[SpaceLawnmower]

I got to ask Scott Kelly why we should send humans to Mars instead of sending up more robots. His response (paraphrased) was:

1. Humans are explorers by nature

2. Humans can do science 100x faster than robots.

3. People will be inspired by Mars missions to go into STEM and even if they don't end up working for NASA, they will likely do other great things.

4. It gives people jobs

The romantic explorers angle seems practically indefensible for the reasons listed in this article. I like the faster science angle the most in theory, but I didn't realize that contamination would be such a big deal.

[komali2]

The article seems to argue that point 2 is strictly false, or a red herring: humans can do the science on earth, while robots collect data in space.

Point 4 seems more a political/economic failure than a valid reason to pour resources into a Mars project.

[throw_pm23]

Yes, and Point 3 is a fancy version of the broken window fallacy, while Point 1 is a BS "appeal to nature" that can be used to justify anything, including some of the worst things.