5 ms·

It's awesome, but I'd also call it a reality check if you believe that the future of space exploration is unmanned. Curiosity landed landed 8 years ago and has

It's awesome, but I'd also call it a reality check if you believe that the future of space exploration is unmanned. Curiosity landed landed 8 years ago and has covered the equivalent of a day's hike (23km) for a human. It's got to stop and drill, take photos, etc, but it still probably represents only several days worth of tasks for a human. Perseverance has better instruments, but is the same platform and weight because there's no rockets capable of putting anything larger on Mars. It's also not going to be doing anything faster than Curiosity did. The rate of improvement of these robots is really slow. I'm really hoping the next generation of reusable/refillable rockets changes things.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Of course, Perserverance has an in situ resource utilization demo for making oxygen (and carbon monoxide fuel) from the atmosphere, enabling refuelable Mars rockets. Super cool.
dogma1138 6y ago
While true, it's not a good argument, humans would require much more equipment, the rover is limited by the amount of weight we can put on Mars, if you use the same weight allowance that even modest manned missions to mars would require on rovers you'll get a very different coverage. Humans are important because they can think and be in the loop where it matters most, but it's not that they'll be able to cover that much more ground. We don't have the technology to allow for a human to trek 23km on mars yet, even when we will I don't see NASA or anyone approving such a mission so now you need a vehicle capable of transporting humans, providing emergency shelter and life support, the longest single manned trip we've taken on a celestial body was about 7km on lunar roving vehicles. Yes those covered usually around 30KM in a single mission but not in a single trip, all trips were well within visual range and well within recovery distance if need be.
- dmurray 6y ago
  The longest manned lunar rover trip was more like 15km (7.5km out and back on Apollo 17) and the limiting factor there was that the astronauts had to be ready to walk back if it broke down. If the mission called for the astronauts to walk 23km in a single trip on Mars, designing the technology for that would not be a huge leap. I agree the extra weight required for life support and a return journey would be far greater than what the unmanned rovers need.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Starship is designed to land 100 tons of equipment, supplies and people on Mars, and to be built fairly cheaply (close to $100M each). If it can meet those performance parameters the first expeditions will include dozens to hundreds of people and thousands of tons of equipment and supplies. And those folks will produce hundreds of times the scientific value.
LoSboccacc 6y ago
curiosity had to deal with many firsts, like the sharp rocks puncturing its wheels at a higher than predicted rates you want to have many of these 'firsts' moments before launching humans, as long as there's 'firsts' it's going to involve too much risk, even if you plan not returning the humans, getting some there requires a couple order magnitude infrastructure as a rover, so you don't want to lose your investment day 2 from some unforeseen accident. of course you can't predict everything. but the fact that we're still discovering this many issues about the environment is a good indication we haven't discovered enough to get risk to a manageable level
nuccy 6y ago
> Perseverance has better instruments, but is the same platform and weight because there's no rockets capable of putting anything larger on Mars. Actually this statement has two mistakes. First, despite Curiosity and Perseverance indeed share the platform, later is 150kg heavier (1050kg vs 899kg). Second, there are rockets, which are more performant than Atlas V 541, which launched the Perseverance [1]: Atlas V 551, Ariane 5 ECA, Long March 5, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy (expended). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_s...
jjk166 6y ago
How many robots could you send with the same budget (both financial and mass) required for a human mission? If a rover can do 5 days worth of human science over its liftetime, and a human mission would take 100 Billion over the course of the program to send 100 tons (approximately the cost and weight delivered to the lunar surface of the apollo program) then you could do 500 days of science, which is approximately what the human mission would be capable of. That's with less risk to human life and much more flexibility.
- valuearb 6y ago
  A NASA manned Mars mission would cost far more than $100B, because they will require transporting all fuel for return trips, and each pound of fuel will cost over $100,000 to send to Mars using cost plus contractors, ie the SLS. And that’s likely only to land a half dozen astronauts. A SLS can only accelerate 25 tons of payload to Mars intercept orbit, which means at max 10 tons to the surface.. A Mars Direct like mission, as SpaceX is planning for Starship, will send hundreds of astronauts to Mars for less than $10B by leveraging in-orbit refueling and in-situ fuel generation. Using in-orbit refueling each Starship is designed to land 100 tons of crew, supplies and equipment on Mars.

Robotbeat 6y ago

Of course, Perserverance has an in situ resource utilization demo for making oxygen (and carbon monoxide fuel) from the atmosphere, enabling refuelable Mars rockets. Super cool.

dogma1138 6y ago

While true, it's not a good argument, humans would require much more equipment, the rover is limited by the amount of weight we can put on Mars, if you use the same weight allowance that even modest manned missions to mars would require on rovers you'll get a very different coverage. Humans are important because they can think and be in the loop where it matters most, but it's not that they'll be able to cover that much more ground. We don't have the technology to allow for a human to trek 23km on mars yet, even when we will I don't see NASA or anyone approving such a mission so now you need a vehicle capable of transporting humans, providing emergency shelter and life support, the longest single manned trip we've taken on a celestial body was about 7km on lunar roving vehicles. Yes those covered usually around 30KM in a single mission but not in a single trip, all trips were well within visual range and well within recovery distance if need be.

dmurray 6y ago
The longest manned lunar rover trip was more like 15km (7.5km out and back on Apollo 17) and the limiting factor there was that the astronauts had to be ready to walk back if it broke down. If the mission called for the astronauts to walk 23km in a single trip on Mars, designing the technology for that would not be a huge leap. I agree the extra weight required for life support and a return journey would be far greater than what the unmanned rovers need.
valuearb 6y ago
Starship is designed to land 100 tons of equipment, supplies and people on Mars, and to be built fairly cheaply (close to $100M each). If it can meet those performance parameters the first expeditions will include dozens to hundreds of people and thousands of tons of equipment and supplies. And those folks will produce hundreds of times the scientific value.

LoSboccacc 6y ago

curiosity had to deal with many firsts, like the sharp rocks puncturing its wheels at a higher than predicted rates you want to have many of these 'firsts' moments before launching humans, as long as there's 'firsts' it's going to involve too much risk, even if you plan not returning the humans, getting some there requires a couple order magnitude infrastructure as a rover, so you don't want to lose your investment day 2 from some unforeseen accident. of course you can't predict everything. but the fact that we're still discovering this many issues about the environment is a good indication we haven't discovered enough to get risk to a manageable level

nuccy 6y ago

> Perseverance has better instruments, but is the same platform and weight because there's no rockets capable of putting anything larger on Mars. Actually this statement has two mistakes. First, despite Curiosity and Perseverance indeed share the platform, later is 150kg heavier (1050kg vs 899kg). Second, there are rockets, which are more performant than Atlas V 541, which launched the Perseverance [1]: Atlas V 551, Ariane 5 ECA, Long March 5, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy (expended). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_s...

jjk166 6y ago

How many robots could you send with the same budget (both financial and mass) required for a human mission? If a rover can do 5 days worth of human science over its liftetime, and a human mission would take 100 Billion over the course of the program to send 100 tons (approximately the cost and weight delivered to the lunar surface of the apollo program) then you could do 500 days of science, which is approximately what the human mission would be capable of. That's with less risk to human life and much more flexibility.

valuearb 6y ago
A NASA manned Mars mission would cost far more than $100B, because they will require transporting all fuel for return trips, and each pound of fuel will cost over $100,000 to send to Mars using cost plus contractors, ie the SLS. And that’s likely only to land a half dozen astronauts. A SLS can only accelerate 25 tons of payload to Mars intercept orbit, which means at max 10 tons to the surface.. A Mars Direct like mission, as SpaceX is planning for Starship, will send hundreds of astronauts to Mars for less than $10B by leveraging in-orbit refueling and in-situ fuel generation. Using in-orbit refueling each Starship is designed to land 100 tons of crew, supplies and equipment on Mars.