7 ms·

What exactly is the need to send humans to Mars? Why not robots? Is it worth risking a human's life for science, when a robot can do an equally good job?

danbruc 12y ago
Because we can. Climbing to the top of a mountain is also dangerous and usually of no practical value.
gfodor 12y ago
existence proof. a necessary step toward multiplanetary human civilization.
cryptoz 12y ago
> What exactly is the need to send humans to Mars? Lots of reasons, some below. Primarily, the reason to send humans is because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe. Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, which will reduce our dependency on a single-point-of-failure for all known life. > Why not robots? You ask as if we haven't been sending robots to Mars for the last 3-4 decades. (Edit: We should absolutely send robots. We should send way more robots than people. But we should still send people.) > Is it worth risking a human's life for science, when a robot can do an equally good job? Not sure if trolling. Humans have collectively agreed that it's worth 10,000+ annual deaths in the USA in exchange for the convenience of cars. So yes, 1-5 human lives on Mars is worth the science that they'd get done. Also...there are no robot scientists yet. Maybe there will be in the future, but we can't bank on that and allocate budgets to imaginary robotic scientists that are better than humans. I've been trolled haven't I?
- taylorwc 12y ago
  I agree with you on these points, but think the vehicle deaths makes for a poor comparison since we're not really advancing science in the same way. I'm guessing that NASA would have its pick of qualified volunteers for a manned Mars mission because of the science involved; people who would willingly risk their lives.
- mbreese 12y ago
  Humans, as a species, have a very low bus-factor in planetary terms...
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    I think we're fine if a bus hits the planet.
    - bronson 12y ago
      Not if it's doing 0.999c. obwhatif https://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/20/
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        That sphere of diamond weighs about 3000x as much as a typical bus. So presumably we'd wind up with 1/60th of Chicxulub, rather than 50x. It'd suck (a lot) - and yeah, "we're fine" wouldn't hold - but I think we'd survive. Edited to add: I don't know if I mis-read it or if you edited it, but the above was a response to 0.99c.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Sure, but you don't need to send humans from the first try, though. First send the robots to build up the bases, then you can send humans in those comfy bases with Internet connection, large screens and 3D-printed pizza.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    We're about 40 years after the first success, much less attempt.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    The reference mission for Mars for over 15 years has been to send the hab and a return vehicle in one launch window, and then send the humans in the second. The humans will know before they lift-off that the return vehicle is fully-stocked and waiting for them and has survived landing.
- dharmach 12y ago
  > because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe Why not send bacteria which may evolve or may create environment for other form of life? If by known life you mean human, why is it so important to ensure the continued survival of human species in the universe?
  - WallyL 12y ago
    > If by known life you mean human, why is it so important to ensure the continued survival of human species in the universe? I know this isn't a constructive comment but... Really? Like you don't see the point at all?
  - cryptoz 12y ago
    > Why not send bacteria which may evolve or may create environment for other form of life? We should absolutely do that. In fact, we almost certainly will. This isn't mutually exclusive with sending humans, though, it's something we'd do as well. I think the primary function of said bacteria would be to help terraform the planet - warm up the surface, add gasses to the atmosphere, evolve new Martian life forms to continue those processes, etc.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    > Why not send bacteria which may evolve or may create environment for other form of life? We should, but there are 2 reasons we are not doings so right now. 1) We don't want to destroy our ability to determine if there was life on Mars in the past, which would be much harder to recognize as martian life if earth life was all around. 2) It is quite difficult to come up with something that could survive and reproduce on Mars. I don't think (1) is a compelling enough reason and (2) is just another way of saying that it's hard, so I completely agree, we should do it.
- wvenable 12y ago
  > Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, which will reduce our dependency on a single-point-of-failure for all known life. Except that all planets in our solar system other than Earth are uninhabitable. So what benefit is sending a few humans to very far away and insanely inhospitable place? It's a suicide mission for whoever goes. We don't have a great success even landing robots on these places. We've never even tried to return from Mars. Lift-off from Earth is hardly perfected!
  - angersock 12y ago
    You know, I'm quite sure those same arguments were made to the early explorers of the New World, back to the nutty Vikings and others.
    - thisGuysAccount 12y ago
      Even as recently as mass immigration to America. People who got on the boats across the Atlantic weren't coming back, and communication was slow. Some people just want to go.
    - wvenable 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure the New World was actually habitable.
  - cryptoz 12y ago
    > Except that all planets in our solar system other than Earth are uninhabitable. So is Canada in the wintertime. We have spent billions (trillions?) of dollars to make it livable here, I don't see any reason we wouldn't think the same about the planets. > So what benefit is sending a few humans to very far away and insanely inhospitable place? I think I answered this already. It's a necessary step in building self-sustaining civilizations. Hopefully it won't be so inhospitable for too long. We can probably terraform in a few thousand years. > It's pretty a suicide mission for whoever goes. No more so than staying on Earth. Your life here is a suicide mission just the same as any astronaut's life on Mars would be. > We don't have a great success even landing robots on these places. We don't have great success at anything we do, when we do it for the first few times. We'll get better. > We've never even tried to return from Mars. Lit-off from Earth is hardly perfected! Alright, let's try a return from Mars in the next 5-10 years then. Also, that's sufficient time to increase reliability in Earth lift-offs.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  > Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, I think there is immense value in continued unmanned Mars missions and yes, even in manned missions, but I don't think that a trip to Mars would be a step towards becoming a multi-planetary civilization beyond "we can ferry humans between planets." Mars is not and most likely never will be colonizable. We might have an outpost or a station like the ISS, but Mars' extremely thin atmosphere and low surface gravity (a third of Earth's) means that long-term habitation will never be practical barring extraordinary technological developments in planetary engineering, the medical field, and/or artificial gravity. Personally I suspect the only long term colonization prospect in the Solar System is Venus - thick atmosphere and near-Earth surface gravity - but for obvious reasons we'd still need extensive terraforming to cool the planet and make the atmosphere breathable - seeding the clouds with oxygen-producing bacteria would be a first step towards both, I suppose.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Why do you think humans won't be able to live in 3/8g?
    - gambiting 12y ago
      Oh I think we would. But at the moment I think that living on Mars would be almost the same as living on the bottom of the ocean - both would require spending all of the time inside pressurized containers, looking outside through glass. Yet the perspective of looking at the ocean floor is incredibly boring, but perspective of looking at Mars' surface is exciting? Don't get me wrong, it would be AMAZING if we got humans to Mars. But if we are to live inside plastic structures, we can do it just as well on the Moon, which is much easier to reach.
      - Amezarak 12y ago
        > Oh I think we would. We could. But there are serious health issues associated with living long-term in low-g environments and anyone who spent their whole life there would probably never be able to visit Earth.
- induscreep 12y ago
  No it's not trolling. I just want to see if a human's workload on space missions can be replaced by a set of sensors and robots. > Primarily, the reason to send humans is because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe. Sure, but why not send multiple robots and a bunch of sensors? Humans need food and water to live (don't know how much of the payload will be a year's worth of food/water), and are generally inefficient at converting food sources to energy. > Humans have collectively agreed that it's worth 10,000+ annual deaths in the USA in exchange for the convenience of cars. Wrong. This is why we need autonomous cars. Driving is best done by computers, and humans will agree that it is NOT worth 10k+ annual deaths a year just to give humans "the pleasure of driving".
  - cryptoz 12y ago
    Thanks for your reply. I'll address some concerns, but I think we're closer to agreement than earlier actually. > Sure, but why not send multiple robots and a bunch of sensors? Well, yes, we absolutely should. We've got a long history of doing this, so we know what their strengths and weaknesses are. We should keep doing this, I think the vast majority of 'things' that we send to Mars for the next 10-20 years should be robots, not people. > Humans need food and water to live (don't know how much of the payload will be a year's worth of food/water), and are generally inefficient at converting food sources to energy. This is exactly the reason we need to send them. Since the eventual goal is (or should be, anyway) permanent colonization, it makes sense to send people right away so that they learn how to make food and where to find water. Robots won't be so concerned with this - and frankly, human ingenuity to find ways of making food is probably better done by humans than it is by robots. > Wrong. This is why we need autonomous cars. Driving is best done by computers, and humans will agree that it is NOT worth 10k+ annual deaths a year just to give humans "the pleasure of driving". I would agree with you if this had always been the case. But road deaths have persisted for decades without even the promise or idea that we're working towards a real solution. It's just been accepted by people. I agree that this attitude will change we when demonstrate that it doesn't have to be this way anymore. But for the last ~100 years, humanity has definitely been quite relaxed at risking death just so we can drive cars (or, walk around nearby others who are driving cars).
- ufmace 12y ago
  > Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, which will reduce our dependency on a single-point-of-failure for all known life. Only if we are able to make the Martian colony self-sufficient. This is quite a problem, as even major nations on Earth aren't really self-sufficient now. Any serious attempt at trying would most likely require tens of thousands of colonists and massive amounts of materiel to be transported to Mars and sustained there. This would require many, many orders of magnitude more resources than any plausible manned mission to Mars, which is already so expensive that nobody seems to be willing to do it.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    A Mars colony would obviously not be an autarky. But after a few decades, equipment could be set up so that it could be self-sufficient if it needed to. The US could be self-sufficient, too. It's not because trade is too valuable.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Yes self sufficiency is hard, we don't even know how hard, but the first step is a colony. A colony that produces or recycles all of its air and water and half of it's food is well within current technology (though still quite difficult) and the perfect way to understand exactly what we need to learn to have a self sufficient colony. Semiconductor fabs can come later. Just sending people there for a year and a half is a great first step.
arenaninja 12y ago
I don't think it would sound the same 01010100 01101000 01100001 01110100 01011100 00100110 00100011 00110000 00110011 00111001 00111011 01110011 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101101 01100001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110011 01110100 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00101100 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01100111 01101001 01100001 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110000 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100100 00101110
- jdhawk 12y ago
  > That\'s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
pzxc 12y ago
Because Elon Musk embarassed them when he repeatedly tells the tale of why he started his own Mars mission. (because he went to the NASA website and they had no plans to go to Mars or to do much of anything since they got bored with the moon in the 70s)
smeyer 12y ago
I'm not a particularly big proponent of this or anything, but I've heard people in the know claim that humans would do a vastly, vastly better job than robots. I don't remember enough detail and it's too far outside of my area of expertise, but I think if you look you should be able to find some interesting information on the subject.
- induscreep 12y ago
  That's interesting. I'll try to look for a human vs. robot comparison.
discardorama 12y ago
> Is it worth risking a human's life for science I'd volunteer, even if it was a one-way mission with a 10% chance of success.
- towelguy 12y ago
  “Men Wanted: for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.”
  - discardorama 12y ago
    Exactly! Earth wasn't explored by sitting around worrying about the hazards!
- induscreep 12y ago
  That's great, but volunteering for adventure etc. should best be left to private enterprises. When NASA is funded by taxpayer money, the goal should be science and not adventure.
bhc3 12y ago
Keep in mind that there were deaths in the development of our space program in the past. http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/heroes-of-space-the-apollo-1-crew/ http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/heroes-of-spac... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disast...
happyscrappy 12y ago
If your goal is science send robots, if your goal is the eventual colonization of Mars still only send robots for now, if your goal is adventure send people.
- induscreep 12y ago
  Adventure is kind of a selfish goal, considering that only one or two humans get to enjoy the experience. All those resources and manpower is a waste if the rest of humanity doesn't benefit from it. It's perfectly OK for a rich billionaire to do it...but NASA's focus should be science and not pleasure, I feel.
PeterisP 12y ago
Human life is cheap - we can get a reasonable astronaut to participate in a 10%-chance-of-death mission for about the same resources as participating in a 0.01%-chance-of-death mission; and it's just as ethical as, say, sending people to Iraq or to fly a test-plane like "SpaceShipTwo". The only concern is if the advantages of having a human on-site justify the extra weight of the life support systems.

danbruc 12y ago

Because we can. Climbing to the top of a mountain is also dangerous and usually of no practical value.

gfodor 12y ago

existence proof. a necessary step toward multiplanetary human civilization.

cryptoz 12y ago

> What exactly is the need to send humans to Mars? Lots of reasons, some below. Primarily, the reason to send humans is because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe. Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, which will reduce our dependency on a single-point-of-failure for all known life. > Why not robots? You ask as if we haven't been sending robots to Mars for the last 3-4 decades. (Edit: We should absolutely send robots. We should send way more robots than people. But we should still send people.) > Is it worth risking a human's life for science, when a robot can do an equally good job? Not sure if trolling. Humans have collectively agreed that it's worth 10,000+ annual deaths in the USA in exchange for the convenience of cars. So yes, 1-5 human lives on Mars is worth the science that they'd get done. Also...there are no robot scientists yet. Maybe there will be in the future, but we can't bank on that and allocate budgets to imaginary robotic scientists that are better than humans. I've been trolled haven't I?

taylorwc 12y ago
I agree with you on these points, but think the vehicle deaths makes for a poor comparison since we're not really advancing science in the same way. I'm guessing that NASA would have its pick of qualified volunteers for a manned Mars mission because of the science involved; people who would willingly risk their lives.
mbreese 12y ago
Humans, as a species, have a very low bus-factor in planetary terms...
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I think we're fine if a bus hits the planet.
  - bronson 12y ago
    Not if it's doing 0.999c. obwhatif https://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/20/
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      That sphere of diamond weighs about 3000x as much as a typical bus. So presumably we'd wind up with 1/60th of Chicxulub, rather than 50x. It'd suck (a lot) - and yeah, "we're fine" wouldn't hold - but I think we'd survive. Edited to add: I don't know if I mis-read it or if you edited it, but the above was a response to 0.99c.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Sure, but you don't need to send humans from the first try, though. First send the robots to build up the bases, then you can send humans in those comfy bases with Internet connection, large screens and 3D-printed pizza.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  We're about 40 years after the first success, much less attempt.
- danielweber 12y ago
  The reference mission for Mars for over 15 years has been to send the hab and a return vehicle in one launch window, and then send the humans in the second. The humans will know before they lift-off that the return vehicle is fully-stocked and waiting for them and has survived landing.
dharmach 12y ago
> because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe Why not send bacteria which may evolve or may create environment for other form of life? If by known life you mean human, why is it so important to ensure the continued survival of human species in the universe?
- WallyL 12y ago
  > If by known life you mean human, why is it so important to ensure the continued survival of human species in the universe? I know this isn't a constructive comment but... Really? Like you don't see the point at all?
- cryptoz 12y ago
  > Why not send bacteria which may evolve or may create environment for other form of life? We should absolutely do that. In fact, we almost certainly will. This isn't mutually exclusive with sending humans, though, it's something we'd do as well. I think the primary function of said bacteria would be to help terraform the planet - warm up the surface, add gasses to the atmosphere, evolve new Martian life forms to continue those processes, etc.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > Why not send bacteria which may evolve or may create environment for other form of life? We should, but there are 2 reasons we are not doings so right now. 1) We don't want to destroy our ability to determine if there was life on Mars in the past, which would be much harder to recognize as martian life if earth life was all around. 2) It is quite difficult to come up with something that could survive and reproduce on Mars. I don't think (1) is a compelling enough reason and (2) is just another way of saying that it's hard, so I completely agree, we should do it.
wvenable 12y ago
> Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, which will reduce our dependency on a single-point-of-failure for all known life. Except that all planets in our solar system other than Earth are uninhabitable. So what benefit is sending a few humans to very far away and insanely inhospitable place? It's a suicide mission for whoever goes. We don't have a great success even landing robots on these places. We've never even tried to return from Mars. Lift-off from Earth is hardly perfected!
- angersock 12y ago
  You know, I'm quite sure those same arguments were made to the early explorers of the New World, back to the nutty Vikings and others.
  - thisGuysAccount 12y ago
    Even as recently as mass immigration to America. People who got on the boats across the Atlantic weren't coming back, and communication was slow. Some people just want to go.
  - wvenable 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure the New World was actually habitable.
- cryptoz 12y ago
  > Except that all planets in our solar system other than Earth are uninhabitable. So is Canada in the wintertime. We have spent billions (trillions?) of dollars to make it livable here, I don't see any reason we wouldn't think the same about the planets. > So what benefit is sending a few humans to very far away and insanely inhospitable place? I think I answered this already. It's a necessary step in building self-sustaining civilizations. Hopefully it won't be so inhospitable for too long. We can probably terraform in a few thousand years. > It's pretty a suicide mission for whoever goes. No more so than staying on Earth. Your life here is a suicide mission just the same as any astronaut's life on Mars would be. > We don't have a great success even landing robots on these places. We don't have great success at anything we do, when we do it for the first few times. We'll get better. > We've never even tried to return from Mars. Lit-off from Earth is hardly perfected! Alright, let's try a return from Mars in the next 5-10 years then. Also, that's sufficient time to increase reliability in Earth lift-offs.
Amezarak 12y ago
> Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, I think there is immense value in continued unmanned Mars missions and yes, even in manned missions, but I don't think that a trip to Mars would be a step towards becoming a multi-planetary civilization beyond "we can ferry humans between planets." Mars is not and most likely never will be colonizable. We might have an outpost or a station like the ISS, but Mars' extremely thin atmosphere and low surface gravity (a third of Earth's) means that long-term habitation will never be practical barring extraordinary technological developments in planetary engineering, the medical field, and/or artificial gravity. Personally I suspect the only long term colonization prospect in the Solar System is Venus - thick atmosphere and near-Earth surface gravity - but for obvious reasons we'd still need extensive terraforming to cool the planet and make the atmosphere breathable - seeding the clouds with oxygen-producing bacteria would be a first step towards both, I suppose.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Why do you think humans won't be able to live in 3/8g?
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Oh I think we would. But at the moment I think that living on Mars would be almost the same as living on the bottom of the ocean - both would require spending all of the time inside pressurized containers, looking outside through glass. Yet the perspective of looking at the ocean floor is incredibly boring, but perspective of looking at Mars' surface is exciting? Don't get me wrong, it would be AMAZING if we got humans to Mars. But if we are to live inside plastic structures, we can do it just as well on the Moon, which is much easier to reach.
    - Amezarak 12y ago
      > Oh I think we would. We could. But there are serious health issues associated with living long-term in low-g environments and anyone who spent their whole life there would probably never be able to visit Earth.
induscreep 12y ago
No it's not trolling. I just want to see if a human's workload on space missions can be replaced by a set of sensors and robots. > Primarily, the reason to send humans is because we have to in order to ensure the continued survival of (known) life in the universe. Sure, but why not send multiple robots and a bunch of sensors? Humans need food and water to live (don't know how much of the payload will be a year's worth of food/water), and are generally inefficient at converting food sources to energy. > Humans have collectively agreed that it's worth 10,000+ annual deaths in the USA in exchange for the convenience of cars. Wrong. This is why we need autonomous cars. Driving is best done by computers, and humans will agree that it is NOT worth 10k+ annual deaths a year just to give humans "the pleasure of driving".
- cryptoz 12y ago
  Thanks for your reply. I'll address some concerns, but I think we're closer to agreement than earlier actually. > Sure, but why not send multiple robots and a bunch of sensors? Well, yes, we absolutely should. We've got a long history of doing this, so we know what their strengths and weaknesses are. We should keep doing this, I think the vast majority of 'things' that we send to Mars for the next 10-20 years should be robots, not people. > Humans need food and water to live (don't know how much of the payload will be a year's worth of food/water), and are generally inefficient at converting food sources to energy. This is exactly the reason we need to send them. Since the eventual goal is (or should be, anyway) permanent colonization, it makes sense to send people right away so that they learn how to make food and where to find water. Robots won't be so concerned with this - and frankly, human ingenuity to find ways of making food is probably better done by humans than it is by robots. > Wrong. This is why we need autonomous cars. Driving is best done by computers, and humans will agree that it is NOT worth 10k+ annual deaths a year just to give humans "the pleasure of driving". I would agree with you if this had always been the case. But road deaths have persisted for decades without even the promise or idea that we're working towards a real solution. It's just been accepted by people. I agree that this attitude will change we when demonstrate that it doesn't have to be this way anymore. But for the last ~100 years, humanity has definitely been quite relaxed at risking death just so we can drive cars (or, walk around nearby others who are driving cars).
ufmace 12y ago
> Sending a few people to Mars will be the first steps in becoming a multi-planetary civilization, which will reduce our dependency on a single-point-of-failure for all known life. Only if we are able to make the Martian colony self-sufficient. This is quite a problem, as even major nations on Earth aren't really self-sufficient now. Any serious attempt at trying would most likely require tens of thousands of colonists and massive amounts of materiel to be transported to Mars and sustained there. This would require many, many orders of magnitude more resources than any plausible manned mission to Mars, which is already so expensive that nobody seems to be willing to do it.
- danielweber 12y ago
  A Mars colony would obviously not be an autarky. But after a few decades, equipment could be set up so that it could be self-sufficient if it needed to. The US could be self-sufficient, too. It's not because trade is too valuable.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Yes self sufficiency is hard, we don't even know how hard, but the first step is a colony. A colony that produces or recycles all of its air and water and half of it's food is well within current technology (though still quite difficult) and the perfect way to understand exactly what we need to learn to have a self sufficient colony. Semiconductor fabs can come later. Just sending people there for a year and a half is a great first step.

arenaninja 12y ago

I don't think it would sound the same 01010100 01101000 01100001 01110100 01011100 00100110 00100011 00110000 00110011 00111001 00111011 01110011 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101101 01100001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110011 01110100 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00101100 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01100111 01101001 01100001 01101110 01110100 00100000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110000 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100100 00101110

jdhawk 12y ago
> That\'s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

pzxc 12y ago

Because Elon Musk embarassed them when he repeatedly tells the tale of why he started his own Mars mission. (because he went to the NASA website and they had no plans to go to Mars or to do much of anything since they got bored with the moon in the 70s)

smeyer 12y ago

I'm not a particularly big proponent of this or anything, but I've heard people in the know claim that humans would do a vastly, vastly better job than robots. I don't remember enough detail and it's too far outside of my area of expertise, but I think if you look you should be able to find some interesting information on the subject.

induscreep 12y ago
That's interesting. I'll try to look for a human vs. robot comparison.

discardorama 12y ago

> Is it worth risking a human's life for science I'd volunteer, even if it was a one-way mission with a 10% chance of success.

towelguy 12y ago
“Men Wanted: for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.”
- discardorama 12y ago
  Exactly! Earth wasn't explored by sitting around worrying about the hazards!
induscreep 12y ago
That's great, but volunteering for adventure etc. should best be left to private enterprises. When NASA is funded by taxpayer money, the goal should be science and not adventure.

bhc3 12y ago

Keep in mind that there were deaths in the development of our space program in the past. http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/heroes-of-space-the-apollo-1-crew/ http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/heroes-of-spac... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disast...

happyscrappy 12y ago

If your goal is science send robots, if your goal is the eventual colonization of Mars still only send robots for now, if your goal is adventure send people.

induscreep 12y ago
Adventure is kind of a selfish goal, considering that only one or two humans get to enjoy the experience. All those resources and manpower is a waste if the rest of humanity doesn't benefit from it. It's perfectly OK for a rich billionaire to do it...but NASA's focus should be science and not pleasure, I feel.

PeterisP 12y ago

Human life is cheap - we can get a reasonable astronaut to participate in a 10%-chance-of-death mission for about the same resources as participating in a 0.01%-chance-of-death mission; and it's just as ethical as, say, sending people to Iraq or to fly a test-plane like "SpaceShipTwo". The only concern is if the advantages of having a human on-site justify the extra weight of the life support systems.