Lucis Spei wrote:
Why do we need a manned mission to Mars? What can a manned mission do that robots couldn't? Let's see:
1) Ad hoc: in case we meet any aliens, a space crew could (I suppose) conduct impromptu negotiations.
2) Increased "reflex" time: We'd gain about six or seven minutes on the speed with which we react to stuff on Mars, which doesn't happen very fast in the first place.
3) Emotional value: Spiffy, we've put humans on another planet, cool!
For these few reasons, I think a manned Mars mission is unjustified. Anyone got any other reasons?
You forgot a few.
-Adaptability. Humans, even in pressure suits (I'm not going to say space suits, because Mars isn't exactly space), have many times the dexterity of any robot we can build now or in the foreseeable future. We also have enough functional flexibility to improvise, which is something our robots simply can't do. Remember how much trouble Express is having with a partially collapsed airbag? An <i>airbag</i>, for gods' sake. This is the biggest advantage, really, and the most compelling argument for manned missions.
-Bandwidth. Any unmanned Mars mission is limited by its transmitting capacity, but human bandwidth is essentially infinite, especially when augmented by low-weight storage media like the humble digital camera. Also, don't forget that at least some of the people we'll be sending to Mars will probably be qualified scientists; I'd be willing to bet that a good geologist (as an example) would be able to get much more from a first-hand look than any amount of remote photos. It's the difference between seeing a picture of a fire and seeing a fire.
-Fault tolerance and correction. We have Apollo 13 on one hand, and the Mars Polar Lander on the other. You do the math.
-Precedent. Sooner or later, we're going to have to expand off-planet. A manned Mars mission will give us valuable insight as to how to do that.
Humans are just better for most things, as awkward as we are off of Earth (and we are very awkward). There's a reason why we use human crews to service the ISS and major satellites, and communication with low-earth orbit is <i>much much</i> easier than communication with Mars... or even the Moon.
ollie wrote:
dammit we need a space elevator
A space elevator would make this kind of thing much easier and cheaper, that's for sure. It's too bad we don't have the technology to do it right now. Maybe in ten, twenty, fifty years, when we have nanotubes figured out...
And <a href="http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit1.html">here's</a> some information for you on Lagrange points. They're actually fixed relative to the major bodies involved, although those major bodies do have to be orbiting each other for anything but the L1 point to exist. I assume that your "liberation points" refer to the L1 point, which is in fact the only place where gravity cancels; note, however, that only the L4 and L5 points are stable. You could correct a station's orbit, of course, but that means fuel.
P-M