Noisy Rhysling said:
If you watch "From the Earth to the Moon"
Well, yes, I have seen From The Earth To The Moon, that's why I brought up Harrison Schmitt. As a geologist he had a guaranteed and important job at the time, the Moon has a lot to offer a geologist. I think that sending Watney as sort of a paleobotanist is somewhat optimistic, but at least there's a viable explanation in the book. I think rovers have progressed to the point where one could have done a job comparable to what Schmitt did on Apollo 17 with less risk and expense. I guess I was coming at it from a cost-benefit point of view.
Noisy Rhysling said:
My last job with the US government involved "looking at pictures" /euphemism. That job required me to see more than just was in the picture.
Thank you for your service (no sarcasm intended). You studied a picture and as an expert, you drew conclusions. The rover pictures are also studied by experts who drew conclusions without being exposed to radiation, low gravity, months in space, etc. As far as peripheral vision goes, they have some pretty good panoramic abilities -
http://mars.nasa.gov/multimedia/interactives/billionpixel/
Noisy Rhysling said:
Robots are not humans, to be sure, but they have advantages to offer. One is longevity, look at Opportunity - 12 years of exploration. How much money would it cost to fund even one human explorer on Mars for 12 years? How much physical harm would be done to them by living in that environment? The book and movie aside, in reality it comes down to money and what human biology can reasonably withstand.
Robots also have indeed made discoveries - evidence of modern water activity on Mars, data about the atmosphere, discovery of hydrothermal vents, the list goes on. I would say when it comes to remote explorations robots controlled by people
are already doing it. I see your point to the contrary, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Noisy Rhysling said:
why set up a permanent habitat until you've explored enough to know where one would be best sited.
Because as a taxpayer, I want something for my money. We've studied Mars for 40 years, I think we could take a stab at placing a couple of habitats. In the story they were sending modules ahead so I thought a good job for Watney might be trying to set up at least an experimental hydroponics facility. Look to polar exploration for an example - in those very harsh environments, explorers like Robert Falcon Scott would establish places like One Ton Depot. These facilities were provisioned with food and equipment to supply explorers, a handy thing if someone would get...well... stranded for example.
I would prefer it if my money went for something more akin to Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan. It is similar to the Polar Exploration concept: "To return, the crew would use the Earth Return Vehicle, leaving the Mars Habitat Unit for the possible use of subsequent explorers." Sounds good to me. If they had done that a couple of times (they were Ares 3, the previous 2 missions could've left 2 Habitats) Mr. Watney could have benefited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct .
Noisy Rhysling said:
For example, there are places on Mars when water is more plentiful than others.
We already have scientific outposts at the poles on Earth. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to put a polar station on Mars...
Noisy Rhysling said:
A hydroponics facility would easily ten times that much water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars It is stated here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_polar_ice_caps - that "the caps at both poles consist primarily of water ice." Seems like that would go with my notion of extracting a polar ice core sample for study (a mission that's waited 4 decades. Enough rocks and sand, I say, let's study some ancient
ice.) The explorers could thaw ice all they wanted so they would have ample drinking water and it would be a hydroponics friendly area.