Mars InSight Mission To Launch In 2018, After $150M Failure and Delay (arstechnica.com) 69
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."
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is an objective truth that sending humans to space is costlier and more error prone than unmanned probes.
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.
Humans AND robots. Not humans OR robots (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Humans AND robots. Not humans OR robots (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Robots have limits. We need people too. (Score:3)
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 wi
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Alright. Name one issue of human biology that can only be studied by putting a human on Mars that is not specifically limited to the question of whether humans can live on Mars.
Setting aside human biology is akin to dumping the whole point of a manned space program. Can't do it.
Well, "whole point" is an exaggeration, but there's a reason I said "for the moment". I'm inviting you to consider the opportunity cost that a manned mission to Mars would present -- it's impact on other research priorities.
(1) Robotic exploration alone will never develop the technology needed to sustain life in space. (2) It would be very easy to over-focus on robotic exploration and starve the (harder and more expensive) manned exploration.
I agree with (1), but I wasn't suggesting abandoning manned space flight entirely, just prioritizing robotic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to play devil's advocate here for a second, clearly you don't need a human to run a lab test you planned to do right from the drawing board, but you might find it helpful to have a human available if an unexpected problem or opportunity arises. Humans are versatile, machines are not -- not in comparison at least. When the heater for your assay breaks down a human can look at it and scavenge parts from another piece of equipment. If a Martian strolls up and says "hi", a human can say "hi" back.
Take geo
Re: (Score:2)
Now add the many metric tons of life support equipment, extra costs of the "failure is not an option", for a meatbag. And no humans to mars will not do
Re: (Score:1)
Yes human spaceflight is costlier and more difficult but we also learn more from doing it.
No we don't. We learn less pound for pound. We learn less dollar for dollar and we learn much less mission for mission. And that is leaving out dead astronaut costs and just sheer minimum mission costs. Because meat bags keep dying without air, or water, or when it gets cold or they get a bunch of radiation on em. Then they can't even walk around without a +10M suit which gives them the fineness and mobility of the Michelin man.
Don't send a man to do a machines job.
Don't do deep space (Score:2)
The only reason we should be spending deep space probes in the first place is if we're planning to send humans to deep space. Otherwise, we should be happy staring at our telescopes or taking joy rides to the Karman line [wikipedia.org]. The only exception to this is finding out if there's some nearby heavenly monster out to do us harm, an asteroid headed our way or an impending gamma ray burster, which can probably be detected using ground-based or earth-orbital sensors.
If we're not going to do a crewed, human mission to
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear (Score:2)
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.
More landers and rovers, less potatoes and sh*t.
Re: (Score:2)
You got us! The truth is, there is no Mars. It's a red laser pointer the CIA aims up at the big black sky-tarp we call outer space.
Re: (Score:2)
-Cat probably
AI is an alpha go, initially... (Score:3)
If (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
When's the last time you put on your hiking boots and explored somethign on this planet?
Today. I do a lot of stuff that involves exploring, and not all are safe according to safety culture. Life is too short to sit still, and await the inevitable. There is a big, beautiful, and interesting world out there. Did some exploring in the Everglades recently, as well as hiking along the Gulf of Mexico.Went pier fishing. Another hike to watch and count manatees. Closer to home, I've been enjoying getting into the local mountains, although some of the higher elevations were suffering from ice accum
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so it should be easy to convince venture capitalists to fund you, right? Well, go for it!
Why? Govenrment has had a long history of funding exploration. Lewis and Clark were funded by President Jefferson in 1803. Plenty of others have throughout history. Mental masturbation with images of Ayn Rand in your head notwithstanding, there seems to be a reason for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, just like with most everything else we do, there's a potential future benefit that is worth more than the cost. Otherwise we'd still be living in small tribes and gathering nuts and berries while following herds of animals around.
We'd all be huddled in the caves, because we'd have built robotic hunters who would bring things back to us because we poor little meatbags dare not venture outside of the caves because it is dangerous and expensive. A meatbag is too precious to accept any risk, or any danger.
sarcasm off. I am of course being facetious. I simply find the "Silly humans, space is not for you, it's for robots!" attitude exactly equivalent to the concept of never daring to leave the tropics because its too expensive to bui
The case for humans in space (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Arguing against manned spaceflight. (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is saying there is zero scientific value to sending humans to Mars, so that is a bit of a strawman.
I've seen respected scientific journalists saying almost exactly that, or that there is so little to be learned that it isn't worth it. Not to mention plenty of people here. They are clearly saying that we should starve or stop the manned spaceflight program and focus on robotics exclusively or almost so.
The argument is that the cost to benefit ratio is way out of proportion, especially considering a large portion of the human physiological portion knowledge could be learned in LEO, with diminishing returns from going to the Moon.
The cost benefit ratio only seems off if you aren't looking at very deeply or have a short ROI expectation. The benefits of manned spaceflight generally take longer to realize so it just seems bad when yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Robotic probes and marketing spaceflight (Score:3)
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 ther
Re: (Score:2)
In fact there are some problems that you literally cannot study with robots. (Human physiology not the least among them)
Yes, but we already know that humans don't like to die of suffocation, cold, heat, thirst, hunger, radiation poisoning or excessive G-forces. Pretty much the only conditions we can't easily replicate is low/zero gravity, which is only interesting if we plan to have humans in low/zero gravity in the first place. Almost all the challenges to a Mars mission are technological to keep the "human parameters" within the boundaries we already have a pretty good idea of. And we could do more of those, like could you
Re: (Score:2)
For a different set of problems it is more valuable to send people
Name a single one that is not "How to send people there and live for a few months".
Re: (Score:1)
The lander itself was ready to go, as was everything except the seismometer. That seismometer was being built by the French space agency (CNES), and they couldn't get it through final testing due to a vacuum leak in time to get it delivered in time to install, test, and launch.
"NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, will redesign, build and conduct qualifications of the new vacuum enclosure for the Seismic Experiment for Interior Structure (SEIS), the component that failed i
Meatbags? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a few hundred people are to spend trillions (which they're entitled to.. how?) to go live on Mars while the masses starve, why can't they do that on Earth?
North Korea shows how it can be done. Allow a very low standard of living to 99% of the population (i.e. no heating in the winter, no transportation, rice and eggs considered as fine foods), and a decent standard of living to 0.1% of the population. Use your space tech to threaten your neighbors with nuclear attacks.
If that requires you to run death ca
Red Dragon is needed (Score:2)
Hopefully, musk will send a dragon to mars once he has gotten dragon fly working on earth. And if he does one in 2018, with his garden and extra sensors, he will make it possible to send loads more in 2020.
remeber Curiosity slipped a launch cycle too (Score:2)