CycleChat investigates - human missions to Mars.

[Low Gear Guy]

An unmanned mission to Mars could achieve as much as a manned exploratory expedition at a fraction of the cost. Only a complete egoist would consider sending a human crew just to place a flag on the moon.

The resources required for a permanent mission would be high. I think it was calculated as several percent of global GDP. I wonder how popular the required tax increase would be.

 

[Drago]

Problem is, unmanned missions are not as capable, flexible, or insightful as manned ones. An elephant could walk past Curiosity and no one would know unless it walked up the the camera.

And then there is the time factor. These probes aren't self aware or intelligent. All analysis and decision making has to be done on Earth by humans, and even in the most favourable orbital configuration, even assuming the human in mission control could anaylse the data and make a decision instantly, that is still a 20 minute round trip for the signal. An astronaut on site is able to think, decide and act instantaneously. A situation that would take a human a couple of seconds to observe, analyse, and react to takes a minimum of 600 times longer when done remotely, and much longer still when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the Sun.

At the current state of the art we are decades, perhaps centuries, from space probes and landers being able to conduct the same science and exploration as a human astronaut, never mind doing it at the same speed.

 

[HMS_Dave]

An unmanned mission to Mars could achieve as much as a manned exploratory expedition at a fraction of the cost. Only a complete egoist would consider sending a human crew just to place a flag on the moon.

The resources required for a permanent mission would be high. I think it was calculated as several percent of global GDP. I wonder how popular the required tax increase would be.

Again, the cost of it is a very valid line of enquiry given the issues in the world at present...

But just to give pause for thought, I am not satisfied with pictures of exotic places, im also not satisfied with videos of exotic places. I want to go and visit even though i could simulate a walk down nearly any street in the world on google maps...

Currently, i can only speak to my parents via video chat. I can see them, i can hear them but i would much rather be with them and miss their presence dearly...

Technology can bring us so much but they can only stimulate one sense at a time, not all of our senses and the experience is often lacklustre.

A human, particularly a trained scientist can answer far more questions and do far more in a shorter period of time than a slow, lumbering machine which despite all of what the Mars Rover's can do, only simulate in many instances the human senses in an unnatural manner and will and have broken down with no hope of repair... Further, when these machines do what they went to Mars to do, it often brings more questions than answers again an adaptable human on the surface could further explore.

I think sending human's to Mars brings great benefits. More so than the billions, perhaps even trillions on Earth that we waste on things that can only destroy life and the environment....

 

[classic33]

These are valid questions for sure,

However, There were a number of very useful inventions that came from the Apollo program which perhaps has made at least some people find use for. Such as:

Fireproof Uniforms that are now used in for Firefighters
Digital Cameras that are at least able to fit into your hands
Portable Hand Vacuum Cleaners
Vacuum Packed Food Products
Cordless Hand Tools
Quartz Clocks and Watches
Aluminium Foil
Programmable Pacemaker

Among many others such as advancements in dialysis machines.

Im not saying that a new space program could lead to a whole new wave of inventions like with the Apollo program but many household 'quality of life' and other life saving inventions came our way as a result of getting around the 'squidgy human in space' problem which exist with a human mission to Mars at present.

I think funding a mission to Mars is a far better investment than Nukes, Aircraft Carriers and Biological Weapons....

Point of order, "aluminium foil (which is often called “tinfoil”) was first manufactured by Dr. Lauber, Neher & company in Switzerland in about 1910."

Harold Mackintosh was wrapping his Quality Street using aluminium foil prior to the Second World War. Thirty years before the Apollo programme.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Point of order, "aluminium foil (which is often called “tinfoil”) was first manufactured by Dr. Lauber, Neher & company in Switzerland in about 1910."

Harold Mackintosh was wrapping his Quality Street using aluminium foil prior to the Second World War. Thirty years before the Apollo programme.

Ahh yes, it is how they used the foil during the program which was fundamentally pioneering. Such as capturing solar wind particles which were then brought back to earth for study.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25762/apollo-mission-foil-shielding/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Wind_Composition_Experiment

 

[MichaelW2]

Problem is, unmanned missions are not as capable, flexible, or insightful as manned ones. An elephant could walk past Curiosity and no one would know unless it walked up the the camera.

And then there is the time factor. These probes aren't self aware or intelligent. All analysis and decision making has to be done on Earth by humans, and even in the most favourable orbital configuration, even assuming the human in mission control could anaylse the data and make a decision instantly, that is still a 20 minute round trip for the signal. An astronaut on site is able to think, decide and act instantaneously. A situation that would take a human a couple of seconds to observe, analyse, and react to takes a minimum of 600 times longer when done remotely, and much longer still when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the Sun.

At the current state of the art we are decades, perhaps centuries, from space probes and landers being able to conduct the same science and exploration as a human astronaut, never mind doing it at the same speed.

Speed is significant if you are a human on Mars since time (ie oxygen) is a critical resource. For a robot mission it simply isnt. If it takes 20 mins to adjust a parameter manually, so what. It is like a robot vacume cleaner or lawnmower, much slower than a human but the outcome is the same.
Advances in AI and robotics could mean robotic missions far in advance of the current style of single platform with multiple sensors.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Speed is significant if you are a human on Mars since time (ie oxygen) is a critical resource. For a robot mission it simply isnt. If it takes 20 mins to adjust a parameter manually, so what. It is like a robot vacume cleaner or lawnmower, much slower than a human but the outcome is the same.
Advances in AI and robotics could mean robotic missions far in advance of the current style of single platform with multiple sensors.

Radiation exposure is still the biggest issue. Oxygen can be obtained in a number of ways. In fact there is an experiment being launcher this year (although likely to be suspended with current issues) named 'MOXIE' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Oxygen_ISRU_Experiment

 

[Drago]

Radiation exposure is a significant issue, but not insurmountable, and does not require especially exotic or weighty materials. Materials such as propellant or water can make excellent shielding materials, so it's a design issue more than anything, no new technologies or materials required.

 

[matticus]

Speed is significant if you are a human on Mars since time (ie oxygen) is a critical resource. For a robot mission it simply isnt. If it takes 20 mins to adjust a parameter manually, so what. It is like a robot vacume cleaner or lawnmower, much slower than a human but the outcome is the same.
Advances in AI and robotics could mean robotic missions far in advance of the current style of single platform with multiple sensors.

... except that the robot cannot vacuum the ceiling, no matter how you remotely tweak it's parameters, or how much time you give it.

The "real" example - and bear in mind I only vaguely follow this stuff - was the recent crash landing on Mars ("Exomars"?) A human would very likely have saved that situation: the robots just got on with the job (and smashed themselves to bits).

 

[MichaelW2]

... except that the robot cannot vacuum the ceiling, no matter how you remotely tweak it's parameters, or how much time you give it.

The "real" example - and bear in mind I only vaguely follow this stuff - was the recent crash landing on Mars ("Exomars"?) A human would very likely have saved that situation: the robots just got on with the job (and smashed themselves to bits).

Armed forces make widespread use of UAVs to do stuff that is too dangerous and boring to risk pilots. If a UAV gets shot down or crashes it is unfortunate but it is not a tragedy. They just send another machine to carry on.

Had the Exomars mission been manned, it would never have taken place because the cost would gave risen from $1.3 billion to $1.3 trillion. For 1.3 trillion you can send 1000 robot missions and if some crash, that is a learning experience.

 

[matticus]

Hey, I'm not saying there are no advantages to the 'bot approach!

Meanwhile: do you think it was worth sending men to the moon? (or into orbit, for that matter)?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

... ah, but that's what they want you to think.

You can photograph them yourselves / see them through a telescope. Or do I just want you to think this..

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I think the question should be, why?

For all the money spent what will the benefits be, other than who can piss highest up the wall bragging rights?

To successfully deliver a mission to Mars a number of technological innovations will be required, not least how to feed them once there. This latter need may lead to advances in food growth and production that solve problems in food supply and climate change back here.

 

[MichaelW2]

Hey, I'm not saying there are no advantages to the 'bot approach!

Meanwhile: do you think it was worth sending men to the moon? (or into orbit, for that matter)?

The moon mission was a huge boost to space operations and a necessary step but the real science was done by the pioneer and esp Voyager missions as well as Hubble telescope
The shuttle was a design disaster that no one really wanted. A cargo carrier built to human safety standards instead of a smaller human transporter. The Space Station had been nothing but a black hole for funds. It was a destination for the shuttle, and a job creation scheme for Russian space engineering to stop them doing something worse. No serious science had come out of the ISS.
Hubble could have been launched by a cargo rocket and maintained by crew from a smaller shuttle. The staring role of the space shuttle in the Hubble story was because there was no other heavy lifter available to NASA. The US military abandoned shuttle for their own rockets.
The technical argument for people in space reduces as the missions become longer in duration and AI and robotics become more advanced.

 

[matticus]

The moon mission was a huge boost to space operations and a necessary step
<blah blah ...>
Hubble could have been launched by a cargo rocket and maintained by crew from a smaller shuttle.
<blah blah ...>
The technical argument for people in space reduces as the missions become longer in duration and AI and robotics become more advanced.

Well this is what I was coming to, and the dilemma is where do you draw the line?

In addition, the role-model thing (and related benefits) is impossible to measure, yet almost everyone in aerospace and education would acknowledge it.

(p.s. have you seen the Russian shuttle-ripoffs? Now lurking in rusty hangers. A hell of a sight, as NASA might say ... )