Slashdot Mirror
One Year Until Phoenix Mars Mission Launch
pipcorona writes "The principal investigator of the Phoenix Mars Lander Mission released an article yesterday describing how the mission is progressing, talking about landing sites and informing the public that they are officially one year away from launch." From the article: "In parallel with the assembly of the spacecraft, our Payload Interoperability Testbed (PIT) in the Tucson Science Operations Center has been integrating engineering models of all the science instruments. Besides validating the integration procedures for the instruments, this facility will be used to verify that all our instruments work as a team-important since they were developed individually. In particular, the digging of soils and delivery of samples to instruments will be thoroughly tested."
Dear NASA,
We were pleased to learn about your upcoming Phoenix mission, and look forward to this opportunity to once again secretly study your technology from our invisible bunkers on the Martian surface. (Whatever you do, don't try to dig below 500m, retaliation will be swift and final.)
On your journey, please keep in mind that Mars uses the metric system. Any space probes detected using "Imperial" units (whose very name are an affront to the Martian Emperor, may he live forever) will be silently deflected by the planetary protection shields.
Yours truly,
Mars Department of Blue Planet Studies and Relations
P.S. Regarding any rumors you may have heard about invasion, don't worry, the chances of anything coming from here are a million to one...
I fear something terrible may have befallen K'Breel, or his gellsacs...
I couldn't help picturing the Earthlings setting up a Mars landing base, then being overrun by all the native Martian hunams armed with little spears and rocks.
I dunno. I'm not sure if it's wise to plan such a launch a whole year in advance. How does anyone involved with the project know what they'll be doing in a year? If they're anything like me, they don't. Not only that, but August is a really bad month for launch dates. Most people are on vacation then. Shouldn't they schedule it for September, after the kids have gone back to school?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Col. Gulliver, commander of the mission, will come up with some plan before they get us in our sleep. Damn those hunams!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Oh come on, some of us know that the Martians are just going to shoot this one down too.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
for Dan Quayle.
Phoenixes... quayles... same difference.
Maybe, and remember, just maybe, this spending of money will produce as side effects a lot of new technologies.
And sometimes, again, just sometimes, things such as researches work as a chain of events in a way that we can't see the results until they are already upon us:
take for instance this to this this
And Ta-DA!! We have NASA's technology reducing poverty in the world! Isn't science marvelous!?
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Because of trademark issues with the BIOS manufacturer Phoenix Technologies, the mission name has been changed to Firebird. There are rumors that it may change again before launch.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
;-)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
So, to to all the people saying we don't *need* space-exploration (human or otherwise); we don't *need* the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxery, etc.
The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.
Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.
But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.
But, as I have said, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Reporter to director of NASA: "Do you think that the launch will proceed on schedule?" Director of NASA: "No. God no."
I have sent letters to my congresspeople on this very issue. Funding for, support for, and most importantly belief in space travel and the benefit to mankind is of tantamount importance. But, it is greatly important to be the 'first' in this endeavor. In the past, the United States has had its share of 'firsts' and 'not firsts' (re: Soviet Space Program and Yuri Gagarin). This wouyld put American in the lead again with a tremendous milestone and achievement for mankind.
-- "Mathematics is music for the mind, and Music is Mathematics for the Soul. - J.S. Bach"
Someone warn the Ice Warriors, giant nostalgia robots, Selenites, fey yet lovable ant things, bungling green men with swimming caps, Servants of the Dark Lord Xenu, and all the rest that we'll be coming by for dinner.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I wonder if they'll find any bulges on Mars too.. what an irony that would be.
Why in the heck would we be launching a stationary lander when the Spirit and Opportunity have been roving the surface for over 2 years? Think of how crudy the rover missions would have been if they were stuck in one spot. We would have seen the inside of 1 ten foot crater and a rubble monoscape. Instead the rovers have climbed mountains, traversed huge craters, found exotic sedimentary deposits, and produced amazing panoramas. Mobility is invaluable. What are NASA planners thinking?
an ill wind that blows no good
Yet another sissy little rover to jingle jongle happily around, collecting rocks and puffing at the effort of trying to climb over its own airbags. Isn't it time we sent something SERIOUS? (Like, say, all the lawyers, market researchers and PR specialists). Long live Douglas Adams, may he rest in (42) pieces. (and on a completely different note - Every time I hear about yet another mission to Mars - I get reminded of this picture I saw after they sent the first "Rover" - You can see it standing in front of two martians holding a picture of Martian rocks while in the background you see a hugh Martian city, with one alien saying to the other - "Hold still, its about to take a picture". Anyone with a link to this will win serious Kudos points).
NASA does something in every state, if not every congressional district.
(see also: Joint Strike Fighter, and -- lest the Europeans gloat -- anything made by Airbus)
You don't even need to go that far. What is the main benefit we get out of exploring space? Research. Plain and simple. I can't even imagine how far and wide space research has influenced technology today. Better understanding of flight mechanics and materials have improved the aerospace industry. The need to ensure the safety of astronauts has lead to new technology trickling down into the medical industry. New manufacturing processes. New scientific instruments. Velcro. TANG! Even if we learn absolutely nothing directly from this mission there is always going to be derivative technology from what we had to develop to get there. The benefits of research are innumerable.
You have never met any serious Greenpeacy treehuggers, have you?
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Must be some hubris over there to name a mission Phoenix. Sure, people will say it's a hoax, but to openly state it? That's guts.
:)
What? But... but... You mean "Phoenix" *isn't* pronounced "foe-knee"? Look at the first part, "Phoe". You pronounce "hoe" with a long 'O' sound, so logically, this would be "foe". Then there's the ending, "ix". There aren't many 'ix' words, but everyone remembers "prix" (as in racing), which is pronounced "pree". So, logically, "Phoenix" should be pronounced "foe-knee", right?
is a spel cheker. Wea kan aford it, sinse we didn't waste mony on colege.
(Beware the grammar ninja)
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
LOL
;-)
That, or I'm not native english, and the spellcheckers I have are in my own language.
It's sometimes funny how people automatically assume everyone should speak/write perfect english, while they would fare far worse, if the international language was something else then their native tongue. And sometimes, it is annoying for non-english speaking people on Slashdot (and anywhere else) to always get those remarks, especially knowing full well *they* often can speak/write hardly any other language at all. That mentality is rather difficult to understand too; I am always thrilled if a foreigner does the trouble of speaking/writing my language; I never chastised one for doing that effort, even when he makes mistakes, since that would rather be presumptious and arrogant of me.
Well, guess it's a 'cultural difference'-thing. I never bothered making a fuss about the spelling or grammatical errors of somebody who didn't speak my language; as long as I understand what he means, I'd rather have a discussion about the content, not the form.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"Phoenix", eh? They probably hope that it will rise from the ashes after atmospheric entry...
Nuffsaid
________
Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
Yep the space program gave us TANG, anyone remember tang? Although that ones kind of lost in the 40,000 other drinks we have now. The space program has given us many many other things, Firefighter protection, smoke alarms, ear thermometers, Joystick controllers and on and on.
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
Some opponents of human space exploration set science as the major interest, and go on to say that much more science can be done by robots, costs being equal.
Anyway, many (most?) people agree that one should not necessarily limit oneself to economically viable things, and that it is desirable for mankind to colonize space, there is disagreement on the price that should be paid for that endeavor. Especially if you believe that manned spaceflight can be made affordable and therefore economically viable (if only for space tourism).
When it is affordable, colonization and exploration will be much cheaper and not depend on multi-decade internationally state-sponsored efforts. This will be much easier, and more exploration (and science too) will be done with less taxpayer money. After all, Columbus would not have been granted all the funding necessary for a huge research effort into creating shipbuilding technology; he was given a couple of standard-technology ships.
Now, add to the mix that the massive investment of NASA credits into making expensive launchers is an economic deterrent for the development of cheaper launchers, and you can well conclude that supporting space exploration implies opposing existing space agencies... ;-)
I think the economic advantages are high as well. Think of the technology that filters down from these experiments and projects. We have computers that do not occupy an entire room because of the need to fit them on spacecraft. Also, things like teflon and kevlar came about from hi-tech experimentation that resulted from previous breakthroughs that may be attributed to our space program as well.
"A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish"
Bottom line here is like all things in the universe,.. this planet will eventually die. Humans have to look to technology to get us off this rock. Keep your religion (humans seem to need it) but push technology as fast as possible also.
Kill your TV
"Some opponents of human space exploration set science as the major interest, and go on to say that much more science can be done by robots, *costs being equal*."
;-)
;-)"
;-) But, at the end, I think it's necessary to go ahead with human exploration, and that is so expensive that, aside from space-tourism, the real 'exploration' can only be done by space-agencies. I mean, no company is ever going to waste money for mere exploration; they only will do anything, if they can see a profit (which is what companies do). Thus, *they* only see the economic incentive; something we both seem to agree should not be the case. It's not logical to leave everything up to them, then.
And thus, it IS a matter of economics, because no one is seriously going to claim humans are less versatile and able to do in situ research then whatever robot we can create these days, if costs do not matter. Robots do not do a better job then humans; they only do a better job per buck that is being put in (exept for human-biological spaceresearch, of course). With this I agree, as I said.
The argument about 'let's do it when it becomes affordable' is, indeed, also very much heard, but I think this is a bit of false argument. I mean by that, that it can be used all of the time, for everything. For instance, let's imagine in a hundred years technology has become so cheap one can send humans to Mars for a tenth of the price of today. Well, then, if technology has become so cheap, it has become equally cheap for robotic missions, so it STILL will be 1000 times cheaper to send probes and robots then humans. and this will *always* be true: it will always be far more expensive to send humans then robots, nomatter how cheap things get. So, one no distinction for a treshold with this argument since the relative price-difference will always exist, and thus, it becomes rather arbitrary to decide what costs are worth it. I think it's worth the costs now, you may think it's not, but purely base on this 'argument' one can never reach a logical consensus, since the argument merely boils down to an opinion.
Thus, I leave that economic argument for what it is, and, as said earlier, I argue from other reasons beside the purely economical.
"After all, Columbus would not have been granted all the funding necessary for a huge research effort into creating shipbuilding technology; he was given a couple of standard-technology ships. "
Yes, but if they had made that huge research effort&funding, instead of 'waiting' for standard, more affordable ships (in analogy with what you claim), they could have discovered America 100 years sooner!
"Now, add to the mix that the massive investment of NASA credits into making expensive launchers is an economic deterrent for the development of cheaper launchers, and you can well conclude that supporting space exploration implies opposing existing space agencies...
Well, let's be honest; if it had been up to NASA, the spaceshuttle would never have been made in the first place. That expensive piece of 'launchvehicle' was the result of political compromise. And I'm not counter-arguing that politicians often squander huge amounts of money.
And, as said, if you argument that not only companies (or the economic viewpoint) should matter, then we're back at the starting point: it will always be cheaper to send probes than to send humans, and thus, always that much more science can be done by robots, costs being equal.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
It gave us joystick controllers? Learn a little history, joysticks have been around since AT LEAST early fixed wing flight. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't around before even that. Granted, the old stick controls in aircraft are slightly different but as most astronauts were old test pilots the concept of a stick was normal to them and they worked well with it.
"Keep your religion (humans seem to need it)"
;-)
:-)
That's the only part I don't agree with in your post.
Atheists and agnostici don't seem to need it, and they are humans too!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Actually August is a terrible month for launch. From Florida, anyway because you often get thunderstorms in the afternoon and lightning does not play well with tall metal objects. This can cause a lot of headaches.
This login name for sale.
Not a reassuring name for the astronauts riding atop tens of thousands of pounds of rocket fuel.
(dictionary.com)
Phoenex: A bird in Egyptian mythology that lived in the desert for 500 years and then consumed itself by fire, later to rise renewed from its ashes.
But perhaps that last part suggests we could clone the astronauts back if there were a mishap.. ?
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
What a load of crap. The marginal cost of duplicating the rovers, perhaps many time, and even adding soil sampling experiments, has to be less than a new dedicated mission. The problem is NASA planetary operations are far too mission focused. It has always been like that. It is like that to this day. There are few common spacecraft buses and subsystems. With the increasing frequency of Mars missions there needs to be much more technical continuity.
an ill wind that blows no good
keep in mind that the achievements that trickled down came from trying to keep *humans* alive in space. If necessity is the mother of invention, then there's massive amounts of invention to be made in space exploration. What we need to do is dedicate some people to the project and say "lie, cheat, steal, buy, make, invent, develop. Do what you absolutely need to and get self-sufficient in space."
This does a few things for us: 1) proves that we *can* colonize space 2)opens the door up to the rest of us once a foothold's been established and new transportation's been developed 3)the "necessary" inventions in space could potentially be conveniences here on 1g earth 4) harsher environments require heavier-duty equipment that might use cheaper resources-- always a plus here on earth 5)0g environments would allow people like paraplegics would have complete mobility through their environment without restrictions to their chairs. Bedridden would not have the pressures of body weight on them. Bones might even heal faster when broken?
There are many long-term reasons for mass 0g colonization.
One thing I have a question about is building resources. Earth has a great spread of many of the elements and thus many thousands of compounds that are produced every day; this spread of building material came about through centuries of mining operations. How on mars, or better yet, the moon, are we going to be able to create a scalable building material in a single or 2 generation time-frame?
I turn to the inspirational science fiction that brings out the concepts of post-humanism.
You have the neo-philus human, who embraces change and looks to the future.
And you have the neo-phobus human, who fears change, and looks back to comfort or tradition as the answer against change.
Remember, most economic markets rely on a lack of change to prop them up. When volatility or change is introduced, heads roll by the hundreds. Beyond "growth", markets crave routine and predictable paths. That's why the natural move is towards a conglomeration or monopoly in big biz - there is less guess work about who is #1 where there are only 2 choices.
It takes the neophiles who also manage to make money to help introduce change into those same systems, and turn new ideas into new policy. We got the space program kicking into full blast when we were against the Soviets, as it was good for business at the time to fight "Communism" and boost Cold-War type spending for all the companies involved. And now space ideas turn into yearly federal budget alotments and not just blue-sky speculative investments from eccentrics.
This is also why the climate change debate is important. We need to be able to turn the renewable energy and CO2 reduction ideas into firm policy by drawing those afraid of change into the camps of the neophiles. Then we will have the financial heft needed to support research to keep moving forward. Even those dinosaur-burning dinosaurs known as the auto & power industries are finally getting on board to some small extent due to years of tireless science showing people that the change is inevitable and soon, no matter what humanity's debated impact is.
Of course you can't imagine it. Because it hasn't happened. Contrary to popular belief and decades of NASA propoganda - the technology transfer from space to other fields has been essentially nil.
Historically various providers of space rated components have been conservative in the extreme - they tend to use and reuse the same materials again and again. Partly because it's expensive and difficult to qualify new materials, partly because the costs of a mistake are so high. Overall, they (the space industry) wait until a new material has been thoroughly proven in another application before trying it themselves. (Kapton for example has been used for insulation (both electrical and thermal) since the mid 60's.)
Not really. Medical monitoring systems at use in a typical hospital are better than that used by the astronauts by orders of magnitude or more. The systems used by the medical industry are a seperate (and much more advanced) evolutionary path.
And generally ones not needed elsewhere because spacecraft need combinations of lightness, strength, and extreme enviroments not found anywhere else.
Both developed prior to and seperate from the space program.
Based on history to date - no, there won't be.
Well - the biggest reason is;
I'm an aerospace engineer. I need the work.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Think of the universe as a larger being, with the planets being small protons and nutrons, and the sun being the nuclei. We are just a microscopic part of this being.. Each planet has a distinct reason for being, as with each cell and neuron in everything that we percieve as being alive. If you actually think about this theory, It probably one of the most logical. When you look deeply at something what do you see, little atoms, with small protons and nutrons circling around a nucleus. If you were to swap out, or change one of the protons, chaos prevails... Now should we really be sending probes into outer space? Or trying to change the red proton, to a green one? Globally we could be a virus to this "larger being", Depending on how healthy we keep it...
You are surely talking out of your ass. It would be easy and cheap to equip a rover with a drill or trenching tool and get the benefit of both. Also the chance of plunking a lander down on exactly the right spot to sample is low. A rover would greatly increase the odds of finding a good site to sample. By the way I am a geologist.
an ill wind that blows no good
...won't mix up the decimal and imperial measurement systems again... LOL LOL LOL LOL
Besides, if you're right, then the universal superbeing could do with some shaking up. It reminds me of Zorg in the Fifth Element:
NASA was generally planning to send some sort of Mars mission every 26-month optimum energy launch window. However planning and building a mission takes 3-4 of these cycles. So the lessons of current mission were too late to seriously affect a 2007 mission.
Atheists & Agnostic -a small percentage of the tribal human species. Faith is a flaw in the human mind if you were to ask me ;) Excepting that we humans hold our final outcome is damn scary for most of the world. -BuTT lets say religion or better.. organized religion were never to have existed. Think how far ahead we would be now as a species.
Yet peoples faith can not be put aside, there mind is stuck in an infinite loop with no way out.
I have come to the understanding that we are floating around a vast universe that will take us from behind someday. On that day we will have needed to have put all our resources into making sure we survive as a species. -by moving to other planets eventually. Only the strong survive.
Kill your TV
Looking at the logo, it should be called the Firefox Mars Lander.
You're off your chump. In case you hadn't looked around you recently, there are billions of useless human beings on this planet. We need to fix the problems here before we even consider wasting money on 'finding' another earth like planet. We already have a paradise, it's just a shame that most human beings are too stupid to realise this, and ruin it. Don't you love Earth? What planet would be better than this? What about a planet without any nasty people on it, only nice people? Why not spend your energy trying to promote THAT ideal, which is actually achievable, instead of fantasising about some other planet? I for one wouldn't be able to sleep at night, living on the 'new planet', knowing that back home, billions of people were ruining each other's lives, not to mention torturing and killing billions of innocent animals every year.
No doubt you believe that we should eat meat and milk and eggs on our spacecraft too...
"Atheists & Agnostic -a small percentage of the tribal human species."
;-)
You've clearly not been to Europe the last 50 years
(Well, ok, not counting the new EU members)
"Only the strong survive."
Actually, it's the ones that adapt best to their environement. But I mostly agree with the general tenure of your posts.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You make some very good points. I'll try to respond in kind.
;-). More realistically, you DO have people who feel any money given to space-exploration is squandering money that could be used more useful (you even have some that think everything the governement does is throwing money away, and want to abolish taxes). Then, you have people who are not against it per sé, but have reservations about how it's used, because they think it isn't used in an economical (or most science/per buck) enough way (like you). And you also have people who just think the main goal should be space-exploration, and especially human space-exploration (and eventual colonisation), and think that is worth the money.
;-) survive and thrive in space and on planets. And I agree space-probes certainly have their uses (scientifically and otherwise) and shouldn't be completely abolished for human space-exploration; rather I see the one complementing the other, and thus money should be spend on both human and robotic missions. But it still is a matter of degree (and of your stated goal). I mean, let's face it, people that think it's worth the extra price to send humans in space this century (or during their lifetime), will not be swayed by the argument that if they wait longer, or you plan for something 3 centuries away, it will be much cheaper (few taxpayers will have that long-term views where they wish to spend money on). Once again, it's a matter of degree. I mean, most people would want to wait a year, if costs would come down with 50% because of the research done during that year, obviously. Or if it yielded a 50% more scientific output, or it meant humans would colonise space in a far more permanent or faster way. But the same people might not agree if
"What I should have said is this. First, if the taxpayers are prepared to set aside a fixed amount of money for spaceflight, then you have to take the economic point of view in order to make the most of what you have; the "we should do it anyway" attitude comes down to convincing the government to increase the budget, which is separate from the best way of using it."
Well, yes, but note that you already use a premise about what 'the best way of using it' is. I agree it's the duty of the government not to squander taxmoney away, and I agree they often do that. But, it really all depends on what the goal is you think NASA & co should do. I mean, for the weirdo that thinks government should squander away money, then they are doing a fine job
Now, in all of these cases, 'the best way to use' the money will inevitably lead to other kinds of actions and decisions. For instance, if you want human space colonisation to happen in your lifetime, then you are less inclined to view money spend on human-based space-efforts as wasted, even if it results in lesser scientific yields then if the same money had been spend on robotic scientific missions.
Only to show that your premise of how money is best spend, really can not be answered without taking in acount the goal you want to achieve. Note, for instance, that the argument of waiting longer so things become more affordable, could also be used by people who think money on space is wasted anyway; so why not wait until it becomes more cheap before sending anything in space? To some degree, it seems you also agree to the importance of underlying goals.
"If the stated goal is to do science, and robots give you more science on a given budget than people, then you should send robots--possibly many robots. However, if you believe that someday it will be cheaper to send people (more on that below), you may invest some of the money on manned spaceflight--but not to have people do the same kind of science as the robots could do! Fly them to find a way to bring down manned spaceflight costs."
Agreed to some degree. There is some logic in spending money on research in how people can best (and , yes, even more cheaply - even if only because that means it will be sooner within the budget
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Forgot to answer your 'antartica' analogy. ;-)
"I'm not sure about that. Is it now cheaper to send a person or a robot to do some work in Antarctica? After all, an autonomous robot has to be very sophisticated; it may well become cheaper to send a man, including his life support equipment, than to build and test a robot on the complexity level e.g. of the current Mars rovers."
I doubt this is true, and your analogy seems a bit far fetched. The extra costs of getting (and maintaining) a human in space is largely lacking on a base of Antartica. You have an breathable atmosphere, you have necessary resources (like water) in aboundance, you have normal gravity, you have the atmospheric shielding of our atmosphere, you don't have a need for a closed ecological system, food and supplies can be furnished regulary and relatively easily, etc. In short, all the things that make human space colonisation so expensive are not present on Antarica.
And, as I said, a human is more versatile and useful for non-routine exploration then any robot these days, so, seen the lack of cost-adding for a base on Antartica (at least, compared to a space explortion), of course it's more attractive to have humans on Antartica then robots.
But even THAT depend on the costs, really. For routine research, even now people are using robots (and not only on Antartica). That's simply because robots are cheaper and more efficient in routine-tasks. But, lets say, in 500 years they develop an android capable of doing virtually all things a human could do, and pretty much as good as a human. Will it be more affordable to send the android, even to Antarica?
For the first ones; hell no. Price reduction is only for a small part dependend on getting/using cheaper materials, after all; it's foremost a matter of production costs. If those androids are massed produced, then costs will go down, and eventually it becomes more economical interesting to send those androids, even to antartica, then humans.
When that time comes, there is no way that humans can compete in this particular area. The only reason left will be the pure colonisation aspect and the reasons for it that I mentionned in my first post.
Thus, the reason why it's more economical to send humans to Antartica then robots, is because there, the most science per buck comes from humans (as yet). But as you said yourself, the most science per buck in space comes from robots. Only in non-routine research does a human do a far better job, but that particular research becomes more and more a niche the better robots get. (Humans being so versatile, we're still a long way untill there is no scientific advantage left, however).
Now, as said earlier, the relative level of science/buck does not change: if technology gets cheaper, it gets cheaper for robotic missions too. That's why in space exploration, where the science/buck advantage is for robotic missions it will always be more expensive to send a human then to send a robot or probe (unless, as said earlier, for specific research only a human can do; but note that robots and probes not only get cheaper, they get better too).
And that's why humans are in Antartica, because there the science/buck lies with the humans (untill the time robots get so cheap/good their science/buck gets to be better then humans, in which case you will see far more robots on antartica, no doubt).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The stated mission duration for Phoenix is 3 months. And your point is? Also, the lander won't be "enveloped by ice". It will be covered with CO2 frost a few microns thick, just like Viking 2 was.
an ill wind that blows no good
The bulk of the cost is not the ship, but the launch. NASA would be better off trying to figure out how to lower the cost of launchs and then using the extra $ to enhance the capabilities. One thing that I would love to see them do, is skip the stationary and mobile system and go to a floating system, perhaps a ballon.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.