5 ms·

We've already sent a number of drones to Mars. There are rational reasons for wanting to send humans as well: Humans can do things on Mars that drones cannot, a

We've already sent a number of drones to Mars. There are rational reasons for wanting to send humans as well: Humans can do things on Mars that drones cannot, and they pave the way for possible colonization in the future.

_fizz_buzz_ 11y ago
> Humans can do things on Mars that drones cannot Such as? The only thing I can think of is that they can test if the human body can endure life on Mars. Honestly, as cool as sending people to mars is, I don't think it is an idea driven by rationality at this point.
- dinosammy 11y ago
  Humans on mars would inspire future generations with dreams of space travel, which will make them more likely to support higher levels of NASA funding?
  - jcranmer 11y ago
    You mean like how landing on the moon did wonders for NASA's budget?
    - eric_h 11y ago
      More like how the landing on the moon spawned SpaceX, Scaled Composites, etc. - It made people keep shooting for the moon.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Sadly, the more useful something is, the more it is underfunded.
- Fiahil 11y ago
  >> Humans can do things on Mars that drones cannot > Such as? Growing potatoes?
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  I presume more complex experiments on site, that take time and gave a lot of steps and decisions to be taken. of course this also can be automated, and probably at lower cost overall minus potential casualties, but then there is irrational/emotional aspect to getting to a different planet, which is perceived as major milestone in mankind's aspirations. mountaineers also go to potentially deadly situations voluntarily, just because the those peaks "are there". nobody gets satisfied enough from someone's else photos and says "nah, that's enough of an experience for me", albeit view doesn't offer much more. Neither they do send drones up there instead of them :) (btw that would be a nice use case for some remote high-adrenaline-vr gaming with androids!)
- todayiamme 11y ago
  The dexterity of the human body really should not be underestimated. A human being can perform relatively complex analysis in a lab precisely because s/he can move the samples around and whack the equipment a bit if it gets stuck. If you want a robot to do that without getting stuck - ever, then that becomes extremely expensive or you figure out a way to do it in a single chamber like the viking lander did, which is still way more expensive and starts ruling out more complicated forms of analysis. If some element of this mission breaks down, then the human being can also do in-field repairs - something that even the most sophisticated robots of our time can't do. Beyond picking up rocks, the human can traverse the terrain more easily and s/he can climb up and down really steep slopes - even ones at a nearly 90˚ angle. Whether you'd want the human to do that due to safety concerns on an alien world is another matter, but the amount of terrain accessible to this being is far larger than most billion dollar robots. Oh and the human being does all of this while being powered on tuna sandwiches. They might be expensive to send to Mars, but once they're there humans can explore a larger area than all rover missions combined in a single mission.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Sending 1 human to mars requires on the order of 20+ tons of equipment at a minimum, plus consumables. That's a lot of robots, so even if a human was 100 times better than the opportunity rover, sending rovers would still be a better bet. Worse there is a large risk they die before doing anything. If anything Mars is a great opportunity for automation. It has no environment to destroy and with the right design it could end up exporting a constant stream of goods to humanity with zero environmental cost. Nuclear waste for example is a non issue. We could even try things like a space elevator on mars without risk of harming people on earth. PS: For comparison the lunar lander weighed ~36,200 pounds and needed a lot less thrust to get into lunar orbit.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      What goods would you expect to retrieve from Mars? Or do you mean that it would be a great place to locate industry that would create unacceptably high pollution on earth?
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  Until we have AI (since remote control doesn't work in this case) and far, faaaar better robotics, humans are vastly superior to have on Mars. Well, if they're alive, anyway. See also: You can probably do things a roomba can't.
- odonnellryan 11y ago
  The technology required to send people to Mars is not in itself worthless. The motivator is sending people to Mars.
- gambiting 11y ago
  To think of the simplest and silliest example - you can get a shovel and dig as deep as realistically possible. Even our most advanced rovers dig hilariously shallow holes(due to technical limitations) and our science would be improved tenfold if we could simply roll over a couple rocks and punch a few holes through the ground.
yongjik 11y ago
A hypothetical human on Mars can do things that the drones we currently have in Mars cannot. A more interesting question is: how much does it cost to send people to Mars, and if we use the same amount of money to send more robotic probes, what can a hypothetical Martian astronaut do that (equally hypothetical) Martian drone armies cannot.

_fizz_buzz_ 11y ago

> Humans can do things on Mars that drones cannot Such as? The only thing I can think of is that they can test if the human body can endure life on Mars. Honestly, as cool as sending people to mars is, I don't think it is an idea driven by rationality at this point.

dinosammy 11y ago
Humans on mars would inspire future generations with dreams of space travel, which will make them more likely to support higher levels of NASA funding?
- jcranmer 11y ago
  You mean like how landing on the moon did wonders for NASA's budget?
  - eric_h 11y ago
    More like how the landing on the moon spawned SpaceX, Scaled Composites, etc. - It made people keep shooting for the moon.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Sadly, the more useful something is, the more it is underfunded.
Fiahil 11y ago
>> Humans can do things on Mars that drones cannot > Such as? Growing potatoes?
saiya-jin 11y ago
I presume more complex experiments on site, that take time and gave a lot of steps and decisions to be taken. of course this also can be automated, and probably at lower cost overall minus potential casualties, but then there is irrational/emotional aspect to getting to a different planet, which is perceived as major milestone in mankind's aspirations. mountaineers also go to potentially deadly situations voluntarily, just because the those peaks "are there". nobody gets satisfied enough from someone's else photos and says "nah, that's enough of an experience for me", albeit view doesn't offer much more. Neither they do send drones up there instead of them :) (btw that would be a nice use case for some remote high-adrenaline-vr gaming with androids!)
todayiamme 11y ago
The dexterity of the human body really should not be underestimated. A human being can perform relatively complex analysis in a lab precisely because s/he can move the samples around and whack the equipment a bit if it gets stuck. If you want a robot to do that without getting stuck - ever, then that becomes extremely expensive or you figure out a way to do it in a single chamber like the viking lander did, which is still way more expensive and starts ruling out more complicated forms of analysis. If some element of this mission breaks down, then the human being can also do in-field repairs - something that even the most sophisticated robots of our time can't do. Beyond picking up rocks, the human can traverse the terrain more easily and s/he can climb up and down really steep slopes - even ones at a nearly 90˚ angle. Whether you'd want the human to do that due to safety concerns on an alien world is another matter, but the amount of terrain accessible to this being is far larger than most billion dollar robots. Oh and the human being does all of this while being powered on tuna sandwiches. They might be expensive to send to Mars, but once they're there humans can explore a larger area than all rover missions combined in a single mission.
- Retric 11y ago
  Sending 1 human to mars requires on the order of 20+ tons of equipment at a minimum, plus consumables. That's a lot of robots, so even if a human was 100 times better than the opportunity rover, sending rovers would still be a better bet. Worse there is a large risk they die before doing anything. If anything Mars is a great opportunity for automation. It has no environment to destroy and with the right design it could end up exporting a constant stream of goods to humanity with zero environmental cost. Nuclear waste for example is a non issue. We could even try things like a space elevator on mars without risk of harming people on earth. PS: For comparison the lunar lander weighed ~36,200 pounds and needed a lot less thrust to get into lunar orbit.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    What goods would you expect to retrieve from Mars? Or do you mean that it would be a great place to locate industry that would create unacceptably high pollution on earth?
kllrnohj 11y ago
Until we have AI (since remote control doesn't work in this case) and far, faaaar better robotics, humans are vastly superior to have on Mars. Well, if they're alive, anyway. See also: You can probably do things a roomba can't.
odonnellryan 11y ago
The technology required to send people to Mars is not in itself worthless. The motivator is sending people to Mars.
gambiting 11y ago
To think of the simplest and silliest example - you can get a shovel and dig as deep as realistically possible. Even our most advanced rovers dig hilariously shallow holes(due to technical limitations) and our science would be improved tenfold if we could simply roll over a couple rocks and punch a few holes through the ground.

yongjik 11y ago

A hypothetical human on Mars can do things that the drones we currently have in Mars cannot. A more interesting question is: how much does it cost to send people to Mars, and if we use the same amount of money to send more robotic probes, what can a hypothetical Martian astronaut do that (equally hypothetical) Martian drone armies cannot.