|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
meta-lesson of the Mars rovers
Hi all. The rovers have done a great job, turning up
a myriad of intriguing and puzzling features. But the one thing they have shown most clearly is the need for a team of human geologists (with lab) on Mars. 100 times the capability for far far less than 100 times the cost. Agree or disagree? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
meta-lesson of the Mars rovers
albright wrote:
Hi all. The rovers have done a great job, turning up a myriad of intriguing and puzzling features. But the one thing they have shown most clearly is the need for a team of human geologists (with lab) on Mars. 100 times the capability for far far less than 100 times the cost. Agree or disagree? Disagree. If anything, the success of these rovers clearly shows the exact opposite: that robots are enormously more cost-effective at exploring Mars with present or even near-term future technology than a team of astronauts. The entire history of NASA, leading right up to the present success of the Mars Exploration Rovers, teaches a lesson that couldn't be more clear to those who are willing to listen: robotic space exploration has been enormously cost-effective in both scientific return and technological spinoffs, while human space flight has produced very little science or technology despite being enormously more expensive in money, human lives and lost opportunities. I wonder how many others have been struck by the deep irony of NASA's practice of naming newly discovered geographic features on other planets -- all seen for the first time by robot explorers -- for its astronauts who have all tragically died much closer to home. I suppose the truly cynical might say that proves the need for a human space flight program to generate a steady supply of new names for future robotic discoveries. Phil |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
meta-lesson of the Mars rovers
Phil Karn wrote:
The entire history of NASA, leading right up to the present success of the Mars Exploration Rovers, teaches a lesson that couldn't be more clear to those who are willing to listen: robotic space exploration has been enormously cost-effective in both scientific return and technological spinoffs, while human space flight has produced very little science or technology despite being enormously more expensive in money, human lives and lost opportunities. Be that as it may, one doesn't give ticker-tape parades to robots. rick jones -- Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought. these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
meta-lesson of the Mars rovers
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
meta-lesson of the Mars rovers
"Marc 182" wrote in message t... A team of astronauts (2 or 3) would have learned more about Mars in 1 sol than the rovers have learned in more than 60. The dividends accrue from there. Arguments about cost-effectiveness depend on how much you value the data. The rovers' data streams are soda-straws compared to the fire-hose a human geologist could produce, but then the cost is so much more. If you really want to know, you send some people. If you're satisfied with sampling and pretty pictures, you send probes. Dollars per bit, on Mars, I'd bet people win. You are most likely correct that humans would have learned more about the Mars sites in 1 or two sols than a rover could in 60. In two minutes they could have reached down and scooped up enough spherules to fill the "berry bowl" to overflowing to get an unambiguous read on them. They could have traversed the crater 50 times in the first day taking samples from everywhere in it to test. They could have described the relative hardness of all the various layers of outcrop with one simple scratch test in minutes. They could have dug a considerably deeper trench - or several - in the same day. They would have been ready to leave the crater and move on by the middle of the second week. However, and it is a big however, even if the overall cost (dollars per bit, as you said) is lower for the amount of science which could be gotten - the initial outlay in money to get them there, set up, and home again safely, is staggering. The problems associated with it are not trivial. It may, in fact, be a case of 'penny wise, pound foolish' to rely on unmanned rovers, but at least we can afford them. At least for now. We can, at least, get something - rather than nothing. Note, I'm not implying criticism of the rovers or their teams. They are doing a great job and I'm vastly enjoying their stop-motion exploration and discovery. Orbiters too! Nor am I implying criticism of the rovers. I am truly overjoyed with their continued success and wish them long lives and many more significant discoveries. I will watch what they do every single day until they expire. I believe they are doing great things and represent the real high end of human endeavor. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
meta-lesson of the Mars rovers
In article ,
Phil Karn wrote: Disagree. If anything, the success of these rovers clearly shows the exact opposite: that robots are enormously more cost-effective at exploring Mars with present or even near-term future technology than a team of astronauts. To quote the rovers' PI, speaking before landing: "The rovers will be able to do in a day what a skilled field geologist can do in 30 seconds." Now, assuming that he was being pessimistic by a factor of three -- the rovers have really done pretty well -- and that a human field geologist would only be productive eight hours a day, and that a human surface stay would have the same duration as the rover's nominal life, that brings the human advantage down to about 300x. One hears various numbers for the cost of the two rovers, but one plausible number is $820M for everything including launches. 300x that is about $250G. I don't think there is any doubt that with that kind of money, you could do *several* manned Mars expeditions, not just one. (Especially if you didn't give the contract to Lockheed Martin or Boeing with supervision by JSC.) You could probably do it for a tenth of that, maybe less, if it were done efficiently. The problem with manned expeditions is *not* cost-effectiveness -- human geologists are vastly more cost-effective than robots, despite all the extra overheads -- but the very much greater minimum mission *size*. Congress is reasonably willing to fund multi-hundred-million-dollar science missions, but science simply does not rate highly enough with politicians to sell programs costing tens of billions. Not even if the cost-effectiveness -- the science return per dollar -- will be much greater that way. ...robotic space exploration has been enormously cost-effective in both scientific return and technological spinoffs, while human space flight has produced very little science or technology despite being enormously more expensive in money, human lives and lost opportunities. You might want to compare what we've learned about the Moon -- the one body we have explored both ways -- before you say that. Apart from some unmanned remote sensing (and nobody disputes that taking pictures from afar is a job for robots), lunar science is based on the Apollo results. All the surface activity by various robots adds only some footnotes. They cost less than Apollo, but it wasn't by *that* big a ratio. I wonder how many others have been struck by the deep irony of NASA's practice of naming newly discovered geographic features on other planets -- all seen for the first time by robot explorers -- for its astronauts who have all tragically died much closer to home. Since NASA's manned *exploration* stopped over 30 years ago, it's hardly surprising that the deaths since then have all been close to home. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
meta-lesson of the Mars rovers
"Rick Jones" wrote in message
... Phil Karn wrote: The entire history of NASA, leading right up to the present success of the Mars Exploration Rovers, teaches a lesson that couldn't be more clear to those who are willing to listen: robotic space exploration has been enormously cost-effective in both scientific return and technological spinoffs, while human space flight has produced very little science or technology despite being enormously more expensive in money, human lives and lost opportunities. Be that as it may, one doesn't give ticker-tape parades to robots. So far none have come back to be in a parade. I suspect the MER rovers would be more than welcome in a parade if they came back to Earth :-) uray |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Delta-Like Fan On Mars Suggests Ancient Rivers Were Persistent | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 13th 03 09:06 PM |
If You Thought That Was a Close View of Mars, Just Wait (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | September 23rd 03 10:25 PM |
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |
Students and Teachers to Explore Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 18th 03 07:18 PM |