Robots - our helpers in space

"Jacques van Oene" wrote in message
...
A big advantage of space robots is...

More important still, although
expensive to design and produce, their loss is always preferable to that
of
an astronaut.

Although no one wants to loose an astronaut, robots are still inferior to
having a person on site who can work in real time. Whether or not it's
worth the added risk to a person to gain better results in a more timely
manner is an issue for debate.

Some of this boils down to the manned versus unmanned debate. If all you
want to do is "explore" space, some people don't think that it's "worth the
risk to any astronaut". Of course, this totally ignores the people who are,
more or less routinely, killed on the ground as part of the program.

Is it better to risk your life performing construction on the ground in
support of the space program or is it better to risk your life on the Moon,
Mars, or some other body? Which job has the best benefit to risk ratio?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ...
"Jacques van Oene" wrote in message
...
A big advantage of space robots is...

More important still, although
expensive to design and produce, their loss is always preferable to that
of
an astronaut.

Although no one wants to loose an astronaut, robots are still inferior to
having a person on site who can work in real time.
A combination of teleoperated and semiautonomous(tele-assisted)
operating modes built into robots can work wonders.
For instance, military isnt developing UAVs just for fun

-kert

The best test case is the robot that is supposed to fix the Hubble
Space Telescope. NASA plans to spend billions on this robot to avoid a
single Shuttle mission to HST. At the same time, NASA proposes to fly
to the Moon, cheaply.

One wonders why NASA can't send people to fix HST cheaply.



"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ...
"Jacques van Oene" wrote in message
...
A big advantage of space robots is...

More important still, although
expensive to design and produce, their loss is always preferable to that
of
an astronaut.

Although no one wants to loose an astronaut, robots are still inferior to
having a person on site who can work in real time. Whether or not it's
worth the added risk to a person to gain better results in a more timely
manner is an issue for debate.

Some of this boils down to the manned versus unmanned debate. If all you
want to do is "explore" space, some people don't think that it's "worth the
risk to any astronaut". Of course, this totally ignores the people who are,
more or less routinely, killed on the ground as part of the program.

Is it better to risk your life performing construction on the ground in
support of the space program or is it better to risk your life on the Moon,
Mars, or some other body? Which job has the best benefit to risk ratio?

Jeff

On 30 Nov 2004 12:24:14 -0800, Explorer8939 wrote:

The best test case is the robot that is supposed to fix the Hubble
Space Telescope. NASA plans to spend billions on this robot to avoid a
single Shuttle mission to HST. At the same time, NASA proposes to fly
to the Moon, cheaply.

One wonders why NASA can't send people to fix HST cheaply.


As you know they had planned a mission which was scrapped because of
safety considerations. The robot solution is both costly and risky.
I doubt if it ever get's off the ground.
There was a press conference by Sean O'Keefe earlier this year.
It's probably still available on NASA records.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Jacques van Oene" wrote in message
...

A big advantage of space robots is...


More important still, although
expensive to design and produce, their loss is always preferable to that

of

an astronaut.


Although no one wants to loose an astronaut, robots are still inferior to
having a person on site who can work in real time.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Humans _and_ robots on site could
allow working in real time and cut the EVA time.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:

[...]
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Humans _and_ robots on site could
allow working in real time and cut the EVA time.


From
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=28326d49.0307070840.e7ffd82%40posting. google.com&output=gplain

(dave schneider) wrote in with
Astronaut Nancy Currie stepped into an advanced concept space
suit to participate in the test as the squad leader. The task at hand
was to assemble an aluminum truss structure. Currie and her Robonaut
companions assembled the truss several times, significantly cutting
the time required to complete the task on each run. Hope we get to
see pics of this!
Speak, and it shall be given unto you!
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/eva/robonaut/ndxpage1.html

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:03:44 -0800, D Schneider
wrote:

[...]

(dave schneider) wrote in with
Astronaut Nancy Currie stepped into an advanced concept space
suit to participate in the test as the squad leader. The task at

Okay, I need to practice formatting with this editor....

/dps

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"Hop David" wrote in message
...

Jeff Findley wrote:
Although no one wants to loose an astronaut, robots are still inferior
to
having a person on site who can work in real time.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Humans _and_ robots on site could
allow working in real time and cut the EVA time.

While this is true, it's been my experience that the robots versus humans
argument is often made by people who are opposed to flying astronauts for
any reason. They see the manned space program as a black hole that sucks up
funding that they believe would otherwise be spent on unmanned exploration.

Take the Hubble as an example. It's often touted as a great scientific
observatory, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it completely "robotic",
considering that it was designed specifically to be launched and serviced by
the space shuttle. Note also that the proposed robotic servicing mission is
getting more expensive by the day. I have no doubt that if this mission
does fly, it will cost more than a shuttle mission to service Hubble.

There are just some high value things that people can do in space that
today's robots simply cannot do cheaper than humans.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Hop David" wrote in message
...

Jeff Findley wrote:

Although no one wants to loose an astronaut, robots are still inferior

to

having a person on site who can work in real time.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Humans _and_ robots on site could
allow working in real time and cut the EVA time.


While this is true, it's been my experience that the robots versus humans
argument is often made by people who are opposed to flying astronauts for
any reason. They see the manned space program as a black hole that sucks up
funding that they believe would otherwise be spent on unmanned exploration.

I am all for manned exploration. But I _do_ see ISS as a black hole
sucking up money that could've been spent on discovery missions to the
Moon and Near Earth Asteroids. Ditto for either Lunar or Martian Flag
and Footprint missions.

More real and sustainable manned exploration could take place if
preceded by unmanned missions.

To give an example, Mars astronauts could do much more exploration if
they're preceded by unmanned missions dropping sebatier reactors and
gathering information.

Relatively inexpensive Discovery missions could tell us whether water
and other volatiles could be mined from Lunar polar craters. They could
tell us if constant sunlight is available on some polar mountains. Such
knowledge could make feasible human exploration beyond Flags And Footprints.

And if we do have manned bases in orbit, on NEOs, Moon, Mars, Deimos or
Phobos, teleoperated robots would be very valuable tools.


Take the Hubble as an example. It's often touted as a great scientific
observatory, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it completely "robotic",
considering that it was designed specifically to be launched and serviced by
the space shuttle. Note also that the proposed robotic servicing mission is
getting more expensive by the day. I have no doubt that if this mission
does fly, it will cost more than a shuttle mission to service Hubble.

Development of better teleoperated robots is a good investment.
Especially if your goal is sustained human presence in space.


There are just some high value things that people can do in space that
today's robots simply cannot do cheaper than humans.

I agree with this 100 percent.


Jeff


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Jeff Findley wrote:

I have no doubt that if this mission
does fly, it will cost more than a shuttle mission to service Hubble.

And it would likely be more expensive than building and launching a new telescope.

Paul