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

Dan DeConinck wrote:
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.

Robotic missions should be seen as a precursor to manned mission. The goal
isn't to get good pictures of Mars, the goal is to ammass enough information
to prepare humans to travel to it.

Robots are to space travel what brochures are to tourist travel.

Seeing pictures of Fiji makes some people want to go there to vacation.
Seeing pictures of Mt Everest makes some people want to climb it.
Seeing pictures of Paris restaurants makes some people want to experience
French cuisine.

Seeing pictures of Mars makes you want to go there. It is human nature.