Re: Why manned exploration of space?


"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h596h9$3j9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ken from Chicago wrote:
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h56gp8$ugm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ken from Chicago wrote:
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
No work done over a few days could equal the research done over
several years by dint of the range time you make multiple
observations.
Equal and even surpass. Might not be the SAME research you could get
by the long-range observation, but there's tons of things that even
the current model rovers Just Can't DO. The number of tests,
experiments, etc. that a human being can do simply by virtue of the
way we work is immense. There are things that have been observed at
the rovers that people have been saying "what is that?" and which, if
there had been a human present, would have had the question answered
in three minutes.
The amount of resources needed to send humans, say, to Mars, and back,
could be used to send swarms of robots. Each one more expendable than
the next. Instead of sending one robot, send ten or twenty or a hundred
rovers. Send thousands of microbots that are light enough to fly in the
thin Martian atmosphere, equipped with tiny sensors and you can gather
years of data on the planet from a vast network of views.
Get back to me when you have these miracle bots. People are functioning
at very high capacity right now. I know the problems they're having with
UGVs and UAVs on EARTH right now, and how these are not trivial problems
they're faced with.

That'll be before the time we have the financial and political will to
send people to Mars.

Like I said, if you're waiting 50-100 years, my answers may change.


In fact that would be the 1990s.

No. We don't have them NOW, not ones that could do what YOU were talking
about.

Tiny robots that can sail in Martian winds are basically tiny robots with
cameras that are small enough to be scattered in the wind much like
weather balloons. No "miracle" tech needed.

We have enough trouble getting UAVs (note, UAVs, NOT "robotic probes"
which would be MUCH more complex) to go where we want them to and keep
doing it for any reasonable length of time. The problems that would have
to be solved to make a self-sufficient flying miniature robot for Mars use
are very much nontrivial.

My bad. "Scattered in the wind" was too vague on my part, try "gliding"
robots that are carried aloft on the Martian winds. After all, how difficult
are weather balloons?

Self-maintenance? Not with any of the rovers we have today. Remember
that you've got a serious time-lag with regards to deployable
technologies, too.

Isn't that a matter of cost?

No. It's a matter of "we really don't know how to do that yet".

Maintenance requires a LOT of work that we humans can do without much
thought, but that would require many hundreds of moving components in a
robot which, themselves, would require maintenance.

We do it by being biologically self-repairing on pretty much all levels
below the "serious damage" level. We aren't even vaguely near that level
for self-maintenance of machines. Trying it now will just make them break
down more often.

Sending spare parts to replace bad parts isn't a viable option?

Ideally one establishes a Mars base where supplies can be sent on
regular basis to maintain robots, addon tools, and eventually prepare
for human colonization. Meanwhile maintenance bots can service the
explorer robots or if need be, disassemble the explorers to be used as
a source of supplies for other robots. It's all part of the robotic
circle of life.
As I said, in a hundred years this kind of thing might be possible. But
you'll need VERY advanced and VERY intelligent robots to actually do all
that stuff. And it'll have to be space-qualified, which is a real
killer.

I think you can knock that down by factor between 5-10. Space-qualified
is a matter of cost.

No, it's a matter of time, testing, and design. It's *HARD* to make a new
chip rad-hard, vacuum proof, etc., and it gets harder with the smaller
feature sizes.



I suspect whatever cost that is then it will be lower than make people
"space-qualified".

We're ALREADY "space qualified"; we've been sending people into space and
they've kept functioning with "hardening" technology that's decades old.

So the robots who have been to Mars are not space qualified but the people
who have not been to Mars are?

As Terry pointed out upthread that the success ratio of robot missions to
Mars is just under 50 percent.

The success ratio of manned missions to Mars is 0 percent.

When 4 or 5 manned missions have been actually sent, that would mean
something.

48 robotic Mars missions have been launched.

20 of 48 of the missions have been successful or 42%

That's a success / mission ratio that went:
from 3 of 12 or 25% in the 1960s
to 8 of 9 or 89% in the 2000s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Timeline_of_Mars_exploration

Meanwhile there have been not one manned missions to Mars to even be
launched in the past half century and hopes aren't too good for the next
decade. That means a lot for those interested in exploring space and not
waiting for the resources in time, energy, money and political will to be
built up for humans to be launched.

Moreover the string of robotic successes builds confidence toward sending
humans into space. My own preference would leave the space exploration to
robots, while reserving the humans for space colonization--say, have robots
scout out an area 5-10 years and then send in the humans to colonize.

However for those who disagree about the value of humans over robots in
space exploration, I say this: the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
While waiting for humans to return to outer space interest by the mainstream
public has cooled considerably in the past 4 decades. At least robots
establish a string of successes that alter the mindscape of the public that
space, outer space, not just Earth orbit, is a viable place to travel to and
not just some dim memory of the ancient past or fantasy of the far future,
but a very real and concrete destination now.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;; Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

-- Ken from Chicago


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Four years of Mars exploration
    ... We left Africa and wandered over the whole planet, and always, "we went ... I do not doubt that humans will leave this planet, ... Mars exploration *TODAY* is done by robots. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Four years of Mars exploration
    ... We left Africa and wandered over the whole planet, and always, "we went ... I do not doubt that humans will leave this planet, ... Mars exploration *TODAY* is done by robots. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: We choose to go to the moon
    ... That's an engineering problem, ... prototype robots that are far more capable than humans on sandy ground- ... of Mars really brings significant advantages to a scientific mission. ... Humans on Mars could control several robots remotely and in real ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: We choose to go to the moon
    ... prototype robots that are far more capable than humans on sandy ground- ... of Mars really brings significant advantages to a scientific mission. ... On the surface of Mars you need decent sensors and telemetry. ... they could at least control the robots ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Why_Cyborgs_and_Mutants_are_More_Likely_to_Kill_?= =?ISO-8859-1
    ... People whose direct ancestors are humans, ... So why would posthumans be more determined to kill off the human race ... That's the main reason people try to kill each other, ... We'll try and bind robots with the Three Laws. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)