why the hell have we not gotten to mars yet

[mikegarrison]

51 minutes ago, PB666 said:

There is another problem I don't see anyone talking about. I think we can find a way in space to deal with radiation, I think if we tweek the science we can extend human longevity in space, but on Mars, so far as yet I don't see anyone talking about excavating martia to build domiciles underground where it is radiation safe. So in essence we are talking about land and return missions, and really other than gathering Martian rocks (which can be done robotically) there is no advantage.

I think you ignore basic human psychology. Humans really don't identify much with robots. Yes, we identify with them a little bit, the way people (especially kids) seem to have personified the Mars rovers. But when you think of Moon landings, do you think of the many robotic landers or do you think of the 12 men? A land and return mission makes very little sense for science, but it makes the same sense as the polar expeditions 100 years ago.

NOW there is actually a lot of useful science being done in Antarctica. But that wasn't why people died trying to be the first ones to reach the pole.

[RainDreamer]

I think there is a quote some where saying something like, "the most  fundamental mistake in making predictions is assuming human acts rationally."

[tater]

Many in fact have more than one doctorate. Doesn't matter, robots are still better almost all the time. PB666 makes an excellent point about mission parameters. Unless the mission is explicitly designed to do things robots cannot do at all, or could only do at greater expense (something hard to even imagine, but let's assume it's a possibility), then there is no point in sending humans to the surface---other than it's awesome to see humans on the surface. As I said, I'm FINE with the stint of landing men and women on Mars. Very cool, very inspiring, but it's about that, not about science.

A Mars orbital mission with associated robotic vehicles and sample return might well be far easier and scientifically useful than manned martian surface missions as the teleoperation of vehicles would effectively allow them to be driven as-if there was a driver onboard. I'd add that as self-driving tech gets more and more ready for primetime, the ability of robotic vehicles to be even more superior is only going to increase. Honestly, talking about a manned Mars mission in 20 years looks even more silly if you include the likely improvements in robotics/intelligent systems.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Many mission-specialist astronauts are very highly trained and qualified scientists and engineers, and most of the pilots are also trained as engineers too.

Jack of all trades and master of none.

[mikegarrison]

Just now, PB666 said:

Jack of all trades and master of none.

More like "master of many" to judge by the ones I've met.

[RuBisCO]

If the goals are to do some science then sure space probes make the most sense. If our goals was colonization and industry then obvious humans would be needed.

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, RuBisCO said:

If the goals are to do some science then sure space probes make the most sense. If our goals was colonization and industry then obvious humans would be needed.

Actually, you wouldn't necessarily need humans for "industry".

[PB666]

11 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

More like "master of many" to judge by the ones I've met.

I not degrading mission specialist; however, the point about science is process and communication, and for that first part there is process design and for the second part there is a necessity of publication in the peer-reviewed literature. In the second case you generally have a primary author and that is generally the person who does 80 to 90 percent of the writing. I have seen a publication I believe with astronauts as the first author, but the overwhelming majority of papers that I have seen published are by land-lubbers. As an observer and also a writer I can tell you that about 90% of the people who I have seen work at the bench cannot write beyond a protocol (many when coached) and a perfunctory results section. The reason is that its difficult to publish is because of people like me, you send a journal something that does not achieve a certain level of organization and technical English either several things are going to happen  . . . .the editor rejects the paper, no referees will referee it or some idiot like me throws your paper back at you and tells you to rewrite it (sometimes after not ably drafting referees). 

But this gets to the point, if you are a land-lubbing 'geo'logist or biologist are you actually going to design experiments for a manned mission risky at best that takes 15 to 20 years to execute or an automated system that gets you there in 10 to 15 years, you go for the 10 to 15 years. Careers don't last forever, and a scientist wants to publish, and ultimately the faster the data the better off they are. When you are getting mission specialist to do impromptu experiments on the ISS many may not be published, their flower garden for example suffered for a time without proper care, or the experiment may be for the sake of engineers on the ground. These things are part of the ISS process, which as a whole is a good process, but at some point whatever experiments that are done need to have reproducibility, a bonafida protocol, and a decent write-up. And you can have several shots to the ISS to complete an evolving process, not so on a manned Mars mission, its got to work and given the current scheme, work quickly and completely - thus you need someone there who actually knows the whole process (everything but the final writeup) has tools to refit that process if necessary or it might as well be automated. Writeup can be done on the way back.

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

I not degrading mission specialist; however, the point about science is process and communication, and for that first part there is process design and for the second part there is a necessity of publication in the peer-reviewed literature. In the second case you generally have a primary author and that is generally the person who does 80 to 90 percent of the writing. I have seen a publication I believe with astronauts as the first author, but the overwhelming majority of papers that I have seen published are by land-lubbers. As an observer and also a writer I can tell you that about 90% of the people who I have seen work at the bench cannot write beyond a protocol (many when coached) and a perfunctory results section. The reason is that its difficult to publish is because of people like me, you send a journal something that does not achieve a certain level of organization and technical English either several things are going to happen  . . . .the editor rejects the paper, no referees will referee it or some idiot like me throws your paper back at you and tells you to rewrite it (sometimes after not ably drafting referees). 

But this gets to the point, if you are a land-lubbing 'geo'logist or biologist are you actually going to design experiments for a manned mission risky at best that takes 15 to 20 years to execute or an automated system that gets you there in 10 to 15 years, you go for the 10 to 15 years. Careers don't last forever, and a scientist wants to publish, and ultimately the faster the data the better off they are. When you are getting mission specialist to do impromptu experiments on the ISS many may not be published, their flower garden for example suffered for a time without proper care, or the experiment may be for the sake of engineers on the ground. These things are part of the ISS process, which as a whole is a good process, but at some point whatever experiments that are done need to have reproducibility, a bonafida protocol, and a decent write-up. And you can have several shots to the ISS to complete an evolving process, not so on a manned Mars mission, its got to work and given the current scheme, work quickly and completely - thus you need someone there who actually knows the whole process (everything but the final writeup) has tools to refit that process if necessary or it might as well be automated. Writeup can be done on the way back.

So you're saying you are reviewer 2?

In the academic world, publishing is everything. But in the real world, it's not such a big deal. I work in industry, and we have some damn fine scientists working for our company who don't publish very often. Lots of times it's because the work they are doing is a competitive advantage to the company.

If you are an astronaut, publishing as a first author is not going to be the huge deal it is to some guy or gal in an office back in good old State U. Your Wikipedia page is always going to list "astronaut" first. Maybe that will change someday, but it will be a while.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

So you're saying you are reviewer 2?

In the academic world, publishing is everything. But in the real world, it's not such a big deal. I work in industry, and we have some damn fine scientists working for our company who don't publish very often. Lots of times it's because the work they are doing is a competitive advantage to the company.

If you are an astronaut, publishing as a first author is not going to be the huge deal it is to some guy or gal in an office back in good old State U. Your Wikipedia page is always going to list "astronaut" first. Maybe that will change someday, but it will be a while.

Yeah, but if you work off of public funds, publishing is everything. The way it works is you publish, you gather preliminary data, you write an NSF, NASA (since Bush II the DOD is basically not funding) grant, you get an award, you implement the award on some platform, and get results - return to step 1. That is your top tier scientist. Below that person(s) you generally have post-doctoral fellows who do major bench implementation or struggle through complexities; and he will have technicians and grad students working various aspects of the project. Below that level you have lab assistents, interns, etc doing perfunctory work. BTW, since I work in academia for the so called 'real' world (big pharm), there are high level demands for the real world also, the only difference is that once your manuscript is ready to go, the real world may to decide to withhold it for a couple of years while they explore its potential.

At every journal there is editorial staff  . . . . .

 

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

Yeah, but if you work off of public funds, publishing is everything. The way it works is you publish, you gather preliminary data, you write an NSF, NASA (since Bush II the DOD is basically not funding) grant, you get an award, you implement the award on some platform, and get results - return to step 1. That is your top tier scientist. Below that person(s) you generally have post-doctoral fellows who do major bench implementation or struggle through complexities; and he will have technicians and grad students working various aspects of the project. Below that level you have lab assistents, interns, etc doing perfunctory work. BTW, since I work in academia for the so called 'real' world (big pharm), there are high level demands for the real world also, the only difference is that once your manuscript is ready to go, the real world may to decide to withhold it for a couple of years while they explore its potential.

At every journal there is editorial staff  . . . . .

 

Thus if you can get manned missions, those are better because men work faster than bots.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Thus if you can get manned missions, those are better because men work faster than bots.

No.

Again, you need to compare apples to apples, not a 3 billion $ rover probe to a 120 B$ manned mission. Include time, as well. A huge new Mars Rover could go much faster, with a sample return mission taking more planning/cost. We could send a few every 2 years for the same budget as a manned program. Sure, people would work faster around a landing site than a rover. But they also leave. If they are equipped with a rover able to travel large distances, that rover could just as well be a robot with extra capability in place of the life support systems and crew, and Mars rovers have managed to substantially outlast their planned lifetimes.

You really can't compare extant robot probes to what we could have with the resources required to land even a single geologist on the surface, the budget difference is huge.

[Spaceception]

So... What I've been getting from this is that humans are fast and robots are slow, but while I really want humans to do this stuff, it is expensive, why don't we have like quadcopters doing this stuff? I know they've been discussed by scientists, but we could have a hopper type lander with blades to fly that flies around Mars and TItan, we could get to where we need to go much faster than regular rovers, but without all of the life support a human needs.

[fredinno]

10 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

So... What I've been getting from this is that humans are fast and robots are slow, but while I really want humans to do this stuff, it is expensive, why don't we have like quadcopters doing this stuff? I know they've been discussed by scientists, but we could have a hopper type lander with blades to fly that flies around Mars and TItan, we could get to where we need to go much faster than regular rovers, but without all of the life support a human needs.

Mars 2020 is trying out Mars Helis.

[Spaceception]

Just now, fredinno said:

Mars 2020 is trying out Mars Helis.

Ooooh, I didn't know that, Mars 2020 is beginning to become the coolest Mars rover ever, move over Curiosity

[fredinno]

Just now, Spaceception said:

Ooooh, I didn't know that, Mars 2020 is beginning to become the coolest Mars rover ever, move over Curiosity

It also has ISRU experiments and a cacher for Mars Sample Return.

[Spaceception]

Just now, fredinno said:

It also has ISRU experiments and a cacher for Mars Sample Return.

Squeals like a little girl

So. Much.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PB666]

18 minutes ago, tater said:

No.

Again, you need to compare apples to apples, not a 3 billion $ rover probe to a 120 B$ manned mission. Include time, as well. A huge new Mars Rover could go much faster, with a sample return mission taking more planning/cost. We could send a few every 2 years for the same budget as a manned program. Sure, people would work faster around a landing site than a rover. But they also leave. If they are equipped with a rover able to travel large distances, that rover could just as well be a robot with extra capability in place of the life support systems and crew, and Mars rovers have managed to substantially outlast their planned lifetimes.

You really can't compare extant robot probes to what we could have with the resources required to land even a single geologist on the surface, the budget difference is huge.

Well thats kind of my point, if you really want to do science the humans need to stay, at least 6 mos, a couple of years would be good. Otherwise the money put out is a waste.  This way you could have alot of impromptu experimentation going on. The problem is this . . . . no-one in this group is even talking about the conditions that need to be met for such an outpost on mars, critical here is how do you design the living site.

We can think about it like this, Mars gravity is better than ISS gravity, and they could wear endurance weights. If the mission lasted 2 years we could land a separate return vehicle, and over time bring the fuel for the vehicle to the landing site so that you could potentially have a full blown launch vehicle. In addition the station could grow and you could rotate crew in build a power station, build a green house (underground I propose using LEDs) and all that stuff, but again we are talking here solely about vanity trips for the sake of dibs on Mars.

 

[tater]

Mars would be cool to send people to... just because. I'm fine with that. Any science they do is gravy.

My only point here is that going to Mars "for science!" isn't a thing. If science is the goal, people are not the tool. If sending people is the goal, then by all means, grab science while they are there, just don't argue that the point is to get more/better science. (I'm not saying you're arguing this, others are).

[SR]

On ‎10‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 3:41 AM, mikegarrison said:

What would people do on Mars if they went? It's a long way to go to just look around and leave again.

Stay? set up a base? terraform? stage a revolution and become independent?

[Bill Phil]

On March 15, 2016 at 1:52 PM, tater said:

Mars would be cool to send people to... just because. I'm fine with that. Any science they do is gravy.

My only point here is that going to Mars "for science!" isn't a thing. If science is the goal, people are not the tool. If sending people is the goal, then by all means, grab science while they are there, just don't argue that the point is to get more/better science. (I'm not saying you're arguing this, others are).

Well.......

If you're sending people, then adding more science experiments is less of a problem to the budget. We can have larger rovers on the mission than curiosity. We can bring a kind of lab to Mars.

Sending people won't increase science, yes, but it will result in a huge budget. And a huge budget allows more science to be done, beyond the required amount to send the people, of course.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Bill Phil

[tater]

No argument there, the budgets (treasure, and mass to Mars) would of course be vastly higher.

[KerikBalm]

On 3/14/2016 at 0:59 PM, mikegarrison said:

So you're saying you are reviewer 2?

Why is it always reviewer 2... I hate reviewer 2...

but from the sound of it, it sounds more like he's working as an editor/for an editor.

I don't know why he even bothered mentioning the writing though. You need someone who understands the science and can designs and execute experiments. They can be terrible writers, it doesn't matter. Many people hire "ghost writers" to present their data and experiments well.

The writing is irrelevant. In the end, they need to have good data, not good prose. You can have many many many people on earth work on the prose if you come back with/sed good data. If you come back with bad data, no amount of writing skill is going to save you (scientifically speaking).

[ShotgunNinja]

Some of the problems of a manned Mars mission:

• prolonged exposure of the crew to cosmic radiation, a few coronal mass ejection hits along the way, the weaker magnetosphere of Mars
• the mass of long-term supply of food, water, oxygen for the crew
• Mars atmospheric pressure at zero-level is 0.6% that of Earth, requiring more mass to accomplish the landing in a way or the other
• Mars gravity is much stronger than Moon gravity, requiring more mass to accomplish the ascend stages of the mission
• all of this requirements lead to a mission mass profile of unprecendented scale, requiring possibly thousands of LEO launches and rendezvous for assembly
• the failure of a non-redundant system will mean the complete failure of the whole project and death of the crew, with consequent political fallout