Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

Mission Mars: Man or Machine?

A spirited debate is underway at NASA on whether the next big space exploration project should focus on sending astronauts back to the moon and installing a permanent lunar base or if the money and effort will  be better spent in attempting a manned landing on Mars.  Buzz Aldrin, one of the two Apollo 11 astronauts to set foot on the moon, thinks the latter is a more worthy goal. But others like Robert Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland argue that with sophisticated robots at our disposal, humans need not venture out too far into space for the sake of gathering information.

This is the 21st century. Telerobots have been invented. Our two Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, are merely robust extensions of our fragile human bodies. They don’t break for lunch or complain about the cold nights, and they live on sunshine. They do suffer the afflictions of age. Their teeth are worn down from scraping rocks, and one has an arthritic foot that he drags behind him. But their brains are still sharp since they are the brains of their PhD handlers. No need to bring them home when they are no longer able to explore, they will just be turned off. [NASA administrator Charles] Bolden also said he wants to go to Mars. How incredibly old-fashioned! We are on Mars now. We have been on Mars for more than five years, looking for evidence of water and life. A human on Mars would be locked in a spacesuit with only the sense of sight. Our rovers have better eyes than any human, and we don’t have to take their word it; everyone can see what they see. How wonderfully democratic! Moreover, they have the IQ of their PhD operators back on Earth.

Meanwhile, I am sure everyone saw the cute image that Google put up to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing.

Moonlanding  

Posted in

3 responses to “Mission Mars: Man or Machine?”

  1. D

    Count me firmly among the robot-boosters. This is both because I’m more interested in knowledge and discovery than in exploration qua exploration, and because the bulk of the effort, research and money in manned space travel basically seems to go into keeping meat alive and safe in a high radiation vacuum. Leaving the meat out means vastly more ambitious projects may be attempted. What if fifteen years from now we could launch a probe that’d land on Europa, drill through kilometers of ice, explore the water ocean underneath, and see if there’s any life there? I get goosebumps just thinking about it! A bunch of primates dancing around on the surface of Mars? Meh.

    Like

    Reply
  2. D

    In fact, Buzz Aldrin seems to me to desire the worst of both worlds. At least there’s something potentially valuable to be had from making permanent settlements on the moon – there may be considerable economic value (albeit pretty far off into the future), it’s a great place to situate large telescopes, might be a useful source of space-water…what on earth does prancing about Mars a few times accomplish, besides a nice photo-op? It wouldn’t be a meaningful “first” the way the moon was, and there’s no hope of establishing mars bases and the like till we’ve at least done the same with the moon.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Ruchira

    As Professor Park says, “We are on Mars now. We have been on Mars for more than five years, looking for evidence of water and life.”
    I think it’s again the head vs heart thing and the ego driven, triumphal “because we can and it is there” philosophy. Also, I believe that NASA may fear that in the absence of manned space missions, the public and the politicians aren’t going to be fired up about space exploration, resulting in funding cuts. I don’t think so. Not if NASA undertakes a good PR campaign of showing what the robots can do and how much of our tax dollars are saved by using their no-nonsense services.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to D Cancel reply