Manned missions vs drones vs research colonies

[pavelcherepan]

Is there any economical or scientific reason for manned missions to other celestial bodies? While manned mission will most likely be able to collect scientific data faster than unmanned drones these will be very limited in terms of duration of their stay and so devices like Mars rovers might be able to outperform a manned mission both in terms of amount of scientific data collected and at a fraction of the cost.

 

Another option is a long-term manned research base, which, while being extremely expensive will not be as limited in terms of duration of stay and be able to collect scientific data faster than unmanned devices.

 

Which one of these three is better in terms of scientific output vs cost?

 

Bonus question: is there any point in sending people to Mars? Apart from the fact that it would be awesome.

[fiveworlds]

Bonus question: is there any point in sending people to Mars? Apart from the fact that it would be awesome.

 

Learning to survive on another planet is imperative to the survival of the human race. There are volcanoes etc on earth which could render the earth completely uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Being able to relocate humanity to Mars would allow more of humanity to survive. Also as has been noted before the nearest habitable planet may take thousands of years to travel to. Modern electronics has an unknown longevity in space. Most buildings on earth have not survived that long with the exception of the pyramids etc.

Edited February 18, 2016 by fiveworlds

[Enthalpy]

Sending people is not for scientific return. It's for showing off - and that's damn important.

 

Though... Science by humans on the spot... Our robots are very limited.

If designed to drill 10cm but you now expect science at 1m depth, the robot can't, the human does it.

If you now expect science within a stone but the robot wasn't designed to break it, the human does, even without special tools.

If you now mean "propagation of radiowaves through that hill would tell a lot", the human does the experiment without preparation before the trip.

 

Observation, reactivity, initiative. Each favours humans by 120dB. At identical duration the human brings so much more - but at identical cost?

[Phi for All]

I think each has viable uses. Using all of them seems preferable to focusing on one.

 

The best drone idea I've heard is for them to find an asteroid of the right size and makeup, attach itself to it, and drive it to where we need the minerals, perhaps starting the mining operation on the way back. Economy of scale would make these eventually pretty cheap.

 

I agree with Enthalpy about the use of humans. For research colonies and some missions, having a human right there increases the likelihood of successful adaptation to unusual circumstances by a significant amount.

 

The thing to remember about the expense is that we've always recouped far more than we've spent when we invest in space exploration. The things we learn, the tools we create, all these things benefit us downstream incredibly. There's no reason to think further efforts will yield less in terms of knowledge, technology, and practical experience.