Slashdot Mirror


'Sending Astronauts To Mars Would be Stupid' (bbc.com)

One of the first men to orbit the Moon has told BBC Radio 5 Live that it's "stupid" to plan human missions to Mars. Bill Anders, lunar module pilot of Apollo 8, the first human spaceflight to leave Earth's orbit, said sending crews to Mars was "almost ridiculous". From a report: NASA is currently planning new human missions to the Moon. It wants to learn the skills and develop the technology to enable a future human landing on Mars. NASA was approached for a response to Anders' comments, but hasn't responded.

Anders, 85, said he's a "big supporter" of the "remarkable" unmanned programmes, "mainly because they're much cheaper". But he says the public support simply isn't there to fund vastly more expensive human missions. "What's the imperative? What's pushing us to go to Mars?" he said, adding "I don't think the public is that interested". Meanwhile, robotic probes are still exploring Mars. Last month, the InSight lander, which will sample the planet's interior, successfully touched down at Elysium Planitia.
Further reading: Bill Nye: We Are Not Going To Live on Mars, Let Alone Turn It Into Earth.

44 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. Latency by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Communications to Mars have stupid high latency. 4 to 24 minutes depending on where Mars happens to be.

    As a result, the robots have to be incredibly paranoid and drive at a snail's pace. Put some people there and with good equipment they could get stuff done 20 times faster, not to mention doing things the robots aren't equipped for.

    Put a small fabrication shop on Mars, and they'll be able to craft whatever tool's needed for the job on the spot if anything unexpected comes up.

    1. Re:Latency by gtall · · Score: 4, Funny

      Umm....a small fabrication shop you say? So what, a 3-D printer + raw materials, a drill press and associated gadgets, etc. That's just for starters. We'll be needing some spare parts as well, hard to send home and wait 6 months for them to show up. You'll also be wanting to power these fancy tools. Some solar panels will be needed...errrm...lots of them.

      Our toolsmiths will need a place to live, shouldn't be hard, we'll just send along Mr. InflateO, instant Quonset Hut. Umm...heat....we'll need to heat that as well. More solar panels for everyone, gas cylinders are big, heavy (expensive to lift out of the Earth's gravity well), and dangerous. So you'll be needing some fire fighting equipment as well if you want them, also big and heavy.

      Food might be problem, there being a dearth of botanical gardens on Mars from what we hear. Water Mars has, as long as the Marstronauts stay close to the poles. Better allot time for collecting water...and defreezing it...more solar panels.

      Transportation could also be a problem since Mars has not invested in public transport...taking after the Earthlings is not a recipe for success in the solar system. And that transportation will need to powered since the Flintstone's Family Human Conveyance won't be available. More solar panels, big ones too, Marstronauts are heavy in their Mars suits.

      Radiation shielding might be helpful since Mars has no atmosphere. Okay, re-plan, we find a cave to situate our intrepid explorers who get all week-kneed at a bit of radiation, wussies. Of course this will limit their time working 20 times faster than machines, presuming they arrived without getting irradiated on the way there. An unfortunate feature of the solar system is people-hating radiation. We should talk to the Solar System Administrators about fixing this.

      Air. Gotta have air for our meat-sacks to breathe. Okay, we'll extract that from the thin Martian atmosphere...More Power, argh, argh, argh. Another layer of solar panels for everyone.

      Let's not forget the most important need for human life: waste removal. Polluting the rest of Mars with our exquisitely scented waste is probably going to screwup those biological experiments we like to run looking for Martian life..."Hey, I found it...look, bacteria...oh, never mind, just some eColi, how'd they get here?" That stuff tends to build up over time so we'll need a biological containment unit...a big one, our Marstronauts like to eat well...."Oh the intergalactic laxative will get you from here to there, if shitting is your problem, without a worry or care..." (Donovan).

      There you have it, a piece of cake. And they'll get the work done 20 times faster...when they aren't repairing their equipment.

    2. Re:Latency by swamp_ig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could put 200 robots on Mars and still not add up to the cost of a single manned mission, and do far, far more science. Humans on Mars will struggle just to stay alive (and probably won't). Just send more robots.

    3. Re:Latency by TAz00 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, don't use solar panels, go nuclear. Colonizing and Containment, forget the containment, embrace what we are, resource sucking life, and all life does is spread, so lets do that. Radiation isnt a problem, if you sent smokers without cigarettes, they'd live longer. And we get air from ice/water, not the atmosphere.

    4. Re:Latency by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would contend that a single astronaut on Mars can do far more science than even 1000 robots. The OP has actually underestimated the problem with using RC robots on Mars: it's not just the time it takes for the signal to reach Mars, but it's the roundtrip - when an operator gives a minimal instruction to the robot, he/she will wait in trepidation for 8 to 48 minutes to find out WTF happened. As a result, as OP says, the robots have to be operated with extreme paranoia - which is the enemy of research and discovery.

      But eve MORE importantly, there are things that no amount of robots can accomplish, compared to a single human who can arrange an impromptu test or experiment, or repair,

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Latency by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      There are robots now that have their own little electronic brains.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Latency by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      You could put 200 robots on Mars and still not add up to the cost of a single manned mission, and do far, far more science. Humans on Mars will struggle just to stay alive (and probably won't). Just send more robots.

      But what's the point of going to Mars if you don't plan to send humans? You could buy your wife 200 robotic vibrators, but what's the point if you don't get to "go there yourself"?

      And whereas robots can do some science, a lot of the more meaningful things, the questions we can't already answer- requires a human.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Latency by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      No problem. Just make sure it has Netflix.

    8. Re:Latency by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

      It's rather obvious that we'll send a boring machine to solve the radiation problem. Why do you really think TBC's work has been focused on making it smaller, lighter, able to be reused on multiple tunnels instead of just left in place, and electric powered?

    9. Re:Latency by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      I agree. It is obvious that we are going to send a boring machine to Mars. Right after it finishes building the tunnels to the baseball stadiums. But right after that: Mars.

    10. Re:Latency by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't think of any definition of "Space Nutter" that doesn't include you. You are nuts on the topic.

      Really, do you think landing men on Mars is any less useful and productive than the Superbowl? I'd certainly find it more entertaining to watch. I bet it'd be cheaper then the next Avatar movie, as well.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re: Latency by backslashdot · · Score: 2

      600 years ago you were saying Columbus would never be able to fight off the dragons before falling off the edge.

    12. Re:Latency by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      Radiation shielding might be helpful since Mars has no atmosphere.

      You think it's atmosphere that shields us from radiation? The only radiation atmosphere shields us from, is UV, of which there is very little on Mars. What shields us from radiation on Earth are the Van Halen belts, i.e. Earth's magnetic field. While you make a good point in principle, you make it starting from flawed science. Very flawed, as this is known even to schoolchildren.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    13. Re:Latency by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how well heavy metal works to block radiation. I think magnetic fields like the Earth's Van Allen belt work better.

    14. Re: Latency by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, people were saying that the Earth was around 25.000 miles around rather then Columbus's claim of 18.000 miles and he'd run out of food and water before arriving in China.
      He did luck out in finding a continent before starving, perhaps we'll luck out on an inhabitable planet on the way to Mars.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Age of the Pussies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did somebody put something in the entire western world's drinking water, or why is everyone so ridiculously overly cautious and scared of literally everything nowadays?

    Seriously, not trolling or anything... Hasn't anybody else noticed this trend?

    Where's the spirit of "Worth it!"?
    I won't impose my maybe crass view on anyone, but IMHO a bit of pain or even dying isn't *that* bad, compared to never having actually lived at all. It's not like we are bad at making even more humans until we die in our own waste. ;)
    I'd rather live suicidal 40 years, than boring 120.

    1. Re:Age of the Pussies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, get with the program: Everyone now has to be coddled from cradle to grave, not try anything that could fail, and if it after all does fail, pretend that it didn't in order to prevent any learning from taking place.

      If something is hard, don't even try it, then you won't fail! That's the spirit. Under no circumstances human life can be at risk - like going out of the house or the like.

      And I agree with the astronaut in that public support isn't there, but hopefully SpaceX pans out - then it won't matter whether there is "public support". It has always rubbed me the wrong way that going to space is at the whim of congressmen and their constituency (or in other countries, worse), most of whom have no idea about science and wouldn't recognize courage if it hit them on the head.

      All that without recognizing the huge amount of untapped resources that are in space - which even greedy people could appreciate.

    2. Re:Age of the Pussies? by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      And trophies for everybody!! No winners, of course, wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings, so all the trophies are participation trophies.

      Don't blame my generation. We didn't cause this. I'm a couple of months from being 66, and my children are normal humans. Come to think of it, their children are normal, too. I'll have to wait a few years to know if the great-grandchildren are normal; they're just toddlers now.

    3. Re:Age of the Pussies? by kick6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did somebody put something in the entire western world's drinking water

      Actually...yes, they did. Estrogens, phytoestrogens, and progesterones from food, plastics, and birth control.

    4. Re:Age of the Pussies? by gtall · · Score: 2

      Okay, you go first. Write and tell us all about it.

    5. Re:Age of the Pussies? by bradley13 · · Score: 2

      We are too comfortable...

      - We have the 1% - the wealthy and powerful, who only send other people into danger, and then only if it enhances their own wealth and power. You sure won't see them doing any sort of real military service, for example. And they surely won't risk themselves or their money on "adventures".

      - We have the middle class. In today's world, they enjoy a living standard that can only be compared to royalty of earlier times. Huges houses, plenty of food, cheap entertainment, right down to the supercomputer in your pocket. Very, very few of these people (and I include myself here) have the balls to do anything more dangerous than a bungee jump - and most not even that.

      - We have the lower class. Largely uneducated and unskilled, they live off of bread and circuses provided (unwillingly, through taxation) by the middle class. Some might have the intestinal fortitude for an adventure, if there were opportunity at the end of it, but they haven't got the necessary education or skills.

      A Mars mission takes money that only the first group has, education and skills found in the second group, and the motivation that might be found in the third group. Unfortunately, none of these are found together, in the same people. Granted, there are exceptions (Elon Musk and SpaceX come to mind), but they are notable mainly for their rarity.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    6. Re:Age of the Pussies? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      It has nothing to do with "scared", it has to do with people understanding basic science and physics. Space Nutters never learned it, so they think everything is possible. They are a lot like little children.

      It is possible... it's just ridiculously expensive and mistakes will be made the first few attempts no matter how hard we try. We could probably start launching rockets for Mars in 2019 that could sustain a temporary colony, but the costs would be ludicrous and the risks high. We do have the technology today... IF we're willing to take a few risks and willing to spend an insane amount of money and other resources.

      I wonder if they had these sort of arguments back in the day for things like wagon trains or sailing the oceans? People embarking westward in wagon trains had no assurance of success, indeed some met their ends going west. One of the more egregious failures was the Donner Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Even without bizzare cannibalistic endings, weather could be a big issue, and Death Valley wasn't named because of it's hospitality. There were other groups of humans that sometimes attacked these people as well.

      Even before then, the Portuguese and their exploration must have seemed insane to the prudent folk of the day. Today's prudent person would advise staying safe at home, and not venture outside the city limits.

      But even so - there are people who live in those inhospitable places, be it Death Valley or above the Arctic circle.

      But there are humans and groups of humans who are not burdened with trying to live as absolutely long as possible, and not afraid to risk their lives. If the USA decides that it is just too dangerous or expensive, and that it no longer wishes to engage in exploration, some other group will take up the slack and they will own the future.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Age of the Pussies? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      No. It isn't possible. You could go to Mars, but you could never live there for any significant period of time.

      Of course it is possible. It's just not financially appetizing. We've landed multiple things on Mars now without having humans at the controls as they descend. Options are so much more when you don't have to deal with latency- humans controlling descent could mean larger payloads per rocket- safer landings, etc.

        Even if they had to do frequent resupply missions- it is possible on the right budget. We've had people living in the space station for a long time which has less gravity, less resources natively available (aka none) and less atmosphere.

      Now, how easy it would be to make Mars self-sufficient is another question. We would need to send an awful lot of materials to make it self-sufficient with current technology levels- but it could be done... especially if we're willing to send backup systems and some supplies periodically. Chances are we would screw up the first few dozen attempts to be truly self sufficient no matter how well we planned. Resupplies WOULD be needed to start with.

      We haven't landed man on mars because we can't. We haven't because it is ludicrously expensive to do so, and we're not willing to take risks with human lives.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  3. Cost by Dutchy+Wutchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Things that were funded without public support: Bank Bailouts while ignoring illegal foreclosures Endless bombing of the Middle East and Africa Logistics support for Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen Ever increasing military budgets ...

  4. Because it's there by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    was the reason for climbing Everest and is a good enough reason for going to Mars.

    We also need to get off this planet before we are wiped out by an asteroid or something. Doing that in large numbers and creating a self sufficient colony on some other rock (preferably circling another star) will be very hard, a toe hold on Mars would be a great start.

    1. Re:Because it's there by swamp_ig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No appreciable fraction of a percent of humanity living on the Earth now, nor of their decedents for several generations, has any genuine hope of making a home on Mars even if their is a concerted effort to get there.

        Mars or no Mars, if an asteroid hits Earth, the vast, vast majority of humanity dies out. Don't even start with the outpost crap, spend the money on environmental care or even asteroid diversion missions for a much higher cost-payoff ratio. Heck, even if an asteroid did hit we'd have a vastly easier time "terraforming" the resulting Earth.

    2. Re:Because it's there by sonamchauhan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Because it's there"? Uh, poverty is "there". Cancer is "there". Ageing is "there". Pollution (including perchlorates in the environment) is "there". Hunger is "there". Oppression, dishonesty, murder, lying, cheating, is all "there".

      Exporting all this to an already-poisoned planet fixes nothing. We need to start here.

    3. Re:Because it's there by gtall · · Score: 2

      Venus is only 800 degrees. We've invented air conditioning, right?

    4. Re:Because it's there by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Mars has no atmosphere, radiation, toxic dust and has a different gravity"

      Sounds like LA to me.

    5. Re:Because it's there by helpfulcorn · · Score: 2

      Those have always been problems with humanity, and with 7+ billion people why is it we are only allowed to solve one problem at a time? Why can't we work on poverty, cancer, ageing, pollution, and go to space? Why does it have to be "space? fuck that, let's sit here and bitch about how we haven't done much to fix these other problems despite still not going to space."

      We haven't gone out of Earth orbit since the early 1970s, why haven't we made massive progress toward solving these other problems if talking about space is the biggest block? Is all of humanity so focused on space exploration that the reason we still have these problems is because no one is researching in those fields... or are they? Is it possible these are all complex issues without easy answers that take time, money, and people, and not going to Mars or even back to the Moon has had almost no impact on increasing innovation in these areas?

      I suspect if it was "solve these problems first" we will likely never go back to the Moon, because then, what's the limit? If one single person is in poverty or one person dies a year of cancer in the year 3055, do we still say "Nope! Still not solved!" So any knowledge we could have gained by trying to figure out how to live in space, even if it is pie in the sky, we'll intentionally ignore because it's too important not to have utopia first.

  5. Stepping stones. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All our missions to space aren't really the mission. The mission is really just an extension of what humans have always done, explored new places, learn stuff and then settle them. Going to mars doesn't have lots of value but developing all the technology to keep humans alive far from Earth for an extended period is part of our great mission. Humanity is pushing the limits of what is humanly possible so that we can later push even further. We're colonizing the solar system, the galaxy and then the universe while learning about it every step of the way. FTL travel seems unlikely and our bodies are weak but it's still not going to stop us for we will adapt to overcome these obstacles.

    Besides, if we don't go to space, how are we ever going to find out what happens when we throw Alice into a black hole? ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Stepping stones. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um no. Our missions to space are to gather information about the solar system, not to fulfill your space nutter fantasies. People are doing REAL science with these missions. We aren't colonizing anything. We live on Earth. Time to deal with it. Enjoy your stay here, you might like it.

    2. Re:Stepping stones. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How perfectly myopic. It will take millennia but we'll manage it. You seem to be stuck in the thoughts of eons long past because to exploration and colonization are a core component of success of humanity. Then again, maybe you just like being a monkey in a tree.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  6. Going to Mars is like pissing. by XB-70 · · Score: 2
    Going to Mars is like pissing.

    It's not stupid when you just HAVE to go.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  7. So... by bblb · · Score: 2

    His big justification for calling what would be humanity's greatest achievement "stupid" is that he doesn't see the imperative and doesn't think the public backs the idea sufficiently? Genius...

  8. Just like every endeavour... by Excelcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is no different from any endeavor that is on the edge of what our abilities and technology allow. It can seem silly and fraught with far more risk than benefit. This is because the end benefit lies beyond our vision. Just like it did for the Wright brothers and those (and this wasn't a fringe minority) that felt, even after their success, that manned flight was dumb and too risky and provided little benefit.

    One of human's worst traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result.
    One of human's best traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result.

    For better or worse, it's going to happen. It's going to happen because technology will make it possible. Right now technology is only in reach of governments and billionaires. And they are already talking about it and making not unserious plans. Once the technology threshold lowers, it's inevitable.

    I suspect neither Bill (Anders or Nye) can understand that end point for the same reason that baby boomers have a hard time understanding millennials. Who in their right mind will live with their nose in their phone their entire life? Bill Bye thinks that living in domes and spacesuits makes living on Mars not worth it. For a lot of millenials today, that would hardly require a change in behaviour. There are a lot of people who would unquestionably go today. No, the end result is inevitable. Manned exploration will happen. Colonization will happen.

  9. Don't worry by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

    Other countries that don't feel the need to waste insane amounts on blowing up the Middle East will travel to Mars.

  10. Mars is an inhospitable place by twosat · · Score: 2

    "Mars must be one of the most inhospitable places on Earth." BBC Radio Leeds Presenter

  11. Basket = planet by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    spend the money on environmental care or even asteroid diversion missions

    I agree on this part, but have you ever heard the good bit of advice about not putting all your eggs in one basket?

    --
    Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Basket = planet by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What alternative do you have? There is no other "basket". We are here on Earth and can't go anywhere else for an appreciable length of time without dying.

  12. The Apollo astronaut not know what Apollo was for? by Jason1729 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the Apollo 8 astronaut doesn't know why the Apollo program existed?

    Aside from the main reason of allowing the US to show of it's rocket and missile tech to the Russians without directly and obviously pushing the arms race, it got the entire country behind NASA. At it's peak in the 60's, NASA was drawing about 10% of the country's entire GDP and the public was still happy with it. Now with unmanned probes, the public for the most part doesn't know or care what NASA is up do. The budget is a tiny shadow of what it used to be and still draws public outrage.

    A manned Mars mission is something that might once again unite people behind space exploration. It's worth it for the societal reasons alone if not for any scientific or technical ones. The 60's and 70's were a generation of hope and wonder partly fueled by "space age" excitement. We now live in tired and cynical times where society is falling apart.

    It's sad that an Apollo astronaut doesn't get all that, but it's a sign of the times we live in today.

  13. Re:The Public will be interested if it is made so by helpfulcorn · · Score: 2

    I wish I had mod points right now. It's something I have noticed slowly rising over the years, Americans went from super optimistic and "we can do anything" to totally defeated and all ideas are bad ideas, unless they're for dumb ass apps or social media then they're all genius ideas.

  14. Re:The March of Science and Technology by es330td · · Score: 2

    the survival odds of our species

    The chances of survival of the human species are almost 100% outside of a two sided nuclear war or a extinction level asteroid impact.

    Something that few in the climate change crowd ever say is "...at current population levels." There will always be habitable land on Earth even if temperatures rise. The difference is that world may only support a few million people instead of billions.

    even if it may be another 500 years before travel to Mars becomes routine like air travel today.

    Unless some completely currently unknown means of getting out of the earth's atmosphere is found this will not happen. The space shuttle had a failure rate of 1 per 67 missions with a 100% fatality rate. Until and unless getting to space does not require being on top of a burning pressurized bomb no sane person will risk a nearly 2% chance of death.

  15. We do these things by BLToday · · Score: 2

    “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things (accomplishments and aspirations), not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”