A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 20th 11, 04:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

In article
tatelephone,
says...

On 1/20/2011 12:32 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:


That's indeed correct, Derek. Steve has made that comment on more than one
occasion. What took Spirit and Opportunity years to do could be done by
Humans in weeks. And will be done. In time. where robots go, people
inevitably follow-Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, then Apollo. It'll happen
with Mars. After lunar return, which a successor administration (hopefully
in 2013) will put back on NASA's official agenda.


Your basing your rule on a single example...the Moon.
I'm waiting for the manned flights to Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune. ;-)


True, there will always be places where humans can't go due to the
extreme environment (i.e. on earth, unmanned submarines could arguably
dive deeper and explore tighter spaces than any manned vehicle). But
Mars is especially attractive because it's conditions are quite suitable
for human exploration.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011
  #22  
Old January 20th 11, 04:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

In article , says...

(Derek Lyons) writes:

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" wrote:

When those eyes can pick up a rock, break it open with an appropriate
tool, run requisite tests on it, run over the next hill to check
something at a speed somewhat faster than a drugged snail, notice
something about the rock based on its heft or other details not easily
gotten over a remote, time-lagged link, and the billion other things
that a human being can do without even pausing to wonder how they did
it, yes, you might have a point.


ISTR, about a year into their mission(s), Steven Squires (head honcho
of the rover program) being quoted as saying that a human geologist
could do what either rover had done in a year - in thirty days.


Which means that this geologist would have to be there for 5 months to
do what Opportunity or Spirit did. And transporting him and everything
he needs there (including fuel for getting him back) would mean that
would need some orders of magnitude more mass and money. Looks like a
bad deal to me.


But the humans would do more than the unmanned rovers. Assuming the
manned mission will return the people to earth, it's undoubtedly going
to return Mars samples to earth. Unmanned missions have yet to
accomplish sample return to earth.

Compare the total unmanned sample return from the Moon to the total
manned sample return and you'll get the point.

Or to turn that around: Look at a one-way robotic mission that gets

the
same mass to Mars as a manned mission needs. Then compare which mission
can do more. You could spray hundreds or thousands of rovers over Mars
for the same mass that a small crew needs just to stumble around in the
dust near their lander for three months and then return.


Apples and oranges. Manned missions have been funded at much higher
levels than unmanned missions, partly due to politics. You'd have a
hard time selling those hundreds or thousands of unmanned missions to
Congress and the Administration when they could use that same money for
a much higher profile manned mission.

Note that the space race concluded with a *manned* mission to the moon,
not with the first unmanned mission. Sure it's politics, but you simply
can't ignore politics when discussing government funded space
exploration missions. To do so would be extremely naive.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011
  #23  
Old January 20th 11, 04:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

In article -
hdakotatelephone,
says...

On 1/20/2011 2:58 AM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Or to turn that around: Look at a one-way robotic mission that gets

the
same mass to Mars as a manned mission needs. Then compare which mission
can do more. You could spray hundreds or thousands of rovers over Mars
for the same mass that a small crew needs just to stumble around in the
dust near their lander for three months and then return.


And the nice thing is, you don't have to worry about getting the rovers
back either; in fact, the longer they stay, the better.
I always thought we should have built more MER's, considering how well
Spirit and Opportunity did and the low cost of the whole program.


Double edged sword.

Abandoning unmanned probes on Mars means that they can't return samples
to Earth. A manned mission which returns people to Earth will
undoubtedly return samples too. Mars samples in an Earth lab would be
called "invaluable" by geologists, biologists, and other scientists on
earth.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011
  #24  
Old January 20th 11, 04:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

In alt.philosophy ZX wrote:
....
The fact this question is comparing robots to humans pretty much sums it
all up.


The accountants say we can't afford a 2nd basket so that's that.

--
If there was no warming or cooling trend, then the chance of 2007
being tied with 1998 [130 year record!] would be quite high.
-- No Pressure , 11 Dec 2010 05:20:39 -0800
  #26  
Old January 20th 11, 04:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?


True, there will always be places where humans can't go due to the
extreme environment (i.e. on earth, unmanned submarines could arguably
dive deeper and explore tighter spaces than any manned vehicle). *But
Mars is especially attractive because it's conditions are quite suitable
for human exploration.

Jeff
--


Lets not forget a human will spend at least half his or her time on
mars not doing anything. But eating sleeping, bathing, cooking,
personal hygiene, exercising etc etc etc?.

And if ISS is any example most remaing time will be spent on maintence
of stuff.

What percent of ISS astronaut time is actually devoted to science?

Figure THAT into the man vs robot equasion.

Spirit and opportunities landing sites were selected for max landing
safety, not how interesting they are. although they have done great!

Follow ups should be produced, sent to more challenging locations,
send 20 assume 50% loss rate, that still leaves 10 more working on
mars
  #27  
Old January 20th 11, 05:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

In article 25f39dad-5a25-45ec-abeb-
, says...


True, there will always be places where humans can't go due to the
extreme environment (i.e. on earth, unmanned submarines could arguably
dive deeper and explore tighter spaces than any manned vehicle). *But
Mars is especially attractive because it's conditions are quite suitable
for human exploration.

Jeff
--


Lets not forget a human will spend at least half his or her time on
mars not doing anything. But eating sleeping, bathing, cooking,
personal hygiene, exercising etc etc etc?.


So what? Unmanned probes on Mars have been solar powered and typically
spend the Maritain night using their batteries to run heaters, so they
don't do (much) science at night either. They also ran into trouble
with dust covering the arrays, which could easily have been swept off by
a person in a spacesuit.

And if ISS is any example most remaing time will be spent on maintence
of stuff.


So what? The Mars rovers also ran into several difficulties which
required them to stop and not do (much) science until the people on
Earth figured out a work-around to the problem. Terrain which required
the rovers to sit idle until engineers on Earth figured out a safe way
forward would have been absolutely no obstacle to a person in a
spacesuit.

What percent of ISS astronaut time is actually devoted to science?

Figure THAT into the man vs robot equasion.


ISS is teaching us how to live and work in space, which is a necessary
precondition to a manned Mars mission. Hopefully the bugs will be
worked out of many of the systems by our ISS experience.

Spirit and opportunities landing sites were selected for max landing
safety, not how interesting they are. although they have done great!

Follow ups should be produced, sent to more challenging locations,
send 20 assume 50% loss rate, that still leaves 10 more working on
mars


Too bad unmanned missions never receive the level of funding that manned
missions do. This is politics. The Space Race wasn't won by the first
unmanned lunar probe, it was won when men set foot on the surface and
were returned safely to Earth.


Actually, this whole unmanned versus manned debate is absolutely stupid.
The most efficient way to explore Mars is with both!

In fact, having both on the *same mission* would be best. Having a
person in the Mars lander remotely command an unmanned rover would be
far more efficient than commanding the same rover from Earth with the
huge time lag in communications. Having a person in a spacesuit
available to fix problems with the rovers would also be a huge
advantage. Dusty solar arrays and dead motors could easily be cleaned
or replaced on the spot. In this case, having humans available to do
"routine maintenance" on otherwise unmanned equipment is a freaking huge
advantage!

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011
  #28  
Old January 20th 11, 05:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

On Jan 20, 11:25*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

Add ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE, to the rover operations, and watch
productity soar...


This is like saying, "Add MAGIC, to the rover operations, and watch
productity soar..."



better to do something affordable that explores, might have some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the chilling after
effects of apollo 13?


If people aren't going, what's to explore? *And no, I DON'T remember
said "chilling".



now imagine 5% of a few hundred rovers being controlled by students on
earth.


That might just get support for a manned mission.


The student says today I noticed this wierd rock had the rover go
back and take a look *how cool, all the way on moon, or mars


So your view is the space program should essentially just be a video
game. *Hell, dispense with all the hardware and make it purely
virtual.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn


artifical intelligence is coming, did you hear it appears a computer
won jeopardy playing against 2 champs including ken jennings........

a mars geo sync sat computer with downlinks could run a large number
of rovers on the surface, with near no time delay, and multiple rovers
could help one another out if one gets stuck.

why knock robotic exploration? the US has no ability to send astronauts
  #29  
Old January 20th 11, 05:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

better to do something affordable that explores, might have some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the chilling after
effects of apollo 13?


If people aren't going, what's to explore? *And no, I DON'T remember
said "chilling".


the near disaster of a dead crew, is the root cause of the cancelation
of the final lanings.

heck the vehicles were all built, launch teams seasoned and ready to
go.

management feared losing a crew, and decided they didnt want to end
the lunar program by a lost crew.

thus flight certified vehicles were left outdoors to rot in salt air:
( and one flight certified LM hangs above the gift shop in the saturn
center.

How sad is that???????
  #30  
Old January 20th 11, 06:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

In article 9198b1ed-59da-4c22-bb2e-8cbedd6d3cf7
@p38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, says...

artifical intelligence is coming, did you hear it appears a computer
won jeopardy playing against 2 champs including ken jennings........


That's not artificial intelligence, not even close. That's a computer
program designed to do a single, specific task. Yes its database is
necessarily large, but the program is extremely simple compared to what
most people envision artificial intelligence to be.

a mars geo sync sat computer with downlinks could run a large number
of rovers on the surface, with near no time delay, and multiple rovers
could help one another out if one gets stuck.


If wishes were fishes...

why knock robotic exploration? the US has no ability to send astronauts


If we're never going to send humans, what's the point of exploring Mars
in detail? We already know most of the basics, so where's the
motivation for a huge network of unmanned probes, if not to provide
detailed data for an eventual manned mission?

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source. Jan Panteltje Astronomy Misc 0 June 22nd 07 01:54 PM
Roving on the Red Planet: Robots tell a tale of once-wet Mars Sam Wormley Amateur Astronomy 1 May 28th 05 10:18 PM
Coal layer in Mars strata found by robots Archimedes Plutonium Astronomy Misc 13 January 28th 04 11:12 PM
How to Mars ? ( people / robots... debate ) nightbat Misc 2 January 18th 04 04:39 PM
Humans, Robots Work Together To Test 'Spacewalk Squad' Concept Ron Baalke Space Station 0 July 2nd 03 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.