NASA Announces Mars 2020 Rover Payload

An anonymous reader writes with news that the Mars 2020 experiments have been chosen: In short, the 2020 rover will cary 7 instruments, out of 58 proposals in total, and the rover itself will be based on the current Curiosity rover. The selected instruments are: Mastcam-Z, an advanced camera system with panoramic and stereoscopic imaging capability with the ability to zoom. SuperCam, an instrument that can provide imaging, chemical composition analysis, and mineralogy. The instrument will also be able to detect the presence of organic compounds in rocks and regolith from a distance. Planetary Instrument for X-ray Lithochemistry (PIXL), an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer that will also contain an imager with high resolution to determine the fine scale elemental composition of Martian surface materials. Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman & Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC) — This one will have a UV laser! The Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE), an exploration technology investigation that will produce oxygen from Martian atmospheric carbon dioxide. Mars Environmental Dynamics Analyzer (MEDA). This one is basically a weather station. The Radar Imager for Mars' Subsurface Exploration (RIMFAX), a ground-penetrating radar that will provide centimeter-scale resolution of the geologic structure of the subsurface.

Can't decide if the UV laser or the ground radar is the coolest of the lot.

Comments

How about wheels that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would seem to be the key payload here. The current Curiosity has only gone a small fraction of it's design distance and speed pales to that of the solar power rovers it was supposed to sprint past.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[SQLGuru]

To me, the MOXIE experiment is the most interesting. It would lead to future colonization since all of their oxygen wouldn't need to be brought with the space-goers.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about wheels that work?

They do work. If you think they don't work well enough, well, you design better ones.

The current Curiosity has only gone a small fraction of it's design distance

...and it's still going. Every rover has, at some point in its operation, only gone a fraction of its design distance.

and speed pales to that of the solar power rovers it was supposed to sprint past.

When was it ever meant to "sprint past" them? It's not a race.

Posting AC to avoid more mod points being wasted to mod me down into oblivion with you.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[beelsebob]

Actually, Curiosity's scheduled mission on Mars was for 668 mars days. It's been there for 724 mars days now.

Just because it hasn't (yet) vastly outlived it's scheduled mission, doesn't mean it's a failure.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[timrod]

There's one thing I don't get about that, though. From what I've read, they've found ice on Mars. What's stopping them from simply making a robot dedicated to harvesting and melting the ice into an artificial "lake" and introducing photosynthetic bacteria to It to get oxygen?

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars atmosphere is too thin to sustain a lake. Any unfrozen water will evaporate or refreeze. //Interestingly enough, its thin atmosphere is mainly due to it not having a liquid core anymore, its core cooled and stopped spinning, so it no longer has a magnetic shield against radiation. The solar wind has wisked away the majority of its atmosphere.

So steps in terraforming mars would need to start with creating an artificial magnetic field to block the solar wind.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily we've already done this, and thought far enough ahead to create a documentary!!!

Re:How about wheels that work?

[dotancohen]

I think that you underestimate the techinical challenges to do what you are suggesting! There is not quite as much ice as you might expect, nor is there heat to melt it, nor are there nutrients for the bacteria. Ecosystems take eons to develop.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

" The current Curiosity has only gone a small fraction of it's design distance"

For a guy that can't tell its from it's, you're awfully generous with your advice to rocket scientists.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, the MOXIE experiment is the most interesting. It would lead to future colonization since all of their oxygen wouldn't need to be brought with the space-goers.

Damn straight! The other stuff is basically just refining what we already know. I'm sure geologists will be over the moon if we discover that Mars has 0.1% more iron III oxide than previously thought, but In Situ Resource Utilization is so massively important for the future of humanity, it's a travesty we haven't gone further with it yet. I don't care if it's on the Moon or Mars; extracting a substantial amount of usable water or oxygen from the surroundings would be almost as huge as sending another human to another planetary body.

Laser? Radar? Please. At this point those are little more than toys compared to advancing our ISRU capabilities.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Moheeheeko]

It's cool, the guy plays a lot of Kerbal Space Program, I'm sure he knows what he is talking about.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Squidlips]

The MOXIE is the most idiotic experiment to fly in a long, long time. This is an experiment that could easily be done on Earth in any of a hundred University basements. The Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) experiment on MLS (Curiousity) was another concession to the all-powerful manned spaceflight lobby at NASA, but at least the RAD told us something we could not figure out here on Earth. It gave us some useful info on the radiation levels in flight and on the surface. MOXIE, on the other hand, is pointless.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Squidlips]

Wow, this post is almost precisely the opposite of reality (you must be a NASA contractor working SLS, etc.). MOXIE is pointless but the other instruments will be very valuable in looking for past signs of life .

Re: How about wheels that work?

[Type44Q]

For a brief instant, I thought that read "they found rice on Mars." I realized that it must be a typo even if I hadn't read it wrong... but needless to say, a whole slew of witty punchlines crossed through my mind...

Re:How about wheels that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

The martian atmosphere is sufficiently cold and low pressure that liquid water would evaporate and freeze at the same time. It won't sustain a lake.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[khallow]

As an experiment, it is close to pointless. As a technology demonstration it has somewhat more value, though perhaps not enough to justify its inclusion. You could do this a hundred times in those basements and it would still not be done on Mars. For a technology to be demonstrated in a particular unusual situation or environment, then it sooner or later has to be deployed in that situation or environment.

Re:How about wheels that work?

[penguinoid]

So steps in terraforming mars would need to start with creating an artificial magnetic field to block the solar wind.

There is a really cool (pun intended) system that would not only produce a large magnetic field, but provide an extremely efficient energy storage system capable of handling large unexpected spikes. Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage

My condolences to the also-rans

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember right they had something like 150 proposals for instruments on this mission and they went with six.

Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we just pack a 3D printer with the Mars One people? This rover stuff is so Ludditic.

Re:Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we just pack a 3D printer with the Mars One people? This rover stuff is so Ludditic.

Luddite? I do not think that means what you think it means.

Re:Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, tell that to the people who called me a Luddite because I don't think we'll 3D print cars in our Mars condos.

I now believe that 3D printing will replace every single technology and energy source we use, and we will 3D print asteroid colonies. From space dust.

Laser?

[CimmerianX]

...Because it's always a good idea to give robots lasers. What's the worst that could happen?

Re:Laser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey everybody! It's another "science" article where the utterly clueless feel the need to make stupid jokes!!
 
Just another crappy day at Slashdork.

Re:Laser?

[Dins]

Lighten up Francis.

Re:Laser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, we make intelligent jokes. You're just too stupid to understand them.

Coolest of the lot

[dtmos]

Can't decide if the UV laser or the ground radar is the coolest of the lot.

That would be the UV laser. Ground-penetrating radar is so Twentieth Century.

Re:Coolest of the lot

[Anonymous Coward]

UC lasers are also 20th century...

They missed one.

[NMBob]

Where's the seismometer? Three would have been nice. It could have dropped them off at three different places.

Why do we do these things?

[bogaboga]

I am not saying there's no advantage to space exploration, but I simply wonder why we continue to do these things yet we have a very big [budget] deficit. Why?

Apart from knowledge of how space works, what has the ordinary American gained from the billions spent on the space program? Can anyone point me to any tangible or intangible goods resulting from space exploration?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus weeps for your ignorance: NASA spinoffs

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA's budget is a rounding error in entitlements, DoD, DOE, etc. Even if there were not many benefits (see AC 2 up), the NASA budget is less that half a percent of the total budget.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[netsavior]

Are you joking, or just straw-manning? Space exploration has forced humanity to come up with new and useful technologies. Try something hard, and you will inevitably make other things better. Nasa spin-off technologies have built the world.

They include:
Enriched Infant formula and other foods - which has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity.
Water purification advances
Solar power
Firefighting advances
Safety grooving on highways
Aircraft Anti-Icing
Those ones are obvious, and easy to trace in their benefits, long term and short. See Wikipedia for a more complete list

But more important than any one single benefit, eventually we will run out of room. This is not some abstract theory. Sure, we can populate the desert and the ocean, sure we can die from disease and war, but eventually, Earth will not be enough. Betting on exploration is betting on humanity, in the long, long haul.

Our ancestors built dugout canoes 40,000 years ago. If dugouts had been a waste of a good axe-stone, when there were rival tribes to murder, Columbus would have never found the new world. I am betting that humans are a viable species. I am betting that mankind has nowhere to go but up. Look to the future, embrace exploration, it is the only way that mankind can last another 40,000 years.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smells like a troll, but I'll bite: GPS.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[greichert]

A lot of things actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Re:Why do we do these things?

[CRCulver]

GPS is a technology in Earth orbit. Plenty of critics of space exploration are fine with technologies in orbit, where they have obvious military uses, but they may not see any purpose in going further afield to other planets at this time.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[American AC in Paris]

I am not saying there's no advantage to space exploration, but I simply wonder why we continue to do these things yet we have a very big [budget] deficit. Why?

Apart from knowledge of how space works, what has the ordinary American gained from the billions spent on the space program? Can anyone point me to any tangible or intangible goods resulting from space exploration?

Because each time we overcome a monumental challenge for the first time, we expand the frontier of human knowledge and endeavor.

As our frontier expands, that which was undone becomes possible; that which was possible, replicable; that which was replicable, automatable; that which was automatable, trivial; that which was trivial, obsolete.

Just over a century ago, tinkers managed to propel a glorified kite a few feet through the air. The tangible benefit of this flight of fancy is that today, we complain about the comfort of the seats in mass-produced aircraft that can send us around the globe for a historically infinitesimal cost in time and money.

Seventy years ago, the US government was one year into the construction of ENIAC, one of the first general-purpose digital computers ever created. Upon its completion two years later, it would occupy 680 square feet, require the power of roughly six modern households, process up to 500 operations per second, and spend roughly half its time being repaired. The tangible benefit of this monstrosity is that today you likely carry, on your person, roughly 25 million times more computing power than ENIAC. It is quite likely that use the bulk of this computing power primarily for your own personal entertainment.

45 years ago, after years of research and significant government funding, ARPANET was launched. Not many people expected it to be of any significant practical value; in fact, the first message ever sent over ARPANET only managed to deliver two characters before crashing the entire network for an hour. The tangible benefit of this boondoggle is that today, we have the Internet, the direct descendant of ARPANET.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[arse maker]

Pursuing the desire that many people share to learn and explore and to push the limits of that new knowledge does not require a balance sheet justification.

If you feel the goal of life is to balance the short term budget of america (even though the nasa budget has essentially no impact on this at all) you should probably spend some time thinking about the fact we are all going to die, the earth will die, the universe will die, and when the last human dies, do you think they will wish we could have siphoned off some more money from nasa's budget to pay some some tiny fraction of the 2014 deficit off?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your ideology talking.

In the real world, securing funding for NASA is a challenge so the spin-off products must be mentioned.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[sysrammer]

You win today's PAi (Pertinent Answer (on the Internet (tm)))!

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Your.Master]

Running out of room isn't a good reason to go into space. If Earth's population doesn't stabilize on its own, we will have to send off truly massive numbers of people in very short order -- and we'd end up with the same problem we started with because people will just keep reproducing. Consider http://www.open.edu/openlearn/....

If Earth isn't enough, but humanity has enough space, it'll be because we went to space first and then found we had plenty of space to increase our population. Not because our population was so great that we had to escape from Earth. In other words, cause and effect are backwards here. Earth will be enough until we go elsewhere, and even after it'll have to do for most Earthlings. Abandoning Earth en masse is likely to ruin Earth (https://what-if.xkcd.com/7/)

There are other possible motivations. If humanity could set up some system of interstellar trade (unlikely though that may be), that could be a motivation for wanting a larger population than Earth can sustain, in a location distant from Earth. I've also heard the "not all eggs in one basket" motivation for the survival of the human species, which I'm less fond of (why would you want to hedge your bets on that one?). Etc.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[riverat1]

It's probably impossible to launch enough people off the Earth fast enough to keep up with the current birth rate. Maybe with something like the Star Trek transporters but not with rocket launches or even space elevators.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[uncqual]

The "eventually we will run out of room" argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me.The cost of, relatively safely, putting one human on even another planet in our solar system, let alone an unknown planet in another solar system in our galaxy, is enormous. Yes, the cost will come down, but seems unlikely to ever be less than several times the average person's lifetime net contribution to mankind unless that net contribution increases incredibly (which, in turn, seems unlikely to happen if we are suffering from overpopulation - as resources become scarcer, more effort is consumed extracting those resources -- but these high extraction costs don't translate into a better life for the average person -- it's just increased overhead).

Birth control and education is a much cheaper and sustainable solution to the "eventually we will run out of room" problem. Barring that, mass famine, war, genocide and natural selection will take care of the the problem quite efficiently.

If the concern is to address the "the Earth may become inhabitable to humans and we want to preserve the species" problem, space exploration could be a component of a strategy to address the concern. Except for a cataclysmic event such as multiple strikes from many very large asteroids, that concern is unlikely to need an answer for many millions of years. But, in any event, the answer to that concern almost certainly will not be to ship billions of humans off the planet (due to the expense and resource consumption of that activity). Instead, sets of breeders (either select humans or, more likely, a few caregivers along with artificial wombs and a diverse set of human genetic material to create a decent sized first generation of humans) will likely be sent to various promising celestial bodies in hopes that a few communities can be established and survive propagating whatever the "human" species is at that point (of course these communities, as well as those that remain on Earth, will independently evolve and probably would not recognize each other as "humans" in a few hundred thousand years -- so it's not clear what the point is).

Both of these concerns are, of course, predicated on an assumption that the human species is somehow special enough to the universe to bother to preserve except in an archeological record. I'm doubtful this is the case myself. However, I support NASA because it's got good spinoffs and, at least in the past, motivated kids to go into the science and engineering fields which is generally helpful to society. Space exploration may also help inform the answer to the question of if the human species is worth going to great effort to sustain past its natural (probably short compared to many species that surround us) extinction on Earth.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[uncqual]

The tangible benefit of this boondoggle is that today, we have the Internet, the direct descendant of ARPANET.

And, without that, we couldn't have /. -- and that's a benefit?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Electricity Likes Me]

The whiplash on that one when someone finally figures out how to make asteroid mining even slightly viable is going to be incredible. I expect many breathless articles by terrestial mining magnates on how it's a terrifically poor investment that will never work in the lead up to someone splashing down a blob of aerated platinum.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

Those ones are obvious, and easy to trace in their benefits, long term and short.

The spin off argument is deeply flawed. For example, every single one of these technologies would have been developed anyway. NASA is just a flavor of funding.

But more important than any one single benefit, eventually we will run out of room.

That's an argument for long term population control, not space development. After all, the Earth isn't actually getting any smaller. And if you don't mind the occasional mass die offs, you don't even have to care about population control.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

The spin off argument is deeply flawed. For example, every single one of these technologies would have been developed anyway. NASA is just a flavor of funding.
 
You know, when I was a young tech who was just bumbling his way around a corporate cube farm I had to deal with someone who thought like this. I think his problem was that he felt that he could do better and that I shouldn't have been making a couple bucks more than him while he had to deal with dissatisfied customers on the phone. He even came out at one point and told me that he could do my job and I told him that he probably could be doing my job but the difference was I was the one doing the job.
 
So say all you want about NASA being "a flavor of funding" but they're the ones who are actually doing the work. Why does it burn your ass that someone else isn't? What benefit do you see from having someone else do the work?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

You know, when I was a young tech who was just bumbling his way around a corporate cube farm I had to deal with someone who thought like this.

I'm not saying I'll do this personally, but rather the whole of human endeavor would. Given that they actually did do it (just with NASA's signature on a few of the funding checks), then that's vastly different from your coworkers point of view. NASA didn't actually do the vast majority of that work, it was done by contractors. And I believe that those contractors or their competitors would have done the work anyway.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

Enriched Infant formula and other foods - which has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity.

Infant formula was invented in the 29th century. It is inferior to breast milk, and the marketing of formula in less developed countries has led to many babies dying (due to the fact that mothers, by necessity, must prepare it in unsanitary conditions, and because it is nutritionally inferior to breast milk), Overall it's invention has been detrimental to our species - and babies fed on breast milk, owing to it's superiority (nutrition wise) consistently score higher in cognitive function. Suggesting that baby formula has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity. is a grotesque misunderstanding.

Water purification advances

The russians invented a system to extract water from urine. General water purification is of course not needed because cosmonauts and astronauts aren't drinking out of streams or rivers. When I say invented it, they of course miniaturised a system that already existed prior to space travel. Water purification systems are important, but none of the technology invented for Mir (and later used in the ISS) is relevant to usage on earth.

Solar power

Previous technology that was improved by the space initiative to power satellites. No advancement in solar power is linked to human space travel.

But more important than any one single benefit, eventually we will run out of room. This is not some abstract theory. Sure, we can populate the desert and the ocean, sure we can die from disease and war, but eventually, Earth will not be enough. Betting on exploration is betting on humanity, in the long, long haul.

Your sums are wrong. There are (around) 200 000 more births a day then deaths (Source). Supposing there were a magical place to send these people, the requisite lift capacity would exhaust our supply of fuel within a day or so, and our atmosphere would be irreparably damaged.

And to be clear, no such magical place exists. Mars, for example, would not sustain a days worth of the Earths population increase. It is too cold, too small, too far away from the sun.

Our ancestors built dugout canoes 40,000 years ago. If dugouts had been a waste of a good axe-stone, when there were rival tribes to murder, Columbus would have never found the new world.

Columbus didn't find a new world. He inadvertently stumbled upon a continent that was already populated.

I am betting that humans are a viable species. I am betting that mankind has nowhere to go but up. Look to the future, embrace exploration, it is the only way that mankind can last another 40,000 years.

You're wrong. You've constructed a strawman argument to link the survival of humanity with physically lobbing meat bags into space. No such link exists.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

Edit: By 29th, I of course meant 19th century. No time travel involved.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

You've engaged in a good quantity of confirmation bias there, by selecting tentative technologies that led to transformation and then assuming that every endeavour, no matter how foolish it sounds, will lead inevitably to societal transformation. What nonsense - in amongst our successes, there are numerous boondoggles, and for every successful new technology there are technologies that are made redundant. Human space travel is the latter, an outmoded technology which, like steam trains, we may look back on with fondness but which has no place in our future technology plans. We know that, we've known that since the 60's. It was outmoded even during the space program - kennedy chose the moon mission over a deep space probe not for it's scientific value, but because it conformed to the myth of the american pioneer, and thus brought comfort to the american public in a time of deep anxiety.

Now is the time to shed our anxieties and abandon the comfort pillow of manned space flight. Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines. We know it does, we've known that for a long time. Right now, this obsession is holding us back (albeit a friustrated few of us struggle against it's bonds). Advocates of manned spaceflight are like coal miners who insist that only picks can be used to mine coal, while the longwalling machines and draglines sit idle. The image of the astronaut is romantic, no doubt, and full of bravado, like the hard working reaper, chimney sweep, or seamstress. But now, we need to move on. Move on.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[RightwingNutjob]

Because being twenty trillion+ in the hole because you spent too much on welfare and robots deployed to other planets is better than being twenty trillion+ in the hole because you pissed it all away on welfare and don't even have any robots to show for it.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines.

And what does that "fact" have to do with manned space flight? We didn't actually stop doing anything of those things just because we have machines to help us. In particular, did you stop traveling just because that is in the "grip" of machines?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like the phenomena of "first post!", I feel deeply compelled to make some snarky comment (and feel like I have deep insight) about your obvious myopia because "where would we be had not the noble (savage) caveman decided to never leave the comforts of his cave?"

But, yeah, you're absolutely right. Space is really really really fucking big and hostile. Yes, we'll eventually send out one-way "pioneers", but that won't be a realistic option for many more lifetimes. I do, however, think we'll do something really stupid in the near-term, like send up a Mars colony where, if we're lucky and it doesn't turn into The Donner Party 2040, it will be abandoned after sucking up tremendous resources and we'll all look back nostalgically on that era after several decades had passed. We'll, of course, write about the Mars colonists as brave heroes because of their brave sacrifice, but everyone with half a technical brain would have known from the outset that it was going to be a one-way mission. Don't get me wrong; I'd love flying through space in a research station with Barbara Bain as much as the next guy, but in reality it would be pretty dreadful.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

And what does that "fact" have to do with manned space flight?

The fact renders manned spaceflight unnecessary and redundant, just as electronic computers have rendered human computers redundant.

We didn't actually stop doing anything of those things just because we have machines to help us.

Well, yes we did. We stopped strangling animals when spears rendered strangling redundant. We stopped charging the enemy with swords when guns rendered the older technology redundant. We stopped travelling by steam train when the automobile and electric train rendered the former technology redundant.

History is replete with counter arguments to the notion that we should just keep doing stuff by hand "because".

In particular, did you stop traveling just because that is in the "grip" of machines?

Absolutely. For example, I send emails instead of walking to the desk of a colleague, I ring people, I teleconference. It is nothing to me to communicate with 60 people in an hour dispersed across a country the size of a continent. Something that would be impossible if I had to be physically present at every gathering and for every conversation. Which I would need to do were it not for the aid of machines. My everyday life is enabled because we ignored the naysayers who irrationally assume that no interaction can take place except by physical presence.

Now all that remains is to rebuke the same irrationality when it is applied to space exploration.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

You're right. Whilst the uniqueness of the experience would be sure to exhilarate for a while, after a time I imagine that space travel would gall. After all, you are in a tin can with people you didn't choose, no chance of escape and subjected to a harsh daily routine of exercise and diet. I hope we don't progress to a mars colony, not matter how brief. Because I think that the reality of the experience cannot be covered up: unlike the apollo mission which was a few days of adrenaline, and then back home, travelling to Mars will give people time to reflect on what they left behind. It will be an agonising experience to watch those idealists implode before our eyes, as the truth of it sinks in. Mars is boring, there's no exciting pioneering life, no fame or fortune. Just drudgery and the fear that food supplies will run out and the water purifier will break. Eventually something goes wrong and you're dead. Brutal and uncompromised by happy hollywood endings.

I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions. That would be a tragedy.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

The fact renders manned spaceflight unnecessary and redundant, just as electronic computers have rendered human computers redundant.

If I want to go to Mars, then manned spaceflight is on the critical path. And a lot of people want to go to Mars. There's an example of the need.

That also nixes the "redundant" argument. There is no other way to get to Mars except by crossing the intervening space. There's no other way to get to Mars. So manned spaceflight is not redundant.

Absolutely. For example, I send emails instead of walking to the desk of a colleague, I ring people, I teleconference. It is nothing to me to communicate with 60 people in an hour dispersed across a country the size of a continent. Something that would be impossible if I had to be physically present at every gathering and for every conversation. Which I would need to do were it not for the aid of machines. My everyday life is enabled because we ignored the naysayers who irrationally assume that no interaction can take place except by physical presence.

No, I didn't ask if you travel less, but rather if you stopped traveling at all.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

GPS is a military spinoff not a NASA spinoff.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

Whilst the uniqueness of the experience would be sure to exhilarate for a while, after a time I imagine that space travel would gall.

How long would that take? If it takes longer than a human lifetime for the involved parties, then there's not a problem.

I hope we don't progress to a mars colony, not matter how brief. Because I think that the reality of the experience cannot be covered up: unlike the apollo mission which was a few days of adrenaline, and then back home, travelling to Mars will give people time to reflect on what they left behind. It will be an agonising experience to watch those idealists implode before our eyes, as the truth of it sinks in. Mars is boring, there's no exciting pioneering life, no fame or fortune. Just drudgery and the fear that food supplies will run out and the water purifier will break. Eventually something goes wrong and you're dead. Brutal and uncompromised by happy hollywood endings.

So why would it be like that? I find the rationalizing behind this argument intriguing. Where else would we "hope" that someone doesn't do something merely because they might not like it?

I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions.

You forgot the scare quotes on "important". It won't matter to the navel gazers, if Mars exists or not. A lot of them probably never even saw the place in the sky. The people for whom that science will matter will be the people doing stuff on Mars, not necessarily in person, but not necessarily not in person.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

If I want to go to Mars, then manned spaceflight is on the critical path.

There's your problem right there. "I want to go" is not a good enough reason. Taking you as an example, if there ever were a viable attempt to reach Mars, you would not be selected. Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.

And a lot of people want to go to Mars. There's an example of the need.

No, that's an example of desire. I desire a bacon & egg muffin. Which is not a problem, unless I have an expectation that someone else ought to pay for my muffin. Which brings us back to the Mars joyride.

A small number of people want to go to Mars, a yet smaller number will actually get to go. Even the most optimistic estimates (and they are fantastically optimistic ) put the number at 100 people per year. Inevitably, this means that within our lifetime, the enormous cost of sending those people will be borne by those who don't go, and who therefore need to be convinced to fund the adventures of those who do.

No, I didn't ask if you travel less, but rather if you stopped traveling at all.

In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons. And I don't travel on someone else's dime. If I desire to go to Paris for a holiday (for instance), I'm not under any delusions that other people ought to pay for me to go.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

"I want to go" is not a good enough reason.

For you. It's quite valid for other people.

Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.

So that reason has to be based on your personal feelings instead? No, doesn't work that way.

In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons.

There we go.

And I don't travel on someone else's dime.

I noticed you mention this a couple of times. This is a different argument than the "machines obsolete us wanting to do anything". I don't mind the rest of society not putting in for my space fetishes. Obviously, there's a lot of people who think that if trillions a year are burned on things they don't care about, then part of it should be burned on things they do care about. But I think that's a typical problem of having public funding around and not particular to manned spaceflight.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

How long would that take? If it takes longer than a human lifetime for the involved parties, then there's not a problem.

That's a fair question, I don't think there is an exact answer. However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief. Although there is no set time to for a grieving process like that, it seems reasonable that 12 months would be in the upper bound, based upon:

1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)

2. Potentially the person has already said goodbye to the people they love, recognising that neither party will see the other again.

So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to. This would be a terrible shock, but they haven't long to live anyway, so the grief would likely be intense, but timeboxed. Whether they will have progressed through the stages to acceptance by the time they die (24 months approximately) , and what that acceptance could look like in an environment of social isolation, without hope in the future, and where you've chosen to sacrifice your life for a cause that you now realise is meaningless - we can only speculate.

So why would it be like that? I find the rationalizing behind this argument intriguing. Where else would we "hope" that someone doesn't do something merely because they might not like it?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll try and answer anyway. It's our habit to abstract death away. So people might volunteer for a trip to Mars, having been warned that they will die there either before, or shortly after, arriving. They may abstract away the fact of that, and so might we, the people who remain behind.

However, abstraction and idealism always give way in the face of reality. No matter how idealistic you are, you can't flap your wings and fly. Reality is brutal. And so will the reality of this plan be brutal. As the mission progresses, and the participants face the reality crushing their ideals, they will start to die before our eyes. They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide. And we will watch it all on youtube and on the TV. It will be a bloodbath, and no-one who remembers it will ever advocate going to Mars again.

I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions.

You forgot the scare quotes on "important".

Are you saying scientific missions (like Voyager, Cassini Huygens, MESSENGER, Spirit and Opportunity etc etc) are not important? That astronomy is not important? If so, then you are unambiguously, and utterly wrong. If not, then perhaps you should explain yourself.

It won't matter to the navel gazers, if Mars exists or not. A lot of them probably never even saw the place in the sky. The people for whom that science will matter will be the people doing stuff on Mars, not necessarily in person, but not necessarily not in person.

Quite frankly, that makes no sense at all. Who (or what) are these navel gazers? Why would science matter more to people on Mars than it does to people on Earth?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

"I want to go" is not a good enough reason.

For you. It's quite valid for other people.

No, it isn't. Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody. What matters is your ability to formulate an argument touching upon (a) The reason why we should send a human to do something that a robot can do better, and cheaper (b) The reasons why that human should be you.

"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old. Did your mother teach you nothing.

Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.

So that reason has to be based on your personal feelings instead? No, doesn't work that way.

I would have thought that conclusion was obvious. It won't happen because you want it to - because your feelings are irrelevant. If I wanted it, it still wouldn't happen, because MY feelings are also irrelevant. Don't you understand that? At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.

Why is that? I suggest it is because this group of people have failed to articulate a strong reason to revive the practice of sending humans to do a robots job. You need to articulate and objective reason for us to do this. Then you might convince enough people that it is a good idea. So far, you have not done so.

In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons. And I don't travel on someone else's dime.

I noticed you mention this a couple of times. This is a different argument than the "machines obsolete us wanting to do anything".

No it isn't, you've just failed to listen. Read my remarks again.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief.

Then this is a case of expectation management which is a solved problem. For those who don't choose to solve this particular problem, there's always popcorn.

1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)

Or 50 years, being another number you could have stuffed in there. I really don't see a claim for one or the other being valid in the absence of context.

So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to.

Or they might not experience that situation.

They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.

You will feel guilt why? Sounds like the makings of a good reality show. And it'll be a great example for the next shipload of idealists to help with their expectation management.

and no-one who remembers it will ever advocate going to Mars again.

Bullshit. It'll just mean that we'll have to plan next time. I'm fuzzy on why a bad first try will convince us all that it's not worth doing. In most fields of endeavor, instead we would try again, while trying not to repeat the mistakes of past attempts. That's a pretty good approach and it works.

Are you saying scientific missions (like Voyager, Cassini Huygens, MESSENGER, Spirit and Opportunity etc etc) are not important? That astronomy is not important? If so, then you are unambiguously, and utterly wrong. If not, then perhaps you should explain yourself.

Science is not important in itself. It is important because of how it affects our lives and those who use that science down the road. If the only thing that is ever present in space past Earth orbit are a few space probes, then such things will be irrelevant to us on Earth and our lives - unless of course, you happen to be one of the handful of people building or operating the space probe.

Quite frankly, that makes no sense at all. Who (or what) are these navel gazers? Why would science matter more to people on Mars than it does to people on Earth?

The navel gazers are the people whose lives are solely provincial and more or less self-centered. That's most of us, perhaps all of us at one time or another.

As to your second question, because on Mars that science would lead directly to survival and better living conditions. It's like how research on the biological effects of coal dust is more relevant to a coal miner than it is to a beachcomber or a tax accountant. People who live on Mars would be intimately helped by science done on Mars and its environment. But people on Earth would not.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody.

Pretty much everybody is not everybody. It doesn't include me. You are just arguing that your feelings and opinions should be more important to me than my own. That isn't the case.

What matters is your ability to formulate an argument touching upon (a) The reason why we should send a human to do something that a robot can do better, and cheaper (b) The reasons why that human should be you.

I've already answered these questions. A robot can't be a human living on Mars. And it's not important that I personally go to Mars.

"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old.

And an argument irrelevant to this thread. I'm not arguing from entitlement. I want and I will try to get it as a result. That is all. There is no expectation that I should get it merely because I want it. But similarly, I don't appreciate the placement of frivolous obstructions or objections to my goals based solely on petty and myopic philosophical distinctions.

At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.

Your argument is based on the assumption that manned spaceflight will always be out of reach of the resources of this group. I think it's worth noting that need not be so. The barrier to entry is slowly going down. I wouldn't be surprised if within our lifetimes space travel becomes possible for someone of moderate means and strong competence just due to advances in small group-scale manufacture.

No it isn't, you've just failed to listen. Read my remarks again.

You already admitted that you travel, despite claiming that machines obsoleted any reason for you to travel. I think your remarks are just not that useful in this area.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief.

Then this is a case of expectation management which is a solved problem.

That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.

For those who don't choose to solve this particular problem, there's always popcorn.

I find it interesting that you care so much about them going, but don't care at all about their welfare, and indeed, seem happy to exploit their gullibility. Perhaps this is the key difference in our positions - you want to exploit the gullible for your own entertainment, I am not willing to do so.

1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)

Or 50 years, being another number you could have stuffed in there.

Or not, since I didn't just pick a number, a fact that should be obvious to the most casual reader.

I really don't see a claim for one or the other being valid in the absence of context.

If you are ignorant of the reasons why the number is so low, then feel free to ask for the analysis, and if you disagree with that analysis, then argue for why it is wrong. Don't try to argue from ignorance, that is a fallacy.

So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to.

Or they might not experience that situation.

I forgot to mention that my assumption is that we don't live in a magical fairy land where bad things don't happen. Should have mentioned it.

They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.

You will feel guilt why?

Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.

Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.

You find the thought of people suffering and dying on TV entertaining. I see.

Bullshit. It'll just mean that we'll have to plan next time. I'm fuzzy on why a bad first try will convince us all that it's not worth doing.

That problem is easy to diagnose. You lack basic empathy for others, and therefore, cannot judge how people will behave when they act on feelings related to decency and empathy, and responsibility.

Science is not important in itself. It is important because of how it affects our lives and those who use that science down the road. If the only thing that is ever present in space past Earth orbit are a few space probes, then such things will be irrelevant to us on Earth and our lives - unless of course, you happen to be one of the handful of people building or operating the space probe.

Then there is no need for us to spend money sending people to Mars. You can go away satisfied, we'll get on with the science, because unlike you, we find joy and satisfaction in answering the questions that plague us, even when answering those questions has no real impact on you and the things you judge to be important. Whether you know it or not, we live in an amazing universe far greater and more astounding than we can grasp, and learning new things about it is an a

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody.

Pretty much everybody is not everybody. It doesn't include me. You are just arguing that your feelings and opinions should be more important to me than my own. That isn't the case.

You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.

I've already answered these questions. A robot can't be a human living on Mars.

A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?

And it's not important that I personally go to Mars.

Well, no, because, as you explained in the other thread, the reason why you want a manned mission to Mars is so that you can watch them die, because you think that would be entertaining.

"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old.

And an argument irrelevant to this thread.

It would be, except for the fact that this is your argument, and the only one you've supplied so far, as why we should fund a program to send a human to do a job that a robot does better.

I'm not arguing from entitlement. I want and I will try to get it as a result. That is all. There is no expectation that I should get it merely because I want it. But similarly, I don't appreciate the placement of frivolous obstructions or objections to my goals based solely on petty and myopic philosophical distinctions.

You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.

At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.

Your argument is based on the assumption that manned spaceflight will always be out of reach of the resources of this group.

Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.

You already admitted that you travel, despite claiming that machines obsoleted any reason for you to travel. I think your remarks are just not that useful in this area.

You apparently think it's significant that I travel for pleasure - however you can't explain why.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.

There's this weird blinder thing going on. Why do you think that will happen? I recall all the bad things you said (such as claiming without justification that one's lifespan on Mars would be 24 months). I get the impression you just hope you're right and that no one goes to Mars and actually has fun.

Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.

Humans also have a capacity to not feel that stuff. I don't see what's even remotely useful about empathy in a scenario like this where allegedly a bunch of idiots get into epic levels of trouble that no one can bail them out of.

Fascinating. Do you just randomly insert this topic into every conversation or am I just blessed by being subjected to you bizarre and randomised philosophical meanderings about people of whom I know nothing and care even less?

You're one of those people, given your last line about "know nothing and care even less". That's classic navel gazing outlook.

The universe is amazing, I'm amazed and excited by the things we are learning about it, and your views on it are worthless, your notion that only the information that impacts you personally is important is contemptible.

So that's why you wrote:

So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to.

or

Mars is boring, there's no exciting pioneering life, no fame or fortune. Just drudgery and the fear that food supplies will run out and the water purifier will break.

So is Mars "amazing" or "boring"? Those choices seem mutually exclusive to me. There seems to be a lot of contradictory bullshit in your opinions here.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

You might recall having wrote:

And I don't travel on someone else's dime.

I don't mind you being amazed and exploring the universe on your own dime either. But you ignore your own words when you write things like " we'll get on with the science". That science uses other peoples' money. You're not paying for it.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.

Which is patently false since your argument is based on your feelings.

A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?

And if I were intent on colonizing bandicoots on Mars, that would mean that sending robots wouldn't do that either.

You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.

There's no point to your verbiage. "Because I want to" is a sufficient argument. Of course, I have reasons why I want it. And if I were, say, trying to convince you to want Mars colonization as well, then I'd expound on them. But I'm not.

Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.

Why do your hobbies get public funding and mine don't? I don't have problems with self-funded hobbies either. Space science for the sake of space science is just another hobby. Please, by all means pay for it yourself out of your own budget.

You apparently think it's significant that I travel for pleasure - however you can't explain why.

Let me make myself clear. I don't care why you travel. I just verified that you do. Because you wrote originally:

Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines.

By the fact that you still travel, no matter the reason, then there is something that the "grip" of machines isn't doing for you.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.

Which is patently false since your argument is based on your feelings.

I'm not even making an argument per se. I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket. A list of the top 10 reasons will suffice. I'm waiting.

And if I were intent on colonizing bandicoots on Mars, that would mean that sending robots wouldn't do that either.

So therefore, you would have no issues with digging into your own pocket to fund the guy who wants to send bandicoots.

You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.

There's no point to your verbiage. "Because I want to" is a sufficient argument.

I'll tell you if and when you've provided a sufficient argument to convince me to give you money. Otherwise I might give the money to the guy with the bandicoots instead.

Of course, I have reasons why I want it. And if I were, say, trying to convince you to want Mars colonization as well, then I'd expound on them. But I'm not.

You DID explain your reasons - you wanted to see someone die on Mars on live TV. You though their sufferings and deprivations would bring you delight.

That is not a sufficient reason for us to fund your hobby either.

Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.

Why do your hobbies get public funding and mine don't?

They don't.

I don't have problems with self-funded hobbies either. Space science for the sake of space science is just another hobby. Please, by all means pay for it yourself out of your own budget.

Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

By the fact that you still travel, no matter the reason, then there is something that the "grip" of machines isn't doing for you.

Yeah good luck with this line of argument. Does my motorcycle have a space gear that I'm unaware of? Can you cite the relevant page in the manual? Can you cite my request for $0.5 Trillion to fund my space motorcycle travels?

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

If I'm not paying for it, then neither are you, making your protestations against it seem empty.

And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.

You should abandon every vestige of the science you despise, and go and live in the forest, in a shack you've made yourself, and refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet. Hop to it, there's a good fellow.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket.

I've already stated that I think space development should be funded by those who want to.

Please recall that I replied in response to this statement:

Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines.

My complaint is not about funding my ambitions versus yours. It's about the above assertion that because something is heavily mechanized, then there's no place for people. Most of that stuff above needs people in order to operate and needs people in order to justify its use. Transportation of humans doesn't make sense if humans aren't actually being transported. Medical care doesn't make sense, if there's no patient to care for.

You DID explain your reasons - you wanted to see someone die on Mars on live TV. You though their sufferings and deprivations would bring you delight.

And you've expounded endlessly on your unquenchable hunger for the flesh of babies. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. If you're so bored that you're debating my arguments that I didn't make, then please, get creative not lazy.

Yeah good luck with this line of argument. Does my motorcycle have a space gear that I'm unaware of? Can you cite the relevant page in the manual? Can you cite my request for $0.5 Trillion to fund my space motorcycle travels?

So a machine on Earth is magically is different from a machine in space? A gear is a gear whether it is on Earth or in space. You ride that motorcycle or whatever you use to travel, in order to get from point A to point B. That would be any human use of space-side transportation too.

your death TV plan

I think the worst part of your whole belief system here is the idea that we'll be smart enough to take people to Mars and land them on the surface safely, but dumb enough not to wonder or plan ahead of time for what happens when they get there.

I've been told that going to Mars and landing a relatively delicate cargo like humans is very hard. It might even be a bit pricy though not your astronomical half a trillion dollars. That seems very much like a huge obstacle to any sort of half-assed plan to dump people on Mars for the giggles.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

If I'm not paying for it, then neither are you

Actually it doesn't work that way. If you're not paying for it, then someone else is.

And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.

Such as?

refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet.

None of which have been furthered by your space science ambitions. I'd rather have useful science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet, etc.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.

Why do you think that will happen?

I've already told you. People value their lives. They aren't likely to sacrifice their lives for a few months of "fun". So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months), then the logical assumption is they expect something in return for that sacrifice. Reading the likes of the Mars One website, or slashdot, one gets a general feel for what this return is, they expect to be part of some great human effort that pushes the boundaries, that is exciting and replete with meaning because it benefits humanity. They also expect living on Mars to be, well exciting - for the short time between arriving and dying.

The reality, of course, is that human spaceflight to Mars is a dead end. Plans to settle permanently on Mars derive mostly from texts written by Zubrin, these are fundamentally flawed and collapse under even the most casual analysis. So any tentative settlement will also collapse. Add to that is the lack of public support. This lack of support arises partly from diminished nationalism, but also from the fact that human based space technology was surpassed, long ago, by robotic technology - robots have reached the edge of the solar system, and humans are cleaning the toilet in LEO. If humans make it Mars, they will do so long after robots arrived: so the notion that this is pioneering is of course laughable.

Human based space travel has lost the race and lost it's purpose, evidenced clearly by the fact that advocates for this activity can no longer articulate a purpose.

All of these realities will become clear to prospective martians, either before they leave (in which case, they will no longer be willing to sacrifice their life to this venture and exit) or after, in which case they will express this regret in ways that embarrass the proponents of the scheme, and terminate future ambitions of that sort in short order.

Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.

Humans also have a capacity to not feel that stuff.

That would be an incapacity the inability to feel empathy (even involuntary) is an inability not an ability. But you've made it clear that you actually find the suffering of others entertaining, so I'm not surprised to learn that you lack empathy.

You're one of those people, given your last line about "know nothing and care even less". That's classic navel gazing outlook.

So the upshot is, you clumsily tried to stick a label on me and it fell off. Ah well.

So is Mars "amazing" or "boring"? Those choices seem mutually exclusive to me. There seems to be a lot of contradictory bullshit in your opinions here.

Mars is interesting scientifically, which is why we send robots there to explore it. It is a boring place for humans to live, because owing to the fact that it is bathed in deadly radiation, humans on mars, if they ever went, would have to live underground like worms, never seeing the stars. Potentially, they could take a robot to roam around on the surface and explore while they suck in the regolith in their dark, cold, cramped, stinking worm holes, bent over a monitor with a live video stream from the robot.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

Actually it doesn't work that way.

Afraid it does.

If you're not paying for it, then someone else is.

Someone who isn't you.

None of which have been furthered by your space science ambitions.

Not my space ambitions. The ambitions of humanity. Shout and scream all you like, that won't stop the pursuit of knowledge, even the pursuit of things that you are uncomfortable knowing about. We don't need your 5 bucks. If you like, you can sign a piece of paper saying you won't pay for science, and we'll make sure you don't enjoy the benefits of the research the rest of us paid for.

I'd rather have useful science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet, etc.

You don't get to dictate to us on which science is useful or which is not. You don't get to control what interests others. You don't get to suppress facts that you don't like, and you don't get to decide if a piece of science gets funded or not based on your level of comfort with the research.

So suck it up.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[KeensMustard]

I've already stated that I think space development should be funded by those who want to.

So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.

My complaint is not about funding my ambitions versus yours. It's about the above assertion that because something is heavily mechanized, then there's no place for people.

Strawman.

Most of that stuff above needs people in order to operate and needs people in order to justify its use. Transportation of humans doesn't make sense if humans aren't actually being transported. Medical care doesn't make sense, if there's no patient to care for.

And what mostly doesn't make sense is the thought process that convinced you that this has anything to do with whether robots are superior to humans for space exploration.

And you've expounded endlessly on your unquenchable hunger for the flesh of babies. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. If you're so bored that you're debating my arguments that I didn't make, then please, get creative not lazy.

Well, one of these things happened. I guess you can't count, in addition to not being able to remember your own statements -specifically this one:

[ME] They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.

[YOU] You will feel guilt why? Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.

You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.

So a machine on Earth is magically is different from a machine in space? A gear is a gear whether it is on Earth or in space.

So, let's be clear: in your mind, my motorcycle HAS a space gear? I can engage this gear and rocket into space?

You ride that motorcycle or whatever you use to travel, in order to get from point A to point B.

And notably, my self funded travels (a) tend not to lead to my death (b) have an actual, stated purpose, that when asked, I can articulate clearly.

That would be any human use of space-side transportation too.

So the purpose of humans travelling to Mars is for humans to travel to mars? And therefore, the purpose of bandicoots travelling to Mars is for bandicoots to travel to mars. Oh. Hang on. Remind us again: Why is your plan better than the one with the bandicoots? I guess you forgot to tell us.

Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

I think the worst part of your whole belief system here is the idea that we'll be smart enough to take people to Mars and land them on the surface safely, but dumb enough not to wonder or plan ahead of time for what happens when they get there.

Oh, I didn't say that you and you cohorts were smart enough to land a human safely on Mars. You aren't even smart enough to be able to articulate why you would send a human (as opposed to, say a bandicoot) in the first place.

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months)

And again, I see this claim that something is going to kill Mars colonists inside of two years. What is that thing? Can't be radiation because they'll get far greater exposure on the trip to Mars than two years on the surface.

The reality, of course, is that human spaceflight to Mars is a dead end.

Words like "fact" and "reality" have meaning. Use that meaning. Instead, you are arguing from ignorance. That fallacy is commonly seen in space discussions on both sides. I don't know how hard it will be to go to Mars or what dangers and risks travelers will experience. But I do know there's a bunch of people whose jobs it is to do hard, challenging stuff of that very sort and they're good at it.

Plans to settle permanently on Mars derive mostly from texts written by Zubrin, these are fundamentally flawed and collapse under even the most casual analysis.

Even the most casual analysis of Zubrin's work would note that Zubrin returns his astronauts. He never advocated one-way missions. This is a huge thing to miss.

Sure, he does advocate permanent habitation within about ten years. But by that point, almost all of your concerns would be ruled out. We would know at that point that life expectancy is much longer than 2 years. We would have a demonstrated capability to live on Mars indefinitely. And we'd have realistic expectations from the experiences of the people who already lived on Mars.

If humans make it Mars, they will do so long after robots arrived: so the notion that this is pioneering is of course laughable.

I'd call it rather common sense pioneering. This happened historically on Earth with the colonizing of the New World except that people not robots played the role of explorer. There are a number of examples of people going in blind (Columbus's second expedition, the Roanoke and Jamestown colonies, and the initial Mormon migration) and those just didn't fare well except due to luck.

But then there are examples where they did plan things out and the colony ended up relatively low drama (such as New Amsterdam (which became New York City) or Providence, Rhode Island).

Human based space travel has lost the race and lost it's purpose, evidenced clearly by the fact that advocates for this activity can no longer articulate a purpose.

A purpose such as diversification of humanity, doing awesome, challenging things in order to better ourselves, or stepping up that science and exploration game you know and love to new levels? Well, I guess you've heard of them now. I grant there's no reason for you to be impressed or swayed, but purposes have been articulated - you can check that box off now.

That would be an incapacity the inability to feel empathy (even involuntary) is an inability not an ability.

No, I got it right. Do you really think that people who serve as paramedics, nurses, fire fighters, or doctors would be able to function, if they turned gooey eyed at every injury or sickness they saw? You can set aside those emotions and that misplaced empathy enough that you can do your job to save lives.

Mars is interesting scientifically, which is why we send robots there to explore it. It is a boring place for humans to live, because owing to the fact that it is bathed in deadly radiation, humans on mars, if they ever went, would have to live underground like worms, never seeing the stars.

Earth is bathed in that same deadly radiation too. Dose makes the poison. You seem to forget the shielding effect of the Martian atmosphere which would allow people to work on the surface and see stars and such.

Also, I find it interesting how you claim they "live like worms" while ignoring that almost

Re:Why do we do these things?

[khallow]

So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.

A big part of the problem here is that you just pull facts and reality out of your ass. So I decided to answer the above.

A purpose such as diversification of humanity, doing awesome, challenging things in order to better ourselves, or stepping up that science and exploration game you know and love to new levels?

I didn't do so before, because it wasn't germane to the discussion.

You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.

I notice you don't actually have a quote for that latter assertion. As to the former, my defense is that it is true.Truth should be an adequate defense here, right?

As to the latter, if someone wants to come up with a half-baked means for dying on Mars. then go for it. I won't stand in their way and it'll be a great example to anyone else with similar plans.

my motorcycle HAS a space gear?

It has a gear. If that gear were put in space, then I'm sure we could forgive you for calling it a "space gear". But I'm not going to call a gear a "space gear" just because it's in space. That's bad 50s sci fi movies.

Number five is alive!

[MRe_nl]

"It's the all-new Johnny Five! Just look at these items! Increased memory: five hundred megabytes on-line! I come with a utility pack and dozens of gadgets for outdoor living, lots of Greenpeace stickers, and even my own Nike swoosh! And, if you act now, I'll throw in, absolutely free, my all-new, multi-frequency remote control!"

SIX???? THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE SUMMARY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Six? I know this is slashdot, but EVEN THE SUMMARY SAYS SEVEN, you didn't even have to read the article, JUST THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE SUMMARY.

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?

Byproduct of CO2 = O ...

[CaptainDork]

Where is the carbon monoxide going to go? If it's to the atmosphere, what's the environmental impact down the road?

If That's All They Wanted

[LifesABeach]

Put my cell phone in there. Hell, people are looking at where I'm going and doing using my cell phone. All the interments are already installed. The iPhone6 will be out with Bio-Metrics. All JPL has to do is go over the local Sprint store and get one for free. Why Sprint? Their coverage is pretty good in Indiana, Mars, I think, falls under that category so the the dropped calls shouldn't be a problem.

Who knew

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sherloc (Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman & Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals) instrument sounds fascinating.

I always new cheap and tasty chinese noodles would someday make it out of the bowl and to the planets. One small step for Raman. One giant leap for Ramankind!

Re:Who knew

[riverat1]

The FSM approves your message. Ramen.

Flying a TECHNOLOGY DEMO? WTH?

[jeffb (2.718)]

I'm just about the spaciest space-nutter around, but why the hell are they spending precious money and opportunity to fly a freaking demonstration instead of another actual observational tool?

Look, we know the composition of Mars' atmosphere. We know how much sunlight falls there, what the temperature range is, and so on. It's dead simple to set up a testbed here on Earth, in a jar, and run the oxygen-production process in the testbed. Better yet, you get to measure its output, tweak its operating parameters, and even do an autopsy on it if something goes wrong.

The only thing I can see us getting out of "make oxygen just like we did before, but ON MARS" is PR, and I don't really see the PR upside. All the science packages that were accepted, and a lot of them that didn't make the cut, would've given us new knowledge about the planet. Why in either world are we sending this package instead?

Re:Flying a TECHNOLOGY DEMO? WTH?

[Squidlips]

Yup. It is a stupid, idiotic waste of space, but I guess JPL has to give this concession to the manned-space porksters at NASA HQ. You just know that the engineers at JPL are rolling their eyes when presented with this plan. Gawd, when can we get a new administration at NASA and clean out the anti-science, pro-pork, manned spaceflight lobby in the NASA HQ? I would like to see equal representation of the Science directorate in top NASA management, not yet-more ex-pilots.

When are they going to do a return flight?

[Anonymous Coward]

When can we get a Mars landing that will scoop up Martian soil samples and take them back to earth?

You can do a much more extensive analysis with terrestrial labs, and it is a good step towards a human visit to Mars.

MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Squidlips]

I am sure the crew at JPL is rolling their eyes about the MOXIE CO2-->O2 "experiment". Here is an experiment that could easily be done at any of, say, a hundred universities here on Earth. What is the point of taking up valuable space, electricity, and engineering effort just to shlepp this stunt to the surface of another world? The point is that JPL was probably forced to do this by the Human-exploration Directorate weasels that run NASA or JPL is doing it to appease them so they don't get their funding cut when their asteroid-capture stunt goes over-budget as it surely will. And why split CO2 for rocket fuel when there is nothing to burn. Wouldn't be easier to split ice/H2O and you get H2 for fuel if you want, but, of course it is harder to gather and purify the ice. But anyway I am all for it if that is what it takes to get another rover to Mars....

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Hadlock]

Nobody's landed a MOXIE on Mars before, not one broken or working. Until that happens you can't definitively say "yes you can produce rocket fuel to go back home to Earth with". Once you can say this, the logistics for putting a human on Mars and returning him safely become a realistic goal. Right now it's just a theory.

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Squidlips]

What's the point of MOXIE? Sending humans to Mars is 100 times the cost of what is in the NASA budget now for Manned spaceflight so it is just not going to happen. Everything on Mars except the low gravity is easily simulate-able on Earth for a fraction of the cost. MOXIE is just plan idiotic. It is just a stunt by the Human Spaceflight Directorate at NASA to get in on the action. They finally realized that the real excitement in spaceflight are the unmanned probes so they want a piece of the action. It was like Bolden sitting at JPL during the MSL landing pretending he had something to do with it. As you know, Carl Sagan started the Planetary Society to stop the Human Spaceflight Directorate types from stealing money from the planetary missions to fuel their bottomless well of cost overruns. Nothing has changed. Bolden tried to kill off planetary missions and had to restore funding after a public outcry. I am sure that NASA's pointless asteriod-capture stunt will be have huge cost overruns and Bolden will use it to try to grab funds from Planetary missions. Look at the SLS and its costs. What is each launch going to cost now? Billions I assume...

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Electricity Likes Me]

Absolutely everything in space travel is about 'legacy' - "has this part, flown and operated, in an actual space mission before?"

Everything about space travel requires testing because you can't properly test anything on Earth. Not really, not as good as actually sending it up there and checking it works in the real environment. One of the fun things people do with Cubesats at the moment is build them with all sorts of random components, because a cubesat is so cheap you can afford and expect to lose it, but if it works, you can put a big tick on "yep, operates for X hours in low earth orbit".

You absolutely would not want to send a CO2 -> O2 device to Mars, to supply humans with O2, that has never been into space or onto Mars before. Do we truly understand Martian dust environments? Chemistry at extended periods of time (months) of catalysts at low pressure/temperature?

Developing the space legacy of components like that (and it's not just a CO2 -> O2 converter it will be many individual component designs) is staggeringly important. Not to mention, that it means in the future you can more reliably design experiments to go to Mars which depend on an oxidizing atmosphere, if you can reliably make it and purify it in situ. But you wouldn't want to put a chain of stuff like that on a probe, and then discover none of it will work because your oxygen maker breaks down after a few hours.

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget, to be successful, little one, it helps to have your cadre of congress critters lined up behind you too.

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Hadlock]

Sure, but it I said, "hey, I found a spare trillion USD in the budget, let's setup a moon base and rotate the crew every 3 months", you would say "ok great, we've proven getting men to the moon and back is a realistic goal". And so it goes. The Russians and the Chinese are both looking at this as something they want to achieve in the next 20 years. It's a proven thing, there's no ifs ands or buts, you can put a man on the moon and bring him home safely.
 
If something goes horribly wrong on the moon, you can send them back in 4 days express mail style. No big deal.
 
It's six+ months to get someone home from Mars, and if something happens en route to mars, you just have to wait, there's no early return. If you find out you have terminal brain cancer three days after you leave earth, you have a full year before you can come home for treatment.
 
But some day we're going to send a man to Mars. Or I will weep for humanity. Hopefully in my lifetime.
 
At some point you have to prove out that it's possible to sustain human life for 6 months, a year, two years on the surface. That needs to happen sooner rather than later. Would you rather send a man to Mars with a system that has 6 months of flight heritage, or one with 12 years flight heritage? Your astronaut has to live for 2 years on the surface. Do you trust the design with 6 months or 12 years testing without failure? There's very little to no free oxygen on Mars. You have to send an oxygen generator there early on. You couldn't sail very far from shore without a reliable way to carry drinking water for 12 hours, 2, 3 days trip. If you can't provide drinking water for a 6 month trip across the atlantic, you're going to be stuck in Europe. You have to prove out the technology at some point.
 
If you don't understand the concept of "flight heritage", don't bother replying.

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[KeensMustard]

But some day we're going to send a man to Mars. Or I will weep for humanity. Hopefully in my lifetime.

Well, you might need to buy a box of tissues. The fundamental problem with the plan to send a man to mars still remains, and until that is solved, nobody is going to Mars in person. The problem? We simply aren't interested enough to invest the money and energy to do it. The reason is that the future of space travel lies with machines, whereas human space travel lies in the past. We all know it, we've known it for years. Manned space travel is like restoring steam trains these days. Sure, there's a few enthusiasts. But few people ride in steam trains, and few ever will, except for the purposes of nostalgia.

At some point you have to prove out that it's possible to sustain human life for 6 months, a year, two years on the surface

No, we don't have to do that.

Would you rather send a man to Mars with a system that has 6 months of flight heritage, or one with 12 years flight heritage?

I choose neither.

There's very little to no free oxygen on Mars. You have to send an oxygen generator there early on.

Machines don't need oxygen. Problem solved.

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Squidlips]

Which experiment got bumped in favor of MOXIE?

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Hadlock]

Both Russia and China have reaffirmed their plans to go to Mars. Just this week Russia announced that they were building a new super heavy lift rocket for such a purpose. Since those are the only two countries with human spaceflight programs currently, they're the most likely to accomplish these goals. I would no longer count on the United States to lead the way here.

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[Squidlips]

I have tremendous respect for JPL and if the JPL crew is enthusiastic about MOXIE then I withdraw my objections to it. But couldn't you simulate the high-G launch and EDL with a centrifuge and simulate the radiation exposure and low atmospheric pressure here on earth? OK, I guess it is not the same as the real thing and it will be good for publicity so OK...

Re:MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[KeensMustard]

Do you think that these are likely to be more than stunts?

I can't of course judge their motivation. But they do seem most inclined to use space technology as a symbol of the status of their respective nations (much as the US once did with Apollo). This being the case then it seems likely that - if they ever go to Mars - these efforts will be abandoned shortly after reaching the first milestone.

Byproduct of CO2 = O ...

[Anonymous Coward]

O diatomic so O2 is the stable form, so it would be CO2 -> C + O2. You'd be left with solid carbon.

Why mars again? Why not doing a lunar base?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lunar base could give much more marketing to space exploration...

budgets spin-offs

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not saying there's no advantage to space exploration, but I simply wonder why we continue to do these things yet we have a very big [budget] deficit. Why?

If you want to save on the deficit, go after the Pentagon. That's where the meaningful money is. What NASA spends in a year the military spends in a week (or less).

Apart from knowledge of how space works, what has the ordinary American gained from the billions spent on the space program? Can anyone point me to any tangible or intangible goods resulting from space exploration?

Yup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Ooh! Ohh! Ohh!

[NetNinja]

I have the perfect landing spot!

The cydonia region! What and exciting and interesting rock formation!

MOXIE is a lame and idiotic politcal stunt

[HemoGoocheJPL]

I am a 21 year employee at JPL. I can say that the scientists, engineers, technicians, and managers who have discussed MOXIE with me this past year have never voiced anything negative. JPL has a highly entrepreneurial workforce. Almost 90% of the scientists work on competitively awarded proposals. If you don't win you don't have a job ... it's that simple. There are significant technologies within MOXIE that these scientists have worked their entire careers to get into spaceflight. Have some respect. Sheesh! Wipe the water off from behind your ears little one.

A Great Day

[HemoGoocheJPL]

Long time lurker on Slashdot and while many times I've fretted and wondered about posting something, it's never risen above the threshold. For Mars2020 though, I'm "rocketing" through that barrier. I spent half of last year in a room with four other great scientists writing one of the proposals and then sweating out another six months waiting to hear yesterday that we won. I am not the Principal or Deputy PI for this instrument, but I have been for ISS instruments. To be a part of a planetary mission is incredibly special.

Dig?

[manu0601]

No tool to dig the ground? If there is life on Mars it is probably below the surface.

Re:Dig?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing. I had a friend working on a drill in about 2000 and, though I don't remember the details exactly, they believed they'd be able to hit a depth of like 60m in a package sized for a rover. Seems to me that now that we have a decade of high-resolution shots from an orbiter, maybe the mere surface of the planet isn't as potentially game-changing as what's below.

Re:Dig?

[Squidlips]

There will be a core-ing tool, at least.