Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

RedStreak · 2006-12-16 23:06:45

Firstly, even a few centuries from now, I doubt moving people between planets will be cheap...and I'm talking far more expensive than suborbital jumps being advertised for celebrity gimmicks. You'll be lucky to get a hundred people ala Red Mars in an Underhill-style colony.
We can only look into our past to see what can happen and why people will move to colonise new lands. Like the first colonies of America. People will move to these new colonies for various reasons but it comes down to cost and it is just how much of a percentage of there wealth it costs. In the first colonies the trip used to cost about 80% of a persons available wealth. There where also state sponsored colonists in this indentured criminals who made a work force for the original colonists. If we can reduce the cost to deliver a person and his family to about this percentage of cost the various reasons will ensure that people will be willing to go.

If you haven't noticed...we don't live in the colonial era anymore. People don't move for religion or politics, they do it for financial reasons. If anyone sponsors colonists it'll be a corporation pouring money into a Lunar (or Martian) inustry, much like the MetaNational Corps in the Red, Green, and Blue Mars trilogy. If there's risk involved the majority won't buy into it...but still since there ARE people that have an interest in space travel a few will try if they can, but it won't be easy.

The difference is we're talking about establishing life on a whole new world, and one where not even the air itself is for free. Tell the public that and you guarantee a no-go in NASA terminology.

Technologically the means to get to Mars will be in government-only-hands for a long while yet - commercial means won't exist for a long while and won't be accessible to the common person either. And if the corporation sponsering the colony goes bankrupt, what becomes of the colonists en route? No spare parts, no food unless chairty steps in (which is unlikely since it'll cost a million to loft a single pound of beans to Mars).

We'll have to see what the human spirit can do, but I see it not nessicarily as a weak thing but extremely finicky. Don't expect miracles to come readily although they will come occassionally.

RedStreak · 2006-12-16 23:22:23

Anyone can see Mars is not an abode of life, at most underground bacteria if even that.

Hence why humans won't be making a resort out of it anytime soon.

If the life is that hard to find, its not worth worrying about.

I take it you are no exobiologist then...

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the next 50 years of technological progress. Are we supposed to take stupid pills and go "Duh" for the next 5 decades? We made such marvelous technological progress in the first half of the 20th century and then someone applied the breaks.

We spent almost 4 decades of "duh" since the Apollo landings, and the shuttles had considerably more technology than Apollo invested. It's not the technology its how its applied. Sadly in today's world that means a large portion of it will more likely go towards bomb detectors, x-ray-scanners to locate hidden illegals, or the first fully-automated Starbuck's Coffee Drive-up to eliminate minimum waged employees altogether. It's not exactly encouraging...

...but there is some promise. The fact NASA is finally putting a timetable on returning to the Moon starts granting a timetable to when commercial spaceflight can take off. However this is still 20 years away at best, and probably another 20 later before "normalnauts" to quote The Simpsons get anywhere near some Lunar dust. Space travel isn't in the distant future anymore but it isn't exactly in the near-future either. There won't be a Moon Disneyland any more likely than we were supposed to have flying cars as advertised in the 1950s future-films.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-12-17 05:14:16

Well, its great to read your comments about larger scale development in our solar system. We need the development of alot of hardware ( both human and robotic) to build the critical mass required to move large numbers of humans into space on a permanent basis. Our targets should be over the next 50 years to bring up on the moon to about 300 personnel ( including mining, all sciences, and administration) it could be in a single or multiple bases from a group or single nation or nations. The Earth Orbit will have alot of government and private sector space stations providing a variety of tasks for humanity on earth.

The martian outpost would be about 30-60 peronnel again in single or multiple locations in driving distance. We could also launch deeper space vessels for mining, exploration and satellite / droid / probe deployment within our solar system, or have a mobile laboratory visiting our outer planets. ( these deep space ventures could be manned or unmanned but using a large vessel platform.)

In all these outlines the developments are small but providing the infrastructure needed to expand into space with more and more personnel. Buy the end of the century our plasma / ion propulsion will be working and bring the ability to move around our solar system efficiently to allow the expansion of humanity into space, the Martian Outpost will expand into Multiple Larger settlements upwards of 300+ personnel and start the large scale exploration of the planet. Mineral resources and water resources collected from asteroid and moon mining operations could be ferried to the necessary colonies including the lunar surface and orbiting colonies without coming from earth reducing the overall running costs of the space community. The space environment rapaidly moves to economic environment that trades with all colonies outside the earth atomsphere leaving the planet resources to concentrate on earth issues.

The sooner we, pull our heads out of the ground and start working towards the day humanity leaves the earth and can exist from the solar system resources and not earth planetary resources we will then come of age, The space community age of humanity.

P.S. It need work to commence now to get to that future outlined above or we might not see that environment until the end of the 22nd century not the 21st century.

Grypd · 2006-12-17 05:28:40

Firstly, even a few centuries from now, I doubt moving people between planets will be cheap...and I'm talking far more expensive than suborbital jumps being advertised for celebrity gimmicks. You'll be lucky to get a hundred people ala Red Mars in an Underhill-style colony.
We can only look into our past to see what can happen and why people will move to colonise new lands. Like the first colonies of America. People will move to these new colonies for various reasons but it comes down to cost and it is just how much of a percentage of there wealth it costs. In the first colonies the trip used to cost about 80% of a persons available wealth. There where also state sponsored colonists in this indentured criminals who made a work force for the original colonists. If we can reduce the cost to deliver a person and his family to about this percentage of cost the various reasons will ensure that people will be willing to go.
If you haven't noticed...we don't live in the colonial era anymore. People don't move for religion or politics, they do it for financial reasons. If anyone sponsors colonists it'll be a corporation pouring money into a Lunar (or Martian) inustry, much like the MetaNational Corps in the Red, Green, and Blue Mars trilogy. If there's risk involved the majority won't buy into it...but still since there ARE people that have an interest in space travel a few will try if they can, but it won't be easy.

People still move for all the reasons that they did in the time of colonisation. In fact the modern world is the time where so much of the worlds population have moved for all the three main reasons. If and when Mars opens up a cheaper acces then people will move there. There are many religious subcultures which have the money and willingness to go. There are many people willing to go to Mars to develop a new political culture. People will go for the adventure and of course there will be economic reasons too.

It will come down to how expensive the actual cost of the trip will be and this will be dependant on how many people can actualy be transported. To increase the transport rates you need the ability to use materials already present and this is where the Moon comes in.

The difference is we're talking about establishing life on a whole new world, and one where not even the air itself is for free. Tell the public that and you guarantee a no-go in NASA terminology

There are technologies in the pipeline like the 3D printer which will revolutionize the small industrial capacity. The only constant is how much energy it takes to operate and like today it will be energy that dominates the industrial and financial markets of the future. If you have enough energy then the costs to operate become irelevant and so air becomes as cheap as you want. It will be high tech colonisation yes but if you have the capacity to make what you need where you need it then its not a problem.

Technologically the means to get to Mars will be in government-only-hands for a long while yet - commercial means won't exist for a long while and won't be accessible to the common person either. And if the corporation sponsering the colony goes bankrupt, what becomes of the colonists en route? No spare parts, no food unless chairty steps in (which is unlikely since it'll cost a million to loft a single pound of beans to Mars).

Will it. Technically the launch industry is not in goverments hands except for countries like China. It is private companies that are making those rockets and they are making them for the only people buying that of the goverment. There are certainly enough companies out there developing private space flight and technologies that would step in if there was cheaper materials to make craft available. It is in there commercial interests to increase, mans spaceflight capacity.

Mars has many things against it but food production is the one thing it really does not struggle with. Mars with its much reduced gravity, could easily become the bread basket of the whole solar system and with all the needs for plants available, food production is not my worry. Cheap to make plastic greenhouses that operate using increased concentrated Mars atmosphere and indigenous water would do the job. And if we follow the technology wave then the 3d printers will provide the means to make the parts you need at the point you need them.

Rxke · 2006-12-17 05:39:25

300 personnel ( including mining, all sciences, and administration) .

Wouldn't it be far more cheaper to outsource most if not all administration to Earth? I mean, why spend $$$ for sending a guy/girl sitting at a desk @ Luna station doing a job you can do virtually everywhere else?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-17 10:16:35

Anyone can see Mars is not an abode of life, at most underground bacteria if even that.
Hence why humans won't be making a resort out of it anytime soon.

Why exactly do we need a riot of alien flora and fauna to settle a planet?
Seems to me, your just looking for an excuse not to go, first its because we might contaminate an alien Martian biosphere and then its because there is no biosphere, seems like you've covered both angles haven't you? So if someone say there's life then the life could be dangerous, it could contaminate the humans that live there and they could bring the life back to Earth and wipe out the human race, or we'll wipe out all Martian lifeforms with Earth bacteria that quickly adapts to the Martian environment and quickly takes over the planet.

Or else we have a dumb colonist who steps outside without a spacesuit and who suffocates due to lack of oxygen, and we have a bunch of other colonists who say, how can we settle this place if we can't breath its air? There are no local plants growing here that we can pick and stuff into our mouths, so how are we going to eat if their aren't edible plants growing here already? Ah, these conditions are way too inhospitable to us, and to top it off there's no money growing on trees, lets go back to Earth.

If the life is that hard to find, its not worth worrying about.
I take it you are no exobiologist then...

Without a large human presence, that microbiologist is less likely to find those well hidden Martian life forms. How do we know there's no life on the Moon for that matter. There could be an alien abode of life buried underneath the Moons surface, powered by a nuclear reactor and and supported by alien technology, like that monolith in the Movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. We don't know there is no hidden alien artifacts underneath the Moon's surface which might be dangerous to humans, so we should not go before we make sure that no such alien technology exists right?

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the next 50 years of technological progress. Are we supposed to take stupid pills and go "Duh" for the next 5 decades? We made such marvelous technological progress in the first half of the 20th century and then someone applied the breaks.
We spent almost 4 decades of "duh" since the Apollo landings, and the shuttles had considerably more technology than Apollo invested. It's not the technology its how its applied. Sadly in today's world that means a large portion of it will more likely go towards bomb detectors, x-ray-scanners to locate hidden illegals, or the first fully-automated Starbuck's Coffee Drive-up to eliminate minimum waged employees altogether. It's not exactly encouraging...

No, it is the technology! If the technology is such that it requires a decision by government and the investment of billions of dollars to get to the Moon and Mars, then technology is stuck. Sooner or later something is going to give and free up te wheels of progress and we'll be on our way to the Moon and Mars in large numbers. The technology I'm talking about is the technology to make space travel cheaper, that is where we have the Duh factor. We need clever new ways to get into space not the same old same old that we have been using ever since we went to the Moon.

...but there is some promise. The fact NASA is finally putting a timetable on returning to the Moon starts granting a timetable to when commercial spaceflight can take off. However this is still 20 years away at best, and probably another 20 later before "normalnauts" to quote The Simpsons get anywhere near some Lunar dust. Space travel isn't in the distant future anymore but it isn't exactly in the near-future either. There won't be a Moon Disneyland any more likely than we were supposed to have flying cars as advertised in the 1950s future-films.

Technological revolutions are by their nature very unpredictable, so far we haven't had a technological revoultion in space travel since Sputnik. Unless you've been to the Future, you really can't say what's going to happen.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-17 10:23:59

Well, its great to read your comments about larger scale development in our solar system. We need the development of alot of hardware ( both human and robotic) to build the critical mass required to move large numbers of humans into space on a permanent basis. Our targets should be over the next 50 years to bring up on the moon to about 300 personnel ( including mining, all sciences, and administration) it could be in a single or multiple bases from a group or single nation or nations. The Earth Orbit will have alot of government and private sector space stations providing a variety of tasks for humanity on earth.
The martian outpost would be about 30-60 peronnel again in single or multiple locations in driving distance. We could also launch deeper space vessels for mining, exploration and satellite / droid / probe deployment within our solar system, or have a mobile laboratory visiting our outer planets. ( these deep space ventures could be manned or unmanned but using a large vessel platform.)
In all these outlines the developments are small but providing the infrastructure needed to expand into space with more and more personnel. Buy the end of the century our plasma / ion propulsion will be working and bring the ability to move around our solar system efficiently to allow the expansion of humanity into space, the Martian Outpost will expand into Multiple Larger settlements upwards of 300+ personnel and start the large scale exploration of the planet. Mineral resources and water resources collected from asteroid and moon mining operations could be ferried to the necessary colonies including the lunar surface and orbiting colonies without coming from earth reducing the overall running costs of the space community. The space environment rapaidly moves to economic environment that trades with all colonies outside the earth atomsphere leaving the planet resources to concentrate on earth issues.
The sooner we, pull our heads out of the ground and start working towards the day humanity leaves the earth and can exist from the solar system resources and not earth planetary resources we will then come of age, The space community age of humanity.
P.S. It need work to commence now to get to that future outlined above or we might not see that environment until the end of the 22nd century not the 21st century.

If you are suddenly transported to the year 2093, would you be able to pick up a newspaper, look in the help wanted section and get a job based on the skill set you have now. If what you are saying about future technological developments is true, then it should be very easy for you to get a job as technology won't have changed much. Probably the cleverest technological innovation in the last 80 years would be the invention of ethenol powered cars. You could go to a Computer Store and buy a computer, and learning to use it would simply be a matter of learning to use the new operating system, the computers will still do the same old stuff they did 80 years ago. They may do it faster, but when you are typing into a word processor program it makes little difference.

RedStreak · 2006-12-17 12:28:08

Anyone can see Mars is not an abode of life, at most underground bacteria if even that.
Hence why humans won't be making a resort out of it anytime soon.
Why exactly do we need a riot of alien flora and fauna to settle a planet?
Seems to me, your just looking for an excuse not to go, first its because we might contaminate an alien Martian biosphere...

We only get one shot at studying a pristine planet; whereas probes are kept clean humans carry a veritable garbage bag of life-forms with us.

My attitudes toward going to Mars is get it right the first time. Either there is, never was, or was life on Mars - those are the 3 possibilities.

Btw, we need things like plants with us because if the ISS' life-support is any indication machinery innevitaly breaks down. We don't need a full-out freaking Biosphere 3 setup, certainly not for a starting outpost, but a good-sized vegtable garden wouldn't hurt. Just enough to ease off supplies on Earth to a degree.

RedStreak · 2006-12-17 12:43:43

We need the development of alot of hardware ( both human and robotic) to build the critical mass required to move large numbers of humans into space on a permanent basis. Our targets should be over the next 50 years to bring up on the moon to about 300 personnel ( including mining, all sciences, and administration) it could be in a single or multiple bases from a group or single nation or nations. The Earth Orbit will have alot of government and private sector space stations providing a variety of tasks for humanity on earth.
The martian outpost would be about 30-60 peronnel again in single or multiple locations in driving distance. We could also launch deeper space vessels for mining, exploration and satellite / droid / probe deployment within our solar system, or have a mobile laboratory visiting our outer planets. ( these deep space ventures could be manned or unmanned but using a large vessel platform.)

Now this is what I'm talking about! No colonies, no interplanetary migration, but a slow but steady progress out of Earth orbit. THIS is the most likely real-life senerio we can expect from a robust space program, national or global.

A 300-personel-base would be a good sized outpost, and perhaps the direct precursor to an actual lunar colony. It would probably be at the government's limit of support and commercial industry would be making headway in supportng it. If the logisitics of supporting this site prove feasible and local resources are utilized it would awaken the public to the possibility of making a living on the Moon. If this would be the end result of 50 years of a Lunar Program, then within the next 40 years we'd see the first Lunar Cities take shape and all making a space-based industry on the Moon. Then the dreams of space enthusiasts would start happening...

60 people on Mars would be a pretty big number - certainly with that many on Mars there'd be expeditions happening planet-wide with the immediate region (say to a radius of 500km) thouroughly studied with the confirmed resources being utilized.

Both outposts would be large by current plans but within a 50-year period they could both happen without relying on titanic leaps of technology.

Grypd · 2006-12-17 13:58:22

We only get one shot at studying a pristine planet; whereas probes are kept clean humans carry a veritable garbage bag of life-forms with us.
My attitudes toward going to Mars is get it right the first time. Either there is, never was, or was life on Mars - those are the 3 possibilities.

There is a problem with this in that some of the earliest probes did not have anything like the biological cleanliness that we would wish. Also there is the problem of life having been seeded by the Earth via ejected matter.

Still plenty to keep the scientists busy

Now this is what I'm talking about! No colonies, no interplanetary migration, but a slow but steady progress out of Earth orbit. THIS is the most likely real-life senerio we can expect from a robust space program, national or global.
A 300-personel-base would be a good sized outpost, and perhaps the direct precursor to an actual lunar colony. It would probably be at the government's limit of support and commercial industry would be making headway in supportng it. If the logisitics of supporting this site prove feasible and local resources are utilized it would awaken the public to the possibility of making a living on the Moon. If this would be the end result of 50 years of a Lunar Program, then within the next 40 years we'd see the first Lunar Cities take shape and all making a space-based industry on the Moon. Then the dreams of space enthusiasts would start happening...

One major advantage the Moon has over Mars is it is within the range of useful telerobotic control. This could easily lead to construction projects being controled by the Earth and a major increase in the actual capacity to develop the Moon and near Earth space. Telerobotic's would reduce support costs while increasing development speed.

RedStreak · 2006-12-17 19:28:08

One major advantage the Moon has over Mars is it is within the range of useful telerobotic control. This could easily lead to construction projects being controled by the Earth and a major increase in the actual capacity to develop the Moon and near Earth space. Telerobotic's would reduce support costs while increasing development speed.

That and simple fact the Earth itself offers a safe haven. Whatever we send to Mars won't have such a safety net, hence why I keep pointing out that while Mars will be the interesting place the Moon will have priority in the short-term. Its an interesting trade-off.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-18 01:20:53

Hence why humans won't be making a resort out of it anytime soon.
Why exactly do we need a riot of alien flora and fauna to settle a planet?
Seems to me, your just looking for an excuse not to go, first its because we might contaminate an alien Martian biosphere...
We only get one shot at studying a pristine planet; whereas probes are kept clean humans carry a veritable garbage bag of life-forms with us.
My attitudes toward going to Mars is get it right the first time. Either there is, never was, or was life on Mars - those are the 3 possibilities.
Btw, we need things like plants with us because if the ISS' life-support is any indication machinery innevitaly breaks down. We don't need a full-out freaking Biosphere 3 setup, certainly not for a starting outpost, but a good-sized vegtable garden wouldn't hurt. Just enough to ease off supplies on Earth to a degree.

What exact revelations are you looking for on this pristine planet? You see there is a paradox here, if we avoid contact with the planet then we never get to find those hidden bacteria that your looking for, but if we have the extensive contact required to do a really thorough search, we increase the chance of contaminating the planet with Earth life forms. What I suggest is that we stop worrying about the nearly lifeless planet Mars and start worrying about ourselves. Mars is not the only planet out there, there are plenty of other Mars-like planets out there that we haven't touched and probably never will. These Marslike planets with unthinking bacteria hidding beneath the planets' surfaces will be thousands and millions of light years away, the bacterial if such there are will likely thrive underneath their planet's surfaces until the local primary goes nova, and throughout each planet's lifetime the bacteria will probably never evolve beyond the single cell stage and will probably never be visited by Earth Humans. If we "mess up" Mars by our presence or perhaps through terraforming, cheer up - there are likely to be many more Mars' that we'll never get to tough or alter, so the loss of Mar's native biosphere is not likely to be so great in the overall scheme of things. A terraformed Mars will likely have more life than any native biosphere that we may find there.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-18 12:12:20

One major advantage the Moon has over Mars is it is within the range of useful telerobotic control. This could easily lead to construction projects being controled by the Earth and a major increase in the actual capacity to develop the Moon and near Earth space. Telerobotic's would reduce support costs while increasing development speed.
That and simple fact the Earth itself offers a safe haven. Whatever we send to Mars won't have such a safety net, hence why I keep pointing out that while Mars will be the interesting place the Moon will have priority in the short-term. Its an interesting trade-off.

The Moon is easier to adapt to. If the initial base is on the North Pole, then we don't have to worry about its slow rotation, just treat it like a space colony. Start with a small dome, and have 100 people live there, then you expand it, build more small domes and connect them with tunnels. Probably the best kind of domes are in the shadows of dark craters, the domes would be spaced far enough apart so they don't shadow each other in the sunlight and a reflective mirror would reflect visible light, but not the highly charged particles coming from solar flares that these settlements would mostly be protected from. I believe the first O'Neill colony would be on the Moon, it doesn't have to rotate for gravity, and would have to make due with the Moon's lesser amount. A mirror held above each dome would reflect sunlight into each dome producing day and night. A dome 700 feet in diameter would allow 2500 square feet of living space per person or a 50-foot square of space per person in a dome housing 100 people and with room to spare for parks, and additional domes could be erected for agriculture.

Grypd · 2006-12-18 17:11:28

One major advantage the Moon has over Mars is it is within the range of useful telerobotic control. This could easily lead to construction projects being controled by the Earth and a major increase in the actual capacity to develop the Moon and near Earth space. Telerobotic's would reduce support costs while increasing development speed.
That and simple fact the Earth itself offers a safe haven. Whatever we send to Mars won't have such a safety net, hence why I keep pointing out that while Mars will be the interesting place the Moon will have priority in the short-term. Its an interesting trade-off.

I agree the Moon will have priority it has to. But as noted we do not necassarily have to have people in permanent occupation to fundamentally create a significant prescence on the Moon and from there in Near Earth space as well.

Creating lunar mass drivers is an example of something that reguires little actual human prescence in person. We significantly know how to make lunar concrete and using simple techniques we can develop the actual rail system with supports and foundations just by lunar teleprescence robotics and time. Materials as well as the control systems will have to be sent to the Moon by the Earth but as we are able to extract resources this total becomes less and less.

Permanent Human prescence on the Moon gives incredible advantages and many things can only be done when this happens but making the infrastructure for this to happen does not necassarily need people present to do it actually it can be done more effectively by robots which are more robust and tolerant of the terrain.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-18 23:07:18

One major advantage the Moon has over Mars is it is within the range of useful telerobotic control. This could easily lead to construction projects being controled by the Earth and a major increase in the actual capacity to develop the Moon and near Earth space. Telerobotic's would reduce support costs while increasing development speed.
That and simple fact the Earth itself offers a safe haven. Whatever we send to Mars won't have such a safety net, hence why I keep pointing out that while Mars will be the interesting place the Moon will have priority in the short-term. Its an interesting trade-off.
I agree the Moon will have priority it has to. But as noted we do not necassarily have to have people in permanent occupation to fundamentally create a significant prescence on the Moon and from there in Near Earth space as well.
Creating lunar mass drivers is an example of something that reguires little actual human prescence in person. We significantly know how to make lunar concrete and using simple techniques we can develop the actual rail system with supports and foundations just by lunar teleprescence robotics and time. Materials as well as the control systems will have to be sent to the Moon by the Earth but as we are able to extract resources this total becomes less and less.
Permanent Human prescence on the Moon gives incredible advantages and many things can only be done when this happens but making the infrastructure for this to happen does not necassarily need people present to do it actually it can be done more effectively by robots which are more robust and tolerant of the terrain.

There are somethings a robot cannot do for itself. Most robots built are specialized for one task or another. A remote control robot would have a 2 second time delay, that would tend to make such robots somewhat clumsy when operated from Earth, their reflexes would be slow. If such a robot were to trip over a rock, the operator would know about it about one and a quarter seconds later, and would send the commands to catch itself to the robot and those commands would reach the robot after it is already lying on the ground. A teleoperated robot would have to move slowly and deliberately to avoid damaging itself. Another hazard of of working at the poles is losing direct line of site with Earth. If an operated decides to take a walk around the back side of a hill and loses direct line of site contact with Earth, the robot is lost, and another one has to be sent from Earth to continue the work. Probably a number of teleoperated robots would end up piled in shadowy craters and behind hill sides after awhile.

Grypd · 2006-12-19 04:34:38

There are somethings a robot cannot do for itself. Most robots built are specialized for one task or another. A remote control robot would have a 2 second time delay, that would tend to make such robots somewhat clumsy when operated from Earth, their reflexes would be slow. If such a robot were to trip over a rock, the operator would know about it about one and a quarter seconds later, and would send the commands to catch itself to the robot and those commands would reach the robot after it is already lying on the ground. A teleoperated robot would have to move slowly and deliberately to avoid damaging itself. Another hazard of of working at the poles is losing direct line of site with Earth. If an operated decides to take a walk around the back side of a hill and loses direct line of site contact with Earth, the robot is lost, and another one has to be sent from Earth to continue the work. Probably a number of teleoperated robots would end up piled in shadowy craters and behind hill sides after awhile.

Correct robots are a lot more specialised than a human is, but they are also able to deal with terrain better and without life support requirements are able to function for a lot longer periods. The problem you describe of 4 second delays is not really that bad it is perfectly feasible to design in safety mechanisms and of course taking your time getting the job done deliberatly will work. We have experimented with robots with this delay programmed in and have even done Surgery on humans with telerobotic controled arms. What we have seen that though yes tele-controlled robots have to work at slower rates than humans there capacity to work 24/7 all the time gives them the advantage. If you have a telerobotic controlled regolith mover speed is not necassary just constant work. And 24/7 work is possible just by changing shifts at the Earth control stations and the cost of a robotic digger drivers wages are in space industry terms negligible.

The problem you describe with the lack of direct site Earth control is reasonably easy to fix. Repeater stations can be deployed which will allow broad coverage of any area and that includes in the blind spots around hills. These supported by polar satelites we will have to install anyway will help. These repeater stations have another function. Our knowledge of the Moon especially in the form of maps is very bad there is no GPS system available to help guide Human explorers. Ground stations could be used to give direction points so that we have a form of giudance on the Moon.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-19 10:05:31

There are somethings a robot cannot do for itself. Most robots built are specialized for one task or another. A remote control robot would have a 2 second time delay, that would tend to make such robots somewhat clumsy when operated from Earth, their reflexes would be slow. If such a robot were to trip over a rock, the operator would know about it about one and a quarter seconds later, and would send the commands to catch itself to the robot and those commands would reach the robot after it is already lying on the ground. A teleoperated robot would have to move slowly and deliberately to avoid damaging itself. Another hazard of of working at the poles is losing direct line of site with Earth. If an operated decides to take a walk around the back side of a hill and loses direct line of site contact with Earth, the robot is lost, and another one has to be sent from Earth to continue the work. Probably a number of teleoperated robots would end up piled in shadowy craters and behind hill sides after awhile.
Correct robots are a lot more specialised than a human is, but they are also able to deal with terrain better and without life support requirements are able to function for a lot longer periods. The problem you describe of 4 second delays is not really that bad it is perfectly feasible to design in safety mechanisms and of course taking your time getting the job done deliberatly will work. We have experimented with robots with this delay programmed in and have even done Surgery on humans with telerobotic controled arms. What we have seen that though yes tele-controlled robots have to work at slower rates than humans there capacity to work 24/7 all the time gives them the advantage. If you have a telerobotic controlled regolith mover speed is not necassary just constant work. And 24/7 work is possible just by changing shifts at the Earth control stations and the cost of a robotic digger drivers wages are in space industry terms negligible.

A robot digger would be so specialized that it can hardly do anything else other than dig, such a robot could not repair itself for example and another digger robot could not repair it. You would probably need to send a specialized robot for each task you wish to perform on the Moon. Robots do have life support requirements, they need a power supply for one, they need lubricants to move their parts and they need maintenence. Once solution is just to send another robot whenever one breaks down, or you can send a bunch of robots designed to do the same thing, holding some in reserve in the antidipation of breakdowns. Human require a certain amount of infrastructure in order to live on the Moon. The amount of infrastructure requires is substantial, but the more people you send, the less the infrastructure requirements are per person. Larger life support machines work more efficiently. If one has enough plants in an enclosed atmosphere, then they can remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen to the atmosphere, plants can also recycle human waste and produce food. Humans are retrainable, can perform a variety of tasks if given the right tools, robots have to be reprogrammed, debugged, and retooled if they are to perform a different task from which they were designed. A human can learn faster than a robot can be reprogrammed, debugged and retooled, unless you already have the software ready to load, and even then with the specialized equipment NASA has things aren't so simple. Getting robots to do the simplest things can be frusterating at times due to bugs in the software.

The problem you describe with the lack of direct site Earth control is reasonably easy to fix. Repeater stations can be deployed which will allow broad coverage of any area and that includes in the blind spots around hills. These supported by polar satelites we will have to install anyway will help. These repeater stations have another function. Our knowledge of the Moon especially in the form of maps is very bad there is no GPS system available to help guide Human explorers. Ground stations could be used to give direction points so that we have a form of giudance on the Moon.

The site has to be thoughly prepared for robots to work in it in complete safety.

Grypd · 2006-12-19 16:09:30

A robot digger would be so specialized that it can hardly do anything else other than dig, such a robot could not repair itself for example and another digger robot could not repair it. You would probably need to send a specialized robot for each task you wish to perform on the Moon. Robots do have life support requirements, they need a power supply for one, they need lubricants to move their parts and they need maintenence. Once solution is just to send another robot whenever one breaks down, or you can send a bunch of robots designed to do the same thing, holding some in reserve in the antidipation of breakdowns. Human require a certain amount of infrastructure in order to live on the Moon. The amount of infrastructure requires is substantial, but the more people you send, the less the infrastructure requirements are per person. Larger life support machines work more efficiently. If one has enough plants in an enclosed atmosphere, then they can remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen to the atmosphere, plants can also recycle human waste and produce food. Humans are retrainable, can perform a variety of tasks if given the right tools, robots have to be reprogrammed, debugged, and retooled if they are to perform a different task from which they were designed. A human can learn faster than a robot can be reprogrammed, debugged and retooled, unless you already have the software ready to load, and even then with the specialized equipment NASA has things aren't so simple. Getting robots to do the simplest things can be frusterating at times due to bugs in the software.

A robot digger is a specialised piece of equipment and actually a particularily heavy one. There will be a need for such a device but the Moon and Mars are problem cases. Bulldozers are devices that require weight to be able to function and on the Moon and Mars the gravity reduces a bulldozers bite. We can get around this if we use the old fashioned method of drag lines or to use innovative technologies like wire brushing to pick up regolith. There is also trench digging and the ability to drill small holes for foundations. Sending a robot able to do all these is a specialised robot yes but one extremely useful piece of equipment. Other telerobotots will be able to not only do tasks that Humans can do but also use human tools.
Robonaut

This robot is able to not only use every tool that we have spent billions in designing for years but it is a robot series with a lot of potential and experience.

Another point is Robots can be repaired and in the Meteor crater this year they where able to repair each other. Parts can be replaced. One problem with Robots is that though we have developed good power sources, locomotion systems and sensors as well as ability to manipulate the world, we have not got the ability to get them to control themselves.

So that is why telerobotics is the best choice, These robots will be manipulated from Earth by people in the comfort of offices. These robots will be working refueling then working 24/7. The weak link is the human operators but have them set on shift work so the robots can keep running. Fuel for these robots can be anything from electric batteries or fuel cells to internal combustion systems to Nuclear particle fueled. Fuel cell being the most likely with solar cell backup. You state that Humans can learn fast correct but there are Humans in the loop so this advantage is negated in comparison to telerobotics.

We will not send a whole spare robot to the Moon if we do it will be working not wasteing space on a flight.

The site has to be thoughly prepared for robots to work in it in complete safety.

Not really it needs to be surveyed but only on a basic level something a basic survey robot can do. It can also plant markers for the incoming safety of the Human crews so they land on flat stable ground. This need for flat stable ground for takeoff is not an essential for the first ground survey robot.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-20 14:00:05

A robot digger would be so specialized that it can hardly do anything else other than dig, such a robot could not repair itself for example and another digger robot could not repair it. You would probably need to send a specialized robot for each task you wish to perform on the Moon. Robots do have life support requirements, they need a power supply for one, they need lubricants to move their parts and they need maintenence. Once solution is just to send another robot whenever one breaks down, or you can send a bunch of robots designed to do the same thing, holding some in reserve in the antidipation of breakdowns. Human require a certain amount of infrastructure in order to live on the Moon. The amount of infrastructure requires is substantial, but the more people you send, the less the infrastructure requirements are per person. Larger life support machines work more efficiently. If one has enough plants in an enclosed atmosphere, then they can remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen to the atmosphere, plants can also recycle human waste and produce food. Humans are retrainable, can perform a variety of tasks if given the right tools, robots have to be reprogrammed, debugged, and retooled if they are to perform a different task from which they were designed. A human can learn faster than a robot can be reprogrammed, debugged and retooled, unless you already have the software ready to load, and even then with the specialized equipment NASA has things aren't so simple. Getting robots to do the simplest things can be frusterating at times due to bugs in the software.
A robot digger is a specialised piece of equipment and actually a particularily heavy one. There will be a need for such a device but the Moon and Mars are problem cases. Bulldozers are devices that require weight to be able to function and on the Moon and Mars the gravity reduces a bulldozers bite. We can get around this if we use the old fashioned method of drag lines or to use innovative technologies like wire brushing to pick up regolith. There is also trench digging and the ability to drill small holes for foundations. Sending a robot able to do all these is a specialised robot yes but one extremely useful piece of equipment. Other telerobotots will be able to not only do tasks that Humans can do but also use human tools.
Robonaut
This robot is able to not only use every tool that we have spent billions in designing for years but it is a robot series with a lot of potential and experience.
Another point is Robots can be repaired and in the Meteor crater this year they where able to repair each other. Parts can be replaced. One problem with Robots is that though we have developed good power sources, locomotion systems and sensors as well as ability to manipulate the world, we have not got the ability to get them to control themselves.
So that is why telerobotics is the best choice, These robots will be manipulated from Earth by people in the comfort of offices. These robots will be working refueling then working 24/7. The weak link is the human operators but have them set on shift work so the robots can keep running. Fuel for these robots can be anything from electric batteries or fuel cells to internal combustion systems to Nuclear particle fueled. Fuel cell being the most likely with solar cell backup. You state that Humans can learn fast correct but there are Humans in the loop so this advantage is negated in comparison to telerobotics.
We will not send a whole spare robot to the Moon if we do it will be working not wasteing space on a flight.
The site has to be thoughly prepared for robots to work in it in complete safety.
Not really it needs to be surveyed but only on a basic level something a basic survey robot can do. It can also plant markers for the incoming safety of the Human crews so they land on flat stable ground. This need for flat stable ground for takeoff is not an essential for the first ground survey robot.

Remember those coal mine accidents in Pennsyvania? They send humans into those mines, not telerobots, there must be a reason for this.

We also can't learn how to run a space base by sending telerobots only, they can't work on Mars after all. What we need to do is set up a community of humans on the moon, and the only way to find out how to do this is by setting up a community of humans on the Moon.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-20 14:00:22

A robot digger would be so specialized that it can hardly do anything else other than dig, such a robot could not repair itself for example and another digger robot could not repair it. You would probably need to send a specialized robot for each task you wish to perform on the Moon. Robots do have life support requirements, they need a power supply for one, they need lubricants to move their parts and they need maintenence. Once solution is just to send another robot whenever one breaks down, or you can send a bunch of robots designed to do the same thing, holding some in reserve in the antidipation of breakdowns. Human require a certain amount of infrastructure in order to live on the Moon. The amount of infrastructure requires is substantial, but the more people you send, the less the infrastructure requirements are per person. Larger life support machines work more efficiently. If one has enough plants in an enclosed atmosphere, then they can remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen to the atmosphere, plants can also recycle human waste and produce food. Humans are retrainable, can perform a variety of tasks if given the right tools, robots have to be reprogrammed, debugged, and retooled if they are to perform a different task from which they were designed. A human can learn faster than a robot can be reprogrammed, debugged and retooled, unless you already have the software ready to load, and even then with the specialized equipment NASA has things aren't so simple. Getting robots to do the simplest things can be frusterating at times due to bugs in the software.
A robot digger is a specialised piece of equipment and actually a particularily heavy one. There will be a need for such a device but the Moon and Mars are problem cases. Bulldozers are devices that require weight to be able to function and on the Moon and Mars the gravity reduces a bulldozers bite. We can get around this if we use the old fashioned method of drag lines or to use innovative technologies like wire brushing to pick up regolith. There is also trench digging and the ability to drill small holes for foundations. Sending a robot able to do all these is a specialised robot yes but one extremely useful piece of equipment. Other telerobotots will be able to not only do tasks that Humans can do but also use human tools.
Robonaut
This robot is able to not only use every tool that we have spent billions in designing for years but it is a robot series with a lot of potential and experience.
Another point is Robots can be repaired and in the Meteor crater this year they where able to repair each other. Parts can be replaced. One problem with Robots is that though we have developed good power sources, locomotion systems and sensors as well as ability to manipulate the world, we have not got the ability to get them to control themselves.
So that is why telerobotics is the best choice, These robots will be manipulated from Earth by people in the comfort of offices. These robots will be working refueling then working 24/7. The weak link is the human operators but have them set on shift work so the robots can keep running. Fuel for these robots can be anything from electric batteries or fuel cells to internal combustion systems to Nuclear particle fueled. Fuel cell being the most likely with solar cell backup. You state that Humans can learn fast correct but there are Humans in the loop so this advantage is negated in comparison to telerobotics.
We will not send a whole spare robot to the Moon if we do it will be working not wasteing space on a flight.
The site has to be thoughly prepared for robots to work in it in complete safety.
Not really it needs to be surveyed but only on a basic level something a basic survey robot can do. It can also plant markers for the incoming safety of the Human crews so they land on flat stable ground. This need for flat stable ground for takeoff is not an essential for the first ground survey robot.

Remember those coal mine accidents in Pennsyvania? They send humans into those mines, not telerobots, there must be a reason for this.

We also can't learn how to run a space base by sending telerobots only, they can't work on Mars after all. What we need to do is set up a community of humans on the moon, and the only way to find out how to do this is by setting up a community of humans on the Moon.

Grypd · 2006-12-20 15:20:46

Remember those coal mine accidents in Pennsyvania? They send humans into those mines, not telerobots, there must be a reason for this.

Interestingly, robots are only as good as there programing. If a robot is programed to move items from A to B that is not a problem as long as C does not happen. Australia now has most robots that work in mines but as long as they do there specific function there is no problem. The robots that where used in pensylvania where telerobotic controlled as well as the Carnegie mellon Groundhog map robot.

Mine Robots to Make Mines Safer

This is the link to Carnegie Mellons site on all the robots they have pioneered

Carnegie Mellon Field Robots Center

We also can't learn how to run a space base by sending telerobots only, they can't work on Mars after all. What we need to do is set up a community of humans on the moon, and the only way to find out how to do this is by setting up a community of humans on the Moon.

Never said that they should replace a Human crew. I know what robots are capable of and also there weakness and a proper mission is to be able to functionally use both to compliment each other. Hopefully when we get to Mars we will have more advanced robot brains to work with. At the moment they are too limited to provide much help.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-29 14:45:28

Remember those coal mine accidents in Pennsyvania? They send humans into those mines, not telerobots, there must be a reason for this.
Interestingly, robots are only as good as there programing. If a robot is programed to move items from A to B that is not a problem as long as C does not happen. Australia now has most robots that work in mines but as long as they do there specific function there is no problem. The robots that where used in pensylvania where telerobotic controlled as well as the Carnegie mellon Groundhog map robot.
Mine Robots to Make Mines Safer
This is the link to Carnegie Mellons site on all the robots they have pioneered
Carnegie Mellon Field Robots Center
We also can't learn how to run a space base by sending telerobots only, they can't work on Mars after all. What we need to do is set up a community of humans on the moon, and the only way to find out how to do this is by setting up a community of humans on the Moon.
Never said that they should replace a Human crew. I know what robots are capable of and also there weakness and a proper mission is to be able to functionally use both to compliment each other. Hopefully when we get to Mars we will have more advanced robot brains to work with. At the moment they are too limited to provide much help.

I think we can build a robot that can fit inside a space suit, we could launch that robot to Mars with current space vehicles, and that robot could walk around on Mars as a human could more or less. Since you can't see what's behind the face mask of a space suit, it that way, you could fake a manned mission to Mars. If the public only see's a space suited figure hopping around on Mars, it really can't tell whether there is a human in that space suit.

Grypd · 2006-12-30 15:04:59

I think we can build a robot that can fit inside a space suit, we could launch that robot to Mars with current space vehicles, and that robot could walk around on Mars as a human could more or less. Since you can't see what's behind the face mask of a space suit, it that way, you could fake a manned mission to Mars. If the public only see's a space suited figure hopping around on Mars, it really can't tell whether there is a human in that space suit.

Yes we can, but if you want it to act naturally like a human then you are going to have to send one that has a fully operational AI. There is no hope for telerobotics to do it

RedStreak · 2006-12-30 15:15:01

I think we can build a robot that can fit inside a space suit, we could launch that robot to Mars with current space vehicles, and that robot could walk around on Mars as a human could more or less. Since you can't see what's behind the face mask of a space suit, it that way, you could fake a manned mission to Mars.

If we can build a robot like that we would have done it already for starters, second...you're one of those Apollo conspiracy theorists aren't you?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-31 15:01:31

I think we can build a robot that can fit inside a space suit, we could launch that robot to Mars with current space vehicles, and that robot could walk around on Mars as a human could more or less. Since you can't see what's behind the face mask of a space suit, it that way, you could fake a manned mission to Mars.
If we can build a robot like that we would have done it already for starters, second...you're one of those Apollo conspiracy theorists aren't you?

If we had robots that sophisticated in 1969, then I couldn't leave that off as a possibility, but we didn't.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-12-16 23:06:45

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#52 2006-12-16 23:22:23

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#53 2006-12-17 05:14:16

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#54 2006-12-17 05:28:40

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#55 2006-12-17 05:39:25

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#56 2006-12-17 10:16:35

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#57 2006-12-17 10:23:59

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#58 2006-12-17 12:28:08

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#59 2006-12-17 12:43:43

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#60 2006-12-17 13:58:22

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#61 2006-12-17 19:28:08

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#62 2006-12-18 01:20:53

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#63 2006-12-18 12:12:20

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#64 2006-12-18 17:11:28

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#65 2006-12-18 23:07:18

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#66 2006-12-19 04:34:38

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#67 2006-12-19 10:05:31

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#68 2006-12-19 16:09:30

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#69 2006-12-20 14:00:05

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#70 2006-12-20 14:00:22

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#71 2006-12-20 15:20:46

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#72 2006-12-29 14:45:28

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#73 2006-12-30 15:04:59

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#74 2006-12-30 15:15:01

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

#75 2006-12-31 15:01:31

Re: Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc

Board footer