
Sending astronauts to Mars would be stupid, astronaut says - clouddrover
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46364179
======
mgamache
FTA: "I think the space shuttle was a serious error. It hardly did anything
except have an exciting launch, but it never lived up to its promise,"

Few people are willing to call the shuttle a failure, but it was. It cost much
more per mission than estimated and was supposed to lunch every two weeks. It
averaged approximately one every 3 months. The payload was supposed to cost
$635 per pound, but ended costing $27,000. You need a critical review of NASA
if they are going to be effective in the future (Humans or no). This article
may read as overly negative, but there is a lot of Pollyanna reporting
regarding NASA.

~~~
admax88q
I mean it did go to space, numerous times. Just because the budgeting
projections were way off doesn't make it a failure.

~~~
bostonpete
I think the point is that we didn't need it to get to space. There were
cheaper alternatives.

~~~
na85
I don't understand the cost argument. NASA is allocated less than half a
percentage point of your federal budget. $20B is nothing to the United States
Government. You could double their budget and DOD would still be spending 16x
more.

NASA is cheap. Direct your ire at Rockwell, not NASA.

~~~
ptero
The main problem is not wasting 20B/year, but that this puts a super
conservative, risk averse incumbent in the driver seat for technology
development which shuts out competition.

SpaceX used up 1B in the first 10 years; I would rather spend that 20B/yr to
fund 200 spacex-es. My 2c.

------
turingspiritfly
So this is the part I don't get, re: "What's pushing us to go to Mars?", some
time ago someone said the same of going to the Moon. There was no good main
reason for going to the moon, other than the US and the USSR having who's got
a bigger d __k war. The reality I feel, is this time we do have a good reason,
to actually kick start off-planet habitable zones that we 'll reap the
benefits years and years into the future

~~~
anonymouzz
I don't understand these naysayers. I'm not trying to be mean here, but is
there anything more to that than an old guy complaining about how it was
awesome in his time and age, and how we get everything wrong nowadays? I'm
genuinely asking - are astronauts talking about space programs similar to
actors and celebrities taking about moral or political issues? I.e. just
famous but not so smart people?

Also, Elon's take on this three years ago:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8UKBAOfGo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8UKBAOfGo)

~~~
hnmonkey
I disagree somewhat with what this astronaut is saying, but generally speaking
I think astronauts are supposed to be quite intelligent, especially about
issues related to space. I was under the impression that each of them had
excellent skills and knowledge in at least one area that benefits their
missions and of course strong understanding of space-related things.

So, to answer your question I don't think it's the case that it's similar to
celebrities talking about moral and political issues in any way. I assume that
he's pretty well informed but just has a totally different view that's less
forward-thinking than others of his astronaut brethren.

~~~
ineedasername
They're supposed to be quite intelligent about a very specific scenario:
operating a specialized vehicle in launch, low/zero gravity, and landing. I
wouldn't look to them for understanding or insight into the geopolitical or
economic role their missions might be a part of. When listening to experts
it's always very important to remember precisely what their expertise happens
to be.

~~~
greenyoda
Astronauts also have first-hand knowledge about the risks of sending people
into space, and have had friends that died or almost died on space missions.
So they have a much more concrete concept of the cost-benefit tradeoffs of
space travel than the rest of us.

~~~
ineedasername
Okay, but even if I concede that point, that doesn't translate into a strong
strategic view of the value of initiatives. To say otherwise is like saying a
soldier that's been in battle has the same strategic view of things as a
general in overall command. The soldier is more informed than the average
person, but far from an expert level knowledge of the big picture.

And that may be besides the point: It seem to me this astronaut didn't make
make a cogent argument from the perspective of cost-benefit tradeoffs and risk
of human lives. Instead he raised vague criticisms: _" It's ridiculous"_ and
_" what's the imperative... I don't think the public is that interested"_

In fact available data directly refutes this astronaut's view: at least one
survey from a few years ago found widespread support (about 75%) for a manned
mission [0]. As of this year interest has declined somewhat [1], but still 63%
rate mars as important or higher.

[0] [https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-
america...](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/11/poll-americans-
overwhelmingly-support-manned-mars-mission)

[1] [https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-
americans-s...](https://www.fastcompany.com/40581121/survey-most-americans-
say-nasa-should-focus-on-earth-not-mars)

------
dahdum
Anders went to space in ‘68. I think he’s lost the spirit of adventure he must
have had to do so. Putting a human on Mars will be one of the pinnacles of
human achievements, even a small ultimately failed colony an unbelievable
achievement. I support both wholeheartedly.

~~~
pdonis
_> Anders went to space in ‘68._

On Apollo 8, which got to orbit the Moon but not land there. Anders didn't get
any further Apollo missions, so he never got a chance to actually land on the
Moon. I wonder if that might be coloring his opinions.

------
Johnny555
_" What's the imperative? What's pushing us to go to Mars?" he said, adding "I
don't think the public is that interested"._

I think it's the opposite -- the general public is much more interested in
sending humans to space than yet another unmanned mission.

I agree that robotic missions give the most bang for the buck, and should
continue for the foreseeable future, but as far as the general public goes, a
manned mission is much more glamorous and more likely to keep Nasa funded.

~~~
greglindahl
Poll shows more public support for NASA science programs than human
exploration (June, 2018)

[https://spacenews.com/poll-shows-more-public-support-for-
nas...](https://spacenews.com/poll-shows-more-public-support-for-nasa-science-
programs-than-human-exploration/)

~~~
Johnny555
From the article, it sounds like most people support NASA science programs
closer to home, climate resource and planetary defense (against asteroids).

The article doesn't talk about preference for planetary expiration via robots
vs humans.

In this article from Pew, people prefer human exploration vs robotic
exploration only, 58% to 41%:

[http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/06/06/majority-of-
americans-...](http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-
believe-it-is-essential-that-the-u-s-remain-a-global-leader-in-space/)

------
DoreenMichele
With 7 billion people on the planet and that number only growing, it seems
likely that we either find more room for people somewhere or face a massive
population die-off event at some point. The humane answer is look for more
room to put this burgeoning population of humans. The other answer is likely a
case of hell to pay for most people on the planet. Even those who survive will
likely be facing serious hardships as a consequence.

And, I mean, why the hell not? We're all just dust in the wind anyway, dancing
on this earth for a short time. If some folks think going to another planet is
cool and are willing to endure what that takes, why should that desire be
deemed invalid?

From what I gather, space programs are a unique combination of highly
inspirational and requiring tremendous rigor and have, thus, fostered
innovation the world would otherwise have never pursued. I imagine that has
sufficient value to offset the high costs of space exploration, though I'm not
actually willing to look up sources and try to prove that.

~~~
lokedhs
There are lots of deserts on earth that is pretty much uninhabited. If you are
concerned about room for people, you can relax until these places are full as
well.

Even the most inhospitable parts of the Sahara desert is much more hospitable
than Mars. Its also much more accessible.

There are plenty of good reasons for humans to go to Mars, but getting access
to more space for people isn't one of them.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_If you are concerned about room for people, you can relax until these places
are full as well._

"Dig your well before you are thirsty." \-- Proverb from somewhere or other.

If we wait until we have completely run out of "room" \-- and I am not really
thinking of just warehousing people, but room to grow the food for them, etc
and support the high quality of life that people in first world countries
generally have and people in developing countries generally aspire to -- then
you pretty much guarantee failure of that path. Developing options elsewhere
takes quite a lot of time and resources. It won't happen overnight.

~~~
lokedhs
My point is that no one has even started that effort here on earth. How about
proving that we can provide that quality of life in the deserts of earth
before we do it on another planet?

~~~
DoreenMichele
I lived in the Mojave Desert for 2.75 years, not far south of Death Valley at
about 3000 feet above sea level. My quality of life was quite high.

So I have no clue what you are talking about.

~~~
lokedhs
I don't know much about US geography but isn't that a much cooler area?

In any case, I doubt the community was self sufficient. I'm suspecting that
much if not all consumables were actually produced outside the desert.

~~~
DoreenMichele
It was about 115 degrees Fahrenheit for two weeks straight in July one year. I
routinely did my walking (for exercise) after dark because the temperature
would drop down to a mere 99 degrees and the blazing sun being gone was
wonderful. I was getting sunburned during the day just walking back and forth
from house to car, car to building when I ran errands.

It's one of the hottest, driest places in the US. Annual precipitation is
about 6 inches a year.

No, I'm sure the community was not self sufficient as it was a military base.
Probably all food was shipped in from elsewhere.

However, in California, a great deal of food in produced in the desert. They
just irrigate. If you aren't that familiar with the US, I'm not sure how much
I need to explain here.

~~~
masonic

      I was getting sunburned during the day just walking back and forth from house to car
    

You don't get sunburn from heat, you get it from UV.

You'd be _less_ likely to get sunburn in Death Valley as you would in non-
desert terrain above sea level (given similar exposure and albedo).

~~~
DoreenMichele
_You don 't get sunburn from heat, you get it from UV._

I'm aware of that.

I think you misread something. I wasn't in Death Valley. I was near Death
Valley.

As stated above, I was about 3000 feet above sea level. Death Valley is below
sea level.

The sun is generally harsher at altitude and there wasn't a lot of vegetation,
so there wasn't a lot of shade. So sunburn was a big issue there. I'm also
part Irish. So it was more of an issue for me than for some people.

------
Svoka
> Musk and Bezos, they're talking about putting colonies on Mars, that's
> nonsense.

Probably kind of people which were telling "They're talking about landing
rockets, that's nonsense".

~~~
assblaster
What is the cost:benefit ratio to long term colonization of an inhospitable
planet?

~~~
ryanmarsh
I imagine many had a similar view of sailing across the Atlantic before word
spread of riches in the New World.

~~~
mo1ok
The cost:benefit of colonizing the new world was immense and known prior to
widespread colonization, esp. in the tropical parts.

Settling mars is like colonizing the Sahara desert, except this time with no
oxygen or camels.

~~~
dwaltrip
I'm not sure which exact path for advancing humanity into space is the best.
Perhaps there are better ways than colonizing Mars.

However, in general, there are immense resources and energy sources in space
that can benefit humanity. Pioneering space will also require many
technological advancements that will benefit people back on Earth.

There is also the question of learning about the universe. If, for example,
there was bacteria on Mars, that would one of the greatest discoveries of all
time.

I don't think your comparison is fair.

------
Abishek_Muthian
Considering it was the success of the Soviet's Sputnik missions which rallied
up American public to support for the Moon mission; I don't see why the
progress of manned missions from China, India, Japan shouldn't create positive
sentiment again within USA.

With commendable growth of private space organisations within USA, it's
perhaps inevitable that an American would be the first to land on Mars; which
politics apart would still be a giant leap for mankind in general.

------
EamonnMR
Same could be said for sending people to the south pole, but people did it
anyway.

~~~
cowmix
Or the moon.

~~~
assblaster
We brought those astronauts home after the mission.

What's the point of a suicide mission to Mars?

~~~
simonh
Why do you think it would be suicide? Very risky yes, but the plans being
proposed do include provision for returning the crew to a Earth.

~~~
assblaster
If your chance of getting to Mars, landing successfully, then taking off,
followed by journey to Earth, then re-entry to Earth is over 50% mortality,
then it's a suicide mission.

------
modzu
the last sentence from jim lovell is not something i'd heard before and makes
you think. on his view of the earth from the moon (wow):

"When I looked at the Earth itself... I started to wonder why I was here,
what's my purpose here… it sort of dawned me," he said.

"And my perspective is that God has given mankind a stage on which to perform.
How the play turns out, is up to us."

------
friedman23
The article is pointless, I thought there would be interesting technical
reasons why sending humans would be stupid but it's simply that he thinks it's
cheaper to send robots.

We go to Mars because people with the means to send people there want to. It's
as dumb as wanting to cross the ocean to travel to a new unexplored continent.

------
tzfld
I can understand the view from his perspective. What I can't understand is,
how can you have a level of pragmatism to be excited and supportive mainly
based on how cheap a mission could be.

------
cvaidya1986
We are going to be a space faring civilization.

------
jumelles
Robotics have improved exponentially since the moon landing - where before
humans may have been necessary, autonomous landers etc. are now cheaper and
more capable. Why risk the lives?

~~~
Teknoman117
Life risk aside, the rovers are in many ways significantly less capable than
humans. For instance, it took decades for us to send a rover than could "see"
just a bit into the martian rocks by hitting them with a laser or using a
small drill. During the moon landings, you just had an astronaut hit one with
a rock pick and look inside. It took decades for us to be comfortable sending
a rover with a small shovel which could only dig a few inches into the martian
soil. During the moon landings, you just had an astronaut with a shovel...

So far, no robot we've sent has been better at tool use than a human. Sure,
they don't require life support or consumables, so their longevity is
extraordinary, but man, there are so many things that took decades to test for
with the robots that a single manned mission would've been able to solve in a
few days.

~~~
melling
You’re assuming that we can’t make better robots.

For the same amount of money as sending humans to Mars, we can develop better
robots. Those robots will also be useful on earth of course.

From HN in 2014:

Someone dying is devastating. Trying to conquer space a handful of people at a
time is the slow and dangerous way of accomplishing this task. We should be
building machines to explore the solar system. This can be done for a fraction
of the cost, time, and it will allow him to allow us to iterate quickly. In
100 years, more humans will live off earth if we iterate with machines, etc
now than if we move slowly trying to reduce the risk in order to keep humans
safe.

------
monochromatic
If a decent-sized asteroid hits the earth, humanity simply ends. That is an
unacceptable risk.

We become multi-planetary for survival.

~~~
mo1ok
True, but it's going to be hard to convince a small group of people to live a
miserable, unrewarding live in an unforgiving desert in the off-chance
humanity ends in sudden catastrophe.

~~~
gpm
Uh, no, it's not. There are a great number of people who say they would be
willing to live on mars under those conditions basically just for the novelty
of it. There are a great number of challenges with colonizing mars. Getting a
small group of competent people is not one of them.

------
lowtto
> "When I looked at the Earth itself... I started to wonder why I was here,
> what's my purpose here… it sort of dawned me," he said.

> "And my perspective is that God has given mankind a stage on which to
> perform. How the play turns out, is up to us."

I think they are saying; that there's nothing out there that humans are
capable of taking advantage of. If going to the Moon has any benefit, then it
is to point out clearly that we shouldn't explore more and stay right here on
earth, and taking care of whatever we mere human can take care of. If going to
the moon is that hard and costly, then how does this compare going to the
mars? Even if we did managed to, which few selected population can reap the
benefit? Is it worth it for us to pay so much civilian money only for it to be
a special planet for very few selected capitalist from earth?

At some point, we just had to lose our interest in space exploration. Just
because there's too much of this world to keep us busy with.

