Slashdot Mirror
Mars InSight Mission To Launch In 2018, After $150M Failure and Delay (arstechnica.com)
Reader wbr1 points to Ars Technica's Wednesday report that NASA has announced a 2018 launch date for its InSight mission to Mars, two years after its original launch date; the date slip gives engineers time to fix problems with the spacecraft's seismometer system. Adds wbr1: "Even with the failure and extra cost, I think this is the type of mission we should be doing more of. We need more landers and rovers, everywhere we can put them. The science benefit is high, but the cost is magnitudes lower than launching meatbags and all the attendant support they need."
Of course there are some advantages to help settle another sphere using robotic crews, but unless the goal is to spread our bloody androids throughout the universe, human settlements are a must.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I think this is the type of mission we should be doing more of. We need more landers and rovers, everywhere we can put them.
I agree.
The science benefit is high, but the cost is magnitudes lower than launching meatbags and all the attendant support they need.
Sigh... Getting tired of this meme. The science value of sending robots versus sending people DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE STUDYING. Some lines of scientific inquiry it is clearly more economically efficient to send robots. For a different set of problems it is more valuable to send people. In fact there are some problems that you literally cannot study with robots. (Human physiology not the least among them) While I agree that robotic probes are hugely valuable and we should send more, it doesn't follow that there is no value (scientific or otherwise) in sending humans into space. Yes sending people is expensive and difficult. But the good news is that we learn FAR more by sending people. We have to develop all sorts of technology that would otherwise never come about. We are forced down avenues of inquiry that would never come up on any robotic mission. And we can study things that cannot be studied by robots. By all means, keep sending robots but shutting down human spaceflight is both shortsighted and ill advised.
I think it is an objective truth that sending humans to space is costlier and more error prone than unmanned probes.
But it is not the important issue. Yes human spaceflight is costlier and more difficult but we also learn more from doing it. Human spaceflight forces us into lines of scientific inquiry and to develop technologies that would never come up with robotic missions. Much of the most valuable technology that has come out of the space program has come from the manned program. There are things that cannot be easily or productively studied with robotic probes, not the least of which is human physiology and biology.
Whether we have achieved all the value we can from unmanned probes such that we need to send humans to make further progress is the part that is subject to continued debate.
I think that incorrectly frames the issue. It's not about doing everything we can with robots before sending humans. We should do everything we can with robots AND send humans. We'll learn far more by doing both than by doing either exclusively.
We should do everything we can with robots AND send humans. We'll learn far more by doing both than by doing either exclusively.
I think we should send robots to far places, and keep dicking around near earth with humans, where they are close enough to send help. When we get better at space travel, then we can start sending humans out to the boonies of our solar system. Until then, it's a bit of a joke really.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are things that cannot be easily or productively studied with robotic probes, not the least of which is human physiology and biology.
All of which could be studied in orbit. Now if you set human biology aside just for a moment, it would be more precise to say "some things are easier to study with human-run experiments than robots." The key point is that that set of things is a function of mission duration. Some things that are most efficiently done by humans on the Moon would be more efficiently done by robots on the Mars. Some things that are most efficiently done by humans on Mars would be more efficiently done by robots on Europa.
The problem is that the things that can only be done by humans on Mars would cost beyond what anyone wants to pay for a realistic mission, and a half-assed program that gets axed when the true cost of success becomes undeniable is a waste of time and money.
I'd like to see humans on Mars, but I think the shortest path to that happening starts with a sustained and regular program of robotic exploration. With experience we'll get better at getting things there cheaply and landing them there reliably. Then at some point an acceptably risky manned mission will become a financial possibility. But we won't do it because it's the most efficient way of doing Mars research, robotics will continue to advance as fast or faster than our space capabilities. The reasons for doing a manned mission will be a question for anthropology and political science, not economics or engineering.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There are certainly things we can study with manned missions that we cannot robotically. However the political/financial will is not there.
The fact that currently there is a lack of political will does not mean there never will be. What is the most inspirational thing ever done in space? Sending people to the moon. Why did we go? To beat the Russians. What superpower is emerging now? China. Think the US and China are going to compete in space? You better believe it. China is going to want to show off and the US is nothing if not competitive. I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson was more or less correct that we do big missions when either there is A) an existential threat or B) money to be made. Sooner or later one of those things will come about and the money will flow.
My hope is that robotic missions will advance science more cheaply, and at some point there will be a discovery that will make political or corporate manned missions a no-brainer. For right now though manned exploration is not something we have the will to do, and this seems to maybe be the best path to get there.
I think your reasoning is backwards there. First off there won't be "a discovery" that makes manned missions attractive. It will be multi-factorial. You will almost certainly never find a reason to send people into space by sending probes and hoping for the best. You (ideally) want to send people and use that as a halo project to attract funding for the robotic missions. Almost nobody outside of us geeks actually gives shit about the latest probe mission to Mars. It certainly doesn't hold anyone's attention for long even if you can get their attention in the first place. No, you need something more inspirational than a probe.
What you (ideally) want to do is send people and use that to build the funding. You need to give the politicians a reason to care they have a hard time ignoring. Robotic probes will not do that. You have to think about how to market space exploration. Some people are going to be against it no matter what but you don't need to convince everyone, just enough. Believe me if China sends a manned mission to the moon, you can be the US will sit up and take interest. I think we're not being clever enough about what we are doing in space. Instead of having the ISS in low earth orbit, why didn't we put it in an Earth/Moon orbit for example? Focus on the technology and economic benefits we get from the space program. The ROI is astounding but we barely hear a whisper about that.
All of which could be studied in orbit.
100% false. We can study a lot in orbit but there are limits. You cannot study much about biological issues on other planetary bodies in orbit. For that you have to go there.
Now if you set human biology aside just for a moment,
Setting aside human biology is akin to dumping the whole point of a manned space program. Can't do it.
it would be more precise to say "some things are easier to study with human-run experiments than robots."
Not only are some things easier, the differences can be vast in some cases. Furthermore some things really cannot be studied by robot effectively.
I'd like to see humans on Mars, but I think the shortest path to that happening starts with a sustained and regular program of robotic exploration.
I think that is part of the equation but not all of it. Robotic exploration alone will never develop the technology needed to sustain life in space. It would be very easy to over-focus on robotic exploration and starve the (harder and more expensive) manned exploration. The longer you wait to start research about the life support systems, biology, physiology, etc the longer it will be before we are doing something more interesting than orbiting 400 miles above earth's surface.
The reasons for doing a manned mission will be a question for anthropology and political science, not economics or engineering.
Disagree. The reasons for doing a manned mission will be either existential or economic. We went to the moon because we were competing with Russia and considered the idea of Russia getting ahead of us in space to be an existential threat. It's likely China will play that role next. We send satellites into orbit now because there are economic benefits to doing so. The technology we develop though our space program has (huge) economic benefit. Any reason to establish a base on the Moon or Mars or elsewhere will need to have some sort of economic benefit.
I think it is an objective truth that sending humans to space is costlier and more error prone than unmanned probes.
And where does this "objective truth" come from?
When it comes to expense, I think we have good evidence for your argument. The US Apollo program certainly cost more than the robotic missions that were sent by the Soviet Union, although how much more might be difficult to judge.
But here's an interesting question: How much knowledge did we gain versus the cost?
Consider moon rocks, for example. I believe there were three successful Soviet sample return missions (and about six failures--which might speak to your statement of "error prone") which returned, in total, 326 grams. The Apollo missions returned 382 kilograms of rocks and soil from different areas. That's over 1000x more! So if Apollo cost less than 1000-times the Soviet Luna program, wouldn't you say we got more value for our money than with robotic probes?
Also, that is one advantage of a manned program--they're coming back to Earth and can bring stuff back for further study. Robotic missions are not coming back and, therefore, have to carry automated labs with them.
In my personal opinion, you will get more knowledge per dollar spent from a manned mission than you will from a robotic mission. But you will be spending a lot more dollars. And it's harder to convince the American taxpayer that it's worth spending a trillion dollars, say, to send people to Mars to collect information than it is to convince them to spend 200 million dollars 5000 times.
And we'd still be there if we stopped to do a cost-benefit analysis of every new idea.
Sometimes humans just do for the hell of it, and why shouldn't we?
Exploration is fun. Robotic exploration can be cool, but I want a human presence off earth, not some sort of weird and cowardly "Its too expensive!"or "Its too dangerous!" bull shit.
But there are a lot of people who want to stay in their metaphorical caves. But risk averse people shouldn't be running the show. Exploration for the hell of it is as good a reason as any to send humans to Mars and the Asteroids, and the moon. Let's roll.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.