How to Mars ? people / robot debate

Hello,

The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but also
all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
latitudes of all planets and their major moons. It doesn't stop there. We
could visit comets and astroids and even send spacecraft out of our solar
system. We could virtually touch every corner of our solar system and for
decades. The scientific payoff and discoveries dwarfs the alternative of a
single mission to a single location of a single planet for just a few
months.

Supporters of manned spaceflight like to argue that the astronaut is more
effective than a robot. Well even if this was true the astonaut would need
to be not twice as effect or ten times or one hundred times but rather a
thousand times as effective to just get the same value as the robot. Lets
concede that the astronaut is twice as effective as the robot. That makes
the robot a better choice by a factor of five hundred times. Would the Mars
pancam image be any better taken my an astronaut ?

The argument for the astronauts also claims that a human is needed in the
loop. That argument misses the point that with robots humans are in the
loop. Just look at JPL. They have hundreds of the worlds best researchers.
They are directly in the loop orchestrating the rovers activities. This is
called telepresence. Those researches are virtually on Mars. Also note how
JPL claims the rover cameras have 20/20 vision. This telepresence technology
is also on trial in the operating rooms of hospitals. Doctors are performing
surgery telerobotically from upto thousands of miles away from the patients.
The plain fact is that people are in the loop big time with the robots.

Now remember, I concede that the astronauts would be more effect than the
robots but the problem is that they would be marginally more effective for a
disproportionate cost to the tune of five hundred times less scientific
returns.

The manned mission supporters realize this lack of value so they cite the
spin off technologies that benefit mankind. This is a very hollow argument.
If you really value, for instance, the medical devices that emerge then it
is silly to not pursue them in a direct targeted way rather than spending
all your money visiting the moon and hoping that this will trickle down to
an improved pace maker. Furthermore much if not all of the spin of
technologies will inevitablly emerge on their own good timetable.

Please, lets touch and visit every corner of our solar system and for
decades rather than a single mission to a single location of a single planet
for a single moment in time.

Dan

What about a robot on the surface controlled by a man in orbit? Real time
exploration?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Dan DeConinck" wrote in message
...
| Hello,
|
| The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
| thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
| satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but
also
| all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
| latitudes of all planets and their major moons. It doesn't stop there. We
| could visit comets and astroids and even send spacecraft out of our solar
| system. We could virtually touch every corner of our solar system and for
| decades. The scientific payoff and discoveries dwarfs the alternative of a
| single mission to a single location of a single planet for just a few
| months.
|
| Supporters of manned spaceflight like to argue that the astronaut is more
| effective than a robot. Well even if this was true the astonaut would need
| to be not twice as effect or ten times or one hundred times but rather a
| thousand times as effective to just get the same value as the robot. Lets
| concede that the astronaut is twice as effective as the robot. That makes
| the robot a better choice by a factor of five hundred times. Would the
Mars
| pancam image be any better taken my an astronaut ?
|
| The argument for the astronauts also claims that a human is needed in the
| loop. That argument misses the point that with robots humans are in the
| loop. Just look at JPL. They have hundreds of the worlds best researchers.
| They are directly in the loop orchestrating the rovers activities. This is
| called telepresence. Those researches are virtually on Mars. Also note how
| JPL claims the rover cameras have 20/20 vision. This telepresence
technology
| is also on trial in the operating rooms of hospitals. Doctors are
performing
| surgery telerobotically from upto thousands of miles away from the
patients.
| The plain fact is that people are in the loop big time with the robots.
|
| Now remember, I concede that the astronauts would be more effect than the
| robots but the problem is that they would be marginally more effective for
a
| disproportionate cost to the tune of five hundred times less scientific
| returns.
|
| The manned mission supporters realize this lack of value so they cite the
| spin off technologies that benefit mankind. This is a very hollow
argument.
| If you really value, for instance, the medical devices that emerge then it
| is silly to not pursue them in a direct targeted way rather than spending
| all your money visiting the moon and hoping that this will trickle down to
| an improved pace maker. Furthermore much if not all of the spin of
| technologies will inevitablly emerge on their own good timetable.
|
| Please, lets touch and visit every corner of our solar system and for
| decades rather than a single mission to a single location of a single
planet
| for a single moment in time.
|
| Dan
|
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/04

A manned mission to Mars is almost absurd... at least with the
propulsion technologies that are known of today, or at least known
publically.

From what I understand, the gravity on Mars is about 1/2 than of
Earth's. I'm not sure of the physics behind it all.. but to get off
the Earth, it takes some rather beefy rockets to get up enough speed
to reach the escape velocity. Even with the 1/2 gravity, we would
still need a rather substanial push to get off the planet, and back
towards home. Sure, once you're off the planet, then you can rely on
slingshotting here and there.. but we still need that umph to get off
the surface of Mars, no? Are they planning on shlepping along these
return trip booster rockets with them?

Trickle down technology? We could use a Tang follow-up.

It's pretty hard to argue why it makes 1000 times more sense to just
keep firing robots and other junk into space. Having an actual human
go is pretty much just arrogance. The human experience is very
valuable.. but not until it makes sense to do so.










"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...
What about a robot on the surface controlled by a man in orbit? Real time
exploration?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Dan DeConinck" wrote in message
...
| Hello,
|
| The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
| thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
| satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but
also
| all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
| latitudes of all planets and their major moons. It doesn't stop there. We
| could visit comets and astroids and even send spacecraft out of our solar
| system. We could virtually touch every corner of our solar system and for
| decades. The scientific payoff and discoveries dwarfs the alternative of a
| single mission to a single location of a single planet for just a few
| months.
|
| Supporters of manned spaceflight like to argue that the astronaut is more
| effective than a robot. Well even if this was true the astonaut would need
| to be not twice as effect or ten times or one hundred times but rather a
| thousand times as effective to just get the same value as the robot. Lets
| concede that the astronaut is twice as effective as the robot. That makes
| the robot a better choice by a factor of five hundred times. Would the
Mars
| pancam image be any better taken my an astronaut ?
|
| The argument for the astronauts also claims that a human is needed in the
| loop. That argument misses the point that with robots humans are in the
| loop. Just look at JPL. They have hundreds of the worlds best researchers.
| They are directly in the loop orchestrating the rovers activities. This is
| called telepresence. Those researches are virtually on Mars. Also note how
| JPL claims the rover cameras have 20/20 vision. This telepresence
technology
| is also on trial in the operating rooms of hospitals. Doctors are
performing
| surgery telerobotically from upto thousands of miles away from the
patients.
| The plain fact is that people are in the loop big time with the robots.
|
| Now remember, I concede that the astronauts would be more effect than the
| robots but the problem is that they would be marginally more effective for
a
| disproportionate cost to the tune of five hundred times less scientific
| returns.
|
| The manned mission supporters realize this lack of value so they cite the
| spin off technologies that benefit mankind. This is a very hollow
argument.
| If you really value, for instance, the medical devices that emerge then it
| is silly to not pursue them in a direct targeted way rather than spending
| all your money visiting the moon and hoping that this will trickle down to
| an improved pace maker. Furthermore much if not all of the spin of
| technologies will inevitablly emerge on their own good timetable.
|
| Please, lets touch and visit every corner of our solar system and for
| decades rather than a single mission to a single location of a single
planet
| for a single moment in time.
|
| Dan
|
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/04

(Edmunde Lee) wrote:

A manned mission to Mars is almost absurd... at least with the
propulsion technologies that are known of today, or at least known
publically.

From what I understand, the gravity on Mars is about 1/2 than of
Earth's. I'm not sure of the physics behind it all.. but to get off
the Earth, it takes some rather beefy rockets to get up enough speed
to reach the escape velocity. Even with the 1/2 gravity, we would
still need a rather substanial push to get off the planet, and back
towards home. Sure, once you're off the planet, then you can rely on
slingshotting here and there.. but we still need that umph to get off
the surface of Mars, no? Are they planning on shlepping along these
return trip booster rockets with them?

Well, the surface gravity on Mars is 37% of that of Earth, but the
escape velocity on Mars is 45% of that of Earth, so that means that
11,250 mph is needed to escape from Mars' gravitational field. That is
pretty doggone fast. The escape velocity from the Moon is 5,250 mph,
from the Earth is 25,000 mph.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary.../marsfact.html

On 16 Jan 2004 09:45:39 -0800, (Edmunde Lee)
wrote:


It's pretty hard to argue why it makes 1000 times more sense to just
keep firing robots and other junk into space. Having an actual human
go is pretty much just arrogance. The human experience is very
valuable.. but not until it makes sense to do so.


When we can't even get into low earth orbit with people, reliably and
cheaply, let alone build and maintain a real space station, talking
more men on the moon or to mars is a recipe for wasting tons of money,
and yet another in a long line of grand plans that end up being scaled
back to a pathetic shadow or canceled completely.
There are legitimate reasons for going out there but not the way we're
attempting it.

Botch

ROMAN: I tell you what I see when I look out there. I see the undeveloped resources of Minnesota, Northern Wisconsin, and Michigan. I see a syndicated development consortium exploiting over a billion and a half dollars in forest products. I see a paper mill and if the strategic metals are there, a mining operation. A greenbelt between the condos on the lake and a waste management facility focusing on the newest rage in toxic waste, medical refuse. Infected bandages, body parts, IV tubing, contaminated glassware, entrails,syringes, fluids, blood, low grade radioactive waste all safely contained sunken in the lake and sealed for centuries. Now I ask you what do you see?


CHET: I just see trees.

"Dan DeConinck" wrote in
:

The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but
also all their major moons.

First, your number for a human Mars mission is grossly inflated. Even with
NASA's gold-plated SEI Mars proposal, the total price tag ($450 billion)
included a second space station and a lunar base. Other Mars missions that
are not so gold-plated (Zubrin's Mars Direct or NASA's Mars Reference
Mission) are in the $30-100 billion range. And necessarily, the first
mission is much more expensive than later ones, since you're spending much
of the money just to make the first one possible. Subsequent landings will
be cheaper. You're also comparing to a robotic rover mission that will not
return samples to Earth, which the manned missions will. You need to
compare a manned mission not to Spirit ($0.4 billion) but to a robotic
sample return (later this decade, $1 billion).

Second, our experience with the one celestial body to have been visited by
both humans and robots (the moon) does not back up your theory. The robotic
missions (Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter) cost about 10% of Apollo, but by
any reasonable measure (pictures, data, samples, papers) Apollo returned
more than 90% of the science. In other words, Apollo was more cost-
effective than the robotic missions, even though the overall cost was
higher.

Supporters of manned spaceflight like to argue that the astronaut is
more effective than a robot. Well even if this was true the astonaut
would need to be not twice as effect or ten times or one hundred times
but rather a thousand times as effective to just get the same value as
the robot. Lets concede that the astronaut is twice as effective as
the robot. That makes the robot a better choice by a factor of five
hundred times. Would the Mars pancam image be any better taken my an
astronaut ?

An astronaut is more than twice as efficient as a robot. During its entire
90-day mission on Mars, Spirit will cover about a tenth as much ground (1
km) as the Apollo J mission crews were able to cover in an average EVA
traverse in the rover (10 km). Even if a Mars mission only had two
crewmembers and a single rover (it will undoubtedly have more), it will be
far more productive in a single day than Spirit's entire mission. And due
to orbital mechanics, even a minimal human Mars mission will have a minimum
surface stay of 90 days or more. The scientific return from just the first
mission will overwhelm all that have come before, just like Apollo.

The argument for the astronauts also claims that a human is needed in
the loop. That argument misses the point that with robots humans are
in the loop. Just look at JPL. They have hundreds of the worlds best
researchers. They are directly in the loop orchestrating the rovers
activities. This is called telepresence. Those researches are
virtually on Mars. Also note how JPL claims the rover cameras have
20/20 vision. This telepresence technology is also on trial in the
operating rooms of hospitals. Doctors are performing surgery
telerobotically from upto thousands of miles away from the patients.
The plain fact is that people are in the loop big time with the
robots.

The loop is much larger, though, with comm delays of up to 20 minutes and
non-continuous comm. An astronaut on-site can make decisions quickly and
act on them. He/she can even take samples back to the lander to study, and
make decisions on the next EVA based on that. An astronaut can fix thinks
that break on the mission, as demonstrated many times during Apollo. A
robotic mission typically fails if something major breaks.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

You need to be careful to compare like with like. The rovers currently on Mars
are wonderful machines, but the are not comaprable to a manned mission. A
manned mission would do sample return so the appropriate comparison would be
with a robotic rover / sample return mission. Others have better info, but the
last cost estimate I saw for that was somewhere in the $2-3 billion range. You
also have to adjust costs to take account of the fact that many robotic
missions fail. A 50% failure rate will double the cost of doing things
robotically. Robots do work out cheaper but the gap is not as large as you
indicate.

There is another issue though, which is that people can accomplish missions
which robots cannot. I'm doubtful wether robots will be able to find fossils,
even if they are quite common on Mars. I also think that the complexity of
robotic missions will reach a ceiling. Robotic missions are very vulnerable to
any errors made by their designers and builders. As they get more complex it
becomes ever more likely that they contain a fatal flaw. Because humans are
more able to adapt to unforseen circumstances, and to carry out repairs, manned
missions are much less vulnerable to small errors in design and construction.
Unlike a robot, they can adapt if things don't work exactly as the designer
intended.

I'm generally a fan of the robots. They deserve more funding and are a long
ways from reaching their limits. I would be supportive of shifting some funding
from the manned program to unmanned exploration. That said, I suspect robots
will reach their limit before many of the mysteries of Mars have been
understood.

The manned program desperately needs to cut its costs and increase its
productivity. If it can accomplish that, then the seach for life on Mars will
go much further than is possible using robots alone.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:20:40 -0800, "Dan DeConinck"
wrote (in part):

Hello,

The cost of one manned mission to Mars ($400.00 B ) is equivalent to a
thousand robotic missions.( $0.40 B) We could put dozens of scientific
satellites in ordit around not only all our solar system's planets but also
all their major moons. In addition we could send dozens of landers to all
latitudes of all planets and their major moons. It doesn't stop there. We
could visit comets and astroids and even send spacecraft out of our solar
system. We could virtually touch every corner of our solar system and for
decades. The scientific payoff and discoveries dwarfs the alternative of a
single mission to a single location of a single planet for just a few
months.


Here are some other things to think about.

How much communications infrastructure would have to be added in order to
handle the signals from all those remote robots, taking into account such
factors as different viewing angles, weather, local equipment breakdowns,
etc.?

How many more people would be needed on the teams that operated and
maintained the receiving equipment?

How many more scientists to analyse the data?

How much more disk space just to store those terabytes of returned data
until they can be analysed?

No, just as you say, it doesn't stop there.

And when you're considering how cost-effective robotic missions are, you
have to consider these extra factors too.

Chris W