5 ms·

> Curiosity [...] has traveled nearly 37 kilometers, drilled into and sampled 42 different rocks, and as of publication has snapped nearly 763,000 photos. Wit

> Curiosity [...] has traveled nearly 37 kilometers, drilled into and sampled 42 different rocks, and as of publication has snapped nearly 763,000 photos. Without in any way minimising the amazing scientific and engineering achievements of the team and the rover: we need crewed space exploration because people on Mars would be able to do the above in significantly less than thirteen years. Or, to put it another way, would do much more science in the same amount of time.

Thrymr 4mo ago
> much more science in the same amount of time. I'm not convinced by the time argument, as astronauts would have limited time on Mars dictated by orbital mechanics and return schedules, but the bigger problem is cost. You are replying to a comment about how rovers and probes are cost effective; there is no way that crewed exploration could accomplish more science than Mars rovers without orders of magnitude more cost.
- rented_mule 4mo ago
  And if we're keeping costs proportional, send orders of magnitude more rovers and that helps the time argument for rovers as well.
- tkcashman 4mo ago
  A manned mission to Mars isn't even on the table yet (sorry, Elon) until we solve several huge problems, including cosmic radiation, landing heavy payloads, and a feasible alternative to chemical propulsion (most likely nuclear, but untested).
  - peterburkimsher 4mo ago
    Not to mention supplying astronauts with food and managing their waste for 6+ months.
  - ozim 4mo ago
    Manned mission to Mars is a fad. But it is important fad just like space mining. We as humanity have to believe we are not in zero sum game to stay decent… Unfortunately last years are showing us how ugly it is with rare earth elements, energy etc. It is also showing what you wrote is true. No one really believes that we can affordably space mine for rare earth and no one believes in Martian colonization that would bring tangible benefits.
    - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
      >No one really believes that we can affordably... People said that about everything. I wore a $10 silk tie to work today and ate toast with a $1 Avacado on it. Marco Polo would shit a brick if he saw Interstate 90.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      It wasn't that long ago that HN had a spirited discussion about how data centers in orbit could not possibly work. But it looks more and more like Musk is going to deliver.
      - contingencies 4mo ago
        [flagged]
    - somenameforme 4mo ago
      If you held the same logic back towards the beginning of humanity then we'd all still be wandering about the woods poking each other with sticks. Most people don't believe things are possible which is probably some sort of evolutionary thing. A society full of people with their head in the clouds probably wouldn't work so great, but humanity would also stagnate without at least some people looking to the stars. This could very well be why planned economies seem to struggle with innovation. People being able to devote significant resources to endeavors, that might not make sense to most, is how you get lots of failures, and the occasional revolutionary successes. Do everything by committee and all you get is a shinier version of what you had last year.
  - hugmynutus 4mo ago
    Add to the list that martian dust contains a massive amount of carcinogens meaning any air/dust lock has to be an ISO-6 clean room. Sure it is a "solved" problem but all the solutions are very heavy.
    - gosub100 4mo ago
      This is the first time I've heard of that. What are some of the carcinogens? I know the radiation is bad there, but I didn't know the regolith was toxic.
- baq 4mo ago
  A geologist with a shovel could do 10 years of Curiosity’s science in an hour.
jahnu 4mo ago
I’m no expert of course but I get the impression that we’re trying to run before we can walk. Many more robotic missions and way more basic research done more scientifically first could quite plausibly get humans there quicker in the end. Reading A City on Mars I found myself thinking this is many orders of magnitude more complicated than Apollo and will take more time.
0cf8612b2e1e 4mo ago
Can we realistically send humans to Mars plus the return trip? I would maybe believe we can do a one way trip and leave those astronauts to die after snapping some pictures.
- ridgeguy 4mo ago
  I suspect there are substantial numbers of us in our 70's+ who would volunteer. Why not go out having made an amazing contribution?
  - adonovan 4mo ago
    I'd be surprised if there's a single person alive who would volunteer for a suicide mission to a miserable cold dark planet and could travel there for nine months in a tin can through a harsh radiation/muscle atrophy/psychological environment and arrive in any condition to conduct useful scientific work.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      Suppose one had a diagnosis of 1 year to live. Why not expend it doing something great?
      - adonovan 4mo ago
        Like enjoying earthly pleasures? The terminally ill do not make good astronauts.
        WalterBright 4mo ago
        I'm not at all suggesting anyone would be forced into this.
        adonovan 4mo ago
        Understood. My point is that the job requirements are almost mutually exclusive: must be physically and mentally fit enough for arduous travel and harsh work, yet basically suicidal.
ianferrel 4mo ago
For the cost of sending one human there for a week, we could send thousands of robots there for years. There is no way that human space exploration is ever cost effective with robot space exploration.
gwill 4mo ago
sending a human there also contaminates the planet more, allowing us to learn less.
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  I will never understand that point of view. Mars is a lifeless rock.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    As far as we know. As of right now, we are reasonably confident that we haven't contaminated it. So if anything resembling biological byproducts turn up we can say with reasonable confidence that we have discovered evidence of historical life on mars. As soon as a human sets foot there that's no longer the case. That said, personally I'm in favor of manned missions to as many bodies in the solar system as possible.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      > As far as we know. You could argue that forever. When is it time to accept that there isn't any there, and if there is, it is insignificant?
      - fc417fc802 4mo ago
        No idea, but presumably that would be after we've explored a fair bit of it. We've barely scratched the surface. It seems quite plausible that there could be ground water. If that's the case (and I suppose even if it's not) it wouldn't be at all surprising for the cave systems to contain microbial life.
        WalterBright 4mo ago
        There's always going to be one more place to search. We should be spreading Terran life everywhere in the solar system, not pretending we are some sort of contagion.
II2II 4mo ago
Manned missions would still have constraints. In some cases, they would be far greater (e.g. due to the necessity of keeping the astronauts alive). Where there are fewer constraints, it would be intertwined with the cost of sending people to Mars. They may be able to travel faster, but a lot of that is going to be because of a larger energy budget. It is doubtful they could travel further, since there are still going to be limits on how far they could travel (humans need infrastructure). That said, perhaps they could cover a larger area (within a smaller radius) than robots. Risk is also a limiting factor, and it is a far bigger one with people. Humans may be more flexible, but you aren't going to have those romantic scenes of people scaling down steep slopes or spelunking in caves. It could be done, but the chances of something going wrong will inhibit it. While on the topic of human flexibility, it is important to understand that it will be limited due to the resources available. What we saw on Apollo 13 wasn't the product of people trying to expand beyond the mission objectives with what is on hand, it was a last ditch effort to save the Apollo crew. They could afford to do unintended things with the equipment on hand since the only other option was to admit defeat then let people die. Even the very much fictional The Martian was based upon that premise. Treating it as a thought experiment: the primary response was to terminate the mission and evacuate. The part about the lone survivor on Mars was about ditching every mission objective in the name of survival. It would be very difficult to even create a fictional narrative of a human team going beyond the abilities of a similarly appointed robotic mission without abandoning reality altogether.

Thrymr 4mo ago

> much more science in the same amount of time. I'm not convinced by the time argument, as astronauts would have limited time on Mars dictated by orbital mechanics and return schedules, but the bigger problem is cost. You are replying to a comment about how rovers and probes are cost effective; there is no way that crewed exploration could accomplish more science than Mars rovers without orders of magnitude more cost.

rented_mule 4mo ago
And if we're keeping costs proportional, send orders of magnitude more rovers and that helps the time argument for rovers as well.
tkcashman 4mo ago
A manned mission to Mars isn't even on the table yet (sorry, Elon) until we solve several huge problems, including cosmic radiation, landing heavy payloads, and a feasible alternative to chemical propulsion (most likely nuclear, but untested).
- peterburkimsher 4mo ago
  Not to mention supplying astronauts with food and managing their waste for 6+ months.
- ozim 4mo ago
  Manned mission to Mars is a fad. But it is important fad just like space mining. We as humanity have to believe we are not in zero sum game to stay decent… Unfortunately last years are showing us how ugly it is with rare earth elements, energy etc. It is also showing what you wrote is true. No one really believes that we can affordably space mine for rare earth and no one believes in Martian colonization that would bring tangible benefits.
  - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
    >No one really believes that we can affordably... People said that about everything. I wore a $10 silk tie to work today and ate toast with a $1 Avacado on it. Marco Polo would shit a brick if he saw Interstate 90.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    It wasn't that long ago that HN had a spirited discussion about how data centers in orbit could not possibly work. But it looks more and more like Musk is going to deliver.
    - contingencies 4mo ago
      [flagged]
  - somenameforme 4mo ago
    If you held the same logic back towards the beginning of humanity then we'd all still be wandering about the woods poking each other with sticks. Most people don't believe things are possible which is probably some sort of evolutionary thing. A society full of people with their head in the clouds probably wouldn't work so great, but humanity would also stagnate without at least some people looking to the stars. This could very well be why planned economies seem to struggle with innovation. People being able to devote significant resources to endeavors, that might not make sense to most, is how you get lots of failures, and the occasional revolutionary successes. Do everything by committee and all you get is a shinier version of what you had last year.
- hugmynutus 4mo ago
  Add to the list that martian dust contains a massive amount of carcinogens meaning any air/dust lock has to be an ISO-6 clean room. Sure it is a "solved" problem but all the solutions are very heavy.
  - gosub100 4mo ago
    This is the first time I've heard of that. What are some of the carcinogens? I know the radiation is bad there, but I didn't know the regolith was toxic.
baq 4mo ago
A geologist with a shovel could do 10 years of Curiosity’s science in an hour.

jahnu 4mo ago

I’m no expert of course but I get the impression that we’re trying to run before we can walk. Many more robotic missions and way more basic research done more scientifically first could quite plausibly get humans there quicker in the end. Reading A City on Mars I found myself thinking this is many orders of magnitude more complicated than Apollo and will take more time.

0cf8612b2e1e 4mo ago

Can we realistically send humans to Mars plus the return trip? I would maybe believe we can do a one way trip and leave those astronauts to die after snapping some pictures.

ridgeguy 4mo ago
I suspect there are substantial numbers of us in our 70's+ who would volunteer. Why not go out having made an amazing contribution?
- adonovan 4mo ago
  I'd be surprised if there's a single person alive who would volunteer for a suicide mission to a miserable cold dark planet and could travel there for nine months in a tin can through a harsh radiation/muscle atrophy/psychological environment and arrive in any condition to conduct useful scientific work.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    Suppose one had a diagnosis of 1 year to live. Why not expend it doing something great?
    - adonovan 4mo ago
      Like enjoying earthly pleasures? The terminally ill do not make good astronauts.
      - WalterBright 4mo ago
        I'm not at all suggesting anyone would be forced into this.
        adonovan 4mo ago
        Understood. My point is that the job requirements are almost mutually exclusive: must be physically and mentally fit enough for arduous travel and harsh work, yet basically suicidal.

ianferrel 4mo ago

For the cost of sending one human there for a week, we could send thousands of robots there for years. There is no way that human space exploration is ever cost effective with robot space exploration.

gwill 4mo ago

sending a human there also contaminates the planet more, allowing us to learn less.

WalterBright 4mo ago
I will never understand that point of view. Mars is a lifeless rock.
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  As far as we know. As of right now, we are reasonably confident that we haven't contaminated it. So if anything resembling biological byproducts turn up we can say with reasonable confidence that we have discovered evidence of historical life on mars. As soon as a human sets foot there that's no longer the case. That said, personally I'm in favor of manned missions to as many bodies in the solar system as possible.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    > As far as we know. You could argue that forever. When is it time to accept that there isn't any there, and if there is, it is insignificant?
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      No idea, but presumably that would be after we've explored a fair bit of it. We've barely scratched the surface. It seems quite plausible that there could be ground water. If that's the case (and I suppose even if it's not) it wouldn't be at all surprising for the cave systems to contain microbial life.
      - WalterBright 4mo ago
        There's always going to be one more place to search. We should be spreading Terran life everywhere in the solar system, not pretending we are some sort of contagion.

II2II 4mo ago

Manned missions would still have constraints. In some cases, they would be far greater (e.g. due to the necessity of keeping the astronauts alive). Where there are fewer constraints, it would be intertwined with the cost of sending people to Mars. They may be able to travel faster, but a lot of that is going to be because of a larger energy budget. It is doubtful they could travel further, since there are still going to be limits on how far they could travel (humans need infrastructure). That said, perhaps they could cover a larger area (within a smaller radius) than robots. Risk is also a limiting factor, and it is a far bigger one with people. Humans may be more flexible, but you aren't going to have those romantic scenes of people scaling down steep slopes or spelunking in caves. It could be done, but the chances of something going wrong will inhibit it. While on the topic of human flexibility, it is important to understand that it will be limited due to the resources available. What we saw on Apollo 13 wasn't the product of people trying to expand beyond the mission objectives with what is on hand, it was a last ditch effort to save the Apollo crew. They could afford to do unintended things with the equipment on hand since the only other option was to admit defeat then let people die. Even the very much fictional The Martian was based upon that premise. Treating it as a thought experiment: the primary response was to terminate the mission and evacuate. The part about the lone survivor on Mars was about ditching every mission objective in the name of survival. It would be very difficult to even create a fictional narrative of a human team going beyond the abilities of a similarly appointed robotic mission without abandoning reality altogether.