems?
Nobody speaks about them.
Humans CAN'T explore without contaminating everything with their
waste, their skin cells that fly away all the time, their fungi
and other parasites that live in their skin, in their mouth,
in the intestines, and maybe in their feets.
In a few weeks, billions of human bacteria will be everywhere
in mars, and they will find life in Mars in the form of E. Coli.
And then, the return trip. Humans MUST come back, maybe
carrying with them foreign bacteria or other forms that
could develop explosively in earth. Contamination works
BOTH ways.
Eric Chomko
> >> What you say is true, but that's the point! All things are *not* equal
> >> between manned versus unmanned missions.
>
> >> When you make a mission manned, you necessarily gain orders of magnitude of
> >> increased capability when compared with unmanned missions.
>
> > Well, you certainly gain orders of magnitude more of mass delivered to
> > the planet, because the lower threshold of useful manned landings (that
> > is: landings that allow the crew to survive and return) is much larger.
> > But the question is if this really increases capability. Most of the
> > mass is for keeping the crews alive and to return them. You *may* profit
> > from humans used as universal robots but the question is if this is worth
> > all the mass. One could easily argue that all that mass is mostly
> > wasted.
>
> Wasted... And what about waste management?
>
> Humans can't be sterilized and if we are looking for life
> humans will only find their own bacteria and fungi that
> will follow them EVERYWHERE.
>
> How do you do waste management in Mars? Without much water,
> without much energy?
Well, Phoenix found frozen water. So if we melt enough of the water
ice we could solve the water problem for humans on Mars.
>
> Sure you can have waste management in the return spaceship, but
> that will mean that humans can explore only until they need to
> go to the next toilet :-)
Sorry, but we'll have to dump our waste on Mars from the approach
trip.
> In a small vehicle for Mars exploration, waste management will be a
> nightmare.
Not really, if we can melt the water ice in the permafrost.
> What about the contamination problems?
No worse than any national park.
> Nobody speaks about them.
Because we can't leave a footprint with leaving a footprint!
I'm all for cleaning up after ourselves but had early man been as
diligent as you propose anthropology wouldn't exist!
> Humans CAN'T explore without contaminating everything with their
> waste, their skin cells that fly away all the time, their fungi
> and other parasites that live in their skin, in their mouth,
> in the intestines, and maybe in their feets.
At some point you have to consider us part of our own environment.
You gotta break some eggs to make an omlette and all that.
> In a few weeks, billions of human bacteria will be everywhere
> in mars, and they will find life in Mars in the form of E. Coli.
Frankly, so what? Don't go because of that?!
> And then, the return trip. Humans MUST come back, maybe
> carrying with them foreign bacteria or other forms that
> could develop explosively in earth. Contamination works
> BOTH ways.
They had the astronauts quarantined when they came back from the moon.
Same would happen with Mars and maybe with more detailed work due to
Mars having an atmosphere.
Eric