5 ms·

Mars is key to humanity’s future in space. It is the closest planet that has the resources needed to support life and technological civilization. ... well, exc

Mars is key to humanity’s future in space. It is the closest planet that has the resources needed to support life and technological civilization. ... well, except for air, and food. But there's water! Which we can detect with sensitive instruments! This whole article has no point. As everyone in the military knows full well, if the benefit is great enough humans will happily risk other human lives, even expend lives, by the thousands and even millions. The "problem" is that there's nothing for humans to do in space that is worth so much as a single human life. This isn't 1937 anymore; the transistor and the IC have been invented and we know how to build robots. These days even the military pilots on Earth spend more and more time in chairs on the ground, steering robots, often from halfway around the world.

rflrob 15y ago
The problem is, humans are so much more effective than robots at planning and independent decision making, which is critical when there's a 8-40 minute communications round trip time. The two wildly successful MER probes Spirit and Opportunity traveled a combined ~40km in around 4,000 sols. A human areologist could cover that much in a week.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  And just how many Spirit probes could one send to Mars for the cost of sending a single human? Based on a bit of Googling, the answer seems to be on the order of "ten", as a minimum. Numbers of $20 billion or so were being thrown around for a manned mission, and the currently-in-transit Mars Science Lab is up past $1.5 billion after a 30% cost overrun: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Balloon100308.xml&headline=Mars%20Science%20Lab%20In%20Doubt&channel=space http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Bal... Given that the $20 billion is a pie-in-the-sky planning number and has yet to experience overruns of its own... Meanwhile, what's the rush? Mars is not going anywhere. And meanwhile too, is your human really going to cover 40km in a week after a ten month trip in free fall? Not at the present state of the art: http://www.space.com/8978-trip-mars-turn-astronauts-weaklings.html http://www.space.com/8978-trip-mars-turn-astronauts-weakling... Or are we shipping an SUV to Mars along with the human and all of her groceries? The Spirit-probe-to-human ratio continues to grow.
  - ericd 15y ago
    It's not something that can just be parallelized away with identical probes. It's the difference between a multifunction calculator and a PC. The PC may weigh 100x as much, but it has an infinitely greater breadth of capability. That's why human spaceflight is going to be important for the foreseeable future. Unless you want to design a separate probe for every conceivable task (some of which we undoubtedly don't know yet).
javajosh 15y ago
"...there's nothing for humans to do in space that is worth so much as a single human life" Wrong. In the long run, even if we achieve some sort of utopia, all life will be destroyed by natural catastrophe. The only way to avoid this fate is to find other places to live. Mars is one of those places; so are the various exoplanets we are finding. Indeed, this is humanities greatest challenge. Can we harness the incredible energy density of oil to get off planet and learn to live sustainably before the oil runs out? There is no doubt that it will be difficult. Humans are so fragile, and the universe is extraordinarily harsh. It's a problem that will demand careful study, creativity, and great personal risk. And I think we can do it.
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
  Why? I have never understood this argument. What's so special about "humanity" that it needs to be preserved? You're born, you live, you die. A species arises, it has its time on Earth, then it's extinct. Why are humans so special that we should bother about eventually going extinct in hundreds of thousands of years?
  - stinkytaco 15y ago
    Biology? Because billions of years of evolution have made us all think: "We should have kids and hang around long enough to make sure they have kids too. That way we can keep this caravan rolling." That's a pretty big motivator.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
      Sure, I get that. That's my I included the "hundreds of thousands of years" modifier. I want my kids to grow up, be happy and have their own kids if they want to, but I really don't care about what happens 100 generations down the road. That's the perplexing part.
      - CamperBob 15y ago
        I want my kids to grow up, be happy and have their own kids if they want to, but I really don't care about what happens 100 generations down the road. Stop trying to think 100 generations ahead -- that's pointless, no one can do that. Instead, think 100 generations back. What if the people alive at the time had been happy with their lots in life, content where they were living, and/or too afraid to try anything new? Where would you be now? Do you really feel good about being part of the generation that finally dropped the ball?

rflrob 15y ago

The problem is, humans are so much more effective than robots at planning and independent decision making, which is critical when there's a 8-40 minute communications round trip time. The two wildly successful MER probes Spirit and Opportunity traveled a combined ~40km in around 4,000 sols. A human areologist could cover that much in a week.

mechanical_fish 15y ago
And just how many Spirit probes could one send to Mars for the cost of sending a single human? Based on a bit of Googling, the answer seems to be on the order of "ten", as a minimum. Numbers of $20 billion or so were being thrown around for a manned mission, and the currently-in-transit Mars Science Lab is up past $1.5 billion after a 30% cost overrun: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Balloon100308.xml&headline=Mars%20Science%20Lab%20In%20Doubt&channel=space http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Bal... Given that the $20 billion is a pie-in-the-sky planning number and has yet to experience overruns of its own... Meanwhile, what's the rush? Mars is not going anywhere. And meanwhile too, is your human really going to cover 40km in a week after a ten month trip in free fall? Not at the present state of the art: http://www.space.com/8978-trip-mars-turn-astronauts-weaklings.html http://www.space.com/8978-trip-mars-turn-astronauts-weakling... Or are we shipping an SUV to Mars along with the human and all of her groceries? The Spirit-probe-to-human ratio continues to grow.
- ericd 15y ago
  It's not something that can just be parallelized away with identical probes. It's the difference between a multifunction calculator and a PC. The PC may weigh 100x as much, but it has an infinitely greater breadth of capability. That's why human spaceflight is going to be important for the foreseeable future. Unless you want to design a separate probe for every conceivable task (some of which we undoubtedly don't know yet).

javajosh 15y ago

"...there's nothing for humans to do in space that is worth so much as a single human life" Wrong. In the long run, even if we achieve some sort of utopia, all life will be destroyed by natural catastrophe. The only way to avoid this fate is to find other places to live. Mars is one of those places; so are the various exoplanets we are finding. Indeed, this is humanities greatest challenge. Can we harness the incredible energy density of oil to get off planet and learn to live sustainably before the oil runs out? There is no doubt that it will be difficult. Humans are so fragile, and the universe is extraordinarily harsh. It's a problem that will demand careful study, creativity, and great personal risk. And I think we can do it.

HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
Why? I have never understood this argument. What's so special about "humanity" that it needs to be preserved? You're born, you live, you die. A species arises, it has its time on Earth, then it's extinct. Why are humans so special that we should bother about eventually going extinct in hundreds of thousands of years?
- stinkytaco 15y ago
  Biology? Because billions of years of evolution have made us all think: "We should have kids and hang around long enough to make sure they have kids too. That way we can keep this caravan rolling." That's a pretty big motivator.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
    Sure, I get that. That's my I included the "hundreds of thousands of years" modifier. I want my kids to grow up, be happy and have their own kids if they want to, but I really don't care about what happens 100 generations down the road. That's the perplexing part.
    - CamperBob 15y ago
      I want my kids to grow up, be happy and have their own kids if they want to, but I really don't care about what happens 100 generations down the road. Stop trying to think 100 generations ahead -- that's pointless, no one can do that. Instead, think 100 generations back. What if the people alive at the time had been happy with their lots in life, content where they were living, and/or too afraid to try anything new? Where would you be now? Do you really feel good about being part of the generation that finally dropped the ball?