4 ms·

Ok, so the story with microscope was a good one. I was initially shortsighted. But coming back to the recent Mars mission, anyone has any ideas, more or less ac

Ok, so the story with microscope was a good one. I was initially shortsighted. But coming back to the recent Mars mission, anyone has any ideas, more or less accurate/detailed, of how this particular mission will/could benefit our civilization? This is a serious question.

RandallBrown 14y ago
Unlike other mars rovers, Curiousity isn't solar powered. It's nuclear powered. RTGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_gen...) are not new, but I have no doubt that plenty of refinements went into the process to make this one better and more efficient. Now what if this is the next fuel source for cars? We could dramatically cut down on our use of fossil fuels. That's pretty world changing. The automated landing represented a huge engineering challenge as well. Lots of lessons learned can likely be transferred to earthly pursuits. Imagine a rescue helicopter that can automatically fly into dangerous situations and save people. Imagine robots that are faster and more efficient at producing or harvesting food. Then of course, every time we land on a planet, we get better at it. The earth has a finite surface area. Barring major catastrophes, we'll probably fill it up eventually. If the experiments of today can provide a place for the people of the future to move, I think that will be the biggest contribution.
- joering2 14y ago
  Great read, thanks Randall! [+1]. Interesting points, but I don't believe in next 100 years we will be able to live on Mars, or there will be enough justification to move there and spend trillion to pursue that vision (of course this mission only gets us closer). Not only its still extremely expensive to fly there, further the only way to live there is under the shelter, which would cost hundreds of times more than building something similar on Earth. One could only hope that down within the further explorations, there will be possibilities to either mine or produce something that Mars' atmosphere is perfect for, and something that would cost much more to accomplish here on Earth. Eventually, possible monetary gains would create entire new industry with trillion poured in. Wonder what Mars atmosphere is suitable to produce.
  - gaius 14y ago
    Well the instant someone invents the fusion reactor, all that HE3 on the moon is going to be worth mining...
- icegreentea 14y ago
  I should point that while engineering the skycrane was no doubt very difficult, and provided all sorts of lessons and solutions, that if we wanted to develop autonomous helicopters for use on Earth, the best way to do it is infact to develop autonomous helicopters for use on Earth [1] [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scou... [2] http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-kmax-beacon-improves-uav-cargo-delivery-accuracy-070812w/ http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-kmax-bea...
- tripzilch 14y ago
  I was wondering about that nuclear power engine. Is it safe? Because on the one hand they spend all this effort to make sure all the components that go into space are absolutely sterile, in order to not accidentally contaminate the environment on Mars [this really is high priority to NASA], and on the other hand you fly a nuclear reactor there, without anyone or anything to make sure it's contained in the event it might start leaking or something.
melling 14y ago
I'd say that you are still being very shortsighted. Research and discovery are usually a very long progress. Maybe there is something on this mission that directly benefits someone else and maybe there isn't. The fact that you're asking means you completely miss the point.
mturmon 14y ago
1: Development of autonomous robots. The light-time delay forces autonomy. 2: Possibility of discovering signs of prior life on Mars. 3: Baby steps on the way to developing a more robust space presence. I don't want to take the time to flesh these out. You could argue with all of them. You could grant them, and argue about cost/benefit. But ultimately, it's exploration, and there are no guarantees what will turn out, so arguing cost/benefit when benefit is unknown is not an analytical process.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
We're learning more about Mars. It's pretty much precisely the same benefit Spain, France, Portugal, and Britain derived from early expeditions to the New World.
pavel_lishin 14y ago
But coming back to the man grinding the lenses for the count, who at the time had any idea what use his particular occupation could have benefitted their civilization?
vilda 14y ago
When first transistor was invented, they haven't thought of microcomputers or mobile phones. Whey would not imagine CAD systems or modern biomedicine. When first microscope was constructed, the author did not and could not know anything about bacteria or anything other microscopic. Your question is unanswerable yet. Got it now?
abcd_f 14y ago
It's fundamental research. You don't know what you will get out of it, only that you will get it.

RandallBrown 14y ago

Unlike other mars rovers, Curiousity isn't solar powered. It's nuclear powered. RTGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_gen...) are not new, but I have no doubt that plenty of refinements went into the process to make this one better and more efficient. Now what if this is the next fuel source for cars? We could dramatically cut down on our use of fossil fuels. That's pretty world changing. The automated landing represented a huge engineering challenge as well. Lots of lessons learned can likely be transferred to earthly pursuits. Imagine a rescue helicopter that can automatically fly into dangerous situations and save people. Imagine robots that are faster and more efficient at producing or harvesting food. Then of course, every time we land on a planet, we get better at it. The earth has a finite surface area. Barring major catastrophes, we'll probably fill it up eventually. If the experiments of today can provide a place for the people of the future to move, I think that will be the biggest contribution.

joering2 14y ago
Great read, thanks Randall! [+1]. Interesting points, but I don't believe in next 100 years we will be able to live on Mars, or there will be enough justification to move there and spend trillion to pursue that vision (of course this mission only gets us closer). Not only its still extremely expensive to fly there, further the only way to live there is under the shelter, which would cost hundreds of times more than building something similar on Earth. One could only hope that down within the further explorations, there will be possibilities to either mine or produce something that Mars' atmosphere is perfect for, and something that would cost much more to accomplish here on Earth. Eventually, possible monetary gains would create entire new industry with trillion poured in. Wonder what Mars atmosphere is suitable to produce.
- gaius 14y ago
  Well the instant someone invents the fusion reactor, all that HE3 on the moon is going to be worth mining...
icegreentea 14y ago
I should point that while engineering the skycrane was no doubt very difficult, and provided all sorts of lessons and solutions, that if we wanted to develop autonomous helicopters for use on Earth, the best way to do it is infact to develop autonomous helicopters for use on Earth [1] [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scou... [2] http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-kmax-beacon-improves-uav-cargo-delivery-accuracy-070812w/ http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/07/marine-kmax-bea...
tripzilch 14y ago
I was wondering about that nuclear power engine. Is it safe? Because on the one hand they spend all this effort to make sure all the components that go into space are absolutely sterile, in order to not accidentally contaminate the environment on Mars [this really is high priority to NASA], and on the other hand you fly a nuclear reactor there, without anyone or anything to make sure it's contained in the event it might start leaking or something.

melling 14y ago

I'd say that you are still being very shortsighted. Research and discovery are usually a very long progress. Maybe there is something on this mission that directly benefits someone else and maybe there isn't. The fact that you're asking means you completely miss the point.

mturmon 14y ago

1: Development of autonomous robots. The light-time delay forces autonomy. 2: Possibility of discovering signs of prior life on Mars. 3: Baby steps on the way to developing a more robust space presence. I don't want to take the time to flesh these out. You could argue with all of them. You could grant them, and argue about cost/benefit. But ultimately, it's exploration, and there are no guarantees what will turn out, so arguing cost/benefit when benefit is unknown is not an analytical process.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

We're learning more about Mars. It's pretty much precisely the same benefit Spain, France, Portugal, and Britain derived from early expeditions to the New World.

pavel_lishin 14y ago

But coming back to the man grinding the lenses for the count, who at the time had any idea what use his particular occupation could have benefitted their civilization?

vilda 14y ago

When first transistor was invented, they haven't thought of microcomputers or mobile phones. Whey would not imagine CAD systems or modern biomedicine. When first microscope was constructed, the author did not and could not know anything about bacteria or anything other microscopic. Your question is unanswerable yet. Got it now?

abcd_f 14y ago

It's fundamental research. You don't know what you will get out of it, only that you will get it.