Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

Palomar · 2004-07-10 07:49:04

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04t.html]Excellent article from Opinion Space feature of spacedaily.com

--Cindy

Grypd · 2004-07-10 11:33:57

GCNRevenger wont like it he seems to believe that all resources that mankind needs can be found on earth:).

But opinion does seem to be going the other way now, We do seem to be heading towards more human space flight as long as the robots can do everything crowd dont derail it. Not that im not in favour of robots just they should make things easier for Humans, not replace them. As to the authors opinion on world security im not sure he is wrong, actually im scared he could be right.

MarsDog · 2004-07-10 11:42:37

For decades the space debate has focused too much on exploration. The exploration of space is valuable in and of itself, but the most important reason for exploring space;the reason that robots alone simply don't count;can be summed up in one word: settlement. This time, we go to stay. Even if science was the only reason to go, the best science is performed by onsite scientists with their instruments, not by onsite instruments without their scientists. But science isn't the only, or even the best, reason to go. Survival and prosperity are the fundamental reasons, and these are worth any price.

Kim Stanley Robinson, in an address to the Mars Society, cautioned against the disease of Freud's "narcissism of petty differences" This is the tendency, among those feeling relatively powerless in their pursuit of an ambitious, long-range agenda, to descend into factional bickering over minutiae.

Grypd · 2004-07-10 11:54:49

People are flexible robots are not.

When we go to space robots will do dumb repetitive labour but if you want something to think send a man we will take a long time before any robot will be as able as Man.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-10 18:34:49

I think the problem with that article is that it neglects closed systems when it talks about "conservation." You don't have to conserve so much recycle.

And indeed, this is precisely what you're going to be doing when you're going into space. You're not going to be discarding any resources that you procure unless you really really need to (and most resources you get will be those you really need).

You can't rule out robots entirely, because, and I'm sorry to say, I find it unlikely that humans are going to be carrying around pickaxes in space suits mining asteroids, it's just a really difficult thing for me to imagine! You're going to need those robots, even if they're controlled in an orbiting platform a few thousand k from the asteroid they're mining. There's nothing inherently wrong with robots. They are currently the best means to explore the solar system, and I reckon they will continue to be the best means to exploit resources in the solar system. This anti-robot mentality is almost Luddite in nature. Space advocates being anti-robot! It's shocking, to say the least.

Anyway, I have a lot more gripes about the article, but I'll refrain from writing a point by point rebuttal. I just find it amazing how many people back the presidents "space initiative" when the president himself hasn't even spoke about it since he first announced it. If he was truely pro-space, he would make it a freaking campaign issue, and I reckon he won't.

Grypd · 2004-07-11 06:02:00

Maybe I should make myself clearer, Im not AntiRobot its the Robot only attitude that I find wrong.

There is a strong minority who state there is no need to send man to space as a robot can do better. I find this inheritantly wrong. Robots are there to aid people not replace them. It is the financial disasters that are the ISS and Shuttle that give credence to the arquement to stop all manned flight.

I like robots they will provide our workforce to build the first base on the Moon and Mars, They Will have human oversight and drivers from earth certainly for the moon but they will do the hard work and they will evolve as we get experience about what works. But if i want an opinion im not asking them a thing.

The problem with conservation is it requires a lot of time and money to set up. The new industrialised countries do not have the interest to set it up. Also you must have a base load of materials to recycle with the growth these countries have they will be net importers of material for a long time and as we know materials are getting harder and more expensive to access each year. Soon i fear the Antartic will become a major mining source, why. Frankly the new industrialised countries do not have the same opinion of green issues as we do, why should they we did not when we where at there stage and preaching at them will only get you ignored.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-11 07:20:55

The robot argument has never ever been about robots being able to "do better than man." It's always been about "robots being able to do better than Man from a cost effectiveness point of view." This is a lot more narrowed down, don't you say? And it's hard to disagree with. At least until we have some system in place making trips around the solar system cheap and easy for humans, robots are obviously more cost effective.

Granted, there is that aspect that robots do have more abilities than man (they can see outside of the visual spectrum, measure distances, and map things, and so on), but I don't think this aspect is stressed so much that aspect that humans cost more money to send into space.

Right now we can send a spectrometer anywhere in the solar system for under $500 million. Right now we can't even send a human with a spectrometer in their hand outside of LEO for that price. When the price does come down, it will definitely be more exciting for humans to get out there.

BTW, the converstion/recycling argument you use could be used for space yaknow, it's not that fair. I think that conservation (well, recycling), again is a very important aspect of space exploration. We're not going to be having shipments of food going to Mars, we're going to need something like a closed ecosystem life support system to provide us with all our air, water, and food. Such technology could in the end benefit those on Earth. Whether it's built before we start colonizing, or after, we're bound to have it.

Grypd · 2004-07-11 08:13:33

If we dont arque with the cost effectiveness view of things it will stop or seriously reduce manned space flight. People will start bringing up market forces etc and soon will come the cancellations. The best arquement to defend manned space flight is Versatility in people that robots lack.

Martian Republic · 2004-07-11 08:42:07

I agree with most of the article, but disagree with parts of it. He is right that NASA needs to break the trail and develop the new technology that going to make space colonization happen. He is right that there is a natural division between what the government can do through NASA and private industries can do in space. As to Robotics vs people, we first have to decide what our goal are, the answer to the question becomes more clear.

we need to ask question like. What are our ultimate goals in space is going to be.

Are we just going to explore space and nothing else?

Are our goals to colonize space?

If we are going to colonize space, what the most effective way to do it?

Or are we going to do both exploring and colonizing space?

Now that we have identified our question. Now we can answer them.

It will always be more cost efficient to send robotics space craft out to explore something instead of sending a man. A Robotics Space Craft does not have to come back so you don't need fuel to send it back to earth. A Robotics Space Craft can stay in space for year or even several decades and take the most energy efficient way to get to the target research area of interest. A Robotics Space Craft does not have to maintain a life support system or create oxygen or grow food for it human habitant. So for a purely scientific process, Robotics Space Craft is the way to go. I realize that not a popular thing to say on this forum and I personally don't like it either, but on a purely monetary basses, that is so and it will continue to be so.

The manned flight and exploring, now that another story. The debate revolve around the best way to accomplish it. On that, some go one way and some go the other way and some use a combination of both. I personally thing it going to be a combination of the two or both government and private businesses doing the job.

Larry,

Ian Flint · 2004-07-11 09:16:41

I've mentioned this on other threads, but I still maintain that human exploration is more cost effective than robotic. I'll use an analogy this time:

Robotic argument:
My wife just finished knitting a cloth diaper cover for our baby. It's the first one she has ever knitted so it took her about Seven hours all together. At $7 per hour that would have cost $49. She has neither th know how nor the start up capital nor the need to produce 100 diapers a day.

Human argument:
Now let's say she finds a market that will support production of 100 cloth diaper covers per day. She will have to hire some professionals and she can buy her materials in bulk. She will train them to produce one cover per hour thus lowering the cost of each cover to $10. The start up capital will be in the thousands but since the operation is more efficient each final product will be cheaper.

Right now the Space Program has neither the know how nor money (nor the percieved need) to send humans to other planets. So our only option is robots. Now when we finally get the start up capital for a human exploration program, we will get much more science return from the humans and the per unit cost of the science will go down. Human explorers are the 'mass production' of space exploration.

Spirit and Opportunity have done much, but humans on site could accomplish what they have done in a couple of afternoons.

Josh Cryer · 2004-07-12 03:37:27

Hmm, did you mean to replace "is more cost effective" with "could potentially be more cost effective"?

MarsDog · 2004-07-13 11:31:03

First, we will colonize via the armchair, Virtual Reality, "TelePresence", Method.
The robotic extension of ourselves is an efficient way to investigate,
and soon, to actually build.
Robots or Humans ? Humans cannot do space without efficient tools.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-13 11:48:32

I'm no robotics expert, but I don't see arm-chair colonisation happening. At least not within the 3 or 4 decades that I think we should start colonizing.

The telerobotic operation of Spirit and Opportunity was ok for their mission, but it didn't show much promise of large scale construction capabilities. Didn't it take nine days just to get off the lander? I know robotics will improve, but I don't see large scale teleconstruction in our future, yet.

If you're talking about teleoperation from Earth, I am even less convinced. The operators need to at least be in Mars orbit because of signal delay. And if they're that close then they might as well just land and get out a hammer and shovel.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-13 12:02:15

Depends on what you call colonization

If its just to position, connect and deploy prefab equipment, like dragging an inflating greenhouse module into place and hooking up gas/water/power lines, stretch out rolled up solar arrays, and small-scale dirt moving then robots could possibly do the job even controlled from Earth.

But real live construction, like bolting/welding together Mg alloy trusses to make an airlock frame, or installing/replacing new contaminant sensors on the insides of Hab walls... not a chance. You'd definatly need people around on the ground.

Grypd · 2004-07-13 16:09:27

Think what we can do using ROV (remote operated vehicles) in use under the sea. It is when the operation that is needed becomes complex ie wiring etc then the distance and lack of senses of the operator become difficult.

Advances in virtual reality may prove the way to sort this but they are not here yet. Still the experiences we have with teleoperation at the moment mean that we can use them now if the distance is kept reasonable.

Still people will be needed

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-14 03:55:01

But real live construction, like bolting/welding together Mg alloy trusses to make an airlock frame, or installing/replacing new contaminant sensors on the insides of Hab walls... not a chance.

NASA's Robonaut prototype is getting to the level of sophistication required to operate any human machinery. With improvements in control gloves & power/weight, and space rating, it could do almost anything a human could - within a few thousand km of the armchair at any rate. With a simple robot arm to grab ahold of hardpoints on the space craft, it could do many jobs easier than an astranaut floating free.

True this maymean sending people to Mars to stay in tin cans and operate the robots outside, but so what? Such people will be construction workers, not astranauts. If they want to go out and enjoy themselves they can do so one their own time.

ANTIcarrot.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-10 07:49:04

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#2 2004-07-10 11:33:57

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#3 2004-07-10 11:42:37

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#4 2004-07-10 11:54:49

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#5 2004-07-10 18:34:49

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#6 2004-07-11 06:02:00

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#7 2004-07-11 07:20:55

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#8 2004-07-11 08:13:33

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#9 2004-07-11 08:42:07

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#10 2004-07-11 09:16:41

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#11 2004-07-12 03:37:27

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#12 2004-07-13 11:31:03

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#13 2004-07-13 11:48:32

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#14 2004-07-13 12:02:15

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#15 2004-07-13 16:09:27

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

#16 2004-07-14 03:55:01

Re: Space: Our Home, NOT "a Program"

Board footer