13 ms·

I don't know much about the intricacies of asteroid mining, but human beings are very capable entities. As great as machines like the Mars rovers are, there's n

I don't know much about the intricacies of asteroid mining, but human beings are very capable entities. As great as machines like the Mars rovers are, there's no comparison. A human astronaut could probably accomplish as much in a week as a Mars rover can in a year. When I was reading the daily diaries of one of the rover drivers, it was incredible how much effort and thought went into the most trivial activities. A simple sounding task like "go look at that rock 20 meters away and take a picture of it" would be a multi-day effort, whereas it would only take an astronaut a few minutes

dgritsko 6y ago
Do you have a link to said "daily diaries?" They sound fascinating, but this is the first I've heard of them.
- zidel 6y ago
  https://marsandme.blogspot.com/ https://marsandme.blogspot.com/ is Scott Maxwells blog about driving Spirit + Opportunity
  - dgritsko 6y ago
    Awesome, thanks!
Chathamization 6y ago
> A human astronaut could probably accomplish as much in a week as a Mars rover can in a year. The estimates I've seen for a human mission to Mars are about 100-500 times the budget for Curiosity. So even if astronauts could accomplish things 52X faster (and I'm skeptical they would), it still wouldn't be as cost efficient. And that's even before you factor in the fact that the Mars Rover is going to be doing work on Mars much, much longer than a human mission would (Curiosity is going on 8 years). Human space exploration is a solution in search of a problem. People don't seem to be rationally looking for the best way to get certain information from Mars or for the best sources of materials that could be obtained with future technology (there are many overlooked terrestrial ones) and soberly deciding that astronauts are the best answer. They seem to start out with the goal of defending human space exploration, and then searching for problems to try to justify it.
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  People who feel passionately about something impractical can get pretty creative trying to justify their passion. The creativity is the output here -- not the stated goal.
- trentdk 6y ago
  I appreciate your thoughts, but they are sad thoughts to me. Isn’t there something about “exploration” that seems important to a non-neglible amount of humans? I don’t want everything we do to serve the rat race we’re in. Let’s loose our money on something amazing.
  - kiba 6y ago
    We send humans into space because we want to, science and engineering benefits are side rewards.
  - Chathamization 6y ago
    Sure, as a society we do some things purely for emotional reasons. But we should be honest about that - we shouldn't pretend that the reason we're building the Washington monument is because of it's potential use as a grain silo. There's a lot more to exploration than space exploration (I think exploring something like the human brain will end up having a greater emotional and practical impact myself). But even if we just look at space exploration, we don't really get a lot from human space flight. As I said, in situations where it's possible to use human astronauts, robots seem like they would be more effective. And for most of the places in our solar system, we simply won't be able to use humans at all anytime soon. The missions to, say, Europa are going to be done by robots. Still, many people, including myself, enjoyed watching the launch. Maybe something like this is more analagous to a cathedral or memorial.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Light lag is one reason for humans to go. Until we crack robotics and AI to the point science can do itself (which I doubt it'll happen in the next 30-50 years), we'll still need humans micromanaging the robots remotely, and it's much easier to do with HD video streams and with millisecond RTT when you're on a science ship orbiting the body in question, vs. using occasional photos that take hours to send, on top of 3-22 minutes of lag, as we have now with Mars. Not to mention, a probe or rover sent far away all have to go through one of the few DSNs, that can only do so much and so fast[0], and are generally scarce services. Forget about e.g. running 20 simultaneous robotic missions in different areas of Mars. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Deep_Space_Network#Current_signal_processing_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Deep_Space_Network#Curren...
xjlin0 6y ago
Once the job finished, the machine is dispensable, but the astronaut definitely wanna go home, which will cost much much more.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Has nobody considered sending an older astronaut and not bothering with a return trip? I could imagine a lot of volunteers if you promised 5 years worth of dried food, comms back to earth and lots of fame.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Nobody knows their own life expectancy and geriatrics are perhaps not most suitable to survive in a harsh environment, running around an alien planet all day.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Of course they did. It sparked a huge controversy back in ~2010-2013, when some known scientists and popular science authors (I'm pretty sure it was either L. Krauss or M. Kaku, but can't for the life of me find a reference now) started speaking up that sending older people on one-way trips would be a great way to lay foundations for a Mars colony, and there are lots of people who would happily volunteer to work until death on Mars.
  - jotm 6y ago
    I'd volunteer. It would be the adventure of a lifetime (literally). But this is something that's not going to be allowed. Look at all the safety measures they're putting in spacecraft to ensure people live. No way is anyone going to approve a one way trip to Mars. I sometimes wish people were more comfortable with their own mortality and death in general, but that's how all the humans with "warrior genes" died off.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      "No way is anyone going to approve a one way trip to Mars." If you would have the rockets and equipment and a place in a small state to launch the rockets: who do you need to approve it?
danjac 6y ago
I don't know enough about any of the relevant fields to speak with confidence about what advancements are more likely to happen in the next few decades, but it feels that the number of things we'd need to get better at to send humans further than lunar orbit with a decent chance of survival represent a far greater challenge than the relatively modest progress we would need to make in AI to make more capable and independent exploration craft.

dgritsko 6y ago

Do you have a link to said "daily diaries?" They sound fascinating, but this is the first I've heard of them.

zidel 6y ago
https://marsandme.blogspot.com/ https://marsandme.blogspot.com/ is Scott Maxwells blog about driving Spirit + Opportunity
- dgritsko 6y ago
  Awesome, thanks!

Chathamization 6y ago

> A human astronaut could probably accomplish as much in a week as a Mars rover can in a year. The estimates I've seen for a human mission to Mars are about 100-500 times the budget for Curiosity. So even if astronauts could accomplish things 52X faster (and I'm skeptical they would), it still wouldn't be as cost efficient. And that's even before you factor in the fact that the Mars Rover is going to be doing work on Mars much, much longer than a human mission would (Curiosity is going on 8 years). Human space exploration is a solution in search of a problem. People don't seem to be rationally looking for the best way to get certain information from Mars or for the best sources of materials that could be obtained with future technology (there are many overlooked terrestrial ones) and soberly deciding that astronauts are the best answer. They seem to start out with the goal of defending human space exploration, and then searching for problems to try to justify it.

jeffdavis 6y ago
People who feel passionately about something impractical can get pretty creative trying to justify their passion. The creativity is the output here -- not the stated goal.
trentdk 6y ago
I appreciate your thoughts, but they are sad thoughts to me. Isn’t there something about “exploration” that seems important to a non-neglible amount of humans? I don’t want everything we do to serve the rat race we’re in. Let’s loose our money on something amazing.
- kiba 6y ago
  We send humans into space because we want to, science and engineering benefits are side rewards.
- Chathamization 6y ago
  Sure, as a society we do some things purely for emotional reasons. But we should be honest about that - we shouldn't pretend that the reason we're building the Washington monument is because of it's potential use as a grain silo. There's a lot more to exploration than space exploration (I think exploring something like the human brain will end up having a greater emotional and practical impact myself). But even if we just look at space exploration, we don't really get a lot from human space flight. As I said, in situations where it's possible to use human astronauts, robots seem like they would be more effective. And for most of the places in our solar system, we simply won't be able to use humans at all anytime soon. The missions to, say, Europa are going to be done by robots. Still, many people, including myself, enjoyed watching the launch. Maybe something like this is more analagous to a cathedral or memorial.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Light lag is one reason for humans to go. Until we crack robotics and AI to the point science can do itself (which I doubt it'll happen in the next 30-50 years), we'll still need humans micromanaging the robots remotely, and it's much easier to do with HD video streams and with millisecond RTT when you're on a science ship orbiting the body in question, vs. using occasional photos that take hours to send, on top of 3-22 minutes of lag, as we have now with Mars. Not to mention, a probe or rover sent far away all have to go through one of the few DSNs, that can only do so much and so fast[0], and are generally scarce services. Forget about e.g. running 20 simultaneous robotic missions in different areas of Mars. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Deep_Space_Network#Current_signal_processing_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Deep_Space_Network#Curren...

xjlin0 6y ago

Once the job finished, the machine is dispensable, but the astronaut definitely wanna go home, which will cost much much more.

londons_explore 6y ago
Has nobody considered sending an older astronaut and not bothering with a return trip? I could imagine a lot of volunteers if you promised 5 years worth of dried food, comms back to earth and lots of fame.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Nobody knows their own life expectancy and geriatrics are perhaps not most suitable to survive in a harsh environment, running around an alien planet all day.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Of course they did. It sparked a huge controversy back in ~2010-2013, when some known scientists and popular science authors (I'm pretty sure it was either L. Krauss or M. Kaku, but can't for the life of me find a reference now) started speaking up that sending older people on one-way trips would be a great way to lay foundations for a Mars colony, and there are lots of people who would happily volunteer to work until death on Mars.
- jotm 6y ago
  I'd volunteer. It would be the adventure of a lifetime (literally). But this is something that's not going to be allowed. Look at all the safety measures they're putting in spacecraft to ensure people live. No way is anyone going to approve a one way trip to Mars. I sometimes wish people were more comfortable with their own mortality and death in general, but that's how all the humans with "warrior genes" died off.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "No way is anyone going to approve a one way trip to Mars." If you would have the rockets and equipment and a place in a small state to launch the rockets: who do you need to approve it?

danjac 6y ago

I don't know enough about any of the relevant fields to speak with confidence about what advancements are more likely to happen in the next few decades, but it feels that the number of things we'd need to get better at to send humans further than lunar orbit with a decent chance of survival represent a far greater challenge than the relatively modest progress we would need to make in AI to make more capable and independent exploration craft.