Funding cut for NASA Constellation and Ares (Huntsville: unemployment, transfer to)

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Ummm, we're going to plan on designing systems _right now_ based on technology that doesn't exist?

Uh, I think you missed the point of the discussion. The question is one of the necessity of human space flight going FORWARD - as in, the future. Right now, men can do way more than robots, but we can't safely get the men to mars at a reasonable cost now can we? By the time we can, it is a more than fair argument to say it won't be necessary.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

What of scientific value did the astronauts on the moon accomplish that a robot could not today?

The one geologist sent to the moon made an accidental discovery because of his observation while driving on the moon. Chances are 99.999% that a robot traveling autonomously would have wizzed past this orange patch and the knowledge of the moon would have been greatly diminished.

Even one of the biggest discoveries by the Mars Spirit rover was purely by accident. If it wasn't for the wheel breaking down, the rover would have just buzzed by the soil and never noticed it. A human is naturally inquisitive and would impulsively do things that robots would never do (kick around dirt, observe something unusual, etc).

Despite what you see in movies, even the most advanced DARPA based robotic projects don't have the same type of "awareness" that humans do. And unless there is a revolutionary breakthrough in AI, this isn't going to change. There will have to be a revolutionary change in computer architectures to do this...

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

Uh, I think you missed the point of the discussion. The question is one of the necessity of human space flight going FORWARD - as in, the future. Right now, men can do way more than robots, but we can't safely get the men to mars at a reasonable cost now can we? By the time we can, it is a more than fair argument to say it won't be necessary.

Uh, no I was responding to this point...

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

How exactly do you know what a robot will be able to do, 20, 30 even 40 years from now?

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

If you have to ask this question, then there're too much education to be done than what this thread can accompolish.

Cop out. Give me something. Anything. I didn't ask for a laundry list; give me one bit of scientific value gotten by a man walking on the moon that could not have been gotten by a robot.

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

In "today's" robot technology, can you design a robot to drive like an average human being going from RSA to Hampton Cove in today's automobile & traffic? How long and how much would it cost to design a robot to duplicate human's ability to see, hear, sense, think and react?

One doesn't exist. Period. End of story.

So instead, we should build manned vehicles at tremendous expense that are so complex and take so much time to engineer that by the time they are available we will likely have far more capable and far cheaper robots that increasingly render manned flight a waste.

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

The simple fact is that, ultimately; there's no purpose of space exploration without human's involvement.

Just because we study remotely doesn't mean the task is purposeless. Even a robot possessing various degrees artificial intelligence is human directed. It is given a mission. It returns its findings. Humans will always be involved - they just don't need to be where the robot is.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

Uh, I think you missed the point of the discussion. The question is one of the necessity of human space flight going FORWARD - as in, the future. Right now, men can do way more than robots, but we can't safely get the men to mars at a reasonable cost now can we? By the time we can, it is a more than fair argument to say it won't be necessary.

A) I've given a few reasons why humans should still go into space

B) The Constellation project was sucking megatons of cash away from true research projects, including both true research into manned space flight AND unmanned robotic projects. We probably would have been a LOT further if those research projects weren't inexplicably canceled and substituted with Apollo v2.0 (Constellation).

C) Only one project, the X-37, even though not man rated, still pushes some tech boundaries / not canceled due to non-NASA funding / will launch soon (sooner than Ares ever will). This is where we COULD have been if top NASA bureaucrats didn't have their heads up their ***.

So we COULD have been going a LOT further in manned flight NOW if we didn't (a) drop research into furthering manned flight a number of times and (b) had some "real goals" and a plan to shoot for. Since we are not, we shouldn't just abandon manned flight, just because "look how much further robotic flights went". We still have a (demonstrably) valid reason for manned exploration, we just need to get back on track.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Uh, no I was responding to this point...

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8
How exactly do you know what a robot will be able to do, 20, 30 even 40 years from now?

Right, and I was responding to this point...

Originally Posted by jkbatca

So robots are only going to go so far in exploration...

You are predicting the capability of robots by saying they'll only be going so far.

How exactly do you know what a robot will be able to do in the future? Why invest absurd amounts of money in manned flight when the robot is cheaper and its capabilities improve every year?

This is a discussion of manned vs unmanned exploration going forward into the future. I don't think it can be denied that unmanned capabilities will continue to improve. Eventually, manned flight will likely be unnecessary.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

You are predicting the capability of robots by saying they'll only be going so far.

I'm only basing my opinion on what I know today. I can only plan on what I know, not on what may happen 40 years from now.

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

How exactly do you know what a robot will be able to do in the future? Why invest absurd amounts of money in manned flight when the robot is cheaper and its capabilities improve every year?

Because as I've posted before, there is one very concrete example of a human discovering something a robot would have buzzed right by. Unless robots have more of an "awareness" that humans have, they will not replace humans in the near future, as far as I know. Once robots DO have an "awareness" that humans do, then we will have a lot more to worry about then space exploration :-)

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

This is a discussion of manned vs unmanned exploration going forward into the future. I don't think it can be denied that unmanned capabilities will continue to improve. Eventually, manned flight will likely be unnecessary.

I agree that unmanned exploration is vital. I don't agree we don't need humans exploring because of the reasons I've previously given.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

The one geologist sent to the moon made an accidental discovery because of his observation while driving on the moon. Chances are 99.999% that a robot traveling autonomously would have wizzed past this orange patch and the knowledge of the moon would have been greatly diminished.

Even one of the biggest discoveries by the Mars Spirit rover was purely by accident. If it wasn't for the wheel breaking down, the rover would have just buzzed by the soil and never noticed it. A human is naturally inquisitive and would impulsively do things that robots would never do (kick around dirt, observe something unusual, etc).

That's all good and fine, but the human presence isn't necessary. Exactly what you describe could be just as easily accomplished by a rover transmitting images to a geologist on earth. What's better, camera technology exceeds that of the human eye and through virtualization technology - you could literally have the geologist virtually walk the rover's path - zooming in on things the naked eye could have never perceived. If the geologist notices something worthwhile, they send the rover back to investigate. Even better, 20 geologists could be doing this - versus the lucky one we might be able to send into space. Robots do not preclude accidental discovery by human eyes.

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Despite what you see in movies, even the most advanced DARPA based robotic projects don't have the same type of "awareness" that humans do. And unless there is a revolutionary breakthrough in AI, this isn't going to change. There will have to be a revolutionary change in computer architectures to do this...

I'm a programmer. I'm well aware of the difficulties surrounding true AI (and my AI courses in grad school weren't half as interesting as I was hoping they'd be). I'm not pretending that we'll have a sort of terminator-hollywood style robot acting in our stead. Rather, in the nearer term, I expect improvements in virtualization and specific task automation. The robot manages on its own for periods, continually transmitting information that is followed up by a human (or humans) to experience.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by DvlsAdvc8

That's all good and fine, but the human presence isn't necessary. Exactly what you describe could be just as easily accomplished by a rover transmitting images to a geologist on earth. What's better, camera technology exceeds that of the human eye and through virtualization technology - you could literally have the geologist virtually walk the rover's path - zooming in on things the naked eye could have never perceived. If the geologist notices something worthwhile, they send the rover back to investigate. Even better, 20 geologists could be doing this - versus the lucky one we might be able to send into space. Robots do not preclude accidental discovery by human eyes.

I'm a programmer. I'm well aware of the difficulties surrounding true AI (and my AI courses in grad school weren't half as interesting as I was hoping they'd be). I'm not pretending that we'll have a sort of terminator-hollywood style robot acting in our stead. Rather, in the nearer term, I expect improvements in virtualization and specific task automation. The robot manages on its own for periods, continually transmitting information that is followed up by a human (or humans) to experience.

Maybe it would work with the Moon, but the fundamental problem with doing that on Mars is the issue of (a) the delay of signal from 5 to 30 light-minute path (one way) from Earth to the robot, (b) bandwidth issues, and (c) blockage from the Sun occasionally as well as solar flare blockage issues.

(A) and (C) are obvious, but (b) is the reason why we aren't doing much "virtual" stuff on robots today. The more features you cram onto a robot and the more information you are generating, more information bandwidth will be needed to send it back home. This vastly increases the power requirements of your robot plus the bandwidth requirements of all links in between (orbiting satellites).

Heck, we have problems doing what you propose on bandwidth starved UAVs on Earth! If you look at the design and general operator interaction with Mars Spirit and Opportunity landers, you will see that the type of interaction you are proposing will take a LONG time to set up and will STILL have difficulties due to various comms issues that existing Mars surface projects face.

Now, I agree we should do what you propose. The problem is it can only go so far with the engineering challenges Mars presents, and eventually you can get a lot more (but spend a lot more too) on sending people to Mars as well..

[Charles]

Originally Posted by HB2HSV

But the difference is, the Apollo astronauts came back from the Moon and brought soil samples with them.


Robots have their place in space exploration, but they can never replace human space exploration.

What would be the comparative costs between a manned sample return mission and an unmanned sample return mission? How much more bang could we get for the increase in bucks required for a manned mission?