How to Mars ? people / robot debate

Hello,

The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but also
all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
latitudes of all planets and their major moons. It doesn't stop there. We
could visit comets and astroids and even send spacecraft out of our solar
system. We could virtually touch every corner of our solar system and for
decades. The scientific payoff and discoveries dwarfs the alternative of a
single mission to a single location of a single planet for just a few
months.

Supporters of manned spaceflight like to argue that the astronaut is more
effective than a robot. Well even if this was true the astonaut would need
to be not twice as effect or ten times or one hundred times but rather a
thousand times as effective to just get the same value as the robot. Lets
concede that the astronaut is twice as effective as the robot. That makes
the robot a better choice by a factor of five hundred times. Would the Mars
pancam image be any better taken my an astronaut ?

The argument for the astronauts also claims that a human is needed in the
loop. That argument misses the point that with robots humans are in the
loop. Just look at JPL. They have hundreds of the worlds best researchers.
They are directly in the loop orchestrating the rovers activities. This is
called telepresence. Those researches are virtually on Mars. Also note how
JPL claims the rover cameras have 20/20 vision. This telepresence technology
is also on trial in the operating rooms of hospitals. Doctors are performing
surgery telerobotically from upto thousands of miles away from the patients.
The plain fact is that people are in the loop big time with the robots.

Now remember, I concede that the astronauts would be more effect than the
robots but the problem is that they would be marginally more effective for a
disproportionate cost to the tune of five hundred times less scientific
returns.

The manned mission supporters realize this lack of value so they cite the
spin off technologies that benefit mankind. This is a very hollow argument.
If you really value, for instance, the medical devices that emerge then it
is silly to not pursue them in a direct targeted way rather than spending
all your money visiting the moon and hoping that this will trickle down to
an improved pace maker. Furthermore much if not all of the spin of
technologies will inevitablly emerge on their own good timetable.

Please, lets touch and visit every corner of our solar system and for
decades rather than a single mission to a single location of a single planet
for a single moment in time.

Dan

"Dan DeConinck" wrote in message
...
Hello,

The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but
also
all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
latitudes of all planets and their major moons.

snip

It would be a good argument if it was at all correct. NASA is aiming for a
MARS mission development cost of no more than $25Billion, with each new
vehicle costing no more than one to two billion to build and launch.
As the CEV will have already been developed there will be at least some
reduction in this estimate. Also, lunar landing systems would have some
major hardware commonality with mars systems, thus reducing costs there. By
bundling all development costs for all missions into a Human Exploration
Initiative we will not find ourselves re-inventing the wheel time and again.

Plus Humans won't take two weeks to step off the lander. We would have fully
characterised the nearby surrounds by now, perhaps even taken a close look
at the hills on the horizon.

Robots are useful, but they cannot do what humans do.

Besides, the goal is space settlement - to go there and live. A robot colony
is absurd on its own.

Nathan

Dan DeConinck wrote:

Hello,

The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but also
all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
latitudes of all planets and their major moons. It doesn't stop there. We
could visit comets and astroids and even send spacecraft out of our solar
system. We could virtually touch every corner of our solar system and for
decades. The scientific payoff and discoveries dwarfs the alternative of a
single mission to a single location of a single planet for just a few
months.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that one manned mission to Mars
will cost $400 billion. Even NASA could do a program like Zubrin's Mars
Direct for about $50 billion. Once the systems are in operation, each
additional mission would cost about $10 billion. Each one would spend a
year and a half on the surface of Mars, and could easily return hundreds
or thousands of times more information than an unmanned flight like the
ones in progress.

Supporters of manned spaceflight like to argue that the astronaut is more
effective than a robot. Well even if this was true the astonaut would need
to be not twice as effect or ten times or one hundred times but rather a
thousand times as effective to just get the same value as the robot. Lets
concede that the astronaut is twice as effective as the robot. That makes
the robot a better choice by a factor of five hundred times. Would the Mars
pancam image be any better taken my an astronaut ?

The argument for the astronauts also claims that a human is needed in the
loop. That argument misses the point that with robots humans are in the
loop. Just look at JPL. They have hundreds of the worlds best researchers.
They are directly in the loop orchestrating the rovers activities. This is
called telepresence. Those researches are virtually on Mars. Also note how
JPL claims the rover cameras have 20/20 vision. This telepresence technology
is also on trial in the operating rooms of hospitals. Doctors are performing
surgery telerobotically from upto thousands of miles away from the patients.
The plain fact is that people are in the loop big time with the robots.

Now remember, I concede that the astronauts would be more effect than the
robots but the problem is that they would be marginally more effective for a
disproportionate cost to the tune of five hundred times less scientific
returns.

Suppose you are a member of a geology department at a major university.
The department is planning a field trip to an area that has never been
explored before, and you propose to conduct the expedition as follows:
"Lets design and build a robot that can crawl maybe 50 feet a day, on
level terrain, if there aren't too many rocks in the way, and take
pictures of rocks and do some simple geochemical analyses with sensors
on the end of an arm. All the data will be sent back to us here by
radio so we can look at it on our computer screens. Then we'll design
and build an unmanned airplane that will fly the robot to the site, drop
it by parachute, then crash." How long do you think you would remain a
member of that department?

That is essentially how we are exploring Mars now, but nobody in their
right mind would do it that way if they had a reasonable alternative. A
manned expedition could have taken thousands of photographs and
collected hundreds of samples from dozens of sites in the time that JPL
has taken to get Spirit off of it's lander. Spirit and Opportunity are
wonderful machines, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that that
is the best way to explore Mars.

The manned mission supporters realize this lack of value so they cite the
spin off technologies that benefit mankind. This is a very hollow argument.
If you really value, for instance, the medical devices that emerge then it
is silly to not pursue them in a direct targeted way rather than spending
all your money visiting the moon and hoping that this will trickle down to
an improved pace maker. Furthermore much if not all of the spin of
technologies will inevitablly emerge on their own good timetable.

Frankly, I have never been interested in the spinoff argument.

Please, lets touch and visit every corner of our solar system and for
decades rather than a single mission to a single location of a single planet
for a single moment in time.

A program like Mars Direct could explore hundreds of square miles on
Mars every two years, collecting samples from locations that no robot
could ever hope to reach (including deep cores), and bring them back to
Earth for analysis. For an unmanned program to prove that life does, or
ever did, exist on Mars would take a lot of luck. It would never be
able to prove that life has never existed on Mars. Only an extensive
program of manned exploration would be able to prove that, if that
indeed is the case. It would have a much better chance of detecting
life there if it does exist, or ever has existed, than an unmanned
program.

Dan

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:19:41 -0800, "Dan DeConinck"
wrote:

Hello,

The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B)....

The $400 billion esitmate for the original SEI would have been spread
over 30 years. Subsequent proposals like Mars Direct are designed to
cost a lot less.


.... We could put dozens of scientific
satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but also
all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
latitudes of all planets and their major moons. It doesn't stop there. We
could visit comets and astroids and even send spacecraft out of our solar
system. We could virtually touch every corner of our solar system and for
decades. The scientific payoff and discoveries dwarfs the alternative of a
single mission to a single location of a single planet for just a few
months.


Right now, we have Spirit on mars, and it seems to be doing ok, but as
I understand it, in three months it will go at most 125 feet from the
lander; there's no chance of it making to the mountains in the
distance. And it took a week just to check out the systems and get it
to roll off the lander to begin with.

How much work could a human geologist do in three months (and yes, you
would have to stay on Mars either 30-100 days or ~500 days before the
return trip, depending on the type of oribit used to go there and come
back)? And if the human crew is equipped with their own rover, how
far could they go from the lander? Probably a LOT farther than 125
feet in three months! With the proper equipment they could collect
samples AND do some analysis on site.



..... Would the Mars
pancam image be any better taken my an astronaut ?


Look at the photos the astronauts took on the Moon, thousands of them;
you tell me.



The argument for the astronauts also claims that a human is needed in the
loop. That argument misses the point that with robots humans are in the
loop. Just look at JPL. They have hundreds of the worlds best researchers.
They are directly in the loop orchestrating the rovers activities. This is
called telepresence. Those researches are virtually on Mars. Also note how
JPL claims the rover cameras have 20/20 vision. This telepresence technology
is also on trial in the operating rooms of hospitals. Doctors are performing
surgery telerobotically from upto thousands of miles away from the patients.
The plain fact is that people are in the loop big time with the robots.


Yes, but the JPL "telepresence" is hampered by the time delay it takes
for signals to get to Mars and replies to come back. And even then,
however awesome the probe photos are, it can't match seeing it with
your own eyes. The difference is between, say, looking at a web site
on the British Houses of Parlieament, where Big Ben is, and standing
across the street from the place and seeing it with your own eyes.


...... Please, lets touch and visit every corner of our solar system and for
decades rather than a single mission to a single location of a single planet
for a single moment in time.


If the Mars mission follows the model of Apollo, then there will be
several missions to several points, each staying for either a few
months or over a year. That's a lot of moments in time.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:49:03 GMT, Dick Morris
wrote:



..... Spirit and Opportunity are
wonderful machines, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that that
is the best way to explore Mars.


However, manned and unmanned missions do not have to be mutally
exclusive. From President Bush' speach (
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040114-3.html ):

"....Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers -- the advanced guard
to the unknown. Probes, landers and other vehicles of this kind
continue to prove their worth, sending spectacular images and vast
amounts of data back to Earth ..... "

Also, remember the later Apollo missions launched subsatelllites into
Lunar orbit. I'm thinkin' a Mars mission could launch satellites into
orbit, and maybe bring alone their own UAVs to aide in the survey and
reconnassance of areas they want to visit.

"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message

Right now, we have Spirit on mars, and it seems to be doing ok, but as
I understand it, in three months it will go at most 125 feet from the
lander; there's no chance of it making to the mountains in the
distance. And it took a week just to check out the systems and get it
to roll off the lander to begin with.

The MERs *can* go a kilometer or two during their lifetime
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sh...rs03rovers.pdf) -- particularly
if it turns out to be an extended mission.

Jon

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:05:01 -0500, Michael Gallagher
wrote:

Right now, we have Spirit on mars, and it seems to be doing ok, but as
I understand it, in three months it will go at most 125 feet from the
lander;

It can move 15 meters each day, which is about 49 feet. So your
calculation is for 2 and a half days and not 3 months.

So after all 10 weeks it could have traveled 1050 meters (over 1 km)
or 3445 feet.

there's no chance of it making to the mountains in the
distance.

Incorrect.

The quoted 3 months is its *minimum* designed lifetime. Again the
Viking landers were also designed to last these minimum 3 months.

They latest about 2 years I recall, where why should Spirit last less
just because it has wheels?

So I have a feeling that Spirit may drive right up to those hill and
maybe even take a pass through the middle of them. They are between
3.5 and 4.5 km away I recall.

They would take about 280 days to reach, which would be somewhere
around the end of this year.

And it took a week just to check out the systems and get it
to roll off the lander to begin with.

Don't concern yourself, when Spirit has plenty of time left to
explore, when it could well still be going in over a year from now.

Still, it is designed to last 3 months, where it could really go and
break down at any time.

How much work could a human geologist do in three months (and yes, you
would have to stay on Mars either 30-100 days or ~500 days before the
return trip, depending on the type of oribit used to go there and come
back)?

A lot of work for a far greater cost.

And if the human crew is equipped with their own rover, how
far could they go from the lander? Probably a LOT farther than 125
feet in three months!

Over 1 km in the remainder of these three months.

With the proper equipment they could collect
samples AND do some analysis on site.

And spirit can do a lot as well, like tell you how long water remained
at this site, if at all.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:37:18 -0600, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

The MERs *can* go a kilometer or two during their lifetime
(http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sh...rs03rovers.pdf) -- particularly
if it turns out to be an extended mission.


Cool.

However, manned rover could do a lot better than a kilometer or two in
three months.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:07:44 +0000, Cardman
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:05:01 -0500, Michael Gallagher
wrote:

.... And if the human crew is equipped with their own rover, how
far could they go from the lander? Probably a LOT farther than 125
feet in three months!

Over 1 km in the remainder of these three months.


A manned Mars mission could do that one klick in *one day.*

spirit can do a lot as well, like tell you how long water remained
at this site, if at all.


I don't doubt it. A manned follow-on with lab equipment on site could
do even more, though.

"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message

I don't doubt it. A manned follow-on with lab equipment on site could
do even more, though.

.... and I pray to God we get that chance.

Jon