Cost of Human missions vs Robots

ariesr · Jun 2, 2008

Hi Folks, I've watched with interest as more Robotic Probes are sent to various Moon and planets and at one point agreed with the consensus that this was the way to go and that a human missions was extremely wasteful. But considering the amount of effort required to drive the robotic vehicles to their destinations and gather data from the sites of interest. Is it really cost effective? i.e. Could a human mission to Mars (in 4 days) not gather more information than all the other missions put together since the 70s?  Perhaps getting Humans to their destination would still be dirven from missions control (Or perhaps not!). I suspect the efficienty of a human mission is not in question, so information gathering would be much much quicker and further information gather would be more effective than any robotic probes.

michaelmozina · Jun 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi Folks, I've watched with interest as more Robotic Probes are sent to various Moon and planets and at one point agreed with the consensus that this was the way to go and that a human missions was extremely wasteful. But considering the amount of effort required to drive the robotic vehicles to their destinations and gather data from the sites of interest. Is it really cost effective? i.e. Could a human mission to Mars (in 4 days) not gather more information than all the other missions put together since the 70s?  Perhaps getting Humans to their destination would still be dirven from missions control (Or perhaps not!). I suspect the efficienty of a human mission is not in question, so information gathering would be much much quicker and further information gather would be more effective than any robotic probes. Posted by ariesr</DIV>It seems to me that there will always be a place for human exploration, as well as a need for robotic missions.  A robotic mission is significantly 'safer" in many instances, and of course significantly cheaper as well.  On the other hand, human beings like to explore and that will not ever change.  I'm looking forward to us landing people on Mars, and having all the data we've gathered with robotic missions will help us once we get there.  It's still very impressive to me that we can map the surface of a distant planet, and land ojbects on distant planets, without even risking human lives in the process.  That is pretty amazing.  I grew up during the Apollo missions and I miss not having more of a human presense in space.  Spacetravel is always going to be hazardous however and the more we can do to reduce those risks using robotic missions, the happier we'll be long term.   I'm just grateful we're able to explore so many planets and moons and to do all that's being done on the budget that NASA has to work with.  They impress me a great deal in terms of effeciency and technology and diversity in their mission planning.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

h2ouniverse · Jun 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi Folks, I've watched with interest as more Robotic Probes are sent to various Moon and planets and at one point agreed with the consensus that this was the way to go and that a human missions was extremely wasteful. But considering the amount of effort required to drive the robotic vehicles to their destinations and gather data from the sites of interest. Is it really cost effective? i.e. Could a human mission to Mars (in 4 days) not gather more information than all the other missions put together since the 70s?  Perhaps getting Humans to their destination would still be dirven from missions control (Or perhaps not!). I suspect the efficienty of a human mission is not in question, so information gathering would be much much quicker and further information gather would be more effective than any robotic probes. Posted by ariesr</DIV> Reason 1) Cost of a Mars-manned mission: from 50 to 500 billion dollars (recall: ISS /> 100bn, and that is for low earth orbit!!!)Cost of phoenix = 0.4 billions. Exomars = 1 bn, (includes operations costs, few tens of millions)=> a factor of 100 to 1000Reason 2) as long as you are not even able to bring few kg of rocks from Mars back to Earth (MSR = Mars Sample Return), you cannot think to bring back several hundreds of kg of humans .The "snowball effect" (launch mass -to- payload mass ratio) is tremendoulsy high: you have to climb the Earth's gravity well, the Sun's well, brake to get down to surface (with a factor of 3 to 10 for parachutes, shield, airbags and/or propellant mass), launch again from Mars, be in orbit around Mars, go back to Earth. And again the descent module snowball effect.Currently MSR, for few kgs of rock brought back, requires at least two major launches (one for the Mars Orbiter + Earth return vehicle, and one for the Lander + Mars Ascent Vehicle). Multiply by 100 times the returned mass and you get an idea of the tremendous launch cost.MSR is estimated at more than 5bn dollars.

ariesr · Jun 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Reason 1) Cost of a Mars-manned mission: from 50 to 500 billion dollars (recall: ISS /> 100bn, and that is for low earth orbit!!!)Cost of phoenix = 0.4 billions. Exomars = 1 bn, (includes operations costs, few tens of millions)=> a factor of 100 to 1000</DIV> Ok, but as you can see from my post, I'm not comparing one mission, I'm adding up all the unmanned missions to  land on mars since the 1970s and considering that perhaps the cost of them all and the data gathered. e.g. Didnt Viking 1 cost trillions of dollars?  Might one manned mission supersede them all in a matter of days for the same or less cost?

h2ouniverse · Jun 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ok, but as you can see from my post, I'm not comparing one mission, I'm adding up all the unmanned missions to  land on mars since the 1970s and considering that perhaps the cost of them all and the data gathered. e.g. Didnt Viking 1 cost trillions of dollars?  Might one manned mission supersede them all in a matter of days for the same or less cost?  Posted by ariesr</DIV> Viking 1 one trillion of dollars???? Are you kiding? (1 trillion of dollars = US TOTAL GDP in 1972!!) Please check your data. Also, "Man on Mars" does not mean anything tangible for now economically. You are comparing apples with oranges. Real cost on robotic side. Pie in the sky on "manned mission" side (the spacecrafts are not sized yet, just vaporware, unlike MSR that had at least pre-definition phases). Also a four-day manned mission makes no sense. You have the time of travel several months at best. The operational cost, if you speak about that, of a Mars-manned mission of several months will run in billions. The operational cost of robots is few tens of millions, including several years of cruise. Regards

JonClarke · Jun 2, 2008

These days te consensus amongst martian scientists, both geologsts and biologists is that crewed missions will be far more productive than unmanned ones. This turn round has happened in the last 10 years.It is sobering to realise that, apart from the long term term environmental monitoring, the mission of each of the Mars landers could have been completed in a few days by a human crew.  A crew could do the equivalent of Viking 1 and 2, Pathfinder/Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity, and Phoenix combined in perhaps two weeks work.The Viking mission cost something like 3.5 billion in day's money.  That's more than the lat decade's missions combined. Of course the Viking mission wasn't one spacecaft, but a fleet of four, two orbiters and two landers.  However, until  a country or consortium of countries is prepared to meet the high initial cost of a human mission, we must be content with remote exploration using slow, low capability technology.  cheersJon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These days te consensus amongst martian scientists, both geologsts and biologists is that crewed missions will be far more productive than unmanned ones. This turn round has happened in the last 10 years.It is sobering to realise that, apart from the long term term environmental monitoring, the mission of each of the Mars landers could have been completed in a few days by a human crew. </DIV>It's interesting when you look at it that way, and it's probably quite true.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

ariesr · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Viking 1 one trillion of dollars???? Are you kiding? (1 trillion of dollars = US TOTAL GDP in 1972!!) Please check your data. Also, "Man on Mars" does not mean anything tangible for now economically. You are comparing apples with oranges. Real cost on robotic side. Pie in the sky on "manned mission" side (the spacecrafts are not sized yet, just vaporware, unlike MSR that had at least pre-definition phases). Also a four-day manned mission makes no sense. You have the time of travel several months at best. The operational cost, if you speak about that, of a Mars-manned mission of several months will run in billions. The operational cost of robots is few tens of millions, including several years of cruise. Regards Posted by h2ouniverse</DIV> Yep, it was more like 1 billion. A couple of sites had it written as trillion (my bad)As for four days, I should have added that I would expect a missions to be much longer than that, but I thought that 4 days would uncover more science than all the mars lander missions put together.

DrRocket · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These days te consensus amongst martian scientists, both geologsts and biologists is that crewed missions will be far more productive than unmanned ones. This turn round has happened in the last 10 years.It is sobering to realise that, apart from the long term term environmental monitoring, the mission of each of the Mars landers could have been completed in a few days by a human crew.  A crew could do the equivalent of Viking 1 and 2, Pathfinder/Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity, and Phoenix combined in perhaps two weeks work.The Viking mission cost something like 3.5 billion in day's money.  That's more than the lat decade's missions combined. Of course the Viking mission wasn't one spacecaft, but a fleet of four, two orbiters and two landers.  However, until  a country or consortium of countries is prepared to meet the high initial cost of a human mission, we must be content with remote exploration using slow, low capability technology.  cheersJon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>So far as I know there is still the little matter of determiing if humans can exist in a low-gravity environment for the duration of a Mars mission without suffering bone loss and muscle atrophication to a debilitating level.  At this time we don't have the necessary technology or propulsion capabilit to provide the necessary acceleration or centrifugal acceleration for such a mission.  We also lack sufficient propulsion capability for a mission to Mars and return.  The return part gains importance with a manned mission.What is a Martian biologist ?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

ariesr · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So far as I know there is still the little matter of determiing if humans can exist in a low-gravity environment for the duration of a Mars mission without suffering bone loss and muscle atrophication to a debilitating level.  At this time we don't have the necessary technology or propulsion capabilit to provide the necessary acceleration or centrifugal acceleration for such a mission.  We also lack sufficient propulsion capability for a mission to Mars and return.  The return part gains importance with a manned mission.What is a Martian biologist ?  Posted by DrRocket</DIV> The russians might be best placed to answer that one. They sent folk up to Mir and left them for ages!

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So far as I know there is still the little matter of determiing if humans can exist in a low-gravity environment for the duration of a Mars mission without suffering bone loss and muscle atrophication to a debilitating level.  At this time we don't have the necessary technology or propulsion capabilit to provide the necessary acceleration or centrifugal acceleration for such a mission.  We also lack sufficient propulsion capability for a mission to Mars and return.  The return part gains importance with a manned mission.What is a Martian biologist ?  Posted by DrRocket</DIV>Cetainly a lot of work needs to be done before such missions are possible.  But the fact remains that the scientific consensus amongst those whose busines Mars is, very much in favour of human missions.However, it is worth remembering that, while the effects of long term partial gravity, as opposed to micro, gravity are unknown, the fact that more than 20 people have flown multiple missions equiavlent to a trip too and from Mars is a good indicator that this is not going to be a big problem.A martian biologist is, of course, a terrestrial biologist who investigates the possibilities of martian life, present or past, and  develops strategies to look for it.cheersJon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The russians might be best placed to answer that one. They sent folk up to Mir and left them for ages! Posted by ariesr</DIV>They didn't just leave them them there", there ws a program of proressively longer missions leading up to the duration of the low thrust Mars mission conceptss the Russians have favoured.  So over a period of 15 years they gradually built up from missions lasting 3 months to ones lasting 14.Some 50 people have missions equivalent to a one way trip to Mars.  Twenty three have done two, approximating a round trip.  Some have even done four long uration flights.  Here is the list of those who have flown two or more long duration missions (four months or more).1.      Sergei Krikalev 804 days (six flights, three long duration)2.      Sergei Avdeyev 748 days (three long duration flights, one more than a year)3.      Valeriy Polyakov 679 days (two long duration flights, one 14 months)4.      Anatoly Solovyev 651 days (four flights, three long duration)5.      Alexandr Kaleri 610 days (four long duration flights)6.      Viktor Afanasyev 556 days (three long duration flights)7.      Yuri Usachev 553 days (four flights, three long duration)8.      Musa Manarov 541 days (two long duration flights, one more than a year)9.      Yuri Malenchenko 515 days (three long duration flights)10.  Alexander Viktorenko 489 days (four long duration flights)11.  Nikolai Budarin 444 days (three long duration flights)12.  Yuri Romanenko 431 days (three flights, two long duration)13.  Alexander Volkov 391 days (three flights, two long duration)14.  Yuri  Onufrienko 389 days (two long duration flights)15.  Vladimir Titov 387 days (five flights, (two long duration)16.  Gennady Padalka 387 days (two long duration flights, third scheduled)17.  Vasili Tsibliyev 382 days (two long duration flights)18.  Valery Korzun 386 days (two long duration flights)19.  Pavel Vinogradov 381 days (two long duration flights)20.  Peggy Whiston 377 days (two long duration flights)21.  Leonid Kizim 375 days (three flights, two long duration)22.  Michael Foale 373 days (five flights, two long duration)23.  Valeri Ryumin 372 days (five flights, two long duration, 8 months apart) CheersJon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

DrRocket · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They didn't just leave them them there", there ws a program of proressively longer missions leading up to the duration of the low thrust Mars mission conceptss the Russians have favoured. ... Posted by jonclarke</DIV>It would seem that there is more to be learned before we set off of missions of long duration.  And more technology needed to provide a low thrust for long duration if that turns out to be the right approach. http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/gcrc/space/#Bone <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cetainly a lot of work needs to be done before such missions are possible.  But the fact remains that the scientific consensus amongst those whose busines Mars is, very much in favour of human missions.Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Such people are probably the most qualified to judge the products of a manned mission to Mars.  They are also probably the least objective in evaluating the risks and value of such a mission in the broader context of allocation of available resources to all scientific inquiry.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Such people are probably the most qualified to judge the products of a manned mission to Mars.  They are also probably the least objective in evaluating the risks and value of such a mission in the broader context of allocation of available resources to all scientific inquiry.  Posted by DrRocket</DIV>What is your evidence for this claim?  Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

DrRocket · Jun 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is your evidence for this claim?  Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Simple.  One does not normally have judgments made by those who stand to profit or lose from the judgment.  That is why judges recuse themselves from cases in which they have an interest. My comment was not directed at the technical competence of the people involved, but rather at their involvement itself.  A manned mission to Mars would clearly and directly benefit those people whose livelihood is tied to Martian planetary science.  All scientific effort competes for limited resources.  The allocation of those resources should be made throug a process that is as objective as possible.For instance.  If there are sufficient funds to fund either a mission to Mars or a superconducting supercollider, then the decision as to which is funded should, in the final analysis, be made by neither particle physicists nor by planetary astronomers.  A broader forum is indicated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Simple.  One does not normally have judgments made by those who stand to profit or lose from the judgment.  That is why judges recuse themselves from cases in which they have an interest. My comment was not directed at the technical competence of the people involved, but rather at their involvement itself.  A manned mission to Mars would clear and directly benefit those people whose livelihood is tied to Martian planetary science.  All scientific effort competes for limited resources.  The allocation of those resources should be made throug a process that is as objective as possible. For instance.  If there are sufficient funds to fund either a mission to Mars or a superconducting supercollider, then the decision as to which is funded should, in the final analysis, be made by neither particle physicists nor by planetary astronomers.  A broader forum is indicated. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>Of course what our politicians wasted in Iraq over the past few years could have easily paid for a trip to Mars *AND* that supercollider project too, cost overruns and everything, with plenty of money left over.  Unfortunately money is never allocated in an unbiased or intelligent way, and I doubt that's going to change anytime soon.I'm definitely a big fan of planetary exploration.  We may even learn interesting things about our own planet by visiting and studying other ones.  For instance if we learned that the atmosphere of Mars experiences 'global warming' cycles in the same patterns as our own planet, then maybe we'd know that the process is mostly externally (solar) driven rather than man made.   If Mars experiences no such changes, that too has implications.I can't say I disagree with you about trying to be unbiased, but IMO it's never tha simple anyway, and Washington wastes more money than I'd like to think about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

JonClarke · Jun 4, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Simple.  One does not normally have judgments made by those who stand to profit or lose from the judgment.  That is why judges recuse themselves from cases in which they have an interest. My comment was not directed at the technical competence of the people involved, but rather at their involvement itself.  A manned mission to Mars would clear and directly benefit those people whose livelihood is tied to Martian planetary science.  All scientific effort competes for limited resources.  The allocation of those resources should be made throug a process that is as objective as possible.For instance.  If there are sufficient funds to fund either a mission to Mars or a superconducting supercollider, then the decision as to which is funded should, in the final analysis, be made by neither particle physicists nor by planetary astronomers.  A broader forum is indicated. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>Thanks for the clarification. You have changed the playing field significantly in this statement.  In the context of baroder science policy of course the decision needs to be taken not by one interest group but by comparing a wide range of projects and priorities.   I can't think of any advocates of crewed Mars missions who objects to this process.However, the original comment was by aresr and the ensuring discussion was much narrower than this, in terms of the relative costs and returns of crerwed vs unmanned missions. In this context the professional opinions of those who are actually involved in space exploration should be paramount.cheersJon    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JadedShock · Jun 4, 2008

Until attitudes change and long-term investments made to see manned missions succeed, then of course robotic missions will be cheaper and the more preferred way of space exploration. More interest in space technology will help bring down the price of production to a more reasonable level, I think. In the end I see it as, do you want a robot to touch the Martian soil or yourself? There's a reason why man has 5 senses...it's a bit hard to ever think a robot can precisely mimic our fuctions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> __________________________ www.phoenixreign.com </div>

qso1 · Jun 5, 2008

Ok, but as you can see from my post, I'm not comparing one mission, I'm adding up all the unmanned missions to  land on mars since the 1970s and considering that perhaps the cost of them all and the data gathered. e.g. Didnt Viking 1 cost trillions of dollars?  Might one manned mission supersede them all in a matter of days for the same or less cost? Posted by ariesrWe haven't even spent a trillion dollars on all of NASA since its inception 50 years ago. The Viking project was roughly 1 billion dollars, or $4.16 B dollars in 2007. No manned mission with present or projected near term technology would get to mars any faster than unmanned probes. 4 days to mars is not possible with practical known propulsion technologies.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jun 5, 2008

Hi Folks, I've watched with interest as more Robotic Probes are sent to various Moon and planets and at one point agreed with the consensus that this was the way to go and that a human missions was extremely wasteful.I'm for robotic and human missions. If we discover evidence for microbiological life on mars, humans are best equipped for identification of and long term study of martian microorganisms if any, in their own habitat.As for human missions being wasteful, the popular consensus among people who have no space interest is that human spaceflight (HSF) is wasteful. They believe that we could cut NASAs HSF budget and allocate the money to other pressing social needs. They believe this as thought they think the government would automatically channel any budget cuts in that direction.This happened in the early 1970s in response to critical outcry post Apollo. NASAs whole budget was cut 50% over about a 5 year period. And NASAs budget has been roughly 50% Apollo level since. Yet the money saved didn't do a thing for pressing social needs. For one thing, the government never showed what happened to NASAs budget cuts.But I do know that the government wasted far larger sums of money on things like year after year deficit spending, the S&L scandal, and now, Iraq. But considering the amount of effort required to drive the robotic vehicles to their destinations and gather data from the sites of interest. Is it really cost effective? i.e. Could a human mission to Mars (in 4 days) not gather more information than all the other missions put together since the 70s?There is no existing practical propulsion technology that would allow a human mars mission to get humans to mars in 4 days. The fastest projected time would be around 6-8 months for manned or unmanned missions. A human mission could potentially gather as much or more data than all robotic probes that have gone to mars.However, estimates for a human mars mission Von Braun style circa 1970 were $100 B dollars, or what would be about $560 b dollars today. A Zubrin Mars direct mission was estimated at $20 b dollars in the mid 1990s ($28 B 2007 dollars) and NASA proposed a more realistic Zubrin class mission for $50 b dollars in the mid 1990s.  Perhaps getting Humans to their destination would still be dirven from missions control (Or perhaps not!). I suspect the efficienty of a human mission is not in question, so information gathering would be much much quicker and further information gather would be more effective than any robotic probes. Posted by ariesrI think the largest advantage to humans on mars is searching for life on mars.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jun 5, 2008

Simple.  One does not normally have judgments made by those who stand to profit or lose from the judgment.  That is why judges recuse themselves from cases in which they have an interest. My comment was not directed at the technical competence of the people involved, but rather at their involvement itself.  A manned mission to Mars would clearly and directly benefit those people whose livelihood is tied to Martian planetary science.  All scientific effort competes for limited resources.  The allocation of those resources should be made throug a process that is as objective as possible.For instance.  If there are sufficient funds to fund either a mission to Mars or a superconducting supercollider, then the decision as to which is funded should, in the final analysis, be made by neither particle physicists nor by planetary astronomers.  A broader forum is indicated. Posted by DrRocketI can understand people not wanting to allocate funds for a human mars mission. Most scientists do not consider it a wise investment. And if this were for a flags and footprints, we beat someone there mission. I would tend to agree. But the reality is this...for the past half century, the idea we can better spend money on earthly needs, whether scientific or social, originated with the argument that more than any other, killed human missions beyond LEO. That argument, "If we can land on the moon...or today mars, why not spend that money here on earth?"What has been failed to be realized in half a century...is that if we cut NASAs budget, which we did...whos to say government will allocate it wisely? Which in several key instances they did not.Look at the year 2000. The budget surplus, third of four under Clinton. Was a whopping $236 B dollars. followed by a $127 B dollar surplus (The last) in 2001. NASAs 2000 budget was $13.4 billion, a reduction from the 1999 budget of $13.6 billion. We had these surplusses, the first since 1969. And we still cut NASAs budget.So when will we be able to afford a human mars mission? A mars mission that to me, should be about setting up bases with the primary goal of searching for evidence of life or fossil life. A mission I can see as only being suited for human and robots working together.Buit we will never see this as long as we believe that money wasted on NASA would ever be spent on pressing social needs when the evidence clearly shows the government wastses far larger amounts on crap like Iraq ($100 B annually and counting).Of course this wont matter to those who are against human spaceflight. But I will never be able to buy into the human spaceflight money waste argument knowing what I know until I see money we waste on all government spending get allocated to the needy, to science in general or other spending of NASA cuts that would justify cutting/ending human spaceflight.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

DrRocket · Jun 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Simple.  One does not normally have judgments made by those who stand to profit or lose from the judgment.  That is why judges recuse themselves from cases in which they have an interest. My comment was not directed at the technical competence of the people involved, but rather at their involvement itself.  A manned mission to Mars would clearly and directly benefit those people whose livelihood is tied to Martian planetary science.  All scientific effort competes for limited resources.  The allocation of those resources should be made throug a process that is as objective as possible.For instance.  If there are sufficient funds to fund either a mission to Mars or a superconducting supercollider, then the decision as to which is funded should, in the final analysis, be made by neither particle physicists nor by planetary astronomers.  A broader forum is indicated. Posted by DrRocketI can understand people not wanting to allocate funds for a human mars mission. Most scientists do not consider it a wise investment. And if this were for a flags and footprints, we beat someone there mission. I would tend to agree. But the reality is this...for the past half century, the idea we can better spend money on earthly needs, whether scientific or social, originated with the argument that more than any other, killed human missions beyond LEO. That argument, "If we can land on the moon...or today mars, why not spend that money here on earth?"What has been failed to be realized in half a century...is that if we cut NASAs budget, which we did...whos to say government will allocate it wisely? Which in several key instances they did not.Look at the year 2000. The budget surplus, third of four under Clinton. Was a whopping $236 B dollars. followed by a $127 B dollar surplus (The last) in 2001. NASAs 2000 budget was $13.4 billion, a reduction from the 1999 budget of $13.6 billion. We had these surplusses, the first since 1969. And we still cut NASAs budget.So when will we be able to afford a human mars mission? A mars mission that to me, should be about setting up bases with the primary goal of searching for evidence of life or fossil life. A mission I can see as only being suited for human and robots working together.Buit we will never see this as long as we believe that money wasted on NASA would ever be spent on pressing social needs when the evidence clearly shows the government wastses far larger amounts on crap like Iraq ($100 B annually and counting).Of course this wont matter to those who are against human spaceflight. But I will never be able to buy into the human spaceflight money waste argument knowing what I know until I see money we waste on all government spending get allocated to the needy, to science in general or other spending of NASA cuts that would justify cutting/ending human spaceflight.  Posted by qso1</DIV>You are missing the point.  If you are anticipating wise government spending across the board then I think your optimism is misplaced.  But no matter how government spending is determined one certain thing, perhaps the only certain thing, is that there will be a limited budget for pure science.  It then becomes a question of how that budget is allocated.  It is not a question of return on investment per se.  For two reasons.First, one cannot readily quantify return on investment for pure science.  The applications and commercial benefits, if any, accrue too far in the future for measurement.  And even identifying what those benefits and spin-offs are is difficult, and subject to a lot of false claims.  You basically have to take it on faith that extending scientific knowledge is a good thing and worthy of support.Secondly, even if you accept that pure science should be supported, you still have to allocate scarce resources to the competing projects.   Thus the question is not whether a manned Mars mission, for instance, would provide valuable scientific data, or even whether it would provide better data than robotic missions on an absolute basis or even per dollar spent.  The question is how to optimize the overall budget to get the most benefit.  And to a large extent this is a subjective process.  You need to be able to trade a single manned mission to Mars against everything else that might be done with the money -- robotic missions to the Sun, outer planets, asteroid belt, Earth-bound tracking of asteroids, Hubble/Spitzer/Chandra/James Webb telescope work, etc.  You even need to trade it against other scientific work -- particle accelerators, support for individual investigators in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, medicine.  This global trade is particularly necessary with an effort that would require the magnitude of resources needed for a manned Mars mission.We can do a manned mission to Mars.  The necessary science is known.  But we do not have the necessary technology.  That would have to be developed.  It can be done, but it will require massive resources.  I have no doubt that someday there will be a manned mission to Mars.  But I don't know when.  It is pretty clear to me that we do not, at this time, as a nation, have the commitment to dedicate the needed resources.  It would be a real waste to spend half or so of the needed funds to produce essentially nothing, but to deny that funding to projects that could produce something with the money.  The biggest waste in government comes with projects that are terminated before a product is produced, or before a significant number of the products are produced, but it happens all the time, particularly with high-dollar projects.<ul><li>Superconducting supercollider</li><li>B1 bomber</li><li>B2 bomber</li><li>SST</li><li>National Aerospace Plane</li><li>SRAM  II</li><li>Midgetman (Small ICBM)</li></ul>  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are missing the point.  If you are anticipating wise government spending across the board then I think your optimism is misplaced.  But no matter how government spending is determined one certain thing, perhaps the only certain thing, is that there will be a limited budget for pure science.  It then becomes a question of how that budget is allocated.  It is not a question of return on investment per se.  For two reasons.First, one cannot readily quantify return on investment for pure science.  The applications and commercial benefits, if any, accrue too far in the future for measurement.  And even identifying what those benefits and spin-offs are is difficult, and subject to a lot of false claims.  You basically have to take it on faith that extending scientific knowledge is a good thing and worthy of support.Secondly, even if you accept that pure science should be supported, you still have to allocate scarce resources to the competing projects.   Thus the question is not whether a manned Mars mission, for instance, would provide valuable scientific data, or even whether it would provide better data than robotic missions on an absolute basis or even per dollar spent.  The question is how to optimize the overall budget to get the most benefit.  And to a large extent this is a subjective process.  You need to be able to trade a single manned mission to Mars against everything else that might be done with the money -- robotic missions to the Sun, outer planets, asteroid belt, Earth-bound tracking of asteroids, Hubble/Spitzer/Chandra/James Webb telescope work, etc.  You even need to trade it against other scientific work -- particle accelerators, support for individual investigators in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, medicine.  This global trade is particularly necessary with an effort that would require the magnitude of resources needed for a manned Mars mission.We can do a manned mission to Mars.  The necessary science is known.  But we do not have the necessary technology.  That would have to be developed.  It can be done, but it will require massive resources.  I have no doubt that someday there will be a manned mission to Mars.  But I don't know when.  It is pretty clear to me that we do not, at this time, as a nation, have the commitment to dedicate the needed resources.  It would be a real waste to spend half or so of the needed funds to produce essentially nothing, but to deny that funding to projects that could produce something with the money.  The biggest waste in government comes with projects that are terminated before a product is produced, or before a significant number of the products are produced, but it happens all the time, particularly with high-dollar projects.Superconducting supercolliderB1 bomberB2 bomberSSTNational Aerospace PlaneSRAM  IIMidgetman (Small ICBM)  Posted by DrRocket</DIV>I pretty much agree with everything you said with one reservation.  In my case my interest in astronomy and science as well, started with the moon landings.  Watching humans walk on the moon had a profound effect on me personally and it had a very significant effect on the interest in science that followed.   Landing living humans on Mars would have a similar effect on the next generation of scientists.   How does one put a long term price on that kind of intangible human interest and motivation?Your point about the long term benefits to science being hard to gauge is certainly correct, but the microprocessor is a direct result of the efforts that were made miniturize the electons for the landing craft on the Apollo program.  I'm more than satisfied with the direct results on my life and the tax money I've spent supporting NASA.  I wish I could could say that about all the money we spend on this goofy government. I actually give NASA high praise for how it's spent it's limited resources.  Not every program was sucessful, but most have been highly sucessful, and the information we have gathered about our solar system and our universe has been highly enlightening.    They have also motivated countless individuals to get interested in science and it's very difficult to place a value on that benefit from the space program.I guess when it comes down to it, I agree that putting humans on Mars is a huge budget blowout, and it may not be the best way to spend our limited funds.     <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

qso1 · Jun 5, 2008

You are missing the point.  If you are anticipating wise government spending across the board then I think your optimism is misplaced.Not exactly. I'm saying that those who believe NASA funding cuts to human spaceflight will be better and more wisely spent...those are the optimists and many of them would be anti government concerning anything else.  But no matter how government spending is determined one certain thing, perhaps the only certain thing, is that there will be a limited budget for pure science.Absolutely. In fact, I even accept that were not going to send humans beyond LEO by traditional (NASA) means. I'm banking on the private sector to open LEO up so NASA can work on the deep space part of exploration. Not that this will get humans to mars. It then becomes a question of how that budget is allocated.  It is not a question of return on investment per se.  For two reasons.First, one cannot readily quantify return on investment for pure science.  The applications and commercial benefits, if any, accrue too far in the future for measurement.  And even identifying what those benefits and spin-offs are is difficult, and subject to a lot of false claims.Sounds like yo might have misunderstood me...I agree with, and am well aware of the above stated point. Again, it would be a human spaceflight critic that would be expecting a ROI on NASA spending. Skylab was approved in part because it was sold as being of practical benefit to the street man. You basically have to take it on faith that extending scientific knowledge is a good thing and worthy of support.Secondly, even if you accept that pure science should be supported, you still have to allocate scarce resources to the competing projects.Ditto. Thus the question is not whether a manned Mars mission, for instance, would provide valuable scientific data, or even whether it would provide better data than robotic missions on an absolute basis or even per dollar spent.  The question is how to optimize the overall budget to get the most benefit.  And to a large extent this is a subjective process.Right, and this is why I advocate a human mars mission of which the primary purpose is...seek life by establishing a base to conduct a long term search assuming life is not found upon the first landing. Even in that case, once found if found...much post discovery study would need to be done. Given post Apollo lack of will by the public at large, I cannot see much else that would capture their interest long enough to pull it off...and provide some of the highest scientific return imaginable if there is life on mars.You need to be able to trade a single manned mission to Mars against everything else that might be done with the money -- robotic missions to the Sun, outer planets, asteroid belt, Earth-bound tracking of asteroids, Hubble/Spitzer/Chandra/James Webb telescope work, etc.As long as were willing to accept this ridiculous idea that we cannot afford human spaceflight for a reasonable budget, your right. But in the scenario you outlined, there will never be a reason to send humans anywhere as long as some new, cost effective robotic approach can be found and the cost effectivness is based on the idea that we cannot afford a human mars mission under any circumstance while we can afford deficit spending, budget surplusses while cutting NASA HSF and so on. You even need to trade it against other scientific work -- particle accelerators, support for individual investigators in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, medicine.  This global trade is particularly necessary with an effort that would require the magnitude of resources needed for a manned Mars mission.Again, earth based less expensive science will win out with the lay public...while the possibility of confirming life on mars as opposed to an unmanned future robotic missions results being debated will remain distant. We can do a manned mission to Mars. The necessary science is known.  But we do not have the necessary technology.  That would have to be developed.  It can be done, but it will require massive resources.I'd have to say that in some areas we do have the technology, tho not yet developed. Hardware for example, much of what we need is already doable where launchers and spacecraft are concerned. Propulsion is a little iffy since we have never brought a nuclear propulsion system into operational use. Chemical propulsion is possible but borderline impractical.The main technology that I see as an obstacle is life support in areas such as water and food production, closed ecological environment. And of course, we will never have the ability to overcome those obstacles as long as there is no reason. A human mission to mars would help us overcome those tech obstacles. I have no doubt that someday there will be a manned mission to Mars. But I don't know when. It is pretty clear to me that we do not, at this time, as a nation, have the commitment to dedicate the needed resources.  It would be a real waste to spend half or so of the needed funds to produce essentially nothing, but to deny that funding to projects that could produce something with the money.There are pure science projects that don't always yield practical results. But one of the problems with this idea is that as I see it...we did have the money in 2000...a $236 billion dollar budget surplus. Yet NASA was cut and this without any serious talk of going to mars. But out of curiosity, I know you said you thought we'd land on mars when we have the necessary resources...when exactly will that be if were already letting the few possible periods (Clinton surplus years) slip by? The biggest waste in government comes with projects that are terminated before a product is produced, or before a significant number of the products are produced, but it happens all the time, particularly with high-dollar projects.Superconducting supercolliderB1 bomberB2 bomberSSTNational Aerospace Plane SRAM  IIMidgetman (Small ICBM) Posted by DrRocketI agree in part...however, the largest waste of tax money is government overspending resulting in deficits annually. The SSC was one of those pure science projects I had in mind in my previous statement. But I think that we could have done the SSC. After all, where all all the savings going from these canned projects? According to NASA, and the 1969 Von Braun mars mission plans, we were ready to do mars as early as 1982.At least $100 billion was saved by canning the Von Braun plan...and it was canned long before it could have become truly wasteful in terms of canx costs.We held off. And in all the years since, where are the savings from that decision? Where is the increase in funding of that which you are interested in? An increase that should have resulted from all the years of huge post Apollo NASA cuts. A NASA budget always a minimum of 50% less than any Apollo budget year.We can afford $100 billion annually for Iraq. We were able to afford a $500 billion S&L scandal that taxpayers are still paying for last I checked. We were able to afford year after year of deficit spending except for the brief four surplus years, the first surplusses since 1969 and probably the last until 2069!We can afford all that but cannot afford a human mission to mars. But no use trying to convince anyone that the cost argument is hollow at best. If we had followed Von Brauns plan and it were successful...but NASA budgets were four times what they are today and we were getting no results, I think I'd see the critics point.But when anyone tells me the money we'd spend on a mars mission is being wasted and could be better spent on social services, or in your case, low budget pure science...only to find that neither of these pursuits actually benefit because government is not going to ensure NASA cuts are not wasted on stuff like Iraq or S&Ls. I just have to continue to disagree that a human mars mission is that much of a waste, especially if done responsibly...no flags and footprints crap, but go for science that can only really be done by a human presence.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Cost of Human missions vs Robots

ariesr

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

h2ouniverse

Guest

ariesr

Guest

h2ouniverse

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

ariesr

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

ariesr

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JadedShock

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

qso1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page