3 ms·
Life risk aside, the rovers are in many ways significantly less capable than humans. For instance, it took decades for us to send a rover than could "see" just
by Teknoman117 8y ago
Life risk aside, the rovers are in many ways significantly less capable than humans. For instance, it took decades for us to send a rover than could "see" just a bit into the martian rocks by hitting them with a laser or using a small drill. During the moon landings, you just had an astronaut hit one with a rock pick and look inside. It took decades for us to be comfortable sending a rover with a small shovel which could only dig a few inches into the martian soil. During the moon landings, you just had an astronaut with a shovel...
So far, no robot we've sent has been better at tool use than a human. Sure, they don't require life support or consumables, so their longevity is extraordinary, but man, there are so many things that took decades to test for with the robots that a single manned mission would've been able to solve in a few days.
- melling 8y agoYou’re assuming that we can’t make better robots. For the same amount of money as sending humans to Mars, we can develop better robots. Those robots will also be useful on earth of course. From HN in 2014: Someone dying is devastating. Trying to conquer space a handful of people at a time is the slow and dangerous way of accomplishing this task. We should be building machines to explore the solar system. This can be done for a fraction of the cost, time, and it will allow him to allow us to iterate quickly. In 100 years, more humans will live off earth if we iterate with machines, etc now than if we move slowly trying to reduce the risk in order to keep humans safe.