Cost of Human missions vs Robots

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">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. Posted by michaelmozina</font></p><p>Well, you were doing pretty good till you mentioned this. I'd have to ask you the same question. When can we go do something that might inspire the next generation of MichaelMozinas? Or better yet, result in the discovey of the ages if we should discover evidence of life on mars?</p><p>Do we wait till we spend a trill in Iraq? Or trillions on deficit spending while no increases for whatever you, DrRocket and other human spaceflight cost critics might think will be improved?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. Posted by michaelmozinaWell, you were doing pretty good till you mentioned this. I'd have to ask you the same question. When can we go do something that might inspire the next generation of MichaelMozinas? Or better yet, result in the discovey of the ages if we should discover evidence of life on mars?Do we wait till we spend a trill in Iraq? Or trillions on deficit spending while no increases for whatever you, DrRocket and other human spaceflight cost critics might think will be improved?&nbsp; <br />Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p><br />You sure are defensive.&nbsp; Nowhere did I say that we should not pursue human spaceflight or a manned Mars mission.&nbsp; What I said is that there are trade-offs that must be considered and there are meritorious competing projects&nbsp; `You seem to have an overwhelming emotional tie to the manned Mars mission.&nbsp; I won't even debat whether we should or should not undertake such a mission until all the competing projects are laid out on the table.&nbsp; Once that is done then maybe the Mars mission would get the nod.&nbsp; I dunno.</p><p>I do know that charging into a project like that and then killing it halfway through would be a gigantic and total waste of all of the funds expended.&nbsp; So if we decide to do it we have better be committed to finishing the job.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">You sure are defensive.&nbsp; Nowhere did I say that we should not pursue human spaceflight or a manned Mars mission.&nbsp; What I said is that there are trade-offs that must be considered and there are meritorious competing projects</font></p><p>I might seem defensive but its nothing personal or anything like that. For one thing, I mentioned that you were a critic because I've never seen any supportive human spaceflight statements from you. But thats okay and thats your opinion and yours is probably a much more professional opinion than mine.</p><p>I think all I'm asking is that people in general look at the bigger picture. Neither you or I will benefit from continued belief by critics of HSF that if only we'd cut NASAs HSF budget...we'd solve pressing social issues or fund economically productive research efforts. I tried to present what I thought was a credible argument by citing examples of government waste far larger than NASAs entire budget and still failed, but thats probably because someone whos really good at debating, and is charismatic, would be needed for this type debate.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">You seem to have an overwhelming emotional tie to the manned Mars mission.&nbsp; I won't even debat whether we should or should not undertake such a mission until all the competing projects are laid out on the table. Once that is done then maybe the Mars mission would get the nod.</font></p><p>No, I could care less really if we ever send humans to mars. We can stagnate the whole humans in space thing for all I care. I'm getting too old to be emotional about it. I certainly wont be around for humans on mars if that occurs much after 2030.</p><p>IMO, the flaw in waiting till all the competing projects are laid out, is that there will always be competing projects and their supporters. You will never see the day when someone can say...okay mars folks...we have no pressing cheaper projects on the table, you have a go for mars.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">I dunno.I do know that charging into a project like that and then killing it halfway through would be a gigantic and total waste of all of the funds expended.&nbsp; So if we decide to do it we have better be committed to finishing the job. Posted by DrRocket</font></p><p>I agree, and never advocated charging into it and certainly not finishing it. What I advocate it as reasonable human spaceflight effort to mars predicated on a discovery of evidence for life on mars via robotic probe. As someone who seems pretty highly trained in the sciences, I'm sure you can appreciate the need for absolute proof of any robotically supplied evidence of life on mars. Would you want to say there is absolutely undeniable proof of life on mars based on robotic findings alone?</p><p>Now bear in mind also, I'm not saying we should even propose a mars mission until we get this possible evidence of life on mars from whatever probe may or may not provide it. And an unmanned sample return probe might just miraculously bring back living samples but if that happened, that would probably strengthen the drive to investigate with humans on site anyway.</p><p>I hope I'm finally getting my points across this time. I'm not the best debator around but this is not an emotional issue for me. Its more about the flawed logic of why the public in general would think something thats already been tried and failed, will still work.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Its more about the flawed logic of why the public in general would think something thats already been tried and failed, will still work.&nbsp; <br />Posted by qso1</DIV><br />&nbsp;Eugen Wigner once said something to the effect of "One of the marks of genius is that when you try something and it doesn't work, the next time you try something different." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thanks although I can assure you I'm no genius, and I'm okay with that. I'll take your advice and maybe work on a different approach to this funding issue stuff. One reason is that I wrote a book several years ago that addresses this issue because most other spaceflight books don't. Guess will see how it goes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. Posted by michaelmozinaWell, you were doing pretty good till you mentioned this. I'd have to ask you the same question. When can we go do something that might inspire the next generation of MichaelMozinas? Or better yet, result in the discovey of the ages if we should discover evidence of life on mars?Do we wait till we spend a trill in Iraq? Or trillions on deficit spending while no increases for whatever you, DrRocket and other human spaceflight cost critics might think will be improved?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>Trust me when I tell you that you're preaching to the choir on the topic of squandering money in Iraq.&nbsp; I'd much rather that my tax dollars went into space exploration.&nbsp; The accomplishments NASA has made over the past few decades insprire me too, although perhaps it's not quite as "captivating" as the Apollo missions.&nbsp; On the other hand the Mars images, the Hubble images,&nbsp; the SOHO, TRACE, Hinode, Spitzer and other satellite images are also very inspiring to me and they are just as important to me as the Apollo missions.&nbsp; IMO Mars will experience humans standing on it's surface some day, just not as quickly as you and I might hope.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do expect to be around when it happens.&nbsp; IMO NASA's "disoveries" have been well worth the investment, including the unmanned missions. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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]

<p><font color="#800080">Trust me when I tell you that you're preaching to the choir on the topic of squandering money in Iraq.&nbsp; I'd much rather that my tax dollars went into space exploration.&nbsp; The accomplishments NASA has made over the past few decades insprire me too, although perhaps it's not quite as "captivating" as the Apollo missions.</font></p><p>I hear ya...I was quite captivated by Apollo as an early teenager.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#800080">On the other hand the Mars images, the Hubble images,&nbsp; the SOHO, TRACE, Hinode, Spitzer and other satellite images are also very inspiring to me and they are just as important to me as the Apollo missions.</font></p><p>Agree here as well. &nbsp;</p><p>I<font color="#800080">MO Mars will experience humans standing on it's surface some day, just not as quickly as you and I might hope.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do expect to be around when it happens.&nbsp; IMO NASA's "disoveries" have been well worth the investment, including the unmanned missions. Posted by michaelmozina</font></p><p>Not sure if I'll be around. I recall when Viking 1 landed in 1976, I was 20 then. I fully expected humans on mars by 1986. Then it slipped, and slipped, and slipped till I simply give up on ever seeing it now. Of course, its not important to society if I see a mars landing. That was just me and maybe I'll see it yet.</p><p>One thing that has been pretty optimistic...we had a long dry spell between Viking and the Pathfinder missions (One failed mars orbiter in between) and since Patfinder, several more highly successful mars missions and a couple of less than successful ones so I certainly agree we need the robots.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[ariesr]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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&nbsp; land on mars since the 1970s and considering that perhaps the cost of them all and the data gathered.&nbsp;e.g. Didnt Viking 1 cost trillions of dollars?&nbsp;&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>qs01: did you try reading later posts for clarification?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>4 days was NOT a serious suggested timeframe for a mission!</p><p>I already said the "trillion dollars"&nbsp; came from incorrect sources</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Jeesh some people. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[atpollard]

<p>The overwhelming advantage of a robot mission over a manned mission is that a robot mission can be built and launched in a single political administration. </p><p>&nbsp;A manned mission will need to survive the budget axe of multiple administrations (and probably different political parties) to go from "study" to "launch".</p>