I could program a robot to spot anything I wanted. In fact, they could do so with greater accuracy than any human. Failing that, visual feeds from the robot allow crews back home to direct the robot to move in for a closer look of any object of interest.
Gents,
You could not "program" a robot for every contingency. And that is my point. Plain and simple.
You could not "program" a robot for every contingency. And that is my point. Plain and simple.
You can't program a human for every contingency either. You can outfit a robot with a camera so that a human can control it on the fly. You cannot, however, outfit a human with a GCMS to perform chemical analysis on the fly. That, and humans tend to protest when you shoot them off into space without a return ticket.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Robots vs humans is about cost-effectiveness.
Robots have some key advantages:
1) They don't need to eat or drink.
2) They don't need living space, and can be neatly folded up to save space in long trips.
3) They don't go insane from confinement or being alone.
4) They don't excrete solid or liquid waste.
5) They don't have excessive thermal or atmospheric requirements.
6) They don't have any desire to return home.
7) They'll work even with minor "injuries."
8) They don't care if they're literally worked to death.
9) They don't die of radiation poisoning in space due to cosmic radiation or coronal mass ejections, and if they do, it's expensive, but it's not a human life extinguished.
10) They won't come down with symptoms of silicosis from inhaling toxic dust.
Some of those are very serious problems that have no implementable solutions yet.
Radiation is a problem that we don't know how to deal with. Not only cosmic radiation, but also from solar flares. Once you're outside of Earth's magnetic field, you're at risk. And the CME's from large solar flares are strong. One a few years ago caused minor damage to an instrument on a probe orbiting Mars. Its effects were still powerful all the way out at Saturn, where Cassini watched it.
The "best" solutions I've read about involve either a spherical vessel with a shell of water a few feet thick. Such a craft, in order to provide sufficient living space inside, would be so massive that our current propulsion technology wouldn't be able to get it to Mars in any reasonable amount of time.
The other would be some sort of energy shield, but it would require immense amounts of power, more than we can possibly generate in space right now.
Then there's Martian dust, which unlike that of the Moon, could be windblown. It's even possible that one of the planet-wide dust storms could kick up by the time a mission arrives. The dust is so thick that it masks the planet's surface, and noontime can look like very late evening. It's extremely fine, it generates a heck of a static charge (damaged airlock controls, anyone?), and it's corrosive.
Living space and conditions: Another problem for people. A mission would take at least a year, possibly two. They'll need room for exercise equipment, or else they'll lose a substantial amount of bone and muscle mass. They'll need adequate space to avoid possible psychological issues from being confined for such a long time.
Issues of conflict may also arise during such a long mission. Issues of illness or injury may also be a problem. Simply turning around may not be an option due to fuel availability.
There may only be adequate fuel to get to Mars, slow enough for orbital insertion, and then go back home. Stopping in mid-flight and turning back toward Earth might not be an option, though I don't know what the math looks like for those specific momentum and direction changes.
Robots can get a lot accomplished, and for a cost much less than that of a human explorer. Those Mars Exploration Rovers have been on the surface for over 4 years now. If there's sufficient battery power available, they'll even perform work through the night. Mars Science Lab, launching next year, will be powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, so it will be able to work around the clock, unhindered by issues of available sunlight.
Another matter involved with bringing people along would be equipment for testing. There wouldn't be a lot of consumables available for lots of tests. The equipment would need to be compact, and extremely efficient - very similar to what's already being sent on robotic explorers. The other option is a sample return mission, which would bring soil samples back to Earth, letting us work in our natural environments right here, rather than going to the trouble of transporting a little bubble of our environment all the way out to Mars and back, all to accomplish the same goals.
Sure a few geologists, biologists, or chemists on the surface would be just dandy. The problems though are first to get them there alive, second, keep them alive while on the surface, and third, return them to Earth alive. All three present significant technical and economic obstacles. For the near future, advanced robots are the most practical method of
exploring the solar system.
Robots have some key advantages:
1) They don't need to eat or drink.
2) They don't need living space, and can be neatly folded up to save space in long trips.
3) They don't go insane from confinement or being alone.
4) They don't excrete solid or liquid waste.
5) They don't have excessive thermal or atmospheric requirements.
6) They don't have any desire to return home.
7) They'll work even with minor "injuries."
8) They don't care if they're literally worked to death.
9) They don't die of radiation poisoning in space due to cosmic radiation or coronal mass ejections, and if they do, it's expensive, but it's not a human life extinguished.
10) They won't come down with symptoms of silicosis from inhaling toxic dust.
Some of those are very serious problems that have no implementable solutions yet.
Radiation is a problem that we don't know how to deal with. Not only cosmic radiation, but also from solar flares. Once you're outside of Earth's magnetic field, you're at risk. And the CME's from large solar flares are strong. One a few years ago caused minor damage to an instrument on a probe orbiting Mars. Its effects were still powerful all the way out at Saturn, where Cassini watched it.
The "best" solutions I've read about involve either a spherical vessel with a shell of water a few feet thick. Such a craft, in order to provide sufficient living space inside, would be so massive that our current propulsion technology wouldn't be able to get it to Mars in any reasonable amount of time.
The other would be some sort of energy shield, but it would require immense amounts of power, more than we can possibly generate in space right now.
Then there's Martian dust, which unlike that of the Moon, could be windblown. It's even possible that one of the planet-wide dust storms could kick up by the time a mission arrives. The dust is so thick that it masks the planet's surface, and noontime can look like very late evening. It's extremely fine, it generates a heck of a static charge (damaged airlock controls, anyone?), and it's corrosive.
Living space and conditions: Another problem for people. A mission would take at least a year, possibly two. They'll need room for exercise equipment, or else they'll lose a substantial amount of bone and muscle mass. They'll need adequate space to avoid possible psychological issues from being confined for such a long time.
Issues of conflict may also arise during such a long mission. Issues of illness or injury may also be a problem. Simply turning around may not be an option due to fuel availability.
There may only be adequate fuel to get to Mars, slow enough for orbital insertion, and then go back home. Stopping in mid-flight and turning back toward Earth might not be an option, though I don't know what the math looks like for those specific momentum and direction changes.
Robots can get a lot accomplished, and for a cost much less than that of a human explorer. Those Mars Exploration Rovers have been on the surface for over 4 years now. If there's sufficient battery power available, they'll even perform work through the night. Mars Science Lab, launching next year, will be powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, so it will be able to work around the clock, unhindered by issues of available sunlight.
Another matter involved with bringing people along would be equipment for testing. There wouldn't be a lot of consumables available for lots of tests. The equipment would need to be compact, and extremely efficient - very similar to what's already being sent on robotic explorers. The other option is a sample return mission, which would bring soil samples back to Earth, letting us work in our natural environments right here, rather than going to the trouble of transporting a little bubble of our environment all the way out to Mars and back, all to accomplish the same goals.
Sure a few geologists, biologists, or chemists on the surface would be just dandy. The problems though are first to get them there alive, second, keep them alive while on the surface, and third, return them to Earth alive. All three present significant technical and economic obstacles. For the near future, advanced robots are the most practical method of
exploring the solar system.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 145
- 106
Ac CycloWizard said, you can't train humans for every contingency either. If something goes wrong, who would you rather have at risk, the Human or the Robot? You seem to think that the robots are acting on their own accord, they arn't. They are communicating back to earth with the humans. The humans are still making all the choices and getting all the data. What use would it be to have a normal human there? Being able to walk farther?
Even if you gave them a giant mobile lab, then what? they go and get the data then send it back to nasa and wait for nasa to tell them what to do? Seems like a robot can do that just as well.
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
Here's the acid test. If we built a sub light ship to explore our nearest 'Star' neighbors, would you go knowing you would never reach the star in your lifetime?
I would in a heartbeat.
I would in a heartbeat.
When robots start to think for themselves, this would have some validity.
My argument is not about cost effectiveness, nor safety, etc.
It is about thinking and logic. How is it that all you "thinkers" out there can not (or refuse to acknowledge) my point?
Jeff7,
OK! I concede all but #7.
However, that still does not make me wrong!
And you still don't understand the entire concept of unmanned spaceflight. The exploratory vehicle communicates with Earth continuously throughout its mission, allowing humans to control its actions. Therefore, the robot itself doesn't require logic as it implicitly gets its logic from the folks back home controlling it.
Perhaps this is a more clear analogy. If I write a BASIC program that creates a turtle that moves around as I command it, does the turtle need any form of logic to reach a destination that I choose? It does not. I can direct it there using any commands that it recgnizes, taking it along any path that I choose. The robot on Mars is conceptually no different than the turtle except for the increased latency.
CycloWizzard
I'm guessing here...If you can not stomp out any idea contrary to your notions,
then trample the messenger?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds diss people.
I'm guessing here...If you can not stomp out any idea contrary to your notions,
then trample the messenger?
No, you're just not listening, and frustrating the people who tried to help you.
The robot is not limited, because it is controlled by people.
You've seen kids play with radio controlled cars, I hope? The robot doesn't have to know anything. It's not programmed for anything. It doesn't have to think in any way. You seem to think it is on autopilot the entire time, and this is blatantly false.
This thread stopped being Highly Technical several pointless arguments ago.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
They also have computers that have lots of contingency programs to maximize survival.
You are and idiot if you think its better to send a human than a robot at current levels of technology
You haven't suggested any ideas. You've just trumpeted your rhetoric and ignored what everyone else has said. You took the time to "diss" everyone else in this thread:
Where your point is
which I and several others have already rendered completely and utterly irrelevant by pointing out that there is no need to program a robot for every contingency because it receives its orders from humans. The only advantage to having a human on the ground would be a slight decrease in latency.
So, why don't you try addressing what we've said rather than completely ignoring all of the perfectly valid counterpoints that we've already proferred?
I've never suggested that robots should not be in the equation.
Nor have I argued that robotic exploration will not save human lives.
Nor do I think for a minute that NASA wants the publicity angle of a human planting the flag as opposed to a robot doing that task.
However, I do believe that if you put the question to NASA as to given the choice for human intervention in the exploration of Mars (all thing being equal and the cost of human failure factored out), NASA would jump at the chance of placing a human observer on the Red Planet - accompanied, of course, by his faithful robot, Sidekick...
BTW, It's hard to get a vision of the current level of robotic technology chipping away at a rock in an effort to look for Ammonoidea or it's ilk n a geological formation like a Geologist might do..
Nor have I argued that robotic exploration will not save human lives.
Nor do I think for a minute that NASA wants the publicity angle of a human planting the flag as opposed to a robot doing that task.
However, I do believe that if you put the question to NASA as to given the choice for human intervention in the exploration of Mars (all thing being equal and the cost of human failure factored out), NASA would jump at the chance of placing a human observer on the Red Planet - accompanied, of course, by his faithful robot, Sidekick...
BTW, It's hard to get a vision of the current level of robotic technology chipping away at a rock in an effort to look for Ammonoidea or it's ilk n a geological formation like a Geologist might do..
The problem here is that now you've removed all constraints on the problem. "All things being equal" and neglecting the cost of human life, of course we'd have people walking on just about every surface in the universe. But these questions are meaningless because those constraints do exist.Originally posted by: RideFree
I've never suggested that robots should not be in the equation.
Nor have I argued that robotic exploration will not save human lives.
Nor do I think for a minute that NASA wants the publicity angle of a human planting the flag as opposed to a robot doing that task.
However, I do believe that if you put the question to NASA as to given the choice for human intervention in the exploration of Mars (all thing being equal and the cost of human failure factored out), NASA would jump at the chance of placing a human observer on the Red Planet - accompanied, of course, by his faithful robot, Sidekick...
BTW, It's hard to get a vision of the current level of robotic technology chipping away at a rock in an effort to look for Ammonoidea in a geological formation like a Geologist might do..
Although the NASA Phoenix Mars Lander has or will accomplish most (if not all) of it's goals and objectives, it's primary purpose is to evaluate the critical part of what NASA really wants to do:Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The problem here is that now you've removed all constraints on the problem. "All things being equal" and neglecting the cost of human life, of course we'd have people walking on just about every surface in the universe. But these questions are meaningless because those constraints do exist.Originally posted by: RideFree
BTW, It's hard to get a vision of the current level of robotic technology chipping away at a rock in an effort to look for Ammonoidea in a geological formation like a Geologist might do..
"Prepare for human exploration".
End of argument.
Unless, of course, you find your way around this...
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
And putting batteries in my calculator is preparing for a Physics exam.Originally posted by: RideFree
Although the NASA Phoenix Mars Lander has or will accomplish most (if not all) of it's goals and objectives, it's primary purpose is to evaluate the critical part of what NASA really wants to do:Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The problem here is that now you've removed all constraints on the problem. "All things being equal" and neglecting the cost of human life, of course we'd have people walking on just about every surface in the universe. But these questions are meaningless because those constraints do exist.Originally posted by: RideFree
BTW, It's hard to get a vision of the current level of robotic technology chipping away at a rock in an effort to look for Ammonoidea in a geological formation like a Geologist might do..
"Prepare for human exploration".
End of argument.
If you really want to prepare for human exploration of Mars, my suggestion would be to first expand NASAs budget by say, 500%. Actually my first suggestion would be to re-think your priorities altogether.
Ah, now I understand. Since NASA decided to send a guy to Mars (after being ordered to do so directly by the president), that makes it a good idea. :roll:
Now you're introducing philosophy...
PS, Gibsons, they are not my priorities.
I could care less if "we" ever went to Mars. However, if we did, I'd join in the celebration.
I never said anything bordering on philosophy. I simply aruge that it's not a good idea to send people to Mars at this point since robotics can achieve 99.99% of the same ends with about 1% of the cost and risk.
lefenzy
Senior member
- Nov 30, 2004
- 231
- 4
- 81
What's wrong with you? You started this thread with nothing substantial to discuss, asking how to subscript a letter. Then the topic moves to discussion about the worth of human exploration versus robot exploration to Mars. You ignore every argument, and you even concede to Jeff, but here you are still rambling. What do you want?
Originally posted by: lefenzy
While I can program in ascii and know many of the characters by memory, can convert ugly
E<>mc^2 into E ? mc², I can not make H_2O into the equivalent of the above...so, where's the beef?
It was only an invite to: "If you know how to do this, be my guest."
Speaking of, "...worth of human exploration versus robot exploration to Mars.", did you have anything to add to the discussion? Or are you here simply to critique?
I think Jeff, CycloWizzard, Foxery, Cogman & several others are all holding their own very nicely and while we may have over-hashed the human vs. robot issue(s) to great excess, it has also been painstakingly thorough (at least imo).
Enough said...let's "ramble" on with this and ignore the third post to the thread.
It does not appear that NASA has found any "smoking guns", so to speak.
No evidence of any questionable molecules, no fossils, nada!
I would like to weigh-in on the burning question and speculate if the evidence for life or life itself will ever be found.
I say, "Never".
OK, my dumb is going to hang out but does any one know how to conduct a pole in these forums?
I'm not exactly sure how your diatribe added anything of value, but let's try this...
While I can program in ascii and know many of the characters by memory, can convert ugly
E<>mc^2 into E ? mc², I can not make H_2O into the equivalent of the above...so, where's the beef?
It was only an invite to: "If you know how to do this, be my guest."
Speaking of, "...worth of human exploration versus robot exploration to Mars.", did you have anything to add to the discussion? Or are you here simply to critique?
I think Jeff, CycloWizzard, Foxery, Cogman & several others are all holding their own very nicely and while we may have over-hashed the human vs. robot issue(s) to great excess, it has also been painstakingly thorough (at least imo).
Enough said...let's "ramble" on with this and ignore the third post to the thread.
It does not appear that NASA has found any "smoking guns", so to speak.
No evidence of any questionable molecules, no fossils, nada!
I would like to weigh-in on the burning question and speculate if the evidence for life or life itself will ever be found.
I say, "Never".
OK, my dumb is going to hang out but does any one know how to conduct a pole in these forums?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter