|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
Here's a hypothetical question. Assuming all the problems involved in
getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew, working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit of an interesting target(Jupiter, Saturn) do more/better/quicker science, than what is currently done? Provided they had appropiate resources, working in shifts 24/7, with probes and shuttles that could be sent to interesting locations. The robot exploration people always say that robotic missions can do better than human manned missions. Maybe they're correct at the moment, but would such a mission as describe above perform better? Thanks, David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 13:59:08 +1000
David Findlay wrote: Here's a hypothetical question. Assuming all the problems involved in getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew, working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit of an interesting target(Jupiter, Saturn) do more/better/quicker science, than what is currently done? Provided they had appropiate resources, working in shifts 24/7, with probes and shuttles that could be sent to interesting locations. The robot exploration people always say that robotic missions can do better than human manned missions. Maybe they're correct at the moment, but would such a mission as describe above perform better? Thanks, As long as the money is available, and assuming that your crew don't mind working in a risky environment, the science return from humans on the spot will always be better than that from robots. If you can afford to wait longer for your results, and appreciate a much lower cost, then robots are the way to go. -- Michael Smith Network Applications www.netapps.com.au | +61 (0) 416 062 898 Web Hosting | Internet Services |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
"David Findlay" wrote in message ... Here's a hypothetical question. Assuming all the problems involved in getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew, working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit of an interesting target(Jupiter, Saturn) do more/better/quicker science, than what is currently done? They couldn't do better for the same cost. The type of manned mission you're talking about would cost orders of magnitudes more than current unmanned missions. Furthermore, assuming Jupiter or Saturn is your target, why not send several unmanned vessels each with lots of probes? This could still be made cheaper than a ship with 250+ crew sent to the same destination. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
In article ,
David Findlay wrote: Here's a hypothetical question. Assuming all the problems involved in getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew, working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit of an interesting target(Jupiter, Saturn) do more/better/quicker science, than what is currently done? The answer depends on exactly what you mean by the question. That is almost certainly a vastly larger commitment of *resources* than what is done now, and that alone will make a big difference. Given equal resources, does it help to have humans on the scene? Yes, but *how much* it helps depends enormously on what's being done. For operating things like orbiters, there is a modest advantage in having short speed-of-light lags. Plus there is the option of being able to do repairs and such, which as yet are impractically hard by teleoperation. But the gains aren't huge. For operating *landers* (in which category I include rovers etc.), the shorter speed-of-light lag makes a really big difference, greatly increasing what can be done in a given amount of time. The landers still suffer from the limitations of current robotic technology, but having something approaching real-time control over them is a large improvement. What really makes a huge difference, though, is if the people are actually landing on moons etc. themselves, rather than just by robotic proxies. Having hands as well as brains on the scene is a vast improvement when it comes to exploring planetary surfaces. Even the more optimistic robotics researchers say it will be half a century before a robot can climb down a geothermal vent, something a human explorer can do today. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
David Findlay wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question. Assuming all the problems involved in getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew, working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit of an interesting target(Jupiter, Saturn) do more/better/quicker science, than what is currently done? No. The bulk of the science done there (currently) is fields and particles or optical, and people on hand don't particularly enhance that kind of science. (This is one of the things that 50's SF got badly wrong. They didn't see the utility of computers in automating the 'boring' parts of science (I.E. noting a meter reading every half hour, and the ability to produce amenable-to-manipulation digital data rather than strip charts). Where humans excel is at real time situations like (physical) sample gathering and noting 'funnies' in non-physically-sensible data (like fields and particles data). The second does not require physical presence. Provided they had appropiate resources, working in shifts 24/7, with probes and shuttles that could be sent to interesting locations. The robot exploration people always say that robotic missions can do better than human manned missions. Maybe they're correct at the moment, but would such a mission as describe above perform better? Thanks, Based on the discussion above, how many of the interesting locations are amenable to physical intervention? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
I wrote:
What really makes a huge difference, though, is if the people are actually landing on moons etc. themselves, rather than just by robotic proxies. Having hands as well as brains on the scene is a vast improvement when it comes to exploring planetary surfaces. Even the more optimistic robotics researchers say it will be half a century before a robot can climb down a geothermal vent, something a human explorer can do today. A corollary to this is that you do not make the manned expedition more competitive with robots by shrinking it and cutting back its objectives to reduce its cost. The manned expedition looks better as the crew gets larger, the stay gets longer, and the objectives get more ambitious. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
Henry Spencer wrote:
What really makes a huge difference, though, is if the people are actually landing on moons etc. themselves, rather than just by robotic proxies. Having hands as well as brains on the scene is a vast improvement when it comes to exploring planetary surfaces. Even the more optimistic robotics researchers say it will be half a century before a robot can climb down a geothermal vent, something a human explorer can do today. Though probably not with current suits... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
Rand Simberg wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote: What really makes a huge difference, though, is if the people are actually landing on moons etc. themselves, rather than just by robotic proxies. Having hands as well as brains on the scene is a vast improvement when it comes to exploring planetary surfaces. Even the more optimistic robotics researchers say it will be half a century before a robot can climb down a geothermal vent, something a human explorer can do today. Though probably not with current suits... I did a "zuh?" on Henry's statement too. Though it is true nonetheless. Note he did not say *active* geothermal vent. Geothermal vents are actually pretty easy to get inside, for humans, as are lava tubes. Provided they're not several thousand degrees on the inside. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
"David Findlay" wrote in message ... Here's a hypothetical question. Assuming all the problems involved in getting there were solved, could a team of 250+ scientists plus crew, working in an artificial gravity environment on board a ship in orbit of an interesting target(Jupiter, Saturn) do more/better/quicker science, than what is currently done? Provided they had appropiate resources, working in shifts 24/7, with probes and shuttles that could be sent to interesting locations. The robot exploration people always say that robotic missions can do better than human manned missions. Maybe they're correct at the moment, but would such a mission as describe above perform better? Thanks, Interesting question. I can imagine three ways in which human investigators might outperform robotic missions. 1. In rapidly crafting and deploying modified scientific instruments to ask unanticipated "follow-up questions". So, I have to ask, is the ship assumed to be equipped with machine shops, optics labs, and electronic workshops? 2. In using non-specific tools for the collection of interesting geological and perhaps biological samples from the surface of a moon, and possibly also for moving around on a moon. So, I have to ask, in fairness to the robots: Having placed a few scientists on the surface of a moon, can the "mother ship" just leave them there and proceed to another moon? Or do the scientists have to somehow be returned to Earth? 3. In "noticing" a phenomenon that would not show itself in a robotic data-stream sent to Earth. So, I have to ask: Are you assuming equal time-on-site for robots and humans or equal cost of mission for robots and humans? Of course, your question was whether the humans would do better than "what is currently done". Well, of course they would! But I doubt, by the time we are sending missions of this size to the gas giants, that robotics won't have advanced to the point where the robots would clearly win the competition. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Decision on the Soyuz TMA-4 spacecraft prelaunch processing | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | April 1st 04 01:12 PM |
Rosetta -- a new target to solve planetary mysteries (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 5th 04 03:40 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |
Revealing the Beast Within: Deeply Embedded Massive Stellar ClustersDiscovered in Milky Way Powerhouse (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 22nd 03 04:56 PM |