What is the value in visiting the Moon again?

[wolram]

Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.

 

[Ophiolite]

In no particular order.

1. Geopolitical statement
2. Testing/Development of technology for a manned Mars mission
3. Expression of the innate human desire to explore
4. Identification of resources for in situ development
5. Identification of resources for potential export to orbit (Earth or Lunar) or Earth
6. Improved understanding of lunar geology
   1. Insights into lunar formation
   2. Improved delineation of the age of lunar events
   3. Enhanced mapping of lunar features
   4. Expanded knowledge of lunar petrology and mineralogy
7. Subdue the babble from the conspiracy theorists who deny the reality of the moon landings

 

[russ_watters]

Last time I went, all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

 

[BWV]

Nothing worthwhile in any manned space exploration - for the cost you could instead to a multiple number of unmanned missions.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nothing worthwhile in any manned space exploration - for the cost you could instead to a multiple number of unmanned missions.

I would readily agree that robotic missions can acquire substantial volumes of information for a cost low in comparison with manned exploration. However, to assert that "nothing worthwhile" can emerge from manned space exploration is surely hyperbole.

Until we have developed AI to the point it approaches the discretion of a trained human, advanced robotics to match human flexibilty and built systems that possesses the adaptability, mental and physical, of humans, until then manned exploration will deliver valuable data and more valuable understanding. What is important is to provide a balanced mix of exploration techniques, remote, robotic and manned. Excluding anyone of these will limit the quality and quantity of data we can acquire.

 

[TeethWhitener]

As a counterpoint and food for thought, this paper came out several years ago:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.6250.pdf
The author argues that humans are far more efficient than robots at the type of scientific work that space exploration requires (he estimates a human:robot efficiency ratio of 1500:1). One example he points out is that the Apollo 17 astronauts covered more ground in 3 days than the Mars rover Opportunity covered in 8 years.

Not sure if the efficiency argument above can counterbalance the dangers of sending people to space, but it may counterbalance the argument from cost that we seem to see over and over.

 

[symbolipoint]

Why go there again? To find and visit a place like EATS:

 

[russ_watters]

The author argues that humans are far more efficient than robots at the type of scientific work that space exploration requires (he estimates a human:robot efficiency ratio of 1500:1). One example he points out is that the Apollo 17 astronauts covered more ground in 3 days than the Mars rover Opportunity covered in 8 years.

Not sure if the efficiency argument above can counterbalance the dangers of sending people to space, but it may counterbalance the argument from cost that we seem to see over and over.

Well, but that's just it: he didn't calculate cost efficiency, he calculated per mission efficiency. The total cost per rover was $500M. The Apollo program cost about $25B, with 6 landings, of which the Apollo 17 EVA was longest. By EVA time ratio, Apollo 17 cost about $6 B. So the cost ratio is 12:1, when comparing a moon mission to a Mars mission. I'm not sure what the Mars premium is, but I could believe a factor of 100 to close the remaining gap.

And that doesn't include the economy of scale for launching 1,500 rovers or geographic effectiveness.

 

[TeethWhitener]

And that doesn't include the economy of scale for launching 1,500 rovers or geographic effectiveness

Sure. It doesn’t include a lot of things. But it does illustrate that manned missions can’t simply be rejected out of hand for not being as cost-effective as unmanned missions.

 

[phinds]

Subdue the babble from the conspiracy theorists who deny the reality of the moon landings

No, it will not. People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing. It will just be another hoax.

Arguing fact against conspiracy theories is a complete waste of time.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure. It doesn’t include a lot of things. But it does illustrate that manned missions can’t simply be rejected out of hand for not being as cost-effective as unmanned missions.

I wouldn't reject anything out of hand, I'd just do a full/relevant analysis...

 

[TeethWhitener]

People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing.

Well, we could always send them to the moon.

 

[russ_watters]

No, it will not. People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing. It will just be another hoax.

Even worse, now that CGI is viable. Faking a moon landing in 1969 would have been reeeeeaaaaaaaly difficult. Today, notsomuch.

 

[phinds]

Well, we could always send them to the moon.

And they will argue that they were drugged and/or hypnotized and it wasn't real. AGAIN, arguing fact against conspiracy theories is a waste of time.

 

[BWV]

Ok the 1500:1 ratio comes from this quote:
“[t]he unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [i.e. a martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute” (Squyres, 2005, pp. 234-5).

Which makes it a fallacious argument. So what if it takes a Martian day for a robot to do what a human can accomplish in 60 seconds? The last Mars Rover, Curiosity, has been operating for over six years - how long could a human operate? And could a human really have gathered all the information that Curiosity has compiled so far in a day and a half (1/1600th of six years)?

 

[Rive]

And they will argue ...

I would like to point out that @TeethWhitener was about ' to send them' but 'bring them back' was not mentioned at all...

 

[Ophiolite]

No, it will not. People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing. It will just be another hoax.

Arguing fact against conspiracy theories is a complete waste of time.

I did not suggest that it would eliminate the babble of conspiracy theorists. I said it would subdue it. I should have remembered the distinctions that often exist between American English and British English. In the latter "subdue" can carry the sense of "reduce". It is not generally a synonym for "suppress". I have met enough hoax believers who would be persuaded by further landings. The babble would be quietened. (Not silenced.)

Thus, I chose "subdue" carefully. . . . . . Just not carefully enough.

So what if it takes a Martian day for a robot to do what a human can accomplish in 60 seconds? The last Mars Rover, Curiosity, has been operating for over six years - how long could a human operate? And could a human really have gathered all the information that Curiosity has compiled so far in a day and a half (1/1600th of six years)?

Surely the more important point is that the robot and the human bring different strengths (and different costs) to the table. An argument for only one automatically eliminates all the benefits of the other.

Moreover robots can never fully address the third point I listed as a reason for manned exploration:

Expression of the innate human desire to explore

 

[TeethWhitener]

Ok the 1500:1 ratio comes from this quote:
“[t]he unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol [i.e. a martian day] a human explorer could do in less than a minute” (Squyres, 2005, pp. 234-5).

Which makes it a fallacious argument. So what if it takes a Martian day for a robot to do what a human can accomplish in 60 seconds? The last Mars Rover, Curiosity, has been operating for over six years - how long could a human operate? And could a human really have gathered all the information that Curiosity has compiled so far in a day and a half (1/1600th of six years)?

First of all, take a look at Figure 2. It seems that, from a scientific publication output, yes: a few days on the moon can generate far more publication-worthy data than years of a rover on Mars.

Second of all, unless you’re talking about an entirely autonomous robot, humans will still be making decisions about what to examine. In the case of Mars, it takes at least an hour’s round trip for a signal to be sent by a rover to Earth and back. A decision which takes a human a few seconds to make encounters a three-orders-of-magnitude delay simply in communicating to the rover, and it’s only going to get worse the farther away from Earth you get.

Robots and AI will get better, and endangering astronauts will always be a tough hurdle politically, but saying that nothing worthwhile can come of manned missions is simply incorrect.

 

[Rive]

Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.

To be honest, as scientific achievement I do not expect much. The most important things to know about the Moon are already known, big surprises are unlikely. Some details might be confirmed, some holes might be filled, but that's all. It'll remain a lifeless, dusty piece of rock what we can't really utilize in a near future.
I think more (and more useful) data can be expected from - no, not from rovers, but from some new set of satellites, which might has more power, higher resolution and less strict weight limit than the actual ones.

I expect such endeavor more like as an engineering experience/testground what comes naturally when prepared to reach further goals. Might be thrilling and useful, but at the end I think it will be more like a milestone rather than actual goal.

Ps.: due this I think it is a bad idea to force or rush such visit. When time is ripe it'll come naturally: but if forced it'll just eat up resources from building the background for later success. Quite like the Space Shuttle: seemed to be a good idea that time, it was also a heroic effort what could keep the high spirit around space exploration, but by the later account it was also a bottomless pit which delayed the further development of space reaching capacity by two decades.

 

[russ_watters]

Second of all, unless you’re talking about an entirely autonomous robot, humans will still be making decisions about what to examine. In the case of Mars, it takes at least an hour’s round trip for a signal to be sent by a rover to Earth and back. A decision which takes a human a few seconds to make encounters a three-orders-of-magnitude delay simply in communicating to the rover, and it’s only going to get worse the farther away from Earth you get.

Robots and AI will get better, and endangering astronauts will always be a tough hurdle politically, but saying that nothing worthwhile can come of manned missions is simply incorrect.

I do agree that the "nothing worthwhile" statement was too absolute (though it also wasn't grammatically correct, so it might be able to be interpreted more softly...), but the anti-robot arguments are also being overstated.

The signal delay and slow movement issues with the rovers are as much a feature as they are a bug. An astronaut on an EVA is literally on a clock and while it's great he can work reasonably fast, it is even more important to remember that he has to because his life depends on it. The lunar EVAs were for the most part planned down to the second. Astronauts even commented on the luxury of just a few seconds break to stop and look around. If an astronaut found something interesting, there might not be time for processing the new info and changing the plan. This will obviously improve with more robust missions, but these limitations are inherent: The astronaut is tethered to a base and on a clock that kills him if it reaches zero.

A team of scientists and engineers in Polo shirts in an air conditioned control room in Pasadena taking hours to make daily decisions on what to do tomorrow has far more time and flexibility to process information on the fly and direct the course of the investigation. And this can easily be multiplexed: it is far easier to send two probes to locations thousands of miles apart, being operated by separate teams, than it is to design a manned craft to carry the astronauts to a second location thousands of miles from base.

It's also worth noting that the time/speed issue decreases with distance, it doesn't increase. Why? Because the transit duration takes a larger and larger time the further away the destination is. You can somewhat counter that by making the stay at your destination longer, but then you run into the issue of diminishing returns at a particular location and lack of ability to move.

Putting all of this together is complicated though, and the specifics of the mission objectives will obviously make a big difference for how you approach any particular mission. A complex in-situ task may still favor an astronaut.

 

[hmmm27]

Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.

In modern times, approximately 5,000 people have climbed to the top of Mt Everest. Approximately 4,999 of those weren't the first to do so.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think these questions are best framed in terms of cost vs. benefit, and whether the funding is available.

Nothing wrong with a family taking a vacation to China if they have the money. But if they are in debt and have to borrow money for the trip, one could reasonably question the wisdom of the expense, especially if the purpose is mainly recreational/educational in ways that the benefits are not well justified by the costs.

I have yet to see a convincing detailing of the benefits that would justify the expenses and risks of visiting the moon again.

 

[BWV]

I think these questions are best framed in terms of cost vs. benefit

opportunity cost is the big hurdle - given limited resources, is another moon trip the best use of our capital? What will not get funded if this does?

 

[jackwhirl]

What will not get funded if this does?

Bombs, ideally.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Bombs, ideally.

Unlikely given the current state of the US government.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Setting aside the discussion of the dollar-value costs involved, can anyone really point to benefits in terms of science to another manned mission to the moon specifically, as opposed to robotic missions to the moon, or satellites or robot probes to the outer cosmos, or maintaining and extending the operations of the International Space Station?

 

[jackwhirl]

Setting aside the discussion of the dollar-value costs involved, can anyone really point to benefits in terms of science to [...] maintaining and extending the operations of the International Space Station?

They wrote a book about it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

They wrote a book about it.

I think you misunderstand my post. I had asked what benefit is there to a manned mission to the moon as opposed to maintaining the International Space Station.

In other words, what good is putting people on the moon? We already have the International Space Station, which NASA argues in that book you quoted is a benefit for humanity -- an argument that I agree with.

 

[jackwhirl]

I think you misunderstand my post. I had asked what benefit is there to a manned mission to the moon as opposed to maintaining the International Space Station.

In other words, what good is putting people on the moon? We already have the International Space Station, which NASA argues in that book you quoted is a benefit for humanity -- an argument that I agree with.

I see. Sorry I missed that the first time.

Well, I don't know about science, specifically, but there will be a lot of engineering challenges involved with extended missions beyond LEO. Probably a lot of medical science focused on the effects of extended exposure. Like ISS, but more.

 

[hmmm27]

Setting aside the discussion of the dollar-value costs involved, can anyone really point to benefits in terms of science to another manned mission to the moon specifically, as opposed to robotic missions to the moon, or satellites or robot probes to the outer cosmos, or maintaining and extending the operations of the International Space Station?

Bluntly, if money isn't an issue, do them all.

Free of context, putting another man on the moon is mostly PR. Absolutely huge PR, of course. But, not just for the uplift of the soul ; currently, we've only a very small sample set of off-Earth experience to work with.

The upcoming China missions might be simply viewed as a new superpower claiming ascendancy (or parity, anyways) over the slightly less new one, but every datum from that mission vastly improves our understanding of what's necessary to survive - arguably thrive - outside of the Earth.