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?

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

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...

In article ,
says...
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.

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.

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!

Marc

"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.

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. |

"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