When is manned spaceflight preferred?

Can anyone refer me to papers/reports which study
when one might need manned spaceflight? What
tasks can't robots do?

In article ,
wrote:
Can anyone refer me to papers/reports which study
when one might need manned spaceflight? What
tasks can't robots do?

There are lots of them.

For example, suppose we want to find out if an asteroid
can be mined for a mineral, or can be made habitable.
A robot can find out, possibly very slowly, that the
mineral is there, but cannot consider the problems of
excavation, refining, etc. Nor can it decide on the
spot which alternative methods to use for constructing
temporary or permanent living quarters. Nor could
they investigate whether people could live in the
Moon or in asteroids, which may well be the proper
place for some of mankind to live in the future.

Robots cannot even do a good job of surveying Mars.
Robots cannot think, and if one needs a half hour round
time to communicate, it is necessary to be very careful
near the edge of a cliff or a slope. So robots moving
at one mile per day explore little.

It is true we can often use robots more cheaply than
humans, but all of our machines are sub-imbeciles, no
matter what their speed. Judgment is often needed.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message
...
Robots cannot even do a good job of surveying Mars.
Robots cannot think, and if one needs a half hour round
time to communicate, it is necessary to be very careful
near the edge of a cliff or a slope. So robots moving
at one mile per day explore little.

The two Mars rovers are often touted as a pair of cheap, unmanned, missions
able to cover more terrain than a lander. While true, they do move very
slowly. Over the years, they have covered distances that are still very
small when compared to what the Apollo astronauts did in the (obviously
manned) lunar rover.

It's also interesting to note that with a man on the spot, equipment like
the lunar rover can be made a lot "dumber" than an unmanned piece of
equipment. The man in the suit can be the control system, communications
system, and even the maintenance system for the equipment. I believe I
recall one of the rovers getting an improvised fender, installed by an
astronaut on the spot. That's more than a bit difficult to do remotely.

Here's a reference (I love Google):

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...7/surface_opp/

The above shows a nice "traverse map" showing how far the Apollo 17
astronauts were able to travel with the lunar rover as well as a close up
picture showing the "repaired" fender.

The other thing to note about manned missions is that you typically plan on
bringing the astronauts back at the end of the mission, so adding "sample
return" to the mission is far easier than trying to design it into an
unmanned mission. An unmanned sample return mission would be a very good
mission to fly to Mars, but this mission always seems to be just beyond the
limits (technical and cost) of what an unmanned mission can do using today's
launch vehicles.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


..

On Apr 7, 6:41 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message

...

Robots cannot even do a good job of surveying Mars.
Robots cannot think, and if one needs a half hour round
time to communicate, it is necessary to be very careful
near the edge of a cliff or a slope. So robots moving
at one mile per day explore little.

The two Mars rovers are often touted as a pair of cheap, unmanned, missions
able to cover more terrain than a lander. While true, they do move very
slowly. Over the years, they have covered distances that are still very
small when compared to what the Apollo astronauts did in the (obviously
manned) lunar rover.

It's also interesting to note that with a man on the spot, equipment like
the lunar rover can be made a lot "dumber" than an unmanned piece of
equipment. The man in the suit can be the control system, communications
system, and even the maintenance system for the equipment. I believe I
recall one of the rovers getting an improvised fender, installed by an
astronaut on the spot. That's more than a bit difficult to do remotely.

Here's a reference (I love Google):

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...7/surface_opp/

The above shows a nice "traverse map" showing how far the Apollo 17
astronauts were able to travel with the lunar rover as well as a close up
picture showing the "repaired" fender.

The other thing to note about manned missions is that you typically plan on
bringing the astronauts back at the end of the mission, so adding "sample
return" to the mission is far easier than trying to design it into an
unmanned mission. An unmanned sample return mission would be a very good
mission to fly to Mars, but this mission always seems to be just beyond the
limits (technical and cost) of what an unmanned mission can do using today's
launch vehicles.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

.

Most any terrestrial science technology can be safely deployed upon
the likes of Mars. However, of far better worth than even peeing on a
hot rock, is to send a robotic rigid airship to cruise efficiently
around Venus, well below them acidic clouds.

You folks do realize it's not nearly as humanly or rather ET
insurmountable as we've been told, and most certainly not
technologically insurmountable for robotics. Would you like to see
for yourselves?
.. - Brad Guth

A good beginning is a half done! Keep up the good work! RunescapePower leveling, an Online Action RPG Age of conan A mix of a deep, story-driven single-player experience and a massive and brutal multiplayer, Making Runescape Money Guide, age of conan gold. If you don`t love yourself you can`t be yourself.

On 5/7/2008 2:03 PM, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:41 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message

...

Robots cannot even do a good job of surveying Mars.
Robots cannot think, and if one needs a half hour round
time to communicate, it is necessary to be very careful
near the edge of a cliff or a slope. So robots moving
at one mile per day explore little.

The two Mars rovers are often touted as a pair of cheap, unmanned, missions
able to cover more terrain than a lander. While true, they do move very
slowly. Over the years, they have covered distances that are still very
small when compared to what the Apollo astronauts did in the (obviously
manned) lunar rover.

It's also interesting to note that with a man on the spot, equipment like
the lunar rover can be made a lot "dumber" than an unmanned piece of
equipment. The man in the suit can be the control system, communications
system, and even the maintenance system for the equipment. I believe I
recall one of the rovers getting an improvised fender, installed by an
astronaut on the spot. That's more than a bit difficult to do remotely.

Here's a reference (I love Google):

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...7/surface_opp/

The above shows a nice "traverse map" showing how far the Apollo 17
astronauts were able to travel with the lunar rover as well as a close up
picture showing the "repaired" fender.

The other thing to note about manned missions is that you typically plan on
bringing the astronauts back at the end of the mission, so adding "sample
return" to the mission is far easier than trying to design it into an
unmanned mission. An unmanned sample return mission would be a very good
mission to fly to Mars, but this mission always seems to be just beyond the
limits (technical and cost) of what an unmanned mission can do using today's
launch vehicles.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

.

Most any terrestrial science technology can be safely deployed upon
the likes of Mars. However, of far better worth than even peeing on a
hot rock, is to send a robotic rigid airship to cruise efficiently
around Venus, well below them acidic clouds.

You folks do realize it's not nearly as humanly or rather ET
insurmountable as we've been told, and most certainly not
technologically insurmountable for robotics. Would you like to see
for yourselves?
. - Brad Guth

================================================== =======

How about *above* the acid clouds? Seems to me, Venus might be a good
place for a city buoyant like a blimp, floating above the clouds. I
don't know the atmosphere pressure gradient there, but from sf writing
I've seen, I've an impression a near-Terra atmosphere pressure exists
there above the clouds, making the floating city feasible. Like in Star
Wars.

A large conical reflector, and a lot of tech, would make a sub-Mercury
orbital station possible. Might be named Vulcan, of course.

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Sun 2013 Jun 02]

On Jun 7, 1:03 pm, Martha Adams wrote:
On 5/7/2008 2:03 PM,BradGuthwrote:









On Apr 7, 6:41 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Herman Rubin" wrote in message

...

Robots cannot even do a good job of surveying Mars.
Robots cannot think, and if one needs a half hour round
time to communicate, it is necessary to be very careful
near the edge of a cliff or a slope. So robots moving
at one mile per day explore little.

The two Mars rovers are often touted as a pair of cheap, unmanned, missions
able to cover more terrain than a lander. While true, they do move very
slowly. Over the years, they have covered distances that are still very
small when compared to what the Apollo astronauts did in the (obviously
manned) lunar rover.

It's also interesting to note that with a man on the spot, equipment like
the lunar rover can be made a lot "dumber" than an unmanned piece of
equipment. The man in the suit can be the control system, communications
system, and even the maintenance system for the equipment. I believe I
recall one of the rovers getting an improvised fender, installed by an
astronaut on the spot. That's more than a bit difficult to do remotely.

Here's a reference (I love Google):

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...7/surface_opp/

The above shows a nice "traverse map" showing how far the Apollo 17
astronauts were able to travel with the lunar rover as well as a close up
picture showing the "repaired" fender.

The other thing to note about manned missions is that you typically plan on
bringing the astronauts back at the end of the mission, so adding "sample
return" to the mission is far easier than trying to design it into an
unmanned mission. An unmanned sample return mission would be a very good
mission to fly to Mars, but this mission always seems to be just beyond the
limits (technical and cost) of what an unmanned mission can do using today's
launch vehicles.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

.

Most any terrestrial science technology can be safely deployed upon
the likes of Mars. However, of far better worth than even peeing on a
hot rock, is to send a robotic rigid airship to cruise efficiently
around Venus, well below them acidic clouds.

You folks do realize it's not nearly as humanly or rather ET
insurmountable as we've been told, and most certainly not
technologically insurmountable for robotics. Would you like to see
for yourselves?
. - Brad Guth

================================================== =======

How about *above* the acid clouds? Seems to me, Venus might be a good
place for a city buoyant like a blimp, floating above the clouds. I
don't know the atmosphere pressure gradient there, but from sf writing
I've seen, I've an impression a near-Terra atmosphere pressure exists
there above the clouds, making the floating city feasible. Like in Star
Wars.

A large conical reflector, and a lot of tech, would make a sub-Mercury
orbital station possible. Might be named Vulcan, of course.

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Sun 2013 Jun 02]

Yes indeed above, but why not deploy a composite rigid airship that'll
fly for as long and as low as you'd like?

Above them icy cold upper most clouds of Venus would be quite
interesting (other than too much solar and cosmic radiation for most
of us), and at least on the sunny side there'd never be any shortage
of clean renewable energy derived from the solar shade of a million PV
panels.

On Friday, June 7, 2013 1:03:05 PM UTC-7, Martha Adams wrote:
On 5/7/2008 2:03 PM, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 7, 6:41 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message



...



Robots cannot even do a good job of surveying Mars.

Robots cannot think, and if one needs a half hour round

time to communicate, it is necessary to be very careful

near the edge of a cliff or a slope. So robots moving

at one mile per day explore little.



The two Mars rovers are often touted as a pair of cheap, unmanned, missions

able to cover more terrain than a lander. While true, they do move very

slowly. Over the years, they have covered distances that are still very

small when compared to what the Apollo astronauts did in the (obviously

manned) lunar rover.



It's also interesting to note that with a man on the spot, equipment like

the lunar rover can be made a lot "dumber" than an unmanned piece of

equipment. The man in the suit can be the control system, communications

system, and even the maintenance system for the equipment. I believe I

recall one of the rovers getting an improvised fender, installed by an

astronaut on the spot. That's more than a bit difficult to do remotely.



Here's a reference (I love Google):



http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...7/surface_opp/



The above shows a nice "traverse map" showing how far the Apollo 17

astronauts were able to travel with the lunar rover as well as a close up

picture showing the "repaired" fender.



The other thing to note about manned missions is that you typically plan on

bringing the astronauts back at the end of the mission, so adding "sample

return" to the mission is far easier than trying to design it into an

unmanned mission. An unmanned sample return mission would be a very good

mission to fly to Mars, but this mission always seems to be just beyond the

limits (technical and cost) of what an unmanned mission can do using today's

launch vehicles.



Jeff

--

A clever person solves a problem.

A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein



.



Most any terrestrial science technology can be safely deployed upon

the likes of Mars. However, of far better worth than even peeing on a

hot rock, is to send a robotic rigid airship to cruise efficiently

around Venus, well below them acidic clouds.



You folks do realize it's not nearly as humanly or rather ET

insurmountable as we've been told, and most certainly not

technologically insurmountable for robotics. Would you like to see

for yourselves?

. - Brad Guth



================================================== =======



How about *above* the acid clouds? Seems to me, Venus might be a good

place for a city buoyant like a blimp, floating above the clouds. I

don't know the atmosphere pressure gradient there, but from sf writing

I've seen, I've an impression a near-Terra atmosphere pressure exists

there above the clouds, making the floating city feasible. Like in Star

Wars.



A large conical reflector, and a lot of tech, would make a sub-Mercury

orbital station possible. Might be named Vulcan, of course.



Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Sun 2013 Jun 02]

I have a whole major thing of using a composite rigid airship, capable of sufficient buoyancy and velocity as for cruising above the clouds, but ideally suited for efficiently operating at or below 15 km, and even capable of landing on Venus.

Atmospheric pressure is not a biological problem that's insurmountable, and those surface temperatures can be technically managed up to 811 K within existing technology.

On Friday, June 7, 2013 1:03:05 PM UTC-7, Martha Adams wrote:
On 5/7/2008 2:03 PM, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 7, 6:41 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Herman Rubin" wrote in message



...



Robots cannot even do a good job of surveying Mars.

Robots cannot think, and if one needs a half hour round

time to communicate, it is necessary to be very careful

near the edge of a cliff or a slope. So robots moving

at one mile per day explore little.



The two Mars rovers are often touted as a pair of cheap, unmanned, missions

able to cover more terrain than a lander. While true, they do move very

slowly. Over the years, they have covered distances that are still very

small when compared to what the Apollo astronauts did in the (obviously

manned) lunar rover.



It's also interesting to note that with a man on the spot, equipment like

the lunar rover can be made a lot "dumber" than an unmanned piece of

equipment. The man in the suit can be the control system, communications

system, and even the maintenance system for the equipment. I believe I

recall one of the rovers getting an improvised fender, installed by an

astronaut on the spot. That's more than a bit difficult to do remotely.



Here's a reference (I love Google):



http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...7/surface_opp/



The above shows a nice "traverse map" showing how far the Apollo 17

astronauts were able to travel with the lunar rover as well as a close up

picture showing the "repaired" fender.



The other thing to note about manned missions is that you typically plan on

bringing the astronauts back at the end of the mission, so adding "sample

return" to the mission is far easier than trying to design it into an

unmanned mission. An unmanned sample return mission would be a very good

mission to fly to Mars, but this mission always seems to be just beyond the

limits (technical and cost) of what an unmanned mission can do using today's

launch vehicles.



Jeff

--

A clever person solves a problem.

A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein



.



Most any terrestrial science technology can be safely deployed upon

the likes of Mars. However, of far better worth than even peeing on a

hot rock, is to send a robotic rigid airship to cruise efficiently

around Venus, well below them acidic clouds.



You folks do realize it's not nearly as humanly or rather ET

insurmountable as we've been told, and most certainly not

technologically insurmountable for robotics. Would you like to see

for yourselves?

. - Brad Guth



================================================== =======



How about *above* the acid clouds? Seems to me, Venus might be a good

place for a city buoyant like a blimp, floating above the clouds. I

don't know the atmosphere pressure gradient there, but from sf writing

I've seen, I've an impression a near-Terra atmosphere pressure exists

there above the clouds, making the floating city feasible. Like in Star

Wars.



A large conical reflector, and a lot of tech, would make a sub-Mercury

orbital station possible. Might be named Vulcan, of course.



Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Sun 2013 Jun 02]

There's not much to do above 65 km, and for the most part you'd be freezing to death at least half of the time, and seriously damn cold the other half of the time. Solar and cosmic radiation of the bad kind would also be an issue.

A composite rigid airship could operate safely and efficiently well below those acidic clouds (say 15 km), landing as often as needed. A shuttle craft gets you to/from Venus L2.

Why not utilize the best available technology in order to exploit a nearby planet like Venus?

On Monday, April 7, 2008 10:41:21 AM UTC-3, Jeff Findley wrote:
(snip)
It's also interesting to note that with a man on the spot, equipment like
the lunar rover can be made a lot "dumber" than an unmanned piece of
equipment. The man in the suit can be the control system, communications
system, and even the maintenance system for the equipment. I believe I
recall one of the rovers getting an improvised fender, installed by an
astronaut on the spot. That's more than a bit difficult to do remotely.
(snip)
Careful there. Fixing the LRV fender is not a good example of an advantage of manned missions. That fender wouldn't need fixing if an astronaut hadn't broken it in the first place. Your point is still valid. A person can fix equipment on the spot and the equivalent capability is next to impossible for unmanned missions givent the current technology.