|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip to Mars yet again. This debate isn't even close. Loosely speaking, putting men on Mars is a Forty year long $Trillion dollar (or)deal. And succeeds in putting a dozen or so eyes on the surface for exploration. Losely speaking, rovers take Four years or so, and cost a $Billion dollars. And succeeds in putting ...how many eyes on the surface of Mars? "NASA recorded 109 million hits on its home page and related Web sites during the 24-hour period coinciding with the late Saturday landing of Spirit on Mars. Nearly 17 hours after the successful landing, that figure had more than doubled.." http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/4...w_web_traffic/ Rovers put ....MILLIONS of eyes on the planet for exploration all sharing a /common experience/ and as if they were ...there. If you want humanity to care, NASA needs to bring everyone along for the ride. Not just six or so. A manned mission to Mars only benefits Lockheed et all. Rovers benefit the ...public. We can place the notion of a manned mission to Mars along with the other Great Scientific Scams of all time.Scams like a super collider or gravity wave detectors or neutrino tanks or fusion. Scams which have as their sole purpose to create a project that absolutely maximizes the amount of time and money wasted. While absolutely minimizing the potential accomplishments. What a great (corrupt) business plan that would~ At least NASA still dares, daring to go for the ultimate con-job. Jonathan s |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
On 1/19/11 7:59 PM, Jonathan wrote:
I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip to Mars yet again. This debate isn't even close. Loosely speaking, putting men on Mars is a Forty year long $Trillion dollar (or)deal. And succeeds in putting a dozen or so eyes on the surface for exploration. Losely speaking, rovers take Four years or so, and cost a $Billion dollars. And succeeds in putting ...how many eyes on the surface of Mars? 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. Rovers are wonderful tools, but they are SUBSTITUTES -- and very poor substitutes -- for human beings on-site. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years the rovers may start to be smart enough and competent enough to make human beings less impressive by comparison. But if you were to list out all the tests and conditions you would LIKE to have your rover handle, you'd find that the number it CAN handle is a tiny, tiny, tiny subset of those things that a human being with a rover-equivalent in modern tools can do. Now, is that worth the cost? I dunno. Possibly, possibly not. But the competition is much, much closer than you'd like to think. -- Sea Wasp /^\ ;;; Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog: http://seawasp.livejournal.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
On Jan 19, 7:59*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip to Mars yet again. This debate isn't even close. Loosely speaking, putting men on Mars is a Forty year long $Trillion dollar (or)deal. And succeeds in putting a dozen or so eyes on the surface for exploration. Losely speaking, rovers take Four years or so, and cost a $Billion dollars. And succeeds in putting ...how many eyes on the surface of Mars? "NASA recorded 109 million hits on its home page and related Web sites during the 24-hour period coinciding with the late Saturday landing of Spirit on Mars. Nearly 17 hours after the successful landing, that figure had more than doubled.."http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/41212/nasa_rover_mars_photos_draw_... Rovers put ....MILLIONS of eyes on the planet for exploration all sharing a /common experience/ and as if they were ...there. If you want humanity to care, NASA needs to bring everyone along for the ride. Not just six or so. A manned mission to Mars only benefits Lockheed et all. Rovers benefit the ...public. We can place the notion of a *manned mission to Mars along with the other Great Scientific Scams of all time.Scams like a super collider or gravity wave detectors or neutrino tanks or fusion. Scams which have as their sole purpose to create a project that absolutely maximizes the amount of time and money wasted. While absolutely minimizing the potential accomplishments. What a great (corrupt) business plan that would~ At least NASA still dares, daring to go for the ultimate con-job. Jonathan s Well humans need to go to mars and beyond eventually! but today its not afordable We should fund NASA, or some other agency to advance robotics and AI artifical intelligence! License all advances and se the license fees to pay for future space operations. For the cost of a single manned mission we can have robots thinking and building mars bases for when humans arrive |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
On 1/19/2011 7:59 PM, Jonathan wrote:
I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip to Mars yet again. This debate isn't even close. Loosely speaking, putting men on Mars is a Forty year long $Trillion dollar (or)deal. And succeeds in putting a dozen or so eyes on the surface for exploration. Losely speaking, rovers take Four years or so, and cost a $Billion dollars. And succeeds in putting ...how many eyes on the surface of Mars? "NASA recorded 109 million hits on its home page and related Web sites during the 24-hour period coinciding with the late Saturday landing of Spirit on Mars. Nearly 17 hours after the successful landing, that figure had more than doubled.." http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/4...w_web_traffic/ Rovers put ....MILLIONS of eyes on the planet for exploration all sharing a /common experience/ and as if they were ...there. If you want humanity to care, NASA needs to bring everyone along for the ride. Not just six or so. A manned mission to Mars only benefits Lockheed et all. Rovers benefit the ...public. We can place the notion of a manned mission to Mars along with the other Great Scientific Scams of all time.Scams like a super collider or gravity wave detectors or neutrino tanks or fusion. Scams which have as their sole purpose to create a project that absolutely maximizes the amount of time and money wasted. While absolutely minimizing the potential accomplishments. What a great (corrupt) business plan that would~ At least NASA still dares, daring to go for the ultimate con-job. Let's put all the trolls on Mars, with 1-way trips. Since they can suck all the oxygen out of a room, there should be no need for life support, either. Now as to the manned/unmanned debate, meh. It's probably arguable either way. Men cost more, but you get more. Robots cost less, but you get less. Funny how that works. If you're really patient (think many decades), robots are probably good enough. Regards, Jack Tingle |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
On Jan 19, 6:59*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip to Mars yet again. This debate isn't even close. Loosely speaking, putting men on Mars is a Forty year long $Trillion dollar (or)deal. And succeeds in putting a dozen or so eyes on the surface for exploration. Losely speaking, rovers take Four years or so, and cost a $Billion dollars. And succeeds in putting ...how many eyes on the surface of Mars? "NASA recorded 109 million hits on its home page and related Web sites during the 24-hour period coinciding with the late Saturday landing of Spirit on Mars. Nearly 17 hours after the successful landing, that figure had more than doubled.."http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/41212/nasa_rover_mars_photos_draw_... Rovers put ....MILLIONS of eyes on the planet for exploration all sharing a /common experience/ and as if they were ...there. If you want humanity to care, NASA needs to bring everyone along for the ride. Not just six or so. A manned mission to Mars only benefits Lockheed et all. Rovers benefit the ...public. We can place the notion of a *manned mission to Mars along with the other Great Scientific Scams of all time.Scams like a super collider or gravity wave detectors or neutrino tanks or fusion. Scams which have as their sole purpose to create a project that absolutely maximizes the amount of time and money wasted. While absolutely minimizing the potential accomplishments. What a great (corrupt) business plan that would~ At least NASA still dares, daring to go for the ultimate con-job. Jonathan s Until we have an established manned lunar base and colony, more agressive space program and larger space stations, a manned trip to mars is absurd and wishfulfillment power trip. So suggesting one is silly and just political posturing. We should have more robots, probes and sattelites for exploring. They are cheaper and we can make and send more of them. and can do all the work necessary without the risks and costs that a manned mission can do. Just like how we send robot subs to explore the ocean depths tphile |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
"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. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "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. 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
"Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "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. 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. The problem to date hasn't been various administrations putting or not putting Bold Goals onto NASA's official agenda - it's been the utter lack of any actual follow up (funding, political support) to said Bold Goals. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
"Jonathan" wrote in message ... I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip to Mars yet again. This debate isn't even close. Would you agree that getting people there must be the *ultimate* goal? Or else what is the point of exploring at all? So isn't more a question of timing rather than which is better? How quickly should we go about getting the first people to Mars? My answer would be the same as NASA's I think, as soon as possible and practical. It is already technological feasable AFAIK. So it is just a question of the practical requirements, or more specifically the money. That is a political decision but NASA should be pushing for it. Whether the time is quite right is another matter. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 10:12 PM |
How to Mars ? ( people / robots... debate ) | nightbat | Misc | 2 | January 18th 04 03:39 PM |
Humans, Robots Work Together To Test 'Spacewalk Squad' Concept | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 0 | July 2nd 03 04:15 PM |