Moon 2 Mars & Beyond... Worth the costs?

[burgerjockey]

http://www.space.com/news/aps_report_041123.html

It sounds to me as if M2M&B is actually hurting some very promising missions. I would definitely like to see the long term budgeting for this. IMHO other projects seem much more important than getting back to the moon or going to Mars, as far as scientific return is concerned. I think we are making great strides with robotic missions. Does anyone think that M2M&B should supercede everything else going on in NASA?

 

[patnray]

I lean toward developing a rich mix of robotic capabilities as an essential prerequisite to any serious manned missions. Still, if M2M&B superceded the ISS, I suppose that would be progress...

IMHO, the robotics is far more important than a moon base in charting a path for a manned mission to Mars. Develop the "infrastructure" to support a crew before sending them. That's where most of NASA's effort should be directed over the next decade or so.

 

[burgerjockey]

I have no problem with getting back to the moon and moving toward manned missions to Mars. I have a major problem with forcing other missions out that will provide much more information. Too bad we just couldn't get more budgeting to NASA so they could keep what they have going in addition to setting the framework for M2M&B. Yeah, yeah... I know...

 

[Crossbow]

Personally, I do not see much point in manned missions. Granted, there are still many things that people can do much better than anything else, but I do not think that it is worth it once one starts talking about trips to other planets.

Anyway, I would prefer that more resources into robotic missions because they are much cheaper and expendable.

 

[jay gw]

I'm sure the 5 krazillion dollar debt and deficit will support people flying to Mars.

 

[Renfield]

Personally, I do not see much point in manned missions. Granted, there are still many things that people can do much better than anything else, but I do not think that it is worth it once one starts talking about trips to other planets.

Anyway, I would prefer that more resources into robotic missions because they are much cheaper and expendable.

As much as I'd like to see us go to Mars in my lifetime, I have to agree. The cost relative to scientific knowledge gained makes them them hard to justify. Unmanned flights are just so much more effective and efficient.

 

[bjornart]

The difference in results between manned and unmanned missions is that manned missions are more flexible, that people can repair errors that will send an unmanned mission crashing into Mars, and that you get pictures with people in them.

The difference in cost is so huge that the results of manned missions can in no way be defended.

Man can never benefit from the rest of the solar system without huge improvements in robotic capability. I want to see roboting mining of oxygen and water on the Moon and Mars before people go there (again).

 

[Ove]

Unfortunately there is a limit to what can be achieved with robots so sooner or later we'll have to send up people. Personally i would like to see it sooner, the day we give up exploring we die a little. Mans nature has allways been to explore and we should definitely keep on. To me the greatest sin was the total halt to manned space exploration the american congress made back in the 70's. The shuttle is a nice toy but you need real rockets to explore space.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Personally, I do not see much point in manned missions. Granted, there are still many things that people can do much better than anything else, but I do not think that it is worth it once one starts talking about trips to other planets.

Anyway, I would prefer that more resources into robotic missions because they are much cheaper and expendable.

Manned missions is not only a question of effecitvity. It is a question of Human expansion. The Americas could have been explored by robotic mission, had the technology been available at the time, but somehow, it wouldn't have been the same (although you could probably find some that would call that an advantage). Basically, we want to expand the Human species into space.

Hans

 

[burgerjockey]

Manned missions is not only a question of effecitvity. It is a question of Human expansion. The Americas could have been explored by robotic mission, had the technology been available at the time, but somehow, it wouldn't have been the same (although you could probably find some that would call that an advantage). Basically, we want to expand the Human species into space.

Hans

But what if it will be at the cost of other promising missions? I agree that human exploration is essential but I can't see how it should trump everything else going on.

 

[bjornart]

Manned missions is not only a question of effecitvity. It is a question of Human expansion. The Americas could have been explored by robotic mission, had the technology been available at the time, but somehow, it wouldn't have been the same (although you could probably find some that would call that an advantage). Basically, we want to expand the Human species into space.

Hans

The comparison is daft. The Americas are hospitable to humans. It makes little sense to do the exploring by robotics. Space and our neighbouring planets however are extremely inhospitable to Man, and any "expansion" will only be illusory until we can change that. Sending people anywhere into space is, at the moment, a complete waste of time and money. Time and money that could be spent on improving our unmanned mission capability.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by bjornart
The comparison is daft. The Americas are hospitable to humans.

Well frankly, they didn't know that at the time. Not to mention that the mission nearly failed when they were running out of food and water and still hadn't found any land yet.

They took a gamble, and they won the prize ...

Then again, I agree that the robotic mission option hasn't been fully exhausted yet, so there's still plenty more that can be done before humans need to be sent over to continue the job themselves.

 

[patnray]

The difference in results between manned and unmanned missions is that manned missions are more flexible, that people can repair errors that will send an unmanned mission crashing into Mars, and that you get pictures with people in them.

One of the Voyager spacecraft suffered a failure of a capacitor in the high speed radio communication circuit, but the mission was saved by completely reprogramming the craft to store data and use a low speed back up system.

While enroute to Saturn the Cassini craft was found to have a mis-match in the frequencies between the Titan probe transmitter and the Cassini receiver (due to doppler shift of their relative velocities in the original mission profile). The trajectories were shifted to reduce the relative velocities to compensate for the problem.

Robotic missions are quite flexible, by design.

Even if you favor manned exploration of Mars, you must support development of extensive robotic capabilities to provide a dependable infrastructure well before sending manned missions. Any other approach is unnecessarily risky and limits the scientific effort (because much of the human effort will be focused on survival).

Furthermore, no Mars mission, no matter how well supported, is going to create a self-sustaining colony on Mars. Thus, arguments about "expanding the human species into space" are unrealistic pipe dreams at this point in time.

 

[CurtC]

I can think of a couple more examples. The Spirit rover on Mars had a failure of its flash memory, but its software was reprogrammed from Earth so that it avoided the faulty memory locations. Something like that, anyway.

And JPL launched a spacecraft several years ago whose stellar navigation system failed, and it was pretty much abandoned. But one guy at JPL kept working on it, and figured out a way to work around that problem, and it went on to make a flyby of something, a comet maybe? I wish I could find links to this, but I haven't been able to so far.

 

[patnray]

And, unfortunately, having humans on board was not sufficient to prevent disasters in both the US and Soviet space programs when failures happened at critical moments.

During Apollo 13 the crew was able to work out solutions to many problems, but once the explosion occurred the science mission was scrubbed. All effort then focused on returning the humans safely. They were not able to fix the problem and continue the mission.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But what if it will be at the cost of other promising missions? I agree that human exploration is essential but I can't see how it should trump everything else going on.

Which other missions are you thinking about? Sure, robotic missions are very effective, but the question, as I see it, is whether they are to be all we do or whether they are taken as precursors to manned expeditions. In other words, should budgets be adapted for robotic missions only, or thould they take manned missions into account TOO? ... The difference in expenses is about a factor of ten, at least.

But my basic point is: What we do should not be adapted to the budgets. The budgets should be adapted to what we want to do.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The comparison is daft. The Americas are hospitable to humans. *snip*

AND they did NOT have the robotic option, so it is entirely speculative. However, my point is: What do we want to obtain with space exploration? If we are never going to go out there, bodily, why do we want to know in detail how conditions are? Human curiosity, perhaps; but it seems to me that people are asking: "What is the USE of manned missions?", and I say that if you can ask that question, then you must also ask: What is the use of satisfying our curiosity?

So, I don't see it as either/or, but as both. IF we want to explore space, it must be because we want to use space for something, and that ultimately means expansion, then we must follow both paths; we must gather whatever information we can using the safe and comparatively cheap robotic missions, and we must prepare for manned missions. If we don't feel we can afford it all, then we must set the pace according to our economy, but it is a waste of time and money to build half a house.

Hans

 

[Larspeart]

Yes, it is worth the costs, and risks.


MANNED space travel generates interest in the public. Public interest fuels:

Funding
Education
Future scientists, astronauts, researchers, and thinkers.


Probes... generate science, yes, but nothing more. Nothing bores the general public like hearing about an $800million probe floating around in space.

On the contrary, Burt Rutan just BARELY reaching space was HUGE news, even to those not interested in space or science. It was watercooler material, even in my office full of dullards.

 

[bjornart]

So, I don't see it as either/or, but as both. IF we want to explore space, it must be because we want to use space for something, and that ultimately means expansion, then we must follow both paths; we must gather whatever information we can using the safe and comparatively cheap robotic missions, and we must prepare for manned missions. If we don't feel we can afford it all, then we must set the pace according to our economy, but it is a waste of time and money to build half a house.

Hans

Sheesh, there you go with half arsed analogies again.
Exploring the solar system with unmanned probes is not like building half a house. It's like surveying an area to see if its a good place to set up a house. Questions I'd like to have answered before the building starts are: is the ground solid? where will we get the building materials, do we have to ship them from quarries in China and sawmills in Russia, or are there closer sources? once the house is built are there any resources worth extracting, or are they too sparse, too hard to get at, too far away from anywhere we might want to use them?

Manned missions, at this time, are like going on camping trips into the survey area. Sure, you get experience camping, but if you're ever going to build the house you need a different type of information, information that you can get cheaper by sending robotic missions.


And to Larspeart, I doubt Manned space travel generates interest in proportion to its cost. Especially when things blow up. Manned space travel as an interest and funding driver is like running an operation with an advertising budget that's 90% of your turnover.