A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hypothetical massive spacecraft question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 9th 04, 04:59 AM
David Findlay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 9th 04, 10:36 AM
Michael Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 9th 04, 02:31 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 9th 04, 04:45 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 9th 04, 08:10 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 9th 04, 11:00 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 |
  #7  
Old August 9th 04, 11:53 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hypothetical massive spacecraft question

(Henry Spencer) :

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.


I think if you moved the mission to the surface of Mars then humans are the
clear winner. With Jupiter's radiation belts, the extra resources needed for
humans vs machines probably makes machines the winners.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time?
http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
  #8  
Old August 10th 04, 01:16 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 10th 04, 06:33 AM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 10th 04, 09:48 AM
Perplexed in Peoria
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:40 PM
Moon key to space future? James White Policy 90 January 6th 04 05:29 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.