2 ms·
Gravity is higher, which is important for Humans. Also the resources are more diverse. And you can study Mars better from the surface of Mars than from the surf
by bayesian_horse 5y ago
Gravity is higher, which is important for Humans. Also the resources are more diverse. And you can study Mars better from the surface of Mars than from the surface of the Moon (duh...).
I'm not a massive fan of Mars colonization. But I do get the appeal of getting manned missions there. Some science really can't be done as well or cheaply by robots alone. Though even with Humans on board, much of the work will be done by robots anyway.
- jvanderbot 5y ago> Some science really can't be done as well or cheaply by robots alone. I'm struggling to imagine how a "lab full of equipment, life support, beds, bathrooms, comms, and return rocketry" doesn't ($-wise) translate much better to "many, many more teleoperated robots with miniaturized labs operated from orbit or Earth with frequent sample return round-trips". Boots on the ground is a moral victory, but I don't see the science victory until you get enough equipment / personnel there to get a thriving ecosystem of thought in-situ. Not to mention: Astronauts are rarely the scientists that study the place they are going. Now an ISS around Mars? That makes a lot of sense to me.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoHumans can get a lot more work done, just by their dexterity, flexibility and ability to learn and adapt. For robots, even simple tasks have to be pre-planned, in this case sometimes years in advance. It is conceivable that you could build a robot/machine that can collect one type of sample and do one type of analysis cheaper and quicker than a Human. However, human astronauts can do multiple types of these, maybe even adapt them on the fly.
- jvanderbot 5y agofor this, teleoperation from orbit seems reasonable. It's not been tried however.