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
  #1  
Old January 20th 11, 01:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 02:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 02:22 AM 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 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  
Old January 20th 11, 03:08 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jack Tingle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 06:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
tphile
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 08:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 09:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 11:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 11:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Giga2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default 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  
Old January 20th 11, 11:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

(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.

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.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 




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 11:09 AM.


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.