Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:16:17 -0800 (PST), Ilya2 wrote:

Yes, it is "hogwash" in the sense that Apollo 13 did not stop the
program or even came close to stopping it, but the answer to your
question -- because it was Cold War. Demonstrating US technological
superiority over USSR was a specific, identifiable goal. No such goal
exists today.

Actually such a goal *does* exist today - for countries such as China
and India.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Jan 20, 9:47*pm, DouhetSukd wrote:
On Jan 19, 5:16*pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"





wrote:
* * * * When those eyes can pick up a rock, break it open with an appropriate
tool, run requisite tests on it, run over the next hill to check
something at a speed somewhat faster than a drugged snail, notice
something about the rock based on its heft or other details not easily
gotten over a remote, time-lagged link, and the billion other things
that a human being can do without even pausing to wonder how they did
it, yes, you might have a point.

* * * * Rovers are wonderful tools, but they are SUBSTITUTES -- and very poor
substitutes -- for human beings on-site.

* * * * Perhaps in 20 or 30 years the rovers may start to be smart enough and
competent enough to make human beings less impressive by comparison. But
if you were to list out all the tests and conditions you would LIKE to
have your rover handle, you'd find that the number it CAN handle is a
tiny, tiny, tiny subset of those things that a human being with a
rover-equivalent in modern tools can do.

* * * * Now, is that worth the cost? I dunno. Possibly, possibly not.

* * * * But the competition is much, much closer than you'd like to think.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * Sea Wasp
* * * * * * * * * * * * /^\
* * * * * * * * * * * * ;;; * *
Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com*Blo...ivejournal.com

At the risk of repeating myself, how much do we have to show for the
+/- $100B spent to date on the ISS? *Any significant science you can
quote? *Comparable in magnitude to the outlay?

How much could we have achieved spending that kinda dough on dumb-ass,
retarded, incapable robots?

Quite a bit more, I suspect. *Especially if we got economies of scale
out of building more of them, more modularly.

Men on Mars is the same as the ISS, only far, far, worse. *And, do we
blow all the $ just on Mars because we have to do a manned mission?
Why not a bit on Europa? *Bit on Titan? Oops, sorry too busy walking
on Mars.

Check out this, where they explain it took them 20 yrs to get a $750M
sat up, partly because all the $ goes to manned space. *Only a
professional speaking (albeit with a vested interest):

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Great-Obs...Cheaper/dp/081...

Obama definitely did the right thing canceling Constellation.

Not to mention that an accident on the way or coming back that
resulted in more dead crewmen would set space back decades. *Like the
shuttle.

But, hey, manned space results in plenty of pork for the aerospace
guys. *Must be useful if the politicians say it is.

Sorry, I appreciate your position and I regret we are not doing much
in space as well. *But wasting money on white elephants has already
cost us dearly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ISS really should of been man tended, rather than manned. And launched
on one or two boosters, not many many flights.

ISS diameter was too small, to fit in shuttle.

Packing so much equiptement in limited space, and being equipped in
space increased costs and complexity.

ISS was not a good design, it was built to give the shuttle something
to do. PORK PIGGIE SQUEALS we can no longer afford pork.......

But back on rovers.

Sooner or later if we dont, someone like china will send many rovers
to mars, and other places like mercury. A rover on the mercury
terminator could given time perhaps circle the planet

Rovers need not be solar powered, larger mars rovers could be nuke
powered with lights and operate nearly continiously.if we wanted

Or heck a solar reflector could be unfurled in mars orbit, and aimed
at the rovers area, providing twilight for night operations, combined
with lights.

With enough money theres tons of stuff to do on mars.

I would like to see a drilling rig, totally automated. This could lead
to automated oil and gas well drilling on earth.

Rovers and perhaps some permanent science stations on mars would be
exciting

But the practical spin offs HERE for AI and other robotic operations
license fees could fund the later human missions.

Hey use our tech its free but license fees are 10% of the profits

over time that could be big bucks.

besides we need lots of robotics to compete with low wage places like
china..

oddly enough thats another great reason to go to mars.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

On Jan 20, 11:25 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

Add ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE, to the rover operations, and watch
productity soar...

This is like saying, "Add MAGIC, to the rover operations, and watch
productity soar..."

better to do something affordable that explores, might have some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the chilling after
effects of apollo 13?

If people aren't going, what's to explore? And no, I DON'T remember
said "chilling".

now imagine 5% of a few hundred rovers being controlled by students on
earth.

That might just get support for a manned mission.

The student says today I noticed this wierd rock had the rover go
back and take a look how cool, all the way on moon, or mars

So your view is the space program should essentially just be a video
game. Hell, dispense with all the hardware and make it purely
virtual.


artifical intelligence is coming, did you hear it appears a computer
won jeopardy playing against 2 champs including ken jennings........


Meaningless insofar as the sort of application you'd need for space
exploration. AI has been 'right around the corner for 30 years now.
It still hasn't made it around that corner.


a mars geo sync sat computer with downlinks could run a large number
of rovers on the surface, with near no time delay, and multiple rovers
could help one another out if one gets stuck.


Unworkable.


why knock robotic exploration? the US has no ability to send astronauts


Then space exploration is pointless and we should stop wasting the
money on it entirely. No Buck Rogers, no bucks.

Something the "unmanned" space advocates seem to ignore...no people, no
money. Simple as that.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 11:25 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

Add ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE, to the rover operations, and watch
productity soar...

This is like saying, "Add MAGIC, to the rover operations, and watch
productity soar..."



better to do something affordable that explores, might have some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the chilling after
effects of apollo 13?

If people aren't going, what's to explore? And no, I DON'T remember
said "chilling".



now imagine 5% of a few hundred rovers being controlled by students on
earth.

That might just get support for a manned mission.

The student says today I noticed this wierd rock had the rover go
back and take a look how cool, all the way on moon, or mars

So your view is the space program should essentially just be a video
game. Hell, dispense with all the hardware and make it purely
virtual.

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

artifical intelligence is coming, did you hear it appears a computer
won jeopardy playing against 2 champs including ken jennings........

a mars geo sync sat computer with downlinks could run a large number
of rovers on the surface, with near no time delay, and multiple rovers
could help one another out if one gets stuck.

why knock robotic exploration? the US has no ability to send astronauts

Not now, but in 20 years? Very likely. The meek (such as yourself) can have
the earth. The rest of us are going to the stars. Count on it.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 9:47 pm, DouhetSukd wrote:
On Jan 19, 5:16 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"





wrote:
When those eyes can pick up a rock, break it open with an appropriate
tool, run requisite tests on it, run over the next hill to check
something at a speed somewhat faster than a drugged snail, notice
something about the rock based on its heft or other details not easily
gotten over a remote, time-lagged link, and the billion other things
that a human being can do without even pausing to wonder how they did
it, yes, you might have a point.

Rovers are wonderful tools, but they are SUBSTITUTES -- and very poor
substitutes -- for human beings on-site.

Perhaps in 20 or 30 years the rovers may start to be smart enough and
competent enough to make human beings less impressive by comparison. But
if you were to list out all the tests and conditions you would LIKE to
have your rover handle, you'd find that the number it CAN handle is a
tiny, tiny, tiny subset of those things that a human being with a
rover-equivalent in modern tools can do.

Now, is that worth the cost? I dunno. Possibly, possibly not.

But the competition is much, much closer than you'd like to think.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com
Blog:http://seawasp.livejournal.com

At the risk of repeating myself, how much do we have to show for the
+/- $100B spent to date on the ISS? Any significant science you can
quote? Comparable in magnitude to the outlay?

How much could we have achieved spending that kinda dough on dumb-ass,
retarded, incapable robots?

Quite a bit more, I suspect. Especially if we got economies of scale
out of building more of them, more modularly.

Men on Mars is the same as the ISS, only far, far, worse. And, do we
blow all the $ just on Mars because we have to do a manned mission?
Why not a bit on Europa? Bit on Titan? Oops, sorry too busy walking
on Mars.

Check out this, where they explain it took them 20 yrs to get a $750M
sat up, partly because all the $ goes to manned space. Only a
professional speaking (albeit with a vested interest):

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Great-Obs...Cheaper/dp/081...

Obama definitely did the right thing canceling Constellation.

Not to mention that an accident on the way or coming back that
resulted in more dead crewmen would set space back decades. Like the
shuttle.

But, hey, manned space results in plenty of pork for the aerospace
guys. Must be useful if the politicians say it is.

Sorry, I appreciate your position and I regret we are not doing much
in space as well. But wasting money on white elephants has already
cost us dearly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ISS really should of been man tended, rather than manned. And launched
on one or two boosters, not many many flights.

ISS diameter was too small, to fit in shuttle.

Packing so much equiptement in limited space, and being equipped in
space increased costs and complexity.

ISS was not a good design, it was built to give the shuttle something
to do. PORK PIGGIE SQUEALS we can no longer afford pork.......

But back on rovers.

Sooner or later if we dont, someone like china will send many rovers
to mars, and other places like mercury. A rover on the mercury
terminator could given time perhaps circle the planet

Rovers need not be solar powered, larger mars rovers could be nuke
powered with lights and operate nearly continiously.if we wanted

Or heck a solar reflector could be unfurled in mars orbit, and aimed
at the rovers area, providing twilight for night operations, combined
with lights.

With enough money theres tons of stuff to do on mars.

I would like to see a drilling rig, totally automated. This could lead
to automated oil and gas well drilling on earth.

Rovers and perhaps some permanent science stations on mars would be
exciting

But the practical spin offs HERE for AI and other robotic operations
license fees could fund the later human missions.

Hey use our tech its free but license fees are 10% of the profits

over time that could be big bucks.

besides we need lots of robotics to compete with low wage places like
china..

oddly enough thats another great reason to go to mars.

With People. No Buck, no bucks from Congress. Simple as that.

On 1/20/11 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:13 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
wrote:
On 1/20/11 5:58 AM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:





(Derek Lyons) writes:

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. wrote:

When those eyes can pick up a rock, break it open with an appropriate
tool, run requisite tests on it, run over the next hill to check
something at a speed somewhat faster than a drugged snail, notice
something about the rock based on its heft or other details not easily
gotten over a remote, time-lagged link, and the billion other things
that a human being can do without even pausing to wonder how they did
it, yes, you might have a point.

ISTR, about a year into their mission(s), Steven Squires (head honcho
of the rover program) being quoted as saying that a human geologist
could do what either rover had done in a year - in thirty days.

Which means that this geologist would have to be there for 5 months to
do what Opportunity or Spirit did. And transporting him and everything
he needs there (including fuel for getting him back) would mean that
would need some orders of magnitude more mass and money. Looks like a
bad deal to me.

Manufacture the fuel and air and live off local water while there.
Zubrin and others have covered this pretty well. There's some problems
they gloss over, but a lot of what's needed isn't even particularly
cutting-edge tech.

You do need to send a nuclear reactor with them for the power to do
that, but that's not difficult; modern designs are pretty much
foolproof, very tough, and vastly smaller than the old days.

This makes the necessary mass vastly, vastly smaller than that needed
for many other missions where you don't have the materials to hand. Mars
has CO2 and H2O, which combined give you a lot of things. All you need
is energy and the right equipment.



Or to turn that around: Look at a one-way robotic mission that gets the
same mass to Mars as a manned mission needs. Then compare which mission
can do more. You could spray hundreds or thousands of rovers over Mars
for the same mass that a small crew needs just to stumble around in the
dust near their lander for three months and then return.

Your last line shows your prejudice. "Stumble around the dust". A small
crew is so vastly superior to the rovers that it's not even funny. Just
as one example, if the rover spots something interesting with its
cameras X distance away, mission control has to hold a significant
debate about sending the rover there, and if it diverts the rover any
significant distance, you're going to wait a LONG time for it to get
there. A human will spot the same thing, jog over, and take a look and
decide if it was worth it in an afternoon.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website:http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:http://seawasp.livejournal.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Add ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE, to the rover operations, and watch
productity soar...


When we get some of that, let me know. Like fusion, it's been only 20
years away for a long, long time.



FACE FACTS WE DONT HAVE THE MONEY TO SEND PEOPLE TO MARS, or even back
to the moon

Sure we do.


Our country is in decline and broke.

No more broke than it's been in the past. And no particular sign of
decline.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On Jan 20, 11:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ilya2 wrote:
On Jan 20, 2:26*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ilya2 wrote:
On Jan 20, 1:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
better to do something affordable that explores, might have some
scientific payoff, doesnt risk human life, remember the chilling after
effects of apollo 13?

If people aren't going, what's to explore? And no, I DON'T remember
said "chilling".

the near disaster of a dead crew, is the root cause of the cancelation
of the final lanings.

What utter hogwash! Explain, then, why there were another five
flights over the next two and a half years?

Yes, it is "hogwash" in the sense that Apollo 13 did not stop the
program or even came close to stopping it, but the answer to your
question -- because it was Cold War. Demonstrating US technological
superiority over USSR was a specific, identifiable goal. No such goal
exists today.

We'd already done that as of Apollo 11. *No flights after that were
necessary to "demonstrate US technological superiority over USSR".

Doing it only once would have looked like a stunt or a fluke. Doing it
six or seven times removed all doubt.

Utter self-justifying poppycock.



Apollo was never about science. It was about Cold War. There is a
reason of 12 men who walked on the Moon only one was a professional
scientist, and the rest muilitary pilots.

Of the twelve men who actually went to the Moon, two were non-military
(including the first, Neil Armstrong). *They were largely military
test pilots because it was a dangerous flight program.

However, your way of viewing things tells us much about the RUSSIAN
space program's outlook.

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
* * will never know.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fred proves his stupidity once again

Niel Armstrong was military pilot

Before becoming an astronaut, Armstrong was in the United States Navy
and saw action in the Korean War. After the war, he served as a test
pilot at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) High-
Speed Flight Station, now known as the Dryden Flight Research Center,
where he flew over 900 flights in a variety of aircraft. As a research
pilot, Armstrong served as project pilot on the F-100 Super Sabre A
and C aircraft, F-101 Voodoo, and the Lockheed F-104A Starfighter. He
also flew the Bell X-1B, Bell X-5, North American X-15, F-105
Thunderchief, F-106 Delta Dart, B-47 Stratojet, KC-135 Stratotanker
and Paresev.

Not now, but in 20 years? Very likely. The meek (such as yourself) can have
the earth. The rest of us are going to the stars. Count on it

So how long will it take for manned operations? and even mars isnt a
star

We can have a robust robotic program now, while prepping for later
manned operations to mars and beyond.

For humans to mars a nuke engine would really help cutting travel time
dramatically!

If you insist on manned, then that means near nothing for the
foresable future..Heck NASA cant even run the JWST, so how will they
run a mars program?

On 1/20/11 9:24 AM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. writes:

Which means that this geologist would have to be there for 5 months to
do what Opportunity or Spirit did. And transporting him and everything
he needs there (including fuel for getting him back) would mean that
would need some orders of magnitude more mass and money. Looks like a
bad deal to me.

Manufacture the fuel and air and live off local water while
there. Zubrin and others have covered this pretty well. There's some
problems they gloss over, but a lot of what's needed isn't even
particularly cutting-edge tech.

The equipment is still lots and lots of mass, for something a rover
doesn't need to begin with. It also means lots of development and
testing (and costs) for something that is totally irrevelant to what
you're doing there. Except when what you *want* to do is primarily
landing humans but then just say so and don't argue humans are better
robots. They aren't.

You do need to send a nuclear reactor with them for the power to
do that, but that's not difficult; modern designs are pretty much
foolproof, very tough, and vastly smaller than the old days.

This makes the necessary mass vastly, vastly smaller than that
needed for many other missions where you don't have the materials to
hand. Mars has CO2 and H2O, which combined give you a lot of things. All
you need is energy and the right equipment.

Lots of energy would give you more if you could use it for actually
doing something there instead of producing water and fuel for the crew.

Which you could. Do you think you'd send a reactor with a load tailored
to give you ONLY that amount of power? You realize you can get 30MW
reactors that can last for a couple decades and whose cores are about
the size of a garbage can?

A small crew is so vastly superior to the rovers that it's not even
funny. Just as one example, if the rover spots something interesting
with its cameras X distance away, mission control has to hold a
significant debate about sending the rover there, and if it diverts the
rover any significant distance, you're going to wait a LONG time for it
to get there. A human will spot the same thing, jog over, and take a
look and decide if it was worth it in an afternoon.

Except that they wouldn't. Jog over, I mean. The crew would be used as a
kind of very fragile, very precious and extremely hard to maintain human
robot.


Like they were on the moon missions? Where we had vastly less
experience, and clumsier equipment, and still had these guys running
around on the surface?

No, you send people there, they'll WORK THEIR BUTTS OFF. That's the
point of sending PEOPLE -- to let them do lots and lots more stuff, and
vastly more complex on-site stuff, than current or likely future devices
could do.



If you have a mission setup that would allow a human just to jog over to
a rock you also can have a rover just sprinting over.

Then why, exactly, do the rovers NOT just sprint over? Why don't they
just zoom all over the landscape?

Because they CAN'T. And designing them to be able to do that is a bitch
and a half. Designing them with anything like the physical (let alone
intellectual and perceptual) capabilities of humans is HIDEOUSLY
difficult; we still haven't really got a decent rugged robotic hand yet
(and remember that while we've already sent humans out, and brought them
back, and have proven they can function pretty well for a goodly time in
space, MODERN gadgetry cannot FLY in space, and "space-hardening" things
gets vastly harder to do the more complex the gadget is. At least until
they get to, say, purely photonic computers or something of that
nature). Human beings with suits -- and we know how to make such suits
-- can do all of these things that are terribly difficult for machines
quite easily, already.





--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On 1/20/11 7:53 PM, Jonathan wrote:

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" wrote in message
...
On 1/19/11 7:59 PM, Jonathan wrote:

I see some NASA talking heads are out pushing a manned trip
to Mars yet again.

This debate isn't even close.

Loosely speaking, putting men on Mars is a Forty year long
$Trillion dollar (or)deal. And succeeds in putting a dozen
or so eyes on the surface for exploration.

Losely speaking, rovers take Four years or so, and cost a
$Billion dollars. And succeeds in putting ...how many eyes
on the surface of Mars?

When those eyes can pick up a rock, break it open with an appropriate
tool, run requisite tests on it, run over the next hill to check
something
at a speed somewhat faster than a drugged snail,


I'll take a snails pace that starts....next year, instead of that
'quick walk' sometime around the year 2040!

I'll take...

BOTH!

If the numeric estimates are even close to correct, one can maintain a
fully functional rover/probe program WHILE building your manned mission.
And have the rovers prep the way, along with automated ships for other
support functions.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com