Opportunity toaster:( has traveled 22 mars miles

On Feb 7, 11:56*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:04*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:21*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Lets look back at some historical facts

Computers were needed for the moon landing since it would be
impossible to have enough humans onboard to control apollo and the LMs
landing. Real time data downlinks / uplinks wouldnt be good enough.

And yet they did exactly that. *You understand that those vehicles all
had human-operated controls and that they were used, right? *So much
for your "impossible to have enough humans onboard to control apollo
and the LMs landing" idiocy.

So nasa got mini computers to do the job.....

Wrong.

which led to hand held calculators etc......

Really wrong.

apollo computers had less memory than a dollar store calcualtor
today......

Well, you got that part right.

nasas needs drove all sorts of developments that benefit every person
on earth....

Totally wrong, if you're talking about computers.

apollo with zero computers would of never been possible.

Of course it would.

The LM
couldnt of carried enough people onboard to do all the
computations ........

What computations were those? *All that **** was done on the ground
back on Earth, you ignorant ****.

well both the LM and CM had computers *running continious.....

And when they went tits up humans flew the things. *Which part of that
is it that is escaping you?

at the time it was reported computers were needed for operations, and
that overloaded computer caused problems on the first landing.....

So it obviously wasn't needed, since they continued operating and
landed sans computer.



news reports stated no landing would be attempted without working
computers, but there were back up plans to get them home, in case of a
coputer failure

Bobbert, you know you aren't old enough to remember the Moon landings,
don't you? *What were you, about 9?

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates

I am 56 now and was fascinated about all things space..

In article 7256629c-b021-42c7-aa9d-7376a3cc2d02
@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 7, 11:56*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:04*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:21*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Lets look back at some historical facts

Computers were needed for the moon landing since it would be
impossible to have enough humans onboard to control apollo and the LMs
landing. Real time data downlinks / uplinks wouldnt be good enough.

And yet they did exactly that. *You understand that those vehicles all
had human-operated controls and that they were used, right? *So much
for your "impossible to have enough humans onboard to control apollo
and the LMs landing" idiocy.

So nasa got mini computers to do the job.....

Wrong.

which led to hand held calculators etc......

Really wrong.

apollo computers had less memory than a dollar store calcualtor
today......

Well, you got that part right.

nasas needs drove all sorts of developments that benefit every person
on earth....

Totally wrong, if you're talking about computers.

apollo with zero computers would of never been possible.

Of course it would.

The LM
couldnt of carried enough people onboard to do all the
computations ........

What computations were those? *All that **** was done on the ground
back on Earth, you ignorant ****.

well both the LM and CM had computers *running continious.....

And when they went tits up humans flew the things. *Which part of that
is it that is escaping you?

at the time it was reported computers were needed for operations, and
that overloaded computer caused problems on the first landing.....

So it obviously wasn't needed, since they continued operating and
landed sans computer.

news reports stated no landing would be attempted without working
computers, but there were back up plans to get them home, in case of a
coputer failure

Bobbert, you know you aren't old enough to remember the Moon landings,
don't you? *What were you, about 9?

I am 56 now and was fascinated about all things space..

I was only a few months old when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I'm told
I watched it on TV.

Anyway, I spent my youth reading as many history books about space
travel as I could. Quite a few were about Apollo. Some went into
detail about the computers, including the 1202 and 1203 errors that were
being thrown by Apollo 11's LEM computer. Those errors should never
have been thrown during an actual mission. It took time to figure out
why they were being thrown and if it was safe enough to continue.

Armstrong could have called an abort either for the computer errors or
for the low fuel warning as he was trying to fly past the boulder field
and find a safe place to land. He didn't abort. He piloted the LEM to
a safe landing.

If Apollo 11's LEM would have been only computer controlled, or remotely
controlled, it almost certainly would have crashed in one way or
another. Sure, our toasters today are better than back then, but they
*still* can't deal with the unexpected. And when the time delay to
earth is more than a few seconds, you simply can't rely on people in the
control room to handle the unexpected in real-time.

The way this is handled with the Mars rovers is they're moved and
operated at a snail's pace. Every move, every test, every tiny little
thing is micromanaged from earth, so progress is very slow.

None of your "mass produced" toaster proposals properly deal with this
issue. There is *nothing* like an AI which is cheap enough, powerful
enough (processing wise), miserly with power, and creative enough to
actually handle the unexpected on Mars.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Feb 8, 8:58*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7256629c-b021-42c7-aa9d-7376a3cc2d02
@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, says...







On Feb 7, 11:56*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:04*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:21*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Lets look back at some historical facts

Computers were needed for the moon landing since it would be
impossible to have enough humans onboard to control apollo and the LMs
landing. Real time data downlinks / uplinks wouldnt be good enough.

And yet they did exactly that. *You understand that those vehicles all
had human-operated controls and that they were used, right? *So much
for your "impossible to have enough humans onboard to control apollo
and the LMs landing" idiocy.

So nasa got mini computers to do the job.....

Wrong.

which led to hand held calculators etc......

Really wrong.

apollo computers had less memory than a dollar store calcualtor
today......

Well, you got that part right.

nasas needs drove all sorts of developments that benefit every person
on earth....

Totally wrong, if you're talking about computers.

apollo with zero computers would of never been possible.

Of course it would.

The LM
couldnt of carried enough people onboard to do all the
computations ........

What computations were those? *All that **** was done on the ground
back on Earth, you ignorant ****.

well both the LM and CM had computers *running continious.....

And when they went tits up humans flew the things. *Which part of that
is it that is escaping you?

at the time it was reported computers were needed for operations, and
that overloaded computer caused problems on the first landing.....

So it obviously wasn't needed, since they continued operating and
landed sans computer.

news reports stated no landing would be attempted without working
computers, but there were back up plans to get them home, in case of a
coputer failure

Bobbert, you know you aren't old enough to remember the Moon landings,
don't you? *What were you, about 9?

I am 56 now and was fascinated about all things space..

I was only a few months old when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. *I'm told
I watched it on TV.

Anyway, I spent my youth reading as many history books about space
travel as I could. *Quite a few were about Apollo. *Some went into
detail about the computers, including the 1202 and 1203 errors that were
being thrown by Apollo 11's LEM computer. *Those errors should never
have been thrown during an actual mission. *It took time to figure out
why they were being thrown and if it was safe enough to continue.

Armstrong could have called an abort either for the computer errors or
for the low fuel warning as he was trying to fly past the boulder field
and find a safe place to land. *He didn't abort. *He piloted the LEM to
a safe landing.

If Apollo 11's LEM would have been only computer controlled, or remotely
controlled, it almost certainly would have crashed in one way or
another. *Sure, our toasters today are better than back then, but they
*still* can't deal with the unexpected. *And when the time delay to
earth is more than a few seconds, you simply can't rely on people in the
control room to handle the unexpected in real-time.

The way this is handled with the Mars rovers is they're moved and
operated at a snail's pace. *Every move, every test, every tiny little
thing is micromanaged from earth, so progress is very slow.

None of your "mass produced" toaster proposals properly deal with this
issue. *There is *nothing* like an AI which is cheap enough, powerful
enough (processing wise), miserly with power, and creative enough to
actually handle the unexpected on Mars.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff how would you feel about unmanned bombers? With AI controllers
taking off and landing on aircraft carriers?

In article e6d23665-7db0-4ff5-912c-be5490e89786
@hl5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 8, 8:58*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

I was only a few months old when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. *I'm told
I watched it on TV.

Anyway, I spent my youth reading as many history books about space
travel as I could. *Quite a few were about Apollo. *Some went into
detail about the computers, including the 1202 and 1203 errors that were
being thrown by Apollo 11's LEM computer. *Those errors should never
have been thrown during an actual mission. *It took time to figure out
why they were being thrown and if it was safe enough to continue.

Armstrong could have called an abort either for the computer errors or
for the low fuel warning as he was trying to fly past the boulder field
and find a safe place to land. *He didn't abort. *He piloted the LEM to
a safe landing.

If Apollo 11's LEM would have been only computer controlled, or remotely
controlled, it almost certainly would have crashed in one way or
another. *Sure, our toasters today are better than back then, but they
*still* can't deal with the unexpected. *And when the time delay to
earth is more than a few seconds, you simply can't rely on people in the
control room to handle the unexpected in real-time.

The way this is handled with the Mars rovers is they're moved and
operated at a snail's pace. *Every move, every test, every tiny little
thing is micromanaged from earth, so progress is very slow.

None of your "mass produced" toaster proposals properly deal with this
issue. *There is *nothing* like an AI which is cheap enough, powerful
enough (processing wise), miserly with power, and creative enough to
actually handle the unexpected on Mars.

Jeff how would you feel about unmanned bombers? With AI controllers
taking off and landing on aircraft carriers?

I feel they're off-topic for this newsgroup, but I'll quickly respond
and try to keep it somewhat on-topic.

I don't believe that AI controlled unmanned aircraft (e.g. bombers)
exist yet. There is nothing approaching an AI on any currently
operational remotely operated vehicles. They're controlled by pilots in
a control room. As an example, here is an example of an MQ-1 Predator
control room:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...trols_2007-08-
07.jpg

The intelligences in the picture look awfully human to me.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff Findley wrote:

Armstrong could have called an abort either for the computer errors or
for the low fuel warning

If he had (for the "low fuel warning") it would have been *way* outside
mission spec. As thrashed to death a few months back, the thirty
second "bingo call" meant thirty seconds until abort *decision* - i.e.
decision to proceed to landing (within a few seconds) or abort.

Jeff Findley wrote:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...trols_2007-08-
07.jpg

The intelligences in the picture look awfully human to me.

I'm not sure how intelligent the humans look.

On Feb 8, 4:01*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e6d23665-7db0-4ff5-912c-be5490e89786
@hl5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...







On Feb 8, 8:58*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

I was only a few months old when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. *I'm told
I watched it on TV.

Anyway, I spent my youth reading as many history books about space
travel as I could. *Quite a few were about Apollo. *Some went into
detail about the computers, including the 1202 and 1203 errors that were
being thrown by Apollo 11's LEM computer. *Those errors should never
have been thrown during an actual mission. *It took time to figure out
why they were being thrown and if it was safe enough to continue.

Armstrong could have called an abort either for the computer errors or
for the low fuel warning as he was trying to fly past the boulder field
and find a safe place to land. *He didn't abort. *He piloted the LEM to
a safe landing.

If Apollo 11's LEM would have been only computer controlled, or remotely
controlled, it almost certainly would have crashed in one way or
another. *Sure, our toasters today are better than back then, but they
*still* can't deal with the unexpected. *And when the time delay to
earth is more than a few seconds, you simply can't rely on people in the
control room to handle the unexpected in real-time.

The way this is handled with the Mars rovers is they're moved and
operated at a snail's pace. *Every move, every test, every tiny little
thing is micromanaged from earth, so progress is very slow.

None of your "mass produced" toaster proposals properly deal with this
issue. *There is *nothing* like an AI which is cheap enough, powerful
enough (processing wise), miserly with power, and creative enough to
actually handle the unexpected on Mars.

Jeff how would you feel about unmanned bombers? With AI controllers
taking off and landing on aircraft carriers?

I feel they're off-topic for this newsgroup, but I'll quickly respond
and try to keep it somewhat on-topic.

I don't believe that AI controlled unmanned aircraft (e.g. bombers)
exist yet. *There is nothing approaching an AI on any currently
operational remotely operated vehicles. *They're controlled by pilots in
a control room. *As an example, here is an example of an MQ-1 Predator
control room:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...trols_2007-08-
07.jpg

The intelligences in the picture look awfully human to me.

Jeff

On the CBS news a couple nights ago. The military has a indenpentendly
operated drone that is being launched and recovered by aircraft
carriers, its not remote controlled..

so far its going to be used for reconaisance, but is totally capable
of being used for as a bomber. if i get some time later i will look
around for a link. its shape is a stealth bomber appearance, but they
didnt give the dimensions.

the advantage, current manned vehicles weakest links are the humans
that fly them, max G forces and such. unmanned wouldnt have those
limitations. the military also likes that no pilot is put at risk to
fly it......

what makes this on topic here?

not only is it amazing, but it shows how far artifical intelligence
has come, the next use may well be on mars

where with enough power the rover could operate continiously......for
a fraction the cost of manned missions

the future is now

Jeff Findley presented the following explanation :
In article 7256629c-b021-42c7-aa9d-7376a3cc2d02
@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 7, 11:56*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:04*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:21*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
Lets look back at some historical facts
Computers were needed for the moon landing since it would be
impossible to have enough humans onboard to control apollo and the
LMs landing. Real time data downlinks / uplinks wouldnt be good
enough.
And yet they did exactly that. *You understand that those vehicles
all had human-operated controls and that they were used, right? *So
much for your "impossible to have enough humans onboard to control
apollo and the LMs landing" idiocy.
So nasa got mini computers to do the job.....
Wrong.

which led to hand held calculators etc......
Really wrong.

apollo computers had less memory than a dollar store calcualtor
today......

Well, you got that part right.
nasas needs drove all sorts of developments that benefit every
person on earth....

Totally wrong, if you're talking about computers.
apollo with zero computers would of never been possible.
Of course it would.

The LM
couldnt of carried enough people onboard to do all the
computations ........

What computations were those? *All that **** was done on the ground
back on Earth, you ignorant ****.
well both the LM and CM had computers *running continious.....
And when they went tits up humans flew the things. *Which part of that
is it that is escaping you?

at the time it was reported computers were needed for operations, and
that overloaded computer caused problems on the first landing.....

So it obviously wasn't needed, since they continued operating and
landed sans computer.

news reports stated no landing would be attempted without working
computers, but there were back up plans to get them home, in case of a
coputer failure

Bobbert, you know you aren't old enough to remember the Moon landings,
don't you? *What were you, about 9?

I am 56 now and was fascinated about all things space..

I was only a few months old when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I'm told
I watched it on TV.

Anyway, I spent my youth reading as many history books about space
travel as I could. Quite a few were about Apollo. Some went into
detail about the computers, including the 1202 and 1203 errors that were
being thrown by Apollo 11's LEM computer. Those errors should never
have been thrown during an actual mission. It took time to figure out
why they were being thrown and if it was safe enough to continue.

Armstrong could have called an abort either for the computer errors or
for the low fuel warning as he was trying to fly past the boulder field
and find a safe place to land. He didn't abort. He piloted the LEM to
a safe landing.

If Apollo 11's LEM would have been only computer controlled, or remotely
controlled, it almost certainly would have crashed in one way or
another. Sure, our toasters today are better than back then, but they
*still* can't deal with the unexpected. And when the time delay to
earth is more than a few seconds, you simply can't rely on people in the
control room to handle the unexpected in real-time.

The way this is handled with the Mars rovers is they're moved and
operated at a snail's pace. Every move, every test, every tiny little
thing is micromanaged from earth, so progress is very slow.

None of your "mass produced" toaster proposals properly deal with this
issue. There is *nothing* like an AI which is cheap enough, powerful
enough (processing wise), miserly with power, and creative enough to
actually handle the unexpected on Mars.

Mind you, we had had unmanned craft land on the moon before Apollo 11:
Surveyor, Lunokhod. They represented efforts to find out enough about
the surface to know if humans could land there. They certainly weren't
mass produced, though, nor inexpensive, and landing them involved a lot
of luck. And we didn't find out much more about the moon than
confirming the gravitational acceleration (on earth, we call that 'g')
and determining a little of the surface texture (sand? dust? solid
rock?).

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

CBS News) The technology behind drones is developing rapidly. Today,
drones used to attack targets are flown by remote control by pilots on
the ground. But a new generation has no pilot at all. They can be
completely guided by computer.



A new type of vehicle being developed by the Navy looks like stealth
bomber and could probably carry 4,000 pounds of weapons, but there's
no pilot in the cockpit. Navy Capt. Jaime Engdahl is director of
what's called the X-47B Project.


"It is an autonomous vehicle so it's flying itself ... It's a very
unique aircraft," Engdahl said.

Watch: Brennan: Drones only used as "last resort"
Amid protests, Brennan defends drone program
Brennan, White House under fire for drone policy

This afternoon, responding to a computer program, the X-47B launched
from a land-based catapult at a Navy test facility in Maryland.


"The test went very well and it's very significant because this is the
first time we're actually doing catapult shots with a vehicle with
nobody in the cockpit," Engdahl said.


The X-47B has already performed taxi tests aboard the USS Truman and
will soon attempt the first unmanned take off and landing from an
aircraft carrier.


"We're working the carrier schedules right now so sometime this spring
or summer [the drone will take off and land on a carrier]," Engdahl
said.

In article , lid says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...trols_2007-08-
07.jpg

The intelligences in the picture look awfully human to me.

I'm not sure how intelligent the humans look.

More intelligent than any of the toasters currently on Mars.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer