3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoStarship 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.