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."
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.
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." ---
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
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.