[X] My Assistant

[djellison]

Just listening to the MRO conference. Highlights included...

1) 5.4 Mbits is the highest MRO data rate (not the 4 I thought)
2) An extra 50-ish KG of fuel puts it's low-altitude orbit life thru to the next decade.
3) MTO HAS BEEN CANCELLED

What the HELL!

They say that MSL can still do its mission with just MRO as it's relay capacity will suffice.

But that means less science data during an MRO extension

Seems a bit short sighted.

Doug

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The central loss from the absence of MTO is that it will hugely reduce the distance that MSL (and later rovers) can drive, and the number of sites they can examine, per week. And, given the great variability of Martian geology (and biological evidence) over distance, that IS a very serious loss -- especially given the potential MSL would have for driving very great distances during its 2-year mininum lifetime if it wasn't for the communications bottleneck. Its drive distance
would have been multiplied severalfold, providing us with the same additional science return that we'll now have to get from at least one and maybe more separately launched MSL rovers in the new MTO-less plan. (By the way, at the Roadmap meeting I also learned that a 2-minute streaming video sequence from MSL comprises 1 Gbyte. I think we can forget about most of the video from this mission, although that is a PR rather than any kind of a science loss.)

On top of this, we just ahve word from "NASA Watch": "Word has it that Mike Griffin wants to delay the Mars Science Laboratory by 2 to 4 years as well. This would mean a launch as late as 2013."

Might be a better arrangement, actually. By then, it's possible that we might be able to reshuffle funds to allow some sort of orbital com relay link after all -- and the delay might also allow more orbital reconaissance of possible MSL landing sites if we put up the right sort of Mars Scout in the meantime. But, yet again, the manned program continues to wreck every genuinely worthwhile thing NASA is doing.

I'm not going to jump up and down on Griffin for this, or for the cuts in the Terrestrial Planet Finder's funding -- he was under orders not to actually increase the total FY 2006 funding for space-based science, and something had to go in order to fund "Glory" (which is still more important) and the preliminary work on the Hubble repair. MTO was arguably the most expendable major program. But this shows yet again how much useful space science funding is being flushed down the toilet of the manned space program.

[MiniTES]

... But, yet again, the manned program continues to wreck every genuinely worthwhile thing NASA is doing... But this shows yet again how much useful space science funding is being flushed down the toilet of the manned space program.

Bruce: I agree with Bob here. While I agree that the shuttle, and especially the ISS, is for the most part a waste of money (a COMPLETE waste of money as far as the ISS goes), I think that it's unfair for you to consider the manned program worthless. If we actually build a lunar- and Mars- capable CEV and follow through with the Moon-Mars initiative, we will see some genuine science that's orders of magnitude better than what we've been getting robotically.

Robots are fine on Mars (or anywhere) for orbital photographic surveys, long-term seismology and meteorology, and limited geochemical science. But searching for fossils, let alone extant life, requires intelligence and versality of an entirely different type. Fossil hunting requires both very heavy and very fine work. It also requires complex perception. MER and Sojourner- indeed, anything I think we can realistically expect before 2020 with the exception of MSR (and I don't expect to see that before maybe 2016 at the very earliest) has absolutely no manipulative capabilites whatsoever.

Zubrin, while controversial, has made the fair point that one could parachute thousands of MERs onto Earth, and it is a fair bet that they might not find any fossils, "at least not before the arrival of the next ice age, when they would be crushed by the glaciers which they would not be able to outrun."

Take an Apollo mission, Apollo 15. The ALSEP, for starters would unquestionably be way too complex for even the most advanced modern robots to set up. Could these same robots than explore the region? Remember everything the Apollo astronauts did; they traversed several miles over rough terrain, they carefully examined and photographed the terrain, found the "Genesis Rock", and were able to do other work like removing the stuck drill for the core sample to take back to Earth. In just three EVAs they explored a significant fraction of the Hadley area and collected over 200 lb of lunar samples. I think a robot would be hard-pressed just to land and try to take the drill core, let alone get it unstuck (if indeed it got stuck), and then somehow send it back to Earth.

It took Spirit almost 2 1/2 months to a reach a crater that was about 800 feet away from it. I think anyone on this board could probably walk 800 feet in about two minutes. That's the time factor; robots simply take forever to do whatever they are doing, at least compared with humans. Remember Purgatory Dune? I think that would make any self-respecting toddler who's played in a sandbox laugh as he lifted his foot up out of the dune.

Opportunity spent six months in Endurance exploring the rock outcrop. Considering the size of the outcrop, a trained geologist could probably completely cover the outcrop in an hour or two, with just as much or more thoroughness as Opportunity. More important, the scientists could do things Opportunity or even MSL could never do, such as drill deep into the outcrop and bring the samples back to a lab for (immediate) study. Plus, the scientists would probably not take a whole day to try to climb out of the crater if they failed the first time. Remember the Spirit/Opportunity trenching acitivites earlier in the mission? I could probably dig ten times that far with my bare hands in five minutes. Spend all the money you want on drills and robot arms, nothing beats a human with a drill and shovel for exposing geologic layers or drilling holes in a rock.

Now don't get me wrong here; the rovers are doing a phenomenal job. But they have the intelligence of watermelons when it comes to their usefulness in terms of exploring unassisted from earth.

The discovery of the unknown includes data collection, but it is not limited to data collection.

To quote someone from another board, "Even in Apollo there was a combination of automated and manual data collection. A camera is a camera, whether it's operated by an astronaut or by a robot. Either way you get a photograph. The difference is in the tight coupling of a human brain to the data collection process. It's not a matter of the ability to collect data, but the intuition to know where to look for data, and to adapt the study on the fly. Telepresence is just not good for that. A geologist can tell a lot about a rock by just how it feels when he bangs on it with his hammer. There are plenty of examples of expertise in observation that just aren't translatable to machine automation.

Now the point about making the best use of limited funds is certainly valid. I'm not saying manned exploration is better in all respects. It's better in the same way that hand-detailing is better than driving your car through an automated washer. You get a higher quality product, but you pay for it. Since space travel in all its forms is currently very expensive, and the willingness of the public to expend resources on it is limited, prudent financial management is the rule. But just because your budget forces you to eat mac-and-cheese six days a week doesn't mean you won't enjoy saving up for that 16-oz 30-day-aged steak on Saturday night."

So robots simply can't navigate and ambulate intelligently, make their own decisions about exploration, and analyze their findings the way humans can. Consider trying to use a MER, or MSL, to explore the Grand Canyon, or Disney World. It cannot be done.

Granted, we haven't landed people on Mars yet, and I would much rather see MTO than any STS mission, even Hubble servicing, which is probably the only real scientifically useful Shuttle activity undertaken with any regularity. However, I think it's unfair to dismiss manned missions out of hand. When we get a real, manned lunar and manned Mars program, with extended surface stays, we'll get some serious science.

Until then, of course, the loss of MTO is a great waste; the half-a-Shuttle-mission we'll get in return is not worth it in anybody's checkbook (except maybe the United Space Alliance).