Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency over human space explorers

[bananas]

http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=36842

Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency

As he has before (e.g. here), Dr. Ian Crawford (Earth and Planetary Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London) challenges the claim that robotic exploration of the solar system is necessarily more cost-effective than human exploration:
/-- Why Space Exploration Is a Job for Humans - Jared Keller/The Atlantic - Apr.4.12
/-- Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone - Astronomy and Geophysics, Vol. 53, pp. 2.22-2.26, 2012 (pdf)

See also the 2005 Royal Astronautical Soceity Study: Human Space Exploration carried out by a panel chaired by noted theoretical physicist Frank Close, who had no previous interest in human spaceflight.

In summarising their findings, the Commissioners state: “We find that profound scientific questions relating to the history of the solar system and the existence of life beyond Earth can best – perhaps only - be achieved by human exploration on the Moon or Mars, supported by appropriate automated systems.

[Dead_Parrot]

1. It's also not as inspiring

[drm604]

5. When I first saw your post

I was wondering what movie that scene was from. Turns out its real.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101115.html

[joshcryer]

6. To think that observing window almost didn't make it. :(

edit: I believe it's called the cupula

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. it's in the same section as C.O.L.B.E.R.T.

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/name_ISS/index.html

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Pretty much my first reaction, also

[FogerRox]

16. What movie is that? LOL my 1st impression too. Awesome pic

Robots do some things great, just not everything.

Right now Mars is a 6 month trip at best. So once Polywell fusion is worked out, it can be developed into Bussards QED fusion motor, 37 days to mars, 76 to Titan. Then we can start talking about sending humans to Mars, a little electromagnetic shielding with a habitat inside a water tank might be enough protection vs regular solar flare, but not a mass coronal ejection.

Even during one of the old Apollo Moon walks there was a solar flare once, and if it was aimed at the Moon the astronauts likely would have died. not enough time to get back to Earth. Radiation is one issue, demineralization of bones is another, it may be a gravity issue, so we try the old habitat on a tether, rotating around the rocket motor trick. Good for 1/3rd or 1/2 gee.

[LongTomH]

14. That looks like a Novagraphics art print!

It's absolutely beautiful! By the way, is that the lovely Cady Coleman posing at the window?

This is the Novagraphics, now Novaspace website. If you love space art, this is the place for you!

[longship]

2. It's not the efficiency, it's the cost

I am all for human exploration, to Mars, and hopefully permanently back to the moon. But robotic missions are so much cheaper that it will probably be a while before humans leave Earth orbit again.

A couple of points on this.

Robot missions are one way (usually); manned missions are two way (always).

Robots don't need food, waste disposal (shit), breathable air, water (heavy!), etc.

A manned mission to Mars is a tough deal, a very tough deal. I don't know if it can be done right now. Primary is just surviving the months long journey where the likelihood of a solar burp could kill the astronauts dead, dead, dead. Also, landing on Mars is no easy feat. It has a larger gravity well than the moon but a thin atmosphere so parachutes are not very effective. The size of the vehicle would be bigger than anything we've put out of orbit before, much, much bigger. We don't have the lift capacity to launch it all at once do it will have to be assembled in orbit, something we can do now, I suppose. But we're talking a huge project that would make Apollo look like a high school science fair project. Phil Plait just shrugs and wonders if we can even do it. I agree with him. Send robots to Mars, not humans, for now.

I like two projects: a permanent base on the Moon (hopefully named Alpha), and a mission to a nearby asteroid. Both would be orders easier than landing humans on Mars and bringing them back alive. If there was funding (tax the millionaires and tax the churches) we could achieve both.

[Rod Mollise]

3. A Manned Mission to Mars

Could have been done thirty years ago. It's not the know-how that's lacking, it is the will.

[baldguy]

4. We could have sent humans to Mars for 1/10th the cost of the War in Iraq.

It's not for lack of funds, either.

[longship]

8. Robert Zubrin as much as said just that to Congress

But the radiation problem is a very tough nut to crack. There are all sorts of ideas on how to solve it but they all pretty much push the mass of the vehicle way up, not a good idea. It's that old rocket equation thingie.

But, we're smart and if the mission were funded we'd get 'er done.

[Johonny]

10. A robotic mission could be done now

while people were struggling to get into low earth orbit, robots were flying past other planets. Since the beginning of the space race robotic missions have been far ahead of human missions. I see no reason to believe will power will suddenly change that.

[FogerRox]

15. 6 months of radiation just on the way to Mars

6 months of demineralization of the bones. No place to hide in case of a mass coronal ejection - even regular solar flares would likely be fatal.

Yeah we could have done it 30 yrs ago, no guarantees the humans make it to Mars alive though.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Are humans really necessary?...

They seem to just get in the way...

[Motown_Johnny]

12. I don't buy it

just look at his own words


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.6250.pdf

^snip^

It is interesting to compare this with the cost of a modern state-of-the-art robotic
mission, like Mars Science Laboratory. MSL, which at this writing is en route to
Mars, has cost an estimated $2.5 billion (Leone 2011). Thus, in real terms, Apollo
cost 70 times as much as MSL. However, Apollo visited six sites, whereas MSL will
only visit one site, so in terms of cost per site Apollo was only 12 times as expensive
as MSL yet each Apollo mission was vastly more capable. It is true that this
comparison only strictly holds in the context of lunar exploration, where we can
compare Apollo with a hypothetical future MSL-like lunar rover; in the context of
Mars exploration, human missions seem likely to be more expensive than Apollo in
real terms (although not necessarily by a large factor -- the estimated total costs of
some human Mars mission architectures are comparable to that of Apollo, or even
lower; e.g. Turner, 2004). The main point is that human missions like Apollo are
between two and three orders of magnitude more efficient in performing exploration
tasks than robotic missions, while being only one to two orders of magnitude more
expensive. In addition, human missions can accomplish scientific objectives which
are unlikely to be achieved robotically at all (deep drilling and properly representative
sample collection and return are obvious examples, as well as the increased
opportunities for serendipitous discoveries). Looked at this way, human space
exploration doesn’t look so expensive after all!



He offers no evidence that manned missions are more efficient. The idea that deep drilling and properly representative sample collection and return can't be done by robots for far less expense than sending humans is ridiculous.

Also robots don't need to sleep, or eat. They don't get sick and don't need to hide from solar flares.

Sending humans just for the sake of sending humans is crazy.

[caraher]

13. The efficiency of a mission to expensive to mount is exactly zero

Sure, if we stopped paying for wars and tax breaks for the super-rich we could easily absorb the cost of a tenfold or more increase in the space budget.

Given that the probability of this happening is virtually indistinguishable from zero, do you fund at most one major human exploration effort or go lots of places with (granting the argument) less-capable but more affordable robotic probes if you want to actually do some science?

Assuming we can lick the radiation hazard problem anytime soon (in the case of interplanetary missions)...