NASA and the Vision thing

Christopher wrote:
[...]
The 'planet finder' telescope mission will be underway in 2007, and it
will make Hubble look like a set of Opera glasses.

Is this the interfrometer mission? It will produce different types of
results than Hubble, although they do expect to synthesize
"people-style" pictures of planets (of a few dozen pixels).

Is it still on schedule for 2007?

/dps

wrote in message
oups.com...
As I have explained it can't get rid of the time delay but what it can
do is make this delay less aparent psychologically.

Why psychology do you suppose will work on an AI or an "anthropomorphic
manipulator" *not* attached to a human?

Let us assume we
are doing a fairly simply task.

Here's a simple task for you:

You made a point that the Ariane
lower stage could be reused. I asked you:

Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and
reflown? Verifiable cites, please.

And you replied:

The same number as the number of missions.

Are you saying that there is only one lower stage and it's being reused
every time? Please provide a verifiable cite that shows that *any* Ariane
lower stage has been reused.

Scott Hedrick wrote:


Scott,

Please stop feeding the troll. Now.

--
Dave Michelson

wrote:

:My "prime mission" is in asking the question "What should we be doing
:NOW?". We have to think though where does this lead? The Shuttle, ISS
:and manned space flight depending on chemical propulsion and carrying
:everything from Earth is a DEAD END TECHNOLOGY.

And your alternative non-dead end technology would be what?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

The problem is Hubble's gyros are due to fail in 2007 or after. To do the
type of telerobotics that you suggest takes time to develop and time to
test, the latter presumably on the space station, which seems the logical
choice. To implement all this in the timely matter needed we'd be better
off sending an astornaut repair crew, which has already done several
similar missions.

Heck.. Doesn't that prove everything I have ever said. If NASA had NOT
had this infatuation with the shuttle and manned space flight. If the
Shuttle, that white elephant had never been built and the money spent
on robotics and VR this would not be the case.

All that the "establishment" seems to be able to suggest is the
compounding of this folly.

I thought that was clear. Robotics and AI principally. Some low level
research on fusion propulsion. Development of Von Neumann capability.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:35:29 +0100, wrote:

The problem is Hubble's gyros are due to fail in 2007 or after. To do
the
type of telerobotics that you suggest takes time to develop and time to
test, the latter presumably on the space station, which seems the
logical
choice. To implement all this in the timely matter needed we'd be better
off sending an astornaut repair crew, which has already done several
similar missions.

Heck.. Doesn't that prove everything I have ever said. If NASA had NOT
had this infatuation with the shuttle and manned space flight. If the
Shuttle, that white elephant had never been built and the money spent
on robotics and VR this would not be the case.

All that the "establishment" seems to be able to suggest is the
compounding of this folly.


The shuttle was a far more challenging buld than these
robotic toys. As such much more has been learnt.
I agree some of the lessons are not plesant but
then they are the first of their kind.
From what I see from Griffin's report they have taken lesson
from this.
The main point is Hubble CAN be repaired by the shuttle.
Creating a robotics system to do it in time is eutopic.

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

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:36:59 +0100, wrote:

I thought that was clear. Robotics and AI principally. Some low level
research on fusion propulsion. Development of Von Neumann capability.


I happened to have worked with all of the above and belive me it won't
come over night. It is not just that they don't have the manpower to
deal with it. It is that key ideas simply aren't there or clear.
Any anount of manpower won't change that. Someone will get the basic
idea or they won't. You can't legislate somone into making fundemental
discoveries. This is a point many non-scientist miss.

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

On 21 Dec 2005 14:50:55 -0800, "snidely"
wrote:


Christopher wrote:
[...]
The 'planet finder' telescope mission will be underway in 2007, and it
will make Hubble look like a set of Opera glasses.

Is this the interfrometer mission? It will produce different types of
results than Hubble, although they do expect to synthesize
"people-style" pictures of planets (of a few dozen pixels).

Is it still on schedule for 2007?

If you mean the 5 constellation satellites all connected by lasers
then yes.

Yes, I have read it'll be all set up by 2007, with the first one going
up 3rd quarter next year.

Of course others will/may have heard differntly.


--

Christopher

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:13:43 +0100, "John Thingstad"
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:36:59 +0100, wrote:

I thought that was clear. Robotics and AI principally. Some low level
research on fusion propulsion. Development of Von Neumann capability.


I happened to have worked with all of the above and belive me it won't
come over night. It is not just that they don't have the manpower to
deal with it. It is that key ideas simply aren't there or clear.
Any anount of manpower won't change that. Someone will get the basic
idea or they won't. You can't legislate somone into making fundemental
discoveries. This is a point many non-scientist miss.

When do you think a breakthrough in fusion propulsion will come? I
have read on severl sources that VASIMR is a halfway house to a fusion
rocket engine. Trouble is were still a long way from VASMIR becoming
reality IMHO.

--

Christopher