NASA gets two military spy telescopes for astronomy - The WashingtonPost.

On May 22, 8:50*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 1358f5e0-9cc1-4c8c-92a9-
, says...



it will be impossible to prevent humans from contaminating mars

It will be impossible to prevent robots from contaminating mars

fred the robots will be sterilized.......

bobbert the humans won't be running around naked urinating on bushes
on mars........

no but human waste will have to be processed and no system will be
perfect....

It doesn't have to be "perfect" you ignorant git, it just needs to
contain the waste so it doesn't escape into the atmosphere of Mars.
That's called a waste holding tank. *I'm pretty sure NASA is capable of
producing a tank to contain human waste that does not leak.

all it will take is minor contamination to possibly wipe out all
current life on mars.

There is no definitive proof that life currently exists on Mars. *On top
of that, even if there were life on Mars, there is no basis for your
claim that earth life would destroy Martian life. *This is especially
true since earth life is *not* suited to the extreme conditions present
on Mars.

the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
in robots for exploring other planets can help *with keeping the US
competive...

This is what I hear from you: *bla, bla, bla, bla...

None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.

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

the problem is humans are dirty, covered with bacteria all over our
bodies, in our waste, and even when we exhale. any of these could kill
whatever life forms currently exist on mars. or perhaps more
importandly could be rediscovered believed to be native martian life.

the first discovery of life on another planet will be gigantically
historic.

now about robotics replacing humans doing work.

with auto drive cars, robotically controlled farm machines like
computer driven plows and harvesters, robot butchers. pretty soon most
manual labor jobs will cease to exist. this can bring manufacturing
back to the US, unfortunately without most of the jobs, but we can be
competive again..

you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
they are cheaper than humans.

The US could be cutting edge by investing in space robots.

the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
in robots for exploring other planets can help *with keeping the US
competive...

What absolute bull****.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...ng-job-growth/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...ts-hurting-job...

Andrew McAfee: When I see what computers and robots can do right now,
I project that forward for two, three more generations, I think we're
going to find ourselves in a world where the work as we currently
think about it is largely done by machines.

Steve Kroft: And what are the people going to do?

Andrew McAfee: That's the $64,000 question.

In article 473d870e-57f6-46cc-857a-1ebf6b401801
@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

On May 22, 8:50*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is what I hear from you: *bla, bla, bla, bla...

None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.

the problem is humans are dirty, covered with bacteria all over our
bodies, in our waste, and even when we exhale.

And you've been told repeatedly that humans won't be running around on
Mars naked, breathing, urinating and defecating on everything.

any of these could kill
whatever life forms currently exist on mars. or perhaps more
importandly could be rediscovered believed to be native martian life.

Unsupported assertion. Give me a cite for an earth based organism that
can live in Maritain conditions. Better yet, give me a cite for one
that can actually thrive on Mars and would pose a threat to any
indigenous species that *might* currently exist on Mars.

the first discovery of life on another planet will be gigantically
historic.

You're presupposing that life currently exists on Mars. That's simply
not been proven one way or the other.

now about robotics replacing humans doing work.

More toaster fantasies...

with auto drive cars, robotically controlled farm machines like
computer driven plows and harvesters, robot butchers. pretty soon most
manual labor jobs will cease to exist. this can bring manufacturing
back to the US, unfortunately without most of the jobs, but we can be
competive again..

Mars isn't the same as any of the conditions faced by the above semi-
autonomous or tele-operated machines on earth.

What about the time delay Bob? Ever take a control systems class? Do
you know what the maximum delay time in a control system is to prevent
pilot induced oscillations? I do, as I majored in dynamics and control
as part of my B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Purdue University.
Please remind all of us of your qualifications again.

you can deny its occuring but that doesnt change the reality. most
jobs will be done with robots in the future as soon as possible when
they are cheaper than humans.

We're not there yet. I remember hearing that this was supposed to
happen "soon" ever since I was a little kid. Four decades later, and it
hasn't quite happened yet. My cousin's tractors don't drive themselves
on the farm. Airliners don't routinely take off and land without flight
crew. Army supply vehicles don't drive themselves to their
destinations.

You're the one that needs to accept reality, not me.

The US could be cutting edge by investing in space robots.

I see you subscribe to the "NASA spin-off" myth that investing in "space
technology" in order to get earth bound "spin-offs" is somehow better or
cheaper than simply investing in earth bound technology in the first
place.

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 May 22, 9:49*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 473d870e-57f6-46cc-857a-1ebf6b401801
@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...



On May 22, 8:50*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is what I hear from you: *bla, bla, bla, bla...

None of what you say in this thread is even remotely factually correct.

In article e345eca4-9447-44da-bf57-
, says...

the future of our world is robots doing much of the work, so investing
in robots for exploring other planets can help *with keeping the US
competive...

What absolute bull****.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...ng-job-growth/

Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.

And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
in robots for exploring other planets". The point of the program was
that somehow robots are taking our jobs. If we bought into what this
program said, we should be smashing robots to protect our jobs.

Of course, this program was a giant load of Luddite crap.

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

In article 4171d0f6-81c3-4907-89ee-
, says...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...ts-hurting-job...

Andrew McAfee: When I see what computers and robots can do right now,
I project that forward for two, three more generations, I think we're
going to find ourselves in a world where the work as we currently
think about it is largely done by machines.

Steve Kroft: And what are the people going to do?

Andrew McAfee: That's the $64,000 question.

This is a freaking TV program making grand predictions of what will
happen in "two, three more generations". Even if we accept this as
fact, do you seriously think that the cost of human spaceflight won't
come down in that same time period?

"Faster, better, cheaper", unfortunately, you can only pick TWO out of
three. Unmanned robotic exploration vehicles might be "faster" and
"cheaper", but they are absolutely, most certainly, NOT "better".

That's the point you're trying to argue against, and you're failing
miserably.

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

In article 39b76709-62d9-4846-9ad9-
, says...
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...to-talk-about-
the-burgeoning-robot-middle-class/

More Luddite dreams of the future, not today's reality.

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_16...ts-hurting-job...

Thats a TV segment, not a peer reviewed scientific or economic paper.

And the point of the segment had nothing to do with "investing
in robots for exploring other planets". *The point of the program was
that somehow robots are taking our jobs.

just look around you today robots have taken many jobs.

A customer of mine is GM lordstown ohio plant.

they used to have over 15,000 employees, today around 3000. jobs have
moved to robots, the proof of previous employment? the vacant parking
lots, esclators shut down, employee gates permanetly closed...

its amazing walking thru there the level of automation is amazing. the
vacant lunchrooms speak to of what used to be....

just go to a ATM, that sed to be a teller. the ATM needs no days off,
no retirement, no benefits. banks around here are closing branches
replacing them with convenient ATMs....

from the MIT article......

Robots won’t have to be as good as the humans they replace.

Consider the automated checkout line at your local grocery store. It
makes more mistakes than a human clerk, it is harder to use, and it is
slower because of the rotating error light that loves to interrupt the
whole process every few minutes. Is it better than a human? Of course
not. It is simply good enough. And so begins the march of mediocre
robots that can defensibly replace humans, not because they advantage
the customer, but because they save money for a corporation. Robots
will be able to fix your car poorly before they can fix it well. They
will cook food that is bland and mealy before they garner a Michelin
star. But they will take on middle-class jobs and win, not because of
their qualitative merits, but because they look good in the antiseptic
light of financial balance sheets