Curiosity Mars Rover Success!

[Bonam]

A great day for science and for Mars exploration!

Some news links:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/06/tech/mars-rover-curiosity/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/04/us/mars-rover-scott-maxwell/index.html

Some pics:

Awesome descent photo from the Mars orbiter Odyssey:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/Curiosity-Landing-Enhanced.jpg

Mount Sharp near the landing site:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/08/mars-mount-sharp.jpg

High res photos to come over the coming days.

Simulation video with explanation of the landing and mission:

Edited August 7, 2012 by Bonam

[Moonlight Graham]

I wouldn't want to live on Mars, but i'd like to visit one day lol.

Interesting aside - There's an impact crater from a large asteroid on Devon Island in Nunavut that has somewhat similar conditions to Mars (dry, cold, windy, dusty etc) where scientists with Canada and NASA have been doing experiments like growing plant-life in greenhouses for possible future Mars exploration/habitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haughton_Mars_Project

[Bonam]

I wouldn't want to live on Mars, but i'd like to visit one day lol.

I actually wouldn't mind participating in the colonization of Mars myself.

Visiting would be cool too. Few people realize, but Mars has geographic features that are almost unfathomable in scale compared to Earth. Vertical cliffs 7 km tall, canyons 3-5 km deep, the Tharsis Bulge with its giant volcanoes poking up into space, etc. To behold these things in person would be something else. Plus, as a mountain climber, I'd get to be first to summit a whole bunch of things, an opportunity I don't really have on Earth ;p

Interesting aside - There's an impact crater from a large asteroid on Devon Island in Nunavut that has somewhat similar conditions to Mars (dry, cold, windy, dusty etc) where scientists with Canada and NASA have been doing experiments like growing plant-life in greenhouses for possible future Mars exploration/habitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haughton_Mars_Project

Yup pretty cool. I believe similar experiments have been done in Russia, as well.

[TimG]

I actually wouldn't mind participating in the colonization of Mars myself.

Which is more likely given our current knowledge of physics:

1) A human colony on Mars.

2) A colony of remotely controlled robots on Mars (possibly with Avatar style virtual reality controllers).

Personally I think 2) is how it will play out because getting humans back to earth add significantly to the cost of the project and economics will always trump romanticism when it comes time to actually fund something.

Edited August 8, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

Which is more likely given our current knowledge of physics:

1) A human colony on Mars.

2) A colony of remotely controlled robots on Mars (possibly with Avatar style virtual reality controllers).

Personally I think 2) is how it will play out because getting humans back to earth add significantly to the cost of the project.

Why do we need to get them back? Establishing a colony can be, initially, a one way trip. There would be plenty of capable volunteers (I would strongly consider it myself, if given the opportunity). However, it is nonetheless true that getting humans to Mars would be vastly more expensive than getting robots to Mars, even if you don't have to get them back to Earth.

As for our "knowledge of physics", it doesn't really impact this question either way, since such knowledge far exceeds the requirements of traveling to and from Mars, whether with or without humans.

In my opinion the likely scenario is something like this:

- around the 2030s we start sending robotic spacecraft to Mars with the specific aim of preparing a settlement. The robots would include ones designed for construction, in-situ resource utilization, nuclear power generation, water extraction from underground/polar sources, etc

- after about 10-20 years of landing robotic missions that start to prepare this settlement, some kind of international manned mission is sent, where humans land and inhabit the facilities pre-constructed for them by the robotic missions

- the humans explore and do science, as well as working with robotic systems to further construction and prepare for additional colonists

- once the initial human settlement succeeds, additional larger groups of colonists will be sent

The ultimate purpose of any Mars-related effort has to be human colonization and eventual terraforming. There's no real point otherwise. There's only so much "science" you can do on Mars, and that's all you're gonna do with robots (there aren't any resources valuable enough to be worth extracting on Mars and transporting back to Earth).

Edited August 8, 2012 by Bonam

[TimG]

once the initial human settlement succeeds, additional larger groups of colonists will be sent

But is there really a business case? Seems to me a permanent colony of remotely controlled robots could do anything a human colonist could do for a fraction of the cost.

I understand the huge romantic appeal of a human colony - I just don't see that we will ever be able to justify the cost given the spectacular advances in remotely controlled robot technology. The case will even be harder to make if we see the development of true AIs over the next 20 years.

Lastly, my comment about the physics has to do with the cost of getting mass to mars. If we discovered some new propulsion technology (Dilithium crystals anyone?) that reduced the cost to that of a transatlantic sea voyage in the 1600s then I could see human colonization.

[Bonam]

But is there really a business case? Seems to me a permanent colony of remotely controlled robots could do anything a human colonist could do for a fraction of the cost.

I understand the huge romantic appeal of a human colony - I just don't see that we will ever be able to justify the cost given the spectacular advances in remotely controlled robot technology. The case will even be harder to make if we see the development of true AIs over the next 20 years.

It's a question of what drives the whole program to begin with. Is it purely science? If so, I agree, robots can do science on other planets more cost effectively than humans. But to me the science is pretty much a secondary goal. The main goal is to spread human life throughout the solar system and then throughout the galaxy. And you can't do that without sending humans out to Mars (and other destinations) eventually. Robots can and will pave the way, but humans have to go eventually too, or why even bother?

Lastly, my comment about the physics has to do with the cost of getting mass to mars. If we discovered some new propulsion technology (Dilithium crystals anyone?) that reduced the cost to that of a transatlantic sea voyage in the 1600s then I could see human colonization.

Fission powered electric propulsion is all you need for the interplanetary flight. This is technology that can be built any time, the physics is well understood. The main difficulty is getting out of Earth's gravity well which has to be done with a high thrust launch vehicle. The physics to do this differently is also well known (nuclear pulse detonation, nuclear thermal rockets, space elevators, etc) but is not implemented for other reasons.

The fission-electric rocket though really is all you need for solar system exploration, manned or unmanned. Cost would be dominated by the required mass of the vehicle and getting it (or its components) off Earth to begin with.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Bonam

[TimG]

The main goal is to spread human life throughout the solar system and then throughout the galaxy.

It is? I see it more as a learning exercise. We don't know if anything useful will come out of it but we do it because if we don't try we don't learn. I also see more value in a program where anyone on earth can experience life on mars by using a virtual reality/avatar/robot controller than by sending a few souls on a one way trip.

The main difficulty is getting out of Earth's gravity well which has to be done with a high thrust launch vehicle.

This is what I was talking about. The laws of physics tell us exactly how much energy must be expended to get a 1kg of matter into orbit and the amount of energy required is not cheap. We can play around with vehicles but unless we find a way to dramatically reduce the cost of that energy we will find that large scale colonization is going to be too expensive. Edited August 8, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

But is there really a business case?

As far as exploiting planets goes, that seems like a pretty pertinent question right here and now on Earth.

Are we basically cashing in our planet to see who has the most when it's all stripped of it's resources or is the intent to use it to leverage our species evolution towards becoming space-faring and access the seemingly infinite supply of resources beyond our gravity-well? I might be able to get behind putting the pedal to that metal and go for broke if people like Stephen Hawking were in charge of the world but...

Notwithstanding we reach the Technological Singularity first, I think we might only get one shot at not severely screwing our chances and instead plunge head first into an environmental and ecological Bottleneck.

[TimG]

I think we might only get one shot at not severely screwing our chances and instead plunge head first into an environmental and ecological Bottleneck.

I will never understand the attraction of doomsday cults over the course of human history (environmentalism is simply the latest manifestation). Obviously we can't ignore environmental issues but this endless drum beat of imminent doom is hardly justified.

[eyeball]

I will never understand the attraction of doomsday cults over the course of human history (environmentalism is simply the latest manifestation). Obviously we can't ignore environmental issues but this endless drum beat of imminent doom is hardly justified.

So says the guy who endlessly tells us we should ignore environmental issues.

[TimG]

So says the guy who endlessly tells us we should ignore environmental issues.

Since when do I say the we should ignore them? I believe environmental issues need to placed in the proper context. I don't turn them into an ideological fetish like many on this forum.

[Moonlight Graham]

The ultimate purpose of any Mars-related effort has to be human colonization and eventual terraforming. There's no real point otherwise. There's only so much "science" you can do on Mars, and that's all you're gonna do with robots (there aren't any resources valuable enough to be worth extracting on Mars and transporting back to Earth).

It's inevitable, unless humans destroy themselves, that we'll have colonies on Mars. However, there's still a lot of science left to do on Mars and many other moons and planets. Given the insane cost, I think it will be a long time until any kind of human colonization. We still have to send someone there first, and we don't have any kind of permanent structures on the moon yet. Compared to other research & uses of money/resources, there really isn't much of point to Mars colonization unless it can be permanently self-sustaining.

Also, IMO we should get earth in better order first before spending the money on a Mars colony.

[Bonam]

It is?

I would say so, yes. I know a lot of people (as colleagues) involved in various aspects of space programs, whether in academia, NASA, the CSA, or in private industry. And almost universally, when we talk about why we do what we do, why we are enthusiastic about it, what made us choose this field over anything else, it was the desire to see human race expand out into the cosmos. At its most fundamental level, this desire is nothing but the urge to ensure the survival of the species.

I see it more as a learning exercise. We don't know if anything useful will come out of it but we do it because if we don't try we don't learn. I also see more value in a program where anyone on earth can experience life on mars by using a virtual reality/avatar/robot controller than by sending a few souls on a one way trip.

Speed of light limit. Real time "avatar" control of stuff on other planets can't be done. Not unless, as you say, we discover fundamentally revolutionary physics, in this case enabling FTL communication. My guess is we'll have humans on Mars long before we have FTL. And controlling an Avatar with a 10 minute+ communication lag would get boring fast for most people.

This is what I was talking about. The laws of physics tell us exactly how much energy must be expended to get a 1kg of matter into orbit and the amount of energy required is not cheap. We can play around with vehicles but unless we find a way to dramatically reduce the cost of that energy we will find that large scale colonization is going to be too expensive.

What do you mean by "too expensive". The cost of the energy to get that 1kg into space at most stays constant, or more likely goes down slightly as we develop more cost efficient systems. Meanwhile, economies grow exponentially. In the late 1960s / early 70s, ~0.3% of US GDP could put ~200 tons in orbit per year (Saturn 5s were about the only things being launched, at about 2 per year at 100 tons payload each, at a cost of 0.3% of GDP). Today, 0.3% of US GDP could put ~8000 tons into orbit (for example: $55 million per 10 ton Falcon 9 launch). In another 40 years, projecting the same rate of growth, that same 0.3% of US GDP would be 320,000 tons to orbit. Expand that to an international effort (3x US GDP) and that's about 1 million tons to orbit annually. More than enough to initiate a colonization effort of Mars.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Bonam

[Bonam]

It's inevitable, unless humans destroy themselves, that we'll have colonies on Mars. However, there's still a lot of science left to do on Mars and many other moons and planets. Given the insane cost, I think it will be a long time until any kind of human colonization. We still have to send someone there first, and we don't have any kind of permanent structures on the moon yet. Compared to other research & uses of money/resources, there really isn't much of point to Mars colonization unless it can be permanently self-sustaining.

Also, IMO we should get earth in better order first before spending the money on a Mars colony.

Earth will never be in "better order". Earth is Earth. The cradle of the human species. With all its age old rivalries and conflicts and problems simmering for thousands of years and occasionally erupting on a grand scale before settling down again. This should not stop us from expanding outward.

[wyly]

It's inevitable, unless humans destroy themselves, that we'll have colonies on Mars. However, there's still a lot of science left to do on Mars and many other moons and planets. Given the insane cost, I think it will be a long time until any kind of human colonization. We still have to send someone there first, and we don't have any kind of permanent structures on the moon yet. Compared to other research & uses of money/resources, there really isn't much of point to Mars colonization unless it can be permanently self-sustaining.

Also, IMO we should get earth in better order first before spending the money on a Mars colony.

there is a private firm in netherlands that is looking for volunteers to colonize mars by 2023...its a one way trip there no plans to bring them back...

[Bonam]

there is a private firm in netherlands that is looking for volunteers to colonize mars by 2023...its a one way trip there no plans to bring them back...

The volunteers will be plentiful if they have a realistic and adequately funded plan. A plan that includes pre-positioning the needed resources, structures, and robotic assets at the colony site. Based on my sense of the field, I would say that the probability of this happening by 2023 is astronomically low.

[TimG]

Speed of light limit. Real time "avatar" control of stuff on other planets can't be done.

Hmm. Never did the calculation. Did not realize that Mars was far enough away to run in a serious lag.

What do you mean by "too expensive". The cost of the energy to get that 1kg into space at most stays constant

You are correct to say that the cost of national programs like NASA gets smaller as a percentage of GDP over time but it still requires a lot of energy and that energy cost will always be large compared to other things that could be purchased with money.

[bleeding heart]

The volunteers will be plentiful if they have a realistic and adequately funded plan.

There would be a glut, in fact, and eventually some sort of lottery.

Like you, I would consider it myself (except that I'm profoundly "tied down" as it were, so it would never happen.)

A plan that includes pre-positioning the needed resources, structures, and robotic assets at the colony site. Based on my sense of the field, I would say that the probability of this happening by 2023 is astronomically low.

Yeah...ten years from now? I dunno.

[Moonlight Graham]

Earth will never be in "better order". Earth is Earth. The cradle of the human species. With all its age old rivalries and conflicts and problems simmering for thousands of years and occasionally erupting on a grand scale before settling down again. This should not stop us from expanding outward.

Wars will always occur, but as long as a significant amount of people are dying from preventible causes like diseases, hunger, lack of proper sanitation etc. I think there's more vital ways of improving the human race than a Mars colony. But as I said, I would be more supportive of a colony if this colony was mostly or completely self-sustaining and we didn't have to spend insane amounts of money continually shipping supplies to Mars.

By colonizing Mars with humans we could learn to possibly survive as a species after some catastrophe like an asteroid hitting earth, or learn how to survive a harsher climate on earth. That's why I'm saying the cost/benefits may only be in our favour if we have the tech to have the colony be self-sustaining. What are the other advantages (that would be worth the cost) of putting human rather than robots being on Mars? Other than it being freaking cool lol.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

there is a private firm in netherlands that is looking for volunteers to colonize mars by 2023...its a one way trip there no plans to bring them back...

That doesn't seem like very much time to get something like that done.

[Bonam]

Wars will always occur, but as long as a significant amount of people are dying from preventible causes like diseases, hunger, lack of proper sanitation etc. I think there's more vital ways of improving the human race than a Mars colony.

Here, see this letter:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

But as I said, I would be more supportive of a colony if this colony was mostly or completely self-sustaining and we didn't have to spend insane amounts of money continually shipping supplies to Mars.

By colonizing Mars with humans we could learn to possibly survive as a species after some catastrophe like an asteroid hitting earth, or learn how to survive a harsher climate on earth. That's why I'm saying the cost/benefits may only be in our favour if we have the tech to have the colony be self-sustaining. What are the other advantages (that would be worth the cost) of putting human rather than robots being on Mars? Other than it being freaking cool lol.

I absolutely agree, the ultimate goal should be to have it entirely self-sustaining. However, to be self-sustaining, said colony would need industry, agriculture, resource extraction, science and research, healthcare, education, etc. In the harsh environment of Mars where everything has to be inside pressurized climate-controlled and radiation shielded environments, building such a colony is a large undertaking. Getting it to be self-sustaining may take many decades, but that isn't a reason not to start.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Bonam

[Wild Bill]

Here, see this letter:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

I absolutely agree, the ultimate goal should be to have it entirely self-sustaining. However, to be self-sustaining, said colony would need industry, agriculture, resource extraction, science and research, healthcare, education, etc. In the harsh environment of Mars where everything has to be inside pressurized climate-controlled and radiation shielded environments, building such a colony is a large undertaking. Getting it to be self-sustaining may take many decades, but that isn't a reason not to start.

Might building most structures underground, even if only a metre or two, mitigate some of that "harsh environment" stuff?

[dre]

Bonham, I agree with a lot of what youve said here... that a human colony might be a baby step to more meaningfull colonization. But then I remembered you also believe in the sort of proposition put forth by people like Vinge and Kurzweil that we are approaching a technological singularity and that super-intelligences will design successive generations of even more intelligent super-intelligences.

If thats true then colonizing space might actually happen faster if we dont expend a lot of resources on it now, and instead wait for the "singularity".

This same sort of problem comes up when people talk about the idea of exploring deeper space. The "ship" we build 1000 years from now will pass the one we send today making it redundant.

ITs true that technologies emerge because of these "baby steps" but if thats the point why not do the opposite of whats being proposed. Instead of building a hospitable environment on mars build an inhospitable environment here on earth (no air, toxic atmosphere, shitty climate) and then practice building human colonies inside that.

[Moonlight Graham]

If thats true then colonizing space might actually happen faster if we dont expend a lot of resources on it now, and instead wait for the "singularity".

This same sort of problem comes up when people talk about the idea of exploring deeper space. The "ship" we build 1000 years from now will pass the one we send today making it redundant.

ITs true that technologies emerge because of these "baby steps" but if thats the point why not do the opposite of whats being proposed. Instead of building a hospitable environment on mars build an inhospitable environment here on earth (no air, toxic atmosphere, shitty climate) and then practice building human colonies inside that.

I sort of agree. I would wait a bit, send robots to Mars for now until its cheaper to put and keep humans there longterm. But I would be in favour of sending at least a 1-way ticket (maybe 2-way if possible) crew to walk the planet like we did on the moon, if the cost wasn't absolutely ridiculous. That's the first step I think.

I think the biggest thing to gain from Mars colonization, until we have the tech to travel to other solar systems, is that we can learn how to survive harsh climates on earth that could result from 1) a nuclear winter, or 2) a large asteroid hit, and similar catastrophes that could threaten our existence. As you said, some of that could be learned here if we simulate it properly. As Bonam said, eventual terraforming would be very neat as well, but maybe less useful until we get to other solar systems. Why not just send robots to Mars for science & resource extraction...though I guess terraforming would provide more resources.