Men on Mars

[elSicomoro]

Not until 2011 or 2012.

[hot_pastrami]

Have you ever been to Rome? If not, don't bother. There are plenty of photographs out there, which is just as good as going in person. Right?

Exploration is the search for the unexpected, but robot explorers like the Mars rovers can only effectively deal with the expected. They can't improvise, and they can't observe what they're not designed to be able to observe. Perhaps on the Martian surface there is a voice on the wind yelling "Over here!"occasionally, but if the robot isn't equipped with a microphone, and contantly monitoring it for specific sounds, then no one will know.

I think it's important that we send people to Mars at some point. An educated human with tools is the best Mars rover that NASA could develop. And Mars is the next logical stepping stone in human space exploration... If we don't go to Mars, then we don't go beyond Mars, and we miss out on some damn interesting stuff. Risk? Lots of skilled people will step up eagerly, despite the risk.

Besides, the long-distance space travel technology could save our lives one day. Who knows when an errant meteor may need to be redirected... it is not just the stuff of science fiction, a random meteor could kill everyone. The worst time to stop and think is when Death is a stride behind you.

[Slartibartfast]

Every time the Guv'ment has pushed for big science, it has flopped. The exceptions to this rule have been when there was some external push to keep momentum - as in the Cold War for the moon, or WWII for the Manhattan Project. Let's look...

The Superconducting Supercollider is just a big hole in the ground that cost millions and does nothing.

The space shuttle has from day one been too expensive. It has done much but at way too much expense, and danger.

Even the moon was a flop in the sense that yes, we made it, but then when real science was going to begin after all the engineering was perfected, they cut the program. That turned the whole thing into big stunt. Now to even get to the moon we have to reinvent the wheel.

Then we have the International Space Station.
All the science has been squeezed out of it by budget cuts. We are left with two astronauts in space performing so much maintainence they have no time for science. Now they want to kill the ISS after we have spent millions (probably billions) on it.

I laughed when Bush the first said we were going to Mars. It sounded like pure wishful thinking. Bush II is doing the same thing for me.

I want a functioning space program so badly, and yet even I see that Bush's plan for Mars is going to be a money pit. It is going to run overbudget at least by 300% and then give us squat.

[Pie]

The thing that kills the science every time is the drive to put people in space.

I agree that the eventual grand picture would have humanity colonize the whole solar system -- and beyond, if we can.

But for now, the most productive, scientifically worthy projects are not manned missions. They are robotic missions, launched for a few million apiece, that can afford to be lost. Beagle didn't call home? A bunch of scientists and engineers in England are crying into their beers, but no-one died. It's a success/failure ratio we can live with. We don't have to massively overdesign a vehicle so as to not take "unacceptable" risks with astronaut's lives.

When we can do it reasonably safely, and for a reasonable price, we should go to Mars. Till then, let the robots have it.

- Pie

[Elionwyr]

..after we've fully explored the possibility of setting up viable full-time settlements in the Antarctic, the Sahara, the ocean, etc. Places that are plenty dangerous and are comparatively much easier to pull people out of should there be a problem with the artificial environment.

Much as I think we need, truly need, to be working towards the colonization of other planets, unless we take the more controlled risk of fully using this planet, I don't see how space colonization can be supported.

Putting Mars and the moon back into the news is (IMO) Bush's way of saying, "Uh-oh..this war thing's not going quite the way I hoped..umm...uh..LOOK! THE MOON!"

[Griff]

I'd hate to see space left to the bureaucrats and connected scientists. I want space to be that frontier saftey valve that keeps folks from flipping out under the saddle of authoritarians. That is why SDs space elevator is so appealing. Lifting on the scale that your small business could be in asteroid mining or habitat construction. Regular people in space.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Elionwyr
..after we've fully explored the possibility of setting up viable full-time settlements in the Antarctic, the Sahara, the ocean, etc. Places that are plenty dangerous and are comparatively much easier to pull people out of should there be a problem with the artificial environment.

Just you try to move to the Antarctic... you'd be stepped on like a bug. (not by nature either)

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
TW, isn't there a replacement for the Hubble scheduled?

The Webb telescope will not be ready until sometime after 2010. Also it will not do same as Hubble. One hope was to have both Hubble and Webb working in concert. But an MBA has now destroyed that hope with his silly political agenda. NASA Cancels Trip to Supply Hubble, Sealing Early Doom

Robots cannot improvise? Who is still living in the early 20th Century? Then I guess that Martian rover is still stuck on the platform - obstructed by air bags. Then I guess those Honda robots do not play soccer.

Man on scene is really not necessary since man still needs his robots. Man cannot see the many frequencies that his robots see. Man cannot measure fundamental science paramaters without his robots. Called scientific equipment when in the man's hand. Man not longer does so much advanced work - such as the human genome project made possbile only because robots did the work.

Therein lies science. The person who knows how best explore space is the scientists - not some self serving politiician who never even ran a successful company.

In the meantime, Hubble is clearly far more useful than a man 'scratching for water' on the moon. And yet we would kill an inexpensive and useful tool to make a president look good? MBAs. The Hubble has no value. It was depreciated on the spread sheets. Better to write it off. MBA thinking from a politician. Someone whose presidency started with "if it was from Clinton, then it must be wrong". So much brainpower would even destroy expensive space craft - only for the greater glory of that president. No wonder we are also wasting $billions on another anti-ballistic missile system that will not work.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by tw
Robots cannot improvise? Who is still living in the early 20th Century? Then I guess that Martian rover is still stuck on the platform - obstructed by air bags. Then I guess those Honda robots do not play soccer.

Man on scene is really not necessary since man still needs his robots. Man cannot see the many frequencies that his robots see. Man cannot measure fundamental science paramaters without his robots. Called scientific equipment when in the man's hand. Man not longer does so much advanced work - such as the human genome project made possbile only because robots did the work.

It seems that you and I are operating with differing definitions on the term "robot." I'm referring to a programmable automaton, where your defintiion seems to include any technological tool, such as a desktop computer, infrared imaging systems, etc. To me, if it's not automated, if it requires human input to be useful, it's a "tool," not a "robot."

Robots as they exist today cannot improvise, because improvisation requires intelligence and creativity. A robot can appear to improvise, but one of two things is really happening... A) It is behaving as it was pre-programmed to do in a situation which was anticipated, or B) A human controller intervened and improvised on behalf of the robot. Such intervention is possible on Mars missions, though slow (takes 3-4 minutes each way to transmit data between Earth and Mars), so if something requires a quick reaction, and the robot doesn't have suitable pre-programming to react appropriately, the robot fails. At even greater distances, that communication latency becomes more and more problematic. A lot can happen during that delay.

One day, we may possess the technology to grant artifical intelligence and creativity to machines, enough that they really can improvise and make problem-solving decisions on faraway planets without human intervention. But by that time, the intelligent entitiy embodied by the robot would be a unique, valuable being, and we'd have no more right risking it's existence than we do risking human lives, so we have the same problem.

I'm not saying that we need to go to Mars NOW, but soon. Some people will never be satisfied with the risk, or with the price tag, but there are a lot of such people at the cusp of every major effort in history, and those people with the determination continue the effort despite them. I don't even particularly like Dubya, but I happen to agree with him that putting men on Mars is a worthwhile goal.

[tw]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
It seems that you and I are operating with differing definitions on the term "robot." I'm referring to a programmable automaton, where your defintiion seems to include any technological tool, such as a desktop computer, infrared imaging systems, etc. To me, if it's not automated, if it requires human input to be useful, it's a "tool," not a "robot."

Robots as they exist today cannot improvise, because improvisation requires intelligence and creativity. A robot can appear to improvise, but one of two things is really happening... A) It is behaving as it was pre-programmed to do in a situation which was anticipated, or B) A human controller intervened and improvised on behalf of the robot.

It does not matter whether controlled in the man's hand or by hands some million miles away. The better answer is "what is more cost effective" - requiring a scientific and not a political decision. What you call robots are simply more scientific tools doing what man cannot. Do we send men up with the wrong tools and then expect him to modify those tools? Not up there. Man on Mars doing less for tens of times more cost and risk.

Example of a robot. No mechanical movement. A meter that figures out what electricity it is measuring, adjusts the circuits accordingly, then reports all relevant numbers. Man alone could do none of this. Man with simpler tools would be less efficient or cost effective - or even damage the tool. It is not a mechanical robot. It is an electronic robot. Nothing more than another scientific tool.

Robots in the lab doing genome research or robots on Mars doing mineral, water, and geological research. Today, the more productive man does his work through robots or simpler 'robots' such as PCs, multimeters, scanners, and radio wave devices. Man today cannot do research without his robotic (intelligent) tools. It matters little where or how far away those tools are. Some want to glorify tools and call them robots. Fine. But they are still connected to a hand somewhere in the universe and they are still nothing more than flexible science tools.

Astronomers no longer go the telescope. Astronomy is done via electronics - robotically. Welcome to more robots. It is too expensive and difficult to haul men up the mountains in Hawaii. Today, telescope 'robots' in Hawaii, Chile, etc do the work while men analyze back in the universities. It is how research is now done - more with robots and less with man on site.

If man must be on site, then why is the ISS not loaded with telescopes? Because robots - Hubble - do a better job when men are not 'hands on'. The new way of doing science is very difficult for a president who makes science decisions to advance his politics. He only understands the old way: men must always be at the telescope to do astronomy research? Only when it is for political gain - science be damned.

Robots do on Mars far more than a man could do. Will we have a man live on -60 degree Mars for one year awaiting his return trip? Do you realize how technically impossible that is with the early 21st Century science? What is necessary to put a man on Mars? It starts with the research that was not done in a super collider - and other science best decided by those who come from where the work gets done. We have too much to do down here before we can even consider a man on Mars.

Worst decisions are made by an MBA president who never learned science nor how to run a successful company.

[hot_pastrami]

Well, if monetary cost is the only consideration, then yes, sending a robot is the better answer. But monetary cost is not the only consideration, otherwise we wouldn't even bother with sending the robots.

There is a cost/reward ratio that must be considered, and that is where most people decry sending people to Mars... for a lot less money, we can send autonomous robots, and learn almost as much as sending humans wih all of the same instruments. But that asssumes that learning about Mars is the only motivation, which it is not. We are also motivated by a desire to progress our space program, so that we can move even farther. The moon was the first logical step, and Mars is the second. Next would be the moons of Jupiter... etc.

In 15-20 years we could easily have the technology developed to get people to Mars (and back if desired). Before the mission departs, they would just send a payload with all of the fuel and supplies the astronauts would need for their stay and return trip, then after getting confirmation that those supplies arrived safely at Mars, you'd send the explorers. The tech is not that much more advanced than the Apollo missions, the main concern is loss of bone mass in astronauts due to prolonged stay in zero-gravity, but that problem is not unsolvable.

Your robotic telescope example is flawed, because putting a human at the telescope does not put the human in the environment he/she is observing. Putting people on Mars does, which has very real advantages.

Like I said, I don't necessarily think that we need to go to Mars TODAY, but soon. If the world always waited for the skeptics to be ready, we'd never get anything done.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I read several months ago that in order to keep the Hubble active the shuttle would have to be put back in service. For some reason they have to go service it and had one more trip scheduled but it hinged on the shuttle.

[elSicomoro]

Yep.

[Torrere]

It does not matter whether controlled in the man's hand or by hands some million miles away.

Define "lag".

[dar512]

A recent email explains why we really need to send humans to mars and what we'll find when we get there.