The Cellar - View Single Post

hot_pastrami · 01-19-2004, 06:08 PM

Well, if monetary cost is the only consideration, then yes, sending a robot is the better answer. But monetary cost is not the only consideration, otherwise we wouldn't even bother with sending the robots.

There is a cost/reward ratio that must be considered, and that is where most people decry sending people to Mars... for a lot less money, we can send autonomous robots, and learn almost as much as sending humans wih all of the same instruments. But that asssumes that learning about Mars is the only motivation, which it is not. We are also motivated by a desire to progress our space program, so that we can move even farther. The moon was the first logical step, and Mars is the second. Next would be the moons of Jupiter... etc.

In 15-20 years we could easily have the technology developed to get people to Mars (and back if desired). Before the mission departs, they would just send a payload with all of the fuel and supplies the astronauts would need for their stay and return trip, then after getting confirmation that those supplies arrived safely at Mars, you'd send the explorers. The tech is not that much more advanced than the Apollo missions, the main concern is loss of bone mass in astronauts due to prolonged stay in zero-gravity, but that problem is not unsolvable.

Your robotic telescope example is flawed, because putting a human at the telescope does not put the human in the environment he/she is observing. Putting people on Mars does, which has very real advantages.

Like I said, I don't necessarily think that we need to go to Mars TODAY, but soon. If the world always waited for the skeptics to be ready, we'd never get anything done.

01-19-2004, 06:08 PM	#26
hot_pastrami I am meaty Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 1,119	Well, if monetary cost is the only consideration, then yes, sending a robot is the better answer. But monetary cost is not the only consideration, otherwise we wouldn't even bother with sending the robots. There is a cost/reward ratio that must be considered, and that is where most people decry sending people to Mars... for a lot less money, we can send autonomous robots, and learn almost as much as sending humans wih all of the same instruments. But that asssumes that learning about Mars is the only motivation, which it is not. We are also motivated by a desire to progress our space program, so that we can move even farther. The moon was the first logical step, and Mars is the second. Next would be the moons of Jupiter... etc. In 15-20 years we could easily have the technology developed to get people to Mars (and back if desired). Before the mission departs, they would just send a payload with all of the fuel and supplies the astronauts would need for their stay and return trip, then after getting confirmation that those supplies arrived safely at Mars, you'd send the explorers. The tech is not that much more advanced than the Apollo missions, the main concern is loss of bone mass in astronauts due to prolonged stay in zero-gravity, but that problem is not unsolvable. Your robotic telescope example is flawed, because putting a human at the telescope does not put the human in the environment he/she is observing. Putting people on Mars does, which has very real advantages. Like I said, I don't necessarily think that we need to go to Mars TODAY, but soon. If the world always waited for the skeptics to be ready, we'd never get anything done. __________________ Hot Pastrami!