As society contemplates going to the moon or Mars, there’s a rising debate as to whether it’s worth spending billions of dollars to send humans to other planets if a robot or rover can perform the necessary science

Swanson, Steve

English

Boise State University - ScholarWorks

Boise State UniversityScholarWorksDivision of Research and Economic Development Publications and Presentations3-19-2019Are Astronauts Worth Tens of Billions of Dollars inExtra Costs to Go to Mars?Steve SwansonBoise State UniversityAcademic rigor, journalistic flairAre astronauts worth tens of billions of dollars in extra costs toAuthorSteve SwansonDistinguished Educator in Residence,Boise State UniversityWhat makes more sense: Sending a human or a robot to Mars? Juergen Faelchle/Shutterstock.comAs society contemplates going to the moon or Mars, there’s a rising debate as to whetherit’s worth spending billions of dollars to send humans to other planets if a robot or rovercan perform the necessary science.I think NASA needs to send both humans and machines. Let me explain why.I started off my 28-year career at NASA as an engineer on the shuttle training aircraft – anairborne simulator of the space shuttle. During my 17 years as an astronaut, I flew on threespace missions. Two of those were shuttle missions, STS-117 and STS-119, to the International Space Station.The main goal of both of these missions was to build the actual ISS, leaving little time for actualexperiments. However, our mission was fulfilling because we were building a science laboratory inspace. During my third mission, ISS Expedition 39 and 40, I spent five and a half months on the ISS.While we were on board, my crewmates and I performed more than 300 different experiments. Somewe did not touch, like the alpha magnetic spectrometer that scans the universe for antimatter. Otherswe set up and the mission controls then took over. For other experiments we set them up andperformed the experiment. In some, we astronauts were the guinea pigs.go to Mars?March 29, 2019 6.43am EDT •Updated April 9, 2019 5.12pm EDTHence, we used our time to squeeze the most science out of our ISS visit by collaborating with thescientists on the ground. Through this mix of human and automated experiments, NASA increasedthe amount of science being conducted on the ISS.Apollo 17 versus CuriosityTo try to compare scientific output between a crewed and a robotic mission, let me contrast the Apollo 17 – the last moon mission of December 1972, in which Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt spent 75hours on the lunar surface – with the Mars Curiosity rover with respectto three variables: distance traveled, cost and soil samples taken. Whilethese two missions are distinctly different – the former being lunar andthe latter on Mars – there are similarities that help us compare theirproductivity.When it comes to distancecovered, the humans won. Thetwo Apollo 17 astronauts drovea distance of 35 kilometers onthe moon in the span of threedays – that’s approximately 11.6kilometers per day. As ofFebruary 2019, Curiosity hadtraveled 20.16 kilometers onMars - an average of 9 metersper day since it began itsjourney on Mars in August2012.Now I’m not knocking Curiosityor its team. But executing a taskis extremely difficult whendealing with a rover 55 to 400million kilometers away, depending upon the relative positions of Earth and Mars in their orbits. Ifthe Earth-based Curiosity team issues the wrong commands to the rover, it could jeopardize or evenend the mission. Hence, they have to move slowly and verify every step. That means that something ahuman could accomplish in a couple of hours – like taking multiple rock samples – make take a robotweeks.Expedition 39 Flight Engineer Steve Swanson of NASAworks out on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration IsolationSystem (CEVIS) in the U.S. lab Destiny of the InternationalSpace Station. NASAThis self-portrait of NASA’s Curiosity Marsrover shows the vehicle at the Big Sky site,where its drill collected the mission’s fifthtaste of Mount Sharp. NASADuring Apollo 17 the astronauts collected 741 rock and soil samples, including a deep-drill coresample 3 meters long. This amounts to 247 samples each day. I had some difficulty finding theequivalent information for Curiosity. What I did discover was that as of Jan. 15, 2019, Curiosity had drilled 19 sites and had taken two samples without drilling. So Curiosity has taken at most 30 soilsamples while on Mars. That is, on average, 0.013 soil samples per day – which shows how difficult itis to operate a piece of machinery remotely. When equipment such as a drill malfunctions, which ithas on Curiosity, there is nobody there to repair it. So the team must find workarounds to theproblems for them to continue to get science.Apollo 17 mission commander Eugene Cernan drives the lunar roving vehicle during the early part of the first moonwalk atthe Taurus-Littrow landing site. The lunar module is in the background. NASA/Harrison SchmittCost of Apollo versus CuriosityIn 2015 dollars, each of the seven lunar Apollo missions cost about US$20 billion. The cost ofCuriosity was about $2.5 billion in 2015.Yes, I am comparing a lunar mission to a Mars mission, which isn’t exactly fair. So, let’s use anestimate of what a human mission to Mars is expected to cost – the number ranges from around $100billion to $500 billion per mission. I imagine it is going to be closer to the $500 billion or more giventhat the ISS alone cost more around $150 billion.If we assume $500 billion per mission – a figure that would hopefully decrease with multiple missions– then a manned mission would yield a better return on the investment. From the ballpark estimateabove, we can say a crew of four would be at least 500 times more productive in performing sciencethan a rover, although the cost would be about 200 times greater.Space exploration needs bothNow I admit there is a large margin of error in these quick calculations. However, I’m trying tounderscore the benefits from human involvement. Consequently, I think the most cost-effectivesolution is to use humans and rovers together. This is how we boosted science output on the ISS.For Mars we could have teams at mission controls around the world running the experiments usingrovers as they do now – but the teams could do the science much more quickly. That’s because therewould always be a human nearby to help out if the rover got stuck or malfunctioned.Yes, it is more expensive to send humans to space than probes and rovers, but we can’t disregard thathumans can rapidly adapt to unanticipated situations and repair and modify equipment, which in theend boosts the likelihood of success.NASA astronaut Steve Swanson during a spacewalk to replace a failed backup computer relay box on the InternationalSpace Station on April 22, 2014. NASAA human perspectiveThere is also so much we can learn about a new world that sensors just can’t tell us. What does it feellike? Look like? Smell like? This is how most people on Earth will relate to space exploration. Sohaving this human perspective is vital for generating enthusiasm.Space Mars Space Shuttle International Space Station Apollo Program Curiosity RoverFor example, one of the first questions I get from people when we talk about space is simply, “Whatwas it like?” And they wanted to know all the details, from brushing your teeth to doing a spacewalk. Iwould always add that we never knew how our day was going, because most of our tasks, be it scienceor maintenance, ran into problems that needed a human fix.I agree the rovers on Mars have done wonders and helped get people excited about planetaryexploration, but I’m sure the excitement of humans going to Mars would be much greater.

Are Astronauts Worth Tens of Billions of Dollars in Extra Costs to Go to Mars?

https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=research_development_pubs

Are Astronauts Worth Tens of Billions of Dollars in Extra Costs to Go to Mars?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Boise State University - ScholarWorks