- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.
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.BWV said:Nothing worthwhile in any manned space exploration - for the cost you could instead to a multiple number of unmanned missions.
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.TeethWhitener said: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.
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.russ_watters said:And that doesn't include the economy of scale for launching 1,500 rovers or geographic effectiveness
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.Ophiolite said:Subdue the babble from the conspiracy theorists who deny the reality of the moon landings
I wouldn't reject anything out of hand, I'd just do a full/relevant analysis...TeethWhitener said: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.
Well, we could always send them to the moon.phinds said:People who are stupid enough to believe the original moon landing was a hoax are not going to be convinced by another landing.
Even worse, now that CGI is viable. Faking a moon landing in 1969 would have been reeeeeaaaaaaaly difficult. Today, notsomuch.phinds said: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.
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.TeethWhitener said:Well, we could always send them to the moon.
I would like to point out that @TeethWhitener was about ' to send them' but 'bring them back' was not mentioned at all...phinds said:And they will argue ...
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.)phinds said: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.
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.BWV said: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)?
Ophiolite said:Expression of the innate human desire to explore
BWV said: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)?
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.wolram said:Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.
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.TeethWhitener said: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.
wolram said:Just interested in what may be achieved by putting a man/men on the moon again.
Dr. Courtney said:I think these questions are best framed in terms of cost vs. benefit
Bombs, ideally.BWV said:What will not get funded if this does?
jackwhirl said:Bombs, ideally.
They wrote a book about it.StatGuy2000 said: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?
jackwhirl said:They wrote a book about it.
I see. Sorry I missed that the first time.StatGuy2000 said: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.
StatGuy2000 said: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?
That assumes they will share the information. They are better known for TAKING information, not sharing it.hmmm27 said:... every datum on how well their spacesuits bear up, engine design, etc. etc. vastly improves our understanding of what's necessary to survive/thrive outside of the Earth.
I think we are now moving towards avenues (4) and (6). The (6) is currently better served by orbital surveys, but (4) require actual sampling. After (4) is sufficiently developed, the (3) will become very real possibility, may be as soon as in few decades.Ophiolite said:In no particular order.
- Geopolitical statement
- Testing/Development of technology for a manned Mars mission
- Expression of the innate human desire to explore
- Identification of resources for in situ development
- Identification of resources for potential export to orbit (Earth or Lunar) or Earth
- Improved understanding of lunar geology
- Insights into lunar formation
- Improved delineation of the age of lunar events
- Enhanced mapping of lunar features
- Expanded knowledge of lunar petrology and mineralogy
- Subdue the babble from the conspiracy theorists who deny the reality of the moon landings
Do you boys know
what makes this bird go up?
Funding makes this bird go up.
That's right. No bucks...
no Buck Rogers.
And the press over there...
They all want to see Buck Rogers.
And that's us.
Buck Rogers.