Comment by robomartin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by robomartin | Hacker News Reader

At some level manned missions to Mars feel like a complete waste of resources to me. Money would be far better spent on enhanced robotic missions. You don't have to provide life support, radiation will not threaten anyone's life, they don't need to be returned to Earth, etc. Besides that, investing serious money on advancing artificial intelligence and robotics would potentially have significant real revenue potential on Earth --probably far greater long term than media rights to watch a middle-aged husband and wife fight for two years while traveling to Mars.

What I think might be worthwhile would be the construction of what I am going to call "Enterprise One". This would be a large spaceship (crew of 20 or more) built in orbit. Enterprise One would never be capable of re-entry. That would be the domain of smaller (two or three occupant) capsules built for that purpose.

Ideally, Enterprise One would be an international effort.

The goal would be to construct something far more substantial (and safer) than one could launch from Earth at one time. If it takes ten years to build, so be it.

Once completed Enterprise One could start regular runs to the Moon and back. It would carry Lunar lander modules that would take people to the surface and back. We can learn a lot by having such a spacecraft conduct near-space manned missions with regularity. We could certainly use it to test all manner of technologies, including more advanced robotics.

While perhaps not as sexy as going to Mars, I would do this way before even considering manned missions to Mars. Humanity could benefit from Enterprise One in many ways. I see little benefits from sending a married couple for a Mars fly-by.

But the whole point of this mission is "inspiration".

You wouldn't be inspired by 10x the number of robots moving about the solar system beaming back video, etc?

True, especially since video is all most people would get out of a manned mission either.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.

I am not sure a mission to Mars would really inspire people to such an extent that it would be worth it.

We have robots on Mars right now. Think about that for a moment: Humanity has robots on another planet this very second. How many kids are in awe of that? How many have thoughts about this on a daily basis?

The sad reality is that a lot of kids (and adults) are far more preoccupied with moving up the level playing Clash of Clans on their iPads than what's going on with space exploration. One is far more tangible and satisfying than the other.

An "Enterprise One" concept would have real continuing research benefits and an opportunity to, perhaps, elevate awareness and interest in the sciences. Missions to the Moon are far more tangible than a two year run to Mars.

I am all for inspiration. Not sure a dueling middle-aged married couple going to Mars would serve that purpose. The other problem is that all manner of things can happen during such a trip. Darwin forgive, if one or both of them die in transit they'll friggin ruin far-space travel for at least a generation.

The sad reality is that a lot of kids (and adults) are far more preoccupied with moving up the level playing Clash of Clans on their iPads than what's going on with space exploration. One is far more tangible and satisfying than the other.

When curiosity landed on Mars, Time Square was paying attention. The world was paying attention. That will sparks childhood dreams.

I believe that a flyover to Mars will do the same thing, but hopefully on a bigger scale. Plus, they will be communicating with the world constantly.

I am all for inspiration. Not sure a dueling middle-aged married couple going to Mars would serve that purpose. The other problem is that all manner of things can happen during such a trip. Darwin forgive, if one or both of them die in transit they'll friggin ruin far-space travel for at least a generation.

Inspiration and science are not the only reason to do space exploration, but also space colonization as well. How are we going to colonize the solar system if we never sent astronauts beyond low earth orbit and the moon?

> When curiosity landed on Mars, Time Square was paying attention.

And then they forgot. Seriously. That's our reality today.

I'll use my oldest kid as an example of this. He is a straight A (more like A+) student. So are all of his immediate friends. A perfect pack of nerds. I love them all. He is intensely interested in science. He loves it.

Do you know how much of his inspiration comes from the space program or the robots on Mars? Not much. Every so often we'll go to JPL for "ooh" and "ahh" moments. The problem is that these always seem like short hits of adrenaline rather than persistent boosts.

Where these kids get inspiration and constant drive at this point is at home and at school. We make it a point to take them to local (Los Angeles) and distant (San Jose) robotics events and other science-related activities. When he has a science project we dive right in. I've been teaching him how to approach such projects as a real engineer, doing research, modeling, estimating, constructing prototypes, testing, etc. We build and fly model airplanes and helicopters. We build giant soap bubble machines. We got rid of our dinning room table and built a (good looking) Lego FLL competition table right in the middle of our dinning room [1].

On top of that I am teaching him programming in various languages and generally exposing him to that world.

All of this takes time, dedication and, yes, some money. Without effort at this level the decay time of exciting events such as the Mars rover drilling into a rock is probably measured in minutes, if not seconds. These days kids have so many interesting and fun things competing for their attention that keeping them focused on what is really going to make a difference in their lives can be a full time job. Not easy.

That's why I am skeptical about this whole idea of a mission to Mars having any lasting inspirational value. It'll be an "Oh, wow! We did it!" moment for sure. Not certain that it will have mass value beyond a day or two, certainly not months later. Yes, a few people will be inspired. I think there are far cheaper ways to accomplish the same thing.

With regards to space colonization. I'm a Star Trek baby. Grew up watching the show. Love the idea. Also understand that it is as close to impossible as can be. Unless we make an absolutely astounding discovery on Mars the likelihood of finding a habitable planet within a distance measured in human lifetimes is very low. Mars might be the closest we can possibly consider for such an exercise. Even then, it is nearly an impossible task. Have you ever watched a show like Survivorman? Not so easy to survive and thrive with limited resources here on Earth. Exponentially more difficult on another planet.

This is why I think that developing and using a near-space spacecraft as I described would be worth it. We would learn a lot from this. It would be used to develop and test technology for far-space exploration. It would probably create long term financial benefits from near-space activities. And it could be a constant source of interesting activities for our short-attention span generation.

In another sense I am saying: Let's build a reusable no-reentry vehicle that can make regular trips to the Moon. Let's operate it and learn from it for a few years. Then, and only then, consider the idea of building a spacecraft that will take humans to far-space locations. For all we know our near-space ship could, over time, evolve into the far-space ship we would require. That would happen "organically", if you will, and over time.

[1] http://thenxtstep.blogspot.com/2006/06/fll-competition-table...

Another thought: Want to inspire kids of all ages? Put 1,000 robots on the Moon and make them remotely controllable via the Internet.

How is that for a startup idea? I'd probably pay a few hundred bucks to get some time programming a robot for a mission on the Moon.

Imagine what science class would be like? Comms delay to the moon is in the order of 1.3 seconds. That, for all intents and purposes, is real-time.

I can't imagine kids and adults not getting into this. Control my own time-shared robot on the Moon and go take some pictures? That would be amazingly cool.

How is that for a startup idea? I'd probably pay a few hundred bucks to get some time programming a robot for a mission on the Moon.

What's the cost for launch? What's the R&D cost? What's the specs?

Incidently, we already have people developing rovers and lander for the moon, thanks to the Google Lunar X Prize. Maybe by the end of the decade, we will be able to do what you want.

No clue. Not my domain. I'll claim ignorance.

I know it's not cheap. That said, if someone is willing to spend gobs and gobs of money to send a middle-aged couple for a Mars fly-by this would surely be orders of magnitude cheaper and far more likely to generate far more revenue.

No clue. Not my domain. I'll claim ignorance.

Which doesn't exclude you from making a back-of-an-envelope calculation of the cost and a little bit of research, such as figuring out how expensive is a falcon heavy launch, and so on.

True. I could. In this case, I don't think one needs to go that far.

I know, with near absolute certainty, that it would be far cheaper to land 1,000 little robots on the Moon than to send two people to do a Mars fly-by. There is no way a fully automatic (no humans, no life support) Moon mission could even approach the cost of a mission to Mars with everything you need to support life and bring them back to Earth.

Part of engineering is to develop a sense for these things. After a while you don't need to resort to constantly calculating things to have an idea of the relative degree of complexity or cost of a project. This, I think, is one of those cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com